http://epm.sagepub.com/Measurement
Educational and Psychological
http://epm.sagepub.com/content/71/4/617The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0013164410382896
2011 71: 617Educational and Psychological MeasurementDeighton and Miranda Wolpert
Neil Humphrey, Afroditi Kalambouka, Michael Wigelsworth, Ann Lendrum, JessicaSystematic Review
Measures of Social and Emotional Skills for Children and Young People : A
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
at: can be foundEducational and Psychological MeasurementAdditional services and information for
http://epm.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://epm.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://epm.sagepub.com/content/71/4/617.refs.htmlCitations:
What is This?
- Jun 29, 2011Version of Record >>
by guest on January 1, 2012epm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Educational and Psychological Measurement
71(4) 617 –637© The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0013164410382896http://epm.sagepub.com
Measures of Social and Emotional Skills for Children and Young People: A Systematic Review
Neil Humphrey1, Afroditi Kalambouka1, Michael Wigelsworth1, Ann Lendrum1, Jessica Deighton2, and Miranda Wolpert2
Abstract
This study presents the findings of a systematic review of measures of social and emotional skills for children and young people. The growing attention to this area in recent years has resulted in the development of a large number of measures to aid in the assessment of children and young people. These measures vary on a number of variables relating to implementation characteristics and psychometric properties. The methodology of the review followed the general principles of systematic reviewing, such as systematic search of databases, the adoption of predetermined set of inclusion and exclusion criteria, and a multistage filtering process. The review process resulted in the retention of 12 measures, which are presented and discussed in relation to key issues in this area, including difficulties with the underlying theory and frameworks for social and emotional skills, inconsistent terminology, the scope and distinctiveness of available measures, and more practical issues such as the type of respondent, location, and purpose of measurement.
Keywords
social and emotional skills, measurement, children
1University of Manchester, Manchester, UK2The Anna Freud Centre, London, UK
Corresponding Author:Neil Humphrey, School of Education, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UKEmail: [email protected]
by guest on January 1, 2012epm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
618 Educational and Psychological Measurement 71(4)
Introduction
This article reports on the findings of a systematic review of measures of social and emotional skills for children and young people. Its intended contributions are (a) to provide an overview of the state of the field in this important area of psychological measurement, (b) to highlight key issues pertaining to the definition and measurement of social and emotional skills in children and young people, and (c) to outline and discuss the implementation characteristics and psychometric properties of the 12 mea-sures of social and emotional skills that passed our systematic review screening process and are firmly established in the academic literature in this area.
The article is the first (to our best knowledge) truly systematic and rigorous review of measures of social and emotional skills for children and young people, and as such it may provide a unique contribution to knowledge in this field. It is intended to be of use to researchers and practitioners with an interest in children’s social and emotional skills around the world. To this end, we have included information pertaining to the availability of norms and translated versions of the measures identified during the review process. This is of particular importance given the increasing interest in children’s social and emotional skills in countries other than the United States and the United Kingdom (Fundacion Marcelino Botin, 2008).
Defining Social and Emotional SkillsIn recent years, educational policies in the United Kingdom, the United States, and elsewhere have reflected a growing interest and investment in the development of social and emotional skills as a means to promote children’s well-being, adjustment, and academic achievement. The issue of the mixed and inconclusive evidence on the effec-tiveness of these approaches is a matter of ongoing debate that has generated a great deal of academic and professional interest and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future (Humphrey, Curran, Morris, Farrell, & Woods, 2007; Humphrey et al., 2008; Zeidner, Roberts, & Matthews, 2002). However, more fundamental issues—such as inconsistencies in the definition, measurement, and utility of the concept of social and emotional skills—also need to be acknowledged and explored (Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2004; Wigelsworth, Humphrey, Kalambouka, & Lendrum, 2010). There seems to be little common consensus as regards to what is meant by social and emotional skills, and how they are best measured. As Humphrey et al. (2007) have argued, clear definition is a basic scientific requirement—yet one is still lacking in this area.
“Social and emotional skills” is referred to in this article as it is the currently preferred term in English government policy documentation (e.g., Department for Children, Schools and Families [DCSF], 2007a, 2007b). We use it to incorporate other terms, such as “social and emotional intelligence,” “emotional literacy,” and “social and emotional competence,” among others. Although some authors (e.g., Weare & Gray, 2003) have argued for the differentiation of these terms, reviews of the literature in this area (e.g., Humphrey et al., 2007; Wigelsworth et al., 2010) have led us to the
by guest on January 1, 2012epm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Humphrey et al. 619
conclusion that they do not describe qualitatively different concepts. In defining social and emotional skills, we refer readers to the framework of social–emotional competence proposed by Denham (2005a). Drawing on the work of Rose-Krasnor (1997) and Payton et al. (2000), Denham proposes a delineation of relational/prosocial skills and emotional competence skills as given in Table 1.
This model benefits from reflecting the domains outlined in major theoretical models (e.g., Bar-On, 1997; Goleman, 1995; Salovey & Mayer, 1990) in this area, without suffering from the nebulous, imprecise nature of the more wide-ranging definitions (e.g., Petrides & Furnham, 2001) that have attracted criticism from skeptics (see Mat-thews, Zeidner, et al., 2004).
A number of key issues in reviewing measures of social and emotional skills are suggested in the literature. In brief, these include (a) the distinction between capturing typical and maximal behavior (Wilhelm, 2005), (b) the extent to which measures of social and emotional skills provide information that is distinct or unique among existing constructs (e.g., personality), (c) the scope and specificity of measures (e.g., single, unidimensional vs. complex, multidimensional), and (d) who provides information (e.g., children, teacher, parent, peers; see Wigelsworth et al., 2010).
