View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Effect of Teacher-Led Interventions on Social and Emotional Behaviour in Primary School Children: A Systematic Review

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Effect of Teacher-Led Interventions on Social and Emotional Behaviour in Primary School Children: A Systematic Review
Language: English
Authors: Whear, R., Thompson-Coon, J., Boddy, K., Ford, T., Racey, D., Stein, K.
Source: British Educational Research Journal. Apr 2013 39(2):383-420.
Availability: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 38
Publication Date: 2013
Document Type: Journal Articles
Information Analyses
Education Level: Elementary Education
Descriptors: Intervention, Social Behavior, Elementary School Teachers, Elementary School Students, Emotional Response, Student Behavior, Interpersonal Competence, Classroom Techniques, Effect Size, Outcomes of Education, Educational Policy, Educational Practices, Teacher Education, Foreign Countries
Geographic Terms: United Kingdom
DOI: 10.1080/01411926.2011.650680
ISSN: 0141-1926
Abstract: The purpose of this article is to clarify the role of "teacher training initiatives" aimed at improving social, emotional and behavioural outcomes of primary school aged children through improved classroom management. Systematic searches were conducted using a range of electronic databases from inception up to September 2011. Included studies were controlled trials that described training provided to teachers in classroom management techniques designed to improve primary school children's behavioural and social outcomes. Study selection and appraisal of quality were carried out by two researchers and a narrative synthesis was carried out. A total of 14 studies were included involving 8 interventions. Results show that statistically significant effects are limited, with only 20 outcomes showing significant effects in the desired direction. Effect sizes ranged from g = -0.17 (95%CI: -0.32, -0.02) to g = 1.88 (95%CI: 0.55, 3.21). Overall, the programmes indicate an improvement in some outcomes of interest. However, further research into the implementation and comparative effectiveness of such programmes is needed before implications for educational policy and practice can be established. (Contains 9 tables and 1 figure.)
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 57
Entry Date: 2014
Accession Number: EJ1009135
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHGgkUhtOVuqjzz7_3KyzFdAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDL3XVKEnfQ-U54XNxgIBEICBmj2z0FPo9qIVoxIyjhIVoJ8dRnipF2jmWKUfARFE1t8T1qOM9g-HKmHbs4xQ9SiBosZCFBA5Q94xWjsLKLwyetsRLowNE1Q4bJM7NjlV6CS2FuTu7-kbLSvbOUm37HIEC-lGRzhq2OrxsZxYUcrrz5vrwgKPi64vT8LqbBFBXp2mgZldH9irFplWgvBCQHNiwEn_XapHEOqOxxA=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0087017155;bed01apr.13;2018Jun28.14:40;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0087017155-1">The effect of teacher-led interventions on social and emotional behaviour in primary school children: a systematic review. </title> <p>The purpose of this article is to clarify the role of teacher training initiatives aimed at improving social, emotional and behavioural outcomes of primary school aged children through improved classroom management. Systematic searches were conducted using a range of electronic databases from inception up to September 2011. Included studies were controlled trials that described training provided to teachers in classroom management techniques designed to improve primary school children's behavioural and social outcomes. Study selection and appraisal of quality were carried out by two researchers and a narrative synthesis was carried out. A total of 14 studies were included involving 8 interventions. Results show that statistically significant effects are limited, with only 20 outcomes showing significant effects in the desired direction. Effect sizes ranged from g = −0.17 (95%CI: −0.32, −0.02) to g = 1.88 (95%CI: 0.55, 3.21). Overall, the programmes indicate an improvement in some outcomes of interest. However, further research into the implementation and comparative effectiveness of such programmes is needed before implications for educational policy and practice can be established.</p> <p>teacher training; primary school; review; behaviour; social; emotional</p> <p>Disruptive and challenging behaviour is a widely recognised problem in the classroom and predicts several adverse outcomes in relation to educational and occupational failure, mental and physical health, substance misuse and criminality (Moffitt et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref1">33</reflink>] ). Two large British surveys report a prevalence of 10% for any psychiatric disorder among school age children; approximately half of those with a disorder had clinically significant disruptive behavioural difficulties that would impact on their schooling (Meltzer et al., 2000; Green et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref2">20</reflink>] ). The risks and costs of adverse outcome rise with increasing levels of challenging behaviour but poor outcomes are not restricted to those with severe enough difficulties to warrant a psychiatric diagnostic label (Scott et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref3">47</reflink>] ; Moffitt et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref4">33</reflink>] ). There has been increasing awareness of the importance of all types of childhood psychiatric disorders amongst educational professionals (Ford et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref5">19</reflink>] ). Within the UK, national policies aimed at improving the mental health and well‐being of children in schools are being explicitly guided by available research evidence (Department for Children, Schools and Families [DCSF], [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref6">10</reflink>] , [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref7">11</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Many qualified teachers report a lack of training in managing disruptive behaviour and socio‐emotional difficulties within the classroom, which they cite as a common source of stress or burn out (Egyed & Short, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref8">14</reflink>] ; Goddard et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref9">21</reflink>] ; Kokkinos, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref10">27</reflink>] ). Programmes that provide teachers with additional skills in behaviour management and the promotion of socio‐emotional competence among their pupils have the potential to increase the mental health of both children and their teachers. Socio‐emotional and behavioural difficulties may also impact adversely on academic attainment (Breslau et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref11">8</reflink>] ), not only for the children affected but also for the whole class. Thus, optimizing teachers' skills in the promotion of appropriate socio‐emotional behaviour in children may also increase academic attainment.</p> <p>School effectiveness research suggests that differences in the level of behavioural difficulties, attainment, absenteeism and attitude to school are strongly influenced by schools (Reynolds et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref12">44</reflink>] ; Rutter & Maugham, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref13">46</reflink>] ). This variability is possibly even greater at classroom level than at school level (Sylva, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref14">51</reflink>] ), which suggests that optimising teachers' classroom management skills could be an effective strategy to promote socio‐emotional competence and well‐being as well as positive educational outcomes.</p> <p>While detailed review of the mechanism of this teacher influence is beyond the scope of this review, approaches to classroom management have been explained using several theories including behaviourism, cognitive‐behaviourism, social learning theory and humanism, as well as combinations of the above, which have then been developed into advice or interventions directed at improving teachers' skills (Porter, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref15">42</reflink>] ). Visser ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref16">54</reflink>] ) discusses the existence of several common (and often overlapping) factors in approaches to classroom management techniques such as the development of positive relationships, belief in behavior change and the setting of boundaries and challenges, amongst others. In particular Dinkmeyer and Dreikurs ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref17">12</reflink>] ) introduce the use of Adlerian psychology to the management of children in the classroom in their Systematic Training for Effective Teaching theory. Their theory promotes the idea that children's behaviour can be changed and managed through encouragement, which is a technical skill that can be learned by teachers. In principal this is exactly the kind of ‘programme’ whose effectiveness in practice this review aims to cover. However, the lack of evidence and evaluation provided by the authors, despite their evident expertise and experience in this area, falls short of the basic inclusion criteria.</p> <p>Most theories of classroom management propose that teachers' relationships with children may be associated with students' subsequent levels of adjustment and their ability to acquire social and academic skills (Pianta et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref18">39</reflink>] ; Pianta & Stuhlman, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref19">40</reflink>] ; Arbeau et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref20">3</reflink>] ). Negative and unsupportive relationships may impair development and amplify psychosocial problems and psychological distress (Aro et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref21">4</reflink>] ; Ystgaard, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref22">57</reflink>] ) and may be stronger predictors of later school‐related adjustment than positive relationships (Ladd et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref23">28</reflink>] ). Dolan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref24">13</reflink>] ) suggest that the social adaptation of the child strongly influences school behaviour and that teachers in turn influence social adaptation by formally or informally rating the child on whether they adequately perform or not. This is somewhat supported by Bibou‐Nakou ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref25">6</reflink>] ), who reports that the way a teacher tries to deal with difficult behaviour is based on the causal attributions the teacher holds, suggesting that teachers who regard difficult behaviour as a problem within the child are less likely to use intervention strategies that do not incorporate a discourse of psychology within them and are more likely to ‘rationalise their own refusal to engage with the child at an individual level' (p. 102). Abbott et al. ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref26">1</reflink>] ) and Ertesvag and Vaaland ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref27">15</reflink>] ) suggest that school bonding is the key to behaviour management and that this is facilitated in the classroom by the teacher proactively providing opportunities to learn and providing an effective learning environment.</p> <p>Several reviews have previously been carried out to examine the effectiveness of interventions provided directly to children (with or without parental involvement) to improve their mental well‐being (Adi et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref28">2</reflink>] ; Hoagwood et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref29">23</reflink>] ; Shucksmith et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref30">49</reflink>] ; Payton et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref31">37</reflink>] ; Bayer et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref32">5</reflink>] ). The purpose of this review is to help clarify the role of interventions focused on teachers' training (in addition to teacher qualifications such as the Bachelor of Education or the Postgraduate Certificate of Education) that are aimed at improving social, emotional and behavioural outcomes of primary school aged children through improved classroom management.</p> <hd id="AN0087017155-2">Methods</hd> <p>For this review we sought comparative studies, i.e., randomised and non‐randomised controlled trials. Uncontrolled studies, case studies, narrative reviews and descriptive studies were excluded. The search strategy was informed by consultation with experts in education and psychology. No limits such as publishing language or date were applied. The search was conducted on the following electronic databases: Applied Social Science Index and Abstracts (using the CSA interface); Australian Education Index, British Education Index and Educational Resources Information Centre (using the DIALOG interface); Campbell Collaboration; The Cochrane Library (CDSR); Database of Abstracts for Reviews of Effects (using the CRD interface); International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (using EBSCO interface); Embase, Medline and PsychINFO (using the OVID interface). Databases were searched from inception to January 2010 (see Appendix A for the full strategy, all appendices may be found on the journal website at <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2011.650680">http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2011.650680</ulink> and also at <ulink href="http://clahrc-peninsula.nihr.ac.uk/the-effect-of-teacher-led-interventions.php">http://clahrc-peninsula.nihr.ac.uk/the-effect-of-teacher-led-interventions.php</ulink>). An update search was conducted from January 2010 to September 2011. Additional studies were identified from searching the references of included papers and relevant earlier reviews and by contact with experts. Programmes identified by the included articles were also investigated further on the Internet to ensure no relevant publications were missed and to collect full details regarding the programme.