Mondi 

et al. ICEP (2021) 15:6

[Link]

REVIEW Open Access

Fostering socio‑emotional learning

through early childhood intervention
Christina F. Mondi1*  , Alison Giovanelli2 and Arthur J. Reynolds3 

*Correspondence:
[Link]- Abstract 
rago@[Link]; Educators and researchers are increasingly interested in evaluating and promoting
mondi004@[Link]
1
Division of Developmental socio-emotional learning (SEL) beginning in early childhood (Newman & Dusunbury in
Medicine, Brazelton 2015; Zigler & Trickett in American Psychologist 33(9):789–798 [Link]
Touchpoints Center, 0003-​066X.​33.9.​789, 1978). Decades of research have linked participation in high-qual-
Boston Children’s Hospital,
Harvard Medical School, ity early childhood education (ECE) programs (e.g., public prekindergarten, Head Start)
1295 Boylston St., Suite 320, to multidimensional wellbeing. ECE programs also have demonstrated potential to
Boston, MA 02115, USA be implemented at large scales with strong financial returns on investment. However,
Full list of author information
is available at the end of the relatively few studies have investigated the effects of ECE programs on SEL, particularly
article compared to smaller-scale, skills-based SEL interventions. Furthermore, among studies
that have examined SEL, there is a general lack of consensus about how to define and
measure SEL in applied settings. The present paper begins to address these gaps in
several ways. First, it discusses conceptual and methodological issues related to devel-
opmentally and culturally sensitive assessment of young children’s socio-emotional
functioning. Second, it reviews the empirical research literature on the impacts of three
types of early childhood programs (general prekindergarten programs; multi-com-
ponent prekindergarten programs; and universal skills-based interventions) on SEL.
Finally, it highlights future directions for research and practice.
Keywords:  Early childhood, Socio-emotional learning, Mental health, Prevention, Early
intervention

Fostering socio‑emotional learning through early childhood programming

What are the best ways to assess the effectiveness of early childhood intervention pro-
grams? This question has been debated for decades, and the answer has tremendous
implications for public policy. During the mid-twentieth century, many research stud-
ies primarily examined whether intervention participation led to improvements in
children’s IQ scores. Some researchers, however, argued for a more multidimensional
approach to assessing intervention outcomes. Edward Zigler, one of the architects of
Head Start, notably proposed that the primary outcome of interest in early childhood
interventions should be children’s “social competence” (Raver & Zigler, 1997; Zigler &
Trickett, 1978). Interest in social competence grew in the second half of the twentieth
century, with numerous studies indicating that socio-emotional and motivational vari-
ables exert significant impacts on wellbeing in childhood and beyond (Greenberg et al.,

© The Author(s) 2021. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and
the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material
in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material
is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the
permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit [Link]
mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/.
Mondi et al. ICEP (2021) 15:6 Page 2 of 43

2003; Jones et  al., 2015). By the turn of the twenty-first century, a national sample of
teachers reported that they believed that the ability to regulate emotions and behaviors
is the most important component of school readiness (Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2000).
Today, educators and researchers continue to be interested in evaluating and pro-
moting socio-emotional learning (SEL) starting in early childhood. Early childhood
SEL skills develop rapidly, are uniquely malleable, and are strongly associated with later
social, academic, cognitive, and health outcomes (Zins et al., 2007). Skills-based inter-
ventions that specifically target children’s SEL have been a major area of investigation
(McClelland et al., 2017). However, relatively less is known about the impacts of large-
scale early childhood education (ECE) programs on SEL, despite the potential of such
programs to effect broad impacts. Furthermore, despite the growing enthusiasm sur-
rounding the concept of SEL, many of the same methodological issues that Zigler and
colleagues described in the 1970s still persist. Review of the literature reveals a lack of
consensus among researchers and practitioners regarding how to define, evaluate, and
promote SEL.
McCabe and Altamura (2011) previously reviewed the impact of a variety of preschool
interventions on SEL, including both skills-based interventions and comprehensive
classroom- and home-based programs. The authors reported that many programs were
associated with short-term SEL benefits, but that there was a need for additional longi-
tudinal research in this area. Notably, the authors did not explicate their review meth-
odology or inclusion criteria, making it difficult to ascertain the representativeness and
comprehensiveness of their findings. This limitation, combined with the publication of
a number of studies since 2011, signal the need for an updated review of different inter-
vention strategies for preschool-aged children.
The present paper reviews the most methodologically rigorous research that is availa-
ble on the relationship between preschool intervention and SEL. We begin by discussing
what the construct of SEL is (and is not)—a topic that that has been the subject of some
debate and confusion in the literature. Having outlined a conceptual and methodological
framework for SEL, we will then describe specific study aims and methods.

Socio‑emotional competencies in early childhood

During the early 1990s, the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learn-
ing (CASEL) attempted to organize decades of empirical research on socio-emotional
development into a socio-emotional learning (SEL) framework (Newman & Dusunbury,
2015). Since then, the CASEL framework has been widely used by researchers, practi-
tioners, and policymakers alike, informing the development of federal and state state
legislation and learning standards.
According to CASEL researchers, SEL is the process of learning to “integrate
thinking, feeling, and behaving to achieve important life tasks” (Zins et  al., 2007,
p. 194). SEL encompasses children’s emerging abilities to “form close and secure…
relationships; experience, regulate, and express emotions in socially and cultur-
ally appropriate ways; and explore the environment and learn—all in the context of
family, community, and culture” (Yates et al., 2008, p. 2). CASEL’s SEL framework is
grounded in research on typical and atypical socio-emotional development and high-
lights five core competency areas: (a) self-awareness; (b) self-management; (c) social
 Mondi et al. ICEP (2021) 15:6 Page 3 of 43

awareness; (d) relationship skills; and (e) responsible decision-making (Collaborative

for Social & Emotional Learning [CASEL], 2012; “Core SEL Competencies”, 2019;
Weissberg et al., 2016). These competences are outlined in Table 1.
Importantly, while CASEL’s five core competency areas are common across most
cultures, specific aspects of adaptive SEL functioning may vary based on race/ethnic-
ity, language, socioeconomic status, and other cultural factors. Cognitive, linguistic,
and behavioral traits that are considered to be adaptive and desirable in non-majority
culture communities may be perceived as problematic or even pathological by major-
ity culture educators (Phillips, 1993; West-Olatunji et  al., 2008). These perceptions
may be partially attributed to educators’ own biases, and to disparities between the
culture and structure of children’s home and school environments (Boykin, 1983; Han
& Thomas, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 1995; McCarthy et al., 2006; Webb-Johnson, 2002).
Thus, when assessing children’s SEL, researchers and educators should carefully con-
sider the role that culture plays in shaping children’s behavior, and avoid conflating
cultural behavioral differences with disorder.

Conceptual and measurement issues

Distinguishing SEL from executive function
SEL skills have often been referred to as “non-cognitive” skills in research and prac-
tice. Yet many researchers have argued that this designation is a misnomer, given that
SEL skills are often grounded in skills related to cognition, learning, and memory.
Among the most significant contributors to SEL are executive functioning (EF) skills,
which include the cognitive processes necessary for planning, organizing, and prob-
lem-solving. Several studies have linked EF deficits to concurrent SEL deficits, and
longitudinal work has indicated that EF skills in early childhood predict SEL compe-
tence later in life (e.g., Riggs et al., 2006). Thus, EF and SEL competencies, (including
self-management, as identified by CASEL’s framework) can be conceptualized as dis-
tinct but related, and at times overlapping, constructs.

Table 1  SEL core competencies (CASEL 2012)

Competency Description Examples

Self-awareness The ability to accurately evaluate one’s Emotion identification, self-confidence

own thoughts, emotions, abilities,
and values
Self-management The ability to effectively regulate one’s Impulse control, stress management
own thoughts, emotions, and actions
in different scenarios
Social awareness The ability to empathize with individu- Perspective-taking, showing respect
als from diverse backgrounds and to others
to understand societal norms for
behavior
Relationship skills The ability to initiate and maintain Communicating clearly, constructively
healthy relationships navigating conflict
Responsible decision-making The ability to make healthy, informed Identifying problems, analyzing the
choices potential consequences of a decision
Mondi et al. ICEP (2021) 15:6 Page 4 of 43

Distinguishing SEL from psychopathology

Psychologists increasingly agree that mental health is most accurately conceptualized
on a continuum, ranging from clinically significant psychopathology to psychological
wellbeing or flourishing (Keyes, 2002). Within this model, mental health or wellbeing is
conceptualized not only as the absence of psychopathology symptoms, but as the pres-
ence of competencies that enable individuals to withstand adversity and to work towards
positive outcomes. As Darling-Churchill and Lippman (2016, p. 3) stated: “Problems and
strengths do not fall neatly on a single continuum, and the absence of problems does
not guarantee the presence of competencies; thus, it is important to measure both.”
From this perspective, it is imperative that researchers and practitioners avoid conflating
emergent SEL deficits with psychopathology (Halle & Darling-Churchill, 2016).
Children exhibiting emergent SEL deficits may or may not have comorbid psychiat-
ric disorders. Children with diagnosable psychopathology must exhibit symptoms that
coalesce into specific patterns and that are associated with significant functional impair-
ment. The latter group would likely benefit from clinical treatment. Meanwhile, many
children do not currently meet diagnostic criteria for a disorder, but exhibit emergent
deficits in SEL skills relative to same-age peers (Jones et  al., 2002; Wille et  al., 2008).
A multitude of factors may contribute to lagged SEL, including early deprivation or
trauma, inconsistent caregiving, and cultural differences in socio-emotional expression.
Children with emergent SEL deficits would likely benefit from broader-based interven-
tions that provide opportunities for them to interact with high-quality caregivers, estab-
lish peer relationships, and practice SEL skills in the environments that they are already
in (e.g., early care and education settings).
Emergent SEL deficits are distinct from clinical disorder; however, it is important to
acknowledge the demonstrated link between early SEL deficits and long-term risk for
the development of psychopathology. This link reflects the phenomenon of heterotypic
continuity, in which an early behavior predicts the subsequent emergence of a different
behavior in the same individual (Rutter et al., 2006). The concept of developmental cas-
cades has been invoked as a potential mechanism for heterotypic continuity; in this case,
an individual’s early SEL competencies interact with other individual and environmental
factors (e.g., genetic, family, school) over time, influencing his or her risk of developing
psychopathology (Burke et  al., 2005). For example, a child who is lagging in SEL may
have negative interactions with caregivers and peers and fall behind academically. These
experiences may, in turn, increase the child’s probability of academic, psychological, and
other difficulties over time. Conversely, a child who exhibits developmentally appropri-
ate SEL will likely experience more social and academic success, which can lay founda-
tions for lifelong wellbeing.

Other measurement issues

As noted above, it is critical that researchers utilize measures that assess children’s SEL
skills (as distinguished from EF skills or psychopathology symptoms).
Several additional issues merit consideration when assessing SEL in early childhood
(Committee on Developmental Outcomes, 2008; Darling-Churchill & Lippman, 2016;
Halle & Darling-Churchill, 2016). Measurement should ideally occur across multi-
ple time-points, as longitudinal assessment allows for stronger inference of causal
 Mondi et al. ICEP (2021) 15:6 Page 5 of 43

relationships. Collecting repeated measurements over time will also allow researchers to
observe trajectories of socio-emotional development over time. Finally, collecting data
from multiple informants is considered ideal in order to gain more comprehensive, relia-
ble pictures of children’s functioning. Integrating reports from different informants, who
may perceive children’s behaviors differently or observe different behaviors in different
settings (e.g., home versus school), can be challenging; however, several methodological
solutions to this problem have been proposed (e.g., Offord et al., 1996).

Present review
The present paper reviews the current state of the literature on SEL interventions for
preschool-aged children. This review makes several unique contributions. First, whereas
previous reviews have primarily focused on skills-based SEL interventions, this review
compares and contrasts the effects of three types of early childhood interventions on
SEL: (a) general prekindergarten programs; (b) multi-component prekindergarten pro-
grams; and (c) skills-based interventions. This review specifically focuses on universal
programs in each of the three categories (e.g., programs that are not specifically tar-
geted to children with emergent SEL deficits or psychopathology). Second, whereas
several previous reviews have examined the effects of early intervention on child psy-
chopathology (e.g., internalizing, externalizing symptoms), the current review examines
SEL outcomes, defined as children’s acquisition of developmentally appropriate social
and emotional skills. Finally, rather than reviewing the entire literature, this review
focuses on the most methodologically rigorous (e.g., peer-reviewed, longitudinal) extant
research. Given these combined foci, the present review offers a thorough, up-to-date
overview of the effects of different types of early childhood interventions on young chil-
dren’s SEL.
Notably, while we believe that it is imperative to evaluate the strength of programs’
evidence bases using specific uniform criteria, our review reveals variable methodology
and construct validity across individual studies, making it challenging to assess program
efficacy in a reliable or systematic way. As such, we emphasize that the purpose of this
review is not to make statements about the efficacy of individual programs, but rather
to describe programs that are most promising and to identify knowledge gaps for future
research to investigate.

