Prev Sci (2015) 16:1037–1043

DOI 10.1007/s11121-015-0612-5

Readiness to Implement School-Based Social-Emotional Learning

Interventions: Using Research on Factors Related
to Implementation to Maximize Quality
Shannon B. Wanless 1 & Celene E. Domitrovich 2,3

Published online: 14 October 2015

# Society for Prevention Research 2015

In the past several years, interest in social and emotional learn- accountability requirements, early childhood education pro-
ing (SEL) has grown significantly. What was once a special- grams and schools are implementing SEL interventions more
ized domain of educational research and practice is now a frequently than in the past. Interest in SEL interventions has
significant movement with greater numbers of practitioners, also increased internationally (for examples, see Kam and
policy-makers, and researchers recognizing the importance of Yick 2013; Yoshikawa et al. 2015). Using evidence-based
social and emotional competence for students’ success in SEL interventions, however, is not enough to ensure positive
school and life (Durlak et al. 2015). SEL involves fostering outcomes. The success of an intervention on children’s social
social and emotional competencies in children through vari- emotional competence depends on how it is implemented
ous strategies including direct instruction and student- (e.g., Durlak and Dupre 2008; Durlak et al. 2011; Elias
centered practices that create engaging learning environments 2006; Greenberg et al. 2003, 2005). Recent research has in-
nurturing students’ development of analytical, communica- creased understanding of this process by identifying a number
tion, and collaboration skills (CASEL 2013; Jones and of factors that enhance and undermine implementation
Bouffard 2012). success.
Social and emotional interventions have evolved out of The primary goal of this special issue is to feature research
different traditions including education, social work, child examining factors that were assessed prior to the delivery of
psychiatry, public health, psychology, and prevention an SEL intervention, and their relations to implementation.
(Catalano et al. 2004; Greenberg et al. 2001; Hahn et al. Specifically, by highlighting the state of schools and teachers
2007; Wilson and Lipsey 2007). The evidence base for these before they begin implementing a SEL intervention, it may be
programs has grown steadily since rigorous trials first possible to understand which schools are more or less likely to
established their positive impact on behavioral and academic implement successfully, and see opportunities for increasing
outcomes; there are now several meta-analyses summarizing that likelihood. Given that the factors researched in this special
this body of research (Durlak et al. 2011; Sklad et al. 2012). issue were evident prior to intervention delivery, we believe it
As non-academic competencies are increasingly incorporated is appropriate to conceptualize them as aspects of readiness to
into learning standards at the preschool and elementary levels, implement EBIs. Included in this special issue introduction is
and federal and state funding agencies require the use of a definition of readiness, an overview of how the findings
evidence-based interventions (EBIs) as part of their from the papers included in this special issue have implica-
tions for understanding this concept, and examples of existing
initiatives that might be used to improve readiness to imple-
* Shannon B. Wanless
[email protected]
ment EBIs.
Influenced by the increase in type II translational research,
many funding agencies that endorse the use of evidence-based
1
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA interventions (EBIs), such as the U.S. Department of
2
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning Education’s Institute for Educational Sciences, now require
(CASEL), Chicago, IL, USA researchers to include measures in research proposals to mon-
3
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA itor intervention implementation. Intervention developers are
1038 Prev Sci (2015) 16:1037–1043

also attending to implementation issues by developing mate- begins preparing to implement a new intervention is an essen-
rials and training methods with implementation outcomes in tial initial step in the implementation process. For example, in
mind (Sandler et al. 2005). Finally, the Society for Prevention the Quality Implementation Framework, the first 10 of 14
Research MAPS committee has elaborated a model for future steps are focused on the needs of the school before implemen-
research endeavors in this domain (Spoth et al. 2013). tation begins (Meyers et al. 2012). These include assessing the
There are several phases that schools must negotiate to fit between the context’s readiness and the intervention and
establish the effective and sustained use of an EBI doing any capacity building needed.