Rationale and Context for the Current StudyThe accurate assessment of social and emotional skills in children and young people has crucial implications for public health because of the associations with mental health, academic performance, and other key outcomes (Denham, Wyatt, Bassett, Echeverria, & Knox, 2009). In late 2008, the authors were commissioned by the DCSF to conduct a systematic review of measures of social and emotional skills for children and young people (Humphrey et al., 2009) as companion to a systematic review of measures of child mental health in children (Wolpert et al., 2009). The aim of the review was to identify a range of measures suitable for assessing social and emotional skills in children and young people for possible future inclusion in a population survey relating to progress toward the “2020 vision” in the Children’s Plan (DCSF, 2007b). This policy document
Table 1. Denham’s (2005a) Framework for Social–Emotional Competence
Emotional competence skills Self-awareness Understanding self emotionsSelf-management Emotional and behavioral regulationSocial awareness Understanding emotions
Empathy/sympathyRelational/prosocial skills Social problem solving
Relationship skills CooperationListening skillsTurn-takingSeeking help
by guest on January 1, 2012epm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
620 Educational and Psychological Measurement 71(4)
sets out an ambitious set of goals for children in England to be achieved by the year 2020, including a focus on improving social and emotional skills. Beyond this, we felt that a review of this kind was extremely timely. Although there are a handful of discus-sion papers (e.g., Wigelsworth et al., 2010) and reviews (e.g., Denham, 2005a; Stewart-Brown & Edmunds, 2003) in the literature, they are all selective and none have applied a rigorous and systematic approach. Furthermore, given the emphasis on monitoring and evaluation in currently popular initiatives such as the Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning (SEAL) program, a review of this kind should also be useful to practitioners. Although the DCSF have provided a guidance document on this topic (see DCSF, 2007a), it contains no substantive references to issues such as reliability and validity, and only one of the recommended measures has undergone any kind of appropriate validation process. Finally, given the high level of academic interest and debate around the concept of emotional intelligence, a review of this kind is crucial: “Determining whether EI [emotional intelligence] is a measurable quality is central to its development as a scientific construct” (Matthews, Roberts, & Zeidner, 2004, p. 182).
Review MethodThe present review followed the general paradigm of a parallel systematic review of mental health measures for children and young people (Wolpert et al., 2009). The review followed a systematic process across six consecutive stages, summarized in the flow diagram given in Figure 1 and described below.
Stages 1: Identification of MeasuresSetting the Parameters of the Review and Search of Key Databases. Following the paral-
lel child mental health review (Wolpert et al., 2009), “outcome measures” were defined as any assessment or evaluation tools (e.g., questionnaires, checklists, or scales) that aim to measure the social and emotional skills of children and young people. The terms of the “measures of social and emotional skills” review were divided into three catego-ries (see below) and their related terms (see Table 2):
a. terms relating to social and emotional skills,b. terms relating to measurement, andc. terms relating to the population under study (children and young people)
Initial database searches focused on the main psychology, sociology, education, and medical databases. However, searches in the main medical databases produced limited relevant hits and a lot of irrelevant hits (e.g., those that were within the child mental health review remit), so it was decided that the medical databases would be dropped in favor of more extensive searches in the following educational, social and psychology databases: PsychInfo, Education Resources Information Centre (ERIC), British Educa-tion Index (BEI), Australian Education Index (AEI), and Applied Social Sciences Indexes
by guest on January 1, 2012epm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Humphrey et al. 621
and Abstracts (ASSIA). All related terms for each of the three categories of interest (see Table 1) were then entered in the thesaurus facility within each database in order to ensure that the key words under which articles were catalogued would be identified through using the appropriate terms within each specific database. The thesaurus searches produced additional relevant key words and/or headings, which were then incorporated into subsequent searches. For example, the terms “emotional adjustment” and “emotional development” were identified within the ERIC thesaurus facility search and were later used to capture relevant articles. Any additional terms produced through the thesaurus/heading search that were too broad and produced too many irrelevant hits were later
Detailedexamination offinal measures
Collecting moreInformation onretainedmeasures andfurther sifting
Sifting ofmeasures
Identification ofmeasures
Stage 1: Literature searches in 5databases: Psychinfo, ERIC, BEI,
AEI, and ASSIA
Stage 2: Secondary searches andcollective knowledge tranche
Stage 3: Filtering of measuresaccording to inclusion and
exclusion criteria
Stage 4: Secondary searches;requests to measure developers
for more information
Stage 5: Filtering according toacademic presence - number of
articles using measure
Stage 6: Presentation anddescription – implementation
characteristics, and psychometricproperties
Identification of 189measures
Filtering down to 52measures
Filtering down to 23measures
Filtering down to 12measures
Figure 1. Stages in the systematic review process
by guest on January 1, 2012epm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
622 Educational and Psychological Measurement 71(4)
discarded. This stage generated a list of final search terms, which were then used to run searches across each of the databases (see Table 3).
A total of 2,870 hits were transferred and saved into bibliographic applications (EndNote 9.0.1 for the ASSIA and PsychInfo databases; Reference Manager v11 for the ERIC, BEI, and AEI databases). Basic filtering was then applied through reading the title (and/or abstract in cases where the title was not sufficient) to discard the obvi-ously irrelevant hits (i.e., papers not related to the measurement of children’s social and emotional skills). Basic filtering resulted in a total of 542 articles. The details of these articles (title, abstract, and publication details) were transferred into Excel spread-sheets, where further filtering took place involving the application of the following exclusion criteria: (a) no social and/or emotional skills measure mentioned in the abstract, (b) the measure mentioned was too narrow to provide a broad assessment of social and emotional skills (e.g., focused exclusively on just one specific aspect of social and emotional skills such as empathy), (c) the article referred to a measure that was not used with child or adolescent populations, (d) the article was not in English, and/or (e) the article was a duplicate of a previous hit within the database. All remaining hits after this filtering procedure were organized according to the measures they referred to, resulting to a total of 137 measures.
