Educational and Psychological Measurement - Iowa ASCDiowaascd.org/files/8713/2598/4754/Measures_of_social_and_emotional... · Measurement Educational and Psychological ... questionnaires,

http://epm.sagepub.com/Measurement

Educational and Psychological

http://epm.sagepub.com/content/71/4/617The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0013164410382896

2011 71: 617Educational and Psychological MeasurementDeighton and Miranda Wolpert

Neil Humphrey, Afroditi Kalambouka, Michael Wigelsworth, Ann Lendrum, JessicaSystematic Review

Measures of Social and Emotional Skills for Children and Young People : A

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

at: can be foundEducational and Psychological MeasurementAdditional services and information for

http://epm.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://epm.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://epm.sagepub.com/content/71/4/617.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Jun 29, 2011Version of Record >>

by guest on January 1, 2012epm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://epm.sagepub.com/

http://epm.sagepub.com/content/71/4/617

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://epm.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://epm.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://epm.sagepub.com/content/71/4/617.refs.html

http://epm.sagepub.com/content/71/4/617.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml


Educational and Psychological Measurement

71(4) 617 –637© The Author(s) 2011

Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0013164410382896http://epm.sagepub.com

Measures of Social and Emotional Skills for Children and Young People: A Systematic Review

Neil Humphrey1, Afroditi Kalambouka1, Michael Wigelsworth1, Ann Lendrum1, Jessica Deighton2, and Miranda Wolpert2

Abstract

This study presents the findings of a systematic review of measures of social and emotional skills for children and young people. The growing attention to this area in recent years has resulted in the development of a large number of measures to aid in the assessment of children and young people. These measures vary on a number of variables relating to implementation characteristics and psychometric properties. The methodology of the review followed the general principles of systematic reviewing, such as systematic search of databases, the adoption of predetermined set of inclusion and exclusion criteria, and a multistage filtering process. The review process resulted in the retention of 12 measures, which are presented and discussed in relation to key issues in this area, including difficulties with the underlying theory and frameworks for social and emotional skills, inconsistent terminology, the scope and distinctiveness of available measures, and more practical issues such as the type of respondent, location, and purpose of measurement.

Keywords

social and emotional skills, measurement, children

1University of Manchester, Manchester, UK2The Anna Freud Centre, London, UK

Corresponding Author:Neil Humphrey, School of Education, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UKEmail: [email protected]



618 Educational and Psychological Measurement 71(4)

Introduction

This article reports on the findings of a systematic review of measures of social and emotional skills for children and young people. Its intended contributions are (a) to provide an overview of the state of the field in this important area of psychological measurement, (b) to highlight key issues pertaining to the definition and measurement of social and emotional skills in children and young people, and (c) to outline and discuss the implementation characteristics and psychometric properties of the 12 mea-sures of social and emotional skills that passed our systematic review screening process and are firmly established in the academic literature in this area.

The article is the first (to our best knowledge) truly systematic and rigorous review of measures of social and emotional skills for children and young people, and as such it may provide a unique contribution to knowledge in this field. It is intended to be of use to researchers and practitioners with an interest in children’s social and emotional skills around the world. To this end, we have included information pertaining to the availability of norms and translated versions of the measures identified during the review process. This is of particular importance given the increasing interest in children’s social and emotional skills in countries other than the United States and the United Kingdom (Fundacion Marcelino Botin, 2008).

Defining Social and Emotional SkillsIn recent years, educational policies in the United Kingdom, the United States, and elsewhere have reflected a growing interest and investment in the development of social and emotional skills as a means to promote children’s well-being, adjustment, and academic achievement. The issue of the mixed and inconclusive evidence on the effec-tiveness of these approaches is a matter of ongoing debate that has generated a great deal of academic and professional interest and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future (Humphrey, Curran, Morris, Farrell, & Woods, 2007; Humphrey et al., 2008; Zeidner, Roberts, & Matthews, 2002). However, more fundamental issues—such as inconsistencies in the definition, measurement, and utility of the concept of social and emotional skills—also need to be acknowledged and explored (Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2004; Wigelsworth, Humphrey, Kalambouka, & Lendrum, 2010). There seems to be little common consensus as regards to what is meant by social and emotional skills, and how they are best measured. As Humphrey et al. (2007) have argued, clear definition is a basic scientific requirement—yet one is still lacking in this area.

“Social and emotional skills” is referred to in this article as it is the currently preferred term in English government policy documentation (e.g., Department for Children, Schools and Families [DCSF], 2007a, 2007b). We use it to incorporate other terms, such as “social and emotional intelligence,” “emotional literacy,” and “social and emotional competence,” among others. Although some authors (e.g., Weare & Gray, 2003) have argued for the differentiation of these terms, reviews of the literature in this area (e.g., Humphrey et al., 2007; Wigelsworth et al., 2010) have led us to the



Humphrey et al. 619

conclusion that they do not describe qualitatively different concepts. In defining social and emotional skills, we refer readers to the framework of social–emotional competence proposed by Denham (2005a). Drawing on the work of Rose-Krasnor (1997) and Payton et al. (2000), Denham proposes a delineation of relational/prosocial skills and emotional competence skills as given in Table 1.

This model benefits from reflecting the domains outlined in major theoretical models (e.g., Bar-On, 1997; Goleman, 1995; Salovey & Mayer, 1990) in this area, without suffering from the nebulous, imprecise nature of the more wide-ranging definitions (e.g., Petrides & Furnham, 2001) that have attracted criticism from skeptics (see Mat-thews, Zeidner, et al., 2004).

A number of key issues in reviewing measures of social and emotional skills are suggested in the literature. In brief, these include (a) the distinction between capturing typical and maximal behavior (Wilhelm, 2005), (b) the extent to which measures of social and emotional skills provide information that is distinct or unique among existing constructs (e.g., personality), (c) the scope and specificity of measures (e.g., single, unidimensional vs. complex, multidimensional), and (d) who provides information (e.g., children, teacher, parent, peers; see Wigelsworth et al., 2010).