(Greenberg et al. 2005). The first, referred to as the adoption As alluded to in the Quality Implementation Framework
phase, is the process of selecting an intervention and preparing (Meyers et al. 2012), a balance is needed between general
for its use. The second, referred to as the implementation or readiness to implement and intervention-specific readiness.
delivery phase, is the period in which the intervention is first Although individuals and organizations may have a certain
conducted. This is followed by a post-delivery or sustainabil- readiness to take on any new intervention, readiness likely
ity phase in which an intervention is maintained over time. varies depending on the intervention chosen. It may be useful
Several conceptual models of implementation take an ecolog- to think of an individual and an organization as having a
ical or systems approach to organizing the factors at multiple general range of readiness, and then within that, a specific
levels within a school that influence this process across all of readiness for a particular intervention given its complexity
these phases (Domitrovich et al. 2008; Durlak and Dupre and fit with the existing beliefs, practices, and culture of the
2008). These include (1) individual factors such as the knowl- context.
edge, skills, and attitudes of the individuals delivering the One recently developed way of conceptualizing readiness
intervention (e.g., teachers); (2) classroom factors such as takes into account this balance between general and
the composition of the students, or the structure of daily intervention-specific readiness using the formula, R=MC2
schedule; and (3) building level factors such as characteristics (Readiness=Motivation×General Capacity× Intervention-
of the leadership or the school climate. Specific Capacity; Scaccia et al. 2015). In this formula, the
The multi-level factors that influence implementation of authors suggest that being motivated to use a new intervention
school-based interventions may not all be equally relevant at is important but is not enough. Instead, there are general ca-
each phase (Domitrovich et al. 2008). Many implementation pacities (organizational culture, climate, receptiveness to in-
research studies focus on identifying concurrent factors that novation, willingness to allocate resources to new interven-
explain variation in fidelity during the implementation phase tions, leadership, day-to-day functionality, and staff skills and
as opposed to examining factors that are in place before an expertise) and intervention-specific capacities (e.g.,
intervention is selected or that emerge early on when an inter- intervention-specific knowledge and skills, a champion for
vention starts. The premise underlying this special issue is that the new intervention, specific implementation supports, and
the factors assessed prior to when an intervention starts, that strong relationships among providers, coaches, and other or-
emerge as significantly related to implementation outcomes, ganizations that will support the implementation) that must
are all potential indicators of readiness. Although some factors also be in place. Although it is not clear whether all of these
associated with implementation may be unique to a certain components should be weighted evenly for different interven-
type of intervention, many are likely to generalize, especially tions and contexts, it is clear that readiness is a multi-
when interventions are conducted in the same setting, with a dimensional construct.
similar population, or are focused on similar content. As the conceptualization of readiness continues to evolve,
it is important to remember the practical challenges to incor-
porating the concept into real-world research and intervention
Implementation Readiness implementation. Too often, research or professional develop-
ment grants are awarded and EBI training begins right away,
The definition of implementation readiness guiding this spe- without any consideration of the people delivering the pro-
cial issue is the capacity to implement an EBI effectively. We gram or the setting in which it is implemented. Although
suggest that readiness is a characteristic of individuals and many organizations may appear to have a high level of read-
organizations that may be evident during the adoption phase, iness because they sought out the EBI and the funding for it
before intervention use begins, and carry over into the early (motivation), it may be important to consider other indicators
part of the implementation phase, when intervention delivery of readiness that influence the implementation process.
has only recently begun. Specifically, factors that are present Teachers report that even when their principals volunteer their
during the adoption phase and that positively predict fidelity school for training on a new EBI, motivation is not always
during the implementation phase may be thought of as indi- evident in principal actions and priorities (Wanless et al.
cators of readiness. Implementation theories and frameworks 2013). In fact, low readiness may be surprisingly prevalent.
suggest that considering readiness, or capacity, before a school In a study of over 200 preschool teachers, coaches reported
Prev Sci (2015) 16:1037–1043 1039

that 34 % of teachers were not ready to change their teaching the study, and are present at training sessions and for class-
practices (Peterson 2012). Assessing the state of a constella- room observations.
