Citation
Development and Validation of a Questionnaire Used to Evaluate Chinese Preschool Teachers' Perspectives about Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Teaching Practices

Material Information

Title:
Development and Validation of a Questionnaire Used to Evaluate Chinese Preschool Teachers' Perspectives about Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Teaching Practices
Creator:
Luo, Li
Place of Publication:
[Gainesville, Fla.]
Florida
Publisher:
University of Florida
Publication Date:
Language:
english
Physical Description:
1 online resource (311 p.)

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Doctorate ( Ph.D.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Special Education
Special Education, School Psychology and Early Childhood Studies
Committee Chair:
SNYDER,PATRICIA
Committee Co-Chair:
CONROY,MAUREEN ALMAZ
Committee Members:
REICHOW,BRIAN
MANLEY,ANNE CORINNE
EYLER,FONDA D

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
china -- preschool -- survey -- teachers
Special Education, School Psychology and Early Childhood Studies -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent) ( marcgt )
born-digital ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation
Special Education thesis, Ph.D.

Notes

Abstract:
Preschool social education has become an increasingly important area of research and practice in mainland China with the social domain being recognized as an independent preschool curricular domain since 2001. Little is known, however, about the specific teaching practices that Chinese preschool teachers are using to promote children's social-emotional competence and to prevent or address challenging behavior. The purposes of the present study were to develop and validate a questionnaire focused on social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices and to use the questionnaire to examine Chinese preschool teachers' self-reported use of and confidence about implementing the practices. The questionnaire was titled the Social-Emotional Teaching Practices Questionnaire - China (SETP-C; Snyder & Luo, 2017). Before primary data collection for the present study occurred, the SETP-C was developed and various sources of validity evidence were gathered using systematic and iterative quantitative and qualitative approaches. The development and validation of the SETP-C consisted of four phases: item generation and selection, initial validation and item reduction, external expert review, and wording and translation. A non-experimental, descriptive survey research design was used to gather SETP-C data from a sample of 1,599 Chinese teachers from 120 preschools in Beijing and Ningbo. Using these data, four confirmatory factor analytic models were tested and compared to provide score validity evidence focused on internal structure. A seven-factor solution was chosen due to its conceptual and statistical soundness. Internal consistency score reliability evidence was also promising and showed high degree of internal consistency for subscale scores. Findings showed Chinese preschool teachers reported they were implementing many social-emotional teaching practices, but were less likely to implement and less confident about practices that address the needs of children with persistent challenging behavior. Teacher's role, experience, a social-emotional curriculum, child-to-teacher ratio, inclusion of children with disabilities, and child age were significantly associated with teachers' reported use and confidence with implementing social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices. Teachers identified two primary requests in terms of supports for implementing practices: a specific social-emotional curriculum and family support and cooperation. Limitations and implications of the present study along with considerations for future research are discussed. ( en )
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2017.
Local:
Adviser: SNYDER,PATRICIA.
Local:
Co-adviser: CONROY,MAUREEN ALMAZ.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Li Luo.

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Classification:
LD1780 2017 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF A QUESTIONNAIRE USED TO EVALUATE EMOTIONAL, AND BEHAVIORAL TEACHING PRACTICES By LI LUO A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL O F THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2017

PAGE 2

2017 Li Luo

PAGE 3

To my parents, Mr. Ronghua Luo and Mrs. Meixiu Wei wh o have given their best to me and my sister, for teaching me and engraving these words on my heart: The very beginning mind itself is the most accomplished mind of true enlightenment

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDG EMENTS Pursuing a Ph.D overseas is not a journey I co uld have accomplished on my own. There are many people who made my doctoral journey possible and to whom I will be forever grateful S ince the beginning of my undergraduate program in 2005 I have been receiving tremendous formal and informal supports that led me to the pursuit and completion of a doctoral degree. I have no doubt that these supports have shaped who I now am personally and professional ly I have had the good fortune to embark on a years long passion proj ect as my doctoral dissertation resea rch and to be surrounded by people who have helped ensure the completion of my dissertation research. My words are too insufficient to express how t h ankful I am from the bottom of my heart First and foremost I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my committee chair whom I consider Dr. Patricia Snyder. As a Chinese proverb say s Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime Dr. Pat not only gave me fish es generously when I came for help bu t also taught me how to catch fish using individu alized and effective instructional strategies. Throughout my doctoral program, Dr. Pat has always made her self available to support m y research interests and projects my future career, a nd me I have experienced and witnessed her passion and commitment to excellence in mentoring, teaching, research, and service in the field of early intervention. Dr. Pat has been a n exemplary academic role model and my research experience s under her guida nce will serve as the foundation of my future work Having the opportunity to learn from and work closely with her has been one of the most valuable assets in my life. I consider myself to be very fortunate to have an excellent supervisory com mittee and w ant to thank my other committee members, Drs. Maureen Conroy, Brian R eichow

PAGE 5

5 Anne Corinne Huggins Manley, and Fonda Davis Eyler for their support over the years. I sincerely thank Dr. Maureen for her on going caring, encouragement, and insightful comments and for inspiring me by her remarkable experience in early intervention research and passionate attitude. I am very grateful to Dr. Brian for providing supportive guidance and his expertise in systematic review to my qualifying examination research projec ts, and dissertation work. I am greatly indebted to Dr. Corinne for deepening my understanding of methodological issues as I pursue d a minor in research and evaluation methodology and for walking me through the data analyse s for my dissertation I deeply a ppreciate Dr. Fonda for her warm encouragement and continuous confidence in me and for mentoring me in scholarly writing and conducting cross cultural research. Finally, although he was not a committee member, I would like to thank Dr. James Algina for his valuable guidance and support in the CFA model comparison tests for my dissertation. I also want to ext end special appreciation to Dr. Robert Crow for his wonderful sense of humor, warm smile, and emotional support that have brightened my days in Gainesvi lle. I am also thankful to my former majo r professors (Drs. Xiaoying Wang and Xiumin Hong) and colleague (Dr. Haijun Yu) in China. Dr. Wang at Northeast Normal University has provided invaluable advice at my key turning points and was the reason why I dec ided to pursue a career in early childhood. I am appreciative of Dr. Hong at Beijing Normal University for program and for providing endless guidance and support even after my graduation. I also show gratitude for Dr. Yu, who treats me like his little sister in both my personal and professional lives Each of them was very supportive and has played a crucial role

PAGE 6

6 in my dissertation data collection in China This research would not have been possible wi thout their strong and continuous support. I would like to thank each member of Snyder research lab at the University of Florida for their precious friendship, support and encouragement : Dr. Crystal Bishop, Dr. Cinda Clark, JinHee H ur, Yaqin Li, Mackenzie Martin, Dr. Jose Martinez, Dr. Tara McLaughlin, Dr. Kimberley Megrath, Dr. Joy Polignano, Debra Pryka nowski, Dr. Salih Rakap, Serpil Rakap Dr. Darbianne Shannon, Sara Smith, Ti a ntian Sun, and Shujia Sun I also thank my other friends and colleag ues at the University of Florida Beijing Normal University, and Northeast Normal University for their assistance and support in my dissertation research : Li Chengcheng Ma, Qun Ma, Yuxi Qiu Dr. Lina Shi L i Shu Dr. Jun Wang, Dr. Wei Xu and Chenhui Zhang I have s pecial thanks to Dr. Jun Wang and her husband, Dr. Shiming Liu, and Ke for providing me with temporary housing assistance during my dissertation research related back an d forth travels. I would like to thank Dr. Wei Xu for her emotional support and statistical advice related to my research projects and dissertation research. I have been truly blessed t o be a part of my family that has provided me with unconditional love sacrifice, trust, and understandi ng through every step of this process My parents always serve as the my exploration of the world and engaging in a wide range of experiences. They showed faith in me, gave me liberty to choose wh at I desired, and stood by to support me along the way. My sister and brother in law supported me in pursuing my dream in numerous ways. My 2 year old nie ce Timmy is the softest point of my heart, who has prompted me to become a better

PAGE 7

7 version of myself and be a better early childhood researcher A very special thank you goes to my fianc, Dr. Hua Bai for his commitment to our six year long distance dating relationship Further, I am so grateful to him for traveling with me across provinces while I collec ted my dissertation data assuming (almost) all the household chores, trying to cheer me up, assisting me in my job search, providing substantial financial support, and purchasing a home of our own in Beijing during the last year of my program of study. F inally, I am thankful to the China Scholarship Council affiliated with the Ministry offering me a four year scholarship for my doctoral study. Thank you to the Graduate School of the University of Florida for their support to conduct this research. This research was supported, in part, by the University of Florida Graduate School Doctoral Research Travel Award. I am grateful to have had support from the Anita Zucker Center for Excellence in Early Childhood Studies throughout my doctoral program and as a doctoral student affiliate of the Center. Opinions expressed in this dissertation reflect those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the funding agencies. In addition, I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to thousands of Chinese early childhood leaders and practitioners who participated in my doctoral dissertation research.

PAGE 8

8 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................ ................................ ............................... 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 11 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 13 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ........................... 14 LIST OF DEFINITIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ 16 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 18 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 20 Context for the Study ................................ ................................ .............................. 22 Policy Context for the Study ................................ ................................ ............. 22 Importance of Social Emotional Competence in the Early Years ..................... 25 Preschool Soci al Education in Mainland China ................................ ................ 27 Pyramid Model for Promoting Social Emotional Competence in Young Children ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 30 Statement of the Pr oblem ................................ ................................ ....................... 32 Purposes of the Present Study ................................ ................................ ............... 34 Conceptual Framework Guiding the Present Study ................................ ................ 35 Pyramid Model ................................ ................................ ................................ 35 Teaching Pyramid Observation Tool for Preschool Classrooms ...................... 38 Significance of the Study ................................ ................................ ........................ 39 Delimitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 40 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 41 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................................ ................................ ............ 43 Review Procedures ................................ ................................ ................................ 44 Search Strategy ................................ ................................ ................................ 44 Inclusion and Exclusion Crite ria ................................ ................................ ....... 46 Coding Variables and Procedures ................................ ................................ .... 48 Summary of Studies Reviewed ................................ ................................ ........ 52 Type of Empirical Evidence ................................ ................................ .................... 52 Characteristics of Study Participants ................................ ................................ ...... 53 Conditions under Which Social Emotional Instruction I mplemented ....................... 56 Components of Social Emotional Instruction ................................ .......................... 58 Focus and Approaches to Teaching Children Social Emotional Competence ........ 63 Delimitations and Limitations of the Literature Review ................................ ........... 65

PAGE 9

9 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 66 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 85 Development and Content Validation of the SETP C ................................ ............. 86 Phase 1: Item Generation and Selection ................................ .......................... 86 Examining alignment ................................ ................................ .................. 88 Pilot study ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 89 Review of the Chinese empirical literature ................................ ................. 90 Item pool for the revised SETP C ................................ .............................. 91 Phase 2: Initial Validation and Item Reduction ................................ ................. 93 Participants and measure ................................ ................................ .......... 94 Data analytic procedures ................................ ................................ ........... 96 Item reduction procedures ................................ ................................ ......... 97 Phase 3: External Expert Review ................................ ................................ ..... 99 Phase 4: Wording and Translation of Items ................................ .................... 103 Summary o f the Development and Validation of the SETP C ........................ 108 The SETP C Used for the Present Study ................................ ....................... 109 Gathering Perspectives of Chinese Pre school Teachers about Their Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Teaching Practices ................................ ................. 111 Research Questions ................................ ................................ ....................... 111 Research Design ................................ ................................ ............................ 112 Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 113 Preschools in Beijing ................................ ................................ ................ 114 Preschools in Ningbo ................................ ................................ ............... 115 Sampling Strategy ................................ ................................ .......................... 115 Participants ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 117 Analytic Procedures ................................ ................................ ....................... 120 Data file preparation ................................ ................................ ................. 121 Research question 1 ................................ ................................ ................ 122 Research question 2 ................................ ................................ ................ 124 Research question 3 ................................ ................................ ................ 125 Research question 4 ................................ ................................ ................ 127 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 149 Research Question 1 ................................ ................................ ............................ 149 Score Validity Evidence for the SETP C ................................ ......................... 149 Score Re liability Evidence for the SETP C ................................ ..................... 153 Research Question 2 ................................ ................................ ............................ 153 Research Question 3 ................................ ................................ ............................ 156 Unconditional Model ................................ ................................ ....................... 157 Teacher Characteristics ................................ ................................ .................. 157 Classroom Characteristics ................................ ................................ .............. 160 Preschool characteristics ................................ ................................ ................ 163 Research Question 4 ................................ ................................ ............................ 163

PAGE 10

10 5 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 189 Interpretation of Findings ................................ ................................ ...................... 190 Psychometric Evidence for the SETP C ................................ ......................... 191 Frequency of Use and Implementation Confidence ................................ ........ 194 Teacher, Classroom, and Preschool Variables Associated with Reported Frequency and Confidence ................................ ................................ ......... 197 T ypes of Supports Teachers Needed ................................ ............................. 202 Implications from the Present Study for Practice and Policy ................................ 204 Practice Implications of Find ings ................................ ................................ .... 204 Policy Implications of Findings ................................ ................................ ....... 206 Recommendations for Future Research ................................ ............................... 209 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 212 APPENDIX A S EARCH STRATEGY IN PSYCINFO ................................ ................................ ... 216 B SOURCES OF SOCIAL, EMOTIONAL, AND BEHAVIORAL TEACHING P RACTICES INCLUDED ON THE PRELIMIALRY DRAFT OF THE SETP C ...... 219 C ENGLISH VERSION OF THE CONTENT VALIDATION RATING SCALE ........... 225 D CHINES E VERSION OF THE CONTENT VALIDATION RATING SCALE ........... 234 E ENGLISH VERSION OF THE CONTENT VALIDATION INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 242 F CHINESE VERSION OF THE CONTENT VALIDATION INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 249 G COGNITIVE INTERVIEWING PROTOCOL ................................ .......................... 257 H ENGLISH VERSION OF THE SETP C USE D FOR THE PRESENT STUDY ...... 264 I CHINESE VERSION OF THE SETP C USED FOR THE PRESENT STUDY ...... 271 J VARIABLE CODING SYNTAX ................................ ................................ .............. 277 K ANALYTICAL SYNTAX ................................ ................................ ......................... 280 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 287 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ........................ 311

PAGE 11

11 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2 1 Characteristics of child participants and study settings across 76 included studies. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 68 2 2 Components and features of social emotional instruction across 76 included studies. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 73 2 3 Number of studies for instructional content categories by research design. ....... 79 3 1 Descriptive statistics for the TPOT P indicators. ................................ ............... 130 3 2 Descriptive statistics for the items on the pilot version of the SET P C. ............ 133 3 3 Table of specifications for the preliminary draft of the SETP C. ....................... 134 3 4 Demographic characteristics of participants in the content validation study. .... 136 3 5 Descriptive statistics and score distributions on the How Important section across 89 items. ................................ ................................ ............................... 137 3 6 Descriptive statistics and score distributions on the How Culturally Relevant section across 89 items. ................................ ................................ ................... 140 3 7 Four proposed confirmatory factor analytic models. ................................ ......... 143 3 8 Characteristics of Chinese preschool teachers. ................................ ................ 144 3 9 Definition and codes for each demographic variable. ................................ ....... 145 4 1 Fit Indices for the four models on the How Often section. ................................ 166 4 2 Fit Indices for the four models on the How Confident section. .......................... 167 4 3 Standardized factor loadings on the How Often section. ................................ .. 168 4 4 Standardized factor loadings on the How Confident section. ........................... 170 4 5 ................ 172 4 6 Descriptive statistics for latent variable subscales. ................................ ........... 173 4 7 Inter correlations between latent variable subscales on the How Often section. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 174

PAGE 12

12 4 8 Inter correlations between latent variable subscales o n the How Confident section. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 175 4 9 I ntraclass correlation coefficient and design effect for latent variable subscales. ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 176 4 10 Multilevel results for the Nurturing and Responsive Relationships subscale. ... 177 4 11 Multilevel results for the Supportive Classroom Environment subscale. ........... 178 4 12 Multilevel results for the Social Emotional Instructional Content subscale. ...... 179 4 13 Multilevel results for the Social Emotional Instructional Strategies subsc ale. ... 180 4 14 Multilevel results for the Responses to Challenging Behavior subscale. .......... 181 4 15 Multilevel results for the Intervent ions for Children with Persistent Challenging Behavior subscale. ................................ ................................ ....... 182 4 16 Multilevel results for the Supporting Family subscale. ................................ ...... 183 4 17 Frequency and percentage of supports needed by Chinese preschool teachers with different characteristics. ................................ .............................. 184 4 18 Frequency and percentage of supports needed by Chinese preschool teach ers in different classrooms. ................................ ................................ ...... 185 4 19 Frequency and percentage of supports needed by Chinese preschool teachers from different preschools. ................................ ................................ .. 186

PAGE 13

13 LIST OF FIGURE S Figure page 2 1 Illustration of search m ethods in electronic databases. ................................ ...... 80 2 2 Study selection from the English datab ases (PRISMA flow diagram). ................ 81 2 3 Study selection from the Chinese databases (PRISMA flow diagram). .............. 82 2 4 Number of empirical ar ticles on social emotional instruction in Chinese preschools published yearly. ................................ ................................ .............. 83 2 5 Number of reviewed studies conducted in eastern, middle, western, and northe ast China ................................ ................................ ................................ 84 3 1 Correlation of item mean scores on the How Important section and item mean scores on the How Culturally Relevant section. ................................ ...... 147 3 2 Correlation o f item standard deviations on the How Important section and item standard deviations on the How Culturally Relevant section. ................... 148 4 1 Boxplot for Kruskal Wallis test on years of teaching experie nce. ..................... 187 4 2 Boxplot for Kruskal Wallis test on child to teacher ratio. ................................ .. 188

PAGE 14

14 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CFA Confirmatory factor analysis earning and Development Guidelines for Children 3 6 Years Old Guidance Outline for Medium and Long T erm Education Reform and Development (2010 2020) ECE Early childhood education ECSRDs Explanatory case study research designs GERDs Group experimental research designs MOE MOH PRC s Republic of China SCERDs SETP C Social Emotional Teaching Practices Questionnaire China (Snyder & Luo, 2017) TBE Teaching behavior expectations TEE TFR Teaching frien dship skills TIA TIP TPOT Hemmeter, Fox, & Snyder, 2014 TPOT P TPS

PAGE 15

15 TSA TSC TSI TSR TRE TUE

PAGE 16

16 LIST OF DEFINITIONS Challenging behavior Challenging behavior refers to any repeated pattern of behavior by a child that interferes with successful operation of classroom activiti es or behavior deemed to be harmful to self or other s ( Dong, 2013 ). Early childhood e ducation In mainland China, early childhood education refers to care and education for children from birth to age 6 and before they enter grade 1. Emotional competence E motional competence is defined as child behaviors or responses related to emotional expression, understanding emotions of self and others, and emotion regulation (Denham & Burton, 2003). Preschool In mainland China, preschool has a different name r Chinese/Mandarin, usually referring to full day education and care programs serving children ages 3 to 6. Preschool teacher Preschool teacher is a type of early childhood educator who is responsible f or the direct care, supervision, guidance, and education of children in preschool classroom settings Preschool social education Preschool social education refers to all activitie s in preschool s that aim to promote the social development and learning of preschool children. The o bjectives and content of preschool social education in mainland China focus es on cognitive, affective, and behavioral components of social development and l earning of preschool children The cognitive component refers to the ability to acquire and apply knowledge about self, others, the social environment, social activities, social norms, and the social culture. The affective component includes the developmen t of attachment, self esteem, empathy, feeling s of shame, moral responsibility knowing right and wrong, and knowing what is like d /dislike d through interacting with the environment. The behavior component focuses on social interaction and prosocial behavio r such as sharing, cooperation, and helping (Liu, 2008). Social competence Social competence is defined as the socially acceptable learned behaviors that permit a child to develop and engage in interactions with peers and adults (Gresham & Elliott, 1990 ).

PAGE 17

17 Social emotional instruction Social emotional instruction is defined as intentional and systematic teaching specifically designed to provide learning experiences or opportunities for preschool children to develop their social emotional competence (Liu & Feng, 2005) Social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices Hemmeter, Fox, & Snyder, 2014 Teaching practices Specific actions or behaviors of teachers in preschool classrooms used during social and instructional interactions with children (Snyder, Hemmeter, & Fox, 2015).

PAGE 18

18 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Par tial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF A QUESTIONNAIRE USED TO EVALUATE CIAL, EMOTIONAL, AND BEHAVIORAL TEACHING PRACTICES By Li Luo Dece mber 2017 Chair: Patricia Snyder Major: Special Education Preschool social education has become an increasingly important area of research and practice in mainland China with the social domain being recognized as an independent prescho ol curricular dom ain since 2001. Little is known, however, about the specific teaching practices that Chinese preschool teachers are using to promote emotional competence and to prevent or address challenging behavior The purposes of the present study we re to develop and validate a questionnaire focused on social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices and to use the reported use of and confidence about implementing the practices. The questio nnaire was titled the Social Emotional Teaching Practices Questionnaire China (SETP C; Snyder & Luo, 2017) Before primary data collection for the present study occurred, t he SETP C was developed and various sources of validity evidence were gathered us ing systematic and iterative quantitat ive and qualitative approaches. T he developme nt and validation of the

PAGE 19

19 SETP C consisted of four phases: item generation and selection, initial validation and item reduction, external expert review, and wording and trans lation A non experimental, descriptive survey research design was used to gather SETP C data from a sample of 1,599 Chinese teachers from 120 preschools in Beijing and Ningbo. Using these data, four confirmatory factor analytic models were tested and comp ared to provide score validity evidence focused on internal structure. A seven factor solution was chosen due to its conceptual and statistical soundness. Internal consistency score reliability evidence was also promising and showed high degree of internal consistency for subscale scores Findings showed Chinese preschool teachers reported they were implementing many social emotional teaching practices, but were less likely to implement and less confident about practices that address the needs of children with persistent challenging emotional curriculum, child to teacher ratio, inclusion of children with disabilities, and child age were significantly associated plementing social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices. Teachers identified t wo primary requests in terms of supports for implementing practices: a specific social emotional curriculum and family support and cooperation. Limitations and implicati ons of the present study along with considerations for future research are discussed.

PAGE 20

20 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The past three decades have witnessed an explosion of interest in preschool social education ( or ) in mainland China. Since the mi d 1980s, the focus in early childhood development and education has been on comprehensive domains of child development compared with the previous emphasis targeting cognitive development and intellectual education ( ) (Dong & Xia, 1991) A growing body o f research has shown t development and school s uccess (Li & Feng, 2013) and the need for Chinese preschool curricula to emphasize social education Promoting the social development of young children has b een highly valued in mainland China and in 2001, the social domain officially became one of the five curricul ar domain s / content areas in preschool s nationwide s One Child policy in 1978 has also been responsible for the growing emphasis on social education during the preschool years given concerns raised about the social skills of young Chinese children who were only children without siblings ( Yuan & Wang, 2008; Zhou, 1998). R esearchers have documented similarities across countr ies about the importance of promoting social development and learning through comparative analyses involving the United States, China, Turkey, and South Korea (McMullen et al., 2005). B ased on content analys e s conducted with early learning standards guidelines foundations or preschool curricul ar guidelines from five different countries (i.e., China, Japan, United Kingdom, United States, and Canada), Yu (2012) found a number of core competencies in the social domain that were universally present and valued across countries These cross cultural, core competencies included (a )

PAGE 21

21 developing self awareness and positive atti tudes and beliefs about self, (b ) engaging in social interactions with others and developing the ability to establish posit ive and rewarding relationships with other s, and (c ) understand ing and comply ing with social norms and forming good habits To support children to acquire these and other important social, emotional, and behavioral competencies, preschool teachers need to use intentional teaching practices (Epstein, 2009). In the United States, one of the most comprehensive multi tiered frameworks that ha s been used to identify and organize environmental, interactional and instructional teaching practices to promote presch emotional competence and to prevent or address challenging behavior is the Pyramid Model was designed to examine Chinese preschool 1 teach perspectives about social emotional, and behavioral teaching practices aligned with the Pyramid Model and two nationally recognized and influential Chinese documents focused on early childhood learning standards In this chapter, the context for the present study and a statement of the problem are provided to situate the need for the study. The p urpose and conceptual framework are described and research questions are stated. A description of the significance of the study is provided to highlight the r elevance of the findings for early childhood researchers, policymakers, and practitioners. D elimitations and limitations of the present study are also presented in this chapter. 1 Preschool is the term used in the United States and in the English language. In mainland China, the term means kindergarten when translated

PAGE 22

22 Conte x t for the Study Policy Context for the Study Young children have long b China (Wu, Young, & Cai, 2012). Early childhood education (ECE) in mainland China refers to care and education for children from birth to age 6 and before they enter grade basic education system, but it is neither compulsory nor free. Since the Economic Reform and Open Door policy in 1978, China has made remarkable achievements in each aspect of education, including the development of ECE. During this time, the number of pre schools teachers, and enrolled children has risen rapidly (Liu & Pan, 2013). For example, the total number of children enrolled in preschools rose from 11.5 million in 1980 to 44.1 million in 201 6 ( Department of Development & Planning, 2017 ) T he educatio nal level and qualifications for preschool teachers have largely improved; and governments from central to local levels gradually have increased the investment in ECE programs (Pang, 2009). T o promote further equal access to education, the Central s Government (PRC) promulgated the Plan for Medium and Long T erm Education Reform and Development (2010 2020) This document presented a blueprint for achieving the modernization of education in a 10 year period and set up a series of concrete goals to be achieved for all levels of education. ECE received significant attention in Outline and its later related policies. In Outline universalizing preschool education was set as a hi gh priority goal in the development of ECE. Outline declared that 95% of Chinese children should receive at least 1 year of preschool education and 75% of children should receive a 3 year preschool education by 2020 ( State Council, 2010 ) From 2011 to 2013,

PAGE 23

23 the Central Government invested 34.1 billion Chinese yuan (equal to $5.1 billion US dollars ) to support the development of preschool education in rural areas, especially in the central and western regions in mainland China (Song, Zhu, X ia, & Wu, 2014). Since the landmark decision by the Central Government in 2010 to strongly expand preschool education, the country has witnessed a dramatic increase in the gross enrollment rate in the percentage of preschool children receiving 3 y ears of preschool education, from 50.9 % in 2009 to 75.0 % in 201 6 As of 201 6 China had a total of 239 ,812 preschools and the number of full time preschool teachers was 2 2 million ( Department of Development & Planning, 2017 ). Given the increasing number of children attending preschools, the Ministry of Education (MOE) of the PRC issued two milestone document s in preschool education to improve the quality of preschool s Guidance for Preschool Education Trial Version ( Guidance ) and Early L earning and Development Guidelines for Children 3 6 Years Old (ELDG) Issued by the MOE in 2001 and widely considered the most influential source on teaching practices used in preschool s in mainland China the Guidance organize d preschool curriculum into f ive domains/content areas : health, language, social, science, and art. The Guidance elaborated educational goals for children in the social domain into five operational objectives: (a ) engage in activities and show confidence; ( b ) be willing to interact wi th others; develop helping, cooperating, and sharing behaviors; and show empathy for others; ( c ) understand and comply with social rules or social norms; ( d ) try hard to do what one is capable of, do not be afraid of difficulties, and demonstrate emerging responsibility; and ( e ) love parents, elders, teachers, and peers; love the collective, hometown, and country (Min istry of Education,

PAGE 24

24 2001 ). Two dimensions exist in these five objectives: social relationships and mental structure. Social relationships are concept of self, relationships with others, relationships with social groups or the collective, and relationships with the society. Mental structure involve s the cognitive, affective, and behavioral components of social development The combination of these two dimensions informed the content of learning and instruction in the preschool social domain, as well as the objectives of social development for preschool children (Department of Basic Education, 2002). to provide further guidance on education and care for preschool children. To be consistent with the five preschool curricular domains social was designated an independent domain for which C ELDG provide s specific expectations for ch The domain of social learning and development in C ELDG consists of two subdomains: social interaction and social adaptation. Generally speakin g, social interaction is related to a an individual relationships with a social group. In C ELDG, each subdomain is broken out into one or more goals, and behavioral markers 2 are organized under each goal and are specified for children age s 3 to 4 year s old, 4 to 5 year s old, and 5 to 6 year s old, corresponding to the typical three age groups of Chinese preschool classrooms. Four goals in the social interaction subdomain are ( a ) be willing to interact with others; ( b ) get along well with peers; ( c ) show self esteem, assertion, and autonomy; and ( d ) care for and respect others. Three goals in the social adaption subdomain are 2 Behavioral markers ( ) refer to a prescribed set of behaviors indicative of some aspect of typical performance by a particular age.

PAGE 25

25 stated: ( a ) enjoy and adjust oneself to the grou p life, ( b ) comply with basic behavioral norms, and ( c ) develop a sense of belonging (Ministry of Education, 2012). E xpectations for learning and development of emotional competence (e.g., emotion al understanding, emotional expression, and emotional contro l) are primarily specified in the health domain r ather than in the social domain, under the physical and mental conditions subdomain of the health domain. Importance of Social Emotional Competence in the Ea rly Years Social subsequent success in school and in life (Shonkoff & Philllips, 2000). Considerable emotional competence and their readiness for school and early school adjustment ( e.g., LaParo & Pianta, 2000; McClelland, Morrison, & Holmes, 2000 ). For example researchers indicated that s ocial emotional competence in preschool children was an important predictor of early school achievement ( McClelland & Morrison 2003; Rhoades, Warren Domitrovich, & Greenberg 2011 ). Socially competent children have the ability to develop positive peer and adult relationships that are necessary to succeed in their homes, neighborhoods, schools, and adult lives ( Odom, McConnell, & Brown, 2008). Young children who are not social ly and emotional ly competent are more likely to exhibit challenging behavior (Dunlap et al., 2006; Hemmeter, Ostrosky, & Fox, 2006). In mainland China, the prevalence of challenging behavior in preschool children is notable. On the basis of teacher reports, Dong (2010) estimated the prevalence of peer victimization was 12% among Chinese children age s 3 through 5. In a sample of 1,022 Chin ese children ages 4 to 5, Mei and his colleagues (2003) reported the

PAGE 26

26 prevalence of challenging behavior was nearly 19% as determined by parent reports on the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983). These authors also found statistical ly significant differences in the prevalence of challenging behavior between boys (22%) and girls (15%). Liu, Cheng, and Leung (2011) further compared on the CBCL and the Caregiver Teacher Report Form (Achenbach & Resc orla, 2000). Although they identified similar prevalence rates, t hey found Chinese preschoolers had higher scores on internalizing behaviors (e.g., withdrawn, anxious) while preschoolers in the United States scored higher on externalizing behaviors (e.g., aggression, hyperactivity). The s ocial emotional competence of young children has become a topic of major One Child policy, the majority of children currently in presc hool s are the only children in their families. This means these children do not have opportunities for social interaction with siblings on a daily basis before entering preschool. They often experience undivided and excessive amounts of attention from pare nts and grandparents and are 2 that is, four grandparents, two parents, and a spoiled child (Zhu, 2009). Kluger (2013) has described thes the generations of only children born under the On e Child policy. Widespread concerns about social emotional competence and prosocial behavior are associated with these children (Tobin, Wu, & Davidson, 1989; Zhu, 2009) Studies have shown only children in China tend ed to be self interested, uncooperative, and reluctant to share in their preschool s (Wang, 2002).

PAGE 27

27 In early 2016, this decades long One Child policy was relaxed such that couples in mainland China are now permitted to have two children if one part of the couple is an only child. Therefore, the p ossibility exists that some preschool children who are currently only children will have younger brothers or sisters in the next few years (Yuan, 2016). Within th e relaxing of the One Child policy, it is especially important to promote the social emotional competence of Chinese only children, because they will need additional support to learn how to get along well with their siblings who will share the ir attention from parents and grandparents Based on observatio ns survey s and interview data gathered fro m 50 two child families where the older child was 3 to 6 years of age Zhou (2015) found those older children had difficulties in social interaction and emotional regulation and exhibited more challenging behavior after the birth of the second child in the ir families. Preschool Social Education in Mainland China Since the founding of the PRC in 1949, one of the most important achievements in contemporary preschool social education is that the social domain has become a separate and independent domain in the preschool curriculum (Liu, 2008). Aimed at promoting the social development and learning of preschool children, the objectives and content of preschool social education in mainland China focuses on cognitive, affective, and behavioral components of social development and learning of preschool children (Yu, 2000).

PAGE 28

28 It was not until the release of the landmark document Guidance one of the fi ve domains in the preschool curriculum nationwide with the other curricular domains of health, language, science, and art (Li, 2006) Zhu (2013) summarized two teaching practice approaches to promoting the social emotional competence of young children th at have been used in preschool s in mainland China: specialized approach ( ) and embedded approach ( ). The specialized approach includes whole group, small group, and one on one lessons specifically designed to teach children skills reflective of social emotional competence The embedded approach involves creating learning opportunities to teach skills reflective of social emotional competence in typically occurring activities, such as daily routines, lessons associated with other curricular domains and as part of eduplay 3 (Sun & Hu, 2015). Furthermore, instruction focused on social emotional competence was reported to be implemented more often through an embedded approach than a specialized approach in preschool settings (Sun & Hu, 2015; Ye, 2012). On the basis of analyzing and summarizing 425 lessons and activities collec ted preschool social domain, Ji (2012) identified 12 themes under which social emotional 3 Eduplay ( ) is defined as a form of play based e ducation with Chinese characteristics, which captures the belief that play is a vehicle for learning. Being synonymous with the term play eduplay is easier to understand and carry out in Chinese preschool settings (Leung, 2011).