Method
Having reviewed key conceptual and methodological issues, we will now describe our
review of universal interventions for preschool-aged children. We conducted searches
in Web of Science, PsycInfo, Google Scholar, and PubMed. Numerous search terms were
employed, including ones referencing socio-emotional skills (e.g., “socio-emotional”,
“emotion regulation”, “non-cognitive”, “prosocial”), early childhood and ECE program-
ming (e.g., “preschool,” “Head Start”), and commonly used SEL measures (e.g., “Behav-
ior Assessment System”, “Conners”). Backwards and forward searches were conducted on
landmark and highly cited articles.
Studies had to meet six inclusion criteria to be included in the present review. The
purpose of these criteria was to identify the most methodologically rigorous studies on
modern universal interventions and SEL. (1) studies had to be published in English in
Mondi et al. ICEP (2021) 15:6 Page 6 of 43

peer-reviewed journals by December 31, 2020. (2) Only studies that investigated prekin-
dergarten interventions implemented in 1990 or later were included. (3) Interventions
had to be universal (e.g., not specifically targeted to children with baseline SEL deficits
or psychopathology) and delivered by laypeople (e.g., not researchers). (4) Critically,
given that the focus of the present paper is the relations between intervention and SEL
included, studies had to measure one or more SEL skills as previously defined. Studies
were not included if they solely measured psychopathology outcomes (e.g., externaliz-
ing or internalizing symptoms, problem behaviors) or EF outcomes. (5) Studies had to
assess children’s SEL skills at a minimum of two time-points, as skill development over
the course of intervention can only be examined within longitudinal research designs.
(6) Studies had to include a comparison or control group.
The first and second authors independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of identi-
fied studies to determine whether they met inclusion criteria. During this review pro-
cess, both authors also determined which intervention category applied to each study.
General public prekindergarten programs were defined as publicly funded programs
administered by state and local agencies. Multi-component ECE programs were defined
as programs which provide multiple academic, family and social support services (e.g.,
Head Start, the Child–Parent Center (CPC) Program, The High/Scope Perry Preschool
Project), typically in center-based settings. Skills-based SEL interventions were defined
as discrete interventions aimed at enhancing children’s SEL via direct skills instruction
for children and/or their ECE caregivers (e.g., Al’s Pals, The Incredible Years). In cases of
disagreement, both authors reviewed and discussed until consensus was reached. Over-
all, based on these criteria, the following studies are included in the present review: (a)
one empirical study of a general public prekindergarten program; (b) three empirical
studies of multi-component ECE interventions; (c) 23 empirical studies of skills-based
SEL interventions; (d) three systematic reviews or meta-analyses of multi-component
ECE interventions; and (e) five systematic reviews or meta-analyses of SEL skills-based
interventions. See Tables 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 for details on these studies, including sample
characteristics.

Results
General public prekindergarten and multi‑component ECE programs (Tables 2, 3, 4)
General public prekindergarten and multi-component ECE programs (e.g., Head Start,
the CPC program) are comprehensive ECE interventions, and stand in contrast to
skills-based interventions which primarily target SEL. Nonetheless, there are several
important distinctions between general public prekindergarten programs and multi-
component ECE programs (e.g., Head Start, the CPC Program). There is often signifi-
cant variability in general prekindergarten models and populations served, both across
and within public school districts in the United States (Phillips et al., 2017). Meanwhile,
multi-component ECE programs typically incorporate similar program elements and
serve comparable populations across sites. Multi-component programs often operate in
center-based settings, and typically provide a wider range of support services for chil-
dren and families than general public prekindergarten programs.
Despite the differences between general public prekindergarten and multi-component
ECE programs, we present our findings for both program types simultaneously below.
 Mondi et al. ICEP
(2021) 15:6

Table 2  Peer-reviewed empirical studies of general public prekindergarten programs

Citation Interventions Sample Outcomes by CASEL Major findings Major study limitations
domain
SA SM SoA RS RD

Weiland and Yoshikawa (2013) Boston Public Schools prekinder- IG: 2018 4- and 5-year-old chil- X X Across the preschool year, the IG Non-randomized design
garten program dren from diverse racial, ethnic, exhibited significantly greater All children (including English
and linguistic backgrounds gains in working memory language learners) were tested
(ES = 0.23), inhibitory control in English
(ES = 0.20), attention shifting
(ES = 0.27), emotion recogni-
tion (ES = 0.18) than the CG
Page 7 of 43
 Mondi et al. ICEP

Table 3  Peer-reviewed meta-analyses and reviews of multi-component ECE interventions

Citation Type Interventions Sample Measured outcomes Major findings Major study limitations

Nelson et. al. Meta-analysis Preschool prevention 34 studies Parent and teacher ratings of chil- Preschool programs exerted small to Few studies examined long-term
(2021) 15:6

(2003) programs for low- dren’s social skills and behavioral moderate effects on socio-emotional effects
income children problems functioning (Kindergarten through Use of broadly constructed outcome
Self-reports on self-esteem eighth grade d = 0.27; high school and variables (“e.g., social-emotional
Academic records (special education beyond d = 0.33) functioning”)
placement, grade retention) Programs that began working with Authors were unable to code for the
Information about employment, children at younger ages were not amount of intervention that chil-
education, and criminal behavior associated with larger socio-emotional dren in comparison groups received
in adolescence benefits than programs that began at Some continuous variables were
later ages transformed into categorical ones
Programs with longer follow-up periods
were associated with greater socio-
emotional benefits
Programs that served predominantly
African American children were associ-
ated with the greatest socio-emotional
benefits
Page 8 of 43
 Mondi et al. ICEP

Table 4  (continued)
Citation Type Interventions Sample Measured outcomes Major findings Major study limitations
Camilli et. al. Meta-analysis Center-based ECE 43 studies Measures of self-esteem, school Preschool participation also exerted Social/emotional and “antisocial” vari-
(2021) 15:6

(2010) interventions adjustment, educational goals, small, statistically significant positive ables were combined into a single
aggression, and antisocial behav- effects on children’s social skills and broad outcome
iors school progress (unweighted mean Significant variation in design quality
ES = 0.16 for treatment versus control among included studies
groups)
Effects on socio-emotional functioning
did not change significantly over the
course of follow-up
Teacher-directed instruction and
small-group learning were positively
correlated with socio-emotional gains
among treatment group members.
small-group learning
D’Onise et. al. Systematic review Center-based pre- 13 studies “Social competence”, including Eight studies found beneficial effects Many included studies had high levels
(2014) school interventions positive social behaviors (e.g., of preschool participation on social of bias, per the review authors
cooperation, self-control) and competence Many included studies used single
problem behaviors (e.g., external- Six studies found no significant effects on measures and single ratings
izing and internalizing problems, social competence
hyperactivity)
Page 9 of 43
 Mondi et al. ICEP
(2021) 15:6

Table 4  Peer-reviewed empirical studies of multi-component ECE interventions

Citation Interventions Sample Outcomes by CASEL Major findings Major study limitations
domain
SA SM SoA RS RD

Brown and Sax (2013) Arts-integrated Head Start program IG: 174 preschool-aged children X IG exhibited greater improvements Non-randomized design
(Settlement Music School’s who attended the arts-integrated in positive emotion regulation The Kaleidoscope program is
Kaleidoscope Preschool Arts Head Start (F(1200) = 16.79, p < 0.001) and one-of-a-kind, potentially
Enrichment Program) CG: 31 preschool-aged children negative emotion regulation limiting generalizability of
who attended a traditional Head (F(1200) = 17.93, p < 0.001) over results
Start site time than the CG
Reynolds et. al. (2016) Child–Parent Center (CPC) Program IG: 1006 children who attended CPC X X At the end of preschool, teach- Non-randomized design
preschool (age 3 or 4) ers rated IG members as having Reliance on teacher ratings
CG: 906 children who attended higher overall SEL skills than CG
non-CPC preschool services members (mean difference = 0.44
at demographically matched SD)
schools
Richardson et. al. (2017) Child–Parent Center (CPC) Program IG: 1289 children who attended CPC X X CPC participants received higher Significant differences in base-
preschool (age 3 or 4) mean SEL scores at the end of the line characteristics between
CG: 591 children who attended preschool year than CG members the treatment and control
non-CPC preschool services groups
at demographically matched Reliance on teacher ratings
schools
Articles are listed in chronological order by publication date. Coding of CASEL domains was based on the information provided in the published article and (when possible) publicly available information about specific
measures
IG intervention group, CG control/comparison group, SA self-awareness, SM self-management, SoA social awareness, RS relationship skills, RD responsible decision-making
Page 10 of 43
 Mondi et al. ICEP

Table 5  Peer-reviewed meta-analyses and reviews of skills-based SEL interventions

Citation Type Interventions Sample Measured outcomes Major findings Major study limitations

Joseph and Strain (2003) Systematic review Comprehensive social- Eight empirical studies “Social competence”, includ- Low levels of evidence Several studies were conducted
(2021) 15:6

emotional curricula for and two studies under ing positive and problem (based on the nine crite- several decades ago
children ages 3–6 investigation behaviors ria) of beneficial effects Several studies focused primarily
Used nine criteria to on social competence on problem behaviors
determine “probability for four of the stud- Many included studies had high
of efficacious adoption” ies, medium levels of levels of bias
(e.g., treatment fidelity, evidence for two studies, Many studies used single meas-
evidence across racial and high levels of evi- ures and single ratings
groups) dence for two studies
McCabe and Altamura Systematic review Intervention programs tar- 10 empirical studies Parent and teacher reports, Authors reported positive Some studies reviewed focused
(2011) geting social, behavioral, direct assessment, and social, emotional, or exclusively on problem
and/or self-regulatory observation of SEL out- behavioral effects for behaviors
skills in preschool-aged comes (emotion regula- most programs reviewed Limitations of studies not
children and compre- tion, expression, skill use, discussed
hensive prevention and problem-solving) Did not clearly distinguish
intervention programs between school vs. home-
based programs
Barton et. al. (2014) Systematic review Classroom and parenting 10 classroom curricula and “Social-emotional compe- Low levels of evidence Many included studies had high
social-emotional pro- 8 parenting interventions tence” and “behavioral (based on the nine crite- levels of bias, per the review
grams for young children focused on social-emo- outcomes” ria) of beneficial effects authors
tional development Used nine criteria to on social competence Many included studies used
determine “probability for four of the stud- single measures and single
of efficacious adoption” ies, medium levels of ratings
(e.g., treatment fidelity, evidence for four studies, Several studies focused on
evidence across racial/ and high levels of evi- reducing “antisocial behavior”
ethnic groups) dence for two studies Several studies focused on
children older than preschool
age (e.g., first step to success,
one of programs rated most
efficacious, targets kindergar-
teners and other early primary
grades)
Page 11 of 43
 Mondi et al. ICEP

Table 5  (continued)
Citation Type Interventions Sample Measured outcomes Major findings Major study limitations

Luo et. al. (2020) Systematic review Classroom-wide social- 39 empirical studies (10,646 “Social competence”, “emo- Among studies with suf- Did not investigate the grey
(2021) 15:6

and meta- emotional interventions child participants) tional competence”, and ficient child outcome literature
analysis for preschoolers “challenging behavior”. information to calculate Unable to investigate possible
Also coded research effect sizes: 30 studies variations in treatment effects
designs and nine domains examined intervention due to clustering
of study-level risk of bias effects on social compe- Unable to conduct multivariate
tence and 12 examined meta-regression analysis, to
effects on emotional investigate potential interac-
competence. Moderate tions between covariates
effects were found in
both domains (social:
g = 0.42, 95% CI = [0.28,
0.56]; z = 5.77, p < 0.001;
k = 34; emotional:
g = 0.33, 95% CI = [0.10,
0.56]; z = 2.85, p = 0.004;
k = 14). However, there
was significant hetero-
geneity across studies.
Interventions with family
components had larger
effect sizes for social
competence (Q(1) = 7.03,
p = 0.08) than those that
did not include family
members
Page 12 of 43
 Mondi et al. ICEP

Table 5  (continued)
Citation Type Interventions Sample Measured outcomes Major findings Major study limitations
Murano et. al. (2020 Meta-analysis Universal and targeted 48 empirical studies (15,498 “Social and emotional skills” Both universal and targeted Limited coverage of the grey
(2021) 15:6

SEL interventions for child participants) and “problem behaviors” interventions were associ- literature
preschoolers ated with improvements Unable to investigate possible
in overall social and variations in treatment effects
emotional skills (n = 37, due to clustering
g = 0.34 and n = 13,
g = 0.44, respectively).
There was significant het-
erogeneity in effect sizes
among universal pro-
grams. Meta-regression
analyses indicated that
83% of this heterogene-
ity was attributable to
intervention type
Page 13 of 43
 Mondi et al. ICEP

Table 6  Peer-reviewed empirical studies of skills-based SEL interventions

Citation Interventions Sample Outcomes by CASEL Major findings Major study limitations
domain
(2021) 15:6

SA SM SoA RS RD

Denham and Burton (1996) Intervention that included IG: 70 children in private child X X X X X IG exhibited decreased negative No random assignment
teacher training and care centers using the High/ emotion, higher levels of skills Teachers not blind to group status
classroom curriculum. Scope curriculum model interacting with peers, higher lev- CG was 4 months younger than
Based on PATHS, proso- CG: 60 children from the same els of productive involvement (e.g., IG, on average
cial activity guide, and I child care programs task initiation) at post-test No long-term follow-up
Can Problem Solve Children with lower pre-test scores
benefited most in the areas of peer
skill, teacher-rated social compe-
tence, and productiveness
Webster-Stratton et. Al. (2001) Incredible Years: parent IG: 191 families in 23 classrooms X X By the end of the school year, IG IG families had more risk factors
training program and across 9 Head Start centers were rated as more socially com- than CG families and were more
teacher training program CG: 81 families in 13 classrooms petent and prosocial than the CG likely to report high stress and
across 5 different Head Start For example, 71% of IG children child behavior problems at
centers who had been rated as having baseline
problems with social competence IG had higher percentage of
at baseline fell in the normative minority families
range at the end of school, com- Only 50% of eligible families
pared to 36.6% of the CG children elected to participate
initially rated as lower in social No long-term follow-up reported
competence (χ2 [1, 26] = 4.12,
p < 0.04)
Lynch et. al. (2004) Al’s Pals: teacher training, IG: 17 intervention classrooms X X X X X IG classrooms showed positive Teacher report only
classroom curriculum, (n = 218) changes on teacher-rated prosocial No long-term follow-up reported
and parent education CG: 16 control classrooms skills, positive coping, and distract/
(n = 181) avoid skills
CG classrooms received higher mean
ratings on the problem behavior
scales at the end of the school year
than at the beginning
Page 14 of 43
 Mondi et al. ICEP

