Preschool Social-Emotional Competencies: Building Skills



Effects of the Getting Ready Intervention on Children’s Interpersonal Competencies:

The Moderating Role of Child and Family Risk

Kathryn E. Woods, M.A., Susan M. Sheridan, Ph.D., Allison Q. Osborn, M.A.,

Brandy L. Clarke, Ph.D., and Kevin A. Kupzyk, M.A.

University of Nebraska – Lincoln

Interpersonal Competence

• A child’s early years are critical to his or her social-emotional development (Zeanah, Stafford, Nagle, & Rice, 2005).

• Children with a strong sense of social-emotional competence engage more with peers and teachers, participate in classroom activities, enjoy learning, and are more likely to experience a positive transition from preschool to kindergarten (Raver & Knitzer, 2002) and future academic achievement (Hemmeter, Ostrosky, & Fox, 2006).

• Many young children, particularly those living in poverty, enter school without the interpersonal competence necessary to succeed in a formal educational setting (Raver & Knitzer, 2002; Zill, Moore, Smith, Stief, & Coiro, 1991).

• Few studies have examined the development of social-emotional skills among Spanish-speaking students (Rumberger & Tran, 2006); however, social-emotional development may be impaired when children have difficulty communicating and understanding peers and teachers.

• Young children with disabilities may also struggle to understand their social environment and often have difficulty developing social relationships, being accepted by peers, interpreting social cues, learning and demonstrating social competencies and adapting to new environments (Most, Al-Yagon, Tur-Kaspa, & Margalit, 2000).

• Early intervention services may assist children at risk in developing their social-emotional competence and may be especially influential when focused on strengthening home environments and parent-child relationships (Epstein, 2001; Hill, 2001).

Getting Ready Intervention

• The Getting Ready intervention is an ecological, relationship-based approach to school readiness for families with children from birth to 5 years of age who are of low income and participating in home- and center-based early education programs.

• A primary emphasis of the Getting Ready intervention is promoting parent engagement via parental warmth and sensitivity, support for a child’s emerging autonomy, and active participation in learning.

• Getting Ready integrates triadic (parent–child–professional; McCollum & Yates, 1994) and collaborative (family–school) strategies (Sheridan & Kratochwill, 2008) to promote parent–child and parent–professional partnerships.

o Triadic strategies prompt warm, supportive parent–child interactions; affirm parents’ competence; focus parents’ attention on child development or skills; provide developmental information; and model and/or suggest parent actions that can support child learning.

o Collaborative strategies involve planning between parents and teachers to identify child strengths, determine important social–emotional learning goals, assess current levels of child functioning, brainstorm plans to support a child’s social–emotional growth, and monitor child progress.

• Getting Ready has been found to promote interpersonal competence for young children (Sheridan et al., in press); however, the degree to which certain child and family risk factors moderate the effects needs to be investigated.

PURPOSE OF STUDY AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS

• The purpose of this study was to examine the moderating effects of child and family risk factors on the Getting Ready intervention and interpersonal outcomes for young children living in poverty.

o To what extent does the Getting Ready intervention improve preschool students' interpersonal competence relative to a control group?

o To what extent do child and family risk factors moderate the effects of the Getting Ready intervention on preschool students' interpersonal competence?

METHODS

Table 1

Participant Characteristics at Baseline

| |Children |Parents |Teachers |

| |(n = 220) |(n = 214) |(n = 29) |

|Mean Age |M = 43.06 months |M = 29.35 years |M = 36.05 years |

| |(SD = 3.55 months) |(SD = 7.71 years) |(SD = 11 years) |

|Gender |51% Male |95% Female |100% Female |

|Ethnicity |30% White |47% White |91% White |

| |25% Hispanic/Latino |26% Hispanic/Latino 16% |9% Hispanic/Latino |

| |18% African-American |African-American | |

| |25% Other |11% Other | |

|Language |92% English | | |

| |8% Other | | |

|Disability |88% no disability | |

| |12% identified disability | |

|Public assistance | |98% public assistance | |

| | |2% no public assistance | |

|Employment status | |54% employed | |

| | |46% unemployed | |

|Age at child’s birth | |36% under 18 years old | |

| | |64% over 18 years old | |

|Education | |23% less than high school |

| | |77% high school diploma or more |

|Adults in household | |40% single parents |

| | |60% two+ adults in home |

| |

|Note. Six parents did not provide demographic information at the baseline measurement. |

