Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion

Social-Emotional Prevention Programme (SEP)

Evidence level:
 
Evidence of effectiveness:
? - 0 + ++
Transferability:
? - 0 + ++
Enduring impact:
? - 0 +

Overview

Social-Emotional Prevention (SEP) is a multifaceted practice (including children, parents and teachers) aimed at improving social and emotional competencies. It is a hybrid programme, combining the delivery of targeted (for high risk children) and universal (for all children) elements within the prevention programme. This group-based programme comprises three components: a classroom curriculum, teacher training and parent training. The evidence of its effectiveness comes from a trial implemented in Romania.

Practice Category

  • Supporting Parenting and Assisting with Childcare
  • Helping Vulnerable Children
  • Facilitating Positive Transitions to Adulthood

Recommendation pillar

  • Reduce inequality at a young age by investing in early childhood education and care
  • Improve education systems’ impact on equal opportunities
  • Enhance family support and the quality of alternative care settings

Countries that have implemented practice

  • Romania

Age groups

  • Young Children (age 0 to 5)

Target groups

  • Children
  • Parents

Years in operation

  • 2009 - 2009

Scope of practice

  • Local level

Type of organisation implementing practice

  • Public organisation

SEP was designed, implemented and evaluated by researchers at Babes-Bolyai University, which is a public university in Romania. The programme design drew on elements from other programmes (e.g. the Fast Track, the Incredible Years programme), but has been specifically adapted to the Romanian context.

Rationale  of practice

The main aim of the intervention is to promote the development of social and emotional competencies for pre-school aged children, on the grounds that this favours long-term adaptive outcomes. Development of adequate social and emotional competencies at this age is important for school adjustment and protective against mental health issues and behavioural conduct issues later in life (Engels et al., 2001; Hastings et al., 2000). The intervention is targeted at pre-school aged children and is based on the idea that social and emotional competencies are more malleable at this stage than they are later in life, when negative behavioural patterns are likely to be more stable (Cunningham et al., 1995). The intervention includes a classroom component, since positive discipline strategies in school can promote social and emotional competencies (Lemerise and Arsenio, 2000; Izard, 2001). The intervention targets parents as well as teachers because skill-building in the classroom may be less effective at addressing behavioural issues in the home (Webster-Stratton et al., 2001). The intervention is designed to be universal, as well as targeted for high-risk children.

Mode of delivery

  • Individual sessions
  • Group sessions
  • Face-to-face

Teacher training is provided in eight face-to-face group workshops, with follow-up consultations. Parent training includes both group and individual training sessions, both face-to-face. The classroom curriculum includes 37 teacher implemented activities delivered in the classroom.

Delivery dosage

  • Frequency: Between 2-6 times a week
  • Duration: 1 hour sessions

Parent training was comprised of four group sessions, each lasting 90-120 minutes. Individual training sessions were held only at parents’ request and lasted 20-30 minutes. Teacher training was provided in eight face-to-face group workshops. The classroom curriculum consisted of 37 teacher implemented activities (scheduling and duration was unspecified). The first two modules of teacher training took place in January. Over the next four months (between February and May), teachers were responsible for implementing the classroom curriculum while the parent group training sessions took place in parallel.  Outcome measures were collected in June 2009 and follow-up data was collected in October 2009.

Location of practice

  • Kindergarten based
  • Community based

The programme was implemented across five kindergartens in the urban area of Cluj-Napoca. In total, fourteen classrooms took part in the programme with half assigned to the intervention and half to the comparison (control) condition. All kindergartens that participated were similar in terms of classroom size, curriculum taught, and number of assigned teachers. The classroom curriculum was implemented in the classrooms. Teacher and parent training sessions were held in the same locations where children attended kindergarten.