Stage 2: Secondary Searches and Collective Knowledge TrancheThe list of 137 measures was complemented by a number of measures from a “collec-tive knowledge tranche.” These were measures that were known to members of the research team through previous research. Additional measures were identified through reviewing papers and compendiums (e.g., Denham, 2005a) and/or bibliographic refer-ences. The authors also contacted a number of relevant groups and organizations (e.g., Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning; Antidote) via email, but
Table 2. Categories of Interests and Related Terms for the Systematic Review
Category Related Terms
1. Social and emotional skills Social/emotionalSocial, emotional, socioemotional, socio-emotional, effect,
affective, interpersonalSkillsSkills, intelligence, competence, literacy, learning, awareness,
ability, regulation2. Measurement Measure, measurement, questionnaire, survey, checklist,
check list, tool, rating scale, scale, inventory, assessment, evaluation, screening, instrument, test
3. Population of interest Children, adolescents, pupils, students
by guest on January 1, 2012epm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Humphrey et al. 623
Table 3. Final Search Terms for the Systematic Review
Database Search Terms for Subject Heading Initial HitsHits After
Basic Filtering
ASSIA DE = (emotion* or social) and DE = (skills or intelligence or competence or learning or awareness or regulation or behavior or interaction) and DE = (measure* or questionnaire* or assessment or test* or survey* or scale* or evaluation or instrument*) and DE = (child* or (young people) or adolescent* or pupil* or student*)
172 80
ERIC, BEI, and AEI
(emotional skills OR socioemotional skills OR social intelligence OR social competence OR emotional literacy OR emotional development OR social development OR interpersonal competence OR social cognition OR affective behavior OR social behavior OR social skills OR emotional intelligence OR emotional competence OR socioemotional competence OR social literacy OR socioemotional literacy OR social learning OR emotional learning OR social awareness OR emotional awareness OR emotional adjustment OR emotional-response OR social ability OR emotional ability OR socioemotional ability) DE AND (Measurement OR Questionnaire OR Rating-Scale OR surveys OR check-list OR psychometric OR assessment OR screening) DE AND (children OR adolescent OR pupil OR student) DE
1820 390
PsychInfo (emotion* or social* or socio*) AND (measure* or question* or survey or check* or tool or rating or scale* or inventor* or instrument* or test* or screening or repository or assessment* or evaluation*) AND (child* or adolscen* or youth* or young* or pupil* or student*)
788 72
Note. ASSIA = Applied Social Sciences Indexes and Abstracts; ERIC = Education Resources Information Centre; BEI = British Education Index; AEI = Australian Education Index. “Hits” refers to the number of articles identified in each database.
this did not result in the procurement of any measures not already identified elsewhere. A total of 52 measures identified in this stage were added to the existing list for further sorting, increasing the total number of measures to 189.
by guest on January 1, 2012epm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
624 Educational and Psychological Measurement 71(4)
Stage 3: Sifting of Measures
Filtering of Measures According to Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria. This stage involved reading of the relevant abstract and/or article and applying a list of inclusion/exclusion criteria. A measure was included if it met all of the inclusion criteria and excluded if it met one or more of the exclusion criteria:
Inclusion criteria. To include a measure of social and emotional skills for children and adolescents, the measure should
1. seek to provide measurement of generic social and emotional skills in children and young people (up to 18);
2. be either multidimensional or unidimensional;3. refer to a measure that can be completed by child or parents/carers with the
possible addition of professionals such as teachers (but not by teachers only);4. have been validated in a child or adolescent context, even if not originally
developed for this purpose;5. be available in English language; and6. be able to be used with a reasonably wide age range (e.g., not just for
preschoolers).
Exclusion criteria. A measure would be excluded if it:
1. is not available in English;2. does not measure social and/or emotional skills;3. does not cover a broad range of social and/or emotional skills (e.g., focused
exclusively on just one specific aspect of social and emotional skills such as empathy—see Table 1);
4. is not used with children and/or adolescents;5. is based on professional report only (e.g., teacher, educational psychologist,
or other practitioner);6. takes more than 30 minutes to complete;7. provides open-ended responses that have to be manually coded;8. the age range is too narrow (e.g., preschool version of the measure only);9. has not been used with a variety of populations (e.g., only used with specialist
groups such as children with autism).
Following application of the above criteria, the list of 187 measures was reduced to 52 measures (for a list of the 52 measures see Humphrey et al., 2009). Measures for which information from the abstract/article did not provide adequate evidence to apply the above inclusion/exclusion criteria at this stage were still retained until further evi-dence was available to enable a decision on retention.
by guest on January 1, 2012epm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Humphrey et al. 625
Stage 4: Collecting More Information on Retained Measures
Secondary Searches and Requests to Measure Developers for More Informa-tion. The above list of the 52 potentially suitable measures was organized in an Excel database, where information was entered on the following variables: a brief description of the measure, different versions available (e.g., child, parent, teacher), number of items and completion time, scales and subscales are included in the measure, response format (e.g., 4-point Likert-type scale), information on reliability (internal consistency, test–retest) and validity (e.g., construct validity), sample items, cost, and key references. To provide as complete information as possible on these variables, several procedures were followed: (a) an attempt was made to obtain as many articles as possible on each measure and (b) measure developers were contacted through email/telephone to fill in gaps in our database and to request manuals and articles. As we found more detailed information on each measure it became obvious that some did not meet the inclusion/exclusion criteria set out in the previous stage (for instance, if we found that a given measure could only be completed by teachers). By the end of this stage a total of 23 measures were retained.
Stage 5: Filtering According to Academic Presence: Number of Articles Using MeasureThis stage involved a further filtering process in which only measures that had been used in four or more articles in peer-reviewed academic journals were retained. This was done in an effort to retain only measures with an established and sustained presence in the academic literature, whilst also ensuring a workable number of measures for detailed examination in the final stage. Four or more articles was considered to be a useful benchmark since it would typically signify that the measure has gone beyond basic development and validation and is being used by the academic community for program evaluation, theory development, and so on. This process resulted in 12 mea-sures being retained.
Stage 6: Detailed Examination of Final MeasuresPresentation and Description: Implementation Characteristics and Psychometric Properties of Final 12 Measures. The final 12 measures were reviewed in depth in relation to their implementation characteristics and psychometric properties. These are presented in Tables 4 and 5, respectively.
DiscussionThe primary purpose of our systematic review was to was to identify a range of measures suitable for assessing social and emotional skills in children and young people for pos-sible future inclusion in a population survey relating to progress toward the “2020
by guest on January 1, 2012epm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
626
Tabl
e 4.