Measures:

• Teachers’ rated student interpersonal competence at baseline and follow-up using:

o Devereaux Early Childhood Assessment (DECA; LeBuffe & Naglieri, 1999) attachment and initiative subscales

▪ Attachment (8 items) assesses the mutual, strong, long-lasting relationship between a child and significant adults (e.g., parents, teachers)

▪ Initiative (12 items) assesses the child’s ability to think and act independently

▪ Teachers rated child behavior using a 5-point Likert scale (0 = never; 4 = very frequently)

▪ T scores with M = 50, SD = 10

o Social Competence and Behavior Evaluation short form (SCBE-30; LaFreniere & Dumas, 1996) Social Competence and Anxiety Withdrawal subscales

▪ Social Competency (10 items) assesses positive qualities of a child’s adaptation

▪ Anxiety-withdrawal (10 items) consists of items describing depressed, isolated, and overly dependent behavior

▪ Items are rated on a 6-point Likert scale (1 = never, 6 = always)

▪ Raw scores on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high)

Moderators:

• Child risk consisted of language (i.e., speaking a language other than English) and disability status (i.e., parent report of an identified disability) at baseline.

• Family risk was calculated by summing the total number of family risk factors (i.e., less than high school education, single parent household, 18 or younger at age of child birth, receiving public assistance, not employed or in school) for each child at baseline.

Analysis:

▪ Multilevel modeling (Snijders & Bosker, 1999) was used to test growth curves among dependent variables with α = .05.

• Multilevel models included fixed effects for treatment group, the linear effect of time, and the group by time interaction for all variables in the set.

• Analyses were conducted with SAS PROC MIXED using residual maximum likelihood (REML) with Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom to produce unbiased estimating equations for the variance parameters and evaluate the fixed effects.

▪ The study design is a 4-level complex sampling design (repeated observations [level 1] nested within each child [level 2], children nested within teachers or classrooms [level 3], and classrooms nested within schools or programs [level 4]; no significant random effects for school or teacher were observed.

▪ Since random assignment to treatment condition occurred at the teacher/classroom level, random effects at the teacher and school levels were constrained to a minimal positive value (0.01) for model parsimony.

▪ Time was centered to reflect the number of months since randomization.

▪ Missing data due primarily to planned missingness caused by the cohort nature of the study design was accounted for by the use of FIML in the growth curve modeling framework in SAS PROC MIXED, which allows data from incomplete cases to be included in the analysis.

▪ Tests of moderation were carried out by adding each moderator as a time X group X moderator effect, including the main effect of the moderator and each two-way interaction. The three-way interaction term assessed the extent to which the newly added variable moderated the time X group interaction. A significant positive interaction indicates the treatment effect is significantly higher at higher levels of the moderator variable.

RESULTS

Research Question 1

• Outcomes of the multilevel analyses assessing the impact of the Getting Ready intervention on child interpersonal competence are presented in Table 1 and Figures 1 through 4.

• The Getting Ready treatment group experienced significantly greater gains over time in attachment behaviors compared to controls as measured by the DECA; γ = 0.29, t(160) = 2.88, p < .05, d = 0.75.

• Relative to controls, the treatment group had significantly different rates of change in initiative; γ=0.19, t(156) = 2.12, p < .05, d = .56.

• A greater reduction in anxiety/withdrawal behaviors over time as measured on the SCBE-30; γ = -0.02, t(160) = -2.91, p < .05, d = -.74 was observed for the treatment group compared to controls.