Rationale and Context for the Current StudyThe accurate assessment of social and emotional skills in children and young people has crucial implications for public health because of the associations with mental health, academic performance, and other key outcomes (Denham, Wyatt, Bassett, Echeverria, & Knox, 2009). In late 2008, the authors were commissioned by the DCSF to conduct a systematic review of measures of social and emotional skills for children and young people (Humphrey et al., 2009) as companion to a systematic review of measures of child mental health in children (Wolpert et al., 2009). The aim of the review was to identify a range of measures suitable for assessing social and emotional skills in children and young people for possible future inclusion in a population survey relating to progress toward the “2020 vision” in the Children’s Plan (DCSF, 2007b). This policy document

Table 1. Denham’s (2005a) Framework for Social–Emotional Competence

Emotional competence skills Self-awareness Understanding self emotionsSelf-management Emotional and behavioral regulationSocial awareness Understanding emotions

Empathy/sympathyRelational/prosocial skills Social problem solving

Relationship skills CooperationListening skillsTurn-takingSeeking help




sets out an ambitious set of goals for children in England to be achieved by the year 2020, including a focus on improving social and emotional skills. Beyond this, we felt that a review of this kind was extremely timely. Although there are a handful of discus-sion papers (e.g., Wigelsworth et al., 2010) and reviews (e.g., Denham, 2005a; Stewart-Brown & Edmunds, 2003) in the literature, they are all selective and none have applied a rigorous and systematic approach. Furthermore, given the emphasis on monitoring and evaluation in currently popular initiatives such as the Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning (SEAL) program, a review of this kind should also be useful to practitioners. Although the DCSF have provided a guidance document on this topic (see DCSF, 2007a), it contains no substantive references to issues such as reliability and validity, and only one of the recommended measures has undergone any kind of appropriate validation process. Finally, given the high level of academic interest and debate around the concept of emotional intelligence, a review of this kind is crucial: “Determining whether EI [emotional intelligence] is a measurable quality is central to its development as a scientific construct” (Matthews, Roberts, & Zeidner, 2004, p. 182).

Review MethodThe present review followed the general paradigm of a parallel systematic review of mental health measures for children and young people (Wolpert et al., 2009). The review followed a systematic process across six consecutive stages, summarized in the flow diagram given in Figure 1 and described below.

Stages 1: Identification of MeasuresSetting the Parameters of the Review and Search of Key Databases. Following the paral-

lel child mental health review (Wolpert et al., 2009), “outcome measures” were defined as any assessment or evaluation tools (e.g., questionnaires, checklists, or scales) that aim to measure the social and emotional skills of children and young people. The terms of the “measures of social and emotional skills” review were divided into three catego-ries (see below) and their related terms (see Table 2):

a. terms relating to social and emotional skills,b. terms relating to measurement, andc. terms relating to the population under study (children and young people)

Initial database searches focused on the main psychology, sociology, education, and medical databases. However, searches in the main medical databases produced limited relevant hits and a lot of irrelevant hits (e.g., those that were within the child mental health review remit), so it was decided that the medical databases would be dropped in favor of more extensive searches in the following educational, social and psychology databases: PsychInfo, Education Resources Information Centre (ERIC), British Educa-tion Index (BEI), Australian Education Index (AEI), and Applied Social Sciences Indexes



Humphrey et al. 621

and Abstracts (ASSIA). All related terms for each of the three categories of interest (see Table 1) were then entered in the thesaurus facility within each database in order to ensure that the key words under which articles were catalogued would be identified through using the appropriate terms within each specific database. The thesaurus searches produced additional relevant key words and/or headings, which were then incorporated into subsequent searches. For example, the terms “emotional adjustment” and “emotional development” were identified within the ERIC thesaurus facility search and were later used to capture relevant articles. Any additional terms produced through the thesaurus/heading search that were too broad and produced too many irrelevant hits were later

Detailedexamination offinal measures

Collecting moreInformation onretainedmeasures andfurther sifting

Sifting ofmeasures

Identification ofmeasures

Stage 1: Literature searches in 5databases: Psychinfo, ERIC, BEI,

AEI, and ASSIA

Stage 2: Secondary searches andcollective knowledge tranche

Stage 3: Filtering of measuresaccording to inclusion and

exclusion criteria

Stage 4: Secondary searches;requests to measure developers

for more information

Stage 5: Filtering according toacademic presence - number of

articles using measure

Stage 6: Presentation anddescription – implementation

characteristics, and psychometricproperties

Identification of 189measures

Filtering down to 52measures



Figure 1. Stages in the systematic review process




discarded. This stage generated a list of final search terms, which were then used to run searches across each of the databases (see Table 3).

A total of 2,870 hits were transferred and saved into bibliographic applications (EndNote 9.0.1 for the ASSIA and PsychInfo databases; Reference Manager v11 for the ERIC, BEI, and AEI databases). Basic filtering was then applied through reading the title (and/or abstract in cases where the title was not sufficient) to discard the obvi-ously irrelevant hits (i.e., papers not related to the measurement of children’s social and emotional skills). Basic filtering resulted in a total of 542 articles. The details of these articles (title, abstract, and publication details) were transferred into Excel spread-sheets, where further filtering took place involving the application of the following exclusion criteria: (a) no social and/or emotional skills measure mentioned in the abstract, (b) the measure mentioned was too narrow to provide a broad assessment of social and emotional skills (e.g., focused exclusively on just one specific aspect of social and emotional skills such as empathy), (c) the article referred to a measure that was not used with child or adolescent populations, (d) the article was not in English, and/or (e) the article was a duplicate of a previous hit within the database. All remaining hits after this filtering procedure were organized according to the measures they referred to, resulting to a total of 137 measures.