Table 6  (continued)
Citation Interventions Sample Outcomes by CASEL Major findings Major study limitations
domain
(2021) 15:6

SA SM SoA RS RD

Han et. al. (2005) The prekindergarten IG: 83 preschool students in 6 X X X X X IG showed greater improvements Parents and teachers were aware
RECAP program classrooms at 3 school sites in teacher-rated social skills (F[1, of their intervention status
CG: 66 preschool students in 6 144] = 5.73, p < 0.05), including IG and CG children differed sig-
classrooms at 3 school sites cooperation nificantly on teacher-reported
(F[1, 144] = 3.99, p < 0.05) and asser- levels of problems and skills and
tion (F[1, 144] = 7.12, p < 0.01), than on family income
the CG IG parent group attendance was
IG showed significant improvements extremely low
in teacher-rated internalizing and
externalizing problems
Domitrovich et. al. (2007) Preschool PATHS IG: 10 Head Start classrooms X X X X X IG exhibited greater improvements No long-term follow-up
CG:10 Head Start classrooms in emotion knowledge than the
246 children overall across both CG
groups IG exhibited greater improvements
in teacher-rated social compe-
tence and internalizing problems
than the CG
IG exhibited greater improvements
in parent-rated social and emo-
tional competence
Bierman et. al. (Bierman, Dom- Head Start REDI 44 Head Start classrooms X X X X X IG exhibited greater improvements Parent component was minimal
itrovich, et al., 2008) and 356 children overall. in emotion knowledge and social and not separately tracked or
Classrooms were randomly problem-solving skills than the CG assessed
assigned to the IG or CG
Page 15 of 43
 Mondi et al. ICEP

Table 6  (continued)
Citation Interventions Sample Outcomes by CASEL Major findings Major study limitations
domain
(2021) 15:6

SA SM SoA RS RD

Izard et. al. (2008) Emotion based prevention Study 1: X X X X Intervention participation was Parent component was not suc-
program IG: 9 classrooms associated with increased emotion cessfully implemented
CG: 7 classrooms knowledge and regulation skills
Over 6 Head Start centers for children who were at least four
N = 179 years old at pre-test
Teacher ratings and independ-
ent classroom observations also
showed that the IG evinced
reduced negative emotionality
and maladaptive behavior com-
pared to the CG
No treatment effects on measures of
positive behavior
Webster-Stratton et. al. (2008) Incredible Years Series: 42 Head Start classrooms in X X X X IG participants exhibited significant Study did not include parent
Dinosaur School Seattle; wait list control improvements in social compe- reports, making it impossible to
tence, self-regulation, and aggres- determine whether treatment
sive behavior effects generalized to the home
environment
Pickens (2009) Peace Education Foun- IG: 246 preschoolers who X X IG showed significant improvements Reliance on teacher ratings
dation (PEF) socio- attended sites that used the in positive behavior (includ- Teachers were not blinded to
emotional development PEF curriculum, and their ing social cooperation, social intervention status
program for teachers and parents interaction, social independence;
parents CG: 50 children matched on IG F(1294) = 17.52, p < 0.001) over
demographic characteristics, time, relative to the CG
who did not attend PEF sites
Conner and Fraser (2011) Parent and teacher training IG: 31 children X X X X IG group exhibited significantly Very small sample sizes
through the making CG: 36 children greater improvements in social Moderate to high attrition rates
choices and strong fami- All children from a coalition of competence, academic compe- Parents and raters were not blind
lies programs centers providing part-day pre- tence, depression, and aggressive to treatment assignment
school services using the High- behavior than the CG
Scope preschool curriculum
Page 16 of 43
 Mondi et al. ICEP

Table 6  (continued)
Citation Interventions Sample Outcomes by CASEL Major findings Major study limitations
domain
(2021) 15:6

SA SM SoA RS RD

Wilson et. al. (2012) Tuning in to Kids (TIK) IG: 62 parents of Australian pre- X At follow-up, teachers rated the Outcomes were not assessed
parenting program schoolers (ages 4–5 years) IG as having significantly better immediately post-intervention
CG: 66 parents of Australian social competence than the CG Sample comprised parent vol-
preschoolers (ages 4–5 years) (F(1119.80) = 43.72, p = 0.000) unteers, with limited socioeco-
nomic and cultural diversity
Stefan and Miclea (2012) Fast Track program IG: 89 preschoolers X X X X X Medium-to-large treatment effects Teachers were responsible for
CG: 69 preschoolers for social and emotional com- both implementation and
petencies and problem-solving. evaluation of child outcomes
Children from medium- and high- Did not parse effects of child,
risk subgroups benefited the most teacher, or parent-focused
from intervention participation intervention facets
Morris et. al. (2013) Foundations of Learning IG: 26 classrooms X X X IG classrooms were rated as hav- Potentially limited generalizabil-
CG: 25 classrooms ing significantly higher levels of ity, given unusually small class
All from Head Start centers, emotional support (ES = 0.65) sizes and high levels of teacher
community-based child care and lower levels of child–teacher credentialing
centers, and public schools conflict (ES = − 0.40) Teachers were responsible for
No treatment effects were detected both implementation and
for social competence outcomes evaluation
Unable to determine the impacts
of specific intervention compo-
nents on outcomes
Stefan and Miclea (2013) Socio-emotional preven- IG: 89 Romanian children and X X At follow-up, IG exhibited greater Potentially limited generalizability,
tion program their parents, drawn from a expressive emotion recognition given limited socioeconomic
local preschool (d = 0.50), receptive emotion diversity in the sample
CG: 69 children from the same recognition (d = 0.36) and social Reliance on teacher and parent
classrooms who did not problem-solving skills (d = 0.62) reports of child outcomes
receive any intervention than the CG
Page 17 of 43
 Mondi et al. ICEP

Table 6  (continued)
Citation Interventions Sample Outcomes by CASEL Major findings Major study limitations
domain
(2021) 15:6

SA SM SoA RS RD

Upshur et. al. (2013) Second Step pre/kin- Four community-based child- X No significant between-group differ- Small sample sizes and high rates
dergarten social and care centers participated. Two ences in teacher-rated prosocial skill of missing data
emotional learning were randomized into the IG, development Reliance on teacher ratings of
curriculum and two into the CG child outcomes
195 children were randomized Researchers were not able to fully
into the IG and 146 were document the socio-emotional
randomized into the CG. curricula that CG members were
Sample sizes varied based exposed to
on outcome and time-point
(ranging from 53 to 133)
Flook et. al. (2015) Kindness Curriculum (KC) IG: 30 children from 3 class- X X X IG exhibited greater improvements Very small sample size
rooms on teacher-rated social competence Teachers were not blinded to
CG: 38 from 4 classrooms than the CG, (d = 0.26), particularly study condition
in prosocial behavior (d = 0.29) and No long-term follow-up
emotion regulation (d = 0.25)
IG exhibited greater improvements in
sharing behavior (d = − 0.33), delay
of gratification (d = 0.23), and cogni-
tive flexibility (d = 0.43) than the CG
Hemmeter et. al. (2016) Pyramid Model for promot- IG: 252 preschool students and X X X IG children exhibited significantly Reliance on teacher ratings of
ing young children’s 20 teachers higher teacher-rated social skills and child outcomes
socio-emotional com- CG: 242 preschool students and significantly lower problem behav- Unable to determine impacts of
petence 20 teachers iors (d = − 0.29) than CG children at specific intervention compo-
post-test (d = 0.43) nents
Page 18 of 43
 Mondi et al. ICEP

Table 6  (continued)
Citation Interventions Sample Outcomes by CASEL Major findings Major study limitations
domain
(2021) 15:6

SA SM SoA RS RD
Poehlmann-Tynan et. al. (2016) Kindness Curriculum IG: 15 preschool students across X X IG children exhibited increased atten- Small sample
two classrooms tional focus and self-regulation from All students enrolled in concur-
CG: 14 preschool students pre- to post-intervention. Increases rent reading intervention
across three classrooms in self-regulation were found to The two IG classrooms each had a
persist at 3-month follow-up different mindfulness interven-
No significant differences in empathy tion instructor
or compassion were observed
between groups at follow-up
Muratori et. al. (2017) Coping Power IG: 84 children X X IG children exhibited significantly No direct observation of children’s
CG: 80 children greater decreases in teacher-rated SEL skills
behavioral difficulties (ES = 0.36) Teachers were not blind to chil-
and parent-rated behavioral dren’s intervention status. They
difficulties (ES = 0.38) over time delivered the intervention and
than the CG. The IG also exhibited also assessed outcomes
greater increases in teacher-rated No long-term follow-up
prosocial behavior (ES = 0.30) over
time
Bierman et. al. (2017) Head Start REDI-C (class- IG (REDI-C): 288 children X X X Long-term follow-up of REDI-C REDI-C + REDI-P only compared to
room intervention) and IG (REDI-C + REDI-P): 105 suggested sustained benefits in REDI-C alone; no direct compari-
REDI-P (home-visiting children classroom participation, relation- son with a no-treatment group
intervention) CG (usual practice Head Start): ships with peers and teachers, and 48% of eligible parents declined
173 social competence to participate in parent inter-
The addition of REDI-P was associ- vention
ated with improvements in child
perception of social competence
and relations with peers
Jensen et. al. (2017) VIDA IG: 29 preschools X X X No difference between IG and CG on Outcomes limited to teacher
CG: 29 preschools SEL outcomes ratings on a single measure
(the Strengths and Difficulties
Questionnaire)
Page 19 of 43
 Mondi et al. ICEP

Table 6  (continued)
Citation Interventions Sample Outcomes by CASEL Major findings Major study limitations
domain
(2021) 15:6

SA SM SoA RS RD
Kemple et. al. (2019) Second Step IG: 17 preschool-aged children X X IG exhibited significant improve- Non-randomized design
CG: 20 preschool-aged children ments in teacher-rated total Small sample size
social skills (t(35) = 2.19, p = 0.04), Reliance on teacher reports of
cooperation (t(35) = 2.14, p = 0.04), child outcomes
assertion, and self-control over
time, relative to the CG, with some
differences based on baseline
social competence
Williams and Berthelsen (2019) Untitled rhythm and Three early childhood cent- X IG exhibited significant improve- Non-randomized design
movement intervention, ers serving low-income ments in emotion regulation over Reliance on teacher reports of
aimed at improving self- preschoolers (ages 4–5 years). time, relative to the CG (d = 0.35) child outcomes
regulation and executive One classroom per site was
functioning assigned to the IG; one class-
room per site was assigned
to the CG. Total sample
size = 113 children

Articles are listed in chronological order by publication date. Coding of CASEL domains was based on the information provided in the published article and (when possible) publicly available information about specific
measures
IG intervention group, CG control/comparison group, SA self-awareness, SM self-management, SoA social awareness, RS relationship skills, RD responsible decision-making
Page 20 of 43
 Mondi et al. ICEP (2021) 15:6 Page 21 of 43

This is because, based on our review and to our knowledge, only one peer-reviewed
study (Weiland & Yoshikawa, 2013) has examined the effects of general public prekin-
dergarten participation on SEL. A small number of studies have examined the relations
between public prekindergarten participation and emotional and behavioral problems
in childhood (e.g., internalizing and externalizing symptoms) (e.g., Gormley et al., 2011;
Magnuson et al., 2007); however, as previously discussed, the focus of this review is on
the relationship between intervention and SEL, not psychopathology symptoms. The
lack of research on SEL in the context of public prekindergarten is a major gap that we
will discuss in more depth later in this paper. In the interim, we present our findings
on both types of non-SEL-skills-based interventions (general public prekindergarten and
multi-component ECE programs).