tion of factors that make teachers and schools more or less It is interesting to note that the construct of stress has been
ready, and tailoring implementation supports for those conceptualized at different levels across different studies in
teachers, may be one way to increase the implementation this issue; that is, school level stress (Roberts et al. 2015)
quality and sustainability of SEL interventions (Domitrovich and teacher level stress (Domitrovich et al. 2015). The mean-
et al. 2008; Wanless et al. 2015a, b, c). Research is needed to ing of these constructs changes across levels, and in some
identify the critical aspects of school and teacher capacity for cases, so does their statistical significance. Readiness re-
change that are measureable and have predictive utility for searchers may need to consider the implications of conceptu-
later implementation quality. We believe the studies included alizing aspects of readiness on certain levels, how that impacts
in this special issue provide an important first step in this the measures chosen to assess them, and their utility. The wide
effort. variation in the type of factors that were assessed in the studies
included in this special issue underscores the early stage of
this line of inquiry in which researchers are still exploring
possible factors, and there is more variation than consistency
Overview of Special Issue in the measurement approaches taken.

This special issue, Readiness to Implement Social-Emotional Level of Specificity Existing implementation frameworks
Learning Interventions, seeks to inform this aspect of imple- suggest that readiness may include some aspects of general
mentation science using empirical studies of school-based readiness (readiness to implement any EBI) and some aspects
SEL interventions that identify baseline predictors of imple- that are specific to the EBI being considered (Dymnicki et al.
mentation fidelity of SEL programs conducted in preschool 2014). An example of a general readiness capacity might be
and elementary school settings. The studies examine seven the organization’s openness to change, and an example of a
social-emotional learning (SEL) interventions; two that are specific capacity might be the use of a particular technology
conducted in preschool settings and five that are conducted (e.g., smart boards) that is part of the intervention. The major-
in elementary settings. All of the interventions have prior re- ity of studies in this special issue focus on general readiness,
search that documents the effectiveness of their approach. although some include intervention specific readiness such as
Across all of the papers, there is a focus on identifying theo- perceptions of the effectiveness of the intervention (Pas et al.
retically meaningful constructs during the adoption phase (or 2015; Domitrovich et al. 2015; Lochman et al. 2015) or use of
at the beginning of the implementation phase, when neces- intervention practices before training occurred (Wanless et al.
sary) and exploring how they relate to future implementation 2015a, b, c). The more frequent focus on factors that reflect
quality. general readiness may be a function of the practical utility of
The articles assess a wide variety of factors within and this general construct for the field. From a school’s or district’s
between educational levels (i.e., school, classroom, and stu- perspective, it may be useful to have a measure of general
dent) as is suggested by several frameworks for understanding readiness because schools often implement more than one
implementation in educational settings (Domitrovich et al. EBI at a time. A measure of general readiness may help them
2008; Paulsell et al. 2013). School level factors in this special to determine how to approach the upcoming year’s array of
issue range from school size and type, suspension rate and training sessions. Districts may also want to understand the
behavioral disruptions, support among teachers and climate, general degree of readiness of individual schools so they may
and school openness to innovation and SEL-related interven- make informed choices about allocating resources for a num-
tions. The classroom level is the least often addressed, al- ber of EBIs. Like the balance of emphases in this special issue,
though factors such as characteristics of the student population it may be helpful for the field to continue to consider
(race and poverty level) were included. The classroom level intervention-specific readiness, while not losing sight of the
also includes teacher factors and in these studies those includ- practical utility of a more general understanding of readiness.
ed teacher demographic characteristics and background, edu- In addition to clarifying the balance of measuring general
cation level, beliefs, personality, emotional functioning (i.e., and intervention-specific aspects of readiness, research is also
anxiety and stress), and their perceptions of the school and needed to determine the most reliable and valid reporters to
EBI effectiveness. It is likely that researchers more often focus provide ratings on these constructs. Just as a study in this
on teachers because teachers are the direct implementers of special issue (Williford et al. 2015) incorporated multiple
most SEL EBIs, and thus there is much attention paid to them sources of information to create a composite of fidelity of
throughout the training and implementation support process. implementation, it may be useful to take a similar approach
Moreover, teachers often seem most accessible for data col- to assessing readiness once the relevant factors are identified.