Evidence of effectiveness

  • Practice has been evaluated

Evidence on the effectiveness of the Social-Emotional Prevention (SEP) programme comes from one evaluation conducted in Cluj-Napoca, Romania in 2009. The programme was targeted towards preschool children from fourteen different settings. The initial sample was based on 204 children who participated in the study (n=121 in the intervention group and n=83 in the control group). A total of 156 children were included in the final sample: 89 were included in the intervention group (42 boys and 47 girls), and 69 children were assigned to the comparison group (29 boys and 40 girls). Children who participated were classed as either high (n=16 intervention, n=12 control), moderate (n=30 intervention and n=24 control) or low (n=43 intervention, n=33 control) risk, according to screening measures of social and emotional competence completed by mothers. Additionally, a total of 156 parents participated in the study (n=87 in the intervention group and n=69 in the control group).  Of the parents allocated in the treatment group, the majority were mothers (n=58), eight were fathers and, in three cases, both parents attended the training.  Screening measures were completed by mothers (93.1% of mothers from the intervention group, and 85.5% of mothers from the control group). The study does not specify whether fathers can complete the screening measures.

The study used a classroom-level randomisation design to assess programme impacts. A number of different outcomes were considered relating to child social and emotional competencies and parental behaviour. All outcomes were measured using validated scales/instruments based on ratings conducted by parents. Intervention and control groups were assessed at three time points: pre-test, post-test (4 months after pre-test) and follow-up (3 months after post-test). The primary analysis was conducted on an intention-to treat basis. This means that the analysis included all children and parents, regardless of their adherence to the programme.

By and large, there was greater improvement in the social and emotional competencies of children in the intervention group compared to children in the control group. Not all outcomes showed statistically significant differences, however. The results of the study showed that the effectiveness of the intervention increased as a function of children’s baseline risk status: i.e., the increase in social and emotional competencies was greater for high and moderate risk children than for low risk children. In some cases, particularly in relation to emotional competencies, larger and more consistent effects were observed for the moderate risk group compared to the high risk group. This strengthens the case for extending programmes of this kind to children deemed of moderate risk. There were some differences between the behaviours of parents in the intervention and control groups. For instance, parents of high risk children who took part in the intervention were more likely to use appropriate discipline and positive parenting strategies. However, other results showed marginally-significant and non-significant differences between parents in the intervention and control groups. No differences were found in relation to harsh parenting, which previous literature suggests is strongly predictive of child behavioural problems.

Transferability

  • Practice has not been evaluated in multiple population

There is only one study evaluating the SEP intervention, which took place in the city of Cluj-Napoca in Romania.

Practice Materials

  • Practice materials available but not accessible online

The English version of the treatment planner for all intervention components is available upon request from the programme developer.

Cost information

  • Implementation cost information is not available

Enduring impact

  • No follow-ups have been conducted

There was a follow-up at three months incorporated into the design of the study, but no follow-up beyond this point.

Evaluation details

Reference: Catrinel A. Ştefan & Mircea Miclea (2014) Effectiveness of the social-emotional prevention program as a function of children's baseline risk status, European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 22:1, 14-44, DOI:10.1080/1350293X.2013.865359

The study used a classroom level randomised design, with intervention and control groups assessed at three time points: pre-test, post-test (4 months after pre-test) and follow-up (3 months after post-test). A total of 204 children participated in the study: 121 were assigned to the intervention group and 83 were assigned to the control group. A total of 156 parents participated in the study (n=87 in the intervention group and n=69 in the control group).

Independent sample t-tests were run on pre-test scores to assess baseline equivalence for the control and intervention groups (i.e. in terms of social and emotional competencies prior to the intervention). These tests showed that there were baseline differences for two constructs: expressive emotion recognition for children in the high risk group and social competence for children in the low risk group.

A number of different outcomes were considered relating to child’s social and emotional competencies and parental behaviour. The Social Competence Screening for Preschoolers – Parent Form (SCS-P; Miclea et al., 2010) measures were used to assess child’s prosocial behaviour, compliance to rules and interpersonal skills, while the Emotion Competence Screening for Preschoolers – Parent Form (ECS-P; Miclea et al., 2010) was used to measure emotion understanding, emotion expression, and emotion regulation. The Social Skill Rating system (SSRS; Gresham and Elliot, 1990) was used to measure social competences such as cooperation, assertion, and maladaptive behaviours. The child’s progress was also measured with a number of direct assessments. Namely, the Affective Knowledge Test (AKT; Denham, 1986) was used to measure child’s emotion recognition ability, while a modified version of the Social Problem Solving Tests (SRST-R; Webster-Stratton, 1990) was used to assess child’s problem solving skills. A modified version of the LIFT Parenting Practice Interview (PPI; Webster-Stratton et al., 2001) was use to evaluate parental discipline strategies, while the Parent Stress Index –Short Form (PSI-SF; Abidin, 1995) was used to obtain measures for parental stress. 