</p> <p>The interventions of interest involved training teachers how to improve primary school children's socio‐emotional skills and/or behaviour through their ordinary experience of school. The programmes were therefore primarily preventative (universal) in nature rather than targeted towards specific children with sociobehavioural problems, which inevitably excludes some programmes aimed at children with particular types of difficulties (Reichow et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref33">43</reflink>] ). The consensus was that interventions aimed at particular sub‐groups would not necessarily generalise to all primary school children, who were the focus of this review. Participants in included studies were therefore teachers of primary school aged children (3–12 years) who were trained to deliver a form of classroom management intervention aimed at improving socio‐emotional and behavioural outcomes of children. The primary school level was of interest in this review for its potential for preventing ongoing problems at later stages of education where influencing children's behaviours may be more difficult. We excluded interventions that involved: explicit teaching of a curriculum or skills directly to the child, attendance outside of the usual school day, additional components to the curriculum delivered in school, studies that did not report individual component effects and those that involved parents, other carers or other professionals to deliver the intervention. This led to the exclusion of some studies of teacher classroom management programmes that combined the use of other programmes or additional components (e.g. Webster‐ Stratton et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref34">55</reflink>] ). These studies were excluded as it was impossible to assess the effectiveness of the teacher classroom management component in isolation, which is the focus of this study. Studies were not excluded if they lacked standardised outcome measures, but this was noted in the quality appraisal of each included study (Appendix B).</p> <p>Two reviewers screened search results for inclusion of papers in the review (RW and JTC). Where necessary a third or fourth reviewer, who was blinded to the decisions reached by the first and second reviewers (KS and TF), arbitrated inclusion or exclusion. Studies were included if they addressed the child's social, emotional and behavioural functioning, although specific outcome measures were not prescribed. Children's academic outcomes and the social and emotional well‐being of teachers were secondary outcomes but studies were not excluded if they did not contain such information.</p> <p>After study selection the first reviewer (RW) conducted data extraction which was then checked by the second reviewer (JTC) (see Appendix B). Where necessary, authors were contacted to provide further information to clarify study results.</p> <p>Information was collected on the quality of each study (Appendix B). Quality assessment criteria included details on study design, concealment of allocation, adequate baseline details, appropriate analysis of results (intention to treat), use of valid measures, fidelity of programme implementation and generalisability of the study (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination [CRD], [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref35">9</reflink>] ). Other approaches to systematic reviews exist that involve broader inclusion criteria and therefore include more of the available literature. Some would argue that this approach may obscure the findings and gaps in the literature. We have therefore chosen to conduct the review using the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) guidelines. These guidelines were developed through a collaboration of professionals with a wide range of expertise and cover a variety of review methodologies. The CRD guidelines are recommended by the National Centre for Clinical Excellence and the National Institute of Health Research as an appropriate method to engage for this topic.</p> <p>Narrative synthesis allows the analysis and interpretation of findings across multiple studies where meta‐analysis is either not possible or where the results of such an analysis would be difficult to interpret usefully for the purposes of the readership. In response to previous methodological criticisms of narrative synthesis clear guidance, tools and techniques exist to enable the process of narrative synthesis to be informative and transparent (Pope et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref36">41</reflink>] ). Although the main characteristic of a narrative synthesis is in the use of words and text to summarise and explain the findings of a synthesis it may also involve some use of statistical data.</p> <p>We predicted that the studies included would use such varied methods of outcome measurements that comparability across studies would be difficult. In this systematic review the included studies were synthesised using the following techniques. Standardised mean differences were calculated for individual studies in an attempt to indicate the size of effect on the different outcomes. Standardised mean differences were calculated using Hedges g statistic (Sutton et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref37">50</reflink>] , p. 30) and were based on the follow‐up results for each study. An example of the calculations can be seen in Appendix C. It was only possible to calculate the g statistic from the data available in seven of the included articles, further limiting the potential value of statistical pooling. Where the necessary data was unavailable authors were contacted to give them the opportunity to provide it. If this information was not then provided the data is presented as in the initial published article (see the full table of results for details). One paper presented data in the form of graphs from which the mean and standard deviation could be calculated (van Lier et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref38">53</reflink>] ). Meta‐analysis was not performed due to the variations in the programmes identified, the child populations studied, the outcomes reported and the stage at which those outcomes were reported between studies. The combination of these restrictions across so few studies would make the interpretation of the results of a metaanalysis, in this case, of limited value.</p> <hd id="AN0087017155-3">Results</hd> <p>Figure [NaN] summarises the identification and selection of studies. A total of 14 studies met the inclusion criteria, of which 7 were identified by electronic searches and 7 from reviewing references in existing articles and through contact with experts, emphasising the difficulty in identifying relevant studies through searching only in electronic databases. Of the included studies, 8 were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 6 had quasi‐experimental designs (non‐randomised and pre‐post). A large number (n = 5953) of studies were excluded from the review. At the full text stage 121 studies were excluded due to one or more of the following reasons: the wrong population (not children aged 3–12 years) (9 studies), the wrong intervention (e.g. curriculum based interventions or teacher interventions including additional components with the child or the parent) (55 studies), inappropriate outcomes (27 studies), wrong setting (e.g. summer school) (8 studies), inadequate study design or publication (22 studies).</p> <p>The number of randomised controlled trials in the field was higher than expected and most of these studies were published very recently. Only three studies were published more than two decades ago. Of the 14 included studies, 8 were conducted in the USA, 5 in Europe and only 1 in the UK. The lack of research in the UK covering this area may reflect ongoing debates regarding the role of evidence‐based practice in education, particularly in relation to issues of methodology and implementation (Thomas & Pring, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref39">52</reflink>] ). Some papers reported well‐defined interventions while others were part of less structured general in‐service teacher training. Several studies evaluated the same interventions—the Classroom Management Improvement Study (CMIS) (2 studies), the Good Behaviour Game (GBG) (4 studies) and the Incredible Years Teacher Classroom Management (IYTCM) programme (3 studies).</p> <p>Table [NaN] reports the characteristics of included studies. The number of children and teachers reported across all studies totals over 4614 children aged between 2 years and 9 months and 12 years of age and 424 teachers of varied age and experience. Just seven of the studies actually reported the level of experience among teachers which ranged from 0–34 years. The study by Littky and Bosley ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref40">30</reflink>] ) reported very few years of experience, ranging from 1 to 5 years but the other studies report an average of 9 to 11.5 years teaching experience (Nelson, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref41">34</reflink>] ; Rimm‐Kaufman & Chiu, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref42">45</reflink>] ; Shernoff & Kratochwill, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref43">48</reflink>] ; Hutchings et al., under review; McGilloway et al., 2011). All included studies used different specific outcome measures to record outcomes that were often very similar. Many of the studies reported measures of child aggression and conduct problems, some reported on academic success and social interactions and others included teacher outcomes such as skills deployed in behaviour management in the classroom. Duration of follow‐up was generally one year or less, although two studies reported on outcomes at two or three years after baseline, making comparison across studies even more challenging.</p> <p>Characteristics of included studies</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tr><th align="left">Source</th><th align="left">Design</th><th align="left">Intervention</th><th align="left">Participants n (years old)</th><th align="left">Theoretical base</th><th align="left">Outcomes measured</th><th align="left">Follow‐up</th></tr><tr><td align="left">Abbott et al., 1 (US)</td><td align="left">NRCT</td><td align="left">Proactive Classroom Management</td><td align="left">808 children (10–11) 44 teachers</td><td align="left">Problem behaviours prevented by bonding to prosocial groups and activities. Bonding leads to attachment to, commitment to and belief in school. Bonding encouraged through reinforcement of positive behaviours (Social Development Model—extension of social control and social learning)</td><td align="left">Academic achievement, school bonding, social skills, class involvement</td><td align="left">1 year</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Dolan et al., 13 (US)</td><td align="left">RCT</td><td align="left">GBG</td><td align="left">864 children (6) 42 teachers</td><td align="left">Child behaviour modification through social adaptation and psychological well‐being. Rewarding pro‐social behaviours will decrease anti‐social behaviour and drug use (Developmental Epidemiology)</td><td align="left">Teacher rated aggression and shyness, pupil rated aggression</td><td align="left">Approx. 9 months (unclear)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Ertesvag & Vaaland, 15 (Norway)</td><td align="left">Longitudinal cohort with control group</td><td align="left">Respect Program</td><td align="left">864 children (11–12) teachers not recorded</td><td align="left">Tackles the whole school system aiming to change adult behaviour to change child behaviour. A caring classroom environment and consistency in adult responses to child behaviours reinforces positive and consistent child behaviour.</td><td align="left">Disobedience, off‐task behaviour, disturbance</td><td align="left">Up to 3 years</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Evertson et al., 17 (US)</td><td align="left">RCT</td><td align="left">CMIS</td><td align="left">41 elementary school teachers</td><td align="left">Uses empirical evidence from a longitudinal study to inform a set (manual) of effective classroom management principles and guidelines. The manual covers topics such as establishing and consistently using rules and procedures, responding to inappropriate behaviour, monitoring etc.</td><td align="left">Readiness of the classroom, planning rules and procedures, consequences, teaching rules and procedures, strategies for potential problems, monitoring, preventing inappropriate behaviour, organising instruction, student accountability, instructional clarity. Student‐ inappropriate behaviour, off/on‐task behaviour</td><td align="left">2 months</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Evertson, 18 (US)</td><td align="left">RCT</td><td align="left">CMIS</td><td align="left">19 elementary school teachers</td><td align="left">See above</td><td align="left">Instructional management, room arrangement, rules and procedures, meeting student needs, managing student behaviour, classroom climate, student misbehaviour, student engagement</td><td align="left">2 months</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Leflot et al., 29 (Belgium)</td><td align="left">Cluster RCT</td><td align="left">GBG</td><td align="left">570 children (6–7) 30 teachers</td><td align="left">See above</td><td align="left">Hyperactive and oppositional behaviour, on‐task and disruptive behaviour, teacher behaviour management</td><td align="left">1 year</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Littky & Bosley, 30 (US)</td><td align="left">NRCT</td><td align="left">Contingency management system</td><td align="left">151 children (7) 7 teachers</td><td align="left">Positive developmentally appropriate behaviours can be increased by a contingent reward system/game (Applied Behaviour Analysis)</td><td align="left">Class efficiency (on‐task behaviour)</td><td align="left">9 weeks</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Martin et al., in press (UK) further details in Hutchings et al., 24</td><td align="left">RCT</td><td align="left">IYTCM</td><td align="left">107 children (3–7) 16 teachers</td><td align="left">Improved child‐teacher socialization and teacher reinforcement of positive behaviours leads to reduced disruptive behaviour and increased pro‐social behaviour (Modelling Theory Social Learning Theory)</td><td align="left">Teacher positives and negatives, child non‐/compliance, pro‐social behaviour, negative to teacher, deviance, off‐task behaviour</td><td align="left">12 months (results only for 6 months)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">McGilloway et al., unpublished report (Ireland)</td><td align="left">RCT</td><td align="left">IYTCM</td><td align="left">217 children (4–7) 22 teachers</td><td align="left">See above</td><td align="left">Teacher positives and negatives, teacher praise, commands and strategies, child emotion, conduct, hyperactivity, peers pro‐social behaviour</td><td