Table 1

Experimental Condition X Time Interaction and Main Effects of the Getting Ready Intervention

|Effect |Estimate |SE |DF |t |p-value |ES |

|Intercept (C) |50.83 |0.98 |218.62 |51.90 |< 0.01 | |

|Condition (ΔE-C) |-1.50 |1.32 |213.83 |-1.13 |0.26 | |

|Time (C) |0.59 |0.07 |167.85 |8.81 |< 0.01 | |

|Cond. X Time (ΔE-C) |0.19 |0.09 |156.41 |2.12 |0.04 |0.56* |

|DECA Attachment | | | | | | |

|Intercept (C) |52.67 |1.01 |219.99 |51.98 |< 0.01 | |

|Condition (ΔE-C) |-1.99 |1.37 |214.53 |-1.46 |0.15 | |

|Time (C) |0.26 |0.08 |172.80 |3.35 |< 0.01 | |

|Cond. X Time (ΔE-C) |0.29 |0.10 |160.30 |2.88 |0.00 |0.75** |

|SCBE Anxiety Withdrawal | | | | | |

|Intercept (C) |1.94 |0.07 |217.06 |26.29 |< 0.01 | |

|Condition (ΔE-C) |0.08 |0.10 |211.35 |0.77 |0.44 | |

|Time (C) |-0.01 |0.01 |174.13 |-1.21 |0.23 | |

|Cond. X Time (ΔE-C) |-0.02 |0.01 |160.86 |-2.91 |< 0.01 |-0.74** |

|SCBE Social Competence | | | | | |

|Intercept (C) |3.65 |0.09 |219.80 |39.72 |< 0.01 | |

|Condition (ΔE-C) |-0.10 |0.12 |213.94 |-0.78 |0.44 | |

|Time (C) |0.06 |0.01 |166.28 |9.91 |< 0.01 | |

|Cond. X Time (ΔE-C) |0.00 |0.01 |152.36 |0.58 |0.57 |0.17 |

| | | | | | | |

|* p < .05; ** p < .01 | | | | | | |

|C = Control Group; E = Experimental Group |

Figure 1. DECA Initiative

Figure 2. DECA Attachment

Figure 3. SCBE Anxiety Withdrawal

Figure 4. SCBE Social Competence

Research Question 2

• A summary table describing the effect of child language and disability status as moderators on child interpersonal competencies is presented in Table 2. Significant moderators are illustrated in Figures 5 – 10.

• Language status moderated the effectiveness of the Getting Ready intervention on all interpersonal outcomes (i.e., DECA Initiative and Attachment; SCBE Anxiety-Withdrawal and Social Competency). The Getting Ready intervention was more effective for children who did not speak English relative to those who did, and relative to the control group.

• Disability status moderated effectiveness of the Getting Ready intervention on two outcomes (i.e., DECA Initiative and SCBE Social Competency). The Getting Ready was significantly more effective for children with disabilities than those without disabilities, and then the control condition.

• Family risk factors were only a significant moderator for one of the interpersonal outcomes (i.e., SCBE Social Competency). The group by time interaction favored the treatment group at low levels of risk, and the control group at high levels of risk.

Table 2

Significant Moderators of the Effects of the Getting Ready Intervention on Interpersonal Competencies

| |Child Language |Disability Status |

|DECA – Initiative |X |X |

|DECA – Attachment |X | |

|SCBE – Anxiety Withdrawal |X | |

|SCBE – Social Competence |X |X |

Figure 5. DECA Initiative Moderated by Figure 6. DECA Initiative Moderated by

Child Language Child Disability

Figure 7. DECA Attachment Moderated by Figure 8. SCBE Anxiety Withdrawal

Child Language Moderated by Child Language

Figure 9. SCBE Social Competence Moderated Figure 10. SCBE Social Competence Moderated

by Child Language by Child Disability

DISCUSSION

• This study revealed significant differences between treatment and control participants in the rate of change over time for certain interpersonal competencies (i.e., attachment, initiative, anxiety withdrawal).

• Getting Ready was more effective at improving outcomes for non-English speaking than English-speaking children across all interpersonal outcomes.

• Children with identified disabilities in the treatment group improved at a much higher rate than children without disabilities, and children in the control group, on DECA Initiative and SCBE Social Competence outcomes.

• The direct effects of the Getting Ready intervention on the SCBE Social Competence scale appear to have been masked by the language spoken by the child and the child’s disability status. For this variable, there is a significant interaction between the intervention and child language, and between the intervention and disability status. Intervention effects are noted only when these child factors are taken into account.