lection as they are already providing data on other aspects of Research in this area has just begun and preliminary findings
1040 Prev Sci (2015) 16:1037–1043

are mixed suggesting more work is needed. In some related Mechanisms In order to develop implementation support
research, ratings by educational leaders (elementary princi- systems that improve an individual or school’s readi-
pals) do not show high predictive validity (Wanless et al. ness, researchers need to examine the mechanisms
2013), but in other research, ratings by leaders (preschool through which various factors relate to implementation.
directors) show greater potential as readiness raters (Wanless Training is one of the most common activities designed
et al. 2015a, b, c). Most articles here rely heavily on teacher to improve a number of implementer readiness factors
report, but some incorporate other perspectives, such as including intervention buy-in and knowledge. One arti-
Lochman et al.’s (2015) use of student report. Once it is clear cle in this special issue investigates the role of teacher
what aspects of readiness to focus on, measurement develop- engagement in training as an important mechanism
ment that examines the use of multiple perspectives will be (Wanless et al. 2015a, b, c). There are many other po-
needed. tential mechanisms to be examined in future research
including relational trust and psychological safety
(Bryk et al. 2010; Edmondson and Lei 2014). It is not
Implementation Outcomes Previous research and the find- clear yet whether certain aspects of readiness make
ings of the studies included in this special issue suggest that teachers feel comfortable trusting their coworkers to
factors within and across educational levels are differentially support them as they change their practice. It may be
predictive of implementation outcomes depending on what that certain characteristics, such as self-efficacy or open-
indicator is assessed. Although there is an abundance of re- ness to innovation, could be considered indicators of
search documenting the importance of fidelity (Durlak and readiness since these provide teachers with the emotion-
Dupre 2008; Durlak et al. 2011; Elias 2006; Greenberg et al. al freedom to try a new practice without worrying about
2003, 2005), there are a multitude of accepted conceptualiza- being labeled as incompetent if the practice does not go
tions of implementation. Some of these studies reflected the well the first time.
traditional conceptualization of fidelity of implementation
(adherence, dosage, quality, participant responsiveness, and
program differentiation) established by Dane and Schneider Examples of Implementation Support Initiatives
(1998). The articles featured in this issue assessed dosage,
quality of intervention delivery, responsiveness, use of prac- Although we are not aware of interventions that specifically
tices in the classroom versus supplemental schoolwide prac- aim to increase readiness to implement EBIs, we describe
tice, and generalization. Although this special issue does not three initiatives that may potentially support readiness by
address which aspects of fidelity are most useful to assess, the targeting capacity building. The first attends to the broadest
differences across studies are important to note when synthe- level of change: the systems level. Experts in the field of SEL
sizing the findings of which readiness aspects have the suggest that the strongest benefit of school-based programs
greatest predictive utility. In other words, this variation in designed to promote students’ intra- and interpersonal compe-
conceptualizations of fidelity serves as a reminder that as we tence are achieved when programs are conducted in the con-
search for key aspects of readiness, it is important to ask which text of a systemic district and schoolwide approach (Elias et al.
aspects of readiness may predict specific aspects of 2015; Mart et al. 2015; Meyers et al. 2015; Oberle et al. 2016).