PAGE 29

29 lessons and activities were categorized. The percentages of activities organized und er each of the 12 themes were : culture and holiday celebration (16.9%), prosocial behavior and social interactions (16.2%), social environment (12.2%), emotions (11.5%), self awareness (9.9%), nature and environmental protection (8.2%), personality (7.5%), living ability and living habits (5.6%), social rules/norms (5.4%), safety and survival (3.3%), etiquette (2.8%), and finance (0.2%) (Ji, 2012). The instructional content of the preschool social domain in mainland China was analogous to instructional cont ent associated with two domains in the United States, that is, social emotional development and social studies (Yu, 2012). To date, several literature reviews have been conducted on preschool social education in mainland China ; however, t hese reviews empha sized the development of social skills, including social skills trajectories and factors influencing the development of social skills (e.g., He, 2015; Zhao, 2011). Using a co word analysis of 208 articles identified through searching three main Chinese ele ctronic databases, Jiang (2015) topic s in the field of preschool social education which were published in Chinese journal articles T he majority of the articles were based r ather than empirical data Through reviewing and analyzing journal articles, book chapters, and dissertations and theses published between 2011 and 2013, Hong and Jiang (2015) conducted a narrative review and identified three major themes in the Chinese em pirical and non empirical literature about presc hool social education: (a ) the significance and value o f preschool social education, (b ) the objectives and content of pr eschool social education, and (c ) the efficacy of preschool social emotional instructio n The authors summarized that the

PAGE 30

30 existing Chinese literature offered primarily theoretical or conceptual analyses of the content and objectives of preschool social education, rather than empirical studies examining the effect of preschool social emotiona l teaching practices development and learning when delivered either through the specialized approach or the embedded approach (Hong & Jiang, 2015). Pyramid Model for Promoting Social Emotional Competence in Young Children Designed as a frame work for organizing evidence based teaching practices for promoting the social, emotional, and behavioral development of young children, the Pyramid Model includes universal, secondary, and tertiary teaching practices to support the social emotional compet ence of all children, the provision of targeted preventive social emotional supports for children with or at risk for social emotional delays, and individualized positive behavior supports for children with significant or persistent challenging behavior (F ox et al. 2010; Hemmeter et al., 2014). The development of the Pyramid Model was influenced by public health models of promotion, prevention, and intervention, as well as school wide multi tiered systems of positive behavior intervention and supports. Th e social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices associated with the Pyramid Model were identified and selected for inclusion in the model based on reviews of the research on (a ) effective in struction for young children, (b ) strategies to promote chi ld engagem ent and appropriate behavior, (c ) the promotion and emotional skills, and (d ) the implementation of individualized assessment based behavior support plans for children with the most severe challenging behavior (Hemmeter et al ., 2014). In the United States, select numbers of preschool teachers from all 50 states have received training on the Pyramid Model through the Center on the Social and

PAGE 31

31 Emotional Foundations for Early Learning (CSEFEL) and the Technical Assistance Center on Social Emotional Intervention for Young Children (TACESI) T housands of trainers and coaches have been trained to support infant/toddler and preschool Pyramid Model practices (Hemmeter et al., 2014). The functional relati onship between a multicomponent professional development the Pyramid Model practices has been supported through a single case experimental design (Fox, Hemmeter, Snyder, Binder, & Clarke, 2 011). Findings from a potential efficacy randomized trial involving 40 preschool teachers in Tennessee and Florida further demonstrate d use of the Pyramid Model practices and collate ral effects on the social skills and challenging behavior of preschool children ( Hemme ter, Snyder, Fox, & Algina, 2016 ). Although most of the empirical studies focused on the Pyramid Model are conducted in the United States, in recent years the Pyramid M odel is receiving more attention internationally. For example, Heo et al. (2014) surveyed 256 Ko rean early childhood educators to gather their perspectives about the social emotional teaching practices associated with the Pyramid Model The Pyramid Model h as been recently documented in the Chinese professional literature and has been viewed as valuable by Chinese researchers (e.g., He & Zhang, 2014; Hu & Cao, 2011). Furthermore, a pilot Pyramid Model practi ces supports the feasibility and appropriateness of applying the Pyramid Model into the socio cultural context of mainland China (Luo, Snyder, Clark, & Hong, 2017 ). Using a two group pretest posttest design Lam and Wong (2017) found an intervention progra m based on

PAGE 32

32 the P yramid Model was effective in increasing social competence and decreasing challenging behavior of Chinese preschool children in Hong Kong Statement of the Problem Given the recognized importance of social s achievements during the preschool years and throughout their lives and the need to emotional learning and development within the socio cultural context of mainland China, early childhood researchers and practitioners in mainland China have placed increasing attention on preschool social education over the last 30 years. Although the social domain has officially be en one of the five preschool curricular domain s since 2001 the Chinese empirical and non empirical litera ture suggests the social domain has been somewhat neglected during instruction, is the most difficult domain for preschool teachers to teach among the five curricular domains, and that preschool teachers are less familiar with strategies for teaching young children skills associated with social emotional competence (Ji, 2011; Tian, 2013). Literature reviews of preschool social education showed that the existing Chinese literature was dominated by theoretical or conceptual analyses rather than empirical stud ies (Hong & Jiang, 2015; Jiang, 2015). To date, only one published study was identified that empirically examined social education (i.e., Ye, 2012). This study surveyed lead teachers from 42 preschool classroo ms in four provinces by using an author developed 20 item instrument to investigate these ) knowledge and attitude s towar d preschool social education, (b ) implementation of pr eschool social education, and (c ) challenges in preschool s ocial education. Based on the r esults from th e study the author suggested that although teachers realized the

PAGE 33

33 importance of preschool social education, they implemented much fewer lessons and activities associated with the social domain than the other fou r curricular domains With respect to their reported teaching practices, the participating preschool teachers primarily used strategies involving conversation s and discussions to teach children social skills The greatest challenge in preschool social educ ation reported by these preschool teachers was the lack of support system s from preschool administrators and families (Ye, 2012). However, n either the instrument development process nor the psychometric properties of the instrument used in the study was de scribed by Ye (2012) which limits the validity of inferences that can be derived from the reported findings. In addition, only very general information about preschool social emotional instruction was gathered from teachers (e.g., whether and when teacher s implemented a social emotional lesson, objectives for the social emotional lesson, and instructional approaches to teach social emotional competence). The author did not examine the specific teaching practices that preschool teachers were using to promot e social emotional competence and address challenging behavior of young children. A need exists to characterize and quantify the teaching practices that Chinese preschool teachers are using to promote the social, emotional, and behavioral development of y oung children (Jiang, 2015). The growing interest in characterizing teaching practices has necessitated the development of instruments to measure practices. T o date, however, instruments related to the preschool social domain have primarily focused on the social emotional development of young children rather than s or teaching pra ctices (He, 2015; Zhao, 2011).

PAGE 34

34 Purpose s of the Present Study The purposes of the present study were (a ) to develop and validate the content of a culturally relevant questionnaire focused on preschool social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices, (b ) to gather preliminary structural validity and internal consistency score relia bility evidence for the questionnaire using data obtained from Chinese preschool teachers, and (c ) to use the questionnaire to examine Chinese practices aligned with the Pyra mid Model and two nationally recognized and influential Chinese early childhood learning standards documents The questionnaire de veloped for the present study was titled the Social Emotional Teaching Practices Questionnaire China ( SETP C; Snyder & Luo, 20 17). The SETP C has been developed and various sources of validity evidence have been gathered using systematic and iterative quantitative and qualitative approaches, particularly through the lenses of Chinese early childhood researchers leaders, practiti training programs The SETP C has been translated into Chinese (Simplified) and back translated into English based on recommended procedures and guidelines (Brislin, 1986; Guillemi n, Bombardier, & Beaton, 1993). T he present study was among the first conducted in mainland about teaching practices for promoting social emotional competence and addressing challenging behavior of young children Following the development and initial validation activities that resulted in the version of the SETP C used in the present study (see Chapter 3 for detailed descriptions of the development and initial validation activities), the following four research questions were ad dressed :

PAGE 35

35 1. Based on the SETP C data obtained from a sample of Chinese preschool teachers, is there score validity evidence that supports internal structure and score reliability evidence that supports internal consistency? 2. What are Chinese preschool teache and confidence with implementing social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices as measured by the SETP C? 3. To what extent are teacher or classroom characteristics (role, professional title, education, majo r, certification, teaching experience, curriculum, child to teacher ratio, child age, inclusion of children with disabilities enrollment of children with persistent challenging behavior) and features of preschools ( city, region, funding source, quality ra ting and confidence with implementing teaching practices as measured by the SETP C? 4. Do Chinese preschool teachers with different individual, classroom, and preschool characteristics vary in the ty pes of supports they report are needed to prepare them to implement preschool social education 4 ? Conceptual Framework Guiding the Present Study T he Pyramid Model ( Fox et al., 2010; Hemmeter et al., 2014) and the Teaching Pyramid Observation Tool for Presch ool Classrooms (TPOT; Hemmeter et al. 2014 ) guided the conceptualization of the primary construct s that the SETP C was intended to measure Additional information about the Pyramid Model and the TPOT is provided below. Pyramid Model The Pyramid Model is a multi tiered promotion, prevention, and intervention framework that organizes environmental, interactional and instructional practices designed to support the social, emotional, and behavioral competenc ies of young children (Fox et al, 2010; Hemmeter e t al., 2014). The universal tier of the Pyramid Model includes practices related to the provision of nurturing and responsive 4 Preschool social educ ation culturally sensitive translation of social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices in the Chinese context.

PAGE 36

36 relationships and high quality supportive environments, which are critical for promoting t he social emotional competence of all ch ildren. Particular emphasis is placed on practices in which the teacher engages in responsive and positive interaction s with children and develops partnerships with families and colleagues. Teaching practices associated with relationships and interactions engaging in supportive conversations with children, providing encouragement and feedback to children, developing partnerships with families and establishing collaborative relationships among classroom team members. The second category of universal practices is related to the provision of predictable and supportive activities and routines. Teaching p ractices include those associated with i mplementing a developmentally appropriate and balanced schedule of activities, explicitly teaching children about the classroom schedule, structuring smooth transitions between activities, teaching and promoting a small number of classroom rules or behavio r expectation s providing clear directions, and providing engaging activities (Fox et al., 2010; Hemmeter et al., 2014). The secondary tier of the Pyramid Model focuses on the provision of explicit instruction in social skills and emotional competencies a nd the prevention of challenging behavior Considering the developmental nature of challenging behavior, most young children might engage in challenging behavior at some point, thus, it is often difficult to precisely n addition, all children will require adult guidance and instruction in social emotional skills, such as how to appropriately express their emotions, play cooperatively with peers, and use social problem solving strategies.

PAGE 37

37 M ore systematic and focused inst ruction is necessary however, to teach children who are at risk of developing challenging behavior or who have delays in social or emotional skills. Therefore, this tier of the Pyramid Model includes teaching of social emotional skills for all children an d the delivery of targeted teaching that is differentiated and systematic for some children who need more support. According to the Pyramid Model the content of teaching at this tier includes identifying and expressing emotions, self regulation, social pr oblem solving, initiating and maintaining interactions, cooperative responding, strategies for hand l ing disappointment and anger, and friendships skills (Fox et al., 2010; Hemmeter et al., 2014). At the tertiary tier, teaching practices associated with dev eloping, implementing, and evaluating comprehensive and assessment based individualized behavior support plans are intended to address persistent challenging behavior and support the development of socially acceptable replacement skills. When a child has p ersistent challenging behavior that is not responsive to instructions and supports at the previous tiers, a collaborative team is formed to engage in the process of individualized positive behavior support (I PBS). At the center of the collaborative team a teachers, and other primary caregivers. The I PBS process begins with functional behavior and factors related to his/her challenging behavior. The collaborative team then develops potential behavior support teaching or intervention strategies based on the information gathered from functional assessment. Employing the Prevent Teach Reinforce model (Dunlap, Wilson, Strain, & Lee, 2013), the behavior su pport plan includes antecedent prevention strategies to address the triggers of challenging

PAGE 38

38 behavior, replacement skills that are alternative s to the challenging behavior, and consequence strategies that ensure challenging behavior is not reinforced or mai ntained and the replacement behavior is reinforced or maintained (Fox et al., 2010; Hemmeter et al., 2014). Teaching Pyramid Observation Tool for Preschool Classrooms TPOT is an instrume nt designed to measure classroom wide implementation of universal and targeted teaching practices associated with the Pyramid Model and the behavior support plans at tier three (Hemmeter et al, 2014). The TPOT is completed based on a com bination of at least a 2 hour observation in a preschool classroom and a 15 to 20 minute interview with the teacher. Based on the observation and interview The TPOT inclu des a total of 13 7 teaching practice indicators organized under three subscales: Key Practices, Red Flags, and Response to Challenging Behavior. Fourteen items and 114 indicators are associated with the Key Practices subscale : ( a ) schedules, routines, and activities ( v 5 = 10) ( b ) transitions between activities are appropriate ( v = 8) ( c ) teachers engage in supportive conversations with children ( v = 10) ( d ) promoting ( v = 9) ( e ) providing directions ( v = 7) ( f ) collaborative teami ng ( v = 9) ( g ) teaching behavior expectations ( v = 7) ( h ) teaching social skills and emotional competencies ( v = 8) ( i ) teaching friendship skills ( v = 9) (j ) teaching children to express emotions ( v = 8) ( k ) teaching problem solving ( v = 9) (l ) inte rventions for 5 v presents the number of indicators associated with a particula r item on the TPOT.

PAGE 39

39 children with persistent challenging behavior ( v = 5) ( m ) connecting with families ( v = 8) and ( n ) supporting family use of the Pyramid Model practices ( v = 7) Red Flags include 17 practices that are inconsistent or incompatible with the implementation of the Pyramid Model Six indicators are associated with the teaching practices used to address challenging behavior when it occurs during a TPOT observation (three indicators are consider ed as essential strategies and the other three indica tors are identified as additional strategies that are appropriate for use with some, but not all, instances of challenging behavior ) With respect to scoring, teaching practice indicators that are organized under each item on the TPOT are scored as Yes ( pr esent ), No ( not present ) or N/O ( no opportunity ; four indicators can be scored no opportunity). Significance of the Study The present study extend s the current knowledge base about preschool social educat ion in mainland Chinese context in a number of ways. First, to date, there have been no published studies identified that have empirically examined Chinese preschool self reported use of and confidence with implementing social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices aligned with the Pyramid Model and two Chinese early childhood learning standards documents Findings from the present study provide in formation about reported implementation of social, emotional, and behavioral teachi ng practices, as well as teacher classroom, and preschool characteristics influencing their implementation. S econd, an instrument designed to perspectives about the frequency of use and confidence with implementing social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practi ces has been developed and preliminary psychometric integrity evidence for the instrument were gathered Only few instruments measuring preschool social education have been

PAGE 40

40 located in the empirical and non empirical Chinese literature ( e.g., Ye, 2012 ). T he se instruments do not measure specific social, emotional, or behavioral teaching practice s in preschool classrooms and scant psychometric integrity evidence is available for the existing measures. This study make s a noteworthy contribution to the measureme nt of environmental, interactional and instructional teaching practices associated with preschool social education in mainland China. Third, findings from this study will help researchers, policymakers, and practitioners c haracterize preschool elf reported use of practices and their confidence in implementing social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices This information might be useful for informing the design of professional development or preservice training for preschool teachers in mainland China. Finally the present study contribute s to a growing body of international research focused on the Pyramid Model Delimitations The present study was delimited to gathering self report information from Chinese preschool teachers about thei r use of and confidence with implementing social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices N o direct observations were conducted on implementation of the se teaching practices. The survey data used in the present study were collected at one p oint in time and were gathered from a defined target population of preschool teachers from Beijing and Ningbo in mainland China The present study was a correlational study. R esults of present study relied on cross sectional survey data C ausal dir ection of associations between individual classroom, and preschool characteristics confidence in use of social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices cannot be ascertained.

PAGE 41

41 The focus of the present study was preschool reported social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices aligned with the Pyramid Model and two Chines early childhood learning standards documents T he effects of Chinese preschool use of social, emotional, and behavioral tea ching practices on child developmental or learning outcomes was not examined in the present study Limitations A number of limitations of the present study are noted. First, the development and validation of the SETP C were pr imarily focused on gathe ring content and structural validity evidence in the Chinese cultural context V alidity evidence based on SETP C relations to other variables was not addressed due to limited resources. Relationships between SETP C scores and other measures intended to ass ess the same/similar or different constructs were unknown. Second, multiple sources of information, methods, and measures are recommended in early childhood assessment ( National Research Council 2008). The present study employ ed only one measurement instr ument ( i.e., SETP C ) and one method (i.e., self report) to measure Chinese perspectives about the teaching practices aligned with the Pyramid Model and two Chinese early childhood learning standards documents Direct observations of Chi nese in the classrooms were not conducted nor were judgments about their teaching practices obtained from other informants. Third although a nationwide geographically representative sam ple was involved in the content validation of the SETP C teachers recruited for the present study were preschool teachers from two economically powerful metropolis es in mainland China ( i.e., Beijing and Ningbo ) These teachers might not be representative of the population of Chinese preschool teachers across mainland China Their

PAGE 42

42 perspectives about social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices might be associated with policies or curriculum guidance specific to these two cities Considering the rema rkable diversity in socioeconomic development across mainland China, r esults from the present study should not be generalized to all preschool teachers in mainland China

PAGE 43

43 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE This chapter describes a systematic review of th e literature relevant to the present study. The systematic review was conducted to identify and summarize teaching practices for promoting social emotional competence of preschool children that have been empirically studied in Chinese preschool s This syst ematic review of the Chinese literature on the status of social emotional instruction implemented in Chinese preschool s provides the rationale and background information for the present study. The systematic review cove red five major topics ( a ) type of emp irical evidence reviewed, ( b ) characteristics of study participants, ( c ) conditions under which social emotional instruction was implemented, ( d ) components of social emotional instruction and ( e ) focus and approaches to teaching children social emotional competence. The first topic area addressed in the review focused on the dates and research designs of the existing empirical studies on preschool social emotional instruction in mainland China. The second and third topic areas provided information about the children for whom social emotional instruction worked and the conditions under which social emotional instruction was implemented. With emphasis on the identification of practices that were aligned with core constructs associated with social emotional teaching practices as reflected on the TPOT and aligned with two Chinese early childhood learning standards document a review of the key components and critical features of social emotional instruction (i.e., fourth and fifth topics) provided a rationale for the present study by highlighting the feasibility and appropriateness of using the Pyramid Model as a conceptual framework to develop items for the SETP C designed to

PAGE 44

44 measure use of and confidence with implementing social, e motional, and behavioral teaching practices Review Procedures Search Strategy A systematic search of nine common English and Chinese educational electronic databases was conducted in April 2016. Five English databases were searched: Academic Search Premie r, Education Full Text, ERIC (ProQuest), ProQuest Social Science Journals, and PsycINFO. The four Chinese databases searched were China Academic Journals Full text Database ( ), Chinese Studies Online from Wanfang China Online Journals ( ) China Science and Technology Journal Database ( ) and China National Social Science Database ( ) The electronic database search procedure was adapted from the systematic search procedures specified in the Conducting evidence review s for the DEC recommended practices: Guidelines and procedures manual (DEC Evidence Synthesi s Group, 2016a). Figure 2 1 illustrates the general search methods for this review. The natural language search terms were organized under three areas: instruction, social emotional domain, and child outcome. To ensure precise and comprehensive searching, each natural language search thesaurus for each database searched in English. The na tural language and controlled vocabulary search terms were combined using the OR or AND Boolean logic as shown in Figure 2 1. Because controlled vocabulary terms in English databases typically are

PAGE 45

45 unique to each database each database was searched separat ely using the natural language and controlled vocabulary terms Then, t wo search filters were applied to all searches in each database: filter for age ( birth to 6 ) and filter for country (China) Finally type of publication during each database search wa s set to include only journal articles (p eer review articles in English databases) Appendix A shows the electronic search strategy for one of the English databases. To make the search strategies consistent between the English and Chinese electronic datab ases, each natural language search term used in the English databases was literally translated into Chinese (i.e., word for word translation). However, sometimes the way a meaning or concept is expressed in one language might differ in the other language. On the rare occasions when literal translation of a search term into Chinese was misleading, other feasible methods associated with the equivalence effect in the Chinese translation of English search terms were used Given there is no hierarchical terms (e.g., broader term, narrower term) associated with each translated search term in the thesaurus of the Chinese database were also searched These related search terms were co ) and for the AND function Unlike searches in the English databases, search terms related to country filter were not used in the Chinese databases because almos t all studies retrieved from the four Chinese electronic databases were conducted in the PRC. Another modification in the Chinese database search was adding search terms associated with social emotional instruction social curricul*

PAGE 46

46 for the purpose of limiting the search records to a reasonable number of studies. Similar to the English database search, each of the four Chinese databases was searched separately. The records (or search results) from the Englis h and Chinese databases search were imported and combined into the reference management software EndNote X7. An ancestral search was conducted to locate relevant studies that were not found in the electronic database search, which included a search of the reference lists of included studies that met the inclusion criteria (backward search) and searching studies that have cited each included study (forward search). Google Scholar was used in the forward search for included studies written in English, while t function in the China Academic Journals Full K nowledge N section) was used for included studies written in Chinese. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria Once the deduplication of electronic records had been completed, all records in the EndNote X7 software and records from ancestral search were assessed for inclusion through a two stage procedure. First, the title and abstract of each record were screened to eliminate records that clearly did not meet the inc lusion criteria. As a result, a list of possible studies was identified and subjected to the next step. Full texts of the articles deemed as possibilities were then examined against the inclusion criteria. For a study to be included in the review, it had to meet the following inclusion criteria. First, the study had to be published in a journal. Second, the study had to be empirically based research focused on social emotional instruction. In this review, social emotional instruction was defined as intenti onal and systematic teaching specifically designed to provide learning experiences or opportunities for preschool

PAGE 47

47 children to develop their social emotional competence (Liu & Feng, 2005) Third, the social emotional instruction had to target preschool aged children. Specifically, the average child age at study onset was between 36 to 72 months (not including 72 months). If the average child age was not reported, then all child participants had to be enrolled in a preschool when the study was conducted to be included. In mainland China, preschool has a different name ), which literally means day education and care programs serving children ages 3 to 6. Fourth, the study was conducted in preschool settings in the PRC. Covering approximately 9.6 million squ are kilometers, the PRC exercises jurisdiction over 22 provinces, 5 autonomous regions, 4 direct controlled municipalities (i.e., Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai and Chongqing), and 2 mostly self governing special administrative regions (i.e., Hong Kong and Mac au), and claims sovereignty over Taiwan. Given the difficulties associated with database access in Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan, this review only included studies conducted in mainland China. Fifth, the study had to report either a social competence outcom e or emotional competence outcome for the preschool children who were participants in the study. Sixth, the study had to demonstrate a statistical, functional, or temporal relationship between the social emotional instruction and child outcome(s). In other words, the study design had to fit into one of four research design categories: single case experimental research designs, group experimental research designs, correlational research designs, or explanatory case study research designs. Seventh, the study had to be written in either English or Chinese. Studies written in other languages were excluded in this review.

PAGE 48

48 Coding Variables and Procedures To summarize the existing empirical literature on preschool social emotional instruction in mainland China, a coding form and manual to review identified studies were developed. The coding form was adapted from the DEC Recommended Practices Evidence Syntheses Generic Coding Sheet (DEC Evidence Synthesi s Group, 2016b) and Coding Scheme for Group Experimental Desi gn Studies (DEC Evidence Synthesis Group, 2016c). Data were extracted under the following five categories. Research designs In addition to categorizing each study into the four research designs eligible for inclusion in this review, the student investigat or further specified the research design of each included study. For example, group experimental research designs include experimental, quasi experimental, and pre experimental designs. The most common single case experimental research designs include A B studies, reversal studies, multiple baseline designs, alternating treatment design studies, and multiple treatment design studies (DEC Evidence Synthesis Group, 2016a). Participant characteristics Study participants of interest were child and adult parti cipants (i.e., instruction agents). Coding variables for child participants were sample size, gender, age, disability status, challenging behavior, child risk factors, and family income. Coding for adult participants involved the following variables: sampl e size, gender, age, level of education, professional role of adult participants, teaching experience in early childhood settings (birth to 6), and training. Three coding variables were associated with training of instruction agents. Frist, the student in vestigator recorded the type of professional who provided training to instruction agents. Second, the student investigator recorded whether the study detailed specific training (e.g., amount of training, training to criterion) or qualifications (e.g.,

PAGE 49

49 prof essional credentials) required to implement the social emotional instruction. Third, the student investigator recorded the type of training (e.g., workshops, coaching) provided to instruction agents. Setting and context When coding for setting and conten t, the student investigator documented the primary setting in which the study was conducted (e.g., inclusive classroom, segregated classroom), format of instructional group, type of preschool the child participants were attending (i.e., public private), a ge group of preschool classes, and geographic location of the study. Format of instructional group captured the make up of the child/group of children the social emotional instruction was targeting, including one target child, identified target children, s mall group, large group, whole group, and program wide. Generally, preschool children in mainland China are grouped by age and three age groups of preschool classes are usually specified: junior class ( 3 to 4 year olds ; ), middle class ( 4 to 5 year olds ; ) and senior class ( 5 to 6 year olds ; ). However, other types of preschool classes exist in some programs, such as toddler class ( ), mixed age class ( ), and pre primary class (affiliated in elementary schools ; ). In addition, if a named intervention (e.g., Pyramid Model ) or curriculum (e.g., Second Step) was used in the included study, the student investigator recorded the name of the intervention or curriculum. Components of instruction. Each study was ex amined to determine whether the authors reported implementing the four key components of instruction as described by Snyder, Hemmeter, McLean, Sandall, and McLaughlin (2013): what to teach, when to teach, how to teach, and how to evaluate. The what to teac h component was categorized based on the teaching practices reflected on the TPOT (Hemmeter et al.,

PAGE 50

50 2014) and social emotional instructional content aligned with ELDG. A total of 12 categories of instructional content were specified in this review : teaching behavior expectations (TBE), teaching friendship skills (TFR), tea ching social problem solving (TPS ), teaching social interaction with peers (TIP), teaching social interaction with adults (TIA), teaching social independence (TSI), teaching social cooperation (TSC), teaching social responsibility (TSR), teaching social adjustment (TSA), teaching children to express emotions (TEE), teaching children to understand emotions (TUE), and teaching children to regulate emotions (TRE). Four of these categor ies were directly aligned with teaching practices on the T POT (which are labeled as TPOT Key Practices items ), while the other eight categories were indirectly aligned with teaching practices on the TPOT. The categories of instructional content specified f or this review and associated operational definitions were developed by the student researcher and reviewed by her major professor. Three iterations of the categories and associated definitions were developed and then reviewed before using them in the pres ent review. The when to teach component was organized into five categories: teacher directed activity, child initiated activity, transition, routine, and outdoor activity. The how to teach component captured the instructional procedures/strategies to teac h the specified social emotional content. With particular emphasis on the fidelity of implementation, the how to evaluate component under this section focused on whether social emotional instruction was implemented as planned. Evaluating if social emotion al instruction resulted in child learning was captured in the child outcome section. The findings related to child

PAGE 51

51 outcomes are not included in this chapter, because they are not relevant to the focus of the present study. Given the social emotional instr uction might have been implemented by those who were not regularly interacting with children (e.g., researchers), another variable associated with the components of instruction was added, that is, the who is teaching component. In addition, the dose of soc ial emotional instruction was quantified by recording frequency (i.e., number of teaching episodes per week), duration (i.e., total length of instruction in terms of weeks), intensity (i.e., amount of time within each teaching episode), and cumulative dose when possible to calculate from other dose data provided (product of frequency duration intensity ). Instruction approach and focus. Instruction agents can help preschool children develop social emotional competence through several types of approaches Consistent with the two approaches in preschool social education in mainland China (i.e., specialized and embedded), four types of instruction approaches were specified in this review: explicit social emotional lessons, integration with other curricular domains eduplay, and infusion into daily routines. Being aligned with the three tiers of instructional support associated with the Pyramid Model, the focus of social emotional instruction was grouped into three categories: universal practices (i.e., instr uction was used to support the social emotional competence of all children), secondary practices (i.e., targeted instruction was provided to children who are at risk of developing challenging behavior or who have delays in social emotional development), an d tertiary practices (i.e., individualized instruction was provided to children with persistent challenging behavior).

PAGE 52

52 Summary of Studies Reviewed A total of 25,164 records were located through the systematic search of nine electronic databases, with an ad ditional 1,397 studies identified in the ancestral search. A PRISMA flow diagram summarizing the search and selection process is shown for English and Chinese databases, respectively (see Figures 2 2 and 2 3). After title and abstract screening, 351 record s were retained for full text review. Five journal articles describing five studies identified through the English databases search and 77 journal articles describing 75 studies retrieved from the Chinese databases were found to meet the inclusion criteria However, four of these studies (written in Chinese) were identified in both English and Chinese databases searches. After removing duplicate publications and identification, 76 published studies dating back to 1986 were included in th e systematic review. Type of Empirical Evidence As shown in Figure 2 4, the earliest empirical study identified in this review was published in 1986, which supports findings from a previous review indicating that the mid 1980s was a turning point in mainland China for the ps ychological and educational research on the social emotional domain (Dong & Xia, 1991). Publication dates for the final corpus of 76 studies ranged from 1986 to 2016 (i.e., before April 2016). Two studies were published in the 1980s, 20 studies in the 1990 s, 25 studies from 2000 to 2009, and 29 studies from 2010 to 2016. Nearly one third of the included studies were conducted by researchers from three Chinese universities: Tianjin Normal University ( n 1 = 11), Liaoning Normal University ( n = 9), and Beijing Normal University ( n = 5). 1 n in this chapter represents the number of studies included in the review.

PAGE 53

53 Of the 76 studies included, six studies were single case experimental research designs (SCE R Ds), 10 were explanatory case study research designs (ECS R Ds), and 60 were group experimental research designs (GE R Ds). No correlational research design studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria. Specifically, with respect to SCE R Ds, the six studies included were four reversal designs (i.e., ABAB), one was a multiple baseline design across subjects, and one was an A B design study. Regarding GE R Ds, the most common design across the included studies was quasi experimental designs ( n = 40), followed by experimental designs ( n = 15) and pre experimental designs ( n = 5). In summary, although results of this review indicate an inc rease in empirical research focus on preschool social emotional instruction as evidenced by the increasing numbers of published studies since 1986, the number of empirical studies is still relatively small. Group quasi experimental studies comprised 53% of studies included in this review with nearly 20% of included studies characterized as experimental designs. Researchers in the areas of developmental psychology or child development from Chinese normal universities primarily conducted these empirical studi es. Characteristics of Study Participants Child participants. Sixty eight of the 76 reviewed studies (89.5%) reported the sample size of child participants A total of 8,468 preschool children were involved in these studies. The number of child participa nts ranged from 1 to 1,587 across studies. Child gender was reported for 2,634 preschool children included in 34 reviewed studies (1,350 males and 1,284 females). Mean ages were reported for 2,758 children involved in 27 studies ( M = 4.8 years, SD = 0.7), and age ranges were reported for 3,545 children in 19 studies (range = 2.5 to 7.0 years). Only one study reported including a

PAGE 54

54 child with disabilities (i.e., Yao & Mao, 2011) This child had been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder at age 4 in a hospita l (i.e., Peking University Sixth Hospital) by using the Chinese version of the Childhood Autism Rating Scale (CARS; Schoper, Reichler, DeVellis, & Daly, 1980). Characteristics of child participants and study settings across all included studies are shown i n Table 2 1 Sixty three preschool children with challenging behavior participated in 11 included studies (five SCE R Ds studies, two GE R Ds studies, and four ECS R Ds studies). For type of challenging behavior, 25 children in eight studies were characterized as having internalizing behavior challenges such as social withdrawal and shyness. Thirty eight children in two studies were identified as having externalizing problems, such as aggressive behavior and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Five studie s reported the instruments used to identify preschool children with challenging behavior, such as the Chinese version of the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach, n.d.), the Chinese Putnam & Rothbart, 2006), the Young Teacher From (Ye, n.d.) ( ) Xi, & Shi, 2012) ( ) In addition, data on socioeconomic status were reported in only one study for a child who was from a family characterized as middle class. Risk factors were reported for 438 preschool children who participated in eight reviewed studies ( one SCE R D study, six GE R Ds studies, and one ECS R D study ), including neglected peer status, rejected peer status, and single parent household. According to their sociometric status and peer acceptance, 344 children were labeled as

PAGE 55

55 neglected children (who lack ed friends in class but were not disliked by their peers) Ninety four were rejected children (who lack ed friends in class and were actively disliked by many of their peers). The peer nomination measure ( Pang, 1991) or its adaptation was administered in seven of the eight studies, in which individual children in a class were aske d to nominate up to three classmates who they liked most (positive nomination) and three classmates who they liked least (negative nomination). In summary, preschool children who had low peer sociometric status were more emotional support and then received explicit instruction focused on social emotional competence. Furthermore, internalizing behaviors of preschool children, especially social withdrawal, was studied more widely than externalizing behaviors. Although the number of children with internalizing behavior s across the included studies was smaller than the number of children with externalizing behavior s the number of studies involving children with internalizing behavior s ( n = 8) was larger than the number of studies involving children with externalizing behavior s ( n = 2). This finding was expected given the reported prevalence of internalizing versus externalizing behaviors reported in studies of Chinese children (Liu et al. 2011). Adult participants. Across the 76 studies included in this review, only one study reported the sample size of instruction agents who delivered the social emotional instruction to preschool children (i.e., Zhang & Zeng, 2016). Information regarding the age, level of education, and teaching experience of instruction agents were not specified in any included study. Seven studies reported the type of professional who provided training to the instruction agents R esearchers trained authentic instruction

PAGE 56

56 agents (i.e., classroom teachers) to implement the social emotional instruction in these seven studies However, neither specific training (e.g., amount of training, training to criterion, model of training) nor qualifications (e.g., professional credenti als, experience) required to implement the social emotional instruction were specified. In summary, consistent with findings from previous systematic reviews of instructional practices conducted in the United States (e.g., Goldstein, 2002; Snyder et al., 2015), detailed information about the attributes of study participants was not provided in the majority of included studies, especially for the individuals who implemented the social emotional instruction. Conditions u nder Which Social Emotional Instruct ion Implemented As shown in Table 2 1 23 included studies (30.3%) explicitly reported the type of preschool in which study was conducted. In 21 studies, social emotional instruction was implemented in public preschool s whereas two studies were conducted in both public and private preschool s Thirty four public preschools and 10 private preschools were involved across these two studies. Forty eight studies (63.2%) reported the number of participating preschool classes and a total of 223 preschool classes were involved in these studies. The age group of the preschool classes was specified in 43 studies Across these 43 studies, child participants were enrolled in 40 junior classes 81 middle classes, 71 senior classes and 4 p re primary classes (attached to elementary school s ). F ive studies did not report the age group of the preschool classes. Of all 76 studies included, social emotional instruction was reported to be implemented in an inclusive preschool classroom in only one study (i.e., Yao & Mao,

PAGE 57

57 2011). All other studies did not specify whether the setting was an inclusive or segregated classroom. Forty nine studies (64.5%) reported the group format of child participants (or instruction group size) to whom the social emotional instruction was delivered. Eight studies described instruction was implemented with one target child from a preschool classroom. Individualized instruction targeting more than one target child from a classroom (up to 5 children) was reported in 4 studies. Instruction implemented wit h studies. One study involved a large group of children in a classroom (> 50% of the children, but not all children in a classroom). The social emotional instruction imp lemented at the classroom wide level was described in 34 studies. Fifty two studies (68.4%) reported the city or province where the study was conducted. The majority of studies were conducted in big cities, such as municipalities and provincial capitals. According to the definitions of the four economic and geographic regions 2 of mainland China provided by the National Bureau of Statistics of China (2011), 33 studies were conducted in the eastern region, three in the central region, six in the western regi on, and 10 in the northeastern region. More than 60% of these studies came from five provinces or municipalities: Tianjin ( n = 9 ), Liaoning ( n = 9), Beijing ( n = 6 ), Zhejiang ( n = 5), and Guangdong ( n = 4). Figure 2 5 shows the 2 The eastern region includes the following 10 provinces and municipalities: Beijing, Tianjin, Hebei, Shanghai, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Fujian, Shandong, Guangdong and Hainan. The central region includes the following six provinces: Shanxi, Anhui, Jiangxi, Henan, Hubei, and Hunan. The western region includes the following 12 provinces and municipalities: Inner Mongolia, Guangxi, Chongqing, Sichuan, Guizhou, Yunnan, Tibet, Shaanxi, Gansu, Qinghai, Ningxia, and Xinjiang. The northeast region includes the following three provinces: Liaoning, Jilin, and Heilongjiang.