Impl
emen
tatio
n C
hara
cter
istic
s of
the
Fin
al 1
2 M
easu
res
Mea
sure
Acr
onym
Max
imal
or
Typi
cal
Scop
eA
ge
(Yea
rs)
Vers
ions
Leng
th
Com
plet
ion
Tim
e (M
inut
es)
Scal
es a
nd S
ubsc
ales
Res
pons
e Sc
ales
Oth
er L
angu
ages
Bar-
On
Emot
iona
l Q
uotie
nt
Inve
ntor
y: Yo
uth
Vers
ion
(Bar
-On
&
Park
er, 2
008)
EQI:Y
V,
EQI:Y
V(S
)Ty
pica
lSo
cial
– em
otio
nal
7-18
Chi
ld60
, 30(
S)20
-25,
10
-15
(S)
Tota
l em
otio
nal i
ntel
ligen
ce,
inte
rper
sona
l, in
trap
erso
nal,
adap
tabi
lity,
stre
ss m
anag
emen
t, ge
nera
l moo
d, p
ositi
ve
impr
essi
on, i
ncon
sist
ency
in
dex
Like
rt 1
-4Pe
di (
Sout
h A
fric
a)
Chi
ld A
sser
tive
Beha
viou
r Sc
ale
(Mic
hels
on &
Woo
d,
1982
)
CA
BS,
CA
BS-S
RM
axim
al
(chi
ld),
typi
cal
(oth
er)
Soci
al8-
12C
hild
, pa
rent
, te
ache
r
2710
-15
Tota
l ass
ertiv
enes
s, pa
ssiv
ity,
and
aggr
essi
vene
ssM
ultip
le
choi
ce
1-5
Span
ish,
D
utch
Soci
al C
ompe
tenc
e an
d Be
havi
or
Eval
uatio
n Sc
ale
(LaF
reni
ere
&
Dum
as, 1
996)
SCBE
Typi
cal
Soci
al2.
5-6.
5Te
ache
r,
pare
nt80
, 30(
S)15
Dep
ress
ive–
joyf
ul, a
nxio
us–
secu
re, a
ngry
–tol
eran
t, is
olat
ed–i
nteg
rate
d,
aggr
essi
ve–c
alm
, eg
otis
tical
–pro
soci
al,
oppo
sitio
nal–
coop
erat
ive,
de
pend
ent–
auto
nom
ous
and
4 su
mm
ary
scal
es:
soci
al c
ompe
tenc
e,
exte
rnal
izin
g pr
oble
ms,
inte
rnal
izin
g pr
oble
ms,
and
gene
ral a
dapt
atio
n
Like
rt 1
-6Fr
ench
-C
anad
ian,
Sp
anis
h,
Japa
nese
, R
ussi
an,
Chi
nese
, Po
rtug
uese
, It
alia
n,
Aus
tria
n-G
erm
an
Pres
choo
l and
K
inde
rgar
ten
Beha
viou
r Sc
ales
-2
(Mer
rell,
1996
)
PKBS
-2Ty
pica
lSo
cial
3-6
Teac
her,
pare
nt76
12So
cial
coo
pera
tion,
so
cial
inte
ract
ion,
so
cial
inde
pend
ence
, ex
tern
aliz
ing
prob
lem
s an
d in
tern
aliz
ing
prob
lem
s
Like
rt 1
-4Sp
anis
h
Pros
ocia
l Ten
denc
ies
Mea
sure
–Rev
ised
(C
arlo
, Hau
sman
n,
Chr
istia
nsen
, &
Ran
dall,
2003
)
PTM
-RTy
pica
lSo
cial
– em
otio
nal
11-1
8C
hild
2530
Publ
ic, a
nony
mou
s, di
re,
emot
iona
l, co
mpl
iant
an
d al
trui
stic
pro
soci
al
beha
vior
Like
rt 1
-5
(con
tinue
d)
by guest on January 1, 2012epm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
627
Chi
ld R
atin
g Sc
ale
(Hig
htow
er,
Cow
en, S
pine
ll, &
Lo
tycz
ewsk
i, 19
87)
CR
STy
pica
lSo
cial
5-13
Chi
ld,
pare
nt,
teac
her
24, 3
8 (t
each
er),
18 (
pare
nt)
10-2
0R
ule
com
plia
nce/
actin
g ou
t, an
xiet
y/w
ithdr
awal
, in
terp
erso
nal s
ocia
l ski
lls,
self-
conf
iden
ce (
child
); ac
ting
out,
shy-
anxi
ous,
lear
ning
, fru
stra
tion
tole
ranc
e, a
sser
tive
soci
al
skill
s, ta
sk o
rien
tatio
n,
peer
soc
iabi
lity
(tea
cher
); A
ctin
g ou
t, fr
ustr
atio
n to
lera
nce,
shy
-anx
ious
and
pe
er s
ocia
bilit
y (p
aren
t)
Like
rt 1
-3
Soci
al S
kills
Im
prov
emen
t Sy
stem
(G
resh
am &
El
liot,
1990
)
SSIS
, SSR
STy
pica
lSo
cial
– em
otio
nal
3-18
Chi
ld,
pare
nt,
teac
her
79 (
pare
nt),
75 (
child
), 83
(te
ache
r)
10-2
5So
cial
ski
lls (
com
mun
icat
ion,
co
oper
atio
n, a
sser
tion,
re
spon
sibi
lity,
empa
thy,
enga
gem
ent,
self-
cont
rol),
co
mpe
ting
prob
lem
be
havi
ors
(ext
erna
lizin
g, bu
llyin
g, hy
pera
ctiv
ity/
inat
tent
ion,
inte
rnal
izin
g, au
tism
spe
ctru
m),
and
acad
emic
com
pete
nce
(rea
ding
ach
ieve
men
t, m
ath
achi
evem
ent,
mot
ivat
ion
to le
arn)
Like
rt 1
-4Sp
anis
h,
Iran
ian
Ass
essm
ent
of
Chi
ldre
n’s
Emot
ion
Skill
s (S
chul
tz, I
zard
, &
Bea
r, 20
04)
AC
ESM
axim
alEm
otio
nal
4-8
Chi
ld56
10-2
5Em
otio
nal a
ttri
butio
n ac
cura
cy, a
nger
att
ribu
tion
tend
enci
es, h
appi
ness
at
trib
utio
n te
nden
cies
, sa
dnes
s at
trib
utio
n te
nden
cies
Mul
tiple
ch
oice
1-
5
(con
tinue
d)
Tabl
e 4.