Stage 2: Secondary Searches and Collective Knowledge TrancheThe list of 137 measures was complemented by a number of measures from a “collec-tive knowledge tranche.” These were measures that were known to members of the research team through previous research. Additional measures were identified through reviewing papers and compendiums (e.g., Denham, 2005a) and/or bibliographic refer-ences. The authors also contacted a number of relevant groups and organizations (e.g., Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning; Antidote) via email, but

Table 2. Categories of Interests and Related Terms for the Systematic Review

Category Related Terms

1. Social and emotional skills Social/emotionalSocial, emotional, socioemotional, socio-emotional, effect,

affective, interpersonalSkillsSkills, intelligence, competence, literacy, learning, awareness,

ability, regulation2. Measurement Measure, measurement, questionnaire, survey, checklist,

check list, tool, rating scale, scale, inventory, assessment, evaluation, screening, instrument, test

3. Population of interest Children, adolescents, pupils, students



Humphrey et al. 623

Table 3. Final Search Terms for the Systematic Review

Database Search Terms for Subject Heading Initial HitsHits After

Basic Filtering

ASSIA DE = (emotion* or social) and DE = (skills or intelligence or competence or learning or awareness or regulation or behavior or interaction) and DE = (measure* or questionnaire* or assessment or test* or survey* or scale* or evaluation or instrument*) and DE = (child* or (young people) or adolescent* or pupil* or student*)

172 80

ERIC, BEI, and AEI

(emotional skills OR socioemotional skills OR social intelligence OR social competence OR emotional literacy OR emotional development OR social development OR interpersonal competence OR social cognition OR affective behavior OR social behavior OR social skills OR emotional intelligence OR emotional competence OR socioemotional competence OR social literacy OR socioemotional literacy OR social learning OR emotional learning OR social awareness OR emotional awareness OR emotional adjustment OR emotional-response OR social ability OR emotional ability OR socioemotional ability) DE AND (Measurement OR Questionnaire OR Rating-Scale OR surveys OR check-list OR psychometric OR assessment OR screening) DE AND (children OR adolescent OR pupil OR student) DE

1820 390

PsychInfo (emotion* or social* or socio*) AND (measure* or question* or survey or check* or tool or rating or scale* or inventor* or instrument* or test* or screening or repository or assessment* or evaluation*) AND (child* or adolscen* or youth* or young* or pupil* or student*)

788 72

Note. ASSIA = Applied Social Sciences Indexes and Abstracts; ERIC = Education Resources Information Centre; BEI = British Education Index; AEI = Australian Education Index. “Hits” refers to the number of articles identified in each database.

this did not result in the procurement of any measures not already identified elsewhere. A total of 52 measures identified in this stage were added to the existing list for further sorting, increasing the total number of measures to 189.




Stage 3: Sifting of Measures

Filtering of Measures According to Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria. This stage involved reading of the relevant abstract and/or article and applying a list of inclusion/exclusion criteria. A measure was included if it met all of the inclusion criteria and excluded if it met one or more of the exclusion criteria:

Inclusion criteria. To include a measure of social and emotional skills for children and adolescents, the measure should

1. seek to provide measurement of generic social and emotional skills in children and young people (up to 18);

2. be either multidimensional or unidimensional;3. refer to a measure that can be completed by child or parents/carers with the

possible addition of professionals such as teachers (but not by teachers only);4. have been validated in a child or adolescent context, even if not originally

developed for this purpose;5. be available in English language; and6. be able to be used with a reasonably wide age range (e.g., not just for

preschoolers).

Exclusion criteria. A measure would be excluded if it:

1. is not available in English;2. does not measure social and/or emotional skills;3. does not cover a broad range of social and/or emotional skills (e.g., focused

exclusively on just one specific aspect of social and emotional skills such as empathy—see Table 1);

4. is not used with children and/or adolescents;5. is based on professional report only (e.g., teacher, educational psychologist,

or other practitioner);6. takes more than 30 minutes to complete;7. provides open-ended responses that have to be manually coded;8. the age range is too narrow (e.g., preschool version of the measure only);9. has not been used with a variety of populations (e.g., only used with specialist

groups such as children with autism).

Following application of the above criteria, the list of 187 measures was reduced to 52 measures (for a list of the 52 measures see Humphrey et al., 2009). Measures for which information from the abstract/article did not provide adequate evidence to apply the above inclusion/exclusion criteria at this stage were still retained until further evi-dence was available to enable a decision on retention.



Humphrey et al. 625

Stage 4: Collecting More Information on Retained Measures

Secondary Searches and Requests to Measure Developers for More Informa-tion. The above list of the 52 potentially suitable measures was organized in an Excel database, where information was entered on the following variables: a brief description of the measure, different versions available (e.g., child, parent, teacher), number of items and completion time, scales and subscales are included in the measure, response format (e.g., 4-point Likert-type scale), information on reliability (internal consistency, test–retest) and validity (e.g., construct validity), sample items, cost, and key references. To provide as complete information as possible on these variables, several procedures were followed: (a) an attempt was made to obtain as many articles as possible on each measure and (b) measure developers were contacted through email/telephone to fill in gaps in our database and to request manuals and articles. As we found more detailed information on each measure it became obvious that some did not meet the inclusion/exclusion criteria set out in the previous stage (for instance, if we found that a given measure could only be completed by teachers). By the end of this stage a total of 23 measures were retained.

Stage 5: Filtering According to Academic Presence: Number of Articles Using MeasureThis stage involved a further filtering process in which only measures that had been used in four or more articles in peer-reviewed academic journals were retained. This was done in an effort to retain only measures with an established and sustained presence in the academic literature, whilst also ensuring a workable number of measures for detailed examination in the final stage. Four or more articles was considered to be a useful benchmark since it would typically signify that the measure has gone beyond basic development and validation and is being used by the academic community for program evaluation, theory development, and so on. This process resulted in 12 mea-sures being retained.

Stage 6: Detailed Examination of Final MeasuresPresentation and Description: Implementation Characteristics and Psychometric Properties of Final 12 Measures. The final 12 measures were reviewed in depth in relation to their implementation characteristics and psychometric properties. These are presented in Tables 4 and 5, respectively.

DiscussionThe primary purpose of our systematic review was to was to identify a range of measures suitable for assessing social and emotional skills in children and young people for pos-sible future inclusion in a population survey relating to progress toward the “2020



626

Tabl

e 4.

