Taking Students on a Strengths Safari: A Multidimensional Pilot Study of School-Based Wellbeing for Young Neurodiverse Children

Abstract

There is a robust body of psychological research linking youth mental health and academic achievement. However, students in early childhood are rarely represented in this research, and children with disabilities and/or neurological differences are virtually absent. Thus, the present pilot study explored the effects of a structured psychoeducation program designed to enhance school-based wellbeing (SBWB) for young students who are neurodivergent (ND). This study utilized a quasi-experimental design to investigate the effects of the Student Strengths Safari intervention on (1) students’ self-reported covitality and (2) teacher-rated executive functioning to (3) examine data for evidence of a dual-factor model of SBWB. Two classrooms in a suburban, Mid-Atlantic private school were randomly assigned to the waitlist control group (n = 14) (1st grade) and the intervention group (n = 10) (2nd grade), and quantitative data were analyzed at pretest and posttest to determine intervention outcomes. Key findings produced evidence to support (a) a statistically significant interaction effect for improvements in executive functioning relative to the waitlist control group (p = 0.011), and (b) the utility of a new theoretical dual-factor model to advance SBWB for ND students in early elementary education.

Evaluating a Psychoeducation Program to Foster Chinese Primary School Students’ Covitality

“…Analyses of these data from the pilot study provide promising, preliminary support about durable increases in positive affect and covitality, with moderate to large effect sizes (Cohen's d). This is different from previous studies [33,35]. Ana Martínez-Martínez's study showed that after the implementation of the intervention, the reduction effect of bullying behavior was decreased, while the social and emotional ability did not change significantly [35].…”

“…A review of the previous literature found that the results provided by previous interventions were not particularly optimistic. Although not statistically significant, the covitality score increased over time, suggesting that they have practical significance in promoting effective social interventions and assessments in the real world [33][34][35]. In addition, the main problems encountered in the effectiveness of these programs have been related to their implementation.…”

Reading motivation, well‐being and reading achievement in second grade students

“…This 20‐item instrument measures students' school‐related gratitude, optimism, zest and persistence, as well as self‐reported prosocial behaviours. Although the SEHS‐P was initially validated with older elementary students (mean age = 11.1 years) (Furlong et al, 2013), Bates and Boren (2019) suggest the SEHS‐P may be appropriate for use with younger children and it has been used reliably with children as young as 8 years old (Wilkins et al, 2015) and in modified format with children as young as 6 years old (Naples & Tuckwiller, 2021).…”

“…The zest subscale (4 items) measures students' excitement about school (e.g., ‘I get really excited when I learn new things at school’), and the persistence subscale (4 items) measures students' perceived task performance in school (e.g., ‘I keep working until I get my schoolwork right’). The SEHS‐P (Furlong et al, 2013) has established good internal reliability across for full scale covitality (α = .89) and across subscales: school gratitude (α = .71), student zest (α = .78), school optimism (α = .71), student persistence (α = .80) for students in Grades 4–8 (Furlong et al, 2013; Renshaw, 2017; Wang et al, 2018) and with younger students in selected studies (Naples, 2019; Naples & Tuckwiller, 2021; Wilkins et al, 2015). Higher scores reflect higher levels of covitality.…”

“…Initial research into student well‐being focused primarily on singular traits (e.g., mindfulness, gratitude and life satisfaction) related to well‐being (Renshaw et al, 2015). However, an individual's well‐being is rarely reliant upon the presence of one or a few discrete traits (Naples & Tuckwiller, 2021). More holistic conceptualizations of school‐based well‐being have emerged that aim to understand the interactions of multiple factors and multileveled systems of support and student function that cultivate holistic well‐being to promote ‘psychologically healthy educational spaces for all children’ (Furlong et al, 2014, p. 28).…”