Through the eyes of the beholder
de Leeuw, Renske
DOI:
10.33612/diss.113185162
IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from
it. Please check the document version below.
Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Publication date:
2020
Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database
Citation for published version (APA):
de Leeuw, R. (2020). Through the eyes of the beholder: unfolding social participation "from within" the
classroom. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. https://doi.org/10.33612/diss.113185162
Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
Take-down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.
The proof of the intervention is in the
implementation; A systematic review
*0/$(+' ( )/ /$*)ޔ '$/4*!
classroom-based interventions facilitating
social participation of students with SEBD
This chapter is submitted as: de Leeuw, R. R., de Boer, A. A., & Minnaert, A. E. M. G. (under
review). The proof of the intervention is in the implementation; A systematic review about
$(+' ( )/ /$*)ޔ '$/4*! ' ..-**(Ҋ . $)/ -1 )/$*).! $'$/ /$*).* $ '+ -/$ $+ /$*)
of students with SEBD
ABSTRACT
6WXGHQWVZLWKVRFLDOHPRWLRQDOSUREOHPVRUEHKDYLRXUDOGLIĆFXOWLHVH[SHULHQFHFKDOOHQJHV with their social participation in regular primary schools. In response, a substantial number of interventions have been developed. The effectivity of these interventions are at variance ZKHQDVVHVVHGLQWKHQDWXUDOFODVVURRPFRQWH[WGXHWRWKHLPSOHPHQWDWLRQĆGHOLW\E\ WHDFKHUV ,Q UHYLHZ VWXGLHV KRZHYHU OLWWOH DWWHQWLRQ KDV EHHQ SDLG WR WKH LQćXHQFH RI LPSOHPHQWDWLRQĆGHOLW\7KLVUHYLHZSUHVHQWVWKHUHVXOWVRIDV\VWHPDWLFVHDUFK -DQXDU\ 1994 to September 2019). Seven studies met the inclusion criteria. The diversity between WKHVWXGLHVZDVODUJH(DFKVWXG\UHSRUWHGRQPXOWLSOHDVSHFWVRILPSOHPHQWDWLRQĆGHOLW\ H[FHSWWKHFULWLFDOLQWHUYHQWLRQFRPSRQHQWV6XUSULVLQJO\WKHLPSDFWRIWKHLPSOHPHQWDWLRQ ĆGHOLW\RQWKHLQWHUYHQWLRQVHIIHFWLYLW\ZDVQRWDQDO\VHG7REULGJHWKHJDSEHWZHHQWKH needs of practice and how the implementation of the intervention is conducted, future UHVHDUFK VKRXOG H[SOLFLWO\ UHSRUW RQ WKH PXOWLGLPHQVLRQDO DVSHFWV RI LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ ĆGHOLW\
INTRODUCTION
6LQFHWKHUDWLĆFDWLRQRIWKH6DODPDQFD6WDWHPHQW 81(6&2 UHDOL]LQJDQLQFOXVLYH education system for all students has become part of international research and policy agendas. Not only should the academic needs of each individual student be met in the inclusive educational system, but students’ social and developmental needs must also be taken into account and nurtured (UNESCO, 1994). Despite efforts to make changes towards inclusive schools, it has been repeatedly proven over the past 25 years, that VWXGHQWVZLWKRUDWULVNRIVRFLDOHPRWLRQDOSUREOHPVRUEHKDYLRXUDOGLIĆFXOWLHV 6(%' DUHLQGDQJHUWRH[SHULHQFHGLIĆFXOWLHVZLWKWKHLUVRFLDOSDUWLFLSDWLRQLQLQFOXVLYHHGXFDWLRQ systems (Adderley et al., 2015; Henke et al., 2017; Pinto et al., 2018; Smeets et al., 2017). To improve the social participation of these students, manifold interventions have been GHVLJQHGDQGHYDOXDWHG HJ'XUODNHWDO 0DDJ 3LDQWD +DPUH ,QWKH OLWHUDWXUHVRFLDOSDUWLFLSDWLRQLVRSHUDWLRQDOL]HGLQWKHIROORZLQJIRXUDVSHFWV IULHQGVKLSV and relations; 2) acceptance; 3) interaction and contact and 4) the social self-perception of WKHVWXGHQW %RVVDHUWHWDO .RVWHU1DNNHQHWDO
Review studies evaluating these interventions indicate that the effectivity is highly variable, UDQJLQJ IURP QR WR KLJK HIIHFWLYLW\ $GDLU 8OOHQKDJ .HHQ *UDQOXQG ,PPV 'XUODNHWDO *DUURWHHWDO 4XLQQHWDO 7KHVHPL[HGUHVXOWVFRXOGEH H[SODLQHGE\VHYHUDOUHDVRQVVXFKDVWKHODUJHKHWHURJHQHLW\RIWKHWDUJHWSRSXODWLRQ (Maag, 2006), different settings (i.e. outside classroom) (Garrote et al., 2017), or that the interventions were implemented by different agents (i.e. researchers, research assistants, school psychologists, paraprofessionals or (special education) teachers (Garrote et al., 2017). Regarding the latter, if an intervention is (fully) implemented by the researcher or a highly trained implementation agent, there is implicit quality assurance control regarding LPSOHPHQWDWLRQĆGHOLW\ )OD\HWDO 6PRONRZVNLHWDO &RQWUROOLQJIRUKRZDQ LQWHUYHQWLRQLVLPSOHPHQWHGDQGDGKHULQJWRWKHLQWHUYHQWLRQSURJUDPLVEHQHĆFLDOIRUWKH effectivity of an intervention (ibid). It is known that teachers make adaptations during the LPSOHPHQWDWLRQRILQWHUYHQWLRQVLQRUGHUWRĆWFRQWH[WXDOYDULDEOHVVXFKDVVWXGHQWWHDFKHU DQGFODVVURRPFKDUDFWHULVWLFV 6XWKHUODQGHWDO WKHUHE\LQćXHQFLQJWKHRXWFRPHRI the intervention (Flay et al., 2005; Moir, 2018; Smolkowski et al., 2013). Notwithstanding, previous reviews assessed the effectivity of interventions as a complete program, thereby QRWWDNLQJLQWRDFFRXQWKRZDQLQWHUYHQWLRQZDVLPSOHPHQWHGDQGKRZWKHH[HFXWLRQ LQćXHQFHVWKHHIIHFWLYLW\RIWKHLQWHUYHQWLRQ )OD\HWDO 6PRONRZVNLHWDO
:LWKWKHFXUUHQWV\VWHPDWLFUHYLHZZHDLPWRSURYLGHDQRYHUYLHZRIHPSLULFDOO\EDVHG LQWHUYHQWLRQVWKDWOLVWLPSOHPHQWDWLRQĆGHOLW\GDWDWKHUHE\SURYLGLQJDQRYHUYLHZRIWKH interventions’ active ingredients to facilitate social participation of students with SEBD in the classroom.
,PSOHPHQWDWLRQĆGHOLW\
The concept of LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ ĆGHOLW\ refers to the degree to which an intervention is
implemented and if this is conducted in accordance with the designers’ intentions (Dhillon HWDO 'XUODN 'X3UH 0F.HQQDHWDO 2è'RQQHOO ,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ ĆGHOLW\FDQEHFRQFHSWXDOL]HGDVDPXOWLGLPHQVLRQDOFRQVWUXFWFRQWDLQLQJWKHIROORZLQJ FRQFHSWV SURPRWLRQ RI SURJUDP ĆGHOLW\ LQWHUYHQWLRQ DGKHUHQFH H[SRVXUH TXDOLW\ RI GHOLYHU\SURJUDPDGDSWDWLRQDQGSDUWLFLSDWLRQUHVSRQVLYHQHVV 'DQH 6FKQHLGHU *UHVKDP 1HOVRQ&RUGUD\+XOOHPDQ'DUURZ 6RPPHU 6XWKHUODQGHWDO %R[SURYLGHVDQRSHUDWLRQDOL]DWLRQRIIUHTXHQWO\XVHGDVSHFWVRILPSOHPHQWDWLRQ ĆGHOLW\EDVHGRQWKHGHĆQLWLRQVDVSURYLGHGE\'DQHDQG6FKQHLGHU DQG5REHUWV 9DXJKQ%HUHWYDVDQG:RQJ :LWKLQWKHĆHOGRIKHDOWKDQGHGXFDWLRQDOVFLHQFHV WKHUHDUHGLIIHUHQFHVLQKRZLPSOHPHQWDWLRQĆGHOLW\LVFRQFHSWXDOL]HGPHDVXUHGRUGHĆQHG 'KLOORQHWDO ([DPSOHVRIV\QRQ\PVDUHWUHDWPHQWLQWHJULW\WUHDWPHQWĆGHOLW\ LQWHUYHQWLRQĆGHOLW\WUHDWPHQWDGKHUHQFHDQGLQWHUYHQWLRQRUSURJUDPLQWHJULW\ %UDQGW 0H\HUV 'DQH 6FKQHLGHU 6XWKHUODQGHWDO 6ZDQVRQ:DQ]HN+DULQJ &LXOOR 0F&XOOH\
%R[2SHUDWLRQDOL]DWLRQRIWKHFRQFHSWVUHJDUGLQJLPSOHPHQWDWLRQĆGHOLW\
3URPRWLRQRILQWHUYHQWLRQĆGHOLW\: a (training) manual, implementer training,
implementation supervision was available.