Meta‑analyses and reviews (Table 3)

Our review did not uncover any peer-reviewed meta-analyses or systematic reviews of
the relations between public prekindergarten programming and SEL. On the contrary,
several peer-reviewed meta-analyses and systematic reviews have investigated the
effects of multi-component ECE programs on SEL. The authors of these publications
have typically constructed outcome variables using a combination of measures assessing
SEL skills, mental health symptoms, and outcomes from other domains that are related
to socio-emotional functioning (e.g., special education placement, criminal justice sys-
tem involvement). These publications will be briefly reviewed herein.
Nelson et. al. (2003) published one of the first meta-analyses examining preschool
prevention programs for low-income children and families. Inclusion criteria included
(1) presence of a prospective research design, (2) control or comparison group, and (3)
at least one follow-up assessment in elementary school or beyond. In all, 34 qualifying
interventions were identified. The authors reported that preschool programs exerted
small to moderate effects on socio-emotional functioning in both the short-term (Kin-
dergarten through eighth grade; d = 0.27) and long-term (high school and beyond;
d = 0.33). Age at program entry was not related to program impacts; however, higher
program dosage was linked to stronger effects on socio-emotional functioning. Results
also indicated that African American children were more likely to participate in the
most intensive interventions, and that programs that predominately served the latter
group were associated with the greatest socio-emotional benefits.
Several years later, Camilli et. al. (2010) conducted another meta-analysis examining
the effects of ECE participation on child outcomes. To be included in the meta-analy-
sis, interventions had to: (1) be center-based, (2) provide direct educational services to
children, with a strong focus on cognitive and/or language development; (3) take place
for at least 10 h per week for two months, and (4) serve the general population. Studies
also had to have a comparison group. The authors identified 123 studies spanning five
decades that met inclusion criteria; however, only 43 of these examined socio-emotional
outcomes. The authors combined “social/emotional and anti-social outcome[s]” for
analysis, including children’s self-esteem, school adjustment, educational goals, aggres-
sion, and antisocial behaviors (p. 592). Results indicated that participation in ECE pro-
grams was associated with modest positive effects on children’s social skills and school
progress (unweighted mean ES = 0.16 for treatment versus control group analyses).
Mondi et al. ICEP (2021) 15:6 Page 22 of 43

These treatment effects were maintained over the course of longitudinal follow-up. Two
instructional practices were positively correlated with socio-emotional gains among
treatment group members: teacher-directed instruction and small-group learning.
D’Onise et. al. (2014) conducted a systematic literature review examining the effects
of center-based preschool programs on health outcomes. They identified 13 studies that
examined the effects of program participation on “social competence” between grades
one and 11. Several of these studies utilized measures that assessed both positive social
behaviors (e.g., cooperation, self-control) and problem behaviors (e.g., externalizing and
internalizing problems, hyperactivity). D’Onise and colleagues reported that eight of the
13 studies identified beneficial effects of preschool participation on social competence,
broadly construed, whereas six found no significant effects. Program duration and qual-
ity were not significantly associated with impacts on socio-emotional functioning.

Studies not included in meta‑analyses and reviews (Tables 2 and 4)

Several additional studies have been published since the aforementioned meta-analy-
ses and reviews on the relationship between early intervention and SEL. This notably
includes the only peer-reviewed study on the relations between public prekindergarten
participation and SEL that our review uncovered: Weiland and Yoshikawa’s (2013) inves-
tigation of the Boston Public Schools prekindergarten program (Table 1). Boston Pub-
lic School preschoolers were compared to control group members who had a variety of
experiences during the prekindergarten year, ranging from familial care to center-based
preschool programming. All participants completed performance-based and observa-
tional assessments of SEL across the preschool year. Results indicated that public prekin-
dergarten participants exhibited significantly greater growth in emotion regulation and
inhibitory control over time than the control group.
Several recent studies have also investigated the relations between multi-component
ECE program participation and SEL. For example, Brown and Sax (2013) reported on
the SEL of preschoolers attending an arts-integrated Head Start site, the Settlement
Music School’s Kaleidoscope Preschool Arts Enrichment program (“Kaleidoscope”). The
Kaleidoscope site combined traditional early learning strategies with comprehensive arts
programming (e.g., visual art classes, dance and creative movement, music). This pro-
gramming drew from varied cultural traditions, and was designed to support children’s
creativity and emotional expression. Results indicated that Kaleidoscope participants
exhibited significantly greater growth in both positive and negative emotion regulation
over the course of the school year, compared to children attending a traditional Head
Start site. These results underscore the potential value of multi-component program-
ming (including arts enrichment) in promoting young children’s SEL.
Several years later, Reynolds et. al. (2016) published an evaluation study examin-
ing the effects of the Child–Parent Center (CPC) program on SEL. The CPC program
provides comprehensive, center-based educational and family support services to low-
income children between Preschool and third grade. Reynolds and colleagues’ study uti-
lized a quasi-experimental, matched-group cohort design which included 1724 children
who attended CPC preschool, and a comparison group of 906 children who attended
alternative prekindergarten programming. Teachers rated children’s SEL across the pre-
school year using the observation-based Teaching Strategies Gold Assessment System
 Mondi et al. ICEP (2021) 15:6 Page 23 of 43

(TSGOLD). Overall, teachers rated CPC participants as having significantly higher

overall SEL (including self-regulation, sustaining positive relationships, and participat-
ing constructively in group situations) at the end of preschool than comparison group
members (standardized mean difference = 0.44). These results should be interpreted in
the context of the non-randomized design and reliance on teacher ratings; however, they
suggest that participation in public school-based ECE programs may enhance the SEL of
low-income children.
Richardson et. al. (2017) also examined SEL in the context of the CPC program. Their
study’s intervention group included 1289 low-income children who attended CPC pre-
school in Chicago. The comparison group included 591 children who attended public
preschool programs at matched school sites. Teachers rated children’s SEL skills at three
time-points throughout the preschool year using TSGOLD. Results indicated that teach-
ers rated CPC participants as having significantly higher SEL school readiness than con-
trol group members. Positive impacts were detected for children who attended both the
full- and half-day CPC programs, and for children from free-lunch eligible and Spanish-
speaking families.

Skills‑based SEL interventions

Discrete skills-based interventions to augment SEL are appealing in that they can be
delivered by a teacher in the school setting, and generally require a finite investment
of time, training, and resources. These types of interventions often target student com-
petencies through a combination of indirect methods such as teacher skills augmented
through professional development and strategies to alter classroom quality or parent
training, and direct methods like didactic teaching and practice of socio-emotional and
self-regulation skills.
It should be noted that many programs that may come to mind when discussing
interventions focusing on social skills within preschool programs use measures of psy-
chopathology outcomes (e.g., emotional or behavioral disorders; symptoms of Attention-
Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder or clinically significant conduct problems) as proxies
for “socio-emotional competencies” and as such, were not included in this review for
reasons of construct validity discussed above. Several studies were also excluded from
the present review due to lacking a control group, having a cross-sectional design, or
taking place before 1990. Few studies collected long-term follow-up data, and therefore
in many cases sustained effects of skills-based interventions are unknown. Every effort
was made to review a representative body of evidence for the programs described below;
however, for several programs, we were only able to identify one empirical study that
met our inclusion criteria.

Reviews of skills‑based SEL interventions (Table 5)

While there have been several reviews of programs designed to reduce challenging
and increasing prosocial behaviors, only two comprehensive, peer-reviewed systematic
reviews focused on skills-based SEL programs for young children had been published
by our cutoff (Barton et  al., 2014; Joseph & Strain, 2003). The scope of these reviews
is somewhat broader than that of the present paper, as both included studies of inter-
ventions across the elementary years in addition to those targeting preschoolers, as well
Mondi et al. ICEP (2021) 15:6 Page 24 of 43

as interventions that focused primary on parents and parenting practices. However,

both reviews did evaluate the evidence base for many programs relevant to the current
review—namely, universal SEL skills-based programs designed to be implemented by
teachers in preschool settings.
Both Joseph and Strain (2003; Fig. 1) and Barton et. al. (2014; Fig. 2) have published
reviews of socio-emotional curricula. In both reviews, studies had to meet the follow-
ing criteria: (a) intervention targeted socio-emotional and behavioral competencies, (b)
intervention targeted children from birth to age five, (c) intervention had a published
manual, and (d) findings were published in a peer-reviewed journal article. Figures 1 and
2 summarize the number of studies that the authors identified, and the criteria that they
used to judge program efficacy and implementation success. In both studies, programs
were rated as having high, medium, or low levels of empirical evidence.
The aforementioned reviews have served as a valuable and informative starting point
for the present study’s investigation of the current state of the research on skills-based
SEL programs; however, the criteria for choosing studies in the present paper differed
considerably. Specifically, several of the interventions evaluated in Joseph and Strain’s
(2003) and Barton et. al. (2014) reviews were last evaluated prior to 1990; were primarily
focused on mental health, psychopathology, or antisocial behavior as opposed to socio-
emotional functioning; or were evaluated in kindergartners or older elementary school
aged children. Overall, most studies did not evaluate SEL using independent observers
or multiple raters, and long-term follow-up was rare.
Meanwhile, two recently published meta-analyses investigated the effects of skills-
based SEL interventions on young children’s SEL (Luo et al., 2020; Murano et al., 2020).
Luo et. al. (2020) meta-analysis investigated the impacts of classroom-wide social-emo-
tional interventions (e.g., universal, skills-based interventions) on preschoolers’ social,
emotional, and behavioral functioning. They identified 30 studies which reported suf-
ficient data to calculate effect sizes, and which examined intervention effects on social
competence. Meta-analytic results indicated that classroom-wide interventions had
moderate positive effects on social competence (g = 0.42, z = 5.77, p < 0.001, k = 34),
though there was significant heterogeneity in effect sizes across studies. Follow-up
analyses indicated that interventions that incorporated family-focused programming
had greater impacts on social competence than those that did not include family mem-
bers. Meanwhile, in meta-analysis of 12 studies that examined emotional competence,
Luo and colleagues reported that classroom-wide interventions had moderate positive
effects on emotional competence (g = 0.33, z = 2.85, p = 0.004, k = 14). Interestingly, uni-
variate moderator analyses did not identify linkages between most intervention variables
(including dosage) and children’s SEL outcomes.
In another recent meta-analysis, Murano et. al. (2020) examined the effects of both
universal and targeted skills-based SEL interventions on preschoolers’ SEL skills and
problem behaviors. They identified 48 empirical studies which met their inclusion crite-
ria, and reported that both universal and targeted interventions had moderate effects on
children’s social and emotional skills (g = 0.34 and g = 0.44, respectively). Similar to the
findings reported by Luo et. al. (2020), Murano and colleagues indicated that there was
significant heterogeneity in effect sizes across studies, and that 83% of this heterogene-
ity was attributable to the specific intervention implemented. They also reported that
 Mondi et al. ICEP
(2021) 15:6

Fig. 1  Summary of Joseph and Strain’s (2003) review of skills-based SEL interventions
Page 25 of 43
 Mondi et al. ICEP
(2021) 15:6

Fig. 2  Summary of Barton et. al.’s (2014) review of skills-based SEL interventions
Page 26 of 43
 Mondi et al. ICEP (2021) 15:6 Page 27 of 43

interventions that included family members had stronger impacts on children’s SEL than
those that did not include family members—also in keeping with Luo and colleagues’
results.
Taken together, Luo et. al. (2020) and Murano et. al. (2020) meta-analyses support the
effectiveness of skills-based SEL interventions in promoting young children’s SEL. Their
results indicate that both universal and targeted interventions can be beneficial, and that
interventions that operate at multiple social-ecological levels tend to be most effective.
Building on these findings, we will now summarize the empirical evidence bases for sev-
eral SEL skills-based interventions in depth. Our intention is to describe several high-
quality interventions, as a way of highlighting exemplary research as well as conceptual
and methodological issues for future researchers to address.

Child and teacher‑focused skills‑based interventions

This group of interventions provides a teacher-training component combined with a
child curriculum consisting of discrete, manualized lessons on SEL topics. These cur-
ricula often take the form of teaching didactic SEL skills instruction to children, typically
in group-based settings in the context of Head Start and other publicly funded preschool
programs. Due to space constraints, three exemplar programs will be discussed in detail
below. Table 6 describes additional skills-based interventions meeting our criteria.

PATHS
One child and teacher-focused skills-based intervention is the Promoting Alternative
Thinking Strategies (PATHS) curriculum (Domitrovich et  al., 2004). PATHS is one of
the most extensively evaluated SEL programs for young children (Arda & Ocak, 2012;
Domitrovich et  al., 2007; Hamre et  al., 2012; Hughes & Cline, 2015; Stefan & Miclea,
2012). The developers describe PATHS as based on the Affective–Behavioral–Cogni-
tive–Dynamic (ABCD) model of development (Greenberg & Kusche, 1993), which
“suggests that emotional development is an important precursor to other cognitive and
language skills and that the successful development of emotion knowledge and regula-
tion is foundational to the development of the broad spectrum of social competencies
described previously as central to school success (Hamre et al., 2012, p. 811).” Although
implementation appears to vary slightly by site and evaluation team, the curriculum gen-
erally consists of several dozen lessons, delivered once per week by Head Start preschool
teachers during “circle time,” and focuses on emotion knowledge, regulation, prosocial
skills, and problem-solving. The intervention also often includes extension activities that
were intended to generalize the weekly lessons and to foster an environment that would
encourage children’s use of socio-emotional skills. Teachers are generally provided
with support, ranging from access to a website with examples of teachers implement-
ing PATHS to ongoing site visits and consultation from designated PATHS coordina-
tors. Implementation fidelity has also been monitored in a variety of ways, including via
the site visits or through submission and coding of videos. Studies utilized a range of
tools for assessing outcomes, including direct assessment, observation, and parent and
teacher reports of emotion knowledge, prosocial and problem behavior, and attentional
skills. Evaluators generally reported medium effect sizes, ranging from 0.20 to 0.50,
across socio-emotional and behavioral domains. However, as in many of the studies
Mondi et al. ICEP (2021) 15:6 Page 28 of 43

included here, parents and teachers in all of the evaluations were not blind to the inter-
vention condition, which could have biased ratings.
Stefan and Miclea (2012) evaluated the implementation of a program that they called
“Fast Track,” in which PATHS was the SEL intervention, in a preschool population in
Romania. In addition to teacher training, they utilized a parent component, which was
delivered via group and individual training sessions, and focused on positive discipline
strategies and increasing parents’ knowledge of how to support their child’s social and
emotional development. The authors found medium to large intervention effects for
all outcomes. Children in medium and high-risk subgroups appeared to benefit more
from the intervention even when controlling for baseline differences on tasks. This
study is distinguished by the fact that the authors conducted follow-up assessments
three months after the post-intervention data was collected, and found that intervention
effects were maintained for both social and emotional competencies. However, there
was no direct observation of child classroom behaviors, and as teacher, parent, and child
components were delivered concurrently, mechanisms of effects are unknown.

