Primary Classroom Teachers’ Use of

Social and Emotional Wellbeing Programs and the Factors Influencing

Program Use

Clare Maree Macaulay

BHSc (FaCs) (Hons)

This thesis is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the School of Public Health, Queensland University of Technology.

2008

i

Keywords

Factors influencing program use

Primary school

Program use

School mental health promotion

Social emotional wellbeing

Social emotional wellbeing programs

ii

Abstract

There has been a rapid escalation in the development and evaluation of social and

emotional well-being (SEW) programs in primary schools over the last few decades.

Despite the plethora of programs available, primary teachers’ use of SEW programs is

not well documented in Australian schools, with even less consideration of the factors

influencing program use. A cross-sectional survey was undertaken with primary

classroom teachers across twelve schools in the Brisbane and Sunshine Coast

Education Districts in Queensland, Australia, during 2005. A checklist of SEW

programs and an audit of SEW practices in schools were employed to investigate the

number, range and types of SEW programs used by primary classroom teachers and

the contextual factors influencing program use. Whilst the majority of implementation

studies have been conducted under intervention conditions, this study was designed to

capture primary classroom teachers’ day-to-day use of SEW programs and the factors

influencing program use under real-world conditions.

The findings of this research indicate that almost three quarters of the primary

classroom teachers involved in the study reported using at least one SEW program

during 2005. Wide variation in the number and range of programs used was evident,

suggesting that teachers are autonomous in their use of SEW programs. Evidence-

based SEW programs were used by a similar proportion of teachers to non-evidence-

based programs. However, irrespective of the type of program used, primary teachers

overwhelmingly reported using part of a SEW program rather than the whole program.

This raises some issues about the quality of teachers’ program implementation in real-

world practice, especially with respect to programs that are evidence-based.

A content analysis revealed that a wide range of factors have been examined as

potential influences on teachers’ implementation of health promotion programs in

schools, including SEW programs, despite the limited number of studies undertaken to

date. However, variation in the factors examined and study designs employed both

within and across health promotion fields limited the extent to which studies could be

iii

compared. A methodological and statistical review also revealed substantial variation in

the quality of reporting of studies.

A variety of factors were examined as potential influences on primary classroom

teachers’ use of SEW programs across multiple social-ecological levels of influence

(ranging from community to school and individual levels). In this study, parent or

caregiver involvement in class activities and the availability of wellbeing-related policies

in primary schools were found to be influential in primary classroom teachers’ use of

SEW programs. Teachers who often or always involve parents or caregivers in class

activities were at a higher odds of program use relative to teachers who never or rarely

involved parents or caregivers in class activities. However, teachers employed in

schools with the highest number of wellbeing-related policies available were at a lower

odds of program use relative to teachers employed in schools with fewer wellbeing-

related policies available.

Future research should investigate primary classroom teachers’ autonomy and

motivations for using SEW programs and the reasons behind the selection and use of

particular types of programs. A larger emphasis should also be placed upon teachers

not using SEW programs to identify valid reasons for non-use. This would provide

another step towards bridging the gap between the expectations of program developers

and the needs of teachers who implement programs in practice. Additionally, the

availability of wellbeing-related school policies and the types of activities that parents

and caregivers are involved with in the classroom warrant more in-depth investigation.

This will help to ascertain how and why these factors influence primary classroom

teachers’ use of SEW programs on a day-to-day basis in schools.

iv

Table of Contents

KEYWORDS .................................................................................................................. I ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................. II PRESENTATIONS ...................................................................................................... XII LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................... XIII STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP ............................................................ XIV ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................... XV CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW ............................................................................................ 1

1.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 1.2 SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL WELLBEING DEFINED ...................................... 2 1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND OBJECTIVES .............................................. 3 1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESEARCH ........................................................... 4 1.5 OVERVIEW OF THE RESEARCH PROCESS ............................................... 5

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................... 7

2.1 ADDRESSING STUDENTS’ SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL WELLBEING DURING PRIMARY SCHOOLING ......................................................................................................... 7

2.2 APPROACHES USED TO ADDRESS STUDENTS’ SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL WELLBEING IN PRIMARY SCHOOLS........................................................................................... 8

2.2.1 Whole-of-school framework to address students’ social and emotional wellbeing .................................................................................................... 9

2.2.2 Social and emotional wellbeing programs for primary school students ..... 11 2.3 CONSIDERATIONS IN THE TRANSFERENCE OF PROGRAMS TO SCHOOLS ................. 18

2.3.1 The diffusion of school health promotion programs .................................. 18 2.3.2 The implementation of school health promotion programs ....................... 19 2.3.3 Measurement of program implementation ................................................ 19 2.3.4 Factors influencing the implementation of school health promotion

programs .................................................................................................. 20 2.4 FROM INTERVENTION TO REAL-WORLD SETTINGS: THE USE OF SEW PROGRAMS

AND THE FACTORS INFLUENCING SEW PROGRAM USE IN PRIMARY SCHOOLS ......... 39 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ................................................................................. 41

3.1 THE SELECTION OF A PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE ................................ 413.2 FRAMEWORKS AND INSTRUMENTS ADOPTED TO GUIDE THE SELECTION OF

FACTORS FOR MEASUREMENT ............................................................................ 42

v

3.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE FACTOR SELECTION PROCESS ............................................ 463.4 LITERATURE ON THE FACTORS SELECTED AS POTENTIAL INFLUENCES ON

TEACHERS’ USE OF SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL WELLBEING PROGRAMS IN PRIMARY SCHOOLS ........................................................................................................... 49

3.4.1 Community influences .............................................................................. 49 3.4.2 School District influences .......................................................................... 49 3.4.3 School influences ..................................................................................... 50 3.4.4 Classroom influences ............................................................................... 53 3.4.5 Individual influences ................................................................................. 54 3.4.6 Summary .................................................................................................. 55

CHAPTER 4: METHODS ........................................................................................... 57

4.1 MEASUREMENT SELECTION AND DEVELOPMENT ............................................... 57 4.1.1 Primary Classroom Teachers’ use of social and emotional wellbeing

programs .................................................................................................. 58 4.1.2 Factors influencing Primary Classroom Teachers’ use of social and

emotional wellbeing programs .................................................................. 60 4.2 MEASUREMENT QUALITY ................................................................................ 69

4.2.1 Identification and review of psychometric tests ......................................... 69 4.2.2 Recruitment of expert review panellists .................................................... 73 4.2.3 Description of the validation survey .......................................................... 75 4.2.4 Construction of the validation survey ........................................................ 75 4.2.5 Procedure for conducting expert review panels ........................................ 76 4.2.6 Data management and presentation of validation findings ........................ 77

4.3 PATHWAYS TO POSITIVE STUDENT WELLBEING STUDY IN PRIMARY SCHOOLS ... 77 4.3.1 Sampling frame ........................................................................................ 77 4.3.2 Recruitment process ................................................................................. 78 4.3.3 Survey Distribution ................................................................................... 82 4.3.4 Data management .................................................................................... 83 4.3.5 Data analysis ............................................................................................ 84 4.3.6 Reproducibility: checklist of social and emotional wellbeing programs ...... 95

CHAPTER 5: CLASSROOM TEACHERS’ USE OF SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL WELLBEING PROGRAMS IN PRIMARY SCHOOLS ................................................. 98

5.1 FACE AND CONTENT VALIDATION OF THE SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL WELLBEING PROGRAMS CHECKLIST .................................................................................. 98

5.2 PRIMARY CLASSROOM TEACHERS’ USE OF SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL WELLBEING PROGRAMS .................................................................................. 99

5.2.1 Response rate .......................................................................................... 99

vi

5.2.2 Characteristics of sample ......................................................................... 99 5.2.3 Representativeness of respondents to the Queensland population of

State primary school teachers ................................................................ 100 5.2.4 Primary Classroom Teachers’ use of social and emotional wellbeing

programs across schools ....................................................................... 101 5.2.5 Topic areas covered by social and emotional wellbeing programs used . 102 5.2.6 Number and range of social and emotional wellbeing programs used .... 103 5.2.7 Extent of use of social and emotional wellbeing programs ..................... 111 5.2.8 Primary Classroom Teachers’ use of evidence-based versus non-

evidence-based social and emotional wellbeing programs ..................... 114 5.2.9 Reproducibility of Social and Emotional Wellbeing Programs Checklist . 115 5.2.10 Summary ............................................................................................ 118

CHAPTER 6: INFLUENCES ON PRIMARY CLASSROOM TEACHERS’ USE OF SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL WELLBEING PROGRAMS .......................................... 119

6.1 FACE AND CONTENT VALIDATION OF THE AUDIT OF SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL WELLBEING PRACTICES .................................................................................... 119

6.2 FACTORS INFLUENCING PRIMARY CLASSROOM TEACHERS’ USE OF SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL WELLBEING PROGRAMS .................................................................. 121

6.2.1 Community Influences ............................................................................ 121 6.2.2 School District Influences ....................................................................... 122 6.2.3 School Influences ................................................................................... 122 6.2.4 Classroom Influences ............................................................................. 142 6.2.5 Individual Influences ............................................................................... 148

6.3 MULTIVARIABLE MODELLING OF THE INFLUENCES ON PRIMARY CLASSROOM TEACHERS’ USE OF SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL WELLBEING PROGRAMS .................. 153

CHAPTER 7: DISCUSSION ..................................................................................... 160

7.1 PRIMARY CLASSROOM TEACHERS’ USE OF SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL WELLBEING PROGRAMS ..................................................................................................... 160

7.1.1 The use versus non-use of social and emotional wellbeing programs .... 160 7.1.2 The range of social and emotional wellbeing programs used ................. 162 7.1.3 The topic areas covered and patterns of social and emotional wellbeing

program use ........................................................................................... 1657.1.4 Evidence-based versus non-evidence-based social and emotional

wellbeing programs ................................................................................ 1677.2 FACTORS INFLUENCING PRIMARY CLASSROOM TEACHERS’ USE OF SOCIAL AND

EMOTIONAL WELLBEING PROGRAMS IN REAL-WORLD SETTINGS ........................... 1697.2.1 Influence of the design effect on the factors associated with Primary

Classroom Teachers’ use of social and emotional wellbeing programs .. 169

vii

7.2.2 Parent involvement in class activities...................................................... 170 7.2.3 School policies related to student and staff wellbeing ............................. 171 7.2.4 School socio-economic status ................................................................ 172 7.2.5 The wellbeing-related skills practised in class ......................................... 173 7.2.6 Primary Classroom Teachers’ qualifications ........................................... 174 7.2.7 Key factors not associated with Primary Classroom Teachers’ use of

social and emotional wellbeing programs ............................................... 176 7.3 UTILITY OF THE METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES ........................................... 178

CHAPTER 8: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ..................................................... 181

8.1 SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 181 8.2 STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS ....................................................................... 185 8.3 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................... 188 8.4 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 192

REFERENCE LIST .................................................................................................... 193 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................... 211

APPENDIX 2.1A: EVIDENCE-BASED, SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL WELLBEING PROGRAMS. ... 212 APPENDIX 2.1B: REFERENCE LIST FOR EVIDENCE-BASED PROGRAMS. ........................ 233 APPENDIX 2.2: SYSTEMATIC APPROACH USED TO REVIEW THE LITERATURE ................. 250 APPENDIX 4.1: PRIMARY CLASSROOM TEACHER SURVEY ........................................... 254 APPENDIX 4.2: PRINCIPAL/DEPUTY PRINCIPAL SURVEY ............................................. 277 APPENDIX 4.3: LIST OF MEASURES REVIEWED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE AUDIT .... 304 APPENDIX 4.4: MAPPING OF AUDITS TO THE NATIONAL HEALTHY SCHOOL STANDARD .. 305 APPENDIX 4.5: VALIDATION SURVEYS ....................................................................... 306 APPENDIX 4.6: PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT FORM .................................................... 313 APPENDIX 4.7: TEACHER CONSENT FORM ................................................................. 315 APPENDIX 4.8: RECIPE ............................................................................................. 317 APPENDIX 6.1: SENSITIVITY ANALYSES ..................................................................... 318

viii

List of Tables Table 2.1: Summary information for studies examining the factors influencing the

implementation of health promotion programs in schools. .................................. 22

Table 2.2: Content analysis of the factors influencing the implementation of school-

based health promotion programs ...................................................................... 32

Table 2.3: Summary of study design and analysis critique ............................................ 36

Table 4.1: Types of validity and reliability measured in the social and emotional

wellbeing survey ................................................................................................ 71

Table 4.2: Expert review panels and corresponding survey sections reviewed. ............. 73

Table 5.1: Proportion of Primary Classroom Teachers using social and emotional

wellbeing programs in state primary schools, during 2005. .............................. 101

Table 5.2: Types of social and emotional wellbeing programs used by Primary

Classroom Teachers and Schools, during 2005. .............................................. 103

Table 5.3: Social and emotional wellbeing programs used by Primary Classroom

Teachers and Schools during 2005, summarised by topic area. ...................... 105

Table 5.4: Social and emotional wellbeing programs used by Primary Classroom

Teachers and Schools during 2005. ................................................................. 109

Table 5.5: Topic areas covered and number of social and emotional wellbeing

programs used by Primary Classroom Teachers during 2005, summarised by

school. ............................................................................................................. 111

Table 5.6: Primary Classroom Teachers’ report of part (versus whole) social and

emotional wellbeing program use. .................................................................... 112

Table 6.1: Number of advocates of social and emotional wellbeing in each school ..... 124

Table 6.2: Primary Classroom Teachers’ perceptions of the social environment at

school .............................................................................................................. 125

Table 6.3: Social environment score summarised by school. ...................................... 126

Table 6.4: Primary Classroom Teachers’ perceptions of collaboration with staff at

school .............................................................................................................. 128

Table 6.5: Teacher-to-Teacher and Teacher-to-Administration Collaboration scores,

summarised by school. .................................................................................... 129

Table 6.6: Primary Classroom Teachers’ perceptions of collaboration and openness

in communication with staff at school. .............................................................. 130

ix

Table 6.7: Primary Classroom Teachers’ openness in communication and relations

with Administration, summarised by school. .................................................... 131

Table 6.8: Primary Classroom teachers’ satisfaction with their relations with

Administration ................................................................................................. 132

Table 6.9: Primary Classroom teachers’ satisfaction with their relations with

Administration, summarised by school ............................................................ 133

Table 6.10: Primary Classroom Teachers’ perceptions of staff collaboration and

communication ................................................................................................ 134

Table 6.11: The availability of formal wellbeing-related policies across schools .......... 135

Table 6.12: Primary Classrom Teachers’ awareness of formal school policies ........... 136

Table 6.13: Primary Classroom Teachers’ awareness of all wellbeing-related

policies available at school. ............................................................................. 137

Table 6.14: Primary Classroom Teachers’ ratings of how well wellbeing-related

policies are implemented ................................................................................. 138

Table 6.15: Primary Classroom Teachers’ ratings of how well the wellbeing-related

policies are implemented, summarised by school ............................................ 139

Table 6.16: Primary Classroom Teachers’ attendance at social and emotional

wellbeing-related professional development, for teachers who used social

and emotional wellbeing programs, summarised by school. ............................ 141

Table 6.17: Primary Classroom Teachers’ report of wellbeing-related topics covered

in class during 2005 ........................................................................................ 143

Table 6.18: Wellbeing-related skills practised in class during 2005 ............................. 144

Table 6.19: Median number of topics and skills covered/practised in each school. ..... 145

Table 6.20: Frequency of on-going issues in the classroom during 2005 .................... 147

Table 6.21: Mean score for Primary Classroom Teachers’ report of the frequency of

on-going problems in the classroom during 2005, summarised by school ....... 148

Table 6.22: Characteristics of Primary Classroom Teachers summarised by

program use status. ....................................................................................... 149

Table 6.23: Primary Classroom Teacher perceptions of the number of students with

social or emotional problems in the class during 2005, summarised by

program use. ................................................................................................... 151

x

Table 6.24: Primary Classroom Teachers’ perceptions of student social and

emotional problems in the classroom, summarised by school .......................... 152

Table 6.25: Multivariable relationships between Primary Classroom Teachers’ use

of SEW programs and variables influencing program use at individual,

classroom, school and broader community levels, in State primary schools. ... 156

xi

List of Figures

Figure 1.1: The research process, summarised by phase. .............................................. 6

Figure 2.1: The Health Promoting School Framework ................................................... 10

Figure 2.2: The Mental Health Intervention Spectrum ................................................... 14

Figure 3.1: Multi-level influences on program implementation in schools ...................... 43

Figure 4.1: Study recruitment and data collection process ............................................ 79

Figure 5.1: Flowchart of Primary Classroom Teachers' response. .............................. 100

xii

Presentations

Macaulay, C.M., Nicholson, J.M., Campbell, M. and Battistutta, D. The Pathways to

Positive Student Wellbeing Study: Factors Influencing the Implementation of Mental

Health Promotion Programs in Primary Schools. Paper presented at the Clifford Beers

Association Kindling the Flame: Promoting Mental Health and Wellbeing Conference,

February 20-23, 2007. Perth, Australia.

Macaulay, C.M. Diffusion of Health Innovations. Guest lecture for PUB329 Foundations

of Health Studies and Health Behaviour, Queensland University of Technology, 2006.

Brisbane, Australia.

Macaulay, C.M. The Pathways to Positive Student Wellbeing Study: School Visits.

Presentations at participating State Primary Schools situated in various locations within

the Brisbane and Sunshine Coast Education Districts, 2005. Australia.

Macaulay, C.M., Oldenburg, B. and Nicholson, J.M. Why Schools Do Not Adopt Health

Innovations: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Paper presented at the

Australasian Society for Behavioural Health and Medicine, February 13-15, 2003.

Brisbane, Australia.

xiii

List of Abbreviations

CI Confidence Interval

GO Guidance Officer

HPS Health Promoting Schools

MM audit MindMatters School Matters Whole School Audit

NHSS National Healthy School Standard

SEW Social and Emotional Wellbeing

xiv

Statement of Original Authorship

“The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted for a degree or

diploma at any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and

belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person

except where due reference is made”.

Signed ______________________

Date ______________________

xv

Acknowledgements

I would like to sincerely thank the members of my supervisory team for their

involvement and contributions over the course of my candidature. Thank you Associate

Professor Elizabeth Parker for your constant belief in me and your enthusiasm for

whatever I am interested in, whether PhD-related or otherwise. I am very grateful that

you agreed to join the supervisory team and allowed me the freedom and space to get

the job done, with a lot of laughs along the way. Your friendship, generosity and

willingness to support me through to completion will always be greatly appreciated. To

Doctor Diana Battistutta, thank you for being so exceptionally generous in sharing your

expertise, it is you who cultivated my love of research methods. I am indebted to you

for the hours of questions I appeared with at your office door and that you so kindly took

the time to discuss (and happily debate!) with me, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Thank you

very much for the detailed feedback you provided on the relevant thesis chapters; I

really appreciate the amount of work you put into it and all that I learned from you over

the years. Thank you for your on-going support and friendship, working with you never

felt like work at all. I would also like to thank Doctor Marilyn Campbell for sharing your

knowledge of the education sector and of primary schools in particular. Thank you for

providing a practical perspective and for your advice and feedback, especially during

the measurement development and recruitment phases of this research. You helped

me to understand more about schools than I otherwise could have learned. Thank you

to Associate Professor Jan Nicholson for your input, guidance and feedback during the

earlier stages of my candidature. I learned a lot from your experiences of researching

in school environments and am grateful for the opportunities you provided me and the

time we shared together. A sincere thank you to Professor Beth Newman, who despite

not being a part of my supervisory team still provided support and guidance at critical

times during my candidature.

A special thanks to all the staff at the primary schools involved in this research. I

greatly appreciate everyone who took time out of their busy schedule to complete and

return surveys. Thank you to the Principals, Deputy Principals and Guidance Officers

who spent time with me and helped garner support for my research. This project could

not have been possible without the assistance of each of you.

xvi

I would like to take this opportunity to thank friends who have support me on this

journey, especially Anthony Griffiths who has provided exceptional friendship and moral

support for many years. Thank you for listening to me for hours without complaint and

for bringing joy to my days. Thank you to Sally Neville for your enduring friendship.

You have been there when others were not able or chose not to be there. I will be

forever grateful for the kindness and understanding you have shown. You have helped

me to realise what true friends do for each other. To Jessica Howie, the instigator of

the back corner office posse! Thank you for sharing your bright and bubbly self, you

always made a difference to my days at the office. Thank you to Dru Carlsson (also of

the back corner office posse) for sharing in the good times and the tribulations of our

PhD journeys. To Trish Gould, thanks for the great lunch time chats and for your

assistance which always came with a warm and friendly smile. I also want to thank the

administrative staff in both the School of Public Health and Faculty of Health who

assisted me throughout my candidature. In particular, I’d like to thank Genny Carter

who would go the extra mile to help or listen when I needed it and who genuinely

wanted the best for me and Kristy Bensley who provided support, encouragement,

patience and understanding.

Finally I would like to give my deepest thanks to my family. Thank you to my parents

for giving me endless amounts of unconditional love and support. Getting to the end of

the PhD would not have been possible without you. Thanks Mum for helping to make

and wrap the couple of hundred rocky road thank you gifts I gave to school staff (it

didn’t put either of us off eating rocky road in the slightest!) and to Dad for your help

with entering references into EndNote. Many thanks also for the time you both spent

helping to proof read the thesis with me. I would also like to thank my brother Gavin for

always giving me a laugh and for making frequent trips to visit when I was not well

enough to be up and about. I am truly grateful for your support.

1

Chapter 1: Overview

1.1 Introduction The rise in social and emotional problems experienced by young people has provided

an impetus for the development of programs to address wellbeing in primary schools.

Despite the rapid growth of programs in the field, there is little known about teachers’

use of SEW programs in Australian schools, in real-world practice. Whilst to date, the

field has focused its attention on the development and testing of SEW programs,

promising findings regarding the effectiveness of programs have begun to emerge.

This has raised questions about the widespread dissemination of programs and the

factors influencing teachers’ program use in real-world practice.

It is well known that the development of something new does not mean that it will be

used. Likewise, the dissemination of SEW programs does not guarantee program

implementation in real-world practice. Even under ideal conditions, classroom teachers

may not adopt programs. Previous investigations of SEW programs have been limited

to a specific program, implemented under intervention conditions. While the evaluation

of programs is necessary, these types of studies do not capture the broad range of

SEW programs available in real-world practice and thus document the influence of

competing programs on teachers’ selection and use of programs.

Primary schools have been identified as an integral setting for the implementation of

SEW programs; however they are complex and changing environments that present a

unique set of challenges. Studies of the factors influencing program use are still in the

early stages of development (Greenberg et al., 2005) however some research is

emerging in other school health promotion fields, particularly physical activity, nutrition,

substance abuse and sexual health. While a number of factors influencing program

implementation have been examined to date, the current focus lies in the investigation

of contextual factors as influences on teachers’ program use.

2

This thesis will contribute to the program implementation field by advancing our

knowledge of whether teachers use SEW programs and if so, whether a narrow or

diverse range of programs are used including the types of programs used. In addition,

it will provide new insights into the factors influencing teachers’ program use and build

upon the limited number of studies undertaken in schools in the field of social and

emotional wellbeing, and in real-world practice to date.

1.2 Social and emotional wellbeing defined The terms ‘mental health’ and ‘social and emotional wellbeing’ can be thought of as

interchangeable in this thesis, since most definitions of ‘mental health’ include the terms

‘social wellbeing’ and ‘emotional wellbeing’ (Weare, 2000). The choice of terminology

used is often context-driven and depends to some extent on the intended audience.

While the use of the terms may change throughout the thesis, this represents a

pragmatic rather than conceptual difference. Mental health or social and emotional

wellbeing is defined here as:

“The capacity to enter into and sustain satisfying personal relationships; the continuing

progression of psychological development; an ability to play and learn so that

attainments are appropriate for age and intellectual level; a developing sense of moral

right and wrong; and the degree of psychological distress and real adaptive behaviour

being within normal limits for the child’s age and context”.

(Indoe, 1998:2)

There is a tendency for some definitions (particularly where mental health rather than

wellbeing are defined) to take a clinical, treatment-oriented or illness view. In contrast,

Indoe’s definition takes a positive approach to addressing social and emotional

wellbeing that is consistent with this study and is age-appropriate for primary school

students.

3

1.3 Research questions and objectives The following research questions were investigated in this study:

1. If any SEW programs were used by primary classroom teachers in the Brisbane

and Sunshine Coast Education Districts during 2005:

• How many programs were used?

• What types of programs were used?

• How much of each program was used (i.e. whole or part of the

program)?

2. What factors influenced primary classroom teachers’ use of SEW programs in

the Brisbane and Sunshine Coast Education Districts during 2005?

The objectives undertaken to answer the two research questions are presented below.

1a. Review the literature on SEW programs in primary schools.

1b. Develop a checklist of SEW programs relevant to primary schools.

1c. Test the reproducibility of the checklist of SEW programs.

2a. Systematically review the literature to locate empirical studies that examine

factors influencing the implementation of health promotion programs in schools.

2b. Undertake a content analysis to synthesise and categorise the factors

influencing the implementation of health promotion programs in schools.

2c. Critique the methodological and statistical quality of the studies included in the

content analysis.

2d. Provide a rationale for the selection of factors for measurement.

2e. Develop or identify measures for the factors influencing the implementation of

SEW programs in schools.

1/2. Administer surveys to primary school staff about SEW program use and the

factors influencing program use.

4

1.4 Significance of the research Despite the abundance of SEW programs that have been developed for use in

primary schools, there is little systematic evidence that documents whether or not

teachers actually use SEW programs on a day-to-day basis in the classroom.

Whilst substantial effort has been invested in conducting intervention research with

respect to the implementation of SEW programs in primary schools, teachers’ use of

SEW programs may differ under real-world conditions. Millions of dollars continue

to be invested by the Australian Government to address students’ social and

emotional wellbeing in the school setting, through intervention studies. Despite the

need for intervention studies, they are well-known to have a limited life-span as they

are often conducted over a specific time-period and once funding is removed, it is

possible that schools may return to their usual practices. Currently though, there is

little known about teacher’s usual SEW program practices. This study provides new

knowledge of the breadth of SEW programs used by primary classroom teachers on

a day-to-day basis. While the investigation of usual practice should form the basis

for current and future program activity, this area has received little research attention

in Australia to date. This study highlights the need to establish teachers’ use of

SEW programs, the types of programs used and the extent of use, as the foundation

rather than the afterthought of research activity.

In addition, this research expands our knowledge of the contextual factors

influencing teachers’ use of SEW programs in primary schools. This builds upon the

small but growing number of studies undertaken to date. It contributes to the

literature by providing new insights into factors potentially influencing teachers’ use

of SEW programs. Furthermore, it provides recommendations and directions to

assist researchers’ decisions about the measurement of factors influencing program

implementation, and the methodologies of most value for future implementation

studies. The study provides useful insights for program developers through the

identification of the types of programs most commonly used and the extent to which

programs are used under real-world rather than intervention conditions, thus

providing a preliminary assessment of how programs will be implemented under

real-world conditions. It contributes to the field of dissemination research more

broadly by increasing our knowledge of key factors associated with teachers’ use of

SEW programs, whilst providing direction for future research activity to assist in

bridging the gap between research and practice.

5

1.5 Overview of the research process Figure 1.1 illustrates the process undertaken to address the research questions. It

outlines the four main phases of research and the order of activities undertaken

during each phase of the process. Phase One involved the review of literature on

social and emotional wellbeing programs and the factors influencing the

implementation of social and emotional wellbeing programs in schools. However,

the review of factors was broadened to include other school health promotion fields

since there were few studies that directly assessed social and emotional wellbeing

programs. Phase Two involved the development and validation of the checklist of

SEW programs and the audit of SEW practices (face and content validity) through

expert review. Additional literature searches were undertaken to identify measures

for possible inclusion in the survey. Phases Three and Four of the research process

included the recruitment of schools and teachers, the dissemination of surveys,

testing the reproducibility of the checklist of SEW programs, analytical planning and

analysis, and feedback of the main study findings to schools.

6

Figure 1.1: The research process, summarised by phase.

Literature reviews

Survey face and content validation

Data entry and cleaning

Data analysis

Feedback to participating

schools

PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4

Reproducibility survey

distribution

Survey modifications

Survey Construction

Recruitment of 2 expert review

panels

Recruitment of 12 schools

Survey distribution

7

Chapter 2: Literature Review

This chapter identifies a range of avenues through which students’ social and emotional

wellbeing (SEW) may be addressed in primary schools. It outlines the types of SEW

programs developed for use in primary schools and considerations in the

implementation of programs in schools.

2.1 Addressing students’ social and emotional wellbeing during primary schooling

It is now well recognised that primary schools provide an ideal environment to address

students’ social and emotional wellbeing (Ozer, 2006; Walter et al., 2006; Greenberg,

2004; Graczyk et al., 2003; Shure, 2001; Hargreaves, 2000; Kratochwill and Stoiber,

2000). Schools can potentially promote a positive and supportive environment for

students, providing stability and predictability (Sanders et al., 2000; Alexander and

Entwistle, 1996; Humphreys and Sturt, 1993). The majority of Australian students aged

between five and twelve attend primary school on a regular basis, thus schools provide

a setting that reaches a maximum number of students in this population group. During

the primary schooling years, students travel through a key period of heightened

behavioural, emotional, social and cognitive development (Sanders et al, 2000). The

health behaviours adopted during this period may be maintained throughout adult life

(McBride and Midford, 1999; Nutbeam et al, 1993; World Health Organization: WHO,

1991); thus, providing the capacity to influence short and longer-term health and

wellbeing.

The development of interventions and activities that address students’ social and

emotional wellbeing at school are likely to have come about for various reasons. For

example, pressure on governments and the education system to respond to the

prevalence of mental health problems in Australian students and young people (i.e.

approximately fourteen percent experience mental health problems) and the growth in

particular wellbeing-related issues amongst young people at school (e.g. bullying,

violence and suicide amongst others; Jarolimek et al., 2005; Weare, 2000). Whilst

Walker (2001) suggests that schools may be the ‘spillover’ of societal problems such as

8

social fragmentation and violence, Hoagwood and Erwin (1997) add that parents and

caregivers are now more empowered to hold schools accountable in meeting the needs

of students, both academically and in terms of their wellbeing at school.

2.2 Approaches used to address students’ social and emotional wellbeing in primary schools

Hargreaves (2000) and others (Collaborative for Academic Social and Emotional

Learning: CASEL, 2003; Payton et al., 2000; Weare, 2000; Elias and Arnold, 1997)

claim that social and emotional learning is a necessary and integral part of students’

education, as it provides the foundation for other learning. Students’ social and

emotional wellbeing can be addressed through a range of avenues in primary schools

and may include but is not limited to:

• Curriculum and/or programs specifically designed to target social and emotional

wellbeing skills or topics;

• Classroom management practices;

• School policy;

• The school environment; and

• Partnerships with parents or caregivers and community agencies.

Although the avenues listed may differ in format, focus and comprehensiveness, and

may be targeted individually or in combination, they are not often mutually exclusive.

For example, the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care in Australia

(2000: 29) called for mental health promotion to be integrated in schools through policy

and curriculum to “promote self efficacy, resilience, optimistic thinking and to reduce

racism, sexism, bullying as well as anxiety, depression, aggressive and antisocial

behaviours and eating disorders”. The application of frameworks that address multiple

avenues (and multiple issues) through a comprehensive, whole-of-school approach

have received increasing support in schools (Mukoma and Flisher, 2004; Freeman et

al., 2003; Wyn et al., 2000; WHO, 1994).

9

2.2.1 Whole-of-school framework to address students’ social and emotional wellbeing

2.2.1.1 Health Promoting Schools The most well-known whole-of-school approach for addressing students’ health and

wellbeing in Australian schools is the Health Promoting School (HPS) framework (see

Figure 2.1). A Health Promoting School is defined as one that is ‘constantly

strengthening its capacity as a healthy setting for living, learning, and working’ and is

centred around the core aim of developing supportive environments that foster healthful

lifestyles within the school environment (Lister-Sharp et al., 1999). The philosophy and

underpinnings of HPS are endorsed by the World Health Organization (WHO) as an

effective model to promote the health of students in schools (WHO, 1991). Within the

HPS framework, health promotion and education of the whole school community (rather

than individuals) is emphasised. This approach is described as comprehensive and

holistic, since health promotion and education are targeted across three components:

curriculum, teaching and learning; school organisation, ethos and environment; and

partnerships and services (National Health and Medical Research Council, 1996).

The HPS framework provides a holistic model of health that incorporates physical,

mental, social and environmental aspects of health, and requires the involvement of

students, staff and the broader community. The intention of HPS is to incorporate the

various avenues through which health and wellbeing can be addressed under the one

umbrella, to develop a unified approach. While HPS is designed to move away from a

focus on one specific health topic, studies that have used the HPS framework to date,

have often employed a specific health-topic focus (Mukoma and Flisher, 2004; Lister-

Sharp et al., 1999; St Leger, 1999).

While momentum in the application of comprehensive, whole-of-school approaches is

growing, evidence of the effectiveness of HPS is still somewhat limited. This may be

due to the concept of HPS being relatively new and/or differences in how HPS is

conceptualised in practice (leading to uncertainty in what does or does not constitute a

HPS). In addition, the application of a HPS framework in practice may involve a

substantial shift (i.e. broadening) in how health is conceptualised by school staff and

10

how it fits with schools’ and teachers’ underlying philosophies. This may take some

time to cultivate. A significant methodological challenge noted by Mukoma and Flisher

(2004) relates to the complexity of evaluating a wide range of interventions and

activities (since the HPS approach enables schools to tailor interventions to meet their

needs). This is likely to impact on the ability to compare findings across (incomparable)

studies. However, while this may be viewed as a weakness from an evaluation

perspective, it is likely to be viewed as a strength by schools since a more flexible

approach recognises that schools have different needs. Although HPS provides an

overarching framework to assist schools in addressing identified needs, guidance on

the specifics of ‘what types or which’ interventions or activities to employ is not

provided. A review of the evidence-base of social and emotional wellbeing activity in

schools revealed that three quarters of the fifty interventions included in the review were

delivered through school or classroom-based programs (Macaulay, 2001).

Figure 2.1: The Health Promoting School Framework

The Health Promoting School Framework is used with permission from the Australian Government

(Commonwealth Department of Health and Family Services and Australian Health Promoting Schools

Association, 2001).

Curriculum, teaching

and learning School organisation,

ethos and environment

Partnerships and

services

•Health promoting schools policy

•Passive recreation areas •Shade •Clean •Physical activity areas

•Caring ethos underpins social interactions

•Occupational health and safety

•Resource allocation for health

•Based on social justice principles

•Respectful of diversity

•Friendly waste disposal •Staff health and welfare

•Planned sequential curriculum

•Student centred teaching

•School community members involved in initiation, development and implementation of school health policies and programs

•Local health services contribute to school health - through screening, immunisation, education of teachers and parents, expert advice on referral and policy development

•Experiential learning

•Preservice and inservice training

•Health topics integrated into other subjects

•School welfare services

•Community use of school facilities

•Alliances formed with health, welfare and local community agencies

11

2.2.2 Social and emotional wellbeing programs for primary school students

The development and implementation of social and emotional wellbeing programs for

schools has risen dramatically over the last few decades, with substantial resources

invested in program development. Consequently, school- and classroom-based

programs represent the most well-established, evidence-based avenue for addressing

students’ social and emotional wellbeing, when compared to other avenues (such as

classroom management practices, school policy and the school environment).

The term program is broadly defined in this thesis to include teaching materials

compiled and published as a resource book or kit. The types of teaching materials

include structured manuals providing specific activities or lessons, curriculum or less

structured teaching methods and approaches. This broad definition reflects the range

of possibilities that teachers encounter in practice. Whilst increasingly, teachers are

being placed under public scrutiny and have had to become more accountable for what

and how they teach (Weare, 2000; Woods and Jeffrey, 1996), McNamara (1990) noted

that even curricula are not non-negotiable, leaving room for teachers to exercise their

own judgements in teaching approaches.

2.2.2.1 Types of Social and Emotional Wellbeing Programs The capacity to enhance students’ social and emotional wellbeing through school-

based programs is now well established (Greenberg et al, 2005; Booth et al., 2001;

Sanders et al, 2000; Greenberg et al., 1999; Parcel et al., 1995). Programs developed

to address students’ social and emotional wellbeing in primary schools generally fall

within three main formats: whole-of-school programs; classroom-based programs; and

‘pull-out’ programs. Who actually delivers SEW programs may depend on a number of

factors including: program format; the issues addressed in the program; relevance of

the program for all students (versus only some students); availability of staff and

teaching time; and whether there is a need for particular expertise or training prior to the

use of a program.

12

Whole-of-school programs: Programs that use a whole-of-school approach are

designed to address social and emotional wellbeing through a number of avenues.

Often, whole-of-school programs are implemented when there is a particular issue

that is of concern across most or all levels of the school (e.g. bullying). These types

of programs typically (but not always) include a classroom-based component.

Bullying – No Way! (Education Queensland, 1998) is a staff professional

development program that provides an example of a whole-of-school approach. It

addresses bullying and harassment through all aspects of the school: curriculum,

teaching and learning; interpersonal relationships; school organisation, leadership

and management practices; school culture and behaviour management (Education

Queensland, 1998). Whilst this particular program is intended to be used with

school staff (it may also be used with parents or other members of the school

community), materials can also be adapted for use with students in the classroom.

Whole-of-school programs are by nature, more holistic (when implemented in full)

because they involve all school staff and students (and may also include parents

and members of the broader community) and target issues across multiple avenues.

Thus, whole-of-school programs often require significantly more organisation when

compared to programs implemented just in the classroom.

Classroom-based programs: Programs specifically designed for use in the

classroom may be embedded within the curriculum, used as a one-off program

(because a particular issue has arisen in class), or form part of a repertoire of

programs from which teachers select particular activities to use. These types of

programs may include structured week-to-week topics and activities, or the program

may be designed for flexible delivery (i.e. no set order of activities). Six Thinking

Hats (de Bono, 1992) is an example of a classroom-based program that teaches

students about thinking (note that Six Thinking Hats is commonly referred to as a

teaching method rather than a ‘program’ in practice). This particular method

contains a separate resource book for lower and upper primary schools. It is very

flexible in that it has no requirement for teaching the six modes of thinking in any

particular order. Alternatively, FRIENDS (Barrett, 2004) is an example of a more

structured program that is designed with week-to-week activities that are

recommended to be taught in the order corresponding to the program manual.

Thus, it is less flexible when compared to Six Thinking Hats (de Bono, 1992).

13

Pull-out programs: The phrase ‘pull-out program’ refers to where individuals or

small groups of students are removed from the classroom to attend programs

usually run by specialists (such as Guidance Officers, also known as School

Psychologists). Peer Coping Skills Training is an example of a pull-out program

designed for primary school students with high rates of aggressive behaviour (Prinz

et al., 1994). Students must meet a pre-specified criterion to be eligible to enter the

program which is delivered in 22 weekly sessions.

While various primary school staff are involved in addressing students’ social and

emotional wellbeing across the varying formats of program delivery, primary

classroom teachers spend the majority of each school day with the same students

for the duration of the year. Thus, they are well-placed to play a key role in

addressing students’ social and emotional wellbeing. Primary classroom teachers

may be involved in the delivery of both school-wide and classroom-based programs.

These types of programs are usually prevention-oriented and are therefore more

likely to involve all or most students, rather than only those experiencing social or

emotional problems.

2.2.2.2 A prevention-oriented approach in primary school classrooms The Mental Health Intervention Spectrum (Mrazek and Haggerty, 1994) presented in

Figure 2.2 outlines the three main categories under which mental health programs

are defined: prevention (including early intervention); treatment; and maintenance-

oriented approaches. The approaches used by classroom teachers focus on

prevention-oriented rather than treatment or maintenance-oriented practices, as the

latter two approaches require the need for more specialist attention and are more

relevant for clinic-based treatment of established disorders. The prevention sector

of the spectrum represents three levels of prevention-oriented practices: universal

prevention, selective prevention and indicated prevention (Mrazek and Haggerty,

1994).

14

Figure 2.2: The Mental Health Intervention Spectrum (Adapted from Mrazek and Haggerty, 1994)

The Mental Health Intervention Spectrum in Reducing Risks for Mental Disorders: Frontiers for

Preventive Intervention Research (1994) reprinted with permission from the National Academy of

Sciences, courtesy of the National Academies Press, Washington, DC.

Programs classified as universal prevention are positive, proactive and delivered to

all students irrespective of each student’s risk (Greenberg et al., 2001). Universal

prevention programs may address the school population or target a particular year

level or group of students, as long as the group was not selected based on risk

(Greenberg et al., 2001). Thus, universal programs may include both whole-of-

school and classroom-based programs. Alternatively, selective prevention

programs are targeted toward at-risk students (usually because of their exposure to

risk factors) and are less likely to be used for all students in the classroom

(compared to universal programs). Indicated prevention

programs target students

who show detectable signs of a mental health problem or those who have a

predisposition to a mental health problem (for example, a biological marker to

indicate increased risk) but do not currently meet the DSM-IV criteria for diagnosis.

Whilst all three categories are prevention-oriented, whole-of-school programs are

the most likely to be universal prevention programs. Classroom-based programs

delivered to all students are also likely to be universal, although selective or

indicated programs may also be used with particular groups of students in the class.

Pull-out programs, although not usually delivered by classroom teachers, may be

selective or indicated, and may include the use of treatment- rather than prevention-

Standard treatment

Universal

Selective

Indicated

Case ID

Long-term treatment

After care

Prevention Maintenance

Treatment

15

oriented programs (the former are outside the scope of this study). The range in

types of programs available leads to questions about their established evidence-

base.

2.2.2.3 Evidence of effectiveness of primary-school social and emotional wellbeing programs

A number of prevention-oriented systematic reviews, meta-analyses and reviews of

reviews have been undertaken to report the effectiveness of school mental health

promotion programs for primary school students (for example: Waddell et al., 2007;

Browne et al., 2004; Greenberg et al., 2001; Wells et al., 2001; Catalano et al.,

1999; Greenberg et al., 1999; Lister-Sharp et al., 1999; Haney and Durlak, 1998;

Durlak and Wells, 1997; Tilford et al., 1997; Hodgson et al., 1996). Collectively, they

discuss the effectiveness of programs in reducing existing mental health problems

(from a prevention rather than treatment perspective) and/or increasing

competencies related to mental health promotion. The reviews include primary and

secondary school-aged students (some also include other population groups

however these are not reported here).

The meta-analysis undertaken by Durlak and Wells (1997) showed a positive effect

for universal prevention studies. However the broad inclusion of 177 studies with

little information provided about study methodologies, study quality and intervention

components raises some concern since there was no indication of the comparability

of included studies (and studies must be comparable to be pooled for meta-

analyses). Weissberg and Bell (1997: 209) noted that “some might argue that it was

premature to conduct a meta-analysis at this early stage in the field of prevention

research”. Consequently, most recent studies have provided a narrative synthesis

of findings, acknowledging this as an appropriate approach due to diversity in

populations, interventions and outcomes (Wells et al., 2001; Greenberg et al., 1999).

Thus, this section discusses the findings from systematic reviews rather than meta-

analyses.

The majority of systematic reviews addressed study quality as a requirement for

inclusion (studies had to be evaluated using a randomised control trial [RCT] or

quasi-experimental design with pre/post test comparisons); an exception was Tilford

et al. (1997). Studies in the reviews varied in many aspects including: heterogeneity

16

of samples or populations; age-groups targeted, program focus and type of

intervention. The majority of evaluations were undertaken in the United States of

America (U.S.A), with a few undertaken in the United Kingdom (U.K). Despite

substantial variation, the findings of the reviews were similar overall, with programs

shown to be effective across a wide range of outcomes. A large number of the

programs are classroom-based, but included universal, selective and indicated

programs. A summary of the evidence-based programs included in the systematic

reviews is presented in Appendix 2.1. Additional evidence-based programs that

have not been included in the systematic reviews but have been evaluated in

Australian primary schools include: Triple P Positive Parenting Program (Connell et

al., 1997; Williams et al., 1997; Sanders and Markie-Dadds, 1996; Williams et al.,

1996; Sanders, 1995; effective in preventing mental health problems in primary

students); and the FRIENDS and Coping Koala programs (Dadds et al., 1999;

Dadds et al., 1997; Barrett et al., 1996; effective in preventing anxiety and

depression by promoting resilience and optimism).

As shown in Appendix 2.1, there are an increasing, if not exhaustive number of

prevention programs with documented evidence of effectiveness in reducing mental

health problems and/or increasing competencies linked to mental health

functioning/social and emotional wellbeing (Green and Higgins, 2005; Browne et al.,

2004; Wells et al., 2003; Greenberg et al., 2001; Lochman, 2001; Tilford et al.,

1997). While selective and indicated programs have shown to be effective, there is

also evidence that universal programs can be effective (Wells et al., 2003;

Greenberg et al., 2001; Tilford et al., 1997), particularly if they are aimed at the

promotion of mental health as opposed to the prevention of illness (Wells et al.,

2003). Furthermore, positive effects of prevention programs are magnified when

programs span multiple years (Wells et al., 2003; Greenberg et al., 2001), are

designed to address multiple behaviours (Greenberg et al., 2001), target

environments as well as individuals (Greenberg et al., 2001; Kiselica, 2001) and are

delivered across multiple settings (e.g. school and home). It is important to consider

though, that schools have many competing priorities, and thus increasing the

complexity of programs and their delivery may impact on schools’ and teachers’ use

of such programs under real-world conditions.

17

2.2.2.4 Mapping primary teachers’ use of social and emotional wellbeing programs

A plethora of primary school SEW programs have been developed over the past

decade. Dadds (2001: 5) commented that “much is heard these days about so

many different programs for different mental health problems”. While significant

progress has been made in establishing the evidence-base for SEW programs,

many of the programs developed have not been adequately evaluated (or evaluated

at all). Thus, it is possible (if not probable), that in practice (i.e. real-world

conditions), teachers may use evidence-based and/or non-evidence-based

programs. A study undertaken in the United States revealed that a large proportion

of money allocated to health education was spent on programs that had not been

evaluated and whose effectiveness was unknown (Dusenbury and Falco, 1995).

Thus, demonstrating program effectiveness does not guarantee that only evidence-

based programs are used (Fagan and Mihalic, 2003; Camp, 2001; Dusenbury and

Falco, 1995) in real-world practice.

The extent to which SEW programs are used on a day-to-day basis in Australian

primary schools is not well documented (for either evidence-based or non-evidence-

based SEW programs). More specifically, there is inadequate documentation

available to indicate (in real-world practice):

• Whether primary teachers actually use SEW programs;

• The number and range of SEW programs primary teachers use in the

classroom;

• The types of SEW programs used by primary teachers;

• Whether primary teachers’ use of programs is consistent within and across

schools; and

• The extent to which primary teachers are using evidence-based versus non-

evidence-based SEW programs.

Currently, there is more evidence in the literature about ‘what works and does not

work’ (i.e. evidence of effectiveness) than there is about ‘what’ programs are

actually being used on a day-to-day basis in Australian primary schools. While there

may be pockets of data that provide a glimpse of teachers’ program use under

controlled or intervention conditions, knowledge of primary teachers’ use of SEW

18

programs under real-world conditions is limited. Kramer et al. (2000) agree that

most research has focused on the effectiveness of programs. The author and

others also identified that limited attention has been paid to the factors influencing

the implementation of SEW programs in schools (Greenberg et al., 2005; Fagan and

Mihalic, 2003; Camp, 2001; Kramer et al., 2000).

2.3 Considerations in the transference of programs to the school context

2.3.1 The diffusion of school health promotion programs The diffusion of innovations theory (Rogers, 1995) provides a conceptual foundation

for studying school-based health promotion programs. Diffusion is a “process

through which an innovation1

• Dissemination (the transfer of a program to the intended user system);

is communicated through certain channels over time

among the members of a social system” (Rogers, 1995: 5) and can be described as

a process that incorporates the following four stages:

• Adoption (the uptake or decision to use a program);

• Implementation (initial or actual use of the program); and

• Maintenance (sustained program use).

A substantial literature on the diffusion of innovations exists across various fields

(most notably agriculture, marketing, communication and information technology).

However program developers and evaluators working in the area of school-based

mental health promotion/social and emotional wellbeing have devoted limited

attention to the diffusion of programs across the four stages (Adelman and Taylor,

1997; Durlak, 1995). While more research is widely advocated for the diffusion of

SEW programs (Greenberg et al., 2005; Paternite, 2005; Pentz, 2004; DuPaul,

2003; Department of Mental Health and Substance Dependence, 2002), the

implementation of SEW programs has been highlighted as an area where particular

research attention is warranted (Cargo et al., 2006; Greenberg et al, 2005; Han and

Weiss, 2005; Graczyk et al., 2003; Mihalic and Irwin, 2003; Ringeisen et al., 2003).

Further research on the implementation of SEW programs can assist in providing an

understanding of the individual and organisational capacities required to implement

1 An idea, practice or object perceived to be new by an individual.

19

and sustain programs (Mihalic and Irwin, 2003). Lochman (2000) agreed, stating

that while developments in program effectiveness are increasing, the next

generation of research should examine program implementation.

2.3.2 The implementation of school health promotion programs The development and evaluation of primary school programs to address students’

social and emotional wellbeing has risen over the past few decades (Fagan and

Mihalic, 2003). In comparison, research on the influences of teachers’

implementation of such programs has received little attention (Fagan and Mihalic,

2003; Graczyk et al., 2003; Domitrovich and Greenberg, 2000; Kramer et al., 2000).

For example, a review of over 1200 published prevention studies found that only 5%

provided data on program implementation (Durlak, 1998, 1997). Greenberg et al.

(2005) stated that the measurement of program implementation is still not included

in the majority of research studies. Many challenges to the implementation of

school health promotion programs exist and thus, it should not be assumed that if

schools and/or teachers decide to adopt a program, that (i) it will be implemented

nor (ii) that its full implementation will follow (Brink et al, 1991; Parcel et al, 1990).

Failure to document whether a program has actually been implemented may

increase the likelihood of a Type III error, concluding that a program is not effective

when actually, it was not implemented or was poorly implemented.

2.3.3 Measurement of program implementation While there are some differences evident in the way authors define and

conceptualise program implementation, there are three general definitions

commonly used within the literature:

• Program use

• Program

defined dichotomously (i.e. whether the program was used or

not);

dose

• Program

(i.e. the amount of the program implemented, usually

expressed as a percentage of completed program activities); and

fidelity

Studies undertaken to date have often measured program use and dose, with fewer

measuring program fidelity (this may be since measuring program fidelity is often

more resource-intensive compared to program use and dose). Overall, there are

some inconsistencies in the way that certain types of program implementation have

(i.e. the quality of program implementation).

20

been defined. For example, McBride et al. (2002) and Tappe et al. (1997) reported

measuring the fidelity of program implementation; however both studies reported the

proportion of activities completed and hence, measured what is generally defined as

program dose.

The measurement of program implementation: guards against making Type III

errors; may be used to test program theory; increases internal validity of the

program; advances knowledge regarding best practices for replicating, maintaining

and diffusing a program; and increases understanding of internal dynamics and

operation of a program (Greenberg et al., 2005). Whilst more studies are beginning

to document whether/how much of their programs are actually implemented, few

studies have also measured the factors of potential influence on the implementation

of health promotion programs in schools (Ozer, 2006; Greenberg et al., 2005).

2.3.4 Factors influencing the implementation of school health promotion programs

While recognition of the potential utility of implementation research is growing

(Greenberg et al., 2001; Shonkoff and Phillips, 2000; Elias, 1997) this area has been

described as ‘poorly developed’ and ‘remarkably unclear’ (Ozer, 2006; Greenberg et

al., 2005; Lochman, 2003). However the implementation of any program is

dependent upon more than the program itself, with the delivery systems (i.e.

schools) in which programs are embedded playing a significant role in

implementation (CASEL; 2003). The implementation of SEW programs in schools

does not occur in a vacuum. School staff operate within a system of multiple,

complex and competing demands. Furthermore, SEW programs implemented in

schools are often complex, aiming to change multiple behaviours through a range of

strategies. These may target students, schools, families or any combination, and

are typically carried out in multiple schools, span several year levels, and involve

numerous teachers and other school staff (McGraw et al., 1994). Despite the

complex nature of program implementation, the examination of factors that may

influence teachers’ use of SEW programs in schools has been limited to date.

21

2.3.4.1 School health promotion fields researching the factors influencing program implementation

Table 2.1 provides a brief overview of the studies that have examined the factors

influencing the implementation of school health promotion programs. The literature

was broadened beyond social and emotional wellbeing to other areas of school

health promotion (including primary and secondary schools), since the research in

relation to SEW programs is limited. Furthermore, some of the influences on the

implementation of other types of school health promotion programs may also

generalise to social and emotional wellbeing programs2

.

Studies in the Table cover various fields of school health promotion including:

• Mental health;

• Nutrition;

• Cardiovascular health;

• Sexual health;

• Alcohol, smoking and other drugs; and

• Oral health.

Some studies were classified into a ‘general health’ category because detailed

information about the specific health topics covered was not provided or the

programs covered a broad range of general health issues. Over half the studies

were conducted in primary schools, with the remainder undertaken in secondary

schools or a combination of both. A wide range of factors influencing the

implementation of school health promotion programs were examined across the

studies, although the breadth of factors examined to date have not been

summarised.

2 A systematic approach was used to review the literature related to the factors influencing the

implementation of health promotion programs in schools (see Appendix 2.2).

22

Table 2.1: Summary information for studies examining the factors influencing the implementation of health promotion programs in schools.

Author Year Country Program name Study aim School year/s targeted Study design Participant

sample Method of data

collection Mental Health Fagan and Mihalic

2003 Colorado, USA Life Skill Training Conduct a process evaluation to advance the knowledge of factors that lead to successful implementation in naturalistic settings by helping implementing sites maintain program fidelity and by providing them with feedback regarding obstacles encountered.

Cohort 1: Year 6 to 7 in year 1 of the project and year 7 to 8 in year 2 of the project Cohort 2: Year 6 to 7 students in the second year of the project.

Cohort study (3-year; data were available for years 1 and 2).

In year 1 of the project, 35 sites were recruited and another 35 in year 2 of the project. For the 2 years reported in this article, 70 sites were involved, comprising 292 schools. All year 6 and 7 students and their teachers participated.

Semi-structured interviews with local coordinators, teacher training workshops, observation, teacher feedback forms, and on-site visits.

Kallestad and Olweus

2003 Bergen, Norway Olweus Bullying Prevention

To identify factors that predict or affect differences in teachers’ and schools’ program implementation.

Year 6 to 9. Longitudinal. 37 schools, 89 teachers.

Teachers completed self-report questionnaires at two time points.

23

Table 2.1 (cont’d): Summary information for studies examining the factors influencing the implementation of health promotion programs in schools.

Author Year Country Program name Study aim School year/s targeted Study design Participant

sample Method of data

collection Nutrition Gittelsohn et al.

2003 Arizona, New Mexico, South Dakota, Utah, USA

Pathways Assessment of trends in school climate and the impact of school climate on implementation.

Year 3 to 5. Longitudinal (3 years).

21 intervention schools: school administrators, classroom teachers, PE teachers and food service staff.

In-depth interviews.

McKenna 2003 New Brunswick, CANADA

Food and Nutrition Policy for New Brunswick Schools

Examine the implementation of a school nutrition policy.

Not reported. Cross-sectional. 50 participants from the provincial, district and school levels.

30-90 min semi-structured interview.

Harvey-Berino et al.

1998 Vermont, USA Show the Way to 5-a-day

Evaluate the dissemination of the program, investigate the importance of teacher training and determine factors that distinguish adopters from non-adopters.

Elementary school teachers (year 3 and year 4).

Cross-sectional. 47/135 eligible schools agreed to receive program materials (35%). Surveys were sent to 171 teachers and 89 completed surveys were returned representing 52% response by 33 schools.

Mail survey.

Olson et al. 1993 New York, USA Nutrition for Life Examine the dissemination and implementation of a nutrition teaching program.

Year 6 to 8 home/career skills teachers (n=364), year 7 to 8 health teachers (n=517), senior health teachers (n=595), senior home economics teachers (n=539) and senior PE teachers (n=171).

Cross-sectional. Of the 2122 teachers sent surveys, 1312 responses were received (62%). 551 were Junior high teachers, 761 were Senior high teachers.

Mail survey.

24

Table 2.1 (cont’d): Summary information for studies examining the factors influencing the implementation of health promotion programs in schools.

Author Year Country Program name Study aim School year/s targeted Study design Participant

sample Method of data

collection Cardiovascular Health Dwyer et al. 2003 Toronto,

CANADA The Ontario Physical Activity Curriculum

Examine the context and institutional barriers to the provision of structured opportunities for physical activity in elementary schools.

Year 1 to 6. Cross-sectional.

45 elementary general classroom teachers (not PE specialists as at these schools, the general classroom teacher is expected to fulfil the PE requirements).

1hr focus groups with 8-11 participants per group/session.

McGraw et al.

1996 California, Louisiana, Minnesota and Texas, USA

CATCH (Child and Adolescent Trial for Cardiovascular Health)

Analyse the potential mediating and moderating effects of the process measures obtained in the CATCH trial to understand some of the critical factors underlying the implementation of the intervention.

Year 4 to 5 classroom teachers.

Longitudinal cohort (3year).

Of the 4019 students in the CATCH cohort, 1071 were included in the analyses in this paper. Complete data were available for a subset of 262 teachers.

Mixed methods: Observation (for fidelity); survey documentation (environmental reinforcers); and logs of school visits (support visits made).

25

Table 2.1 (cont’d): Summary information for studies examining the factors influencing the implementation of health promotion programs in schools.

Author Year Country Program name Study aim School year/s targeted Study design Participant

sample Method of data

collection Sexual Health Buston et al. 2002 East Scotland,

UK Sexual Health and Relationships: Safe, Happy and Responsible (SHARE)

Identify factors that constrained or facilitated full implementation.

11 Assistant Head Teachers or teachers with responsibility for PSE in secondary school, 15 classroom teachers delivered SHARE to Secondary 3 and 4 (13-15 year old students).

Cross-sectional. 25/26 participants invited to be interviewed agreed (96%) in the 13 control schools. There were 2 cohorts over 3 years.

Not reported.

Buston et al. 2001 East Scotland, UK

Sex education curriculum

Examine the factors that shape the provision of sex education.

Assistant Head Teachers or teachers with responsibility for PSE in secondary school and classroom teachers delivering SHARE to Secondary 3 and 4 (13-15 year old students).

Cross-sectional. 58 teachers in 25 non-denominational schools (includes both intervention and control schools).

In-depth interviews.

Tappe et al. 1997 Indiana, USA Understanding Sexuality (US), the companion module to THTM

Determine extent of implementation and identify factors related to the implementation of US.

Teachers who had participated in THTM or US training and taught health education, PE or home econ., in Indiana schools.

Cross-sectional. Eligible teachers were 176 who had undertaken training in either THTM or US. 90/176 responded to the survey (51%).

Written survey.

26

Table 2.1 (cont’d): Summary information for studies examining the factors influencing the implementation of health promotion programs in schools.

Author Year Country Program name Study aim School year/s targeted Study design Participant

sample Method of data

collection Alcohol and other drugs Hahn et al. 2002 Kentucky, USA Life Skills

Training (LST) Program

Explore implementation fidelity and the factors associated with the involvement in training and program implementation.

Year 6 to 9 teachers.

Cross-sectional.

44 master trainers, 27/45 teachers (60%) trained in the program actually implemented it in the classroom.

Observation of classroom teachers, Master trainers: survey after initial training and again after teacher training. Classroom teachers: 2 surveys, 1 after training with master trainers, 1 after classroom implementation.

McBride et al.

2002 Perth, AUSTRALIA

School Health and Alcohol Harm Reduction Project (SHAHRP)

To identify successful and less successful aspects of an intervention.

Junior secondary school teachers (teach ages 13 to 15 years).

Longitudinal (2 year), intervention schools only reported.

Phase 1 involved 28 teachers and phase 2 involved 33 teachers.

Observation, teacher group interview, students' written feedback.

27

Table 2.1 (cont’d): Summary information for studies examining the factors influencing the implementation of health promotion programs in schools.

Author Year Country Program name Study aim School year/s targeted Study design Participant

sample Method of data

collection Alcohol and other drugs (cont’d) McCormick et al.

1995 North Carolina, USA

North Carolina School Health and Tobacco Education Project

Determine the extent of curricula implementation, identify factors that enhanced/ impeded implementation, and examine the link between adoption and implementation.

Not specifically reported however the curriculum/s were designed for K to 6 (Growing Healthy), Year 6 to 9 for Project SMART, and were not specified for THTM (although focused on the teenage years).

Longitudinal, cross-sectional.

28 districts were randomly selected and invited from 51 eligible. 21/28 agreed to participate (75%). 21 districts were randomly assigned to intervention or control (11 and 10 respectively; ~50 schools, 100 classrooms).

Mail survey.

Smith et al. 1993 North Carolina, USA

Project SMART, Growing Healthy and Teenage Health Teaching Modules

Investigate factors associated with implementing a newly adopted health curricula by classroom teachers in North Carolina junior high and middle schools.

All year 6 (middle school) and year 7 (junior high school) teachers eligible to teach health.

Longitudinal, cross sectional.

21 districts randomly selected and recruited (100%). Over the 4 year study, 1 control and 1 experimental district dropped out. 60% check sheets were returned at initial implementation and 78% at maintained implementation.

Implementation check sheets and observation (site visits).

28

Table 2.1 (cont’d): Summary information for studies examining the factors influencing the implementation of health promotion programs in schools.

Author Year Country Program name Study aim School year/s targeted Study design Participant

sample Method of data

collection Oral Health Monahan and Scheirer

1988 46 States, USA

Fluoride Mouthrinse Program (FMRP)

Identify organisational and economic factors that affect the success of state agencies as linking agents.

State Dental Office staff included dentists, dental hygienists, public health workers, and state fluoride mouthrinse program supervisors.

Cross-sectional.

39 State dental directors, 7 State fluoride mouthrinse program supervisors.

50 minute telephone interview, archival records for data compiled about each state.

29

Table 2.1 (cont’d): Summary information for studies examining the factors influencing the implementation of health promotion programs in schools.

Author Year Country Program name Study aim School year/s targeted Study design Participant

sample Method of data

collection General Health Pateman et al.

1999 50 States and the District of Columbia, USA

General health education

Provide insight into the thoughts of educators and administrators working in classrooms, schools, districts, and state education agencies about actions that could improve the state of health education at each of these levels.

State/district participants administered health education in an entire state/district. School participants were lead teachers who represent health education in their school. Classroom teachers taught health education. Involved: junior, middle or high schools.

Cross-sectional. 50 participants who administered health at the state level (100%), 413/502 districts (82%), 607/766 (79%) schools, 1040/1643 health education teachers (63%).

State and district level: open ended mail survey, school and classroom level: open ended interviews.

Cameron 1991 Nova Scotia, CANADA

Revised fourth grade health curriculum

Investigate the effect of different types of in-service training on the degree of implementation of a revised fourth grade health curriculum.

Year 4 school teachers.

Cross sectional. Of the 48 teachers in the sample, 7 were not eligible to participate. The remaining 41 teachers from the 3 comparison groups all agreed to participate.

30 minute interview.

Parcel et al. 1991 USA Teenage Health Teaching Modules (THTM)

Examine the role of implementation in student outcomes and the factors affecting implementation.

Not specifically defined: teenage years.

Cross-sectional. Based on a larger study, however detail about sample not provided or referred to.

Not reported.

30

2.3.4.2 Content analysis of the factors influencing the implementation of school health promotion programs

One hundred and thirty factors/themes were identified within the studies and a

content analysis was undertaken to group the factors identified. Twenty-five

categories emerged and these are presented in Table 2.2. Examples of the factors

that comprise each category are listed in the table followed by the study reference.

The categories that emerged from the content analysis represent a wide range of

areas of potential influence on the implementation of school health promotion

programs (for example, factors related to the quality and delivery of the program; the

characteristics of school staff involved with the program, staff support for the

program and resource availability; and the schools’ social environment). However,

substantial variation between studies in the definitions of factors, outcomes

assessed, methodologies employed and study types, means that it is not valid to

draw conclusions about the evidence of a category (since this would require

grouping factors that are methodologically dissimilar).

Variations in the definitions of factors within the categories were not necessarily

homogeneous (thus different aspects of a category were often measured). For

example, McBride et al. (2002) defined time in terms of the limitation of time to

implement a new program, while Tappe et al. (1997) defined it in relation to the time

taken to undertake training (leaving less instructional time for students).

Alternatively, Buston et al. (2002) measured time in two ways: time to fit the program

into the school year; and time to complete program sessions within the allocated

class time. Differences between studies may be due to a number of reasons

including: the synthesis of studies across multiple fields; differences in

methodological approaches and research questions of interest; a paucity of valid

and reliable instruments; and the relatively new emergence of this type of research

in school health promotion.

Few studies included in the content analysis were noted to employ a particular

theory or theoretical perspective from which the selection of factors was derived. A

social ecological approach is increasingly advocated in school health promotion as it

offers a framework through which multiple theories can be used to guide the

planning and evaluation of health promotion programs (Emmons, 2001; Smedley

and Syme, 2001; Sorensen et al, 1998). Schools (and teachers) operate within

multi-level systems and thus, the categories listed in Table 2.2 operate across

31

various ecological levels. Collectively, the categories represent an approach that is

consistent with an ecological framework, since the factors measured span multiple

levels of the school and broader environment (i.e. from individual-level factors to

state-level factors that may influence program implementation).

