A Systematic Review of Emotion Regulation Assessments in US Schools: Bridging the Gap Between Researchers and Educators

The state of evidence for social and emotional learning: A contemporary meta‐analysis of universal school‐based SEL interventions

“…As a further example, the Devereux Student Strengths Assessment (DESSA) was used 5 times to measure SEL skills and twice for prosocial behaviors, whereas the Panorama SEL survey total was used to measure SEL skills, and the Grit and Growth Mindset subscales were within attitudes/beliefs , respectively. Once more, the use of macro indicators like these and the hundreds of others reflected in our review are distal to the real‐time learning and interactions in classrooms that may statistically discern impacts of an SEL intervention more robustly (Ng et al, 2022; Osher, Pittman, et al, 2020).…”

“…The same measures were operationalized as different constructs across and within the twelve outcome domains examined, and they were inconsistently presented and justified. This issue is trifold; researchers must clarify what construct an assessment measures, how it measures that construct, and who the measure benefits, to be most effective (McKown, 2019; Ng et al, 2022).…”

“…The SDQ is reflected 154 times across 7 outcome domains in our study. A recent review of emotion regulation measure development and validation studies used in US school‐based studies from past two decades documented similar challenges; reporting divergent conceptualizations of emotion regulation, trade‐offs between methodological rigor and practicality, under‐sampling of marginalized youth, and insufficient psychometric evidence across assessments (See Ng et al, 2022 for review). A manuscript providing methodological guidance for conducting and reporting an evaluation of an USB SEL intervention based on the findings of this report is in preparation (Cipriano et al, 2023).…”

Innovative tools for the direct assessment of social and emotional skills

“…We recognise There exists of biodata relying on electrodermal activity, galvanic skin response and facial expressions, as well as various methods to directly test brain activity, such as functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS), functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) or electroencephalography (EEG) (Nebel and Ninaus, 2019 [146]). Moreover, the use of wearable smart devices should also be noted, which introduces practicality and portability to the same techniques mentioned above, collecting measurements on heart rate or brain activity, for example.…”

Stage 2 Report: The State of the Evidence for Social and Emotional Learning: A Contemporary Meta-Analysis of Universal School-Based SEL Interventions

“…The same measures were operationalized as different constructs across and within the twelve outcome domains examined, and they were inconsistently presented and justified. This issue is trifold; researchers must clarify what construct an assessment measures, how it measures that construct, and who the measure benefits, to be most effective (McKown, 2019;Ng et al, 2022) For example, we cataloged the use of over 1,800 outcomes of student SEL (Supplemental the reliability and validity of measures used in their analyses, even though only 56 measures were unnamed, unspecified, or study developed. Furthermore, within domain heterogeneity in the operationalized constructs measured was complex.…”