implementation. According to CASEL, this includes the following core com-
Some of the articles in this special issue conceptualize im- ponents and support features: (a) a shared vision for SEL that
plementation more broadly than the traditional definition of prioritizes the promotion of social, emotional, and academic
fidelity, which is the use of intervention practices in the class- learning for all students; (b) a process for identifying existing
room, as intended. Examples include use of supplemental ac- strengths and supports for SEL and building from those
tivities outside of the classroom (Malloy et al. 2015), use of strengths; (c) central office and school infrastructures and re-
practices outside of school (Roberts et al. 2015), and use of sources that provide ongoing professional learning; (d)
generalized practices (Williford et al. 2015). It is possible that evidence-based programs that support social and emotional
having higher readiness will also lead to positive use of prac- skill development in classrooms and through the school com-
tices beyond the original intent of the training. For example, munity; (f) the integration of SEL within all areas of school
when there are scripted activities, it is possible that a high level functioning (i.e., across multiple setting levels); and (g) a data-
of readiness would allow teachers to internalize the underlying driven cycle of inquiry that is designed to improve SEL prac-
principles and messages of the scripted activities, and let them tice and student outcomes (Weissberg et al. 2015). In order to
surface in other contexts and at other times of the day. This put these elements in place, CASEL has developed a planning
generalized implementation, or relatedly, positive adaptations and implementation support intervention for systemic
of the intervention practices, may have the potential to lead to schoolwide SEL (Meyers et al. 2015). The CASEL Guide to
even stronger SEL outcomes for children. Schoolwide SEL is currently being tested in a 28-school
Prev Sci (2015) 16:1037–1043 1041

randomized clinical trial in Chicago (Domitrovich et al. 2015). Concluding Remarks

All 28 schools are implementing the Promoting Alternative
Thinking Strategies (PATHS) Curriculum in grades K-3. Half Research is needed to determine what specific aspects of read-
the schools will conduct the program following a standard iness are most important, how individual or organizational
training and support model and the other half will implement aspects of readiness interact with one another, how much read-
the program in the context of a schoolwide support model. iness can be effectively conceptualized as a general construct
This 2-year process of schoolwide support involves schools versus an intervention-specific construct, and how to measure
creating an SEL leadership team that meets monthly and the and improve readiness. Despite these questions, it seems like-
provision of ongoing support to the principal and the SEL ly that readiness may include a constellation of indicators that
team from an SEL coach. If successful, this “readiness-relat- may contribute to differing degrees, and may interact with one
ed” initiative will address many of the multilevel factors iden- another (Wanless et al. 2015a, b, c). Knowing which factors
tified in the studies included in this special issue. predict a school’s likelihood of high implementation before
A second initiative that holds promise for promoting indi- training or program delivery begins may give stakeholders a
vidual and organizational readiness takes a school level ap- signal of what implementation challenges they may encounter,
proach to capacity building. Leading Together (LT) is inter- allowing them to take a more individualized approach to cre-
vention that is designed to build the individual strengths of ating implementation support systems. This approach would
school leaders. It has just completed an initial study demon- also allow schools or districts to allocate resources for imple-
strating its potential. The intervention begins with a 4-day mentation supports more strategically in an effort to increase
summer retreat and continues for 2 years with additional re- efficacy of the intervention in a cost-effective way. Across all
treat days and school coaching. During the retreats and of the papers in this special issue, one message is clear: Before
coaching, participants learn reflective and mindfulness prac- amassing resources or assembling a team of stakeholders, it is
tices, build adult community, and grow intra- and interperson- important to ask, “Does this teacher, and this school, have the
ally (Seigle et al. 2012). A 2-year study of LT in eight elemen- capacity to take on this intervention?”
tary schools found that schools that implemented LT fully had
increased professional capacity, relational trust, and academic
Compliance with Ethical Standards
optimism (Rimm-Kaufman et al. 2014). Although it is yet to
be determined if these factors are indicators of readiness, they Conflict of Interest Dr. Wanless has no conflicts of interest with re-
are closely aligned with the conceptualizations in some of the spect to authorship on the publication of this article. Dr. Domitrovich is an
articles in this special issue, and with previous research on author on the PATHS Curriculum and has a royalty agreement with
Channing-Bete, Inc. This has been reviewed and managed by Penn
schoolwide change (e.g., Bryk et al. 2010). This and other State’s Individual Conflict of Interest Committee.
inservice teacher interventions may provide a way to increase
readiness before schools embark on expensive interventions Human Participants and/or Animals There were no human or animal
they may or may not be ready for. participants involved in this article.
Finally, another approach to building individual teacher
Informed Consent Informed consent was not needed for this article.
capacity that has potential as a readiness intervention is pre-
service training. Teacher education programs provide a
unique and largely untapped opportunity for increasing read-
iness to implement evidence-based interventions. While this
approach does not address readiness at the organization lev-
References
el, it could increase teachers’ readiness to implement inter-
ventions by increasing their knowledge of social-emotional
Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Easton, J. Q., Luppescu, S.
development and skill at delivering interventions. As part of (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from
preliminary data collection for a year-long, mindfulness- Chicago. University of Chicago Press.