PAGE 58

58 frequency distribution of th e included studies across 31 administrative divisions of the PRC. In summary, the social emotional instruction was primarily implemented in public preschool s in mainland China. Children were usually recruited from different age groups of preschool classes. The majority of studi es were conducted in privileged urban communities in eastern China, especially where normal universities are located. Therefore, it is unknown whether the findings from the included studies were unique to these urban samples or could be generalized to all preschool s and children in mainland China. Almost all the included studies did not specify the primary setting in which social emotional instruction was implemented, such as inclusive or segregated classrooms. This finding might be re lated to the development of early childhood special education services in mainland China. Education agencies began to offer services to young children with disabilities in 2000 in either special preschool classrooms in special education schools or inclusiv e preschool classroom s in some demonstration projects (e.g., public preschool) (Zhang & Yang, 2011). However, both the number of demonstration projects and number of children with disabilities involved in these demonstration projects were very small (Hu & Yang, 2013). For example, Mao and Zou (2009) found only 46 children with disabilities were attending 18 demonstration inclusive preschool s in Beijing. Components of Social Emotional Instruction Although the results from th e systematic review presented abo ve provide information about the participants, context s, and conditions under which social emotional instruction were implemented, the analysis of the specific social emotional teaching practices that have been empirically studied in Chinese preschool s is the most

PAGE 59

59 relevant part of the literature review for the present study. These social emotional teaching practices are directly related to the construct that the SETP C is designed to measure T he empirical evidence on social emotional teach ing practices sup ports the identification and selection of teachi ng practices included on the SETP C What to teach. Based on the alignment analysis of TPOT items and social emotional related domains of C ELDG, 12 categories of instructional content were specified i n this review. Four of these categories were labeled as the TPOT Key Practices items : TBE, TFR, TP S and TEE, which were directly aligned with teaching practices as reflected on the TPOT. The other eight categories were not as directly aligned with teachin g practices on the TPOT. The characteristics of social emotional instruction by study are shown in Table 2 2 Across 72 studies in which researchers reported the content of instruction, 34 studies addressed one category, 20 addressed two categories, 14 a ddressed three categories, and four addressed at least four categories. Researchers examined the influence of TFR in 40 studies, TIP in 20 studies, TUE in 18 studies, TSI in 12 studies, TSC in nine studies, TIA in eight studies, TP S in seven studies, TSR i n six studies, TRU in six studies, TBE in five studies, TSA in five studies, and TEE in three studies. Table 2 3 shows the instructional content reported across different research designs. Among the 34 studies in which the effect of a single category of i nstructional content was investigated, half of these studies examined the effect of TFR, seven examined TS I, four examined TIP, two examined TP S two examined TSA, one examined TSR, and one examined TUE. Across the 20 studies examining the effect of the co mbination of any two instructional content categories, nine studies focused on the

PAGE 60

60 combination of TUE and TFR, two on the combination of TRE and TIP, two on the combination of TFR and TP S two on the combination of TSR and TSA, one on the combination of TU E and TIP, one on the combination of TUE and TP S one on the combination of TIP and TIA, one on the combination of TSI and TIP, and one on the combination of TBE and TFR. Of the 14 studies in which the influence of three categories of instructional content were investigated, the combination of TIP, TIA, and TSC was addressed in three studies, and the combination of TBE, TSC, and TRE was addressed in three studies. Compared with other instructional content categories, TFR occurred most often in the reviewed studies TEE was least likely to be implemented across the studies included in this review. Both of these content categories are characterized as Key Practices items on the TPOT. The other two TPOT Key Practices items TP S and TBE were ranked 7th and 10th r espectively in the frequency of implementation among 12 instructional content categories. Although TUE was described in 18 included studies, 11 out of the 18 studies examined the effect of teaching children to understand emotions along with one of the othe r instructional content c ategories (i.e., TFR, TIP, or TP S ). In role taking) and vicariously match the emotional state or condition of others (i.e., empathy). Empat hy 3 has often been assumed to be the basis of much prosocial responding E mpathy serves as one of the critical factors driving and mediating prosocial actions (Eisenberge & Miller, 1987; Li & Yao, 2010; Yu & Liu, 2006). Given the important role of empathy in the development of prosocial behavior, it is not surprising 3 Empathy is usually defined as the ability to discern and vicariously experience the emotional state o f another being in Chinese literature (Xiao, Zheng, & Chen, 2014).

PAGE 61

61 that teaching children to understand emotions laid the foundation for teaching other social emotional instructional content in many studies included in this review. Five of the 76 reviewed stu dies (6.6%) reported implementing a named intervention or curriculum. The effect of the Chinese version of the Interpersonal Cognitive Problem Solving program (Shure & Spivack, 1980) was examined in three studies, the Chinese version of the Social Skills T raining and Facilitated Play program (Coplan et al., 2010) in one study, and the locally developed Social Skills Training Program for Young Children (Chen, 2000) [ ] in one study. When to teach. Activities in which the social emotional inst ruction was implemented were grouped into five categories: teacher directed activity, child initiated activity, transition, routine, and outdoor activity. Instruction agents implemented the social emotional instruction within only one activity in 44 studie s, within two activities in 14 studies, and within three or more activities in four studies. Across these 62 studies, authors reported that social emotional instruction was most often delivered in teacher directed activities ( n = 25), followed by child ini tiated activities ( n = 19 ), both teacher directed activities and child initiated activities ( n = 13), all five categories of activities ( n = 3), three categories of activities ( i.e., teacher directed activity, child initiated activity, and routine; n = 1), and outdoor activity ( n = 1). How to teach. Forty of the 76 reviewed studies (52.6%) reported specific instructional procedures used to teach preschool children social emotion al competence Seventeen studies reported implementing only one instructional pr ocedure, seven studies reported implementing two instructional procedures, 11 studies reported

PAGE 62

62 implementing three instructional procedures, and five studies reported implementing at least four instructional procedures. Based on the description of instructi onal procedures provided by the study authors, case discussion was used in 26 studies, role playing in 19 studies, rehearsal in nine studies, praise in eight studies, peer modeling in seven studies, adult modeling in four studies, pairing up in four studie s, differential reinforcement in three studies, environmental arrangement in three studies, modeling (did not specify whether adult modeling or peer modeling) in two studies, and opportunities to respond in two studies. How to evaluate. Fidelity of implem entation. None of the 76 reviewed studies assessed or reported the extent to which the social emotional instruction was implemented as intended. Who is teaching Forty five of the 76 reviewed studies (59.2%) reported adult participants who delivered the so cial emotional instruction. Based on the professional role of adult participants, as characterized by study authors, social emotional instruction was implemented by regular classroom teachers in 38 studies, university researchers in four studies, and a tea m (including both classroom teacher and researcher) in three studies. Dose. Sixty four studies (84.2%) provided information about the dose of instruction. When a study reported a range for the frequency, duration, and intensity of instruction, the lower n umber was used to calculate the mean. The number of teaching episodes or sessions delivered to child participants per week was reported in 40 studies and ranged from once per week to every weekday ( M = 2.8 teaching episodes per week). The total length of s ocial emotional instruction was reported in 62 studies and

PAGE 63

63 ranged from 1 week to three academic years ( M = 10.9 weeks). The duration of each teaching episode or session was reported in 32 studies and ranged from 13 minutes to 1 hour ( M = 33.8 min). The cum ulative dose in terms of total hours of instruction was able to be calculated in 26 studies, with a mean of 11.3 hours (range = 0.7 to 42.9 hours). In summary, across the reviewed studies, social emotional instruction occurred primarily in one or two clas sroom activities (i.e., the when to teach component) The instructional procedure s used to teach the social emotional content (i.e., the how to teach component) were not always explicitly described. In the studies reporting instructional procedures, case d iscussion, role playing, modeling, rehearsal, and praise were more likely to be used to teach preschool children social emotional competence Perhaps this finding can be explained by the recommended strategies specified in the two landmark documents in the field of preschool education in mainland China where these instructional procedures were emphasized. Nevertheless, the instructional procedures used typically were not described sufficiently, which precludes a deeper understanding of the social emotional instruction that occurred. An encouraging finding was that social regularly interact with children in the preschool settings for the majority of studies that report ed the who is teaching component. None of the studies included information about the how to evaluate fidelity componen t. T herefore, it is unclear whether the social emotional instruction was implemented as intended. Focus and Approaches to Teaching Children Social Emotional Co mpetence As shown in Table 2 2 51 of the 76 reviewed studies (67.1%) provided information about the focus of instruction. Universal practices were the focus of

PAGE 64

64 instruction in 32 studies, secondary practices in nine studies, and tertiary practices in 10 st udies. N one of the studies were characterized as multi tiered instruction or intervention. Instruction agents can use more than one approach to teach preschool children social emotional competence and these approaches were not mutually exclusive. Instruct ion approach was reported in 64 studies (84.2%). Instructional agents used explicit lessons to teach children social emotional competence in 23 studies and used eduplay in 19 studies. Instructional agents used both explicit lessons and eduplay to teach chi ldren social emotional competence in 12 studies. All four approaches were used to teach children social emotional competence in seven studies. Two studies used the explicit lessons, integration with other curricular domains and infusion into daily routine s to teach children social emotional competence Eduplay and infusion into daily routines were used in one study. In summary, the social emotional instruction was either targeted at all children in the classroom (classroom wide), involved a small group of children who needed additional support, or was focused on individual children with persistent challenging behavior. None of the included studies described the implementation of tiered intervention/instruction designed to offer differentiated levels of supp ort that provides the promise of meeting the needs of all children who range widely in their social emotional competence, such as the Pyramid Model Besides explicit social emotional lessons, instruction agents frequently used other approaches especially eduplay to teach preschool children social emotional competence

PAGE 65

65 active learning and has become a developmental ly appropriate teaching approach in Chinese preschool s (Liu & Feng, 2005). Given the Chinese educational philo sophy of teaching and learning through daily life in preschool (Liu & Feng, 2005), it was not unexpected that explicit lessons associated with curricular domains other than social and routine activities were also used to teach social emotional competence when there was an appropriate teaching opportunity. Delimitations and Limitations of the Literature Review Although, to knowledge this is among the first review of empirical literature on soci al emotional instruction implemented in Chinese preschool programs, f indings from th e literature review should be interpreted in light of its limitations. F irst, the present review focused on social emotional instruction implemented in preschool s in mainla nd China. Studies focused on the implementation of social emotional instruction/intervention in clinic based settings, homes, or communities were not included. Second, studies included in this review were published in journal s. I t is unclear whether and ho w many of the studies would be considered peer reviewed because of the difficulties and challenges in tracking peer reviewed status in both Chinese electronic databases and Chinese journal websites. Third, this review limited the search to studies written in either Chinese or English. It is possible that studies conducted in mainland China were published in language s other than Chinese and English Although the likelihood is low that many additional studies eligible for inclusion exist in other languages, i t is possible that some studies were missed. The systematic search procedures that were used involving electronic and ancestral searches reduced the likelihood that relevant studies were not identified. Fourth, the rigor of the existing research and the st rength of evidence for identified studies focused

PAGE 66

66 on social emotional instruction w ere not examined. Fifth, given time and resource issues, one rater coded all variables Efforts should be made to enhance objectivity and accuracy in study selection and dat a extraction through double coding. Summary The purpose of this systematic review was to characterize descriptively the empirical literature focused on social emotional instruction implemented in preschool programs in mainland China This systematic review synthesized the knowledge accumulated over the last 30 years in 76 identified empirical studies on social emotional instruction implemented in mainland Chinese preschool s Research on preschool social emotional instruction has experienced significant grow th over the past three decades in mainland China. This systematic rev iew extends the literature by (a ) synthesizing social emotional instruction that has been empirically studied in mai nland China, (b ) examining key features and components of soci al emotio nal instruction, and (c ) identifying the social emotional teaching practices in the empirical studies and evaluating how they aligned with the Pyramid Model and document The focus of this review was to identify and categorize teaching practi ces for promoting the social emotional competence of preschool children that have been empirically studie d in Chinese preschool s Although no published studies reviewed examined Chinese Pyramid Model practices or other multi ti er ed intervention s r esults fro m the literature review support the alignment among social emotional teaching practices that have been empirically studied in mainland China, with teaching practices as reflected on the TPOT and social emotional instructio nal content stipulated document T he social emotional teaching practices that have been identified from the review of the Chinese empirical

PAGE 67

67 literature are clearly aligned with the TPOT item s /indicator s and social emotional related goals in ELDG document The social emotional teaching practices identified from this review, items/indicators that appear on the TPOT, and the developmental goals associated with the social emotional domain specified document were the major sources that helped inform the development of survey content for the SETP C

PAGE 68

68 Table 2 1. Characteristics of child participants and study settings across 76 included studies Article Child Participant Program Preschool Class PS IG N Age B G Dis. CB Risk F I N Type N J M S Mix Pre Single Case Experimental Design Studies ( n = 6) Long (2008) 1 NR 1 0 NR IB Peer neglect YES 1 NR 1 NR NR NR NR NR NR OT Shang (2008) 1 4.0 0 1 NR IB NR NR 1 Public 1 1 0 0 0 0 NR OT Sun (2008) 3 NR NR NR NR IB NR NR NR NR NR -----NR TC Yao & Mao (2011) 1 5.0 1 0 Autism NR NR NR 1 Public 1 0 1 0 0 0 Inclusive OT Ye (2004) 1 5.0 1 0 NR IB NR NR NR NR NR -----NR NR Ye (2006) 1 4.2 0 1 NR IB NR NR 1 NR 1 0 1 0 0 0 NR OT Pre Experimental Design Studies ( n = 5) Lin (1996) 60 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 1 NR 2 0 1 1 0 0 NR NR Wang (2012) 32 NR NR NR NR NR Peer neglect NR 3 Public & private NR -----NR NR Xiao & Lin (2002) 35 4.9 to 5.8 NR NR NR NR NR NR 1 NR 1 0 1 0 0 0 NR WG Zhang (1998a) 94 2.5 to 3.5 4 7 47 NR NR NR NR 1 NR NR -----NR NR Zhou & Yang (1995) 89 3.5 to 6.5 NR NR NR NR NR NR 1 NR 3 1 1 1 0 0 NR WG Quasi Experimental Design Studies ( n = 40) Bi & Li (2014) 40 NR 20 20 NR NR NR NR 1 Public 2 0 2 0 0 0 NR NR Chen (1996) 70 4.0 to 5 .0 NR NR NR NR NR NR 1 Public 2 0 2 0 0 0 NR SG Dan (2001) 360 3.0 to 6.0 180 180 NR NR NR NR 2 NR 12 NR NR NR NR NR NR WG Dan et al. (2005) 180 3.0 to 6.0 90 90 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR -----NR NR

PAGE 69

69 Table 2 1. Continued Article Child Participant P rogram Preschool Class PS IG N Age B G Dis. CB Risk FI N Type N J M S Mix Pre Dan et al. (2011) 165 3.0 to 6.0 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR Public NR -----NR NR Feng & Wang (2012) 189 NR NR NR NR NR Peer neglect NR 4 NR 36 12 12 12 0 0 NR TC Guan et al. (2013) 60 5.0 to 6.0 NR NR NR NR NR NR 1 Public 2 0 0 2 0 0 NR WG GZKTZ (1993) 58 NR 30 28 NR NR NR NR 1 Public 2 0 0 2 0 0 NR WG Han et al. (2008) 203 4.5 NR NR NR NR NR NR 2 NR 12 NR NR NR NR NR NR WG Kai (2015) 83 4.0 to 5.0 40 43 NR NR NR NR 1 Public NR -----NR NR Kang & Wang (1996) NR 3.0 to 6.0 NR NR NR NR NR NR 2 Public 6 2 2 2 0 0 NR WG Kong (2006) 20 NR NR NR NR NR Peer neglect NR 2 NR 4 0 4 0 0 0 NR TC Li (1995) 60 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 1 Public 2 0 2 0 0 0 NR WG Li & Wang ( 1996) 60 5.0 to 6.0 NR NR NR NR NR NR 1 Public 2 0 0 2 0 0 NR WG Li & Zhou (2010) 203 4.5 NR NR NR NR NR NR 2 NR 12 NR NR NR NR NR NR WG Li et al. (1994) 96 5.8 50 46 NR NR NR NR 1 NR 4 0 2 2 0 0 NR WG Li et al. (2013) 108 5.8 NR NR NR NR NR NR 1 NR 4 0 2 2 0 0 NR WG Li et al. (2016) 16 4.7 8 8 NR IB NR NR 1 Public 4 0 0 0 0 4 NR TC Lin (2001) NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 8 NR 16 4 6 6 0 0 NR WG Liu (2012) NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 1 NR 6 2 2 2 0 0 NR WG Lu & Huo (2004) 80 4.5 40 40 NR NR NR NR 1 Public 2 0 2 0 0 0 NR WG

PAGE 70

70 Table 2 1. Continued Article Child Participant Program Preschool Class PS IG N Age B G Dis. CB Risk FI N Type N J M S Mix Pre Mou (2014) 120 4.0 to 6.0 62 58 NR NR NR NR 1 NR NR -----NR NR Shen (2015) 160 5.1 NR NR NR NR N R NR NR NR 8 0 4 4 0 0 NR WG Wang (1998) 72 NR 36 36 NR NR NR NR 1 NR 3 0 3 0 0 0 NR WG Wang & Yang (2006) 711 4.6 NR NR NR NR NR NR 3 NR NR -----NR NR Wang et al. (2000) 210 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 1 NR NR -----NR NR Wu (2001) 1587 3. 0 to 7.0 NR NR NR NR NR NR 19 Public & private NR -----NR NR Xu (1994) 58 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 1 NR 2 2 0 0 0 0 N R WG Yang (1998) 60 4.5 to 5.0 31 29 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR -----NR WG Yang & Jin (2005) 320 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 2 NR 12 4 4 4 0 0 NR WG Yang & Wang (2005) 140 5.0 to 5.5 70 70 NR NR NR NR 2 NR 4 0 0 4 0 0 NR WG Yang et al. (2005) 333 4.4 NR NR NR NR NR NR 2 NR 12 4 4 4 0 0 NR WG Yang et al. (2015) 76 5.0 NR NR NR NR NR NR 1 Public 3 0 3 0 0 0 NR WG Zhang (1998b) 120 4.5 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR -----NR NR Zhang & Bai (2010) 155 5.2 81 74 NR NR NR NR 2 NR 6 2 2 2 0 0 NR WG Zhang & Dai (1998) 120 4.5 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR -----NR NR Zhang et al. (2006) 360 NR 180 180 NR NR NR NR 2 NR NR -----NR NR Zhong (2014) 40 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 2 NR 2 0 0 2 0 0 NR NR

PAGE 71

71 Table 2 1. Continued Article Child Participant Program Preschool Class PS IG N Age B G Dis. CB Risk FI N Type N J M S Mix Pre Zhu (2015) 40 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 1 Public 3 0 3 0 0 0 NR WG Zuo et al. (2012) 36 NR 26 10 NR EB NR NR 1 NR NR -----NR NR Experimental Design Studies ( n =15) Chen (1986) 34 5.3 22 12 NR NR NR NR 1 NR 2 0 0 2 0 0 NR LG Chen et al. (1997) 40 5.8 20 20 NR NR NR NR 1 NR NR -----NR N R Ju (1991) 40 NR 19 21 NR NR NR NR 1 Public 1 0 0 1 0 0 NR WG Pang (1992) 60 4.0 to 6.0 30 30 NR NR Peer neglect NR 4 NR NR -----NR NR Pang (1993) 60 4.0 to 6.0 30 30 NR NR Peer reject NR 4 NR NR -----NR NR Quan & Ma (2014) 69 4.0 to 6.0 37 32 NR NR NR NR 1 NR NR -----NR NR Quan et al. (2014) 69 5.7 37 32 NR NR NR NR 1 NR 2 0 1 1 0 0 NR WG Sui et al. (2010) 253 4.0 to 6.0 133 120 NR NR NR NR 1 NR 4 0 2 2 0 0 NR WG Sun et al. (2015) 50 4.0 25 25 NR NR NR NR 1 NR NR -----NR NR Tan et al. (1999 80 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 1 Public NR -----NR NR Wang et al. (2000) 75 5.0 NR NR NR NR Peer reject & neglect NR 2 NR 6 2 2 2 0 0 NR SG Wang & Yang (2001) 96 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 1 NR >2 NR NR NR NR NR NR WG Wei & Li (2001) 42 5.0 NR NR NR NR NR NR 1 NR 3 0 3 0 0 0 NR NR Zhang et al. (2010) 317 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 2 NR 12 4 4 4 0 0 NR WG

PAGE 72

72 Table 2 1. Continued Article Child Participant Program Preschool Class PS IG N Age B G Dis. CB Risk FI N Type N J M S Mix Pre Zhao et al. (2011) 60 5.6 NR NR NR NR NR NR 1 NR 2 0 0 2 0 0 NR NR Explanatory Case Design Studies ( n = 10) Kang & Liu (2014) 1 4.0 0 1 NR EB NR NR 1 Public 1 NR NR NR NR NR NR OT Li (1994) NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR -----NR NR Lu et al. (1987) 32 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 1 Public NR -----NR NR Mei (2006) 1 NR 1 0 NR EB Single parent NR NR NR NR -----NR OT Wang & Zhang (2004) NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 1 NR 2 0 2 0 0 0 NR WG Xie (2011) 1 3.0 1 0 NR IB NR NR 1 NR 1 NR NR NR NR NR NR OT Xu (2004) NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 1 Public 2 0 0 2 0 0 NR WG Xu (2013) 1 5.3 1 0 NR IB NR NR 1 NR 1 0 0 1 0 0 NR OT Zhang & Zeng (2016) NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 1 NR 1 0 1 0 0 0 NR WG Zhu & Hu (2004) NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 2 Public NR -----NR WG Note: n = number of studies included; N = sample size; B = number of male participants (boys); G = number of female participants (girls); Dis. = disability; CB = challenging behavior; Risk = child risk factors; FI = family income; PS = primary setting; IG = format of instructional group; NR = not reported; Yes = reported. Challenging behavior: IB = internalizing behaviors, EB = externalizing behaviors. Preschool class: J = junior class ( 3 to 4 year olds ), M = middle class ( 4 to 5 year olds ), S = senior class ( 5 to 6 year olds ), Mix = mixed age class, Pre = pre primary class. Format of Instructional Group: OT = one target child, TC = target children, SG =small group, LG = large group, WG = whole group, P = pro gram wide.

PAGE 73

73 Table 2 2. Components and features of social emotional instruction across 76 included studies. Article Component of Instruction Dose of Instruction Focus Instruction Approach What to Teach When to Teach How to Teach How to evaluate Who is teaching Frequency ( per week ) Duration (wks) Intensity (min) Cumulative (hrs) Single Case Experimental Design Studies ( n = 6) Long (2008) TIP CI NR NR Team NR 12.0 NR NR Tertiary Eduplay Shang (2008) TFR CI NR NR Researcher 5 4.0 30 10.0 Tertiary Edup lay Sun (2008) TIP CI NR NR NR 5 3.0 to 7.0 30 7.5 to 17.5 Tertiary Eduplay Yao & Mao (2011) TIP, TIA CI NR NR Researcher 1 to 2 NR 30 7.0 Tertiary Eduplay Ye (2004) TIP, TIA, & TSI TD NR NR Teacher 5 6.0 20 9.7 Tertiary Eduplay Ye (2006) TIP OA PM & P NR Teacher 5 8.0 to 10.0 30 20.0 to 25.0 Tertiary Eduplay Pre Experimental Design Studies ( n = 5) Lin (1996) TFR TD & CI NR NR Teacher NR NR NR NR NR EL & Eduplay Wang (2012) TIP CI NR NR NR NR NR NR NR Secondary Eduplay Xiao & Lin (2002) T P S NR NR N R Teacher NR NR NR NR Universal EL, IC, IR, & Eduplay Zhang (1998a) TFR, TIP, & TIA TD & CI PM, AM, PU, EA, CD NR Teacher NR 20.0 to 25.0 NR NR NR EL, IC, IR, & Eduplay Zhou & Yang (1995) TFR NR CD, PM & DR NR NR NR NR NR NR Universal NR Quasi Experimen tal Design Studies ( n = 40) Bi & Li (2014) TSI NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR Chen (1996) TP S (ICPS) TD CD NR NR 3 8.0 40 16.0 Secondary EL Dan (2001) TBE, TSC, TRE CI NR NR NR 2 25.7 25 to 35 21.4 to 30.0 Universal Eduplay Dan et al. (2005) TBE, TSC, TRE CI NR NR NR NR 1 year NR NR NR Eduplay

PAGE 74

74 Table 2 2. Continued Article Component of Instruction Dose of Instruction Focus Instruction Approach What to Teach When to Teach How to Teach How to evaluate Who is teaching Frequency ( per week ) Duration (w ks) Intensity (min) Cumulative (hrs) Dan et al. (2011) TSI & TIP CI NR NR Teacher 2 16.0 40 21.3 NR Eduplay Feng & Wang (2012) TSI CI RP NR Teacher 2 1 semester 20 to 30 NR Secondary Eduplay Guan et al. (2013) NR CI NR NR Teacher 3 4.3 30 6.5 Univer sal Eduplay GZKTZ (1993) TSA TD, CI, TR, R, & OA NR NR Teacher NR 34.3 NR NR Universal EL, IC, IR, & Eduplay Han et al. (2008) TUE TD CD, M, & RP NR Teacher 2 12.0 30 12.0 Universal EL Kai (2015) TSI TD NR NR NR 1 1 semester 45 NR NR EL Kang & Wang (1 996) TSA TD, CI, TR, R, & OA NR NR Teacher NR 42.9 NR NR Universal EL, IC, IR, & Eduplay Kong (2006) TUE & TIP TD & CI CD, AM, RP, P, & RE NR Teacher NR 1 semester NR NR Secondary EL & Eduplay Li (1995) TFR TD M NR NR NR 25.7 NR NR Universal NR Li & Wan g (1996) TFR TD RP NR NR NR 8.6 NR NR Universal EL Li & Zhou (2010) TFR & TUE TD CD, AM, & RP NR Teacher 2 12.0 30 12.0 Universal EL Li et al. (1994) TFR & TUE TD CD, RP & RE NR Teacher 3 2.0 Half day NR Universal EL Li et al. (2013) TFR & TUE (SST FP) TD NR NR NR 2 4.0 NR NR Universal EL Li et al. (2016) TIP, TEE, TUE, & TRE TD & CI AM, OTR, & P NR Researcher 2 7.0 60 14.0 Secondary EL & Eduplay Lin (2001) TSR TD, CI, TR, R, & OA EA NR Teacher NR 3 years NR NR Universal EL, IC, IR, & Eduplay Liu (2 012) NR NR NR NR Teacher NR NR NR NR Universal NR

PAGE 75

75 Table 2 2. Continued Article Component of Instruction Dose of Instruction Focus Instruction Approach What to Teach When to Teach How to Teach How to evaluate Who is teaching Frequency ( per week ) Durat ion (wks) Intensity (min) Cumulative (hrs) Lu & Huo (2004) TFR & TPS (SS TP) TD & R NR NR NR 2 12.9 NR NR Universal EL, IC, & IR Mou (2014) TFR & TUE TD & CI CD, RE, & RP NR Teacher NR 4.0 NR NR NR EL & Eduplay Shen (2015) TFR NR CD, RP & RE NR NR 3 6. 0 NR NR Universal NR Wang (1998) TBE & TFR TD CD (TV) NR Teacher 5 1.0 NR NR Universal EL TBE & TFR TD CD (Story) NR Teacher 5 1.0 NR NR Universal EL TBE & TFR TD CD (Pic. ) NR Teacher 5 1.0 NR NR Universal EL Wang & Yang (2006) TSI TD NR NR Teacher 2 NR 20 to 30 NR NR EL Wang et al. (2000) TFR, TSC, & TSI TD NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR EL Wu (2001) NR NR NR NR NR NR 3 year NR NR NR NR Xu (1994) TSA & TSR NR NR NR Teacher NR 10 months NR NR Universal EL, IC, IR, & Eduplay Yang (1998) TFR CI PM & RP NR Teacher 1 42.9 60 42.9 Universal Eduplay Yang & Jin (2005) TSR & TSA TD NR NR NR 2 1 semester 20 to 30 NR Universal EL Yang & Wang (2005) TSI, TFR, & TSR TD & CI NR NR Teacher NR 25.7 NR NR Universal EL & Eduplay Yang et al. (2005) TUE & TFR NR NR NR NR 2 15.0 20 to 30 10.0 to 15.0 Universal NR Yang et al. (2015) TFR TD CD, RE, & EA NR Teacher 1 8.0 30 4.0 Universal EL, IC, & IR Zhang (1998b) TFR NR CD, RE, & RP NR Teacher 3 3.0 60 9.0 NR NR TFR NR PM & DR NR Teacher 3 3.0 60 9.0 NR NR Zhang & Bai (2010) TFR CI NR NR NR 2 4.0 30 4.0 Universal Eduplay

PAGE 76

76 Table 2 2. Continued Article Component of Instruction Dose of Instruction Focus Instruction Approach What to Teach When to Teach How to Teach How to evaluate Who is teaching Frequency ( per w eek ) Duration (wks) Intensity (min) Cumulative (hrs) Zhang & Dai (1998) TFR & TUE NR CD & RP NR Teacher 3 3.0 60 9.0 NR EL Zhang et al. (2006) TSI CI NR NR Teacher NR 1 year NR NR NR Eduplay & IR Zhong (2014) TEE, TUE, & TRE TD CD & RP NR NR 1 1 seme ster 40 NR NR EL Zhu (2015) TFR CI RP NR Teacher 2 6.0 20 4.0 Universal Eduplay Zuo et al. (2012) TFR TD CD NR Teacher 5 2.0 20 3.3 NR EL Experimental Design Studies ( n =15) Chen (1986) TFR TD CD NR NR 5 1.0 NR NR Secondary EL TFR TD PM & DR NR Re searcher 5 1.0 NR NR Secondary EL Chen et al. (1997) TFR & TPS TD CD NR Teacher 8 2.0 15 4.0 NR EL Ju (1991) TFR & TUE TD CD, OTR, RE, & RP NR NR 3 4.0 60 12.0 Universal EL Pang (1992) TFR & TIP TD & CI CD, RP, & P NR Team NR 8.0 NR NR Secondary EL & Eduplay Pang (1993) TFR & TIP TD & CI CD, RP, RE, & P NR Team NR 8.0 NR NR Secondary EL & Eduplay Quan & Ma (2014) TFR CI NR NR Teacher NR 10.0 NR NR NR Eduplay Quan et al. (2014) TFR CI NR NR NR NR 10.0 NR NR Universal Eduplay Sui et al. (2010) TUE & TPS (ICPS) TD CD NR NR 5 5.0 20 8.0 Universal EL Sun et al. (2015) TBE, TSC, & TRE CI NR NR Teacher 1 to 2 1 semester 40 13.3 NR Eduplay Tan et al. (1999 TFR, TIP, TIA,TSC, TSR, TSA, & TUE TD CD, RP, & RE NR NR NR 38.6 NR NR NR EL

PAGE 77

77 Table 2 2. Continu ed Article Component of Instruction Dose of Instruction Focus Instruction Approach What to Teach When to Teach How to Teach How to evaluate Who is teaching Frequency ( per week ) Duration (wks) Intensity (min) Cumulative (hrs) Wang et al. (2000) TIP & TFR TD & CI PM NR NR 2 10.0 NR NR Secondary EL & Eduplay TIP, TFR, & TP S (ICPS) TD & CI CD & RP NR NR 2 10.0 NR NR Secondary EL & Eduplay TIP, TFR, & TUE TD & CI CD & RE NR NR 2 10.0 NR NR Secondary EL & Eduplay Wang & Yang (2001) TIP, TIA, TFR, TBE T PS, TSR, TSI, & TSC TD & CI NR NR NR NR 3 year NR NR Universal EL & Eduplay Wei & Li (2001) TFR & TUE TD CD NR NR 3 4.3 60 12.9 NR EL TFR & TUE TD CD & RP NR NR 3 4.3 60 12.9 NR EL Zhang et al. (2010) TFR TD CD NR Teacher 2 4.0 NR NR Universal EL TFR CI NR NR Teacher 2 4.0 30 4.0 Universal Eduplay TFR TD & CI CD NR Teacher 2 4.0 NR NR Universal EL & Eduplay Zhao et al. (2011) TFR TD NR NR NR 1 3.0 13 to 20 0.7 to 1.0 NR EL TFR & TUE TD NR NR NR 1 3.0 13 to 20 0.7 to 1.0 NR EL Explanatory Case Design Studies ( n = 10) Kang & Liu (2014) TRE, TIP, & TFR TD, CI, & R PU & P NR Teacher NR 1 semester NR NR Tertiary EL, IC, IR, & Eduplay Li (1994) TUE, TFR, & TIP TD CD NR NR NR 2.0 NR NR NR EL Lu et al. (1987) TSI NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR Mei (2006) TIP, TIA, & TSC NR P NR Teacher NR NR NR NR Tertiary NR Wang & Zhang (2004) TFR TD & CI PU NR NR NR 13 months NR NR Universal EL & Eduplay

PAGE 78

78 Table 2 2. Continued Article Component of Instruction Dose of Instruction Focus Instruction Approach What to Teach When to Teach How to Teach How to evaluate Who is teaching Frequency ( per week ) Duration (wks) Intensity (min) Cumulative (hrs) Xie (2011) TIP, TIA, & TSC TD & CI NR NR Teacher NR NR NR NR Tertiary EL & Eduplay Xu (2004) TSI TD PU NR NR NR 13.0 NR NR Universal EL Xu (2013) TIP, TIA, & TSC CI P NR Teacher NR NR NR NR Tertiary Eduplay Zhang & Zeng (2016) NR NR NR NR Teacher 2 12.9 NR NR Universal NR Zhu & Hu (2004) TUE, TFR, & TEE NR CD NR Teacher NR NR NR NR Universal NR Note: n = num ber of studies included; Frequency = number of teaching episodes per week; Duration = length of treatment (weeks); Intensity = amount of time within each teaching episode (minutes); Cumulative dose = frequency duration intensity; ICPS = Chinese version of the Interpersonal Cognitive Problem Solving program (Shure & Spivack, 1980); SST FP = Chinese version of the Social Skills Training and Facilitated Play program (Coplan et al., 2010); S ST P = Social Skills Training Program for Young Children (Chen, 2000 ). What to Teach: TBE = teaching behavior expectations, TFR = teaching friendship skills, TPS = teaching social problem solving, TIP =teaching social interaction with peers, TIA = teaching social interaction with adults, TSI = teaching social independence, TSC = teaching social cooperation, TSR = teaching social responsibility, TSA = teaching social adjustment, TEE = teaching children to express emotions, TUE = te aching children to understand emotions, TRE = teaching children to regulate emotions. When to T each: TD = teacher directed activity, CI = child initiated activity, TR = transition, R = routine, OA = outdoor activity. How to Teach: CD = case discussion, DR = differential reinforcement, PM = peer modeling, AM = adult modeling, M = modeling, OTR = oppo rtunities to respond, P = praise, RP = role playing, RE = rehearsal, EA = environmental arrangement, PU = pair up. Who is Teaching: Team = researcher + teacher. Instruction Approach: EL = explicit social emotional lessons, IC = integration with other curr icular domains IR = infusion into daily routines.