Adherence: measures regarding how and whether the implementation agent is
faithful to the guidelines of the intervention.
Exposure: detailing how frequent and for how long the intervention took place. Quality of delivery: measures regarding how well the intervention is implemented.
Intervention model LGHQWLĆFDWLRQRUGHVFULSWLRQRIWKHSUHVXPHG WKHRUHWLFDO
theory of change, related to a general theory or theories. Thereby justifying the intervention activities and components.
Critical components LGHQWLĆFDWLRQRILQWHUYHQWLRQFRPSRQHQWVWKDWDUHHVVHQWLDODQG
important for the effectivity of the intervention. These can be established prior to WHVWLQJWKRXJKWQHFHVVDU\WRUHDOL]HRXWFRPHVRULGHQWLĆHGGXULQJUHćHFWLRQVRI GLIIHUHQFHVLQH[SHFWHGLQWHUYHQWLRQHIIHFWLYLW\
Participant responsiveness: a measure regarding participant perspectives to the
acceptability of the goals, procedures, outcomes, perceived effectiveness and UHćHFWLRQVRQWKHDFFHSWDELOLW\DQGIHDVLELOLW\RIWKHLQWHUYHQWLRQSURFHGXUH * Based on Dane and Schneider (1998) and Roberts et al. (2017).
,PSRUWDQFHRILGHQWLĆFDWLRQRILPSOHPHQWDWLRQĆGHOLW\
5HSRUWLQJDQGVWXG\LQJLPSOHPHQWDWLRQĆGHOLW\SURYLGHVLQVLJKWVLQWRWKHJDSEHWZHHQ theory (the intervention design) and practice (implementation by the teacher in the VWXGHQWVèQDWXUDOKDELWDWLHWKHFODVVURRPFRQWH[W 0HDVXULQJLPSOHPHQWDWLRQĆGHOLW\RI intervention studies in which teachers were the implementation agent provides information about why teachers adjusted the intervention (O’Donnell, 2008; Swanson et al., 2013) and WKHH[WHQWWRZKLFKWKHVHDGDSWDWLRQVKDGDQHIIHFWRQWKHGHVLUHGLQWHUYHQWLRQJRDOV 'DQH 6FKQHLGHU WKHUHE\SURYLGLQJFRQWH[WXDOLQIRUPDWLRQUHJDUGLQJWKHHIIHFWLYLW\ RIDQLQWHUYHQWLRQ LELG )RUH[DPSOHLWLVNQRZQWKDWLIWHDFKHUVĆQGDQLQWHUYHQWLRQRU component requiring a high degree of effort, the intervention will be implemented with SRRUĆGHOLW\RUQRWDWDOO *UHVKDP *UHVKDPHWDO :LWKRXWWKHGHWDLOVRI DQLQWHUYHQWLRQèVLPSOHPHQWDWLRQĆGHOLW\LWLVLPSRVVLEOHWRPDNHYDOLGLQWHUSUHWDWLRQV regarding the effectivity of an intervention.
,QRUGHUWRSURYLGHWKLVLQIRUPDWLRQLWLVUHTXLUHGWRFOHDUO\GHVFULEHWKHVSHFLĆFDWLRQVRI WKHLQWHUYHQWLRQSURJUDPVXFKDVKRZLPSOHPHQWDWLRQĆGHOLW\LVpromoted and adhered to, the level of exposure and quality of delivery, and the intervention model (model of change). It is also important to identify critical intervention components, identify the implementation
agent, and report on participant responsiveness 'XUODN 'X3UH *RRGVRQ3ULFH
Darrow, 2014; Nelson et al., 2012; O’Donnell, 2008; Sutherland et al., 2013).In the literature UHJDUGLQJLPSOHPHQWDWLRQĆGHOLW\WKHLGHQWLĆFDWLRQRIFULWLFDOLQWHUYHQWLRQFRPSRQHQWVKDV EHHQLGHQWLĆHGDVWKHNH\DVSHFWWRHQVXUHWKHHIIHFWLYHQHVVRIWKHLQWHUYHQWLRQV 'XQODS :KLWH9HUD:LOVRQ 3DQDFHN 0F.HQQDHWDO :LWKRXWWKHPHDVXUHPHQWRI ĆGHOLW\GDWDLWLVLPSRVVLEOHWRLGHQWLI\ZKHWKHUDQGZKDWVSHFLĆFLQWHUYHQWLRQFRPSRQHQWV DUHRIJUHDWHULPSRUWDQFHWRWKHHIIHFWLYLW\RIDQLQWHUYHQWLRQ 'XQODSHWDO 0F.HQQD et al., 2016). One of the consequences of not identifying critical intervention components is WKDWFULWLFDOLQIRUPDWLRQLVZLWKKHOGIURPWKHLPSOHPHQWDWLRQDJHQW 6WDLQV 9LFNUH\ 9LGDLU6DXUR%ORFKHU6FXGHOODUL +RDJZRRG 3URYLGLQJWKLVNLQGRILQIRUPDWLRQ ensures the degree to which an intervention is implemented as intended, especially when WKHLPSOHPHQWDWLRQDJHQWGLIIHUVIURPWKHGHVLJQHURIWKHLQWHUYHQWLRQ &DUWHU +XJKHV 'XUODNHWDO *UHVKDP (OOLRWW 6XWKHUODQGHWDO WKHUHE\HQVXULQJ WKHVXVWDLQDELOLW\RIWKHHIIHFWLYLW\ 'DQH 6FKQHLGHU $VVXFKWKHLGHQWLĆFDWLRQ of critical components is crucial in supporting teachers to tailor interventions to meet the VSHFLĆFLQGLYLGXDOQHHGVDQGFKDUDFWHULVWLFVRIHDFKVWXGHQWZLWKDQGZLWKRXW6(%' )XFKV et al., 2012; Maag, 2006).
In order to tailor interventions to meet the needs of the students, it is necessary not only to know their needs but also to assess how they perceive the intervention (Sargeant, 2018; 6DUJHDQW *LOOHWW6ZDQ 7KLVLQIRUPDWLRQLVQRWRQO\UHOHYDQWWRWKHWHDFKHUEXW also to researchers. Assessing participant responsiveness could and should be conducted in several stages of the development of an intervention, but also during the evaluation of DQLQWHUYHQWLRQVXFKDVUHFXUVLYHERRWVWUDSSLQJPRPHQWV $LQVFRZ 0HVVLRX %RHNDHUWV 0LQQDHUW 6DUJHDQW 6DUJHDQW *LOOHWW6ZDQ )UHTXHQWO\ only the participant responsiveness from teachers, specialists and parents are taken LQWR DFFRXQW *UHVKDP (OOLRWW 0F.HQQD HW DO WKHUHE\ QHJOHFWLQJ WKH SHUVSHFWLYHVDQGQHHGVDFFRUGLQJWRWKHLQWHUYHQWLRQUHFLSLHQWVIRUH[DPSOHWKHVWXGHQWV ZKRVKRXOGEHQHĆWIURPWKHLQWHUYHQWLRQ &DOGHUHWDO /XQGTYLVW 6DUJHDQW 2018). Clearly, it is not only the perspectives of the teachers that are important but of the students as well. Addressing the perceptions of the classroom agents, as part of assessing SDUWLFLSDQWUHVSRQVLYHQHVVFRXOGHQKDQFHWKHHIIHFWLYLW\RIDQLQWHUYHQWLRQ $LQVFRZ 0HVVLRX %RHNDHUWV 0LQQDHUW 6DUJHDQW *LOOHWW6ZDQ
In recent years, a small increase has been found in recent studies reporting on the participant UHVSRQVLYHQHVVDFFRUGLQJWRVWXGHQWV 0F.HQQDHWDO <HWWKHLQFOXVLRQRIVWXGHQWVè SHUVSHFWLYHVDQGQHHGVLQWKHGHVLJQRILQWHUYHQWLRQVVHHPWREHDEVHQW 6DUJHDQW *LOOHWW Swan, 2019). This is not in line with the Incheon Declaration: Education 2030 and the fourth sustainable development goal for education (UNESCO, 2015), stating that students should be directly consulted in the process of developing education interventions for students (Article 84, UNESCO, 2015).