based course at the University of Pittsburgh (Attentional Catalano, R. F., Berglund, M. L., Ryan, J. A. M., Lonczak, H. S., &
Teaching Practices; ATP), findings indicated that preservice Hawkins, J. D. (2004). Positive youth development in the United
States: Research findings on evaluations of positive youth develop-
teachers with greater trait mindfulness felt greater general
ment programs. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political
capacity to begin teaching in high schools in the following and Social Science, 591, 98–124. doi:10.1177/0002716203260102.
year (Wanless et al. 2014). This finding combined with other Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. (2013).
ongoing research on preservice teacher education and mind- 2013 guide: Effective social and emotional learning programs:
fulness suggests that focusing on the teachers on social and Preschool and elementary school edition. Chicago: Author.
Dane, A. V., & Schneider, B. H. (1998). Program integrity in primary and
emotional skills may offer another vehicle for increasing early secondary prevention: Are implementation effects out of con-
teacher readiness to implement in their future placements trol? Clinical Psychology Review, 18, 23–4. doi:10.1016/S0272-
(Jennings 2014; Margolis et al. 2014). 7358(97)00043-3.
1042 Prev Sci (2015) 16:1037–1043

Domitrovich, C. E., Bradshaw, C. P., Poduska, J. M., Hoagwood, K., Jones, S. M., & Bouffard, S. M. (2012). Social and emotional learning in
Buckley, J. A., Olin, S., …, Ialongo, N. S. (2008). Maximizing the schools: From programs to strategies. Social Policy Report, 26, 1–
implementation quality of evidence-based preventive interventions 33.
in schools: A conceptual framework. Advances in School Mental Kam, C. M., & Yick, Y. Y. (2013). Promoting social emotional learning
Health Promotion, 1, 6–28. doi: 10.1080/1754730X.2008.9715730. among pre-schoolers in Chinese kindergartens: A feasibility study of
Domitrovich, C. E., Pas, E. T., Bradshaw, C. P., Becker, K. D., Keperling, preschool PATHS implementation in Hong Kong. Paper presented
J. P., Embry, D. D., & Ialongo, N. (2015). Individual and school at the 4th European Network for Social and Emotional Competence
organizational factors that influence implementation of the PAX (ENSEC) Conference, Zagreb. Abstract retrieved from http://hub.
Good Behavior Game intervention. Prevention Science. doi:10. hku.hk/handle/10722/187083.
1007/s11121-015-0557-8. Lochman, J. E., Powell, N. P., Boxmeyer, C. L., Qu, L., Sallee, M., Wells,
Durlak, J. A., & DuPre, E. P. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of K. C., & Windle, M. (2015). Counselor-level predictors of sustained
research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes use of an indicated preventive intervention for aggressive children.
and the factors affecting implementation. American Journal of Prevention Science. doi:10.1007/s11121-014-0511-1.
Community Psychology, 41, 327–350. doi:10.1007/s10464-008- Malloy, M., Acock, A., DuBois, D. L., Vuchinich, S., Silverthorn, N., Ji,
9165-0. P., & Flay, B. R. (2015). Teachers’ perceptions of school organiza-
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & tional climate as predictors of dosage and quality of implementation
Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social of a social-emotional and character development program.
and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal Prevention Science. doi:10.1007/s11121-014-0534-7.
interventions. Child Development, 82, 405–432. doi:10.1111/j. Margolis, J., Hodge, A., & Alexandrou, A. (2014). The teacher educator’s
1467-8624.2010.01564.x. role in promoting institutional versus individual teacher well-being.
Durlak, J. A., Domitrovich, C. E., Weissberg, R. P., & Gullotta, T. P. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and
(2015). Handbook of social and emotional learning: Research and Pedagogy, 40, 391–408. doi:10.1080/02607476.2014.929382.
practice. New York: Guilford. Mart, A. K., Weissberg, R. P., & Kendziora, K. (2015). Systemic support
Dymnicki, A., Wandersman, A., Osher, D., Grigorescu, V., Huang, L. for social and emotional learning in school districts. In J. A. Durlak,
(2014). Willing, able, ready: Basics and policy implications of read- C. E. Domitrovich, R. P. Weissberg, & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.),
iness as a key component for implementation of evidence-based Handbook of social and emotional learning: Research and practice
practices. (ASPE Issue Brief. Washington, DC: Office of the (pp. 482–499). New York: Guilford.