PAGE 79

79 Table 2 3. Number of studies for instructional content categories by research design Research design TBE TFR TP S TIP TIA TSI TSC TSR TSA TEE TUE TR E Single case ( n = 6) 0 1 0 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pre exp erimental ( n = 5) 0 3 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Quasi experimental ( n = 40) 3 19 2 3 0 8 3 4 4 2 10 4 Experimental ( n = 15) 2 13 4 5 2 1 3 2 1 0 6 1 Explanatory case study ( n = 10) 0 4 0 5 3 2 3 0 0 1 2 1 Total 5 40 7 20 8 12 9 6 5 3 18 6 Note: n = number o f studies included; TBE = teaching behavior expectations, TFR = teaching friendship skills, TP S = teaching social problem solving, TIP = teaching social interaction with peers, TIA = teaching social interaction with adults, TSI = teaching social i ndependen ce, TSC = teaching social cooperation, TSR = teaching social responsibility, TSA = teaching social adjustment, TEE = teaching children to express emotions, TUE = teaching children to understand emotions, TRE = teaching children to regulate emotions.

PAGE 80

80 Fi gure 2 1. Illustration of search methods in electronic databases Note : This figure was adapted from the DEC Evidence Synthe sis Group (2016 )

PAGE 81

81 Figure 2 2. Study selection from the English databases (PRISMA flow diagram ). Note: An asterisk indicates four articles were identified in both Englis h and Chinese database searches Records identified through database searching ( n = 10, 518) Additional records identified through ancestral search ( n = 192) Records after duplicates removed ( n = 9,222) Records screened ( n = 9,222) Records excluded ( n = 9,150) Full text articles assessed for eligibility ( n = 72) Full text articles excluded, with reasons ( n = 67): Not empirical ( n = 4); Not social emotional instruction ( n =23); Not preschool children ( n = 9); Not social emotional outcome ( n = 2) ; Not preschool settings in China ( n = 27); Not English or Chinese language ( n = 0); Not statistical, functional, or temporal relationship ( n = 2) Articles incl uded in systematic review ( n = 5*) Screening Included Eligibility Identification

PAGE 82

82 Figure 2 3. Study selection from the Chinese databases (PRISMA flow diagram). Note: An asterisk indica tes four articles were identified in both English and Chinese database searches Records identified through database searching ( n = 14,646) Additional records identified through ancestral search ( n = 1,361) Records after duplicates removed ( n = 14,6 48) Records screened ( n = 14,648) Records excluded ( n = 14,298) Full text articles assessed for eligibility ( n = 350) Full text articles excluded, with reasons ( n = 275): Not empirical ( n = 131); Not social emotional instruction ( n = 43); Not preschool children ( n = 28); ; Not social emotional outcome ( n = 18) ; Not preschool settings in China ( n = 19); Not English or Chinese language ( n = 0); Not statistical, functional, or temporal relationship ( n = 33); Duplicate publication ( n = 2); Not accessible ( n = 1) Articles included in systematic review ( n = 75*) Screening Included Eligibility Identification

PAGE 83

83 Figure 2 4. Number of e mpirical articles on social emotional instruction in Chinese preschool s published yearly. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No. of published empirical articles 2001 Guidance 2012 CELDG

PAGE 84

84 Figure 2 5 Number of reviewed studies conducted in eas tern, middle, western, and northeast China. Note: Yellow squares represent eastern regions; green squares represent middle regions; red squares represent western regions; orange squares represent northeast regions.

PAGE 85

85 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY The purposes of the present study were (a) to develop and validate the content of a culturally relevant questionnaire focused on preschool social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices, (b) to gather preliminary structural validity and internal consistency score r eliability evidence for the questionnaire using data obtained from Chinese preschool teachers, and (c) to use the questionnaire to examine Chinese practices aligned with the Pyramid Model and two nationally recognized and influential Chinese early childhood learning standards documents. The questionnaire was titled the Social Emotional Teaching Practices Questionnaire China (SETP C; Snyder & Luo, 2017) The SETP C was develo ped and various sources of validity evidence were gathered using systematic and iterative quantitative and qualitative approaches before the collection of data for addressing the substantive research questions, particularly through the lenses of Chinese ea rly childhood researchers, leaders, practitioners, and C was translated into Chinese (Simplified) and back translated into English following recommended procedures and guidelines ( Brislin, 1986; G uillemin et al. 1993). Th e development and validation process for the SETP C is detailed below. Th e remainder of th e chapter describes the research questions, research design, study setting, sampling strategy, demographic information about the participant s, and data analytic procedures used to gather the perspectives of Chinese preschool teachers about their social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices.

PAGE 86

86 Development and Content Validation of the SETP C The SETP C was designed as a self report inst rument to quantitatively measure perspectives about the frequency of use and confidence with implementing social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices aligned with the Pyramid Model and two nationally recognized and infl uential Chinese early childhood learning standards documents Beginning in 2013, the development and validation of the SETP C involved four phases: item generation and selec tion, initial validation and item reduction, external expert review, and wording an d translation (Guillemin et al. 1993; Singh, Junnarkar, & Kaur, 2016). Each phase was conducted in a systematic and sequential way as described further below. Studies related to the development and validation of the SETP C were approved by the University of Florida Institutional Review Board (#2013 U 0665 and IRB201601547). Phase 1: Item Generation and Selection With the subject centered approach (Crocker & Algina, 1986; Torgerson, 1958), SETP C scores were intended to locate Chinese preschool teachers at different points on two quantitative continu a with respect to the construct of interest (i.e. C scores were to be used to discriminate among Chinese preschool teachers over a range of their reported use of the teaching practices and their confidence about implementing these practices. As the primary construct to be measured on the SETP C, social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices were defined as specific actions or behaviors of preschool teachers that involve manipulating the physical, temporal, interactional, or instructional

PAGE 87

87 competencies (Snyder, Hemmeter, & Fox, 2015). Using the Pyramid Model as the conceptual framework for the SETP C, the construct of social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices was initially conceptualized as a composite of (a) universal teaching practices related to promoting nurturing and responsive re lationships and high quality supportive classroom environments; (b) targeted or explicit practices focused on teaching children social skills, emotional competencies, and positive behavior; and (c) individualized teaching practices that included the develo pment, implementation, and evaluation of behavior support plans for children with the most persistent challenging behavior. The development of the SETP C began with the creation of items to measure the social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices aligned with the Pyramid Model and two Chinese national early childhood learning standards documents The Pyramid Model provides a multi tiered framework for organizing evidence based practices for promoting social emoti onal development and addressing chal lenging behav ior in preschool children (Fox et al. 2010; Hemmeter et al. 2006 ). The Teaching Pyramid Observation Tool for Preschool Classrooms (TPOT; Hemmeter, Fox, & Snyder, 2014 ) is an assessment instrument designed to measure the fidelity of implement ation of practices associated with the Pyramid Model The TPOT contains 14 items. For each TPOT item, there are between 5 and 10 observable and measurable indicators reflecting social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices that align with the Pyrami d Model Additional information about the TPOT is described in Chapter 1. t he Guidance for Preschool E n Early Learning and Development Guidelines for Children 3 6

PAGE 88

88 Years Old (ELDG) are two nat ionally recognized, and the most influential, standards documents in early childhood education. Age appropriate Examining a lignment A crosswalk of the Pyramid Model practices as measured by the pre publication version of the TPOT ( TPOT P; Fox, Hemmeter, & Snyder, 2008) with practices Guidance and ELDG documents demonstrated strong alignment, which also strengthened the rationale for using the Pyramid Model as the conceptual framework to measure Chines and behavioral teaching practices. Guidance and ELDG documents were selected for comparison because they serve as the leading source s of teaching that describe the knowledge, skills, and co mpetencies that mainland Chinese preschool learning and development within the context of preschool programs (Li, 2012; Zhu, 2009). The crosswalk involved the student investi gator comparing teaching practices across the different resources and indicating where they converge d The student investigator investigator discrepancies occurred, they were resolved through dis cussion and reaching consensus

PAGE 89

89 about alignment. The alignment activity documented that the Pyramid Model practices were well Guidance and ELDG documents In addition, the alignment activity supported cont ent oriented validation evidence (American Educational Research Association [AERA], American Psychological Association [APA], & National Council on Measurement in Education [NCME], 2014). Pilot s tudy A small pilot study was conducted to explore the extent to which a sample of Chinese preschool teachers was im plementing the social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices associated with the Pyramid Model (Luo et al. 2017). The TPOT P (Fox, Hemmeter, & Snyder, 2008) was administered by the student inve stigator in 20 Chinese preschool classrooms in Beijing. The TPOT P contained a total of 139 indicators o rganized into three subscales: Key Practices, Red F la gs, and Responses to Challenging B ehavior. The TPOT P was administered through a combination of a 2 hr observation of a preschool classroom and a 15 to 20 minute interview with the lead teacher. The TPOT P observation was conducted during both teacher directed and child initiated activities, as well as the transitions between activities. With respect to scoring, indicators associated with the Key P ractices were scored as 1 ( present ) or 0 ( not present ) or no opportunity (four indicators can be scored no opportunity ). Seventeen Red F lags indicators a nd eight indicators associated with the Responses to Ch allenging B ehavior subscale were rated as 1 ( present ) or 0 ( not present ) ( Fox et al., 2008). Following the administration of the TPOT P, a 32 item self report questionnaire was piloted with lead teachers in these same 20 preschool classrooms. The 32 items

PAGE 90

90 were directly drawn from the TPOT P, and each item was rated for its importance, frequency, and confidence (i.e., How Important section, How Often section, and How Confident section ) on a 4 point Likert type response scale, with a higher score reflecting a higher level of importance, frequency of use, and confidence in implementing a teaching practice item. This 32 item questionnaire was referred to as the pilot version of the SETP C. Each teaching practice indicator on the TPOT P and each teaching practi ce item on the pilot version of the SETP C were analyzed for item difficulty. Given the teaching practice indicators on the TPOT P were dichotomously scored, the difficulty of a teaching practice indicator on the TPOT P under classical test theory can be d efined as the proportion of teachers who were given credit on that teaching practice indicator (Crocker & Algina, 1986). The difficulty of a teaching practice item on the pilot version of the SETP C was equal to the mean of responses on that teaching pract ice item given it was polytomously sco red. Tables 3 1 and 3 2 show the descriptive statistics (including item difficulty) for each teaching practice on the TPOT P and on the pilot version of the SETP C, respectively. Generally, teaching practices of medium difficulty were selected for further testing and inclusion on the next iteration of the SETP C in an effort to Review of the Chinese e mpirical l iterature a comprehensive and systematic review of the C hinese empirical literature on preschool social emotional instruction (described in detail in Chapter 2) was conducted. The systematic review was intended to identify and summariz e teaching practices for promoting social emotional competence of preschool children that have been

PAGE 91

91 empirically studied in Chinese preschool programs. Furthermore, an effort was made to review and pool items from published instruments that were designed to measure emotional instruction. However, o nly one relevant instrument was identified (i.e., Ye, 2012). Item p ool for the r evised SETP C Building on the activities described above, a comprehensive pool of 2 62 potential t eaching practice items was generated Specifically, 139 teaching practices/items were drawn from the TPOT P (30 of which were designated as important to include from the Guidance r eview, and 17 from an existing self report instrument ( i.e., Ye, 2012). Given the content of these potential items were all related to teaching practices for promoting social emotional competence or addressing challenging behavior of preschool children, a significant number of overlapping items were present in the item pool. These 262 potential items were sorted according to the tier of Pyramid Model practices (i.e., universal tier, secondary tier, and tertiary tier) that they represented, with the intent to select key items from each tier classified in the conceptual framework of the SETP C (i.e., Pyramid Model ). On the basis of the psychometric analyses of items using data collected during the pilot study and a thorough review of items by the student investigator and her major professor, preliminary draft of the SETP C to be used in the present study was created. This version of the SETP C consisted of 89 preschool social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practice items, with each item scored three times (i.e., How

PAGE 92

92 Important section, How Often section, and How Confident section ) using a 6 point Like rt type response scale (1 = not at all important/almost never/not at all confident 2 = slightly important/very rarely/slightly confident 3 = somewhat important/rarely/ somewhat confident 4 = moderately important/occasionally/moderately confident 5 = ve ry important/very frequently/very confident 6 = extremely important / almost always/extremely confident ). With higher scores, the teacher rated the teaching practice item as more important, report ed she/he use d it more often or that she/he was more confide nt in implementing the teaching practice. Demographic or attribute variables for the preschool and teacher/ classroom were also included on this version of the SETP C hese 8 9 items were categorized to represent five domains of the social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices construct, and each item was allocated to one of the five predefined domains by Twelve items were assigned to the domain of Building Nurturing and Responsive R elationsh ips, 18 items to the domain of Creating a High Quality S upportiv e Classroom E nvironm ent, 42 items to the domain of Instruction on Targeted Social or Emotiona l S ki lls, 11 items to the domain of Addressing Challenging B ehavior, and six items to the domain of S upporting Family Use of Social, E motional, and Behavioral T eaching P ractices. As shown in Table 3 3 SETP C

PAGE 93

93 Indicators/items that appear ed on the TPOT P, social emotional development goals nd the teaching practices identified from the systematic literature review described in Chapter 2 were the major sources for the SETP C Phase 2: Initial Validation and Item Reduction Validation in the present study refers to a broad process in w hich theoretical rationales and empirical evidence are accumulated to support the adequacy and

PAGE 94

94 appropriateness of inferences and actions based on instrument scores for proposed uses (Messick, 1989). It is the interpretations of instrument scores for propos ed uses that are evaluated, not the instrument itself. Various sources of evidence might be used in evaluating the validity of a proposed interpretation of instrument scores for a particular use (AERA, APA, & NCME, 2014). In mainland China, preschool prin cipals are early childhood professionals designated to assume administrative responsibility for the ongoing operation and Preschool Principal Qualifications (Ministry of Education, 2015), Chinese presch ool principals are identified as practice experts who play an important role in preschool curriculum decision making and in providing support and guidance to preschool teachers about their instruction and interactions with children. To examine Chinese prac importance and appropriateness of the teaching practice s items included on the preliminary draft of the SETP C, a content validatio n activity was conducted. Then, item reduction was conducted based on a combination of p sychometric analyses of data obtained from Chinese practice experts and theoretical analyses of items. Participants and m easure A total of 260 Chinese practice experts attending a series of training workshops ool Principals ( ) in September, October, and November 2016 were invited to complete a content validation rating scale for SETP C items. These Chinese practice experts came from 31 provinces autonomous regions, and direct controlled municipalit ies in mainland China, and had been recommended to attend training workshops by their Provincial

PAGE 95

95 Department of Education as prominent preschool principals or highly experienced teachers. These Chinese practice experts were asked to rate (a) how important t hey believed the 89 teaching practice items included on the preliminary draft of the SETP C were for Chinese preschool teachers to use in promoting social emotional competence of young children and preventing or addressing their challenging behavior, and ( b) to what extent the 89 teaching practice s items included on the preliminary draft of the SETP C were culturally relevant for use in Chinese preschool classrooms. Each item was rated on a 6 point Likert type response scale on the How Important section an d the How Culturally Relevant sec tions respectively, where 1 indicated that the item was not at all important / not at all relevant and 6 indicated that the item was extremely important / extremely relevant The content validation rating scale was initially wr itten in English (see Appendix C ), and then was translated into Chinese (Simplified) by two translators independently. Their translations were compared and contrasted by two blind judges in order to choose a better version of translation for each paragraph and teaching practice item included on the content validation rating scale. Then, this process was confirmed by a fifth person. Appendix D shows the Chinese version of the content validation rating scale. The content validation rating scale was reverse tr anslated into English by a group of three University of Florida who were fluent writers and speakers of Chinese (Mandarin) to verify the accuracy of the translation. The student investigator National T raining Center for Preschool Principals in the city of Changchun three times in 2016 and presented at the training workshops to explain this portion of the research project to three cohorts of trainees

PAGE 96

96 (who were Chinese practice experts) and invited them t o complete the content validation rating scale. The response rate was 83.2% ( N = 213). However, data from eight practice experts were not included in the analysis due to incomplete responses. Therefore, the fina l sample size was 205. Table 3 4 shows demogr aphic characteristic s of participating Chinese practice experts. These practice experts were from 205 different preschools in mainland China and they identified themselves as either preschool principals ( n = 148, 73.6%), vice principals ( n = 39,19.4%), or teachers ( n = or higher degree. Their average number of years of professional experience in preschool settings was 17.1 years, with a range from 0.1 to 47 years. Data ana lytic procedures using the data collected from 205 Chinese practice experts was calculated. Item analyses were conducted to examine mean (i.e., item difficulty), standard deviation, var iance, and item discrimination for each item. Using the item as the unit of analysis, the correlation pattern of item scores between the How Important section and the How Culturally Relevant section was examined. Items were ranked based on mean scores of i tems to identify the 15 lowest ranking items on the How Important section and the How Culturally Relevant section, respectively These lowest ranking items were items rated as being less important or less cultural relevant when compared to the remaining it ems. Item discrimination refers to the ability of an item to differentiate individuals on the construct purportedly measured, and in classical test theory, it usually is quantified as a correlation between the item responses and the total instrument scores (Crocker & Algina, 1986). Items with corrected item total correlation below .20 were classified as

PAGE 97

97 complete revision (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). The proportion of the study sample falling in to each of the six response categories was also calculated and missing data rates were computed for each item. Tables 3 5 and 3 6 show the descriptive statistics and score distributions on the How Important section and the How Culturally Relevant section f or the 89 items. A principal component s analysis was recommended for item reduction (Hinkin, 1998). Principal components analyses were performed to investigate the underlying structure of the 89 item content validation rating scale using the data from the How Important section and the How Culturally Relevant section respectively. To achieve parsimony and simple structure and to facilitate interpretation, the components were rotated to orthogonal structure using varimax rotation. In this technique, every f actor was treated as independent of all other s and the dispersion of the ite m to component coefficients (i.e. loadings) were maximized by maximizing the number of large and small loadings (Richman, 1986). In this part of the present study, the objective o f principal components analyses was to identify items that most clearly represented the content domain of the underlying construct. Items correlated less than /.60/ with any rotated component were subject to further inspection. Item reduction procedures T he student investigator and her major professor reviewed the results of the statistical analysis and selected items on the basis of a combination of statistical evidence and clinical considerations. First, the correlation of item scores between the How Imp ortant section and the How Culturally Relevant section (see Figures 3 1 and 3 2) indicated a relatively clear pattern other than for Item 17, which was standing out and was sub s equently deleted as an outlier. In general, all items were considered, on

PAGE 98

98 avera ge, high on both the How Important section and the How Culturally Relevant section; and the higher rating on the How Important section, the higher rating on the How Culturally Relevant section. Second, 13 items (i.e., Items 9, 13, 17, 18, 19, 21, 28, 35, 3 8, 42, 43, 63, and 71) were removed because one of the following statistical criteria was met: (a) items with missing data rate higher than 5% on either the How Important section or the How Culturally Relevant sectio n were eliminated, (b) items with correc ted item total correlations below .20 on either the How Important section or the How Culturally Relevant section were remo ved, (c) items among the 15 lowest ranking items on both the How Important section and the How Culturally Relevant section were remove d, (d) items among the 15 lowest ranking items and with a n item to component coefficient smaller than /.60/ on any rotated component on the How Important section were omitted, or (e) items among the 15 lowest ranking items and with a n item to component coe fficient smaller than /.60/ on any rotated component on the How Culturally Relevant section were removed. These cut off points have been established based on a number of previous validation studies (e.g., Boyes, Girgis, & Lecathelinais, 2009; McHorney et a l. 2000). Third, a judgmental approach geared toward minimizing item redundancy and creating a briefer instrument was used The retained 76 items were reviewed for redundancy and were removed or reworded when appropriate. Specifically, Item 3 and Item 25 were redundant with Item 62 on the topic of using descrip tive praise, and were dropped; two items (i.e., Items 47 and 48) were eliminated to avoid redundancy on the topic of explicit instru ction on emotional competence; two items related to addressing cha llenging behavior (i.e., Items 75 and 78) and one item related to social emotional instructional strategies (i.e., Item 60)

PAGE 99

99 were removed due to redundancy. Some similar or repetitive items were combined and reworded into one item, such as Items 55 and 56, and Items 57 and 64. A total of 22 items were removed based on the procedures described above. Therefore, t he item reduction techniques reduced the SETP C from 89 to 67 items a reduction rate of approximately 25%. The retained or reworded 67 items formed the revised version of the SETP C. The list of these items were still categorized into five pre specified domains: (10 items), (11 items) (31 items) (9 items) (6 items) Phase 3: External Expert Review Important validity evidence can be obtained from expert judgments of the relationships between the content of an instrumen t and the constructs it is intended to measure (AERA, APA, & NCME, 2014). In the present study, conceptual and content validation with a panel of Chinese research experts who held early childhood faculty positions in Chinese universities/research institute was conducted. Five Chinese research experts who have expertise in social emotional instruction, preschool curriculum, or theory of measurement in early childhood and who had not been involved in the construction of the SETP C were invited to participate in an interview. The purpose of this interview was to gather validation evidence of the interpretation and use of the SETP C scores. These Chinese research experts were

PAGE 100

100 from five different normal universities or a research institute (i.e., Beijing Normal University, Northeast Normal University, Capital Normal University, Nanjing Normal University, and Ningbo Research Institute of Education Sciences). Four of the five faculty members ha d earned doctoral degrees in early childhood education and one ha d recei ved a doctoral degree in research and evaluation methodology. The professional titles for these Chinese research experts were professor ( n = 1), associate professor ( n = 2), and assistant professor ( n = 2). Given these Chinese universities and research in stitute were located in different cities, interviews were administered individually with each Chinese r esearch expert either during a phone or face to face meeting. When administering the interviews, the student investigator first introduced the SETP C to these research experts, including detailed information about its development and planned validation processes. Then, Chinese research experts were asked to answer a series of questions associated with three distinct areas: (a) conceptual basis of the SETP C (including questions related to cultural relevance, under representation, over representation, and unfairness); (b) content validation for each teaching practice s item assumed to measure five hypothesized domains; and (c) soundness of the proposed use an d interpretation of the SETP C scores. Interviews were administered in March of 2017 by using an interview protocol approved by the UF Institution al Review Board (see Appendix E and Appendix F ). Furthermore, these research experts were asked to provide fee dback about the set of 67 items and identify additional items related to the construct of interest using an open ended question format. Information obtained from interviews was analyzed

PAGE 101

101 qualitatively by summarizing the most common comments and highlighting meaningful suggested revisions to be made. Several Chinese research experts expressed that they were impressed with the comprehensive processes used to develop the SETP C and showed enthusiasm to use the instrument to measure social, emotional, and behav ioral teaching practices in Chinese preschool contexts, particularly given the practices were built on a multi tiered framework of promotion, prevention, and intervention practices (i .e., Pyramid Model ). Consensus agreement by the panel of Chinese research experts was reached on the following statements: (a) the SETP C has the potential to be a n instrument that yields valid and reliable score s to measure preschool social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices within the socio cultural context of main land China; (b) in general, the conceptualization of social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices based on the Pyramid Model and two Chinese early childhood learning standards documents was appropriate for the target population (i.e., Chinese presc hool teachers) from preschools with varying levels of quality and different funding sources; (c) each of the five hypothesized domains in the conceptualization was representative of the construct under examination and there were no other domains that have been missed; (d) the five hypothesized domains were closely related to each other, especially between teac hing practices associated with Building Nurturing and Responsive R elations hips and those associated with Creating a High Quality Supportive Classroom E nvironment; as well as among teaching practices related to Supporting Family Use of Social, Emotional, and Behavioral T eaching P ractices, teaching practices related to I nstructio n on T argeted Social or Emotional S kills, and teaching practices related to A ddressing Challenging

PAGE 102

102 B ehavior ; (e) the current 67 teaching practices items were measuring the construct of interest and no item was rated as not measuring any of the five hypothesized domains; and (f) the intended use of the SETP C scores appeared to be r easonable. The se Chinese experts also noted that information gathered from the SETP C appeared useful for informing decisions about professional development or preservice training for Chinese preschool teachers focused on promoting social, emotional, and b ehavioral development of young children C onsidering it would be administered as a low stakes measure, the experts agreed there was a very small probability of consequential validity (e.g. unintended and undesired effects of using the SETP C scores). Sugg ested edits and recommended revisions were also made by these Chinese research experts for the further refinement of the SETP C. These recommended revisions were (a) improve the wording of some SETP C items and their translation into Chinese (e.g., items w ere too long, double barred items, confusing items, ambiguous wording); (b) consider removing the How Important section of the questionnaire and retain the How Often section and the How Confident section to reduce the response burden and complexity of the questionnaire ; (c) divide the domain of teaching practices related to Instruction on Targeted Social or Emotional S kills into two subdomains teac hing practices associated with Social E motion al I nstruction al C ontent and teac hing practices associated with S ocial Emotional Instructional S trategies; and (d ) distinguish teaching practices related to using effective strategies to respond to challenging behavior on a daily basis from th ose related to interventions for children with persistent challenging behavior In addition, a recommendation was made to add back into the questionnaire an item about explicit instruction on social belonging that was clearly

PAGE 103

103 document This item was initially removed from the SETP C based on the statistical analyses as described in the previous phase. Finally, the experts recommended additional questions about the characteristics of the teacher or classroom to the SETP C, such as the professional title of the teacher, the t has a certification of supports most needed to implement preschool social education. The student investigator and her major prof essor carefully reviewed feedback and comments from th e Chinese research experts who were interviewed Changes to the revised version of the SETP C were made based on the feedback received from the Chinese research experts as described above. In addition, after considering issues and concerns raised about the quality of translation, the priority in the next phase shifted from the planned cognitive interviewing to the linguistic interpretation and translation of the SETP C. Although the present study was no t designed to be a cross cultural comparative research project involving the application of the same instrument to various linguistic and cultural groups, the SETP C was initially written in English (source language) and then translated into Chinese (targe t language). It is important to establish functional equivalence of items between the source and target languages, as well as the adequacy and appropriateness of the translation for the target culture (Cheung & Cheung, 2003; van de Vijver & Tanzer, 2014). Phase 4: Wording and Translation of Items Validity evidence based on response processes is important. Theoretical and empirical analyses of the response processes engaged in by instrument takers can

PAGE 104

104 indicate the fit between the construct and the detailed n ature of the performance or response of instrument takers ( ). With the support from a Chinese professor with expertise in preschool social emotional instruction at Beijing Normal University (BNU), a total of 10 Chinese inservice and preservice preschool teachers were involved in cognitive interviewing using the SETP C. while collecting additional verbal information about the survey responses, which is used to evaluate the quality of the response or to help determine whet her the question is 287). The aim of cognitive interviewing in the present study was to gather information about the questionnaire items, which provided in depth insight into possible misinterpretation of the translated items and cultural differences in the interpretation. The se 10 Chinese inservice were full time preschool teachers, three were newly employed preschool teachers, and the remaining five were graduate stud ents who had at least one semester practicum teaching experience in preschool classrooms. All of them had sufficient English proficiency to answer questions that included terminology in source language, though the Chinese version of the cognitive interview ing protocol was used. A focus group interview was conducted with five graduate students and individual interviews were administered to five inservice preschool teachers by using an Institutional Review Board

PAGE 105

105 approved protocol in April 2017. Interviews wer e conducted in conference rooms at BNU and ranged from 2 to 4 hours in length. A combination of think aloud and verbal probing methods were used in the cognitive interviewing. The think aloud approach focused on the verbalization of the thoughts of instru ment takers as they responded to the instrument items. Instrument takers were given the instruction to think aloud while completing the instrument (Collins, 2003). In the verbal probing approach, instrument takers were asked specific questions or probes 1 f or specific information related to the elements of the instrument items (e.g., wording, expressions, response format) by the interviewer (Padilla & Benitez, 2014). Different types of verbal probes adapted from Willis (2015) were used, including meaning ori ented probe, paraphrasing, process oriented probe, evalua tive probe, elaborative probe, hypothetical probe, recall probe, translation oriented probe, and fairness oriented probe. Sixty seven items included on the revised version of the SETP C w ere the focu s of the cognitive interviewing, and special attention was given to 35 items either because they were identified as confusing items by the Chinese research experts, were double barreled items, or seemed more difficult for respondents to answer than the oth er items. Considering the advantages and disadvantages of thin k aloud and verbal probing, 15 of these items were allocated for the think aloud method and 20 were assigned for verbal probing method. Regarding verbal probing, probes can be divided into four categories based on the nature of probe construction and the conditions for probe administration: scripted 1 In cognitive interviewing, a probe is a question specifically designed to elicit detai led information beyond that normally provided by the interviewee (Willis & Artino, 2013).

