Characteristics of effective small group social skill interventions in mainstream primary education: a systematic literature review

Abstract

Mainstream primary and elementary schools are increasingly involved in delivering small group social skill interventions for pupils with special needs, particularly in the light of the evidence indicating the impact of social skill competency on later life outcomes. Despite significant investment by schools in training and resources to implement these interventions, very little is currently understood about the characteristics of effective small group social skill interventions for the five to eleven age phase. The purpose of the current review was to provide a preliminary overview of the characteristics of such interventions. Searches of four key databases were conducted between September 2017 and January 2018. Eleven studies met criteria for inclusion. The review found that the area is at an early stage of development with a lack of clarity in conceptualising, measuring and judging effectiveness of small group social skill interventions for the primary age phase. Implications for future evaluative research methods are discussed, including a need for collaboration between schools and researchers to develop iterative, implementation-based evaluative studies of small group social skill interventions.

The implementation of Lego®‐Based Therapy in two English mainstream primary schools

“…However, to achieve desired programme outcomes, it is crucial to select participants with needs for which the intervention will be valid. In an outcomes‐driven system, it is essential that schools have effective ways to do this (Evans & Bond, 2020; Gresham, 2018). Difference in scale will also heighten the importance of participant responsiveness in targeted compared to universal interventions, requiring more skilled planning and management by the facilitator.…”

“…A recent systematic literature review (2020) into the characteristics of effective small‐group social skill interventions in the primary age phase (five to 11 years) suggests that despite being widely used across educational settings, these interventions are often developed independently of schools and very few are adequately informed by implementation models. One such intervention which is becoming increasingly popular in schools is LBT, a small‐group, targeted intervention developed from professional practice (LeGoff et al, 2014).…”

“…In comparison, there is a scarcity of research into implementation of targeted interventions (2020), although these are often used in schools. Because implementation quality potentially impacts upon outcomes more than the programme itself (Durlak and DuPre, 2008; Snow and Juel, 2005) and variability in implementation links to variability in outcomes (Lendrum and Humphrey, 2012), it is essential to understand how small‐group interventions should be implemented.…”

“…Small‐group interventions tend to be more specialised, and the remit of a smaller group of staff which makes them potentially more vulnerable to broader school‐wide changes in staffing and priorities (Bond et al, 2011). Implementation models of targeted interventions must, therefore, capture the more idiographic aspects often not prioritised within universal level frameworks (2020).…”

Implementing targeted social and emotional learning interventions in schools—Are more specific models needed?

“…Foxcroft (2014) proposes dividing targeted developmental interventions into ‘selective’ interventions, which target at risk groups, and ‘indicated’ interventions for children with specific diagnoses or higher levels of identified need. Targeted SEL interventions might focus on aspects of social and emotional well‐being or mental health (Humphrey et al., 2009; Langley et al., 2010) or adaptive skills (Evans & Bond, 2020; Locke et al., 2019). As identified by Foxcroft, many targeted SEL interventions are likely to be group interventions (Evans & Bond, 2020; Humphrey et al., 2009) but some may be individualised (Brittany et al., 2020) or naturalistic (Locke et al., 2019).…”