(co
ntin
ued)
Mea
sure
Acr
onym
Max
imal
or
Typi
cal
Scop
eA
ge
(Yea
rs)
Vers
ions
Leng
th
Com
plet
ion
Tim
e (M
inut
es)
Scal
es a
nd S
ubsc
ales
Res
pons
e Sc
ales
Oth
er L
angu
ages
by guest on January 1, 2012epm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
628
Emot
ion
Reg
ulat
ion
Che
cklis
t (S
hiel
ds &
C
icch
etti,
199
7)
ERC
Typi
cal
Emot
iona
l6-
12Pa
rent
, te
ache
r24
10N
egat
ivity
, em
otio
nal
regu
latio
nLi
kert
1-4
Mat
son
Eval
uatio
n of
So
cial
Ski
lls w
ith
Youn
gste
rs (
Mat
son,
R
otar
i, &
Hel
sel,
1983
)
MES
SYTy
pica
lSo
cial
– em
otio
nal
4-18
Chi
ld,
teac
her
64 (
teac
her)
, 62
(ch
ild)
10-2
5A
ppro
pria
te s
ocia
l sk
ills,
inap
prop
riat
e as
sert
iven
ess,
impu
lsiv
enes
s, ov
erco
nfid
ent
beha
vior
, je
alou
sy
Like
rt 1
-5Ja
pane
se,
Span
ish,
Tu
rkis
h,
Chi
nese
, D
utch
, Po
rtug
uese
Dia
gnos
tic A
naly
sis
of N
onve
rbal
A
ccur
acy
(Now
icki
&
Duk
e, 1
989)
DA
NVA
Max
imal
Emot
iona
l4-
adul
tC
hild
16-3
230
Inte
rpre
tatio
n of
chi
ld a
nd
adul
t fa
ces,
para
lang
uage
an
d po
stur
e
Mul
tiple
ch
oice
1-
4
Diff
eren
tial E
mot
ions
Sc
ale
(Izar
d,
Dou
gher
ty, B
loxo
m,
& K
otsc
h, 1
974)
DES
-IVTy
pica
lEm
otio
nal
7-ad
ult
Chi
ld36
10-1
5Po
sitiv
e em
otio
nalit
y (in
tere
st, j
oy, s
urpr
ise)
, ne
gativ
e em
otio
nalit
y (s
hyne
ss, s
adne
ss, a
nger
, di
sgus
t, co
ntem
pt, s
elf-
host
ility
, fea
r, gu
ilt a
nd
sham
e)
Like
rt 1
-5
Tabl
e 4.
(co
ntin
ued)
Mea
sure
Acr
onym
Max
imal
or
Typi
cal
Scop
eA
ge
(Yea
rs)
Vers
ions
Leng
th
Com
plet
ion
Tim
e (M
inut
es)
Scal
es a
nd S
ubsc
ales
Res
pons
e Sc
ales
Oth
er L
angu
ages
by guest on January 1, 2012epm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
629
Tabl
e 5.
Psy
chom
etri
c Pr
oper
ties
of t
he F
inal
12
Mea
sure
s
Mea
sure
U.S
. N
orm
sU
.K.
Nor
ms
Rel
iabi
lity
Valid
ity
Inte
rnal
Test
–Ret
est
Oth
erFa
ctor
ial
Con
verg
ent
Dis
crim
inat
ive
Pred
ictiv
eO
ther
EQI:Y
VYe
sYe
s.6
7-.9
0.7
7-.8
9St
anda
rd e
rror
of
mea
sure
men
t an
d pr
edic
tion
avai
labl
e by
age
an
d ge
nder
Yes
Cor
rela
tes
with
adu
lt em
otio
nal
inte
llige
nce,
pe
rson
ality
, in
tern
aliz
ing
and
exte
rnal
izin
g pr
oble
ms
Dis
tingu
ishe
s be
twee
n gi
fted
an
d no
ngift
ed
stud
ents
Pred
icts
pro
blem
ga
mbl
ing
in
adol
esce
nce
and
acad
emic
ac
hiev
emen
t in
hig
h sc
hool
CA
BSN
oN
o.7
9 (t
otal
sc
ale)
0.66
-0.7
8 (4
w
eeks
)Ye
s (fo
r bo
th s
ingl
e an
d du
al
stru
ctur
e)
Cor
rela
tes
with
soc
ial
prob
lem
sol
ving
Dis
tingu
ishe
s be
twee
n ch
ildre
n w
ith h
igh
and
low
so
ciom
etri
c st
atus
SCBE
Yes
No
.80-
.89
.74-
.87
(2
wee
ks),
.59-
.70
(6
mon
ths)
Yes
Cor
rela
tes
mod
erat
ely
with
inte
rnal
izin
g an
d ex
tern
aliz
ing
prob
lem
s
Diff
eren
tiate
d a
smal
ler
clin
ical
sa
mpl
e fr
om t
he
over
all s
ampl
e
Pred
icts
soc
ial
inte
ract
ion/
reje
ctio
n an
d pe
er
vict
imiz
atio
nPK
BS-2
Yes
No
.84-
.97
.58-
.86
(3
wee
ks),
.69-
.78
(3
mon
ths)
Stan
dard
err
or o
f m
easu
rem
ent
avai
labl
e;
inte
rrat
er
relia
bilit
y: .3
6-.6
3
Yes
Cor
rela
ted
with
oth
er
esta
blis
hed
mea
sure
s of
soc
ial s
kills
, whi
le
prob
lem
beh
avio
r sc
ores
cor
rela
ted
with
ext
erna
lizin
g an
d in
tern
aliz
ing
prob
lem
s
Dis
crim
inat
es
betw
een
typi
cally
de
velo
ping
ch
ildre
n,
child
ren
at r
isk
of d
evel
opin
g so
cial
–beh
avio
ral
prob
lem
s, ch
ildre
n w
ith in
tern
aliz
ing–
exte
rnal
izin
g pr
oble
ms,
and
child
ren
with
A
DH
D s
ympt
oms
(con
tinue
d)
by guest on January 1, 2012epm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
630
PTM
-RN
oN
o.5
9-.8
6.5
4-.8
2 (2
w
eeks
)Ye
sSu
bsca
les
corr
elat
e w
ith
seve
ral t
heor
etic
ally
re
late
d va
riab
les
(from
cog
nitiv
e va
riab
les
to e
mot
ive
and
beha
vior
m
easu
res)
CR
S?