• There were also some significant interactions observed with family risk as a moderator. However, no clear patterns were evident.

LIMITATIONS

• Child outcomes were assessed via teacher report only and multiple reports of child outcomes across home and preschool settings are needed to gauge effects of the intervention objectively across contexts.

• The treatment group showed significantly higher levels of risk than the control group, which may have presented problems in estimating the possibility of family risk as a moderator of the intervention effects. There is a need to investigate family risk more extensively to understand its effects in the context of the Getting Ready intervention.

• Lack of follow-up data on children as they transitioned to kindergarten.

IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

• This study illustrates the importance of an ecological, relationship-based approach to early intervention for children who enter school with higher risk, including children in low socioeconomic conditions who speak a language other than English and children with disabilities.

• Variables that potentially mediate intervention effects on child outcomes, such as parental self-efficacy, parent engagement, and fidelity of intervention implementation, need to be explored.

• Teacher variables that potentially moderate intervention effects, such as stress, beliefs regarding parental roles, and agency support, need to be explored.

• The long-term effects of the Getting Ready intervention on child interpersonal competencies beyond the preschool period also need to be examined.

This research was supported by a grant awarded to Drs. Susan M. Sheridan and Carolyn Pope Edwards by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Administration for Children and Families, and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation; and by the U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (Grant 1R01H00436135).

References

Duncan, G., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1997). Consequences of growing up poor. New York: Russell Sage

Foundation.

Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and

improving schools. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Hemmeter, M. L., Ostrosky, M., & Fox, L.  (2006). Social and emotional foundations for early

learning: A conceptual model for intervention.  School Psychology Review, 35, 583-601.

Hill, N. E. (2001). Parenting and academic socialization as they relate to school readiness: The roles of

ethnicity and family income. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 686–697.

LaFreniere, P. J., & Dumas, J. E. (1996). Social competence and behavior evaluation in children ages 3

to 6 years: The short form (SCBE-30). Psychological Assessment, 8, 369–377.

LeBuffe, P. A., & Naglieri, J. A. (1999). Devereux Early Childhood Assessment (DECA). Odessa, FL:

Psychological Assessment Resources.

McCollum, J. A., & Yates, T. J. (1994). Dyad as focus, triad as means: A family-centered approach to

supporting parent–child interactions. Infants and Young Children, 6, 54–63.

Most, T., Al-Yagon, M., Tur-Kaspa, H., & Margalit, M. (2000). Phonological awareness, peer

nominations, and social competence among preschool children at risk for developing learning

disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 47, 89-105.

Raver, C. C., & Knitzer, J. (2002). Ready to enter: What research tells policymakers about strategies to

promote social and emotional school readiness among three- and four-year-old children. New

York: National Center for Children in Poverty.

Rumberger, R. W., & Tran, L. (2006). Preschool participation and the cognitive and social

development of language-minority students (CSE Technical Report No. 674). Los

Angeles: University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation.

Sheridan, S. M., & Edwards, C. P. (2003). Parent engagement and child learning birth to five. University

of Nebraska-Lincoln; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development,

Administration for Children and Families and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and

Evaluation and the Department of Education, Office of Special Education, Lincoln, NE.

Sheridan, S. M., & Kratochwill, T. R. (2008). Conjoint behavioral consultation: Promoting family–school

connections and interventions. New York: Springer.

Sheridan, S. M., Knoche, L. L., Edwards, C. P., Bovaird, J. A., & Kupzyk, K. A. (2010). Parent

engagement and school readiness: Effects of the Getting Ready Intervention on preschool

children’s social-emotional competencies. Early Education and Development, 21, 125-156.

Snijders, T., & Bosker, R. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel

modeling. London: Sage.

Zeanah, P., Stafford, B., Nagle, G., & Rice, T. (2005). Addressing social-emotional development and

infant mental health in early childhood systems. Los Angeles: National Center for Infant and

Early Childhood Health Policy. Building State Early Childhood Comprehensive Systems Series,

No. 12.

Zill, N., Moore, K. A., Smith, E. W., Stief, T., & Coiro, M. J. (1991). Life circumstances and

development of children in welfare families: A profile based on national survey data.

Washington, DC: Child Trends.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download