6.1.3 The present study
Recently, two review studies have been published regarding school-based intervention studies aimed at facilitating the social participation of students with special educational needs in inclusive education settings (Adair et al., 2015; Garrote et al., 2017). The LQWHUYHQWLRQV LQFOXGHG LQ WKHVH UHYLHZV VSHFLĆFDOO\ DLPHG WR IDFLOLWDWH RQH RU PXOWLSOH aspects of social participation, and the effectivity was assessed using measurements such as nomination data or peer interactions (Adair et al., 2015). These reviews presented OLPLWHGLQIRUPDWLRQUHJDUGLQJWKHLPSOHPHQWDWLRQĆGHOLW\RIWKHLQFOXGHGLQWHUYHQWLRQV $VSHFWV RI LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ ĆGHOLW\ WKDW ZHUH LGHQWLĆHG LQ WKH UHYLHZ VWXGLHV ZHUH H[SRVXUH *DUURWHHWDO LQWHUYHQWLRQIUHTXHQF\DQGWKHH[WHQWWRZKLFKWKHUHZDV intervention adherence (Adair et al., 2015). Although Adair et al. (2015) did conclude that research should focus more on individually-tailored programmes, because the results of LQGLYLGXDOL]HGLQWHUYHQWLRQVHQKDQFHGWKHSDUWLFLSDWLRQRXWFRPHVRIVWXGHQWVWKH\GLGQRW include such critical intervention components in their review. Although the interventions ZHUHFODVVURRPEDVHGDQGZHUHWKHUHIRUHLPSOHPHQWHGLQWKHQDWXUDOFODVVURRPFRQWH[W most implementation agents were researchers, research assistants, school psychologists, or paraprofessionals (Adair et al., 2015; Garrote et al., 2017). These implementation agents ZHUHHLWKHUKLJKO\WUDLQHGRUNQHZLPSOLFLWO\ZKLFKLQWHUYHQWLRQFRPSRQHQWVDQGĆGHOLW\ aspects were critical for the effectivity of an intervention (Flay et al., 2005; Smolkowski et al., 2013). Based on these reviews (Adair et al., 2015; Garrote et al., 2017), it is impossible to conclude whether the effectivity of the interventions or lack of effectivity, could be attributed to the intervention design or how these interventions were implemented and DVVHVVHG 'DQH 6FKQHLGHU $VLQIRUPDWLRQDERXWLPSOHPHQWDWLRQĆGHOLW\LVDYHU\ LPSRUWDQWDVSHFWLQHVWDEOLVKLQJWKHHIIHFWLYHQHVVRIDQLQWHUYHQWLRQZHDLPWRĆOOWKLVJDS in knowledge in this review.
The present study will attempt to provide an overview of evidence-based interventions, LQFOXGLQJLPSOHPHQWDWLRQĆGHOLW\GDWDE\FRQGXFWLQJDV\VWHPDWLFUHYLHZ7KHUHYLHZ will be conducted in two phases; First, we will provide an overview of classroom-based interventions, implemented and assessed in the natural classroom setting. Second, we ZLOOUHSRUWRQWKHPXOWLGLPHQVLRQDODVSHFWVRILPSOHPHQWDWLRQĆGHOLW\RIWKHLQFOXGHG intervention studies.
METHOD
6.2.1 Procedure
This systematic review was conducted using the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) in order to provide transparency 0RKHU/LEHUDWL7HW]ODII $OWPDQ $FRPSUHKHQVLYHDQGV\VWHPDWLFVHDUFKZDV conducted via EBSCOhost in the databases of PsychINFO, SocINDEX, ERIC, PsycARTICLES, and MEDLINE for the timeframe of January 1994 to September 2019. The onset of this WLPHIUDPHLVPDUNHGE\WKHUDWLĆFDWLRQRIWKH6DODPDQFD6WDWHPHQW 81(6&2 'XHWRGLIIHUHQWRSWLRQVLQW\SHVRIVHDUFKĆHOGVEHWZHHQWKHGDWDEDVHVWKHRSWLRQRI QRQVSHFLĆHGVHDUFKĆHOGZDVXVHGIRUWKHVHDUFKVWULQJVLQ(%6&2KRVW7KHVHDUFKZDV VSHFLĆHGWRDFDGHPLFMRXUQDOVWKDWZHUHSXEOLVKHGLQ(QJOLVK
%R[SUHVHQWVWKHNH\ZRUGVDQG%RROHDQRSHUDWLRQVWKDWZHUHXVHGWRLGHQWLI\UHOHYDQW studies aimed at facilitating the social inclusion (phenomena of interest) of students with SEBD (population) in the inclusive primary classroom (context). Because of the broad description and use of the term SEBD (Cannon et al., 2013; Cooper et al., 2013), multiple related terms were included using the Boolean operation OR.
Based on a pilot search, including a string for the term social participation, the decision was made not to use this search string, because this string decreased the amount of hits VLJQLĆFDQWO\%\GRLQJVRZHSUHYHQWHGWKHULVNRIH[FOXGLQJVWXGLHVWKDWUHDOO\PDWWHUHG The words in the social participation string were based on a wide range of terms commonly used in the literature to describe social participation (Bossaert et al., 2013; Garrote et al., .RVWHU1DNNHQHWDO
6.2.2 Inclusion criteria
Articles were included based on the following criteria:
• Participants were attending general primary schools, and were between 6 and 12 years old;
• At least one participant in the intervention study was receiving special educational support for SEBD or was indicated as at risk of or formally assessed with SEBD; • ,QWHUYHQWLRQVZHUHIRFXVHGRQLPSURYLQJRUUHDOL]LQJVRFLDOSDUWLFLSDWLRQRURQH
RI WKH VXEWKHPHV IULHQGVKLSVVRFLDO UHODWLRQVKLSV VRFLDO LQWHUDFWLRQV VRFLDO DFFHSWDQFHVRFLDOVHOISHUFHSWLRQDVGHĆQHGE\.RVWHU1DNNHQHWDO • Interventions’ effectivity was supported with assessment data measuring (one of)
the subthemes of social participation (e.g., sociometric data);
• Interventions were delivered in the classroom or in the recess of the regular classroom and implemented by the regular primary teachers or teachers who received support from a researcher, paraprofessional, or special education teacher.
The latter situation represents a natural situation in the regular classroom, as it is not uncommon for regular teachers to receive additional support in the classroom in the form of a student assistant or special education teacher (Flay et al., 2005; Fuchs et al., 2012; Smolkowski et al., 2013).
Box 6.2 Search strings
Population: special educational need* OR special needs education OR social
HPRWLRQDOSUREOHP 25HPRWLRQDOEHKDYLRUGLIĆFXOWLHV25HPRWLRQDOEHKDYLRU GLIĆFXOW\25VRFLDOSUREOHP 25VRFLDOGLIĆFXOW 25VRFLDOGLVRUGHU 25HPRWLRQDO SUREOHP 25HPRWLRQDOGLIĆFXOW 25HPRWLRQDOGLVRUGHU 25EHKDYLRUSUREOHP25 EHKDYLRUSUREOHPV25EHKDYLRUGLIĆFXOWLHV25EHKDYLRUGLIĆFXOW\25EHKDYLRU GLVRUGHU25EHKDYLRUGLVRUGHUV25DIIHFWLYHSUREOHP 25DIIHFWLYHGLIĆFXOW 25 affective disorder*; AND
phenomena of interest: strateg* OR teacher strateg* OR classroom intervention* OR
social intervention* OR intervention OR program* OR method* OR approach* OR practice* OR teacher skill* OR teacher behavio#r OR classroom management OR school based intervention* OR classroom based intervention*;
AND
Context: primary education OR primary school* OR elementary education OR
elementary school* OR middle school* OR general education OR general classroom OR mainstream education OR mainstream classroom OR inclusive classroom OR inclusive school OR inclusive education.