Impl

emen

tatio

n C

hara

cter

istic

s of

the

Fin

al 1

2 M

easu

res

Mea

sure

Acr

onym

Max

imal

or

Typi

cal

Scop

eA

ge

(Yea

rs)

Vers

ions

Leng

th

Com

plet

ion

Tim

e (M

inut

es)

Scal

es a

nd S

ubsc

ales

Res

pons

e Sc

ales

Oth

er L

angu

ages

Bar-

On

Emot

iona

l Q

uotie

nt

Inve

ntor

y: Yo

uth

Vers

ion

(Bar

-On

&

Park

er, 2

008)

EQI:Y

V,

EQI:Y

V(S

)Ty

pica

lSo

cial

– em

otio

nal

7-18

Chi

ld60

, 30(

S)20

-25,

10

-15

(S)

Tota

l em

otio

nal i

ntel

ligen

ce,

inte

rper

sona

l, in

trap

erso

nal,

adap

tabi

lity,

stre

ss m

anag

emen

t, ge

nera

l moo

d, p

ositi

ve

impr

essi

on, i

ncon

sist

ency

in

dex

Like

rt 1

-4Pe

di (

Sout

h A

fric

a)

Chi

ld A

sser

tive

Beha

viou

r Sc

ale

(Mic

hels

on &

Woo

d,

1982

)

CA

BS,

CA

BS-S

RM

axim

al

(chi

ld),

typi

cal

(oth

er)

Soci

al8-

12C

hild

, pa

rent

, te

ache

r

2710

-15

Tota

l ass

ertiv

enes

s, pa

ssiv

ity,

and

aggr

essi

vene

ssM

ultip

le

choi

ce

1-5

Span

ish,

D

utch

Soci

al C

ompe

tenc

e an

d Be

havi

or

Eval

uatio

n Sc

ale

(LaF

reni

ere

&

Dum

as, 1

996)

SCBE

Typi

cal

Soci

al2.

5-6.

5Te

ache

r,

pare

nt80

, 30(

S)15

Dep

ress

ive–

joyf

ul, a

nxio

us–

secu

re, a

ngry

–tol

eran

t, is

olat

ed–i

nteg

rate

d,

aggr

essi

ve–c

alm

, eg

otis

tical

–pro

soci

al,

oppo

sitio

nal–

coop

erat

ive,

de

pend

ent–

auto

nom

ous

and

4 su

mm

ary

scal

es:

soci

al c

ompe

tenc

e,

exte

rnal

izin

g pr

oble

ms,

inte

rnal

izin

g pr

oble

ms,

and

gene

ral a

dapt

atio

n

Like

rt 1

-6Fr

ench

-C

anad

ian,

Sp

anis

h,

Japa

nese

, R

ussi

an,

Chi

nese

, Po

rtug

uese

, It

alia

n,

Aus

tria

n-G

erm

an

Pres

choo

l and

K

inde

rgar

ten

Beha

viou

r Sc

ales

-2

(Mer

rell,

1996

)

PKBS

-2Ty

pica

lSo

cial

3-6

Teac

her,

pare

nt76

12So

cial

coo

pera

tion,

so

cial

inte

ract

ion,

so

cial

inde

pend

ence

, ex

tern

aliz

ing

prob

lem

s an

d in

tern

aliz

ing

prob

lem

s

Like

rt 1

-4Sp

anis

h

Pros

ocia

l Ten

denc

ies

Mea

sure

–Rev

ised

(C

arlo

, Hau

sman

n,

Chr

istia

nsen

, &

Ran

dall,

2003

)

PTM

-RTy

pica

lSo

cial

– em

otio

nal

11-1

8C

hild

2530

Publ

ic, a

nony

mou

s, di

re,

emot

iona

l, co

mpl

iant

an

d al

trui

stic

pro

soci

al

beha

vior

Like

rt 1

-5

(con

tinue

d)



627

Chi

ld R

atin

g Sc

ale

(Hig

htow

er,

Cow

en, S

pine

ll, &

Lo

tycz

ewsk

i, 19

87)

CR

STy

pica

lSo

cial

5-13

Chi

ld,

pare

nt,

teac

her

24, 3

8 (t

each

er),

18 (

pare

nt)

10-2

0R

ule

com

plia

nce/

actin

g ou

t, an

xiet

y/w

ithdr

awal

, in

terp

erso

nal s

ocia

l ski

lls,

self-

conf

iden

ce (

child

); ac

ting

out,

shy-

anxi

ous,

lear

ning

, fru

stra

tion

tole

ranc

e, a

sser

tive

soci

al

skill

s, ta

sk o

rien

tatio

n,

peer

soc

iabi

lity

(tea

cher

); A

ctin

g ou

t, fr

ustr

atio

n to

lera

nce,

shy

-anx

ious

and

pe

er s

ocia

bilit

y (p

aren

t)

Like

rt 1

-3

Soci

al S

kills

Im

prov

emen

t Sy

stem

(G

resh

am &

El

liot,

1990

)

SSIS

, SSR

STy

pica

lSo

cial

– em

otio

nal

3-18

Chi

ld,

pare

nt,

teac

her

79 (

pare

nt),

75 (

child

), 83

(te

ache

r)

10-2

5So

cial

ski

lls (

com

mun

icat

ion,

co

oper

atio

n, a

sser

tion,

re

spon

sibi

lity,

empa

thy,

enga

gem

ent,

self-

cont

rol),

co

mpe

ting

prob

lem

be

havi

ors

(ext

erna

lizin

g, bu

llyin

g, hy

pera

ctiv

ity/

inat

tent

ion,

inte

rnal

izin

g, au

tism

spe

ctru

m),

and

acad

emic

com

pete

nce

(rea

ding

ach

ieve

men

t, m

ath

achi

evem

ent,

mot

ivat

ion

to le

arn)

Like

rt 1

-4Sp

anis

h,

Iran

ian

Ass

essm

ent

of

Chi

ldre

n’s

Emot

ion

Skill

s (S

chul

tz, I

zard

, &

Bea

r, 20

04)

AC

ESM

axim

alEm

otio

nal

4-8

Chi

ld56

10-2

5Em

otio

nal a

ttri

butio

n ac

cura

cy, a

nger

att

ribu

tion

tend

enci

es, h

appi

ness

at

trib

utio

n te

nden

cies

, sa

dnes

s at

trib

utio

n te

nden

cies

Mul

tiple

ch

oice

1-

5

(con

tinue

d)

Tabl

e 4.