align="left">6 months</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Nelson, 34 (US)</td><td align="left">Pre‐post test comparison group design</td><td align="left">Think Time</td><td align="left">48 children (6–12) 98 teachers</td><td align="left">Time given to children to think about and manage their future behaviour. Feedback and reinforcement from teacher to help guide management of behaviour (Time Out and Debriefing)</td><td align="left">Teacher: ability to work with int/externalising behaviours, disturbed behaviour and the effects of stress. Child: interpersonal problems, inappropriate behaviours, depression, physical symptoms, language development, math, reading, work habits, social growth</td><td align="left">1 year</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Rimm‐Kaufman & Chiu, 45 (US)</td><td align="left">NRCT longitudinal study</td><td align="left">Responsive classroom approach</td><td align="left">157 children (6–7) 62 teachers</td><td align="left">Social processes around the child influence their growth trajectory and relationships with teachers are particularly important. A sense of community in the classroom and encouragement by teachers will promote social (and academic) learning (Bioecological model and General Systems Theory)</td><td align="left">Reading, language, math, teacher‐child closeness, teacher‐child conflict, cooperation, assertion, self‐control, anxious, hyperactive, pro‐social peers</td><td align="left">1–2 years</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Shernoff & Kratochwill, 48 (US)</td><td align="left">Randomised multi‐probe trial</td><td align="left">IYTCM</td><td align="left">13 children (33–54 months) 8 teachers</td><td align="left">See above</td><td align="left">Proactive instruction, disruptive behaviour, external problems, social competence, acceptability, teacher perception</td><td align="left">6 months</td></tr><tr><td align="left">van Lier et al., 53 (Netherlands)</td><td align="left">RCT</td><td align="left">GBG</td><td align="left">666 children (mean 6.9) 31 teachers</td><td align="left">See above</td><td align="left">Attention deficit hyperactivity, oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorder, teacher report form</td><td align="left">2 years</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Perez et al., 38 (Spain)</td><td align="left">NRCT longitudinal study</td><td align="left">GBG</td><td align="left">149 children (mean 7.5) 4 teachers</td><td align="left">See above</td><td align="left">Disobedience, aggression, shyness, cognitive shortcomings, emotional immaturity, hyperactivity, lack of concentration, global score</td><td align="left">1 year (at time of article)</td></tr></table> </ephtml> Notes</p> <p>1 RCT, randomised controlled trial; NRCT, non‐randomised controlled trial; GBG, good behaviour game; CMIS, classroom management improvement study; IYTCM, incredible years teacher classroom management</p> <hd id="AN0087017155-4">Summary of programmes</hd> <p>It is not the purpose of this article to describe the theoretical bases or the content of the individual programmes in great detail, but it is useful to briefly consider the comparability of the different perspectives (Table [NaN] ) and the skills promoted (Table [NaN] ). Some of the programmes were designed on the basis of particular learning and development theories, such as the Social Development Model, whereas others were constructed from less formal but often similar ideologies. None of the programmes appear to be developed from exactly the same theoretical basis. However, many programmes use some kind of reward or reinforcement toward the child from the teacher to encourage positive behaviours both in structured (gamelike) and unstructured approaches. There is also some consistency in that the children's relationships with their teachers are considered important in the perspectives that underpin several interventions. The details of each programme are described in Table [NaN] .</p> <p>Programme descriptions</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tr><th align="left">Programme</th><th align="left">Developer (year)</th><th align="left">Training</th><th align="left">Target population</th><th align="left">Programme description</th><th align="left">Targeted outcomes</th></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Good</p><p>Behaviour</p><p>Game</p></td><td align="left">Dolan et al., 1989 (US)</td><td align="left">15–40 hours with trained advisors, progressive introduction of the game into the classroom.</td><td align="left">Elementary school children (possibly older age ranges)</td><td align="left">Game where children earn or lose rewards for their team based on management of their own and team‐mates behaviour and mutual self‐interest. To win a team must have less than 4 points at the end of the game. Rewards are tangible and immediate or delayed. The game can be played 10–180 mins per week. Teams are mixed equally of more and less disruptive and shy children.</td><td align="left">Reduce disruptive and aggressive behaviour. Reduce shyness</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Incredible</p><p>Years</p><p>Teacher</p><p>Classroom Management</p></td><td align="left">Webster‐ Stratton, 1989 (US)</td><td align="left">5 full days over 5 months, with a practice month in between each session, led by a fully trained leader and mentor.</td><td align="left">Elementary school children</td><td align="left">Part of a larger programme which involves child and parent components. Teachers identify principles of classroom management to practice and develop in the classroom. To be used throughout time in the classroom.</td><td align="left">Reduce negative teacher‐pupil interactions and reduce disruptive pupil behaviours. Increase positive teacher‐pupil interactions and increase positive pupil behaviours.</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Responsive</p><p>Classroom</p><p>Approach</p></td><td align="left">Northeast Foundation for Children, 2003 (US)</td><td align="left">1 week during the summer before implementation and 5 days during implementation.</td><td align="left">Elementary school children</td><td align="left">A caring classroom environment is the setting to promote academic learning through social processes. Each class has a daily morning meeting to create a sense of community. Appropriate rules and consequences are co created by the teacher and the children. Teachers use encouragement rather than praise.</td><td align="left">Academic and social growth</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Proactive</p><p>Classroom</p><p>Management</p></td><td align="left">Brophy & Good, 1986 (US)</td><td align="left">5 days of training across the year with time for practice in between each session. Other school staff trained to observe and provide feedback for the teachers.</td><td align="left">Elementary and high school children</td><td align="left">Proactive classroom management promoting appropriate behaviours. Interactive teaching to develop appropriate instructional conditions. Cooperative learning strategies to promote working together.</td><td align="left"><p>Increase classroom involvement</p><p>Increase school bonding</p><p>Improve social development</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Think Time</td><td align="left">Unknown (US)</td><td align="left">Some training involved but details unclear.</td><td align="left">Whole school</td><td align="left">One of four elements of a wider school programme. A time‐out space where the disruptive child can think about their behaviour and teachers debrief them before they can rejoin the class. Requires team working between teachers. Partly based on reinforcement of positive behaviours.</td><td align="left">Reduce disruptive behaviour.</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Respect</p><p>Program</p></td><td align="left">Unknown (Norway)</td><td align="left">1 week of seminar training before implementation plus 4 days during implementation (some training for non‐teaching staff).</td><td align="left">Whole school</td><td align="left">Works to ensure 4 key principles exist in the classroom: authority (of the teacher), universality (of the programme), consistency (of adult behaviour) and continuity (a time commitment to this method).</td><td align="left"><p>Reduce behavioural problems.</p><p>Increase student participation in school.</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Contingency</p><p>Management</p><p>System</p></td><td align="left">Unknown (Littky US)</td><td align="left">Five 1‐hour workshops plus 1 week of intensive training before implementation and bi‐weekly meetings during implementation.</td><td align="left">Elementary school children</td><td align="left">A game where children obtain points for doing good work (in a structured activity) and working well (20 points = 15 mins of free play). Helps teachers identify children's strengths and weaknesses and to set different contingencies for different children.</td><td align="left">Reduce behaviour problems. Increase classroom efficiency (amount of time spent working) Improve reading</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Classroom</p><p>Management</p><p>Improvement Study (CMIS)</p></td><td align="left">Evertson et al., 1980 (US)</td><td align="left">Two 3‐hour workshops one 4 days before school and one 5 weeks after the start of school plus a manual, workshops led by a trainer.</td><td align="left">Elementary school children</td><td align="left">Teachers use the manual to help them prepare the classroom for the start of school and to help them prevent and manage problems in the classroom.</td><td align="left">Improve teacher classroom management strategies Improve student behaviour in the classroom</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0087017155-5">Quality of included studies</hd> <p>The search strategy identified sources of published and unpublished data. However, after applying the exclusion criteria only two unpublished studies were included, one that is in press at the time of writing (Hutchings et al., under review) and one that is in an unpublished report (McGilloway et al.). Generally, reporting of study results and processes was judged to be poor in the majority of included studies (see Appendix E). No study included calculations of sample size and statistical power. Details of random allocation were published in only one study (Hutchings et al., under review). Eligibility criteria for the teachers and children were poorly and often only partially reported. Only six studies compared intervention and control groups thoroughly at baseline (McGilloway et al., unpublished report; Dolan et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref44">13</reflink>] ; Abbott et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref45">1</reflink>] ; Shernoff & Kratochwill, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref46">48</reflink>] ; Leflot et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref47">29</reflink>] ; Hutchings et al., under revie).</p> <p>Blinding of participants (teachers and children) was clearly not possible due to the nature of the interventions. In most studies there was no blinding of the observers who measured outcomes, which may influence results towards being more optimistic/positive through observer bias about the impact of interventions (Everitt & Wessely, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref48">16</reflink>] ). However, two studies did achieve blinding of outcome measurement and these were considered the methodologically strongest studies in this review (Abbott et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref49">1</reflink>] ; Hutchings et al., under review).</p> <p>Almost half the studies used outcome measures for which reliability or validity were not reported and the majority of outcome measures involved teacher selfreporting and teacher reports of the children in their own classes. This is an important potential source of bias as the teachers reporting on the children's outcomes were the same teachers receiving the intervention (or not) and therefore it is possible that teachers' expectations and perceptions on the value of the intervention influenced reports of their students' behaviour. Six studies (McGilloway et al., unpublished report; Littky & Bosley, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref50">30</reflink>] ; Evertson et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref51">17</reflink>] ; Evertson, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref52">18</reflink>] ; Leflot et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref53">29</reflink>] ; Hutchings et al., under review) used any kind of independent observation and, of these, only one (Hutchings et al., under review) had the independent observers blinded to the intervention/control group allocation (McGilloway et al., [unpublished report] report blinding of independent observers ‘where possible’).</p> <p>In three studies the level of reporting was such that it was unclear if all participants had been accounted for (Littky & Bosley, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref54">30</reflink>] ; Ertesvag & Vaaland, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref55">15</reflink>] ; Rimm‐Kaufman & Chiu, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref56">45</reflink>] ). Only four of the eight RCTs reported an intention‐to‐treat analysis (Leflot et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref57">29</reflink>] ; Hutchings et al., under review), which further adds to our assessment of the rigour of these studies.</p> <p>The fidelity of an intervention is the extent to which it has been delivered in the manner intended. Publication of manuals to support an intervention and/or the delivery of training both support fidelity, which is important for programme reproducibility and effectiveness. Evidence suggests that where fidelity to a treatment model is poor, effectiveness may be reduced (Blakely et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref58">7</reflink>] ; Kellam & Langevin, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref59">26</reflink>] ). Less than half of the included studies reported on programme fidelity (see Appendix E). Where fidelity was assessed it was most often recorded by direct observation of classrooms (Abbott et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref60">1</reflink>] ; van Lier et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref61">53</reflink>] ; Shernoff & Kratochwill, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref62">48</reflink>] ). None of the studies report 100% consistency in programme implementation by teachers. This raises questions regarding the utility of the studies and the programmes themselves. However, such questions could only be addressed by review of the implementation of these programmes, should enough appropriate literature exist.