6.2.3 Selection of studies
The search resulted in 11930 references after removing duplicates (Qb b DQGWKH
VHOHFWLRQ SURFHGXUH ZDV FRQGXFWHG LQ WKUHH VXFFHVVLYH VWHSV )LUVW 5/ ĆUVW DXWKRU screened the titles against the criteria as described in the inclusion criteria. Based on this screening, records were removed for the second step; because they were not journal articles
(Qb b GLGQRWLQFOXGH(QJOLVKUHFRUGV Qb b RUZHUHQRWLQWHUYHQWLRQVWXGLHVIRU
H[DPSOHPHWDDQDO\VHVDQG QDUUDWLYH UHYLHZV Qb b ,IDWLWOHFRXOGQRWEHH[SOLFLWO\ H[FOXGHG HJGLGQRWLQYROYHDQLQWHUYHQWLRQVWXG\IDFLOLWDWLQJVRFLDOSDUWLFLSDWLRQRUGLG QRWFRQFHUQSULPDU\HGXFDWLRQ WKHUHFRUGZDVLQFOXGHGLQWKHQH[WVWHS nexcludedb b In a second step, the abstracts of the remaining records (Qb b ZHUHVFUHHQHGE\5/
During the screening, uncertain records based on the abstract were pre-discussed by RL and AM (third author), until consensus was reached. After the initial screening of the DEVWUDFWVE\5/$0FRGHGRIWKHDEVWUDFWVIRULQFOXVLRQRUH[FOXVLRQWRDVVHVVWKH interrater reliability (IRR) of the inclusion of abstracts. An IRR with a Cohen’s kappa (k) of >.70 is considered appropriate, >.80 acceptable, and > .90 always acceptable (Lombard et al., 2002). The IRR for the abstract phase was 64% (Nb=.60). Difference between coding was
mainly due to unclearness of whether or not the intervention addressed one of the themes RIVRFLDOSDUWLFLSDWLRQ)RUH[DPSOHVRFLDOHIIHFWLYLW\LVQRWDWKHPHRIVRFLDOSDUWLFLSDWLRQ DORQHVRLWZRXOGKDYHEHHQH[FOXGHGLQWKHDEVWUDFWSKDVH+RZHYHUVRFLDOHIIHFWLYLW\FDQ be seen as part of social self-perception, leading us to question its inclusion after all. After LWHUDWLRQEHWZHHQ5/DQG$0UHFRUGVWKDWZHUHRQO\H[FOXGHGIRUQRWDGGUHVVLQJVRFLDO SDUWLFLSDWLRQRURQHRIWKHWKHPHVZHUHWKHUHIRUHLQFOXGHGLQWKHIXOOWH[WSKDVH7KLVZDV LQRUGHUWRSUHYHQWWKRVHVWXGLHVZHUHH[FOXGHGEHFDXVHWKH\XVHWKHWHUPVHOIHIIHFWLYLW\ In the third and last step of the inclusion process, the complete manuscripts (Qb=74) were
read and assessed by RL. Again, AM coded 10% of the complete manuscripts to assess the IRR. The IRR was 100% (Nb=1). Based on this satisfactory score, the selection procedure
ZDVFRQWLQXHG7KHVHOHFWLRQSURFHVVUHVXOWHGLQDQH[FOXVLRQRIUHFRUGV7KHLQFOXVLRQ ćRZFKDUW EDVHGRQ0RKHUHWDO LVSURYLGHGLQ)LJXUH
)LJXUH,QFOXVLRQćRZFKDUW
6.2.4 Data extraction
7R SURYLGH DQ RYHUYLHZ RI HPSLULFDOO\EDVHG LQWHUYHQWLRQV ĆUVW SKDVH WKH IROORZLQJ LQIRUPDWLRQZDVWDEXODWHG QDPHW\SHRILQWHUYHQWLRQDLPHGDVSHFWRIVRFLDOSDUWLFLSDWLRQ measures used to assess and evaluate changes in social participation and target students FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DJHJUDGH6(%'GHVFULSWLRQ ,QDGGLWLRQHIIHFWVL]HVRIWKHLQWHUYHQWLRQ on aspects of social participation and the level of evidence were established. Due to the GLYHUVLW\ RI HIIHFW VL]HV ZH FKRRVH WR DSSO\ FDWHJRUL]DWLRQ LQWHUSUHWDWLRQV 7DEOH SURYLGHVDQRYHUYLHZRIWKHLQWHUSUHWDWLRQRIWKHHIIHFWVL]HV,ISRSXODWLRQHIIHFWVL]HV (e.g. Cohen’s d and dppc2 bZHUHQRWSURYLGHG EXWGDWDZHUHDYDLODEOH WKHVHZHUHFRPSXWHG XVLQJWKHFDOFXODWRUE\/HQKDUGDQG/HQKDUG 7KHOHYHORIHYLGHQFHZDVFDWHJRUL]HG XVLQJWKHFODVVLĆFDWLRQRIWKHGHJUHHVRIFDXVDOLW\IRUHIIHFWVWXGLHVIURP'XQVW6Q\GHU DQG0DQNLQHQ %DVHGRQWKHGHVLJQRIWKHHIIHFWVWXG\DQGVSHFLĆFFKDUDFWHULVWLFV RIWKHLQWHUYHQWLRQVVWXGLHVZHUHFDWHJRUL]HGLQWRORZPHGLXPDQGKLJKFDXVDOLQIHUHQFH
As part of the second phase of the review, additional information regarding aspects of LPSOHPHQWDWLRQĆGHOLW\ZHUHH[WUDFWHG7KHFRQFHSWVRILPSOHPHQWDWLRQĆGHOLW\ZHUH RSHUDWLRQDOL]DWLRQEDVHGRQWKHGHĆQLWLRQVSURYLGHGE\'DQHDQG6FKQHLGHU DQG 5REHUWVHWDO VHH%R[LQWKHLQWURGXFWLRQ
Table 6.1 Interpretation of effect sizes*
No effect Small Medium Large
D < .20 .20 - .49 .50 - .79 ă R < .10 .10 - .29 .30 - .49 ă ڟ 2 (Anova) < .01 .01 - .05 .06 - .13 ă ڟ 2 (Multiple regression) < .02 .02 - .12 .13 - .39 ă Tau-U, NAP < .49 .50 - .65 .66 - .92 ă
* Based on Cohen (1992, 2013) and on Parker and Vannest (2009)
RESULTS
)ROORZLQJWKHWZRSKDVHVRIWKHUHYLHZWKHĆUVWVHFWLRQRIWKHUHVXOWVZLOOSURYLGHDQ overview of the included intervention studies. Table 6.2 draws up the systematic overview detailing the characteristics of the target students, intervention, level of implementation, measures used to assess changes for one or more aspects of social participation, the effectiveness of the intervention, interpretation of the effectiveness, and the level of evidence. In the second section of the results, the details of the reported multi-dimensional DVSHFWVRILPSOHPHQWDWLRQĆGHOLW\DUHSUHVHQWHGDQGDQDO\VHGLQGHSWK VHH7DEOH
6.3.1 Overview of the interventions
There are large variations between the included studies, and no two studies look alike VHH 7DEOH )RU H[DPSOH QRQH RI WKH LQWHUYHQWLRQV ZDV WKH VDPH UHJDUGLQJ WKH WDUJHWVWXGHQWVZLWK6(%'DQGKRZWKHWDUJHWVWXGHQWVZHUHLGHQWLĆHGWKHFRQWHQWRI the interventions, the instruments and measurements used to assess changes in social participation, and the assessed effectivity of the interventions (which varied from no HIIHFWLYLW\WRODUJHHIIHFWLYLW\ 5HJDUGLQJWKHDVVHVVPHQWRIVRFLDOSDUWLFLSDWLRQVL[VWXGLHV assessed the effects of the intervention on social acceptance. Three studies assessed the effects of interactions with typically developing peers. Two studies assessed the effect of the intervention on students’ social self-perception, yet one of those studies did not report the data on self-perception for the phase in which the teacher was the implementation agent (see Table 6.2). None of the included studies assessed the effect of the intervention
Notwithstanding the inclusion criteria that the implementation agent was (mainly) the class WHDFKHUWKHUHZHUHVWLOOYDULDWLRQVEHWZHHQWKHVWXGLHVUHJDUGLQJWKLVVSHFLĆFDVSHFW,Q IRXURIWKHVHYHQLQFOXGHGVWXGLHVWKHLQWHUYHQWLRQVZHUHLPSOHPHQWHGE\WHDFKHUV *ULIĆQ &DOGDUHOOD6DEH\ +HDWK 0HQWLQJ.RRW YDQ/LHU 5RGU¯JXH]0HGLQD 0DUW¯Q$QWµQ&DUERQHUR 2YHMHUR YDQGHQ%HUJ 6WROW] ,QWKHRWKHU three studies, the tasks of implementation were divided between the teacher and other LPSOHPHQWDWLRQDJHQWVVXFKDVDQHGXFDWLRQDOSV\FKRORJLVW )UHGHULFNVRQ 7XUQHU DUHVHDUFKWKHUDSLVW /HIIHWDO JUDGXDWHVWXGHQWV 'HVELHQV 5R\HU RUD VSHFLDOHGXFDWLRQWHDFKHURUVXSSRUWDVVLVWDQW )UHGHULFNVRQ 7XUQHU
