The Integration of Positive Psychology and Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports to Improve Minoritized Students' Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Outcomes
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This study aimed to examine the effectiveness of a culturally adapted 9-session group positive psychology intervention with and without an added peer reporting intervention on student levels of social, emotional, and behavioral functioning. Many studies have evaluated either school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports (SWPBIS) or positive psychology interventions (PPIs) in isolation, but very few studies have examined the extent to which combining these interventions and approaches may promote complete mental health. The Well-Being Promotion Program is a multitarget positive psychology intervention that has been evaluated in both elementary and middle school populations (Roth et al., 2017; Lenz et al., 2019; Suldo et al., 2014; Suldo et al., 2015). This study provided a culturally adapted WBPP in a small group format to elementary and middle school students who initially reported room for growth in life satisfaction. Students were also randomly selected to receive the positive peer reporting (PPR) which was aligned with the SWPBIS plan. PPR entails a randomly selecting students to receive positive peer reports at the end of group sessions and encourages students to identify the strengths of others. The intervention entailed nine sessions from the 10-core sessions of the WBPP provided twice weekly for five weeks in the fourth quarter of the 2021-2022 school year. Participants in this study included 26 5th-8th grade students in one K-8 school in the southeastern United States, a K-8 charter school that serves a predominately minoritized student population. Participants were stratified by grade level and then randomly assigned to receive the WBPP alone, or the WBPP including PPR. At the end of the intervention (WBPP or WBPP+PPR), students reported their feelings about the intervention by rating treatment acceptability. Students completed a pre- and post-assessment examining levels of emotional well-being (life satisfaction, positive and negative affect), behavioral problems (hyperactivity, conduct problems, anxiety, and depression) and peer relationships (peer problems, satisfaction with friends). Regarding acceptability of the intervention, a series of t-tests indicated no significant differences between conditions in levels of desirability, feasibility, or understanding, but students who participated in the WBPP+PPR condition tended to rate the intervention as somewhat less acceptable, particularly with regard to desirability and understanding. This study analyzed the differential effects of the PPI (the WBPP) with and without the behavioral support (PPR) using a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). This study found that students who received the culturally adapted WBPP experienced similar social, emotional, and behavioral outcomes than students who received the adapted WBPP + PPR. Overall, this study determined that there were no differences in levels of emotional, social, or behavioral outcomes for students who received a PPI combined with a behavioral support compared to those who only received a PPI. The small sample size in this study and abbreviated duration of the intervention period should be considered when interpreting results. Future directions and implications for educational professionals are discussed.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».