(co

ntin

ued)

Mea

sure

Acr

onym

Max

imal

or

Typi

cal

Scop

eA

ge

(Yea

rs)

Vers

ions

Leng

th

Com

plet

ion

Tim

e (M

inut

es)

Scal

es a

nd S

ubsc

ales

Res

pons

e Sc

ales

Oth

er L

angu

ages



628

Emot

ion

Reg

ulat

ion

Che

cklis

t (S

hiel

ds &

C

icch

etti,

199

7)

ERC

Typi

cal

Emot

iona

l6-

12Pa

rent

, te

ache

r24

10N

egat

ivity

, em

otio

nal

regu

latio

nLi

kert

1-4

Mat

son

Eval

uatio

n of

So

cial

Ski

lls w

ith

Youn

gste

rs (

Mat

son,

R

otar

i, &

Hel

sel,

1983

)

MES

SYTy

pica

lSo

cial

– em

otio

nal

4-18

Chi

ld,

teac

her

64 (

teac

her)

, 62

(ch

ild)

10-2

5A

ppro

pria

te s

ocia

l sk

ills,

inap

prop

riat

e as

sert

iven

ess,

impu

lsiv

enes

s, ov

erco

nfid

ent

beha

vior

, je

alou

sy

Like

rt 1

-5Ja

pane

se,

Span

ish,

Tu

rkis

h,

Chi

nese

, D

utch

, Po

rtug

uese

Dia

gnos

tic A

naly

sis

of N

onve

rbal

A

ccur

acy

(Now

icki

&

Duk

e, 1

989)

DA

NVA

Max

imal

Emot

iona

l4-

adul

tC

hild

16-3

230

Inte

rpre

tatio

n of

chi

ld a

nd

adul

t fa

ces,

para

lang

uage

an

d po

stur

e

Mul

tiple

ch

oice

1-

4

Diff

eren

tial E

mot

ions

Sc

ale

(Izar

d,

Dou

gher

ty, B

loxo

m,

& K

otsc

h, 1

974)

DES

-IVTy

pica

lEm

otio

nal

7-ad

ult

Chi

ld36

10-1

5Po

sitiv

e em

otio

nalit

y (in

tere

st, j

oy, s

urpr

ise)

, ne

gativ

e em

otio

nalit

y (s

hyne

ss, s

adne

ss, a

nger

, di

sgus

t, co

ntem

pt, s

elf-

host

ility

, fea

r, gu

ilt a

nd

sham

e)

Like

rt 1

-5

Tabl

e 4.

(co

ntin

ued)

Mea

sure

Acr

onym

Max

imal

or

Typi

cal

Scop

eA

ge

(Yea

rs)

Vers

ions

Leng

th

Com

plet

ion

Tim

e (M

inut

es)

Scal

es a

nd S

ubsc

ales

Res

pons

e Sc

ales

Oth

er L

angu

ages



629

Tabl

e 5.

Psy

chom

etri

c Pr

oper

ties

of t

he F

inal

12

Mea

sure

s

Mea

sure

U.S

. N

orm

sU

.K.

Nor

ms

Rel

iabi

lity

Valid

ity

Inte

rnal

Test

–Ret

est

Oth

erFa

ctor

ial

Con

verg

ent

Dis

crim

inat

ive

Pred

ictiv

eO

ther

EQI:Y

VYe

sYe

s.6

7-.9

0.7

7-.8

9St

anda

rd e

rror

of

mea

sure

men

t an

d pr

edic

tion

avai

labl

e by

age

an

d ge

nder

Yes

Cor

rela

tes

with

adu

lt em

otio

nal

inte

llige

nce,

pe

rson

ality

, in

tern

aliz

ing

and

exte

rnal

izin

g pr

oble

ms

Dis

tingu

ishe

s be

twee

n gi

fted

an

d no

ngift

ed

stud

ents

Pred

icts

pro

blem

ga

mbl

ing

in

adol

esce

nce

and

acad

emic

ac

hiev

emen

t in

hig

h sc

hool

CA

BSN

oN

o.7

9 (t

otal

sc

ale)

0.66

-0.7

8 (4

w

eeks

)Ye

s (fo

r bo

th s

ingl

e an

d du

al

stru

ctur

e)

Cor

rela

tes

with

soc

ial

prob

lem

sol

ving

Dis

tingu

ishe

s be

twee

n ch

ildre

n w

ith h

igh

and

low

so

ciom

etri

c st

atus

SCBE

Yes

No

.80-

.89

.74-

.87

(2

wee

ks),

.59-

.70

(6

mon

ths)

Yes

Cor

rela

tes

mod

erat

ely

with

inte

rnal

izin

g an

d ex

tern

aliz

ing

prob

lem

s

Diff

eren

tiate

d a

smal

ler

clin

ical

sa

mpl

e fr

om t

he

over

all s

ampl

e

Pred

icts

soc

ial

inte

ract

ion/

reje

ctio

n an

d pe

er

vict

imiz

atio

nPK

BS-2

Yes

No

.84-

.97

.58-

.86

(3

wee

ks),

.69-

.78

(3

mon

ths)

Stan

dard

err

or o

f m

easu

rem

ent

avai

labl

e;

inte

rrat

er

relia

bilit

y: .3

6-.6

3

Yes

Cor

rela

ted

with

oth

er

esta

blis

hed

mea

sure

s of

soc

ial s

kills

, whi

le

prob

lem

beh

avio

r sc

ores

cor

rela

ted

with

ext

erna

lizin

g an

d in

tern

aliz

ing

prob

lem

s

Dis

crim

inat

es

betw

een

typi

cally

de

velo

ping

ch

ildre

n,

child

ren

at r

isk

of d

evel

opin

g so

cial

–beh

avio

ral

prob

lem

s, ch

ildre

n w

ith in

tern

aliz

ing–

exte

rnal

izin

g pr

oble

ms,

and

child

ren

with

A

DH

D s

ympt

oms

(con

tinue

d)



630

PTM

-RN

oN

o.5

9-.8

6.5

4-.8

2 (2

w

eeks

)Ye

sSu

bsca

les

corr

elat

e w

ith

seve

ral t

heor

etic

ally

re

late

d va

riab

les

(from

cog

nitiv

e va

riab

les

to e

mot

ive

and

beha

vior

m

easu

res)

CR

S?