6 XP P DU L] LQ JR YH UY LHZR ILQ FOX GH GV WX GLH V 1b b R U V \ H D U T a rg e t s tuden ts In te rv en ti on Implemen ta ti on le v e l M ea su re s E ff e c t o n s o cia l p a rt icip ati o n Ca te g o ry o f inte rp ret ati o n L e ve l of ev id e n c e T y p e o f S E B D 1 ,G H QWL Ć FDWLR Q Gr ad e LH Q V 5R\H U 0 3 ) 2 Int e rnal is in g an d H[ WH UQDO LV LQ J b e ha vio u ral p roblems (N WR WD OBWDUJ H WB VW XG H Q WV b b In dic a tio n fr om scho ol or te ac he r w it h sy st e m a ti c sc re e n in g G ra d e 3 P A R C : se lf -c ontr ol , p roblem-so lv in g a n d s o ci al c omp et en c y pr ogr amm e fo r p rima ry scho ol st ud e n ts w it h b e ha vio u ral p roblems C lassr o o m S o c iom etric st atu s a n d p e e r a c ce p ta n ce (p o siti v e a n d n e g a ti ve n o minatio n of th re e p e e rs ); pe rc e iv e d c omp et en c e sc a le of c h il dre n (s elf -p e rc ept ion ) A c ce p ta n ce v ia p o p u la rit y me a su res : dppc2 =-.0 7 3 A c ce p ta n ce v ia reje c tio n s me a su res : dppc2 =. 6 0 9 Se lf -p e rc e p ti o n v ia s o ci a l c omp et en c y : dppc2 b No e ff e c t Med iu m No e ff e c t Lo w G H ULF N VR Q e r ( 2 0 0 3 ) 3 Em otio n a l b e ha vio u ral GL IĆ FX OWLH V 20 % inte rn a lisin g a n d 8 0 % H[ WH UQDO LV LQ J (N WDUJ H WB VW X GHQ WV B p h ase2 b b As se ss m e n t by psy c ho log ist s Gr ad e 1 – 5 Cir c le of Fr ie n d s &OD VVUR R P su b g ro u p s w ith cla ssro o m p e e rs S o cio m etric ratin g s f o r th e w h o le cla ss Se lf -p e rc e p ti o n fo r c h il dre n (q u e st io n n aire ) A c ce p ta n ce: ڦ b b N ot re p o rt e d fo r Pha se 2 La rg e L o w s: 1 . D e g re e s o f c a us alit y b a se d o n th e m o d e l by D u n ca n e t al . ( 1 98 9 ). 2 . Re p o rt in g o n ly o n G ro u p I , G ro u p II was im p le m e n te d by g ra d u a te s tu d e n ts . 3 . Re p o rt in g o n ly h as e 2 , p h as e 1 was im p le m e n te d by a g ra d u a te s tu d e n t in e d u catio n a l p sy ch o lo g y.
T able 6 .2 Co n tinue d $XWK R U V \ H D U T a rg e t s tuden ts In te rv en ti on Implemen ta ti on le v e l M ea su re s E ff e c t o n s o cia l p a rt icip ati o n Ca te g o ry o f inte rp ret ati o n L e ve l of ev id e n c e * UL IĆQH WD O (2 0 1 7 ) Int e rnal is in g b e ha vio u ral S UREOHPV sym p to m s (N t a rg e t st ud e n ts unkn ow n ) T e ac he r a n d s c h o o l a d minis tratio n Gr ad e 1 – 3 B u d d y b e n c h 6 FK R R O Playg ro u n d O bser v a ti o ns w ith cl e a r r u le s for co d ing Int e ra c tio n: decr ease so li tar y be h a v iou r Ta u -U b Sm a ll L o w Int e rnal is in g b e ha vio u ral S UREOHPV sym p to m s (N t a rg e t st ud e n ts unkn ow n ) T e ac he r a n d s c h o o l a d minis tratio n Gr ad e 4 – 6 B u d d y b e n c h 6 FK R R O Playg ro u n d O bser v a ti o ns w ith cl e a r r u le s for co d ing Int e ra c tio n: decr ease so li tar y be h a v iou r Ta u -U b No e ff e c t L o w L e ff et a l. (2 0 0 9 ) U rb a n , Afr ic an Ame ri c a n girls w ith lo w S E S a n d relatio n al ly issu e s (N WDUJ H WB VW X GHQ WV B H[S H UL P H QWDO b b NWDUJ H WB VW X GHQ WV B co ntrol b b Pe e r n o minatio n p ro c e d ure w ith 5 relatio n al a n d 3 p syc hic a l ag gr ess ion it e m s Gr ad e 3 – 5 Fr ie n d t o F rie n d (F2 F ) &OD VVUR R P se p a rate g ro u p sess io ns P e e r lik a b ili ty fr o m th e Chi ldre n ’s s o ci al be h a v iou r q u e stio n naire A c ce p ta n ce: dppc2 La rg e M e d iu m N o te s: 1 . D e g re e s o f c a us alit y b a se d o n th e m o d e l by D u n ca n e t al . ( 1 98 9 ). 2 . Re p o rt in g o n ly o n G ro u p I , G ro u p II was im p le m e n te d by g ra d u a te s tu d e n ts . 3 . Re p o rt in g o n ly o n p h as e 2 , p h as e 1 was im p le m e n te d by a g ra d u a te s tu d e n t in e d u catio n a l p sy ch o lo g y.
6
.2 Co n tinue d R U V \ H D U T a rg e t s tuden ts In te rv en ti on Implemen ta ti on le v e l M ea su re s E ff e c t o n s o cia l p a rt icip ati o n Ca te g o ry o f inte rp ret ati o n L e ve l of ev id e n c e ntin g et a l. 1 5) Em otio n a l a n d b e ha vio u ral p roblems (N t a rg e t st ud e n ts unkn ow n ) T e ac he r ratin g w ith th e Pr oblem Be h a v iou r at S c h o ol Int e rv iew Gr ad e 1 – 2 Go od be h a v iou r Gam e ( G BG ) 6 FK R RO & OD VV Pe e r n o minatio n G ra d e 1 : A c ce p ta n ce dco h e n’s b=. 0 6 4 G ra d e 2 : Acc eptan c e dFR K HQèV b b No e ff e c t Sm a ll Med iu m U¯ J XH] dina et a l. High- fun c tio n in g st ud e n t w ith A u tism S p e c tr um Di sor d er (1 ) Clin ic a ll y di a g n o se d G ra d e 2 T h e Re ce ss Pa ls a n d Re c e ss Re p o rt e rs Se ss io n s in cla ss; me a su re m e n ts d u rin g re ce ss Pe e r ratin g O bser v a ti o n of s o ci al inte ra c tio n A c ce p ta n ce: rb b Int e ra c tio n: 1$3 b La rg e Med iu m Med iu m H Q% H UJ OW ] ([W H UQ D OLV LQ J p roblems (N WDUJ H WB VW X GHQ WV B H[S H UL P H QWDO b b NWDUJ H WB VW X GHQ WV B co ntrol b b ,G H Q WL Ć FDWLR Q by t e a c h e r a n d c h e c k e d w ith a n a d a p te d ve rs io n of th e Stre n g th a n d 'LI Ć FX OW LH V 4 X H VWLR Q QDLUH Gr ad e 4 – 6 Cla ss ro o m b u d d y s e atin g arr ang em en t Cla ss P e e r ratin g s o n lik e a b ili ty A c ce p ta n ce: dppc2 b No e ff e c t Med iu m s: 1 . D e g re e s o f c a us alit y b a se d o n th e m o d e l by D u n ca n e t al . ( 1 98 9 ). 2 . Re p o rt in g o n ly o n G ro u p I , G ro u p II was im p le m e n te d by g ra d u a te s tu d e n ts . 3 . Re p o rt in g n p h as e 2 , p h as e 1 was im p le m e n te d by a g ra d u a te s tu d e n t in e d u catio n a l p sy ch o lo g y.
,PSOHPHQWDWLRQĆGHOLW\
In the second phase of the study, we assessed whether the included studies addressed one RIWKHDVSHFWVRILPSOHPHQWDWLRQĆGHOLW\,Q7DEOHDQRYHUYLHZRIWKHGLIIHUHQWDVSHFWVRI LPSOHPHQWDWLRQĆGHOLW\LVSUHVHQWHG7KHFURVVHVLQWKHFROXPQVLQGLFDWHZKLFKDVSHFWZDV UHSRUWHGLQWKHLQFOXGHGVWXGLHVEDVHGRQWKHRSHUDWLRQDOL]HGGHVFULSWLRQVDVSUHVHQWHG LQ%R[%HFDXVHQRQHRIWKHLQFOXGHGVWXGLHVH[SOLFLWO\LGHQWLĆHGFULWLFDOLQWHUYHQWLRQ components, we chose to deduce intervention components that were mentioned in the method, results, and discussion sections of the included papers or intervention aspects which were observed or reported, such as “rules are visibly placed in the classroom”. In Table 6.3, the deductions are indicated with an asterisk.
