Examining the Differential Effects of a Universal SEL Curriculum on Student Functioning Through the Dual Continua Model of Mental Health

Dual factor mental health model: Validation through mixture modeling and cut scores

“…Three‐related analyses aligned to the research questions. We used LPA, guided by our DFM theory and results from previous studies (Thayer et al, 2019), to determine the number of profiles in the fall and spring measures separately. For the second research question, we used the same cut‐score classification technique as Thayer et al (2019) to calculate proportions of individuals who were classified into the same groups via LPA.…”

“…We used LPA, guided by our DFM theory and results from previous studies (Thayer et al, 2019), to determine the number of profiles in the fall and spring measures separately. For the second research question, we used the same cut‐score classification technique as Thayer et al (2019) to calculate proportions of individuals who were classified into the same groups via LPA. Finally, we investigated the third research question using LTA based on the model results of the LPA and using a dichotomous treatment variable as an explanatory variable for transition pathways.…”

“…Although applying the DFM to educational environments is a relatively new area of research (emerging within the past 20 years; Greenspoon & Saklofske, 2001; see Smith, 2018, for review of DFM studies), it may provide schools with a useful method for assessing the overall quality of student mental health, identifying student needs that can be addressed by evidence‐based interventions, and quantifying the impact of universal SEB programs (Thayer et al, 2019). Utilizing the DFM to conceptualize the comprehensive quality of student mental health may enhance existing multi‐tiered systems of support (MTSS) to address concerns related to both academic achievement and social–emotional/behavioral functioning across varying levels of student need (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016).…”

“…Clinical T ‐scores—which should be familiar to practitioners—are another method of using norm‐referenced assessments to create DFM groups which may facilitate diagnostics and clinical decision‐making (see Suldo & Shaffer, 2008, for an example). By administering assessments that capture both wellbeing and distress it is possible to group student scores into one of the four categories in the DFM, gauge the overall mental health of a school system, identify needs to address via evidence‐based intervention, and measure the impact of universal SEB programming (Thayer et al, 2019). There are benefits to theory‐driven approaches including their implementation feasibility and ease, low skill and resource demand, and conceptual clarity.…”

“…To use the DFM to guide decisions across the year, school practitioners need confidence in the long‐term utility of the framework; the initial steps of which involve examining the likelihood of students' observed need transitioning between quadrants in isolation from programming (e.g., Moore et al, 2019b) and in the presence of interventions with known general outcomes. For this study, we leveraged data from an evaluation of the Second Step‐Fourth Edition social–emotional learning curriculum which has been thoroughly investigated in multiple prior studies (Low et al, 2015, 2019; Thayer et al, 2019). Based on the results of these studies, there were known interaction effects between the Second Step and students with the greatest needs on various outcomes.…”