|Arda (2012) ||Preschool Promoting Alternative THinking (Preschool PATHS)|
|Teacher Behaviour and Management Techniques: classroom structure and management, discipline, emotional communication and support, social awareness and problem solving, preventing misbehaviour||The Teacher Style Rating Scale (TSRS) (O)|
Intervention teachers outperformed control peers on measures of discipline (p < 0.05), emotional communication and support (p < 0.001), social awareness and problem solving (p < 0.001), and preventing misbehaviour (p < 0.001). Groups did not differ on classroom structures and management.
|Quality of the Classroom Environment: assessment of child behaviours, teacher responsiveness/supports||Classroom Atmosphere Rating Scale (CARS) (O)|
|Barnett (2008) ||Tools of the Mind|
18 classrooms (210)
|Global Classroom Quality: space, personal care routines, language and reasoning, teacher-child interactions, program structure, parent involvement||The Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scale-Revised (ECERS-R) (O)||S|
|Literacy Environment and Instruction||Supports for Early Literacy Assessment (SELA) (O)|
|Use of Scaffolding Techniques||The Preschool Classroom Implementation (PCI) Scale (O)|
|Emotional Climate, Classroom Management, Instruction||Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) (O)|
TOOLS classrooms scored significantly higher than CG on productivity (p = 0.042) with a trend towards higher levels of teacher sensitivity (p = 0.074). Groups did not differ on positive classroom climate, negative climate, over-control, behaviour management techniques, concept development, learning formats and engagement and quality of teacher feedback.
|Cappella (2015) ||INSIGHTS|
120, 60 in K (~16.57/class)
|Emotional Support and Classroom Organisation||Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) (O)|
INSIGHTS teachers showed higher levels of emotional support post intervention compared to attention-control classrooms (p < 0.05, ES = 0.30). Treatment effect was moderated by grade, and more pronounced for first grade rooms (p < 0.05, ES = 0.68). No differences between groups on level of classroom organisation.
|Domitrovich (2009) |
Bierman (2014) 
|Emotional Support and Instructional Support||Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) (O)|
CLASS showed moderate differences favouring the IG for emotional support however this did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.11, d = 0.39,). Significant effect on positive climate item (d = 0.61, p = 0.04) and a borderline effect on teacher sensitivity (d = 0.58, p = 0.07) was reported. No group differences on negative climate, over-control and behaviour management subscales. A non-significant trend favouring IG was reported for instructional support (p = 0.08, d = 0.45).
|Teaching Style: positive discipline, classroom management, positive emotional climate||The Teaching Style Rating Scale (TSRS) (O)|
The TSRS showed IG improvement on the positive emotional climate subscale (emotion expression, emotion regulation and emotion modelling, p = 0.05), and a significant intervention effect for classroom management (p = 0.002). There was no difference between groups on positive discipline, however IG teachers scored higher on individual item of proactive/preventive classroom management (p = 0.001).
|Child-Directed Talk: directives, questions, statements, decontextualised talk, richness and sensitivity of teacher’s child centred talk||The Classroom Language and Literacy Environment Observation (CLEO) (O)|
IG teachers showed greater linguistic support, made more statements (p = 0.001), asked more questions (p < 0.001), decontextualised utterances (p = 0.005) and engaged in richer and more sensitive talk with children (p = 0.004). Effect sizes ranged from d = 0.67 to d = 0.89. No difference between groups on directives.
|Fishbein (2016) ||Preschool PATHS|
4 schools (327)
|Student-Teacher Relationship: closeness, conflict||Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (T)||M|
|Gunter (2012) ||Strong Start Pre-K|
|Student-Teacher Relationship: closeness, conflict, dependency||Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (T)|
Total score increased in both IGs, however only reached statistical significance for the IG + booster lesson group (p < 0.05, d = 1.20). Both IG groups showed decreased conflict (p < 0.05, d = 0.43 for intervention and 0.67 for intervention + booster), while conflict in the CG increased. CG and intervention + booster groups increased level of closeness, with greatest improvement in the intervention + booster condition (p < 0.05, d = 1.35). The IG group without boosters showed increased dependency (p < 0.05, d = 0.43), while IG + boosters and CG showed decline.
|Jackman (2019) ||OpenMind (OM) Curriculum|
|Tendency to be mindful||Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) (T)|
Groups differed on the Describe subscale of the FFMQ. IG scores improved from baseline to post-intervention while scores decreased for CG (p < 0.05). There was no difference between groups on other subscales (observe, act with awareness, non- judgmental, non-react).
|Perceived stress||Perceived Stress Scale-10 (T)|
IG showed slight increase in teacher stress between baseline (M = 20.33, SD = 1.58) and post-intervention (M = 21.0, SD = 2.24), while CG showed a slight decrease between baseline (M = 21.14, SD = 2.12) and post-intervention (M = 20.42, SD = 2.30).
|Landry (2014) ||Responsive Early Childhood Curriculum (RECC) plus explicit social-emotional activities|
|Teacher Behaviour: teacher responsiveness and instruction||Teacher Behaviour Rating Scale (TBRS) (O)|
IG showed significantly greater improvement than controls for the average of all TBRS subscales (p < 0.0001, ES = 1.04). The following subscales reached statistical significance: classroom community (p = 0.009, ES = 0.61), oral language (p= 0.011, ES = 0.79), learning centres (p ≤ 0.0001, ES = 1.74), book reading (p = 0.001, ES = 1.35), written expression (p = 0.005, ES = 1.23), print and letter (p = 0.0002, ES = 1.35), and lesson plans (p < 0.0001, ES = 1.65). Groups did not differ on subscales relating to sensitivity, discipline, phonological awareness, mathematics, portfolios and team teaching.