Table 2.2 highlights the potential complexity of factors that may influence program

implementation. It provides a descriptive summary of the breadth of potential

influences on teachers’ and schools’ implementation of health promotion programs,

giving a useful indication of the types of factors examined to date and potential gaps

or areas for future research attention (with respect to the measurement of new

factors). However it does not identify which factors may be relevant for inclusion in

future program implementation studies as this is dependent upon the quality of the

studies from which the factors were derived.

32

Table 2.2: Content analysis of the factors influencing the implementation of school-based health promotion programs

Category Examples of Factors Studies

Experience / Qualifications

Includes a range of questions about years of teaching experience, teaching experience related to specific subject areas and qualifications of teachers.

Pateman et al., 1999; McGraw et al., 1996; Olson et al., 1993; Parcel et al., 1991

Qualifications of the external program director. Monahan and Scheirer, 1988

Demographics Personal characteristics of teachers delivering programs or curricula.

Buston et al., 2001; Olson et al., 1993; Parcel et al., 1991; Monahan and Scheirer, 1988

Professional development/Training

Includes a range of factors related to the provision of training, amount of training received, adequacy of training and teachers’ feelings of preparedness to teach the program or curricula.

Fagan and Mihalic, 2003; Buston et al., 2002; McBride et al., 2002, Hahn et al., 2002; Pateman et al., 1999; Harvey-Berino et al., 1998; Tappe et al., 1997; McCormick et al., 1995; Olson et al., 1993; Smith et al., 1993; Cameron, 1991; Parcel et al., 1991

Environment

A wide range of factors including overall population, district organisational size, a broad range of economic factors, and state the school is geographically located in.

McGraw et al., 1996; McCormick et al., 1995; Olson et al., 1993; Smith et al., 1993; Parcel et al., 1991; Monahan and Scheirer, 1988

School factors include staff absence and turnover, class sizes and school socio-economic status.

Fagan and Mihalic, 2003; Buston et al., 2002; Olson et al., 1993

Resources

Resource availability. Pateman et al., 1999

Identification and availability of key staff to conduct programs and presence of program advocate.

Fagan and Mihalic, 2003; Tappe et al., 1997; McGraw et al., 1996; Smith et al., 1993

Loss of profits due to implementation and linkage with community resources. McKenna, 2003; Harvey-Berino et al., 1998

Availability of facilities to undertake activities. Dwyer et al., 2003; Fagan and Mihalic, 2003

Support

Degree of support from the school principal and administration to implement programs, and teacher’s perceived support from colleagues and administration.

Fagan and Mihalic, 2003; Hahn et al., 2002, McGraw et al., 1996; Smith et al., 1993, Parcel et al., 1991

Family support for programs. McGraw et al., 1996

33

Table 2.2 (cont’d): Content analysis of the factors influencing the implementation of school-based health promotion programs

Category Examples of Factors Studies

Self-efficacy Teachers’ confidence in their own ability to teach a program. Hahn et al., 2002; Tappe et al., 1997; McGraw et al., 1996

Beliefs about the issue Personal philosophy about students’ choice (refers to food choices available to students – healthy versus unhealthy). McKenna, 2003

Values Relates to the views and values of teachers and refers to values regarding teaching (e.g. sex education) and teachers’ perceived importance of the program.

Buston et al., 2001; McGraw et al., 1996

Motivation to teach and learn

The extent to which teachers looked forward to teaching the program, student responsiveness to the curriculum and teachers’ interest in doing something about health problems.

Hahn et al., 2002; McBride et al., 2002; McCormick et al., 1995

Student motivation to learn about health and resistance from students. McBride et al., 2002

Commitment to the program/curricula/health education

Level of commitment to the research and program or curricula.

Fagan and Mihalic, 2003; Buston et al., 2002; McBride et al., 2002

Broad commitment to the program or curricula and the broad priorities of senior management.

Fagan and Mihalic, 2003; Buston et al., 2001

Comfort with teaching the subject area, program or curriculum to students

Refers to teachers’ comfort in teaching the subject area and the use of specific teaching approaches such as role plays. Hahn et al., 2002

Time Time is measured in a variety of ways including time available for health instruction, time allotted to implementing the program, time to complete the program, timing of program implementation in the school year.

Buston et al., 2002; McBride et al., 2002;Tappe et al., 1997

Schools’ social environment

Organisational climate, school culture, communication and collaboration of staff, and class climate.

Gittelsohn et al., 2003; Hahn et al., 2002; Buston et al., 2001; Pateman et al., 1999; McCormick et al., 1995

Student behaviour and management of behaviour. Fagan and Mihalic, 2003; McBride et al., 2002

34

Table 2.2 (cont’d): Content analysis of the factors influencing the implementation of school-based health promotion programs

Category Examples of Factors Studies Subject the program/curricula is delivered in

Academic subject in which the program or curricula is taught, and program or curricula is part of another course.

Olson et al., 1993; Smith et al., 1993; Parcel et al., 1991

Credibility of the subject area

Value of health education in the school curriculum including level of priority given to timetabling of health and assessment, and accountability for health education.

Fagan and Mihalic, 2003; Dwyer et al., 2003, Buston et al., 2002; Pateman et al., 1999

Year level targeted Year level the program or curriculum was taught in. McGraw et al., 1996; Smith et al., 1993; Parcel et al., 1991

Involvement in decision-making processes

Whether staff were involved in the decision-making process for program adoption and implementation, and whether a top-down implementation approach was taken.

McKenna, 2003; McCormick et al., 1995

Program awareness Creating an awareness of the program through promotional activities.

McGraw et al., 1996; McCormick et al., 1995

Program quality Includes teachers’ beliefs about the potential effectiveness of the program, its ease of use, currency of program content and the learning opportunities provided.

Hahn et al., 2002; Pateman et al., 1999; Tappe et al., 1997

Program delivery Teachers’ effectiveness in delivering the lessons and modifications made during delivery. Fagan and Mihalic, 2003

Program fit with the school

Integration of the program with existing curricula, amount of change necessary to implement the curriculum, age-appropriateness of the program and the type of program.

Fagan and Mihalic, 2003; Tappe et al., 1997; Smith et al., 1993

Program implementation and process

Barriers interfering with program implementation or organisation of the implementation process. Hahn et al., 2002

Competing programs/curricula Competition with other programs/curricula. Fagan and Mihalic, 2003; Tappe et al.,

1997; McGraw et al., 1996

Program adoption

A range of aspects related to the adoption of a program were measured including whether the adoption decision was prioritised, who the first person approached about a program was, the time in weeks taken to adopt a program and whether teachers were fully involved in the decision on whether to adopt the program.

Buston et al., 2002; McCormick et al., 1995; Parcel et al., 1991

35

2.3.4.3 Quality of reporting in school health promotion studies examining the factors influencing program implementation

Presented in Table 2.3 is a summary of the methodological and statistical quality ratings

assigned to the quantitative studies included in this review (and included in the content

analysis). The studies in the table are grouped by health area (topic; column 3) and

listed in descending order according to publication year, within each topic area. The

columns nearest to the left hand side provide basic reference information whilst

columns six to nine comprise the quality ratings.

The adequacy and depth of information reported on the methodological quality of

studies was limited overall. Three main study designs were employed including:

repeated measures; cross-sectional; and longitudinal cross-sectional designs. A similar

number of studies were classified as primary (i.e. the examination of factors influencing

program implementation was the primary aim of the study) as those classified as

secondary. The studies varied in sampling methods with some using probability

samples whilst others used non-probability samples. Few studies provided clear

information regarding the study participants and sampling methods (e.g. Harvey-Berino

et al., 1998 and Monahan and Scheirer, 1988). The reporting of response rates and

non-responder characteristics was limited and only half the studies provided adequate

information regarding statistical methods.

Repeated measures designs are considered superior to cross-sectional designs since

they track the same participants over a period of time, thus providing more than a

snapshot result for a single point in time. Only one study employed repeated measures

(i.e. Gittelsohn et al., 2003), however the findings were not considered valid as the

study was initially described as a qualitative assessment, yet the authors presented

multivariable analyses. Recorded interview data were used to obtain an independent

variable that was based upon a rater’s perceptions and averaged for each school prior

to analysis. Thus, integrity to the original study design was compromised and the

scores used in the analysis are open to bias since they are based upon the perceptions

of a rater rather than the participants themselves.

36

Table 2.3: Summary of study design and analysis critique

Author Year Topic f Program Name P/S a Design features b,c, Analysis and Presentation c,e

Kallestad and Olweus 2003 M Bullying Prevention

Program P OBJ: DES:

SUB: SSC: X

SSP: ANL: PSA:

CON: CCL:

Harvey-Berino et al. 1998 N Show the Way to 5-

a-day P OBJ: DES:

SUB: SSC: X

SSP: ANL: X PSA:

CON: X CCL: U

Olson et al. 1993 N Nutrition for Life P OBJ: DES:

SUB: X SSC: X

SSP: X ANL: PSA: X

CON: CCL:

McGraw et al. 1996 ACN

Student and Adolescent Trial for Cardiovascular Health (CATCH)

S

OBJ: DES:

SUB: X SSC:

SSP: ANL: PSA:

CON: CCL:

Gittelsohn et al. 2003 CN Pathways P

OBJ: DES: U

SUB: X SSC: X

SSP: X ANL: X PSA: X

CON: X CCL: X

Tappe et al. 1997 S

Understanding Sexuality (US), the companion module to THTM

S

OBJ: X DES:

SUB: X SSC: X

SSP: X ANL: X PSA: X

CON: X CCL: U

Hahn et al. 2002 A Life Skills Training (LST) S

OBJ: DES: U

SUB: X SSC: X

SSP: X ANL: X PSA: X

CON: X CCL: U

McBride et al. 2002 A

School Health and Alcohol Harm Reduction Project (SHAHRP)

S

OBJ: DES: U

SUB: X SSC: X

SSP: ANL: X PSA: X

CON: X CCL: U

McCormick et al. 1995 A

Project SMART, Growing Healthy and Teenage Health Teaching Modules

P

OBJ: DES:

SUB: X SSC:

SSP: ANL: U PSA: X

CON: CCL: U

Monahan and Scheirer 1988 O

Fluoride Mouthrinse Program (FMRP)

P OBJ: DES: U

SUB: SSC: na d

SSP: X ANL: PSA:

CON: na d CCL:

Cameron 1991 G Revised fourth grade health curriculum

P OBJ: DES: X

SUB: X SSC: X

SSP: ANL: X PSA: X

CON: X CCL: U

Parcel et al. 1991 G Teenage Health Teaching Modules S

OBJ: DES:

SUB: X SSC: X

SSP: ANL: PSA: X

CON: X CCL:

a Primary/Secondary refers to whether the examination of the factors influencing program implementation was a primary or secondary aim of the study. Primary studies are those that were designed to examine the factors influencing program implementation. Secondary studies are designed primarily to evaluate a program’s effectiveness and secondarily, to examine the factors influencing program implementation. b OBJ: Was the objective of the study sufficiently described?; DES: Was an appropriate study design used to achieve the objective?; SUB: Was there a satisfactory statement given of source of subjects?; SSC: Was a pre-study calculation of required sample size reported? c : yes, x: no, u: unclear. d na: not applicable since all participants in the sampling frame agreed to participate. e SSP: Was there a statement adequately describing or referencing all statistical procedures used?; ANL: Were the statistical analyses used appropriate?; PSA: Was the presentation of statistical material satisfactory?; CON: Were confidence intervals given for the main results?; CCL: Was the conclusion drawn from the statistical analysis justified? f Topic areas: M= Mental health; N = Nutrition; C = Cardiovascular health; S = Sexual health; A = Alcohol, smoking and other drugs; O = Oral health; G = General health.

37

While the confidence placed in the conclusions made from samples is partly dependent

upon the size of the sample, the selection of the sample tends to be a more problematic

issue (Coggon et al., 1997). Sample selection is an important issue since it can enable

or limit the generalisability of study findings (Bowling, 2000). The use of probability

sampling (such as random or simple random samples, stratified random samples or

cluster samples) means that statistical inferences are likely to be more rigorous than if

non-probability sampling is used (e.g. convenience, purposive or quota samples). The

randomisation process reduces the potential for selection bias, where participants and

non-participants differ with respect to the outcome assessed. Thus, random selection

increases the likelihood that the sample is representative of the study population.

However, less than half the studies employed random sampling methods. The

generalisability of findings from most studies is limited due to the use of non-random

sampling methods or (in two studies) because no description of the sampling methods

was provided. In addition, few studies that used non-random sampling provided the

characteristics of participants whilst only one (i.e. Harvey-Berino et al., 1998) reported

any characteristics of non-responders (this is a potential problem since both non-

participants and non-responders may differ in an important way to participants, i.e.

there may be a selection bias). Thus, the external validity of the majority of studies is

questionable; therefore further studies are needed to establish whether the findings of

these studies are reproducible.

In addition, the statistical quality of many of the studies was inadequate since they did

not address all of the items in the analysis and presentation column of Table 2.3.

Whilst statistical procedures were described in most studies, only five undertook

analyses appropriate for the study design employed (Kallestad and Olweus, 2003;

McGraw et al., 1996; Olson et al. 1993; Parcel et al., 1991; Monahan and Scheirer,

1988). The issue most problematic across the studies was the level of analysis

undertaken. Five studies (Hahn et al., 2002; McBride et al., 2002; Harvey-Berino et al.,

1998; Tappe et al., 1997; Cameron, 1991) presented bivariate analyses and therefore,

did not consider and account for the multiple influences on program implementation and

the potential for confounding of results by other competing factors. Thus, the findings

presented in these non-experimental studies do not provide a valid basis on which the

selection of factors for future studies could be based. Additionally, one study pooled

38

participant groups who were dissimilar on an outcome measure, resulting in more than

random variation between groups (McCormick et al., 1995), whilst another undertook a

quantitative analysis of qualitative data (Gittelsohn et al., 2003).

Other issues with respect to the statistical quality of studies include the reporting of a

priori power calculations or minimum effect sizes and the presentation of confidence

intervals. Whilst most studies reported a priori effect sizes (which are required for

hypothesis testing/inferences to be valid), confidence intervals or adequate information

to calculate these were available in only two studies (McGraw et al., 1996; Olson et al.,

1993). Reporting confidence intervals provides additional information regarding the

probability of the range within which the true population estimate lies and thus is more

appropriate than reporting a single estimate. Another issue not addressed in Table 2.3

relates to the analysis of clustered data. One study in the review mentioned a design

effect (i.e. where variation in program implementation differs within versus between the

unit of analysis – usually schools or school districts in these studies). However,

methods to account for a design effect have become widely available quite recently and

this could explain the lack of attention to potential design effects in earlier studies.

Despite the wide range of factors identified through the content analysis, the quality of

most quantitative studies was limited because findings could not be generalised or

invalid results were reported. Selection bias and an inability to adjust for potential

confounding were the two most commonly identified and most consequential issues in

these studies. Although the quality in reporting was low overall, three studies

addressed all or most criteria outlined in Table 2.3 (i.e. Kallestad and Olweus, 2003;

McGraw et al., 1996; Monahan and Scheirer, 1988), thus providing some examples of

higher quality evidence. However all studies were conducted under intervention

conditions (with the exception of Parcel et al., 1998 which compared intervention and

naturalistic conditions). The factors influencing program implementation may differ

when programs are implemented in real-world practice and to date, there is inadequate

evidence available to address this scenario for primary school-based health promotion

programs and more specifically, SEW programs.

39

2.4 From intervention to real-world settings: the use of SEW programs and the factors influencing SEW program use in primary schools

The major focus of the field of mental health/social and emotional wellbeing in schools

has to date been the development and evaluation of programs. In the pursuit of

evidence-based programs, evaluators (and funding bodies) have paid little attention to

the relationship between the process of program implementation in schools and the

program implemented (Mihalic and Irwin, 2003; Greenberg et al., 2001; Fagan, 1990).

Whilst establishing the evidence-base for school-based social and emotional wellbeing

programs is critical, a list of programs that have produced favourable outcomes under

intervention conditions provides no indication of whether the programs will actually be

used in real-world practice or additionally, what factors may influence their use.

The majority of studies undertaken to date have been conducted under time-limited,

supervised, and well-funded conditions (Wilson et al., 2003). Under intervention

conditions, teachers may feel more obligated to use programs in which ‘the school’ has

collectively decided to be involved. Teachers’ use of the program may be further

reinforced by requirements from researchers for teachers to complete surveys

indicating whether or how much of a program under evaluation is implemented each

week. Additionally, professional development or other support systems may be set up

to assist schools and teachers to implement programs under intervention conditions.

Thus, the factors influencing program implementation from intervention studies cannot

necessarily be extrapolated to real-world practice, since the context of implementation

may be substantially different when support from outside research or other agencies is

not available.

Battistich (2001) and Greenberg et al. (2001) noted that the implementation of SEW

programs within real-world settings is under-researched and represents a significant

challenge within the field. Lochman (2000) commented that while developments in

evidence-based programs are increasing, the next generation of research should

examine the implementation of programs in real-world settings. It is unclear what

happens to the implementation of many programs following the completion of research

studies, once external resource support is withdrawn (Han and Weiss, 2005).

40

Under real-world conditions, teachers and schools have an increasingly wide range of

programs from which they can select. Currently though, little documentation is

available to describe primary teachers’ use of SEW programs under real-world

conditions in classrooms and schools within Australia. If the next stage in prevention

research is the wide-scale dissemination of programs within schools (Greenberg et al.,

2005), then establishing what programs teachers and schools are already using on a

day-to-day basis cannot be dismissed, since the foundation for growth should be based

upon current, real-world practice or at the least, a knowledge of what is used so that

this can inform future practice. To date, studies have generally examined a single

health promotion program and rarely assessed programs within the field of mental

health/social and emotional wellbeing. Since the program implementation field more

generally, is moving to widespread dissemination, it is timely to examine the potential

influences on teachers’ use of social and emotional wellbeing programs under real-

world conditions.

The assessment of factors influencing teachers’ use of SEW programs collectively

(rather than a specific program) may highlight additional generic factors that are

relevant across a range of SEW programs rather than factors specific to one particular

program. In addition, using a broad assessment of teachers’ and schools’ use of SEW

programs recognises the potential for a wide range of SEW programs to be used in

real-world practice within the primary school context. The following chapter provides

the rationale for the selection of factors examined as potential influences on primary

teachers’ use of SEW programs in this study.

41

Chapter 3: Methodology

Chapter Three focuses on the methodology for program implementation and the factors

influencing implementation. It provides the rationale for the measurement of program

implementation in this study and describes the framework used to organise factors. In

addition, it outlines the rationale for the selection of factors as potential influences on

primary classroom teachers’ use of SEW programs in this study.

3.1 The selection of a program implementation measure Researchers have advocated for the measurement of program implementation to

capture the amount and quality of implementation instead of, or in addition to program

use (Greenberg et al., 2005; Dusenbury et al., 2003). While the measurement of

program use provides a narrower indication of implementation when compared to

fidelity or dose, this approach has been employed in many studies, probably due to its

relative ease of administration and interpretation. In addition to these reasons, program

use was selected as the measure of implementation to be employed in this study:

• Since its purpose is to address teachers’ use of social and emotional wellbeing

programs in schools, rather than the amount or quality of program

implementation;

• Because the assessment of implementation fidelity and dose are more suited to

intervention studies where participants record or log this information on a regular

basis (for example, each week) during the time a program is implemented

(rather than at one time-point only, as proposed in this study);

• Since a wide range of SEW programs will be measured in the current study.

The same (one) question can be used to measure program ‘use’, irrespective of

the number or types of programs included in the survey. Alternatively, it is less

likely that meaningful or adequate information about program fidelity and dose

can be ascertained from one generic question; and

• To reduce the potential for missing data (due to recall bias) since the current

study will be cross-sectional and ask participants to recall information over a

one-year timeframe. Thus, the more detailed the questions are, the less likely

42

participants may be to precisely recall specific information over an extended

period of time.

Despite limitations in the quality and richness of data provided from a dichotomous

outcome variable, program use (versus non-use) was considered the most appropriate

measure of program implementation to be employed in the current study in

consideration of the issues listed above. The approaches used to guide the selection of

factors as potential influences on primary classroom teachers’ use of SEW programs

are outlined in the following section.

3.2 Frameworks and instruments adopted to guide the selection of factors for measurement

Few studies published in peer-review journals have employed a theoretical model in

selecting factors to measure as potential influences on the implementation of health

promotion programs in schools (examples are: Gittelsohn et al, 2003; McGraw et al.,

1996; McCormick et al., 1995; Monahan and Scheirer, 1988). The theories that have

been used include: Social Learning Theory3

(SLT); Diffusion of Innovations Theory and

Social-Ecological Theory. In the few studies that have used a particular theoretical

perspective, the theory selected was usually based on the theory guiding the actual

program under evaluation (for SLT) or the program dissemination process (for Diffusion

of Innovations theory). In contrast, Social-Ecological theory provides a settings-

perspective that can be employed across most school studies, irrespective of the type

of program evaluated or the dissemination approach used. Thus, it can be easily

applied in intervention and real-world studies.

There has been a growing acceptance of social-ecological models, with evidence now

available to suggest that such models may be essential in enhancing population health

(Sallis and Owen, 2002). These models are characterised by their multi-level approach,

highlighting the importance of connections between individuals and their environment.

A social-ecological framework is presented in Figure 3.1. This model is based on the

3 Social Learning Theory was developed in the field of clinical psychology and is defined by its main feature

of reciprocal interaction between environment, cognitive factors and behaviour (Bandura, 1986).

43

content analysis (presented in Chapter Two) of the factors influencing the

implementation of health promotion programs in schools, although its underlying

philosophy was adapted from Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory (1979). It

was adapted to depict the various levels of influence identified during the content

analysis. Collectively, the factors measured in the studies included in the content

analysis spanned all social-ecological levels presented in Figure 3.1. Despite that a

limited number of studies have been undertaken to date, a substantial range of factors

have been examined, although in the majority of studies, factors were presented as a

single ‘shopping’ list. In this study, factors will be organised according to this social-

ecological framework, thus reflecting the multi-level nature of schools. Use of this

framework also provides additional structure to the organisation of factors in this study.

School Level

Factors

School District Level Factors

Parent/Community Level Factors

Classroom

Level

Factors

Individual

Level

Factors

Program Im

plementation

State Level Factors

Figure 3.1: Multi-level influences on program implementation in schools

(adapted based on Bronfenbrenner, 1979)

Although Figure 3.1 provides a multi-level framework to organise factors it does not

specify the actual factors to be examined. Sorensen et al (1998) and others (Emmons,

2001; Smedley and Syme, 2001) have described social-ecological approaches as

offering a framework through which multiple theories can be used to guide the planning

and evaluation of health promotion programs. Thus, ecological approaches are likely to

be used in conjunction with other theories and frameworks. The MindMatters initiative

was considered as a possible avenue to locate an appropriate framework or approach

44

due to its relevance to social and emotional wellbeing and its widespread

implementation in schools nationally.

MindMatters was developed following a national study of Australian secondary school

students’ mental health and wellbeing. One component of the MindMatters evaluation

included a qualitative assessment of staff perceptions about the factors influencing

MindMatters implementation (through key informant interviews and focus group

discussions with key school staff involved in the implementation process; Hunter

Institute of Mental Health, 2004). Although the project and its evaluation were on-going

during the time of the current study (and therefore was not in the content analysis),

interim reports described a number of themes that participants identified as influences

on MindMatters implementation:

• A focus on health and wellbeing in the school;

• A focus on health or personal development in the curriculum;

• Nature and amount of training provided to staff;

• Resources allocated to implementation;

• Readiness of schools and teachers for change;

• Extent of executive involvement in MindMatters; and

• Staff commitment (i.e. commitment of the persons selected as advocates for the

MindMatters program).

The themes identified through the MindMatters evaluation corroborated the findings

from other studies. However schools’ focus on health and wellbeing had not previously

been identified as a factor influencing program implementation in this broad sense.

Although there was no known research available that had broadly addressed schools’

focus on health and wellbeing as an influence on program implementation, support for

the concept of ‘contextual factors’ was growing in the program implementation

literature. A number of authors supported the need to consider the context in which

schools operate as an important influence on the implementation of health promotion

programs (Cargo et al., 2006; Ozer, 2006; Choi, 2003; Lochman, 2003; Ringeisen et al.,

2003; MacDonald and Green, 2001).

45

A MindMatters School Matters Whole School Audit (MM audit; Commonwealth of

Australia, 2000) was developed as part of the MindMatters initiative. The purpose of

the audit was to quantitatively map the extent to which schools addressed social and

emotional wellbeing and thus, it identified the context in which schools promoted health

and wellbeing. It covered a broad range of issues such as: school health policies and

practices; curriculum, teaching and learning; school organisation, ethos and

environment; partnerships and services; and a final section on attitudes. Although the

MM audit (Commonwealth of Australia, 2000) was not included as part of the

MindMatters evaluation with respect to the factors influencing its implementation (i.e.

the areas measured in the audit had not been considered as potential influences on the

implementation of MindMatters), the audit could be adapted for this use in the current

study, given that it measures a broad range of contextual factors.

Although the factors examined in the MM audit (Commonwealth of Australia, 2000)

incorporate the three main elements of HPS, the purpose of the audit was not to

determine whether a school could be classified as a HPS (or adhered to the guidelines

of what constitutes a HPS). Instead, the MM audit (Commonwealth of Australia, 2000)

was developed as a practical tool for schools to identify positive mental health

promotion practices and areas for possible action in the future. Whilst the factors to be

selected for the current study may incorporate elements of a HPS approach, the

findings will be discussed from the perspective of measuring social and emotional

wellbeing as influences on the use of SEW programs rather than from a HPS

perspective.

The social-ecological framework (Figure 3.1) was to be used to organise the factors

within various levels of the school environment in this study. The MM audit

(Commonwealth of Australia, 2000) provided the main avenue for the selection of

factors of potential influence on primary classroom teachers’ use of SEW programs. In

addition, some categories that emerged from the content analysis (in Chapter Two)

were also considered for inclusion in the survey.

46

3.3 Description of the factor selection process All sections of the MM audit (Commonwealth of Australia, 2000) were considered as

potential factors that may influence teachers’ use of SEW programs. Key areas in the

MM audit (Commonwealth of Australia, 2000) include: the assessment of the SEW-

related topics and skills that teachers covered or practised with students; the extent to

which SEW-related policies were available at the school; the promotion of SEW within

the schools’ environment; parent or caregiver participation in school activities and staff

attitudes regarding SEW. These areas (with the exception of staff attitudes regarding

SEW) were included as factors of potential influence on the use of SEW programs for

the current study. Staff attitudes towards social and emotional wellbeing was not

included in the audit of SEW practices because this factor was included in another part

of the survey that measured only SEW program users’ attitudes toward SEW programs

(and was not part of this study).

Four main issues were considered in the inclusion of factors from the content analysis:

• Relevance of factors to social and emotional wellbeing

•

: While the categories

presented in the content analysis were themed using broad labels, the individual

factors within the categories were sometimes quite specific to each health

promotion field, for example, teachers’ knowledge of sexual health education

(Levenson-Gingiss and Hamilton, 1989) or teachers’ concern regarding tobacco use

among children (McCormick et al., 1995). Therefore, in many instances the

individual factors examined were not relevant to social and emotional wellbeing and

this narrowed the pool of potential factors.

Program-specific factors:

•

The factors (and in particular the survey items) measured

in the studies were often specific to the program under evaluation rather than

generic (for example, one of the factors measured in Monahan and Scheirer (1988)

was ‘number of State Dental Office staff in full-time positions working on the

Fluoride Mouthrinse Program’). In addition, factors that examined the

characteristics or content of a specific program were not considered since the

current study was to be designed to explore multiple SEW programs.

Primary versus secondary school studies: The context and structure of primary

schools differs somewhat to secondary schools and therefore some factors

47

measured in secondary schools were not relevant. For example, while the factor

‘teacher’s discipline or teaching area’ is relevant for secondary schools (because

secondary school teachers work in a few key discipline areas), it is not relevant in

the primary school context since primary teachers teach across all disciplines in

Australian schools.

• Type of study

: Some categories (and factors) included in the content analysis are

quite context specific and thus, selection had to consider the type of study design to

be employed. The proposed observational design precludes the selection of

categories (and factors) that relate specifically to the intervention process, for

example ‘number of team visits to the school during program implementation’

(McGraw et al., 1996).

After consideration of the above issues, Fagan and Mihalic (2003) and Kallestad and

Olweus (2003) were considered most applicable as possible sources for factor selection

since they evaluated SEW programs.

Kallestad and Olweus (2003) identified a number of factors that influenced teachers’

degree of implementation of the Bullying Prevention Program:

• Teachers’ perceived level of bullying in class;

• Schools’ attention to bullying problems (measured by whether the school

administration had presented the results of an earlier bullying survey undertaken

in the schools to staff and whether the results had been summarised and

discussed);

• Some measures of school climate (i.e. teacher-to-teacher collaboration and

openness in communication);

• Perceived importance of the Bullying Prevention Program by staff;

• Amount of the program information read by staff; and

• Teachers’ affective involvement and self-victimisation as a child (both factors

concerned teacher’s general emotional responsiveness and empathetic

identification with victims of bullying).

48

Two of the factors listed were selected for use in the current study (i.e. teachers’

perceived level of bullying in class, which could be adapted to measure student

behaviour more generally, and measures of school climate). The remaining factors

were not considered as they were either specific to the Bullying Prevention Program or

related to the study design and thus, were not applicable to the current study.

Whilst Kallestad and Olweus’ (2003) study provided strong research design and

analysis, Fagan and Mihalic (2003) reported inadequate statistical analysis (i.e.

bivariate level analyses only). Fagan and Mihalic (2003) identified a number of factors

related to the quality of implementation of the Life Skills Training (LST) program,

however the results presented are not adjusted for potential confounding and thus,

further examination of factors is required to ascertain whether the relationships between

program implementation and the factors remained following multi-variable modelling.

Two factors were identified as potential influences on program implementation: the use

of program champions or advocates and teachers’ participation in professional

development.

Thus, the following factors were selected for measurement in the current study in

addition to those identified from the MM audit (Commonwealth of Australia, 2000):

teachers’ perceptions of students’ social and emotional wellbeing (including the

frequency of students’ social and emotional issues in class); staff communication and

collaboration; the number of staff advocates for social and emotional wellbeing and staff

professional development. Additionally, since purchase of the SEW programs to be

included in the study is often required, the adequacy of funding available to schools for

social and emotional wellbeing was included. The characteristics of primary classroom

teachers (such as age, gender and qualifications) as well as the socio-economic level of

the school were included as factors in addition to potential confounders. The following

section provides a rationale for the inclusion of each factor selected for measurement.

49

3.4 Literature on the factors selected as potential influences on teachers’ use of social and emotional wellbeing programs in primary schools

A number of factors were selected as potential influences on teachers’ use of SEW

programs in the current study. A brief literature review is presented here to provide

justification for the inclusion of each factor. The factors have been grouped according

to the social-ecological framework presented earlier in Figure 3.1.

3.4.1 Community influences

3.4.1.1 Parent or Caregiver involvement at school The majority of research undertaken on parental involvement has focused on

measuring gains related to students’ academic achievement (Sheldon, 2002; Pena,

2000; Berger, 1995; Grolnick and Slowiaczek, 1994; Muller and Kernow, 1993; Dwyer

and Hecht, 1992; Peterson, 1989; Henderson, 1988; Stevenson and Baker, 1987;

National Institute of Education, 1985). However some studies have shown that parental

involvement also increases students’ positive behaviour and emotional development

(Lawson, 2003; Epstein, 2001; Pena, 2000; Cai et al., 1997; Henderson and Berla,

1994; Greenwood and Hickman, 1991). Thus, parental involvement at school has been

recognised as a key element in health promotion efforts for students (Birch and Hallock,

1999), including the promotion of social and emotional wellbeing. Parental involvement

has been included in the current study since it helps to provide a positive influence on

students’ social and emotional wellbeing which in turn, contributes to the promotion of

wellbeing within the school. It has not previously been examined as a factor of potential

influence on teachers’ program use but has been included as a new avenue of

investigation in this study.

3.4.2 School District influences

3.4.2.1 Funding to address the issue of social and emotional wellbeing Inadequate resources (including financial resources) are often reported as a major

barrier to the implementation and sustainability of mental health and other health

promotion programs in schools (e.g. Barroso et al., 2005; Lavin, 1993). While

50

quantitative studies have not identified school funding and resources as an influence on

program implementation, qualitative research has identified it as an issue that is

important to program implementation (e.g. Wiecha et al., 2004; Kramer et al., 2000;

Butler, 1993). Irrespective of how dedicated staff may be to the implementation of a

new program, the likelihood of such change is limited without the adequate provision of

resources. Ringeisen et al. (2003) notes that staff resources to address student mental

health needs are often limited, while financial resources for school health education

generally, have been described as ‘meagre’ (Lavin, 1993). The adequacy of resources

will be examined as a potential influence on teachers’ use of SEW programs given that

SEW programs cannot be used unless the resources are available, many of which have

to be purchased by schools.

3.4.3 School influences

3.4.3.1 School socio-economic status Evidence of an association between program use and socio-economic status was

reported in Olson et al. (1993), with some evidence provided in Monahan and Scheirer

(1988) to suggest that socio-economic status may influence program use (although

Monahan and Scheirer, 1988 used a measure of state-level socio-economic status

rather than school socio-economic status). School socio-economic status has

infrequently been included as a factor of potential influence on the implementation of

health promotion programs in school-based studies (and schools were infrequently

matched or stratified by socio-economic status). Socio-economic status is a known

potential confounding factor in health research. However few studies previously

undertook multivariable modelling (and therefore did not address the issue of

confounding). Thus, school socio-economic status was included to examine whether it

was independently related to teachers’ program use and also, as a potential

confounding factor.

51

3.4.3.2 Advocates for the issue of social and emotional wellbeing at school

An effective program advocate has been recognised as a critical performance

requirement for implementing school health promotion programs (Lynagh et al., 1999).

A school coordinator plays an important role in putting health promotion on the agenda

by identifying school priorities and helping to integrate curriculum and plans (Viig and

Wold, 2005). In a study conducted by Massey et al. (2005: 369) it was identified that

program staff and teachers “did not always know how programs were placed

organisationally in the school and program staff depended on principals or other school

officials to champion their particular program effort”. While it is common during the

implementation of large-scale projects for study co-ordinators to select key staff

members to act as program champions or advocates, the extent to which staff members

are active in this role under real-world conditions is not known. Whether staff self-

identify as advocates for addressing social and emotional wellbeing will be examined as

a potential factor of influence on teachers’ use of SEW programs in this study.

3.4.3.3 School Environment Schools are social institutions and thus, the communication and collaboration amongst

staff may play an important role in the implementation of SEW programs. School

climate has been neglected in the diffusion of school health promotion programs and

thus, support in emphasising the importance of such organisational factors is needed

(Lochman, 2003). Research-based programs that aim to improve students’ mental

health and wellbeing are largely developed in isolation from schools (Hoagwood and

Johnson, 2003). However, school staff and students are embedded within an

organisational context and thus, contextual factors may directly impact on program

implementation (Ringeisen et al., 2003). Diffusion theory suggests that the majority of

people decide to use an innovation based on subjective impressions conveyed by

respected colleagues who have adopted and used it (Rogers, 1995). Furthermore,

Fullan (1991) remarks that working relationships of teachers, particularly the quality of

these relationships is linked strongly to implementation. Theorists and researchers in

organisational communication, organisational development, and educational leadership

concur that communication and climate are “primary mechanism[s] for effective

organisational adaptivity and improvement” (Rafferty, 2003: 53). Ozer (2006) notes

52

surprise that rarely has research been dedicated to school culture and climate in the

school violence prevention literature, despite the extensive education literature on

school and classroom climate available. Substantial support exists for the need to

examine the impact of the social context of schools on the implementation of SEW

programs.

3.4.3.4 School wellbeing-related policy The term policy has been broadly described as principles that shape action toward a

previously determined end result (Titmuss, 1974). The translation of district-level

policies communicates values and priority areas for action in schools (McLaughlin and

Mitra, 2001). This has flow-on effects at the school level, where policies shape the

backdrop for the programs implemented by teachers in the classroom (Han and Weiss,

2005; Coburn, 2003; Elmore, 1996). Although unclear school policy has been cited as

a barrier to the implementation of a sexual health education program (Csincsak et al.,

1994), implementation studies undertaken to date have not examined the relationship

between school policies and teachers’ use of SEW programs. This relationship will be

assessed in the current study with respect to the availability of wellbeing-related policies

at school, teachers’ awareness of wellbeing-related policies and the extent to which

teachers perceive that they are put into practice in schools.

3.4.3.5 Professional Development Professional development has been commonly cited as a factor influencing the

implementation of health promotion programs in schools (e.g. Fagan and Mihalic, 2003;

Buston et al., 2002; Hahn et al., 2002; McBride et al., 2002; Gottfredson et al., 2000;

Kramer et al., 2000; Pateman et al., 1999; Harvey-Berino et al., 1998; Tappe et al.,

1997; Hausman and Ruzek, 1995). Since teachers are at the interface between

program implementation and classroom practice, they are thought to be in the most

critical position to accept or reject a program (Cameron, 1991; Downey et al., 1988;

Gibson-Ramael, 1987). Research on staff development indicates that training can

impact teachers’ decisions to use a new curriculum or program (McKenzie et al., 1994)

and a lack of in-service training in health education has been described as a major

obstacle impeding program implementation and effectiveness (Lavin, 1993). The

53

provision of training, particularly during the early stages of program implementation

enables staff to discuss and solve problems in addition to learning the ‘how and why’ of

a particular program. However professional development also provides an avenue for

teachers to address their concerns about implementation, particularly when training is

provided on an on-going basis. Thus professional development may provide benefits to

program implementation through the enhancement of knowledge and skills but in

addition, may also indirectly influence program implementation through informal

discussion and resolution of barriers experienced with respect to a particular program.

3.4.4 Classroom influences

3.4.4.1 Encouraging parent or caregiver involvement in school work at home

Parental involvement in school-related learning at home has been shown to be an

important contributor to students’ education and development (Sheldon, 2002).

Classroom teachers are well positioned to indirectly encourage parental involvement in

students’ school-related learning at home by assigning homework and projects that

involve interaction with parents or caregivers. Whilst students benefit from family

expertise and learn more about family attitudes and values from parental involvement in

homework (Brener et al., 2001), parents also benefit from this more structured

opportunity. Parental involvement in school-related learning at home may provide the

best opportunity for involving parents in school-related activities since family schedules,

work commitments and other restrictions may limit parents’ involvement during school

hours (Birch and Hallock, 1999; Perry et al., 1988). The extent to which teachers

provide opportunities for parents to be more involved in students’ school-related

learning at home will be investigated to determine whether teachers who provide such

opportunities more frequently, are any more or less likely to use programs in the

classroom that address social and emotional wellbeing issues.

3.4.4.2 The wellbeing-related topics and skills covered in class The extent to which schools promote social and emotional wellbeing is not limited to

direct and pre-planned activities or programs. Weare (2000) suggested that schools

will find that they are almost certainly engaged in the promotion of social and emotional

54

wellbeing, although it may not be labelled as such. In the classroom setting, teachers

are inevitably involved in a variety of activities where issues related to social and

emotional wellbeing (such as building self-esteem, conflict resolution and modelling

positive relationship skills) are covered and practised with students directly and

indirectly. They may involve unstructured learning or take a more structured format

within the curriculum. Some studies undertaken previously have highlighted that

overlapping content or other competing programs have influenced program

implementation. However, no known studies undertaken to date have examined the

range of wellbeing-related topics and skills that teachers invariably cover and practice

on a day-to-day basis in the classroom. Inclusion of these factors will help to determine

whether the extent to which teachers cover wellbeing-related topics and skills in the

classroom is associated with their use of actual programs designed to address social

and emotional wellbeing issues.

3.4.4.3 Frequency of students’ on-going social and emotional issues in class

Teachers’ perceptions of the number of students experiencing problems in class were

found to be associated with program implementation in Kallestad and Olweus (2003).

Few studies to date have measured the factors influencing the use of social and

emotional wellbeing programs in schools and therefore, have rarely examined student

behaviour or the frequency of problems as a possible influence on teachers’ use of

SEW programs. Thus, teachers’ perceptions of the frequency of problems will be

examined in this study, in addition to the number of students perceived to exhibit social

and/or emotional problems (outlined in Section 3.4.5.2).

3.4.5 Individual influences

3.4.5.1 Characteristics of Primary Classroom Teachers Numerous studies have previously explored the demographic characteristics of

teachers as influences on the implementation of school health promotion programs (e.g.

Buston et al., 2001; Pateman et al., 1999; McGraw et al., 1996; Olson et al., 1993; Brink

et al., 1991; Parcel et al., 1991; Levenson-Gingiss and Hamilton, 1989; Monahan and

Scheirer, 1988). The types of characteristics studied include: teachers’ age; years of

55

experience; and qualifications. Lochman (2003) suggests that the characteristics of

teachers may be important influences on the implementation of health promotion

programs in schools. Alternatively, studies in educational research have shown that the

implementation of school programs is influenced less by teachers who implement the

program, when compared to other factors concerning the organisational context

(MacDonald and Green, 2001). The lack of evidence to support the influence of

demographic characteristics on program implementation in the literature supports

MacDonald and Green’s (2001) viewpoint. However, studies undertaken to date have

generally measured the factors influencing the implementation of a single, specific

health promotion program. It is unknown whether the demographic characteristics of

teachers influences their use of social and emotional wellbeing programs in real-world

practice, across a range of SEW programs rather than a single program. Thus, it is

necessary to identify whether teachers’ demographic characteristics are important in

this context.

3.4.5.2 The social and emotional wellbeing of students Teachers’ perceptions of students’ social and emotional wellbeing issues in the

classroom may be likely to influence their use of programs that address such issues.

For example, Kallestad and Olweus (2003) found that the perceived level of bullying

problems was associated with the implementation of a bullying prevention program,

with teachers who perceived more bullying problems in their own classroom reporting

higher scores on program implementation. Little evidence is available because the

studies included in the literature review rarely focused on issues related to social and

emotional wellbeing and therefore the inclusion of student behaviour has been limited.

This factor was examined as a potential influence on primary teachers’ use of SEW

programs in this study.

3.4.6 Summary The measurement of the breadth of social and emotional wellbeing programs used by

primary school teachers under real-world conditions will provide new insights into

whether the programs developed for use in schools are reaching classroom teachers

56

and actually being used. Studies in educational research have shown that the

implementation of school programs is influenced by the interaction of the program with

its organisational context (MacDonald and Green, 2001). The social-ecological

framework guiding the organisation and presentation of factors reflects the multi-

dimensional and multi-level context in which schools operate. The selection of factors

for the current study seeks to investigate the extent to which social and emotional

wellbeing is promoted through the school environment and broader community and

whether this influences teachers’ use of SEW programs in the classroom. Han and

Weiss (2005) suggest that the immediate school context is directly involved in the

facilitation (or imposition) of program implementation. The current study will examine

whether these contextual factors (presented on the following page, according to social-

ecological level) influence primary teachers’ use of SEW programs under real-world

conditions.

List of Factors to be examined as potential influences of primary teachers’ use of social

and emotional wellbeing programs:

Community • Parent or Caregiver involvement at school

School District

• Adequacy of funding to address the issue of social and emotional wellbeing

School

• School socio-economic status • Advocates for the issue of social and emotional wellbeing at school • School environment (including staff communication and collaboration • School social and emotional wellbeing-related policy • Professional development

Classroom

• Encouraging parent or caregiver involvement in school work at home • The social and emotional wellbeing-related topics and skills covered

in class • Frequency of students’ on-going social and emotional issues in class

Individual • Characteristics of Primary Classroom Teachers • The social and emotional wellbeing of students (Primary Classroom

Teachers’ perceptions)

57

Chapter 4: Methods

This chapter outlines the selection and development of measures to examine primary

classroom teachers’ use of SEW programs and the factors influencing program use. In

addition, it documents the procedures used to examine measurement quality, outlines

the study design employed, recruitment strategies and methods of data analysis.

4.1 Measurement selection and development A detailed description of the social and emotional wellbeing (SEW) survey and the

methods used during its construction are outlined in this section.

The survey was designed to examine:

1. Primary Classroom Teachers’ use of SEW programs; and

2. Factors of potential influence on Primary Classroom Teachers’ use of SEW

programs.

The SEW survey (provided in Appendix 4.1) contains a combination of newly

developed, modified and established questions and is divided into three sections:

1. An audit of SEW practices;

2. Checklist of SEW programs; and

3. Staff needs in implementing SEW programs4

.

The order in which the survey is described here does not correspond to the actual order

of the survey. The checklist of SEW programs is described first. This is followed by a

description of indexes and items that form the audit of SEW practices. The description

and construction of measures is presented here to map to the research questions

outlined in Chapter One.

4 Note that the majority of this section of the survey was divided into two parts: SEW program users

completed Part H whilst non-users completed Part I.

58

4.1.1 Primary Classroom Teachers’ use of social and emotional wellbeing programs

The checklist of SEW programs was developed to address research question one. A

description of the checklist is provided in this section, followed by the process used

during its development.

4.1.1.1 Description and scoring of the checklist of social and emotional wellbeing programs

The checklist is a self-report measure designed to ascertain the number and types of

SEW programs used by primary classroom teachers. It contains 43 SEW programs

that focus on student issues associated with social and emotional wellbeing. The

checklist covers the following broad topic areas:

• Bullying (4 programs);

• Social relations (12 programs);

• Self-esteem (5 programs);

• Positive thinking (1 program);

• Tolerance (2 programs);

• Aggression or violence (8 programs);

• Anxiousness (4 programs);

• Depression (1 program);

• Grief and loss (2 programs);

• Parenting and family issues (includes student-oriented and/or family-

oriented programs; 3 programs); and

• Multiple issues (includes programs containing components that cover

more than one listed topic area: 1 program).

59

Teachers were asked the following questions about each program:

1. Did you use the program during 2005?

If yes, then also:

2. How much of the program did you use (the whole program or part of the

program)?

The checklist also contained space for teachers to add programs that were not already

listed. Teachers’ program use status was determined by whether or not a teacher

reported using a SEW program during 2005, with use of any program constituting

‘program use’. Program use (versus non-use) status was defined as the outcome

variable in this study.

Measurement of the extent to which a program was used (i.e. How much of the

program did you use – the whole program or part of the program?) was intended to

provide a glimpse of one aspect of the extent to which primary classroom teacher’s use

SEW programs under real-world conditions and does not attempt to provide a

comprehensive measurement of program fidelity. Ideally, program fidelity would be

measured separately for each SEW program as a follow-up to the assessment of

teachers’ program use. Thus a comprehensive assessment of program fidelity does not

fit with the broad approach taken in this study whereby more than 40 SEW programs

are examined at the one time.

4.1.1.2 Construction of the checklist of social and emotional wellbeing programs

The checklist of SEW programs was developed through database searches, internet

searches and personal communication with professionals working in the mental health

promotion or social and emotional wellbeing field. Although a wide range of programs

was identified, not all were suitable to include in the checklist. A set of three criteria

were established to ascertain the relevance of the programs for the current study prior

to their inclusion. Programs needed to meet each of following criteria to be included:

1. Program targeted the issue of social and/or emotional wellbeing;

2. Program was developed or adapted for use in Australian Primary Schools; and

60

3. Program was based on the principles of prevention and/or early intervention (i.e.

not a treatment-based program).

The 43 programs included in the checklist were not considered or presented as an

exhaustive list. The purpose was to ‘jog the memory’ of participants, with extra space

provided for teachers to include additional SEW programs that they used in the

classroom.

The programs were grouped within general health-related topic areas (outlined in

Section 4.1.1.1), according to the topic the program covered. The written aim of the

program was consulted when programs could be categorised within more than one

topic area. While this occurred in some instances, most programs were easily

categorised within one particular topic area. Programs specifically designed to target

multiple health-related topic areas were grouped within a ‘multiple topics’ category.

4.1.2 Factors influencing Primary Classroom Teachers’ use of social and emotional wellbeing programs

The factors influencing primary teachers’ use of SEW programs were predominantly

drawn from Section One of the survey. Staff communication and collaboration and

some brief descriptive questions related to professional development were included

from Section Three of the survey. However conceptually, all of these factors are part of

the audit of SEW practices, even though some are located in Section Three. Thus, they

are described below.

4.1.2.1 Description and scoring of the audit of social and emotional wellbeing practices

The description and scoring of the audit is organised according to the social-ecological

framework rather than in the sequence of the survey. The location of items is provided

for each factor. These factors represent the explanatory variables for teachers’ use of

SEW programs.

61

Community influences

Parent or caregiver involvement at school

: was measured by 2 teacher-report items

about the extent to which parents or caregivers were involved in school and classroom

activities. Items were measured on a 5-point likert scale (1=never to 5=always), and

are located in Part E of Section One (questions 1b and 1c).

School influences

School wellbeing-related policy

: was measured by classroom teachers’ awareness of

formal written wellbeing-related policies and the extent to which they were put into

practice at school. Teachers’ awareness of school wellbeing-related policies was

measured by 8 dichotomous items, for example child protection policy, anti-bullying

policy and safe schools policy. Teachers’ perceptions of how well these policies were

put into practice at school was measured on a 5-point likert scale (1=very poor to

5=very good). These factors are located in Part B, Section One, (question 1i and 1ii).

Professional development

: was measured in Part C of Section One (question 2, part ii)

and asked teachers whether they received professional development for addressing

students’ social and emotional wellbeing from school staff. Additional space was

provided for teachers to include other persons from whom they received professional

development. These items were measured dichotomously.

Additional questions about professional development were included from the survey to

provide a summary of SEW program users’ professional development practices. Since

these factors were specific to program users only, they could not be examined as

factors influencing teachers’ program use versus non-use in the current study. Items

that were used to generate the descriptive summary include the types of professional

development that SEW program users received, for example, in-service, workshop or

seminar, or conference. These items were measured dichotomously. Whether

attendance at professional development was compulsory or voluntary was measured

dichotomously and two items were used to measure the number of hours of

professional development attended during the year, with the number of hours of

compulsory and voluntary professional development measured continuously. The items

62

used to describe SEW program users’ professional development are located in Part H,

Section Three (questions 3 and 4).

Advocates for social and emotional wellbeing at school

: was measured by 1

dichotomous item to establish whether teachers identified themselves as key advocates

for students’ social and emotional wellbeing. This question is located in Part F of

Section One (question 4).

School environment

: was measured as the schools’ physical and social environment.

The physical environment was measured by 4 items on a 5-point likert scale (1=never

to 5=always). These items measured the extent to which school buildings are

maintained, adequacy of equipment, lighting and ventilation and beautification of the

physical school environment. This index is located in Part F of Section One (questions

1a to 1d). The social environment was designed to broadly capture the extent to which

social and emotional wellbeing is promoted within the social environment. This factor

was measured using a 20-item index on a 5-point likert scale (1=never to 5=always).

Items on the schools’ social environment are located in Part F of Section One

(questions 1e to 1x).

Part J in Section Three (questions 1 and 2) contains 4 scales measuring different

aspects of the school climate relating to staff communication and collaboration. Three

scales in the School Climate Survey (Kallestad, Olweus and Alsaker, 1998) were

measured and minor modifications were made to adjust the wording for use in the

current study. The Teacher-Leadership Collaboration scale was referred to as the

Teacher-to-Administrator Collaboration scale in the SEW survey after informal feedback

from teachers that ‘Administrator’ was clearer in defining collaboration between

teachers and administration than using the term ‘Leadership’. The scale contains 5

items measured on a 6-point likert scale (1=seldom or never to 6=very often). Two of

the items are, ‘The collaboration between the teachers and the administration is

generally good’ and ‘The administration is generally positive towards teachers’

suggestions for changes in the school’. The Teacher-to-Teacher Collaboration scale

also contains 5 items on a 6-point likert scale (1=seldom or never to 6=very often). This

63

scale focuses specifically on horizontal collaboration between teachers. It contains

items such as ‘I like the collegial atmosphere at this school’ and ‘Teachers at this school

are helpful towards each other’. The Openness in Communication scale contains 4

items including ‘I discuss with other teachers at school how I work with my students’

and ‘The teachers at this school collaborate with regards to working and teaching

methods’. Items are measured on a 6-point likert scale (1=seldom or never to 6=very

often). For the 3 scales, high total scores indicate more positive collaboration and

communication amongst staff. Cronbach’s alpha ranged from 0.80 to 0.88 and

reliabilities of 0.63 to 0.80 are reported (Kallestad, Olweus and Alsaker, 1998). Finally,

one subscale of the Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ; Downs and

Hazen, 1977) measured satisfaction with relations between staff and administration

(known as the Relation with Supervisor scale). In this study, Supervisor was

substituted for Principal, again on advice from teachers. This scale contains 5 items

and is measured on a 7-point scale (1=very dissatisfied to 7=very satisfied). Items

include ‘The Principal listens and pays attention to me’ and ‘The Principal offers

guidance for solving job-related problems’. Scores are summed with high total scores

indicating a higher rate of satisfaction with the Principal. The CSQ has a reliability of

0.94 overall, and ranges from 0.75 to 0.86 for individual scales.

Classroom influences

Frequency of on-going student problems

: was measured by 10 items about the

frequency of social and emotional issues of students in the class such as bullying,

disruptive behaviour, self harm and neglect. Items were measured on a 5-point likert

scale (1=never to 5=always) and are located in Part C of Section One (question 1).

Wellbeing-related topics and skills covered in class: the wellbeing-related topics

covered in class was measured by 15 dichotomous items that asked teachers whether

they covered topic areas such as friendships, personal identity and respect for self and

others with students in class. The wellbeing-related skills practised with students was

measured by 16 dichotomous items that asked teachers whether they practiced skills

such as assertiveness, decision making, help seeking and developing social

relationships with students in class. The topics and skills covered and practised in

class are located in Part D of Section One (question 1).

64

Encouraging parental or caregiver involvement in school work at home

: measured the

extent to which teachers used activities that involve parents or caregivers in students’

homework. This one item was measured on a 5-point likert scale (1=never to

5=always) and is located in Part E of Section One (question 1a).

Individual influences

Characteristics of primary classroom teachers

: included items about teachers’ gender,

age, qualifications, employment status, year level/s taught and years of experience in

schools. Teachers’ age was measured categorically in 5 groups (1=21-30 years to

5=61 or more years). Qualifications was also measured categorically in 5 groups

(1=Diploma to 5=Doctor of Philosophy). Year level/s taught was measured

continuously whilst employment status was measured dichotomously as either full-time

or part-time/casual. Years working in current school and years working in schools

altogether were both measured continuously. These items are located in Part A of

Section One.

The social and emotional wellbeing of students

: was measured by 3 items. Teachers

reported the approximate number of students in the class that they perceived tended to

show signs of: anxiousness, withdrawal, depression or grief; behavioural

inattentiveness, non-compliance or aggression; and signs of both types of behaviours.

These items were measured continuously and are located in Part A of Section One

(question 4ia to 4ic).

Two additional factors were included from the Principal/Deputy Principal survey

(provided in Appendix 4.2). At the district level, the adequacy of funding that schools

have available to address social and emotional wellbeing was measured by 1 item on a

6-point likert scale (1=extremely inadequate to 6=extremely adequate). A dichotomous

item measured whether the school had applied for additional funding to address social

and emotional wellbeing and if so, an additional item measured how successful the

school was in securing additional funds. This item was measured on a 6-point likert-

65

scale (1=never successful to 6=always successful). The funding items are located in

Part K of Section Three (questions 1 to 3; Principal/Deputy Principal survey).

At the school level, the wellbeing-related policies available

at school included 8

dichotomous items that asked Principals to report on the availability of the same (8)

wellbeing-related policies listed in the Classroom Teacher survey. These items are

located in Part B of Section One (question 1; Principal/Deputy Principal survey).

School socio-economic status

was also included in this study as a school level factor

but was not derived from primary classroom teachers in the survey. The Australian

Bureau of Statistics’ (ABS) Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage (IRSED)

data combines variables such as income, education, occupation, employment, housing

status and English fluency to provide a general index of the social and economic

resources within a defined locality (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2003). Indexed

IRSED scores from the collection district (CD) level are categorised by Education

Queensland for each school, as a measure of a schools’ socio-economic status (i.e.

schools are categorised as low, mid low, mid high or high IRSED). An electronic file

was obtained from Education Queensland containing the name of each school and their

respective IRSED category. School socio economic status was measured as one item

using the category assigned to each school by Education Queensland, although the

term IRSED was replaced with socio-economic status in this study for ease in the

interpretation of the data (i.e. 1=low SES to 4=high SES).

4.1.2.2 Construction of the audit of social and emotional wellbeing practices

Part A of the survey included the characteristics of teachers and the measurement of

(teachers’ perceptions of) students’ social and emotional wellbeing. A literature search

was undertaken to identify surveys that measured students’ social and emotional

wellbeing using reports by classroom teachers. The Teacher Report Form (TRF;

Achenbach, 1991) and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman,

1997) are well-known behavioural screening measures of child behaviour, with sound

reliability and validity (Goodman and Scott, 1999). However these measures were not

considered for inclusion in this survey as they are intended for use with individual

66

children (i.e. a classroom teacher would need to fill out one survey for each student in

the class). It was not realistic or feasible to ask teachers to report on each student in

class, nor was it valid to randomly select students to report on (since this was not

consistent with the purpose of the question, i.e. to identify the total number of students

with behavioural and/or emotional issues in the class). Furthermore, whilst the TRF is

useful as a measure of clinical problems, its use is not consistent with the prevention-

oriented programs of interest in this study. Hence, a simple nomination of the number

of students that staff perceived to have behavioural and/or emotional issues was used.

A similar method has been used in a previous study and found to produce results that

are similar to other longer, more detailed surveys with respect to the number of

students identified (Dwyer, 2002).

Parts B to F of the audit of social and emotional wellbeing practices

Parts B to F of the survey were designed as an audit of social and emotional wellbeing

practices in schools. These sections asked staff to report on a number of issues related

to the promotion of social and emotional wellbeing in the class and/or school and

covered a wide range of classroom and broader school environment issues. Health

and education databases and the internet were searched to locate surveys that

measured health and wellbeing practices in schools. Health promotion professionals

were contacted via mental health and health promotion electronic mail distribution lists

to assist in the identification of measures. Instruments were inspected for relevance to

the project and those that appeared to be most relevant (i.e. they were modifiable to the

context of social and emotional wellbeing) were retained for further assessment (list

provided in Appendix 4.3).

While the MM audit (Commonwealth of Australia, 2000) was identified as the measure

most relevant for this study, closer inspection of the questions revealed a couple of

reasons precluding it from being used in its entirety. Firstly, the MM audit

(Commonwealth of Australia, 2000) had been developed for use with secondary rather

than primary schools. Developmentally, some questions in the audit were not relevant

in the primary school context. Conversely, this also meant that some questions that

may be more relevant to the primary school context may not have been included in the

MM audit (Commonwealth of Australia, 2000). Second, the MM audit (Commonwealth

67

of Australia, 2000) was designed as a tool to identify strengths and weaknesses of

current practices and thus assist in planning and prioritising areas for future action with

respect to mental health and wellbeing. The MM audit (Commonwealth of Australia,

2000) is designed to encourage deep reflection and includes sections where

participants are asked to list and prioritise areas for future action. Although useful in the

context of the MindMatters project, listing priority areas was not consistent with the

purpose of the current study. However, the audit contained a variety of questions

applicable for the current study and a structure that was consistent with the social-

ecological framework and the examination of contextual factors relevant to social and

emotional wellbeing. Thus, it was determined as the most applicable audit for the

current study and was used as the foundation for the audit of SEW practices.

Additional surveys listed in Appendix 4.3 comprised questions measuring some aspects

of social and emotional wellbeing. Five of these surveys in particular contained several

questions that were potentially relevant or that could potentially be modified for use in

the current study (in addition to the MM audit).

The surveys were mapped against the National Healthy Schools Standard (NHSS)5

• Leadership management and managing change;

Framework (see Appendix 4.4 for an example) which outlines the following specific

areas to be targeted in the development of a Healthy School in Great Britain:

• Health policy development;

• Curriculum, planning and resourcing;

• Teaching and learning;

• School culture and environment;

• Giving students a voice;

• Student support;

5 The National Healthy Schools Standard (NHSS) is a national standards framework guiding the work of

local partnerships in health and education, to address specific areas of activity (including emotional health

and wellbeing) within schools in Great Britain.

68

• Staff professional development; and

• Partnerships with parents and local communities.

This mapping exercise ascertained that collectively, the surveys were considered to

provide a comprehensive collection of measures since they covered the areas identified

above. Using the MM audit (Commonwealth of Australia, 2000) as a foundation and

guiding structure, the potentially relevant questions were collated and categorised

according to the domains most commonly measured across the surveys:

• Health policy;

• Curriculum, teaching and learning;

• Personal skills;

• Partnerships and services; and

• School environment.

Following the categorisation process, duplicate items were identified and excluded.

Preference was given to items cited in the MM audit (Commonwealth of Australia, 2000)

since they required the least modification for use. Further inspection of the items

revealed that three main types of questions were asked:

1. What is provided?

2. How much is provided?

3. What is the quality of provision?

Filtering of questions was undertaken to exclude those asking about the quality of

practices. These questions represent an additional area of investigation that was

beyond the scope of this study. Additionally, considerations about the length of the

audit meant that it was not feasible to include items across all three types of questions.

The final version of the audit of social and emotional wellbeing practices in schools

contained questions and modified items from the first three surveys listed in Appendix

4.3 (in addition to questions newly developed by the candidate). Permission was

granted for use of the measures during the survey construction phase.

69

Items related to school funding for social and emotional wellbeing (located in the

Principal/Deputy Principal survey), were developed in addition to the audit of social and

emotional wellbeing practices. Since no validated measures were available to

investigate resource adequacy in this context, these measures were developed based

on single items identified from the literature as potential influences on teachers’

implementation of health promotion programs in schools.

4.2 Measurement Quality A range of methods are commonly employed to establish the reliability and validity of

newly developed or modified survey items. In general, validity refers to whether an item

measures the construct it is supposed to measure (i.e. how representative is the item of

the construct being measured?). Quantitative and qualitative survey methods were

employed to assess the reproducibility and validity of survey items in this study. A

triangulation of methods was used to draw upon the strengths of both approaches since

a quantitative survey limits the responder to providing feedback on what the developer

views as important, while a qualitative survey could appear to be more time consuming

to the responder. Items included in the survey were based on those identified in the

literature as important in the assessment of face and content validity.

4.2.1 Identification and review of psychometric tests Psychometric assessment was undertaken on new and substantially modified survey

items. Although a wide range of tests and methods are employed to validate measures

across disciplines, the types of tests commonly conducted in public health are:

• Reproducibility (also known as test re-test reliability) and internal consistency;

and

• Criterion referenced, construct, content and face validity.

For the SEW survey, it was possible to assess reproducibility and both face and content

validity for all newly developed and modified items. In comparison, internal consistency

was not measured for items in the audit of SEW practices because they formed indexes

rather than scales. Concurrent and convergent validity could be assessed in only some

items while predictive and discriminant validity could not be assessed for any of the

70

items. Two questions were developed to narrow the selection of tests to be undertaken

on the SEW survey:

1. Which types of reliability and validity testing could be measured across all or

most questions?

2. Which types of reliability and validity testing would require minimal participant

burden?

Of all the reliability and validity tests listed above, reproducibility, face validity and

content validity were selected as appropriate validation measures for this study as they

could be tested across all items and testing would not require a large burden on

participants. Table 4.1 provides a summary of the sections of the SEW survey tested

and summarises the types of testing undertaken.

71

Table 4.1: Types of validity and reliability measured in the social and emotional wellbeing survey

VAL a REL a

Part Name of the section Factor FV b c CV b c RP b c SECTION ONE

A Work role and student characteristics

Teacher characteristics

Students’ social and emotional wellbeing

B School health policy and practice

Awareness of wellbeing-related policy

Extent to which policy is put into practice

C Support at school Frequency of students’ on-going social and emotional issues in class

Whether professional development is received for addressing students’ social and emotional issues

D Topics and skills covered

Wellbeing-related topics covered

Wellbeing-related skills practiced

E Parent or Caregiver involvement

Teachers’ use of activities to encourage home involvement

Parents’ or caregivers’ involvement in class activities

Parents or caregivers involvement in school activities

F Physical and social environment

Physical environment at school

Social environment at school

Teachers’ self-identification as an advocate for social and emotional wellbeing

SECTION TWO G Use of social and

emotional wellbeing programs

Anti-bullying

Social relations

Self-esteem

Positive thinking

Tolerance

Aggression or violence prevention

Anxiousness prevention

Depression prevention

Grief or loss management

Parenting and family skills

Multiple issues

SECTION THREE H Teaching social

and emotional wellbeing programs

Types of professional development attended

Hours of professional development undertaken

a VAL: Validity, REL: Reliability. b FV: face validity, CV: content validity, RP: reproducibility. c denotes tests undertaken.

72

4.2.1.1 Face and content validation of the social and emotional wellbeing survey

Face Validity

: The assessment of face validity refers to whether a measure appears on

the face of it, to measure the concept it is intended to measure (Redsell et al., 2004;

Beanland et al., 2000). Some debate exists surrounding the usefulness of the face

validity assessment. “It is not validity in the technical sense, it refers not to what the

test actually measures, but to what is appears superficially to measure. It is a

quantification of opinion” (Anastasi, 1988: 144). Face validity assessments have

received some negative attention and this may be due in part, to its more subjective

nature than other validation methods. Bornstein (1996) commented on the decline in

emphasis placed on face validity in the American Psychological Association’s Technical

Recommendations for Psychological Tests and Diagnostic Techniques (American

Psychological Association, 1954) over the past few decades, noting that subsequent

versions only briefly discuss this issue. However face validation provides a valuable

technique that can be applied during the early stages of measurement development.