No
.49-
.80
(chi
ld),
.89-
.95
(tea
cher
)
.49-
.79
(chi
ld),
.61-
.91
(tea
cher
), .9
1 (p
aren
t)
Yes
Cor
rela
tes
with
cl
assr
oom
ad
just
men
t, he
alth
re
sour
ces,
and
self-
este
em
Dis
crim
inat
es
betw
een
stre
ss-
resi
lient
and
str
ess-
affe
cted
chi
ldre
n
SSIS
Yes
No
.72-
.97
(par
ent)
, .7
3-.9
7 (t
each
er),
.73-
.95
(chi
ld)
.72-
.87
(par
ent)
, .6
8-.9
2 (t
each
er),
.59-
.81
(chi
ld)
Inte
rrat
er
relia
bilit
y: .4
8-.6
9 (t
each
er),
.38-
.69
(par
ent)
; st
anda
rd e
rror
of
mea
sure
men
t by
age
and
ge
nder
ava
ilabl
e
Yes
(incl
udin
g w
ith A
DH
D
subs
ampl
e)
Cor
rela
tes
with
oth
er
sim
ilar
mea
sure
sD
iscr
imin
ates
be
twee
n co
ntro
ls
and
child
ren
with
A
DH
D
Dev
elop
men
t of
to
ol in
clud
ed
item
res
pons
e th
eory
AC
ESN
oN
o.4
6-.7
0Pr
edic
ts a
cade
mic
co
mpe
tenc
e an
d at
tent
iona
l co
mpe
tenc
eER
CN
oN
o.8
4-.9
2Ye
sD
istin
guis
hes
betw
een
bulli
es a
nd v
ictim
sM
ESSY
Yes
No
Split
-hal
f a:
.78
(chi
ld),
.87
(tea
cher
)
.60-
.90
Yes
Cor
rela
tes
with
sim
ilar
mea
sure
s in
nor
mal
an
d le
arni
ng d
isab
led
sam
ples
Mea
sure
U.S
. N
orm
sU
.K.
Nor
ms
Rel
iabi
lity
Valid
ity
Inte
rnal
Test
–Ret
est
Oth
erFa
ctor
ial
Con
verg
ent
Dis
crim
inat
ive
Pred
ictiv
eO
ther
Tabl
e 5.
(co
ntin
ued)
(con
tinue
d)
by guest on January 1, 2012epm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
631
Mea
sure
U.S
. N
orm
sU
.K.
Nor
ms
Rel
iabi
lity
Valid
ity
Inte
rnal
Test
–Ret
est
Oth
erFa
ctor
ial
Con
verg
ent
Dis
crim
inat
ive
Pred
ictiv
eO
ther
Tabl
e 5.
(co
ntin
ued)
DA
NVA
No
No
.69-
.81
.66
Cor
rela
tes
with
pr
evio
us v
ersi
on o
f m
easu
reD
ES-IV
No
No
.50-
.85
.30-
.75
Subs
cale
s co
rrel
ate
w
ith d
epre
ssio
nD
iscr
imin
ates
be
twee
n ab
used
an
d no
nabu
sed
fem
ale
sam
ples
, an
d de
pres
sed
and
nond
epre
ssed
su
bjec
ts
Not
e. EQ
I:YV
= B
ar-O
n Em
otio
nal Q
uotie
nt In
vent
ory:
Yout
h Ve
rsio
n; C
ABS
= C
hild
Ass
ertiv
e Be
havi
or S
cale
; SC
BE =
Soc
ial C
ompe
tenc
e an
d Be
havi
our
Eval
uatio
n Sc
ale;
PK
BS-2
; Pre
scho
ol a
nd K
inde
rgar
ten
Beha
viou
r Sc
ales
–2; P
TM
-R =
Pro
soci
al T
ende
ncie
s M
easu
re–R
evis
ed; C
RS
= C
hild
Rat
ing
Scal
e; S
SIS
= S
ocia
l Ski
lls
Impr
ovem
ent
Syst
em; A
CES
= A
sses
smen
t of
Chi
ldre
n’s
Emot
ion
Skill
s; ER
C =
Em
otio
n R
egul
atio
n C
heck
list;
MES
SY =
Mat
son
Eval
uatio
n of
Soc
ial S
kills
with
You
ngst
ers;
DA
NVA
= D
iagn
ostic
Ana
lysi
s of
Non
verb
al A
ccur
acy;
DES
-IV =
Diff
eren
tial E
mot
ions
Sca
le–I
V; A
DH
D =
att
entio
n de
ficit
hype
ract
ivity
dis
orde
r.
by guest on January 1, 2012epm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
632 Educational and Psychological Measurement 71(4)
vision” in the Children’s Plan (DCSF, 2007b). At a secondary level, we sought to pres-ent an overview of the current state of this field. The review process resulted in the retention of 12 measures that vary greatly in both their implementation characteristics and psychometric properties. In this final section of the current article we present some key issues that have arisen during the course of our review, providing illustrative exam-ples from the measures identified.
In relation to the establishment and sustained presence of measures in the academic literature, very few measures appear to have a good “shelf life.” Although 12 measures have yielded 4 or more publications in peer-reviewed journals, only a very small hand-ful (notably the Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy [DANVA], Social Com-petence and Behaviour Evaluation Scale [SCBE], and Social Skills Improvement System [SSIS]) have been used with great frequency (e.g., more than 10 articles). Considering that 189 measures were originally identified, it is clear that many are short-lived. This is not uncommon though—Butler and Gasson (2005) identified a similar issue in their review of measures of self-concept and self-esteem. One must also consider that the upsurge in interest in social and emotional learning (and therefore measurement of social and emotional skills) among children and adolescents is relatively recent (although interest in social skills can be traced back to Thorndike, a standard watershed in the literature is Salovey and Mayer’s (1990) article on emotional intelligence). Furthermore, the rather protean nature of the construct in question provides a fundamental problem for measure developers. Indeed, it has led some critics to state that it is “bereft of any conceptual meaning” (Zeidner et al., 2002, p. 215).
A further observation we have made is the imbalance among the scope and type of the measures identified. There appear to be many more well-established measures that tap social skills, as opposed to emotional skills or both. Furthermore, there are relatively few maximal behavior measures. This has important implications in terms of recom-mending a truly “direct” measure, since there is the danger that “typical behavior” social and emotional skills measures may simply tap aspects of personality (Gannon & Ranzijn, 2005; Schulte, Ree, & Carretta, 2004; Van Rooy, Viswesvaran, & Pluta, 2005). However, this has to be balanced against the practical advantages (e.g., time) of typical behavior measures, and also the emergent pockets of evidence regarding their validity (e.g., Petrides et al., 2006, found that scores on the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire were associated with peer nominations of behavioral descriptions, such as “cooperative” and “disruptive”). There are also concerns relating to the practicalities of capturing certain domains—such as self-awareness—in a maximal behavior paradigm.