</p> <hd id="AN0087017155-6">Results of included studies</hd> <p>In this narrative synthesis, we have grouped outcomes into a series of domains for clarity. Where possible, data from the included studies (mean and standard deviation) have been converted into standardised mean differences (Hedges' g statistic – see Appendix C) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) in order to facilitate comparisons of effect across the studies where outcomes perceived to be the same (or very similar) have been assessed using different measures. Given the heterogeneity of populations, interventions and measures, statistical pooling of the results would be both inappropriate and difficult to interpret for practical use. A full table of results can be found in Appendix D.</p> <hd id="AN0087017155-7">Social outcomes</hd> <p>Around half of the studies reported on social outcomes, which we defined as social skills (global score, prosocial skills), interpersonal/peer problems, cooperation, social competence/growth, assertion, shyness and self‐control. Table [NaN] shows that for most of these social outcomes interventions had minimal impacts that were unlikely to be statistically significant (95%CIs cross zero), although McGilloway et al. (unpublished report) do report statistically significant improvements in peer problems (g = −0.35, 95%CI: −0.62, −0.08) as a result of the IYTCM programme. The lack of reported effects on social outcomes suggests the classroom management interventions discussed in this review do not substantially influence children's social skills as estimated by the measures and methods used. However, there are missing data for social outcomes from the Rim‐Kaufmann and Chiu (2007) study. Two studies measured shyness (Dolan et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref63">13</reflink>] and Perez et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref64">38</reflink>] ): the results from Perez et al. ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref65">38</reflink>] ) indicated a very small, statistically insignificant increase in shyness (g = 0.05, 95%CI: −0.30, 0.40) in those children who participated in the GBG, however, this finding was not supported by Dolan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref66">13</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Social outcomes</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tr><th align="left">Source</th><th align="left">Design</th><th align="left">Participants children n (years old)</th><th align="left">Outcomes</th><th align="char">Standardised mean difference g (95%CI)</th></tr><tr><td align="left">Abbott et al., 1</td><td align="left">NRCT</td><td align="left"><p>808 (10–11)</p><p>44 teachers</p></td><td align="left">Social skills</td><td align="char" char=" ">−0.05 (−3.66, 3.56)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Nelson, 34</td><td align="left">Pre‐post test comparison group design</td><td align="left"><p>48 (6–12)</p><p>98 teachers</p></td><td align="left"><p>Interpersonal problems</p><p>Social growth</p></td><td align="char" char=" "><p>−0.26 (−0.87, 0.35)</p><p>0.20 (−0.41, 0.81)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Martin et al. (in press)</td><td align="left">RCT (IYTCM)</td><td align="left"><p>107 (3–7)</p><p>16 teachers</p></td><td align="left">Pro‐social behaviour</td><td align="char" char=" ">−0.30 (−0.67, 0.07)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">McGilloway et al. (unpublished report)</td><td align="left">RCT (IYTCM)</td><td align="left"><p>217 (4–7)</p><p>22 teachers</p></td><td align="left"><p>Pro‐social behaviour</p><p>Peer problems</p></td><td align="char" char=" "><p>0.32 (0.05, 0.59)</p><p>−0.35 (−0.62, 0.08)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Rimm‐Kaufman & Chiu, 45</td><td align="left">NRCT longitudinal study</td><td align="left">157 (6–7) 62 teachers</td><td align="left"><p>Cooperation</p><p>Assertion</p><p>Self‐control</p><p>Prosocial peers</p></td><td align="char" char=" ">No results available</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Shernoff & Kratochwill, 48</td><td align="left">Randomised multi‐probe trial (IYTCM)</td><td align="left"><p>13 (33–54 mths)</p><p>8 teachers</p></td><td align="left">Social competence</td><td align="char" char=" ">2.09 (−1.37, 3.46)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Perez et al., 38</td><td align="left">NRCT longitudinal study (GBG)</td><td align="left"><p>149 (7.5)</p><p>4 teachers</p></td><td align="left">Global score (at 1 year)</td><td align="char" char=" ">−0.08 (−0.43, 0.27)</td></tr></table> </ephtml> Note</p> <p>2 Control group measures for the Perez study are those reported at baseline, post intervention results were reported incorrectly in the article but it is reported that the level of all the factors except hyperactivity increased slightly for the control group at post intervention data collection, this must be considered in the result section as differences between the groups are therefore likely to be under‐rated. NRCT, non‐randomised controlled trial; RCT, randomised controlled trial; GBG, good behaviour game.</p> <p>Prosocial skills (prosocial behaviour and peer relationship problems) were measured in the studies by Hutchings et al. (under review), McGilloway et al. (unpublished report) and Rimm‐Kaufman and Chiu ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref67">45</reflink>] ). These studies used subscales of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) and the Social Competence and Adjustment Scale to assess levels of prosocial behaviours. Hutchings et al. (under review) indicate that the IYTCM programme actually marginally decreased levels of prosocial behaviour though this finding was consistent with the play of chance and disputed by the results from McGilloway et al., who found pro‐social behaviour (g = 0.32, 95%CI: 0.05, 0.59) significantly improved. The results of Rimm‐Kaufman and Chiu's ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref68">45</reflink>] ) study suggested that the Responsive Classroom Approach improves prosocial behaviours in children. However, we were unable to obtain the detailed outcome results for this study and so this finding should be treated with caution.</p> <hd id="AN0087017155-8">Behavioural outcomes</hd> <p>Externalising or disruptive behavioural outcomes (aggression, disobedience, non/compliance, disruptive, disturbing and inappropriate behaviours, deviance, off‐task behaviours, talking out, concentration, conduct problems, hyperactivity and total difficulties score—SDQ) were measured in several studies. In general there was a positive influence of interventions on these behaviours. However, six studies reported increases in some disruptive or externalising behaviours, although these differences did not reach statistical significance.</p> <p>Perez et al. ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref69">38</reflink>] ) and Ertesvag and Vaaland ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref70">15</reflink>] ) both found evidence of statistically significant effects of their interventions on decreasing disobedience in children at nine months and two years, respectively. Ertesvag and Vaaland ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref71">15</reflink>] ) and Hutchings et al. (under review) both reported evidence of statistically significant decreases in off‐task behaviour, at two years and six months, respectively. With Leflot et al. ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref72">29</reflink>] ) reporting significant increases in on task behaviour at one year. Furthermore, evidence of statistically significant impacts on hyperactivity was reported by Perez et al. ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref73">38</reflink>] ) and van Lier et al. ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref74">53</reflink>] ), who both studied the GBG intervention at nine months and two years, respectively. However, their results are contradictory: Perez et al. ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref75">38</reflink>] ) suggested that hyperactivity increased in the intervention group in comparison with the control group, whereas the results from van Lier et al. ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref76">53</reflink>] ) suggested that hyperactivity decreased in the intervention group, furthermore Leflot et al. ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref77">29</reflink>] ), who also studied the GBG, reported virtually no differences between intervention and control groups in respect to hyperactivity. There are differences between the two studies that could account for this discordance, including the measures used to record hyperactivity and the time at which they were recorded. McGilloway et al. (unpublished report), who studied the IYTCM programme, also report statistically significant improvements in hyperactivity. Evertson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref78">17</reflink>] ) report that the CMIS programme significantly reduces inappropriate and off‐task behaviours in the classroom, which is further supported by Evertson ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref79">18</reflink>] ), who thought the impact may be less significant. Statistically significant effects were also evident for decreasing non‐compliance at six months (IYTCM—Hutchings et al., under review), talking out at one year (Leflot et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref80">29</reflink>] ) and disturbance (Respect—Ertesvaag & Vaaland, 2007) and Oppositional Defiant Disorder (GBG—van Lier et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref81">53</reflink>] ) both at two years. Again each study used different tools to measure their outcomes, different interventions and different child populations making comparability difficult (see Table [NaN] ).</p> <p>Behavioural outcomes</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tr><th align="left">Source</th><th align="left">Design</th><th align="left">Participants n (years)</th><th align="left">Outcomes</th><th align="char">Standardised mean difference g (95%CI)</th></tr><tr><td align="left">Dolan et al., 13</td><td align="left">RCT (GBG)</td><td align="left"><p>501 (6)</p><p>26 teachers</p></td><td align="left"><p>Teacher rated aggression</p><p>Pupil rated aggression</p></td><td align="char" char=" ">No results available</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Ertesvag & Vaaland, 15</td><td align="left">Longitudinal cohort with control group</td><td align="left"><p>864 (11–12)</p><p>Teachers not recorded</p></td><td align="left"><p>Disobedience</p><p>Off‐task behaviour</p><p>Disturbance (2–3 years)</p></td><td align="char" char=" "><p>−0.31 (−0.45, 0.17)</p><p>−0.42 (−0.56, 0.28)</p><p>−0.21 (−0.33, 0.09)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Evertson et al., 17</td><td align="left">RCT (CMIS)</td><td align="left">41 elementary school teachers</td><td align="left"><p>Inappropriate behaviour</p><p>Off‐task behaviour</p><p>On‐task behaviour</p></td><td align="char" char=" ">No results available</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Evertson, 18</td><td align="left">RCT (CMIS)</td><td align="left">19 elementary school teachers</td><td align="left"><p>Disruptive behaviour</p><p>Inappropriate behaviour</p><p>Aggression</p><p>Success</p><p>Off‐task</p><p>On‐task</p></td><td align="char" char=" ">No results available</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Leflot et al., 29</td><td align="left">RCT (GBG)</td><td align="left"><p>570 (6–7)</p><p>30 teachers</p></td><td align="left"><p>Hyperactive behaviour</p><p>Oppositional behaviour</p><p>On‐task behaviour</p><p>Talking‐out</p><p>Out of seat</p></td><td align="char" char=" "><p>0.24 (0.08, 0.41)</p><p>−0.29 (−0.46, 0.13)</p><p>0.05 (−0.11, 0.22)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Hutchings et al., under review</td><td align="left">RCT (IYTCM)</td><td align="left"><p>107 (3–7)</p><p>16 teachers</p></td><td align="left"><p>Child non‐compliance</p><p>Child compliance</p><p>Deviance</p><p>Off‐task behaviour (at 6 mths)</p></td><td align="char" char=" "><p>−0.47 (−0.85, 0.09)</p><p>0.06 (−0.31, 0.43)</p><p>−0.24 (−0.61, 0.13)</p><p>−0.41 (−0.78, 0.04)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left">McGilloway et al., unpublished report</td><td align="left">RCT (IYTCM)</td><td align="left"><p>217 (4–7)</p><p>22 teachers</p></td><td align="left"><p>Conduct problems</p><p>Hyperactivity SDQ</p><p>Hyperactivity Conners</p><p>SDQ Total</p></td><td align="char" char=" "><p>−0.11 (−0.37, 0.16)</p><p>−0.12 (−0.38, 0.15)</p><p>−0.27 (−0.54, 0.00)</p><p>−0.24 (−0.50, 0.03)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Nelson, 34</td><td align="left">Pre‐post test comparison group design</td><td align="left"><p>48 (6–12)</p><p>98 teachers</p></td><td align="left">Inappropriate behaviours</td><td align="char" char=" ">_0.14 (_0.75, 0.47)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Rimm‐Kaufman & Chiu, 45</td><td align="left">Non‐randomised controlled longitudinal study</td><td align="left"><p>157 (6–7)</p><p>62 teachers</p></td><td align="left">Hyperactive</td><td align="char" char=" ">No results available</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Shernoff & Kratochwill, 48</td><td align="left">Randomised multi‐probe trial (IYTCM)</td><td align="left"><p>13 (33–54 mths)</p><p>8 teachers</p></td><td align="left"><p>Disruptive behaviour</p><p>Externalizing problems</p></td><td align="char" char=" "><p>1.07 (_0.13, 2.27)</p><p>1.17 (_0.03, 2.37)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left">van Lier et al., 53</td><td align="left">RCT (GBG)</td><td align="left"><p>666 (6.9)</p><p>31 teachers</p></td><td align="left"><p>Attention deficit hyperactivity</p><p>Oppositional defiant disorder</p><p>Conduct disorder (at 2 years)</p></td><td align="char" char=" "><p>_0.23 (_0.38, 0.08)</p><p>_0.17 (_0.32, 0.02)</p><p>0.14 (_0.01, 0.29)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Perez et al., 38</td><td align="left">Non‐randomised controlled longitudinal study (GBG)</td><td align="left"><p>149 (7.5)</p><p>4 teachers</p></td><td align="left"><p>Disobedience/aggression</p><p>Hyperactivity</p><p>Lack of concentration</p></td><td align="char" char=" "><p>_0.58 (_0.93, 0.23)</p><p>0.36 (0.01, 0.71)</p><p>_0.34 (_0.69, 0.01)</p></td></tr></table> </ephtml> Note</p> <p>3 *It was not possible to aggregate the male and female data together for this study as the population size of these two groups could not be obtained; **Control group measures for the Perez study are those reported at baseline, post intervention results were reported incorrectly in the article but it is reported that the level of all the factors except hyperactivity increased slightly for the control group at post intervention data collection, this must be considered in the result section as differences between the groups are therefore likely to be under‐rated. RCT, randomised controlled trial; NRCT, non‐randomised controlled trial; GBG, good behavior game; CMIS, classroom management improvement study; IYTCM, Incredible Years Teacher Classroom Management programme.