Despite this, further debate ensues about who should be involved in an assessment of

face validity. Some researchers believe that the face validation has importance when

based on an intuitive judgement by experts (Johnson et al., 1999; Stevens et al., 1993).

Alternatively, others believe that the assessment should be undertaken by participants

in the population of interest (Anastasi, 1988; Davis, 1964).

Experts are aware of survey design issues that may not be apparent to the lay person

and this can prove beneficial to the designer. However it is equally important that the

designer does not misrepresent themself or the target population as this could impact

negatively on the responses received from the target audience. Hence, obtaining

feedback from the target audience will reduce the potential of this occurrence whilst

providing some indication of receptivity to the survey. Although disagreement exists

about some issues related to the measurement of face validity, there is agreement that

it acts as a moderating variable that may influence other forms of validity (Bornstein,

1996). Thus, face validity may play an important role in the development of new

measures however it should be used in conjunction with other validation methods.

73

Content validity

: Content validity is broadly defined as the extent to which the concepts

of interest are accurately represented by the corresponding items in a survey (or other

measure; McKenzie et al., 1999). It is seen as a critical step in the formation of a new

measure and is most often undertaken by a panel of experts who should be able to

judge whether or not the survey adequately samples the known content (Schoen,

2004). Both quantitative and qualitative assessments of content validity are common

and focus on reaching agreement about the constructs under examination. A set

criteria is not available to determine whether an instrument has content validity (Beck,

1999). Rather, it is based on judgements made by the experts about the adequacy of

the content in reflecting or representing all its dimensions. Feedback received from

experts is subjective and hence, reviewer comments may be subject to bias

(McGartland et al, 2003). Nevertheless, content validation can provide valuable

information about the structure of newly developed or modified measures. However, it

should be viewed as an initial form of validity testing and other forms of validation

should be undertaken where possible.

4.2.2 Recruitment of expert review panellists Two expert review panels were recruited and each panel reviewed one section of the

survey. Table 4.2 outlines the main areas of expertise of the participants in each panel

and the measures that each panel was assigned to review.

Table 4.2: Expert review panels and corresponding survey sections reviewed

Panel Participants Area of Expertise Measures 1 Researchers and health

promotion officers across

Australia

The promotion and

prevention of mental

health and wellbeing in

Australian schools

Audit of SEW

practices

2 Guidance Officers (GO’s) in

Queensland State Primary

Schools

Providing guidance and

counselling to primary

school students

Checklist of

SEW programs

74

4.2.2.1 Expert Review Panel One: Mental Health Promotion in Schools Potential panellists were identified through journal articles and internet searches.

Invitations were electronically mailed to six health promotion professionals. Potential

participants were invited to suggest colleagues who may also like to be involved in the

process. To be eligible to participate in the panel, participants required expert

knowledge of health promotion in the school setting including experience in the area of

mental health/social and emotional wellbeing. This panel was restricted to experts

working within Australia as participants were required to critique survey items from the

perspective of Australian schools. In total, eight participants were involved in this panel.

Five of the six participants originally invited agreed to participate. One panelist was

unable to participate due to other work commitments. A further three participants were

recruited by the participating experts themselves.

4.2.2.2 Expert Review Panel Two: Primary Guidance Officers Approval was sought and granted from the Executive of the Queensland Guidance and

Counselling Association (QGCA) to invite GO’s within South-East Queensland State

Primary Schools to be involved in the second expert review panel (QGCA is the

professional body representing Guidance Counsellors employed in all levels of the

Queensland school education system). An invitation was forwarded by the QGCA

Executive to the GO’s via their QGCA email list (approximately 90 per cent of GO’s in

Queensland are members of the QGCA and all members subscribe to the email list;

Campbell, 2005). All GO’s working in Queensland primary schools were eligible to

participate except GO’s working in the districts that were to be targeted for recruitment

in the main study. Eight GO’s self-selected to be involved in the expert review panel

however seven were eligible to participate since one GO was employed in a secondary

school and was therefore ineligible to participate (since primary versus secondary

school SEW programs differ and secondary school teachers may not have been

exposed to primary school SEW programs). Of the seven participants, four returned

completed expert review materials.

75

4.2.3 Description of the validation survey A brief, 13-item self-report measure was constructed to examine the face and content

validity of the items. Five questions asked participants about face validity (for example,

generally, do the items in the survey reflect behavioural and emotional wellbeing issues

and was the layout and format clear?) and six questions asked participants about its

content validity. Additional questions asked participants about the length of time to

complete the survey and to identify areas for improvement. Two versions of the

validation survey were developed, one for each expert review panel (located in

Appendix 4.5). While the essence of the questions remained the same for each

version, the questions about the content validity changed to reflect differences in the

section of the survey being reviewed by the experts. An additional four demographic

questions were included to describe participant characteristics.

4.2.4 Construction of the validation survey A literature review was undertaken to identify potential face and content validity

measures that could be used or adapted for the expert review panel. Commonly cited

issues assessed for face validity include:

• whether the survey appears to measure what it is supposed to measure;

• identification of misleading or ambiguous questions;

• comments on the survey layout;

• clarity of writing style; and

• ease of survey completion.

(Lemerle, 2004)

These issues were incorporated into the design of the validation survey. Further

searching was undertaken to identify the most common approaches used to assess

content validity. A wide range of techniques have been adopted to measure the content

validity of surveys including both quantitative and qualitative approaches (for example,

the content validity index and Delphi technique). A combination of both quantitative and

qualitative methods was used due to the small sample of experts and because the use

of qualitative data provides rich feedback mechanisms that quantitative data alone does

76

not provide. The content validity questions were written to focus on the

representativeness of the items in relation to the factor being measured. Surveys were

brief to minimise participant burden.

4.2.5 Procedure for conducting expert review panels Each expert who agreed to participate in the panel was posted a package that

contained:

• Study details and instructions;

• The relevant section of the survey; and

• The corresponding validation survey.

Participants were asked to return the completed validation survey within 3 weeks. Two

reminders were sent to non-responders. The first was sent on the due date and a

follow-up reminder was sent one week later. Personalised, hand written thank you

notes were posted to all participants on the return of the materials.

After the return of the validation surveys, comments and suggestions from reviewers

were compiled from the two sections of the survey and further refinement of the

questions was undertaken based on reviewers’ feedback. Following this, a

convenience sample of eight participants (all who had previous teaching experience

and seven who were currently teaching in schools) agreed to provide informal feedback

about the face validity of the survey. These participants were independent of the study

and included a Principal, Deputy Principal, GO, classroom teachers and a lecturer in

the Faculty of Education at the Queensland University of Technology (QUT). This

feedback was solicited to ensure that the survey was worded correctly for educators

and used the appropriate language where necessary. Some minor modifications were

made to change the wording of questions that were ambiguous.

77

4.2.6 Data management and presentation of validation findings The distribution and return of the validation surveys was managed using Microsoft

Excel. This enabled participant returns to be tracked including the distribution of

personalised reminder letters and thank you notes. Formal analysis of the validation

surveys was not undertaken. Instead, feedback was compiled for each question and

incorporated into the survey. Key findings are presented in a narrative format to

summarise the main issues raised through the face and content validation process at

the beginning of Chapters Five and Six.

4.3 Pathways to Positive Student Wellbeing Study in Primary Schools

Following development and validation, the SEW survey was disseminated to

participating staff in State Primary Schools within the Brisbane and Sunshine Coast

Education Districts. A cross-sectional design was employed to investigate primary

classroom teachers’ use of SEW programs and the factors influencing program use

under real-world conditions. The study was conducted during Terms Three and Four,

2005.

4.3.1 Sampling frame Regions and education districts are geographical boundaries that are pre-defined by

Education Queensland. Schools in Queensland are divided into ten education regions

comprising twenty-six education districts. Education regions vary in the number of state

primary schools included within them, with a range of 82 to 159 schools per region.

There are 1027 state primary schools within Queensland and this study involved

schools in close proximity to the Queensland University of Technology and the

candidates’ place of residence at the time of the study.

The results of this study represent a convenience sample of schools from two education

districts within one education region of Queensland. Two districts in South East

Queensland were selected for this study to ensure an adequate sample of schools

would be reached. No more than two districts were considered for inclusion as this

78

would overtax the finite resources available in conducting the study. The specific

districts selected were in a locality quite close to the candidates’ place of residence

which enabled more frequent access to schools. This purposive sampling strategy is a

non-random method that does not give each district in Queensland equal chance of

being involved in the study, therefore limiting the representativeness of the sample.

However it enabled maximum contact with schools during the recruitment and data

collection phases which helped to establish relationships with key administrative staff

and garner support for the study. Furthermore, it helped to minimise travel expenses

incurred within a restricted budget.

4.3.2 Recruitment process

4.3.2.1 School Recruitment Figure 4.1 presents an overview of the school (and participant) recruitment process. All

state primary schools situated in two pre-determined education districts within one

region of South-East Queensland were invited to participate in the study. Ethical

clearance was obtained from Education Queensland and the Queensland University of

Technology to conduct the study prior to the recruitment of schools and teachers. Entry

into the study was based on a self-selection process and all schools that expressed

interest in being involved in the study were included. A two-stage recruitment process

was employed to ensure an adequate sample of schools was involved based on pre-

study sample size estimates. Recruitment was aimed at ten primary schools so that the

candidate maintained the logistical capacity to visit all schools on a regular basis during

the data collection process. Calculations of precision were undertaken to estimate the

most desirable sample size of teachers. With a sample of 162 teachers, it would be

possible to detect differences in the proportions of program use of 20% or greater with

90% power and a type I error of 5% (two-tailed). An inflation factor of 3.22 was

calculated based upon the assumption of 60% response rate, adjustment for multi-

variable modelling and the clustering of teachers within schools (estimated inflation

factor = 3.22).

79

Figure 4.1: Study Recruitment and Data Collection Process

GO approaches Principal about study participation

Send welcome letter to Principal

Fax participant agreement form to Principal 3 days

after letter is sent

Contact SGO’s (n=3)

Mail info package to Principals (n=59)

Interested GO’s contact study team YES (n=6)

Contact Principal to ascertain correct procedures and contacts for securing a 5 minute timeslot to present the study information at a staff meeting

Deliver surveys

NO

Principal willing to participate

NO (n=2)

YES (n=4)

Telephone Principal on behalf of GO

YES (n=12)

NO

Present at staff meeting

Collect surveys

Reminder/thank you

Deliver reproducibility surveys

Collect reproducibility surveys

Fax Principals a brief, personalised study information

sheet and invitation

Telephone Principals to discuss the study, its

requirements and ascertain interest in participating

(n=26 District A Principals)

Random selection of school district to target first

District A District B

Send study info to SGO’s for distribution to GO’s (approx. n=60)

Info distributed to GO’s via mail or meeting

Reminder/thank you for reproducibility surveys

80

During stage one of the recruitment process, information about the study was mailed

electronically to the Senior Guidance Officers (SGO’s) located in the two targeted

Education Queensland districts, through the Queensland Guidance and Counselling

Association (QGCA). Senior Guidance Officers were telephoned as a follow-up, in

order to discuss the details of the study and to ascertain their willingness to assist in

disseminating the study information to all eligible GO’s within their districts (note that

eligible GO’s were those teaching in state primary schools).

Study information was to be disseminated through the Education Queensland internal

mail system (via the SGO’s) to all GO’s in the two districts. This procedure was

undertaken as planned in District A, however in District B, information was

disseminated (by SGO’s) to GO’s at a monthly district office meeting (rather than

through the internal mail system as planned). Agreement on the method of information

dissemination was not achieved for several reasons including timing, availability of

SGO’s and different underlying working styles of SGO’s in District B.

Upon receipt of the study information, interested GO’s were invited to contact the study

candidate for further details or with questions regarding involvement in the study. Six

GO’s responded positively to the invitation about having one of the schools they worked

across participate in the study. A study information package and covering letter were

sent to the Principals of the six schools. Most GO’s organised to discuss participation

in the study directly with the Principal and the candidate made follow-up calls to the

Principal to discuss further details of the study, projected timeline and to ascertain their

interest in being involved in the study. All six Principals agreed to participate in the

study during the first telephone call and following this, a date was set to present the

study at a staff meeting. One staff member was selected to be the key person for

communication transfer and the relationship with this person was established at the

outset of the project (either the Principal or the GO). This person agreed to be the

‘face’ of the project, remind staff about returning the survey and field questions about

the study if asked (staff could also contact the candidate for further information).

Formal agreement of schools to participate in the study was established once Principals

returned a signed Participant Agreement Form (copy provided in Appendix 4.6).

81

To meet the target of ten schools, a second recruitment round focused on the direct

recruitment of the School Principal by the candidate. Principals within the two targeted

Education Districts were faxed a handwritten covering note, personally addressed, and

a one page summary of the study which had been generated for each school. In the

covering note, Principals were advised that they would receive a study information

package in the next one to two days and a follow-up telephone call during the next

week to discuss their interest in the study. The information about the study was

personalised for each school to make an impact, create interest and potentially increase

participation. District A schools were randomly selected to be targeted first using the

stage two recruitment process. Whilst targeting both districts simultaneously would

have been ideal, this was beyond the candidates’ resources due to the number of

schools to be contacted concurrently. Each of the Principals in the first district

randomly selected and who had not already agreed to be involved were telephoned one

week after the study information and personalised summary had been distributed.

While it was anticipated that few Principals would agree to participate in the study

immediately, six Principals in District A agreed to participate in the study. Thus, 12

schools in total had agreed to participate prior to telephoning District B. Given the

limited resources available to conduct the study (in terms of both finances and

personnel), it was not practical to invite Principals from District B to be involved since

the maximum number of schools had been reached (within the resource allowance). In

the future, a random sample containing 50 per cent of schools from Districts A and B

could be obtained rather than randomly selecting one district to be targeted first. In

total, 12 schools were recruited to participate in the study (stage one recruitment: five

schools from District A and one school from District B, stage two recruitment: six

schools from District A). The disproportionate number of schools recruited from District

A is most likely due to the recruitment process.

The selection bias evident in stage two of the recruitment process meant that District B

schools were not given equal chance of participating in the study, compared to District

A schools. Furthermore, the schools involved in the study are likely to be more highly

motivated than non-participating schools since schools self-selected to be involved.

Therefore, the results may reflect the opinions of more highly motivated schools than

those less motivated toward the issue of social and emotional wellbeing.

82

4.3.2.2 Participant Recruitment Presentations were made at participating schools during a staff meeting early in Term

Three, 2005, summarising the study aims, importance and benefits of participation and

involvement required. Following the staff meeting, consent forms were distributed to

staff (consent form provided in Appendix 4.7). Completed forms were handed to the

nominated staff member (usually the GO or Principal) at the close of the staff meeting

and these were posted back to the candidate at the Queensland University of

Technology (QUT). A sealed box (with one slit in the top only) was also situated next to

staff mail boxes at each school for staff who were absent on the day of the presentation

to return their consent forms. Due to the ethical requirements of Education

Queensland, school staff had to complete and return a consent form to QUT before

they were sent the survey, in an ‘opt-in’ rather than an ‘opt-out’ method. It is possible

that this requirement may have reduced the potential participant pool when compared

to ‘opt-out’ methods.

Methods used to increase participation and response rates were undertaken according

to prescribed protocols in Dillman (2000) and protocols were uniform across all schools.

In order to increase participation rates, posters and other advertising materials were

placed on staff room lunch tables and notice boards (including spare copies of consent

forms and study information brochures) in the week following the presentation to school

staff. Placing materials in the lunch room served as a reminder to those who had

intended on signing a consent form but not yet done so and another avenue to reach

staff who did not attend the staff meeting due to sickness or other commitments. All

staff who signed and returned a consent form were sent a SEW survey. Whilst a range

of school staff were involved in completing surveys in this study, the results presented

in the following chapters represent data derived from primary classroom teachers (in

addition to Principal/Deputy Principal reports where required), unless stated otherwise.

4.3.3 Survey Distribution Each participating staff member was assigned an identification code which was linked

to a database following the return of a consent form. Surveys were hand-delivered by

the candidate to staff mail boxes at the schools. Each survey package included a letter,

83

brief study information, a reply-paid envelope and the survey. In order to increase

response rates, each letter was personalised (i.e. participant names were hand written),

letters were personally signed, a chocolate incentive was stapled to each survey, and a

stamp was placed on the envelope rather than a generic postage paid imprint (for

mailed replacement surveys). These methods are considered to increase participation

rates (e.g. Dillman, 2000). As a further incentive to return the surveys, advertisements

were placed in all twelve staff rooms for a competition. All staff who returned their

survey on time were entered into the draw to win two adult movie tickets and

chocolates. There were twelve prizes, one per school. This was approved by the

Education Queensland and QUT ethics committees.

Within two weeks of receiving a survey, all participating staff received homemade rocky

road as a gesture of thanks (and as an indirect prompt to staff who had not already

returned their survey). The rocky road was wrapped and had a brightly-coloured,

personalised note attached (refer to Appendix 4.8 for rocky road recipe). A second

personalised reminder was delivered to the mail boxes of staff who had not returned

their survey two weeks after the rocky road was distributed. On return, completed

surveys were stored securely in a locked cabinet at QUT. Access to surveys was

limited to the candidate and Principal Supervisor.

4.3.4 Data management

4.3.4.1 Data entry and verification Teachers’ consent forms are stored in locked cabinets separate from the surveys.

Each teacher was assigned a unique code and this code was used to identify

participants rather than teachers’ names. All completed and verified surveys were

entered into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS; version 14.0) and

are stored securely and separately from identifying participant information.

A coding book was developed for data entry and the surveys were checked for errors

and inconsistencies according to this book prior to data entry. Data were entered into

Microsoft Access once by a professional data entry company. An independent

research assistant verified all records, with a program to enable an immediate check of

84

the accuracy between the first and second verification of data entry. Hence, the

research assistant was alerted immediately to inconsistencies during the verification

process and further verification could only be continued once the inconsistency was

rectified (i.e. by referring back to the original survey).

4.3.4.2 Data cleaning procedure Following data entry and verification, a random 10% of surveys were checked by the

candidate to ensure that the verification process was accurate. Data were then

imported into SPSS (version 14.0) and the distribution of missing data, errors and

inconsistencies were identified through descriptive analyses. Two teachers had

missing data on the outcome variable, teachers’ use of SEW programs. The amount of

missing data varied for teachers’ responses on the factors influencing program use.

While in general, the amount of missing data was low (i.e. less than 10%), questions

that asked teachers to report the approximate number of students that tend to be

anxious, withdrawn, depressed or grieving and behaviourally inattentive, non-compliant

or aggressive contained more than 20% missing responses. Additionally, almost 10%

of teachers had missing data on the question that asked about the approximate number

of students that tend to be anxious, withdrawn, depressed or grieving in the class. A

total score for the number of students with social or emotional problems was not

calculated due to the amount of missing data.

4.3.5 Data analysis

4.3.5.1 Derivation of variables This section outlines the variables that were derived from those collected in the survey.

Primary classroom teachers’ use of social and emotional wellbeing programs

Coverage of topic areas: Dichotomous variables were created for teachers’ coverage of

each social and emotional wellbeing topic area (e.g. teacher used or did not use a

program in the ‘social relations’ topic area). Thus, if at least one program within a topic

area was reported as used, then a score of 1 was assigned, indicating use of that topic

85

area. The total number of topic areas covered was calculated as the sum of topic areas

covered.

School

: Part of the unique code assigned to each teacher identified the school where

the teacher was employed. An additional variable was created (school 1=1 to school

12=12) to identify the school where each teacher was employed.

Year level taught

: For the description of programs taught by year level, all teachers who

taught a single year level or a composite class of up to three year levels were included.

Teachers who taught more than three year levels were not included since it could not

be assumed that the teacher used a program across all year levels they taught,

whereas composite class teachers (who teach two or three year levels only), generally

use the same program with the two or three year levels they teach. Thus, teachers who

taught across more than three year levels were assigned missing values for year level

analyses since there were inadequate numbers to create a separate group for analysis.

Use of evidence-based programs

: Literature searches were undertaken to identify

resources in the checklist of SEW programs including those added by teachers that

were evidence-based. The following programs were identified: Stop, Think, Do

(Adderley et al., 2002); Friendly Kids Friendly Classrooms (McGrath and Francey,

1991); Playing and Learning to Socialise (PALS; Barnett, 1999); The PEACE Pack

(Slee, 1997); Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS; Greenberg et al.,

1998); Peace Builders (Embry et al., 1996); Positive Parenting Program (Triple P;

Sanders et al., 1998); Cool Kids (Lyneham and Rapee, 2003); FRIENDS (Barrett,

2004); Seasons for Growth (Graham, 1996); and the Children of Divorce Intervention

Project (CODIP; Alpert-Gillis et al., 1989). A dichotomous variable was created to

indicate whether or not teachers used an evidence-based SEW programs during 2005.

86

Potential factors influencing classroom teachers’ use of social and emotional wellbeing programs

School Influences

Socio-economic status

: A code for SES was assigned for each school from Education

Queensland derived data. Due only to the small sample of schools involved in this

study, the socio-economic status variable (school-level variable) was expanded to

generate adequate power for statistical analysis. Thus teachers in the same school

were assigned the same school SES code (i.e. low SES=1 to high SES=4).

Advocates for the issue of social and emotional wellbeing at school

: The total number of

advocates per school was calculated by summing the number of teachers who reported

being an advocate. Teachers were asked to provide evidence or examples to indicate

their role as advocate, at any level, at school. Teachers who did not provide any

evidence were not counted as advocates.

Physical environment of the school

: A total score for the school physical environment

index was calculated by summing the items. Teachers with one or more missing data

points were assigned missing values. Thus, responses ranged from 4 to 20.

Social environment

: A total score for the social environment at school index was

calculated by summing the items. Teachers with one or more missing data points were

assigned missing values. Thus, responses ranged from 20 to 100.

Staff collaboration

: Items in the Teacher-to-Teacher collaboration scale and Teacher-to-

Administration collaboration scale were summed to provide a total score for each scale

according to Kallestad, Olweus and Alsaker (1998). Total scores ranged from 5 to 30.

Staff communication: Items in the classroom teachers’ openness in communication

scale and the teacher relations with school principal scales were summed to provide a

87

total score which ranged from 4 to 24 according to Kallestad et al. (1998). Satisfaction

with relations between staff and administration (called the Relations with supervisor

scale) were summed to provide a total score according to Downs and Hazen (1977).

Total scores ranged from 5 to 35.

Formal school wellbeing policies

: The availability of formal wellbeing-related policies

was reported from the Principal/Deputy Principal survey. This was used to reconsider

teachers’ responses about awareness of policies, to restrict their positive response to

policies available at the school; this adjustment was necessary as some teachers

reported awareness of policies that were not in place. Reports of teachers’ awareness

of policies included only the policies that were available in the school. Likewise,

teachers’ reports of how well policies were put into practice were included only if the

policy had been reported to be available and the teacher reported being aware that the

policy existed.

Professional development

: items were summed to form an index. The scores were

dichotomised, with a score of 0 defined as not receiving professional development for

addressing students’ social and emotional wellbeing. Scores of 1 or more were coded

as 1 and defined as teachers who received professional development for addressing

students’ social and emotional wellbeing.

Classroom Influences

Wellbeing-related topics and skills covered in class

: Total scores for the number of

wellbeing-related topics and the number of wellbeing-related skills covered by teachers

were calculated by summing teachers’ responses to the relevant questions. Total

scores for the wellbeing-related topics covered ranged from 0 to 15 whilst for wellbeing-

related skills practised, scores ranged from 0 to 16.

Frequency of on-going student problems in the classroom: A total score for teachers’

perceptions of the frequency of on-going student problems in class was calculated by

summing the score for each item. Total scores ranged from 10 to 50.

88

Individual Influences

Teachers’ highest qualification

: was collapsed into three categories since the emphasis

was placed on the type of qualification rather than the name of the qualification.

Teachers who completed a diploma or a bachelor’s degree were combined, as both

qualifications represent the same basic training in education. This difference between

the two qualifications is related to changes in the name of the qualification over time

(i.e. prior to bachelor degrees, teachers completed a diploma/certificate of teaching as

their basic education training) rather than differences in the level of basic training

received.

Year level taught

: Seven indicator variables reflecting individual year-level variables

were created because a single variable could not be derived due to almost 20% of

teachers teaching across multiple year levels.

The social and emotional wellbeing of students

: A total score was not calculated for

teachers’ perceptions of the number of students that tend to be: anxious, withdrawn,

depressed or grieving; behaviourally inattentive, non-compliant or aggressive; or have

signs of both types of issues. An examination of the data found that 34% (n=44) of the

teachers with missing data on the number of students exhibiting ‘anxiousness,

depression or withdrawal’ score also had missing data on the number of students

exhibiting co-morbid problems score. A total problems score was not calculated since

the systematic bias introduced into the data would produce a misleading total problems

score by underestimating the total number of students that teachers perceive to exhibit

these types of behaviours.

4.3.5.2 Contextually meaningful differences The majority of studies identified in the review examined the factors influencing the

implementation of health promotion programs in schools with an emphasis placed on

statistically significant differences. Few studies have a priori, specified the magnitude

of difference that would be considered meaningful within the context of schools; that is,

effect sizes. There is little guidance on establishing contextually meaningful differences

in the factors influencing the use of SEW programs and thus, the following decisions

89

about meaningful magnitudes of difference were based on discussions with education

researchers who have previously taught in primary schools and reflect conservative

views of differences between groups.

A minimum difference of 20% between groups was identified as contextually meaningful

for the following factors:

• Funding to address the issues of social and emotional wellbeing;

• Parent or caregiver involvement at school and in the classroom;

• Advocates for the issue of social and emotional wellbeing at school;

• School physical and social environment;

• Awareness of school wellbeing-related policies;

• Extent to which school wellbeing-related policies are put into practice;

• Professional development;

• Encouraging parent or caregiver involvement in school work at home; and

• Teacher’s age, employment status and qualifications.

A minimum difference of 15% between groups was identified as contextually meaningful

for the following factors summarised at the district and school levels:

• Funding to address the issues of social and emotional wellbeing;

• Availability of school wellbeing-related policies; and

• School socio-economic status.

Meaningful differences for continuous variables were defined as:

• Years of teaching experience (5 years);

• Number of students exhibiting problems (either behavioural inattentiveness,

non-compliance or aggressive behaviour problems; anxiousness, depression or

withdrawal; or both problems; 1 student per class);

90

• Number of wellbeing-related topics and skills covered in class (1 topic or skill);

• Frequency of on-going student problems (5 points);

• Number of wellbeing-related policies available (2 policies);

• Teacher-to-teacher collaboration (5 points);

• Teacher-to-administration collaboration (5 points);

• Relations with administration (5 points); and

• Openness in communication (4 points).

4.3.5.3 Descriptive summary of classroom teachers’ program use and the factors potentially influencing program use

Descriptive statistics were used to describe teachers’ use of SEW programs during

2005 including the types and range of programs used. Examination of school and year

level variation in teachers’ program use was undertaken using cross-tabulations.

Proportions were used to describe categorical variables whilst means and standard

deviations were used to describe continuous variables that were normally distributed.

Where variables did not meet the assumptions of normality, medians and minimum and

maximum values were presented.

Bivariate associations

Cross-tabulations were undertaken to investigate contextually meaningful differences

between factors influencing program implementation and teachers’ use of SEW

programs (where both variables were summarised categorically). Proportions were

presented to identify group differences. Means and standard deviations were

presented when t-tests were undertaken to examine factors potentially associated with

teachers’ program use that were summarised continuously. Variables were identified

as normally distributed if: the mean was within 10% of the median; the mean +/- 3

standard deviations approximated the minimum and maximum values; skewness and

kurtosis were within +/- 3, the standard deviation was less than half the mean (for

continuous variables scaled from 0), and if the histogram looked bell-shaped. The

mean and standard deviation were presented for normally-distributed variables. Where

91

variables were not normally distributed, medians and minimum and maximum values

were presented. Mann-Whitney U Tests were undertaken to examine potential

relationships between non-parametric variables. Histograms of these variables were

inspected for tied ranks. Although variables with contextually meaningful associations

were usually statistically supported at the p<0.05 level, statistical significance was not

reported.

4.3.5.4 Examination of potential confounding The potential for confounding was considered as teachers who participated in the study

were not randomly selected. Participant characteristics such as gender and age are a

well known potential confounder in health-related research. In addition, school size and

socio-economic status are factors that are potential confounding factors in school

research. While school locality is often considered as a potential confounding factor, all

schools involved in the study were located in urban areas (as classified using Education

Queensland definitions) and thus, school locality was a constant (i.e. not a variable).

Similarly, there was little variation in the size of schools involved in the study and thus,

this was not investigated further. A range of additional ‘potential’ confounders were

explored in this study including other teacher characteristics such as qualifications,

employment status (i.e. full-time versus part-time teacher), the years a teacher had

been working in schools (both at the current school and the total number of years

working in schools) and class size.

4.3.5.5 Examination of potential effect modification Teachers’ gender was speculated as a potential effect modifier of the number of

students reported who tended to be: anxious, withdrawn, depressed or grieving; or

behaviourally inattentive, non-compliant or aggressive and teachers’ use of SEW

programs. While investigation of the effect of gender was planned, the imbalance in the

ratio of males to females in the study meant that exploration of effect modification by

gender was not possible.

92

4.3.5.6 Multivariable modelling Variables meeting the criteria for contextually meaningful differences were selected for

further investigation using multivariable models. In preparation for multivariable logistic

regression, 3 continuous variables (i.e. years of experience, wellbeing-related skills

practised and wellbeing-related policies available at school) were categorised due to

their non-linear relationship with teachers’ program use. A multivariable logistic

regression was undertaken to identify the factors influencing teachers’ use of SEW

programs, following mutual adjustment for other variables in the model (including

confounders). The logistic regression models were undertaken using Survey Data

Analysis (SUDAAN; version 9.0.3) to account for the effects of clustered data.

Multi-collinearity was assessed by inspection of box plots (and correlations where both

variables were continuous) prior to multivariable modelling. The following 3 pairs of

variables were examined:

• Years working in schools altogether and years working in current school;

• Teachers’ age group and the number of years teachers reported working in

schools; and

• Teachers’ report of parent involvement in class activities and teachers’ report of

parent involvement in school-wide activities.

While there was a relationship evident between some pairs of variables (e.g. the

number of years teachers had been working in schools increased as the number of

years teachers reported working in their current school increased), there was adequate

variation within each of the pairs to suggest that multi-collinearity was not evident.

Derivation of variables for multivariable modelling

Community Influences

Parent or Caregiver involvement at school

: Both variables that related to parent or

caregiver involvement in class or school activities were collapsed from 5 to 3 categories

(1= never or rarely to 3=often or always) to increase cell sizes. This was appropriate

since the proportions of teachers in the categories that were collapsed were similar.

93

School Influences

Formal school wellbeing policies

: The number of formal wellbeing-related policies

available at the school was dichotomised prior to the logistic regression due to its non-

linear relationship with the outcome variable, program use. The variable was

dichotomised rather than categorised because this provides a more meaningful

interpretation of the findings in practice (for schools).

Classroom Influences

Encouraging parental or caregiver involvement in school work

: was collapsed from 5 to

3 categories (1=never or rarely to 3=often or always) prior to the logistic regression to

increase cell sizes. This was appropriate since the proportions of teachers in these

categories that were collapsed were similar.

Wellbeing-related skills practised in class

: The number of wellbeing skills teachers

practised with students was dichotomised prior to the logistic regression due to its non-

linear relationship with teachers’ program use. The variable was dichotomised rather

than categorised because this provides a more meaningful interpretation of the findings

in practice (for schools).

Years working in schools

: The number of years teachers reported working in schools

was categorised prior to the logistic regression because it had a non-linear relationship

with the outcome variable, program use. The variable was categorised into four levels:

1=0-10 years to 4=31 or more years.

4.3.5.7 Multivariable analysis All variables were entered into the model simultaneously with the exception of the

availability of wellbeing-related policies in schools. Due to data not being available for

one school, the availability of wellbeing-related policies was run separately (since if

included in the main model, no teachers in School 9 would be included). The odds

ratios for the availability of wellbeing-related policies are mutually adjusted for all other

variables in the model (including factors identified in bivariate analysis as being

94

potentially associated with program use and potential confounding factors of age, years

working in schools, qualifications and school SES.

4.3.5.8 The design effect for teachers’ program use Exploration of a design effect was undertaken using SUDAAN (version 9.0.3). A design

effect of 1.5 was identified for teachers’ use of SEW programs. This indicates that

teachers employed in the same school are likely to report more similar use of SEW

programs than teachers between schools. Therefore, logistic regression models were

undertaken in SUDAAN (version 9.0.3) to account for the additional clustering of

teachers within schools. Accounting for the additional intra-school variation in clustered

data widens the confidence intervals. All 95% confidence intervals reported in the

results chapters account for the design effect.

4.3.5.9 Sensitivity analysis Sensitivity analyses were undertaken to establish whether the magnitude of change in

the odds ratios between crude and adjusted models was due to over-fitting the model.

A sensitivity analysis was undertaken on four factors: parent or caregiver involvement in

class activities, school wellbeing-related policies available, SES and teachers’

qualifications because there was a modest shift in the magnitude of change between

the crude and adjusted odds ratios.

The factors most likely to be influential in shifting the adjusted odds ratios of the factors

were used to create an a priori list in which to test the models. Factors were

independently examined with SEW program use. Variables were added to the crude

model independently and one at a time, in a priori order, to identify potential shifts in

adjusted odds ratios. Where the change in odds ratios was small, it was proposed that

the variable added did not have any substantial impact on the factor under examination.

However an additional model was run with all factors included except the one identified

as potentially shifting the adjusted odds ratio, to establish whether that particular

variable was substantially shifting the adjusted odds ratios.

95

4.3.6 Reproducibility of the checklist of social and emotional wellbeing programs

An additional survey was sent to primary classroom teachers who completed the SEW

survey in Term Three. The second survey was distributed during Term Four to assess

the reproducibility of items in the SEW survey.

4.3.6.1 Participants All classroom teachers who returned the SEW survey were eligible to complete a

reproducibility survey. These surveys were sent to classroom teachers during Term

Four to examine the reproducibility of the newly developed/modified survey items in the

classroom teacher survey. The reproducibility survey was conducted only with

classroom teachers as they constituted the largest sample of participants. Furthermore,

the classroom teacher survey was the version previously reviewed by the expert

panels. Data collected from Principals/Deputy Principals was not adequately powered

to detect differences at the p<0.05 level. Thus, the additional burden it would have

placed on Principals/Deputy Principals was not considered worthwhile.

4.3.6.2 Description of the reproducibility survey The reproducibility survey contained only newly developed or modified items. Since

this represented over 80 per cent of the survey, the items were split into two surveys.

Reproducibility survey A included newly developed and modified items from Section

One of the survey whereas reproducibility survey B included new and modified items

from Sections Two and Three of the survey. The items were divided into two surveys to

minimise the response burden for classroom teachers and to maximise the number of

reproducibility surveys returned (particularly since the reproducibility survey asked the

same questions as the main survey and was distributed in the final term of the year).

4.3.6.3 Procedure Random number tables were used to assign eligible classroom teachers to receive

either reproducibility survey A or B. Participants were mailed a survey package

including a letter reminding them of the need to conduct the reproducibility survey and

96

its usefulness, study information sheet, reply-paid envelope, reproducibility survey A or

B and a chocolate incentive. The same procedure for increasing response rates was

undertaken with the reproducibility survey as the main survey (i.e. participant names

were handwritten, letters were signed personally and stamps were placed on the

envelope rather than using the postage paid imprint). A personalised reminder note

was mailed to all classroom teachers who had not returned the reproducibility survey

within two weeks of the distribution date. Replacement surveys were mailed two weeks

after the reminder was sent. The closing date for the final return of all surveys was the

last day of Term Four, 2005. The same processes were used for data management for

the reproducibility survey as those outlined in Section 4.3.4.

4.3.6.4 Agreement in Primary Classroom Teachers’ use of social and emotional wellbeing programs

Characteristics of the teachers who participated in the reproducibility survey were

compared to the larger sample to establish representativeness of the sample. The

characteristics of teachers who agreed at both time points (for use versus non-use

status) were compared to teachers whose reports disagreed to establish potential

differences between the two groups.

Derivation of variables for agreement:

Agreement in Primary Classroom Teachers’ program use or non-use status

A dichotomous variable was created to determine the proportion of teachers who

reported the same SEW program use or non-use status at the two time points.

Teachers who reported the same use status at the two points were coded 1, whereas

teachers who did not report the same status were coded 0. Frequencies were

undertaken to present the proportions of teachers in each group.

Agreement in the number of programs primary classroom teachers used at two time points

The number of SEW programs that teachers reported using was calculated for both

time one and time two by summing the programs reported to be used. Time two total

97

scores were subtracted from time one scores to ascertain agreement or disagreement.

A score of zero was derived as perfect agreement whilst positive scores meant that

teachers reported more programs at time two, whilst negative scores mean that

teachers reported fewer programs at time two, when compared to time one.

Agreement in the top ten social and emotional wellbeing programs used at two time points

Programs listed in the top ten used by primary teachers at time one were compared

with primary teachers reports of the 10 most commonly used programs at time two by

undertaking frequencies to report the proportions of teachers using each program.

This chapter described the survey development and validation process and the

methods employed to conduct the study in state primary schools during 2005. The

main findings of this study are presented in the following two chapters and address the

research questions outlined in Chapter One. A discussion of the utility of the

methodological approaches employed in this study is provided in Chapter Seven.

98

Chapter 5: Classroom Teachers’ Use of Social and Emotional Wellbeing Programs in Primary Schools

The findings presented in this chapter address research question one. The face and

content validation of the checklist of SEW programs is presented prior to the findings of

primary classroom teachers’ use of SEW programs. The aspects of program use

investigated and reported in this chapter are the types of SEW programs used and the

extent of use. The reproducibility of the SEW programs checklist is reported in the final

section of the chapter.

5.1 Face and content validation of the SEW Programs Checklist Four Primary GO’s from three Education Queensland Districts were involved in the

expert review panel to examine the face and content validity of the SEW programs

checklist for primary schools. The GO’s who participated in the expert panel reported

working in schools for a median of 7.0 years (min 5, max 17). All participants had

completed a masters’ degree and three quarters were female. Panellists ranged in age

from 41 years to over 60 years of age. All GO’s reported that the checklist of programs

was consistent with the language of school teachers, the format of the section was easy

to understand, and the instructions were clear. Participants also agreed that the topics

and programs listed in the checklist reflected issues that were related to students’ social

and emotional wellbeing. Guidance Officers recommended the inclusion of three

additional SEW programs and these were added to the final version of the checklist.

Whilst there was a general consensus amongst panellists that the SEW programs were

situated in the correct topic areas, two participants noted some overlap with respect to

categorising programs within a single topic area. This issue had already been identified

during the development of the SEW programs checklist. Guidance Officers’ feedback

regarding the SEW programs checklist resulted in few modifications and all agreed that

it had face and content validity.

99

5.2 Primary Classroom Teachers’ use of social and emotional wellbeing programs6

5.2.1 Response rate Presented in Figure 5.1 is a flowchart that outlines the survey distribution process and

survey returns for primary classroom teachers. An overall response rate of 45% was

achieved for primary classroom teachers involved in this study. Of the teachers who

agreed to participate in the study 85% (n=175) returned completed surveys.

5.2.2 Characteristics of sample Completed surveys were available for participating primary classroom teachers from

years 1 to 7, across 12 schools in the Brisbane and Sunshine Coast Education Districts.

The majority of respondents were female (87%, n=175) and 85% of teachers were

employed on a full-time basis. The proportions of teachers in age groups were similar,

with 20.6% (n=175) of teachers in the 21 to 30 year age group, 23.4% in the 31-40 year

age group, 33.7% in the 41-50 year age group and 22.3% within the 51-60 year age

bracket. Sixty-two per cent of teachers (62.4%, n=173) reported their highest level of

qualification was a bachelor’s degree, with an additional 16.2% completing post-

graduate study (either graduate diploma/certificate or masters degree). Another 21.4%

of teachers reported completing a diploma or certificate of teaching.

The proportions of classroom teachers who responded to the survey were similar

across teachers of years 1 to 7 students (n=173). Similar proportions of lower primary

(i.e. years 1-3) and upper primary teachers (i.e. years 4 to 7) participated in the study

(49.7% and 50.3% respectively, n=169). Classroom teachers reported working at their

current school for a median of 5 years (min 0.5 years, max 27 years) and in schools

altogether for a median of 15 years (min 0.5 years, max 37 years).

6 Primary Classroom Teachers are sometimes referred to as teachers, primary teachers or classroom

teachers when reporting the results. This is to reduce the cumbersomeness of the text and is not aimed at misrepresenting teaching staff. The data represent the perceptions of primary classroom teachers unless stated otherwise.

100

Figure 5.1: Flowchart of Primary Classroom Teachers' response

5.2.3 Representativeness of respondents to the Queensland population of State primary school teachers

Characteristics of classroom teachers involved in the current study were compared with

summary data of state primary school teachers employed in Queensland schools during

2005. Aggregated data were available from Education Queensland for three

characteristics: gender, age and employment status. Female state primary school

teachers employed in Queensland during 2005 comprised 75.6% of teachers. The

sample of teachers in the current study was predominantly female (87%). The average

age of primary teachers employed in Queensland State Schools during 2005 was 41.5

years. Similarly, teachers in the 41-50 year age bracket comprised the modal

responder group in this study. The proportion of teachers who were employed full-time

in the current study (85%) was similar to that of all teachers employed in Queensland

state primary schools (83%). Additionally, the 12 participating schools represent similar

Number consent forms returned/ surveys sent

n=207

Eligible classroom teachers n=379

Thank you / reminder n=207

Incentive (chocolate)

Second reminder n=62

Replacement survey n=50

145 surveys returned 70%

12 surveys returned 6%

19 surveys returned 9% End of survey time frame

(1 school term)

Gratuity

101

proportions of schools across all socio-economic levels to state schools across

Queensland (categorised by Education Queensland as: low, middle-low, middle high;

and high), however the 12 schools involved in this study were located in urban areas

only.

5.2.4 Primary Classroom Teachers’ use of social and emotional wellbeing programs across schools

Almost three quarters (73.4%, n=173, 95% CI: 69.3-77.5) of participating classroom

teachers used a SEW program during 2005, and use varied according to the school

where the teacher is employed. The proportion of teachers using SEW programs within

each participating school is presented in Table 5.1. The table is ordered according to

the proportions of teachers using programs in each school, with schools that reported

the highest proportions of teachers using programs presented first. Two schools

reported that all teachers used SEW programs during the year; however, all schools

reported that over half of the teachers used these types of programs. Over half of the

schools used at least three quarters of these types of programs.

Table 5.1: Proportion of Primary Classroom Teachers using social and emotional wellbeing programs in participating State Primary Schools, during 2005.

School % (n) a School 3 100.0 (7) School 9 100.0 (15) School 4 91.7 (12) School 7 81.8 (11) School 12 76.2 (21) School 11 75.0 (16) School 5 75.0 (12) School 8 72.7 (11) School 10 71.4 (14) School 1 70.0 (10) School 2 53.8 (13) School 6 51.6 (31) a n refers to the total number of participating teachers who reported using SEW programs in each school, total n=173.

102

5.2.5 Topic areas covered by social and emotional wellbeing programs used

Presented in Table 5.2 are the types of SEW programs used by participating classroom

teachers in primary schools. The Table is ordered by topic area, with the topics

covered by the highest proportion of classroom teachers presented first. The middle

column represents the proportion of schools that reported using a SEW program within

the topic areas listed, while in the last column, the number and range of year levels

reported to use a (program within the) topic area are listed. For example, structured

social relations programs were used by almost half of classroom teachers. These types

of programs were used across all schools and year levels.

There was substantial variation in the types of programs used by teachers. For

example, while programs about social relations were used by almost half of teachers,

no teachers reported using a program about depression prevention. A median of 7.0

(min 6.0, max 9.0) different types of programs were used within schools. While all 12

schools reported using three specific types of programs (i.e. a social relations program,

a positive thinking program and an anti-bullying program), some variation in the

proportions of schools using other types of programs (for example, self-esteem and

grief/loss programs) was evident. The coverage of program types was wide across the

lower and upper primary schools, with most topic areas used across all year levels.

Overall, the types of programs used by the highest proportions of classroom teachers

were those that were used in all schools and across all year levels. Generally, as the

proportion of teachers using the topic area increased, the proportion of schools

reporting use of the topic area increased also. The year levels that the topic areas were

used in was generally wide, with the exception of topic areas covered by a small

number of teachers.

103

Table 5.2: Types of social and emotional wellbeing programs used by Primary Classroom Teachers and Schools, during 2005.

Type of program (topic area) Teachers’ use

Schools’ use b

Year level use c

% (n) a % Social relations (SR) 48.8 (172) 100.0 1-7 Positive thinking (PT) 39.8 (171) 100.0 1-7 Anti-bullying (AB) 28.3 (173) 100.0 1-7 Tolerance (T) 24.4 (172) 91.6 1-7 Aggression or violence prevention (AV) 21.4 (173) 91.6 1-7 Parenting/family skills (PF) 14.0 (172) 66.7 1-7 Self esteem (SE) 8.7 (172) 58.3 1-7 Anxiety prevention (A) 6.4 (172) 66.7 2-7 Multi-issue (M) 2.4 (169) 25.0 6-7 Grief/loss management (GL) 1.7 (172) 25.0 1,5-6 Depression prevention (D) 0.0 (173) 0.0 0

a n refers to the total number of teachers who responded to the item. b The n for schools’ use is constant (n=12 schools) for all items. c Three teachers who taught across more than 3 year levels were not included (see Section 4.3.5.1 for rationale).

5.2.6 Number and range of social and emotional wellbeing programs used

A total of 45 different SEW programs were used during 2005, with primary

classroom teachers reporting a median use of 2 programs (min 0, max 14).

Presented in Table 5.3 are the individual SEW programs used. The Table is

ordered by two levels. First, the programs were grouped according to the topic area

that the program addressed (i.e. social relations, anti-bullying etc). The topic area

covered by the highest proportion of classroom teachers is presented first. Second,

the individual programs presented in each topic area are in descending order of the

proportion of teachers using the program. Data on schools’ use of individual

programs and the year level/s that used the programs are presented in the third and

fourth columns.

While Table 5.2 showed variability in the topic areas covered, Table 5.3 revealed

wide variability in the individual programs that teachers used within each topic area.

The variability in teachers’ selection of programs is widest for social relations, with

teachers reporting the use of 15 different programs. While the range of social

relations programs used was wide, the proportions of teachers using each program

104

listed within a topic area was not consistent. For example, the majority of teachers

used one of three social relations programs: Stop, Think, Do; Program Achieve;

and/or Friendly Kids Friendly Classrooms, with few using other social relations

programs listed. This pattern was consistent across the topic areas, with one or two

of the programs used by the highest proportion of teachers while the remaining

programs were used by fewer teachers.

The programs that were used by the highest proportion of teachers were also

generally used by the highest proportion of schools. Table 5.2 showed that program

use across year levels was wide and generally consistent across topic areas.

However variability in program use across year levels is greater when individual

programs are inspected (see Table 5.3). Table 5.3 shows that the specific programs

that teachers selected to use vary somewhat when compared across the lower and

upper primary school. Variability in year levels covering individual programs was

evident across most topic areas. The topic areas that had less variability were those

that had few programs listed and where fewer teachers reported using the

programs.

105

Table 5.3: Social and emotional wellbeing programs used by Primary Classroom Teachers and Schools during 2005, summarised by topic area.

Program name Teachers’ use

Schools’ use

Year level use c

% (n) a % b

Social relations (SR) Stop, Think, Do 25.6 (172) 100.0 1-7 You Can Do It! Program Achieve 15.7 (172) 58.3 1-7 Friendly Kids Friendly Classroom 15.1 (172) 83.3 1-7 The Peer Support Program 4.7 (169) 50.0 1-3,6-7 Healthy Relationships 4.1 (171) 25.0 2,6-7 Being Me: Learning to live with others 2.3 (172) 33.3 1,3-4,5,7 People Need Each Other 1.2 (171) 16.7 4,6 Listen Up 1.2 (171) 16.7 5-7 Me and U 0.6 (171) 8.3 5 I’ve Got Me and I’m Glad 0.6 (172) 8.3 3 Room 14 0.6 (171) 8.3 3 Brave Talk High Five d 100.0 (3) 25.0 1-2,4 Dirty Tricks in the Classroom d 100.0 (1) 8.3 7 Playing and Learning to Socialise (PALS) d 100.0 (1) 8.3 na e Schools’ own program d 100.0 (1) 8.3 6-7 The Rainbow Dance 0.0 (171) 0.0 na f Positive thinking (PT) Six Thinking Hats 39.8 (171) 100.0 1-7 Anti-bullying (AB) Bullying – No Way! 24.0 (171) 100.0 1-7 Bullying Prevention Program 4.7 (170) 41.7 3-7 Fair Go 2.3 (171) 16.7 1-2,3,5 The P.E.A.C.E. Pack 1.8 (171) 16.7 3-6 Cool Schools d 100.0 (4) 8.3 1-7

a n refers to the total number of teachers who responded to the item. b The n for schools’ use is constant (n=12 schools) for all items. c Three teachers who taught across more than 3 year levels were not included (see Section 4.3.5.1: year level taught). d Programs that report 100% use were those that teachers added to the checklist. All teachers had an equal opportunity to add programs to the checklist. However, this meant that teachers were unable to report whether they used programs that were added to the checklist by other teachers. Thus, the number of teachers who reported using these programs may be an underestimate of use. e Data unavailable. f Program was not used and therefore year level was not applicable.

106

Table 5.3 (cont’d): Social and emotional wellbeing programs used by Primary Classroom Teachers and Schools during 2005, summarised by topic area.

Program name Teachers’ use

Schools’ use

Year level use c

% (n) a % b

Tolerance (T) Different Kids Same Classroom 15.9 (170) 91.7 1-7 Virtues 10.2 (167) 16.7 1-7

Aggression or violence prevention (AV) Protective Behaviours 12.8 (172) 66.7 1-7 Conflict Resolution for Students 8.7 (173) 75.0 1-7 Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS) 4.1 (172) 50.0 2-3,5-7

Hands Off 1.8 (171) 25.0 1 Rock and Water 0.6 (171) 8.3 4-5 Peace Builders 0.6 (172) 8.3 3 Responsible Thinking Classroom d 100.0 (1) 8.3 1-3 Enough’s Enough d 100.0 (1) 8.3 4 Second Step 0.0 (172) 0.0 na e Goldstein’s Skill Streaming 0.0 (171) 0.0 na e

Parenting or family skills (PF) Positive Parenting Program (Triple P) 12.2 (172) 41.7 1-7 Management of Young Children Program (MYCP) 3.5 (171) 41.7 1-3

Tracks d 100.0 (1) 8.3 1-3 Families And Schools Together 0.0 (170) 0.0 na e

a n refers to the total number of teachers who responded to the item. b The n for schools’ use is constant (n=12 schools) for all items. c Three teachers who taught across more than 3 year levels were not included (see Section 4.3.5.1: year level taught). d Programs that report 100% use were those that teachers added to the checklist. All teachers had an equal opportunity to add programs to the checklist. However, this meant that teachers were unable to report whether they used programs that were added to the checklist by other teachers. Thus, the number of teachers who reported using these programs may be an underestimate of use. e Program was not used and therefore year level was not applicable.

107

Table 5.3 (cont’d): Social and emotional wellbeing programs used by Primary Classroom Teachers and Schools during 2005, summarised by topic area.

Program name Teachers’ use

Schools’ use

Year level use c

% (n) a % b

Self esteem (SE) The Me I’m Learning To Be 5.2 (172) 33.3 1,3,4-5,7 Liking Myself 1.7 (172) 25.0 1,3,6 I’m a Walking Talking Miracle 0.6 (171) 8.3 5 The Mouse, The Monster and Me 0.6 (172) 8.3 1-3 Respect Yourself Drama Education 0.6 (172) 8.3 7

Anxiety prevention (A) Cool Kids 4.7 (171) 50.0 2-7 FRIENDS 2.3 (172) 33.3 4-7 Worrybusters 0.0 (172) 0.0 na e Coping Koala 0.0 (172) 0.0 na e

Multi-issue (M) Heart Masters 1.8 (169) 16.7 6-7 Straight Talk d 100.0 (1) 8.3 7

Grief/loss management (GL) Seasons for Growth 1.2 (171) 16.7 1,6 Children of Divorce Intervention Program (CODIP) 0.6 (172) 8.3 5

Depression prevention (D) Aussie Optimism Program 0.0 (173) 0.0 na e

a n refers to the total number of teachers who responded to the item. b The n for schools’ use is constant (n=12 schools) for all items. c Three teachers who taught across more than 3 year levels were not included (see Section 4.3.5.1: year level taught). d Programs that report 100% use were those that teachers added to the checklist. All teachers had an equal opportunity to add programs to the checklist. However, this meant that teachers were unable to report whether they used programs that were added to the checklist by other teachers. Thus, the number of teachers who reported using these programs may be an underestimate of use. e Program was not used and therefore year level was not applicable.

108

In Table 5.4, classroom teachers’ use of individual programs is presented in

descending order. Year level use, schools’ use of programs and the topics areas

are also presented. Some programs appeared to be used more commonly by

classroom teachers than others. Overall, the variation was wide in individual

programs that teachers reported using.

A median of 14.0 programs (min 10, max 21) were used within schools, however the

variation in reported program use across schools was substantial. Almost three

quarters of the programs listed were used in less than half of the schools. Three

programs: Six Thinking Hats; Stop Think Do; and Bullying – No Way, were used

across all 12 schools. These programs cover the 3 topic areas of positive thinking,

social relations and anti-bullying, mentioned previously as the topic areas covered

across all schools and by the highest proportions of teachers.

It was evident from Table 5.3 that when programs were summarised within topic

areas, a general pattern for teacher versus school program use emerged (i.e. that

as teachers’ use of programs within each topic area increased, the proportion of

schools using programs within each topic area increased also). This pattern was

less clear in Table 5.4, where the individual programs are ordered by teachers’ use

(in comparison to the topic area). A pattern across year levels emerged in Table

5.4, where programs used by the highest proportions of teachers were used across

all year levels.

109

Table 5.4: Social and emotional wellbeing programs used by Primary Classroom Teachers and Schools during 2005

Program Name Topic a Teachers’

use Schools’ use

Year level use d

% (n) b % c Six Thinking Hats PT 39.8 (171) 100.0 1-7 Stop, Think, Do SR 25.6 (172) 100.0 1-7 Bullying – No Way! AB 24.0 (171) 100.0 1-7 Different Kids Same Classroom T 15.9 (170) 91.7 1-7 You Can Do It! Program Achieve SR 15.7 (172) 58.3 1-7 Friendly Kids Friendly Classroom SR 15.1 (172) 83.3 1-7

Protective Behaviours AV 12.8 (172) 66.7 1-7 Positive Parenting Program (Triple P) PF 12.2 (172) 41.7 1-7

Virtues T 10.2 (167) 16.7 1-7 Conflict Resolution for Students AV 8.7 (173) 75.0 1-7 The Me I’m Learning To Be SE 5.2 (172) 33.3 1,3-4,5,7 Bullying Prevention Program AB 4.7 (170) 41.7 3-7 The Peer Support Program SR 4.7 (169) 50.0 1-3,6-7 Cool Kids A 4.7 (171) 50.0 2-7 Healthy Relationships SR 4.1 (171) 25.0 2,6-7 Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS) AV 4.1 (172) 50.0 2-3,5-7

Management of Young Children Program (MYCP) PF 3.5 (171) 41.7 1-3

Fair Go AB 2.3 (171) 16.7 1-2,3,5 Being Me: Learning to live with others SR 2.3 (172) 33.3 1,3,5

FRIENDS A 2.3 (172) 33.3 4-7 Cool Schools e AB 100.0 (4) 8.3 1-7 Liking Myself SE 1.7 (172) 25.0 1,3,6 The P.E.A.C.E. Pack AB 1.8 (171) 16.7 3-6 Hands Off AV 1.8 (171) 25.0 1 Heart Masters M 1.8 (169) 16.7 6-7 Brave Talk High Five e SR 100.0 (3) 25.0 1-2,4

a Topic refers to the type of program where PT=Positive Thinking, SR=Social Relations, AB=Anti-Bullying, T=Tolerance, AV=Aggression/violence prevention, PF=Parenting/Family, A=Anxiety prevention, SE=Self-esteem, M=Multi-issue and D=Depression prevention. b n refers to the total number of teachers who responded to the item. c The n for schools’ use is constant (n=12 schools) for all items. d Three teachers who taught across more than 3 year levels were not included (see Section 4.3.5.1: year level taught). e Programs that report 100% use were those that teachers added to the checklist. All teachers had an equal opportunity to add programs to the checklist. However, this meant that teachers were unable to report whether they used programs that were added to the checklist by other teachers. Thus, the number of teachers who reported using these programs may be an underestimate of use.

110

Table 5.4 (cont’d): Social and emotional wellbeing programs used by Primary Classroom Teachers and Schools during 2005

Program Name Topic a Teachers’

use Schools’ use

Year level use d

% (n) b % c People Need Each Other SR 1.2 (171) 16.7 4,6 Listen Up SR 1.2 (171) 16.7 5-7 Seasons for Growth GL 1.2 (171) 16.7 1,6 I’ve Got Me and I’m Glad SR 0.6 (172) 8.3 3 Room 14 SR 0.6 (171) 8.3 3 Me and U SR 0.6 (171) 8.3 5 I’m a Walking Talking Miracle SE 0.6 (171) 8.3 5 The Mouse, The Monster and Me SE 0.6 (172) 8.3 1-3

Respect Yourself Drama Education SE 0.6 (172) 8.3 7

Rock and Water AV 0.6 (171) 8.3 4-5 Peace Builders AV 0.6 (172) 8.3 3 Children of Divorce Intervention Program (CODIP) GL 0.6 (172) 8.3 5

Dirty Tricks in the Classroom e SR 100.0 (1) 8.3 7 Schools’ own program e SR 100.0 (1) 8.3 6-7 PALS e SR 100.0 (1) 8.3 na f Responsible Thinking Classroom e AV 100.0 (1) 8.3 1-3

Enough’s Enough e AV 100.0 (1) 8.3 4 Tracks e PF 100.0 (1) 8.3 1-3 Straight Talk e M 100.0 (1) 8.3 7 The Rainbow Dance SR 0.0 (171) 0.0 na g Second Step AV 0.0 (172) 0.0 na g Goldstein’s Skill Streaming AV 0.0 (171) 0.0 na g Worrybusters A 0.0 (172) 0.0 na g Coping Koala A 0.0 (172) 0.0 na g Aussie Optimism Program D 0.0 (173) 0.0 na g Families And Schools Together PF 0.0 (170) 0.0 na g

a Topic refers to the type of program where PT=Positive Thinking, SR=Social Relations, AB=Anti-Bullying, T=Tolerance, AV=Aggression/violence prevention, PF=Parenting/Family, A=Anxiety prevention, SE=Self-esteem, M=Multi-issue and D=Depression prevention. b n refers to the total number of teachers who responded to the item. c The n for schools’ use is constant (n=12 schools) for all items. d Three teachers who taught across more than 3 year levels were not included (see Section 4.3.5.1: year level taught). e Programs that report 100% use were those that teachers added to the checklist. All teachers had an equal opportunity to add programs to the checklist. However, this meant that teachers were unable to report whether they used programs that were added to the checklist by other teachers. Thus, the number of teachers who reported using these programs may be an underestimate of use. f Data unavailable. g Program was not used therefore no data is provided.

111

Presented in Table 5.5 is a summary of program use for each school. The Table is

presented in descending order according to the number of topic areas covered

within schools. The second column presents the total number of SEW programs

used within each school while the proportion of classroom teachers who used a

program during 2005 is presented in the following column. The total number of

SEW programs used in a school is not necessarily indicative of the range of topic

areas covered. While collectively, teachers in School 12 used 21 programs and

teachers in School 3 used 15 programs, School 3 covered an additional 2 topic

areas when compared to School 12.

Table 5.5: Topic areas covered and number of social and emotional wellbeing programs used by Primary Classroom Teachers during 2005, summarised by school.

No. of topic areas used

No. of programs used

Teachers’ use

School

% (n) a

9 15 100.0 (7) School 3

8 15 51.6 (31) School 6

8 13 81.8 (11) School 7

8 12 100.0 (15) School 9

8 11 71.4 (14) School 10

7 16 75.0 (12) School 5

7 16 91.7 (12) School 4

7 21 76.2 (21) School 12

7 17 75.0 (16) School 11

6 12 70.0 (10) School 1

6 10 72.7 (11) School 8

6 11 53.8 (13) School 2 a n refers to the total number of teachers who responded to the item in each school.

5.2.7 Extent of use of social and emotional wellbeing programs Table 5.6 is organised according to teachers’ use of SEW programs, with the

programs used by the highest proportion of teachers presented first. Presented in

the column to the right is the proportion of teachers who reported using part of a

program (in comparison to the whole program). Overall, primary classroom

112

teachers reported using part of a program more frequently than using a whole

program. Programs that were used in full were generally used by few teachers.

Table 5.6: Primary Classroom Teachers’ report of part (versus whole) social and emotional wellbeing program use

Program Name Topic a Teachers’

use Part use

% (n) b % (n) b Six Thinking Hats PT 39.8 (171) 79.4 (68) Stop, Think, Do SR 25.6 (172) 73.2 (41) d Bullying – No Way! AB 24.0 (171) 78.0 (41) Different Kids Same Classroom T 15.9 (170) 92.3 (26) d You Can Do It! Program Achieve SR 15.7 (172) 73.1 (26) d Friendly Kids Friendly Classroom SR 15.1 (172) 92.0 (25) d Protective Behaviours AV 12.8 (172) 71.4 (21) d Positive Parenting Program (Triple P) PF 12.2 (172) 84.2 (19) d Virtues T 10.2 (167) 52.9 (17) Conflict Resolution for Students AV 8.7 (173) 78.6 (14) d The Me I’m Learning To Be SE 5.2 (172) 100.0 (9) Bullying Prevention Program AB 4.7 (170) 62.5 (8) The Peer Support Program SR 4.7 (169) 75.0 (8) Cool Kids A 4.7 (171) 87.5 (8) Healthy Relationships SR 4.1 (171) 57.1 (7) Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS) AV 4.1 (172) 85.7 (7)

Management of Young Children Program (MYCP) PF 3.5 (171) 80.0 (5) d

Fair Go AB 2.3 (171) 50.0 (4) Being Me: Learning to live with others SR 2.3 (172) 75.0 (4) FRIENDS A 2.3 (172) 75.0 (4) Cool Schools c AB 100.0 (4) 50.0 (4) Liking Myself SE 1.7 (172) 100.0 (3) The P.E.A.C.E. Pack AB 1.8 (171) 66.7 (3) Hands Off AV 1.8 (171) 66.7 (3)

a Topic refers to the type of program where PT=Positive Thinking, SR=Social Relations, AB=Anti-Bullying, T=Tolerance, AV=Aggression/violence prevention, PF=Parenting/Family, A=Anxiety prevention, SE=Self-esteem, M=Multi-issue and D=Depression prevention. b n refers to the total number of teachers who responded to the item. c Programs that report 100% use were those that teachers added to the checklist. All teachers had an equal opportunity to add programs to the checklist. However, this meant that teachers were unable to report whether they used programs that were added to the checklist by other teachers. Thus, the number of teachers who reported using these programs may be an underestimate of use. d n’s vary due to some missing data.

113

Table 5.6 (cont’d): Primary Classroom Teachers’ report of part (versus whole) social and emotional wellbeing program use

Program Name Topic a Teachers’

use Part use

% (n) b % (n) b Heart Masters M 1.8 (169) 100.0 (3) Brave Talk High Five c SR 100.0 (3) 0.0 (3) People Need Each Other SR 1.2 (171) 100.0 (1) d Listen Up SR 1.2 (171) 100.0 (2) Seasons for Growth GL 1.2 (171) 100.0 (2) I’ve Got Me and I’m Glad SR 0.6 (172) 0.0 (1) Room 14 SR 0.6 (171) 0.0 (1) Me and U SR 0.6 (171) 100.0 (1) I’m a Walking Talking Miracle SE 0.6 (171) 100.0 (1) The Mouse, The Monster and Me SE 0.6 (172) 100.0 (1) Respect Yourself Drama Education SE 0.6 (172) 100.0 (1) Rock and Water AV 0.6 (171) 100.0 (1) Peace Builders AV 0.6 (172) 100.0 (1) Children of Divorce Intervention Program (CODIP) GL 0.6 (172) na d

Dirty Tricks in the Classroom c SR 100.0 (1) 100.0 (1) Schools’ own program c SR 100.0 (1) 100.0 (1) PALS c SR 100.0 (1) 0.0 (1) Responsible Thinking Classroom c AV 100.0 (1) 0.0 (1) Enough’s Enough c AV 100.0 (1) 100.0 (1) Tracks c PF 100.0 (1) 100.0 (1) Straight Talk c M 100.0 (1) 0.0 (1) The Rainbow Dance SR 0.0 (171) na e Second Step AV 0.0 (172) na e Goldstein’s Skill Streaming AV 0.0 (171) na e Worrybusters A 0.0 (172) na e Coping Koala A 0.0 (172) na e Aussie Optimism Program D 0.0 (173) na e Families And Schools Together PF 0.0 (170) na e

a Topic refers to the type of program where PT=Positive Thinking, SR=Social Relations, AB=Anti-Bullying, T=Tolerance, AV=Aggression/violence prevention, PF=Parenting/Family, A=Anxiety prevention, SE=Self-esteem, M=Multi-issue and D=Depression prevention. b n refers to the total number of teachers who responded to the item. c Programs that report 100% use were those that teachers added to the checklist. All teachers had an equal opportunity to add programs to the checklist. However, this meant that teachers were unable to report whether they used programs that were added to the checklist by other teachers. Thus, the number of teachers who reported using these programs may be an underestimate of use. d Data unavailable. e Program was not used therefore no data is provided.