The study used mixed ANOVA, allowing for both within-subject variance (pre-test, post-test and follow-up) and between-subject variance (intervention vs. control) and the interaction between the two. In cases where there was no baseline equivalence, ANCOVA rather than ANOVA was used in order to control for pre-test scores.  A t-test was used to compare pre-post and pre-follow-up scores for the intervention and control groups separately. All results were reported separately for high, moderate and low risk children and their parents. The tables below report paired t-tests on pre to post (or pre to follow-up) data for intervention and control group parents. The paired t-difference between control and intervention group is not reported. However, the Cohen’s d mean effect size of the group between the intervention and comparison groups is presented in the last column.

For high risk children, there was evidence that intervention group children significantly improved their social skill ratings compared to high risk children in the control group. Additionally, reductions in behaviour problems were observed for the intervention group but not for the control group. For parents of high risk children, there was evidence of a reduction in inconsistent discipline and an increase in appropriate discipline and positive parenting. These effects were observed for parents in the intervention group, but not in the control group. However, independent t-tests comparing change pre/post and pre/FU for parents in the intervention and control groups did not show significant differences on any measures of parental behaviour. There was no evidence of change in relation to harsh discipline and parent stress.

For moderate risk children, an improvement in emotion recognition and a decrease in negative problem-solving were observed for the intervention group but not for the control group. Independent t-tests comparing change for the intervention and control groups identified statistically significant differences for social competencies and emotion recognition.  For parents of moderate risk children, an increase in positive parenting and a decrease in parent stress was observed for those in the intervention group but not the control group.

For low risk children, at post-test, expressive emotion recognition had increased for the intervention group but not the control group, but this measure had increased for both groups at follow-up. The only parental measures where there was evidence of change for the low risk group was an increase in positive parenting and appropriate discipline. Both measures increased for parents in the intervention group but not the control group.

To sum up, the results of the study showed that the effectiveness of the intervention increased as a function of children’s baseline risk status: i.e., the increase in social and emotional competencies was greater for high and medium risk children compared to low risk children. In some cases, particularly in relation to emotional competencies, larger and more consistent effects were observed for the medium risk group compared to the high risk group. This strengthens the case for extending programmes of this kind to children deemed of moderate, rather than high, risk. There were some differences between the behaviours of parents in the invention and control groups. For instance, parents of high risk children who took part in the intervention were more likely to use appropriate discipline and positive parenting strategies. However, other results showed marginally-significant and non-significant differences between parents in the intervention and control groups. No differences were found in relation to harsh parenting, which previous literature suggests is strongly predictive of child behavioural problems. 

 

Summary of results: High risk children 

 

Pre-post

Paired t-test

Pre-follow-up

Paired t-test

 

Outcome

Treatment

Control

Treatment  

 Control  

    Cohen’s d  

Outcomes improved (statistically significant)

 

 

 

 

 

Social competence (SCS-P)

 9.62***

 6.18***

 9.59***

 6.53***

0.85

Emotion competence (ECS-P)

 8.60***

 5.23**

 6.51***

 5.14**

0.77

Social competence (SSRS)

 8.11***

 2.03

 8.91***

 7.00***

 

Behavioural problems (SSRS)

-5.91***

-1.17

-6.14***

-1.54

 

Emotion recognition (AKT)

 4.28***

 0.62

 5.62***

 0.54

0.55

Positive problem-solving strategies (SPST-R)

 4.50**

 0.53

 6.85***

 1.10

0.75

Outcomes with no effect

 

 

 

 

 

Negative problem-solving strategies (SPST-R)

-2.15

-1.00

-1.77

-1.00

 

 

Summary of results: Medium risk children 
 

 

Pre-post

Paired t-test

Pre-follow-up

Paired t-test

 

Outcome

Treatment

Control

Treatment  

 Control  

     Cohen’s d

Outcomes improved (statistically significant)

 

 

 

 

 

Social competence (SCS-P)

 11.20***

 6.93***

 16.09***

 5.86***

0.76

Emotion competence (ECS-P)

 7.69***

 3.13*

 9.06***

 3.41**

0.57

Social competence (SSRS)

 6.72***

 3.12*

 10.42***

 2.97

 