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Office of Human
Meyers, D. C., Durlak, J. A., & Wandersman, A. (2012). The quality
Services Policy). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and
implementation framework: A synthesis of critical steps in the im-
Human Services.
plementation process. American Journal of Community Psychology,
Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety: The history,
50, 462–480. doi:10.1007/s10464-012-9522-x.
renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review
Meyers, D. C., Gil, L., Cross, R., Keister, S., Domitrovich, C. E., &
of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 23–
Weissberg, R. P. (2015). CASEL guide for schoolwide social and
43. doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091305.
emotional learning. Chicago.
Elias, M. J. (2006). The connection between academic and social-emo-
Oberle, E., Domitrovich, C. E., Meyers, D. C., & Weissberg, R. P. (2016).
tional learning. In M. J. Elias & H. Arnold (Eds.), The educator’s
Establishing systemic social and emotional learning approaches in
guide to emotional intelligence and academic achievement (pp. 4–
schools: A framework for schoolwide implementation. Cambidge
14). Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
Journal of Education, (in press)
Elias, M. J., Leverett, L., Duffell, J. C., Humphrey, N., Stepney, C., &
Ferrito, J. (2015). Integrating SEL with related prevention and youth Pas, E. T., Waasdorp, T. E., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2015). Examining con-
development approaches. In J. A. Durlak, C. E. Domitrovich, R. P. textual influences on classroom-based implementation of Positive
Weissberg, & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), Handbook for social and emo- Behavior Support strategies: Findings from a randomized controlled
tional learning: Research and practice (pp. 33–49). New York: effectiveness trial. Prevention Science. doi:10.1007/s11121-014-
Guilford. 0492-0.
Greenberg, M. T., Domitrovich, C., & Bumbarger, B. (2001). The pre- Paulsell, D., Austin, A. M. B., & Lokteff, M. (2013). Measuring imple-
vention of mental disorders in school-aged children: Current state of mentation of early childhood interventions at multiple system levels
the field. Prevention & Treatment, 4, 1–62. (OPRE Research Brief OPRE 2013–16). Washington, DC: Office of
Greenberg, M. T., Domitrovich, C. E., Craczyk, P. A., & Zins, J. E. Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and
(2005). The study of implementation in school-based preventive in- Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
terventions: Theory, research, and practice. Promotion of mental Peterson, S. M. (2012). Understanding early educators’ readiness to
health and prevention of mental and behavior disorders (Vol. 3). change. NHSA Dialog, 15, 95–112.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Rimm-Kaufman, S.E., Leis, M, & Paxton, C. (2014). Innovating together
Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O’Brien, M. U., Zins, J. E., to improve the adult community in schools: Results from a two-year
Fredericks, L., Resnik, H., & Elias, M. J. (2003). Enhancing study of the initial implementation of Leading Together. Retrieved
school-based prevention and youth development through coordinat- f r o m h t t p : / / w w w. c o u r a g e r e n e w a l . o r g / P D F s / U VA _
ed social, emotional, and academic learning. American LeadingTogether_July_11_2014_Final_Full_Report.pdf.
Psychologist, 58, 466–474. Roberts, A. M., LoCasale-Crouch, J., DeCoster, J., Hamre, B. K.,
Hahn, R., Fuqua-Whitley, D., Wethington, H., Lowy, J., Crosby, A., Downer, J. T., Williford, A. P., & Pianta, R. C. (2015). Individual
Fullilove, M., … & Task Force on Community Preventive and contextual factors associated with pre-kindergarten teachers’
Services. (2007). Effectiveness of universal school-based programs responsiveness to the MyTeachingPartner coaching intervention.
to prevent violent and aggressive behavior: A systematic review. Prevention Science. doi:10.1007/s11121-014-0533-8.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 33, S114–S129. Sandler, I., Ostrom, A., Bitner, M. J., Ayers, T. S., Wolchik, S., & Smith-
Jennings, P. A. (2014). Early childhood teachers’ well-being, mindful- Daniels, V. (2005). Developing effective prevention services for the
ness, and self-compassion in relation to classroom quality and atti- real world: A prevention service development model. American
tudes towards challenging students. Mindfulness, 1–12. doi: 10. Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 127–142. doi:10.1007/
1007/s12671-014-0312-4. s10464-005-3389-z.
