As a result, Capps et al. (2024) integrated activities focused on enhancing relationships at school with interventions intended to enhance the academic functioning of youth with attention problems. Another approach to developing and adapting interventions is to identify a subgroup of students for whom a particular problem exists, but current approaches do not target some of the reasons that this group of youth experiences the problem. Following recommendations by Castro and colleagues (2010), a multiple stage process was used to adapt an empirically-based, school intervention for SAD to be responsive to the unique lived experiences of Black teenagers. This paper discusses the development of the first culturally responsive, school-based intervention for SAD in Black adolescents, referred to as Interacting and Changing our Narratives (ICON).
- Given that evidence-based practices are often not used in schools, the need for approaches to improve implementation is critical.
- The low number of studies combined with the use of teacher self-report data weakens the confidence that can be placed in this finding, and as a result, this finding should be viewed with caution.
- Moving evidence-based practices into real-world settings is both a high priority and a challenge for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers.
- As a school-wide model of PBS implementation, a primary mission of SWPBIS is to create safe, equitable, and inclusive school cultures to support positive social, behavioral, and academic outcomes for all students, including students with disabilities ().
- Likewise, one review that only examined RCTs produced much higher quality evidence (Kallapiran et al., 2015).
Evidence-Based Strategies for Improving Student Outcomes
The third level of our framework represents individual-level factors that can promote or undermine the quality of intervention implementation in schools. For example, some school-based preventive interventions may be easier to implement in small schools than in large schools, or in rural or suburban communities than in urban settings. Characteristics of the school building or the student body aggregated at building level can be used to examine potential moderators of student outcomes and may predict the quality with which interventions are implemented (Bradshaw, Koth et al, in press). School culture is an important factor to consider because the introduction of evidence-based interventions may require expansion of the academic mission and a new focus on monitoring practices with precision to inform professional development. For example, strong administrative support for an intervention occurs when leaders within the school actively participate in the planning, training, and implementation of the program. The amount and type of resources available to deliver evidence-based services in schools – including funds, materials, knowledge, skills, and equipment available to provide the intervention – are important organizational-level factors to consider (Owens, 2004; Ringeisen et al, 2003).
The highest quality of evidence documented (“A Grade”) was for improvements in prosocial behavior, followed by “B Grade” evidence showing improvements in empathy and social competence, and reduced prejudice towards outgroups. The mixed results from studies specifically studying well-being were both from “A Grade” evidence. For a full breakdown of outcomes by these study characteristics and individual study evidence ratings, see Online Resource 4. See Table 1 for a description of each level of evidence, Table 2 for the outcomes per study, Fig. For the purposes of this study, we conceptualized well-being as subjective well-being (i.e., feelings of contentment, life satisfaction) and mental health as per clinical descriptors (i.e., depression, anxiety, suicidality, trauma, eating disorders).
From Evidence to Impact: Joining Our Best School Mental Health Practices with Our Best Implementation Strategies
The following databases may be helpful to staff in locating appropriate EBPs for their identified needs. The following resources may be helpful to school and district staff in using and navigating clearinghouses to select EBPs. While there are existing resources on how to navigate these sites, this process can still be challenging for many school and district staff. Each of these three tiers also requires that the evidence of impact be statistically significant, meaning that the impact is substantial enough to not be due to chance. What works assessment – Early intervention foundation, 10 Salamanca Place, London, SE1 7HB, UK.
Limitations and Future Research
Participants will work in small groups and engage in discussion and activities to help them prepare for the role of facilitator of a self-study team. The materials that may be accessed at the links below were developed to train potential facilitators of https://www.nj.gov/education/esser/arp/ self-study teams using the SEA or LEA Guide for Identifying Evidence-Based Interventions for School Improvement. The guides provide tools for facilitating the self-study process. Similarly, it is also important to look at how traditional psychological constructs such as cognitive ability, emotion regulation, and other potential moderators of intervention response interact to affect intervention response.
In doing so, it ensures that education stakeholders are using the best available research when making evidence-based decisions. The «Find What Works» tool allows users to easily search for studies by topic area, such as math or science, to find studies where there is evidence of positive effects. For Tiers 1-2, evidence should come from large, multisite studies with characteristics of the sample and setting1 similar to those in your school or district. Evidence-based interventions, therefore, have higher efficacy and are more efficient. Weist (Eds), International school mental health for adolescents- global opportunities and challenges.