Head Start REDI

Another Head Start-based program, Head Start Research-based, Developmentally
Informed (REDI), which uses PATHs to target socio-emotional skills in the context of a
broader program intended to enhance both social competence and literacy in preschool-
ers, has been the subject of several studies with long-term follow-up (Bierman et  al.,
2014; Bierman, Domitrovich, et  al., 2008; Bierman, Nix, et  al., 2008; Nix et  al., 2016).
Initial investigations of the REDI program on preschoolers found small to medium effect
sizes for social competence and executive functioning outcomes (Bierman, Domitrovich,
et al., 2008; Bierman, Nix, et al., 2008). Results of a 1-year follow-up on children in Head
Start REDI as preschoolers compared to those who had attended “usual practice” Head
Start indicated sustained direct effects for social problem-solving (d = 0.40) and par-
ent and teacher-rated aggressive behaviors (d = − 0.20 and d = − 0.25, respectively) for
kindergarten children who were in REDI as preschoolers, with effect sizes at the 1-year
follow-up equal to or larger than those at the end of the intervention year. Teacher-rated
social competence was also significantly higher for intervention students (d = 0.26), but
only for those in kindergarten at schools where overall student achievement was low
(Bierman et al., 2014). Several years later, Bierman et. al. (2017) combined the samples
of the two previous randomized trials to investigate the sustained effects of REDI, three
years post-intervention. Intervention group participants received either the REDI Class-
room Program (REDI-C), or both REDI-C and the REDI-Parent home visiting program
(REDI-P). Comparison group members attended standard Head Start programming.
Results indicated that REDI-C graduates exhibited significantly higher classroom partic-
ipation (d =  ~ 0.25), social competence (d =  ~ 0.25), and student–teacher relationships
(d =  ~ 0.4) in second grade relative to the comparison group. Children who had received
both REDI-C and REDI-P exhibited higher perceived social competence (d =  ~ 0.75)
compared to children who had only received REDI-C.
Taken together, these studies provide strong evidence that the PATHS curricu-
lum, when implemented with fidelity, can effectively increase the SEL competencies of
 Mondi et al. ICEP (2021) 15:6 Page 29 of 43

preschoolers both within the context of the literacy-promoting REDI intervention and
when used independently.

Kindness Curriculum
The Kindness Curriculum, a mindfulness-based intervention designed to increase empa-
thy, prosocial behavior, and self-regulation in preschoolers, has been evaluated in two
empirical studies meeting our criteria (Flook et al., 2015; Poehlmann-Tynan et al., 2016).
In both evaluations, the 10-h training was delivered to preschoolers over the course of
12 weeks via stories, music, and movement. The program emphasizes kindness, emo-
tion regulation, and attentional capacity. Flook et. al. (2015), in the initial study, found
via teacher ratings and direct assessment that the intervention group showed greater
improvements across domains of social competence (d = 0.26–0.29) compared to the
control group, in addition to significant effects for cognitive flexibility (d = 0.43) and
delay of gratification (d = 0.23–0.37). Children who were initially lower in social compe-
tence and executive functioning skills evinced larger gains in social competence.
Poehlmann-Tynan et. al. (2016) also found promising effects when investigating this
curriculum in economically disadvantaged preschoolers and assessed prosocial behav-
ior (e.g., empathy and compassion), self-regulation, and executive functioning via direct
assessment and observation. They found that the children in the KC intervention group
increased their capacity for self-regulation and attention (partial η2 = 0.26–0.33) relative
to the control group; however, unlike Flook, they found no changes in observer-rated
or directly assessed prosocial behaviors. The positive effects, however, persisted at a
3-month follow-up assessment. It is important to note that the curricula were delivered
by “experienced mindfulness instructors.” The evidence base for effectiveness and scal-
ability of the KC intervention in a preschool setting would be strengthened by an investi-
gation of the program delivered by classroom teachers.

Skills‑based interventions incorporating parent involvement

This group of interventions supplements skills-based interventions for children and/
or teachers with parent involvement initiatives. Due to space constraints, three exem-
plar programs will be discussed in detail below. Table 6 describes additional skills-based
interventions.

The RECAP intervention

Han et. al. (2005) have published the only study to date evaluating the Reaching Edu-
cators, Children, and Parents (RECAP) program in preschoolers. The study aimed to
enhance preschoolers’ problem solving and social skills and also attempted to incorpo-
rate a parenting component. The program included curricular and behavior manage-
ment components, provided teachers with weekly trainings and ongoing consultations,
and offered a bi-weekly parent group. Study participants were primarily low-income 4
to 5-year-old children in public prekindergarten classrooms. The evaluators collected
parent- and teacher-report of internalizing and externalizing behaviors and social skills.
They found no changes in children’s parent-rated functioning over time. However, they
did find significant improvements for intervention group participants on teacher-rated
total social skills (F[1, 144] = 5.73, p < 0.05), cooperation (F[1, 144] = 3.99, p < 0.05) and
Mondi et al. ICEP (2021) 15:6 Page 30 of 43

assertion (F[1, 144] = 7.12, p < 0.01). Notably, parent group attendance was extremely
low, and as such, the effectiveness of the parent component of this intervention was not
able to be evaluated. Other limitations included the self-report nature of the outcome
measures, and baseline group differences in teacher-reported levels of problem behav-
iors and skills, and on family income.

Making choices and strong families (Conner & Fraser, 2011)

The Making Choices program is one of the few studies of an SEL skills-based curricu-
lum for preschoolers that included a successfully implemented parenting component.
The SEL-focused component, Making Choices, is a manualized program with theoreti-
cal bases in social information processing, designed for preschool-aged children. The
program was delivered twice weekly for 14 weeks with the aim of strengthening social
information processing, emotion regulation skills, and prosocial interactions with peers.
The parent training component, Strong Families, had distinct but complementary goals,
including increasing positive parent–child interaction patterns and decreasing coer-
cion. The study sample was drawn from a group of part-day preschool centers, and the
comparison group received typical Head Start services. Investigators directly assessed
child-level competencies (e.g., academic competence, achievement motivation, social
competence, peer acceptance, depression/anxiety and aggression/hostility) and fam-
ily and child functioning. Results revealed significant effects for all child competen-
cies (F [20, 46] = 3.05, p < 0.001; r2 = 0.35), with higher gain scores among intervention
group participants, as well as positive changes in caregiver behaviors (F [10, 56] = 6.88,
p < 0.001; r2 = 0.36). While these outcomes are promising, the sample sizes are quite
small, and about 35% of eligible families moved or otherwise became ineligible before
assignment to a treatment group. No follow-up or replication studies in preschool-
ers have been conducted to date, and as the interventions were delivered together, it is
unclear if one or both was driving effects.

Incredible Years (IY)

The Incredible Years program was originally designed as a treatment for children with
Oppositional Defiant Disorder or Conduct Disorder diagnoses (Webster-Stratton, 1990),
with theoretical bases in social learning theory and the effects of adult–child interac-
tion processes in child behavior. The program has been adapted for use with several age
groups and populations, including as a classroom-based prevention program aiming to
augment socio-emotional skills and decrease problem behaviors in preschoolers. Of par-
ticular interest to the present review are the IY Teacher Classroom Management Train-
ing (TCM), the IY Child Program: Dinosaur Classroom Curriculum, and the IY Parent
Program used in conjunction with the teacher or child programs. The IY programs,
implemented as universal prevention programs in preschool-aged children, have been
evaluated by Webster-Stratton and colleagues (Webster-Stratton, 1998; Webster-Stratton
& Reid, 2004; Webster-Stratton et al., 2001, 2008). Several independent evaluations of IY
programs have also been conducted; however, many specifically evaluated children with
high levels of disruptive or oppositional behaviors in the preschool setting (e.g., Baker-
Henningham et al., 2012), did not utilize a control group (e.g., Shernoff & Kratochwill,
 Mondi et al. ICEP (2021) 15:6 Page 31 of 43

2007), or did not measure SEL outcomes (e.g., Williford & Shelton, 2008). As such, they
did not meet our inclusion criteria.
Webster-Stratton et. al. (2001) evaluated IY TCM program in combination with the
Parent Training as a universal prevention program in Head Start. The intervention group
parents and teachers participated in the IY programs, and the control group received
usual practice Head Start services. The teacher training consisted of 36 h of training on
classroom management, child development, and promotion of prosocial and reduction
of antisocial behaviors. The parent training had similar content, adapted for the home
context and focused on reducing coercive discipline and increasing positive parenting
practices. Teachers and parents in the intervention group evinced more positive prac-
tices, while children engaged in more prosocial behavior and were rated as more socially
competent. Specifically, 71% of intervention group children rated as having problems
with social competence at baseline fell in the normative range at the end of school, com-
pared to 36.6% of the control group children initially rated as lower in social competence
(χ2 [1, 26] = 4.12, p < 0.04).
Webster-Stratton and colleagues have also evaluated the IY TCM program in combi-
nation with the Dinosaur School curriculum in Head Start settings (Webster-Stratton
et  al., 2008). Children received 30 bi-weekly lessons promoting socio-emotional skills,
problem-solving, self-regulation, and school behavior over the course of a year, commu-
nicated via vignettes, small-group activities, puppets, and games. Teachers participated
in 28 h of workshops focused on classroom management and promotion of socio-emo-
tional competence, spread out over four months. A research staff-member led lessons
alongside the classroom teacher to ensure implementation fidelity. Outcomes were
measured via classroom observations, as well as direct assessment of competencies such
as problem-solving skills and emotion knowledge. The authors reported that teachers in
the intervention were more likely to use teaching strategies to promote SEL (e.g., teach-
ing prosocial behavior, problem-solving, shaping peer play, encouraging feelings lan-
guage, and promoting social competence) in intervention group teachers (d = 0.96). The
intervention was also associated with higher levels of teacher-reported child social com-
petence and self-regulation (effect sizes not reported), particularly for students with low
levels at baseline, as well as improvements in problem-solving (η2 = 0.41) and feelings
knowledge (η2 = 0.14).
Overall, the evidence base for the Incredible Years intervention is encouraging; how-
ever, evaluation methodology has been inconsistent and further investigation is needed
to determine efficacy of the program as a universal prevention strategy for preschool-
aged children.

Teacher‑focused skills‑based interventions

This group of interventions provides training and other forms of professional develop-
ment to teachers, with the aim of improving teacher–child interactions and children’s
socio-emotional functioning.

Pyramid Model
The Pyramid Model for Promoting Young Children’s Socio-Emotional Competence
(the “Pyramid Model”; PM) is a professional development intervention that includes
Mondi et al. ICEP (2021) 15:6 Page 32 of 43

research-informed practices for promoting healthy socio-emotional development and

high-quality relationships between caregivers and children. PM practices include univer-
sal strategies for teachers to promote family engagement and children’s peer social skills,
as well as individualized interventions strategies for children exhibiting challenging
behaviors. These practices are taught through multi-day workshops and implementation
guides. Teachers also receive classroom materials (e.g., puppets, books) for implement-
ing the practices.
Hemmeter et. al. (2016) conducted a cluster-randomized controlled potential efficacy
trial to evaluate the effects of classroom-wide implementation of PM on teacher prac-
tices and child outcomes. Teachers in the intervention group participated in the ini-
tial PM workshops, and subsequently received weekly individualized coaching, which
included in-classroom observation. Results indicated that children whose teachers par-
ticipated in PM had higher teacher-rated social skills at post-test than children whose
teachers did not participate in PM (d = 0.43). These results are promising, but should be
interpreted with caution given the study’s reliance on teacher ratings of children’s social
skills.

Foundations of Learning (FOL)

Foundations of Learning is a professional development intervention that combines
teacher training and mental health consultation. FOL teachers participate in work-
shops on proactively supporting positive behavior and managing challenging behav-
iors in the classroom, and on personal stress management. They also receive weekly
classroom-level mental health consultation, and individualized mental health consulta-
tion as needed for children exhibiting persistent challenging behaviors. FOL’s teacher
training component is adapted from the Incredible Years curriculum; the intervention is
also based on the previously discussed, smaller-scale Chicago School Readiness Project
(CSPR) intervention.
Morris et. al. (2013) conducted a cluster-randomized controlled study to evaluate the
effects of FOL on preschool teacher practices and child outcomes. Results revealed posi-
tive impacts on teachers’ ability to manage challenging behaviors and promote a positive
emotional climate in the classroom. At the child outcome level, results indicated that
children whose teachers participated in FOL exhibited less problem behaviors (e.g., peer
and teacher conflict, as rated by trained observer) than children whose teachers did not
participate in FOL. However, no significant effects on either observer- or teacher-rated
positive social behavior (e.g., communication, sociability, compliance) were detected
between groups. Positive intervention effects on children’s approaches to learning (e.g.,
self-control, focus, and participation in classroom activities) were detected at the trend-
ing level (p < 0.10).