114

5.2.8 Primary Classroom Teachers’ use of evidence-based versus non-evidence-based social and emotional wellbeing programs

Presented in Table 5.7 are the eleven programs identified as evidence-based (in the

Australian primary school context) from the forty-five programs teachers reported

using during 2005.

Table 5.7: Social and emotional wellbeing programs reported as evidence-based in the Australian school context

Topic Areas Program Name

Social Relations Stop, Think, Do

Friendly Kids Friendly Classrooms

Playing and Learning to Socialise (PALS)

Anti-bullying The PEACE Pack

Aggression/Violence Prevention

Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS)

Peace Builders

Parenting/Family Skills Positive Parenting Program (Triple P)

Anxiety Prevention Cool Kids

FRIENDS

Grief/Loss Management Seasons for Growth

Children of Divorce Intervention Project (CODIP)

Typically, these programs contained a structured format, planned weekly activities

and were developed from a research perspective. Of the 127 primary classroom

teachers who reported using a SEW program during 2005, 57.5% used an

evidence-based program. Some evidence-based programs were more commonly

used than others, for example, the Stop, Think, Do program was used by 25.6%

(n=172) of primary classroom teachers, while the Friendly Kids Friendly Classroom

program was used by 15.1% (n=172) and the Triple P program was used by 12.2%

(n=172) of teachers. These three programs were situated in the top ten programs

115

used by teachers in this study. However the other evidence-based SEW programs

listed in the Table were used by less than five per cent of teachers.

5.2.9 Reproducibility of SEW Programs Checklist

5.2.9.1 Characteristics of Primary Classroom Teachers involved in the reproducibility survey

Sixty-five primary classroom teachers completed a reproducibility survey to establish

the test re-test reliability of the checklist of SEW programs. These teachers were

similar to those who completed the main study survey on a range of demographic

characteristics including: gender (90.8% female), employment status (83.1% full-

time), age (25% in each age group), qualifications (27.7% diploma or certificate of

teaching, 56.9% bachelor degree, 15.3% postgraduate study) and years working in

the current school and in schools altogether (median 5, min 0.5, max 26; median 17,

min 0.5, max 32). Primary teachers who completed the reproducibility survey

worked across all 12 schools, with half teaching in lower versus upper primary

school.

5.2.9.2 Agreement in Primary Classroom Teachers’ SEW program use Seventy-five per cent of the teachers (n=65) who completed the reproducibility

survey reported using a SEW program. This finding was similar to the proportion of

teachers who reported using a SEW program in the main study. Eighty-five per cent

of teachers (95% CI: 79.1-90.1; n=65) reported the same program use or non-use

status between the main SEW survey and the reproducibility survey. The program

use or non-use status of ten teachers changed between the main and reproducibility

surveys, with six teachers changing from non-users to SEW program users, whilst

four teachers changed from users to non-users. Differences between teachers who

agreed versus disagreed at the two time points were not examined due to the small

sample of teachers whose program use or non-use status changed.

116

5.2.9.3 Agreement in the number of programs Primary Classroom Teachers used at two time points

Primary classroom teachers reported using a median of 2 (min 0, max 10) SEW

programs in the reproducibility survey. This finding was similar to the results

reported in the main study (few teachers reported using more than 10 programs in

the main survey). Almost 40% (95% CI: 31.1-45.9; n=65) of teachers had perfect

agreement on the number of programs they reported using between the main and

reproducibility survey, with an additional 28% who reported using one additional or

one less SEW program in the reproducibility survey. Nineteen per cent of teachers

reported using 2 less SEW programs than during the main study while another 3%

reported using 3 to 5 less programs. Alternatively, 12% of teachers reported using 2

to 5 additional SEW programs when compared to the main survey.

5.2.9.4 Agreement in the top ten SEW programs used at two time points Table 5.8 lists the top ten SEW programs that primary teachers reported using in the

main study versus the reproducibility survey. The three programs reported to be

used by the greatest proportions of primary teachers stayed consistent between the

main survey and reproducibility survey. Whilst the ranks of some other programs

changed between time points, the proportion of teachers reporting that they used

these programs was similar.

117

Table 5.8: Comparison of Primary Classroom Teachers' use of the Top Ten SEW programs between the main study and reproducibility survey, during 2005.

Main Survey Reproducibility Survey

Rank Program Name Teachers’ use Rank Program Name Teachers’

use

% (n) a % (n) a 1 Six Thinking Hats 39.8 (171) 1 Six Thinking Hats 41.5 (65) 2 Stop, Think, Do 25.6 (172) 2 Stop, Think, Do 29.2 (65)

3 Bullying – No Way! 24.0 (171) 3 Bullying – No

Way! 20.0 (65)

4 Different Kids Same Classroom 15.9 (170) 4

Friendly Kids Friendly Classroom

18.5 (65)

5 You Can Do It! Program Achieve 15.7 (172) 4 You Can Do It!

Program Achieve 18.5 (65)

6 Friendly Kids Friendly Classroom

15.1 (172) 5 Protective Behaviours 12.5 (64)

7 Protective Behaviours 12.8 (172) 6 Different Kids

Same Classroom 12.3 (65)

8

Positive Parenting Program (Triple P)

12.2 (172) 6 Positive Parenting Program (Triple P) 12.3 (65)

9 Virtues 10.2 (167) 6 Virtues 12.3 (65)

10 Conflict Resolution for Students

8.7 (173) 7 Management of Young Children Program (MYCP)

7.8 (64)

a n refers to the total number of teachers who responded to the item.

118

5.2.10 Summary The majority of primary classroom teachers participating in this study reported using

a SEW program during 2005. Forty-five programs were used, most covering

universal prevention. Variation in teachers’ program use was wide and apparent

both within and between schools. However differences were most evident when

programs were examined on an individual basis rather than summarised by topic

area. Thus, while similarities emerged in the topic areas covered across the lower

and upper primary schools, some differences were noted at the individual program

level. However some of the programs included in this study were not relevant

across all age groups. Whilst a number of evidence-based programs were used by

teachers in this study, non-evidence-based programs were also commonly used.

Furthermore, teachers were more likely to use part of a SEW program than a whole

program. Implications of the findings of teachers use of SEW programs in real-world

practice are discussed in Chapter Seven. The following chapter examines the

findings with respect to the contextual influences on teachers’ use of SEW

programs.

119

Chapter 6: Influences on Primary Classroom Teachers’ use of social and emotional wellbeing programs

The findings presented in this chapter address research question two. Validation of

the audit of SEW practices is presented first followed by the factors investigated as

potential influences on primary classroom teachers’ use of SEW programs. These

factors are ordered according to the social-ecological levels of influence.

6.1 Face and content validation of the audit of social and emotional wellbeing practices

Participants involved in the first expert review panel (i.e. Health Promotion in

Schools) predominantly represented the States of Queensland, New South Wales

and Victoria, with one participant who worked across all States and Territories 7

.

Experts had been working in the area of mental health/social and emotional

wellbeing and schools for a median of 12.5 years (min 6, max 30). All participants

were female and had completed a Bachelor degree, with one who reported

completing a PhD.

The experts (n=8) agreed that the items in the survey reflected behavioural and

emotional wellbeing issues. Respondents agreed that the layout and format of the

audit was clear and the response formats used (e.g. strongly disagree to strongly

agree) were logical. One expert highlighted two questions that they perceived to be

irrelevant. These questions were related to whether teachers encountered issues of

parental mental health problems including anxiousness, depression and alcohol and

other drug use. These items were removed from the final survey. Overall, the

panellists agreed on most items that related to the face validity of the survey

however some variation in the content validity of the audit was noted.

Experts’ perceptions of the content validity of the audit were generally comparable

with respect to sections that were and were not reported as valid. Whilst one

reviewer reported all sections of the audit to have content validity, the remaining

7 Demographic data were not available from one expert review panellist.

120

panellists provided some helpful suggestions to improve the validity of various

sections. In Part B of the audit, there was consensus by the experts that asking

teachers about their awareness of a ‘welfare’ policy at school was too broad. Since

a welfare policy could potentially include a number of other policies that were

already listed in this section, this item was removed from the final version.

Revisions were made to Part C of the audit with respect to wording of some items

and the response categories for the question about whether students in the class

showed signs of SEW-related issues (such as anxiety, depression, bullying and self-

harm). First, some experts had reservations about the use of the terms anxiety and

depression and teachers’ ability to report on these issues. Modifications were made

to simplify wording, for example, anxiety was re-written as ‘signs that may indicate

anxiousness (e.g. students may appear uneasy, apprehensive or worried)’. Second,

suggestions were made about the potential use of a Likert-scale rather than a

dichotomous measure to report teachers’ perceptions of whether students showed

signs of SEW-related issues. This modification provided greater potential for more

variation between teacher’s scores.

Expert review panellists consistently rated Section D (about teachers’ coverage of

wellbeing-related topics and skills in class) as valid however some suggestions for

additional SEW-related topics and skills were provided and these were included in

the audit because they were relevant to the area. The majority of experts agreed

that the items in Section E (Parent or Caregiver involvement at this School)

represented parent or caregiver involvement at the school, although one expert

disagreed. This was due to the narrow approach taken in the audit with respect to

the measurement of parent or caregiver involvement. Support from parents

regarding students’ homework, school attendance and effort were some of the

additional areas recommended to be measured. However as the development of a

parent version of the survey was considered to be beyond the scope of this study

measurement of these items was not undertaken. Finally, Section F (originally

named Classroom and School Environment) was perceived to be too focused on

students rather than reflecting the whole school. Modifications to this section

included placing a focus on the physical school environment in addition to the social

environment, with questions about students, staff and the school community as a

whole. Subsequently, this section was re-named as the Physical and Social

Environment of this School. Changes were incorporated into the design of the audit

prior to teacher review and dissemination to schools.

121

6.2 Factors influencing Primary Classroom Teachers’ use of social and emotional wellbeing programs

There is variation evident in teachers’ use of SEW programs and a number of

factors may help to explain this variation. In this section, the factors that may

potentially influence teachers’ use of SEW programs are presented. These factors,

derived from the literature, are grouped according to the social-ecological framework

outlined in Chapter Three (Figure 3.1).

6.2.1 COMMUNITY INFLUENCES

6.2.1.1 Parent or Caregiver involvement at school Teachers were asked to report on the extent to which they involve parents or

caregivers in class activities and their involvement in school-wide activities. Overall,

38% of the 174 teachers reported that parents or caregivers were ‘sometimes’

involved in class activities. Similar proportions of teachers reported that parents or

caregivers were ‘rarely’ or ‘often’ involved in class activities (25% and 22%

respectively ), while less than 10% of teachers reported ‘never’ or ‘always’ being

involved. Teachers reported that parents or caregivers were more frequently

involved in school-wide activities when compared to class activities, with 50%

(n=174) of teachers reporting that parents or caregivers were ‘sometimes’ involved,

almost 30% reporting that parents or caregivers were ‘often’ involved and 11.5%

reporting that parents or caregivers were ‘always’ involved. Ten per cent of

teachers reported that parents were ‘rarely’ involved with less than 5% reporting that

parents were ‘never’ involved. The extent to which parents are involved in

classroom and school-wide activities was associated with teachers’ use of SEW

programs.

Teachers using SEW program reported involving parents or caregivers in class

more frequently than teachers not using SEW programs (e.g. 35% of program users

‘often or always’ involved parents or caregivers in class activities whilst 15% of

teachers not using SEW programs involved parents or caregivers in class activities

as frequently). This pattern was similar for teachers’ report of parent or caregiver

involvement in school-wide activities, with almost 50% (n=126) of teachers using

SEW programs reporting that parents or caregivers were ‘often or always’ involved

122

in school activities whilst 20% of teachers not using SEW programs reported that

parent or caregiver involvement occurred as frequently.

6.2.2 SCHOOL DISTRICT INFLUENCES

6.2.2.1 Funding to address the issue of social and emotional wellbeing School Administration (n=11)8

were asked to report about the adequacy of funding

received during 2005 for addressing social and emotional wellbeing. Over half the

Principals reported that funding was mildly adequate, while a quarter of Principals

reported it to be ‘moderately adequate’. Two Principals reported funding to be

inadequate, with one reporting extreme inadequacy. Of the 11 schools, 2 applied

for additional funding to address student wellbeing during the year (one school that

reported mildly inadequate funding and the other mildly adequate funding). Both

schools were successful in securing extra funding. One school reported ‘often’

being successful while the other reported to be ‘almost always’ successful in

obtaining extra funds.

There was no association identified between the adequacy of funding available to

promote SEW at school and teachers’ use of SEW programs. While 62% (n=58) of

teachers in schools with moderately adequate funding to promote SEW used SEW

programs, 70% (n=10) of teachers in schools with extremely inadequate funding

used SEW programs. Of the 27 teachers employed in schools where extra funding

was sought, 63% used SEW programs.

6.2.3 SCHOOL LEVEL INFLUENCES A range of potential school influences on primary teachers’ use of SEW programs

(such as school socio-economic status, staff collaboration and communication,

professional development and adequacy of school resources) are described in this

section.

8 Data were not available from one school.

123

6.2.3.1 School socio-economic status The twelve participating schools represented all socio-economic status groups

within Education Queensland: 3 schools were low SES, 4 schools were middle-low

SES, and an additional 4 were middle-high SES, while 1 school was high SES.

Overall, the proportion of classroom teachers represented by (i.e. situated in schools

in) the low, middle-low and middle-high socio-economic status groups was similar

(25.7%, 32.6% and 35.4% respectively), with 6.3% (situated in schools) in the high

socio-economic status group (n=175).

A potential association between school socio-economic status and teachers’ use of

SEW programs may be evident. Classroom teachers situated in middle-high SES

schools appear less likely to use SEW programs than teachers using SEW

programs in low SES schools (mid-high SES SEW program users: 64.5%, n=62

versus low SES SEW program users: 84%, n=43). The proportions of teachers

using SEW programs amongst the other SES groups was similar (middle low SES

program users: 74%, n=57 and high SES program users: 82%, n=11).

6.2.3.2 Advocates for the issue of social and emotional wellbeing at school

Fifteen per cent (n=167) of teachers self-identified as being an advocate for the

social and emotional wellbeing of students. While this equates to approximately 2

advocates per school, the distribution of advocates was dissimilar across schools,

with almost half of the advocates located in two schools. Table 6.1 presents the

proportion of teachers who self-identified as advocates of social and emotional

wellbeing in each school. The Table is presented in descending order according to

the proportion of teachers who self-identified as advocates in each school.

Inspection of the table revealed a wide variation in the proportion of advocates

across schools, with one school reporting over 30% of teachers as advocates while

two schools reported no advocates. However, there was no association evident

between teachers’ self-identification as an advocate and SEW program use, with the

proportions of advocates similar for SEW program users and non-users (15%,

n=167).

124

Table 6.1: Number of advocates of social and emotional wellbeing in each school

School Number of advocates

% (n) a

School 12 33.3 (21)

School 11 29.4 (17)

School 10 23.1 (13)

School 7 18.2 (11)

School 8 18.2 (11)

School 9 13.3 (15)

School 6 6.5 (31)

School 1 10.0 (10)

School 2 10.0 (10)

School 5 10.0 (10)

School 3 0.0 (7)

School 4 0.0 (11) a n refers to the number of responding teachers in each school.

6.2.3.3 School Environment

Social environment

Presented in Table 6.2 are the individual items from which the social environment

score was derived. Teachers generally rated that the promotion of wellbeing

through the social environment occurred on a ‘sometimes’ to ‘often’ basis. However,

the variation in teachers’ scores across individual items indicated that certain

aspects of the social environment were promoted more frequently than others.

Gender equity, anti-racism and staff encouragement of co-operative behaviour

amongst students were addressed more frequently than other aspects of the social

environment, although less than 60% of teachers reported that these issues were

‘always’ promoted at school. Alternatively, activities celebrating cultural diversity

were reported by 35% of teachers (n=174) to ‘never’ or ‘rarely’ occur. While 20.8%

of teachers (n=173) reported that staff and students ‘always’ felt safe at school, 52%

of teachers (n=175) perceived that school provides a positive social experience for

students.

125

Table 6.2: Primary Classroom Teachers’ perceptions of the social environment at school

Social environment Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always

N a % (n) b % (n) b % (n) b % (n) b % (n) b Staff encourage students to maintain co-operative behaviour in the classroom and playground.

174 0.0 (0) 0.6 (1) 7.5 (13) 37.9 (66) 54.0 (94)

Boys and girls receive equal opportunities at school. 173 0.6 (1) 0.6 (1) 8.1 (14) 32.4 (56) 58.4 (101) A non-racist environment for students and staff is actively promoted.

174 0.6 (1) 2.3 (4) 9.2 (16) 31.6 (55) 56.3 (98)

Cultural diversity is celebrated by staff and students (e.g. days of cultural significance, traditional foods or dress).

174 8.6 (15) 26.4 (46) 36.8 (64) 17.2 (30) 10.9 (19)

The issue of child protection is openly discussed by staff. 174 0.0 (0) 8.0 (14) 32.8 (57) 31.6 (55) 27.6 (48) Staff and students feel safe at school. 173 0.6 (1) 6.4 (11) 27.7 (48) 44.5 (77) 20.8 (36) Students with special needs receive the support they require. 173 1.2 (2) 11.6 (20) 31.2 (54) 37.6 (65) 18.5 (32) Fire and other safety drills are practised on a regular basis. 174 0.0 (0) 2.9 (5) 17.8 (31) 37.4 (65) 42.0 (73) Staff praise students for trying hard at school, regardless of their results.

174 0.0 (0) 1.1 (2) 4.6 (8) 47.1 (82) 47.1 (82)

Students are encouraged to be positive peer role-models. 174 0.6 (1) 2.3 (4) 16.1 (28) 47.1 (82) 33.9 (59) Older students assist younger students in the classroom and/or playground.

174 1.7 (3) 10.9 (19) 37.9 (66) 31.0 (54) 18.4 (32)

Students are involved in some school decision-making processes.

174 4.0 (7) 23.6 (41) 53.4 (93) 16.1 (28) 2.9 (5)

Staff are consulted about important school decisions. 175 1.7 (3) 11.4 (20) 44.6 (78) 30.9 (54) 11.4 (20) There is a feeling of connectedness among staff. 174 1.1 (2) 13.2 (23) 39.7 (69) 35.6 (62) 10.3 (18) There is a feeling of connectedness among students. 173 0.0 (0) 8.7 (15) 52.0 (92) 34.7 (60) 4.6 (8) Students are respectful to staff. 174 1.7 (3) 8.0 (14) 44.8 (78) 39.1 (68) 6.3 (11) Staff are supportive of and respectful to students. 175 0.0 (0) 1.1 (2) 9.1 (16) 62.9 (110) 26.9 (47) The school provides a positive social experience for students. 175 0.6 (1) 0.6 (1) 31.4 (55) 52.0 (91) 15.4 (27) The school values the contributions of its staff. 175 2.9 (5) 9.7 (17) 36.6 (64) 37.1 (65) 13.7 (24)

a N refers to the total number of teachers who responded to the item. b n refers to the number of teachers who selected the response.

126

A median score of 72.0 (min 48, max 91) was reported for classroom teachers’

perceptions of the schools’ social environment (Table 6.3). Teachers’ median score

on the social environment index was similar for teachers who used SEW programs

versus teachers who did not use SEW programs (median 72.0, min 48, max 91).

Table 6.3: Social environment score summarised by school

School n a Social Environment

Med (min,max) b

School 6 29 77.0 (55,88)

School 4 12 76.5 (68,91)

School 3 6 75.5 (69,82)

School 8 11 75.0 (69,89)

School 10 12 75.0 (50,85)

School 5 12 73.5 (61,87)

School 9 14 71.0 (55,81)

School 12 21 71.0 (48,77)

School 2 13 69.0 (64,82)

School 1 10 69.0 (59,80)

School 11 15 69.0 (51,79)

School 7 11 66.0 (50,78) a n refers to the number of teachers in each school with no missing data on the items that made up the total score. b Med (min,max) refers to the median score, minimum and maximum scores.

Teacher-to-teacher collaboration

Staff collaboration

Classroom teachers’ perceptions of the frequency of positive collaboration with other

teachers and with administration are presented in Table 6.4. The median score for

classroom teachers’ perceptions of teacher-to-teacher collaboration at school

indicates that positive collaboration was perceived to occur on a ‘relatively often’ to

‘often’ basis (median 23.0, min 5.0, max 30.0). Differences in perception of the

frequency of collaboration amongst classroom teachers is emphasised by the

minimum and maximum scores obtained, with a few teachers reporting consistently

low scores; whilst others scored consistently high for each item.

127

Teacher-to-administration collaboration

A median score of 18.0 (min 5.0, max 30.0) was obtained for teachers’ perception of

the frequency of positive collaboration with administration (see Table 6.4). A

median score of 18.0 indicates that classroom teachers perceived positive

collaboration with administration to occur on a ‘now and then’ to ‘relatively often’

basis. Similarly to the teacher-to-teacher collaboration scale, a wide range of scores

was evident. The median score for teacher-to-administration collaboration was

lower than the median score for teacher-to-teacher collaboration.

Some variation was evident in teachers’ perceptions of teacher-to-teacher

collaboration and teacher-to-administration collaboration across schools (Table 6.5).

Variation both within and between schools was higher for teacher-to-administration

collaboration than teacher-to-teacher collaboration.

128

Table 6.4: Primary Classroom Teachers’ perceptions of collaboration with staff at school

Staff Collaboration Seldom/

Never Relatively Seldom

Now and Then

Relatively Often

Often Very Often

N a % (n) b % (n) b % (n) b % (n) b % (n) b % (n) b

Teacher to Teacher collaboration I like the collegial atmosphere 168 4.2 (7) 7.7 (13) 20.8 (35) 25.0 (42) 31.5 (53) 10.7 (18) I like teachers’ professional attitudes 170 1.8 (3) 4.1 (7) 14.7 (25) 22.4 (38) 38.8 (66) 18.2 (31) Teachers are helpful towards each other 170 1.2 (2) 1.2 (2) 10.6 (18) 14.7 (25) 43.5 (74) 28.8 (49) Teachers generally agree on working and teaching methods 169 1.8 (3) 5.9 (10) 13.6 (23) 30.8 (52) 34.9 (59) 13.0 (22) New teachers are easily accepted 172 1.7 (3) 4.7 (8) 9.9 (17) 24.4 (42) 36.6 (63) 22.7 (39) Teacher to Administration collaboration Collaboration between teachers and Administration is generally good

170 5.9 (10) 8.2(14) 25.9 (44) 22.9 (39) 31.2 (53) 5.9 (10)

Teachers and Administration generally agree on how the school should be run

170 3.5 (6) 12.9 (22) 27.6 (47) 30.0 (51) 21.8 (37) 4.1 (7)

Administration generally supports teachers’ suggestions for changes

169 7.1 (12) 16.6 (28) 32.5 (55) 25.4 (43) 14.8 (25) 3.6 (6)

I can go to the Administration with my problems at school 170 4.7 (8) 10.0 (17) 23.5 (40) 17.1 (29) 26.5 (45) 18.2 (31) The Administration is generally positive towards teachers’ suggestions for changes in the school

169 7.7 (13) 17.8 (30) 28.4 (48) 21.3 (36) 17.2 (29) 7.7 (13)

a N refers to the total number of teachers who responded to the item. b n refers to the number of teachers who selected the response.

129

Table 6.5: Teacher-to-Teacher and Teacher-to-Administration Collaboration scores, summarised by school.

School n a T-T Collab.b T-A Collab.c

Med (min,max) d Med (min,max) d

School 1 9-10 21.0 (10,30) 18.0 (9,24)

School 2 12 24.0 (20,27) 21.5 (12,25)

School 3 7 25.0 (16,27) 21.0 (10,25)

School 4 11 22.0 (14,30) 23.0 (12,30)

School 5 13 23.0 (12,27) 20.0 (12,30)

School 6 31 24.0 (12,30) 17.0 (11,30)

School 7 11 18.0 (5,25) 13.0 (9,22)

School 8 11 28.0 (20,30) 24.0 (12,29)

School 9 14 22.5 (17,27) 13.5 (6,22)

School 10 13 22.0 (11,27) 24.0 (12,27)

School 11 16 24.0 (12,29) 18.5 (5,28)

School 12 21 22.0 (11,27) 16.0 (7,25) a n refers to the total number of teachers who responded in each school, n is the same for T-T Collab. and T-A Collab. in all schools except School One, where T-T Collab.=10, T-A Collab.=9. b T-T Collab. = Teacher-to-Teacher Collaboration c T-A Collab. = Teacher-to-Administration Collaboration d Med (min,max) refers to the median score, minimum and maximum scores.

Primary Classroom Teachers’ openness in communication

Classroom teachers’ perception of how frequently teachers at the school openly

communicate is presented in Table 6.6. Overall, teachers perceived that open

communication occurred on a ‘now and then’ to ‘relatively often’ basis (median 19.0,

min 5.0, max 24.0) about their relations with students and their teaching methods.

Presented in Table 6.7 is classroom teachers’ openness in communication across

schools. The range of scores across schools was wide, although little difference

between median scores was evident.

130

Table 6.6: Primary Classroom Teachers’ perceptions of collaboration and openness in communication with staff at school

Openness in Communication Seldom/

Never Relatively Seldom

Now and Then

Relatively Often

Often Very Often

N a % (n) b % (n) b % (n) b % (n) b % (n) b % (n) b I discuss with other teachers how I work with students

172 1.2 (2) 3.5 (6) 9.9 (17) 23.8 (41) 39.0 (67) 22.7 (39)

I talk openly with other teachers about my relationship with students

171 1.2 (2) 1.8 (3) 17.5 (30) 17.0 (29) 40.4 (69) 22.2 (38)

Teachers at the school talk openly about their relationship with students

171 2.3 (4) 4.7 (8) 13.5 (23) 19.9 (34) 40.9 (70) 18.7 (32)

Teachers at school collaborate with regards to working and teaching methods

172 1.2 (2) 7.0 (12) 13.4 (23) 25.6 (44) 35.5 (61) 17.4 (30)

a N refers to the total number of teachers who responded to the item. b n refers to the number of teachers who selected the response.

131

Table 6.7: Primary Classroom Teachers’ openness in communication and relations with Administration, summarised by school.

School n a Openness in communication

Med (min,max) b

School 1 10 17.0 (9,23)

School 2 13 20.0 (17,24)

School 3 7 20.0 (16,24)

School 4 11 19.0 (12,24)

School 5 12 18.0 (12,21)

School 6 31 19.0 (9,24)

School 7 11 16.0 (7,22)

School 8 11 20.0 (11,24)

School 9 14 19.5 (11,24)

School 10 13 18.0 (5,22)

School 11 17 20.0 (13,23)

School 12 21 19.0 (5,24) a n refers to the total number of teachers who responded in each school. b Med (min,max) refers to the median score, minimum and maximum scores.

Teacher relations with Administration

Teachers’ perceptions of relations with administration represented the full range of

scores, from ‘very dissatisfied’ to ‘very satisfied’ (see Table 6.8). The median score

on the teacher relations with administration scale was 27.0 (min 5.0, max 35.0)

indicating that overall, teachers rated between ‘slightly satisfied’ and ‘satisfied’ with

the relations between themselves and administration. Table 6.9 shows some

variation in scores across schools.

132

Table 6.8: Primary Classroom Teachers’ satisfaction with their relations with Administration

Teacher Relations with Administration

Very Dissat. a

Dissat. a Slightly Dissat. a

Indifferent Slightly Satisfied

Satisfied Very Satisfied

N b % (n) c % (n) c % (n) c % (n) c % (n) c % (n) c % (n) c

The Principal listens and pays attention to me.

171 5.8 (10) 9.9 (17) 5.8 (10) 11.1 (19) 14.6 (25) 35.1 (60) 17.5 (30)

The Principal offers guidance for solving job related problems.

171 8.8 (15) 11.7 (20) 7.6 (13) 12.3 (21) 14.0 (24) 29.2 (50) 16.4 (28)

The Principal trusts me. 170 4.7 (8) 5.9 (10) 2.9 (5) 17.1 (29) 10.0 (17) 38.2 (65) 21.2 (36)

The Principal is open to ideas. 170 8.8 (15) 7.6 (13) 10.0 (17) 11.8 (20) 19.4 (33) 30.0 (51) 12.4 (21)

The amount of supervision given to me is about right.

171 2.9 (5) 4.1 (7) 4.7 (8) 12.9 (22) 5.8 (10) 46.8 (80) 22.8 (39)

a Very Dissat. = very dissatisfied, Dissat. = dissatisfied, Slightly Dissat. = slightly dissatisfied. b N refers to the total number of teachers who responded to the item. c n refers to the number of teachers who selected the response.

133

Table 6.9: Primary Classroom Teachers’ satisfaction with their relations with Administration, summarised by school.

School n a T-A relations b

Med (min,max) c

School 1 9 25.0 (7,30)

School 2 13 30.0 (17,34)

School 3 7 29.0 (13,34)

School 4 11 30.0 (11,35)

School 5 13 23.0 (11,35)

School 6 29 29.0 (13,35)

School 7 11 28.0 (13,35)

School 8 10 31.0 (24,35)

School 9 14 21.5 (5,35)

School 10 13 30.0 (16,35)

School 11 17 26.0 (8,35)

School 12 20 20.0 (5,35) a n refers to the total number of teachers who responded in each school. b T-A relations. = Teacher-to-Administration relations. d Med (min,max) refers to the median score, minimum and maximum scores.

134

No associations were evident between teachers’ use of SEW programs and the

following factors: teacher-to-teacher collaboration; teacher-to-administration

collaboration; staff openness in communication; and teacher relations with

administration (see Table 6.10).

Table 6.10: Primary Classroom Teachers’ perceptions of staff collaboration and communication

Collaboration and communication

SEW Usea SEW Non-usea

n b Median (min, max) c n b Median (min, max) c Teacher-to-teacher collaboration

123 23.0 (5,30) 45 24.0 (12,30)

Teacher-to-admin collaboration

123 18.0 (5,30) 44 19.5 (7,30)

Staff openness in communication

125 19.0 (5,24) 45 19.0 (5,24)

Relations with administration

123 27.0 (5,35) 42 27.0 (11,35)

a SEW use = Social and emotional wellbeing program user, SEW non-use = Social and emotional wellbeing program non-user. b n refers to the number of teachers using SEW programs versus not using SEW programs. c Med (min, max) refers to the median score, minimum and maximum scores.

6.2.3.4 Formal school wellbeing policies

Presence of formal wellbeing policies

Presented in Table 6.11 are the wellbeing-related policies available in schools. The

policies listed in the Table are ordered, with those available across the highest

number of schools presented first. Schools are ordered in a similar manner, where

schools with the highest number of policies available are listed on the left-hand side

of the Table. Overall, a median of 6.0 policies were available at each of the 11

schools9

9 Policy data were not available for School 9 as the survey that provided this information was not

returned.

(min 3.0, max 8.0) although substantial variation in the policies available

exists between schools. Three of the policies (i.e. child protection, student

behaviour management and critical incidents) were available in all schools (100%,

n=11), with variability evident between schools. Of the 11 schools, 3 (27.27%)

reported that all 8 policies were available, while most schools reported that at least 6

135

policies were available. Of the teachers in schools that had all policies available,

57% (n=58) used SEW programs whilst in schools that did not have all policies

available, 79% of teachers (n=100) used SEW programs.

Table 6.11: The availability of formal wellbeing-related policies across schools

Policy School a

2 6 10 1 3 4 5 7 12 11 8

Student behaviour management

Critical incidents

Child protection

Anti-bullying

Management of special needs

Safe schools

Gender equity

Respect for diversity a Table includes 11 schools as data were not available for School 9, thus n=11 schools.

136

Awareness of formal wellbeing policies

Teachers’ awareness of formal wellbeing-related policies is based upon the report of

policies available at each school. Table 6.12 shows that there was no single policy

that all teachers were aware of (i.e. of the policies that were reported to be available

at a school). The policies most widely available (i.e. student behaviour

management, critical incidents and child protection polices) were the ones that

teachers were aware of most.

Table 6.12: Primary Classroom Teachers’ awareness of formal school policies

Formal school policies % (n) a, b

Student behaviour management 98.8 (158)

Critical incidents 97.4 (151)

Child protection 95.6 (153)

Anti-bullying 88.6 (132)

Management of special needs 88.6 (132)

Safe schools 64.3 (81)

Respect for diversity 50.0 (29)

Gender equity 45.6 (31) a n refers to the number of teachers who responded to the item. Responses are based on teachers in schools where the policy was reported to be available. Small n’s are due to few schools reporting that policies are available. b Analysis includes 11 schools as data were not available for School 9.

While less than half (48.1%, n=160) of the teachers were aware of all the wellbeing-

related policies that were available at their school, Table 6.13 shows that teachers’

policy awareness differed between schools. The Table lists in descending order, the

proportion of teachers aware of all policies that were reported to be available at the

school. The number of policies available (presented in the last column), is provided

for reference only. Generally, teachers who reported a higher awareness of policies

were those from schools that had fewer policies available. For example, 90% of the

teachers in School 8 were aware of the 3 policies available at the school whilst in

schools where all 8 policies were available, teachers’ awareness of all policies was

lower and ranged between 23% and 42% (i.e. Schools: 2, 6 and 10 respectively).

This pattern was consistent across most, but not all schools. Teachers’ awareness

of all wellbeing-related policies available at the school was not associated with the

use of SEW programs, with 51% (n=112) of SEW program users aware of all

137

policies available at the school while 40% (n=46) of SEW program non-users were

also aware of all policies available at the school.

Table 6.13: Primary Classroom Teachers’ awareness of all wellbeing-related policies available at school a,b

School b Policy awareness % (n) a,b

No. policies available

School 8 90.9 (11) 3

School 3 71.4 (7) 6

School 11 70.6 (17) 5

School 4 66.7 (12) 6

School 5 61.5 (13) 6

School 12 47.6 (21) 6

School 6 41.9 (31) 8

School 10 28.6 (14) 8

School 2 23.1 (13) 8

School 1 20.0 (10) 7

School 7 18.2 (11) 6 a n refers to the number of teachers who responded to the item. b Analysis includes 11 schools as data were not available for School 9.

Implementation of formal wellbeing policies

Classroom teachers rated the overall extent to which wellbeing-related policies (that

were available at the school and that teachers reported to be aware of) were put into

practice at school as ‘good’ (here, a median of 80.0, min 32.0, max 100.0).

However, Table 6.14 shows that there was some variation evident when the

individual policies were examined. The policies that are concerned with student

behaviour management and students with special needs were perceived by

teachers to be those most poorly implemented compared to the other policies listed.

At least 70% of teachers rated the implementation of the remaining 5 policies as

‘good’ or ‘very good’.

138

Table 6.14: Primary Classroom Teachers’ ratings of how well wellbeing-related policies are implemented

Type of Policy V. Poor b % (n) a,c

Poor % (n) a,c

Average % (n) a,c

Good % (n) a,c

V. Good b % (n) a,c

Behaviour management

7.1 (11) 12.8 (20) 16.7 (26) 29.5 (46) 34.0 (53)

Special needs 1.5 (2) 9.2 (12) 22.3 (29) 33.1 (43) 33.8 (44)

Anti-bullying 5.4 (7) 6.2 (8) 27.1 (35) 32.6 (42) 28.7 (37)

Gender equity 0.0 (0) 10.0 (3) 20.0 (6) 36.7 (11) 33.3 (10)

Child protection 2.1 (3) 3.4 (5) 19.3 (28) 38.6 (56) 36.6 (53)

Safe schools 1.3 (1) 3.8 (3) 19.2 (15) 47.4 (37) 28.2 (22)

Respect for diversity

0.0 (0) 3.4 (1) 24.1 (7) 44.8 (13) 27.6 (8)

Critical incidents 0.0 (0) 2.0 (3) 21.1 (31) 37.4 (55) 39.5 (58) a n refers to the number of teachers who selected the response. b V.Poor = very poor, V.Good = very good. c Analysis includes teachers from 11 schools as data were not available for School 9.

139

Presented in Table 6.15 are classroom teachers’ ratings of how well the policies are

implemented in each school. The table is ordered according to the median scores

for how well the policies are implemented, with the highest median score presented

first. Variation in teachers’ ratings of how well policies are implemented was evident

across schools. While most schools rated the implementation of wellbeing-related

policies as ‘good to very good’ (here, medians of 80.0 or higher), some schools

rated policy implementation as ‘average’ (here, a median of 60.0). However, the

range of scores within schools indicates variation both within and between schools.

Table 6.15: Primary Classroom Teachers’ ratings of how well the wellbeing-related policies are implemented, summarised by school.

Schoola n b Policy into practice Med (min,max) c

School 6 31 93.0 (70.0,100.0)

School 3 16 90.0 (73.0-100.0)

School 4 12 87.0 (68.0,100.0)

School 10 14 84.0 (40.0,100.0)

School 5 13 83.0 (53.0,100.0)

School 8 11 80.0 (60.0,93.0)

School 1 10 77.0 (55.0,89.0)

School 2 13 72.0 (33.0,92.0)

School 12 20 67.0 (40.0,84.0)

School 11 17 64.0 (32.0,95.0)

School 7 11 60.0 (33.0,80.0) a Analysis includes 11 schools as data were not available for School 9. b n refers to the number of teachers in each school who rated how well the policies they were aware of were put into practice at the school. c Med (min, max) refers to the median score, minimum and maximum scores.

Teachers’ scores of the extent to which formal wellbeing-related policies were

implemented in schools was not associated with the use of SEW programs.

Teachers who used SEW programs and those who did not use such programs

during 2005, rated the extent to which formal wellbeing-related policy was put into

practice as ‘good’ (here, a median of 80.0, min 32.0, max 100.0).

140

6.2.3.5 Professional Development Forty per cent of teachers (n=175) reported receiving professional development as a

main source of support for addressing students’ behavioural and/or emotional

issues. Variation in the proportions of teachers receiving professional development

across schools was evident and ranged from 14% (n=7) of teachers in School 3 to

52% (n=31) of teachers in School 6.

Of the teachers who reported receiving professional development for addressing

student issues, 73% of teachers (n=69) received this support from the Principal or

Deputy Principal, while 38% (n=69) received professional development from other

classroom teachers and 30% (n=69) received professional development support

from the GO. Twelve per cent of teachers (n=69) reported receiving professional

development support from other sources. Sixty per cent of the 69 teachers reported

that they received professional development from ‘one’ source (i.e. Principal/Deputy

Principal or GO or other Classroom Teacher), while 30% of teachers reported

receiving professional development from a combination of two sources and the

remaining 10% of teachers reported receiving professional development from three

or more sources.

There was no association evident between teachers’ receipt of professional

development to assist in addressing students’ social and emotional wellbeing issues

and their use of SEW programs. Overall, 74.3% (n=105) of teachers who did not

receive professional development as a main source of support used SEW programs

while 72.1% (n=68) of teachers who did receive professional development as a main

source of support used SEW programs.

About one-third (n=127, 34.3%) of the teachers who used SEW programs reported

attending professional development that related (specifically) to these SEW

programs. Presented in Table 6.16 is the proportions of teachers who used SEW

programs and attended professional development related to SEW programs,

summarised by school and ordered according to the school with the highest

proportion of teachers attending SEW-related professional development. Although

there is variation of the proportion of teachers who attended SEW-related

professional development across schools, the small numbers of teachers provides

insufficient evidence that this difference is reproducible.

141

Table 6.16: Primary Classroom Teachers’ attendance at social and emotional wellbeing-related professional development, for teachers who used social and emotional wellbeing programs, summarised by school.

School Attended PD % (n) a

School 12 66.7 (15)

School 11 55.6 (9)

School 5 50.0 (8)

School 1 50.0 (6)

School 2 50.0 (6)

School 8 40.0 (5)

School 4 33.3 (9)

School 6 25.0 (12)

School 9 15.4 (13)

School 3 14.3 (7)

School 10 11.1 (9)

School 7 0.0 (9) a n refers to the number of teachers who attended professional development.

Of the 37 teachers who used SEW programs and reported attending SEW-related

professional development, 62.2% attended an in-service, almost 50% attended a

workshop or seminar, 16% used peer mentoring and 8% attended a conference.

Teachers reported attending a median of 4.5 hours (min 1, max 80) of professional

development related to SEW programs during 2005, with a median of 3 hours (min

0, max 50) of compulsory wellbeing-related professional development and a median

of 0 hours (min 0, max 30) of professional development undertaken on a voluntary

basis. Although 15% to 20% of missing data were identified for teachers’

attendance at professional development and hours of attendance, missing data

were randomly spread suggesting little evidence of a systematic bias. However the

results are based on small numbers and therefore may not be reproducible.

142

6.2.4 CLASSROOM INFLUENCES Potential classroom level influences on primary teachers’ use of SEW programs (for

example, the extent to which teachers use activities that encourage students to

involve parents in their school work at home, the range of wellbeing-related topics

and skills covered or practised and teachers’ perceptions of the frequency of student

problems in class) are described in this section.

6.2.4.1 Encouraging parental/caregiver involvement in school work at home

The majority of classroom teachers ‘sometimes’ used class activities to encourage

student interaction with parents or caregivers about school work at home (45.7%,

n=173). An additional 24.9% ‘often’ reported using such activities while 6.9%

reported ‘always’ using activities that encourage home interaction. Over 20% of

teachers reported that they never or rarely used these types of activities (4.6% and

17.9% respectively). Teachers’ use of class activities that encourage students to

interact with parents or caregivers about school work at home was associated with

teachers’ use of SEW programs in class. The teachers who reported using SEW

programs also used activities to encourage home interaction more frequently than

teachers who do not use SEW programs.

6.2.4.2 The wellbeing-related topics and skills covered in class Teachers reported covering a median of 9.0 (min 3, max 15) wellbeing-related topics

with students in class during 2005. Table 6.17 is presented in descending order

according to the proportion of teachers covering each wellbeing-related topic during

the year. The Table shows that whilst some topic areas were covered by most

teachers other topics received comparatively less attention.

143

Table 6.17: Primary Classroom Teachers’ report of wellbeing-related topics covered in class during 2005

Wellbeing-related topics % (n) a

Respect for self and others 100.0 (174)

Peer friendships/relationships 99.4 (175)

Anti-bullying 98.9 (174)

Emotions 94.8 (174)

Personal identity 86.0 (171)

Cultural diversity 81.8 (170)

Identifying positive role models 76.6 (171)

Protective behaviours 71.0 (169)

Anxiousness 57.2 (166)

Resilience/bouncing back 53.6 (166)

Parental separation 39.3 (163)

Grief and loss 38.0 (166)

Sexual health education 29.3 (164)

Addictive behaviours 23.6 (165)

Self-harming behaviour 11.7 (162) a n refers to the total number of teachers who responded to the item.

144

Listed in Table 6.18 is the proportion of teachers who reported practising wellbeing-

related skills with students in class. Teachers practised a median of 14 skills with

students during 2005 (min 2, max 16). Most of the skills were practised by at least

80% of teachers, although none of the skills were practised by all teachers.

Variation in the skills practised was wide.

Table 6.18: Wellbeing-related skills practised in class during 2005

Wellbeing-related skills % (n) a

Non-violent conflict resolution 96.6 (174)

Developing social relationships 92.9 (170)

Good communication 91.4 (174)

Problem solving 91.3 (173)

Self-confidence 90.8 (173)

Interpersonal skills 88.4 (172)

Personal safety 85.3 (170)

Decision making 84.6 (169)

Help seeking 80.2 (167)

Independence and self-reliance 79.9 (169)

Assertiveness 78.7 (169)

Positive peer role modelling 75.9 (170)

Positive coping strategies 73.4 (169)

Goal setting 71.4 (168)

Optimistic thinking 58.9 (168)

Relaxation 54.5 (167) a n refers to the total number of teachers who responded to the item.

145

Presented in Table 6.19 are the median scores for the number of wellbeing-related

topics covered and skills practised with students across the 12 schools. There are

differences evident in the number of topics taught across schools, however

variability in the range of topics taught was more substantial. Variation is apparent

in the median number of wellbeing-related skills practised with students. However

at least one teacher in each school reported practising all 16 skills with students.

This was not evident for teachers’ coverage of topic areas.

Table 6.19: Median number of topics and skills covered/practised in each school

School Topics covered Skills practised

n a Med (min,max) b Med (min,max) b

School 1 10 8 (4,13) 11 (5,16)

School 2 13 9 (7,15) 13 (8,16)

School 3 7 11 (9,12) 16 (5,16)

School 4 12 9 (4,11) 15 (4,16)

School 5 13 9 (3,14) 14 (2,16)

School 6 31 9 (4,14) 13 (3,16)

School 7 11 9 (4,15) 12 (2,16)

School 8 11 9 (5,13) 14 (2,16)

School 9 15 9 (4,14) 14 (6,16)

School 10 14 9 (7,14) 14 (8,16)

School 11 17 10 (5,14) 12 (7,16)

School 12 21 10 (5,15) 14 (4,16) a n refers to the number of teachers responding per school for topics covered and skills practised. b Med (min,max) refers to the median score, minimum and maximum scores.

Overall, 2.3% (n=175) of teachers taught all 15 wellbeing-related topics, while 28%

of teachers practised all 16 wellbeing-related skills with students. Of the 49

teachers who practised all 16 skills with students, 90% reported using SEW

programs while less than 70% of the 124 teachers who did not practise all 16 skills

used programs. Whilst teachers’ coverage of wellbeing-related skills was

associated with the use of SEW programs, coverage of wellbeing-related topics was

not associated with program use.

146

6.2.4.3 Frequency of on-going student social and emotional problems in class

Classroom teachers’ perceptions of the frequency in which students exhibited on-

going social or emotional problems in class during 2005 is presented in Table 6.20.

A wide range of issues was reported by teachers as frequently occurring on an on-

going basis in the classroom. Examination of the table revealed that disruptive

behaviour and bullying are issues that teachers perceived to occur most frequently

(when compared to the other issues listed). Mean scores for the frequency of

problems in each school is presented in Table 6.21. The schools are listed in

descending order according to the mean student problems score. Overall, teachers

reported a mean problems score of 24.6 (sd 5.8). Teachers’ perceptions of on-

going problems shared variation in the scores across schools. However, teachers’

perceived frequency of student problems in class was not associated with the use of

SEW programs, with mean scores similar across the two groups (program users:

mean 24.80, sd 5.86 versus program non-users: mean 23.90, sd 5.83).

147

Table 6.20: Frequency of on-going issues in the classroom during 2005

On-going issue Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always

N a % (n) b % (n) b % (n) b % (n) b % (n) b

Disruptive behaviour 172 0.6 (1) 12.8 (22) 24.4 (42) 38.4 (66) 23.8 (41)

Student to student bullying 174 2.9 (5) 21.8 (38) 37.4 (65) 29.3 (51) 8.6 (15)

Student to teacher bullying 173 46.2 (80) 22.5 (39) 20.8 (36) 10.4 (18) 0.0 (0)

Neglect 174 9.2 (16) 29.9 (52) 37.4 (65) 19.5 (34) 4.0 (7)

Anxiousness 174 2.9 (5) 31.6 (55) 46.0 (80) 16.7 (29) 2.9 (5)

Abuse 170 40.6 (69) 31.8 (54) 24.1 (41) 2.4 (4) 1.2 (2)

Truancy 173 27.2 (47) 37.6 (65) 23.1 (40) 11.0 (19) 1.2 (2)

Sadness 174 6.9 (12) 32.8 (57) 50.0 (87) 10.3 (18) 0.0 (0)

Grief 173 32.9 (57) 38.2 (66) 27.2 (47) 1.7 (3) 0.0 (0)

Self-harm 173 61.8 (107) 28.3 (49) 8.7 (15) 1.2 (2) 0.0 (0) a N refers to the total number of teachers who responded to the item. b n refers to the number of teachers who responded in each category.

148

Table 6.21: Mean score for Primary Classroom Teachers’ report of the frequency of on-going problems in the classroom during 2005, summarised by school.

a n refers to the number of teachers in each school with no missing data on the items that made up the total score. b sd refers to standard deviation.

6.2.5 INDIVIDUAL INFLUENCES A number of individual influences such as teachers’ age, qualifications, years of

teaching experience and their perceptions of student problems that may impact

teachers’ use of SEW programs are presented in this section.

6.2.5.1 Characteristics of Primary Classroom Teachers A descriptive summary of classroom teacher characteristics has been provided in

Section 5.2.2. Outlined in Table 6.22 are the characteristics of teachers who used

SEW programs during 2005. Inspection of the Table revealed that teachers’ age

and qualifications were identified as potential influences on primary teachers’ use of

SEW programs.

School N a Mean (sd) b

School 11 14 29.1 (5.3)

School 9 15 28.5 (6.2)

School 12 19 27.4 (4.6)

School 2 12 26.2 (5.5)

School 5 12 25.8 (4.9)

School 8 11 25.5 (3.6)

School 1 9 24. 9 (5.0)

School 10 13 24.5 (4.3)

School 7 9 24.2 (5.2)

School 4 12 21.6 (5.0)

School 3 6 20.8 (4.9)

School 6 29 19.0 (4.4)

149

Table 6.22: Characteristics of Primary Classroom Teachers summarised by program use status

Teacher Characteristics Program use % (n) a

Gender Male 65.2 (23) Female 74.7 (150) Age group 21-30 years 80.6 (36) 31-40 years 75.6 (41) 41-50 years 74.1 (58)

51-60 years 63.2 (38) Qualifications Certificate/Diploma 77.8 (36) Bachelor 76.6 (107) Graduate diploma/ certificate 52.2 (23) Masters 100.0 (5) Employment Status Full time 73.0 (148) Part time 76.0 (25) Year level taught b 1 75.0 (36) 2 71.9 (32) 3 77.1 (35) 4 76.0 (25) 5 70.8 (24) 6 73.1 (26) 7 80.8 (26) Employment Median (min,max) e Current school (yrs) c 5.0 (0,26) Total no. yrs in schools d 14.0 (0,36)

a n refers to the total number of teachers for each item. b Each year level was analysed separately in order to include both single year level and composite class teachers. This means that the n’s reported are an inflation of the true sample size. Teachers who taught more than 3 year levels (n=3 teachers) were not included (see Section 4.3.5.1 for rationale). c Number of SEW program users who responded to this item: n=126. d Number of SEW program users who responded to this item: n=127. e (min,max) refers to minimum and maximum scores.

150

The table shows a trend whereby program use decreased as the age of teachers

increased. While 80% (n=36) of teachers in the 21-30 year age group used SEW

programs during the year, 63% (n=38) of teachers aged 51-60 years of age used

SEW programs. Teachers whose highest qualification was a master’s degree or

diploma or bachelor’s degree were more likely to use SEW programs than teachers

who reported that a graduate diploma or certificate was their highest qualification

completed. A further analysis, undertaken to establish whether teachers’ age was

confounding the association between qualifications and program use revealed that

40% (n=23) of the teachers with a graduate diploma were in the 51-60 year age

group. All teachers who completed a masters degree used SEW programs.

However, the small number of teachers with a master’s degree provides insufficient

evidence that this difference is reproducible.

Other teacher characteristics such as gender, employment status and year level

taught were not associated with teachers’ use of SEW programs. Teachers using

SEW programs reported working in schools for a median of 14 years (min 0, max

36) whilst teachers not using programs reported working in schools for a median of

18 years (min 0, max 37). The number of years teachers reported working in their

current school was similar amongst those who used SEW programs versus teachers

who did not use SEW programs (median 5, min 0, max 27).

6.2.5.2 The social and emotional wellbeing of students During 2005, teachers reported teaching a median of 25 students per class (min 17,

max 31), with a median of 14 boys (min 5, max 20) and 12 girls (min 6, max 22). A

higher median number of students exhibited behavioural inattentiveness, non-

compliance or aggression (median: 4.0; min 0, max 15) compared to other types of

problems (i.e. anxiousness, depression, withdrawal and co-morbid problems10

10 Co-morbid problems refer to a combination of behavioural problems and problems associated with

anxiousness, depression and withdrawal in this thesis.

;

median: 2.0, min 0, max 10, and median: 1.0, min 0, max 14, respectively). A wide

range in scores was evident across the three types of problems. However, there

was no association evident between teachers’ perceptions of the number of

students exhibiting these types of problems and teachers’ use of SEW programs in

class. Teachers who reported the highest number of students with problems in

class were those using SEW programs (see Table 6.23).

151

Table 6.23: Primary Classroom Teachers’ perceptions of the number of students with social or emotional problems in the class during 2005, summarised by program use.

Type of problem Program User Program Non-user

N a Med (min, max) b Med (min, max) b

Anxious/ Depressive 156 2.0 (0, 10) 2.0 (0, 6)

Disruptive/ Aggressive 161 3.5 (0, 15) 4.0 (0, 10)

Co-morbid behaviour 129 1.0 (0, 14) 1.0 (0, 3) a n refers to the total number of teachers who responded to the item per school. b Med (min,max) refers to the median score, minimum and maximum scores.

Presented in Table 6.24 is the number of students exhibiting the three types of

problems within each school. Differences in teachers’ perceptions of student

problems across the 12 schools are evident, with variations in scores most apparent

for behavioural inattentiveness problems. For example, a median of 8.0 students

per class were perceived to exhibit behavioural inattentiveness problems in School 9

(min 2, max 11), while a median of 1.5 students were perceived to exhibit the same

problems in School 4 (min 0, max 6). The range in scores for behavioural

inattentiveness both within and between schools is wide. The median behavioural

inattentiveness scores were generally higher than the median scores for

anxiousness problems and co-morbid problems across schools.

Teachers’ perceptions of the median number of students with anxiousness,

depression or withdrawal also differed across schools, although less variation in the

range of scores was evident when compared to behavioural inattentiveness

problems. Teachers employed at School 5 reported the highest median score for

the number of students per class exhibiting anxiousness problems and the most

variability in scores (median 5.0, min 0, max 10), when compared to teachers

employed in other schools. Variability in problem scores was lowest for co-morbid

problems when compared to the other types of problems although this may be due

to large amounts of missing data on this variable. However, the median problems

score varied most in School 5 (when compared to other schools), with a wider range

of scores evident also.

152

Table 6.24: Primary Classroom Teachers’ perceptions of student social and emotional problems in the classroom, summarised by school.

School Behavioural

inattentiveness Anxiousness Co-morbid

problems

n a Med (min,max) b n b Med (min,max) b n a Med (min,max) b

School 1 10 4.5 (1,10) 10 2.5 (0,4) 10 1.0 (0,6)

School 2 12 5.0 (1,10) 11 1.0 (0,5) 11 1.0 (0,3)

School 3 6 3.0 (1,9) 6 2.5 (0,6) 6 0.0 (0,2)

School 4 12 1.5 (0,6) 12 1.0 (0,3) 12 0.0 (0,2)

School 5 12 6.0 (2,15) 11 5.0 (0,10) 11 3.0 (0,14)

School 6 29 3.0 (0,7) 29 1.0 (0,6) 29 0.0 (0,5)

School 7 11 2.0 (0,10) 10 2.0 (0,4) 10 0.0 (0,2)

School 8 9 3.0 (1,8) 9 2.0 (0,6) 9 1.0 (0,2)

School 9 12 8.0 (2,11) 12 1.5 (0,4) 12 1.0 (0,4)

School 10 13 4.0 (0,12) 13 2.0 (0,4) 13 1.0 (0,4)

School 11 16 3.0 (2,8) 15 2.0 (0,6) 15 1.5 (0,5)

School 12 21 3.0 (0,14) 20 3.0 (0,5) 20 1.0 (0,3) a n refers to the total number of teachers who responded to the item per school. b Med (min,max) refers to the median score, minimum and maximum scores.

153

The factors described in this section were derived from the literature and organised

according to the socio-ecological levels of influence. Relationships between each

factor and teachers’ use of SEW programs was explored to identify potential

influences. Seven factors were identified as potentially influencing teachers’ use of

SEW programs at the bivariate level of analysis: teachers’ qualifications; the number

of wellbeing-related skills taught in class; teachers’ use of activities to encourage

interaction with parents or caregivers (about school work); the availability of formal

wellbeing-related policies at school; schools’ socio-economic status; parent or

caregiver involvement in class activities; and parent or caregiver involvement in

school activities. These seven factors were tested in a logistic regression model to

ascertain whether they are associated with teachers’ use of SEW programs, once

mutually adjusted for other factors.

6.3 Multivariable modelling of the influences on Primary Classroom Teachers’ use of social and emotional wellbeing programs

Seven factors were suggested to be associated with classroom teachers’ use of

SEW programs during bivariate analyses. A multivariable logistic regression was

undertaken to determine the independent influences of each factor on Primary

Classroom Teachers’ use of SEW programs (Table 6.25). The multivariable model

confirmed the bivariate relationships suggested for some factors; however evidence

of confounding of the crude associations was identified.

Following mutual adjustment for other factors in the model, parent involvement in

class activities and the wellbeing-related policies available in schools were identified

as influences on teachers’ use of SEW programs. At the community level, teachers

who often or always involved parents in class activities had a 5.11-fold higher odds

(95% CI: 1.02-25.47) of program use compared to teachers who never or rarely

involved parents in class activities. Wide confidence intervals indicated imprecise

estimates while confounding increased the odds ratio between crude and adjusted

analyses. While teachers who sometimes involved parents in class activities had a

3.26-fold higher odds (95% CI: 0.92-11.52) of using SEW programs relative to

teachers who never or rarely involved parents in class activities, inspection of the

confidence intervals suggests that this difference may not be reproducible. The

154

potential association between parent involvement in school-wide activities and

teachers’ use of SEW program identified during the bivariate analysis reduced on

adjustment for other factors in the model.

At the school level, teachers employed in schools that reported having all wellbeing-

related policies available had a 5.26-fold lower odds (95% CI: 2.33-12.50) of

program use relative to teachers employed in schools that did not have all

wellbeing-related policies available. Wide confidence intervals and an increase in

odds ratio between crude and adjusted analyses were identified. The bivariate

analyses suggested a potential difference between school SES groups with respect

to teachers’ use of SEW programs. Whilst the multivariable results indicate that

relative to teachers employed in low SES schools, teachers employed in middle-high

SES schools had a 5.26-fold lower odds (95% CI: 0.15-33.33) of program use, this

finding should be interpreted with caution. The confidence intervals include the

scenario where the association between school SES and program use may be no

more likely than chance.

The bivariate analyses suggested that 3 factors at the classroom and individual

levels of influence may be associated with Primary Classroom Teachers’ use of

SEW programs. Of the teachers who practised all wellbeing-related skills with

students in the classroom, 90% reported using SEW programs. While these

teachers had a 4.02-fold higher odds (95% CI: 0.97-16.58) of program use relative

to teachers who did not practise all wellbeing-related skills with students, the

confidence intervals include the scenario where this association may be due to

chance and therefore should be interpreted with some caution. The potential

association between teachers’ use of activities to encourage home interaction (i.e.

parental involvement in school work at home) and teachers’ SEW program use that

was identified in the bivariate analysis reduced following adjustment for the other

factors in the multivariable model.

Teachers’ qualifications were identified at the bivariate level as a potential influence

on SEW program use. Of the teachers who had completed a diploma or bachelor’s

degree, 82% reported using SEW programs. While the odds of program use by

teachers with a diploma or bachelor’s degree was 3.76-fold higher (95% CI: 0.89-

15.96) when compared to teachers with a graduate diploma, the confidence

155

intervals indicate that this association may be no more likely than chance. The

result for teachers who held a masters’ degree was not informative for precision

since all teachers in this sub-group reported using SEW programs.

Sensitivity analyses (provided in Appendix 6.1) indicate that the adjusted odds ratios

are not sensitive to change since the inclusion or exclusion of factors did not change

the direction of the associations examined. This supports the theoretical

assumption that teachers’ use of SEW programs is not influenced by a single factor

only.

156

Table 6.25: Multivariable relationships between Classroom Teachers’ use of social and emotional wellbeing programs and variables influencing program use at individual, classroom, school and broader community levels, in State primary schools.

Influences on program use

No. of participants

% Program users Crude OR a Adjusted OR a 95% CI b

COMMUNITY

Parent involvement in class activities c

Never/Rarely 14 64.3 1.00 1.00 Referent Sometimes 42 59.5 1.83 3.26 0.92, 11.52 Often/Always 65 73.8 4.07 5.11 1.02, 25.47

Parent involvement in school activities c

Never/Rarely 21 12.1 1.00 1.00 Referent Sometimes 83 48.3 0.88 d 0.61 d 0.13, 2.81 d Often/Always 68 39.7 3.28 1.66 0.29, 9.59

a OR: odds ratio of SEW program use. b 95% CI: 95% confidence interval. c Adjusted odds ratios are adjusted for all variables in the model except policies available. d Note that odds ratios less than 1 and their associated 95% Confidence Intervals that are presented in the table differ from their presentation in the text. For example, an odds ratio of 0.31 would be presented in the text as a 3.23-fold lower odds (i.e. 1/0.31).

157

Table 6.25 (cont’d): Multivariable relationships between Classroom Teachers’ use of social and emotional wellbeing programs and variables influencing program use at individual, classroom, school and broader community levels, in State primary schools.

Influences on program use

No. of participants

% Program users

Crude OR a

Adjusted OR a 95% CI b

SCHOOL

Policies available c, d No 100 79.0 1.00 1.00 Referent Yes 58 56.9 0.35 f 0.19 f 0.08, 0.43 f

School Socio-economic status e

Low 43 83.7 1.00 1.00 Referent Middle low 57 73.7 0.54 f 0.48 f 0.09, 2.66 f Middle high 62 64.5 0.35 f 0.19 f 0.03, 1.09 f High 11 81.8 0.88 f 1.12 0.19, 6.60

a OR: odds ratio of SEW program use. b 95% CI: 95% confidence interval. c Data not available for teachers in School 9 (n=15 teachers). d Adjusted odds ratio mutually adjusted for all other variables in the model. e Adjusted odds ratio is adjusted for all variables in the model except policies available. f Note that odds ratios less than 1 and their associated 95% Confidence Intervals that are presented in the table differ from their presentation in the text. For example, an odds ratio of 0.31 would be presented in the text as a 3.23-fold lower odds (i.e. 1/0.31).

158

Table 6.25 (cont’d): Multivariable relationships between Classroom Teachers’ use of social and emotional wellbeing programs and variables influencing program use at individual, classroom, school and broader community levels, in State primary schools.

Influences on program use

No. of participants

% Program users

Crude OR a

Adjusted OR a 95% CI b

CLASSROOM

Wellbeing skills practised c

No 124 66.9 1.00 1.00 Referent Yes 49 89.8 4.35 4.02 0.97, 16.58

Use of activities to encourage home interaction c

Never/Rarely 39 59.0 1.00 1.00 Referent Sometimes 77 72.7 1.86 1.28 0.61, 2.68 Often/Always 55 85.5 4.09 1.74 0.38, 7.91

a OR: odds ratio of SEW program use. b 95% CI: 95% confidence interval. c Adjusted odds ratios are adjusted for all variables in the model except policies available.

159

Table 6.25 (cont’d): Multivariable relationships between Classroom Teachers’ use of social and emotional wellbeing programs and variables influencing program use at individual, classroom, school and broader community levels, in State primary schools.

Influences on program use

No. of participants

% Program users

Crude OR a

Adjusted OR a 95% CI b

INDIVIDUAL

Qualifications c Masters 5 100.0 na e na e na e Grad. Diploma 23 52.2 1.00 1.00 Referent Diploma/Bachelor 143 81.3 3.06 3.76 0.89, 15.96

Age Group c

51-60 38 63.2 1.00 1.00 Referent 41-50 58 74.1 1.67 1.29 0.35, 4.83 31-40 41 75.6 1.81 2.21 0.43, 15.72 21-30 36 80.6 2.42 2.76 0.40, 18.96

Years working in schools c

0-10 years 69 39.7 1.00 1.00 Referent 11-20 years 53 31.0 0.93 d 1.43 0.44, 4.60 21-30 years 40 23.6 0.56 d 0.87 d 0.14, 5.58 d 31 or more years 10 5.7 1.21 2.71 0.15, 49.92

a OR: odds ratio of SEW program use. b 95% CI: 95% confidence interval. c Adjusted odds ratios are adjusted for all variables in the model except policies available. d Note that odds ratios less than 1 and their associated 95% Confidence Intervals that are presented in the table differ from their presentation in the text. For example, an odds ratio of 0.31 would be presented in the text as a 3.23-fold lower odds (i.e. 1/0.31). e Data not available since all teachers with a master’s degree used SEW programs.

160

Chapter 7: Discussion

The findings of this study demonstrate that primary classroom teachers are using

SEW programs. However there is substantial variation in the range of programs

used and the extent to which programs are used under real-world conditions. In

addition, a number of factors at the individual, classroom, school and community

levels have been identified as influences on primary teachers’ use of SEW

programs. The implications of these findings are discussed in this chapter.

