Many programs have been developed to help schools enhance students' health and reduce the prevalence of drug use, violence, and high-risk sexual behaviors. How should educators choose among these? This article describes selection criteria based on theory, research, and best educational practice that identify key social and emotional learning (SEL) competencies and program features. The SEL competencies for students include 17 skills and attitudes organized into four groups: awareness of self and others; positive attitudes and values; responsible decision making; and social interaction skills. The 11 program features critical to the success of school-based SEL programs emphasize curriculum design, coordination with larger systems, educator preparation and support, and program evaluation. Developed by the Collaborative to Advance Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL), the SEL framework can be used to guide selection of research-based prevention programs that address health, substance abuse, violence prevention, sexuality, character, and social skills.
A word completion priming test was used to differentiate between normal student control subjects and students instructed to malinger. Controls (n = 60) were instructed to do their best, while malingering subjects (n = 60) were instructed to fake a memory deficit for credit and possible financial compensation. Subjects initially rated and completed stems for words that had at least 10 possible completions. Thirty minutes later, subjects rated and completed stems for words that were either uniquely defined by the stem or could only be completed with a variation of the word. Simulated malingerers and controls differed significantly on response latencies (time to produce rated words-time to produce baseline words, 10 second time limit) and priming scores. Discriminant function analyses showed that as high as 92% of the controls could be correctly identified, and 73% of the malingerers could be correctly identified. These results indicate that priming tests can be used in the detection of malingering.
As students, we often acquire an abundance of first-hand experience with various community research practices. Our training typically involves applied experiences in the areas of evaluating programs, serving as community advocates-liaisons, grant writing, recruiting participants, conducting interviews, collaborating on research teams, collecting data, and report writing. In these roles, we often spend a lot of time in direct contact with community partners and in the day-to-day operations of a research project. Thus our comments represent an important perspective that we feel will contribute to the future of participatory community research. As graduate students from three Chicago universities, we offer a diverse voice, because we vary in terms of our ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation, regional origin, and level of graduate training. These individual differences sparked provocative dialogue during the weeks preceding the conference and throughout the completion of this chapter. In this section, we address the roles of nonfaculty perspectives within the community research arena, the traditional conceptualization of community partners, and highlight important strategies in participatory research methods that deserve continued exploration. In addition, we explore future directions for community researchers through a discussion of the training implications of the various lessons learned about collaborative endeavors between community and academic settings.The order oi' the seven authors is alphabetical; each author contributed equally to this manuscript. We are grateful for the support of Radhika Chimata in preparation of this chapter.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.