Behavioural problems (SSRS)

-7.43***

-2.44

-6.53***

-4.74***

 

Emotion recognition (AKT)

 4.00***

 1.10

 5.17***

 1.59

0.75

Positive problem-solving strategies (SPST-R)

 4.10**

 1.64

 4.05**

 3.79**

0.55

Negative problem-solving strategies (SPST-R)

-2.83

 0.75

-3.22*

 0.70

 

Social competence (SCS-P)

 11.20***

 6.93***

 16.09***

 5.86***

 

 

Summary of results: Low risk children 

 

Pre-post

Paired t-test

Pre-follow-up

Paired t-test

 

Outcome

Treatment

Control

Treatment

 Control

   Cohen’s d

Outcomes improved (statistically significant)

 

 

 

 

 

Social competence (SCS-P)

 3.79**

 0.97

 3.70**

 2.27

 

Emotion competence (ECS-P)

 2.81

 0.96

 3.48**

 2.36

 

Social competence (SSRS)

 3.80**

 1.29

 7.09***

 2.20

 

Behavioural problems (SSRS)

-3.21**

-0.82

-3.63**

-1.44

 

Emotion recognition (AKT)

 6.82***

 2.07

 7.82***

 3.26**

0.51

Positive problem-solving strategies (SPST-R)

 6.13***

1.83

 6.60***

 2.89

 

Outcomes with no effect

 

 

 

 

 

Negative problem-solving strategies (SPST-R)

-0.50

-0.80

 1.00

-0.50

 

 

Summary of results: High risk parents

 

Pre-post

Paired t-test

Pre-follow-up

Paired t-test

Outcome

Treatment

Control

Treatment

Control

Outcomes improved (statistically significant)

 

 

 

 

Inconsistent discipline

-3.07*

 0.82

-3.35*

 0.70

Appropriate discipline

 4.77**

 0.86

 5.55***

 0.92

Positive parenting

 3.06*

 0.49

 2.95*

 0.41

Outcomes with no effect

 

 

 

 

Harsh discipline

-1.52

 0.49

-1.98

-0.12

Parent stress

-1.31

-0.30

-2.54

-0.51

 

Summary of results: Medium risk parents

 

Pre-post

Paired t-test

Pre-follow-up

Paired t-test

Outcome

Treatment

Control

Treatment

Control

Outcomes improved (statistically significant)

 

 

 

 

Positive parenting

 4.03**

-0.34

 5.63***

-0.21

Parent stress

-3.56**

-0.05

-3.83**

1.65

Outcomes with no effect

 

 

 

 

Inconsistent discipline

-2.95

 0.61

-2.65

-1.19

Appropriate discipline

 2.31

 1.84

 2.21

 2.56

Harsh discipline

-1.09

-0.60

-2.42

-0.29

Summary of results: Low risk parents

 

Pre-post

Paired t-test

Pre-follow-up

Paired t-test

Outcome

Treatment

Control

Treatment

Control

Outcomes improved (statistically significant)

 

 

 

 

Appropriate discipline

 4.13***

 0.71

 5.54***

 0.34

Positive parenting

 3.29***

 0.78

 4.21***

 1.29

Outcomes with no effect

 

 

 

 

Inconsistent discipline

-2.11

 0.62

-1.80

-0.67

Harsh discipline

-1.09

-0.60

-2.42

-0.29

Parent stress

-1.16

-1.01

-1.75

 0.22

Note: * = p<0.5; ** = p<0.1; *** = p<0.01

Issues to consider

Programme evaluation: The evaluation authors appear to be the team responsible for designing and implementing the SEP intervention, which could introduce a conflict of interests. This is not explicitly articulated or addressed in the article. The evidence base on this intervention would be strengthened by an evaluation that is conducted by an independent team of researchers

Attrition: The parents of 46 children (n=32 from the intervention group and n=14 from the control group) did not complete post-test and/or follow-up assessments. Even though the proportion of drop-outs was higher in the intervention group, there was no statistically significant difference between drop-outs and non-drop-outs in the intervention and control groups.

Sample Size: There is a risk that the study is underpowered in terms of conducting separate analysis for high, moderate and low-risk groups. For instance, the analysis for the ‘high’ risk sample is based on results from 16 children in the intervention and 12 children from the control group. When studies are low powered, there is a higher likelihood that it falsely reports a large programme effect.