7DEOH2YHUYLHZRILPSOHPHQWDWLRQĆGHOLW\ 1b b Pro m oti o n R I ĆGHO LW \ Int e rv e n tio n ad her e nc e Ex po su re Q u alit y of del iv e ry Int e rv e n tio n mode l Int e rv e n tio n co m p o n e n ts Participant responsiveness $XWKRU V \HDU Te a c h e r S tuden t 'HVELHQV 5R\HU X X X X X )UHGHULFNVRQ 7XUQHU X X X X *ULIĆQHWDO X X X X X * X X Leff et al. (2009) X X X X X * X X Menting et al. (2015) X X X X * 5RGU¯JXH]0HGLQDHWDO X X X * X X YDQGHQ%HUJ 6WROW] X X X X * X
Note: X are aspects that were reported in the studies; * are deduced by the authors.
2QO\WZRVWXGLHVUHSRUWHGRQDOODVSHFWVRILPSOHPHQWDWLRQĆGHOLW\LIWKHGHGXFWLRQRI critical intervention components is not included. The other studies reported information RQGLYHUVHDVSHFWVRIWKHLQWHUYHQWLRQVèLPSOHPHQWDWLRQĆGHOLW\VXFKDVPHDVXUHPHQWVRI implementation quality via class observations or details regarding intervention adherence. $OO VWXGLHV LGHQWLĆHG DQ LQWHUYHQWLRQ PRGHO LQGLFDWHG WKH H[SRVXUH GXUDWLRQ RI WKH LQWHUYHQWLRQDQGSURYLGHGPHDVXUHPHQWVUHJDUGLQJLPSOHPHQWDWLRQĆGHOLW\,QFRQFXUUHQFH ZLWKWKHUHVXOWVRISKDVHQRQHRIWKHDVSHFWVRIWKHUHSRUWHGLPSOHPHQWDWLRQĆGHOLW\ZDV WKHVDPHEHWZHHQDUWLFOHV7KHUHIRUHHDFKDVSHFWRILPSOHPHQWDWLRQĆGHOLW\LVGHVFULEHG in more detail per included study below.
3URPRWLRQRIĆGHOLW\,QĆYHRIWKHVHYHQVWXGLHVWKHLPSOHPHQWDWLRQĆGHOLW\ZDVSURPRWHG
E\WUDLQLQJWHDFKHUVEHIRUHWKHLPSOHPHQWDWLRQRIWKHLQWHUYHQWLRQV 'HVELHQV 5R\HU *ULIĆQHWDO /HIIHWDO 0HQWLQJHWDO 5RGU¯JXH]0HGLQDHWDO 2016). One study reported that teachers also received a teaching intervention manual *ULIĆQHWDO DQGLQWZRVWXGLHVWHDFKHUVUHFHLYHGIHHGEDFNDIWHUREVHUYDWLRQVWR SURPRWHLPSOHPHQWDWLRQĆGHOLW\DQGLPSURYHLQWHUYHQWLRQDGKHUHQFH 'HVELHQV 5R\HU 2003; Menting et al., 2015).
Intervention adherence. Four studies reported details regarding the adherence of the
intervention. This was observed via video analyses (Leff et al., 2009) or classroom REVHUYDWLRQV 'HVELHQV 5R\HU *ULIĆQHWDO DQGZHHNO\ORJERRNVWKDWZHUH FRPSOHWHGE\WKHWHDFKHUV YDQGHQ%HUJ 6WROW]
Exposure.(YHU\LQWHUYHQWLRQVWXG\UHSRUWHGRQWKHH[SRVXUHRIWKHLQWHUYHQWLRQ<HWWKH
UHSRUWHGLQGLFDWLRQVRIWKHDPRXQWRIH[SRVXUHYDULHGIURPGHWDLOVDERXWWKHWRWDOOHQJWK RI DQ LQWHUYHQWLRQ )UHGHULFNVRQ 7XUQHU YDQ GHQ %HUJ 6WROW] WR WKH IUHTXHQF\RIWKHLQWHUYHQWLRQ *ULIĆQHWDO WRWKHDYHUDJHOHQJWKRIDVLQJOHVHVVLRQ 'HVELHQV 5R\HU /HIIHWDO 5RGU¯JXH]0HGLQDHWDO
Quality of delivery. Every study reported on the quality of delivery by the implementation
DJHQWVH[FHSWWKHVWXG\E\5RGULJXH]0HGLQDHWDO 1RQHRIWKHGHWDLOVUHJDUGLQJ ZKDW LQćXHQFHG WKH TXDOLW\ RI GHOLYHU\ ZDV KRZHYHU FRPPRQ EHWZHHQ VWXGLHV )RU H[DPSOH WKH TXDOLW\ RI GHOLYHU\ FRXOG KDYH EHHQ LQIOXHQFHG EHFDXVH WHDFKHUV KDG participated in multiple phases of the study and were therefore acquainted with the SURFHGXUHDQGJRDOVRIWKHLQWHUYHQWLRQ )UHGHULFNVRQ 7XUQHU 2WKHUH[DPSOHV WKDWZHUHLGHQWLĆHGDVSRWHQWLDOO\LQćXHQFLQJWKHTXDOLW\RIGHOLYHU\ZDVWKHDGKHUHQFH RIWKHLQWHUYHQWLRQ YDQGHQ%HUJ 6WROW] WKDWWKHSURYLGHGIHHGEDFNSURPRWLQJ LPSOHPHQWDWLRQĆGHOLW\FRXOGKDYHKDGDQLQćXHQFHRQWKHTXDOLW\RIGHOLYHU\ 0HQWLQJHW al., 2015), and that the quality of delivery could have been enhanced when teachers took PRUHWLPHWRSURPSWVWXGHQWV *ULIĆQHWDO
Intervention model. $OO VHYHQ LQWHUYHQWLRQ VWXGLHV LGHQWLĆHG DQ LQWHUYHQWLRQ PRGHO RU
presumed a theory of change. Again, none of the models were based on a common theory. On a more macro perspective, some similarities could be found. Such as, changing social SDUWLFLSDWLRQYLD FRJQLWLYH EHKDYLRXUVWUDWHJLHV 'HVELHQV 5R\HU *ULIĆQHWDO 2017; Leff et al., 2009; Menting et al., 2015), and the use of developmental theories, such as Bronfenbrenner’s developmental ecological theory (Leff et al., 2009) or Bandura’s theory
Deduced critical components.$VLQGLFDWHGLQ7DEOHQRQHRIWKHLQFOXGHGVWXGLHVH[SOLFLWO\ LGHQWLĆHGFULWLFDOLQWHUYHQWLRQFRPSRQHQWV7KHUHIRUHLQWHUYHQWLRQFRPSRQHQWVZHUH deduced from the method, results, and discussion sections as part of the data analyses. The certainty of these deductions as being a critical intervention component range from KLJKFHUWDLQW\WRWKHSUREDEO\)RUH[DPSOHWKHFODVVURRPEXGG\VHDWLQJDUUDQJHPHQWVLQ WKHLQWHUYHQWLRQE\YDQGHQ%HUJDQG6WROW] LVPRVWFHUWDLQO\DFULWLFDOLQWHUYHQWLRQ component, whereas this is the only intervention component. Other intervention FRPSRQHQWVWKDWDUHKLJKO\FHUWDLQWREHFULWLFDODUHFRPSRQHQWVWKDWWKHDXWKRUVH[SOLFLWO\ FRQWUROOHGIRUVXFKDVWKHYLVLELOLW\RIWKHLQWHUYHQWLRQUXOHV *ULIĆQHWDO 0HQWLQJ HWDO SUHVHQFHRIWKHEXGG\EHQFKDWWKHSOD\JURXQG *ULIĆQHWDO DQGFOHDU structures regarding intervention activities and prompts provided by the teacher (Menting et al., 2015). The following intervention components were found to be less certain, because WKHVHZHUHGHGXFHGIURPWKHGLVFXVVLRQVHFWLRQVRIWKHVWXGLHV WHDFKHUUHFHVVVXSHUYLVRU SURYLGHGSURPSWV *ULIĆQHWDO ZRUNLQJLQVPDOOJURXSV /HIIHWDO DQGJLYLQJ the target student a leadership role as an aspect to change the reputation of that student (ibid).