PAGE 106

106 probes, conditional probes, spontaneous probes, and emergent probes (Willis, 2005). Only scripted probes and conditional probes were specifically co nstructed prior to the interview and therefore were included in the in terview protocol (see Appendix G ). Spontaneous probes and emergent probes were not included in the interview protocol, but were used during the interview as necessary. Immediately after the cognitive interviewing, these Chinese inservice and preservice preschool teachers were asked to provide written comments on the revised version of the SETP C, including ease of comprehension of instructions and response format, precise writing and bre vity of items linguistic and cultural appropriateness of translated terms, identification of items that seemed unclear or confusing, and any other concerns about the wording and translation. Based on information gathered through the cognitive interviewing and written comments, the student investigator modified the revised version of the SETP C (both English and Chinese version), which was then subjected to scrutiny by both the Chinese early childhood professor at BNU (Chinese version) and the student inves major professor at the University of Florida (English version) Several iterations of revisions were conducted by the student investigator and then reviewed by both the Chinese early childhood professor and the major profes sor, with o n going modifications and edits being made to the questionnaire after each round. Generally, questionnaire items were reworded and subsequently retranslated to meet the following criteria: (a ) items should be as simple and short as possible whil e still retaining the intended meaning, (b) use terms in the translated version based on psychological, linguistic, and cultural considerations relevant in mainland China, (c)

PAGE 107

107 language and translation used should be familiar to and easily understood by tar get respondents, (d) repeat nouns instead of using pronouns, (e) employ the active rather than the passive voice, (f) avoid colloquialisms and the subjunctive, (g) use specific rather than general terms, and (h) avoid words that are vague (Brislin, 1986; v an de Vijver & Hambleton, 1996; Werner & Campbell, 1970) Almost all items were carefully re translated to promote the appropriate and accurate interpretation by respondents, while meeting the guidelines listed above. In addition, particular attention w as placed on double barreled items, items/phrases that were observed during the cognitive interviewing to be confusing to respond ents, frequently used phrases throughout the instrument, and culture specific connotations of phrases. When not violating practic es associated with the Pyramid Model ELDG and Guidance documents double barreled items were modified to reflect only mediated strategies to support peers to learn and practice pro social behaviors for use with their classmates who have soci worded and separated into two items. social behaviors with their classmates used in more than 10 items, which was translated with slight variation across items, su ch as , ( ) , or because and

PAGE 108

108 have a strict connotation in the Chinese preschool contexts that emphasizes a traditional academic approach and learning is narrowed to only academics (Zhu, 2007). Summary of the Development and Validation of the SETP C The validation a ctivities and evidence described above resulted in the final version of the SETP C used in the present study. F our phases of investigation w ere used to develop and validate the use of the SETP C through systematic and iterative quantitative and qualitativ e approaches, particularly through the lenses of Chinese early childhood professionals. The first phase was to identify a comprehensive list of potential i tems from an existing instrument, the empirical Chinese literature, TPOT P, and two Chinese early chi ldhood learning standards documents. Initially, 262 potential items were generated. This number was reduced to 89 through content alignment analyses, field observation, and pilot testing. These items were subsequently formatted into a self administered rat ing scale for further validation, in which each item was rated by 205 Chinese practice experts for its importance and cultural relevance. The second phase was to perform item reduction based on a combination of psychometric analyses of data obtained from Chinese practice experts and theoretical analyses of items, which decreased the number of items from 89 to 67. This phase was necessary to ensure items were important and culturally relevant to respondents in Chinese preschool contexts, avoided redundancy, and were comprehensive with respect to the construct that the instrument was intended to measure. In phase 3 of external expert review, a panel of five Chinese research experts who had not been involved in the questionnaire construction was established t o review the conceptual basis of the SETP C and the retained or reworded 67 items. The panel

PAGE 109

109 strongly supported the cultural relevance of the conceptualization of the SET P C and its intended score use, and provided insight s on further modifications or revi sions needed. During the final phase, with a particular focus on improving the quality of translation, cognitive responses and written feedback from 10 Chinese preservice and inservice preschool teachers provided a guide for gauging the SETP C in terms of its wording and translation. Followed by interactive discussions and on going modifications, a 70 item version of the SETP C was finalized with sig nificant input from two leading early childhood professors. The SETP C U sed for the Present Study The final version of the SETP C used for the present study consist ed of two parts (see Appendix H and Appendix I ) The first part of the SETP C was comprised of 70 teaching practice items with a 6 point Likert type response scale ranging from 1 = almost never use/n ot at all confident to 6 = almost always use/extremely confident Each teaching practice was designed for rating its reported frequency of use, along with a confidence with implementation rating for each item (i.e., How Often section and How Confident sect ion ). A higher score indicated more frequent use of or a higher level of confidence in implementing the social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices. Regarding the internal structure of the SETP C, five domains of the underlying construct the ques tionnaire was intended to measure were originally hypothesized: (a) teaching practices related to B uilding N u rturing and Responsive R elationships, (b) teach ing practices related to Creating a High Quality Supportive Classroom E nvironment, (c) teaching prac tices related to Instruction on Targeted Social or Emotional S kills, (d) teaching practices related to Addressing Challenging B ehavior, and (e) teaching pra ctices related to Supporting Family Use of Social, E motional, and

PAGE 110

110 Behavioral Teaching P ractices. How ever, two of these domains were suggested to be further divided into two separate subdomains during external expert review (i.e., dividing teaching practice s related to Instruction on Targeted Social or Emotional S kills into the Social Emotional Instructio n al Content and the Social Emotional Instruction al Strategies domains, and dividing teaching practices related to Addressing Challenging B ehavior into the Responses to Challenging Behavior and the Interventions for Children with Persistent Challenging Beha vior domains). Therefore, four confirmatory factor analytic models that used all possible combinations of originally hypothesized domains and suggested domains were proposed for the present study, and t hen were evaluated and compared to identify the best f itting model. It should be noted that domains were allowed to correlate in all models based on the conceptual framework. Table 3 7 provides the item specifications of each confirmatory factor analytic model. The se cond part of the SETP C included 17 questi ons focused on demographic or attribute information about a teacher and her/his classroom or preschool. Preschool level variables of pri mary interest on the SETP C were the level of program quality rating and funding source. Teacher or classroom level var iables were in the classroom professional title, level of education, major, certification in early childhood education, years of teaching experience, social emotional curriculum, age of children in the classroom, child to teacher ratio inc lusion status of the classroom (whether children with disabilities were enrolled), and enrollment of children with persistent challenging behavior. These variables were selected for inclusion either because of comments from Chinese research experts or base d on empirical evidence

PAGE 111

111 teaching practices (e.g., Erden & Sonmez, 2011; Heo, Cheatham, Hemmeter, & Noh, 2014; Wang, Elicker, McMullen, & Mao, 2008). The last question on the SETP C asked teachers to indicate, using a list provided, the type of supports that they most want ed to receive to implement preschool social education Gathering Perspectives of Chinese Preschool Teachers about Their Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Teaching Practices In the sections that follow, the substantive research questions, research design, study setting, and sampling strategy used to gather the perspectives of Chinese preschool teachers about their social, emotional, and behavioral teaching p ractices are described D emographic information about the study part icipants and data analytic procedures used to address each research question are also described Research Questions The following research questions were addressed as part of the present study. 1. Based on the SETP C data obtained from a sample of Chinese preschool teachers, is there score validity evidence that supports internal structure and score reliability evidence that supports internal consistency? 2. perspectives about the frequency of use and confidence with implementing social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices as measured by the SETP C? 3. To what extent are teacher or classroom characteristics (role, professional title, education, major, certification, teaching experience, curriculum, child to teacher ratio, child age, inclusion of children with disabilities enrollment of children with persistent challenging behavior) and features of preschools ( city, region, funding source, quality ratin g and confidence with implementing teaching practices as measured by the SETP C? 4. Do Chinese preschool teachers with different individual, classroom, and preschool characteristics vary in the types of supports they report are needed to prepare them to implement preschool social education ?

PAGE 112

112 Research Design A non experimental survey research design was used to gather data from Chinese preschool teachers using the SETP C Non experimental designs are qu antitative, multi subject designs in which va riables are not manipulated and participants are not assigned to treatment conditions (Horn, Snyder, Coverdale, Louie, & Roberts, 2009; Thompson, Diamond, McWillian, Snyder, & Snyder, 2005). Variables of interes t in non experimental designs are measured as they occur naturalistically. Non experimental designs allow researchers to examine the relationships between and among variables but do not provide evidence about causal mechanisms (Thompson et al., 2005). In the present study, the survey research method was used, which can be defined as a method of gathering information systematically from a sample of individuals from a defined population of interest ( Groves et al. 2004; Hox, De Leeuw, & Dillman, 2008 ). S urve y research involves the collection of information by asking study samples to respond to questions or items. Their answers constitute the data to be analyzed (Fink & Kosecoff, 1998; Fowler, 2009). The purpose of the survey research method is to produce stat istics, that is, quantitative or numerical descriptions about the attributes or perspectives of the study sample, which can be generalized to a target population by drawing inferences based on data collected from a small portion of the population (Rea & Pa rker, 2014). In the present study, the SETP C was given to individual respondents (i.e., Chinese preschool teachers) to complete which was considered a self report questionnaire (Bourque & Fielder, 2003). This study employed a cross sectional, descriptiv e survey design (Fink, 2003) All information or variables of interest on the

PAGE 113

113 SETP C were collected at one fixed point in time A non experimental descriptive survey research design was appropriate to examine the four substantive research questions posed above. Setting Completion of the SETP C questionnaires took place in preschools in Beijing, the capital of the PRC, and Ningbo, a sub provincial city in northeast Zhejiang province in the PRC In mainland China, there are mainly three types of early chil dhood education institutions: nurseries serve children under age 3, preschools are for children from 3 to 6, and the so areas) are for 5 to 6 year old children (Vaughan, 1993 ; Wu, Young, & Cai, 2012 ; Zhu, 2009 ). Traditionally, nurseries are regulated by the Ministry of Health (MOH) and preschools are overseen by the Ministry of Education (MOE) Due to the effort to integrate nurseries and preschools and form continuous early care a nd education for children from birth to age 6, preschools are gradually taking over responsibility for enrolling children 2 to 3 years of age and providing education and guidance service for infants and toddlers birth to 2 years of age and their families (Zhu, 2009). Children under age 3 are more likely to stay home with their grandparents (Hu & Szente, 2009). The Preschool Work Regulations and Procedures recommended three groupings in preschool s : junior class (3 to 4 year ol ds), middle class (4 to 5 yea r olds) and senior class (5 to 6 year olds). A junior class is recommended to enroll 25 children, a middle class to enroll 30 children, a nd a senior class to enroll 35 children (Ministry of Education, 2016). In 201 6 there were a total of 239,812 prescho ols in mainland China and 44,138,630 young children enrol led in 1527,353 preschool classes across these preschools (Department of Development & Planning, 2017 ).

PAGE 114

114 A preschool teacher is a type of early childhood educator who is responsible for the direct car e, supervision, guidance, and education of children in preschool classroom settings. In mainland China, individuals must complete their studies at a vocational normal school (equivalent to high school diploma) or higher to qualify for the Preschool Teacher Permit/Certification. Both central and local governments of the PRC provide training for preservice and inservice preschool teachers through distance and online education programs. A significant number of preschool teachers have had three or more years of college education (Zhu, 2008). In 2016, there were 3,817,830 educational personnel 2 across all 239,812 preschools in mainland China, including 2,232,067 full time preschool teachers. About 76.5 % of full time teachers have received an associate degree or higher Sixty eight percent of these teachers had majored in e arly childhood education, and 25.9 % held a professional title ( Department of Development & Planning, 2017 ). Preschools in Beijing Located in northern China, Beijing is governed as a direct cont rolled municipality educational center Beijing is one of the most populous cities in the world and the 2 nd largest city by urban population in mainland China, with a popula tion of 21,729 ,000 in 2016. About 86.5% of the population in Beijing lived in urban areas, whereas 13.5% resided in rural areas (Beijing Statistics Bureau, 2017). Beijing also ranked as the second top city by gross domestic product in mainland China (China Internet Watch Team, 2016) Beijing is divided into 16 districts (18 districts before 2012). In 201 6 there 2 Education al personnel ( ) in a preschool typically consists of a principal, full time teachers, child care workers, health physicians, substitute teachers, part time teachers, and other personnel.

PAGE 115

115 were 1, 570 preschool s in Beijing and 416,982 young children enrol led in 14,913 preschool classes across these preschools (Department of Development & Planning, 2017 ). According to the Beijing Preschool Standards a preschool classroom should be equipped with at least 2 full time teachers and 1 child care worker (Beijing Municipal Commission of Education, 1996). In 2016 there were 65,806 educational personnel across all 1,570 pre schools in Beijing, including 36,071 full time preschool teachers. Nearly 90 % of preschool principals and teachers in Beijing have received an associate degree or above (Department of Development & Planning, 2017 ). Preschool s in Ningbo gross domestic product in mainland China (China Internet Watch Team, 2016) and is a prosperous city well known population at the end of 2016 was 7,875,000 with an urban percentage around 80% (Ningbo Municipal Statistics Bureau, 2017a). The metropolis, located on the coast of the East China Sea in Zhejiang province, is divided into 10 districts. In 2016, there were a total of 1,252 preschools in Ningbo and 282,000 young children enrolled across these preschools (Ningbo Muni cipal Education Bureau, 2017b). In 2016, there were 35,800 educational personnel across all 1,252 preschools in Ningbo, including 19,800 full time preschool teach ers. More than 90% of preschool principals and teachers in Ningbo have obtained an associate degree or above (Ningbo Municipal Education Bureau, 2017b). Sampling Strategy A multi stage sampling strategy was used to obtain a sample of Chinese preschool te achers from the target population of preschool teachers in Beijing and Ningbo. Multistage sampling is an efficient way of collecting information when it is either

PAGE 116

116 impossible or impractical to compile an exhaustive list of the units constituting the target population (Fink, 2003 ; Fowler, 2009 ) which was the case in the present study. It is unlikely that a list of all preschool teachers in Beijing and Ningbo could be obtained. The first stage of sampling in the present study was to select districts from eac h city. With the support from an early childhood faculty member at Beijing Normal University and an administrator and early childhood researcher at Ningbo Research Institute of Education Sciences, six districts in Beijing and six in Ningbo that represented different levels of economic development within the city (i.e., low, middle, high) were randomly selected. At the second stage, a cluster random sampling procedure was used to obtain a sample of Chinese preschool teachers from the chosen districts. In clu ster random sampling, the target population is divided into separate groups, called clusters, and a given number of clusters are then randomly selected (Hibberts, Johnson, & Hudson, 2012). In the present study, preschools were naturally occurring clusters that were composed of multiple preschool teachers. Lists of these clusters were more accessible and easier to develop th an lists of preschool teachers. Once 12 districts in Beijing and Ningbo were selected, a list of all or nearly all registered preschools in each district was generated based on the best available early childhood administrators at each district This list was originally arranged alphabetically and each p reschool on the list was assigned a unique identifier. The R statistical package (R Development Core Team, 2012) was then used to select 10 unique identifiers on the list at random for each district. This procedure was repeated for each selected district. Therefore, a random sample of 120 preschools (i.e., 60 in Beijing

PAGE 117

117 and 60 in Ningbo) was selected, and all teachers in the selected preschools were invited to participate in the present study. The principal or vice principal from each selected preschool wa s contacted and was asked to distribute the SETP C to all teachers in his/her preschool. Based on their version of the SETP C (paper and pencil survey) or the electronic ve rsion of the SETP C through a Chinese online survey service called Sojump (web based survey). Both the paper and pencil survey and the web based survey were anonymous. The names of preschools or teachers did not appear anywhere on the questionnaire, only t he unique identifier assigned to the preschool. All teachers in the same participating preschool and pencil survey, the unique identifier was written on each completed questionnaire by the st udent investigator after preschool teachers completed and returned the SETP C. For the web based survey, different links to complete the SETP C were given to teachers in different preschool programs. To minimize duplicate and fraudulent entries, the web ba sed survey on Sojump was set to accept only one submission from a device (e.g., computer or phone) and only the individuals who were given a link could access to the questionnaire. All the recruitment and data collection procedures were approved by the Uni versity of Florida Institutional Review Board ( IRB201701186 ). Participants Among the 120 selected preschools in Beijing and Ningbo all consented to participate in the present study. A total of 2,407 preschool teachers from these preschools were invited t o participate in the present study, and 2,087 of them completed and returned the SETP C, with an average response rat e of 86.7%. The response rate

PAGE 118

118 in Beijing was 81.8% and the response rate in Ningbo was 91.3%. Of all participating preschools, 82 were loca ted in urban areas and 38 in rural areas; 92 were public hundred teachers from three preschools in Beijing chose the paper and pencil survey, whereas teachers in the remaining 117 preschools completed the web based survey. Given concerns regarding data quality of web based survey research, several procedures have been suggested to m inimize invalid web based survey data ( Bauermeister et al. 2012; Konstan, Rosser, Ross, Stanton, & Edwards, 2005 ). Each completed questionnaire in the present study was screened to detect invalid survey responses. Invalid survey responses were identified using the following criteria: (a) questionnaire was completed by unexpected individuals in cities other than Beijing and Ningbo, (b) questionnaire was completed in a less than realistic time frame (i.e., < 5 minutes), or (c) there existed suspicious respon se patterns within the questionnaire, for example, individuals chose the same response category for more than 90% of the questionnaire items. Four hundred and eighty eight invalid cases were subsequently identified and excluded for data analyses. Therefor e, the analytic sample size for the present study was 1,599. Table 3 8 provides a side by side comparison of the analytic sample and excluded sample demographics. There were no major differences between these two samples across various demographic variable s. As shown in Table 3 8, the analytic sample and excluded sample shared similar patterns in terms of percentage of teachers with different individual, classroom, and preschool characteristics

PAGE 119

119 Of the 1,599 Chinese preschool teachers in the analytic sampl e for the present study, 730 came from Beijing (45.7%) and 869 from Ningbo (54.3%); 1,135 teachers were from preschools located in urban areas (71.0%) and 464 from those in rural areas (29.0%); 1,304 teachers were employed in public preschools (81.6%) and 295 in private preschools (18.4%); 714 teachers were from preschools receiving a quality rating of licensed preschools but not yet being rated for their quality (9.3%). Most of the participating teachers in the analytic sample majored in early childhood education ( n = 1,442; 90.2%) and were certified preschool teachers ( n = 1,524; 95.3%). More than half of them earned a professional title ( n = 990; 61.9%), and reported n = 1,008; 63.0%). Teachers had a mean of 8.6 years of teaching experience in preschool settings ( SD = 7.7, range = .1 39.0 ). The child age make up of the classrooms where teachers were assigned for their work was as follows: 3 to 4 year olds (27.8%), 4 to 5 year olds (29.4%), 5 to 6 year olds (28.8%), 6 to 7 year olds (12.5%), and mixed ages (1.4%). The mean group size for these classrooms was reported to be nearly 30 children, with a range of 3 to 48 children. Each classroom was staffed with 1 to 5 teachers ( M = 3, SD = .7). The average child to teacher ratio for these classrooms was 10.3:1 ( SD = 3.1:1, range = 1.5:1 22.5:1). At the time of data collection, about 16.0% of teachers ( n = 256) reported that at least one child enrolled in their classrooms had a disability. Sixty three percent of the teachers ( n = 1 013) reported having at least one child with persistent challenging behavior in their classrooms. Of these teachers, the mean

PAGE 120

120 number of children with pers iste nt challenging behavior in the classroom wa s reported as 1.9 (range = 1 12). Only 5.5% of teachers ( n = 88) reported that they were currently implementing a named social emotional curriculum in their classroom s Friends ( ) and Empathy and Companion ( ) Table 3 8 also provides a comparison of the present study sample to the national population of Chinese preschool teachers on select variables when national percentage data were able to be calculated based on the most recent data available in 2016 Educational Statistics Yearbook of China (Department of Development & Planning, 2017 ). Similar to the national population, the analytic sample was predominately teachers from urban areas Research has well documented large urban rural and regional disparities of early childhood education in mainland China, including teacher qualifications (Hong, Liu, Ma, & Luo, 2015; Zhu & Zhang, 2008). Given Chinese teachers in two well developed metropolises (i.e., Beijing and Ningb o) were recruited for the present study, it was not unexpected that teachers in the analytic sample were more likely to be highly educated with a major in early childhood education and have obtained a professional title, when compared with all preschool te achers in mainland China. With respect to the national population, the majority of Chinese preschool teachers did not re ceive a professional title (74.1%), only 19.9 % of them have obtained a bachelor degree or above and about 32.4 % did not major in early childhood education. Analytic Procedures Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were used to analyze study data. The sections that follow describe procedures used for data preparation, data entry, and data analyses for each research question.

PAGE 121

121 Dat a file preparation A r esearcher generated unique identifier for each of the participating preschools in Beijing and Ningbo was used in the present study. For the web based survey, each selected preschool was assigned a unique link to the electronic versio n of the SETP C for all teachers in that particular preschool. This means that teachers from different preschools were assigned different links to complete the web based survey and their responses were automatically saved into separate files. For the paper and pencil survey, data from questionnaires answered by teachers from different preschools were entered in separate files. Therefore, data obtained from all participating teachers in the same preschool were stored in a folder that matched the unique ident ifier assigned for the preschool. Then, data files were merged from each folder into one data file in Microsoft Excel with all variables of interest for the present study. Data from this file was subsequently imported into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Syntax was written to recode missing data Excel) Nominal demographic variables with two categories were either coded or re coded using a 0/1 coding scheme, while nominal demographic varia bles with more than two categories were dummy coded in SPSS. Descriptions and scoring of demographic variables are shown in Table 3 9 Once missing data for the social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices were recoded, item level data were used to generate composite scores for the latent variables. S ummated composite scores were calculated in SPSS by summing item level scores for the items associated with each of the latent variable subscales for the SETP C derived in the best fitting confirmator y factor analytic model. The SPSS data file was

PAGE 122

122 then converted to a DAT file readable by M plus version 7.4 (Muthn & Muthn, 1998 2017). Variable coding and recoding syntax are shown in Appendix J In the present study, the amount of m issing data was very small (i.e. average rate of missing data across al l items was .05%, with a range from .0% to .3%), primarily because the Sojump software did not allow participants to submit the survey with incomplete responses. Therefore, no techniques were needed to de al with missing data in the present study (Fichm an & Cummings, 2003; Roth, 1994 ). Research q uestion 1 To examine the score validity and reliability evidence of the SETP C for t his sample of Chinese preschool teachers, confirmatory factor analyses ( CFAs ) we re conducted separately for the How Often section and the How Confident section. CFA is a form of latent variable modeling intended to test theories or hypotheses about the relationship between latent variables and their observed variables (Raykov & Marcou lides, 2011). In a CFA, a prior i theory specifies the number of latent variables and the nature of these variables. In the present study, the internal structure of the SETP C was examined throughout its development and through four competing CFA models tha t were proposed as described earlier in this chapter (also see Table 3 7) To evaluate the extent to which various CFA models provided validity evidence based on the internal structure of the SETP C, a series of categorical CFAs were conducted in M plus G iven the items on the SETP C were ordinal categorical variables ranging from 1 ( almost never/not at all confident ) to 6 ( almost always/extremely confident ), the weighted least squares with adjusted means and variances (WLSMV) estimation s were used. A non s tatistically significant chi square test was expected. Several fit indices are recommended in the literature to assess model fit between the

PAGE 123

123 hypothesized model and the observed data. In the present study, the following goodness of fit indices were used: ro ot mean square error of approximatio n (RMSEA; Steiger, 1990), comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990), and Tucker Lewis index (TLI; and CFI indicate good model fit. Given the chi square test is sensitive to sample size, a poor fit may result in a non significant chi square statistic in a small sample size, while a good fit will probably result in a statistically significant chi square statistic when the sample s ize is large (Marsh, Balla, & McDonald, 1998). Therefore, three goodness of fit indices (i.e., RMSEA, CFI, and TLI) w ere used as the primary source s of information to determine the adequacy of model fit. M odel comparison tests were then conducted to deter mine the best fitting model Because the four proposed CFA models were nested, chi square difference tests were used to compare each pair of the models. Specifically, the new scaled difference test (Satorra & Bentler, 2010) under WLSMV estimation was used, scaling correcti on factor was computed to ensure the strictly positive difference test statistic (Bryant & Satorra, 2012). Significant chi square differences between models indicate the less restricted model (called the H 1 model by M plu s ) fit the data better than the more restricted model (called the H 0 model by M plus ). Similar to chi square tests applied to a single model, chi square difference tests for nested models are also dependent on sample size ( Brannick, 1995) Therefore, model comparisons were then performed based on a practical improvement in model fit approach, that is a difference of .01 or greater between TLI esti mates as recommended by Vandenberg and Lance (2000) in combination with the chi square difference tests.

PAGE 124

124 Once t he best fitting CFA model with a solid theoretical and empirical basis was chosen, two approaches to estimating internal consistency score reliability were used in internal consistency score reliability coefficien ts based on the classica l test theory approach was used was computed for each latent variable subscale in SPSS. Second, the omega coefficient of reliability based on the factor analytic model was used as well, which assesses the proportio n of variance in observed summated scores across items due to the common underlying latent variable. For each latent variable subscale i nstead of relying on the assumption of the essential tau equivalence, the congeneric relationship between items within a particular latent variable (i.e., unidimensional with no significant error correlations) was assumed (Dunn, Baguley, & Brunsden, 2014). The o mega coefficient was hand calculated using estimated standardized factor loadings and error variances of each obs erved item based on the results of the best fitting CFA model Research q uestion 2 To examine use and confidence with implementing social, emotional, and behavioral teaching pract ices as meas ured by the SETP C, average composite scores were generated by averaging the item level scores for the items associated with each latent variable as indicated in the best fitting CFA model. Descriptive analyses (including means, standard deviations, ranges ) and correlational analyses were conducted using summated and average composite scores for each latent variable, separately. However, emphasis was placed on the results based on average composite scores because they were on the same scale as items of 1 to 6, which allowed the comparisons of scores across latent variable subscales.

PAGE 125

125 In the conceptualization of the construct that the SETP C intended to measure latent variable subscales were allowed to be correlated. Depending on the best fitting CFA model, correlations among latent variable subscales were also estimated to determine the direction and strength of the correlational relationship between latent variable subscales. A o ne factor repeated measures ANOVA model was used to test the mean differences a mong the latent variable subscales. Analyses were conducted for the How Often section and the How Confident section separately Research q uestion 3 To examine both teacher /classroom level and preschool level predictors of teaching practices, a multilevel m odeling (Heck & Thomas, 2009; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002 ) was conducted in M plus Version 7.4. The present study involved a two level hierarchical data structure with individual teachers nested within preschools. It was expected that the responses of teachers within the same preschool would be more alike than those from teachers in different schools, in other words, there existed the Raudenbush & Bryk, 1986; Snijders & Bosker, 1999). Multilevel modeling prov ides a technique to address the non independence of residuals. In the present study, both teachers and preschools were units in the analysis. The outcome variable was teacher s score s on each latent variable subscale. At level 1, the units were teachers a as a function of a set of teacher and classroom characteristics. The variance in the outcome was decomposed into two components: (a) variation due to differences between preschools ( between group variance ), and (b) variation due to individual differences after accounting for preschool differences ( within group variance ). Intraclass

PAGE 126

126 correlation coefficients (ICCs) provide d an estimate for measuring the proportion of total variance that was attributed to the homogenei ty within preschools. Teacher or classroom (c) level of education, (d) major, (e) certification in early childhood education, (f) years of teaching experience, (g) social em otional curriculum, (h) child to teacher ratio in the classroom, (i) child age in the classroom, (j) inclusion of children with disabilities, and (k) enrollment of children with persistent challenging behavior. At level 2, the units were preschools. The r egression coefficients in the level 1 model for each preschool were conceived as outcome variables that are hypothesized to depend on specific preschool characteristics. Preschool level predictors were (a) city, (b) region, (c) funding source, and (d) qual ity rating. The definitions for these predictor variables at levels 1 and 2 are shown in Table 3 9. Given the present study involves multiple level 1 predictors and multiple level 2 predictors, the intercepts as outcomes (IAO) model was used. The first ste p in multilevel model analysis was to build an unconditional model variables at either level 1 or 2 were included. The unconditional model characterized only random var iance between groups and random variation within groups (Snijders & Bosker, 2012). The ICC and design effect was calculated based on the unconditional model. In complex survey design, the design effect is the ratio of the variance under design based analys is to the variance under simple random sampling, which provides a measure of the inflation in variance that occurs due to homogeneity within clusters ( Lehtonen & Pahkinen, 2004 ).

PAGE 127

127 Then, for the IOA model, the maximum likelihood estimation method was used t o estimate the parameters and model fit. All categorical variables were dummy coded and all continuous variables were centered by their grand mean in order to clarify the interpretation of results. The unconditional model and IOA model were conducted separ ately for each latent variable subscale on the How Often and the How Confident sections. Research q uestion 4 To examine the relationships of various individual, classroom, and preschool variables to the types of supports Chinese preschool teachers reporte d they needed for preschool social education the chi square test of association for nominal categorical variables and the Kruskal Wallis analysis of variance for continuous variables were conducted in SPPS. In the last question on the SETP C, teachers wer e asked to indicate, using a list provided, one type of supports that might best prepare them to implement preschool social education The type of supports reported was considered a nominally scaled variable and was the dependent variable for this research question. Variables of interest that were nominal categorical variables consisted of role in the classroom, (b) professional title, (c) level of education, (d) major, (e) certification in early childhood education, (f) social emotional curri culum, (g) child age in the classroom, (h) inclusion of children with disabilities, (i) enrollment of children with persistent challenging behavior, (j) city of preschool, (k) region of preschool, (l) funding source for preschool, and (m) quality rating of preschool. These variables were treated as independent variables and were also nominal categorical variables. T wo independent v ariables of interest that were continuous variables were (a) years of teaching experience and (b) child to teacher ratio in the classroom

PAGE 128

128 As a non parametric procedure, the chi square test of association was used to determine whether there was an association or relationship between two or more nominal variables. Contingency tables were produced for each nominal independent variab le and dependent variable. In contingency tables, each combination of the two variables is labeled as a cell. Each cell in a contingency table contained two pieces of information: the number of observations in that cell and the observed proportion in that cell. Two assumptions are made for the chi square test of association: (a) observations are independent and (b) expected frequency is at least 5 per cell ( Lomax & Hahs Vaughn, 2012 ). The chi square test of association is too sensitive when the expected val ues are less than 5. For the cases that the second assumption was violated, the Fisher Freeman Halton exact test was used ( Lydersen, Pradhan, Senchaudhuri, & Laake, 2007 ) If two variables had an association, the standardized residuals were used to determi ne the cells that have significantly different observed to expected proportions. According to Lomax and Hahs are greater (in absolute value terms) than 1.96 (where = .05) or 2.58 (where = .01) are 223). Given the contingency tables for the present study were larger than 2 V were calculated when there was a statistically significant association, which provided can be computed from the contingency coefficient (Lomax & Hahs Vaughn, 2012). With respect to two continuous independent variables that were not normally distributed, the Kruskal Wallis one way analysis of variance was use d to determine re different on each

PAGE 129

129 continuous variable. The Kruskal Wallis one way analysis of variance is a non parametric test in which the ranks of data values are used rather than the actu al data points (Chan & Walmsley, 1997; Kruskal & Wallis, 1952). In SPSS, p ost hoc pairwise comparisons using the Dunn Bonferroni approach are automatically produced when the Kruskal Wallis test is statistically significant. Analytical syntax used in SPSS or M plus to address the four research questions is shown in Appendix K

PAGE 130

130 Table 3 1 Descriptive statistics for the TPOT P indicators. TPOT P item Indicator n Descriptive Statistics Minimum Maximum M SD Schedules, Routines, and A ctivities (SR) SR1 2 0 .00 1.00 .15 .37 SR2 20 .00 1.00 .10 .31 SR3 20 .00 1.00 .35 .49 SR4 20 .00 1.00 .20 .41 SR5 20 .00 .00 .00 .00 SR6 20 .00 1.00 .65 .49 SR7 20 .00 1.00 .55 .51 SR8 20 .00 .00 .00 .00 SR9 20 .00 1.00 .75 .44 SR10 20 .00 1.00 .10 .31 Tra nsitions between Activities are A ppropriate (TR) TR1 20 1.00 1.00 1.00 .00 TR2 20 .00 1.00 .35 .49 TR3 20 .00 1.00 .60 .50 TR4 20 .00 1.00 .80 .41 TR5 20 .00 1.00 .20 .41 TR6 20 .00 1.00 .65 .49 TR7 20 .00 1.00 .25 .44 TR8 20 .00 1.00 .80 .41 Teachers Engage in Supportive Conversations with C hildren (SC) SC1 20 1.00 1.00 1.00 .00 SC2 20 1.00 1.00 1.00 .00 SC3 20 1.00 1.00 1.00 .00 SC4 20 .00 1.00 .80 .41 SC5 20 1.00 1.00 1.00 .00 SC6 20 .00 1.00 .35 .49 SC7 20 .00 .00 .00 .00 SC 8 20 .00 1.00 .20 .41 SC9 20 .00 1.00 .10 .31 SC10 0 ----E ngagement (ENG) ENG1 20 .00 1.00 .80 .41 ENG2 20 .00 1.00 .95 .22 ENG3 20 .00 1.00 .75 .44 ENG4 20 .00 1.00 .95 .22 ENG5 20 .00 1.00 .40 .50 ENG6 20 .00 1 .00 .10 .31 ENG7 20 .00 .00 .00 .00 ENG8 10 .00 .00 .00 .00 ENG9 20 .00 1.00 .30 .47 Teaching Children Behavior E xpectations (TBE) TBE1 20 .00 .00 .00 .00 TBE2 20 .00 .00 .00 .00 TBE3 20 .00 .00 .00 .00 TBE4 20 .00 .00 .00 .00 TBE5 20 .00 .0 0 .00 .00 TBE6 20 .00 .00 .00 .00 TBE7 20 .00 .00 .00 .00 Providing D irections (PD) PD1 20 1.00 1.00 1.00 .00 PD2 20 1.00 1.00 1.00 .00 PD3 20 .00 1.00 .05 .22 PD4 20 .00 1.00 .30 .47 PD5 20 .00 1.00 .60 .50 PD6 20 .00 1.00 .25 .44 PD7 20 .00 1.00 .15 .37

PAGE 131

131 Table 3 1 Continued TPOT P item Indicator n Descriptive Statistics Minimum Maximum M SD Teaching Social Skills and Emotional C ompetencies (TSC) TSC1 20 .00 1.00 .70 .47 TSC2 20 .00 1.00 .25 .44 TSC3 20 .00 1.00 .20 .41 TSC4 2 0 .00 1.00 .10 .31 TSC5 20 .00 .00 .00 .00 TSC6 20 .00 .00 .00 .00 TSC7 20 .00 1.00 .10 .31 TSC8 20 .00 1.00 .10 .31 Collaborative T eaming (CT) CT1 20 .00 1.00 .90 .31 CT2 20 1.00 1.00 1.00 .00 CT3 20 .00 1.00 .80 .41 CT4 12 .00 1.00 .08 .29 CT5 20 .00 1.00 .95 .22 CT6 20 .00 1.00 .15 .37 CT7 20 .00 1.00 .25 .44 CT8 20 .00 .00 .00 .00 CT9 20 .00 1.00 .70 .47 Using Effective Strategies to Respond to Challenging B ehavior (SCB) SCB1 9 .00 1.00 .67 .50 SCB2 9 .00 .00 .44 .53 SCB3 9 .00 .00 .00 .00 SCB4 9 .00 1.00 .33 .50 SCB5 9 .00 .00 .00 .00 SCB6 9 .00 .00 .00 .00 SCB7 9 .00 .00 .00 .00 SCB8 9 .00 .00 .00 .00 Teaching C hildren to Express E motions (TEE) TEE1 20 .00 1.00 .70 .47 TEE2 20 .00 1.00 .45 .51 TEE3 20 .00 1. 00 .60 .50 TEE4 20 .00 .00 .00 .00 TEE5 20 .00 1.00 .85 .37 TEE6 20 .00 .00 .00 .00 TEE7 20 .00 1.00 .05 .22 TEE8 20 .00 1.00 .30 .47 Teaching Problem S olving (TPS) TPS1 20 .00 1.00 .35 .49 TPS2 20 .00 1.00 .25 .44 TPS3 20 .00 .00 .00 .00 TPS4 20 .00 .00 .00 .00 TPS5 20 .00 1.00 .05 .22 TPS6 20 .00 .00 .00 .00 TPS7 20 .00 .00 .00 .00 TPS8 20 .00 1.00 .05 .22 TPS9 20 .00 .00 .00 .00 Supporting Friendship S kills (FR) FR1 20 .00 1.00 .65 .49 FR2 20 .00 1.00 .10 .31 FR3 20 .00 1. 00 .35 .49 FR4 20 .00 1.00 .45 .51 FR5 20 .00 .00 .00 .00 FR6 20 .00 1.00 .05 .22 FR7 20 .00 .00 .00 .00 FR8 20 .00 .00 .00 .00 FR9 20 .00 1.00 .15 .37