7.1 Primary Classroom Teachers’ use of social and emotional wellbeing programs

Primary classroom teachers reported using forty-five different SEW programs in the

current study. An abundance of programs have been developed to address

students’ social and emotional wellbeing during the primary school years,

particularly over the last few decades. Dadds (2001: 5) points out that “much is

heard these days about so many different programs for different mental health

problems”. Developing new programs is heavily laden with positive value (Downs

and Mohr, 1976) and improvement (Rogers, 1995). More than ever before, primary

classroom teachers can select from a vast array of SEW programs, many of which

now come with “a string of authors, a publishing company and a cute acronym”

(Dadds, 2001: 5). Whilst this influx of programs may bring greater variety in choice,

by providing varied materials and approaches, it may also increase the likelihood of

fragmented and short-term program implementation. Irrespective of the number of

SEW programs available, it is unlikely that they will be used by all classroom

teachers in real-world practice.

7.1.1 The use versus non-use of SEW programs Almost three quarters of the primary classroom teachers involved in this study

reported using a SEW program during 2005. Furman et al. (1989) reported that it is

quite common for twenty-five per cent of teachers to be non-users of a program.

While this figure corresponds with the findings of the current study, the non-random

method used to select participants (in this study) may have inflated the proportion of

program users reported. In addition, a participant response bias may have

increased the likelihood that teachers reported using at least one program, since this

161

may seem more socially desirable to some teachers than reporting non-use (and

this may have potentially inflated the proportion of program users).

Implementation studies undertaken to date have often reported program use (or

other measures of program implementation such as fidelity and dose) under

intervention rather than real-world conditions in schools. While substantial efforts

are often invested to achieve high implementation rates in intervention studies, the

conditions under which programs are used in real-world settings may differ.

Notably, the decision to use or not use SEW programs may be somewhat more

variable when programs are used under real-world rather than intervention

conditions. Naturally, as with the development of any new program, the developers’

goal is to eventually attain widespread program use. This implicitly assumes

though, that using programs is a ‘good’ thing. Rogers notes that much of the

implementation research has a pro-innovation bias (i.e. the implication that a

program should be diffused and adopted by all members of a social system and

should not be rejected; Rogers, 1995). Of course, if one puts a large amount of time

and resources into developing a program, it is natural to aspire to widespread

program use.

One quarter of the primary teachers in the current study reported not using SEW

programs. Rogers claims that the decision to use or reject an innovation is rational

and appropriate from the individuals’ viewpoint (at least at the time the decision was

made; Rogers, 1995). For the current study, this assumes that the participating

teachers had equal access to the SEW programs listed and were equally aware that

the programs existed. Whilst teachers’ report of non-use may reflect a conscious

decision not to use SEW programs that are available or that can be obtained, it may

also be related to teachers’ awareness of programs, the availability of programs and

their associated cost. Furthermore, the current study described a snapshot of

teachers’ SEW program use or non-use at one point in time; however this may or

may not reflect that a teacher has never used SEW programs during other years.

Whilst the majority of primary classroom teachers reported using a SEW program

during the study, investigation of why teachers did not use SEW programs may

provide some useful insights for the field, since this is a relatively unexplored area

because the majority of research focuses on ‘successful’ programs. This

opportunity should be explored in the future not necessarily to increase program

162

use, but to identify rational and appropriate reasons why teachers decide not to use

SEW programs.

7.1.1.1 The reproducibility of Primary Classroom Teachers’ program use status

The results of the reproducibility survey indicated high agreement on teachers’

reports of program use from initial test to re-test. This suggests that providing

teachers with a checklist of programs may be a useful tool for obtaining quick

estimates of actual program use, across a wide variety of programs and over the

course of a year. However teachers recorded the use of fewer hand-written

programs11

during the reproducibility survey when compared to the initial survey.

This did not affect program use status because these teachers also reported using

other programs that were already in the checklist. This does suggest that while the

checklist of SEW programs was not designed to be comprehensive in this study

(although it did include over 40 SEW programs), it is recommended that the

checklist be as inclusive as possible so to reduce the likelihood of teachers needing

to handwrite programs on the checklist. This in turn, will provide teachers with an

equal opportunity to report on the widest possible range of SEW programs. The

findings of the reproducibility analyses suggest that asking teachers whether or not

they used a wide range of SEW programs over a one-year timeframe is a useful

method for establishing program use that is reproducible.

7.1.2 The range of SEW programs used Whilst teachers reported using a median of two SEW programs during the year, up

to fourteen programs were reportedly used by some participants. Teachers’ use of

a high number of programs may be related to the methods used in their everyday

teaching practices. Although there are many theories about learning styles, they

share a similar concept in that students learn in a variety of ways. Students’

learning improves when teachers use a variety of learning styles that are supported

by varied materials and resources (Smith, 2002). Teachers will often look at

multiple resources to gain new ideas in order to select or develop approaches that

the class will find interesting and exciting. Since teachers are known to use various

activities from multiple sources to develop lesson plans, quite possibly due to the

11 A hand-written program refers to the additional programs that teachers added to the checklist of

SEW programs in the space provided for this purpose.

163

advances in technology and the easy access of resources (Overall and Sangster,

2004), the use of a high number of SEW programs may somewhat reflect their usual

teaching practices. In addition, primary teachers are aware of the particular needs

of the class and thus, base students’ learning upon the relevant needs in order to

achieve key learning outcomes. Teachers may consult a variety of programs in

order to meet the key areas identified within the class, since one or two programs

may not be adequate to address all needs. Furthermore, a high use of SEW

programs may in part, be a reaction to the current societal pressures placed on

teachers to ‘fix’ students’ problems, the increasing pressure from parents and the

wider community to provide more varied learning (both academic and

social/emotional) and an increase in teachers’ accountability with respect to what

they cover in class on a weekly basis with students.

It is inevitable that opinions about whether SEW programs should be used, when to

use them, how they should be used and under what conditions, will differ depending

on the audience (for example, program developer versus classroom teacher).

Whilst primary teachers may have a neutral opinion about the number of SEW

programs that they or colleagues use during the year, it is likely that developers of

research-based SEW programs may view teachers’ use of many programs with

some apprehension. Research-based SEW programs (in particular), are structured

in their format and may have a timeframe for program implementation (for example,

ten sessions to be delivered once per week). These types of programs have often

undergone ‘multiple iterations’ to eliminate irrelevant or sometimes even harmful

program content (Dusenbury et al., 2003). Thus program developers intend for

these programs to be delivered as set out in the manual, since adaptations may

reincorporate content that was previously excluded for good reason (Dusenbury et

al., 2003). However in the current study, primary teachers consistently reported

using part of a program rather than the whole program, irrespective of whether or

not the program was evidence-based. The high proportion of teachers reporting use

of part rather than whole SEW programs suggests some uncertainty about the

quality of program implementation. From a program developer’s perspective, this

will also lead to further questions regarding the extent to which positive outcomes

can be achieved when evidence-based SEW programs are not delivered as

intended. From this perspective (i.e. developers of research-based programs),

partial rather than full use of multiple programs is likely to suggest a fragmented and

piecemeal approach to program implementation. Elias and Arnold. (1997) stated

164

that “like reading or math, if social-emotional skills are not taught systematically,

they will not be internalized and become part of a child’s lifelong repertoire of valued

activities”. Some program developers may not respond well to teachers’

inconsistent use of SEW programs as it may jeopardise the integrity of the program

if it is not implemented as intended. Whilst this is understandable given the

pressure placed on developers of new programs to show proven benefits and

evidence of effectiveness, it also creates problems for teachers whose role is to

respond to the many and varied needs of students within a complex school

environment.

Primary classroom teachers’ use of SEW programs provides evidence of the extent

to which these programs are used under real-world conditions, without intervention

from well-funded research institutes or other outside agencies. Dusenbury et al.

(2003) and Weissberg (1990) noted that programs are less likely to be delivered as

intended when used in real-world practice. Forgatch (2003: 2) warned about the

uncertainty of programs once they are widely disseminated, suggesting that

“investigators who once enjoyed the shelter of the Ivory Towers must adjust to

dynamic community forces that can become uncontrollable”. The Rand report, a

well-known study undertaken during the 1970’s examined nationally disseminated

educational innovations in the United States (Berman and McLaughlin, 1976). The

findings of the report indicated that ‘teacher-proof’ technologies do not exist in

practice (Berman and McLaughlin, 1976), thus suggesting that programs will be

modified at least to some extent when implemented under real-world conditions in

schools. Elliot and Mihalic (2004) stated that there is a long history of tension

between the pro-adaptation and pro-fidelity camps. Whilst those in the pro-

adaptation camp highlight the need to make adaptations to programs so that they

are relevant to the school implementing the program, the pro-fidelity camp believe

that programs need to be implemented in the way they were designed (to increase

the likelihood of achieving positive outcomes). There is a clear conflict of interest

between the priorities of program developers (who aspire to high program fidelity)

versus classroom teachers who use the programs in practice (and want programs to

be relevant for the students in their class). To date, the debate between opposing

sides remains unresolved (Dusenbury et al., 2003; Weissberg, 1990) but this study

provides further evidence to suggest that primary teachers’ use of SEW programs

under real-world conditions, is likely to be modified to fit the classroom teachers’

needs. It is also likely that the modifications to programs differ depending on the

165

teacher and the needs of students in the class. Thus, program developers striving

for high quality implementation in intervention studies does not seem to align with

teachers’ use of programs in real-world practice.

In addition to research-based, more structured types of programs, teachers also use

a variety of other programs that generally follow a less structured approach. These

programs are typically designed as resources with a selection of activities rather

than a structured lesson plan. These types of informal programs were more

commonly used prior to the introduction of research-based programs. Whilst there

has been little documentation of teachers’ use of research-based SEW programs

under real-world conditions, there has been even less documented about teachers’

use of these less structured programs. However teachers may find that these types

of programs are more easily incorporated within day-to-day practice due to their less

structured design. Additionally, these types of less structured programs are more

likely to be related to educational rather than specific SEW-related issues, since the

field of social and emotional wellbeing has come about only in more recent times.

7.1.3 The topic areas covered and patterns of SEW program use Collectively, primary classroom teachers reported covering a wide range of SEW

program topic areas during the year. Programs about social relations and thinking

were covered by the highest proportions of teachers, followed by anti-bullying,

tolerance and aggression or violence prevention programs. However less than 15

percent of primary teachers covered parenting, self-esteem, anxiety prevention and

grief or loss management programs. Social relations and positive thinking programs

cover issues that are closely related to the core business of schools. Thus, these

topic areas are more likely to be discussed frequently by teachers and this may

increase the potential for these types of programs to be used. The Six Thinking

Hats program (de Bono, 1992), which covers the positive thinking topic area, was

used by the highest proportion of teachers in this study. However, the substantially

larger quantity of social relations programs provided in the checklist may explain the

higher proportion of teachers that reported using social relations programs overall

(since the chances of program use increases as the number of programs increase).

Although bullying continues to be a prominent issue in schools, anti-bullying was not

the most commonly covered topic area. Within the anti-bullying topic, the Bullying –

166

No Way! program (Education Queensland, 1998) was used by a substantially higher

proportion of teachers when compared to other anti-bullying programs. This

particular program was distributed state-wide to schools, increasing the likelihood

that it may be used more widely than other anti-bullying programs. Additionally, a

Bullying – No Way website was established in 2003. The website contains a wide

variety of resources and content related to bullying and it is likely that teachers have

used ideas and materials from the website with students. Thus, it is possible that

some teachers who reported using the Bullying – No Way program (Education

Queensland, 1998) may have actually used the website rather than the specific

professional development program listed in the checklist (note that the program is

not available on the website). This may also have contributed to a higher proportion

of teachers reporting the use of Bullying – No Way! (Education Queensland, 1998).

Overall though, anti-bullying programs were used by less than 30 per cent of

primary classroom teachers in the study. Schools are likely to have adopted specific

strategies to help to minimise bullying in the classroom and playground and this may

not necessitate the use of a specific anti-bullying program. Furthermore, the

enforcement of anti-bullying policies at school may also reduce the extent to which

anti-bullying programs are used. In the current study for example, 88.6% of

teachers were aware of an anti-bullying policy in their school, with over 60% of staff

rating its implementation as good or very good. However anti-bullying and related

programs (i.e. tolerance and aggression or violence prevention programs) were

more commonly used in comparison to parenting, self-esteem and other programs

designed to target the prevention of specific emotional problems.

Programs that are typically described as more health- or psychologically-orientated

such as anxiety prevention, grief or loss management and depression prevention,

were used by a low proportion of primary teachers. These types of programs are

less likely to be viewed as the core business of schools and therefore may be

perceived as additional or extra work, particularly if programs are not embedded

within the curriculum. Generally, these topic areas are concerned with behaviours

that are internalised (for example, anxiousness, low self-esteem and depression).

However concern has been expressed by teachers about their ability to identify

internalising problems (Nicholson et al., 1999). Students who exhibit internalising

behaviours do not typically disrupt the class and often go unnoticed (Shure, 2001).

Perhaps as a consequence, these topic areas receive less attention in schools’

broad priority areas and therefore may not be considered to be of equal importance.

167

Furthermore, teachers may not feel adequately experienced to cover these types of

issues, they may feel less comfortable teaching these topics or may feel that these

types of programs are more relevant for specific students in the class rather than all

students. While we can speculate as to the reasons for the lower use of these types

of programs, it is clear that overall, teachers tend to favour SEW programs that more

closely align to their more traditional purpose of academic learning and fundamental

socialisation skills.

Some members of staff at the participating schools showed interest in knowing what

programs were being used in other schools. This suggests that collaboration with

respect to SEW programs may be uncommon between schools even though

positive communication and collaboration (in general), was reported to be frequent

amongst staff within schools. Overall there was inconsistent use of SEW programs,

with only three of the forty-five SEW programs reported to be used across all twelve

schools (i.e. listed in order: Six Thinking Hats, De Bono, 1992; Stop Think, Do,

Adderley et al., 2002; and Bullying No Way, Education Queensland, 1998).

However, substantial variation in teachers’ use of the three programs was evident in

each school. Perhaps this indicates that primary classroom teachers involved in this

study are quite autonomous in their selection and use of SEW programs. Moos

(1991) claimed that autonomy is fundamental to professional performance. Greater

autonomy has been linked to benefits in a number of areas including: decreased

stress levels; lower absenteeism; and higher morale amongst teachers (Shaw and

Riskind, 1983). Whilst autonomy is advocated as a key issue for teachers (Weare,

2000), the development of evidence-based SEW programs that are to be

implemented as designed would seem to limit the extent of teachers autonomy in

this respect. This may possibly provide some preliminary insights into teachers’ use

of evidence-based versus non-evidence-based SEW programs.

7.1.4 Evidence-based versus non-evidence-based SEW programs Primary classroom teachers’ use of evidence-based SEW programs was similar to

their use of non-evidence-based programs in the current study. Whilst there has

been a concentration of work undertaken on the development and evaluation of

SEW programs, it has predominantly occurred in the United States (U.S.). Weare

and Gray (2003) reported a very limited amount of work undertaken in England with

respect to social and emotional wellbeing, and described program evaluation as

168

being in an embryonic stage. Whilst the development and evaluation of evidence-

based SEW programs has received some attention in Australia, the widespread

dissemination of such programs is in its infancy (Ozer, 2006; Greenberg et al.,

2005). Although this may provide some explanation for teachers’ use of non-

evidence-based programs in this study, there are a number of other potential

contributing factors.

Mayer and Cobb (2000) noted that popular journalism appears to be leading the

path forward instead of actual research. Similarly, Slavin (2002:16) commented that

“evidence is respected only occasionally, and only if it happens to correspond to

current educational or political fashions”. Hence, teachers’ use of evidence-based

programs (or in fact any SEW program) may be shaped by the current social

context. Aggressive marketing of programs may be more influential than evidence

of effectiveness in determining program use. Dusenbury and Falco (1995) reported

that a large proportion of money allocated to health education in the U.S. was used

on programs that had been aggressively marketed, and that program adoption was

more strongly influenced by marketing than by evidence of effectiveness. Walker

(2001: 2) claimed that “educators are notorious for embracing programs that look

good but do no actual good”. However he also noted that school staff are

overwhelmed with claims of effectiveness from program developers and other

advocates. In addition to this, the dissemination of information on SEW programs is

not centrally located, increasing the difficulty and time required for teachers to locate

and consider differences between programs with respect to their effectiveness.

Rycroft-Malone et al (2004) claim that ‘evidence’ may be one of the most

fashionable words in health care. This could also be said for the fields of school

health promotion and program implementation. Few would disagree with the

concept of using approaches that have been evaluated and shown to work and thus

the need for evidence-base practices is likely to remain pivotal. However there is a

growing emphasis being placed on what counts as evidence (Friedli, 2005). To

date, the field of SEW program implementation has focused on research evidence,

as this type of evidence tends to be more highly valued than other sources

(Kennedy, 2003) such as craft knowledge (Rycroft-Malone, 2004). Educators

accumulate evidence in practice and distil it in everyday ‘rules of thumb’ (Thomas,

2004), however this type of evidence has been largely ignored by health

169

researchers. Clear problems exist with the dissemination of research evidence into

real-world practice, particularly when programs are developed by outside agencies.

Alternatively, craft knowledge comes from within the individual and is based around

current practices. Thus, in addition to research evidence, the field should

encourage educators to develop and document other types of evidence about what

works and does not work in addressing students’ social and emotional wellbeing.

The need to employ evidence-based practices cannot be understated. However the

findings of this study with respect to teachers use of evidence-based programs

aligns with Paternite’s comments that simply ‘trumpeting’ the selection of evidence-

based programs is inadequate (Paternite, 2005). The goal is to strive for a balance

between science and practice (Mukoma and Flisher, 2004) and to bear in mind that

progress comes from the refinement of processes rather than ‘magic bullet

programs’ (Paternite, 2005).

7.2 Factors influencing Primary Classroom Teachers’ use of social and emotional wellbeing programs in real-world settings

This section provides a discussion of issues related to the design effect and the

subsequent interpretation of the factors associated with primary teachers’ use of

SEW programs. Key factors not associated with program use in this study, but that

were identified as influences in other studies are also discussed.

7.2.1 Influence of the design effect on the factors associated with Primary Classroom Teachers’ use of social and emotional wellbeing programs

Whilst studies using cluster sampling are increasing in the field of health promotion

(Carlin and Hocking, 1999), studies undertaken to examine the factors influencing

the implementation of health promotion programs in schools (including SEW

programs) have rarely undertaken multivariable modelling or reported calculations

for design effects. In the current study, a modest design effect of 1.5 was produced

for primary classroom teachers’ use of SEW programs. Thus, teachers within

schools differ in their use of SEW programs compared to teachers between schools.

More sampling variation means widened confidence intervals which indicate less

precision of the estimate.

170

Prior to accounting for the design effect, five factors were identified as influences on

primary teachers’ use of SEW programs in a multivariable logistic regression. Whilst

the estimates changed minimally after accounting for the design effect, the widened

confidence intervals substantially reduced the confidence placed in three of the five

factors. Also to be considered though, is that 95% confidence intervals are

designed for generalising to a population and are based on the assumption that a

sample is randomly selected. A convenience sample was employed in the current

study and thus, the confidence intervals provide a best estimate based upon the

limitations of the sampling method and the selection of teachers who participated in

the study. The extent to which the 95% confidence intervals are representative of

the larger population of teachers in Queensland may be limited. However, they

provide a best estimate for the data presented in the current study.

Therefore, although teacher-reported parent involvement in class activities and

school policies related to social and emotional wellbeing provide a more solid

evidence base for inclusion in future studies, school socio-economic status, the

wellbeing-related skills practised in class and teachers’ qualifications are not to be

entirely dismissed in this study. This also highlights the importance of attending to

the issue of design effects since although it makes little difference to the point

estimates, it may mean that investigators may overestimate the factors that are

potentially important in future research, if researchers are guided foremost by

statistical significance. The following discussion of factors associated with primary

teachers’ use of SEW programs is written with this viewpoint in mind and discusses

parent involvement in class activities and wellbeing-related school policies factors

first, followed by the other three factors identified as potential influences (i.e. school

socio-economic status, wellbeing-related skills practised in class and teachers’

qualifications).

7.2.2 Parent involvement in class activities Parental involvement provides valuable resources in terms of volunteer time and

contributes to increased support for individual students, teachers and the school

(Pan et al., 2003; Pena, 2000; Dwyer and Hecht, 1992; Chavkin, 1989). In the

current study, primary classroom teachers who reported that parents or caregivers

were often or always involved in class activities had a higher odds of SEW program

use, when compared to teachers who never or rarely involved parents or caregivers

171

in class activities. Whilst almost 15 percent of teachers reported using parenting or

family programs during the year, these types of programs are usually delivered after

school rather than during school hours. Hence, their use is not related to parental or

caregiver involvement in class activities (i.e. teachers who reported never or rarely

involving parents or caregivers in class activities did not differ in their use of

parenting or family programs when compared to teachers who reported often or

always involving parents or caregivers in class activities; 14% versus 12 %, n=56

and n=50 respectively). In addition, teachers’ age, years of teaching experience

and qualifications did not explain the relationship between frequency of parental or

caregiver involvement in class and teachers’ use of SEW programs.

Classroom activities that parents are involved with may vary depending on schools,

parents and teachers. Findings from the School Health Policies and Programs

Study (Brener et al., 2001) about parent and community involvement in health and

physical education suggests that many schools provide information to parents about

all components of the school health program, although schools engaged in more

interactive activities with families less frequently (Brener et al., 2001). Whilst the

types of activities that parents were involved in during class was not measured in

this study, perhaps they assist with the delivery of SEW programs. This may be

mutually beneficial for teachers and parents, since teachers receive additional

support and assistance in class and benefit from parents’ experiences, while parents

feel less inhibited by assisting in non-academic subject areas and feel they can

make a valuable contribution to the personal development of students. In addition,

teachers are more likely to involve parents in subject areas that they already feel

very comfortable teaching. If primary teachers are involving parents in the delivery

of SEW programs in class, it is likely that these teachers represent those most

confident in the use of these types of programs. In the future, measurement of the

specific types of activities that parents are involved with in the class would help to

ascertain whether parents are involved in the delivery of SEW programs specifically,

and thus provide evidence to indicate whether or not this may be associated with

teachers’ use of SEW programs.

7.2.3 School policies related to student and staff wellbeing The availability of school wellbeing-related policies was found to be associated with

teachers’ use of SEW programs. Previous studies report a lack of clear school

172

policy including commitment to policy, as barriers to the implementation of sexual

health education (Csincsak et al., 1994) and the implementation of the HPS

approach (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Division of Adolescent and

School Health, 2002; McBride and Midford, 1999). Furthermore, the presence of

formal school policy has been associated with teachers’ intention to implement AIDS

education (Paulussen et al., 1994). While schools’ availability of wellbeing-related

policies was associated with primary teachers’ use of SEW programs in this study,

teachers’ awareness of policies and their perceptions of how well the policies were

implemented were not associated with the use of SEW programs.

It was assumed prior to the study that schools would have all eight wellbeing-related

policies available. However, Principals were asked about the availability of policies

as a ‘check’. This identified substantial variation in the number of wellbeing-related

policies available across schools. Findings from the current study indicate that

teachers located in schools that did not have all eight wellbeing-related policies

available had a greater odds of program use when compared to teachers in schools

that did have all eight policies available. While initially this finding may seem

counterintuitive, this difference may be related to the schools’ culture or climate.

Organisations that maintain high order and a more authoritarian approach might be

more likely to be heavily driven by policy, rules and regulation. In these types of

working environments, individuals’ creativity may be more stifled and the

introduction of changes including new programs may be considered with some level

of cautiousness, particularly if they are not perceived to meet with the current needs

of students. Schools that did not report all eight policies available may have less

highly structured working environments, less rigidity and thus more room for creative

approaches to addressing issues.

7.2.4 School socio-economic status Whilst primary teachers employed in middle-high SES schools showed a 5.26-fold

lower odds of using SEW programs when compared to teachers employed in low

SES schools in this study, there is some question about whether this finding

represents a real difference. Socio-economic status has infrequently been

examined as a factor influencing the implementation of health promotion programs

in schools and the evidence available suggests mixed findings. Whilst Olson et al.

(1993) found that low SES schools had a higher odds of using a nutrition education

173

program than other SES groups (Olson et al., 1993), a more recent study conducted

in Australian schools reported that differences in the implementation of a drug

education program were not related to socio-economic status (McBride et al., 2002).

A consistent finding replicated in the field of social science is the negative

association between SES and mental health problems (Hudson, 2005). In the

current study, primary teachers employed in low SES schools reported a median of

4 (min 2, max 15) students per class exhibiting behavioural inattentiveness, non-

compliance or aggressive behaviour problems, whilst teachers employed in middle

high SES schools reported a median of 3 students per class (min 0, max 12). A

difference of 1 student (per class) across the SES groups is meaningful in

consideration of the number of classes per year level (and year levels per school).

Thus, teachers employed in low SES schools may perceive a higher need for SEW

programs when compared to teachers working in middle-high SES schools. Despite

teachers in low SES schools reporting a higher perceived number of students

exhibiting externalised problems, teachers were no more likely to use anti-bullying or

aggression or violence prevention programs (when compared to teachers employed

in middle-high SES schools). While student behaviour may be a potential

explanation for the higher odds of program use identified in low SES schools in this

study, teachers working in high SES schools reported the lowest median number of

students exhibiting behavioural inattentiveness, non-compliance and aggressive

behaviour problems (median 2.0, min 0.0, max 10.0). Teachers’ odds of program

use were similar between low and high SES schools, indicating an inconsistent

trend between SES and program use. However, this may have been due to only

one of the schools in this study being categorised as high SES.

7.2.5 The wellbeing-related skills practised in class While in this study, teachers who practised all sixteen wellbeing-related skills with

students showed a higher odds of program use when compared to teachers who did

not practise all skills with students, there is some uncertainty with respect to the

confidence placed in whether this represents a real difference between the groups.

No other studies could be located that have assessed whether a set of generic

wellbeing-related skills practised on a day-to-day basis in the classroom may

influence teachers’ use of SEW programs.

174

It is possible in this study that teachers practised a wide range of skills with students

as a direct result of using SEW programs (i.e. using SEW programs increased skill

coverage rather than skill coverage increasing the likelihood of program use).

Teachers who practised all skills with students reported using a greater number of

SEW programs than teachers who did not practise all skills with students (median: 3

programs, min 0, max 14 and median 1 program, min 0, max 11 respectively).

However an increase in the number of programs used may also reflect an increase

in the number of program topic areas covered. It would seem reasonable to suggest

that a greater coverage of program topic areas might increase the likelihood of

teachers’ exposure to new skills (more so than programs used within the same topic

area). However, this was not evident in the current study, with no difference

identified in the number of topic areas that teachers covered irrespective of the skills

practised (median: 2 topic areas, min 0, max 7 for teachers who practised all 16

skills with students, median: 1 topic area, min 0, max 8 for teachers who did not

practice all skills ).

Thus, practising a wide range of wellbeing-related skills with students does not

necessarily mean that teachers have used programs across a wide range of topic

areas. This is consistent with Dadds’s comment about SEW programs in that the

underlying skills in these programs are often quite generic, irrespective of the

particular topic (Dadds, 2001). Perhaps in the current study, it is the teachers who

are most enthusiastic about social and emotional wellbeing that use a higher

number of SEW programs. Alternatively, teachers who practice a wide range of

wellbeing-related skills with students are those that take more interest in using SEW

programs.

7.2.6 Primary Classroom Teachers’ qualifications Although primary classroom teachers who completed a diploma or bachelor's

degree showed a 3.76-fold higher odds of program use relative to teachers who

completed a graduate diploma, this finding may not represent a real difference

beyond the current study. Previous studies (although few) have examined the

influence of teachers’ health-related qualifications on program implementation with

mixed results. Parcel et al. (1991) found no association between teachers’ fidelity of

program implementation and health-related qualifications whilst Pateman et al.

175

(1999) found that teachers strongly advocated for qualified health educators to teach

the health curriculum.

In the current study, primary teachers who completed a graduate diploma had a

lower odds of program use relative to teachers who had completed a bachelor’s

degree. Years of experience and age were explored as possible explanations of the

finding. The median number of years that teachers reported working in schools was

similar amongst those who held a bachelor’s degree versus a graduate diploma

(median: 14.0; min 0, max 30 and median 15.0; min 0, max 37 respectively).

However, a greater proportion of teachers held a graduate diploma in the 51-60 year

age group (when compared to the proportion of 51-60 year old teachers with a

bachelor’s degree). Teachers with a graduate diploma may be older than those with

a bachelor’s degree since the qualification of graduate diploma is predominantly

designed for professionals changing career paths from their current field into the

teaching profession. Although teachers with a graduate diploma are similar to

teachers with a bachelor’s degree with respect to years of teaching experience, they

are likely to have accumulated more life experience. Perhaps these teachers feel

more confident in their own ability to provide students with valuable lessons learned,

including what has and has not worked for them in the past, from their own

experiences instead of using a SEW program. If teachers feel more confident in

their own ability they may be less likely to refer to additional resources such as SEW

programs.

In addition to age, years of pre-service training differs substantially between the

bachelor’s degree and the graduate diploma within Australia. Teachers who

undertake a graduate diploma receive less formal teacher training than those who

complete a bachelor’s degree (in Queensland there is currently a 3-year difference

in training, with students taking a graduate diploma course completing 1 year of

formal training whilst bachelor’s degree students complete 4 years). Thus, pre-

service teachers who complete a 1-year graduate diploma have considerably less

time available to investigate the breadth of SEW programs available in schools

during their pre-service training, when compared to pre-service teachers who

undertake a 4-year degree. The extent to which this impacts teacher’s choices to

use or not use SEW programs (both initially and over the longer term) in schools is

not known.

176

While informative results on program use could not be obtained for teachers who

had completed a masters degree due to the small number of teachers, bivariate

analyses indicated that teachers holding this qualification may be more likely to use

SEW programs than teachers with other qualifications. This finding, although

preliminary and therefore not conclusive, may warrant further exploration in future

studies.

7.2.7 Key factors not associated with Primary Classroom Teachers’ use of social and emotional wellbeing programs

Teachers’ perceptions of bullying-related problems and staff communication were

identified in Kallestad and Olweus (2003) as being associated with the

implementation of a school-based bullying prevention program. However in the

current study, neither teachers’ perceptions of students’ social and emotional

wellbeing or staff communication were associated with primary classroom teachers’

use of SEW programs. These key factors are discussed in this section with respect

to the findings of Kallestad and Olweus’ study (2003).

7.2.7.1 Primary Classroom Teachers’ perception of students’ social and emotional wellbeing

Teachers’ perception of the number of students exhibiting social and/or emotional

problems in class was not associated with their use of SEW programs in this study.

This result does not support Kallestad and Olweus’ (2003) findings, where teachers

who perceived more bullying problems in class reported higher scores on the

implementation of an anti-bullying program. Kallestad and Olweus (2003) measured

bullying problems and a specific anti-bullying program. In the current study, the

generic measurement of SEW programs (which covers a wide range of topic areas)

and student behaviour (measured as students exhibiting behavioural

inattentiveness, non-compliance or aggression problems; or anxiousness,

depression or withdrawal; or both issues) may have reduced the likelihood of

detecting potential differences in teachers’ program use. It may be useful in future

studies to ask teachers about the number of students who exhibit specific social and

emotional wellbeing issues (e.g. bullying, aggression, anxiety and low self-esteem)

rather than grouping problems generically. This may provide more informative

177

results by providing more specific links between the type of problem and the type of

program used.

The wide variation in teachers’ reports of student social and emotional wellbeing

problems highlights potential concerns about the consistency of reporting. One of

the main reasons for such variation may be due to the wording of these questions.

The severity of students’ problems was left open to teachers’ interpretations and

thus, while some teachers may have interpreted the question as identifying the most

problematic students, others were more liberal in their responses, defining ‘problem’

quite broadly (since in some instances, almost half the class was reported).

However clinical measures of child behaviour such as the Teacher Report Form

(Achenbach, 1991) that would have potentially reduced the wide variation in

teachers’ reports of problems, were not appropriate for use in this study since they

are designed to identify children in the clinical problems range and the types of SEW

programs included in this study were not designed to be used with children who

have clinical mental health problems. Furthermore, these measures require

teachers to report on each child and thus, can become quite time consuming. In

consideration of the potential measurement difficulties, it may be beneficial to also

examine teachers’ perceptions of student behaviour from a qualitative perspective.

This may capture more depth in understanding teachers’ perceptions of problems,

their interpretations of high versus low levels of SEW problems, the severity of

problems and the extent to which the frequency of problems impacts on their

perceptions of class behaviour and their use of SEW programs.

7.2.7.2 Staff communication Whilst staff openness in communication was associated with teachers’ use of the

Bullying Prevention Program in Kallestad and Olweus (2003), it was not associated

with primary teachers’ use of SEW programs in the current study. The Bullying

Prevention Program was implemented under intervention conditions as a whole-of-

school approach to bullying. During an intervention study, teachers’ awareness of

the program is likely to be high and program investigators are likely to encourage

open discussions about program implementation, creating a sense of program

‘hype’. In the current (non-intervention) study, teachers appear to be quite

autonomous in their selection and use of SEW programs, with little evidence to

suggest that programs are being implemented at a school-wide level. This

178

approach may help to reinforce fragmentation if few opportunities to discuss SEW

programs arise, leading to short-term sustainability.

The extent to which teachers talk openly about SEW programs was not specifically

examined in this study (i.e. openness in staff communication rather than openness

in staff communication about SEW programs was measured) and this may provide

an additional reason why communication was not associated with SEW program

use. Although openness in communication amongst staff was high overall, it is

inevitable that some issues are more likely to be openly discussed than others.

While SEW programs is not a topic that would generally be considered as closed

discussion, teachers’ openness in discussing programs may depend to some extent,

on the schools’ current priorities, school culture and the attitudes of administration

about the importance of social and emotional wellbeing.

7.3 Utility of the methodological approaches The utility of the methodological approaches employed to measure teachers’ use of

SEW programs and the factors influencing SEW program use are discussed in this

section. The checklist of SEW programs is a worthwhile development towards

reporting teachers’ use of SEW programs under real-world conditions. This

instrument has face and content validity, and provided a high reproducibility in

determining teachers’ program use or non-use status in this study (although testing

on larger samples would be required in the future since a small sample of teachers

participated in the reproducibility study). Further examination of the instrument

would also be needed to ascertain the reproducibility of teachers’ reports of program

use on a program-by-program basis, however it holds potential as a brief measure

that provides a snapshot to establish the breadth of program use. There is limited

data currently available on primary teachers’ use or patterns of use for SEW

programs under real-world conditions in Australian primary schools. The checklist

provides a valuable tool in mapping primary teachers’ SEW program use on a year-

to-year basis, both for individual schools and for future research efforts. Since the

breadth of teachers’ SEW program use is not commonly examined, even prior to

large-scale studies seeking to implement a suite of programs, this area of research

warrants attention, especially considering that the field is currently moving toward

wide-scale dissemination.

179

Schools are complex, multi-faceted and ever-changing organisations. Thus, the

implementation of health promotion programs can be challenging in such contexts.

Few investigations of health promotion programs in schools have examined the

factors influencing teachers’ program use. Those that have been undertaken have

infrequently presented study findings using a social-ecological framework, even

though these models have been widely employed in settings-based research.

Greenberg et al. (2005) noted the importance of identifying various levels in which

school-based programs operate. Social-ecological models provide a lens through

which the organisation of complex settings such as schools can be viewed.

Teachers’ decisions to use SEW programs may be influenced by factors across

multiple social-ecological levels, even when teachers are quite autonomous in their

use of SEW programs. This framework proved useful as a broad structure for

examining program use in the current study since it assisted in deconstructing the

multiple levels within which school staff operate. Conversely, the SEW audit which

examined the extent to which schools and teachers promoted social and emotional

wellbeing (as a potential influence on teachers use of SEW programs) was

somewhat limited by its broad measurement of contextual factors.

A range of factors were explored as potential influences on primary teachers’ use of

SEW programs, although few were found to be associated with program use.

Subsequent to the audit’s purpose, it was designed to include a broad rather than

narrow range of items within each index. However the items that constitute many of

the indexes may have been too broad. For example, the social environment was

measured using a 20-item index. Whilst this index may be useful as a practical tool

for identifying broad areas for schools to address in the future, the measurement of

one or two aspects of the social environment, rather than an all-inclusive index may

have been more appropriate, and thus increased the interpretability of study findings

in practice, since it is difficult to pinpoint strategies to target when the measurement

of factors is broad.

Furthermore, teachers’ program use or non-use was defined from a wide range of

SEW programs in this study. Grouping multiple types of programs makes the

assumption that the factors influencing use are similar across program types. Whilst

program-specific or topic-specific factors may differ across different types of

programs, the factors examined in the current study are more generally related to

180

the context of schools. They were designed to be quite general in order to be

relevant for all teachers, irrespective of whether or not they used SEW programs

and irrespective of the types of programs used. The assessment of specific types of

programs in real-world practice will inevitably require the use of more program-

specific measures. Additionally, teachers’ motivations to use SEW programs may

differ between intervention and real-world conditions, particularly when comparing

teachers with little autonomy, who are involved in a research-based intervention

study versus teachers who are quite autonomous in their selection and use of

programs in real-world practice. The potential complexity of teachers’ use of SEW

programs in real-world practice cannot be fully understood through quantitative,

survey-based methods. The use of focus groups or interviews would provide

additional depth in understanding teachers’ program use and the influences on use.

Thus, a triangulation of methods would provide a more balanced viewpoint and

enable a better understanding of SEW programs, how they are used and why they

are and are not used under real-world conditions.

This chapter has provided some insights into teachers’ use of SEW programs and

the factors influencing program use. It has discussed some explanations for the

wide variation evident in the number and range of SEW programs used by primary

teachers. Furthermore, it has identified a number of factors that are associated with

teachers’ program use at various socio-ecological levels. The following chapter

provides a summary and recommendations based upon the main study findings

reported.

181

Chapter 8: Summary and Conclusions

8.1 Summary The identification of schools as an ideal setting to address students’ social and

emotional wellbeing (Greenberg et al, 2005; Ringeisen et al., 2003; Short, 2003;

Kratochwill and Stoiber, 2000) has contributed to a dramatic increase in school-based

research activity in this field over the last few decades. Simultaneously, schools have

been challenged by various groups (including researchers, government and the

community) to become more involved in addressing the social and emotional wellbeing

of students (Freeman et al., 2003). The result has been the development of an

extensive range of school-based SEW programs designed to be delivered to all

students, predominantly by classroom teachers. Although we are witnessing a rapid

growth in the evidence base for prevention programs, the dissemination and

implementation of programs in real-world conditions is often described as being poorly

developed (Greenberg et al., 2005; Lochman, 2003; Kramer et al., 2000; Adelman and

Taylor, 1997; Durlak, 1995). This has been highlighted by Reinke et al. (2006:315) who

stated that “current prevention programs shown to be effective have been largely

administered by grant-funded research teams that drop in and out, leaving no sign of

maintenance or sustainability”.

There is evidence available to suggest that implementation differs between programs

delivered under intervention conditions (i.e. programs administered by research teams

on a time limited basis) versus those used under real-world conditions (Kerner et al.,

2005; Greenberg, 2004; Pentz, 2004). In real-world implementation, program effects

are less likely to be robust because programs are less effective due to an increased

heterogeneity in samples (DuPaul, 2003; Fisher et al, 2002), programs often have lower

levels of acceptability (Lochman, 2003); and are not implemented with the same level of

quality (Greenberg et al., 2005). The nature of evaluating research-based programs

means that schools involved in implementation studies are likely to be limited in their

use of other SEW programs that cover similar topic areas to the program under

evaluation. Furthermore, classroom teachers’ use of SEW programs in real-world

practice is less likely to be as rigidly structured as programs implemented by outside

182

agencies, for the purpose of research and evaluation. Thus the conditions under which

programs are used in intervention versus real-world practice may differ substantially.

Little research has investigated teachers’ use of SEW programs in real-world settings,

particularly in Australian primary schools.

To date, the spotlight has been shining brightly on intervention research. However the

development of new programs does not guarantee that they will be used beyond

intervention study periods or widely used even when disseminated. While undoubtedly,

intervention research is more glamorous than its observational counterpart, it is no less

important to know what programs are actually being used by teachers, on a day-to-day

basis in the classroom. Given that the field is moving towards the large-scale

dissemination of effective SEW programs under real-world conditions, it is time for

intervention research to share some of the spotlight. Without due attention and

recognition, the documentation of teachers’ SEW program use and the influences on

program use is unlikely to attract the research funding and thus attention it is due.

Unlike intervention research, the current study enabled a ‘birds’ eye’ view of primary

teachers’ use of SEW programs in usual practice. Under these conditions, teachers

seem to be quite autonomous in their selection and use of SEW programs. The range

of programs used and the wide variation evident in the number and types of programs

used is suggestive of this finding. Furthermore, the programs used by the highest

proportions of teachers are those that are applicable across all year levels, are flexible

in their delivery and can be implemented at a whole school level or on an individual

classroom basis.

The programs used by the highest proportion of teachers are those that seem to be

more directed toward building life skills rather than taking a specific ‘health’ issue

approach. The findings of this study indicate that teachers in the same school used

different programs to target the same issue (even within the same year level).

McLaughlin (1997) makes a good point in that the collection of programs is not

adequate in building capacity. Ringeisen et al. (2003) also warned about the dangers

of collecting programs and thus paying inadequate attention to promoting positive

changes in the social and organisational environment. There has been a push both

within Australia and internationally over the last decade towards the need to promote

183

student wellbeing using whole-of-school approaches that are comprehensive,

integrated and coordinated. This represents a fundamental shift in thinking about the

role of education in addressing students’ health and wellbeing. While comprehensive

approaches are increasingly being employed to target health and wellbeing in schools,

the findings of this study suggest that schools’ approach, at least in the use of SEW

programs, may be somewhat fragmented. This is evidenced by the lack of consistency

in program use within and across schools, the wide range of programs used and the

differences in the specific programs used across year levels.

Teachers play a key role in school change, including change associated with the

promotion of students’ social and emotional wellbeing (Freeman et al., 2003; Stoll,

1999). However, there has been a tendency for teachers to be viewed negatively when

it comes to addressing issues that relate to social and emotional wellbeing or in

particular, ‘mental’ health. For example, “Schools are not in the mental health business.

Their mandate is to educate. Thus, they tend to see any activity not directly related to

instruction as taking resources away from their primary mission” (Adelman and Taylor,

1999: 138). Teachers operate within a demanding organisational system and programs

that are not embedded within the curriculum could be viewed as additional burdens.

However it is likely that this applies to all additional work and is not centred solely on

the addition of programs that focus on social and emotional wellbeing alone.

Research has more recently purported the importance of examining contextual factors

within the school environment as potential influences on teachers’ use of SEW

programs (Ozer, 2006; Greenberg et al., 2005; DuPaul, 2003; Ringeisen et al., 2003).

This emphasises that factors beyond the program itself and the teacher implementing

the program may influence program use. This study examined a range of contextual

factors in the broader school environment through an audit of primary classroom

teachers’ SEW practices. Two key factors were identified as influences on primary

teachers’ use of social and emotional wellbeing programs: the wellbeing-related policies

available in schools and parent or caregiver involvement in class activities. These

factors are within the school and broader community level influences and provide some

support for the examination of contextual factors as influences on teachers’ use of SEW

184

programs. Additional factors were identified at the school, classroom and individual

levels of influence; however it is possible that these findings may be due to chance.

Schools are complex and dynamic environments. The methodologies employed to

examine teachers’ use of social and emotional wellbeing programs and the influences

on program use should capture this complexity and dynamism. The majority of studies

included in the content analysis employed either quantitative or qualitative

methodologies. Quantitative studies are useful in quantifying differences between

groups and generalising findings to wider populations (assuming studies are well-

designed) while qualitative studies provide depth and additional detail to explore

individuals’ interpretations of how and why things happen (Paulussen et al., 1995). This

study focused on identifying factors that directly influence teachers’ use of social and

emotional wellbeing programs and was undertaken using quantitative methods. The

triangulation of research methodologies would enable the development of a deeper

understanding of both teachers’ SEW program use and the factors that teachers identify

as important influences on the use of SEW programs. This type of investigation would

assist in ‘peeling back’ the layers that surround a potentially complex web of factors that

influences teachers’ program use in real-world practice.

Over the course of this study, a steady flow of program implementation research has

continued to emerge. Most notably, Greenberg et al’s (2005) report is a seminal piece

that summarised progress in the field and helped to shape the direction of future

research. While there has been some significant progress in identifying the need for

program implementation research, Greenberg et al. (2005) noted that this area is still in

its early stages of development, with few studies yet to publish research findings that

include an examination of the implementation ‘process’. Even fewer studies have

investigated the factors influencing program implementation. Additionally, Greenberg et

al.’s report (2005) focused on the study of program implementation under intervention

conditions. While the examination of teachers’ program use and the influences on use

under real-world conditions has received little attention to date, this is most likely due to

the relatively recent emergence of social and emotional wellbeing programs that have

been evaluated and are ready for widespread dissemination to primary schools.

185

Ozer (2006) undertook a systematic review of school-based violence prevention

programs and similarly to Greenberg et al. (2005), described program-specific and

context-specific implementation factors. Program-specific factors were not examined in

the current study since it was not designed to investigation one particular program. The

findings of the content analysis undertaken during the literature review support Ozer’s

(2006) statement that relatively little systematic information is currently available. Ozer

(2006) identified some evidence to suggest that factors within the classroom, school

and broader community influenced the implementation of school-based violence

prevention programs. The history of intervention at the school and dimensions of

school culture (such as quality of relationships) were highlighted as some of the areas

that remain under-researched.

The current study highlights the range of SEW programs used by primary classroom

teachers. However, variability in teachers’ use of programs highlights the gap that still

remains between the development of research-based programs and their use in real-

world practice. While there have been some attempts to bridge the gap through

identifying ‘effective ingredients’ of programs that ‘must’ be delivered, when such

programs reach every-day classrooms, they are less likely to be used as intended.

Without substantial effort to investigate how and why programs are rarely used in full

and how best to develop programs in a way that is desirable to teachers, the gap

between research and practice will remain. While SEW programs are reaching schools

and being used by primary classroom teachers, the range and extent of program use is

not consistent from a research evaluation perspective. However, the expectations of

teachers to cover a myriad of health-related areas is still rising and may appear

overwhelming unless embedded within the curriculum. Furthermore, whilst not

suggesting that program development comes to a halt, the continuous development of

new programs in itself may prove to increase the fragmentation in teachers’ program

use.

8.2 Strengths and limitations This research contributes new knowledge about primary classroom teachers’ use of

SEW programs. While the past few decades have seen a rapid escalation in the

development of SEW programs suitable for Australian primary schools, there has been

186

little documented evidence to ascertain whether SEW programs are actually used, what

types of SEW programs are used and the extent to which they are used. Instead of

focusing on a single topic area within social and emotional wellbeing, this study

captures the breadth of programs used across multiple areas. This identified that the

types of programs most commonly used were those most closely related to the core

business of schools, rather than programs that focused more specifically on a particular

health issue. Generally, studies tend to focus within a single area of social and

emotional wellbeing. However this study enables the comparison of programs used

across topic areas.

The examination of SEW programs under real-world conditions provides a more

realistic indication of teachers’ day-to-day program use when compared to intervention

studies. The findings provide further evidence in support of the notion that the

development of evidence-based programs does not mean that they will be used in

practice. Additionally, it identifies that teachers are more likely to use parts of a

program compared to the whole program, even when programs are evidence-based.

Thus, it enables insights into how newly developed programs are likely to be used once

widely disseminated.

Expert review panels were recruited to ascertain the face and content validity of the

checklist of SEW programs since no previously developed measures were available. In

addition, the reproducibility of the checklist of SEW programs was examined to

determine the stability of teachers’ reports of program use at two time points. High

levels of agreement suggest that the measure may be useful to ascertain teachers’ use

or non-use status, however further analysis needs to be undertaken to establish

agreement at the program-by-program level and the measure should be employed with

larger samples than the current study to increase precision of the estimates. The audit

of SEW practices was subject to expert review since its development was

predominantly based upon the MM audit (Commonwealth of Australia, 2000) which had

not been previously validated and also because it included a selection of items from

other audits. Whilst some preliminary assessments of reproducibility and validity have

been undertaken, further testing would be suggested prior to the use of these

instruments in the future.

187

Twelve schools agreed to be involved in the current study. However, these schools

disproportionately represented one rather than the two Education Queensland districts

targeted. District A was randomly selected to receive follow-up telephone calls (to the

Principal) prior to District B since phone calls were made by the candidate only. The

quick and positive responses received from School Principals in District A was

unexpected and led to the inability to directly target Principals from District B as the

maximum number of schools to be involved had been reached (the pre-determined

sample was based upon resources available). Whilst recruiting schools was very

successful, this reduced the representativeness of the sample due to the methods

employed. In future studies, it may be useful to randomise follow-up telephone calls by

school rather than Education District to avoid this issue. This would increase the

representativeness of the schools selected from the two districts and therefore increase

the generalisability of findings.

The self-selection of schools involved in this study further increases the potential of

selection bias whereby the participating schools may be more motivated than schools

that did not participate. Schools involved in the study were representative of

Queensland state schools according to socio-economic levels defined by Education

Queensland. Study findings may not be generalisable to schools in rural or remote

localities since only urban schools were involved in the study. Rural and remote

schools may differ to urban schools with respect to SEW program use, particularly in

terms of availability and access to resources. Unfortunately, other comparison data for

Queensland schools was unavailable. At the teacher-level, participants also self-

selected to be involved in the study and it may be likely that those who completed the

survey were interested in the issue of social and emotional wellbeing and thus more

likely to use SEW programs than non-participants. Therefore, the proportion of ‘SEW

program users’ may be over-estimated in comparison to the wider population of primary

school teachers. The teachers who participated in the study were comparable to other

primary teachers employed in state schools in Queensland with respect to age and

years of teaching experience. However female teachers were slightly over-represented

in this sample when compared to all state primary schools in Queensland.

188

A response rate of 45 per cent was achieved for this survey. This is a conservative

estimate and includes the total number of classroom teachers employed across the

participating schools, even though not all teachers attended the staff meeting where the

study was described. The initial pool of participants may have been substantially

reduced by ethical constraints, since teachers were unable to receive a survey unless

they had returned a signed consent form. Thus visits to schools, meetings with

Principals, the use of incentives and reminders were uniformly used across schools to

maximise response rates, with 85 per cent of teachers who returned consent forms also

returning completed surveys. However in consideration of a potential selection bias

and the overall response rate, some caution is needed in generalising the findings of

this study beyond the schools that participated in this research.

Finally, this study measured primary teachers’ use of SEW programs at one point in

time, providing a snapshot or glimpse of program use. However program

implementation is a process rather than a static event. Rogers (1995) noted that the

use of cross-sectional methods makes the process almost timeless and described its

effects as ‘freezing the action’. Hence it limits our understanding of program

implementation by gathering information based on one point in time and thus, it does

not provide any indication of the extent to which teachers’ program use changes over

time or the continuity in program use. However the assessment of program use may be

most usefully captured initially through a short survey and then followed up with more

in-depth qualitative research. Since no other studies that examine teachers’ use of

SEW programs under real-world conditions could be located in the Australian primary

school context, the use of a brief, cross-sectional measure provided an important first

step in the examination of teachers’ program use.

8.3 Recommendations The following recommendations provide some future directions for the examination of

primary classroom teachers’ use of SEW programs and the factors influencing SEW

program use.

189

• While the current study provides a snapshot of teachers’ SEW program use in

real-world practice, further research is needed to examine other facets of

program use in more depth. Although the checklist of SEW programs is useful

for documenting the number, types and range of SEW programs used,

qualitative methods such as focus group discussions would be useful in

identifying teachers’ motivations for using SEW programs and the reasons

behind teachers’ selection of particular types of programs. Furthermore,

describing teachers’ decision-making processes about how they incorporate

SEW programs within their teaching practice would provide valuable and

practical insights relevant to program use. For example, teachers may

incorporate social and emotional wellbeing programs across one or more key

learning areas (KLAs). However they must ensure that the content taught

meets the syllabus requirements, which differ between the lower and upper

primary school. Gaining a deeper understanding of the mechanics of lesson

planning amongst teachers and the associated decision-making processes

(about the inclusion of SEW programs within the curriculum) would further

current understanding of the context in which primary classroom teachers use

SEW programs. Additional focus group discussions for teachers that do not use

SEW programs would provide insights into an area of research that has been

largely under-researched to date. Qualitative methodologies would help to

‘unpack’ some of these complexities. While the checklist of SEW programs is

beneficial as an initial assessment tool, further follow-up based on the findings

of the checklist would provide additional depth in understanding more about how

programs are used in real-world practice, including the fidelity of program use.

Thus, a triangulation of methods is recommended as a more appropriate

approach than the use of a single method alone, since it draws on the strengths

of both types of research and enables a more comprehensive understanding of

the complexities involved in teachers’ decisions to use or not use SEW

programs.

• Findings of the current study indicate that teachers are quite autonomous in

their selection and use of SEW programs. Verification of this through focus

group discussions or key informant interviews would provide additional evidence

190

to support or refute this finding. Teachers’ autonomy in SEW program use may

differ depending on the school, the types of SEW programs used, the use of

SEW programs that are comprehensive, school-wide approaches and the

rigidity imposed (and possibly who it was imposed by) in the implementation of

such programs. School Principals/Deputy Principals are key personnel deeply

involved in the decision-making processes that affect all areas of how a school

operates. The extent to which Principals/Deputy Principals enable teachers to

be more autonomous in their selection and use of SEW programs both directly

and indirectly (for example, through the provision of personal support to

teachers, funding for resources and professional development, and in

leadership) could be explored through key informant interviews with Principals/

Deputy Principals in addition to focus group discussions with teachers about

their perceptions of support received. Whilst teachers’ autonomy has not been

identified as an area for research in studies conducted under intervention

conditions, this issue is important in real-world practice since the pressure from

outside agencies to implement programs no longer exists (although it may to

some extent exist within some schools, however this did not seem evident in the

current study).

• Further studies would be required to establish whether teachers’ use of SEW

programs in the current study represents primary classroom teachers’ SEW

program use in other state schools in Queensland and across schools in other

Queensland education systems.

• Although primary classroom teachers are often targeted in the implementation of

SEW programs, other school staff such as GO’s are likely to play a role in the

implementation of SEW programs in schools. Informal conversations that took

place with GO’s during the study period identified that they felt overrun with

required testing of students, paperwork and case management, leaving little

time for the delivery of prevention-oriented activities. A comparison of SEW

program use between classroom teachers and GO’s to identify differences in the

number, range and types of programs used would provide some insights into

differences in the roles of school staff and its impact on program use.

191

• Further qualitative research is necessary to examine teachers’ perceptions of

evidence-based SEW programs and whether or how the label of ‘evidence-

based program’ influences their selection and use of SEW programs including

how and the extent to which these programs are used. Currently, we still know

little about the underlying reasons for or against the use of evidence-based

programs by primary classroom teachers or whether the inconsistent use of

these programs is simply an artefact of usual teaching practices.

• The current study focuses on SEW programs. Although the development of

evidence-based programs is increasing, these types of programs form only one

avenue through which social and emotional wellbeing can be addressed. Whilst

there is general agreement that evidence-based approaches should inform

practice, there has been a tendency to focus solely on research evidence with

respect to the field of social and emotional wellbeing. Meanwhile, other forms of

evidence such as craft knowledge, which is particularly relevant in an

educational setting, has seldom been acknowledged as an additional form of

evidence. To become evidence, practices need to be documented and

critiqued. Future efforts should seek to assist with processes to transform

teachers’ craft knowledge into evidence-based practice since craft knowledge

forms part of a wider approach that helps to shape students’ social and

emotional wellbeing.

• Further research is required to document the potentially wide variety of factors

that influence teachers’ use of SEW programs under real-world conditions.

Although only two factors were identified as influences on teachers’ program

use in the current study, this may have been related to the types of measures

employed. The use of qualitative methods would be recommended for future

research in this area, to gain a deeper understanding of the issues that are

important to teachers and influential in their selection and use of SEW

programs. Future studies should examine an individual SEW program or a well-

defined type of program (for example, bullying programs) in order to ascertain

factors that are specifically relevant to the issue of bullying and the use of

bullying programs (rather than any SEW program).

192

8.4 Conclusion This study has contributed to the advancement of knowledge about primary classroom

teachers’ use of SEW programs in an Australian context. More specifically, it identified

the number and types of SEW programs used by primary classroom teachers, their use

of evidence-based programs and the amount of SEW programs used in real-world

practice. The findings suggest that teachers are using a wide variety of SEW programs,

a combination of evidence-based and non-evidence-based programs and more

commonly implement part of a program rather than the full program. The patterns of

teachers’ program use suggests that teachers are likely to be autonomous in their

selection and use of SEW programs in real-world practice. Further research is needed

to investigate the nature of teachers’ SEW program use including the motivations for

using such programs, the methods used to incorporate programs into teaching

practices, and the ways in which other key personnel such as Principals, Deputy

Principals and Guidance Officers facilitate the promotion of social and emotional

wellbeing at school. Furthermore, the availability of wellbeing-related policies at school

and parents’ involvement in class activities emerged as influences on primary

classroom teachers’ use of SEW programs. Few studies have examined the impact of

school policies on teachers’ program implementation with no studies identified to date

that examined parents’ involvement. Further research that examines parents’

contributions to classroom activities is necessary to build upon the findings presented in

this study. Whilst program implementation research is still in its infancy, the field has

come a long way over a short period of time. There are still a number of challenges in

the field of program implementation, most noteworthy are the issues surrounding the

dissemination of programs in real-world settings. In addressing the research questions

outlined in Chapter One, the current study provides an important step towards

achieving a more comprehensive understanding of the extent to which the SEW

programs developed are actually used in real-world practice and the contextual factors

of influence on primary classroom teachers’ SEW program use. Thus, it provides

another step towards building the research evidence in the implementation of social and

emotional wellbeing programs in primary schools.

193

Reference List Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Teacher's Report Form and 1991 Profile.

Burlington: University of Vermont. Adderley, A., Petersen, L. and Gannoni, A. F. (2002). Stop Think Do: Social Skills

Training. Melbourne VIC: Australian Council of Educational Research. Adelman, H. S. and Taylor, L. (1997). Toward a Scale-up Model for Replicating New

Approaches to Schooling. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 8, 197-230.

Adelman, H. S. and Taylor, L. (1999). Mental Health in Schools and System

Restructuring. Clinical Psychology Review, 19(2), 137-163. Alexander, K. L. and Entwistle, D. R. (1996). Schools and Children at Risk. In A. Booth

and J.F. Dunn (Ed.) Family-Schools Link. Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum. Alpert–Gillis, L., Pedro–Carroll, J. and Emory Cowen, E. (1989). The Children of

Divorce Intervention Program: Development, Implementation, and Evaluation of a Program for Young Urban Children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Child Psychology, 57(5), 583-589.

American Psychological Association. (1954). Technical Recommendations for

Psychological Tests and Diagnostic Techniques. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological Testing. New York: Macmillan. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2003). Census of Population and Housing: Socio-

Economic Indexes for Area, Australia, 2001. Information Paper, Cat. No. 2039.0. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Barnett, B. (1999). PALS Social Skills Program: Playing and Learning to Socialise. New

South Wales: Inscript Publishing. Barrett, P. M. (2004). Friends for Life. Bowen Hills, QLD: Australian Academic Press. Barrett, P. M., Dadds, M. R. and Holland, D. E. (1994). The Coping Koala: Prevention

Manual. Queensland, Australia: The University of Queensland. Barrett, P. M., Dadds, M. R. and Rapee, R. (1996). Family Treatment of Child Anxiety:

A Controlled Trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Child Psychology, 64, 333-342.

194

Barroso, C. S., McCullum-Gomez, C., Hoelscher, D. M., Kelder, S. H. and Murray, N. G. (2005). Self-Reported Barriers to Quality Physical Education by Physical Education Specialists in Texas. Journal of School Health, 75(8), 313-319.

Battistich, V. (2001). Commentary on Preventing Mental Disorders in School-Aged

Children. Prevention & Treatment, 4(1), 1-5. Beanland, C., Schneider, Z., LoBiondo-Wood, G. and Haber, J. (2000). Nursing

Research: Methods, Critical Appraisal and Utilisation. Sydney: Mosby. Beck, C. H. (1999). Educational Innovations: Content Validity Exercises for Nursing

Students. Journal of Nursing Education, 38(3), 133-135. Berger, E. H. (1995). Parents as Partners in Education: Families and Schools Working

Together. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Berman, P. and McLaughlin, M. W. (1976). Implementation of Educational Innovation.

The Educational Forum, 40, 345-370. Bernard, M. E. (2001). You Can Do It: Program Achieve. Middle Park, VIC: Seven

Dimensions. Birch, D. A. and Hallock, B. A. (1999). Parent Involvement in Selected Components of

the Coordinated School Health Program. American Journal of Health Studies, 15(4), 189-198.

Booth, M. L., Norton, K., Wake, M., Chey, T., Hesketh, K., Dollman, J. and Robertson, I.

(2001). Changes in Prevalence of Overweight and Obesity among Australian Children and Adolescents 1969-1999. Paper Presented to the 10th Australian Society for Study of Obesity Scientific Meeting, Gold Coast, Australia 8-9 September 2001.

Bornstein, R. F. (1996). Face Validity in Psychological Assessment: Implications for a

Unified Model of Validity. American Psychologist, 51, 983-984. Bowling, A. (2000). Research Methods in Health. Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open

University Press. Brener, N. D., Dittus, P. J. and Hayes, G. (2001). Family and Community Involvement in

Schools: Results from the School Health Policies and Programs Study 2000. Journal of School Health, 71(7), 340-344.

Brink, S. G., Levenson-Gingiss, P. and Gottlieb, N. H. (1991). An Evaluation of the

Effectiveness of a Planned Diffusion Process: The Smoke-Free Class of the 2000 Project in Texas. Health Education Research, 6(3), 353-362.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

195

Browne, G., Gafni, A., Roberts, J., Byrne, C. and Majumdar, B. (2004). Effective/Efficient Mental Health Programs for School-Age Children: A Synthesis of Reviews. Social Science & Medicine, 58, 1367-1384.

Buston, K., Wight, D., Hart, G. and Scott, S. (2002). Implementation of a Teacher-

Delivered Sex Education Programme: Obstacles and Facilitating Factors. Health Education Research, 17(1), 59-72.

Buston, K., Wight, D. and Scott, S. (2001). Difficulty and Diversity: The Context and

Practice of Sex Education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 22(3), 353-368.

Butler, S. C. (1993). Chief State School Officers Rank Barriers to Implementing

Comprehensive School Health Education. Journal of School Health., 63(3), 130-132.

Cai, J., Moyer, J. C. and Wang, N. (1997). Parental Roles in Students' Learning of

Mathematics: An Exploratory Study. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Cameron, H. (1991). Effects of Inservice Training on Implementation of a Health

Curriculum in Nova Scotia, Canada. Journal of School Health, 61(3), 131-135. Camp, C. J. (2001). From Efficacy to Effectiveness to Diffusion: Making the Transitions

in Dementia Intervention Research. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 11(3/4), 495-517.

Campbell, M. (2005). Personal Communication Regarding the Representativeness of

the Queensland Guidance and Counselling Association (QGCA) Electronic Mail Distribution List. Brisbane, QLD.

Canadian Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance. (1996).

The Quality School Health Checklist. Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance.

Cargo, M., Salsberg, J., Delormier, T., Desrosiers, S. and Macaulay, A. C. (2006).

Understanding the Social Context of School Health Promotion Program Implementation. Health Education, 106(2), 85-97.

Carlin, J. B. and Hocking, J. (1999). Design of Cross-Sectional Surveys Using Cluster

Sampling: An Overview with Australian Case Studies. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 23(5), 546-551.

Catalano, R. F., Berglund, M. L., Ryan, J. A. M., Lonczak, H. S. and Hawkins, J. D.

(1999). Positive Youth Development in the United States: Research Findings on Evaluations of the Positive Youth Development Programs. Seattle, WA: Social Development Research Group, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). http://www.nichd.nih.gov; http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/PositiveYouthDev99/ (accessed 2006).

196

Centers for Disease Control. (2000). School Health Index - Elementary School. Atlanta, Georgia: National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1999). School Health Policies and

Programs Study: School Questionnaire Content, Mental Health and Social Services: Atlanta, Georgia National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dash/shpps/mental_health/ (accessed 2004).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Division of Adolescent and School Health.

(2002). Stories from the Field: Lessons Learned About Building Coordinated School Health Programs. Atlanta, Georgia: National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

Chavkin, N. (1989). Debunking the Myth about Minority Parents. Educational Horizons,

67(4), 119-123. Choi, J. N. (2003). How Does Context Influence Individual Behavior? Multilevel

Assessment of the Implementation of Social Innovations. Prevention & Treatment, 6(23), 1-8.

Coburn, C. (2003). Rethinking Scale: Moving Beyond Numbers to Deep and Lasting

Change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3-12. Coggon, D., Rose, G. and Barker, D. J. P. (1997). Epidemiology for the Uninitiated.

http://www.bmj.com/epidem/epid.html (accessed 2004). Collaborative for Academic Social and Emotional Learning. (2003). Safe and Sound: An

Educational Leader's Guide to Evidence-Based Social and Emotional Learning Programs. The Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL) in Cooperation with the Mid-Atlantic Regional Education Laboratory. http://casel.org/publications/safe-and-sound-an-educational-leaders-guide-to-evidence-based-sel-programs/ (accessed 2004).

Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care. (2000). Promotion, Prevention

and Early Intervention for Mental Health - a Monograph. Canberra, Australia: Mental Health and Special Programs Branch, Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care.

Commonwealth Department of Health and Family Services and Australian Health

Promoting Schools Association (2001). A National Framework for Health Promoting Schools (2000-2003): National Health Promoting Schools Initiative. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth Department of Health and Family Services.

Commonwealth of Australia (2000). MindMatters: School Matters Whole School Audit.

Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia. Connell, S., Sanders, M. R. and Markie-Dadds, C. (1997). Self-Directed Behavioural

Family Intervention for Parents of Oppositional Children in Rural and Remote Areas. Behaviour Modification, 21, 379-408.

197

Csincsak, M., De Bourdeaudhuij, I. and Van Oost, P. (1994). School-Based Sex Education in Flanders: Problems, Barriers and Perceived Needs for Future Practice. Health Education Research, 9(4), 473-483.

Dadds, M. A. (2001). Fads, Politics, and Research: Keeping Prevention on the Mental

Health Agenda. Prevention & Treatment, 4(1) 1-6. Dadds, M. R., Holland, D., Barrett, P. M., Laurens, K. and Spence, S. (1999). Early

Intervention and Prevention of Anxiety Disorders in Children: Results at 2-Year Follow-Up. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 67, 145-150.

Dadds, M. R., Spence, S. H., Holland, D. E., Barrett, P. M. and Laurens, K. R. (1997).

Prevention and Early Intervention for Anxiety Disorders: A Controlled Trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65(4), 627-635.

Davis, F. B. (1964). Educational Measurements and Their Interpretation. Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth Publishing Co. De Bono, E. (1992). Six Thinking Hats for Schools. Cheltenham, VIC: Hawker

Brownlow Education. Department of Education. (2000). Health Promoting Schools Health and Physical

Education Audit. Hobart, Tasmania: Department of Education. Department of Mental Health and Substance Dependence. (2002). Prevention and

Promotion in Mental Health. Geneva: World Health Organization. Dillman, D. (2000). Mail and Internet Surveys. New York: Wiley & Sons Inc. Domitrovich, C. E. and Greenberg, M. T. (2000). The Study of Implementation: Current

Findings from Effective Programs That Prevent Mental Disorders in School-Aged Children. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 11(2), 193-221.

Downey, A. M., Virgilio, S. J., Serpas, D. C., Nicklas, T. A., Arbeit, M. L. and Berenson,

G. S. (1988). Heart Smart - a Staff Development Model for School-Based Cardiovascular Health Intervention. Health Education, 19(2), 12-20.

Downs, C. W. and Hazen, M. (1977). A Factor Analytic Study of Communication

Satisfaction. Journal of Business Communication, 14(3), 63-74. Downs, G. W. J. and Mohr, L. B. (1976). Conceptual Issues in the Study of Innovations.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 700-714. DuPaul, G. J. (2003). Commentary: Bridging the Gap Between Research and Practice.

School Psychology Review, 32(2), 178-180. Durlak, J. A. (1995). School-Based Prevention Programs for Children and Adolescents.

Newbury Park, California: Sage.

198

Durlak, J. A. (1997). Successful Prevention Programs for Children and Adolescents. New York: Plenum Press.

Durlak, J. A. (1998). Why Program Implementation Is Important. Journal of Prevention

and Intervention in the Community, 17, 5-18. Durlak, J. A. and Wells, A. M. (1997). Primary Prevention Mental Health Programs for

Children and Adolescents: A Meta-Analytic Review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 25(2), 115-152.

Dusenbury, L., Brannigan, R., Falco, M. and Hansen, W. B. (2003). A Review of

Research on Fidelity of Implementation: Implications for Drug Abuse Prevention in School Settings. Health Education Research, 18(2), 237-256.

Dusenbury, L. and Falco, M. (1995). Eleven Components of Effective Drug Abuse

Prevention Curricula. Journal of School Health, 65(10), 420-425. Dwyer, D. J. and Hecht, J. B. (1992). Minimal Parent Involvement. The School

Community Journal, 2(2), 53-66. Dwyer, J. J. M., Allison, K. R., Barrera, M., Hansen, B., Goldberg, E. and Boutilier, M. A.

(2003). Teachers' Perspective on Barriers to Implementing Physical Activity Curriculum Guidelines for School Children in Toronto. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 94(6), 448-452.

Dwyer, S. B. (2002). Identifying Children at Risk of Developing Mental Health Problems:

Screening for Family Risk Factors in the School Setting. Brisbane, QLD: Queensland University of Technology.

Education Queensland. (1998). Bullying-No Way: A Professional Development

Resource for School Communities. Brisbane, Queensland: Open Access Unit, Education Queensland.

Elias, M. J. (1997). Reinterpreting Dissemination of Prevention Programs as

Widespread Implementation with Effectiveness and Fidelity. In R. P. Weissberg and T. P. Gullotta (Ed.) Healthy Children 2010: Establishing Preventive Services, Issues in Children's and Families' Lives, Vol. 9: (253-289). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.

Elias, M. J. and Arnold, H. (1997). The Connection between Academic and Social-

Emotional Learning. In M. J. Elias, J. E. Zins, R. P. Weissberg, K. S. Fray, M. T. Greenberg and N. M. Haynes (Ed.) Promoting Social and Emotional Learning: Guidelines for Educators and Improving Schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Elliott, D. S. and Mihalic, S. (2004). Issues in Disseminating and Replicating Effective

Prevention Programs. Prevention Science, 5(1), 47-53. Elmore, R. F. (1996). Getting Ready to Scale with Good Educational Practice. Harvard

Educational Review, 66(1), 1-25.

199

Embry, D. D., Flannery, D. J., Vazsonyi, A. T., Powell, K. E. and Atha, H. (1996). Peace Builders: A Theoretically Driven, School-Based Model for Early Violence Prevention. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 12(5), 91-100.

Emmons, K. M. (2001). Behavioral and Social Science Contributions to the Health of

Adults in the United States. In B. D. Smedley and S. L. Syme (Ed.) Promoting Health: Intervention Strategies from Social and Behavioral Research Washington, D.C: National Academy Press.

Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, Family, and Community Partnerships: Preparing

Educators and Improving Schools. Boulder, CO: Westview. Fagan, A. A. and Mihalic, S. (2003). Strategies for Enhancing the Adoption of School-

Based Prevention Programs: Lessons Learned from the Blueprints for Violence Prevention Replications of the Life Skills Training Program. Journal of Community Psychology, 31(3), 235-253.

Fagan, J. A. (1990). Treatment and Reintegration of Violent Juvenile Offenders:

Experimental Results. Justice Quarterly, 7, 233-263. Fisher, C. B., Hoagwood, K., Boyce, C., Duster, T., Frank, D. A., Grisso, T., Levine, R.

J., Macklin, R., Spencer, M. B., Takanishi, R., Trimble, J. E. and Zayas, L. H. (2002). Research Ethics for Mental Health Science Involving Ethnic Minority Children and Youths. American Psychologist, 57, 1024-1040.

Forgatch, M. S. (2003). Implementation as a Second Stage in Prevention Research.

Prevention & Treatment, 6(24), 1-4. Freeman, E., Strong, D., Cahill, H., Wyn, J. and Shaw, G. (2003). Enhancing

Professional Practice: An Innovative Professional Development Strategy to Support Teachers in School-Based Mental Health Promotion. Journal of In-Service Education, 29(2), 277-295.

Friedli, L. (2005). Promoting Mental Health in the United Kingdom: A Case Study in

Many Parts. Australian e-Journal for the Advancement of Mental Health (AeJAMH), 4(2), 1-6.

Fullan, M. (1991). The New Meaning of Educational Change. London: Casell. Furman, W., Giverson, R., White, A. S., Gravin, L. A. and Wehner, E. A. (1989).

Enhancing Peer Relations in School Systems. In B. H. Schneider, G. Attili, J. Nadel, and R. P. Weissberg (Ed.) Social Competence in Developmental Perspective (355-370). Boston: Kluwer Academic.

Gibson-Ramael, R. (1987). Teacher Initiatives That Lead to Quality Health Education

Programs. Health Education, 18(5), 41-43. Gittelsohn, J., Merkle, S., Story, M., Stone, E. J., Steckler, A., Noel, J., Davis, S.,

Martin, C. J. and Ethelbah, B. (2003). School Climate and Implementation of the Pathways Study. Preventive Medicine, 37, S96-S106.

200

Goodman, R. (1997). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A Research Note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 581-586.

Goodman, R. and Scott, S. (1999). Comparing the Strengths and Difficulties

Questionnaire and the Child Behavior Checklist: Is Small Beautiful? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 27, 17-24.

Gottfredson, G. D., Gottfredson, D. C., Czeh, E. R., Cantor, D., Crosse, S. B. and

Hantman, I. (2000). National Study of Delinquency Prevention in Schools. Ellicott City, Maryland: Gottfredson Associates Inc.

Graczyk, P. A., Domitrovich, C. E. and Zins, J. E. (2003). Facilitating the

Implementation of Evidence-Based Prevention and Mental Health Promotion Efforts in Schools. In M.D. Weist, A. Evans and N.A. Lever (Ed.) School Mental Health Handbook. New York: Kluwer Press.

Graham, A. P. (1996). Seasons for Growth: Primary School Series. Sydney: MacKillop

Foundation. Green, S. and Higgins, J. E. (2005). Glossary: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic

Reviews of Interventions 4.2.5. http://www.cochrane.org/resources/handbook/ (accessed 2006).

Greenberg, M. T. (2004). Current and Future Challenges in School-Based Prevention:

The Current Researcher Perspective. Prevention Science, 5(1), 5-13. Greenberg, M. T., Domitrovich, C. and Bumbarger, B. (1999). Preventing Mental

Disorders in School-Age Children: A Review of the Effectiveness of Prevention Programs. Pennsylvania: Prevention Research Centre for the Promotion of Human Development.

Greenberg, M. T., Domitrovich, C. and Bumbarger, B. (2001). The Prevention of Mental

Disorders in School-Aged Children: Current State of the Field. Prevention & Treatment, 4(1), 1-38.

Greenberg, M. T., Domitrovich, C. E., Graczyk, P. A. and Zins, J. E. (2005). The Study

of Implementation in School-Based Preventive Interventions: Theory, Research, and Practice (Draft). Rockville, MD: Center for Mental Health Services, Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration.

Greenberg, M. T., Kusché, C. and Mihalic, S. F. (1998). Promoting Alternative Thinking

Strategies (PATHS): Blueprints for Violence Prevention, Book Ten. Blueprints for Violence Prevention Series. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado.

Greenhalgh, T. (1997). How to Read a Paper: Papers That Summarise Other Papers

(Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). British Medical Journal, 315, 672-675.

201

Greenwood, G. E. and Hickman, C. W. (1991). Research and Practice in Parent Involvement: Implications for Teacher Education. The Elementary School Journal, 9(3), 279-288.

Grolnick, W. S. and Slowiaczek, M. L. (1994). Parents' Involvement in Children's

Schooling: A Multidimensional Conceptualization and Motivational Model. Child Development, 65, 237-252.

Hahn, E. J., Noland, M. P., Rayens, M. K. and Christie, D. M. (2002). Efficacy of

Training and Fidelity of Implementation of the Life Skills Training Program. Journal of School Health, 72(7), 282-287.

Han, S. S. and Weiss, B. (2005). Sustainability of Teacher Implementation of School-

Based Mental Health Programs. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33(6), 665-679.

Haney, P. and Durlak, J. A. (1998). Changing Self-Esteem in Children and Adolescents:

A Meta-Analytic Review. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 27(4), 423-433. Hargreaves, A. (2000). Mixed Emotions: Teachers' Perceptions of Their Interactions

with Students. Teaching & Teacher Education, 16, 811-816. Harvey-Berino, J., Ewing, J. F., Flynn, B. and Wick, J., R. (1998). Statewide

Dissemination of a Nutrition Program: Show the Way to 5-a-Day. Journal of Nutrition Education, 30, 29-36.

Hausman, A. J. and Ruzek, S. B. (1995). Implementation of Comprehensive School

Health Education in Elementary Schools: Focus on Teacher Concerns. The Journal of School Health, 65(3), 81-86.

Henderson, A. (1988). Parents Are a School's Best Friends. Phi Delta Kappan, 70(2),

148-153. Henderson, A. and Berla, N. (1994). A New Generation of Evidence: The Family Is

Critical to Student Achievement. Cambridge, MA: National Committee for Citizens in Education.

Hoagwood, K. and Erwin, H. (1997). Effectiveness of School-Based Mental Health

Services for Children: A 10-Year Research Review. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 6, 435-451.

Hoagwood, K. and Johnson, J. (2003). School Psychology a Public Framework: from

Evidence-Based Practices to Evidence-Based Policies. Journal of School Psychology, 41(3), 1-21.

Hodgson, R., Abbasi, T. and Clarkson, J. (1996). Effective Mental Health Promotion: A

Literature Review. Health Education, 55, 55-74. Hudson, C. G. (2005). Socioeconomic Status and Mental Illness: Tests of the Social

Causation and Selection Hypotheses. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 75(1), 3-18.

202

Humphreys, K. and Sturt, E. (1993). Challenging Times for Teachers. British Journal of Special Education, 20, 97-99.

Hunter Institute of Mental Health. (2004). MindMatters Evaluation: School Case Study

Interim Report. http://www.mindmatters.edu.au/about/evaluation/ evaluation_case_studies.html (accessed 2004).

Indoe, D. (1998). School Psychology and Mental Health Interventions in the United

Kingdom: Educating Education in Mental Health. School Psychology Review, 27(1), 97-105.

Jarolimek, J., Foster Sr, C. D. and Kellough, R. D. (2005). Teaching and Learning in the

Elementary School. Columbus, Ohio: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall. Johnson, B., Hackett, A. F., Bibby, A. and Cross, J. (1999). An Investigation of the Face

Validity of a Food Intake Questionnaire: Lessons for Dietary Advice. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, 12, 307-316.

Kallestad, J. H. and Olweus, D. (2003). Predicting Teachers' and Schools'

Implementation of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program: A Multilevel Study. Prevention & Treatment, 6(1), 1-27.

Kallestad, J. H., Olweus, D. and Alsaker, F. (1998). School Climate Reports from

Norwegian Teachers: A Methodological and Substantive Study. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(1), 70-94.

Kennedy, A. D. M. (2003). A Multi-Centre Randomised Controlled Trial Assessing the

Costs and Benefits of Using Structured Information and Analysis of Women's Preferences in the Management of Menorrhagia. Southampton: National Institute for Health Research Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment.

Kerner, J., Rimer, B. and Emmons, K. (2005). Dissemination Research and Research

Dissemination: How Can We Close the Gap? Health Psychology, 24(5), 443-446.

Kiselica, M. S. (2001). Overcoming Barriers to the Practice of Primary Prevention: An

Agenda for the Mental Health Professions. Prevention & Treatment, 4(1), 1-8. Kramer, L., Laumann, G. and Briunson, L. (2000). Implementation and Diffusion of the

Rainbows Program in Rural Communities: Implications for School-Based Prevention Programming. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 11(1), 37-64.

Kratochwill, T. R. and Stoiber, K. C. (2000). Empirically Supported Interventions and

School Psychology. Conceptual and Practice Issues - Part II. School Psychology Quarterly, 15(2), 233-256.

Lavin, A. T. (1993). Comprehensive School Health Education: Barriers and

Opportunities. Journal of School Health, 63(1), 24-27.

203

Lawson, M. A. (2003). School-Family Relations Context: Parent and Teacher Perceptions of Parent Involvement. Urban Education, 38(1), 77-133.

Lemerle, K. (2003). Health Promoting Schools Audit Checklist. Brisbane, QLD:

Queensland University of Technology. Lemerle, K. A. (2004). Evaluation of the Impact of the School Environment on Teachers'

Health and Job Commitment: Is the Health Promoting School a Healthier Workplace? Brisbane, QLD: Queensland University of Technology.

Levenson-Gingiss, P. and Hamilton, R. (1989). Determinants of Teachers' Plans to

Continue Teaching a Sexuality Education Course. Family and Community Health, 12(3), 40-53.

Lister-Sharp, D., Chapman, S., Stewart-Brown, S. and Sowden, A. (1999). Health

Promoting Schools and Health Promotion in Schools: Two Systematic Reviews. Health Technology Assessment, 3(22), 1-221.

Lochman, J. E. (2000). Parent and Family Skills Training in Targeted Prevention

Programs for At-Risk Youth. Journal of Primary Prevention, 21, 253-265. Lochman, J. E. (2001). Issues in Prevention with School-Aged Children: Ongoing

Intervention Refinement, Developmental Theory, Prediction and Moderation, and Implementation and Dissemination. Prevention & Treatment, 4(1), 1-7.

Lochman, J. E. (2003). Commentary: School Contextual Influences on the

Dissemination of Interventions. School Psychology Review, 32(2), 174-177. Lynagh, M., Knight, J., Schofield, M. I. and Paras, L. (1999). Lessons Learned from the

Hunter Region Health Promoting Schools Project in New South Wales, Australia. Journal of School Health, 69(6), 227-232.

Lyneham, H. J. and Rapee, R. (2003). Cool Kids Program. Sydney: Macquarie

University Anxiety Research Unit. Macaulay, C. M. (2001). Comparison of the Use and Perceived Usefulness of School-

Based Mental Health Interventions for Children Exhibiting Internalising Versus Externalising Behaviours. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology.

MacDonald, M. A. and Green, L. W. (2001). Reconciling Concept and Context: The

Dilemma of Implementation in School-Based Health Promotion. Health Education & Behavior, 28(6), 749-768.

Massey, O. T., Armstrong, K., Boroughs, M., Henson, K. and McCash, L. (2005).

Mental Health Services in Schools: A Qualitative Analysis of Challenges to Implementation, Operation, and Sustainability. Psychology in the Schools, 42(4), 361-372.

Mayer, J. and Cobb, C. (2000). Educational Policy on Emotional Intelligence: Does It

Make Sense? Educational Psychology Review, 12(2), 163-183.

204

McBride, N., Farringdon, F. and Midford, R. (2002). Implementing a School Drug Education Programme: Reflections of Fidelity. International Journal of Health Promotion and Education, 40(2), 40-50.

McBride, N. and Midford, R. (1999). Encouraging Schools to Promote Health: Impact of

the Western Australian School Health Project (1992-1995). Journal of School Health, 69(6), 220-226.

McCormick, L. K., Steckler, A. B. and McLeroy, K. R. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations in

Schools: A Study of Adoption and Implementation of School-Based Tobacco Prevention Curricula. American Journal of Health Promotion, 9(3), 210-219.

McGartland, D., Berg-Weger, M., Tebb, S. S., Lee, E. S. and Rauch, S. (2003).

Objectifying Content Validity: Conducting a Content Validity Study in Social Work Research. Social Work Research, 27(2), 94-104.

McGrath, H. and Francey, S. (1991). Friendly Kids, Friendly Classrooms: Teaching

Social Skills and Confidence in the Classroom. Melbourne, VIC: Longman Cheshire.

McGraw, S. A., Sellers, D. E., Stone, E. J., Bebchuk, J., Edmundson, E. W., Johnson,

C. C., Bachman, K. J. and Luepker, R. V. (1996). Using Process Data to Explain Outcomes: An Illustration from the Child and Adolescent Trial for Cardiovascular Health (CATCH). Evaluation Review, 20(3), 291-312.

McGraw, S. A., Stone, E. J., Osganian, S. K., Elder, J. P., Perry, C. L., Johnson, C. C.,

Parcel, G. S., Webber, L. S. and Luepker, R. V. (1994). Design of Process Evaluation within the Child and Adolescent Trial for Cardiovascular Health (CATCH). Health Education Quarterly, Suppl. 2, S5-S26.

McKenna, M. L. (2003). Issues in Implementing School Nutrition Policies. Canadian

Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research, 64(4), 208-213. McKenzie, J. F., Wood, M. L., Kotecki, J. E., Clark, J. K. and Brey, R. A. (1999).

Research Notes. Establishing Content Validity: Using Qualitative and Quantitative Steps. American Journal of Health Behavior, 23(4), 311-318.

McKenzie, T. L., Strikmiller, P. K., Stone, E. J., Woods, S. E., Ehlinger, S. S., Romero,

K. A. and Budman, S. T. (1994). CATCH: Physical Activity Process Evaluation in a Multicenter Trial. Health Education Quarterly, Supplement 2, S73-S89.

McLaughlin, M. (1997). Rebuilding Teacher Professionalism in the United States. In A.

Hargreaves and R. Evans (Ed.) Beyond Educational Reform: Bringing Teachers Back In (77-93). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

McLaughlin, M. W. and Mitra, D. (2001). Theory-Based Change and Change-Based

Theory: Going Deeper, Going Broader. Journal of Educational Change, 2, 301-332.

McNamara, D. (1990). The National Curriculum: An Agenda for Research. British

Educational Research Journal, 16(3), 225-235.

205

Mihalic, S. F. and Irwin, K. (2003). Blueprints for Violence Prevention. From Research to Real-World Settings - Factors Influencing the Successful Replication of Model Programs. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 1(4), 307-329.

Monahan, J. I. and Scheirer, M. A. (1988). The Role of Linking Agents in the Diffusion

of Health Promotion Programs. Health Education Quarterly, 15(4), 417-433. Moos, S. (1991). Connections between School, Work and Family Settings. In B. Fraser

and H. Walberg (Ed.) Educational Environments. Oxford: Pergamon. Mrazek, P. J. and Haggerty, R. J. (Eds.). (1994). The Mental Health Intervention

Spectrum for Mental Health Disorders. In Committee on Prevention of Mental Health Disorders, Institute of Medicine. Reducing Risks for Mental Disorders: Frontiers for Preventive Intervention Research. Washington DC: National Academies Press.

Mukoma, W. and Flisher, A. J. (2004). Evaluations of Health Promoting Schools: A

Review of Nine Studies. Health Promotion International, 19(3), 357-368. Muller, C. and Kerbow, D. (1993). Parent Involvement in the Home, School, and

Community. In B. Schneider and J. S. Coleman (Ed.) Parents, Their Children, and Schools (13-42). Boulder, CO: Westview.

National Health and Medical Research Council: Health Advancement Standing

Committee. (1996). Effective School Health Promotion Towards Health Promoting Schools. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

National Institute of Education. (1985). Parent Participation and the Achievement of

Disadvantaged Students. Washington DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education.

Nicholson, J. M., McFarland, M.L. & Oldenburg, B. (1999). Detection of Child Mental

Health Problems in the School Setting. The Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 16(1), 66-77.

Northern Sydney Area Health Service. (2000). Health Promoting Schools Evaluation.

Sydney, NSW: Northern Sydney Health. Nutbeam, D., Macaskill, P., Smith, C., Simpson, J. M. and Catford, J. (1993). Evaluation

of Two School Smoking Education Programmes under Normal Classroom Conditions. British Medical Journal, 306(6870), 102-107.

Olson, C. M., Devine, C. M. and Frongillo, E. A. (1993). Dissemination and Use of a

School-Based Nutrition Education Program for Secondary School Students. Journal of School Health, 63(8), 343-348.

Overall, L. and Sangster, M. (2004). Primary Teachers Handbook. London: Continuum. Ozer, E. J. (2006). Contextual Effects in School-Based Violence Prevention Programs:

A Conceptual Framework and Empirical Review. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 27(3), 315-338.

206

Pan, D., Rudo, Z. H., Schneider, C. L. and Smith-Hansen, L. (2003). Examination of Resource Allocation in Education: Connecting Spending to Student Performance. Austin, Texas: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

Parcel, G. S., Eriksen, M. P., Lovato, C. Y., Gotlied, N. H., Brink, S. G. and Green, L.

W. (1995). Diffusion of an Effective Tobacco Prevention Program. Part II: Evaluation of the Adoption Phase. Health Education Research, 10(3), 297-307.

Parcel, G. S., Kelder, S. H. and Basen-Engquist, K. (1998). The School as a Setting for

Health Promotion. In B. Poland, L.W. Green and I. Rootman (Ed.) Settings for Health Promotion: Linking Theory and Practice California: Sage.

Parcel, G. S., Perry, C. L. and Taylor, W. C. (1990). Beyond Demonstration: Diffusion of

Health Promotion Innovations. In N. Bracht (Ed.) Health Promotion at the Community Level California: Sage Publications.

Parcel, G. S., Ross, J. G., Lavin, A. T., Portnoy, B., Nelson, G. D. and Winters, F.

(1991). Enhancing Implementation of the Teenage Health Teaching Modules. Journal of School Health, 61(1), 35-38.

Pateman, B., Grunbaum, J. A. and Kann, L. (1999). Voices from the Field - A

Qualitative Analysis of Classroom, School, District, and State Health Education Policies and Programs. Journal of School Health, 69(7), 258-263.

Paternite, C. E. (2005). School-Based Mental Health Programs and Services: Overview

and Introduction to the Special Issue. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33(6), 657-663.

Paulussen, T., Kok, G. and Schaalma, H. (1994). Antecedents to Adoption of

Classroom-Based AIDS Education in Secondary Schools. Health Education Research, 9(4), 485-496.

Payton, J. W., Wardlaw, D. M., Graczyk, P. A., Bloodworth, M. R., Tompsett, C. J. and

Weissberg, R. P. (2000). Social and Emotional Learning: A Framework for Promoting Mental Health and Reducing Risk Behaviors in Children and Youth. Journal of School Health, 70(5), 179-185.

Pena, D. C. (2000). Parent Involvement: Influencing Factors and Implications. The

Journal of Educational Research, 94(1), 42-54. Pentz, M. A. (2004). Form Follows Function: Designs for Prevention Effectiveness and

Diffusion Research. Prevention Science, 5(1), 23-29. Perry, C. L., Luepker, R. V., Murray, D. M., Kurth, C., Mullis, R., Crockett, S. and

Jacobs, D. (1988). Parent Involvement with Children's Health Promotion: The Minnesota Home Team. American Journal of Public Health, 78, 1156-1160.

Peterson, D. (1989). Parent Involvement in the Education Process. Washington, DC.

207

Prinz, R. J., Blechman, E. A. and Duman, J. E. (1994). An Evaluation of Peer Coping Skills Training for Childhood Aggression. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 23, 193-203.

Queensland Government. (2001). School Health Audit: A Toolbox for Creating Healthy

Places to Learn, Work and Play. Brisbane: Queensland Health. Rafferty, T. J. (2003). School Climate and Teacher Attitudes Toward Upward

Communication in Secondary Schools. American Secondary Education, 31(2), 49-70.

Redsell, S. A., Lennon, M., Hastings, A. and Fraser, R. C. (2004). Devising and

Establishing the Face and Content Validity of Explicit Criteria of Consultation Competence for UK Secondary Care Nurses. Nurse Education Today, 24, 180-187.

Reinke, W. M., Herman, K. C. and Tucker, C. M. (2006). Building and Sustaining

Communities That Prevent Mental Disorders: Lessons from the Field of Special Education. Psychology in the Schools, 43(3), 313-329.

Ridge, D., Marshall, B., Northfield, J., Maher, S., St Leger, L., Sheehan, M. and Elisha,

D. (2000). Health Promoting Schools Project. Geelong, VIC: Deakin University. Ringeisen, H., Henderson, K. and Hoagwood, K. (2003). Context Matters: Schools and

the "Research to Practice Gap" in Children's Mental Health. School Psychology Review, 32(2), 153-168.

Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press. Rycroft-Malone, J., Seers, K., Titchen, A., Harvey, G., Kitson, A. and McCormack, B.

(2004). Nursing and Health Care Management Policy: What Counts as Evidence Is Evidence-Based Practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 47(1), 81-90.

Sallis, J. F. and Owen, N. (2002). Ecological Models of Health Behavior. In K. Glanz,

B.K. Rimer and F.M. Lewis (Ed.) Health Behavior and Health Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Sanders, M. (1995). Healthy Families, Healthy Nation: Strategies for Promoting Family

Mental Health in Australia. Brisbane: Australian Academic Press Sanders, M. R., Gooley, S. and Nicholson, J. (2000). Early Intervention in Conduct

Problems in Children. In R. Kosky, A. O'Hanlon, G. Martin and C. Davis (Ed.) Clinical Approaches to Early Intervention in Child and Adolescent Mental Health. Adelaide: The Australian Early Intervention Network for Mental Health in Young People.

Sanders, M. R. and Markie-Dadds, C. L. (1996). Triple P: A Multilevel Family

Intervention Program for Children with Disruptive Disorders. In P. Cotton and Jackson, H. (Ed.) Early Intervention and Prevention in Mental Health (59-87). Melbourne: Australian Psychological Society.

208

Schoen, D. C. (2004). Osteoporosis. Orthopaedic Nursing, 23(4), 261-266. Shaw, J. and Riskind, J. (1983). Predicting Job Stress Using Data from the Position

Analysis Questionnaire. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 253-261. Sheldon, S. B. (2002). Parents' Social Networks and Beliefs as Predictors of Parent

Involvement. The Elementary School Journal, 102(4), 301-316. Shonkoff, J. P. and Phillips, D. A. (2000). From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The

Science of Early Childhood Development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Short, R. J. (2003). Commentary: School Psychology, Context, and Population-Based

Practice. School Psychology Review, 32(2), 181-184. Shure, M. B. (2001). What's Right with Prevention? Commentary on Prevention of

Mental Disorders in School-Aged Children: Current State of the Field. Prevention & Treatment, 4(1), 1-8.

Slavin, R. E. (2002). Evidence-Based Educational Policies: Transforming Practice and

Research. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 15-21. Slee, P. T. (1997). The P.E.A.C.E. Pack: A Programme for Reducing Bullying in Our

Schools. South Australia: Flinders University. Smedley, B. D. and Syme, S. L. (2001). Promoting Health: Intervention Strategies from

Social and Behavioral Research Introduction. In B.D. Smedley and S.L. Syme (Ed.) Promoting Health: Intervention Strategies from Social and Behavioral Research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Smith, D. W., McCormick, L. K., Steckler, A. B. and McLeroy, K. R. (1993). Teachers'

Use of Health Curricula. Implementation of Growing Healthy: Project SMART and the Teenage Health Teaching Modules. Journal of School Health, 63(8), 349-354.

Smith, R. (2002). Creating the Effective Primary School. London: Kogan Page Limited. Sorensen, G., Emmons, K. M., Hunt, M. K. and Johnston, D. (1998). Implications of the

Results of Community Intervention Trials. Annual Review of Public Health, 19, 379-416.

SPSS Inc. (2005). Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Ver. 14.0. St Leger, L. H. (1999). The Opportunities and Effectiveness of the Health Promoting

Primary School in Improving Child Health: A Review of the Claims and Evidence. Health Education Research, 14(1), 51-69.

Stevens, P. J. M., Chalk, B., Schade, A. L. and Slevin, O. D. A. (1993). Understanding

Research: A Scientific Guide for Health Care Professionals. Edinburgh: Campion Press.

209

Stevenson, D. L. and Baker, D. P. (1987). The Family-School Relation and the Child's Performance. Child Development, 58, 1348-1357.

Stoll, L. (1999). Realising Our Potential: Understanding and Developing Capacity for

Lasting Improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 10, 503-532.

Survey Data Analysis (2007). SUDAAN, Version 9.0.3: Research Triangle Institute. Tappe, M. K., Galer-Unti, R. A. and Bailey, K. C. (1997). Evaluation of Trained

Teachers' Implementation of a Sex Education Curriculum. Journal of Health Education, 28(2), 103-108.

Thomas, G. (2004). Evidence Based Practice in Education. In G. Thomas and R. Pring

(Ed.) Conducting Educational Research. Berkshire, England: Open University Press.

Thomas, M., Benton, D., Keirle, K. and Pearsall, R. (1999). A Review of the Health

Promoting Status of Secondary Schools in Wales and England. Health Promotion International, 13(2), 121-129.

Tilford, S., Delaney, F. and Vogels, M. (1997). Effectiveness of Mental Health

Promotion Interventions - A Review. Health Education Authority. Titmuss, R. M. (1974). Social Policy: An Introduction London: Allen & Unwin. Vickers, B., Zubrick, S., Silburn, S., White, R., Turner, D., Mann, B., Watterston, J.,

Appleby, B., Boyd, L., Kerr, D., Hasleby, J., Usher, K., Brand, C. and Goodier, C. (1999). Clarkson School Community Profiling Project. Perth, WA: TVW Telethon Institute for Child Health and Education Department of Western Australia.

Viig, N. G. and Wold, B. (2005). Facilitating Teachers' Participation in School-Based

Health Promotion - a Qualitative Study. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 49(1), 83-109.

Waddell, C., Hua, J. M., Garland, O. M., Peters, R. D. and McEwan, K. (2007).

Preventing Mental Disorders in Children: A Systematic Review to Inform Policy-Making. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 98(3), 166-173.

Walker, H. M. (2001). Invited Commentary on Preventing Mental Disorders in School-

Aged Children: Current State of the Field. Prevention & Treatment, 4(1), 1-5. Walter, H. J., Gouze, K. and Lim, K. G. (2006). Teachers' Beliefs about Mental Health

Needs in Inner City Elementary Schools. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 45(1), 61-68.

Weare, K. (2000). Promoting Mental, Emotional and Social Health: A Whole School

Approach. London: Routledge.

210

Weare, K. and Gray, G. (2003). What Works in Developing Children's Emotional and Social Competence and Wellbeing. Southampton: Crown Publishing.

Weissberg, R. P. (1990). Fidelity and Adaptation: Combining the Best of Both

Perspectives. In P. Tolan, C. Keys, F. Chertok and L. Jason (Ed.) Researching Community Psychology: Issues of Theory and Methods (186-189). Washington: American Psychological Association.

Weissberg, R. P. and Bell, D. N. (1997). A Meta-Analytic Review of Primary Prevention

Programs for Children and Adolescents: Contributions and Caveats. American Journal of Community Psychology, 25, 207-214.

Wells, J., Barlow, J. and Stewart-Brown, S. (2003). A Systematic Review of Universal

Approaches to Mental Health Promotion in Schools. Health Education, 103(4), 197-220.

Wells, J., Stewart-Brown, S. and Barlow, J. (2001). A Systematic Review of the

Effectiveness of School Mental Health Promotion Interventions. Oxford: Health Services Research Unit.

Wiecha, J. L., El Ayadi, A. M., Fuemmeler, B. F., Carter, J. E., Handler, S., Johnson, S.,

Strunk, N., Korzec-Ramirez, D. and Gortmaker, S. L. (2004). Diffusion of an Integrated Health Education Program in an Urban School System: Planet Health. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 29(6), 467-474.

Williams, A., Silburn, S. and Zubrick, S. (1996). A Health Promotion Proposal for a

Behavioural Family Intervention to Reduce the Risk of Conduct Disorders and Other Mental Health Problems among Pre-School Children. Perth: Paper prepared for the Health Department, Western Australia.

Williams, A., Zubrick, S., Silburn, S. and Sanders, M. (1997). A Population Based

Intervention to Prevent Childhood Conduct Disorders: The Perth Positive Parenting Program Demonstration Project. Darwin: Paper presented to 9th National Health Promotion Conference.

Wilson, S. J., Lipsey, M. W. and Derzon, J. H. (2003). The Effects of School-Based

Intervention Programs on Aggressive Behavior: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 136-149.

Woods, P. and Jeffrey, B. (1996). Teachable Moments. Buckingham, Philadelphia:

Open University Press. World Health Organisation. (1991). Background, Development and Strategy Outline for

the Health Promoting Schools Project. Copenhagen: World Health Organisation Planning Meeting on the Health Promoting Schools Project.

World Health Organization. (1994). School Health Initiative. Geneva: WHO. Wyn, J., Cahill, H., Holdsworth, R., Rowling, L. and Carson, S. (2000). MindMatters, A

Whole-School Approach Promoting Mental Health and Wellbeing. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 34, 594-601.

211

Appendices

212

Appendix 2.1a: Universal, selective and indicated, evidence-based, social and emotional wellbeing programs.

Table 1: Evidence-based, social and emotional wellbeing programs for primary school-aged students, summarised by level of prevention. g

Program Evaluation References Identified h Evidence of Effectiveness From Reviews i

UNIVERSAL

Aban Aya Youth Project Flay et al. (2002)b

One unpublished study evaluated the Aban Aya Youth Project over a period of four school terms. Participants were African American students in grades five to eight. Compared to control students, males participating in the program reported at post-test less substance abuse, violence (i.e. carrying guns, threatening and provoking behaviours), school delinquency and sexual intercourse, and higher condom use. Effect sizes were generally larger for the group that received the curriculum plus school-wide and parent components. b

Al’s Pals: Kids Making Healthy Choices

Dubas et al. (1998) b Lynch (1998) b Lynch (1996) b Lynch et al. (1995) b Lynch & McCracken (2001a) b Lynch & McCracken (2001b) b

Four studies (one published), involving Caucasian and African American students, have evaluated the Al’s Pals Program. The longest of these examined program effects over one school year. At post-test compared to controls, preschool to second-grade students who participated in the program showed improved resiliency skills such as social skills and problem-solving abilities, and decreased negative coping behaviours. In two of the studies, teachers also reported increases in children’s positive coping behaviours and social interaction skills, decreased social withdrawal, and reductions in anti-social, aggressive behaviours. b

Bullying Prevention Program Olweus (1993) e Olweus (1989) e

Two studies evaluated the Bullying Prevention Program and found reductions of 50% or more in bully/victim problems for boys and girls across all grades (four to nine). Significant reductions were also found in general antisocial behaviour such as vandalism, fighting, drunkenness, theft and truancy. e

213

Table 1 (cont’d): Evidence-based, social and emotional wellbeing programs for primary school-aged students, summarised by level of prevention. g

Program Evaluation References Identified h Evidence of Effectiveness From Reviews i

UNIVERSAL

Child Development Project (Caring School Community)

Battistich (2001) b Battistich et al. (2000) b Battistich et al. (1996) b d e Battistich et al. (1989) b c Solomon et al. (2000) b Solomon et al. (1988) b

Two published studies with intervention periods of up to five school years (grades K to six) have evaluated the Caring School Community Project. The largest of these included more than 5,000 Caucasian, African American, and Latino students. Compared to control groups, students who participated in the program reported lower alcohol and marijuana use at post-test. Teachers reported that students who participated in the program were also more likely to work out their own methods of learning, to engage in pro-social behaviours (such as being friendly and supportive), and to use problem-solving behaviours (such as resolving their own interpersonal conflicts). b A follow-up study evaluated program effects on 525 students after they reached middle school. Findings at follow-up included higher grade point averages and achievement test scores, greater involvement in positive youth activities, and less frequent misconduct at school and acts of violence. However, there was no difference between intervention and control groups related to alcohol and tobacco use. (Research reported here is on a prior version of the program, known as the Child Development Project, or CDP). b

Increases in peer social acceptance, decreases in alcohol, tobacco use, loneliness and social anxiety were found. The high implementation sub-group found decreases in marijuana use, carrying weapons and vehicle theft. d

Significant reductions in self reported delinquent behaviours. Effects were found only after controlling for degree of implementation (i.e. findings were only significant for ‘high level of implementation’ schools). e

Results showed significant change favouring programme children on 5 out of 13 measures: interpersonal sensitivity; means-end cognitive problem solving; general resolution strategies; the use of prosocial conflict resolution strategies; and consideration of other people’s needs. The difference between scores of the children in the intervention and control groups increased over time. c

214

Table 1 (cont’d): Evidence-based, social and emotional wellbeing programs for primary school-aged students, summarised by level of prevention. g

Program Evaluation References Identified h Evidence of Effectiveness From Reviews i

UNIVERSAL

Community of Caring (Growing Up Caring)

The Centre for Health Policy Studies (1991) b

One unpublished study lasting two school years evaluated the Community of Caring program. More than 1,000 Caucasian, Asian, and African American ninth-graders participated. Compared to controls, students who participated in the program reported greater abstinence from alcohol, lower unexcused school absences, and higher grade point averages at post-test. b

Coping with Junior High Curriculum Snow et al. (1986) c

Positive changes favouring the intervention group were found for problem-solving skills in this program: giving direct refusals and the number of solutions generated to social problem situations. Students in the intervention group perceived themselves to be better prepared for junior high school but also reported significantly more anxiety about the transition. c

Creating a Peaceful School Learning Environment (CAPSLE)

Twemlow et al. (2001) b Twemlow et al. (1997) b

One published study with three years of intervention evaluated CAPSLE. A sample of primarily Caucasian students in grades K-five participated. Findings suggest that compared with control students, high-risk students who participated in the program showed fewer behaviours associated with bullying at post-test. The program also increased reading scores of participating students. b

Developing Understanding of Self and Others (DUSO) Stacey & Rust (1985) f Significant gains in self-concept and self-esteem when compared to controls

although the paper lacked statistical evidence to support conclusions. f

Discover: Skills for Life American Guidance Service Inc. (n.d.) b

One unpublished study involving sixth-, eighth-, ninth- and twelfth-grade Caucasian, African American, and Latino students has evaluated Discover: Skills for Life. During a period of approximately 15 months, the program appeared to increase positive communication with family and reduce rebellious and aggressive behaviour. b

Friends (Australia) Lowry-Webster et al. (2003) a Lowry-Webster et al. (2001) a

Significant improvements in children’s self-reported anxiety and depression symptoms at one-year follow-up. a

215

Table 1 (cont’d): Evidence-based, social and emotional wellbeing programs for primary school-aged students, summarised by level of prevention. g

Program Evaluation References Identified h Evidence of Effectiveness From Reviews i

UNIVERSAL

Get Real About Violence Baseline Research LLC (2000) b

One unpublished study involving mostly African American seventh-graders evaluated the Get Real about Violence program. The intervention took place over a period of one month. Relative to the comparison group, students who participated in the program reported a lower likelihood of watching fights (at post-test) and reduced verbal aggression (at a three-month follow-up) b

Good Behaviour Game

Barrish et al. (1969) e Dolan et al. (1993) c e

Kellam et al. (1994a) c e

Kellam et al. (1994b) c e

Significant reductions in teacher ratings of aggression for boys and girls, peer ratings of aggression for boys and teacher ratings of shy behaviour among the Good Behaviour Game students, as compared to comparison students were found. At five-year follow-up there were significant effects on teacher-rated aggression, but only for boys who were rated moderately or highly aggressive at baseline. e

No overall differences between the groups after two terms as regards to aggressive behaviour and conduct disorder, but the rise in aggressive behaviour was reduced in the most aggressive boys. c

Growing Healthy Connell, Turner & Mason (1985) d Connell & Turner (1985) d Smith et al. (1992) d

Improvements in positive knowledge and attitude towards health, development and personal responsibility were found. Decreases in smoking and intention to smoke were also reported. d

Henderson et al. Henderson et al. (1992) f The intervention group showed significantly better gains on locus of control, self concept and in coping strategies than controls. f

High/Scope Educational Approach for Preschool and Primary Grades

Schweinhart & Weikart (1997b) b Schweinhart, Barnes & Weikart (1993) b

A study followed 123 African American children to age 27; this study compared children who at age 3 had been randomly assigned to the 2-year High/Scope active learning program or a non-program control group. Findings at age 27 were that relative to the control group, the High/Scope group had higher monthly incomes, were more likely to own homes, were more likely to have completed grade 12, and were significantly less likely to have been arrested. High/Scope females were more likely to be married, and less likely to have had children out of wedlock. At age 19, the High/Scope group had higher general literacy. At age 14 they scored higher on school achievement tests. b

216

Table 1 (cont’d): Evidence-based, social and emotional wellbeing programs for primary school-aged students, summarised by level of prevention. g

Program Evaluation References Identified h Evidence of Effectiveness From Reviews i

UNIVERSAL

I Can Do Dubow et al. (1993) f Significant effects on efficacy and problem solving scores but no effect on social support network size were reported. f

I Can Problem Solve (ICPS)

Aberson (1986) b Allen (1978) b Feis & Simons (1985) b Shure (1997) e Shure (1993) b Shure & Healey (1993) b Shure & Spivack (1979) b Shure & Spivack (1978) b Shure & Spivack (1988) e Shure & Spivack (1982) b e Shure & Spivack (1980) b Weddle & Williams (1993) b

Nine studies (five published, four unpublished) have evaluated ICPS. Some studied the program’s impact on African American, low SES children. At least one (unpublished) study evaluated the impact of a two-year intervention with a three-year follow-up. Findings indicate that ICPS improves children’s behaviour as observed by teachers and was reflected in peer acceptance, consequential thinking skills, and academic achievement test scores (although these improvements disappeared by the second year of follow-up). Results suggest that ICPS is most effective in children who receive two years of the intervention. b

Significant improvements in cognitive problem solving abilities, reduction in inhibitions and impulsivity with reductions lasting through one-year follow-up were found. e

Improving Social Awareness – Social Problem Solving (ISA-SPS)

Bruene-Butler et al. (1997) e

Elias et al. (1991) e

In a quasi-experimental design with a non-equivalent control group, improvements in youth self-report of coping with stressors related to middle school transition and teacher reports of behaviour were found. Significant reductions in measures of adjustment and psychopathology at six-year follow-up. e

Know Your Body

Resnicow et al. (1992) b Resnicow et al. (1993) b Resnicow, Cross & Wynder (1993) b Taggart et al.(1990) b Walter et al. (1989) d

Six published studies involving Caucasian, African American and Latino students in grades one to nine have evaluated Know Your Body. At least 1 of these included more than 1,000 participants. In a longer study, students received four to five years of the intervention. Four studies reported improved health outcomes, including reduced smoking at three- and five-year follow- up. b Improvement in healthy dietary patterns. Decrease in smoking initiation. d

217

Table 1 (cont’d): Evidence-based, social and emotional wellbeing programs for primary school-aged students, summarised by level of prevention. g

Program Evaluation References Identified h Evidence of Effectiveness From Reviews i

UNIVERSAL

Life Skills Training

Botvin, Baker & Botvin et al. (1984) b Botvin, Baker & Renick et al. (1984) b Botvin & Batson et al. (1989) b Botvin & Dusenbury et al. (1989) b Botvin et al. (1997) b Botvin et al. (1995) b d Botvin et al. (1994) b Botvin et al. (1992) b Botvin et al. (1990) b d Botvin et al. (1983) b Botvin & Eng (1982) b Botvin et al. (1980) b

Eleven published studies have evaluated Life Skills Training. Study participants included Caucasian, African American, and Latino students in grades seven to ten. In the longest evaluation, students received three years of intervention. Results suggest that Life Skills Training increases refusal assertiveness and decreases tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, and other drug use in seventh- through tenth grade students. Many of these effects persisted at a three-year follow-up. b

Improved knowledge of the effects of smoking and substance abuse and reduction in their use was found. d

Linking the Interests of Families and Teachers (LIFT) Reid et al. (1999) e

Reductions in playground aggression and improvements in family problem solving. At 30 months post-test children from the treatment group were significantly less likely to have been arrested. e

Lions-Quest (“Skills” Series)

Eisen et al. (2002) b Laird (1992) b Laird & Black (n.d.) b Laird & Syropoulos (n.d.) b Laird, Syropoulos & Black (n.d.) b

Eight unpublished studies have evaluated Lions-Quest. Participants included Caucasian, African American, and Latino students in grades K-12. The longest study lasted 12 months. The longest follow-up was also 12 months. Compared to controls, students who participated in the program had higher grade point averages, higher grades in English and math, and fewer school suspensions. Students who participated in the program also had higher levels of self-reported life skills and lower levels of teacher-reported misconduct than students in the comparison groups. At post-test and follow-up, students who participated in the program and who were non-users at baseline reported lower lifetime and 30-day alcohol use, 30-day binge drinking, 30-day cigarette use, lifetime marijuana use, and current beer, liquor, and chewing tobacco use (relative to baseline non-users in the comparison groups). b

218

Table 1 (cont’d): Evidence-based, social and emotional wellbeing programs for primary school-aged students, summarised by level of prevention. g

Program Evaluation References Identified h Evidence of Effectiveness From Reviews i

UNIVERSAL

Metropolitan Area Child Study (MACS)

Metropolitan Area Child Study Research Group (2002) b

One published study evaluated the Metropolitan Area Child Study with more than one thousand high-risk African American and Latino students in grades two, three, five and six during one nine-month school year. Findings suggest the intervention produced significant social and emotional outcome gains, including reduced aggression and improved academic achievement in intervention versus comparison group. b

No Putdowns Williams (2000) b

One unpublished evaluation study of No Putdowns involving more than 1,000 K-6 grade students of unspecified ethnicity and an unreported intervention period reported reduced fighting at post-test in the intervention school as compared to the control school. b

PeaceBuilders Krug et al. (1997) b

One published study evaluated PeaceBuilders over one academic school year (nine months). Participants included Caucasians and Latinos in grades K-six. Relative to a comparison group, students who participated in the program reported significant reductions at post-test in their overall rate of visits to the school nurse, rate of visits due to fighting-related injuries, and rate of visits due to non-fighting-related injuries. b

Peace Works (Peace Education Foundation)

Lacey & LeBlanc (2001) b LeBlanc & Lacey (2001) b LeBlanc & Lacey (2000) b

One unpublished study with two cohorts of third- and sixth-graders evaluated Peace Works. The intervention took place over a school year, with no follow-up. Students were from schools with predominantly Latino and African American populations. Positive effects included decreased teacher-reported aggressive, disruptive, and anti-social behaviour and increased teacher-reported interpersonal, self-management, and academic skills. b

Positive Youth Development Program (PYD) Caplan et al. (1992) e

This program evaluation revealed significant improvements in coping skills and ability to generate alternative responses to hypothetical situations of students. Teachers reported improvements in social adjustment including conflict resolution, impulse control and popularity. e

Primary Prevention of Depression Clarke et al. (1993) c Effective on sub group analysis only. No positive results in depression, knowledge about depression, attitudes to seeking treatment and treatment seeking were found. c

219

Table 1 (cont’d): Evidence-based, social and emotional wellbeing programs for primary school-aged students, summarised by level of prevention. g

Program Evaluation References Identified h Evidence of Effectiveness From Reviews i

UNIVERSAL

Productive Conflict Resolution Program: A Whole School Approach

Greenwald (1987) b Jones (1997) b

Two unpublished studies have evaluated Productive Conflict Resolution with elementary (grades four to five), middle (six to eight) and high school (nine to twelve) populations. At post-test, findings suggested that students trained as peer mediators had better perspective-taking skills and competency in dealing with conflict, were more likely to help others, and experienced reductions in personal conflict. Students who participated in the general conflict training curriculum also showed reductions in personal conflict and an increased tendency to help others, though these effects were not as strong as for the peer mediators. With high school students, the general curriculum also reduced aggression in participating students; with elementary and middle school programs this effect was evident only for the mediators (and not students in the general curriculum program). b

Project Alert Ellickson & Bell (1990) d Ellickson, Bell & Harrison (1993) d Ellickson, Bell & McGuigan (1993) d

Increases in self efficacy, positive changes in cigarette and marijuana knowledge and attitudes and decreases in smoking cigarettes and marijuana use and expectations of using (post-test, 15 months after baseline). At follow-up there were increases in beliefs about immediate and negative social consequences of drugs (year 10 only). Decreases for all behavioural findings disappeared by year 12. d

Project Northland Perry et al. (1996) d

Increases in parent-youth communication, knowledge and attitudes for resisting peer influence and self efficacy. Reductions in alcohol use, cigarettes and marijuana for subgroups by previous risk level and decrease in alcohol for full sample. d

220

Table 1 (cont’d): Evidence-based, social and emotional wellbeing programs for primary school-aged students, summarised by level of prevention. g

Program Evaluation References Identified h Evidence of Effectiveness From Reviews i

UNIVERSAL

Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS)

Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group (CPPRG; 1999b) b Greenberg & Kusche (1998) b Greenberg & Kusche (1997) d

Greenberg (1998) d Greenberg (1996) d Kam et al. (1999) b

Two published studies and one unpublished study have evaluated PATHS. The length of the intervention was up to one academic year; the longest follow-up was four to five years. Samples included first to sixth grade African American and Caucasian students, as well as deaf children and students with special needs. Positive social-emotional learning outcomes include reduced aggression and hyperactive-disruptive behaviour (as rated by peers) among first-graders in regular education classes and more positive teacher-rated behaviours related to emotional adjustment, lower teacher-rated behavioural impulsivity, and higher parent-rated social competence among deaf children in grades one to six. Observers in the study of first-graders in regular education also rated intervention classrooms as more positive (children following rules, appropriately expressing emotions, showing interest and enthusiasm, and staying on task) than control group classrooms. At follow-up teachers reported less increase in problem behaviours among special needs students who participated in the program than special needs students in the comparison group over the five-year period of study. b

Post test increases in social, cognitive and emotional competence, self-efficacy and problem solving. Decreases in aggressiveness, passivity and conduct problems. Long term increases in emotional understanding, interpersonal problem solving skills, self-control, prosocial solutions, improvement in quality of social planning, concentration, focus, social and school functioning. Decreases in externalising behaviours, aggressiveness, passivity and conduct problems. d

221

Table 1 (cont’d): Evidence-based, social and emotional wellbeing programs for primary school-aged students, summarised by level of prevention. g

Program Evaluation References Identified h Evidence of Effectiveness From Reviews i

UNIVERSAL

Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS) (cont’d)

Greenberg et al. (1995) c e

Of the 18 measures, 8 showed positive change favouring the PATHS children including: the number of positive and negative feeling words identified; their ability to identify emotional states in others; better level of reasoning as regards general questions about feelings; had significantly improved ability to provide appropriate personal examples of their own emotional experiences; were more aware that people could hide their feelings; and had a higher level of reasoning in their examples of how feelings can change when a picture cue was not provided. c Significant improvements in social problem solving and understanding emotions post-test. General education intervention children showed improvements in social problem solving, emotional understanding, self report conduct, cognitive abilities related to social planning and impulsivity. e

Reach for Health Curriculum O’Donnell et al. (1998) c No overall significant differences reported but students in one subgroup (eighth grade) who received both curriculum and community placements improved more than the control group. c

Reach Out to Schools: Social Competency Program (Open Circle Curriculum)

Hennessey & Seigle (1998) b

One unpublished study has evaluated Reach Out to Schools. It assessed one school year of the program with no follow-up. Participants included fourth-grade Caucasian students in urban and suburban classrooms. Compared to control students who participated in the program participants had more positive outcomes. Their teachers rated them as having higher levels of assertiveness, cooperative behaviour, social skills, and self control than the comparison group. Their teachers also rated them as having fewer problem behaviours, including aggression, hyperactivity, anxiety, and withdrawal. b

222

Table 1 (cont’d): Evidence-based, social and emotional wellbeing programs for primary school-aged students, summarised by level of prevention. g

Program Evaluation References Identified h Evidence of Effectiveness From Reviews i

UNIVERSAL

Resolving Conflict Creatively Program (RCCP)

Aber, Jones & Brown (1998) b Aber et al. (1998) b c

One published study has evaluated RCCP. Participants included more than five thousand Caucasian, African American, and Latino students in grades two to six in New York City. The study evaluated the effects of a one year intervention. Positive effects were found for students whose teachers had moderate levels of training and coaching in RCCP and who taught many RCCP lessons. In contrast to comparison students, these students reported a smaller increase in hostile negotiations and a smaller decline in competent negotiations over time. b Positive results for hostile attributional biases and interpersonal negotiating strategies (competent and aggressive) were found. c

Responding in Peaceful and Positive Ways (RIPP)

Farrell, Meyer & White (2001) b e Farrell & Meyer et al. (n.d.) b Farrell & Valois et al. (n.d.) b

One published and two unpublished studies have evaluated RIPP. The longest evaluation had an intervention period of two school years. Follow-up data were collected at six and twelve months. Samples included students in grades six to eight. Ethnicity was not reported. Compared to the control group, at post-test, students who participated in the program demonstrated significant reductions in disciplinary violations for violent behaviour, disciplinary violations resulting in in-school suspension, injury due to fights, student-reported delinquent behaviour, student-reported aggressive behaviour, student-reported victimisation, and student-reported peer provocation. Students who participated in the program also demonstrated increases in student reports of participation in peer mediation. At follow-up, students in the program demonstrated reductions in disciplinary violations resulting in in-school suspension (boys only), discipline violations due to violent behaviour, threats to teachers (girls only), and non-physical aggression. b

Significant gains on measures of decision making knowledge and use of peer mediation. Significant reductions in weapon carrying and school suspensions were reported. No differences in fighting or out of school suspension or on four measures of self-report behaviour and adjustment were found. e

223

Table 1 (cont’d): Evidence-based, social and emotional wellbeing programs for primary school-aged students, summarised by level of prevention. g

Program Evaluation References Identified h Evidence of Effectiveness From Reviews i

UNIVERSAL

Responding in Peaceful and Positive Ways (RIPP) (cont’d)

Farrell & Meyer (1998) d Farrell & Meyer (1997) d

Post test increases in RIPP knowledge and use of school mediation program. Decreases in fighting, carrying weapons and rates of in-school suspensions. Significant changes in knowledge, violent behaviour, suppression of anger, frequency of hitting a teacher, school suspensions, drug use, skipping school, impulse control (for boys), and problem solving (for girls) were found. d

School Transitional Environment Project (STEP)

Felner & Adan (1988) e

Felner & Brand et al. (1993) c

Felner, Ginter & Primavera (1982) c

Restructuring of the school environment produced significantly lower levels of stress and reductions in anxiety, depression and delinquent behaviour. e Self-concept decreased less in intervention group students than in control group. Five year follow up showed significant differences between intervention and control group for drop-out from school, absenteeism and improved grades in years one and two. c

Seattle Social Development Project Hawkins et al. (1999) d e

Hawkins et al. (1991) e

Follow-up six years from post-test showed increases in attachments/bonding to school and achievement. Decreases in school misbehaviour, rates of violent acts, alcohol use in past year, sexual intercourse and multiple sexual partners. d

Full intervention group reported significantly stronger attachment to school, improvement in self-reported achievement and less school misbehaviour than controls. e

224

Table 1 (cont’d): Evidence-based, social and emotional wellbeing programs for primary school-aged students, summarised by level of prevention. g

Program Evaluation References Identified h Evidence of Effectiveness From Reviews i

UNIVERSAL

Second Step

Frey et al. (2001) b Grossman et al. (1997) b c e Orpinas et al. (1995) b Osmondson (2000) b

Four studies (two published and two unpublished) have evaluated Second Step. The longest study examined two years of the program. Children in the study were Caucasian, Latino and members of other ethnic minorities. Teachers observed improved social competence and decreased anti-social behaviour among students receiving the curriculum. Trained observers, blind to condition found that primary-grade children showed decreased physical aggression and increased pro-social behaviour in class and on playgrounds if they participated in Second Step. A study of second- through fifth-graders showed that girls who received Second Step used more collaborative negotiating strategies than those in a control group. Among students displaying high levels of anti-social behaviour at pre-test, those in experimental groups were less likely than controls to express hostility when negotiating, according to trained observers. Information from teachers, support staff, and students indicated that Second Step reduced impulsive and aggressive behaviour and increased pro-social behaviour. Discipline violations increased in control schools, while violations per student in the experimental schools remained constant. The class and playground observations showed one significant finding at six-month follow-up: second- and third-graders receiving the intervention demonstrated decreases relative to controls in physical aggression. b

Significant reductions in aggression and increases in neutral or prosocial behaviour. c e

School Development Project Haynes & Comer (1990) c Outcomes assessed at one year showed positive change favouring intervention group children on six dimensions and on total self-concept score. c

225

Table 1 (cont’d): Evidence-based, social and emotional wellbeing programs for primary school-aged students, summarised by level of prevention. g

Program Evaluation References Identified h Evidence of Effectiveness From Reviews i

UNIVERSAL

Skills, Opportunities, and Recognition (SOAR)

Catalano et al. (in press) b Harachi et al. (1999) b Hawkins et al. (1999) b Lonczak et al (2002) b O’Donnell et al. (1995) b

Two published studies have evaluated SOAR. The samples included African American, Asian American, and Caucasian students in grades one to six. The first study assessed the full six year intervention (grades one to six) and a later two year intervention (grades five and six only). The evaluation included follow-up of participants until age twenty-one. The study found significant positive academic, social-emotional learning and health outcomes at post-test. Teachers reported that boys from low-income families showed higher social skills and less frequent interaction with anti-social peers. Girls from low-income families reported lower cigarette use. b

Social Decision Making and Problem Solving Program

Elias et al. (1991) b Elias et al. (1986) b

Social Decision Making and Problem Solving has been evaluated in two published studies with fourth-and fifth-graders. Four months after conclusion of the program, upon entry to middle school, students who had participated in the program were better able to cope with middle school stressors and were better adjusted compared to control students. Six years after completing the program (eleventh grade), students who participated in the program had higher overall academic achievement than the control students, greater pro-social behaviours, and reduced self-destructive behaviours. Students whose teachers most fully implemented the program scored higher in language arts and mathematics, and had fewer absences than students in the control group. Students who participated in the program had lower levels of psychopathology (including depression, self-destructive behaviours, and delinquency) than control students, and were also less likely to use alcohol or tobacco, or commit acts of vandalism or violence. b

Social and Academic Self-Concept Eitan et al. (1992) c

The three intervention groups combined and the co-operative programme group alone showed improvements in social self-concept when compared with the control group. However, there was no overall improvement in academic self-concept. Subgroup analyses showed a significant difference favouring the treatment groups for the lowest academic level for both social and academic self-concept. c

Success for All Slavin et al. (1996) d Improvements in reading ability and decreases in school grade repetition. d

226

Table 1 (cont’d): Evidence-based, social and emotional wellbeing programs for primary school-aged students, summarised by level of prevention. g

Program Evaluation References Identified h Evidence of Effectiveness From Reviews i

UNIVERSAL

Suicide Prevention Program I Klingman & Hochdorf (1993) e Significant reductions in suicidality among treatment boys. Effects for girls did not reach significance. e

Suicide Prevention Program II Orbach & Bar-Joseph (1993) c e Significant reduction in suicidality. Significant effects on suicidal tendencies, coping skills and ego identity. c e

Teenage Health Teaching Modules Errecart et al. (1991) b Slaby et al. (1994) b

Two studies have evaluated Teenage Health Teaching Modules (THTM). The first, a published study of middle and high school students, documented significant positive health effects among high school students, including reduced use of tobacco, illegal drugs, and alcohol, and reduced consumption of fried foods at post-test (no follow-up). The second is an unpublished study of two hundred and thirty-seven students, majority African American, in seventh and eighth grades who were deemed to be at high risk for violence. There were mixed (overall non-significant or marginally significant) outcomes on students’ self-reported social problem-solving skills, bystander support of aggression, and anti-social behaviour. Teacher ratings of behaviour suggest that students participating in the program demonstrated improvements in behaviour as victims and bystanders and reduced aggressive behaviours. Findings should be interpreted with caution due to a very small sample size. b

The Helper Programme Switzer et al. (1995) c Overall there were no significant changes but results for boys alone showed significant improvements on self esteem, depressive affect, self-reported problem behaviour and feelings about helping. c

The Social Competence Promotion Program for Young Adolescents Weissberg & Caplan (1998) d

Improvement in peer involvement, social acceptance, problem solving, use of conflict resolution strategies and positive solutions. Decreases in aggressive and passive solutions. d

Tri Ministry Boyle et al. (1999) a Hundert et al. (1999) a

Significant improvements from teacher and parent reports of children’s social skills. a

Woodrock LoSciuto et al. (1997) d

An increase in positive race relations was revealed in this study. Decreases in drug use for past year (younger sub-group) and past month (younger and older sub-groups) were reported. Outcomes were reported in the wrong direction (older sub-group) on attitude toward drug use. d

227

Table 1 (cont’d): Evidence-based, social and emotional wellbeing programs for primary school-aged students, summarised by level of prevention. g

Program Evaluation References Identified h Evidence of Effectiveness From Reviews i

SELECTIVE OR INDICATED

Across Ages LoSciuto et al. (1996) d Increases in positive attitudes and/or knowledge of school, the future, older people and community service were shown. A decrease in days absent from school was also found. d

Adolescent Transitions Program (ATP)

Andrews et al. (1995) e

Dishion & Andrews (1995) e

Dishion et al. (1996) e

Irvine et al. (1999) e

The impact on adolescents’ behaviour in school was only marginal, and for one treatment condition their behaviour worsened over time. A replication study using the parent component of the program showed parent ratings of adolescents’ behaviour indicated significant treatment effects. e

Anger Coping Program

Lochman (1992) e Lochman (1985) e

Lochman & Burch et al. (1984) e

Lochman & Curry (1986) e

Lochman & Lampron (1988) e

Lochman & Lampron et al. (1989) e

Immediately following intervention the Anger Coping program lowers boys observed disruptive and aggressive behaviour in the classroom and in some cases, improves parent ratings of aggressive behaviour. In a seven month follow-up, children who received the program were more on-task in their behaviour compared to controls, but the differences in their disruptive-aggressive behaviour evident at post-test were not maintained. Three years after the intervention, differences in parent ratings of aggression and observations of disruptive-aggressive behaviour were not maintained although improvements in children’s on-task behaviour were maintained for those who had received a six session booster the following school year. The program has no effect on self-reported delinquency, but did have a positive effect on self-reported substance use ratings, bringing the anger control participants into the normative range on self-report ratings. e

Attributional Intervention (Brainpower Program)

Hudley & Britsch et al. (1998) e

Hudley & Graham (1995) e

Hudley & Graham (1993) e

Teacher ratings indicated a reduction in aggressive behaviour immediately following intervention. e

Big Brothers/Big Sisters Tierney et al. (1995) e

Based on self-report data, youth with a mentor reported they engaged in significantly less fighting compared to controls and perceived family relationships more positively. There were no significant differences between groups in terms of self-reported delinquency. Treatment participants reported that they were significantly less likely to initiate the use of drugs and alcohol. e

228

Table 1 (cont’d): Evidence-based, social and emotional wellbeing programs for primary school-aged students, summarised by level of prevention. g

Program Evaluation References Identified h Evidence of Effectiveness From Reviews i

SELECTIVE OR INDICATED

Children of Divorce Intervention Program (CODIP)

Alpert-Gillis et al. (1989) e f Pedro-Carroll & Cowen (1985) d e f Pedro-Carroll et al. (1999) e Pedro-Carroll et al. (1992) e Pedro-Carroll et al. (1986) f

Increases in social competence, frustration tolerance, assertiveness and problem solving were reported. Decreases in learning problems, anxiety and negative classroom adjustment were also found. d Based on responses from multiple informants the program is successful in improving children’s adjustment. e f A two year follow-up indicated that gains (decreased problems and increased competencies) made during the program were sustained two years after the intervention was completed. e

Children of Divorce Parenting Program Wolchik et al. (1993) e

The program has only been evaluated on one occasion and this was by the program developers. The results indicated that parents who participated in the program felt that their child evidenced significantly fewer problem behaviours at the end of the program compared to children in the control group. e

Counselors Care (C-Care) and Coping and Support Training (CAST)

Randell et al. (2001) e Intervention group reported significantly lower levels of depression and higher levels of self-esteem compared to participants in the control condition. e

Cowen et al. Cowen et al. (1995) f Significant gains in self efficacy and realistic control attribution. f

Earlscourt Social Skills Group Program

Pepler et al. (1995) e Pepler et al. (1991) e

Teacher rated intervention students as exhibiting clinically and significantly less externalising behaviour than controls at post-test. Parents failed to see significant behaviour changes in the intervention children. e

229

Table 1 (cont’d): Evidence-based, social and emotional wellbeing programs for primary school-aged students, summarised by level of prevention. g

Program Evaluation References Identified h Evidence of Effectiveness From Reviews i

SELECTIVE OR INDICATED

Family Bereavement Program Sandler et al. (1992) e Parent’s reports indicated reductions in children’s depressive symptoms and conduct problems. e

Fast Track

Bierman et al. (2002) a CPPRG (1999a) a e

CPPRG (1999b) e

CPPRG (2002) a CPPRG (1992) e CPPRG (1997) d Greenberg (1998) d

Significantly reduced diagnostic measures and significantly decreased at least two symptom measures. a Significant reductions in special education referral and aggression in home and school. Initial results provide evidence for improved social and academic development. e

Increases in accepting authority, liking, positive classroom atmosphere, appropriate expression of feelings and staying on task. Decreases in aggression, hyperactivity (full study), disruptive behaviour at school and conduct problems at home (high-risk sample). d

First Step to Success

Golly et al. (1998) e

Walker & Kavanagh et al. (1998) e

Walker & Stiller et al. (1998) e

Teachers reported significantly less aggressive and maladaptive behaviour and more adaptive behaviour for intervention students compared to those in the control group at post-intervention. Program students also showed more time engaged in academic activity immediately following intervention. No group differences on teacher ratings of withdrawn behaviour were evident. Treatment effects were maintained over time. A replication study found post-intervention results to be almost identical to those found in the original trial. e

Headstart George et al. (1982) f Therapy as a complement to usual activities enabled children to achieve appropriate developmental skills and significantly improved their self concept. f

Help Starts Here Flay et al. (2005) a Significant improvement in conduct symptoms from teacher reports. Both children’s and parent’s reports indicate no significant improvement. a

Incredible Years I Webster-Stratton (1998) a Significant improvement in conduct symptoms based upon clinician report. a

230

Table 1 (cont’d): Evidence-based, social and emotional wellbeing programs for primary school-aged students, summarised by level of prevention. g

Program Evaluation References Identified h Evidence of Effectiveness From Reviews i

SELECTIVE OR INDICATED

Incredible Years II Reid et al. (2001) a Webster-Stratton et al. (2001) a

No significant improvement in conduct symptoms. a

John Hopkins Ialongo et al. (2001) a Ialongo et al. (1999) a

Significant improvement in teacher-reports of children’s social skills and parent training. a

Montreal Longitudinal Experimental Study / Montreal Prevention Experiment

McCord et al. (1994) a e Tremblay et al. (1991) a

Tremblay et al. (1992) e

Tremblay et al. (1996) e

Vitaro & Tremblay (1994) e

Significant difference in child-reported conduct symptoms. a Initial results did not reveal many group differences. Group differences began to emerge on follow-up assessments. For example, at the three-year follow-up the intervention boys (aged twelve) were significantly less likely than control boys to engage in fighting according to teacher report or to be classified as having serious adjustment difficulties. Treatment boys were significantly less likely to engage in delinquent activity compared with controls according to child self-report. Peer nominations of aggression were significantly lower in the treatment versus control group and the effects of the treatment on other forms of antisocial behaviour (e.g. self-reported stealing) and substance use continued into early adolescence (age 11 to 15).e

Peer Coping Skills Training Prinz et al. (1994) e

Children in the program were rated by teachers as displaying significantly less aggressive behaviours than controls at post-test and follow-up. Significant improvements were noted in the intervention children’s prosocial coping and teacher-rated social skills. e

Penn Prevention Program

Gillham et al. (1995) e Jaycox et al. (1994) e Roberts et al. (2004) a

Roberts et al. (2003) a

Clinically significant reductions in depressive symptoms immediately post-treatment and at six month follow-up. Although there were no group differences in externalising behaviour post-treatment, at follow-up the parents of intervention children reported significant improvement in home behaviour compared to controls. e

Significant difference in child-reported anxiety symptoms. a

231

Table 1 (cont’d): Evidence-based, social and emotional wellbeing programs for primary school-aged students, summarised by level of prevention. g

Program Evaluation References Identified h Evidence of Effectiveness From Reviews i

SELECTIVE OR INDICATED

Perry Pre-school

Schweinhart & Berrueta-Clement et al. (1985) a

Schweinhart & Weikart (1997a) a

Schweinhart & Weikart (1989) a

Schweinhart, Weikart & Larner (1986) a

Weikart (1998) a

Significant improvements in conduct symptoms (arrests, income, welfare) from children and state records reports. a

Primary Mental Health Project Cowen et al. (1996) e

Cowen et al. (1979) e Lorion et al. (1976) e

Children who had successfully completed one year of the intervention were found to have significantly better adjustment on two separate teacher-rated measures of acting out, moody-withdrawn behaviours and learning difficulties at post-test than a matched control group or a group who had not successfully completed the intervention. Another study without a control group found significant improvement on 21 adjustment measures. e

Queensland Early Intervention and Prevention of Anxiety Project (QEIPAP)

Dadds et al. (1999) e

Dadds et al. (1997) e Six months post-intervention, anxious but non-disordered participants developed significantly fewer internalising disorders compared to controls. e

Sandler et al. Sandler et al. (1992) f Improvement in parental perceptions of warmth in relationships with their children. Parent reports showed reduction in older child depression and conduct problems. f

Schools and Homes in Partnership Barrera et al. (2002) a Significant improvement in conduct symptoms from parent reports. a

Social Relations Program Coie et al. (1992) e

Lochman et al. (1993) e Ollendick et al. (1992) e

Compared to matched controls, aggressive-rejected children were significantly less aggressive (rated by teachers) and more socially accepted by peers at post test. Effects were maintained at one-year follow-up. e

Stolberg & Garrison Stolberg & Mahler

Stolberg & Garrison (1985) f Stolberg & Mahler (1994) f

Children’s support group indicated increases in self concept and adaptive social skills. Parent’s group strengthened the self concept of children. f

232

Table 1 (cont’d): Evidence-based, social and emotional wellbeing programs for primary school-aged students, summarised by level of prevention. g

Program Evaluation References Identified h Evidence of Effectiveness From Reviews i

SELECTIVE OR INDICATED

Stress Inoculation Training I Hains (1992) e

Hains & Ellmann (1994) e

Hains & Szyjakowski (1990) e

Clinically significant changes in anxiety and depressive symptomatology for students with higher levels of stress before intervention. e

Stress Inoculation Training II Kiselica et al. (1994) e Adolescents with elevated self-reported anxiety reported significantly less anxiety and stress at post-test and four weeks after intervention were found. e

Valued Youth Partnership Cardenas et al. (1992) d Improvement in reading, self concept and positive attitudes towards school. Reductions in school dropout rates. d

a Waddell et al. (2007) b Collaborative for Academic Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL; 2003) c Wells, Barlow & Stewart-Brown (2003) d Catalano et al. (1999) e Greenberg, Domitrovich & Bumbarger (2001) is the official citation that should be used in referencing this material. Copyright © 2001 by the American

Psychological Association. Adapted with permission. The use of this information does not imply endorsement by the publisher. Greenberg, Domitrovich &

Bumbarger (1999) also used in referencing this material. f Tilford, Delaney & Vogels (1997) g The Evidence of Effectiveness From Reviews column contains direct quotes from the review articles included in the table (i.e. Waddell et al., 2007; CASEL; 2003;

Wells, Barlow & Stewart-Brown, 2003; Catalano et al., 1999; Greenberg, Domitrovich & Bumbarger, 2001, 1999; and Tilford, Delaney and Vogels, 1997. These

references are located in the main thesis reference list). h The superscripts in this column are provided for cross-referencing purposes only. i The superscripts in this column denote the review articles from which the text is quoted.