VIDA
Jensen et. al. (2017) evaluated the VIDA (a Danish acronym for Knowledge-based
efforts for socially disadvantaged children in daycare) intervention, which aims to aug-
ment socio-emotional functioning in preschool children by altering their social context.
The primary mode of change is via teacher training to improve the preschool environ-
ment. Intervention teachers attended 17 full days of training over the course of 2 years,
 Mondi et al. ICEP (2021) 15:6 Page 33 of 43

gaining theoretical knowledge about child development and the bioecological system,
encouraging reflection, enhancing communication with students, and requiring teachers
to use the training to design their own activities focused on socio-emotional skills (e.g.,
improving friendships, managing conflict). Jensen et. al. (2017) explain:

“The initial step of the teachers’ learning process takes place as a top-down process
that presents participants with predefined topics [...] Through reflection, everyday
experiences are related to the research-based knowledge and the teaches are using
this to change their practice. The process transforms what was initially top-down,
course-based theoretical knowledge into bottom-up, practice-oriented teacher learn-
ing and innovation” (p. 28).

Teacher ratings revealed a trending effect of the intervention on prosocial behavior.

Further evaluation of the program is warranted, and results may not be generalizable
due to the high dosage of the program. It is also unclear whether students retained the
same teacher over the course of the intervention, which could be an important con-
founding factor. Finally, conclusions would be strengthened by measurement of SEL out-
comes via more diverse tools, as the only outcome measure in the present study was
teacher-reported.

Discussion
Comparing program types
General public prekindergarten programs
Access to public prekindergarten programs has expanded dramatically in the United
States over the last several decades, with approximately one-third of 4-year-old chil-
dren enrolled in state-funded programs in 2017 (National Institute for Early Education
Research [NIEER], 2018). These programs have historically focused on enhancing chil-
dren’s pre-academic skills (e.g., language, numeracy), but have also increasingly targeted
SEL.
Participation in public prekindergarten may enhance SEL by several mechanisms. For
example, high-quality teacher–child relationships have been linked to improvements in
children’s SEL (Merritt et  al., 2012). Prekindergarten participation also provides chil-
dren with consistent opportunities for socialization with peers and social skill practice.
Finally, improvements in children’s academic and cognitive skills at the individual and
classroom levels may also contribute to improvements in SEL over time through spill-
over effects. For most children, this may be sufficient, but it is important to evaluate
whether public prekindergarten programs can exert significant and sufficient benefits on
children’s SEL, or whether more targeted SEL services are needed.
Our review identified only one peer-reviewed study examining the effects of a gen-
eral public prekindergarten program (Boston Public Schools) on SEL (Weiland & Yoshi-
kawa, 2013). Major strengths of this study include the socioeconomically diverse sample,
utilization of performance-based measures of SEL skills, and examination of subgroup
effects by race/ethnicity and free/reduced lunch status. Effect sizes on cognitive inhibi-
tory control and emotion recognition were small, but statistically significant. The
authors posited a “spill-over” hypothesis to explain program impacts on inhibitory con-
trol. The results of this study suggest that high-quality general public prekindergarten
Mondi et al. ICEP (2021) 15:6 Page 34 of 43

programming may have a positive impact on children’s SEL, but that children who
exhibit delays in developmentally appropriate SEL skills may benefit from more targeted
intervention. This finding is consistent with a significant body of research suggesting
that children with higher needs tend to benefit more from early childhood intervention
(Reynolds et al., 2011; Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2014). Nonetheless,
given that prekindergarten programs vary widely by school district, there is a need for
additional studies in this domain. There is a particular need for studies examining the
differential contributions of various program components. This is an important con-
sideration in Weiland and Yoshikawa’s (2013) study given the unusually high quality of
the Boston Public Schools prekindergarten program, which includes equal educational
requirements and pay scale for teachers from prekindergarten through high school, a
research-based academic curriculum and a district-designed teacher coaching system.

Multi‑component ECE programs

Multi-component ECE programs (e.g., Head Start, the Child–Parent Center (CPC) Pro-
gram) typically provide a more comprehensive array of academic and family support
services than general public prekindergarten programs. These programs also commonly
prioritize enrollment of low-income children, who often lag behind in acquisition of
pre-academic and SEL skills. Previous research has demonstrated that participation in
these programs is most beneficial for children with the lowest levels of skills and the
highest levels of psychosocial risk at program entry (Karoly & Bigelow, 2005; Reynolds
et al., 2007). Hypothetically, multi-component programs may enhance children’s SEL by
addressing risk and protective factors at multiple social-ecological levels. This is accom-
plished through a variety of means, from comprehensive academic curricula to wrapa-
round family and social services.
The present review identified several literature reviews and meta-analyses examin-
ing the effects of multi-component prekindergarten programs on SEL. Many of these
studies constructed outcome variables that combined SEL and mental health outcomes;
thus, their results should be interpreted with significant caution. Nonetheless, aggregate
results indicated that program participation was associated with small to moderate gains
in SEL compared to comparison group members, with multiple studies reporting that
children affected by the highest psychosocial risk exhibited the greatest gains. Findings
on the impact of program duration were mixed. One meta-analysis reported that didac-
tic instruction and small-group learning were positively associated with participants’
SEL gains (Camilli et al., 2010), suggesting that a balance of teacher-directed instruction,
and child-initiated and small group activities may be beneficial for SEL. Meanwhile, two
additional studies indicated that participation in the CPC prekindergarten program was
associated with moderate enhancements in SEL for low-income children from diverse
backgrounds (Reynolds et al., 2016; Richardson et al., 2017).
This body of research is small, but suggests that multi-component programs hold
promise for promoting SEL. Notably, most studies did not examine the differential
impacts of various program components on SEL (e.g., professional development, cur-
ricula, classroom structure), making it difficult to determine whether SEL benefits were
driven by the overall combination of program components or a small number of “active
ingredients.”
 Mondi et al. ICEP (2021) 15:6 Page 35 of 43

Skills‑based SEL interventions

There is no shortage of skills-based SEL interventions for young children; however, they
vary widely in scope, focus, size, theoretical foundations, and quality of the evidence
base. Generally, such programs are based on manualized curricula, and are designed
to supplement or enrich typical preschool programs. This type of intervention can be
efficient, cost-effective, and scalable. For example, schools are not required to adopt an
entirely new multi-component educational program, and the explicit targeting of spe-
cific SEL skills through games, songs, vignettes, role playing and modeling, and didac-
tic teaching, and/or through teacher professional development and parent coaching can
be a developmentally appropriate, engaging, and effective way to reach preschool-aged
children. All of these factors likely contribute to the abundance of skills-based programs
meeting our criteria for review in the present article.
We first identified two previously published reviews of skills-based SEL interventions
(Barton et al., 2014; Joseph & Strain, 2003). Importantly, the authors state that they only
reviewed studies of programs used in “at-risk” populations or with children demonstrat-
ing behavioral challenges. This review, in contrast, intentionally focused on empirical
studies of the effectiveness of programs (some of which also appeared in the aforemen-
tioned reviews) in a general classroom setting. We felt that this was crucial, as all chil-
dren can benefit from SEL skills training, and expanding the use of high-quality universal
programs can help to shift the paradigm from pathologizing children with SEL “deficits”
to normalizing and encouraging SEL growth for all children. Strain of the 2003 review
was also an author on the 2014 paper, and as such, both papers used the same criteria
for inclusion and assessment of quality. Ultimately, their conclusions were quite mixed.
Of the SEL-focused programs evaluated in preschool settings after 1990s, the authors of
both reviews identified one program with “high” levels of evidence, three with “medium”
levels of evidence, and four with “low” levels of evidence.
We also identified two recently published meta-analyses, which examined the evi-
dence base on skills-based SEL interventions for preschoolers (Luo et al., 2020; Murano
et al., 2020). These meta-analyses indicated that both universal and targeted skills-based
interventions had significant, moderate effects on preschoolers’ SEL skills. Both studies
also reported limited evidence for moderating effects, and noted that interventions with
family components were more effective than those that did not include family members.
These results provide the strongest evidence to date that skills-based interventions can
support the SEL of young children, including those affected by sociodemographic risk
factors.
Overall, the results of the aforementioned systematic reviews and meta-analyses are
consistent with the present review. We found considerable variation in delivery meth-
ods, assessment methods, and outcomes across interventions, in addition to variation
in the use of control groups, random assignment, outcome measurement, follow-up,
and other crucial elements of empirical research. While some programs were explicitly
grounded in theory (some in social learning theory and principles of social information
processing; others in more broadly defined developmental, self-regulation, and systems
theories), effect sizes varied considerably within and across programs.
Despite these challenges, several programs with strong theoretical bases have been
evaluated with large sample sizes, random assignment, multiple sources of outcome
Mondi et al. ICEP (2021) 15:6 Page 36 of 43

assessment, and short-term follow-up, and as such, it is our cautious conclusion that
skills-based programs can be an effective way to augment SEL skills in young children.
Whether such programs are the optimal way to augment these skills (as opposed to the
other approaches examined in the present paper) remains to be seen. The next step is to
investigate impacts in well-designed quasi-experimental or randomized designs, while
establishing and maintaining construct validity around SEL and ensuring that programs
can be effectively delivered in real-world settings.

Synthesis: three intervention approaches

There are clear benefits and drawbacks to the three intervention approaches that were
reviewed in the present paper. From a developmental perspective, there is considerable
evidence for the use of multi-component ECE programs, which aim to promote holis-
tic development by enhancing protective factors and reducing risk factors at multiple
social-ecological levels. However, there is also promising evidence for several skills-
based SEL programs, which have the benefit of facilitating adoption and implementation
within existing frameworks.
Decades of developmental research have indicated that sensitive, responsive caregiv-
ing is an essential catalyst for healthy development in infancy and early childhood (Ains-
worth et al., 1978; Landry et al., 2000). Given this evidence, prekindergarten programs
that facilitate high-quality teacher–child relationships (e.g., via professional develop-
ment, small class sizes) and safe, stable learning environments are likely to exert posi-
tive impacts on children’s SEL. Multi-component ECE programs, which typically include
interventions at multiple levels of children’s social ecologies, may have an advantage in
this domain over skills-based SEL programs. To this end, multi-component ECE pro-
grams fall under the category of promotion programming, as identified by the Center on
the Social and Emotional Foundations for Learning (CESFEL; Duran et  al., n.d.). Pro-
motion programming includes interventions, practices, and policies that ensure that all
children are receiving high-quality caregiving and education, which will facilitate devel-
opmentally appropriate SEL. Universal skills-based interventions that are offered to all
children in a classroom may also fall under the promotion realm. Skills-based interven-
tions may also be offered at the prevention level (Duran et  al., n.d.). Programming at
the prevention level provides targeted SEL support services for children with emergent
SEL challenges, with the goal of addressing these challenges before they develop into
more serious psychopathology. Offering skills-based SEL interventions at the prevention
level for indicated populations may be more cost-effective than universal implementa-
tion; however, this strategy requires a screening process for identifying children at risk.
School-based, skills-based SEL interventions may not be sufficient for children with
more serious SEL deficits and/or clinical psychopathology; this population may benefit
from more intensive intervention services in a mental health setting (Duran et al., n. d.).
Beyond program efficacy, several other factors must be considered when selecting an
intervention, including cost, ease of implementation, and scale-up potential. Substan-
tial financial resources and infrastructure are required to implement multi-component
ECE programs and public prekindergarten programs; however, cost–benefit analyses
have indicated that these initial investments may yield significant returns over time. For
example, Heckman and colleagues have estimated that high-quality ECE programs can
 Mondi et al. ICEP (2021) 15:6 Page 37 of 43

produce financial returns of as much as 13% per annum (Garcia et al., 2016). Longitudi-
nal research has also demonstrated that ECE programs can exert enduring benefits on
many aspects of wellbeing (e.g., Consortium for Longitudinal Studies, 1983; Reynolds &
Ou, 2011).
Researchers have also investigated the monetary value of interventions that specifically
target SEL, and have found that such programs can yield substantial economic returns
(e.g., Belfield et  al., 2015). Studies indicate that these savings stem from improved
functioning among program graduates, including reductions in substance abuse and
increases in earnings, often mediated through variables such as educational attainment
and self-esteem (Araujo & Lagos, 2013; Klapp et al., 2017). Aspects of SEL often charac-
terized as “self-control” variables (e.g., executive functioning, self-regulatory skills) may
also help to explain returns on investment in SEL programs. Childhood self-control has
been found to predict costly outcomes, including physical health, substance use, income,
and crime in adulthood (Moffitt et al., 2011). Finally, several studies have investigated a
subset of SEL-informed intervention programs which narrowly focus on reducing delin-
quency and substance use. They note that these programs tend to target a small subset of
SEL-related skills (e.g., impulse control) and can yield cost savings by reducing involve-
ment in the criminal justice system (Miller & Hendrie, 2008).

Future research directions

The present paper aimed to review the highest quality literature available on the rela-
tionship between prekindergarten programs and SEL. Our review indicated a number of
common methodological issues which should be addressed in future work.

Definitions and measurement of SEL

Evaluation studies of prekindergarten programs have typically examined cognitive and
academic outcomes, with few studies investigating impacts on children’s SEL. Mean-
while, studies that have examined socio-emotional outcomes have typically focused
on maladaptive behaviors and psychopathology (e.g., internalizing and externalizing
symptoms). This is problematic, given that prekindergarten programming is not primar-
ily intended to prevent or treat psychological symptoms. Rather, prekindergarten pro-
grams are designed to promote acquisition of developmentally appropriate skills. As
such, researchers should carefully attend to construct validity by: (a) clarifying whether
they are measuring psychopathology outcomes, SEL, or both; and (b) specify the SEL
domains they are investigating, how they are operationalizing them, and how they are
tracking growth in SEL competencies over time. At the broader field level, efforts must
also be made to develop consensus on critical issues related to SEL measurement, con-
cepts, and dimensions of relevance. While the work of CASEL (2012) and others has
provided some clarity on these issues, researchers continue to use a wide array of labels
for SEL phenomena (e.g., SEL, social competence, wellbeing, self-regulation) without
clear definitions or parameters. Many studies have also stated that they are investigating
“SEL” or similar phenomena, while solely utilizing outcome measures that assess psy-
chopathology. Developing consensus on these issues will help to ensure construct valid-
ity, and also enable more rigorous comparative evaluations of different interventions.
Mondi et al. ICEP (2021) 15:6 Page 38 of 43

When examining all three types of interventions addressed in this review, it is also
important for researchers to consider other potentially salient program components. For
example, curriculum type, parent involvement, timing and duration of SEL components,
and teacher and student supports that are not necessarily explicit components of the
SEL training may all affect children’s outcomes.