Prev Sci (2015) 16:1037–1043 1043

Scaccia, J. P., Cook, B. S., Lamont, A., Wandersman, A., Castellow, J., Connors, M. (Chair), Opportunities for Change: Maximizing the
Katz, J., & Beidas, R. S. (2015). A practical implementation science Impact of Quality Improvement Efforts in Early Care and
heuristic for organizational readiness: R = MC 2 . Journal of Education Programs. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of
Community Psychology, 43, 484–501. doi:10.1002/jcop.21698. the Society for Research in Child Development, Philadelphia.
Seigle, P., Wood, C., Sankowski, L., & Ackerman, R. (2012). Leading Wanless, S. B., Groark, C., & Hatfield, B. (2015b). Assessing organiza-
together: Building adult community in schools. The Courage & tional readiness. In J. Durlak, R. Weissburg, & T. Gullotta (Eds.),
Renewal guidebook for Courage in Schools leadership programs. Handbook of social emotional learning. New York: Guilford
Seattle: Center for Courage & Renewal. Publications.
Sklad, M., Diekstra, R., Ritter, M. D., Ben, J., & Gravesteijn, C. (2012). Wanless, S. B., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Abry, T., Larsen, R. A., & Patton,
Effectiveness of schoolbased universal social, emotional, and be- C. L. (2015c). Engagement in training as a mechanism to under-
havioral programs: Do they enhance students’ development in the standing fidelity of implementation of the Responsive Classroom
area of skill, behavior, and adjustment? Psychology in the Schools, approach. Prevention Science. doi:10.1007/s11121-014-0519-6.
49, 892–909. Weissberg, R. P., Durlak, J. A., Domitrovich, C. E., & Gullotta, T. P.
Spoth, R., Rohrbach, L. A., Greenberg, M. T. Robertson, E., Leaf, P., (2015). Social and emotional learning: Past, present, and future. In
Brown, C. H., … Hawkins, J.D. (2013). Addressing challenges for J. A. Durlak, C. E. Domitrovich, R. P. Weissberg, & T. P. Gullotta
the next generation of type 2 translation research: The translation (Eds.), Handbook for social and emotional learning: Research and
science to population impact framework. Prevention Science 14, practice (pp. 3–19). New York: Guilford.
319–351. doi: 10.1007/s11121-012-0362-6. Williford, A. P., Wolcott, C. S., Whittaker, J. V., & Locasale-Crouch, J.
Wanless, S. B., Patton, C. S., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Deutsch, N. L. (2015). Program and teacher characteristics predicting the imple-
(2013). Setting-level influences on implementation of the mentation of Banking Time with preschoolers who display disrup-
Responsive Classroom approach. Prevention Science, 14, 40–51. tive behaviors. Prevention Science. doi:10.1007/s11121-015-0544-
doi:10.1007/s11121-012-0294-1. 0.
Wanless, S.B., Wallace, T., Cartier, J., Akiva, T., Ferrara, A., Johnson, C. Wilson, S. J., & Lipsey, M. W. (2007). School-based interventions for
(2014). Helping preservice teachers feel ready to teach: Mindfulness aggressive and disruptive behavior: Update of a meta-analysis.
and self-regulation. In K. Schonert-Reichel (Chair), Social and American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 33, S130–S143.
Emotional Learning in Teacher Preparation: Emerging Policy, Yoshikawa, H., Leyva, D., Snow, C. E., Treviño, E., Barata, M., Weiland,
Research, and Programs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of C., … Arbour, M. C. (2015). Experimental impacts of a teacher
the American Educational Research Association, Philadelphia. professional development program in Chile on preschool classroom
Wanless, S.B., Briggs, J.O., Pieri, J.W. (2015). Assessing a preschool’s quality and child outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 51, 309–
readiness to implement using multiple raters and multiple levels. In 322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038785.