No

.49-

.80

(chi

ld),

.89-

.95

(tea

cher

)

.49-

.79

(chi

ld),

.61-

.91

(tea

cher

), .9

1 (p

aren

t)

Yes

Cor

rela

tes

with

cl

assr

oom

ad

just

men

t, he

alth

re

sour

ces,

and

self-

este

em

Dis

crim

inat

es

betw

een

stre

ss-

resi

lient

and

str

ess-

affe

cted

chi

ldre

n

SSIS

Yes

No

.72-

.97

(par

ent)

, .7

3-.9

7 (t

each

er),

.73-

.95

(chi

ld)

.72-

.87

(par

ent)

, .6

8-.9

2 (t

each

er),

.59-

.81

(chi

ld)

Inte

rrat

er

relia

bilit

y: .4

8-.6

9 (t

each

er),

.38-

.69

(par

ent)

; st

anda

rd e

rror

of

mea

sure

men

t by

age

and

ge

nder

ava

ilabl

e

Yes

(incl

udin

g w

ith A

DH

D

subs

ampl

e)

Cor

rela

tes

with

oth

er

sim

ilar

mea

sure

sD

iscr

imin

ates

be

twee

n co

ntro

ls

and

child

ren

with

A

DH

D

Dev

elop

men

t of

to

ol in

clud

ed

item

res

pons

e th

eory

AC

ESN

oN

o.4

6-.7

0Pr

edic

ts a

cade

mic

co

mpe

tenc

e an

d at

tent

iona

l co

mpe

tenc

eER

CN

oN

o.8

4-.9

2Ye

sD

istin

guis

hes

betw

een

bulli

es a

nd v

ictim

sM

ESSY

Yes

No

Split

-hal

f a:

.78

(chi

ld),

.87

(tea

cher

)

.60-

.90

Yes

Cor

rela

tes

with

sim

ilar

mea

sure

s in

nor

mal

an

d le

arni

ng d

isab

led

sam

ples

Mea

sure

U.S

. N

orm

sU

.K.

Nor

ms

Rel

iabi

lity

Valid

ity

Inte

rnal

Test

–Ret

est

Oth

erFa

ctor

ial

Con

verg

ent

Dis

crim

inat

ive

Pred

ictiv

eO

ther

Tabl

e 5.

(co

ntin

ued)

(con

tinue

d)



631

Mea

sure

U.S

. N

orm

sU

.K.

Nor

ms

Rel

iabi

lity

Valid

ity

Inte

rnal

Test

–Ret

est

Oth

erFa

ctor

ial

Con

verg

ent

Dis

crim

inat

ive

Pred

ictiv

eO

ther

Tabl

e 5.

(co

ntin

ued)

DA

NVA

No

No

.69-

.81

.66

Cor

rela

tes

with

pr

evio

us v

ersi

on o

f m

easu

reD

ES-IV

No

No

.50-

.85

.30-

.75

Subs

cale

s co

rrel

ate

w

ith d

epre

ssio

nD

iscr

imin

ates

be

twee

n ab

used

an

d no

nabu

sed

fem

ale

sam

ples

, an

d de

pres

sed

and

nond

epre

ssed

su

bjec

ts

Not

e. EQ

I:YV

= B

ar-O

n Em

otio

nal Q

uotie

nt In

vent

ory:

Yout

h Ve

rsio

n; C

ABS

= C

hild

Ass

ertiv

e Be

havi

or S

cale

; SC

BE =

Soc

ial C

ompe

tenc

e an

d Be

havi

our

Eval

uatio

n Sc

ale;

PK

BS-2

; Pre

scho

ol a

nd K

inde

rgar

ten

Beha

viou

r Sc

ales

–2; P

TM

-R =

Pro

soci

al T

ende

ncie

s M

easu

re–R

evis

ed; C

RS

= C

hild

Rat

ing

Scal

e; S

SIS

= S

ocia

l Ski

lls

Impr

ovem

ent

Syst

em; A

CES

= A

sses

smen

t of

Chi

ldre

n’s

Emot

ion

Skill

s; ER

C =

Em

otio

n R

egul

atio

n C

heck

list;

MES

SY =

Mat

son

Eval

uatio

n of

Soc

ial S

kills

with

You

ngst

ers;

DA

NVA

= D

iagn

ostic

Ana

lysi

s of

Non

verb

al A

ccur

acy;

DES

-IV =

Diff

eren

tial E

mot

ions

Sca

le–I

V; A

DH

D =

att

entio

n de

ficit

hype

ract

ivity

dis

orde

r.




vision” in the Children’s Plan (DCSF, 2007b). At a secondary level, we sought to pres-ent an overview of the current state of this field. The review process resulted in the retention of 12 measures that vary greatly in both their implementation characteristics and psychometric properties. In this final section of the current article we present some key issues that have arisen during the course of our review, providing illustrative exam-ples from the measures identified.

In relation to the establishment and sustained presence of measures in the academic literature, very few measures appear to have a good “shelf life.” Although 12 measures have yielded 4 or more publications in peer-reviewed journals, only a very small hand-ful (notably the Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy [DANVA], Social Com-petence and Behaviour Evaluation Scale [SCBE], and Social Skills Improvement System [SSIS]) have been used with great frequency (e.g., more than 10 articles). Considering that 189 measures were originally identified, it is clear that many are short-lived. This is not uncommon though—Butler and Gasson (2005) identified a similar issue in their review of measures of self-concept and self-esteem. One must also consider that the upsurge in interest in social and emotional learning (and therefore measurement of social and emotional skills) among children and adolescents is relatively recent (although interest in social skills can be traced back to Thorndike, a standard watershed in the literature is Salovey and Mayer’s (1990) article on emotional intelligence). Furthermore, the rather protean nature of the construct in question provides a fundamental problem for measure developers. Indeed, it has led some critics to state that it is “bereft of any conceptual meaning” (Zeidner et al., 2002, p. 215).

A further observation we have made is the imbalance among the scope and type of the measures identified. There appear to be many more well-established measures that tap social skills, as opposed to emotional skills or both. Furthermore, there are relatively few maximal behavior measures. This has important implications in terms of recom-mending a truly “direct” measure, since there is the danger that “typical behavior” social and emotional skills measures may simply tap aspects of personality (Gannon & Ranzijn, 2005; Schulte, Ree, & Carretta, 2004; Van Rooy, Viswesvaran, & Pluta, 2005). However, this has to be balanced against the practical advantages (e.g., time) of typical behavior measures, and also the emergent pockets of evidence regarding their validity (e.g., Petrides et al., 2006, found that scores on the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire were associated with peer nominations of behavioral descriptions, such as “cooperative” and “disruptive”). There are also concerns relating to the practicalities of capturing certain domains—such as self-awareness—in a maximal behavior paradigm.