Participant responsiveness. Five of the studies reported details regarding teachers’
responsiveness. The perspectives of the teachers regarding acceptability of the intervention goals, procedures, outcomes and perceived effectiveness were assessed with the following IRUPDODVVHVVPHQWV /LNHUWVFDOHV *ULIĆQHWDO /HIIHWDO VXUYH\V 5RGU¯JXH] 0HGLQDHWDO DQGORJERRNV YDQGHQ%HUJ 6WROW] 7KHUHZHUHDOVRLQIRUPDO UHSRUWV RI WHDFKHUVè UHVSRQVLYHQHVV )UHGHULFNVRQ 7XUQHU /HII HW DO 5HJDUGLQJVWXGHQWVUHVSRQVLYHQHVVWKUHHVWXGLHVXVHG/LNHUWVFDOHV *ULIĆQHWDO /HIIHWDO 5RGU¯JXH]0HGLQDHWDO 7KHVH/LNHUWVFDOHVZHUHVRPHWLPHVDGGHG WRRWKHUIRUPDODVVHVVPHQWVVXFKDVGLDULHV DQGLQIRUPDODVVHVVPHQWVVXFKDVUHćHFWLRQ GLVFXVVLRQV 5RGU¯JXH]0HGLQDHWDO
Although the authors of the Circle of Friends intervention study mention that teachers reported that classmates who were not a member of the Circle of Friends were jealous )UHGHULFNVRQ 7XUQHU WKLVZDVQRWVFRUHGDVVWXGHQWUHVSRQVLYHQHVVLQ7DEOH as this information was not directly assessed from the students themselves.
CONCLUSION
The aim of our review was to create an overview of empirically-based interventions that were implemented by regular primary teachers and report the details of their LPSOHPHQWDWLRQĆGHOLW\GDWD7RUHDOL]HWKHDLPRIWKHUHYLHZWKHUHVXOWVRIWKHV\VWHPDWLF search were presented in two phases. First, we provided an overview of the seven studies that met the inclusion criteria. Despite the limited number of included studies, the diversity between the included studies was large. Not one study had used the same measurements to assess one or more aspects of (how to facilitate) social participation. The effectivity of WKHLQWHUYHQWLRQVZDVPL[HGUDQJLQJIURPQRHIIHFWVWRODUJHHIIHFWVUHJDUGLQJGLYHUVH aspects of social participation. However, drawing up conclusions solely based on effectivity VFRUHVLVLQVXIĆFLHQWWRDWWULEXWHGLVDSSRLQWLQJLQWHUYHQWLRQUHVXOWVGXHWRSRWHQWLDOO\SRRU UHVHDUFKGHVLJQ 'DQH 6FKQHLGHU 6PRONRZVNLHWDO 2QHVKRXOGJREH\RQG HIIHFWLYLW\VFRUHVDQGWDNHWKHLPSOHPHQWDWLRQĆGHOLW\RIDQLQWHUYHQWLRQH[SOLFLWO\LQWR DFFRXQW %UDQGW 0H\HUV 'DQH 6FKQHLGHU HVSHFLDOO\ZKHQHIIHFWLYLW\LV DVVHVVHGDQGRSHUDWLRQDOL]HGVRGLIIHUHQWO\VXFKDVZKDWZHHQFRXQWHUHGLQRXUUHYLHZ VWXG\$OWKRXJKZHDSSOLHGFDWHJRUL]DWLRQLQWHUSUHWDWLRQVWRGHFUHDVHWKLVGLYHUVLW\WKH YDULHW\LQW\SHVRILQWHUYHQWLRQVDVVHVVPHQWDQGRSHUDWLRQDOL]DWLRQRIWKHDVSHFWVRIVRFLDO SDUWLFLSDWLRQUHPDLQ &RKHQ +HQFHZHDOVROLVWHGDQGH[SORUHGWKHLPSOHPHQWDWLRQ ĆGHOLW\RIWKHLQFOXGHGLQWHUYHQWLRQVWXGLHV $OOLQFOXGHGVWXGLHVUHSRUWHGRQPXOWLSOHDVSHFWVRILPSOHPHQWDWLRQĆGHOLW\H[FHSWWKH critical intervention components. This contradicted the recommendations that the authors of the included studies made. These recommendations were the need for future research to GHYHORSLQVWUXPHQWVWRGHWHUPLQHWKHLPSDFWRIVSHFLĆFLQWHUYHQWLRQFRPSRQHQWV 'HVELHQV 5R\HU DQGWKHLPSRUWDQFHRIGHVLJQLQJLQWHUYHQWLRQVWKDWFDQEHWDLORUHGZKLFKLV UHDOL]HGE\LGHQWLI\LQJFULWLFDOLQWHUYHQWLRQFRPSRQHQWV 5RGU¯JXH]0HGLQDHWDO Surprisingly, none of the authors analysed whether there was a relationship between the LPSOHPHQWDWLRQĆGHOLW\DQGLQWHUYHQWLRQHIIHFWLYLW\&RQWLQJHQWWRWKHUHVXOWVRIRXUUHYLHZ it is not possible to interpret what the cause is of the variety of intervention effectivities in UHODWLRQWRWKHUHSRUWHGLPSOHPHQWDWLRQĆGHOLW\RULQWHUYHQWLRQGHVLJQ &DUWHU +XJKHV 'XUODNHWDO *UHVKDP (OOLRWW 6XWKHUODQGHWDO 7KHUHVXOWV DIĆUP D JDS EHWZHHQ SUDFWLFH DQG UHVHDUFK ,Q SUDFWLFH WHDFKHUV ZRXOG OLNH WR KDYH small empirically supported approaches, which are acceptable and feasible in the natural FODVVURRPFRQWH[W7KHLGHQWLĆFDWLRQDQGDVVHVVPHQWRILQWHUYHQWLRQFRPSRQHQWVZLWKLQ WKHQDWXUDOFODVVURRPFRQWH[WVHHPVQHJOHFWHGLQUHVHDUFKQRWZLWKVWDQGLQJWKHFRPSOH[LW\ RIWKLVSURFHVV 0RLU DQGWKHLQKHUHQWUHVWULFWLRQVLQWLPHDQGEXGJHW $OORU 6WRNHV
DISCUSSION
The conclusion of this review highlights the importance of assessing and reporting LPSOHPHQWDWLRQĆGHOLW\7KHODFNRILGHQWLĆHGLQWHUYHQWLRQFRPSRQHQWVFRXOGH[SODLQZK\ teachers remain feeling as though they lack the tools to tailor interventions. In this regard, UHSRUWLQJRQLPSOHPHQWDWLRQĆGHOLW\SURYLGHVLPSRUWDQWFRQWH[WXDOLQIRUPDWLRQDERXWZK\ DGDSWDWLRQVDUHPDGHWRLQWHUYHQWLRQV 2è'RQQHOO 6ZDQVRQHWDO :LWKRXW WKLVLGHQWLĆFDWLRQWHDFKHUVDUHQRWLQIRUPHGDERXWZKLFKLQWHUYHQWLRQFRPSRQHQWVPXVWEH DGKHUHGWRHQVXUHHIIHFWLYLW\ 6WDLQV 9LFNUH\ 9LGDLUHWDO :KHQDOODVSHFWV RILPSOHPHQWDWLRQĆGHOLW\DUHFOHDUO\DGGUHVVHGWHDFKHUVDUHEHWWHULQIRUPHGRQKRZWR implement an intervention and which measurements can be used to assess the intervention 6WDLQV 9LFNUH\ 9LGDLUHWDO 1RWRQO\GRHVWKLVSURPRWHWKHLPSOHPHQWDWLRQ ĆGHOLW\ RI DQ LQWHUYHQWLRQ EXW WKH PHDVXUHPHQW RI WKH UHVSRQVH WR LQWHUYHQWLRQ DQG implementation adherence could also be used to monitor the effectivity of interventions in ORQJLWXGLQDOVWXGLHV %RQG(YDQV6DO\HUV:LOOLDPV .LP DQGDGMXVWLQWHUYHQWLRQV YLDUHFXUVLYHERRWVWUDSSLQJ %XUJHU9HOWPHLMHU0LQQDHUW 9DQGHQ%RVFK :H WKHUHIRUHDGYRFDWHWKDWIXWXUHVWXGLHVUHSRUWPRUHH[SOLFLWO\RQDOOPXOWLGLPHQVLRQDO DVSHFWVRILPSOHPHQWDWLRQĆGHOLW\LGHQWLI\ZKLFKLQWHUYHQWLRQFRPSRQHQWVDUHHIIHFWLYH and provide adequate measures to assess the intervention effects. Providing measurements WRDVVHVVWKHUHVSRQVHWRLQWHUYHQWLRQLQFRPELQDWLRQZLWKWKHLGHQWLĆFDWLRQRIFULWLFDO intervention components would support teachers in making data-driven decisions to tailor an intervention (Fuchs et al., 2012). Furthermore, we recommend that both researchers and teachers include the perspectives and needs of the (target) students in their work, in order to create a needs-based intervention instead of a problem-based intervention. This also accounts for the assessment, which should be based on the needs of the student (Burger-Veltmeijer et al., 2017). (DUOLHUĆQGLQJVFRQFOXGHGDQLQFUHDVHLQWKHUHSRUWLQJRISDUWLFLSDQWUHVSRQVLYHQHVVLQ WKHHYDOXDWLRQRILQWHUYHQWLRQVWXGLHV *UHVKDP (OOLRWW 0F.HQQDHWDO 7KLVĆQGLQJGRHVDFFRXQWIRUWKHVWXG\SUHVHQWHGLQWKLVFKDSWHU<HWRQO\LQUHJDUGWR WKHWHDFKHUVèUHVSRQVLYHQHVVDVĆYHRIWKHVHYHQVWXGLHVDVVHVVHGWKHVHV\VWHPDWLFDOO\ )UHGHULFNVRQ 7XUQHU *ULIĆQHWDO /HIIHWDO 5RGU¯JXH]0HGLQDHW DO YDQGHQ%HUJ 6WROW] :KHUHDVRQO\WKUHHRIWKHVHYHQVWXGLHVUHSRUWHG RQVWXGHQWVèUHVSRQVLYHQHVV *ULIĆQHWDO /HIIHWDO 5RGU¯JXH]0HGLQDHWDO 2016). This result supports the notion that the inclusion of students’ perspectives and needs LQLQWHUYHQWLRQGHVLJQVVHHPWREHQHJOHFWHG 6DUJHDQW *LOOHWW6ZDQ
Although the F2F study notes that the intervention was culturally adapted based on a participatory action research model including students’, teachers’, and the community’s perspectives in a previous publication, the authors did not elaborate on how the current students’ perspectives can or will be used for future adjustments (Leff et al., 2009). The other studies that report on participant responsiveness also lack follow-ups on the gained perspectives from the participants.