</p> <hd id="AN0087017155-9">School/academic outcomes</hd> <p>Five studies assessed educational outcomes such as academic achievement in reading, maths and language; child/teacher relationships; class involvement and efficiency; bonding to school; work habits and cognitive deficiency. Most of the effects were not statistically significant, except for cognitive deficiency and the child being negative towards the teacher (see Table [NaN] ). Perez et al. ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref82">38</reflink>] ) found that the GBG resulted in a statistically significant decrease in below average attainment in comparison to the control group. Hutchings et al. (under review) found evidence of a statistically significant decrease in negativity towards teachers from the children. Results from the other studies that have measured school/academic outcomes suggest that all these outcomes can be improved by some form of teacher classroom management programme as their standard mean difference scores were generally positive. The Proactive Classroom Management programme showed a moderate effect on academic achievement (g = 0.53, 95%CI: −0.08, 1.14), where academic achievement is reported to have improved (see Table [NaN] ).</p> <p>School/academic outcomes</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tr><th align="left">Source</th><th align="left">Design</th><th align="left">Participants n (years)</th><th align="left">Outcomes</th><th align="char">Standardised mean difference g (95% CI)</th></tr><tr><td align="left">Abbott et al., 1</td><td align="left">NRCT</td><td align="left">808 (10–11) 44 teachers</td><td align="left"><p>Academic achievement</p><p>School bonding</p><p>Class involvement (at 1 year)</p></td><td align="char" char=" "><p>0.53 (−0.08, 1.14)</p><p>0.11 (−2.32, 2.54)</p><p>0.42 (−0.19, 1.03)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Littky & Bosley, 30</td><td align="left">NRCT</td><td align="left">151 (7) 7 teachers</td><td align="left">Class efficiency (on—task behaviour) (at 9 weeks)</td><td align="char" char=" ">No results available</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Hutchings et al., under review</td><td align="left">RCT (IYTCM)</td><td align="left"><p>107 (3–7)</p><p>16 teachers</p></td><td align="left">Negative to teacher</td><td align="char" char=" ">−0.47 (−0.85, 0.09)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Nelson, 34</td><td align="left">Pre‐post test comparison group design</td><td align="left"><p>48 (6–12)</p><p>98 teachers</p></td><td align="left"><p>Language development</p><p>Math</p><p>Reading</p><p>Work habits</p></td><td align="char" char=" "><p>0.35 (−0.26, 0.96)</p><p>0.19 (−0.42, 0.80)</p><p>−0.18 (−0.79, 0.43)</p><p>0.10 (−0.51, 0.71)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Rimm‐Kaufman & Chiu, 45</td><td align="left">NRCT longitudinal study</td><td align="left"><p>157 (6–7)</p><p>62 teachers</p></td><td align="left"><p>Reading</p><p>Language</p><p>Math</p><p>Teacher‐child closeness</p><p>Teacher‐child conflict</p></td><td align="char" char=" ">No results available</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Perez et al., 38</td><td align="left">NRCT longitudinal study (GBG)</td><td align="left"><p>149 (7.5)</p><p>4 teachers</p></td><td align="left">Cognitive deficiency</td><td align="char" char=" ">−0.37 (−0.72, 0.02)</td></tr></table> </ephtml> Note</p> <p>4 Control group measures for the Perez study are those reported at baseline, post intervention results were reported incorrectly in the article but it is reported that the level of all the factors except hyperactivity increased slightly for the control group at post intervention data collection, this must be considered in the result section as differences between the groups are therefore likely to be under‐rated. NRCT, non‐randomised controlled trial; RCT, randomised controlled trial; IYTCM, Incredible Years Teacher Classroom Management programme; GBG, good behaviour game.</p> <hd id="AN0087017155-10">Emotional outcomes</hd> <p>Emotion‐related outcomes were measured in only four studies, which examined depression, anxiety, emotional immaturity, emotional problems and fears. The results show a small positive (but not statistically significant) influence of the Think Time programme on improving emotional outcomes, i.e., a decrease in depression and fear (Nelson, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref83">34</reflink>] ), and of the IYTCM programme on improving emotional problems (McGilloway et al., unpublished report). Perez et al. ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref84">38</reflink>] ) reported that emotional immaturity may worsen as a result of the GBG intervention but the results for anxiety (Responsive Classroom Approach) could not be obtained. The impact of the Think Time programme on reducing fear appears to show the strongest effect (g = −0.29, 95%CI: −0.90, 0.32), although this effect is small and should be considered in the context of the limitations of the study (see Table [NaN] ).</p> <p>Emotional outcomes</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tr><th align="left">Source</th><th align="left">Design</th><th align="left">Participants (years)</th><th align="left">Outcomes</th><th align="char">Standardised mean difference g (95% CI)</th></tr><tr><td align="left">McGilloway et al., (unpublished report)</td><td align="left">RCT (IYTCM)</td><td align="left">217 (4–7)22 teachers</td><td align="left">Emotional problems</td><td align="char" char=" ">−0.20 (−0.47, 0.06)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Nelson, 34</td><td align="left">Pre‐post test comparison group design</td><td align="left">48 (6–12)98 teachers</td><td align="left"><p>Depression</p><p>Physical symptoms/fears</p></td><td align="char" char=" ">−0.13 (−0.74, 0.48)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Rimm‐Kaufman & Chiu, 45</td><td align="left">Non‐randomised controlled longitudinal study</td><td align="left">157 (6–7)62 teachers</td><td align="left">Anxiety</td><td align="char" char=" ">No results available</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Perez et al., 38</td><td align="left">Non‐randomised controlled longitudinal study (GBG)</td><td align="left">149 (7.5)4 teachers</td><td align="left">Emotional immaturity</td><td align="char" char=" ">−0.29 (−0.90, 0.32)</td></tr></table> </ephtml> Note</p> <p>5 Control group measures for the Perez study are those reported at baseline, post intervention results were reported incorrectly in the article but it is reported that the level of all the factors except hyperactivity increased slightly for the control group at post intervention data collection. RCT, randomised controlled trial; IYTCM, Incredible Years Teacher Classroom Management programme; GBG, good behaviour game.</p> <hd id="AN0087017155-11">Teacher outcomes</hd> <p>Teacher outcomes were reported in seven studies. These included positive and negative teacher behaviours such as acknowledgement and giving praise; teacher ability to work with internalising, externalising and disturbed behaviours; teacher experience of stress; frequency of proactive instructions from the teacher; direct and indirect teacher commands, frequency and usefulness of positive and inappropriate strategies and teacher rated acceptability of the programme, as well as several other teacher behaviours. Findings on teacher outcomes from programmes (IYTCM, GBG, CMIS and Think Time) were mixed. Moderate to large and statistically significant improvements were shown in positive teacher behaviours (g = 0.53, 95%CI: 0.15, 0.91) as well as in teacher ability to work with externalising behaviours (g = 1.43, 95%CI: 0.16, 2.70), frequency of proactive instructions (g = 1.88, 95%CI: 0.55, 3.21), frequency of positive teacher strategies (g = 1.33, 95%CI 0.40, 2.25) and teacher acceptability of the IYTCM programme (g = 1.75, 95%CI: 0.44, 3.06). As well as this, improvements in teacher ability to work with externalising behaviours (g = 1.43, 95%CI: 0.16, 2.70) in Think Time, teacher use of praise (g = 0.84, 95%CI: 0.10, 1.59) in the GBG and teachers being more prepared for school (g = 0.88, 95%CI: 0.11, 1.64) and encouraging students to be responsible for their work (g = 0.85, 95%CI: 0.9, 1.61) in CMIS were also recorded. However, negative teacher behaviours (teacher ability to work with internalising and disturbed behaviours and teacher experience of stress), teacher use and frequency of inappropriate strategies, direct and indirect commands, showed more limited impacts, though the direction of effect is towards a decrease in all these outcomes (Table [NaN] ).</p> <p>Teacher outcomes</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tr><th align="left">Source</th><th align="left">Design</th><th align="left">Participants (years)</th><th align="left">Outcomes</th><th align="char">Standardised mean difference g (95% CI)</th></tr><tr><td align="left">Evertson et al., 17</td><td align="left">RCT (CMIS)</td><td align="left">41 elementary school teachers</td><td align="left"><p>Readiness of the classroom</p><p>Planning rules and procedures</p><p>Consequences</p><p>Teaching rules and procedures</p><p>Strategies for potential problems</p><p>Monitoring behaviour</p><p>Preventing inappropriate behaviour</p><p>Organising instruction</p><p>Student accountability</p><p>Instructional clarity</p></td><td align="char" char=" ">No results available</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Evertson, 18</td><td align="left">RCT (CMIS)</td><td align="left">19 elementary school teachers</td><td align="left"><p>Good use of classroom space</p><p>Teacher prepared for school</p><p>Classroom prepared for school</p><p>Teacher ignores ‘come‐ups’</p><p>Teacher sends ‘come‐ups’ to seats</p><p>Teacher answers ‘come‐up’ questions</p><p>Teacher plans enough work</p><p>Allows activities to go on too long</p><p>Assignments too hard</p><p>Assignments too easy</p><p>Minimum time waiting for assignment</p><p>Efficient transitions</p><p>Stops disruptive behaviour quickly</p><p>Checks for understanding</p><p>Students responsible for work</p><p>Leaves room often</p><p>Teacher is confident</p><p>Teacher is warm and pleasant</p><p>Teacher is enthusiastic</p></td><td align="char" char=" "><p>0.29 (−0.44, 1.03)</p><p>0.88 (0.11, 1.64)</p><p>0.53 (−0.21, 1.28)</p><p>−0.21 (−0.94, 0.52)</p><p>0.06 (−0.67, 0.79)</p><p>0.39 (−0.35, 1.12)</p><p>1.02 (0.25, 1.79)</p><p>−0.23 (−0.96, 0.51)</p><p>−0.04 (−0.77, 0.69)</p><p>−0.34 (−1.07, 0.39)</p><p>0.68 (−0.07, 1.43)</p><p>0.60 (−0.15, 1.34)</p><p>0.40 (−0.33, 1.14)</p><p>0.47 (−0.26, 1.21)</p><p>0.85 (0.9, 1.61)</p><p>0.04 (−0.69, 0.77)</p><p>0.53 (−0.21, 1.27)</p><p>0.32 (−0.41, 1.06)</p><p>0.58 (−0.17, 1.32)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Leflot et al., 29</td><td align="left">RCT (GBG)</td><td align="left"><p>570 (6–7)</p><p>30 teachers</p></td><td align="left"><p>Negative remarks</p><p>Praise</p></td><td align="char" char=" "><p>−0.50 (−1.23, 0.23)</p><p>0.84 (0.10, 1.59)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Martin et al., (in press)</td><td align="left">RCT (IYTCM)</td><td align="left"><p>107 (3–7)</p><p>16 teachers</p></td><td align="left"><p>Teacher positives</p><p>Teacher negatives</p></td><td align="char" char=" "><p>0.53 (0.15, 0.91)</p><p>−0.06 (−0.43, 0.31)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left">McGilloway et al., unpublished report</td><td align="left">RCT (IYTCM)</td><td align="left"><p>217 (4–7)</p><p>22 teachers</p></td><td align="left"><p>Teacher positives</p><p>Teacher negatives</p><p>Teacher praise</p><p>Indirect commands</p><p>Direct commands</p><p>No opportunity</p><p>Positive strategies frequency</p><p>Positive strategies usefulness</p><p>Inappropriate strategies frequency</p><p>Inappropriate strategies uselfulness</p></td><td align="char" char=" "><p>0.02 (−0.82, 0.86)</p><p>−0.14 (−0.97, 0.70)</p><p>0.55 (−0.30, 1.40)</p><p>−0.62 (−1.48, −0.23)</p><p>0.30 (—0.54, 1.14)</p><p>−0.59 (−1.44, 0.27)</p><p>1.33 (0.40, 2.25)</p><p>0.60 (−0.25, 1.45)</p><p>−0.72 (−1.59, 0.14)</p><p>0.29 (−0.55, 1.13)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Nelson, 34</td><td align="left">Pre‐post test comparison group design</td><td align="left"><p>48 (6–12)</p><p>98 teachers</p></td><td align="left"><p>Teacher ability to work with int behaviour</p><p>Teacher ability to work with ex behaviour</p><p>Teacher ability to work disturbed behaviour</p><p>The effects of stress</p></td><td align="char" char=" "><p>−0.13 (−1.38, 1.12)</p><p>1.43 (0.16, 2.70)</p><p>−0.14 (−1.39, 1.11)</p><p>−0.21 (−1.46, 1.04)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Shernoff & Kratochwill, 48</td><td align="left">Randomised multi‐probe trial (IYTCM)</td><td align="left"><p>13 (33–54 months)</p><p>8 teachers</p></td><td align="left"><p>Proactive instruction</p><p>Acceptability (at 6 months)</p></td><td align="char" char=" "><p>1.88 (0.55, 3.21)</p><p>1.75 (0.44, 3.06)</p></td></tr></table> </ephtml> Notes</p> <p>6 RCT, randomised controlled trial; CMIS, classroom management improvement study; GBG, good behaviour game; IYTCM, Incredible Years Teacher Classroom Management programme.</p> <hd id="AN0087017155-12">Discussion</hd> <p>To our knowledge this is one of two reviews to focus on interventions that act through teachers' skills in classroom management. The other review was published by the Campbell Collaboration in June 2011 (Oliver et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref85">35</reflink>] ) and differs slightly in the broader age range for which interventions may be includable and in that their results were pooled together. The findings of the current review indicate that not one of these teacher classroom management programmes can be rated more highly than any other—partly due to the mixture of methods and outcomes reported (a full table of results including mean and standard deviation data can be found in Appendix D). Very little can be reliably said about the results of the studies by Dolan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref86">13</reflink>] ), Perez et al. ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref87">38</reflink>] ), Littky and Bosley ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref88">30</reflink>] ), Evertson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref89">17</reflink>] ), Evertson ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref90">18</reflink>] ) and Rimm‐Kaufman and Chiu ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref91">45</reflink>] ), who, respectively, studied the GBG, the Contingency Management System, CMIS and the Responsive Classroom Approach, due to a lack of comparable data. Comparisons made in this review should therefore be viewed with caution as the population, interventions and outcomes vary considerably and highlight a need for more consistent and high quality research for indicating clear conclusions for policy and practice.</p> <p>From the 151 outcomes reported, 14 report results in an undesirable direction, though the size of studies means that the precision of many findings is limited and both positive and negative effects may have been observed due to chance alone. Generally, some outcomes appear to be positively affected by each of the programmes where data could be obtained. However, the extent of these effects is limited, with only 21 outcomes in the desirable direction reported as statistically significant.</p> <p>A limitation of this review, common to other reviews in this area, is that it has not been possible to translate any statistical differences in behaviour into what this might look like in the child in the classroom (sometimes referred to as the ‘clinical’ changes in behaviour). If researchers could be persuaded to agree common outcomes and use common measures, then it would become possible to pool data across studies and undertake meaningful meta‐analysis, which would go some way towards being able to explain how these programmes could affect children in the classroom.</p> <p>The lack of impact on social outcomes might be surprising considering that the theoretical underpinnings of at least four of the interventions rely substantially on social learning and interaction (see Table [NaN] ). Furthermore, the lack of long‐term follow‐up (only three studies report on two/three years of follow‐up) does not help to identify the potential for teacher training to impact on future classrooms. Knowledge of such influence might greatly improve the utility of current evidence and is particularly important. If teachers' skills could be optimised in a way that was sustained, perhaps with intermittent booster courses, then these programmes would have potential for every pupil subsequently taught by teacher participants.</p> <p>From the overview of results in Table [NaN] we can see more clearly where there are gaps in the literature and where more evidence needs to be collected on the effectiveness of programmes. Very few studies described impact on emotional outcomes of children and of those that did, only two studies (McGilloway et al., unpublished report; Nelson, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref92">34</reflink>] ) provided satisfactory data in their results. Conversely, 12 studies assessed children's behavioural outcomes, 8 of which found improvements in behaviour that are likely to be significant and 7 of which found a decline in some elements of disruptive behaviours. Academic and social outcomes were covered by most studies, but using disparate measures. It is important to know if the effectiveness of teacher‐training on child outcomes varies with the age of the child as this would influence at which educational level or to which age group it is best to direct the programme. The data in this review was inadequate to comment on any influence on effectiveness by the age of the pupil. There appears to be a lack of evidence on a number of the programmes included in this review. The GBG and the IYTCM programme are supported by more substantial bodies of evidence than the six other programmes. Seven studies reported on teacher‐related outcomes, which we consider potentially very important given the degree of personal and professional impact from challenging behaviour reported by teachers (Kokkinos, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref93">27</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Overview of results showing number of outcomes and direction and strength of effect</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tr><th align="left">Author</th><th align="left">Study type</th><th align="left">Programme</th><th align="left">Social n</th><th align="left">Behavioural n</th><th align="left">Emotional n</th><th align="left">Academic n</th><th align="left">Teacher n</th></tr><tr><td align="left">Abbott et al., 1</td><td align="left">NRCT</td><td align="left">Proactive Classroom Management</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">3</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Dolan et al., 13</td><td align="left">RCT</td><td align="left">GBG</td><td align="left" /><td align="left">3</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Ertesvag & Vaaland, 15</td><td align="left">Longitudinal cohort with control</td><td align="left">Respect Programme</td><td align="left" /><td align="left">3</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Evertson et al., 17</td><td align="left">RCT</td><td align="left">CMIS</td><td align="left" /><td align="left">3</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>31</p><p>1</p><p>28</p><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Evertson 18</td><td align="left">RCT</td><td align="left">CMIS</td><td align="left" /><td align="left">6</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>3</p><p>1</p><p>15</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Leflot et al., 29</td><td align="left">RCT</td><td align="left">GBG</td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>2</p><p>2</p><p>1</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>1</p><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Littky & Bosley 30</td><td align="left">NRCT</td><td align="left">Contingency Management System</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">1</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Martin et al., in press</td><td align="left">RCT</td><td align="left">IYTCM</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left"><p>2</p><p>2</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left">1</td><td align="left"><p>1</p><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left">McGilloway et al., unpublished report</td><td align="left">RCT</td><td align="left">IYTCM</td><td align="left">2</td><td align="left"><p>3</p><p>1</p></td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>9</p><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Nelson, 34</td><td align="left">Pre‐post test comparison group design</td><td align="left">Think Time</td><td align="left">2</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left">2</td><td align="left"><p>3</p><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p><p>1</p><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Perez et al., 38</td><td align="left">NRCT longitudinal study</td><td align="left">GBG</td><td align="left"><p>1</p><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p><p>1</p><p>1</p></td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Rimm‐Kaufman & Chiu, 2007</td><td align="left">NRCT longitudinal study</td><td align="left">Responsive Classroom Approach</td><td align="left">3</td><td align="left">2</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left">5</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Shernoff & Kratochwill, 48</td><td align="left">RCT (multi‐probe)</td><td align="left">IYTCM</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left">2</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">2</td></tr><tr><td align="left">van Lier et al., 53</td><td align="left">RCT</td><td align="left">GBG</td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>2</p><p>1</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr></table> </ephtml> Note</p> <p>7 be aware of the limitations of the results as indicated in the complete results table in Appendix D; ↑ = statistically non‐significant effect in the desired direction; ↓ = statistically non‐significant effect in the opposite directions to that desired; *confidence intervals of the standardised mean difference do not cross zero indicating a likely significant difference between the control and intervention groups. NRCT, non‐randomised controlled trial, RCT, randomised controlled trial; GBG, good behaviour game; CMIS, classroom management improvement study; IYTCM, Incredible Years Teacher Classroom Management programme.</p> <p>Exactly what programmes work best or what components work best is still unknown (a summary of the significant results found for each programme can be seen in Table [NaN] ). Almost all the programmes in this table use some form of positive reinforcement to help change behaviour, although those not included in the table do not specifically lack elements of positive reinforcement. The programmes also generally tend to work on a universal (classroom) basis rather than focussing on a specific child (with the exception of Think Time) though again programmes not in this list also assumed more universal perspectives. The four studies that evaluated the GBG generally report a decrease in aggression and mixed reports on the impact on hyperactivity and shyness. All other outcomes for this programme were reported by individual studies and several outcomes may have been negatively affected by this intervention. Three studies also evaluated the IYTCM programme, all of which report positive teacher outcomes including improved teacher behaviours and acceptability of the programme. However, the studies showed mixed findings on the impact on children's behaviour. The two studies that evaluated the CMIS both report success in helping teachers ensure the students take responsibility for their work and in ensuring the teacher and the classroom are ready for the arrival of the students at the start of a new academic year. The remaining programmes only have one study each to inform their effectiveness. As such, the results from Abbott et al. ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref94">1</reflink>] ) suggest that Proactive Classroom Management may lead to improvements in academic achievement and the involvement of children in the class but may not impact children's social skills or their bonding to school. The results from Ertesvag and Vaaland ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref95">15</reflink>] ) suggest the Respect Programme may reduce disobedience, off‐task behaviour and disturbance. The results from Littky and Bosley ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref96">30</reflink>] ) further suggest that the Contingency Management System may improve class on‐task behaviour (classroom efficiency) and the results from Nelson ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref97">34</reflink>] ) suggest that the Think Time programme may improve teachers' ability to work with externalising behaviours but not internalising behaviours. Think Time may also improve (reduce) the levels of stress a teacher experiences in the classroom, improve social and emotional behaviours and reduce inappropriate behaviours, but have little impact on academic achievement. Finally, the results from the study on the Responsive Classroom Approach (Rimm‐Kaufan & Chiu, 2007) could not be interpreted for the purposes of this review.</p> <p>Summary of significant results according to programme/intervention</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tr><th align="left">Programme</th><th align="left">Key elements</th><th align="left">Outcome</th><th align="char">Result</th></tr><tr><td align="left">Incredible Years Teacher Classroom Management</td><td align="left">Improved child–teacher socialization and teacher reinforcement of positive behaviours (Modelling and Social Learning Theory)</td><td align="left"><p>Teacher positives</p><p>Child non‐compliance</p><p>Negative to teacher</p><p>Off task behaviour</p><p>Peer problems</p><p>Pro‐social behaviour</p><p>Hyperactivity</p><p>Frequency of teacher positive strategies</p><p>Proactive instruction</p><p>Acceptability (of prog)</p></td><td align="char" char=" "><p>0.53 (0.15–0.91)</p><p>−0.47 (−0.85–0.09)</p><p>−0.47 (−0.85–0.09)</p><p>−0.41 (−0.78–0.04)</p><p>−0.35 (−0.62–0.08)</p><p>0.32 (0.05–0.59)</p><p>−0.27 (−0.54–0.01)</p><p>1.33 (0.40–2.25)</p><p>1.88 (0.55–3.21)</p><p>1.75 (0.44–3.06)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Good Behaviour Game</td><td align="left">Child behaviour modification through social adaptation and psychological well‐being, rewarding pro‐social behaviours (Developmental Epidemiology)</td><td align="left"><p>Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder</p><p>Oppositional defiant disorder</p><p>Disobedience/aggression</p><p>Cognitive deficiency</p><p>Hyperactivity</p><p>On task behaviour</p><p>Talking out</p><p>Teacher praise</p></td><td align="char" char=" "><p>−0.23 (−0.38–0.08)</p><p>−0.17 (−0.32–0.02)</p><p>−0.58 (−0.93–0.23)</p><p>−0.37 (−0.72–0.02)</p><p>0.36 (0.01–0.71)</p><p>0.24 (0.08–0.41)</p><p>−0.29 (−0.46–0.13)</p><p>0.84 (0.10–1.59)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Think Time</td><td align="left">Time, feedback and reinforcement from teacher to help guide management of behaviour. (Time Out and Debriefing)</td><td align="left">Teacher ability to work with externalising behaviours</td><td align="char" char=" ">1.43 (0.16–2.70)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Respect</td><td align="left">A caring classroom environment and consistency in adult responses to child behaviours reinforces positive and consistent child behaviour</td><td align="left"><p>Disobedience</p><p>Off task behaviour</p><p>Disturbance</p></td><td align="char" char=" "><p>−0.31 (−0.45–0.17)</p><p>−0.42 (−0.56–0.28)</p><p>−0.21 (−0.33–0.09)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Classroom Management Improvement Study (CMIS)</td><td align="left">Improving teacher classroom management and the classroom environment will improve student behaviour in the classroom</td><td align="left">Teacher prepared for school Teacher plans enough work Students responsible for work</td><td align="char" char=" "><p>0.88 (0.11–1.64)</p><p>1.02 (0.25–1.79)</p><p>0.85 (0.9–1.61)</p></td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>This review has a number of strengths including comprehensive and exhaustive searching; explicit and rigorous methods for quality assessment and data extraction; and recalculation of individual study effects on a metric that allows some degree of cautious comparison between studies. Aside from issues arising from the quality of included studies and the possibility of having missed studies from further unpublished literature, which has obvious accessibility issues, the main limitation of our review is that meta‐analysis was not appropriate. We did not carry out quantitative synthesis because of the obvious degree of heterogeneity between populations and interventions (e.g. the Respect programme worked with children aged 11–12 years and the Contingency Management system worked with 7‐year‐ olds) and difficulty in interpretation of pooled effect sizes across outcome measures for readers considering the implementation of specific programmes. Narrative synthesis gains insight into the number and type of programmes that already exist, how little evidence there is to support them, what theories underpin them and how likely they are (individually) to influence a range of children's outcomes. We would not be able to see these gaps in the evidence and theory or the inconsistency of outcome measures if these studies had not been brought together. This alone advocates for the use of narrative synthesis when meta‐analysis is not appropriate.