PAGE 132

132 Table 3 1 Continued TPOT P item Indicator n Descriptive Statistics Minimum Maximum M SD Supporting Children with Persistent Challenging B ehavior (PCB) PCB1 20 .00 1.00 .30 .47 PCB3 20 .00 .00 .00 .00 PCB3 20 .00 1.00 .05 .22 PCB4 20 .00 .00 .00 .00 PCB5 20 .00 .00 .00 .00 Communicating with Families and Promoting Family Involveme nt in the C lassroom (COM) COM1 20 .00 .00 .00 .00 COM2 20 1.00 1.00 1.00 .00 COM3 20 .00 1.00 .05 .22 COM4 20 .00 1.00 .45 .51 COM5 20 .00 1.00 .30 .47 COM6 20 .00 1.00 .25 .44 COM7 20 .00 1.00 .05 .22 COM8 20 .00 1.00 .20 .41 Involving Fami lies in S o cial Emotional Development and Addressing Challenging B ehavior (INF) INF1 20 .00 1.00 .15 .37 INF2 20 .00 .00 .00 .00 INF3 20 .00 1.00 .35 .49 INF4 20 .00 .00 .00 .00 INF5 20 .00 .00 .00 .00 INF6 20 .00 1.00 .2 5 .44 INF7 20 .00 1.00 .20 .41 Red F lags (RF) RF1 20 .00 1.00 .45 .51 RF2 20 .00 .00 .00 .00 RF3 20 .00 1.00 .35 .49 RF4 20 .00 1.00 .10 .31 RF5 20 .00 1.00 .05 .22 RF6 20 .00 .00 .00 .00 RF7 20 .00 1.00 .15 .37 RF8 20 .00 .00 .00 .00 RF 9 20 .00 1.00 .70 .47 RF10 20 .00 1.00 .50 .51 RF11 20 .00 1.00 .25 .44 RF12 20 .00 .00 .00 .00 RF13 20 .00 .00 .00 .00 RF14 20 .00 1.00 .55 .51 RF15 20 .00 .00 .00 .00 RF16 20 .00 1.00 .45 .51 RF17 20 .00 1.00 .05 .22

PAGE 133

133 Table 3 2 Descript ive statistics for the items on the pilot version of the SETP C. Subscale Item How Important Section How Often Section How Confident Section n Minimum Maximum M SD n Minimum Maximum M SD n Minimum Maximum M SD Teaching of social competence I 20 3.00 4. 00 3.85 .37 20 3.00 4.00 3.35 .49 20 2.00 4.00 3.05 .39 2 20 3.00 4.00 3.75 .44 20 2.00 4.00 3.30 .57 20 2.00 4.00 2.95 .61 3 20 3.00 4.00 3.60 .50 20 2.00 4.00 3.25 .64 20 2.00 4.00 2.90 .79 4 20 3.00 4.00 3.75 .44 20 2.00 4.00 3.40 .60 20 2.00 4.00 2.80 .62 5 20 3.00 4.00 3.80 .41 20 2.00 4.00 3.40 .60 20 2.00 4.00 3.25 .64 Teaching of emotional competence 6 20 2.00 4.00 3.10 .79 20 2.00 4.00 2.85 .75 20 2.00 4.00 2.75 .55 7 20 2.00 4.00 3.55 .61 20 2.00 4.00 3.25 .55 20 1.00 4.00 3.05 .76 8 20 2.00 4.00 3.45 .61 20 2.00 4.00 3.05 .61 20 2.00 4.00 2.85 .49 9 20 3.00 4.00 3.65 .49 20 3.00 4.00 3.45 .51 20 2.00 4.00 2.95 .61 10 20 3.00 4.00 3.45 .51 20 2.00 4.00 2.85 .67 20 1.00 4.00 2.75 .72 Preventing/ addressing challenging behavior 11 19 3.00 4.00 3.68 .48 20 2.00 4.00 3.10 .72 19 2.00 4.00 2.84 .69 12 20 3.00 4.00 3.55 .51 20 2.00 4.00 3.25 .55 20 2.00 4.00 2.95 .61 13 18 3.00 4.00 3.67 .49 18 2.00 4.00 3.11 .83 18 2.00 4.00 2.83 .79 14 20 2.00 4.00 3.45 .61 20 2.00 4.00 3.15 .81 19 2.00 4.00 2.89 .66 15 20 2.00 4.00 3.45 .61 20 2.00 4.00 2.75 .72 20 2.00 4.00 2.90 .64 Social emotional teaching strategies 16 20 3.00 4.00 3.65 .49 20 3.00 4.00 3.60 .50 20 3.00 4.00 3.40 .50 17 20 3.00 4.00 3.75 .44 20 2.00 4.00 3.60 .60 20 2.0 0 4.00 3.45 .60 18 20 2.00 4.00 3.35 .59 20 2.00 4.00 3.20 .70 20 2.00 4.00 3.00 .65 19 20 2.00 4.00 3.25 .72 20 2.00 4.00 2.95 .76 20 2.00 4.00 2.80 .70 20 19 2.00 4.00 3.32 .58 19 2.00 4.00 2.89 .66 19 1.00 4.00 2.74 .65 General teaching strategie s 21 20 1.00 4.00 2.65 .93 20 1.00 4.00 2.20 .95 20 2.00 4.00 2.60 .68 22 20 2.00 4.00 3.45 .61 20 2.00 4.00 3.15 .59 20 2.00 4.00 3.15 .67 23 20 3.00 4.00 3.60 .50 20 2.00 4.00 3.30 .66 20 2.00 4.00 3.15 .67 24 20 2.00 4.00 3.35 .75 20 2.00 4.00 3.1 5 .59 20 2.00 4.00 3.10 .72 25 20 3.00 4.00 3.75 .44 20 3.00 4.00 3.65 .49 20 2.00 4.00 3.50 .61 Working with families 26 19 1.00 4.00 2.42 .69 19 1.00 3.00 2.21 .54 19 1.00 4.00 2.74 .93 27 20 2.00 4.00 3.65 .59 20 3.00 4.00 3.65 .49 20 2.00 4.00 3.4 5 .61 28 20 2.00 4.00 3.70 .57 20 2.00 4.00 3.40 .60 20 2.00 4.00 3.40 .68 29 20 2.00 4.00 3.40 .60 20 2.00 4.00 3.05 .76 20 1.00 4.00 2.85 .81 30 20 2.00 4.00 3.20 .62 20 1.00 4.00 2.65 .81 20 1.00 4.00 2.60 .75 31 20 2.00 4.00 3.30 .57 20 1.00 4. 00 2.85 .93 20 1.00 4.00 2.65 .81 32 20 2.00 4.00 3.35 .59 20 1.00 4.00 2.90 .85 20 1.00 4.00 2.80 .83

PAGE 134

134 Table 3 3 Table of specifications for the preliminary draft of the SETP C. Domain Description Sources of Questionnaire Items N Percentage Teaching practices related to Building Nurturing and Responsive R elationships Building positive relationships with children, families, and colleagues is the foundation for all other practices and the universal conditions that are necessary for promoting social emo tional competence and preventing and addressing challenging behavior of young children. TPOT P 12 13.48% TPOT P TPOT P ommunicati ng & Guidance T eaching practices related to Creating a High Quality Supportive C lassroom E nvironment The provision of high quality environments and teaching practices classroom activiti es and routines. TPOT P 18 20.22% TPOT P TPOT P indicat TPOT P TPOT P & Guidance Teaching practices related to I nst ruction on T argeted Social or Emotional S kills The provision of explicit instruction in social skills and emotional competencies for all children and the delivery of targeted skill instruction that is individualized and systematic for children who are at risk for developing challenging behavior or who have delays in social emotional development. What to Teach: TPOT P Tier 2 indicato rs & Guidance Systematic Review 20 22.47% How to Teach: TPOT P Tier 2 indicators & Guidance Systematic Review Existing instrument 22 24.71% Total 42 47.19%

PAGE 135

135 Table 3 3 Continued Domain Description Sources of Questionnaire Items N Percentage The use of strategies for responding to challenging behavior when challenging behavior occurs and the implementation of comprehensive, assessment based behavior support plans for children with persistent challenging behavior that is unresponsive to classroom wide guidance procedures and the instruction of social and emotional skills. TPOT P 11 12 .36% TPOT P Supporting Children with Persistent The use of practices to support families to promote social emotional development and preventing and addressing challenging behavior. TPOT Involving Families in Supporting o cial Emotional Development and Addressing Challenging B ehavior 6 6.74% Note: TPOT P =

PAGE 136

136 Table 3 4 Demographic characteristics of participants in the content validation study. Variable Number Percentage (%) Profe ssional role Principal 148 73.6 Vice principal 39 19.4 Teacher 14 7.0 Level of education Normal school graduate a 2 1.0 31 15.3 165 81.7 4 2.0 Major Early childhood education 119 58.9 Early childhood special education 1 .5 Elementary education 21 10.4 Education management and leadership 14 6.9 More than two majors 30 14.9 Other 17 8.4 Funding source for preschool Public 176 86.7 Private 19 9.4 Other 8 3.9 Social emo tional curricula No 174 88.3 Yes 23 11.7 Note: a Normal school graduate is equivalent to high school graduate.

PAGE 137

137 Table 3 5 Descriptive statistics and score distributions on the How Important section across 89 items. Item n M SD V ariance Dis. Cronbac Alpha Response Category Proportions (%) Missing Data Rate 1 2 3 4 5 6 Item 1 204 5.13 1.21 1.46 .28 .99 2.5 2.0 6.4 11.3 25.0 52.9 .5% Item 2 205 5.1 0 1.08 1.17 .38 .99 .5 2.0 8.3 12.2 30.2 46.8 .0% Item 3 203 4.92 1.24 1.54 .43 .99 2.0 3.4 8.4 15.8 28.1 42.4 1.0% Item 4 205 5.47 .83 .68 .41 .99 .0 .0 2.9 12.7 19.0 65.4 .0% Item 5 204 5.5 0 .90 .81 .42 .99 .0 2.0 2.9 7.4 18.6 69.1 .5% Item 6 204 5.31 .92 .85 .49 .99 0.5 .5 2.9 14.7 26.5 54.9 .5% Item 7 204 5.04 1.05 1.10 .57 .99 .0 1.5 7. 4 21.6 24.5 45.1 .5% Item 8 205 4.61 1.27 1.62 .38 .99 2.0 3.9 13.7 23.9 24.9 31.7 .0% Item 9 205 4.52 1.29 1.66 .49 .99 2.0 5.4 13.7 25.9 24.4 28.8 .0% Item 10 201 4.91 1.23 1.52 .58 .99 3.0 1.5 6.5 22.4 23.9 42.8 2.0% Item 11 204 5.36 .93 .86 .53 .99 .5 1.0 2.5 13.2 23.5 59.3 .5% Item 12 203 5.22 1.03 1.06 .54 .99 1.0 1.5 3.0 16.7 24.6 53.2 1.0% Item 13 204 4.34 1.47 2.16 .53 .99 3.9 7.8 20.1 15.7 23.5 28.9 .5% Item 14 203 4.82 1.25 1.57 .62 .99 2.5 1.0 12.8 19.7 24.1 39.9 1.0% Item 15 203 5.15 1. 18 1.39 .59 .99 2.5 2.0 3.9 14.8 23.6 53.2 1.0% Item 16 203 5.37 .88 .77 .58 .99 .0 .5 5.4 7.4 29.6 57.1 1.0% Item 17 203 3.71 1.62 2.62 .54 .99 15.3 4.4 26.6 18.2 18.2 17.2 1.0% Item 18 203 4.29 1.30 1.68 .34 .99 1.5 5.9 24.1 22.2 23.6 22.7 1.0% Item 19 203 4.38 1.39 1.93 .50 .99 6.4 2.0 14.3 27.6 24.1 25.6 1.0% Item 20 205 4.75 1.33 1.78 .59 .99 2.9 5.4 9.3 14.6 31.7 36.1 .0% Item 21 202 4.32 1.44 2.06 .63 .99 3.5 8.9 17.3 19.3 24.3 26.7 1.5% Item 22 199 4.79 1.22 1.49 .59 .99 2.0 3.0 9.0 21.1 29.1 35.7 2.9% Item 23 204 5.15 1.11 1.24 .52 .99 1.5 2.0 5.9 11.3 29.9 49.5 .5% Item 24 203 5.32 .93 .86 .59 .99 .5 1.5 3.0 9.4 32.5 53.2 1.0% Item 25 204 5.14 1.09 1.20 .56 .99 1.0 2.0 6.4 12.7 28.4 49.5 .5% Item 26 204 5.22 1.06 1.13 .48 .99 2.0 .0 4.4 14.7 25.5 53.4 .5% Item 27 205 4.46 1.57 2.46 .59 .99 6.8 5.9 14.6 16.6 19.5 36.6 .0% Item 28 204 4.18 1.38 1.91 .55 .99 5.4 6.4 16.7 27.5 24.5 19.6 .5% Item 29 202 4.51 1.24 1.53 .64 .99 .5 5.9 13.4 31.2 19.8 29.2 1.5% Item 30 202 4.56 1.27 1.62 .67 99 3.0 4.0 11.4 24.8 29.7 27.2 1.5% Item 31 202 4.6 0 1.32 1.74 .74 .98 3.5 3.0 14.4 19.3 29.2 30.7 1.5% Item 32 204 4.63 1.43 2.04 .72 .98 3.9 6.9 8.8 20.1 23.5 36.8 .5% Item 33 204 4.54 1.40 1.95 .67 .99 4.4 3.9 14.7 19.1 26.0 31.9 .5% Item 34 205 4.3 7 1.44 2.06 .71 .98 5.4 5.4 15.1 22.4 24.4 27.3 .0%

PAGE 138

138 Table 3 5 Continued Item n M SD V ariance Dis. Alpha Response Category Proportions (%) Missing Data Rate 1 2 3 4 5 6 Item 35 203 4.29 1.47 2.16 .73 .98 6.4 5.9 15.3 22.7 24.1 25.6 1.0% Item 36 205 4.46 1.49 2.21 .75 .98 4.4 7.3 15.6 17.1 22.0 33.7 .0% Item 37 203 4.57 1.53 2.34 .73 .98 6.9 3.4 14.3 14.3 23.2 37.9 1.0% Item 38 204 4.33 1.44 2.07 .73 .98 4.9 6.9 15.7 22.1 24.0 26.5 .5% Item 39 204 4.42 1.47 2.15 .77 .98 5.4 4.9 18 .1 15.2 27.0 29.4 .5% Item 40 203 4.72 1.32 1.75 .76 .98 3.4 4.4 7.9 19.7 29.6 35.0 1.0% Item 41 204 4.5 0 1.41 2.00 .73 .98 4.9 4.9 12.7 20.6 27.0 29.9 .5% Item 42 203 4.18 1.59 2.51 .72 .98 8.9 7.4 15.3 21.2 20.2 27.1 1.0% Item 43 204 4.17 1.49 2.21 75 .98 7.4 5.4 19.6 21.1 23.5 23.0 .5% Item 44 203 4.39 1.51 2.27 .74 .98 6.9 5.4 14.3 17.2 27.1 29.1 1.0% Item 45 204 4.32 1.44 2.08 .74 .98 5.9 4.9 15.2 26.5 20.1 27.5 .5% Item 46 205 4.69 1.31 1.73 .78 .98 2.9 3.9 10.7 21.5 25.9 35.1 .0% Item 47 205 4.6 0 1.32 1.75 .71 .98 2.9 5.4 10.2 22.9 27.3 31.2 .0% Item 48 204 4.56 1.34 1.80 .79 .98 3.4 5.9 10.3 21.1 30.4 28.9 .5% Item 49 204 4.67 1.38 1.90 .73 .98 3.9 3.9 12.7 15.2 28.9 35.3 .5% Item 50 202 4.55 1.44 2.06 .80 .98 5.0 6.4 8.9 20.3 27.2 32.2 1 .5% Item 51 204 4.74 1.33 1.77 .73 .98 2.9 4.4 10.8 16.7 28.4 36.8 .5% Item 52 204 4.89 1.25 1.56 .68 .99 1.5 2.9 12.3 14.7 26.0 42.6 .5% Item 53 204 5.07 1.14 1.30 .72 .98 1.0 4.4 3.4 14.7 30.9 45.6 .5% Item 54 205 5.05 1.12 1.25 .73 .98 1.0 3.4 4.9 1 5.1 31.7 43.9 .0% Item 55 203 4.54 1.39 1.93 .73 .98 6.4 3.0 8.4 22.7 31.5 28.1 1.0% Item 56 203 4.56 1.36 1.84 .77 .98 3.4 5.4 11.8 21.2 27.6 30.5 1.0% Item 57 205 5.02 1.06 1.13 .71 .98 1.0 1.0 6.8 19.0 30.2 42.0 .0% Item 58 204 4.58 1.32 1.73 .75 .9 8 2.9 4.4 12.7 22.1 27.5 30.4 .5% Item 59 203 4.36 1.42 2.02 .70 .98 4.4 7.9 13.8 19.2 30.0 24.6 1.0% Item 60 205 4.4 0 1.50 2.25 .74 .98 7.8 3.9 12.7 21.0 25.9 28.8 .0% Item 61 204 4.91 1.18 1.40 .73 .98 1.5 3.4 7.8 15.7 33.3 38.2 .5% Item 62 203 4.67 1.28 1.65 .76 .98 2.0 5.9 9.9 19.2 31.5 31.5 1.0% Item 63 204 4.35 1.46 2.12 .71 .98 6.9 4.9 12.7 23.0 27.0 25.5 .5% Item 64 203 4.61 1.28 1.65 .69 .98 2.0 5.4 10.8 24.6 26.1 31.0 1.0% Item 65 202 4.86 1.10 1.21 .76 .98 1.0 2.5 8.4 17.8 38.1 32.2 1.5% Item 66 203 4.85 1.19 1.41 .71 .98 2.0 3.0 5.9 23.6 28.1 37.4 1.0% Item 67 202 4.77 1.23 1.52 .75 .98 2.0 5.0 5.4 24.3 28.7 34.7 1.5% Item 68 203 5.04 1.09 1.18 .72 .98 .5 3.0 5.9 16.3 31.0 43.3 1.0% Item 69 203 4.92 1.13 1.28 .71 .98 1.0 3.0 7.9 16.7 3 4.0 37.4 1.0%

PAGE 139

139 Table 3 5 Continued Item n M SD V ariance Dis. Alpha Response Category Proportions (%) Missing Data Rate 1 2 3 4 5 6 Item 70 203 4.74 1.21 1.45 .69 .98 1.5 4.9 7.4 22.2 32.5 31.5 1.0% Item 71 203 4.27 1.39 1.93 .65 .99 3.9 7.4 17.2 23.6 24.6 23.2 1.0% Item 72 203 4.84 1.16 1.36 .65 .99 1.5 3.0 7.9 20.7 32.0 35.0 1.0% Item 73 201 4.85 1.18 1.39 .67 .99 1.5 2.5 8.5 22.4 27.4 37.8 2.0% Item 74 203 4.64 1.31 1.72 .61 .99 2.5 3.9 14.8 17.7 28.6 32.5 1.0% Item 75 203 4.61 1.27 1.61 .56 .99 2.5 5.4 8.4 24.6 30.5 28.6 1.0% Item 76 203 4.79 1.21 1.46 .73 .98 1.0 2.5 14.8 16.3 29.1 36.5 1.0% Item 77 204 4.96 1.12 1.26 .65 .99 1.0 2.0 8.8 16.7 31.4 40.2 .5% Item 78 202 4.99 1.04 1.08 .64 .99 .0 3.0 6.4 17.3 35.1 38.1 1.5% It em 79 203 4.8 0 1.21 1.46 .65 .99 1.5 3.4 9.4 21.2 28.6 36.0 1.0% Item 80 203 4.58 1.40 1.95 .68 .99 3.9 5.9 8.9 25.1 21.7 34.5 1.0% Item 81 204 4.53 1.31 1.72 .63 .99 2.9 4.4 13.2 24.0 26.5 28.9 .5% Item 82 202 4.76 1.22 1.50 .67 .99 1.0 4.5 9.9 23.3 25 .2 36.1 1.5% Item 83 202 4.54 1.35 1.83 .59 .99 1.5 7.9 13.9 20.3 24.3 32.2 1.5% Item 84 203 4.99 1.12 1.25 .67 .99 .5 4.4 4.4 17.7 32.0 40.9 1.0% Item 85 202 4.81 1.06 1.12 .68 .99 .5 1.0 11.9 20.8 35.6 30.2 1.5% Item 86 201 4.87 1.09 1.18 .65 .99 1.0 2.0 8.0 20.4 35.8 32.8 2.0% Item 87 204 4.82 1.11 1.22 .65 .99 1.5 2.0 7.8 21.1 36.8 30.9 .5% Item 88 203 4.61 1.32 1.75 .68 .99 2.5 5.9 11.3 20.2 29.1 31.0 1.0% Item 89 202 4.6 0 1.37 1.86 .62 .99 2.5 5.4 14.9 18.8 23.8 34.7 1.5% Note: Dis. = item dis crimination (i.e., corrected item al pha if item deleted.

PAGE 140

140 Table 3 6 Descriptive statistics and score distributions on the How Culturally Relevant section across 89 items Item n M SD V ariance Dis. Cronbach Alpha Response Category Proportions (%) Missing Data Rate 1 2 3 4 5 6 Item 1 202 4.81 1.18 1.38 .41 .99 1.0 4.0 8.4 21.3 30.7 34.7 1.5% Item 2 201 4.80 1.22 1.48 .39 .99 1.5 2.5 11.4 21.9 24.9 37.8 2.0% Item 3 203 4.70 1.31 1.72 .47 .99 3.4 3.0 10.3 21.7 26.1 35.5 1.0% Item 4 202 5.06 1.12 1.25 .57 .99 .0 3.5 8.4 12.9 28.7 46.5 1.5% Item 5 205 5.25 1.02 1.03 .50 .99 .0 3.5 8.4 12.9 28.7 46.5 .0% Item 6 203 5.08 1.08 1.16 .54 .99 1.0 1.5 5.9 17.2 28.6 45.8 1.0% Item 7 202 4.86 1.18 1.40 .5 3 .99 1.5 .5 13.4 19.8 25.2 39.6 1.5% Item 8 204 4.48 1.33 1.77 .50 .99 2.0 6.4 15.7 23.0 24.0 28.9 .5% Item 9 204 4.18 1.45 2.10 .58 .99 6.4 6.9 17.2 23.0 25.5 21.1 .5% Item 10 202 4.74 1.33 1.78 .67 .99 3.0 4.5 8.4 23.3 21.8 39.1 1.5% Item 11 205 5.1 7 1.09 1.19 .59 .99 .0 3.4 5.9 14.1 23.4 53.2 .0% Item 12 204 4.94 1.19 1.42 .60 .99 1.5 3.4 5.9 21.1 25.5 42.6 .5% Item 13 201 4.06 1.44 2.07 .58 .99 4.5 10.0 23.4 19.4 22.9 19.9 2.0% Item 14 202 4.58 1.32 1.75 .60 .99 3.0 4.5 11.9 24.3 24.8 31.7 1.5% Item 15 203 4.90 1.21 1.46 .59 .99 2.5 1.0 9.4 19.2 27.1 40.9 1.0% Item 16 202 4.90 1.20 1.44 .49 .99 1.0 3.0 11.4 15.3 28.7 40.6 1.5% Item 17 204 3.79 1.63 2.66 .47 .99 14.2 5.4 24.0 18.6 18.6 19.1 .5% Item 18 204 3.91 1.42 2.02 .51 .99 5.4 10.3 25.5 22.1 20.1 16.7 .5% Item 19 202 4.20 1.41 2.00 .59 .99 6.9 4.0 17.8 25.2 25.7 20.3 1.5% Item 20 203 4.67 1.33 1.77 .57 .99 3.4 4.9 9.4 17.2 33.0 32.0 1.0% Item 21 200 4.23 1.47 2.17 .65 .99 5.0 9.0 18.0 18.5 25.5 24.0 2.4% Item 22 198 4.58 1.30 1.68 .66 .99 2.0 5.6 13.1 20.7 29.3 29.3 3.4% Item 23 204 4.90 1.19 1.40 .63 .99 1.0 2.9 10.3 17.2 28.4 40.2 .5% Item 24 204 4.94 1.15 1.33 .64 .99 1.0 2.5 10.3 14.2 32.4 39.7 .5% Item 25 204 4.95 1.19 1.43 .62 .99 1.5 2.5 8.8 17.6 26.0 43.6 .5% Item 26 205 4. 71 1.36 1.85 .59 .99 3.9 3.4 10.2 20.5 23.9 38.0 .0% Item 27 204 4.26 1.54 2.38 .56 .99 6.4 8.3 17.2 17.2 22.5 28.4 .5% Item 28 204 4.21 1.28 1.65 .49 .99 3.9 5.9 15.7 30.9 27.0 16.7 .5% Item 29 201 4.41 1.23 1.52 .55 .99 2.0 3.0 18.9 27.9 24.4 23.9 2.0 % Item 30 202 4.42 1.27 1.62 .61 .99 2.5 5.9 12.9 27.7 28.2 22.8 1.5% Item 31 200 4.55 1.26 1.59 .69 .99 1.5 4.5 16.0 22.0 28.0 28.0 2.4% Item 32 201 4.52 1.33 1.77 .65 .99 3.0 5.0 14.4 20.9 28.4 28.4 2.0% Item 33 203 4.42 1.33 1.77 .68 .99 3.0 3.0 22. 2 20.2 24.6 27.1 1.0% Item 34 203 4.21 1.40 1.96 .68 .99 5.4 4.9 19.7 25.6 22.2 22.2 1.0%

PAGE 141

141 Table 3 6 Continued Item n M SD V ariance Dis. Alpha Response Category Proportions (%) Missing Data Rate 1 2 3 4 5 6 Item 35 202 4.11 1.48 2.1 8 .67 .99 7.4 5.9 19.3 24.3 21.3 21.8 1.5% Item 36 203 4.21 1.50 2.24 .77 .99 5.9 7.4 20.7 17.2 23.6 25.1 1.0% Item 37 202 4.36 1.49 2.23 .72 .99 5.9 5.4 18.3 16.8 24.3 29.2 1.5% Item 38 203 4.14 1.44 2.06 .69 .99 5.4 6.9 22.2 20.2 24.1 21.2 1.0% Item 39 202 4.22 1.45 2.09 .74 .99 6.4 5.4 17.8 22.8 24.8 22.8 1.5% Item 40 204 4.57 1.36 1.84 .70 .99 3.9 4.9 10.8 21.6 28.4 30.4 .5% Item 41 205 4.35 1.43 2.04 .64 .99 5.4 6.8 12.7 22.9 27.3 24.9 .0% Item 42 204 3.99 1.57 2.45 .70 .99 9.3 8.3 20.1 20.6 20. 1 21.6 .5% Item 43 204 3.99 1.48 2.19 .74 .99 8.3 5.4 24.5 21.1 22.1 18.6 .5% Item 44 205 4.25 1.48 2.18 .71 .99 6.3 6.3 17.6 19.5 25.9 24.4 .0% Item 45 203 4.21 1.40 1.96 .74 .99 4.9 6.9 17.2 26.1 23.2 21.7 1.0% Item 46 204 4.48 1.41 1.99 .76 .99 4.4 5.9 12.3 22.5 25.0 29.9 .5% Item 47 203 4.43 1.39 1.92 .73 .99 3.9 6.9 12.8 20.7 29.6 26.1 1.0% Item 48 205 4.33 1.38 1.90 .81 .99 3.9 7.8 14.1 22.4 29.3 22.4 .0% Item 49 203 4.43 1.45 2.11 .73 .99 4.9 6.9 13.8 17.2 28.6 28.6 1.0% Item 50 201 4.32 1.44 2.07 .80 .99 5.5 6.0 16.9 18.9 28.4 24.4 2.0% Item 51 204 4.43 1.40 1.97 .76 .99 3.9 5.9 16.2 19.6 26.0 28.4 .5% Item 52 203 4.62 1.38 1.91 .68 .99 3.4 4.4 13.8 19.2 23.6 35.5 1.0% Item 53 203 4.83 1.27 1.61 .71 .99 2.0 6.4 4.4 18.2 31.5 37.4 1.0% Ite m 54 203 4.86 1.20 1.44 .74 .99 1.5 4.4 4.4 25.1 25.6 38.9 1.0% Item 55 202 4.42 1.39 1.93 .64 .99 5.9 4.0 10.9 26.2 27.7 25.2 1.5% Item 56 203 4.47 1.32 1.74 .71 .99 3.4 6.4 9.9 24.6 31.5 24.1 1.0% Item 57 202 4.91 1.11 1.22 .74 .99 1.0 2.5 5.9 23.3 30 .2 37.1 1.5% Item 58 204 4.40 1.41 1.98 .80 .99 3.9 6.9 15.7 19.6 27.0 27.0 .5% Item 59 202 4.24 1.44 2.07 .74 .99 4.5 9.9 14.4 23.3 24.8 23.3 1.5% Item 60 203 4.24 1.50 2.26 .78 .99 6.4 8.4 14.3 22.7 22.7 25.6 1.0% Item 61 203 4.52 1.35 1.82 .76 .99 3 .4 2.5 18.7 20.7 23.6 31.0 1.0% Item 62 204 4.50 1.35 1.82 .80 .99 3.4 4.9 13.7 23.5 25.5 28.9 .5% Item 63 203 4.13 1.45 2.11 .72 .99 7.4 5.9 17.7 24.1 25.1 19.7 1.0% Item 64 204 4.35 1.39 1.93 .74 .99 2.9 6.4 19.6 23.5 19.1 28.4 .5% Item 65 201 4.59 1 .28 1.64 .79 .99 1.5 7.0 10.4 22.4 29.4 29.4 2.0% Item 66 204 4.64 1.24 1.53 .74 .99 2.0 2.0 14.7 25.5 23.5 32.4 .5% Item 67 199 4.60 1.34 1.80 .76 .99 3.0 5.0 11.6 22.6 25.1 32.7 2.9% Item 68 203 4.78 1.22 1.49 .79 .99 .0 5.9 10.3 20.7 25.6 37.4 1.0% Item 69 202 4.65 1.30 1.69 .75 .99 2.0 5.4 11.9 19.3 28.7 32.7 1.5%

PAGE 142

142 Table 3 6 Continued Item n M SD V ariance Dis. Alpha Response Category Proportions (%) Missing Data Rate 1 2 3 4 5 6 Item 70 204 4.64 1.19 1.42 .70 .99 .5 4.4 13.7 22 .5 29.4 29.4 .5% Item 71 202 4.15 1.42 2.01 .63 .99 4.5 8.4 20.3 22.3 23.3 21.3 1.5% Item 72 202 4.70 1.24 1.55 .60 .99 2.0 3.0 12.9 20.3 29.2 32.7 1.5% Item 73 200 4.56 1.32 1.75 .72 .99 2.0 7.0 11.0 23.5 26.0 30.5 2.4% Item 74 202 4.51 1.37 1.88 .64 .99 4.5 4.5 11.4 24.8 25.2 29.7 1.5% Item 75 204 4.52 1.31 1.72 .54 .99 2.9 4.4 14.2 22.1 28.4 27.9 .5% Item 76 202 4.61 1.31 1.72 .69 .99 2.0 5.0 14.9 18.8 27.2 32.2 1.5% Item 77 203 4.84 1.19 1.40 .65 .99 1.0 3.0 11.3 17.7 30.0 36.9 1.0% Item 78 203 4.84 1.14 1.29 .70 .99 .0 4.4 8.9 20.2 31.0 35.5 1.0% Item 79 200 4.43 1.44 2.09 .66 .99 4.0 7.0 15.5 20.0 22.5 31.0 2.4% Item 80 204 4.21 1.51 2.29 .62 .99 6.4 8.3 15.7 24.5 18.1 27.0 .5% Item 81 203 4.15 1.44 2.07 .63 .99 4.4 8.9 19.7 24.6 18.7 23.6 1 .0% Item 82 203 4.37 1.37 1.89 .67 .99 2.5 8.4 15.8 22.7 24.1 26.6 1.0% Item 83 200 4.22 1.40 1.96 .60 .99 2.5 9.5 21.0 22.5 20.0 24.5 2.4% Item 84 203 4.66 1.30 1.68 .72 .99 1.5 4.9 14.8 18.2 26.6 34.0 1.0% Item 85 202 4.44 1.26 1.58 .72 .99 1.0 5.9 1 7.8 23.3 27.2 24.8 1.5% Item 86 202 4.56 1.27 1.62 .70 .99 1.5 5.9 13.9 20.3 30.7 27.7 1.5% Item 87 202 4.47 1.32 1.73 .70 .99 2.0 6.4 16.3 19.8 29.2 26.2 1.5% Item 88 204 4.17 1.44 2.07 .74 .99 5.9 6.4 19.6 23.0 23.0 22.1 .5% Item 89 200 4.19 1.52 2.3 2 .68 .99 6.0 10.5 14.0 23.5 20.0 26.0 2.4% Note: Dis. = item discrimination (i.e., corrected item al pha if item deleted.