:H ZRXOG DOVR OLNH WR SRLQW RXW WKDW GHVSLWH DQ LQFUHDVH LQ UHSRUWLQJ RQ SDUWLFLSDQW responsiveness, these were merely presented as part of the evaluation of the intervention. For future research, we advise including the perspectives of both students and teachers in several stages of the development and evaluation of an intervention, in order to meet the QHHGVRIWKHLPSOHPHQWDWLRQDJHQWVDQGEHQHĆFLDULHV,QDGGLWLRQWRWKLVUHFRPPHQGDWLRQ IXWXUHUHVHDUFKVKRXOGHVWDEOLVKWKHVWXGHQWVèQHHGIRUDQLQWHUYHQWLRQ)RUH[DPSOHLQ WKH VWXG\ E\ 5RGULJXH]0HGLQD HW DO WKH WDUJHW VWXGHQW ZDV ZHOODFFHSWHG E\ their peers (the student had one of the highest acceptance scores based on the classroom sociometric data). First, sociometric data, in this case, was not sensitive enough to indicate the effectivity of an intervention. Second, these scores did not indicate that the target student needed to improve their social participation. If there was a need from the student, other methodologies should be used to assess these needs and whether or not these were met by means of the intervention.
6.4.1 Limitations
For this review, we made a number of choices that affected the obtained results. One of WKHVHFKRLFHVZDVWRDSSO\DEURDGVHDUFKVWULQJUHJDUGLQJWKHWHUP6(%':HVSHFLĆFDOO\ GLGQRWLQFOXGHNH\ZRUGVVXFKDV$XWLVP6SHFWUXP'LVRUGHU $6' RU$WWHQWLRQ'HĆFLW Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in our search string, in light of the possibility of including studies with an emphasis on clinical diagnosis and the lack of a clinical description for LQWHUQDOLVLQJEHKDYLRXUDOSUREOHPV7KLVFRXOGH[SODLQZK\WKH LQFOXGHGVWXGLHVLQRXU UHYLHZ IRU H[DPSOH GLG QRW PDLQO\ WDUJHW VWXGHQWV ZLWK $6' :KHUHDV RWKHU VWXGLHV FRQFOXGHG WKDW WKHUH LV D KLJKHU IRFXV RI LQWHUYHQWLRQ VWXGLHVIRU WKLV VSHFLĆF VWXGHQW SRSXODWLRQ *DUURWHHWDO ZHH[SHFWHGWKDWLQWHUYHQWLRQVWXGLHVIRFXVLQJRQVSHFLĆF populations of students with SEBD would have been found with our broad search string (Cannon et al., 2013; Cooper et al., 2013). However, in retrospect, it occurred to the authors that the use of other keywords or broader descriptions of the target group was not used in the present study. Future research could use alternative search strings in which terms are included, such as ASD and ADHD.
Another choice concerned the inclusion criteria that the implementation agents should be (mainly) the class teacher. Discarding this inclusion criterion would allow the inclusion of intervention studies that did not match a naturalistic teaching practice (Flay et al., 2005; 6PRONRZVNLHWDO ,QRXUVWXG\ZHZHUHVSHFLĆFDOO\LQWHUHVWHGLQLQWHUYHQWLRQVDQG FRPSRQHQWVZKLFKDGKHUHVWKHQHHGVDQGFRQWH[WRIWKHQDWXUDOLVWLFFODVVURRPVHWWLQJ,Q line with increasing request to include student voices, it would be interesting to evaluate whether students are also part of the implementation process, truly addressing social participation from within the classroom. This would mean that the teacher is not the only implementation agent, but that the target student(s) and their peers would share this role as well. Another consequence of discarding this inclusion criteria is that it could have resulted in a higher inclusion rate of studies reporting information on implementation ĆGHOLW\LQVSHFLĆFPRUHUHSRUWLQJRQSDUWLFLSDQWUHVSRQVLYHQHVVEHFDXVHWKHDVVHVVPHQW of participant responsiveness is a more common practice in the development phase of an intervention (Leff et al., 2009).
,QUHWURVSHFWZHEHOLHYHWKDWWZRVSHFLĆFFKRLFHVUHJDUGLQJWKHH[FOXVLRQFULWHULDLQćXHQFHG WKHUHVXOWVRIRXUUHYLHZVWXG\)LUVWZHH[FOXGHGDOOLQWHUYHQWLRQVWXGLHVFRQGXFWHGDWWKH OHYHORIVHFRQGDU\HGXFDWLRQ%DVHGRQWKHEHOLHIWKDWROGHUVWXGHQWVDUHEHWWHULQUHćHFWLQJ DQGH[SODLQLQJWKHLUSRLQWRIYLHZ :RRGKHDG )DXONQHU WKLVFRXOGEHDQH[SODQDWLRQ why a limited amount of student responsiveness was reported in the studies included in our UHYLHZ6HFRQGZHH[FOXGHGVRFLDOVNLOOVLQWHUYHQWLRQVWKDWGLGQRWGLUHFWO\PHDVXUHWKH effect of the intervention on one or more aspects of social participation. In combination ZLWKRWKHULQFOXVLRQDQGH[FOXVLRQFULWHULDWKLVFRXOGH[SODLQZK\QHLWKHUVFKRROZLGHQRU class-wide, interventions, such as the Positive Behaviour Support, were included. This was merely because these interventions were focused on reducing or eliminating problem EHKDYLRXUV *UHVKDP (OOLRWW DQGGLGQRWDVVHVVVRFLDOSDUWLFLSDWLRQ+RZHYHULW has been proven that enhancing the social behaviours and skills of students could lead to more social acceptance (Garrote et al., 2017; Maag, 2006).
The take-home message of this review is that more empirical research is needed in which the teacher is the implementation agent of the intervention. Concurrently, our study indicates WKHQHHGWRDGGUHVVLPSOHPHQWDWLRQĆGHOLW\IURPDPXOWLGLPHQVLRQDOSHUVSHFWLYHDVLWLV important for evaluating intervention implementation and informing teachers about the critical components and frequency that are required for a positive intervention effect. Thus, future research should have a main priority of assessing and reporting implementation ĆGHOLW\,QGRLQJVRWKHUHTXHVWHGWHDFKHUVXSSRUWIRUSURYLGLQJWDLORUHGIDFLOLWDWLRQRI VRFLDOSDUWLFLSDWLRQLQWKHFODVVURRPFRXOGEHUHDOL]HGDQGWKHVSHFLĆFLQGLYLGXDOQHHGV and characteristics of students with and without SEBD, can be met.