The majority of measures reviewed here have been developed and standardized with American populations. For some of these measures, evidence of research carried out with other populations has concluded that they can be translated and adopted in differ-ent cultures while still retaining acceptable reliability and validity. However, of the 12 final measures produced by this review, only one (the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: Youth Version [EQI:YV]) has U.K. norms; several have no norms at all, and none have norms for countries other than the United States or the United Kingdom.



Humphrey et al. 633

This is a particular concern given that cultural transferability between the United States, the United Kingdom, and other countries cannot be automatically assumed. In terms of psychometrics, our retained measures largely demonstrated acceptable properties using standard techniques (e.g., internal consistency, test–retest reliability, factorial validity, construct validity, discriminative validity), but evidence pertaining to more advanced analysis (such as those based on item response theory—as recommended by Terwee et al., 2007) was lacking for most measures (notable exceptions include the Matson Evaluation of Social Skills with Youngsters [MESSY] and SSIS). This may again reflect the emergent state of the field.

Beyond the aforementioned issues, there appears to have been little analysis of the applicability of the measures to different groups of children—such as different ethnic groups—although the SSIS is an exception in this regard (Van Horn, Atkins-Burnett, Karlin, & Snyder, 2007). This kind of work is of course essential to ensuring that a given measure is appropriate for use with diverse groups of children and young people (e.g., in the aforementioned population survey), but just as importantly it can lead to development and improvement of the instrument itself. For instance, in Van Horn et al.’s (2007) recent psychometric analysis of the SSIS, an alternative factor structure with a stronger data fit to that proposed in the manual for the measure emerged.

The range of possible respondents in our final 12 measures also varied greatly. Only three (Child Assertive Behavior Scale [CABS], Child Rating Scale [CRS], and SSIS) have child, parent, and teacher versions, and five (EQI:YV, Prosocial Tendencies Measure–Revised [PTM-R], Assessment of Children’s Emotion Skills [ACES], DANVA, and Differential Emotions Scale [DES]) can only be completed by the child/young person. Consideration of the range of respondents for a given measure is important because each has access to unique information. Through introspection, the child has access to the most detailed information about himself or herself of any of the possible respondents. Furthermore, recent policy and legislation has placed increasing emphasis on the importance of the child’s perspective (e.g., Every Child Matters—Department for Education and Skills, 2003). However, as self-awareness/perception follows a developmental trajectory, older children and adolescents are likely to be more accurate responders than younger children (Denham, 2005b).

The limited number of measures that incorporate child, teacher, and parent responses creates difficulties for researchers and/or practitioners attempting to create a triangulated profile of the social and emotional skills of a child or group of children. The advantages to triangulating measures of social and emotional skills are clear, especially in response to overcoming difficulties in self-report (see above). Of course, one must factor in the increased time and expense in collecting data from numerous perspectives, especially given typically low response rates of certain groups (such as parents). However, given the relatively low concurrence between teacher, parent, and child responses in this area (e.g., Humphrey et al., 2008, found correlations as low as .25, indicating only 6% shared variance), consideration needs to be given as to whose perspective is prioritized.




Conclusion

In concluding, it is also important to note the limitations imposed on our review process. Although we have conducted an entirely systematic review, the protean nature of the area under investigation caused some difficulties, and other authors’ interpretations of “social and emotional skills” may differ from our own (meaning that other authors may have used different definitions—leading to different results!). The fact that the precise keywords used and/or the precise question under investigation may determine the result of a systematic review has been acknowledged as one of the integral characteristics of systematic reviews (Hannes, Claes, & The Belgian Campbell Group, 2007; Nind, 2006). Furthermore, the systematic review process itself is not without criticism. For example, publication bias (the tendency for a greater proportion of studies with statistically significant positive results to be published—Torgerson, 2006) might have limited the published articles for a given measure and therefore the measure’s inclusion in the later stages of our review. While we acknowledge this, we felt that this criterion was an important way to assess the “academic presence” of the measures. Furthermore, all criteria were negotiated with users from the project steering group. Such close consulta-tion with users not only contributes to the significance of the review and its fitness for purpose but also helps in addressing bias relating to the interpretation of findings (Harlen & Crick, 2004).

The systematic review reported in this article identified 12 measures with varying implementation characteristics and psychometric properties. We feel that this variability—particularly in relation to psychometric properties—reflects the emergent state of the field. Although there has been an interest in social and emotional learning over the last two decades, measure development has struggled to keep pace. This is undoubtedly reflected in the fact that many reports of social and emotional learning program evalu-ations have not contained any social and emotional skills outcome measures, instead using proxy indicators of success like reductions in mental health problems or increases in attendance (Humphrey et al., 2007).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The research reported in this article was funded by a grant from the Department for Children, Schools and Families (REF: 2008/056).

References

*References marked with an asterisk indicate key article/document for final 12 measures.*Bar-On, R. (1997). Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): Technical manual. Toronto,

Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.



Humphrey et al. 635

Bar-On, R., & Parker, J. (2008). Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: Youth Version (EQ-i:YV): Technical manual. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

Butler, R. J., & Gasson, S. L. (2005). Self-esteem/self-concept scales for children and adolescents: A review. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 10, 190-201.

*Carlo, G., Haussman, A., Christiansen, S., & Randall, B. A. (2003). Sociocognitive and behav-ioural correlates of a measure of pro-social tendencies for adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 23, 107-134.

Denham, S. A. (2005a). Assessing social-emotional development in children from a longitudinal perspective for the National Children’s Study: Social-emotional compendium of measures. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University.

Denham, S. A. (2005b). Assessing social-emotional development in children from a longitudinal perspective for the National Children’s Study. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University.

Denham, S. A., Wyatt, T. M., Bassett, H. H., Echeverria, D., & Knox, S. S. (2009). Assessing social-emotional development in children from a longitudinal perspective. Journal of Epi-demiology and Community Health, 63(Suppl.), 37-52.

Department for Children, Schools and Families. (2007a). Secondary Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning (SEAL) programme: Guidance. Nottingham, England: Author.

Department for Children, Schools and Families. (2007b). The children’s plan: Building brighter futures. Nottingham, England: Author.

Gannon, N., & Ranzijn, R. (2005). Does emotional intelligence predict unique variance in life satisfaction beyond IQ and personality? Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1353-1364.