Cultural considerations
The present review indicates that relatively few studies have carefully attended to poten-
tial differential impacts of prekindergarten interventions on SEL for children from
diverse cultural backgrounds. Research examining whether and how interventions
impact the SEL of different subgroups of children could inform efforts to tailor interven-
tions to the needs of specific populations.
Researchers should also carefully select assessment measures that are appropriate for
use with multicultural populations. The present review indicates that most previous
studies have utilized deficits-focused outcome measures (e.g., assessing the effects of
intervention on psychopathology symptoms). Moving towards strengths/skills-focused
outcome measures (e.g., assessing the effects of intervention on developmentally and
culturally appropriate SEL skills) will likely increase the cultural sensitivity of research in
this domain, and help to ensure that children from non-dominant cultures are not being
improperly identified as having SEL deficits.

Informants
Our review revealed that numerous studies relied on non-blinded, single-informant
reports of SEL outcomes—typically, reports from classroom teachers who were deliv-
ering interventions. Previous research has demonstrated the importance of utilizing
multiple informants to minimize reporting bias (Totura et al., 2009). For example, sur-
veying both teachers and parents can provide a more nuanced perspective on children’s
SEL skills in multiple environments (school and home). The use of trained observers
or performance-based measures may also yield unique information about children’s
functioning.

Control groups
Our review identified and excluded a number of program evaluation studies that lacked
control/comparison groups. The absence of control groups makes it impossible to deter-
mine whether changes in children’s SEL are due to program participation as opposed to
other factors like developmental maturation. It is essential that future studies include
well-defined control/comparison groups so that program impacts can be adequately
estimated.

Measurement of multiple intervention components

Several of the skills-based programs had professional development, didactic child skills,
and parent-focused aspects, with little investigation of differential impacts of each pro-
gram element or mechanism. The issue of mechanisms is not confined to multi-pronged
interventions; rather, none of the programs reviewed analyzed how child-focused pro-
grams transmit positive impacts to the outcomes of interest. Future research should
 Mondi et al. ICEP (2021) 15:6 Page 39 of 43

determine which and how specific aspects of programs (e.g., didactic instruction in
problem-solving and conflict resolution; teacher-facilitated emotion recognition and
expression) impact knowledge and behavior.

Implementation fidelity
We identified relatively few studies that provided information about implementation
fidelity. Fidelity measurement is essential to accurately estimate program impacts. Fidel-
ity measurement can also provide important information about whether program scale-
up is feasible, or whether adaptations are needed to increase the program’s practicality
or cultural relevance (e.g., replacing doctoral-level clinicians with trained laypeople).

Longitudinal follow‑up
Our review revealed a paucity of studies examining the longitudinal impacts of prekin-
dergarten programs on SEL. Studies that did include multiple time-points rarely contin-
ued past early elementary school. This is an important limitation that raises questions
about the stability of program impacts on SEL over time. Moving forward, there is a
need for longitudinal studies that include pre-program assessments of baseline SEL, and
that investigate participant outcomes through the school years and beyond.

Conclusions and implications
Interest in scalable strategies for enhancing children’s SEL has grown steadily since the
1970s, when Edward Zigler argued that promoting ‘social competence’ should be the
primary aim of early childhood interventions (Zigler & Trickett, 1978). During the 1990s
and 2000s, the development of the interdisciplinary SEL framework spurred additional
research and policy initiatives in this domain. Numerous skills-based interventions have
been developed for use in early care and education settings (Tables  5, 6), and general
public prekindergarten programs and multi-component interventions have also dem-
onstrated impacts on SEL (Tables 2, 3, 4). These developments are promising; however,
moving forward it is essential that stakeholders define and measure SEL in ways that are
consistent, developmentally appropriate, and culturally sensitive. Collaboration among
diverse groups of stakeholders (e.g., community-based researchers, policymakers, par-
ents, and early childhood leaders) will be essential to accomplishing these aims.
Finally, investments should be made into efforts to support children’s SEL at multiple
ecological levels, from home- and school-based interventions to public policies that sup-
port healthy development. Specifically, early childhood educators should place SEL skills
alongside literacy and numeracy skills as an important part of a balanced early child-
hood curriculum. Policymakers, parents, and early childhood leaders can assist teachers
in implementing SEL interventions or infusing SEL into existing programming by advo-
cating for increased funding and materials for these efforts.
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.

Authors’ contributions
The manuscript was co-conceptualized by CM, AG, and AJR. CM and AG conducted the literature review and were
the major contributors in writing the manuscript. AJR edited the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final
manuscript.
Mondi et al. ICEP (2021) 15:6 Page 40 of 43

Funding
CMR’s work on this manuscript was funded by a Doris Duke Fellowship for the Promotion of Child Well-Being. The views
and findings presented herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the Doris Duke Fellowship.

Availability of data and materials

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study. Please
contact the authors with any questions.

Declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author details
1
 Division of Developmental Medicine, Brazelton Touchpoints Center, Boston Children’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School,
1295 Boylston St., Suite 320, Boston, MA 02115, USA. 2 Department of Pediatrics, University of California San Francisco, San
Francisco, USA. 3 Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA.

Received: 2 April 2020 Accepted: 10 May 2021

References
Ainsworth, M. D., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situa-
tion. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Araujo, P., & Lagos, S. (2013). Self-esteem, education, and wages revisited. Journal of Economic Psychology, 34(C), 120–132.
[Link]
Arda, T. B., & Ocak, S. (2012). Social competence and promoting alternative thinking strategies—PATHS preschool cur-
riculum. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 12(4), 2691–2698.
Baker-Henningham, H., Scott, S., Jones, K., & Walker, S. (2012). Reducing child conduct problems and promoting social
skills in a middle-income country: Cluster randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Psychiatry, 201, 101–108.
[Link]
Barton, E. E., Steed, E. A., Strain, P., Dunlap, G., Powell, D., & Payne, C. J. (2014). An analysis of classroom-based and parent-
focused social-emotional programs for young children. Infants & Young Children, 27(1), 3–29. [Link]
1097/​IYC.​00000​00000​000001
Belfield, C., Bowden, A. B., Klapp, A., Levin, H., Shand, R., & Zander, S. (2015). The economic value of social and emotional
learning. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 6(3), 508–544. [Link]
Bierman, K. L., Domitrovich, C. E., Nix, R. L., Gest, S. D., Welsh, J. A., Greenberg, M. T., Blair, C., Nelson, K. E., & Gill, S. (2008a).
Promoting academic and social-emotional school readiness: The Head Start REDI program. Child Development, 79,
1802–1817. [Link]
Bierman, K. L., Heinrichs, B. S., Welsh, J. A., Nix, R. L., & Gest, S. D. (2017). Enriching preschool classrooms and home visits
with evidence-based programming: Sustained benefits for low-income children. Journal of Child Psychology &
Psychiatry, 58(2), 129–137. [Link]
Bierman, K. L., Nix, R. L., Greenberg, M. T., Blair, C., & Domitrovich, C. E. (2008b). Executive functions and school readiness
intervention: Impact, moderation, and mediation in the Head Start REDI Program. Development and Psychopathol-
ogy, 20, 821–843. [Link]
Bierman, K. L., Nix, R. L., Heinrichs, B. S., Domitrovich, C. E., Gest, S. D., Welsh, J. A., & Gill, S. (2014). Effects of Head Start REDI
on children’s outcomes one year later in different kindergarten contexts. Child Development, 85, 140–159. [Link]
doi.​org/​10.​1111/​cdev.​12117
Boykin, A. W. (1983). The academic performance of Afro-American children. In J. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achieve-
ment motives (pp. 324–371). W. H. Freeman.
Brown, E. D., & Sax, K. L. (2013). Arts enrichment and preschool emotions for low-income children. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 28, 337–346. [Link]
Burke, J. D., Loeber, R., Lahey, B. B., & Rathouz, P. J. (2005). Developmental transitions among affective and behavioral
disorders in adolescent boys. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 46(11), 1200–2120. [Link]
1469-​7610.​2005.​00422.x
Camilli, G., Vargas, S., Ryan, S., & Barnett, W. S. (2010). Meta-analysis of the effects of early education interventions on
cognitive and social development. Teachers College Record, 112(3), 579–620.
Collaborative for Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL). (2012). 2013 CASEL guide: Effective social and emotional learn-
ing programs—Preschool and elementary school edition. [Link]
on-​casel-​guide
Committee on Developmental Outcomes and Assessments for Young Children. (2008). Early childhood assessment: Why,
what, and how. The National Academies Press.
Conner, N. W., & Fraser, M. W. (2011). Preschool social-emotional skills training: A controlled pilot test of the making
choices and strong families program. Research of Social Work Practice, 21(6), 699–711. [Link]
31511​408115
Consortium for Longitudinal Studies. (1983). As the twig is bent: Lasting effects of preschool programs. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Core SEL Competencies. (2019). [Link]
 Mondi et al. ICEP (2021) 15:6 Page 41 of 43

D’Onise, K., McDermott, R. A., & Lynch, J. W. (2014). Center-based preschool programs: Systematic review of child and
adult health outcomes. In A. J. Reynolds, A. J. Rolnick, & J. A. Temple (Eds.), Health and education in early childhood:
Predictors, interventions, and policies (pp. 145–207). Cambridge University Press.
Darling-Churchill, K. E., & Lippman, L. (2016). Early childhood social and emotional development: Advancing the field of
measurement. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 45, 1–7. [Link]
Denham, S. A., & Burton, R. (1996). A social-emotional intervention for at-risk 4-year-olds. Journal of School Psychology,
34(3), 225–245. [Link]
Domitrovich, C. E., Cortes, R. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (2007). Improving young children’s social and emotional competence:
A randomized trial of the preschool “PATHS” curriculum. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 28(2), 67–91. [Link]
org/​10.​1007/​s10935-​007-​0081-0
Domitrovich, C. E., Greenberg, M. T., Kusche, C. A., & Cortes, R. (2004). The PATHS preschool curriculum.
Duran, F. B., Hepburn, K. S., Kaufmann, R. K., & Le, L. T. (n.d.). Research synthesis: Early childhood mental health consultation.
The Center on the Social and Emotional Foundations for Learning.
Flook, L., Goldberg, S. B., Pinger, L., & Davidson, R. J. (2015). Promoting prosocial behavior and self-regulatory skills in pre-
school children through a mindfulness-based kindness curriculum. Developmental Psychology, 51(1), 44–51. [Link]
doi.​org/​10.​1037/​a0038​256
Garcia, J. L., Heckman, J. J., Leaf, D. E., & Prados, M. J. (2016). The life-cycle benefits of an influential early childhood program.
Human capital and economic opportunity working paper seriesThe University of Chicago.
Gormley, W. T., Phillips, D. A., Welti, K., Newmark, K., & Adelstein, S. (2011). Social-emotional effects of early childhood
education programs in Tulsa. Child Development, 82(6), 2095–2109. [Link]
Greenberg, M. T., & Kusche, C. A. (1993). Promoting social and emotional development in deaf children: The PATHS project.
University of Washington Press.
Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O’Brien, M. U., Zins, J. E., Fredericks, L., Resnik, H., & Elias, M. J. (2003). Enhancing school-
based prevention and youth development through coordinated social and emotional learning. American Psycholo-
gist, 58, 466–474. [Link]
Halle, T. G., & Darling-Churchill, K. E. (2016). Review of measures of social and emotional development. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 45, 8–18. [Link]
Hamre, B. K., Pianta, R. C., Mashburn, A. J., & Downer, J. T. (2012). Promoting young children’s social competence through
the preschool PATHS curriculum and MyTeachingPartner professional development resources. Early Education and
Development, 23(6), 809–832. [Link]
Han, S. S., Catron, T., Weiss, B., & Marciel, K. K. (2005). A teacher-consultation approach to social skills training for pre-
kindergarten children: Treatment model and short-term outcome effects. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
33(6), 681–693. [Link]
Han, H. S., & Thomas, M. S. (2010). No child misunderstood: Enhancing early childhood teachers’ multicultural responsive-
ness to the social competence of diverse children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37(6), 469–476. [Link]
10.​1007/​s10643-​009-​0369-1
Hemmeter, M., Synder, P. A., Fox, L., & Algina, J. (2016). Evaluating the implementation of the pyramid model for promot-
ing social-emotional competence in early childhood classrooms. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 36(3),
133–146. [Link]
Hughes, C., & Cline, T. (2015). An evaluation of the preschool PATHS curriculum on the development of preschool chil-
dren. Educational Psychology in Practice, 31(1), 73–85.
Izard, C. E., King, K. A., Trentacosta, C. J., Morgan, J. K., Laurenceau, J. P., Krauthamer-Ewing, E. S., & Finlon, K. J. (2008).
Accelerating the development of emotion competence in Head Start children: Effects on adaptive and maladaptive
behavior. Development and Psychopathology, 20(1), 369–397. [Link]
Jensen, B., Jensen, P., & Rasmussen, A. W. (2017). Does professional development of preschool teachers improve children’s
socio-emotional outcomes? Labour Economics, 45, 26–39. [Link]
Jones, D., Dodge, K. A., Foster, E. M., Nix, R., & Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2002). Early identification
of children at risk for costly mental health service use. Prevention Science, 3(4), 247–256. [Link]
10208​96607​298
Jones, D. E., Greenberg, M., & Crowley, M. (2015). Early social-emotional functioning and public health: The relation-
ship between kindergarten social competence and future wellness. American Journal of Public Health, 105(11),
2283–2290. [Link]
Joseph, G. E., & Strain, P. S. (2003). Comprehensive evidence-based social-emotional curricula for young children: An
analysis of efficacious adoption potential. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 23(2), 62–73. [Link]
1177/​02711​21403​02300​20201
Karoly, L. A., & Bigelow, J. H. (2005). The economics of investing in universal preschool education in California. Rand
Corporation.
Kemple, K. M., Lee, I., & Ellis, S. M. (2019). The impact of a primary prevention program on preschool children’s social-emo-
tional competence. Early Childhod Education Journal, 47, 641–652. [Link]
Keyes, C. L. M. (2002). The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life. Journal of Health and Social
Research, 43, 207–222.
Klapp, A., Belfield, C., Bowden, B., Levin, H., Shand, R., & Zander, S. (2017). A benefit-cost analysis of a long-term interven-
tion on social and emotional learning in compulsory school. International Journal of Emotional Education, 9(1), 3–19.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3),
465–491. [Link]
Landry, S. H., Smith, K. E., Swank, P. R., & Miller-Loncar, C. L. (2000). Early maternal and child influences on children’s later
independent cognitive and social functioning. Child Development, 71(2), 358–375. [Link]
8624.​00150
Luo, L., Reichow, B., Snyder, P., Harrington, J., & Polignano, J. (2020). Systematic review and meta-analysis of classroom-
wide social-emotional interventions for preschool children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education. [Link]
org/​10.​1177/​02171​12142​09355​79
Mondi et al. ICEP (2021) 15:6 Page 42 of 43