PAGE 143

143 Table 3 7 Four proposed confirmatory factor analytic models. Model 1 : Five fac tor Model 2 : Six factor (A) Model 3 : Six factor (B) Model 4: Seven f actor Nurturing and Responsive Relationships Item 1 to Item 9 Item 1 to Item 9 Item 1 to Item 9 Item 1 to Item 9 Supportive Classroom Environment Item 10 to Item 20 Item 10 to Item 20 It em 10 to Item 20 Item 10 to Item 20 Instruction on Targeted Social or Emotional S kills Item 21, Item 22, Item 23, Item 24, Item 25, Item 26, Item 27, Item 28, Item 29, Item 30, Item 31, Item 32, Item 33, Item 34, Item 35, Item 36, Item 37, Item 38, Item 3 9, Item 40, Item 41, Item 42, Item 43, Item 44, Item 45, Item 46, Item 47, Item 48, Item 49, Item 50, Item 51, Item 52, Item 53 Item 21, Item 22, Item 23, Item 24, Item 25, Item 26, Item 27, Item 28, Item 29, Item 30, Item 31, Item 32, Item 33, Item 34, It em 35, Item 36, Item 37, Item 38, Item 39, Item 40, Item 41, Item 42, Item 43, Item 44, Item 45, Item 46, Item 47, Item 48, Item 49, Item 50, Item 51, Item 52, Item 53 --Social Emotional I nstruction al Content --Item 21, Item 22, Item 23, Item 24, Item 25, Item 26, Item 27, Item 28, Item 29, Item 30, Item 31, Item 32, Item 33, Item 34, Item 35, Item 21, Item 22, Item 23, Item 24, Item 25, Item 26, Item 27, Item 28, Item 29, Item 30, Item 31, Item 32, Item 33, Item 34, Item 35, Social Emotional Inst ruction al S trategies --Item 36, Item 37, Item 38, Item 39, Item 40, Item 41, Item 42, Item 43, Item 44, Item 45, Item 46, Item 47, Item 48, Item 49, Item 50, Item 51, Item 52, Item 53 Item 36, Item 37, Item 38, Item 39, Item 40, Item 41, Item 42, Item 43, Item 44, Item 45, Item 46, Item 47, Item 48, Item 49, Item 50, Item 51, Item 52, Item 53 Addressing Challenging B ehavior Item 54, Item 55, Item 56, Item 57, Item 58, Item 59, Item 60, Item 61, Item 62, Item 63 -Item 54, Item 55, Item 56, Item 57, It em 58, Item 59, Item 60, Item 61, Item 62, Item 63 -Responses to Challenging Behavior -Item 54, Item 55, Item 56, Item 57, Item 58 -Item 54, Item 55, Item 56, Item 57, Item 58 Interventions for Children with P ersistent Challenging Behavior -Item 59, Item 60, Item 61, Item 62, Item 63, -Item 59, Item 60, Item 61, Item 62, Item 63, Supporting Family Item 64 to Item 70 Item 64 to Item 70 Item 64 to Item 70 Item 64 to Item 70

PAGE 144

144 Table 3 8 C haracteristics of Chinese preschool teachers. Variable Cat egories of Variable Analytic Sample ( N = 1,599) Excluded Sample ( N = 488) Country a Number Percentage Number Percentage City of preschool Beijing 730 45.7 176 36.1 -Ningbo 869 54.3 270 55.3 Other cities 0 .0 42 8.6 Region of preschool Urban 1 135 71.0 --83.4 % Rural 464 29.0 --16.6 % Funding source for preschool Public 1304 81.6 377 77.3 -Private 295 18.4 109 22.3 Quality rating of preschool Excellent 714 44.7 242 49.6 -Good 738 46.2 199 40.8 No Rating 147 9.2 45 9.2 Rol e of teacher Lead Teacher 813 50.8 250 51.2 -Assistant Teacher 569 35.6 173 35.5 Others 217 13.6 65 13.3 Professional title Yes 990 61.9 316 64.7 25.9 % No 608 38.0 172 35.2 74.1 % Education Bachelor or Above 1008 63.0 309 63.3 19.9 % Below Asso ciate 52 3.3 13 2.6 23.5 % Associate 539 33.7 166 34.0 56.7 % Major ECE 1442 90.2 455 93.1 67.6 % Not ECE 157 9.8 33 6.7 32 .4% Certification Yes 1524 95.3 463 94.9 No 75 4.7 25 5.1 Child age 3 4 years 445 27.8 126 25.8 -4 5 years 470 29.4 148 30.3 5 6 years 460 28.8 137 28.1 6 7 years 200 12.5 69 14.1 Mixed ages 23 1.4 7 1.4 Inclusion of Children with disabilities Yes 256 16.0 70 14.3 -No 1340 83.8 416 85.2 Enrollment of Children with persistent challenging behavior Yes 1013 63 .4 270 55.3 -No 574 35.9 214 43.8 Social emotional curriculum Yes 88 5.5 22 4.5 -No 1511 94.5 465 95.3 M SD M SD Years of teaching experience N/A (continuous) 8.6 7.7 7.8 7.3 -Child to teacher ratio N/A (continuous) 10.3:1 3.1:1 10:2:1 3.0:1 -Note: a P ercentage d ata were retrieved from the 2016 Educational Statistics Yearbook of China (Department of Development & Planning, 2017 ).

PAGE 145

145 Table 3 9 Definition and codes for each demographic variable. Level Variable Definition Type of V ariable Scoring on Sojump /Excel Coding in SPSS/M plus Level 1 Role of teacher The primary instructional role that a teacher fills in a preschool classroom. Categorical 1 = Lead teacher 2 = Assistant teacher 3 = Other ce group) Level 1 Professional ti t le The level of professional title that a teacher holds approved by the administrative department under the Guidance on the Reform of Elementary and Middle Professio nal Titles (Ministry on Human Resources and Social Security, 2015) currently classified into five levels. Categorical 1 = None 2 = Level 3 3 = Level 2 4 = Level 1 5 = Senior 1 6 = Senior 2 0 = Holds a professi onal title 1= Does not hold any professional title Level 1 Level of education The highest level of preservice education that a teacher has completed Categorical 1 = High school diploma or below 2 = Normal school graduate 6 = Doctoral degree Dummy coded reference group) Level 1 Major The academic discipline to which a teacher formally committed and pursued for a degree. Categorical 1 = Early child hood education 2 = S pecial education 3 = Elementary education 4 = Art education 5 = Psychology 6 = Other 0 = Early childhood education 1 = Other s than early childhood education Level 1 Certification Whether a teacher holds a certification in early chil dhood education Categorical 1 = Yes 2 = No 0 = Yes 1 = No Level 1 Years of t eaching experience The length of experience in year(s) that an individual has been in a paid teaching position as a preschool teacher. Continuous Number Number Level 1 Child age The age group of most of the children enrolled in a preschool classroom. Categorical 1 = 3 to 4 year olds 2 = 4 to 5 year olds 3 = 5 to 6 year olds 4 = 6 to 7 year olds 5 = Mixed ages to 4 reference group)

PAGE 146

146 Table 3 9 C ontinued Level Variable Definition Type of Variable Scoring on Sojump /Excel Coding in SPSS/M plus Level 1 Child to teacher ratio The nu mber of children enrolled in a preschool classroom divided by the number of full time teachers who are employed and assi gned to that classroom during regular days Continuous Number Number Level 1 Inclusion of Children with disabilities Whether a preschool classroom is currently enrolling at least one child with disabilities Categorical 1 = No 2 = Yes 0 = Yes 1 = No Le vel 1 Enrollment of Children with persistent challenging behavior Whether a preschool classroom is currently enrolling at least one child who exhibits persistent challenging behavior. Categorical Number 0 = Yes 1 = No Level 1 Social emotional curriculu m Whether a teacher is currently implementing a social emotional curriculum in the classroom. Categorical 1 = No 2 = Yes 0 = Yes 1 = No Level 2 City of preschool The city where a preschool is located. Categorical (Based on the information from the samp ling frame) 0 = Beijing 1 = Ningbo Level 2 Region of preschool The area where a preschool is located, according to the urban rural classification (National Bureau of Statistics, 2006). Categorical (Based on the information from the sam pling frame) 0 = Urban 1 = Rural Level 2 Funding source for preschool The main source of funding that a preschool is receiving. Categorical 1 = Public 2 = Private (Also confirmed with the information from the sampling frame) 0 = Public 1 = Private Leve l 2 Quality rating of preschool The l evel of quality of a preschool as rated by Provincial Preschool Quality Rating System Categorical 1 = Excellent 2 = Good 3 = Unrated (Also confirmed with the information from the sampling frame) Dummy coded reference group)

PAGE 147

147 Figure 3 1. Correlation of item mean scores on the How Important section and item mean scores on the How Culturally Relevant section.

PAGE 148

148 Figure 3 2 Correlation of item standard deviations on the How Important section and item s tandard deviations on the How Culturally Relevant section

PAGE 149

149 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS In t he present study the SETP C was developed and initially validated, and a cross section al descriptive survey design was used to examine Chinese preschool es about social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices aligned with the Pyramid Model and two Chinese national early childhood learning standards documents. Data to address four research questions were obtained from the analytic sample of 1 ,599 Chin ese teachers across 120 preschools in Beijing and Ningbo by using the SETP C Findings are presented below with respect to each research question. Research Question 1 The purpose of the first r esearch question was to examine validity and reliability eviden ce of SETP C scores for the present study sample of 1,599 Chinese preschool teachers. A series of CFA s were conducted to evaluate the adequacy of fit of the four factor models proposed for the present study in M plus version 7.4 ( Muthn & Muthn 1998 2017) Item responses on the SETP C were specified to be on an ordered categorical scale (i.e., 6 point Likert type scale) and the CFA s were estimated using diagonally WLSMV estimation. mega coefficients were then computed for ea ch latent variable subscale based on the best fitting CFA model to provide estimates of score reliability evidence Score Validity Evidence for the SETP C Table s 4 1 and 4 2 summarize the model fit indices for the four CFA models on the How Often section and How Co nfident section, respectively. The c hi square statistics for all the models were significant The c hi square test is a popular criterion for

PAGE 150

150 examining model fit, and an insignificant result is expected. However, the significance of the chi square test may not indicate bad mode l fit, because t here is a tendency for the chi square test to result in rejection of a well fitting model given l arge sample sizes (Bentler & Bo net t 1980; Jreskog & m 1993 ). In line with the recommendations of Bollen and Long (1993), model fit indices of the RMSEA CFI and TLI were used in addition to the c hi square statistic The cut off criteria described by Hu and Bentler (1999) suggest s the RMSEA value of .06 or less and CFI and TLI values of .95 or greater indicate good m odel fit. As shown in Tables 4 1 and 4 2, the RMSEA, CFI and TLI estimates for the seven factor model met the recommended criteria, indicating adequate fit of the model to the data on both the How Often (RMSEA = .044, CFI = .966, TLI = .965) and How Conf ident sections (RMSEA = .042, CFI = .968, TLI = .967) When compared with the other three models, the seven factor model had the lowest RMSEA value and the highest CFI and TLI values Given this evidence, it was determined that the seven factor model ser ved as the baseline model against which all other mode l s were compared using c hi square difference model comparison tests The comparisons of the seven factor model with the other three models revealed that the seven factor model explained the data better than the others in this sample of Chinese preschool teachers, on both the How Often and How Confident sections. Specifically, on the How Often section, there was a statistically significant improved fit for the seven factor model when compared with the fiv e factor model, 2 ( 11) = 2496.849, p < .001 ; first six factor model (A 2 (6) = 1036.162, p < .001; and second six factor model (B ), 2 (6) = 1676.009 p < .001 The seven factor

PAGE 151

151 model was found to be practically a better fit than the other three models, with a TLI of .043, .016, and .031 respectively. With respect to the How Confident section, the seven factor model demonstrated a statistically and practically significant improvement in model fit as compared to the five 2 (11) = 2645.7 8, p < .001 TLI = .041 ; first six factor model (A ), 2 (6) = 958.617, p < .001 TLI = .013 ; and second six factor model (B ), 2 (6) = 1969.970 p < .001 TLI = .031 From these results, it appears that the seven factor model best represented the internal structu re of the SETP C in the present study and was ultimately chosen because of its conceptual and statistical soundness. Therefore, all the subsequent data analyses w ere based on the results of this best fitting model Seventy items on the SETP C were a r ranged into seven dimensions of the construct of interest (i.e., social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices) These seven latent variable subscale s were labeled: (a) Nurturing and Responsive Relationships ( v 1 = 9) (b) Support ive Classroom Environment ( v = 11) (c) Soci al Emotional Instruction al Content ( v = 15) (d ) Social Emotion al Instruction al Strategies ( v = 18) (e) Responses to Challenging Behavior ( v = 5) (f) Interventions for Children with Persist ent Challenging Behavior ( v = 5) and (g) Suppo rting Family U se of Social, Emotional, and Beh avioral Teaching Practices ( v = 7) The standardized factor loadings for each latent variable based on the seven factor m odel are displayed in Tables 4 3 and 4 4 Regarding factor loadings on the How Often sec tion, all were statistically significant. Standardized factor loadings for the 1 v represents the number of questionnaire items associated with each latent variable subscale.

PAGE 152

152 Nurturing and Responsive Relationships subscale ranged from .586 to .847 standardized factor loadings for the Supportive Classroom Environment subscale ranged from .668 to .836 standardized factor loadings for the Social Emotional Instruction al Content subscale ranged from .801 to .894 standardized factor loadings for the Social Emotional Instruction al Strategies subscale ranged from .645 to .881, standardized factor loadings for the Responses to Challenging Behavior subscale ranged from .841 to .898 standardized factor loadings for the Intervention s for Children with Persistent Challenging Behavior subscale ranged from .832 to .950, and standardized factor loadings for the Su pporting Family subscale ranged from .807 to .939 With respect to the standardized factor loading s on the How Confident section, all exceeded .640 and were statistically significant Standardized factor loadings for the Nurturing and Responsive Relatio ns hips subscale ranged from .643 to .852 standardized factor loadings for the Supportive Classroom Envir onment subscale ranged from .697 to .856 standardized factor loadings for the Social Emotional Instruc tion al Content subscale ranged from .817 to .909, standardized factor loadings for the Social Emotional Instruc tion al Strategies subscale ranged from .712 to .886 standardized factor loadings for the Response s to Challenging Be havior subscale ranged from .853 to .912 standardized factor loadings for the Intervention s for Children with Persistent Challenging Behavior subscale ranged from .848 to .962, and standardized factor loadings for the Supporting Family subscale ranged from .824 to .939

PAGE 153

153 Score Reliability Evidence for the SETP C an d o mega coefficients for the seven latent variable subscales are shown in Table 4 5. Calculations of subscales on the How Often section yielded an alpha coefficient of .87 5 on the Nurturing and Responsive Relationships subscale, .91 7 on the Supportive Clas sroom Environment sub scale, .96 4 on the Social Emotional Instruction al Content subscale, .96 2 on the Social Emoti onal Instruction al Strategies subscale .914 on the Responses to Challenging Behavior subscale, .909 on the Intervention s for Children with Per sistent Challenging Behavior subscale, and .948 on the Supporting Family subscale. For each latent variable subscale, the omega coefficient was slightly higher than the The o mega coefficient was .907 on the Nurturi ng and Respo nsive Relationships subscale, .937 on the Supportive Classroom Environment subscale, .977 on the Social Emotional Instruction al Content subscale, .974 on the Social Emotional Instruction al Strategies subscale, .943 on the Responses to Challenging Behavior subscale, .941 on the Interventions for Children with Persistent Challenging Behavior subscale, and .966 on the Supporting Family subscale. A similar pattern was observed for the se seven latent variable subscales on the How Confident section with alpha c oefficients ranging fro m .891 to .9 67 and o mega coefficients ranged from .921 to .977 as shown in Table 4 5 Research Question 2 The purpose of the second research question was to examine Chinese preschool and confidence with implementing social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices as measured by the SETP C Based on the internal structure of the SET P C revealed by the best fitting factor model,

PAGE 154

154 derived composite scores were computed fo r each laten t variable subscale from item level data. Descriptive analyses were then conducted using the empirically derived latent variable subscale scores The score mean ( M ) and standard deviation ( SD ) of each latent variable subscale, and inter correlations betwee n latent variable subscales are shown in Tables 4 6, 4 7, and 4 8. For the How Often section, the total scale mean score of the SETP C was 4.86 out of 6.00 From highest to lowest, t he average score for each latent variable subscale was: Social Emotional Instruction al Content subscale ( M = 5.15 SD = .71 ), Responses to Challenging Behavior subscale ( M = 5.07 SD = .75 ), Supportive Classroom Environment subscale ( M = 4.96 SD = .71 ), Nurturing and Responsive Relationships subscale ( M = 4.93 SD = .71 ), Soci al Emotional Instructional Strategies subscale ( M = 4.87 SD = .76 ), Supporting Family subscale ( M = 4.36 SD = 1.06 ) and Interventions for Children with Persistent Challenging Behavior subscale ( M = 4.04 SD = 1.15 ) Furthermore, subscale means were stat istically different from each other. All inter correlations between latent variable subscales were statistically significant, and ranged from .354 to 894. The Supportive Classroom Environment subscale was highly correlated with the Nurturing and Responsi ve Relationships subscale ( r = .841 ) and the Social Emotional Instruction al Content subscale ( r = .845 ). The Social Emotional Instruction al Content Social Emotional Instruction al Strategies, and Responses to Challenging Behavior subscales were highly corr ected with each other, with correlation coefficients of .865, .844, and .894, respectively. The Interventions for Children with Persistent Challenging Behavior subscale and the Supporting Family subscale were highly corrected ( r = .809). However, correlat ions

PAGE 155

155 between the Interventions for Children with Persistent Challenging Behavior su bscale and the other five subscales were moderate, ranging from .354 to .622. Moderate correlation was also found between the Supporting Family subscale and three other subs cales: (a) the Nurturing and Responsive Relationship subscale ( r = .499), (b) the Supportive Classroom Environment subscale ( r = .542), and the Social Emotional Instruction al Content subscale ( r = .566). On the How Confident section, Chinese preschool tea chers received a total scale mean score of 4.79 on the SETP C. Similar to the How Often section, the Social Emotional Instruction al Content subscale on the How Confident section received the highest mean score ( M = 5.04 SD = .74 ), followed by the Response s to Challenging Behavior subscale ( M = 4.9 9 SD = 80 ), the Supportive Classroom Environment subscale ( M = 4.9 1 SD = .71 ) the Nurturing and Responsive Relationships subscale ( M = 4.8 4 SD = .72 ) the Social Emotional Instruction al Strategies subscale ( M = 4.80 SD = 80 ) the Supporting Family subscale ( M = 4.32 SD = 1.0 7 ) and the Interventions for Children with Persistent Challenging Behavior ( M = 4.06 SD = 1.15 ) All subscale means were statistically different from each other. As shown in Tables 4 7 and 4 8, s imilar patt erns in inter correlations between the seven latent variable subscales were found across the How Often and How Confident sections A statistically significant correlation was found among each pair of the s even l atent variable subscal es, and the strength of the relationship was either moderate or strong. With the exception of one latent variable subscale that was scored lowest (i.e., the Interventions for Children with Persistent Challeng ing Behavior subscale ), Chinese

PAGE 156

156 s were slightly higher on the How Often sec tion than those on the How Confident section across s ix other latent variable subscales Further, rating s of frequency were statistically significant related to their rating s of confidence across all latent variable subscales, with correlation coefficients that ranged from .820 to .897. Research Question 3 The purpose of the third research questi on was to determine (a) teacher and and confidence with implementing social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices, and (b) preschool characteristics s of use and confidence with implementing social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices. Given the cluster sampling of Chinese teachers ne sted in preschools, a multilevel model was used. The outcome variable was composite scores for each latent variable subscale. Predictor variables a t the teacher/classroom level (L evel 1) consisted of e, professional title, level of education, major, certification in early childhood education years of teaching experience, social emotional curriculum, child to teacher ratio, child age, inclusion of children with disabilities, and enrollment of children with persistent challenging behavior Predictor variables at the preschool level (L evel 2) were city, region, funding source, and quality rating A separate multilevel model was conducted for each of the seven latent variable subscales. Before including an y predictor variables into the multilevel model, a preliminary unconditional model was performed to estimate the amount of variance in outcome variable that existed within and between preschools.

PAGE 157

157 Unconditional Model In the present study, the ICC provide d an estimate for what proportion of the total variance in the outcome variable was attributed to preschool difference s In multilevel modeling, design effect can be estimated as a function of the ICC and average cluster size ( Muthn & Satorra, 1995 ). Table 4 9 shows the ICC and design effect for each latent variable subscale. The ICCs on the How Often section ranged from 3.9% to 8.1%, and the ICCs on the How Confident section had a range of 3.5% to 6.1%. Specifically t he proportion of the variance in the o utcome variable that exist ed between preschools ranged from a low of 3.5% to a high of 8.1% across the seven latent variable subscales Most of the variance (91.9% 96.5%) in Chinese reported frequency of use or implementation confidence occurred at the within preschool level. The design effect on the How Often section ranged from 1.48 to 2.00, while the range on the How Confident section was 1.43 to 1.75 across latent variable subscales Although the ICCs and design effect were relatively small, m ultilevel model ing was still justified due to the nested structure of the data for the present study (Lai & Kwok, 2015; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002 ) Multilevel model results for the seven latent variable subscales a re shown separately in Tables 4 10 to 4 16 Teacher Characteristics rating s of use of teaching practices associated with the Nurturing and Responsive relationships subscale ( b Often = 2.813, p < .05), the Supportive C lassroom Environment subscale ( b Often = 3.095, p < .05), the Social Emotional Instruction al Content subscale ( b Often = 3.790, p < .05), the Social Emotional Instruction al Strategies subscale ( b Often = 4.208, p < .05), the Responses to Challenging Behavi or subscale ( b Often = 1.166, p

PAGE 158

158 < .05), and the Supporting Family subscale ( b Often = 1.852, p < .05). When compared with lead teachers, teachers who identified themselves as roles other than lead and assistant teachers (e.g., child care workers) were less likely to implement these teach confidence in implementing teaching practices associated with these six latent variable subscales Professional ti t le ( b Often = .876, p < .05) was a signif icant predictor of Chinese s of use of teaching practices associated with the Nurturing and Responsive subscale s of implementation confidence ( b Confidence = .681 p = .119 ) on this subscale In compa rison to teachers without a professional ti t le, teachers who held a professional ti t le reported implementing more teaching practices associated with building positive relationships with children, families, and colleagues. Level of education was a signific ant predictor o reported use ( b Often = .953, p < .05) and confidence ( b Confidence = 1.039 p < .05) in implementing teaching practices associated with the Supporting Family subscale. Teachers with an associate degree were mor e likely to support families to use social, emotional, and behavioral teaching pract degree or above. developing individualized interventions for child ren with the most persistent and severe challenging behavior ( b Confidence = .791, p < .05), when compared with those who have Teachers who were normal school graduates or held a high school diploma or below felt less confident in using effective strategies to

PAGE 159

159 b Confidence = 1.374 p < .05 ). Certification in early childhood education was a significant predictor of Chinese ating s of use of teaching practices associated with the Nurturing and Responsive Relationships subscale ( b Often = 2.400, p < .05), the Supportive Classroom Environment subscale ( b Often = 2.426, p < .05), the Social Emotional Instruction al Content subscal e ( b Often = 4.395, p < .05), the Social Emotional Instruction al Strategies subscale ( b Often = 5.422, p < .05), and the Responses to Challenging Behavior subscale ( b Often = 1.379 p < .05) Teachers without a certification reported implementing fewer tea ching practices than those with a certification. However, reported confidence in implementing social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices as measured by the SETP C. Years of teaching experience was a significant predictor of both Chinese s of use and confidence with implementing teaching practices associated with the Nurturing and Responsive Relationships subscale ( b Often = .081, p < .0 5 ; b Confidence = .116 p < .05 ), the Supportive Classroom Environment subscale ( b Often = .096, p < .05 ; b Confidence = .126 p < .05 ), the Social Emotional Instruction al Strategies subscale ( b Often = .143, p < .05 ; b Confidence = .217 p < .05 ), and the Resp onses to Challenging Behavior subscale ( b Often = .037, p < .05 ; b Confidence = .062 p < .05 ). More experienced teache rs reported us ing more and felt more confident in implementing teaching practices associated with these subscales Further, more experience d

PAGE 160

16 0 teachers reported to be more confiden t in implementing teaching practices associated with the Social Emotional Instruction al Content subscale ( b Confidence = .130, p < .05). Lead teachers and assistant teachers did not significantly differ in their repor ted use and confidence in implementing social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices as measured by the SETP C with their reported use and confidence in implementing these teaching practices. Classr oom Characteristics Social emotional curriculum was a significant predictor of Chinese preschool s of use of teaching practices associated with the Nurturing and Responsive Relationships subscale ( b Often = 1.489, p < .05), the Supportive Classroom Environment subscale ( b Often = 1.952, p < .05), and the Social Emotional Instruction al Strategies subscale ( b Often = 3.742, p < .05). Teachers who were implementing a social emotional curriculum in their classrooms were more likely to u se these teaching practices as compared to those who were not implementing a social emotional curriculum. e teaching practices. Further, t eachers who were implementing a social emotional curri culum reported more confidence in using teaching practices associated with the Social Emotional Instruction al Content subscale ( b Confidence = 3.229 p < .05) and the Responses to Challenging Behavior subscale ( b Confidence = 1.064, p < .05). Child to teac rating s of use of teaching practices associated with the Nurturing and Responsive Relationships subscale ( b Often = .167, p < .05), the Supportive Classroom Environment subscale ( b Often = .209, p < .05), and the Social Emotional Instruction al Content subscale ( b Often = .229, p < .05). Teachers from classrooms with a higher child to

PAGE 161

161 teacher ratio reported implementing fewer teaching practices than those from classrooms with a smaller chil d to teacher ratio Similar patterns were found on these subscales. In addition, child to teacher ratio was negatively and significantly associated with te onfidence in supporting f amil ies to use social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices ( b Confidence = .159, p < .05). Whether children with disabilities were enrolled in the classroom was a significant s of use of teaching practices associated with the Supportive Classroom Environment subscale ( b Often = 1.147, p < .05), the Social Emotional Instruction al Strategies subscale ( b Often = 2.026, p < .05), the Responses to Challenging Behavior subscale ( b Often = .696, p < .05), the Interventions for Children with Persistent Challenging Behavior subscale ( b Often = .989, p < .05), and the Supporting Family subscale ( b Often = 1.188, p < .05). Teachers from classrooms where at least one child with disabilities was enrolled reported implementing less teaching practices than those from general education classrooms Similar patterns were associated with these subscales. In addition, teachers who have children with disabilities were less confident in building positive relationships with children, families, and colleagues ( b Confidence = 1.165, p < .05) as compared to those from classrooms that did not involve children with disabilities Child a s of use of teaching practices associated with the Supportive Classroom Environment subscale ( b 4 5 years = 1.362, p < .05; b 5 6 years = 1.058, p < .05), the Social Emotional

PAGE 162

162 Instruction al Content subscale ( b 5 6 years = 1.926, p < .05), the Social Emotional Instruction al Strategies subscale ( b 5 6 years = 2.096, p < .05), the Responses to Challenging Behavior subscale ( b 4 5 years = .556, p < .05; b 5 6 years = .555 p < .05), and the Supportin g Family subscale ( b 4 5 years = 1.024, p < .05; b 5 6 years = 1.149, p < .05) Generally teachers from 4 to 5 year old classrooms and 5 to 6 year old classrooms were more likely to implement teaching practices associated with these subscales when compar ed with teachers from 3 to 4 year old classrooms However, no statistically significant differences were found between teachers from 3 to 4 year old classrooms and th o se from 6 to 7 year old or mixed age classrooms. Similar results were found on the ass reported implementation confidence. In addition, t eachers from 5 to 6 year old classrooms were more confident about implementation of practices from the Nurturing and Responsive relationships subscale ( b Confidence = 1.242, p < .05). Teachers from mixed age classrooms were more confident about implementation of practices from the Supportive Classroom Environment subscale ( b Confidence = 3.550, p < .05). Teachers from 4 to 5 year old classrooms were more confident on the Social Emotional Instruction al Content subscale ( b Confidence = 1.532, p < .05) and the Social Emotional Instruction al Strategies subscale ( b Confidence = 1.983, p < .05), when compared with teachers from 3 to 4 year old classrooms. Whether children wi th persistent challenging behavior were enrolled in the with implementing social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices as measured by the SETP C.

PAGE 163

163 Preschool charact eristics City was a significant predictor of both s of use of and confidence with implementing teaching practices associated with the Nurturing and Responsive Relationships subscale ( b Often = 1.580, p < .05 ; b Confidence = 1.453, p < .05 ), the Supportive Classroom Environment subscale ( b Often = 1.650, p < .05 ; b Confidence = 1.701, p < .05 ), and the Social Emotional Instruction al Strategies subscale ( b Often = 2.901, p < .05 ; b Confidence = 2.715, p < .05 ). Teachers from presc h ools in Ningbo were more likely and felt more confident in implement ing teaching practices associated with these three latent variable subscales, as compared to those from preschools in Beijing. Region of preschool (urban vs. rural), funding source for t he preschool (public vs. private), and quality rating of preschool were not significantly reported use of and confidence with implementing social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices as measured by the SETP C. Research Q uestion 4 The purpose of the fourth research question was to examine the relationships between various variables and the most needed types of supports requested by Chinese preschool teachers for social education On the SETP C, t eachers were asked to indic ate, using a list provided, the types of supports that might best assist the m in preschool social education Overall, nearly half of the Chinese teachers indicated a need for a specific social emotional curriculum ( n = 741 ; 46.3% sup port and cooperation ( n = 362 ; 22.6% ), inservice training from research experts ( n = 175 ; 10.9% ), and systematic preservice training ( n = 164 ; 10.3% ). The two least

PAGE 164

164 requested supports were inservice coaching from experienced practitioners ( n = 106 ; 6.6% ) a nd attention and support from preschool principals ( n = 40 ; 2.5% ). A series of the chi square test of association and the Kruskal Wallis test were conducted to compare the proportions of Chinese preschool teachers with different individual, classroom, and preschool characteristics on the most needed types of supports. Tables 4 17, 4 18, and 4 19 show the frequencies and proportions of Chinese preschool teachers cross classified by different characteristics and needed types of supports. Given the limitation of chi square test with respect to the sample size, the chi square statistic together with measures of the strength of association ( V and ) are presented when a statistically significant result was obtained. Then, inspection of cells wher e the absolute values of the standardized residuals were larger than 1.96 was conducted to detect significant differences in observed to expected frequencies. Results suggest these following individual, classroom, and preschool characteristics were signif icantly associated with the types of supports needed by Chinese preschool teachers: (a) 2 (5, N = 1,587) = 28.941, p < .05; (b) level of education of teacher 2 (10, N = 1,588) = 28.726, p < .05 ; (c) major, 2 (5, N = 1,588) = 15.077, p < .05 ; certification in early childhood education, 2 (5, N = 1,588) = 22.726, p < .05; (e) city of preschool, 2 (5, N = 1,588) = 18.828, p < .05; (f) funding source for preschool, 2 (5, N = 1,588) = 31.960 p < .05; and (g) quality rating of preschool, 2 (10, N = 1,588) = 34.565, p < .05 For these variables, t he strength of the association as measured by V and values ranged from .097 to .146, which were considered small effects (Cohen, 1988).

PAGE 165

165 Mor e specifically, teachers with out a professional title and teachers who did not major in early childhood education were less likely to request a need for a specific social emotional curriculum and were more likely to report a need for systematic preservice training. Both t eachers with a high school diploma and uncertified teachers were less likely to request a need for a social emotional curriculum, and were more likely to need fa and inservice coaching from experienced practiti oners. Teachers from private preschools were less likely to report a need for a social emotional curriculum, and more likely to need On the contrary, t eachers from were m ore likely to report a need for a social emotional curriculum and less likely to Chinese preschool teachers did not differ in terms of types of supports needed on the following variables: (a) ole, 2 (10, N = 1,588) = 16.899 p = .077 ; (b) social emotional curriculum, 2 (5, N = 1,588) = 4.52 p = .460; (c) child age in the classroom 2 (20, N = 1,587 ) = 18.425 p = .517; (d) inclusion of children with disabilities, 2 (5, N = 1,585 ) = 7.983 p = .157; (e) enrollment of children with persistent challenging behavior, 2 (5, N = 1,57 8) = 4.451 p = .487; and (f) region of preschool, 2 (5, N = 1,588) = 6.787 p = .237. Figures 4 1 and 4 2 show the boxplots for the Kruskal Wallis test for the two continuous variables. There were statistically significant differences among preschool teachers by the six types of supports on (a) years of teaching experience, H (5, N = 1585) = 45.814, p < .001; and (b) child to teacher ratio H (5, N = 1584) = 15.239, p = .009.

PAGE 166

166 Table 4 1 Fit Indices for the four models on the How Often section. Model Specifications 2 # of Free Parameter df P Value RMSEA [CI] CFI TLI Model 1: F ive factor Relationships: Items 1 to 9 Environment: Items 10 to 20 Social Emotional teach ing: Items 21 to 53 Addressing CB: Items 54 to 63 Families: Items 64 to 70 18270.942 430 2335 <.001 .065 [.064 to .066] .925 .922 Model 2: S ix factor (A) Relationships: Items 1 to 9 Environment: Items 10 to 20 Social Emotional teaching: Items 21 to 53 C B: Items 54 to 58 PCB: Items 59 to 63 Families: Items 64 to 70 12639.009 435 2330 <.001 .053 [.052 to .054] .951 .949 Model 3: S ix factor (B) Relationships: Items 1 to 9 Environment: Items 10 to 20 SE Instruction al Content : Items 21 to 35 SE Instructiona l Strategies: Items 36 to 53 Addressing CB: Items 54 to 63 Families: Items 64 to 70 15758.962 435 2330 <.001 .06 [.059 to .061] .936 .934 Model 4: S even factor Relationships: Items 1 to 9 Environment: Items 10 to 20 SE Instruction al Content : Items 21 to 35 SE Instructional Strategies: Items 36 to 53 CB: Items 54 to 58 PCB: Items 59 to 63 Families: Items 64 to 70 9442.411 441 2324 <.001 .044 [.043 to .045] .966 .965 Note: df = degree of freedom, RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation, CI = confi dence interval, CFI = comparative fit index, TLI = Tucker Lewis index.