Both RECC and RECC+ groups scored higher than controls, and did not differ from each other. At post-intervention, total score and 8/13 subscale scores for RECC and RECC+ groups were between medium-low and medium-high quality. In CG, only 3/13 subscales reached the medium-low quality rating.
|Teacher-Child Relationship: closeness, conflict||Adult-Child Relationship Scale (T)|
|Lonigan (2015) ||Preschool PATHS|
|Teacher Behaviour and Classroom Characteristics||Teacher Behaviour Rating Scale (TBRS) (O)|
Teachers in the Explicit SEL group scored higher than controls on the following classroom characteristics: classroom community (p < 0.01, ES = 0.73), lesson planning (p < 0.001, ES = 1.0) and team teaching (p < 0.01, ES = 0.77). The implicit SEL group outperformed CG on the following subscales: classroom community (p < 0.01, ES = 0.85), discipline (p < 0.05, ES = 0.48), lesson planning (p < 0.01, ES = 0.97) and team teaching reached borderline significance (p < 0.01, ES = 0.49). Explicit and implicit groups did not differ from each other. No intervention effects were reported for teacher sensitivity or learning centres.
On specific instructional activities, Explicit SEL group outperformed CG on book reading (p < 0.01, ES = 0.87), oral language (p < 0.05, ES = 0.57) and math activities (p < 0.05, ES = 0.63). The implicit SEL group outperformed controls on book reading (p < 0.001, ES = 0.87), oral language (p < 0.05, ES = 0.55), phonological awareness (p < 0.05, ES = 0.52), and math activities (p < 0.01, ES = 0.70). Explicit and implicit SEL groups did not differ from each other. No intervention effects were recorded for print activities or writing activities.
|Pickens (2009) ||The Peace Education|
Foundation (PEF) Socio-Emotional Development Programme
|Assessment of educator knowledge following two training workshops: Creating Caring Children (CCC) and Peacemaking Skills for Little Kids/Heling not Hurting: Teaching the I-Care Rules Through Literature (PSLK-HNH)||CCC: 10 open-ended questions (T)||W|
|PSLK-HNH: 21 open-ended questions (T)|
|Seyhan (2017) ||Preschool PATHS|
|Quality of the Classroom Environment: includes assessment of child behaviours and teacher responsiveness/supports for child||Classroom Atmosphere Rating Scale (CARS) (O)||W|
|Teacher Behaviour and Management: classroom structure and management, discipline, emotional communication and support, social awareness and social problem solving, preventing misbehaviour||The Teaching Style Rating Scale (TSRS) (O)|
|Student-Teacher Relationship: closeness, conflict, dependency||Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS) (T)|
|Upshur (2017) ||Second Step Early Learning Curriculum|
|Frequency of Teacher-Led Social-Emotional (SE) and Executive Functioning (EF) Activities||Social-Emotional and Executive Functioning Classroom Observation Tool (SEEF) (O)|
(based on sample of 8 IG and 8 CG classrooms)
Teachers in the IG implemented significantly more EF activities: attention and engagement (p < 0.01), thinking ahead and thinking back (p < 0.01), think time (p < 0.01), encouraging participation (p < 0.01), specific reinforcement (p < 0.001) and overall attentiveness (p < 0.05). Effect sizes >1.0. Only one SE item favoured IG: calming down (p < 0.001).
No difference was observed between groups on identifying feelings, perspective taking, understanding strong emotions, social problem solving or friendship skills activities.
|Upshur (2013) ||Second Step Preschool/|
Kindergarten Social/Emotional Learning curriculum
|Interaction: discipline, general supervision, staff-child interactions||Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale Revised (ECERS-R), Interaction Scale (O)|
In Year 1, groups did not differ on any measures. However, effect sizes favoured intervention classrooms in the medium to high range for ECERS-R interaction scale (d = 0.35), and ECERS-R interaction items: discipline (d = 0.83) and general supervision (d = 0.32). In Year 2, IG showed greater improvement in ECERS-R interaction scale (p < 0.05, d = 1.81) and discipline (p < 0.01, d = 2.44). General supervision (p < 0.10, d = 1.78) and staff-child interactions (p < 0.10, d = 1.49) reached borderline significance.
Results remained significant after adjustment for covariates.
|Quality of Teacher Interaction Skill: positive, punitive, permissive, detached||Caregiver Interaction Scale (CIS) (O)|
|Vestal (2004) ||I Can Problem Solve|
|Perceptions and Practices in Relation to Conflict||ICPS dialogue (T)||W|
|Webster-Stratton (2008) ||The Incredible Years Dina Dinosaur Social Skills and Problem Solving Curriculum|
|Teacher Behaviour: positive reinforcement, critical statements, amount of interaction with children||Multiple Option Observation System for Experimental Studies (MOOSES) (O)||S|
|Teaching Style and Classroom Management: harsh/critical, inconsistent/permissive, warm/affectionate, social/emotional teaching, effective discipline||Teacher Coder Impressions Inventory (TCI) (O)|
After controlling for covariates, IG teachers were less harsh/critical (ES = 0.67), and inconsistent/permissive (ES = 0.63), more warm/affectionate (ES = 0.51) and placed more emphasis on social-emotional teaching (ES = 0.96). Main effects for effective discipline did not emerge, but intervention effect depended on the grade of the teacher: Kindergarten and Grade 1 teachers showed higher levels of effective discipline than Head Start teachers.
|Quality of the Classroom Atmosphere: includes assessment of child behaviours and teacher’s classroom management||Classroom Atmosphere Measure (O)|