Lynch, K. B., Geller, S. R., & Schmidt, M. G. (2004). Multi-year evaluation of the effectiveness of a resilience-based preven-
tion program for young children. Journal of Primary Prevention, 24(3), 335–353. [Link]
18052.​12488.​d1
Magnuson, K. A., Ruhm, C., & Waldfogel, J. (2007). Does prekindergarten improve school preparation and performance?
Economics of Education Review, 26(1), 33–51. [Link]
McCabe, P. C., & Altamura, M. (2011). Empirically valid strategies to improve social and emotional competence of pre-
school children. Psychology in the Schools, 48(5), 513–540. [Link]
McCarthy, A., Lee, K., Itakura, S., & Muir, D. W. (2006). Cultural display rules during eye gaze during thinking. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(6), 717–722. [Link]
McClelland, M. M., Tominey, S. L., Schmitt, S. A., & Duncan, R. (2017). SEL interventions in early childhood. The Future of
Children, 27(1), 33–47.
Merritt, E. G., Wanless, S. B., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Cameron, C., & Peugh, J. L. (2012). The contribution of teachers’ emo-
tional support to children’s social behaviors and self-regulatory skills in first grade. School Psychology Review, 41(2),
141–159. [Link]
Miller, T., & Hendrie, D. (2008). Substance abuse prevention dollars and cents: A cost-benefit analysis. Center for Substance
Abuse Prevention (CSAP), SAMHSA. DHHS Pub, (07-4298).
Moffitt, T. E., Arseneault, L., Belsky, D., Dickson, N., Hancox, R. J., Harrington, H., Houts, R., Poulton, R., Roberts, B. W., Ross, S.,
& Sears, M. R. (2011). A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, 108(7), 2693–2698. [Link]
Morris, P., Millenky, M., Raver, C., & Jones, S. M. (2013). Does a preschool social and emotional learning intervention pay
off for classroom instruction and children’s behavior and academic skills? Evidence from the foundations of learning
project. Early Education and Development, 24(7), 1020–1042. [Link]
Murano, D., Sawyer, J. E., & Lipnevich, A. A. (2020). A meta-analytic review of preschool social and emotional learning
interventions. Review of Educational Research, 90(2), 227–263. [Link]
Muratori, P., Giuli, C., Bertacchi, I., Orsolini, L., Ruglioni, L., & Lochman, J. E. (2017). Coping power for preschool-aged chil-
dren: A pilot randomized control trial study. Early Intervention in Psychiatry, 11(6), 532–538. [Link]
eip.​12346
National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER). (2018). The state of preschool 2017. Rutgers.
Nelson, G., Westhues, A., & MacLeod, J. (2003). A meta-analysis of longitudinal research on preschool prevention pro-
grams for children. Prevention and Treatment, 6, 1–34. [Link]
Newman, J., & Dusenbury, L. (2015). Social and emotional learning (SEL): A framework for academic, social, and emotional
success. In K. Bosworth (Ed.), Prevention science in school settings (pp. 287–306). Springer
Nix, R. L., Bierman, K. L., Heinrich, B. S., Gest, S. D., Welsh, J. A., & Domitrovich, C. E. (2016). The randomized controlled trial
of Head Start REDI: Sustained effects on developmental trajectories of social-emotional functioning. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 84(4), 310–322. [Link]
Offord, D. R., Boyle, M. H., Racine, Y., Szatmari, P., Fleming, J. E., Sanford, M., & Lipman, E. L. (1996). Integrating assessment
data from multiple informants. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 35(8), 1078–1085.
[Link]
Phillips, C. B. (1993). The movement of African American children through sociocultural contexts: A case of conflict reso-
lution. In B. Mallory & R. New (Eds.), Diversity & developmentally appropriate practices (pp. 137–154). Teachers College
Press.
Phillips, D. A., Lipsey, M. W., Dodge, K. A., Haskins, R., Bassok, D., Burchinal, M. R., Duncan, G. J., Dynarski, M., Magnuson, K.
A., & Weiland, C. (2017). Puzzling it out: The current state of scientific knowledge on pre-kindergarten effects. The Brook-
ings Institution.
Pickens, J. (2009). Socio-emotional programme promotes positive behaviour in preschoolers. Child Care in Practice, 15(4),
261–278. [Link]
Poehlmann-Tynan, J., Vigna, A. B., Weymouth, L. A., Gerstein, E. D., Burnson, C., Zabransky, M., Lee, P., & Zahn-Waxler, C.
(2016). A pilot study of contemplative practices with economically disadvantaged preschoolers: Children’s empathic
and self-regulatory behaviors. Mindfulness, 7(1), 46–58. [Link]
Raver, C. C., & Zigler, E. F. (1997). Social competence: An untapped dimension in evaluating Head Start’s success. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 12(4), 363–385. [Link]
Reynolds, A. J., & Ou, S. (2011). Paths of effects from preschool to adult well-being: A confirmatory analysis of the Child–
Parent Center Program. Child Development, 82(2), 555–582. [Link]
Reynolds, A. J., Richardson, B. A., Hayakawa, M., Englund, M. M., & Ou, S. (2016). Multi-site expansion of an early childhood
intervention and school readiness. Pediatrics. [Link]
Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., Ou, S., Arteaga, I. A., & White, B. A. (2011). School-based early childhood education and age-
28 well-being: effects by timing, dosage, and subgroups. Science, 333(6040), 360–364. [Link]
ce.​12036​18
Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., Ou, S., Robertson, D. L., Mersky, J. P., Topitzes, J. W., & Niles, M. D. (2007). Effects of a school-
based, early childhood intervention on adult health and well-being: A 19-year follow-up of low-income families.
Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 161(8), 730–739. [Link]
Richardson, B. A., Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., & Smerillo, N. E. (2017). School readiness in the Midwest Child–Parent
Center expansion: A propensity score analysis of year 1 impacts. Children and Youth Services Review, 79, 620–630.
[Link]
Riggs, N. R., Jahromi, L. B., Razza, R. P., Dillworth-Bart, J. E., & Mueller, U. (2006). Executive function and the promotion
of social-emotional competence. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 27(4), 300–309. [Link]
1016/j.​appdev.​2006.​04.​002
Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Pianta, R. C., & Cox, M. J. (2000). Teachers’ judgments of problems in the transition to kindergarten.
Psychology and Neuroscience, 15(2), 147–166. [Link]
 Mondi et al. ICEP (2021) 15:6 Page 43 of 43

Rutter, M., Kim-Cohen, J., & Maughan, B. (2006). Continuities and discontinuities in psychopathology between childhood
and adult life. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47(3–4), 276–295. [Link]
01614.x
Shernoff, E. S., & Kratochwill, T. R. (2007). Transporting an evidence-based classroom management program for preschool-
ers with disruptive behavior problems to a school: An analysis of implementation, outcomes, and contextual vari-
ables. School Psychology Quarterly, 22(3), 449–472. [Link]
Stefan, C. A., & Miclea, M. (2012). Classroom effects of a hybrid universal and indicated prevention program for preschool
children: A comparative analysis based on social and emotional competence screening. Early Education and Devel-
opment, 23(3), 393–426. [Link]
Stefan, C. A., & Miclea, M. (2013). Effects of a multifocused prevention program on preschool children’s competencies and
behavior problems. Psychology in the Schools, 50(4), 382–402. [Link]
Totura, C. M., Green, A. E., Karver, M. S., & Gesten, E. L. (2009). Multiple informants in the assessment of psychological,
behavioral, and academic correlates of bullying and victimization in middle school. Journal of Adolescence, 32(2),
193–211. [Link]
Upshur, C., Wenz-Gross, M., & Reed, G. (2013). A pilot study of a primary prevention curriculum to address preschool
behavior problems. Journal of Primary Prevention, 34, 309–327. [Link]
Washington State Institute for Public Policy. (2014). Early childhood education for low-income students: A review of the
evidence and benefit-cost analysis. Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
Webb-Johnson, G. (2002). Are schools ready for Joshua? Dimensions of African-American culture among students
identified as having behavioral/emotional disorders. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 15(6),
653–671. [Link]
Webster-Stratton, C., & Reid, M. J. (2004). Strengthening social and emotional competence in young children—The
foundation for early school readiness and success—Incredible years classroom social skills and problem-solving
curriculum. Infants & Young Children, 17(2), 96–113. [Link]
Webster-Stratton, C. (1990). The teachers and children’s videotape series: Dina Dinosaur’s social skills and problem-solving
curriculum. University of Washington Press.
Webster-Stratton, C. (1998). Preventing problems in Head Start children: Strengthening parent competencies. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 715–730. [Link]
Webster-Stratton, C., Reid, J., & Hammond, M. (2001). Preventing conduct problems, promoting social competence: A
parent and teacher training partnership in Head Start. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30, 283–302. [Link]
org/​10.​1207/​S1537​4424J​CCP30​03_2
Webster-Stratton, C., Reid, M. J., & Stoolmiller, M. (2008). Preventing conduct problems and improving school readiness:
Evaluation of the incredible years teacher and child training program in high-risk schools. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 49(5), 471–488. [Link]
Weiland, C., & Yoshikawa, H. (2013). Impacts of a prekindergarten program on children’s mathematics, language, literacy,
executive function, and emotional skills. Child Development, 84(6), 2112–2130. [Link]
Weissberg, R. P., Durlak, J. A., Domitrovich, C. E., & Gullotta, T. P. (2016). Social and emotional learning: Past, present, and
future. In J. A. Durlak, C. E. Domitrovich, R. P. Weissberg, & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), Handbook of social and emotional learn-
ing: Research and [Link] Press.
West-Olatunji, C. A., Behar-Horenstein, L., Rant, J., & Cohen-Phillips, L. N. (2008). Enhancing cultural competence among
teachers of African American children using mediated lesson study. Journal of Negro Education, 77(1), 27–38.
Wille, N., Bettge, S., Wittchen, Ravens-Sieberer, U., & BELLA Study Group. (2008). Risk and protective factors for children’s
and adolescents’ mental health: Results of the BELLA Study. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 17, 133–147.
[Link]
Williams, K. E., & Berthelesen, D. (2019). Implementation of a rhythm and movement intervention to support self-regu-
lation skills of preschool-aged children in disadvantaged communities. Psychology of Music, 47(6), 800–820. [Link]
doi.​org/​10.​1177/​03057​35619​861433
Williford, A. P., & Shelton, T. L. (2008). Using mental health consultation to decrease disruptive behaviors in preschoolers:
Adapting an empirically-supported intervention. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(2), 191–200. [Link]
doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1469-​7610.​2007.​01839.x
Wilson, K. R., Havighurst, S. S., & Harley, A. E. (2012). Tuning in to kids: An effectiveness trial of a parenting program target-
ing emotion socialization of preschoolers. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(1), 56–65. [Link]
480
Yates, T., Ostrosky, M. M., Cheatham, G. A., Fettig, A., Shaffer, L., & Santos, R. M. (2008). Research synthesis on screening and
assessing social-emotional competence. [Link]
Zigler, E., & Trickett, P. K. (1978). IQ, social competence, and evaluation of early childhood intervention programs. Ameri-
can Psychologist, 33(9), 789–798. [Link]
Zins, J. E., Bloodworth, M. R., Weissberg, R. P., & Walberg, H. J. (2007). The scientific basis linking social and emotional learn-
ing to school success. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 17(2 & 3), 191–210. [Link]
1080/​10474​41070​14131​45

Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.