</p> <p>Our review has important implications for research and policy. We have shown a number of potentially important impacts from a variety of programmes aimed at teachers' classroom management skills. The evidence base in this field has increased considerably over the last decade and although many studies were of relatively poor quality and provide imprecise results, the overall direction of effects is generally encouraging. An important consideration for policy is whether the results obtained in the studies reviewed here may be realised in routine practice. Pioneer projects often take place in a milieu of ownership, commitment, enthusiasm and high fidelity that may be lacking as the programme is rolled out, leading to diminished impact (Graham, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref98">22</reflink>] ; Weisz & Jensen [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref99">56</reflink>] ). The limited extent to which some of the studies reviewed here have addressed fidelity, in particular, significantly limits the extent to which practice and policy can be informed by evidence in this area. Furthermore, specific classroom management programmes of the type reviewed here are likely to be implemented alongside pre‐existing generic social and emotional learning curricula. The influence of context, for example, the pre‐existing social and emotional learning curricula, such as SEAL in England (DCSF, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref100">10</reflink>] ) on the results of programmes is poorly understood and may be an important consideration in maximising the benefits of such programmes. Such contextual factors are also likely to be important when considering the feasibility of achieving widespread consistency and effective implementation of programmes and there is a need to understand better the barriers and facilitators for programmes in routine school life.</p> <p>This review has helped to identify areas where further research on existing programmes needs to be conducted, in particular for those programmes that have little or no evidence of effectiveness or fidelity in implementation. Programmes such as the CMIS, the GBG and the IYTCM programme, which have more substantial levels of evidence, would also benefit from further research using robust methods, larger sample sizes and longer follow‐up with more consistent measurement of outcomes. An important consideration for all research in this field is the clear need for an agreed set of tools to measure common and important outcomes. It is surprising that this does not already exist as it would allow for greater comparability across studies and hence greater utility of the research. The lack of a common measure suggests none may be very dependable. However, half the studies have reported the use of valid and reliable measures. More consistent reporting of results would also be beneficial for readers to understand and compare the details and results of these types of studies. It may also be informative in the future to take a realist review methods approach to reviewing similar topics so that other study designs can be included and so more explanatory sections exploring the theories underpinning interventions and the effects of context can be included in and inform the review (Pawson et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref101">36</reflink>] ).</p> <p>The implications for practice are more difficult to identify due to the inconclusiveness of the results. There is potential for a non‐intrusive classroom management programme, which puts minimal pressure on the teacher, to improve children's behaviour in the classroom and thus child mental health and academic attainment, while reducing the level of stress and burn out among teachers. As almost all children attend school, increasing teachers' skills in classroom management in this manner would amount to a universal public mental health promotion programme and, given the multiple adverse outcomes of challenging behaviour at all levels of severity, if effective, it has the potential to generate considerable cost savings in educational, health and criminal justice services. Future studies should consider economic evaluation alongside programme evaluation, which all but one of the included studies (McGilloway et al., unpublished report) failed to do. However, in order to be able to implement the most effective and easily used programme more specific research needs to be conducted in the area. The evidence that has been reviewed here suggests that an improvement in teacher training to include classroom management techniques would in most instances be beneficial both to children and teachers. However, the results of this review should be interpreted with caution until more evidence on new or existing programmes can be obtained.</p> <hd id="AN0087017155-13">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>This systematic review was funded by the National Institute for Health Research through Peninsula CLAHRC. This report/article presents independent research commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. The authors would like to thank Dr Jaime Peters for her statistical guidance and Professors Willem Kuyken and Brahm Norwich, of the University of Exeter, and Katherine Weare, Emeritus Professor at the University of Southampton, for their assistance in developing the literature search strategy and for extremely helpful and insightful comments on the manuscript.</p> <ref id="AN0087017155-14"> <title>References</title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref26" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext>Abbott, R., O'Donnell, J., Hawkins, D., Hill, K., Kosterman, R. & Catalano, R. ( 1998 ) Changing teaching practices to promote achievement and bonding to school, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 68, 542 – 552. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref28" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext>Adi, Y., Kiloran, A., Janmohamed, K. & Stewart‐Brown, S. ( 2007 ) Systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions to promote mental well‐being in primary schools: Report 1 – Universal approaches which do not focus on violence or bullying ( London, NICE ). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref20" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext>Arbeau, K., Coplan, R. & Weeks, M. ( 2010 ) Shyness, teacher‐child relationships and socio‐emotional adjustment in grade 1, International Journal of Behavioural Development, 34 ( 3 ), 259 – 269. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref21" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext>Aro, H., Hӓnninen, V. & Paronen, O. ( 1989 ) Social support, life events and psychosomatic symptoms among 14–16‐year‐old adolescents, Social Science & Medicine, 29 ( 9 ), 1051 – 1056. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref32" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext>Bayer, J., Hiscock, H., Scalzo, K., Mathers, M., McDonald, M., Morris, A., Birdseye, J. & Wake, M. ( 2009 ) Systematic review of preventative interventions for children's mental health: what would work in Australian contexts? Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 43, 695 – 710. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref25" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext>Bibou‐Nakou, I. ( 2000 ) Elementary school teachers' representations regarding school problem behaviour: ‘problem children in talk’, Educational and Child Psychology, 17 ( 4 ), 91 – 106. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref58" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext>Blakely, C., Mayer, J., Rand, G., Gottschalk, G., Schmitt, N., Davidson, W., Roitman, D. & Emshoff, J. ( 1987 ) The fidelity‐adaption debate: implications for the implementation of public sector social programs, American Journal of Community Psychology, 15, 253 – 268. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref11" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext>Breslau, J., Miller, E., Breslau, N., Bonhert, K., Lucia, V. & Schwitzer, J. ( 2009 ) The impact of early behavioural disturbance on academic attainment at High School, Pediatrics, 123, 1472 – 1476. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref35" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext>Centre for Reviews and Dissemination ( 2009 ) Systematic reviews: guidance for undertaking reviews in healthcare ( York, UK, York Publishing Services, University of York ). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib10" idref="ref6" type="bt">10</bibl> <bibtext>Department for Children, Schools and Families ( 2007 ) Social and emotional aspects of learning for secondary schools ( Nottingham, UK, DCSF Publications ). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib11" idref="ref7" type="bt">11</bibl> <bibtext>Department for Children, Schools and Families ( 2008 ) Targeted mental health in schools project ‐ using the evidence to inform your approach: a practical guide for head teachers and commissioners ( Nottingham, UK, DCSF Publications ). http://publications.every childmatters.gov.uk/eOrderingDownload/00784‐2008BKT‐EN.pdf </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib12" idref="ref17" type="bt">12</bibl> <bibtext>Dinkmeyer, D. & Dreikurs, R. ( 2000 ) Encouraging children to learn ( London, Routledge ). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib13" idref="ref24" type="bt">13</bibl> <bibtext>Dolan, L., Kellam, S., Hendricks Brown, C., Werthamer‐Larsson, L., Rebok, G., Mayer, L., Laudolff, J., Turkkan, J., Ford, C. & Wheeler, L. ( 1993 ) The short‐term impact of two classroom‐based preventive interventions on aggressive and shy behaviours and poor achievement, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 14, 317 – 345. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib14" idref="ref8" type="bt">14</bibl> <bibtext>Egyed, C. & Short, R. ( 2006 ) Teacher self‐efficacy, burnout, experience and decision to refer a disruptive student, School Psychology International, 27, 462 – 474. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib15" idref="ref27" type="bt">15</bibl> <bibtext>Ertesvag, S. & Vaaland, G. ( 2007 ) Prevention and reduction of behavioural problems in school: an evaluation of the Respect Program, Educational Psychology, 27, 713 – 736. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib16" idref="ref48" type="bt">16</bibl> <bibtext>Everitt, B. & Wessely, S. ( 2004 ) Clinical trials in psychiatry ( Oxford, Oxford University Press ). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib17" idref="ref51" type="bt">17</bibl> <bibtext>Evertson, C., Emmer, E., Sanford, J. & Clements, B. ( 1983 ) Improving classroom management: an experiment in elementary school classrooms, Elementary School Journal, 84 ( 2 ), 172 – 188. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib18" idref="ref52" type="bt">18</bibl> <bibtext>Evertson, C. ( 1989 ) Improving elementary classroom management: a school‐based training program for beginning the year, Journal of Educational Research, 82 ( 2 ), 82 – 90. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib19" idref="ref5" type="bt">19</bibl> <bibtext>Ford, T., Hamilton, H., Meltzer, H. & Goodman, R. ( 2007 ) Child mental health is everybody's business: the prevalence of contacts with public sectors services by the types of disorder among British school children in a three‐year period, Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 12, 13 – 20. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib20" idref="ref2" type="bt">20</bibl> <bibtext>Green, H., McGinnity, A., Meltzer, H., Ford, T. & Goodman, R. ( 2005 ) Mental health of children and young people in Great Britain, 2004 ( London, TSO ). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib21" idref="ref9" type="bt">21</bibl> <bibtext>Goddard, R., OBrien, P. & Goddard, M. ( 2006 ) Work environment predictors of beginning teacher burnout, British Educational Research Journal, 32, 857 – 874. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib22" idref="ref98" type="bt">22</bibl> <bibtext>Graham, P. ( 2000 ) Treatment interventions and findings from research: bridging the chasm in child psychiatry, British Journal of Psychiatry, 176, 414 – 419. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib23" idref="ref29" type="bt">23</bibl> <bibtext>Hoagwood, K., Olin, S., Kerker, B., Kratochwill, T., Crowe, M. & Saka, N. ( 2007 ) Empirically based school interventions targeted at academic and mental health functioning, Journal of Emotional and Behavioural Disorders, 15, 66 – 92. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib24" type="bt">24</bibl> <bibtext>Hutchings, J., Daley, D., Jones, E., Martin, P. & Gwyn, R. ( 2007 ) Early results from developing and researching the Webster‐Stratton Incredible Years Teacher Classroom Management Training Programme in North West Wales, Journal of Children's Services, 2, 15 – 26. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib25" type="bt">25</bibl> <bibtext>Hutchings, J., Martin‐Forbes, P., Daley, D., Whitaker, C.J. & Williams, M.E. (under review) The impact of a teacher classroom management programme on the classroom behaviour of children with and without behaviour problems. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib26" idref="ref59" type="bt">26</bibl> <bibtext>Kellam, S. G. & Langevin, D. ( 2003 ) A framework for understanding evidence in prevention research and programs, Prevention Science, 4, 137 – 153. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib27" idref="ref10" type="bt">27</bibl> <bibtext>Kokkinos, C. ( 2007 ) Job stressors, personality and burnout in primary school teachers, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 229 – 243. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib28" idref="ref23" type="bt">28</bibl> <bibtext>Ladd, G., Birch, S. & Buhs, E. ( 1999 ) Children's social and scholastic lives in kindergarten: related spheres of influence? Child Development, 70, 1373 – 1400. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib29" idref="ref47" type="bt">29</bibl> <bibtext>Leflot, G., van Lier, P., Onghena, P. & Colpin, H. ( 2010 ) The role of teacher behaviour management in the development of disruptive behaviours: an intervention study with the good behaviour game, Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38, 869 – 882. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib30" idref="ref40" type="bt">30</bibl> <bibtext>Littky, D. & Bosley, L. ( 1970 ) A contingency management program in urban school classrooms, paper presented at the Eastern Psychological Association Convention, New York, 30 April. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib31" type="bt">31</bibl> <bibtext>McGilloway, S., Hyland, L., NiMhaile, G., Lodge, A., O'Neil, D., Kelly, P., Leckey, Y., Bywater, T., Comiskey, C. & Donnelly, M. (unpublished report). Positive classrooms, positive children: a randomised controlled trial to investigate the effectiveness of the Incredible Years Teacher Classroom Management programme in an Irish context (short‐term outcomes) ( Dublin, Archways ). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib32" type="bt">32</bibl> <bibtext>Melzer, M., Gatward, R., Goodman, R. & Ford, T. ( 2000 ) Mental health of children and adolescents in Great Britain ( London, The Stationery Office ). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib33" idref="ref1" type="bt">33</bibl> <bibtext>Moffitt, T., Caspi, A., Harrington, H. & Milne, B. ( 2002 ) Males on the life‐course persistent and adolescence‐limited antisocial pathways, Development and Psychopathology, 14, 179 – 206. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib34" idref="ref41" type="bt">34</bibl> <bibtext>Nelson, R. ( 1996 ) Designing schools to meet the needs of students who exhibit disruptive behaviour, Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 4, 147 – 162. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib35" idref="ref85" type="bt">35</bibl> <bibtext>Oliver, R., Wehby, J. & Reschly, D. ( 2011 ) Teacher classroom management practices: effects on disruptive or aggressive student behaviour ( Oslo, The Campbell Collaboration ). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib36" idref="ref101" type="bt">36</bibl> <bibtext>Pawson, R., Greenhalgh, T., Harvey, G. & Walshe, K. ( 2005 ) Realist review: a new method of systematic review for complex policy interventions, Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 10 ( Suppl. 1 ), 21 – 34. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib37" idref="ref31" type="bt">37</bibl> <bibtext>Payton, J., Weissberg, R., Durlak, J., Dymnicki, A., Taylor, R., Schellinger, K. & Pachan, M. ( 2008 ) The positive impact of social and emotional learning for kindergarten to eighth grade students: findings from three scientific reviews ( Chicago, IL, Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning ). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib38" idref="ref64" type="bt">38</bibl> <bibtext>Perez, V., Fernandez, A., Rodriguez, J. & De La Barra, F. ( 2005 ) Assessment of the effect of a behavioural intervention in school aggression, Terapia Psichologica, 23, 91 – 98. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib39" idref="ref18" type="bt">39</bibl> <bibtext>Pianta, R., Steinberg, M. & Rollins, K. ( 1995 ) The first two years of school: teacher‐child relationships and deflections in children's classroom adjustment, Development and Psychopathology, 7 ( 2 ), 295 – 312. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib40" idref="ref19" type="bt">40</bibl> <bibtext>Pianta, R. & Stuhlman, M. ( 2004 ) Teacher‐child relationships and children's success in the first years of school, School Psychology Review, 33 ( 3 ), 444 – 458. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib41" idref="ref36" type="bt">41</bibl> <bibtext>Pope, C., Mays, N. & Popay, J. ( 2007 ) Synthesizing qualitative and quantitative health evidence: a guide to methods ( Maidenhead, UK, Open University Press ). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib42" idref="ref15" type="bt">42</bibl> <bibtext>Porter, L. ( 2009 ) Behaviour in schools ( 2nd edn ) ( Buckingham, UK, Open University Press ). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib43" idref="ref33" type="bt">43</bibl> <bibtext>Reichow, B., Volkmar, F. & Cicchetti, D. ( 2008 ) Development of the evaluative method for evaluating and determining evidence‐based practices in autism, Journal of Autism and Development Disorders, 38, 1311 – 1319. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib44" idref="ref12" type="bt">44</bibl> <bibtext>Reynolds, D., Sammons, P., Stoll, L., Barber, M. & Hill, J. ( 1996 ) School effectiveness and school improvement in the United Kingdom, International Journal of School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 7, 133 – 158. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib45" idref="ref42" type="bt">45</bibl> <bibtext>Rimm‐Kaufman, S. & Chiu, Y. ( 2007 ) Promoting social and academic competence in the classroom: an intervention study examining the contribution of the ‘Responsive Classroom’ approach, Psychology in the Schools, 44, 397 – 413. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib46" idref="ref13" type="bt">46</bibl> <bibtext>Rutter, M. & Maugham, B. ( 2002 ) School effectiveness findings, 1979–2002, Journal of School Psychology, 40, 451 – 475. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib47" idref="ref3" type="bt">47</bibl> <bibtext>Scott, S., Knapp, M., Henderson, J. & Maughan, B. ( 2001 ) Financial cost of social exclusion, British Medical Journal, 323, 1 – 5. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib48" idref="ref43" type="bt">48</bibl> <bibtext>Shernoff, E. & Kratochwill, T. ( 2007 ) Transporting an evidence‐based classroom management program for preschoolers with disruptive behaviour problems to a school: an analysis of implementation, outcomes, and contextual variables, School Psychology Quarterly, 22, 449 – 472. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib49" idref="ref30" type="bt">49</bibl> <bibtext>Shucksmith, J., Summerbell, C., Jones, S. & Whittaker, V. ( 2007 ) Mental well‐being of children in primary education (targeted/indicated activities) ( London, UK, University of Teeside—NICE ). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib50" idref="ref37" type="bt">50</bibl> <bibtext>Sutton, A., Abrams, K., Jones, D., Sheldon, T. & Song, F. ( 2000 ) Methods for meta‐analysis in medical research ( Chichester, UK, Wiley ). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib51" idref="ref14" type="bt">51</bibl> <bibtext>Sylva, K. ( 1994 ) School influences on children's development, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 135 – 170. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib52" idref="ref39" type="bt">52</bibl> <bibtext>Thomas, G. & Pring, R. ( 2004 ) Evidence‐based practice in education ( Maidenhead, UK, Open University Press ). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib53" idref="ref38" type="bt">53</bibl> <bibtext>van Lier, P., Muthen, B., van der Sar, R. & Crijnen, A. ( 2004 ) Preventing disruptive behaviour in elementary school children: impact of a universal classroom‐based intervention, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 467 – 478. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib54" idref="ref16" type="bt">54</bibl> <bibtext>Visser, J. ( 2005 ) Key factors that enable the successful management of difficult behavior in schools and classrooms, Education 3–13, 33, 26 – 31. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib55" idref="ref34" type="bt">55</bibl> <bibtext>Webster‐Stratton, C., Reid, M. & 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. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib56" idref="ref99" type="bt">56</bibl> <bibtext>Weisz, J. & Jensen, A. ( 2001 ) Child and adolescent psychotherapy in research and practice contexts: review of the evidence and suggestions for improving the field, European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 10 ( Suppl. ), 12 – 18. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib57" idref="ref22" type="bt">57</bibl> <bibtext>Ystgaard, M. ( 1997 ) Life stress, social support and psychological distress in late‐adolescence, Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 32 ( 5 ), 277 – 283. </bibtext> </blist> </ref> <p>Graph: Identification and selection of studies for the review</p> <aug> <p>By R. Whear; J. Thompson‐Coon; K. Boddy; T. Ford; D. Racey and K. Stein</p> </aug>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1009135
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Effect of Teacher-Led Interventions on Social and Emotional Behaviour in Primary School Children: A Systematic Review
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Whear%2C+R%2E%22">Whear, R.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Thompson-Coon%2C+J%2E%22">Thompson-Coon, J.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Boddy%2C+K%2E%22">Boddy, K.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ford%2C+T%2E%22">Ford, T.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Racey%2C+D%2E%22">Racey, D.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Stein%2C+K%2E%22">Stein, K.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22British+Educational+Research+Journal%22"><i>British Educational Research Journal</i></searchLink>. Apr 2013 39(2):383-420.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 38
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2013
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Information Analyses
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intervention%22">Intervention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Behavior%22">Social Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Teachers%22">Elementary School Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Students%22">Elementary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Emotional+Response%22">Emotional Response</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Behavior%22">Student Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interpersonal+Competence%22">Interpersonal Competence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Classroom+Techniques%22">Classroom Techniques</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Effect+Size%22">Effect Size</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Outcomes+of+Education%22">Outcomes of Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Policy%22">Educational Policy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Practices%22">Educational Practices</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Education%22">Teacher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+Kingdom%22">United Kingdom</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/01411926.2011.650680
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0141-1926
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The purpose of this article is to clarify the role of "teacher training initiatives" aimed at improving social, emotional and behavioural outcomes of primary school aged children through improved classroom management. Systematic searches were conducted using a range of electronic databases from inception up to September 2011. Included studies were controlled trials that described training provided to teachers in classroom management techniques designed to improve primary school children's behavioural and social outcomes. Study selection and appraisal of quality were carried out by two researchers and a narrative synthesis was carried out. A total of 14 studies were included involving 8 interventions. Results show that statistically significant effects are limited, with only 20 outcomes showing significant effects in the desired direction. Effect sizes ranged from g = -0.17 (95%CI: -0.32, -0.02) to g = 1.88 (95%CI: 0.55, 3.21). Overall, the programmes indicate an improvement in some outcomes of interest. However, further research into the implementation and comparative effectiveness of such programmes is needed before implications for educational policy and practice can be established. (Contains 9 tables and 1 figure.)
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 57
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2014
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1009135
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1009135
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/01411926.2011.650680
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 38
        StartPage: 383
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Intervention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Emotional Response
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interpersonal Competence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Classroom Techniques
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Effect Size
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Outcomes of Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Policy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Practices
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: United Kingdom
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Effect of Teacher-Led Interventions on Social and Emotional Behaviour in Primary School Children: A Systematic Review
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Whear, R.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Thompson-Coon, J.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Boddy, K.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ford, T.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Racey, D.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Stein, K.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 04
              Type: published
              Y: 2013
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0141-1926
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 39
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: British Educational Research Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1