Paloma Pérez

Promoting youth mental health is a global public health priority. However, many evidence-based programs developed in the USA are not widely accessible in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where violence, mental health concerns, and COVID-recovery challenges persist. Adapting such programs requires attention to cultural and contextual factors. Guided by a cultural humility framework, this study presents qualitative findings used to inform the initial contextualization and adaptation of the Coping Power program for use in Mexican middle schools. Originally developed to promote social-emotional skills and reduce aggression and substance use, Coping Power has been implemented internationally but to date, had not yet been adapted. To guide initial adaptations, we conducted focus groups and interviews with 13 teachers in Guadalajara. Focus groups explored teachers’ perceptions of student needs, program relevance, and barriers. Additional follow-up interviews with those who piloted the program in 2024 were analyzed using rapid qualitative methods. Findings highlighted family dynamics and self-management as key socio-emotional needs. Reported barriers included the context of community violence, teacher readiness, and student engagement. These findings underscore the importance of teacher training and context-specific modifications when adapting preventive interventions for LMIC settings.

In this systematic literature review we examined evidence for Second Step , a social-emotional learning curriculum implemented as a Tier 1 practice with elementary students. We applied Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) Standards for Evidence-Based Practices in Special Education to evaluate if Second Step elementary could be considered an evidence-based practice. We found 37 studies meeting inclusion criteria, of which 13 met our weighted CEC quality indicator coding criterion (80%) to be considered methodologically sound. Following CEC guidelines, we classified three of 13 studies as having positive effects , while eight had neutral/mixed effects , and two were missing data preventing effect size calculation needed for classification. With three non-randomized group studies demonstrating positive effects and eight studies with neutral/mixed effects , the ratio of positive to neutral/mixed did not meet the minimum criterion of 3:1 or greater, so we placed Second Step elementary into CEC’s mixed evidence category of evidence-based classifications. We then discuss educational implications of these findings and future research directions.

In this article, we introduce behavior-specific praise as a portable, feasible strategy for teachers and families to increase student engagement as well as to decrease off-task and disruptive behaviors in a variety of environments. We provide step-by-step guidance to illustrate how behavior-specific praise can be used by teachers during in-person and remote learning environments and how families can incorporate behavior-specific praise into daily routines at home.

In this systematic review, we evaluated the quality and rigor of the current evidence base for the Second Step social-emotional learning program in middle schools. Eleven studies were coded using the Council for Exceptional Children Standards for Evidence-Based Practices in Special Education with an 80% weighted criterion. We determined five studies met the weighted 80% criteria and one study demonstrated a positive effect as defined by Council for Exceptional Children. The other four studies demonstrated neutral/mixed results, and we therefore classified Second Step for middle schools in the mixed evidence category. We discuss the strengths of evaluated studies and future directions for research.

We report findings of two validation studies of the Student Risk Screening Scale for Early Childhood (SRSS-EC). Although previous exploratory inquiry suggested a two-factor solution, results of Study 1 conducted with 274 preschool-age youth suggested mixed support for a two-factor model, with only one fit index suggesting an adequate fit (incremental index, comparative fit index [CFI] = 0.963). However, results did provide additional evidence of convergent validity between SRSS-EC and Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire scores. In Study 2, results of convergent validity studies with 90 preschool-age children offered evidence between SRSS-EC and (a) Social Skills Improvement System—Performance Screening Guide and (b) Caregiver—Teacher Report Form (C-TRF) scores. Results suggested the following cutting scores: SRSS-EC E7 (0–5 low, 6–7 moderate, 8–21 high risk) and SRSS-EC I4 (0–2 low, 3–4 moderate, and 5–12 high risk), with C-TRF scores as the criterion. We discuss limitations and directions for future inquiry.