Availability of materials: Other than those included in the evaluation, no information or resources about the SEP programme have been made publicly available, including, for example, teacher and parent training resources, classroom tools for teachers etc. This limits the potential for this intervention to be implemented and evaluated in other contexts.

Choice of measures: Although there is no indication that tests to measure outcomes are biased, the reported results relied on parent ratings. The parent ratings are not supported by other measures (such as observational measures). Parents who took part in the study were predominantly mothers, and it might be the case that fathers had a different perspective on the outcomes. These limitations are acknowledged by the study authors. 

Available resources

  • None 

Bibliography

Abidin, R. R. 1995. Parenting Stress Index: Professional Manual. 3rd ed. Florida: Odessa, FL.

Cunningham, C. E., R. Bremner, and M. Boyle. 1995. “Large Group Community-Based Parenting Programs for Families of Preschoolers at Risk for Disruptive Behavior Disorders: Utilization, Cost Effectiveness, and Outcome”. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 36: 1141–1159.

Denham, S. A. 1986. “Social Cognition, Social Behavior, and Emotion in Preschoolers: Contextual Validation”. Child Development 57: 194–201.

Engels, C. M. E., C. Finkenauer, W. Meeus, and M. Dekovic. 2001. “Parental Attachment and Adolescents’s Emotional Adjustment: Associations with Social Skills and Relational Competence”. Journal of Counseling Psychology 48: 428–439.

Gresham, F. M., and S. N. Elliott. 1990. Social Skills Rating System. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Hastings, P. D., C. Zahn-Waxler, J. Robinson, B. Usher, and D. Bridges. 2000. “The Development of Concern for Others in Children with Behavior Problems”. Developmental Psychology 36: 531–546. doi: 10.1037//0012-1649.36.5.531.

Izard, C. E. 2001. “Emotional Intelligence or Adaptive Emotions?” Emotion 1: 249–257.

Lemerise, A. E., and R. C. Arsenio. 2000. “An Integrated Model of Emotion Processes and Cognition in Social Information Processing”. Child Development 71: 107–118. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00124.

Miclea, M., A. Ba˘ laj, M. Porumb, D. Porumb, and S. Porumb. 2010. PEDa: The Developmental Assessment Platform for 3-6/7 year Old Children. Cluj-Napoca: ASCR Publishing.

Ștefan, C.A. (2018). Social-emotional prevention programs for preschool children’s behavior problems. A multi-level efficacy assessment of classroom, risk group, and individual level. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.

Ştefan, C.A., Miclea, M. 2014. “Effectiveness of the social-emotional prevention program as a function of children's baseline risk status”, European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 22:1, 14-44, DOI:10.1080/1350293X.2013.865359

Ştefan, C.A., & Miclea, M. 2013. “Effects of a multifocused prevention program on preschool children’s competencies and behavior problems”. Psychology in the Schools, 50, 382-402. doi:10.1002/pits.21683

Ştefan, C.A., & Miclea, M. 2012. “Classroom effects of a hybrid universal and indicated prevention program for preschool children: A comparative analysis based on social and emotional competence screening”. Early Education and Development, 23, 393-426. doi: 10.1080/10409289.2011.554756

Ştefan, C.A. 2012. “Social emotional prevention program for preschool children: An analysis of the high risk sample”. Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal, 16, 319-356.

Webster-Stratton, C. 1990. “Long-Term Follow-Up of Families with Young Conduct-Problem Children: From Preschool to Grade School.” Journal of Clinical Child Psychology 19:1344–1349.

Webster-Stratton, C., M. J. Reid, and M. Hammond. 2001. “Preventing Conduct Problems, Promoting Social Competence: A Parent-Teacher Training Partnership in Head Start.” Journal of Clinical Child Psychology 30: 283–302.

Last updated

July 2019

Contact information

Name

Catrinel A. Ştefan

Title

Dr

Organisation

Department of Psychology, Babes-Bolyai University, Romania

Address

37 Republicii Street, RO-400015, Cluj-Napoca

Phone

+40 264 590967

Email

catrinelstefan@psychology.ro

Find a practice (within the 'Evidence based practices'):

The practices can be also searched along the three policy pillars of the Recommendation for Investing in Children:


Share this page