233

Appendix 2.1b: Reference List for universal, selective and indicated, evidence-based, social and emotional wellbeing programs.

Aber, J. L., Jones, S. M. and Brown, J. (1998). A Developmental Evaluation of a School-Based Violence Prevention Program: Findings from Year 1 and Year 2. Paper Presented at the 106th Convention of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA.

Aber, L., Jones, S., Brown, J., Chaudry, N. and Samples, F. (1998). Resolving Conflict

Creatively: Evaluating the Developmental Effects of a School-Based Violence Prevention Program in Neighborhood and Classroom Context. Development and Psychopathology, 10(2), 187-213.

Aberson, B. (1986). I Can Problem Solve (ICPS): A Cognitive Training Program for

Kindergarten Children. Miami, FL: Dade County Public Schools. Allen, R. (1978) An Investigatory Study of the Effects of a Cognitive Approach to

Interpersonal Problem-Solving on the Behavior of Emotionally Upset Psychosocially Deprived Preschool Children. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Washington, DC: Union Graduate School.

Alpert-Gillis, L. J., Pedro-Carroll, J. and Cowen, E. L. (1989). The Children of Divorce

Intervention Program: Development, Implementation, and Evaluation of a Program for Young Urban Children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57(5), 583-589.

American Guidance Service Inc. (n.d.) Research and Evaluation of American Guidance

Services: "Discover: Skills for Life". Circle Pines, MN. Andrews, D. W., Soberman, D. and Dishion, T. J. (1995). The Adolescent Transitions

Program for High-Risk Teens and Their Parents: Toward a School-Based Intervention. Education & Treatment of Children, 18, 478-498.

Barrera, M. J., Biglan, A., Taylor, T. K., Gunn, B. K., Smolkowski, K. and Black, C.

(2002). Early Elementary School Intervention to Reduce Conduct Problems: A Randomized Trial with Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Children. Prevention Science, 3(2), 83-94.

Barrish, H. H., Saunders, M. and Wolfe, M. D. (1969). Good Behavior Game. Effects of

Individual Contingencies for Group Consequences and Disruptive Behavior in a Classroom. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 2, 119-124.

Baseline Research LLC (2000) Get Real About Violence Curriculum: Final Report.

Milwaukee WI.

234

Battistich, V. (2001). Effects of an Elementary School Intervention on Students' "Connectedness" to School and Social Adjustment During Middle School Years. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.

Battistich, V., Schaps, E., Watson, M. and Solomon, D. (1996). Prevention Effects of

the Child Development Project: Early Findings from an Ongoing Multisite Demonstration Trial. Journal of Adolescent Research, 11(1), 12-35.

Battistich, V., Schaps, E., Watson, M., Solomon, D. and Lewis, C. (2000). Effects of the

Child Development Project on Students' Drug Use and Other Problem Behaviors. Journal of Primary Prevention, 21, 75-99.

Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Watson, M., Solomon, J. and Schaps, E. (1989). Effects of

an Elementary School Program to Enhance Pro-Social Behavior on Children's Cognitive Social Problem-Solving Skills and Strategies. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 10, 147-169.

Bierman, K. L., Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., Greenberg, M. T., Lochman, J. E. and

McMahon, R. J. (2002). Using the Fast Track Randomized Prevention Trial to Test the Early-Starter Model of the Development of Serious Conduct Problems. Developmental Psychopathology, 14, 925-943.

Botvin, G. J., Baker, E., Botvin, E. M., Filazzola, A. D. and Millman, R. B. (1984).

Prevention of Alcohol Misuse through the Development of Personal and Social Competence: A Pilot Study. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 45, 550-552.

Botvin, G. J., Baker, E., Dusenbury, L., Botvin, E. M. and Diaz, T. (1995). Long-Term

Follow-up Results of a Randomized Drug Abuse Prevention Trial in a White Middle-Class Population. Journal of the American Medical Association, 273, 1106-1112.

Botvin, G. J., Baker, E., Dusenbury, L., Tortu, S. and Botvin, E. M. (1990). Preventing

Adolescent Drug Abuse through a Multimodal Cognitive-Behavioral Approach: Results of a 3-Year Study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 58(4), 437-446.

Botvin, G. J., Baker, E., Renick, N. L., Filazzola, A. D. and Botvin, E. M. (1984). A

Cognitive-Behavioral Approach to Substance Abuse Prevention. Addictive Behaviors, 9, 137-147.

Botvin, G. J., Batson, H. W., Witts-Vitale, S., Bess, V., Baker, E. and Dusenbury, L.

(1989). A Psychological Approach to Smoking Prevention in Urban Black Youth. Public Health Reports, 104, 573-582.

Botvin, G. J., Dusenbury, L., Baker, E., James-Ortiz, S. and Botvin, E. M. (1992).

Smoking Prevention among Urban Minority Use: Assessing Effects on Outcome and Mediating Variables. Health Psychology, 11, 290-299.

235

Botvin, G. J., Dusenbury, L., Baker, E., James-Ortiz, S. and Kerner, K. (1989). A Skills Training Approach to Smoking Prevention among Hispanic Youths. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 12, 279-295.

Botvin, G. J. and Eng, A. (1982). The Efficacy of a Multicomponent Approach to the

Prevention of Cigarette Smoking. Preventive Medicine, 11, 199-211. Botvin, G. J., Eng, A. and Williams, C. L. (1980). Preventing the Onset of Cigarette

Smoking through Life Skills Training. Preventive Medicine, 9, 135-143. Botvin, G. J., Epstein, J. A., Baker, E., Diaz, T. and Ifill-Williams, M. (1997). School-

Based Drug Abuse Prevention with Inner-City Minority Youth. Journal of Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse, 6, 5-19.

Botvin, G. J., Renick, N. L. and Baker, E. (1983). The Effects of Scheduling Format and

Booster Sessions on a Broad-Spectrum Psychosocial Approach to Smoking Prevention. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 6, 359-379.

Botvin, G. J., Schinke, S. P., Epstein, J. A. and Diaz, T. (1994). Effectiveness of

Culturally Focused and Generic Skills Training Approaches to Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention among Minority Youth. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 8, 116-127.

Boyle, M. H., Cunningham, C. E., Heale, J., Hundert, J., McDonald, J. and Offord, D. R.

(1999). Helping Children Adjust - a Tri-Ministry Study: I. Evaluation Methodology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40, 1051-1060.

Bruene-Butler, L., Hampson, J., Elias, M., Clabby, J. and Schuyler, T. (1997). The

Improving Social Awareness-Social Problem Solving Project. In G.W. Albee and T. P. Gullotta (Ed.) Primary Prevention Works. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.

Caplan, M., Weissberg, R. P., Grober, J. S., Sivo, P. J., Grady, K. and Jacoby, C.

(1992). Social Competence Promotion with Inner-City and Suburban Young Adolescents: Effects on School Adjustment and Alcohol Use. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 56-63.

Cardenas, J. A., Montecel, M. R., Supik, J. D. and Harris, R. J. (1992). The Coca-Cola

Valued Youth Program. Dropout Prevention Strategies for At-Risk Students. Texas Researcher, 3, 111-130.

Catalano, R. F., Mazza, J. J., Harachi, T. W., Abbott, R. D., Haggerty, K. P. and

Fleming, C. B. (in press). Raising Healthy Children through Enhancing Social Development in Elementary School: Results after 1.5 Years. Journal of School Psychology.

Clarke, G. N., Hawkins, W., Murphy, M. and Sheeber, L. (1993). School-Based Primary

Prevention of Depressive Symptomatology in Adolescents: Findings from Two Studies. Journal of Adolescent Research, 8(2), 183-204.

236

Coie, J. D., Lochman, J. E., Terry, R. and Hyman, C. (1992). Predicting Early Adolescent Disorder from Childhood Aggression and Peer Rejection. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 783-792.

Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group (1992). A Developmental and Clinical

Model for the Prevention of Conduct Disorders: The Fast Track Program. Development and Psychopathology, 4, 509-527.

Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group (1997). Testing Developmental Theory

of Antisocial Behavior with Outcomes from the Fast Track Project. Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Washington DC.

Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group (1999a). Initial Impact of the Fast Track

Prevention Trial for Conduct Problems: I. The High-Risk Sample. Journal of Consulting Clinical Psychology, 67, 631-647.

Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group (1999b). Initial Impact of the Fast Track

Prevention Trial for Conduct Problems: II. Classroom Effect. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 648-657.

Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group (2002). Evaluation of the First 3 Years

of the Fast Track Prevention Trial with Children at High Risk for Adolescent Conduct Problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 19-35.

Connell, D. B. and Turner, R. R. (1985). The Impact of Instructional Experience and the

Effects of Cumulative Instruction. Journal of School Health, 55(8), 324-333. Connell, D. B., Turner, R. R. and Mason, E. F. (1985). Summary of Findings of the

School Health Education Evaluation: Health Promotion Effectiveness, Implementation, and Costs. Journal of School Health, 55(8), 316-321.

Cowen, E. L., Gesten, E. L. and Wilson, A. B. (1979). The Primary Mental Health

Project: Evaluation of Current Program Effectiveness. American Journal of Community Psychology, 7, 293-303.

Cowen, E. L., Hightower, A. D., Pedro-Carroll, J. L., Work, W. C., Wyman, P. A. and

Haffey, W. G. (1996). School-Based Prevention for Children at Risk: Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

Cowen, E. L., Wyman, P. A., Work, W. C. and Iker, M. R. (1995). A Preventive

Intervention for Enhancing Resilience among Highly Stressed Urban Children. Journal of Primary Prevention, 15(3), 247-260.

Dadds, M. R., Holland, D. E., Laurens, K. R., Mullins, M., Barrett, P. M. and Spence, S.

H. (1999). Early Intervention and Prevention of Anxiety Disorders in Children: Results at 2-Year Follow-Up. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 145-150.

Dadds, M. R., Spence, S. H., Holland, D. E., Barrett, P. M. and Laurens, K. R. (1997).

Prevention and Early Intervention for Anxiety Disorders: A Controlled Trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 627-635.

237

Dishion, T. J. and Andrews, D. W. (1995). Preventing Escalation in Problem Behaviors with High-Risk Young Adolescents: Immediate and 1-Year Outcomes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 538-548.

Dishion, T. J., Andrews, D. W., Kavanagh, K. and Soberman, L. H. (1996). Preventive

Interventions for High-Risk Youth: The Adolescent Transitions Program. In R. D. Peters and R. J. McMahon (Ed.) Preventing Childhood Disorders, Substance Abuse, and Delinquency (184-214). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.

Dolan, L. J., Kellam, S. G., Brown, C. H., Werthamer-Larson, L., Rebok, G. W., Mayer,

L. S., Laudoff, J., Turkkan, J., Ford, C. and Wheeler, L. (1993). The Short-Term Impact of Two Classroom-Based Preventive Interventions on Aggressive and Shy Behaviors and Poor Achievement. Journal of Applied and Developmental Psychology, 14, 317-345.

Dubas, J. S., Lynch, K. B., Galano, J., Geller, S. and Hunt, D. (1998). Preliminary

Evaluation of a Resiliency-Based Preschool Substance Abuse and Violence Prevention Project. Journal of Drug Education, 28, 235-255.

Dubow, E. F., Schmidt, D., McBride, J., Edwards, S. and Merk, F. L. (1993). Teaching

Children to Cope with Stressful Experiences: Initial Implementation and Evaluation of a Primary Prevention Program. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 22(4), 428-440.

Eisen, M., Zellman, G., Massett, H. and Murray, D. (2002). Evaluating the Lions-Quest

"Skills for Adolescence" Drug Education Program: First Year Behavior Outcomes. Addictive Behaviors, 27(4), 619-632.

Eitan, T., Amir, Y. and Rich, Y. (1992). Social and Academic Treatments in Mixed-

Ethnic Classes and Change in Student Self-Concept. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 364-374.

Elias, M., Gara, M., Schuyer, T., Branden-Muller, L. and Sayette, M. (1991). The

Promotion of Social Competence: Longitudinal Study of a Preventive School-Based Program. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61, 409-417.

Elias, M. J., Gara, M., Ubriaco, M., Rothbaum, P. A., Clabby, J. E. and Schuyler, T.

(1986). Impact of Preventive Social Problem Solving Intervention on Children's Coping with Middle School Stressors. American Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 259-274.

Ellickson, P. L. and Bell, R. M. (1990). Drug Prevention in Junior High: A Multi-Site

Longitudinal Test. Science, 247, 1299-1305. Ellickson, P. L., Bell, R. M. and Harrison, E. R. (1993). Changing Adolescent

Propensities to Use Drugs: Results from Project Alert. Health Education Quarterly, 20(2), 227-242.

Ellickson, P. L., Bell, R. M. and McGuigan, K. (1993). Preventing Adolescent Drug Use:

Long Term Results of a Junior High Program. American Journal of Public Health, 83(6), 856-861.

238

Errecart, M. T., Walberg, H. J., Ross, J. G., Gold, R. S., Fiedler, J. L. and Kolbe, L. J. (1991). Effectiveness of Teenage Health Teaching Modules. Journal of School Health, 61, 26-30.

Farrell, A., Meyer, A., Sullivan, T. and Kung, E. (n.d.). Evaluation of the Responding in

Peaceful and Positive Ways Seventh Grade (RIPP-7) Universal Violence Prevention Program. Richmond, Virginia: Virginia Commonwealth University.

Farrell, A., Valois, R., Meyer, A. and Tidwell, R. (n.d.). Impact of the Ripp Violence

Prevention Program on Rural Middle School Students. Richmond, Virginia: Commonwealth University.

Farrell, A. D. and Meyer, A. L. (1997). The Effectiveness of a School-Based Curriculum

for Reducing Violence among Urban Sixth-Grade Students. American Journal of Public Health, 87(6), 979-984.

Farrell, A. D. and Meyer, A. L. (1998) Evaluation of Responding in Peaceful and

Positive Ways (RIPP): A School-Based Prevention Program for Reducing Violence among Urban Adolescents. Richmond, Virginia: Virginia Commonwealth University.

Farrell, A. D., Meyer, A. L. and White, K. S. (2001). Evaluation of Responding in

Peaceful and Positive Ways (RIPP): A School-Based Prevention Program for Reducing Violence among Urban Adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30, 451-463.

Feis, C. L. and Simons, C. (1985). Training Preschool Children in Interpersonal

Cognitive Problem-Solving Skills: A Replication. Prevention in Human Services, 3(59-70).

Felner, R., Brand, S., Adan, A., Mulhall, P., Flowers, N. and Sartain, B. (1993).

Restructuring the Ecology of the School as an Approach to Prevention during School Transitions: Longitudinal Follow-ups and Extensions of the School Transitional Environment Project (STEP). Prevention and Human Services, 10(2), 103-136.

Felner, R., Ginter, M. and Primavera, J. (1982). Primary Prevention during School

Transitions: Social Support and Environmental Structure. American Journal of Community Psychology, 10(3), 277-290.

Felner, R. D. and Adan, A. M. (1988). The School Transitional Project: An Ecological

Intervention and Evaluation. In R. H. Price, E. L. Cowen, R. P. Lorion and J. Ramos-McKay (Ed.) 14 Ounces of Prevention: A Casebook for Practitioners (111-122). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

Flay, B. R., Biglan, A., Boruch, R. F., Gonzalez, C. F., Gottfredson, D. and Kellam, S.

(2005). Standards of Evidence: Criteria for Efficacy, Effectiveness and Dissemination. Prevention Science, 6, 151-175.

239

Flay, B. R., Graumlich, S., Segawa, E., Burns, J. L., Holliday, M. Y. and Aban Aya Investigators (2002). The Aban Aya Youth Project: Randomized Trial of Two Comprehensive Prevention Programs on High Risk Behaviors among Inner-City African American Youth. Chicago: University of Illinois, Health Research and Policy Centers.

Frey, K., Bobbitt Nolen, S., Van-Scholack-Edstron, L. and Hirschstein, M. (2001).

Second Step; Effects of a Social Competence Program on Social Goals and Behavior. Poster session presented at the meeting of the Society for Prevention Research, Washington, DC.

George, N. M., Braun, B. A. and Walker, J. M. (1982). A Prevention and Early

Intervention Mental Health Program for Disadvantaged Pre-School Children. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 36(2), 99-106.

Gillham, J. E., Reivich, K. J., Jaycox, L. H. and Seligman, M. E. P. (1995). Prevention of

Depressive Symptoms in Schoolchildren: Two-Year Follow-Up. Psychological Science, 6, 343-351.

Golly, A., Stiller, B. and Walker, H. M. (1998). First Step to Success: Replication and

Social Validation of an Early Intervention Program for Achieving Secondary Prevention Goals. Journal of Emotional & Behavioral Disorders, 6, 243-250.

Greenberg, M., Kusche, C., Cook, E. and Quamma, J. (1995). Promoting Emotional

Competence in School-Aged Children: The Effects of the Paths Curriculum. Development and Psychology, 7, 117-136.

Greenberg, M. T. (1996). The Paths Project: Preventive Intervention for Children. Final

Report to NIMH. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Department of Psychology.

Greenberg, M. T. (1998). Testing Developmental Theory of Antisocial Behavior with

Outcomes from the Fast Track Prevention Project. Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Chicago.

Greenberg, M. T. and Kusche, C. A. (1997). Improving Children's Emotion Regulation

and Social Competence: The Effects of the Paths Curriculum. Annual meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Washington, D.C.

Greenberg, M. T. and Kusche, C. A. (1998). Preventive Intervention for School-Aged

Deaf Children: The Paths Curriculum. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 3, 49-63.

Greenwald, D. (1987). Conflict Resolution in the Schools: Final Evaluation Report.

Boulder, CO: The Colorado School Mediation Project.

240

Grossman, E. T., Neckerman, H. J., Koepsell, T. D., Liu, P. Y., 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.

Hains, A. A. (1992). Comparison of Cognitive-Behavioral Stress Management

Techniques with Adolescent Boys. Journal of Counselling and Development, 70, 600-605.

Hains, A. A. and Ellmann, S. W. (1994). Stress Inoculation Training as a Preventative

Intervention for High School Youths. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 8, 219-232.

Hains, A. A. and Szyjakowski, M. (1990). A Cognitive Stress-Reduction Intervention

Program for Adolescents. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 37, 79-84. Harachi, T. W., Abbott, R. D., Catalano, R. F., Haggerty, K. P. and Fleming, C. B.

(1999). Opening the Black Box: Using Process Evaluation Measures to Assess Implementation and Theory Building. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 711-731.

Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., Kosterman, R., Abbott, R. and Hill, K. G. (1999).

Preventing Adolescent Health-Risk Behaviors by Strengthening Protection During Childhood. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 153, 226-234.

Hawkins, J. D., von Cleve, E. and Catalano, R. F. (1991). Reducing Early Childhood

Aggression: Results of a Primary Prevention Program. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 30(2), 208-217.

Haynes, N. N. and Comer, J. P. (1990). The Effects of a School Development Program

on Self-Concept. Yale Journal of Biological Medicine, 63(4), 275-283. Henderson, P. A., Kelbey, T. J. and Engebretson, K. M. (1992). Effects of a Stress-

Control Program on Children's Locus of Control, Self-Concept, and Coping Behavior. School Counselor, 40(2), 125-130.

Hennessey, B. A. and Seigle, P. (1998). Promoting Social Competency in School-Aged

Children: The Effects of the Reach out to Schools Social Competency Program. Wellesley, MA: Wellesley College.

Hudley, C., Britsch, B., Wakefield, W. D., Smith, T., Demorat, M. and Cho, S. (1998).

An Attribution Retraining Program to Reduce Aggression in Elementary School Students. Psychology in the Schools, 35, 271-282.

241

Hudley, C. and Graham, S. (1993). An Attributional Intervention to Reduce Peer-Directed Aggression among African-American Boys. Child Development, 64, 124-138.

Hudley, C. and Graham, S. (1995). School-Based Intervention for Aggressive African-

American Boys. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 4, 185-195. Hundert, J., Boyle, M. H., Cunningham, C. E., Duku, E., Heale, J. and McDonald, J.

(1999). Helping Children Adjust - a Tri-Ministry Study: II. Program Effects. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40, 1061-1073.

Ialongo, N., Poduska, J., Werthamer, L. and Kellam, S. (2001). The Distal Impact of

Two First-Grade Preventive Interventions on Conduct Problems and Disorder in Early Adolescence. Journal of Emotional & Behavioral Disorders, 9, 146-160.

Ialongo, N. S., Werthamer, L., Kellam, S. G., Brown, C. H., Wang, S. and Lin, Y. (1999).

Proximal Impact of Two First-Grade Preventive Interventions on the Early Risk Behaviors for Later Substance Abuse, Depression, and Anti Social Behavior. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 599-641.

Irvine, A. B., Biglan, A., Smolkowski, K., Metzler, C. W. and Ary, D. V. (1999). The

Effectiveness of a Parenting Skills Program for Parents of Middle School Students in Small Communities. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 811-825.

Jaycox, L. H., Reivich, K. J., Gillham, J. and Seligman, M. (1994). Prevention of

Depressive Symptoms in School Children. Behaviour Research & Therapy, 32, 801-816.

Jones, T. (1997). Comprehensive Peer Mediation Evaluation Project: Preliminary Final

Report. Unpublished Manuscript. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University. Kam, C., Greenberg, M. T. and Kusche, C. A. (1999). Measuring Long-Term Program

Effects of the Paths Curriculum Using Individual Growth Curve Analysis. Poster presented at the Biennial meeting of the Society for Research on Child Development, Alburquerque, NM.

Kellam, S. G., Rebok, G. W., Ialongo, N. and Mayer, L. S. (1994a). The Course and

Malleability of Aggressive Behavior from Early First Grade into Middle School: Results of a Developmental Epidemiologically-Based Preventive Trial. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35(2), 259-281.

Kellam, S. G., Rebok, G. W., Mayer, L. S. and Ialongo, N. (1994b). Depressive

Symptoms over First Grade and Their Response to a Developmental Epidemiologically Based Preventive Trial Aimed at Improving Achievement. Development and Psychopathology, 6(3), 463-481.

Kiselica, M. S., Baker, S. B., Thomas, R. N. and Reedy, S. (1994). Effects of Stress

Inoculation Training on Anxiety, Stress, and Academic Performance among Adolescents. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 41, 335-342.

242

Klingman, A. and Hochdorf, Z. (1993). Coping with Distress and Self-Harm: The Impact of a Primary Prevention Program among Adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 16, 121-140.

Krug, E. G., Brener, N. D., Dahlberg, L. L., Ryan, G. W. and Powell, K. E. (1997). The

Impact of an Elementary School-Based Violence Prevention Program on Visits to the School Nurse. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 13, 459-463.

Lacey, C. H. and Le Blanc, P. R. (2001). What We Know About Making Peace Work.

Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association: Seattle, WA.

Laird, M. (1992). Evaluation of Lions-Quest "Skills for Adolescence" Program: An

Analysis of Students' Attitudes, Use Patterns, and Knowledge About Harmful Drugs. Newark, OH: Quest International.

Laird, M. and Black, S. (n.d.). Service-Learning Evaluation Project: Program Effects for

at-risk Students. Newark, OH: Quest International. Laird, M. and Syropoulos, M. (n.d.). An Evaluation of Lions-Quest's Skills for

Adolescence (Year 2). Newark, OH: Quest International. Laird, M., Syropoulos, M. and Black, S. (n.d.). An Evaluation of Lions-Quest's Skills for

Adolescence. Newark, OH: Quest International. Le Blanc, P. and Lacey, C. (2000). Evaluation Report on the Allegany Foundation Grant

"Making Peace Work in the Miami-Dade County Public Schools". Miami, FL: Peace Education Foundation.

Le Blanc, P. and Lacey, C. (2001). Evaluation Report on the Allegany Foundation Grant

"Making Peace Work in the Miami-Dade County Public Schools". Miami, FL: Peace Education Foundation.

Lochman, J. E. (1985). Effects of Different Treatment Lengths in Cognitive-Behavioral

Interventions with Aggressive Boys. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 16, 45-56.

Lochman, J. E. (1992). Cognitive-Behavioral Intervention with Aggressive Boys: Three-

Year Follow-up and Preventive Efforts. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 426-432.

Lochman, J. E., Burch, P. R., Curry, J. F. and Lampron, L. B. (1984). Treatment and

Generalization Effects of Cognitive-Behavioral and Goal-Setting Interventions with Aggressive Boys. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 52, 915-916.

Lochman, J. E. and Curry, J. F. (1986). Effects of Social Problem-Solving Training and

Self-Instruction Training with Aggressive Boys. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 15, 159-164.

243

Lochman, J. E. and Lampron, L. B. (1988). Cognitive Behavioral Interventions for Aggressive Boys: Seven Month Follow-up Effects. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychotherapy, 5, 15-23.

Lochman, J. E., Lampron, L. B., Gemmer, P. C., Harris, S. R. and Wyckoff, G. M.

(1989). Teacher Consultation and Cognitive-Behavioral Intervention with Aggressive Boys. Psychology in the Schools, 26, 179-188.

Lochman, J. E., Poie, J. D., Underwood, M. K. and Terry, R. (1993). Effectiveness of a

Social Relations Intervention Program for Aggressive and Nonaggressive, Rejected Children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 1053-1058.

Lonczak, H. S., Abbott, R. D., Hawkins, J. D., Kosterman, R. and Catalano, R. F.

(2002). Effects of the Seattle Social Development Project on Sexual Behavior, Pregnancy, Births, and Sexually Transmitted Disease Outcomes by Age 21 Years. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 156, 438-447.

Lorion, R. P., Caldwell, R. A. and Cowen, E. L. (1976). Effects of a School Mental

Health Project: A One-Year Follow-Up. Journal of School Psychology, 14, 56-63.

LoSciuto, L., Freeman, M. A., Harrington, E., Altman, B. and Lanphear, A. (1997). An

Outcome Evaluation of the Woodrock Youth Development Project. Journal of Early Adolescence, 17(1), 51-66.

LoSciuto, L., Rajala, A. K., Townsend, T. N. and Taylor, A. S. (1996). An Outcome

Evaluation of Across Ages: An Intergenerational Mentoring Approach to Drug Prevention. Journal of Adolescent Research, 1(1), 116-129.

Lowry-Webster, H. M., Barrett, P. M. and Dadds, M. R. (2001). A Universal Prevention

Trial of Anxiety and Depressive Symptomatology in Childhood: Preliminary Data from an Australian Study. Behaviour Change, 18, 36-50.

Lowry-Webster, H. M., Barrett, P. M. P. and Lock, S. A. (2003). A Universal Prevention

Trial of Anxiety Symptomology during Childhood: Results at 1-Year Follow-Up. Behaviour Change, 20, 25-43.

Lynch, K. B. (1996). Highlights of Evaluation Findings: Resilient Children Making

Healthy Project Choices 1995-1996. Richmond, Virginia Commonwealth University, Virginia Institute for Developmental Disabilities.

Lynch, K. B. (1998). Al's Pals: Kids Making Healthy Choices - the Classroom

Component of the Resilient Children Making Healthy Choices Project. Results of Michigan Replication Study 1996-97: Child Outcomes. Richmond, Virginia Commonwealth University, Virginia Institute for Developmental Disabilities.

Lynch, K. B., Galano, J. & Dubas, J. (1995). Evaluation Report: Resilient Children

Making Healthy Choices Project 1994-1995. Richmond, Virginia Commonwealth University, Virginia Institute for Developmental Disabilities.

244

Lynch, K. B. & McCracken, K. (2001a). Highlights of Findings from the Al's Pals Intervention, Hampton City Public Schools, Hampton, Virginia, 1999-2000. Richmond, Virginia Commonwealth University, Virginia Institute for Developmental Disabilities.

Lynch, K. B. & McCracken, K. (2001b). Highlights of Findings of the Al's Pals: Kids

Making Healthy Choices Intervention, Iowa sites, 1999-2000. Richmond, Virginia Commonwealth University, Virginia Institute for Developmental Disabilities.

McCord, J., Tremblay, R. E., Vitaro, F. and Desmarais-Gervais, L. (1994). Boys'

Disruptive Behaviour, School Adjustment, and Delinquency: The Montreal Prevention Experiment. International Journal of Behavioural Development, 17, 739-752.

Metropolitan Area Child Study Research Group (2002). A Cognitive-Ecological

Approach to Preventing Aggression in Urban Settings: Initial Outcomes for High-Risk Children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70, 179-194.

O'Donnell, J., Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., Abbott, R. D. and Day, L. E. (1995).

Preventing School Failure, Drug Use, and Delinquency among Low-Income Children: Long Term Intervention in Elementary Schools. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 65, 87-99.

O'Donnell, L., Stueve, A. and San Doval, A. (1998). Violence Prevention and Young

Adolescents' Participation in Community Youth Service. Journal of Adolescent Health, 24(1), 28-37.

Ollendick, T. H., Weist, M. D., Borden, M. C. and Greene, R. W. (1992). Sociometric

Status and Academic, Behavioral, and Psychological Adjustment: A Five-Year Longitudinal Study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 80-87.

Olweus, D. (1989). Bully/Victim Problems among Schoolchildren: Basic Facts and

Effects of a School Based Intervention Program. In Rubin, K. and Heppler, D. (Ed.) The Development and Treatment of Childhood Aggression (411-448). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at School: What We Know and What We Can Do. Oxford,

England: Basil Blackwell. Orbach, I. and Bar-Joseph, H. (1993). The Impact of a Suicide Prevention Program for

Adolescents on Suicidal Tendencies, Hopelessness, Ego Identity and Coping. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 23(2), 120-129.

Orpinas, P., Parcel, G. S., McAlister, A. and Frankowski, R. (1995). Violence Prevention

in Middle Schools: A Pilot Evaluation. Journal of Adolescent Health, 17, 360-371.

Osmondson, E. (2000). Second Step Curriculum Effective for Reducing Student

Impulsive and Aggressive Behavior and Improving Pro-Social Skills. Unpublished Manuscript.

245

Pedro-Carroll, J. L., Alpert-Gillis, L. J. and Cowen, E. L. (1992). An Evaluation of the Efficacy of a Preventive Intervention for 4th-6th Grade Urban Children of Divorce. Journal of Primary Prevention, 13, 115-130.

Pedro-Carroll, J. L. and Cowen, E. L. (1985). The Children of Divorce Intervention

Program: An Investigation of the Efficacy of a School-Based Prevention Program. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53(5), 603-611.

Pedro-Carroll, J. L., Cowen, E. L., Hightower, A. D. and Guare, J. C. (1986). Preventive

Intervention with Latency-Aged Children of Divorce: A Replication Study. American Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 277-289.

Pedro-Carroll, J. L., Sutton, S. E. and Wyman, P. A. (1999). A Two-Year Follow-up

Evaluation of a Preventive Intervention for Young Children of Divorce. School Psychology Review, 28, 467-476.

Pepler, D. J., King, G. and Byrd, W. (1991). A Socially Cognitive Based Social Skills

Training Program for Aggressive Children. In D. J. Pepler and K. Rubin (Ed.) The Development and Treatment of Child Aggression (361-379). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.

Pepler, D. J., King, G., Craig, W., Byrd, W. and Bream, L. (1995). The Development

and Evaluation of a Multisystem Social Skills Group Training Programs for Aggressive Children. Child and Youth Care Forum, 24, 297-313.

Perry, C. L., Williams, C. L., Veblen-Mortenson, S., Toomey, T. L., Komro, K. A.,

Anstine, P. A., McGovern, P. G., Finnegan, J. R., Forster, J. L., Wagenaar, A. C. and Wolfson, M. (1996). Project Northland: Outcomes of a Communitywide Alcohol Use Prevention Program During Early Adolescent. American Journal of Public Health, 86(7), 956-965.

Prinz, R. J., Blechman, E. A. and Dumas, J. E. (1994). An Evaluation of Peer Coping-

Skills Training for Childhood Aggression. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 23, 193-203.

Randell, B. P., Eggert, L. L. and Pike, K. C. (2001). Immediate Post-Intervention Effects

of Two Brief Youth Suicide Prevention Interventions. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 31(1), 41-61.

Reid, J. B., Eddy, J. M., Fetrow, R. A. and Stoolmiller, M. (1999). Description and

Immediate Impacts of a Preventive Intervention for Conduct Problems. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 483-517.

Reid, M. J., Webster-Stratton, C. and Beauchaine, T. P. (2001). Parent Training in

Head Start: A Comparison of Program Response among African American, Asian American, Caucasian and Hispanic Mothers. Prevention Science, 2, 209-227.

Resnicow, K., Cohn, I., Reinhardt, J., Cross, D., Futterman, R. and Kirschner, E.

(1992). A Three-Year Evaluation of the Know Your Body Program in Inner-City Schoolchildren. Health Education Quarterly, 19, 463-480.

246

Resnicow, K., Cross, D., LaCosse, J. and Nichols, P. (1993). Evaluation of School-Site Cardiovascular Risk Factor Screening Intervention. Preventive Medicine, 22, 838-856.

Resnicow, K., Cross, D. and Wynder, E. (1993). The Know Your Body Program: A

Review of Evaluation Studies. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 70, 188-207.

Roberts, C., Kane, R., Bishop, B., Matthews, H. and Thomson, H. (2004). The

Prevention of Depressive Symptoms in Rural School Children: A Follow-up Study. International Journal of Mental Health Promotion, 6, 4-16.

Roberts, C., Kane, R., Thomson, H., Bishop, B. and Hart, B. (2003). The Prevention of

Depressive Symptoms in Rural School Children: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Consulting Clinical Psychology, 71, 622-628.

Sandler, I. N., West, S. G., Baca, L. and Pillow, D. R. (1992). Linking Empirically Based

Theory and Evaluation: The Family Bereavement Program. American Journal of Community Psychology, 20(4), 491-521.

Schweinhart, L. J., Barnes, H. V. and Weikart, D. P. (1993). Significant Benefits: The

High/Scope Perry Preschool Study through Age 27. Ypsilanti MI: Scope Press. Schweinhart, L. J., Berrueta-Clement, J. R., Barnett, W. S., Epstein, A. S. and Weikart,

D. P. (1985). Effects of the Perry Preschool Program on Youths through Age Nineteen: A Summary. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 5, 26-35.

Schweinhart, L. J. and Weikart, D. P. (1989). The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study:

Implications for Early Childhood Care and Education. Prevention in Human Services, 7, 109-132.

Schweinhart, L. J. and Weikart, D. P. (1997a). The High/Scope Preschool Curriculum

Comparison Study through Age Twenty Three. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12, 117-143.

Schweinhart, L. J. and Weikart, D. P. (1997b). Lasting Differences: The High/Scope

Preschool Curriculum Comparison Study through Age 23 (High/Scope Educational Research Foundation Monographs No. 12). Yspilanti MI: High Scope Press.

Schweinhart, L. J., Weikart, D. P. and Larner, M. B. (1986). Consequences of Three

Preschool Curriculum Models through Age Fifteen. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 1, 15-45.

Shure, M. B. (1993) Final Report: Interpersonal Problem Solving and Prevention.

Philadelphia: Hahnemann University. Shure, M. B. (1997). Interpersonal Cognitive Problem Solving: Primary Prevention of

Early High-Risk Behaviors in the Preschool and Primary Years. In G.W. Albee and T. P. Gullotta. (Ed.) Primary Prevention Works (167-188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

247

Shure, M. B. and Healey, K. N. (1993). Interpersonal Problem Solving and Prevention in Urban 5th and 6th Grade School Children. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada.

Shure, M. B. and Spivack, G. (1978). Problem-Solving Techniques in Childrearing. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Shure, M. B. and Spivack, G. (1979). Interpersonal Cognitive Problem Solving and

Primary Prevention: Programming for Preschool and Kindergarten Children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 2, 89-94.

Shure, M. B. and Spivack, G. (1980). Interpersonal Problem Solving as a Mediator of

Behavioral Adjustment in Preschool and Kindergarten Children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 1, 29-44.

Shure, M. B. and Spivack, G. (1982). Interpersonal Problem Solving in Young Children:

A Cognitive Approach to Prevention. American Journal of Community Psychology, 10, 341-356.

Shure, M. B. and Spivack, G. (1988). Interpersonal Cognitive Problem Solving. In R. H.

Price, E. L. Cowen, R. P. Lorion and J. Ramos-McKay (Ed.) Fourteen Ounces of Prevention: A Casebook for Practitioners (69-82). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

Slaby, R. G., Wilson-Brewer, R. and DeVos, E. (1994). Aggressors, Victims &

Bystanders: An Assessment-Based Middle School Violence Prevention Curriculum. Newton, MA: Education Development Center.

Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Dolan, L. J., Wasik, B. A., Ross, S., Smith, L. and Dianda,

M. (1996). Success for All: A Summary of Research. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 1(1), 41-76.

Smith, D. W., Redican, K. J. and Olsen, L. K. (1992). Longevity of Growing Healthy: An

Analysis of the Eight Sites Implementing the School Health Curriculum Project. Journal of School Health, 62(3), 83-87.

Snow, W. H., Gilchrist, L., Schilling, R. F., Schinke, S. P. and Kelso, C. (1986).

Preparing Students for Junior High School. Journal of Early Adolescence, 6(2), 127-137.

Solomon, D., Battistich, V., Watson, M., Schaps, E. and Lewis, C. (2000). A Six-District

Study of Educational Change: Direct and Mediated Effects of the Child Development Project. Social Psychology of Education, 4, 3-51.

Solomon, D., Watson, M., Delucchi, K. L., Schaps, E. and Battistich, V. (1988).

Enhancing Children's Pro-Social Behavior in the Classroom. American Education Research Journal, 25, 527-555.

Stacey, S. and Rust, J. O. (1985). Evaluating the Effectiveness of the DUSO-1

(Revised) Program. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 20(2), 84-90.

248

Stolberg, A. L. and Garrison, K. M. (1985). Evaluating a Primary Prevention Program for Children of Divorce. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13(2), 111-124.

Stolberg, A. L. and Mahler, J. (1994). Enhancing Treatment Gains in a School-Based

Intervention for Children of Divorce through Skill Training, Parental Involvement, and Transfer Procedures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(1), 147-156.

Switzer, G. E., Simmons, R. G., Dew, M. A., Regalski, J. M. and Wang, C. H. (1995).

The Effect of a School-Based Helper Program on Adolescent Self-Image, Attitudes and Behavior. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15(4), 429-455.

Taggart, V. S., Bush, P. J., Zuckerman, A. E. and Theiss, P. K. (1990). A Process

Evaluation of the District of Columbia "Know Your Body" Project. Journal of School Health, 60, 60-66.

The Center for Health Policy Studies (1991) Final Report: An Evaluation of the

Community of Caring-in-Schools Initiative. Columbia, MD. Tierney, J. P., Grossman, J. B. and Resch, N. L. (1995). Making a Difference: An

Impact Study of Big Brothers/Big Sisters. Philadelphia PA: Public/Private Ventures.

Tremblay, R. E., Masse, B., Perron, D., Le Blanc, M., Schwartzman, A. E. and

Ledingham, J. E. (1992). Early Disruptive Behavior, Poor School Achievement, Delinquent Behavior, and Delinquent Personality: Longitudinal Analyses. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 64-72.

Tremblay, R. E., Masse, L. C., Pagani, L. and Vitaro, F. (1996). From Childhood

Aggression to Adolescent Maladjustment: The Montreal Prevention Experiment. In R. D. Peters and R. J. McMahon (Ed.) Preventing Childhood Disorders, Substance Abuse and Delinquency (268-298). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tremblay, R. E., McCord, J., Boileau, H., Charlebois, P., Gagnon, C. and Le Blanc, M.

(1991). Can Disruptive Boys Be Helped to Become Competent. Psychiatry, 54, 148-161.

Twemlow, S. T., Fonagy, P., Sacco, F., Gies, M., Evans, R. and Ewbank, R. (2001).

Creating a Peaceful School Learning Environment: A Controlled Study of an Elementary School Intervention to Reduce Violence. American Journal of Psychiatry, 158, 808-810.

Twemlow, S. T., Sacco, F. C., Gies, M. L., Twemlow, S., Hess, D. and Osbourn, J. O.

(1997). Creating a Peaceful School Learning Environment: Findings from a Controlled Study of an Elementary School Preventively Focused Anti-Violence Intervention. Unpublished Manuscript.

Vitaro, F. and Tremblay, R. E. (1994). Impact of a Prevention Program on Aggressive

Children's Friendships and Social Adjustment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 22, 457-475.

249

Walker, H. M., Kavanagh, K., Stiller, B., Golly, A., Severson, H. H. and Feil, E. G. (1998). First Step to Success: An Early Intervention Approach for Preventing School Antisocial Behavior. Journal of Emotional & Behavioral Disorders, 6, 66-80.

Walker, H. M., Stiller, B., Severson, H. H., Feil, E. G. and Golly, A. (1998). First Step to

Success: Intervening at the Point of School Entry to Prevent Antisocial Behavior Patterns. Psychology in the Schools, 35, 259-269.

Walter, H. J., Vaughan, R. D. and Wynder, E. L. (1989). Primary Prevention of Cancer

among Children: Changes in Cigarette Smoking and Diet after Six Years of Intervention. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 81(13), 995-999.

Webster-Stratton, C. (1998). Preventing Conduct Problems in Head Start Children:

Strengthening Parenting Competencies. Journal of Consulting Clinical Psychology, 66, 715-730.

Webster-Stratton, C., Reid, M. J. and Hammond, M. (2001). Preventing Conduct

Problems, Promoting Social Competence: A Parent and Teacher Training Partnership in Head Start. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30, 283-302.

Weddle, K. D. and Williams, F. (1993). Implementing and Assessing the Effectiveness

of the Interpersonal Cognitive Problem-Solving Curriculum (ICPS) in Four Experimental and Four Control Classrooms. Memphis, TN: Memphis State University.

Weikart, D. P. (1998). Changing Early Childhood Development through Educational

Intervention. Preventive Medicine, 27, 233-237. Weissberg, R. P. and Caplan, M. (1998). Promoting Social Competence and Preventing

Antisocial Behavior in Young Urban Adolescents. Chicago: University of Illinois at Chicago.

Williams, K. (2000). Does Reducing Putdowns Actually Reduce Violence? An Analysis

of the No Putdowns Program at a Rural and an Urban Elementary School. Cazenovia, NY: SUNY Cortland.

Wolchik, S. A., West, S. G., Westover, S., Sandler, I. N., Martin, A., Lustig, J., Tein, J.

and Fisher, J. (1993). The Children of Divorce Parenting Intervention: Outcome Evaluation of an Empirically Based Program. American Journal of Community Psychology, 21, 293-331.

250

Appendix 2.2: Systematic approach used to review the literature

Identification of studies

A broad search string ((adoption or uptake or implement* or barriers or facilitat* or

process evaluation or enablers or obstacles or incentives or formative evaluation or

correlates of implement* or diffusion or disseminat*) and school and (‘mental health’ or

‘well being’)) was used to identify potentially relevant studies in Proquest and

Ebscohost databases from January 1980 to January 2005. Following the development

of the search string, citation titles and abstracts were reviewed. However, due to the

lack of potentially relevant studies located specifically for mental health and/or wellbeing

programs, wider search criteria were used to include all school-based health promotion

programs rather than mental heath promotion or wellbeing-related programs only.

While not specific to mental health, some of the factors measured in other areas of

health promotion may also be relevant in mental health and wellbeing (e.g. broad

factors that examine the school environment).

Thus, a second search string ((adoption or uptake or implement* or barriers or facilitat*

or process evaluation or enablers or obstacles or incentives or formative evaluation or

correlates of implement* or diffusion or disseminat*) and (school and health)) was used

to identify potentially relevant studies in Proquest and Ebscohost databases (over the

25-year period, January 1980 to January 2005; databases searched are provided

below). The broad range of search terms was used because prior general literature

searches revealed that some terms were used interchangeably (e.g. sometimes the

terms ‘adoption and use’ were used instead of the term ‘implementation’). Although a

range of terms were used to identify studies, the factors influencing the implementation

of health promotion programs (including mental health) in schools was the focal point.

251

Databases searched

Ebscohost Database (504 citations Jan 1980 to Jan 2005)

• Academic Search Elite

• ERIC

• MEDLINE

• Primary Search

• Professional Development Collection

• PsycARTICLES

• PsycINFO

Proquest Database (181 citations Jan 1980 to Jan 2005)

• Academic Research Library

• Health and Medical Complete

• Proquest Education Journals

• Proquest Psychology Journals

• Proquest Social Science Journals

• Wilson Education Abstracts: available 1980-2002 only

• Wilson Social Science Abstracts: available 1980-2002 only

Wiley InterScience Database Search (27 citations Jan 1980 to Jan 2005)

Subject Areas:

• Education Psychology

• Social Science

Selection criteria

Inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed to assess the relevance of studies

published between January 1980 and January 2005. Studies had to meet the following

four criteria to be included:

1. Study must involve the assessment of factors influencing the implementation of

one or more school-based health promotion programs;

2. The main component of the health promotion program must be conducted at the

school;

252

3. The study must involve students attending schooling from pre-school to year

twelve (or equivalent for international studies); and

4. Programs evaluated should be universal (delivered to all students in the class)

rather than ‘pull-out’ or treatment programs.

The inclusion criteria were general in order to capture all relevant studies. The

following exclusion criteria were implemented to ensure the studies focused specifically

on health promotion programs. Studies that met one or more of the following criteria

were excluded from the review:

1. Assessed the efficacy and/or effectiveness of a program or intervention (i.e. the

study reported impact and/or outcome evaluations only). These studies were

excluded because they did not examine the factors influencing the

implementation of the program but reported impact and/or outcome results only.

2. The study assessed the dissemination, adoption or sustainability of a program

or intervention (i.e. it did not specifically measure the factors influencing

program implementation).

3. Studies that examined the factors associated with the implementation of a drug

or other medical treatments at school (for example, the use of Ritalin in

schools). Such studies were excluded as they did not deliver a program based

on a health promotion or preventive approach.

4. Assessment of the factors influencing the implementation of school programs

designed to improve academic outcomes (rather than health-related outcomes).

The focus of such studies was often maths or science and did not extend

beyond this to health promotion.

The use of explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria provided a guideline from which the

selection of articles was based and helped to limit bias in identifying and rejecting

studies (Greenhalgh, 1997). Furthermore, the review included all study types as

restricting it to experimental or quasi experimental studies would have excluded much

of the literature on which the justification for further studies is based (Lister-Sharp et al,

1999).

253

Following the development of the second, broader search string, citation titles and

abstracts were used to review and assess each article for inclusion or exclusion (based

on the pre-determined criteria). In many cases, inadequate information was provided at

the initial stage of review (i.e. citation title and abstract) to determine whether the article

was suitable to be included. Therefore the full-text version of all articles that potentially

fitted the inclusion criteria was located. In addition, book chapters and review articles

that examined the factors influencing the implementation of health promotion programs

in schools were searched to identify other articles that may not have been included

using the search strategy. Individual authors were contacted in the instance that a

paper could not be physically located.

254

Appendix 4.1: Primary Classroom Teacher Survey

255

Pathways to Positive Student Wellbeing

Thank you for participating in this study. All the information you provide will remain completely confidential. Your individual results will not

be

released to your school.

Participation in this study is voluntary. If you have any questions or would

like more information about the study, please contact Clare Macaulay.

Phone: (07) 3864 9672 or Email: c2.macaulay@qut.edu.au.

Classroom Teacher

256

Thank you very much for agreeing to

participate in this study.

Completing the Pathways to Positive Student Wellbeing Survey

will identify a wide range of issues including:

• Problems you encounter on a day-to-day basis with students;

• Activities and programs you use to address student wellbeing;

and

• Satisfaction with the support available to you at school.

Please read below before you start….

This survey asks some questions about behavioural and emotional wellbeing.

So that everyone has the same understanding of behavioural and emotional

wellbeing, here’s how we have defined it for this survey:

Behavioural and emotional wellbeing

refers to positive behaviours, thoughts and feelings that generate a sense of happiness and

contentment.

When answering the following questions, please use a tick ()

If you work across more than one school, please answer this survey for the school that is participating in the study.

257

SECTION ONE

Student Wellbeing and Staff Support

A room with a view?

Your personal perspective is important.

258

PART A: Your Work Role and Student Characteristics This section is about your role in the school and the characteristics of students in your class.

1. What year level/s do you teach this year?

2. How many students are in your class this year? a Boys b Girls

3. Approximately how many students in your class this year: No. of students a Speak a language other than English at home?

b Are of Indigenous background?

c Have limited English proficiency (listening or speaking) that affects their understanding and participation in class?

4i.

Please indicate the approximate number of students with the following special needs in your class this year

Students that tend to…

.

4ii. How often do you feel these students receive adequate

support at school?

No

Spec

ial

Nee

ds

Nev

er

Rar

ely

Som

etim

es

Ofte

n

Alw

ays Approx.

no. of students

a Be anxious, withdrawn, depressed or grieving. 1 2 3 4 5 6

b Be behaviourally inattentive, non-compliant or aggressive.

1 2 3 4 5 6

c Have signs of both (a) and (b) above. 1 2 3 4 5 6

d Have learning difficulties only. 1 2 3 4 5 6

5. In your current job with this schoola

, are you employed: Full-time 1

b Part-time or casual 2

6. What is your gender? Male 1 Female 2

7. What is your age group? 8. What is the highest qualification you have completed? a 21-30 years 1 a Diploma 1

b 31-40 years 2 b Bachelor degree 2

c 41-50 years 3 c Graduate diploma/certificate 3

d 51-60 years 4 d Masters degree 4

e 61+ years 5 e PhD 5

f Other 6

9. How many years have you been working… (if less than 1 year please write 0)

No. of whole years

a As a teacher in this school?

b As a teacher in schools altogether?

259

PART B: School Policy and Practice a This section is about formal and informal policies that support student or staff wellbeing in your school.

1i. Are you aware of a formal (written) policy in your school

for the following issues?

1ii. How well is the policy put into practice in your

school? If your school has other formal policies that relate to

behavioural and emotional wellbeing please add in i-k. No

Yes Ve

ry

Poor

Poor

Ave

rage

Goo

d

Very

G

ood

a Anti-bullying 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 b Gender equity for students 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 c Respect for racial and cultural diversity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 d Child Protection 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e Management of special needs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 f Student behaviour management 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 g Safe schools 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 h Critical incidents (e.g. fire or other emergencies) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

j 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

k 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2i. Are you aware of an informal policy (may or may not be written) or agreed way of doing things in your school

2ii. for the following issues?

How well is the policy put into practice in your

school?

If your school has other informal policies that relate to behavioural and emotional wellbeing please add in g-i).

No

Yes Very

Po

or

Poor

Ave

rage

Goo

d

Very

G

ood

a Acknowledgement of student academic achievements 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

b Acknowledgement of student sporting achievements 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 c Acknowledgement of student artistic achievements 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 d Acknowledgement of student social achievements

(e.g. providing leadership, positive role modelling) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

e Student wellbeing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 f Staff stress and wellbeing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

g 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

h 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3.

How often am I given the opportunity… Nev

er

Rar

ely

Som

e-

times

Ofte

n

Alw

ays

a To assist in the development or updating of formal policies at your school? 1 2 3 4 5

b To assist in the development, updating, or discussion of informal policies at your school? 1 2 3 4 5

260

PART C: Support at School b This section asks about the support available to you

at school.

1. How often have individual students in your class shown on-going signs of the following issues this year

Nev

er ? on-going issues may be

continuous over a short period or intermittent over a longer period of time). Please list other in k-m. R

arel

y

Som

e-tim

es

Ofte

n

Alw

ays

a Student to student bullying 1 2 3 4 5 b Student to teacher bullying 1 2 3 4 5 c Disruptive behaviour 1 2 3 4 5 d Signs that may indicate anxiousness (e.g. students may appear

uneasy, apprehensive or worried) 1 2 3 4 5

e Self-harm 1 2 3 4 5 f Grief 1 2 3 4 5 g Sadness 1 2 3 4 5 h Neglect (for e.g. student comes to school with no breakfast/lunch) 1 2 3 4 5 i Truancy, school refusal 1 2 3 4 5 j Any sign of emotional, physical or sexual abuse 1 2 3 4 5

k 1 2 3 4 5

l 1 2 3 4 5

m 1 2 3 4 5

2. Who and what are my main sources of support for dealing with students’ behavioural and

emotional issues at school?

i. Who supports you at school

Position (please list other in d-e)

? ii. What type of support do you receive

? (please tick all that apply) No

Yes

Discuss an Issue

Professional Development

Resources (eg. books)

School policy

Other (please specify)

a Other Classroom Teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 b Guidance Officer 1 2 3 4 5 6 c Principal/Deputy Principal 1 2 3 4 5 6

d 1 2 3 4 5 6

e 1 2 3 4 5 6 3.

How often…

No

On-

Goi

ng

Issu

es

Nev

er

Rar

ely

Som

e-

times

Ofte

n

Alw

ays

a Do I ask for support from other staff members at school when faced with student behavioural and emotional issues? 1 2 3 4 5 6

b Do I try to resolve students’ behavioural and emotional issues on my own rather than asking for support? 1 2 3 4 5 6

c Do I receive adequate support from school staff when addressing students’ behavioural and emotional issues? 1 2 3 4 5 6

d Does the type1

of support (i.e. discussion, resources etc.) I receive assist in the improvement or resolution of students’ behavioural and emotional issues?

2 3 4 5 6

e Do I receive support for students’ behavioural and emotional issues when 1 I need it? 2 3 4 5 6

261

PART D: Topics and Skills You Cover with Students a,c

This section is about what you do in your classroom. 1.

I have covered the following topics and skills with my class this year

…

What types of resources have you used? (please tick all that apply)

TOPICS

(please add other in q-s) No

Yes

Resources I developed from

my own or colleagues ideas

Resources I have integrated from multiple

sources

A structured program designed to target specific issues or skills

a Bullying 1 2 3 4 5 b Anxiousness 1 2 3 4 5 c Emotions (feeling happy/sad) 1 2 3 4 5 d Self-harming behaviours 1 2 3 4 5 e Grief and loss 1 2 3 4 5 f Parental separation 1 2 3 4 5 g Protective behaviours 1 2 3 4 5 h Addictive behaviours 1 2 3 4 5 i Sexual Health education 1 2 3 4 5 j Peer friendships/relationships 1 2 3 4 5 k Personal identity 1 2 3 4 5 l Cultural diversity 1 2 3 4 5

m Resilience/bouncing back 1 2 3 4 5 n Respect for self and others 1 2 3 4 5 o Identifying positive role models 1 2 3 4 5 p 1 2 3 4 5 q 1 2 3 4 5 r 1 2 3 4 5 SKILLS (please add other in aj-al)

s Non-violent conflict resolution 1 2 3 4 5 t Assertiveness 1 2 3 4 5 u Good communication 1 2 3 4 5 v Self-confidence 1 2 3 4 5 w Positive coping strategies 1 2 3 4 5 x Personal safety 1 2 3 4 5 y Decision making 1 2 3 4 5 z Problem solving 1 2 3 4 5

aa Help seeking 1 2 3 4 5 ab Relaxation 1 2 3 4 5 ac Developing social relationships 1 2 3 4 5 ad Interpersonal skills 1 2 3 4 5 ae Independence and self-reliance 1 2 3 4 5 af Goal setting 1 2 3 4 5 ag Optimistic thinking 1 2 3 4 5 ah Positive peer role modelling 1 2 3 4 5 ai 1 2 3 4 5 aj 1 2 3 4 5 ak 1 2 3 4 5

262

PART E: Parent/Caregiver Involvement at School This section asks about parent/caregiver interaction with the school this year.

1.

During this year

Nev

er

, how often…

Rar

ely

Som

e-tim

es

Ofte

n

Alw

ays

a Have I used activities that are structured to encourage interaction between students and parents/caregivers at home? 1 2 3 4 5

b Have parents/caregivers been involved in class activities? 1 2 3 4 5

c Have parents/caregivers been involved in school-wide activities (e.g. sports days, fetes, musicals, working bees etc.). 1 2 3 4 5

d Is it the same small group of parents/caregivers who are actively involved in school-wide activities?

1 2 3 4 5

PART F: Physical and Social Environment a,c This section is about the physical and social environment of your classroom and the school this year

.

1. How often do the following occur?

Nev

er

Rar

ely

Som

e-tim

es

Ofte

n

Alw

ays

a The school buildings and play areas are well maintained. 1 2 3 4 5 b Classrooms have adequate equipment and resources. 1 2 3 4 5 c Lighting and ventilation in classrooms is adequate. 1 2 3 4 5 d Students beautify the school (e.g. painting murals, gardening). 1 2 3 4 5 e Staff encourage students to maintain co-operative behaviour in the

classroom and playground. 1 2 3 4 5

f Boys and girls receive equal opportunities at school. 1 2 3 4 5 g A non-racist environment for students and staff is actively

promoted. 1 2 3 4 5

h Cultural diversity is celebrated by staff and students (e.g. days of cultural significance, traditional foods or dress). 1 2 3 4 5

i The issue of child protection is openly discussed by staff. 1 2 3 4 5 j Staff and students feel safe at school. 1 2 3 4 5 k Students with special needs receive the support they require. 1 2 3 4 5 l Fire and other safety drills are practised on a regular basis. 1 2 3 4 5

m Staff praise students for trying hard at school, regardless of their results. 1 2 3 4 5

n Students are praised most often for academic achievements. 1 2 3 4 5 o Students are encouraged to be positive peer role-models. 1 2 3 4 5 p Older students assist younger students in the classroom and/or

playground (e.g. Buddies, Big Brother/Sister). 1 2 3 4 5

263

1.