Fundacion Marcelino Botin. (2008). Social and emotional education: An international analysis. Santander, Spain: Author.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam Books.*Gresham, D. C., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). Social skills rating system: Manual. Circle Pines, MN:

American Guidance Service.Hannes, K., Claes, L., & The Belgian Campbell Group. (2007). Learn to read and write system-

atic reviews: The Belgian Campbell Group. Research on Social Work Practice, 17, 748-753.Harlen, W., & Crick, R. D. (2004). Opportunities and challenges of using systematic reviews

of research for evidence based policy in education. Evaluation & Research in Education, 18, 54-71.

*Hightower, A. D., Cowen, E. L., Spinell, A. P., & Lotyczewski, B. S. (1987). The Child Rating Scale: The development of a socio-emotional self-rating scale for elementary school children. School Psychology Review, 16, 239-255.

Humphrey, N., Curran, A., Morris, E., Farrell, P., & Woods, K. (2007). Emotional intelligence and education: A critical review. Educational Psychology, 27, 235-254.

Humphrey, N., Kalambouka, A., Bolton, J., Lendrum, A., Wigelsworth, M., Lennie, C., & Farrell, P. (2008). Primary social and emotional aspects of learning: evaluation of small group work (Research Report RR064). Nottingham, England: DCSF Publications.

Humphrey, N., Kalambouka, A., Lendrum, A., Wigelsworth, M., Samad, M., Farrelly, N., . . . Croudace, T. (2009). A systematic review of social and emotional skills measures for chil-dren and young people (DCSF Research Report 2008/056B). Nottingham, England: DCSF Publications.




*Izard, C. E., Dougherty, B. M., Bloxom, B. M., & Kotsch, W. E. (1974). The Differential Emotion Scale: A method of measuring the subjective experience of discrete emotions. Unpublished manuscript, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.

*LaFreniere, P. J., & Dumas, J. E. (1996). Social competence and behavior evaluation in children ages 3 to 6 years: The short form (SCBE-30). Psychological Assessment, 8, 369-377.

*Matson, J. L., Rotatori, A. F., & Helsel, W. J. (1983). Development of a rating scale to measure social skills in children: The Matson Evaluation of Social Skills with Youngsters (MESSY). Behavior Research and Therapy, 21, 335-340.

Matthews, G., Roberts, R. D., & Zeidner, M. (2004). Seven myths about emotional intelligence. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 179-196.

Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2004). Emotional intelligence: Science and myth. Cambridge: MIT Press.

*Merrell, K. W. (1996). Social-emotional assessment in early childhood: The Preschool and Kindergarten Behavior Scales. Journal of Early Intervention, 20, 132-145.

*Michelson, L., & Wood, R. (1982). Development and psychometric properties of the Children’s Assertive Behavior Scale. Journal of Behavioral Assessment, 4, 3-13.

Nind, M. (2006). Conducting systematic review in education: A reflexive narrative. London Review of Education, 4, 183-195.

*Nowicki, S., Jr., & Duke, M. P. (1989). A measure of nonverbal social processing ability in children between the ages of 6 and 10. Paper presented as part of a symposium at the American Psychological Society, Alexandria, VA.

Payton, J. W., Wardlaw, D. M., Graczyk, P. A., Bloodworth, M. R., Tompsett, C. J., & Weissberg, R. P. (2000). Social and emotional learning: A framework for promoting mental health and reducing risk behaviours in children and youth. Journal of School Health, 70, 179-185.

Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. European Journal of Personality, 15, 425-448.

Petrides, K. V., Sangareau, Y., Furnham, A. and Frederickson, N. (2006). Trait emotional intel-ligence and children’s peer relations at school. Social Development, 15, 537–547.

Rose-Krasnor, L. (1997). The nature of social competence: A theoretical review. Social Develop-ment, 6, 111-135.

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Per-sonality, 9, 185-211.

Schulte, M. J., Ree, M. J., & Carretta, T. R. (2004). Emotional intelligence: Not much more than g and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1059-1068.

*Schultz, D., Izard, C. E., & Bear, G. A. (2004). Children’s emotion processing: Relations to emotionality and aggression. Development & Psychopathology, 16, 371-387.

*Shields, A., & Cicchetti, D. (1997). Emotion regulation among school-age children: The develop-ment and validation of a new criterion Q-sort scale. Developmental Psychology, 33, 906-916.

Stewart-Brown, S., & Edmunds, L. (2003). Assessing social and emotional competence in pri-mary-school and early years settings (DfES EOR/SBU/2002/042). Nottingham, England: DfES Publications.

Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., . . . de Vet, H. C. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60, 34-42.



Humphrey et al. 637

Torgerson, C. J. (2006). Publication bias: The Achilles’ heel of systematic reviews? British Journal of Educational Studies, 54, 89-102.

Van Horn, M., Atkins-Burnett, S., Karlin, E., & Snyder, S. (2007). Parent ratings of children’s social skills: Longitudinal psychometric analysis of the social skills rating system. School Psychology Quarterly, 22, 142-199.

Van Rooy, D. L., Viswesvaran, C., & Pluta, P. (2005). An evaluation of construct validity: What is this thing called emotional intelligence? Human Performance, 18, 445-462.

Weare, K., & Gray, G. (2003). What works in developing children’s emotional and social com-petence and well-being? (RR456). Nottingham, England: DfES Publications.

Wigelsworth, M., Humphrey, N., Kalambouka, A., & Lendrum, A. (2010). A review of key issues in the measurement of children’s social and emotional skills. Educational Psychology in Practice, 26, 173-186.

Wilhelm, O. (2005). Measures of emotional intelligence: Practice and standards. In R. Schulze & R. D. Roberts (Eds.), Emotional intelligence: An international handbook (pp. 131-154). Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe & Huber.

Wolpert, M., Aitken, J. Syrad, H., Munroe, M., Saddington, C., Trustam, E., . . . Croudace, T. (2009). Review and recommendations for national policy for England for the use of mental health outcome measures with children and young people (DCSF Research Report 2008/56). Nottingham, England: DCSF Publications.

Zeidner, M., Roberts, R. D., & Matthews, G. (2002). Can emotional intelligence be schooled? A critical review. Educational Psychologist, 37, 215-231.



Documents

Educational and Psychological Measurement - Iowa ASCDiowaascd.org/files/8713/2598/4754/Measures_of_social_and_emotional... · Measurement Educational and Psychological ... questionnaires,