The majority of measures reviewed here have been developed and standardized with American populations. For some of these measures, evidence of research carried out with other populations has concluded that they can be translated and adopted in differ-ent cultures while still retaining acceptable reliability and validity. However, of the 12 final measures produced by this review, only one (the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: Youth Version [EQI:YV]) has U.K. norms; several have no norms at all, and none have norms for countries other than the United States or the United Kingdom.
by guest on January 1, 2012epm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Humphrey et al. 633
This is a particular concern given that cultural transferability between the United States, the United Kingdom, and other countries cannot be automatically assumed. In terms of psychometrics, our retained measures largely demonstrated acceptable properties using standard techniques (e.g., internal consistency, test–retest reliability, factorial validity, construct validity, discriminative validity), but evidence pertaining to more advanced analysis (such as those based on item response theory—as recommended by Terwee et al., 2007) was lacking for most measures (notable exceptions include the Matson Evaluation of Social Skills with Youngsters [MESSY] and SSIS). This may again reflect the emergent state of the field.
Beyond the aforementioned issues, there appears to have been little analysis of the applicability of the measures to different groups of children—such as different ethnic groups—although the SSIS is an exception in this regard (Van Horn, Atkins-Burnett, Karlin, & Snyder, 2007). This kind of work is of course essential to ensuring that a given measure is appropriate for use with diverse groups of children and young people (e.g., in the aforementioned population survey), but just as importantly it can lead to development and improvement of the instrument itself. For instance, in Van Horn et al.’s (2007) recent psychometric analysis of the SSIS, an alternative factor structure with a stronger data fit to that proposed in the manual for the measure emerged.
The range of possible respondents in our final 12 measures also varied greatly. Only three (Child Assertive Behavior Scale [CABS], Child Rating Scale [CRS], and SSIS) have child, parent, and teacher versions, and five (EQI:YV, Prosocial Tendencies Measure–Revised [PTM-R], Assessment of Children’s Emotion Skills [ACES], DANVA, and Differential Emotions Scale [DES]) can only be completed by the child/young person. Consideration of the range of respondents for a given measure is important because each has access to unique information. Through introspection, the child has access to the most detailed information about himself or herself of any of the possible respondents. Furthermore, recent policy and legislation has placed increasing emphasis on the importance of the child’s perspective (e.g., Every Child Matters—Department for Education and Skills, 2003). However, as self-awareness/perception follows a developmental trajectory, older children and adolescents are likely to be more accurate responders than younger children (Denham, 2005b).
The limited number of measures that incorporate child, teacher, and parent responses creates difficulties for researchers and/or practitioners attempting to create a triangulated profile of the social and emotional skills of a child or group of children. The advantages to triangulating measures of social and emotional skills are clear, especially in response to overcoming difficulties in self-report (see above). Of course, one must factor in the increased time and expense in collecting data from numerous perspectives, especially given typically low response rates of certain groups (such as parents). However, given the relatively low concurrence between teacher, parent, and child responses in this area (e.g., Humphrey et al., 2008, found correlations as low as .25, indicating only 6% shared variance), consideration needs to be given as to whose perspective is prioritized.
by guest on January 1, 2012epm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
634 Educational and Psychological Measurement 71(4)
Conclusion
In concluding, it is also important to note the limitations imposed on our review process. Although we have conducted an entirely systematic review, the protean nature of the area under investigation caused some difficulties, and other authors’ interpretations of “social and emotional skills” may differ from our own (meaning that other authors may have used different definitions—leading to different results!). The fact that the precise keywords used and/or the precise question under investigation may determine the result of a systematic review has been acknowledged as one of the integral characteristics of systematic reviews (Hannes, Claes, & The Belgian Campbell Group, 2007; Nind, 2006). Furthermore, the systematic review process itself is not without criticism. For example, publication bias (the tendency for a greater proportion of studies with statistically significant positive results to be published—Torgerson, 2006) might have limited the published articles for a given measure and therefore the measure’s inclusion in the later stages of our review. While we acknowledge this, we felt that this criterion was an important way to assess the “academic presence” of the measures. Furthermore, all criteria were negotiated with users from the project steering group. Such close consulta-tion with users not only contributes to the significance of the review and its fitness for purpose but also helps in addressing bias relating to the interpretation of findings (Harlen & Crick, 2004).
The systematic review reported in this article identified 12 measures with varying implementation characteristics and psychometric properties. We feel that this variability—particularly in relation to psychometric properties—reflects the emergent state of the field. Although there has been an interest in social and emotional learning over the last two decades, measure development has struggled to keep pace. This is undoubtedly reflected in the fact that many reports of social and emotional learning program evalu-ations have not contained any social and emotional skills outcome measures, instead using proxy indicators of success like reductions in mental health problems or increases in attendance (Humphrey et al., 2007).
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The research reported in this article was funded by a grant from the Department for Children, Schools and Families (REF: 2008/056).
References
*References marked with an asterisk indicate key article/document for final 12 measures.*Bar-On, R. (1997). Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): Technical manual. Toronto,
Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
by guest on January 1, 2012epm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Humphrey et al. 635
Bar-On, R., & Parker, J. (2008). Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: Youth Version (EQ-i:YV): Technical manual. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Butler, R. J., & Gasson, S. L. (2005). Self-esteem/self-concept scales for children and adolescents: A review. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 10, 190-201.
*Carlo, G., Haussman, A., Christiansen, S., & Randall, B. A. (2003). Sociocognitive and behav-ioural correlates of a measure of pro-social tendencies for adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 23, 107-134.
Denham, S. A. (2005a). Assessing social-emotional development in children from a longitudinal perspective for the National Children’s Study: Social-emotional compendium of measures. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University.
Denham, S. A. (2005b). Assessing social-emotional development in children from a longitudinal perspective for the National Children’s Study. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University.
Denham, S. A., Wyatt, T. M., Bassett, H. H., Echeverria, D., & Knox, S. S. (2009). Assessing social-emotional development in children from a longitudinal perspective. Journal of Epi-demiology and Community Health, 63(Suppl.), 37-52.
Department for Children, Schools and Families. (2007a). Secondary Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning (SEAL) programme: Guidance. Nottingham, England: Author.
Department for Children, Schools and Families. (2007b). The children’s plan: Building brighter futures. Nottingham, England: Author.
Gannon, N., & Ranzijn, R. (2005). Does emotional intelligence predict unique variance in life satisfaction beyond IQ and personality? Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1353-1364.