How often do the following occur? (cont’d)

Nev

er

Rar

ely

Som

e-tim

es

Ofte

n

Alw

ays

q Students are involved in some school decision-making processes. 1 2 3 4 5

r Staff are consulted about important school decisions. 1 2 3 4 5 s There is a feeling of connectedness among staff. 1 2 3 4 5 t There is a feeling of connectedness among students. 1 2 3 4 5 u Students are respectful to staff. 1 2 3 4 5 v Staff are supportive of and respectful to students. 1 2 3 4 5 w The school provides a positive social experience for students. 1 2 3 4 5 x The school values the contributions of its staff. 1 2 3 4 5

2. Are there other ways that the physical or social environment at school impacts on staff

and/or student wellbeing? No 1 Yes 2 (If yes, please outline below)

3.

How often have I involved my students…

Nev

er

Rar

ely

Som

e-tim

es

Ofte

n

Alw

ays

a In the management of learning and behaviour in class this year1

(e.g. class meetings, negotiated class rules or learning opportunities)?

2 3 4 5

4. I am a key person or advocate on the topic of student behavioural and emotional

wellbeing in this school? No 1 Yes 2 (If yes, please briefly outline your role this year

)

264

SECTION TWO

Structured Behavioural & Emotional Wellbeing Programs

Aggression…a universal issue.

265

PART G: Your Use of Structured Behavioural and Emotional Wellbeing Programs

The table below lists a range of structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs developed for

primary school students. The programs are grouped according to the topic they address.

Please indicate if you have or have not used any of the following structured behavioural and

emotional wellbeing programs with your students during 2004/2005. This means structured

programs taught by you for your whole class or for individual students in your class

.

NB: If you use/d a program, please also indicate how much and when

the program was used.

Additional space

is provided at the end of each topic for you to add programs not listed.

Example only Used it? How much? When?

Topic Program Name Source No Yes Whole Part 04 05

A Topic 1 a Program 1 Anonymous 1 2 3 4 5 6 b Program 2 Anonymous 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Used it? How much? When?

Topics Program Name Source No Yes Whole Part 04 05

A Bullying a Bullying – No Way Education Queensland, 2000 1 2 3 4 5 6

b Bullying Prevention Program

Olweus, 1994 1 2 3 4 5 6

c Fair Go Logan Learners for Life, 1997 1 2 3 4 5 6

d The P.E.A.C.E. Pack

Slee, 1997 1 2 3 4 5 6

e 1 2 3 4 5 6

B Social Relations

a Being Me: Learning to live with others

Lange, 1997 1 2 3 4 5 6

b Friendly Kids Friendly Classroom

McGrath & Francey, 1991 1 2 3 4 5 6

c I’ve Got Me and I’m Glad

Farnette, Forte & Harris, 1989 1 2 3 4 5 6

d People Need Each Other

Farnette, Forte & Harris, 1989 1 2 3 4 5 6

e Room 14 Wilson, 1993 1 2 3 4 5 6 f Stop, Think, Do Adderley, Petersen &

Gannoni, 2002 1 2 3 4 5 6

266

Used it? How much? When?

Topic Program Name Source No Yes Whole Part 04 05

B Social Relations (cont’d)

g Healthy Relationships

Brunskill, 1998 1 2 3 4 5 6

h The Rainbow Dance

Hemp-Loosli, 1996 1 2 3 4 5 6

i The Peer Support Program

The Peer Support Foundation, 2003 1 2 3 4 5 6

j You Can Do It! Program Achieve

Bernard, 2001 1 2 3 4 5 6

k Listen Up Team Accordia, 2002 1 2 3 4 5 6 l Me and U Logan Learners for

Life, 1995 1 2 3 4 5 6

m

1 2 3 4 5 6

C Self-esteem a I’m a Walking Talking Miracle

McInnes, 1988 1 2 3 4 5 6

b Liking Myself Palmer, 1977 1 2 3 4 5 6

c The Me I’m Learning To Be

Forte, 1983 1 2 3 4 5 6

d The Mouse, The Monster and Me

Palmer, 1977 1 2 3 4 5 6

e Respect Yourself Drama Education

Baldwin, 1999 1 2 3 4 5 6

f 1 2 3 4 5 6

D Positive Thinking

a Six Thinking Hats De Bono, 1992 1 2 3 4 5 6 b

1 2 3 4 5 6

E Tolerance a Different Kids Same Classroom

McGarth & Noble, 1997 1 2 3 4 5 6

b Virtues Popov et al., 1994 1 2 3 4 5 6

c 1 2 3 4 5 6

F Aggression or Violence

a Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS)

Greenberg & Kusche, 1996 1 2 3 4 5 6

b Hands Off Forsey, 1994 1 2 3 4 5 6 c Rock and Water Ykema, 2000 1 2 3 4 5 6 d Protective

Behaviours Flandreau-West, 1989 1 2 3 4 5 6

267

Used it? How much? When?

Topic Program Name Source No Yes Whole Part 04 05

F Aggression or Violence

(cont’d)

e Peace Builders Embry et al., 1996 1 2 3 4 5 6

f Second Step Grossman et al., 1997 1 2 3 4 5 6

g Conflict Resolution for Students

Morris, 1995 1 2 3 4 5 6

h Goldstein’s Skill Streaming

Goldstein, 1988 1 2 3 4 5 6

i 1 2 3 4 5 6

G Anxious-ness

a Cool Kids Lyneham & Rapee, 2002 1 2 3 4 5 6

b Coping Koala Barrett, 1993 1 2 3 4 5 6

c FRIENDS Barrett et al., 2000 1 2 3 4 5 6

d Worrybusters Campbell, 2004 1 2 3 4 5 6

e 1 2 3 4 5 6

H Depression a Aussie Optimism Program

Roberts et al., 2003 1 2 3 4 5 6

b 1 2 3 4 5 6

I Grief and Loss

a Children of Divorce Intervention Program (CODIP)

Alpert-Gillis et al., 1989 1 2 3 4 5 6

b Seasons for Growth Graham, 1996 1 2 3 4 5 6

c

1 2 3 4 5 6

J Parenting and Family

a Families And Schools Together

McDonald, 1988 1 2 3 4 5 6

b Positive Parenting Program (Triple P)

Sanders and Markie-Dadds, 1995

1 2 3 4 5 6

c Management of Young Children Program (MYCP)

Education Queensland, 2005

1 2 3 4 5 6

d 1 2 3 4 5 6

K Multiple issues

a Heart Masters Fuller et al., 2002 1 2 3 4 5 6

b 1 2 3 4 5 6

2. Are there any reasons that have hindered your use of these programs?

268

SECTION THREE

Behavioural & Emotional Wellbeing

Your needs in assisting students through the ups and downs of life

Please read the NB

when you come across it as there are some questions that you will skip in this section.

269

NB If you : have not used any of the structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs in Section Two, please skip Part H and follow to Question 1

(Part I).

If you use/have used one or more structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs in Section Two, please continue below on this page, Question 1

(Part H).

PART H: Teaching Structured Behavioural and Emotional Wellbeing Programs d,e,f This section asks about some of the factors that may influence the extent to which you use structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs in the classroom. Please answer these questions thinking about the structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs

you ticked () ‘yes’ to using in Section Two.

1.

To what extent do you disagree or agree with the following? Stro

ngly

D

isag

ree

Dis

agre

e

Indi

ff-

eren

t

Agr

ee

Stro

ngly

A

gree

a I like using structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs. 1 2 3 4 5

b In general, I look forward to using structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs. 1 2 3 4 5

c If I had the choice, I would use structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs. 1 2 3 4 5

d I am continually finding better ways to teach structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs. 1 2 3 4 5

e Even when I try very hard, I do not teach structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs as well as I do most other subjects. 1 2 3 4 5

f I know the steps necessary to teach structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs effectively. 1 2 3 4 5

g I am not very effective in monitoring structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing program activities. 1 2 3 4 5

h I generally teach structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs ineffectively. 1 2 3 4 5

i I understand structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs well enough to be effective in teaching them. 1 2 3 4 5

j I find it difficult to explain behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics to students when they arise incidentally. 1 2 3 4 5

k I am typically able to answer students’ questions about the content of structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs. 1 2 3 4 5

l I wonder if I have the necessary skills to teach structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs. 1 2 3 4 5

m Effectiveness in teaching structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs has little influence on the achievement of students with low motivation.

1 2 3 4 5

n Given a choice, I would not invite the Principal to evaluate my teaching of structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs.

1 2 3 4 5

o When a student has difficulty understanding a structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing program topic, I am usually at a loss as to how to help the student understand it better.

1 2 3 4 5

p When teaching structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs, I usually welcome student questions. 1 2 3 4 5

270

For the following question, ‘materials’ refers to workbooks, videos and other teaching resources.

2.

For this year, when I use structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs R

arel

y

Occ

urs

with students… Som

e-tim

es

0ccu

rs

Ofte

n

O

ccur

s

Very

Fr

eque

ntly

O

ccur

s

a Extra program materials are available if requested. 1 2 3 4 b Supplementary program materials are available for classroom use. 1 2 3 4 c I receive necessary classroom supplies. 1 2 3 4 d The Principal gets the materials he or she asks for from superiors. 1 2 3 4 e I am provided with adequate program materials for my classroom. 1 2 3 4 f The Principal is able to influence the actions of his or her superiors. 1 2 3 4 g The Principal’s recommendations are given serious consideration by

his or her superiors. 1 2 3 4

h I have access to needed instructional materials 1 2 3 4

3.

To what extent do you disagree or agree with the following statements? St

rong

ly

Dis

agre

e

Dis

agre

e

Nei

ther

D

isag

ree

or A

gree

Agr

ee

Stro

ngly

A

gree

a I do not place a high value on the use of structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs for students. 1 2 3 4 5

b I consider structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs to be an integral part of my teaching practices. 1 2 3 4 5

c Teaching structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs is something I would prefer not to do. 1 2 3 4 5

d In my opinion, the use of structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs is fundamental to student learning. 1 2 3 4 5

e Teaching structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs to students should not be part of my role at this school. 1 2 3 4 5

4. Have you attended any of the following types of professional development for structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs during this year(Please specify other in e, f)

?

Prof. Develop. No Yes Was attendance What topic/s were covered?

a In-service 1 2 Compulsory 3 Voluntary 4

b Workshop or seminar

1 2 Compulsory 3 Voluntary 4

c Peer mentoring

1 2 Compulsory 3 Voluntary 4

d Conference 1 2 Compulsory 3 Voluntary 4

e 1 2 Compulsory 3 Voluntary 4 f 1 2 Compulsory 3 Voluntary 4

271

5. Please estimate the total number of hours of professional development you have attended for structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs this year

a

.

Compulsory

b Voluntary

NB If you : did not attend professional development for structured behavioural and

emotional wellbeing programs this year, please follow to Question 4 (Part I). Please read before you turn over…Question 4 (Part I) is about professional development for general student behavioural and emotional wellbeing issues

(for example, you may have participated in professional development about the issue of bullying in your school rather than professional development for a structured bullying program).

If you did

attend professional development for structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs this year, please continue below.

6. Please answer the following questions thinking only about the professional development you have attended this year

Nev

er

. How often… R

arel

y

Som

e-

times

Ofte

n

Alw

ays

a Does professional development for structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs provide me with new ideas or approaches.

1 2 3 4 5

b Does professional development for structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs build upon my existing knowledge 1 . 2 3 4 5

c Does professional development for structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs build upon my existing skills 1 . 2 3 4 5

d Is professional development for structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs irrelevant to my needs. 1 2 3 4 5

e Do I find professional development for structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs beneficial to me. 1 2 3 4 5

f Is the professional development for structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs a waste of my time. 1 2 3 4 5

g Is the professional development for structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs relevant to my role as a teacher. 1 2 3 4 5

h Does professional development for structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs help me to be a more effective teacher.

1 2 3 4 5

i Do I receive release time to undertake professional development for structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs. 1 2 3 4 5

j Am I reimbursed for all expenses I incur for professional development on structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs.

1 2 3 4 5

k Am I reimbursed when I attend professional development for structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs outside school hours.

1 2 3 4 5

7.

To what extent do you disagree or agree with the following for this year St

rong

ly

Dis

agre

e

? Dis

agre

e

Nei

ther

D

isag

ree

or A

gree

Agr

ee

Stro

ngly

A

gree

a I am satisfied with how often professional development is provided for me for structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs.

1 2 3 4 5

b I am satisfied with how often I have access to professional development for structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs.

1 2 3 4 5

272

NB If you : just completed Question 7 (Part H), please skip Part I and follow to Question 1 (Part J). You do not

need to complete Part I below.

If you skipped Part H, please begin below on Question 1

(Part I).

PART I: Teaching Behavioural and Emotional Wellbeing Topics d,e,f This section asks about some of the factors that may influence the extent to which behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics are covered in class.

1.

To what extent do you disagree or agree with the following? Stro

ngly

D

isag

ree

Dis

agre

e

Indi

ff-

eren

t

Agr

ee

Stro

ngly

A

gree

a I like teaching my students about behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics. 1 2 3 4 5

b In general, I look forward to teaching my students about behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics. 1 2 3 4 5

c If I had the choice, I would teach my students about behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics. 1 2 3 4 5

d I am continually finding better ways to teach behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics. 1 2 3 4 5

e Even when I try very hard, I do not teach behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics as well as I do most other subjects. 1 2 3 4 5

f I know the steps necessary to teach behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics effectively. 1 2 3 4 5

g I am not very effective in monitoring behavioural and emotional wellbeing activities. 1 2 3 4 5

h I generally teach behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics ineffectively. 1 2 3 4 5

i I understand behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics well enough to be effective in teaching. 1 2 3 4 5

j I find it difficult to explain behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics to students when they arise incidentally in class. 1 2 3 4 5

k I am typically able to answer students’ questions about behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics. 1 2 3 4 5

l I wonder if I have the necessary skills to teach behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics. 1 2 3 4 5

m Effectiveness in teaching behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics has little influence on the achievement of students with low motivation. 1 2 3 4 5

n Given a choice, I would not invite the Principal to evaluate my teaching of behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics. 1 2 3 4 5

o When a student has difficulty understanding a behavioural and emotional wellbeing topic, I am usually at a loss as to how to help the student understand it better.

1 2 3 4 5

p When teaching behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics, I usually welcome student questions. 1 2 3 4 5

273

For the following question, ‘materials’ refers to workbooks, videos and other teaching resources. 2.

For this year, when I teach my students about behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics…

Rar

ely

O

ccur

s

Som

e-tim

es

Occ

urs

Ofte

n

O

ccur

s

Very

Fr

eque

ntly

O

ccur

s

a Extra program materials are available if requested. 1 2 3 4 b Supplementary program materials are available for classroom use. 1 2 3 4 c I receive necessary classroom supplies. 1 2 3 4 d The Principal gets the materials he or she asks for from superiors. 1 2 3 4 e I am provided with adequate program materials for my classroom. 1 2 3 4 f The Principal is able to influence the actions of his or her

superiors. 1 2 3 4

g The Principal’s recommendations are given serious consideration by his or her superiors. 1 2 3 4

h I have access to needed instructional materials. 1 2 3 4 3.

To what extent do you disagree or agree with the following statements? St

rong

ly

Dis

agre

e

Dis

agre

e

Nei

ther

D

isag

ree

or A

gree

Agr

ee

Stro

ngly

A

gree

a I do not place a high value on teaching students about behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics. 1 2 3 4 5

b I consider behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics to be an integral part of my teaching practices. 1 2 3 4 5

c Teaching behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics is something I would prefer not to do. 1 2 3 4 5

d In my opinion, teaching students about behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics is fundamental to student learning. 1 2 3 4 5

e Teaching behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics to students should not be part of my role at this school. 1 2 3 4 5

4. Have you participated in any of the following types of professional development for

student behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics this year

? (Please specify other in e, f) Prof. Develop. No Yes Was

attendance… What topic/s were covered?

a In-service 1 2 Compulsory 3 Voluntary 4

b Workshop or seminar

1 2 Compulsory 3 Voluntary 4

c Peer mentoring

1 2 Compulsory 3 Voluntary 4

d Conference 1 2 Compulsory 3 Voluntary 4

e 1 2 Compulsory 3 Voluntary 4 f 1 2 Compulsory 3 Voluntary 4

274

5. Please estimate the total number of hours of professional development you have attended for student behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics this year

a

.

Compulsory

b Voluntary

NB If you : did not attend any professional development about student behavioural and

emotional wellbeing topics this year

, please follow to Question 1 (Part J).

If you did attend professional development about student behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics this year

, please continue below.

6.

Please answer the following questions thinking only about the professional development you have attended this year N

ever

. How often…

Rar

ely

Som

e-

times

Ofte

n

Alw

ays

a Does professional development for student behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics provide me with new ideas or approaches.

1 2 3 4 5

b Does professional development for student behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics build upon my existing knowledge 1 . 2 3 4 5

c Does professional development about student behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics build upon my existing skills 1 . 2 3 4 5

d Is professional development for student behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics irrelevant to my needs. 1 2 3 4 5

e Do I find professional development for student behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics beneficial to me. 1 2 3 4 5

f Is the professional development I receive for student behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics a waste of my time. 1 2 3 4 5

g Is the professional development for student behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics relevant to my role as a teacher. 1 2 3 4 5

h Does professional development for student behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics help me to be a more effective teacher. 1 2 3 4 5

i Do I receive release time to undertake professional development for student behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics. 1 2 3 4 5

j Am I reimbursed for all professional development expenses I incur for student behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics. 1 2 3 4 5

k Am I reimbursed when I attend professional development outside school hours for student behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics.

1 2 3 4 5

7.

To what extent do you disagree or agree with the following for this year St

rong

ly

Dis

agre

e

? Dis

agre

e

Nei

ther

D

isag

ree

or A

gree

Agr

ee

Stro

ngly

A

gree

a I am satisfied with how often professional development is provided for me for student behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics.

1 2 3 4 5

b I am satisfied with how often I have access to professional development for student behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics.

1 2 3 4 5

NB Now you have completed Question 7, please continue to Question 1 (Part J). :

275

PART J: Staff Collaboration and Communication g,h This section is about general communication between staff.

1.

How often are the following statements true for this year? Se

ldom

or

Nev

er

Rel

ativ

ely

Seld

om

Now

& T

hen

Rel

ativ

ely

Ofte

n

Ofte

n

Very

Ofte

n

a The collaboration between the teachers and the administration is generally good. 1 2 3 4 5 6

b The teachers and the administration generally agree on how the school should be run. 1 2 3 4 5 6

c The administration generally supports teachers’ suggestions for changes in the school. 1 2 3 4 5 6

d I feel that I can go to the administration with my problems at school. 1 2 3 4 5 6

e The administration is generally positive towards teachers’ suggestions for changes in the school. 1 2 3 4 5 6

f I like the collegial atmosphere at this school. 1 2 3 4 5 6 g I like the teachers’ professional attitude at this school. 1 2 3 4 5 6 h Teachers at this school are helpful towards each other. 1 2 3 4 5 6 i Teachers at this school generally agree on working and

teaching methods. 1 2 3 4 5 6

j New teachers are easily accepted in the school. 1 2 3 4 5 6 k I discuss with other teachers at school how I work with

my students. 1 2 3 4 5 6

l I talk openly with the other teachers at my school about my relationship with my students. 1 2 3 4 5 6

m The teachers at this school talk openly to each other about their relationship with their students. 1 2 3 4 5 6

n The teachers at school collaborate with regard to working and teaching methods. 1 2 3 4 5 6

2.

Please rate how satisfied you are with the communication between yourself and the Principal.

Very

Di

ssat

isfied

Diss

atisf

ied

Slig

htly

Diss

atisf

ied

Indi

ffere

nt

Slig

htly

Satis

fied

Satis

fied

Very

Sat

isfied

a The Principal listens and pays attention to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

b The Principal offers guidance for solving job related problems. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

c The Principal trusts me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 d The Principal is open to ideas. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e The amount of supervision given to me

is about right. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

276

Do you have any other comments about your needs in addressing the behavioural and emotional wellbeing of your students?

Thank you very much for completing the survey. We really

appreciate the time you have taken to share your opinion.

You can post your completed survey directly to the Team using the Reply-Paid envelope supplied

OR

Put your survey in the Reply-Paid envelope supplied and drop it into the Pathways to Positive Student Wellbeing box at your school.

Your survey will be collected by the Project Co-ordinator.

Contact Details:

Clare Macaulay

Project Co-ordinator

Pathways to Positive Student Wellbeing Study

Centre for Health Research, School of Public Health

Queensland University of Technology

Victoria Park Rd

Kelvin Grove QLD 4059

Email: c2.macaulay@qut.edu.au Phone: (07) 3864 9672

Acknowledgements:

Selected items and scales were adapted for use in this survey: a Adapted with permission from the Commonwealth

of Australia (2000); b Centers for Disease Control (1999); c Queensland Government (2001); d Q1 a-c, Adapted with

permission from Faulkner and Reeves (2000); e Q1 d-p, Riggs & Enochs (1990), © 1990 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

This material is reproduced with permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; f Q2 a-g, Hoy (2003); g Q1 a-n, Kallestad,

Olweus and Alsaker (1998); h Q2 a-e, Downs and Hazen (1977).

Photographs provided by Gavin Macaulay.

Note: References above that are cited in the main thesis text are available in the main thesis reference

list. All other references are located on the page following the Principal/Deputy Principal survey.

277

Appendix 4.2: Principal/Deputy Principal Survey

278

Pathways to Positive Student Wellbeing

Thank you for participating in this study. All the information you provide will remain completely confidential. Your individual results will not

be

released to the school.

Participation in this study is voluntary. If you have any questions or would

like more information about the study, please contact Clare Macaulay.

Phone: (07) 3864 9672 or Email: c2.macaulay@qut.edu.au.

Principal/Deputy Principal

279

Thank you very much for agreeing to

participate in this study.

Completing the Pathways to Positive Student Wellbeing Survey

will identify a wide range of issues including:

• Activities and programs used to address student wellbeing on

a school-wide level; and

• Support available to you and to staff.

Please read below before you start….

This survey asks some questions about behavioural and emotional wellbeing.

So that everyone has the same understanding of behavioural and emotional

wellbeing, here’s how we have defined it for this survey:

Behavioural and emotional wellbeing

refers to positive behaviours, thoughts and feelings that generate a sense of happiness and

contentment.

When answering the following questions, please use a tick ()

280

SECTION ONE

Student Wellbeing and Staff Support

A room with a view?

Your personal perspective is important.

281

PART A: Your Work Role and Student Characteristics This section is about your role in the school and the characteristics of students in this school.

1. Please indicate your position in this school? a Principal 1

b Deputy Principal 2 c Other Administration position at Deputy Principal level 3

2. Have you taught any classes this year? No 1

Yes 2 If yes, please specify year level/s.

3. Approximately how many students are enrolled at this school this year? a Total no. of boys b Total no. of girls

4. Of all the students at this school, approximately how many: a Speak a language other than English at home?

b Are of Indigenous background?

c Have limited English proficiency (listening or speaking) that affects their understanding and participation in class?

5i.

Please indicate the approximate number of students with special needs in the school this year

Students that tend to…

.

5ii. How often do you feel these students receive adequate

support?

No

Spec

ial

Nee

ds

Nev

er

Rar

ely

Som

etim

es

Ofte

n

Alw

ays Approx.

no. of Students

a Be anxious, withdrawn, depressed or grieving. 1 2 3 4 5 6 b Be behaviourally inattentive, non-compliant or

aggressive.

1 2 3 4 5 6

c Have signs of both (a) and (b) above. 1 2 3 4 5 6

d Have learning difficulties only. 1 2 3 4 5 6

6. In your current job at this school, are you employed: a Full-time 1 b Part-time or casual 2

7. What is your gender? Male 1 Female 2

282

8. What is your age group? 9. What is the highest qualification you have completed?

a 21-30 years 1 a Diploma 1 b 31-40 years 2 b Bachelor degree 2 c 41-50 years 3 c Graduate diploma/ certificate 3 d 51-60 years 4 d Masters degree 4 e 61+ years 5 e PhD 5 f Other 6

10. How many years have you been working… (if less than 1 year please write 0)

No. of whole

years

a As a Principal/Deputy Principal in this school?

b As a Principal/Deputy Principal in schools altogether?

PART B: School Policy and Practice a This section asks about polices and practices that support student or staff wellbeing at this school.

1.

Does this school have a formal (written) policy for the following issues?

If the school has other formal policies that relate to behavioural and

emotional wellbeing please add in i-k. No

Yes

a Anti-bullying 1 2 b Gender equity for students 1 2 c Respect for racial and cultural diversity 1 2 d Child Protection 1 2 e Management of special needs 1 2 f Student behaviour management 1 2 g Safe schools 1 2 h Critical incidents (e.g. accidents, fire or other emergencies) 1 2

i 1 2

j 1 2

k 1 2

283

2. Does this school have an informal (may or may not be written) policy or agreed way of doing things for the following issues?

If the school has other informal

policies that relate to behavioural

and emotional wellbeing please add in g-i. No

Yes

a Acknowledgement of student academic achievements 1 2 b Acknowledgement of student sporting achievements 1 2 c Acknowledgement of student artistic achievements 1 2 d Acknowledgement of student social achievements

(e.g. providing leadership, positive role modelling) 1 2

e Student wellbeing 1 2 f Staff stress and wellbeing 1 2

g 1 2

h 1 2

i 1 2

3.

How often do staff at this school.. N

ever

Rar

ely

Som

e-

times

Ofte

n

Alm

ost/

Alw

ays

a Assist in the development or updating of formal policies? 1 2 3 4 5

b Assist in the development, updating, or discussion of informal policies?

1 2 3 4 5

4. Does this school have a vision statement that includes… No Yes a Student wellbeing 1 2 b Staff wellbeing 1 2

284

PART C: Support in Your Role

1. Who and what are my main sources of support for dealing with students’ behavioural or emotional issues at school?

i. Who supports you in your role

Position (please list in a-e)

? ii. What type of support do you receive

? (please tick all that apply)

Discuss an Issue

Professional Development

Resources (eg. books)

Other (please specify)

a 1 2 3

b 1 2 3

c 1 2 3

d 1 2 3

e 1 2 3

3.

How often…

No

On-

goin

g Is

sues

Nev

er

Rar

ely

Som

e-

times

Ofte

n

Alw

ays

a Do I ask for support from other colleagues when faced with student behavioural and emotional issues? 1 2 3 4 5 6

b Do I try to resolve students’ behavioural and emotional issues on my own rather than asking for support? 1 2 3 4 5 6

c Do I receive adequate support from colleagues when addressing students’ behavioural and emotional issues? 1 2 3 4 5 6

d Do the types1

of support (i.e. discussion, resources etc.) I receive assist in the improvement or resolution of students’ behavioural and emotional issues?

2 3 4 5 6

e Do I receive support for students’ behavioural and emotional issues when 1 I need it? 2 3 4 5 6

285

PART D: Topics and Skills Taught at a School-wide Level a,b

This section is about the topics and skills addressed at this school during this year

.

1.

Have any of the following topics or skills been covered at a school-wide level this year

?

TOPICS

(please add other in q-s) No

Yes

Unsure

a Bullying 1 2 3 b Anxiousness 1 2 3 c Emotions (feeling happy/sad) 1 2 3 d Self-harming behaviours 1 2 3 e Grief and loss 1 2 3 f Parental separation 1 2 3 g Protective behaviours 1 2 3 h Addictive behaviours 1 2 3 i Sexual Health education 1 2 3 j Peer friendships/relationships 1 2 3 k Personal identity 1 2 3 l Cultural diversity 1 2 3

m Resilience/bouncing back 1 2 3 n Respect for self and others 1 2 3 o Positive role models 1 2 3 p 1 2 3 q 1 2 3 r 1 2 3 SKILLS (please add other in aj-al)

s Non-violent conflict resolution 1 2 3 t Assertiveness 1 2 3 u Good communication 1 2 3 v Self-confidence 1 2 3 w Positive coping strategies 1 2 3 x Personal safety 1 2 3 y Decision making 1 2 3 z Problem solving 1 2 3

aa Help seeking 1 2 3 ab Relaxation 1 2 3 ac Developing social relationships 1 2 3 ad Interpersonal skills 1 2 3 ae Independence and self-reliance 1 2 3 af Goal setting 1 2 3 ag Optimistic thinking 1 2 3 ah Positive peer role modelling 1 2 3 ai 1 2 3 aj 1 2 3 ak 1 2 3

286

PART E: Parent/Caregiver and Community Involvement at the School This section is about parent/caregiver and community interaction with the school this year.

1.

During this year Nev

er

, how often… Rar

ely

Som

etim

es

Ofte

n

Alw

ays

a Have staff used activities that are structured to encourage interaction between students and parents/caregivers at home? 1 2 3 4 5

b Have parents/caregivers been involved in school-wide activities (e.g. sports days, fetes, musicals, working bees etc.). 1 2 3 4 5

c Is it the same small group of parents/caregivers who are actively involved in school-wide activities? 1 2 3 4 5

d Have parents/caregivers been informed when sensitive issues are taught to students at this school? 1 2 3 4 5

e Have parents/caregivers been involved in policy development or other decision-making roles within the school? 1 2 3 4 5

f Have you provided parents/caregivers with information about support services or how to access services (for children) if needed?

1 2 3 4 5

g Have community agencies been accessible to students or families/caregivers through school channels? 1 2 3 4 5

h Have community agency workers provided support to students or family/caregivers at the school when needed? 1 2 3 4 5

PART F: Physical and Social Environment a,b This section asks some questions about the physical and social environment of the school this year

.

1. How often do the following occur?

Nev

er

Rar

ely

Som

e-tim

es

Ofte

n

Alw

ays

a The school buildings and play areas are well maintained. 1 2 3 4 5 b Classrooms have adequate equipment and resources. 1 2 3 4 5 c Lighting and ventilation in classrooms is adequate. 1 2 3 4 5 d Students beautify the school (e.g. painting murals, gardening). 1 2 3 4 5 e Staff encourage students to maintain co-operative behaviour

in the classroom and playground. 1 2 3 4 5

f Boys and girls receive equal opportunities at school. 1 2 3 4 5 g A non-racist environment for students and staff is actively

promoted. 1 2 3 4 5

h Cultural diversity is celebrated by staff and students (e.g. days of cultural significance, traditional foods or dress). 1 2 3 4 5

i The issue of child protection is openly discussed by staff. 1 2 3 4 5 j Staff and students feel safe at school. 1 2 3 4 5

287

1.

How often do the following occur? (cont’d)

Nev

er

Rar

ely

Som

e-tim

es

Ofte

n

Alw

ays

k Students with special needs receive the support they require. 1 2 3 4 5 l Fire and other safety drills are practised on a regular basis. 1 2 3 4 5

m Staff praise students for trying hard at school, regardless of their results. 1 2 3 4 5

n Students are praised most often for academic achievements. 1 2 3 4 5 o Students are encouraged to be positive peer role-models. 1 2 3 4 5 p Older students assist younger students in the classroom

and/or the playground (e.g. Buddies, Big Brother/Sister). 1 2 3 4 5

q Students are involved in some school decision-making processes. 1 2 3 4 5

r Staff are consulted about important school decisions. 1 2 3 4 5 s There is a feeling of connectedness among staff. 1 2 3 4 5 t There is a feeling of connectedness among students. 1 2 3 4 5 u Students are respectful to staff. 1 2 3 4 5 v Staff are supportive of and respectful to students. 1 2 3 4 5 w The school provides a positive social experience for students. 1 2 3 4 5 x The school values the contributions of its staff. 1 2 3 4 5

2. Are there other ways that the physical or social environment at school impacts on staff

and/or student wellbeing? No 1 Yes 2 (If yes, please outline below)

3.

How often have I encouraged staff to involve students…

Nev

er

Rar

ely

Som

e-tim

es

Ofte

n

Alw

ays

a In the management of learning and behaviour in class this year (e.g. class meetings, negotiated class rules or learning opportunities)?

1 2 3 4 5

4. I am a key person or advocate on the topic of student behavioural and emotional

wellbeing in this school? No 1 Yes 2 (If yes, please briefly outline your role this year

)

288

SECTION TWO

Structured Behavioural & Emotional Wellbeing Programs at

a School-wide Level

Aggression…a universal issue.

289

PART G: School-wide Use of Structured Behavioural and Emotional Wellbeing Programs

The following tables list a range of structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs developed

for primary school students. The programs are grouped according to the main topic/s they address.

Please indicate if any of the following programs have been used at a school-wide level during 2004 and/or 2005

.

NB: Additional space

is provided at the end of each topic for you to add programs not listed.

Example only Used it? When?

Topic Program Name Source No Yes 04 05

A Topic 1 a Program 1 Anonymous 1 2 3 4 b Program 2 Anonymous 1 2 3 4

1. Used it? When?

Topics Program Name Source No Yes 04 05

A Bullying a Bullying – No Way Education Queensland, 2000 1 2 3 4

b Bullying Prevention Program Olweus, 1994 1 2 3 4 c Fair Go Logan Learners for Life,

1997 1 2 3 4 d The P.E.A.C.E. Pack Slee, 1997 1 2 3 4

e 1 2 3 4

B Social Relations

a Being Me: Learning to live with others

Lange, 1997 1 2 3 4

b Friendly Kids Friendly Classroom

McGrath & Francey, 1991 1 2 3 4

c I’ve Got Me and I’m Glad Farnette, Forte & Harris, 1989 1 2 3 4

d People Need Each Other Farnette, Forte & Harris, 1989 1 2 3 4

e Room 14 Wilson, 1993 1 2 3 4 f Stop, Think, Do Adderley, Petersen &

Gannoni, 2000 1 2 3 4

290

Used it? When?

Topic Program Name Source No Yes 04 05

B Social Relations (cont’d)

g Healthy Relationships Brunskill, 1998 1 2 3 4 h The Rainbow Dance Hemp-Loosli, 1996 1 2 3 4 i The Peer Support Program The Peer Support

Foundation, 2003 1 2 3 4 j You Can Do It! Program

Achieve Bernard, 2001 1 2 3 4

k Listen Up Team Accordia, 2002 1 2 3 4

l Me and U Logan Learners for Life, 1995 1 2 3 4

m

1 2 3 4 C Self-esteem a I’m a Walking Talking

Miracle McInnes, 1988 1 2 3 4

b Liking Myself Palmer, 1977 1 2 3 4 c The Me I’m Learning To Be Forte, 1983 1 2 3 4 d The Mouse, The Monster

and Me Palmer, 1977 1 2 3 4

e Respect Yourself Drama

Education Baldwin, 1999 1 2 3 4

f 1 2 3 4

D Positive Thinking

a Six Thinking Hats De Bono, 1992 1 2 3 4 b

1 2 3 4

E Tolerance a Different Kids Same Classroom

McGarth & Noble, 1997 1 2 3 4

b Virtues Popov et al., 1994 1 2 3 4

c 1 2 3 4

F Aggression or Violence

a Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS)

Greenberg & Kusche, 1996 1 2 3 4

b Hands Off Forsey, 1994 1 2 3 4 c Rock and Water Ykema, 2000 1 2 3 4 d Protective Behaviours Flandreau-West, 1989 1 2 3 4

291

Used it? When?

Topic Program Name Source No Yes 04 05

F Aggression or Violence (cont’d)

e Peace Builders Embry et al., 1996 1 2 3 4 f Second Step Grossman et al., 1997 1 2 3 4 g Conflict Resolution for

Students Morris, 1995 1 2 3 4

h Goldstein’s Skill Streaming Goldstein, 1988 1 2 3 4

i 1 2 3 4

G Anxiousness a Cool Kids Lyneham & Rapee, 2002 1 2 3 4 b Coping Koala Barrett, 1993 1 2 3 4 c FRIENDS Barrett et al., 2000 1 2 3 4 d Worrybusters Campbell, 2004 1 2 3 4

e 1 2 3 4

H Depression a Aussie Optimism Program Roberts et al., 2003 1 2 3 4 b

1 2 3 4

I Grief and Loss

a Children of Divorce Intervention Program (CODIP)

Alpert-Gillis et al., 1989 1 2 3 4

b Seasons for Growth Graham, 1996 1 2 3 4

c 1 2 3 4

J Parenting and Family

a Families And Schools Together (FAST)

McDonald, 1988 1 2 3 4

b Positive Parenting Program (Triple P)

Sanders and Markie-Dadds, 1995 1 2 3 4

c Management of Young Children Program (MYCP)

Education Queensland, 2005 1 2 3 4

d 1 2 3 4

K Multiple issues

a Heart Masters Fuller et al., 2002 1 2 3 4 b

1 2 3 4

2. Are there any reasons that have hindered your use of these programs?

292

SECTION THREE

Behavioural & Emotional Wellbeing: a School-wide Issue

Staff needs in assisting students through the ups and downs of life

Please read the NB

when you come across it as there are some questions that you will skip in this section.

293

NB If : no structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs have been used at a school-wide level in Section Two, please skip Part H and follow to

Question 1

(Part I).

If one or more structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs were/are used at a school-wide level in Section Two, please continue below on this page,

Question 1

(Part H).

PART H: The Use of Structured Behavioural and Emotional Wellbeing Programs at a School-wide Level c,d,e

This section asks about some of the factors that may influence the use of structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs

at a school-wide level.

Please answer these questions thinking about the structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs you ticked () ‘yes’ to using in Section Two.

1. To what extent do you disagree or agree with the following questions about the discussion of school-wide

Stro

ngly

D

isag

ree

structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs? D

isag

ree

Indi

ff-

eren

t

Agr

ee

Stro

ngly

A

gree

a I like discussing structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs with staff. 1 2 3 4 5

b In general, I look forward to discussing structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs with staff. 1 2 3 4 5

c If I had the choice, I would discuss structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs with staff. 1 2 3 4 5

d I am continually finding better ways to discuss structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs with staff. 1 2 3 4 5

e Even when I try very hard, I do not discuss structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs with staff as well as I do most other subjects.

1 2 3 4 5

f I know the steps necessary to discuss structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs effectively with staff. 1 2 3 4 5

g I am not very effective in discussing structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing program activities with staff. 1 2 3 4 5

h I generally discuss structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs ineffectively with staff. 1 2 3 4 5

i I understand structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs well enough to be effective in discussing them with staff. 1 2 3 4 5

j I find it difficult to explain behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics to staff when they arise incidentally. 1 2 3 4 5

k I am typically able to answer questions from staff about the content of structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs. 1 2 3 4 5

l I wonder if I have the necessary skills to discuss structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs with staff. 1 2 3 4 5

m My effectiveness in discussing structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs with staff has little influence on the achievement of students with low motivation.

1 2 3 4 5

294

1. To what extent do you disagree or agree with the following questions about the discussion of school-wide

Stro

ngly

D

isag

ree

structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs? (cont’d) D

isag

ree

Indi

ff-

eren

t

Agr

ee

Stro

ngly

A

gree

n Given a choice, I would not invite superiors to evaluate my ability to discuss structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs with staff.

1 2 3 4 5

o When staff have difficulty understanding a structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing program topic, I am usually at a loss as to how to help them understand it better.

1 2 3 4 5

p When discussing structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs with staff, I usually welcome their questions. 1 2 3 4 5

For the following question, ‘materials’ refers to workbooks, videos and other resources for structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs.

2.

For this year, when structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs are used at a school-wide level R

arel

y

Occ

urs

… Som

e-tim

es

0ccu

rs

Ofte

n

O

ccur

s

Very

Fr

eque

ntly

O

ccur

s

a Extra program materials are available for staff if requested. 1 2 3 4 b Supplementary program materials are available for use with students. 1 2 3 4 c Staff receive necessary program supplies. 1 2 3 4 d I get the materials I ask for from superiors. 1 2 3 4 e Staff are provided with adequate program materials for students. 1 2 3 4 f I am able to influence the actions of superiors. 1 2 3 4 g My recommendations are given serious consideration by superiors. 1 2 3 4 h Staff have access to needed instructional materials. 1 2 3 4

3.

To what extent do you disagree or agree with the following statements? St

rong

ly

Dis

agre

e

Dis

agre

e

Nei

ther

D

isag

ree

or A

gree

Agr

ee

Stro

ngly

A

gree

a I do not place a high value on the use of structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs at this school. 1 2 3 4 5

b I consider the use of structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs to be an integral part of staff roles at this school. 1 2 3 4 5

c Using structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs is something staff would prefer not to do at this school. 1 2 3 4 5

d In my opinion, the use of structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs is fundamental to student learning. 1 2 3 4 5

e Teaching structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs to students should not be the role of staff at this school. 1 2 3 4 5

295

4. Have you attended any of the following types of professional development for structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs during this year(Please specify other in e, f)

?

Prof. Develop. No Yes Was attendance? What topic/s were covered?

a In-service 1 2 Compulsory 3 Voluntary 4

b Workshop or seminar

1 2 Compulsory 3 Voluntary 4

c Peer mentoring

1 2 Compulsory 3 Voluntary 4

d Conference 1 2 Compulsory 3 Voluntary 4

e 1 2 Compulsory 3 Voluntary 4 f 1 2 Compulsory 3 Voluntary 4

5. Please estimate the total number of hours of professional development you have attended for structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs this year

a

.

Compulsory

b Voluntary

NB If you : did not attend professional development for structured

behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs this year, please follow to Question 4 (Part I). Please read before you turn over…Question 4 (Part I) is about professional development for general student behavioural and emotional wellbeing issues

(for example, you may have participated in professional development about the issue of bullying in your school rather than professional development for a structured bullying program).

If you did

attend professional development for structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs this year, please continue on the next page.

296

6.

Please answer the following questions thinking only about the professional development you have attended this year N

ever

. How often…

Rar

ely

Som

e-

times

Ofte

n

Alw

ays

a Does professional development for structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs provide me with new ideas or approaches.

1 2 3 4 5

b Does professional development for structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs build upon my existing knowledge 1 . 2 3 4 5

c Does professional development for structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs build upon my existing skills 1 . 2 3 4 5

d Is professional development for structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs irrelevant to my needs. 1 2 3 4 5

e Do I find professional development for structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs beneficial to me. 1 2 3 4 5

f Is the professional development for structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs a waste of my time. 1 2 3 4 5

g Is the professional development for structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs relevant to my role. 1 2 3 4 5

h Does professional development for structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs help me to be more effective in my role.

1 2 3 4 5

i Do I receive release time to undertake professional development for structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs. 1 2 3 4 5

j Am I reimbursed for all expenses I incur for professional development on structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs.

1 2 3 4 5

k Am I reimbursed when I attend professional development for structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs outside school hours.

1 2 3 4 5

7.

To what extent do you disagree or agree with the following for this year St

rong

ly

Dis

agre

e

? Dis

agre

e

Nei

ther

D

isag

ree

or A

gree

Agr

ee

Stro

ngly

A

gree

a I am satisfied with how often professional development is provided for me for structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs.

1 2 3 4 5

b I am satisfied with how often I have access to professional development for structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs.

1 2 3 4 5

c I am satisfied with how often professional development is provided for staff regarding structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs.

1 2 3 4 5

d I am satisfied with how often I have access to professional development for staff regarding structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs.

1 2 3 4 5

NB If you : just completed Question 7, please skip Part I and follow to Question 1 (Part J). You do not need to complete Part I.

297

PART I: Behavioural and Emotional Wellbeing Topics Covered at a School-wide Level c,d,e

This section asks about some of the factors that may influence the coverage of behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics at a school-wide level. Please answer this section only if you have not

used any structured behavioural and emotional wellbeing programs.

1.

To what extent do you disagree or agree with the following? Stro

ngly

D

isag

ree

Dis

agre

e

Indi

ff-

eren

t

Agr

ee

Stro

ngly

A

gree

a I like discussing the topics of behavioural and emotional wellbeing with staff. 1 2 3 4 5

b In general, I look forward to discussing the topics of behavioural and emotional wellbeing with staff. 1 2 3 4 5

c If I had the choice, I would discuss the topics of behavioural and emotional wellbeing with staff. 1 2 3 4 5

d I am continually finding better ways to discuss behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics with staff. 1 2 3 4 5

e Even when I try very hard, I do not discuss behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics as well as I do most other subjects with staff. 1 2 3 4 5

f I know the steps necessary to discuss behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics effectively with staff. 1 2 3 4 5

g I am not very effective in discussing activities related to behavioural and emotional wellbeing with staff. 1 2 3 4 5

h I generally discuss the topics of behavioural and emotional wellbeing ineffectively with staff. 1 2 3 4 5

i I understand behavioural and emotional wellbeing well enough to be effective in discussing these topics with staff. 1 2 3 4 5

j I find it difficult to explain behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics to staff when they arise incidentally in class. 1 2 3 4 5

k I am typically able to answer questions from staff about behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics. 1 2 3 4 5

l I wonder if I have the necessary skills to discuss behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics with staff. 1 2 3 4 5

m Effectiveness in discussing behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics with staff has little influence on the achievement of students with low motivation.

1 2 3 4 5

n Given a choice, I would not invite superiors to evaluate my ability to discuss behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics with staff. 1 2 3 4 5

o When staff have difficulty understanding a behavioural and emotional wellbeing topic, I am usually at a loss as to how to help them understand it better.

1 2 3 4 5

p When discussing behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics with staff, I usually welcome their questions. 1 2 3 4 5

298

For the following question, ‘materials’ refers to workbooks, videos and other resources. 2.

For this year, when staff cover behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics with students…

Rar

ely

O

ccur

s

Som

e-tim

es

Occ

urs

Ofte

n

O

ccur

s

Very

Fr

eque

ntly

O

ccur

s

a Extra program materials are available if requested. 1 2 3 4 b Supplementary program materials are available for use with students. 1 2 3 4 c Staff receive necessary supplies. 1 2 3 4 d I get the materials I ask for from superiors. 1 2 3 4 e Staff are provided with adequate program materials for students. 1 2 3 4 f I am able to influence the actions of superiors. 1 2 3 4 g My recommendations are given serious consideration by superiors. 1 2 3 4 h Staff have access to needed instructional materials. 1 2 3 4

3.

To what extent do you disagree or agree with the following statements? St

rong

ly

Dis

agre

e

Dis

agre

e

Nei

ther

D

isag

ree

or A

gree

Agr

ee

Stro

ngly

A

gree

a I do not place a high value on staff covering behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics with students. 1 2 3 4 5

b Covering behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics with students is an integral part of staff roles at this school. 1 2 3 4 5

c Covering behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics with students is something staff would prefer not to do. 1 2 3 4 5

d In my opinion, covering behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics with students is fundamental to their learning. 1 2 3 4 5

e Covering behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics should not be the role of staff at this school. 1 2 3 4 5

4. Have you attended any of the following types of professional development for student behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics this year

? (Please specify other in e, f)

Prof. Develop. No Yes Was attendance… What topic/s were covered?

a In-service 1 2 Compulsory 3 Voluntary 4

b Workshop or seminar

1 2 Compulsory 3 Voluntary 4

c Peer mentoring

1 2 Compulsory 3 Voluntary 4

d Conference 1 2 Compulsory 3 Voluntary 4

e 1 2 Compulsory 3 Voluntary 4 f 1 2 Compulsory 3 Voluntary 4

299

5. Please estimate the total number of hours of professional development you have attended for student behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics this year

a

.

Compulsory

b Voluntary

NB If you : did not attend any professional development about student behavioural and

emotional wellbeing topics this year

, please follow to Question 1 (Part J).

If you did attend professional development about student behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics this year

, please continue below.

6.

Please answer the following questions thinking only about the professional development you have attended this year

Nev

er

. How often… R

arel

y

Som

e-

times

Ofte

n

Alw

ays

a Does professional development for student behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics provide me with new ideas or approaches.

1 2 3 4 5

b Does professional development for student behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics build upon my existing knowledge 1 . 2 3 4 5

c Does professional development about student behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics build upon my existing skills 1 . 2 3 4 5

d Is professional development for student behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics irrelevant to my needs. 1 2 3 4 5

e Do I find professional development for student behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics beneficial to me. 1 2 3 4 5

f Is the professional development I receive for student behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics a waste of my time. 1 2 3 4 5

g Is the professional development for student behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics relevant to my role. 1 2 3 4 5

h Does professional development for student behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics help me to be more effective in my role. 1 2 3 4 5

i Do I receive release time to undertake professional development for student behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics. 1 2 3 4 5

j Am I reimbursed for all professional development expenses I incur for student behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics. 1 2 3 4 5

k Am I reimbursed when I attend professional development outside school hours for student behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics.

1 2 3 4 5

7.

To what extent do you disagree or agree with the following for this year St

rong

ly

Dis

agre

e

? Dis

agre

e

Nei

ther

D

isag

ree

or A

gree

Agr

ee

Stro

ngly

A

gree

a I am satisfied with how often professional development is provided for me for student behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics.

1 2 3 4 5

b I am satisfied with how often I have access to professional development for student behavioural and emotional wellbeing topics.

1 2 3 4 5

NB Now you have completed Question 7, please continue to Question 1 (Part J). :

300

PART J: Staff Collaboration and Communication f,g This section is about general communication between staff.

1.

How often are the following statements true for this year?

Seld

om o

r N

ever

Rel

ativ

ely

Seld

om

Now

&

Then

Rel

ativ

ely

Ofte

n

Ofte

n

Very

Ofte

n

a The collaboration between the administration and teachers is generally good. 1 2 3 4 5 6

b The administration and teachers generally agree on how the school should be run.

1 2 3 4 5 6

c Teachers’ suggestions for change in the school are generally supported by administration. 1 2 3 4 5 6

d Teachers’ suggestions for changes in the school are generally positively received by administration. 1 2 3 4 5 6

e I like the collegial atmosphere at this school. 1 2 3 4 5 6

2.

Please rate how satisfied you are with the communication between yourself and teachers at this school, for this year

Very

.

Diss

atisf

ied

Diss

atisf

ied

Slig

htly

Diss

atisf

ied

Indi

ffere

nt

Slig

htly

Satis

fied

Satis

fied

Very

Sat

isfied

a Teachers at this school are responsive to downward directive communication. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

b Teachers at this school anticipate my needs for information. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

c I do not have a communication overload. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 d Staff at this school are receptive to evaluation,

suggestions, and criticisms. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

e Teachers at this school feel responsible for initiating accurate upward communication. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

NB Please complete Part K below. :

PART K: School Funding The final section asks about the funding available to the school to address the behavioural and emotional wellbeing of students.

1. How adequate are the funds the school has available this year to assist staff in addressing student behavioural and emotional wellbeing? (e.g. staff and purchase of resources etc.)

Extremely inadequate 1 Mildly adequate 4

Moderately inadequate 2 Moderately adequate 5

Mildly inadequate 3 Extremely adequate 6

2. Has this school applied for extra funds to address student behavioural and emotional

wellbeing this year? (e.g. grant applications)

No 1 Please skip to comments.

Yes 2 Please continue on to Question 3.

301

3. How successful has this school been in securing extra funding through grants (or other selection processes) to address student behavioural and emotional wellbeing during this year?

Never successful 1 Often successful 4

Almost never successful 2 Almost always successful 5

Sometimes successful 3 Always successful 6

Do you have any other comments?

Thank you very much for completing the survey. We really

appreciate the time you have taken to share your opinion.

You can post your completed survey directly to the Team using the Reply-Paid envelope supplied

OR

Put your survey in the Reply-Paid envelope supplied and drop it into the Pathways to Positive Student Wellbeing box at your school. Your survey will be collected by the

Project Co-ordinator.

Contact Details:

Clare Macaulay

Project Co-ordinator

Pathways to Positive Student Wellbeing Study

Centre for Health Research, School of Public Health

Queensland University of Technology

Victoria Park Rd

Kelvin Grove QLD 4059

Email: c2.macaulay@qut.edu.au Phone: (07) 3864 9672

302

Acknowledgements:

Selected items and scales were adapted for use in this survey: a Adapted with permission from the Commonwealth

of Australia (2000); b Queensland Government (2001); c Q1 a-c, Adapted with permission from Faulkner and Reeves

(2000); d Q1 d-p, Riggs & Enochs (1990), © 1990 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. This material is reproduced with

permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; e Q2 a-g, Hoy (2003); f Q1 a-e, Kallestad, Olweus and Alsaker (1998); g Q2

a-e, Downs and Hazen (1977).

Photographs provided by Gavin Macaulay.

Note: References above that are cited in the main thesis text are available in the main thesis reference

list. All other references are located on the following page.

303

Three references in the Classroom Teacher and Principal/Deputy Principal surveys were not cited in the main thesis text and therefore were not included in the main thesis reference list. These additional references appear below: Faulkner, G. and Reeves, C. (2000). Primary School Student Teachers’ Physical Self-Perceptions and Attitudes Toward Teaching Physical Education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 19, 311-324. Hoy, W.K. (2003). The Organizational Health Inventory for Elementary Schools (OHI-E). http://www.waynekhoy.com/ohi-e.html (accessed 2004). Riggs, I.M. and Enochs, L.G. (1990). Toward the Development of an Elementary Teacher’s Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument. Science Education, 74(6), 625-637.

304

Appendix 4.3: List of measures reviewed in the construction of the audit of social and emotional wellbeing practices

Measures reviewed during the audits’ construction

• MindMatters: School Matters Whole School Audit (Commonwealth of

Australia, 2000) a

• School Health Audit: A Toolbox for Creating Healthy Places to Learn, Work

and Play (Queensland Government, 2001) a

• The School Health Policies and Programs Study (SHPPS) – School

Questionnaire Content (Centers for Disease Control, 1999) a

• Health Promoting Schools Health and Physical Education Audit (Department

of Education, 2000) a

• School Health Index - Elementary School (Centers for Disease Control,

2000) a

• Quality School Health Checklist (The Canadian Association for Health,

Physical Education, Recreation and Dance CAHPERD, 1996) a

• Health Promoting Schools Audit Checklist (Lemerle, 2003)

• Health Promoting Schools Evaluation (Northern Sydney Area Health Service,

2000)

• The Clarkson School Community Profiling Project (Vickers et al., 1999)

• Victorian Health: Health Promoting Schools Project Final Survey (Ridge et

al., 2000)

• A review of the health promoting status of secondary schools in Wales and

England (Thomas et al, 1998)

a Indicates measures of potential use in the construction of the audit of SEW practices.

305

Appendix 4.4: Example of mapping audits to the National Healthy School Standard Table 1: The extent to which audits cover the National Healthy School Standard Areas

Audits

National Healthy School Standard Areas

Leadership, Management

Health Policy Development

Curriculum, Planning and Resourcing

Teaching and

Learning

School Culture and

Environment

Giving Students a Voice

Student Support

Staff Professional Development

Partnerships: Parents and Community

MM audit (Commonwealth

of Australia, 2000)

School health policy

Curriculum, teaching &

learning

Curriculum, teaching &

learning

School organisation,

ethos & environment

Partnerships & services

Curriculum, teaching & learning

Partnerships & services,

attitudes of others

School Health Audit

(Queensland Government,

(2001)

Emotional/ psychological health, school environment,

HPS

Personal skills

School ground issues social

environment

Personal skills emotional/

psychological health

Emotional/ psychological

health

Community relationships

SHPPS 2000 (CDC, 1999)

School policy & environ,

mental health & social services

Mental health & social services

Mental health &

social services

School policy & environment

Student voice

Health services,

mental health & social services

Health services

Health services, school policy & environment,

mental health & social services

School Health Index

(CDC, 2000) Health Education Health education

Health education,

school health

services

Health education,

school health services,

counselling/ psychology

Health education, school health

services, counselling & psychology

Health education

Quality School Health

Checklist (CAHPERD,

1996)

Health minded school

administration, a holistic view of

health

Health Policies

A co-ordinated framework, access to

current, quality health resources

and regular evaluation

Quality health

instruction, a spirit of lifelong learning

Safe & healthy learning

environment, inclusive

school health programs &

services

Meaning-ful student

involve-ment

Community participation & collaboration,

inclusive school health programs

& services

306

Appendix 4.5: Validation Surveys

307

Pathways to Positive Student Wellbeing Study

Expert Review Panel Feedback

1. Generally, do the items in the survey reflect behavioural and emotional wellbeing issues?

No Yes

2. Are the individual items in each section (B to F) representative of the overall

construct? If not, please specify any inconsistencies. SECTION

B: School Policy and Practice

No

Yes

C: Wellbeing Issues and Staff Support

No

Yes

D: Teaching and Learning Practices

No

Yes

E: Parent Involvement at School

No

Yes

F: Classroom and School Environment

No

Yes

308

Pathways to Positive Student Wellbeing Study

Expert Review Panel Feedback 3. Are there additional items or sections that are important in

the measurement of behavioural and emotional wellbeing in schools?

No

Yes

4. Are any of the questions irrelevant? Please circle on the survey and

comment below.

No

Yes

5. Was the layout and format of the audit clear? No

Yes

6. Were the response formats (e.g. strongly disagree to strongly agree) logical

for all questions? No

Yes

7. Were there other response boxes needed for any question (e.g. there was no

‘not applicable’ box when you needed one)? No

Yes

309

Pathways to Positive Student Wellbeing Study

Expert Review Panel Feedback 8. How long did the survey take to complete? mins

9. Do you have other comments to improve the audit? No

Yes

Your

Name:

You may want to remain anonymous, however I would appreciate if you

could write your name as I may need to ask you a question about your feedback.

Thank you very much for your feedback, I really appreciate it.

Your comments will help to make this audit more useful to schools.

310

Pathways to Positive Student Wellbeing Study

Feedback Form

1. Do all the topics and programs in the survey reflect issues concerning behavioural and emotional wellbeing?

No

Yes

2. To your knowledge, are all the programs in the correct topic area? If not,

please specify the correct topic area whether already included on the list or not.

No Yes Any Additional Comments?

A Bullying B Social Relationships C Self-esteem D Positive Thinking E Tolerance F Aggression or

Violence

G Anxiety H Depression I Grief and Loss J Parenting and Family K Multiple issues

311

Pathways to Positive Student Wellbeing Study

Feedback Form

3. Do you know of any additional programs (including their topic area and authors/year) that have not been included in the survey and are available to primary schools? Please add on to the survey or in the space provided below.

No Topic Program Name Author/s & Year

Yes

4. Were the instructions and example at the beginning clear?

No

Yes

5. Is the language consistent with what school staff would use? If not, please

specifically identify any inconsistencies. No

Yes

6. Did the layout of the tables make completing the checklist relatively easy? No

Yes

312

Pathways to Positive Student Wellbeing Study

Feedback Form

7. How long did the survey take to complete? Mins

8. Do you have other comments that could improve the survey? No

Yes

Your

Name:

You may want to remain anonymous, however I would appreciate if you

could write your name as I may need to ask you a question about your feedback.

Thank you very much for your feedback, I really appreciate it. Your comments will help to make the survey more useful to schools.

313

Appendix 4.6: Participation Agreement Form

314

Pathways to Positive Student Wellbeing Study

Participation Agreement Form Please complete and return via fax at your earliest convenience.

Terms of Agreement

1. I agree to the participation of school staff in the Pathways to Positive Student

Wellbeing Study.

2. I agree to allow data to be collected from school staff.

3. I agree to the research team conducting a short (5 mins or less) presentation

about the study at the beginning of one staff meeting (prior to survey distribution).

As the points above and signature below indicate, I have read and agree to the terms of this

study. As the Principal of _________________________ State School, I have the authority to

sign this document. I am aware that this school or any member of staff may withdraw from

the study at any time without penalty or further comment.

I understand the requirements of the study and I hereby give the Team permission to

undertake the Pathways to Positive Student Wellbeing Study at this school.

(Principal signature) (date)

(print name)

Please fax your completed form to: Clare Macaulay

Project Co-ordinator Pathways to Positive Student Wellbeing (PPSW)

Fax: (07) 3864 3130

315

Appendix 4.7: Teacher Consent Form

316

Pathways to Positive Student Wellbeing Study

Consent Form Study Contact

:

Ms Clare Macaulay Project Co-ordinator

Pathways to Positive Student Wellbeing Study Centre for Health Research

School of Public Health Queensland University of Technology

Ph: 07 3864 9672

Fax: 07 3864 3130 Email: c2.macaulay@qut.edu.au

By signing below I acknowledge that:

• I have heard and/or read and understood the information about the Pathways to Positive Student Wellbeing Study; and

• I have had any questions answered to my satisfaction.

I understand that: If I have any additional questions I can contact the Study Team; I am free to withdraw from the study at any time without any reason; and I can contact the Queensland University of Technology Research Ethics Officer on 3864 2340 or ethicscontact@qut.edu.au if I have concerns about the ethical conduct of the Study. I agree to participate in the Pathways to Positive Student Wellbeing Study.

Name _____________________________________________________________

Signature _____________________________________________________________

Position (please be specific)

_____________________________________________________________

School _____________________________________________________________

Date ___ / ___ / 2005

Project Co-ordinator use only

317

Appendix 4.8: Recipe

Rocky Road

Ingredients

500g good quality chocolate (preferably dark)

350g marshmallows

1/3 cup chopped nuts (e.g. macadamia, almond, peanut)

400g soft jellies/jube lollies

Method

1. Line a lamington or slice tin (30cm x 20cm) with baking paper or plastic wrap

ensuring that it is longer than all sides of the tin. Leave at least 5cm on each

side.

2. Melt chocolate in a double boiler or in a bowl placed over a saucepan of

simmering water (do not let the bowl touch the water). Once melted, allow the

chocolate to cool slightly.

3. Combine marshmallows, nuts and jellies in a bowl.

4. Pour chocolate over the mix of marshmallows, nuts and jellies. Mix together

quickly.

5. Pour into lined tin and refrigerate until set.

6. Remove from tin, cut into slices and serve.

318

Appendix 6.1: Sensitivity Analyses

Tables 1 to 4 present the results of the sensitivity analyses undertaken following the

logistic regression analyses. The magnitude of change in odds ratios from crude to

adjusted analyses for four of the factors suggested over-fitting of the model.

Table 1: Sensitivity Analysis to compare crude and adjusted odds ratios for the relationship between school socio-economic status and teachers’ use of social and emotional wellbeing programs a

Levels of socio-economic status

Low Mid Low Mid High High

Crude Odds Ratio 1.00 0.54 0.35 0.88

Adjusted Odds Ratio 1.00 0.36 0.13 0. 87

Adjusted Odds Ratios

Low Mid Low Mid High High

Program use

+ Parent involvement in class activities 1.00 0.34 0.171 0.74

Program use

+ Parent involvement in school activities 1.00 0.46 0.23 0.59

Final model b

- Parent involvement in school activities 1.00 0.38 0.15 1.18

Final model b

- Parent involvement in class activities 1.00 0.53 0.24 1.01

a Note that analyses were undertaken prior to accounting for the design effect. b Adjusted for all variables in the logistic regression model except policies available.

319

Table 2: Sensitivity Analysis to compare crude and adjusted odds ratios for the relationship between parent involvement in class activities and teachers’ use of social and emotional wellbeing programs a

Parent involvement in class activities

Never/Rarely Sometimes Often/Always

Crude Odds Ratio 1.00 1.827 4.067 Adjusted Odds Ratio 1.00 3.755 5.454

Adjusted Odds Ratios

Never/Rarely Sometimes Often/Always

Program use

+ Socio-economic status 1.00 2.727 7.748

Final model b

- Socio-economic status 1.00 2.324 2.286

a Note that analyses were undertaken prior to accounting for the design effect. b Adjusted for all variables in the logistic regression model except policies available.

320

Table 3: Sensitivity Analysis to compare crude and adjusted odds ratios for the relationship between school wellbeing-related policies available and teachers’ use of social and emotional wellbeing programs a

Availability of wellbeing-related policies

Not all policies available

All policies available

Crude Odds Ratio 1.00 0.35 Adjusted Odds Ratio 1.00 0.18

Adjusted Odds Ratios

Not all policies available

All policies available

Program use

+ Socio-economic status 1.00 0.30

Program use

+ Qualifications 1.00 0.37

Final model b

- Socio-economic status 1.00 0.18

Final model b

- Qualifications 1.00 0.26

a Note that analyses were undertaken prior to accounting for the design effect. b Adjusted for all variables in the logistic regression model except policies available.

321

Table 4: Sensitivity Analysis to compare crude and adjusted odds ratios for the relationship between teachers’ qualifications and teachers’ use of social and emotional wellbeing programs a

Teachers’ Qualifications

Graduate Diploma

Bachelor’s Degree/Diploma

Crude Odds Ratio 1.00 3.06 Adjusted Odds Ratio 1.00 4.18

Adjusted Odds Ratios

Not all policies available

All policies available

Program use

+ Socio-economic status 1.00 3.51

Final model b - Socio-economic status

1.00 3.52

a Note that analyses were undertaken prior to accounting for the design effect. b Adjusted for all variables in the logistic regression model except policies available.