Fundacion Marcelino Botin. (2008). Social and emotional education: An international analysis. Santander, Spain: Author.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam Books.*Gresham, D. C., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). Social skills rating system: Manual. Circle Pines, MN:
American Guidance Service.Hannes, K., Claes, L., & The Belgian Campbell Group. (2007). Learn to read and write system-
atic reviews: The Belgian Campbell Group. Research on Social Work Practice, 17, 748-753.Harlen, W., & Crick, R. D. (2004). Opportunities and challenges of using systematic reviews
of research for evidence based policy in education. Evaluation & Research in Education, 18, 54-71.
*Hightower, A. D., Cowen, E. L., Spinell, A. P., & Lotyczewski, B. S. (1987). The Child Rating Scale: The development of a socio-emotional self-rating scale for elementary school children. School Psychology Review, 16, 239-255.
Humphrey, N., Curran, A., Morris, E., Farrell, P., & Woods, K. (2007). Emotional intelligence and education: A critical review. Educational Psychology, 27, 235-254.
Humphrey, N., Kalambouka, A., Bolton, J., Lendrum, A., Wigelsworth, M., Lennie, C., & Farrell, P. (2008). Primary social and emotional aspects of learning: evaluation of small group work (Research Report RR064). Nottingham, England: DCSF Publications.
Humphrey, N., Kalambouka, A., Lendrum, A., Wigelsworth, M., Samad, M., Farrelly, N., . . . Croudace, T. (2009). A systematic review of social and emotional skills measures for chil-dren and young people (DCSF Research Report 2008/056B). Nottingham, England: DCSF Publications.
by guest on January 1, 2012epm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
636 Educational and Psychological Measurement 71(4)
*Izard, C. E., Dougherty, B. M., Bloxom, B. M., & Kotsch, W. E. (1974). The Differential Emotion Scale: A method of measuring the subjective experience of discrete emotions. Unpublished manuscript, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
*LaFreniere, P. J., & Dumas, J. E. (1996). Social competence and behavior evaluation in children ages 3 to 6 years: The short form (SCBE-30). Psychological Assessment, 8, 369-377.
*Matson, J. L., Rotatori, A. F., & Helsel, W. J. (1983). Development of a rating scale to measure social skills in children: The Matson Evaluation of Social Skills with Youngsters (MESSY). Behavior Research and Therapy, 21, 335-340.
Matthews, G., Roberts, R. D., & Zeidner, M. (2004). Seven myths about emotional intelligence. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 179-196.
Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2004). Emotional intelligence: Science and myth. Cambridge: MIT Press.
*Merrell, K. W. (1996). Social-emotional assessment in early childhood: The Preschool and Kindergarten Behavior Scales. Journal of Early Intervention, 20, 132-145.
*Michelson, L., & Wood, R. (1982). Development and psychometric properties of the Children’s Assertive Behavior Scale. Journal of Behavioral Assessment, 4, 3-13.
Nind, M. (2006). Conducting systematic review in education: A reflexive narrative. London Review of Education, 4, 183-195.
*Nowicki, S., Jr., & Duke, M. P. (1989). A measure of nonverbal social processing ability in children between the ages of 6 and 10. Paper presented as part of a symposium at the American Psychological Society, Alexandria, VA.
Payton, J. W., Wardlaw, D. M., Graczyk, P. A., Bloodworth, M. R., Tompsett, C. J., & Weissberg, R. P. (2000). Social and emotional learning: A framework for promoting mental health and reducing risk behaviours in children and youth. Journal of School Health, 70, 179-185.
Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. European Journal of Personality, 15, 425-448.
Petrides, K. V., Sangareau, Y., Furnham, A. and Frederickson, N. (2006). Trait emotional intel-ligence and children’s peer relations at school. Social Development, 15, 537–547.
Rose-Krasnor, L. (1997). The nature of social competence: A theoretical review. Social Develop-ment, 6, 111-135.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Per-sonality, 9, 185-211.
Schulte, M. J., Ree, M. J., & Carretta, T. R. (2004). Emotional intelligence: Not much more than g and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1059-1068.
*Schultz, D., Izard, C. E., & Bear, G. A. (2004). Children’s emotion processing: Relations to emotionality and aggression. Development & Psychopathology, 16, 371-387.
*Shields, A., & Cicchetti, D. (1997). Emotion regulation among school-age children: The develop-ment and validation of a new criterion Q-sort scale. Developmental Psychology, 33, 906-916.
Stewart-Brown, S., & Edmunds, L. (2003). Assessing social and emotional competence in pri-mary-school and early years settings (DfES EOR/SBU/2002/042). Nottingham, England: DfES Publications.
Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., . . . de Vet, H. C. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60, 34-42.
by guest on January 1, 2012epm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Humphrey et al. 637
Torgerson, C. J. (2006). Publication bias: The Achilles’ heel of systematic reviews? British Journal of Educational Studies, 54, 89-102.
Van Horn, M., Atkins-Burnett, S., Karlin, E., & Snyder, S. (2007). Parent ratings of children’s social skills: Longitudinal psychometric analysis of the social skills rating system. School Psychology Quarterly, 22, 142-199.
Van Rooy, D. L., Viswesvaran, C., & Pluta, P. (2005). An evaluation of construct validity: What is this thing called emotional intelligence? Human Performance, 18, 445-462.
Weare, K., & Gray, G. (2003). What works in developing children’s emotional and social com-petence and well-being? (RR456). Nottingham, England: DfES Publications.
Wigelsworth, M., Humphrey, N., Kalambouka, A., & Lendrum, A. (2010). A review of key issues in the measurement of children’s social and emotional skills. Educational Psychology in Practice, 26, 173-186.
Wilhelm, O. (2005). Measures of emotional intelligence: Practice and standards. In R. Schulze & R. D. Roberts (Eds.), Emotional intelligence: An international handbook (pp. 131-154). Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe & Huber.
Wolpert, M., Aitken, J. Syrad, H., Munroe, M., Saddington, C., Trustam, E., . . . Croudace, T. (2009). Review and recommendations for national policy for England for the use of mental health outcome measures with children and young people (DCSF Research Report 2008/56). Nottingham, England: DCSF Publications.
Zeidner, M., Roberts, R. D., & Matthews, G. (2002). Can emotional intelligence be schooled? A critical review. Educational Psychologist, 37, 215-231.
by guest on January 1, 2012epm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Top Related