PAGE 167

167 Table 4 2 Fit Indices for the four models on the How Confident section Model Specifications 2 # of Free Parameter df P Value RMSEA [CI] CFI TLI Model 1: F ive factor Relationships: Items 1 to 9 Environment: Items 10 to 20 Social Emo tional teaching: Items 21 to 53 Addressing CB: Items 54 to 63 Families: Items 64 to 70 17196.641 430 2335 <.001 .063 [.062 to .064] .929 .926 Model 2: S ix factor (A) Relationships: Items 1 to 9 Environm ent: Items 10 to 20 Social Emo tional teaching: Items 21 to 53 CB: Items 54 to 58 PCB: Items 59 to 63 Families: Items 64 to 70 11536.643 435 2330 <.001 .05 0 [.049 to .051] .956 .954 Model 3: S ix factor (B) Relationships: Items 1 to 9 Environment: Items 10 to 20 SE Instruction al Content : Items 21 to 35 SE Instructional Strategies: Items 36 to 53 Addressing CB: Items 54 to 63 Families: Items 64 to 70 15131.86 435 2330 <.001 .059 [.058 to .060] .939 .936 Model 4: S even factor Relationships: Items 1 to 9 Envir onment: Items 10 to 20 SE Instruction al Content : Items 21 to 35 SE Instructional Strategies: Items 36 to 53 CB: Items 54 to 58 PCB: Items 59 to 63 Families: Items 64 to 70 8912.503 441 2324 <.001 .042 [.041 to .043] .968 .967 Note: df = degree of freedom, RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation, CI = confidence interval, CFI = comparative fit index, TLI = Tucker Lewis index.

PAGE 168

168 Table 4 3 Standardized factor loadings on the How Often section Item Relationships Environment SEI Content SEI Strategies Responses to CB P CB Intervention Supporting Family F1: Talk with children about their play .586 ------.682 ------F3: Use alternative communication strategies .675 ------F4: Coordinate the planning for daily activities .694 ------F5: Discuss and coordinate responsibilities .770 ------F6: Take turns leading or co leading activities .693 ------F7: Provide families with daily information .683 ------F8: Use different methods of communication .847 ------F9: Establish bi directional communication .834 ------F10: Structure small group activities -.668 -----F11: Prepare classroom activities -.745 -----F12: Plan balanced daily schedule -.691 -----F13: Use transition strategies -.747 -----F14: Guide individual children to transit -.775 -----F15: Provide developmentally appropriate activities -.800 ----F16: Assist in selecting activities -.836 -----F17: Provide choices -.831 -----F18: Use directions -.692 -----F19: Check in with children about direction -.803 -----F20: Individualize directions -.752 -----F21: Instruction on rules of behavior --.801 ----F22: Instruction on friendship skills --.855 ----F23: Instruction on social problem solving --.844 ----F24: Instruction on peer interaction --.863 ----F25: Instruction on autonomy/independence --.840 ----F26: Instruction on self confidence/self esteem --.881 ----F27: Instruction on self restraint/self control --.849 ----F28: Instruction on showi ng concern and regard --.876 ----F29: Instruction on emotional vocabulary --.829 ----F30: Instruction on participating the collective --.865 ----F31: Instruction on sense of belonging --.864 ----F32: Inst ruction on emotion recognition --.869 ----F33: Instruction on emotion expression --.894 ----F34: Instruction on emotion regulation --.886 ----F35: Instruction on showing empathy --.852 ----

PAGE 169

169 Table 4 3. Co ntinued Item Relationships Environment SEI Content SEI Strategies Responses to CB P CB Intervention Supporting Family F36: Post classroom rules of behavior ---.645 ---F37: Describe observation of children ---.830 ---F38: Modeling ---.824 ---F39: Individualize social emotional instruction ---.837 ---F40: Use descriptive praise ---.841 ---F41: Provide planned opportunities /activities ---.834 ---F42: Maintain peer interactions --.881 ---F43: Teach peer mediated strategies ---.823 ---F44: Support peer mediated strategies ---.819 ------.857 ---F46: Provide calm down strategies ---.842 ---F47: Generate possible solutions ---.848 ---F48: Role playing ---.825 ---F49: Use visual ---.792 ---F50: Lessons ---.775 ---F51: Routines ---.843 ---F52: Eduplay ---.860 ---F53 : Embedded instruction ---.838 ---F54: Identify the function ----.893 --F55: Teach alternative behaviors ----.898 --F56: Remind of behavior rules ----.860 --F57: Developmentally appropriate strategies ----.885 --F58: Describe the appropriate behavior ----.841 --F59: Referral -----.847 -F60: Development the behavior support plan -----.832 -F61: Contribute ideas for strategies -----.839 -F62: I mplement the behavior support plan -----.950 ------.887 -F64: Offer families social emotional information ------.939 F65: SE community resources ------.893 F66: CB related community resources ------.890 F67: Give practical strategies ------.923 F68: Development CB strategies for home ------.919 F69: Work with families on CB ------.900 F70: Involve families in behavior supp ort plan ------.807 Note: SEI = social emotional Instruc tion, CB = challenging behavior, PCB = persistent challenging behavior.

PAGE 170

170 Table 4 4. Standardized factor loadings on the How Confident section. Item Relationships Environment SEI Content S EI Strategies Responses to CB P CB Intervention Supporting Family C1: Talk with children about their play .643 ------.730 ------C3: Use alternative communication strategies .709 ------C4 : Coordinate the planning for daily activities .735 ------C5: Discuss and coordinate responsibilities .789 ------C6: Take turns leading or co leading activities .711 ------C7: Provide families with daily information 720 ------C8: Use different methods of communication .852 ------C9: Establish bi directional communication .850 ------C10: Structure small group activities -.697 -----C11: Prepare classroom activities .744 -----C12: Plan balanced daily schedule -.713 -----C13: Use transition strategies -.774 -----C14: Guide individual children to transit -.793 -----C15: Provide developmentally appropriate activities -.801 -----C16: Assist in selecting activities -.856 -----C17: Provide choices -.827 -----C18: Use directions -.754 -----C19: Check in with children about direction -.815 -----C20: Individuali ze directions -.793 -----C21: Instruction on rules of behavior --.817 ----C22: Instruction on friendship skills --.838 ----C23: Instruction on social problem solving --.851 ----C24: Instruction on peer in teraction --.870 ----C25: Instruction on autonomy/independence --.834 ----C26: Instruction on self confidence/self esteem --.871 ----C27: Instruction on self restraint/self control --.848 ----C28: Instruc tion on showing concern and regard --.873 ----C29: Instruction on emotional vocabulary --.836 ----C30: Instruction on participating the collective --.868 ----C31: Instruction on sense of belonging --.863 ----C32: Instruction on emotion recognition --.882 ----C33: Instruction on emotion expression --.909 ----C34: Instruction on emotion regulation --.900 ----C35: Instruction on showing empathy --.854 ----

PAGE 171

171 Table 4 4. Continued Item Relationships Environment SEI Content SEI Strategies Responses to CB P CB Intervention Supporting Family C36: Post classroom rules of behavior ---.712 ---C37: Describe observation of children ---.850 ---C38: Modeling ---.837 ---C39: Individualize social emotional instruction ---.847 ---C40: Use descriptive praise ---.830 ---C41: Provide planned opportunities /activities ---.856 ---C42: Maintain peer inte ractions ---.886 ---C43: Teach peer mediated strategies ---.826 ---C44: Support peer mediated strategies ---.835 ------.868 ---C46: Provide calm down strategies ---.851 ---C47: Generate possible solutions ---.856 ---C48: Role playing ---.845 ---C49: Use visual ---.808 ---C50: Lessons ---.797 ---C51: Routines ---.870 ---C52: Eduplay ---.873 ---C53: Embedded instruction ---.854 ---C54: Identify the function ----.912 --C55: Teach alternative behaviors ----.900 --C56: Remind of behavior rules ----.880 --C57: Developmentally appropriate s trategies ----.895 --C58: Describe the appropriate behavior ----.853 --C59: Referral -----.876 -C60: Development the behavior support plan -----.848 -C61: Contribute ideas for strategies -----.8 31 -C62: Implement the behavior support plan -----.962 ------.911 -C64: Offer families social emotional information ------.939 C65: SE community resources ------.899 C6 6: CB related community resources ------.891 C67: Give practical strategies ------.929 C68: Development CB strategies for home ------.924 C69: Work with families on CB ------.897 C70: Involve families in behavior support plan ------.824 Note: SEI = social emotional Instruct ion, CB = challenging behavior, PCB = persistent challenging behavior.

PAGE 172

172 Table 4 5 mega coefficient of reliability for subscales Subscale Items Number of Items How Often section How Confident section Omega Omega Nurturing and Responsive Relationships Item1 Item 2, Item 3, Item 4, Item 5, Item 6, Item 7, Item 8, Item 9 9 .875 .907 .891 .921 Supportive Classroom Environment Item 10, Item 11, Item 12, Item 13, Item 14, Item 15, Item 16, Item 17, Item 18, Item 19, Item 20 11 .917 .937 .925 .945 Social Emotional Instruction al Content Item 21, Item 22, Item 23, Item 24, Item 25, Item 26, Item 27, Item 28, Item 29, Item 30, Item 31, Item 32, Item 33, Item 34, Item 35 15 .964 .977 .965 .977 Social Emotional Instruction al Strategies Item 36, Item 37, Item 38, Item 39, Item 40, Item 41, Item 42, Item 43, Item 44, Item 45, Item 46, Item 47, Item 48, Item 49, Item 50 Item 51, Item 52, Item 53 18 .962 .974 .967 .977 Responses to Challenging Behavior Item 54, Item 55, Item 56, Item 57, Item 58 5 .914 .943 .924 .949 Interventions for Children with Persistent Challenging Behavior Item 59, Item 60, Item 61, Item 6 2, Item 63 5 .909 .941 .917 .948 Supporting Family Item 64, Item 65, Item 66, Item 67, Item 68, Item 69, Item 70 7 .948 .966 .951 .968

PAGE 173

173 T able 4 6 Descriptive statistics for latent variable subscales. Subscale Average Subscale Scores Summated Subsc ale Scores Minimum Maximum M SD Variance Minimum Maximum M SD Variance How Often section Nurturing and Responsive Relationships 1 .000 6 .000 4.929 .709 .503 9 .000 54 .000 44.328 6.387 40.796 Supportive Classroom Environment 1 .000 6 .000 4.964 .707 .500 11 .000 66 .000 54.587 7.816 61.091 Social Emotional Instruction al Content 1 .000 6 .000 5.148 .714 .510 15 .000 90 .000 77.219 10.714 114.792 Social Emotional Instruction al Strategies 1 .000 6 .000 4.868 .763 .582 18 .000 108 .000 87.622 13.729 188.491 Responses to Challenging Behavior 1 .000 6 .000 5.074 .750 .562 5 .000 30 .000 25.364 3.749 14.053 Interventions for Children with Persistent Challenging Behavior 1 .000 6 .000 4.038 1.146 1.313 5 .000 30 .000 20.181 5.728 32.815 Supporting Family 1 .000 6 .000 4.356 1.055 1.113 7 .000 42 .000 30.490 7.386 54.550 Total 1.030 5.990 4.855 .666 .443 72.000 418.000 339.791 46.605 2172.071 How Confident section Nurturing and Responsive Relationships 1 .000 6 .000 4.837 .722 .522 9 .000 54 .000 43.488 6.523 42. 548 Supportive Classroom Environment 1 .000 6 .000 4.907 .714 .510 11 .000 66 .000 53.957 7.888 62.220 Social Emotional Instruction al Content 1 .000 6 .000 5.044 .742 .550 15 .000 90 .000 75.635 11.147 124.256 Social Emotional Instruction al Strategies 1 .000 6 000 4.797 .798 .636 18 .000 108 .000 86.324 14.369 206.479 Responses to Challenging Behavior 1 .000 6 .000 4.987 .799 .638 5 .000 30 .000 24.925 4.010 16.083 Interventions for Children with Persistent Challenging Behavior 1 .000 6 .000 4.061 1.150 1.322 5 .000 30 .000 20.299 5.748 33.036 Supporting Family 1 .000 6 .000 4.323 1.068 1.141 7 .000 42 .000 30.259 7.478 55.915 Total 1.070 6.000 4.786 .705 .496 75.000 420.000 334.887 49.341 2434.556

PAGE 174

174 Table 4 7 Inter c orrelations between latent variable subscales on t he H ow Often section. FA1 FA2 FA3 FA4 FA5 FA6 FA7 Nurturing and Responsive Relationships (FA1) 1 Supportive Classroom Environment (FA2) .841* 1 Social Emotional Instruction al Content (FA3) .750 .845 1 Social Emotional Instruction al Strate gies (FA4) .697 .779 .865 1 Responses to Challenging Behavior (FA5) .705 .788 .844 .894 1 Interventions for Children with Persistent Challenging Behavior (FA6) .354 .417 .423 .622 .503 1 Supporting Family (FA7) .499 .542 .566 .742 .629 .809 1 Note: p < .05

PAGE 175

175 Table 4 8 Inter c orrelations between latent variable subscales on the How Confident section. FA1 FA2 FA3 FA4 FA5 FA6 FA7 Nurturing and Responsive Relationships (FA1) 1 Supportive Classroom Environment (FA2) .856 1 Social Emotional Instruction al Content (FA3) .777 .871 1 Social Emotional Instruction al Strategies (FA4) .745 .822 .891 1 Responses to Challenging Behavior (FA5) .759 .822 .870 .911* 1 Interventions for Children with Persistent Challenging Behavior (FA6) .458 .511 .522 .678 .575 1 Supporting Family (FA7) .575 .610 .634 .777 .690 .832 1 Note: p < .05

PAGE 176

176 Table 4 9 Intraclass correlation coefficient and design effect for latent variable subscale s Subscale How Often section How Confident section ICC Design Effect ICC Design Effect Nurturing and Responsive Relationships 5 1 % 1.63 3 5 % 1.43 Supportive Classroom Environment 5 6 % 1.69 5 0 % 1.62 Social Emotional Instruction al Content 5 7 % 1.70 3 9 % 1.48 Social Emoti onal Instruction al Strategies 8 1 % 2.00 6 1 % 1.75 Responses to Challenging Behavior 5 9 % 1.73 4 5 % 1.55 Interventions for Children with Persistent Challenging Behavior 3 9 % 1.48 4 5 % 1.55 Supporting Family 6 6 % 1.81 5 6 % 1.69 Note: ICC = intraclass cor relation coefficient.

PAGE 177

177 Table 4 10 Multilevel results for the Nurturing and Responsive Relationships subscale Random Effect Reference Group (Categorical variables) How Often section ( Possible score range = 9 to 54 ) How Confident section (Possible score range = 9 to 54 ) Coefficient SE t p Coefficient SE t p Intercept -44.507 .874 50.926 .000 43.397 .891 48.711 .000 Level 1 (Teacher /classroom Level) Role: Assistant teacher Role: Lead teacher .191 .377 .508 .611 .406 .388 1.047 .295 Role: Other Role: Lead teacher 2.813* .495 5.684 .000 2.102* .510 4.124 .000 Professional t itle: No Professional t itle: Yes 0.876* .425 2.063 .039 .681 .436 1.561 .119 Education: Below associate Education: Bachelor or abo ve .398 .960 .414 .679 .323 .990 .326 .745 Education: Associate Education: Bachelor or above .411 .362 1.136 .256 .332 .372 .893 .372 Major: Not ECE Major: ECE .260 .565 .460 .645 .633 .582 1.087 .277 Certification : No Certification : Yes 2.400* .853 2.814 .005 .815 .880 .926 .354 Years of teaching experience -0.081* .024 3.329 .001 .116* .025 4.624 .000 SE Curriculum: No SE Curriculum: Yes 1.489* .736 2.024 .043 2.140* .752 2.848 .004 Child to teacher ratio -0.167* .066 2.525 .012 .189* .068 2.787 .005 Children with disabilities: No Children with disabilities: Yes .758 .436 1.738 .082 1.165* .449 2.594 .009 Children with P CB: No Children with P CB: Yes .082 .326 .250 .802 .376 .336 1.119 .263 Child a ge (4 5 years) Child a ge (3 4 years) .141 .412 .341 .733 .575 .425 1.352 .176 Child a ge (5 6 years) Child a ge (3 4 years) .661 .423 1.564 .118 1.242* .435 2.854 .004 Child a ge (6 7 years) Child a ge (3 4 years) .292 .559 .522 .602 .461 .576 .800 .424 Child a ge (mixed) Child a ge (3 4 years) 1.119 1.348 .830 .407 1.973 1.380 1.430 .153 Level 2 (Preschool Level) City: Ningbo City: Beijing 1.580* .436 3.624 .000 1.453* .440 3.302 .001 Region: Rural Region: Urban .160 .476 .336 .737 .177 .480 .369 .712 Funding source : Private Funding source : Public .022 .553 .039 .969 .411 .557 .737 .461 Quality rating: Good Quality rating: Excellent .784 .461 1.700 .089 .767 .461 1.665 .096 Quality rat ing: Unrated Quality rating: Excellent .006 .837 .007 .994 .723 .845 .856 .392 Note: ECE = early childhood education; P CB = persistent challenging behavior ; SE curriculum = social emotional curriculum p < .05

PAGE 178

178 Table 4 11 Multilevel results for the Supportive Classroom Environment subscale Random Effect Reference Group (Categorical variables) How Often section ( Possible score range = 11 to 66) How Confident section (Possible score range = 11 to 66) Coefficient SE t p Coefficient SE t p Intercept -54.629 1.059 51.587 .000 54.152 1.082 50.064 .000 Level 1 (Teacher/classroom Level) Role: Assistant teacher Role: Lead teacher .002 .456 .005 .996 .600 .465 1.291 .197 Role: Other Role: Lead teacher 3.095* .597 5.18 0 .000 2.427* .609 3.984 .000 Professional title: No Professional title: Yes .936 .514 1.821 .069 .523 .524 .999 .318 Education: Below associate Education: Bachelor or above .590 1.160 .508 .611 1.291 1.185 1.090 .276 Education: As sociate Education: Bachelor or above .599 .437 1.371 .170 .545 .446 1.224 .221 Major: Not ECE Major: ECE .728 .683 1.066 .287 1.243 .697 1.784 .074 Certification: No Certification: Yes 2.426* 1.032 2.351 .019 .890 1.053 .846 .398 Yea rs of teaching experience -.096* .029 3.256 .001 .126* .030 4.202 .000 SE Curriculum: No SE Curriculum: Yes 1.952* .889 2.195 .028 2.577* .911 2.830 .005 Child to teacher ratio -.209* .079 2.625 .009 .240* .081 2.948 .003 Childre n with disabilities: No Children with disabilities: Yes 1.147* .527 2.175 .030 1.158* .538 2.152 .031 Children with PCB: No Children with PCB: Yes .149 .394 .377 .706 .601 .403 1.493 .135 Child age (4 5 years) Child age (3 4 years) 1.362* .499 2. 729 .006 1.652* .509 3.243 .001 Child age (5 6 years) Child age (3 4 years) 1.058* .511 2.070 .038 1.719* .521 3.299 .001 Child age (6 7 years) Child age (3 4 years) .749 .677 1.107 .268 1.229 .690 1.782 .075 Child age (mixed) Child age (3 4 years) 2.086 1.632 1.278 .201 3.550* 1.659 2.140 .032 Level 2 (Preschool Level) City: Ningbo City: Beijing 1.650* .522 3.161 .002 1.701* .542 3.138 .002 Region: Rural Region: Urban .053 .569 .093 .926 .152 .592 .257 .797 Funding source: Private Funding source: Public .129 .660 .195 .845 .610 .688 .887 .375 Quality rating: Good Quality rating: Excellent .017 .551 .031 .975 .349 .571 .612 .540 Quality rating: Unrated Quality rating: Excellent 1.440 1.001 1.439 .150 .885 1.039 .852 .394 Note: ECE = early childhood education; PCB = persistent challenging behavior; SE curriculum = social emotional curriculum. p < .05

PAGE 179

179 Table 4 12 Multilevel results for the Social Emotional Instruction al Content subscal e Random Effect Reference Group (Categorical variables) How Often section ( Possible score range = 15 to 90) How Confident section ( Possible score range = 15 to 90) Coefficient SE t p Coefficient SE t p Intercept -77.392 1.525 50.739 .000 75.888 1.57 2 48.272 .000 Level 1 (Teacher/classroom Level) Role: Assistant teacher Role: Lead teacher .357 .638 .560 .575 .825 .671 1.228 .219 Role: Other Role: Lead teacher 3.790* .838 4.525 .000 2.774* .880 3.153 .002 Pro fessional title: No Professional title: Yes .692 .724 .955 .340 .241 .759 .318 .751 Education: Below associate Education: Bachelor or above 1.714 1.626 1.054 .292 1.993 1.710 1.166 .244 Education: Associate Education: Bachelor or above .5 30 .614 .863 .388 .565 .644 .878 .380 Major: Not ECE Major: ECE .421 .957 .440 .660 .957 1.006 .951 .342 Certification: No Certification: Yes 4.395* 1.447 3.037 .002 1.650 1.520 1.085 .278 Years of teaching experience -.080 .041 1. 934 .053 .130* .043 2.991 .003 SE Curriculum: No SE Curriculum: Yes 2.360 1.281 1.843 .065 3.229* 1.323 2.442 .015 Child to teacher ratio -.229* .113 2.022 .043 .263* .118 2.231 .026 Children with disabilities: No Children with dis abilities: Yes 1.441 .740 1.947 .052 1.335 .777 1.718 .086 Children with PCB: No Children with PCB: Yes .123 .552 .223 .824 .700 .581 1.205 .228 Child age (4 5 years) Child age (3 4 years) 1.110 .699 1.589 .112 1.532* .735 2.084 .037 Child age (5 6 years) Child age (3 4 years) 1.926* .715 2.691 .007 2.956* .753 3.928 .000 Child age (6 7 years) Child age (3 4 years) .945 .947 .997 .319 1.631 .996 1.637 .102 Child age (mixed) Child age (3 4 years) 2.848 2.298 1.239 .215 4.650 2.397 1.940 .052 Level 2 (Preschool Level) City: Ningbo City: Beijing 1.521 .796 1.912 .056 1.450 .799 1.814 .070 Region: Rural Region: Urban .282 .871 .324 .746 .298 .874 .341 .733 Funding source: Private Funding source: Publ ic .203 1.015 .201 .841 .394 1.016 .388 .698 Quality rating: Good Quality rating: Excellent .020 .847 .023 .981 .265 .843 .314 .753 Quality rating: Unrated Quality rating: Excellent 1.302 1.518 .857 .391 .699 1.529 .457 .647 Note: ECE = early childhood education; PCB = persistent challenging behavior; SE curriculum = social emotional curriculum. p < .05

PAGE 180

180 Table 4 13 Multilevel results for the Social Emotional Instruction al Strategies subscale Random Effect Reference Group (Categorica l variables) How Often section ( Possible score range = 18 to 108) How Confident section ( Possible score range = 18 to 108) Coefficient SE t p Coefficient SE t p Intercept -87.723 1.966 44.629 .000 86.084 2.048 42.032 .000 Level 1 (Teacher /classroom Level) Role: Assistant teacher Role: Lead teacher 1.416 .815 1.739 .082 1.672 .860 1.945 .052 Role: Other Role: Lead teacher 4.208* 1.071 3.931 .000 2.938* 1.129 2.603 .009 Professional title: No Professional titl e: Yes .866 .929 .933 .351 .580 .977 .594 .553 Education: Below associate Education: Bachelor or above 1.015 2.077 .489 .625 2.835 2.191 1.294 .196 Education: Associate Education: Bachelor or above .946 .786 1.205 .228 .913 .828 1.103 .27 0 Major: Not ECE Major: ECE .561 1.222 .459 .646 1.650 1.290 1.280 .201 Certification: No Certification: Yes 5.422* 1.848 2.934 .003 1.910 1.949 .980 .327 Years of teaching experience -.143* .053 2.705 .007 .217* .056 3.900 .000 SE Curriculum: No SE Curriculum: Yes 3.742* 1.641 2.280 .023 4.254* 1.719 2.475 .013 Child to teacher ratio -.167 .146 1.147 .251 .275 .153 1.800 .072 Children with disabilities: No Children with disabilities: Yes 2.026* .946 2.143 032 2.027* .997 2.033 .042 Children with PCB: No Children with PCB: Yes .073 .705 .103 .918 .982 .744 1.320 .187 Child age (4 5 years) Child age (3 4 years) 1.739 .893 1.946 .052 1.983* .943 2.103 .035 Child age (5 6 years) Child age (3 4 years) 2.096* .914 2.294 .022 2.902* .964 3.009 .003 Child age (6 7 years) Child age (3 4 years) .273 1.209 .226 .821 .414 1.277 .324 .746 Child age (mixed) Child age (3 4 years) 4.353 2.940 1.480 .139 5.257 3.092 1.700 .089 Level 2 (Preschool Level) City: Ningbo City: Beijing 2.901* 1.053 2.755 .006 2.715* 1.082 2.511 .012 Region: Rural Region: Urban .268 1.154 .232 .816 .210 1.183 .178 .859 Funding source: Private Funding source: Public 1.246 1.345 .926 .354 .192 1.378 .139 .889 Quality rating: Good Quality rating: Excellent .543 1.125 .483 .629 .557 1.148 .485 .627 Quality rating: Unrated Quality rating: Excellent 2.244 2.004 1.120 .263 .771 2.059 .374 .708 Note: ECE = early childhood educati on; PCB = persistent challenging behavior; SE curriculum = social emotional curriculum. p < .05

PAGE 181

181 Table 4 14 Multilevel results for the Responses to Challenging Behavior subscale Random Effect Reference Group (Categorical variables) How Often section ( Possible score range = 5 to 30) How Confident section ( Possible score range = 5 to 30) Coefficient SE t p Coefficient SE t p Intercept -25.249 .539 46.849 .000 24.718 .570 43.396 .000 Level 1 (Teacher/classroom Level) Role: Assistant teacher Role: Lead teacher .360 .225 1.599 .110 .350 .241 1.456 .145 Role: Other Role: Lead teacher 1.166* .296 3.942 .000 .854* .316 2.703 .007 Professional title: No Professional title: Yes .201 .256 .788 .431 .026 .273 .095 .924 Education: Below associate Education: Bachelor or above .598 .573 1.043 .297 1.374 .613 2.243 .025 Education: Associate Education: Bachelor or above .204 .217 .937 .349 .091 .232 .394 .694 Major: Not ECE Major: ECE .200 .338 .591 555 .247 .361 .684 .494 Certification: No Certification: Yes 1.379* .510 2.701 .007 .436 .545 .800 .424 Years of teaching experience -.037* .015 2.563 .010 .062* .016 3.967 .000 SE Curriculum: No SE Curriculum: Yes .812 .452 1.797 .072 1.064* .478 2.226 .026 Child to teacher ratio -.040 .040 .996 .319 .068 .043 1.596 .111 Children with disabilities: No Children with disabilities: Yes .696* .261 2.666 .008 .753* .279 2.701 .007 Children with PCB: No Children wi th PCB: Yes .091 .195 .466 .641 .158 .208 .758 .449 Child age (4 5 years) Child age (3 4 years) .556* .247 2.253 .024 .728* .264 2.762 .006 Child age (5 6 years) Child age (3 4 years) .555* .253 2.198 .028 1.044* .270 3.871 .000 Child age (6 7 years) Child age (3 4 years) .239 .334 .715 .475 .480 .357 1.343 .179 Child age (mixed) Child age (3 4 years) .922 .811 1.138 .255 1.514 .863 1.755 .079 Level 2 (Preschool Level) City: Ningbo City: Beijing .527 .282 1.86 6 .062 .385 .295 1.303 .193 Region: Rural Region: Urban .052 .309 .168 .866 .070 .323 .216 .829 Funding source: Private Funding source: Public .110 .360 .307 .759 .312 .376 .829 .407 Quality rating: Good Quality rating: Excellent .045 301 .149 .881 .069 .314 .221 .825 Quality rating: Unrated Quality rating: Excellent .053 .538 .099 .921 .139 .564 .246 .806 Note: ECE = early childhood education; PCB = persistent challenging behavior; SE curriculum = social emotional curriculum. p < .05

PAGE 182

182 Table 4 15 Multilevel results for the Interventions for Children with Persistent Challenging Behavior subscale Random Effect Reference Group (Categorical variables) How Often section ( Possible score range = 5 to 30) How Confident section ( Poss ible score range = 5 to 30) Coefficient SE t p Coefficient SE t p Intercept -19.417 .821 23.662 .000 19.980 .831 24.042 .000 Level 1 (Teacher/classroom Level) Role: Assistant teacher Role: Lead teacher .051 .351 .145 .885 .083 .352 .236 .813 Role: Other Role: Lead teacher .840 .461 1.823 .068 .578 .462 1.252 .211 Professional title: No Professional title: Yes .680 .397 1.714 .086 .650 .399 1.628 .103 Education: Below associate Education: Bachelor or above .188 .896 .210 .834 .629 .898 .700 .484 Education: Associate Education: Bachelor or above .642 .337 1.903 .057 .791* .339 2.335 .020 Major: Not ECE Major: ECE .117 .527 .223 .824 .463 .528 .876 .381 Certification: No Certificati on: Yes .273 .796 .342 .732 1.078 .799 1.350 .177 Years of teaching experience -.033 .023 1.459 .145 .013 .023 .567 .571 SE Curriculum: No SE Curriculum: Yes .673 .691 .974 .330 .936 .699 1.339 .181 Child to teacher ratio -.03 3 .062 .526 .599 .030 .062 .481 .631 Children with disabilities: No Children with disabilities: Yes .989* .407 2.430 .015 .873* .408 2.139 .032 Children with PCB: No Children with PCB: Yes .038 .305 .125 .901 .156 .305 .511 .609 Child a ge (4 5 years) Child age (3 4 years) .714 .385 1.855 .064 .555 .386 1.436 .151 Child age (5 6 years) Child age (3 4 years) .548 .394 1.391 .164 .349 .395 .884 .377 Child age (6 7 years) Child age (3 4 years) .092 .522 .176 .861 .485 .523 .926 .354 Child age (mixed) Child age (3 4 years) .968 1.254 .772 .440 .885 1.262 .701 .483 Level 2 (Preschool Level) City: Ningbo City: Beijing .101 .417 .242 .809 .049 .431 .113 .910 Region: Rural Region: Urban .282 .455 620 .535 .203 .471 .431 .667 Funding source: Private Funding source: Public .919 .528 1.739 .082 .441 .548 .805 .421 Quality rating: Good Quality rating: Excellent .191 .438 .435 .664 .136 .455 .298 .766 Quality rating: Unrated Quality rati ng: Excellent .343 .797 .431 .666 .189 .822 .230 .818 Note: ECE = early childhood education; PCB = persistent challenging behavior; SE curriculum = social emotional curriculum. p < .05

PAGE 183

183 Table 4 16 Multilevel results for the Supporting Family subscal e Random Effect Reference Group (Categorical variables) How Often section ( Possible score range = 7 to 42) How Confident section ( Possible score range = 7 to 42) Coefficient SE t p Coefficient SE t p Intercept -29.766 1.084 27.452 .000 29.262 1.087 26.922 .000 Level 1 (Teacher/classroom Level) Role: Assistant teacher Role: Lead teacher .439 .449 .978 .328 .548 .455 1.204 .229 Role: Other Role: Lead teacher 1.852* .590 3.141 .002 1.323* .598 2.213 .027 Profe ssional title: No Professional title: Yes .706 .512 1.377 .169 .481 .518 .927 .354 Education: Below associate Education: Bachelor or above .323 1.144 .282 .778 1.373 1.162 1.181 .237 Education: Associate Education: Bachelor or above .953* .433 2.199 .028 1.039* .439 2.366 .018 Major: Not ECE Major: ECE .262 .673 .389 .697 .521 .683 .762 .446 Certification: No Certification: Yes .374 1.018 .367 .713 1.403 1.033 1.358 .174 Years of teaching experience -.012 .029 .400 689 .046 .029 1.563 .118 SE Curriculum: No SE Curriculum: Yes 1.398 .906 1.543 .123 1.535 .912 1.683 .092 Child to teacher ratio -.104 .080 1.296 .195 .159* .081 1.961 .050 Children with disabilities: No Children with disabilities: Yes 1.188* .521 2.280 .023 1.253* .528 2.371 .018 Children with PCB: No Children with PCB: Yes .208 .388 .534 .593 .186 .395 .472 .637 Child age (4 5 years) Child age (3 4 years) 1.024* .491 2.085 .037 .985* .499 1.975 .048 Child age (5 6 years) Child age (3 4 years) 1.149* .502 2.288 .022 1.116* .510 2.187 .029 Child age (6 7 years) Child age (3 4 years) .018 .665 .027 .979 .052 .675 .077 .939 Child age (mixed) Child age (3 4 years) 2.506 1.621 1.546 .122 1.876 1.639 1.145 .25 2 Level 2 (Preschool Level) City: Ningbo City: Beijing .696 .589 1.182 .237 .763 .576 1.325 .185 Region: Rural Region: Urban .405 .645 .628 .530 .332 .630 .527 .599 Funding source: Private Funding source: Public .495 .75 2 .658 .511 .047 .734 .064 .949 Quality rating: Good Quality rating: Excellent .340 .628 .542 .588 .491 .611 .803 .422 Quality rating: Unrated Quality rating: Excellent .079 1.118 .071 .943 .726 1.096 .663 .508 Note: ECE = early childhood edu cation; PCB = persistent challenging behavior; SE curriculum = social emotional curriculum. p < .05

PAGE 184

184 Table 4 17 Frequency and percentage of supports needed by Chinese preschool teachers with different characteristics. Type s of Support s Role Professional Title Level of Education a Major a Certification a LT AT Other Yes No Bachelor Associate Associate ECE N ECE Yes No A specific social emotional curriculum 403 (49.80%) 256 (45.20%) 82 (38.50%) 494 (50.30%) 246 (40.70%) 490 (49.00%) 12 (24 .00%) 239 (44.50%) 687 (48.00%) 54 (34.60%) 723 ( 47.70% ) 18 ( 24.70% ) Systematic preservice training 73 (9.00%) 68 (12.00%) 23 (10.80%) 75 (7.60%) 89 (14.70%) 99 (9.90%) 5 (10.00%) 60 (11.20%) 137 (9.60%) 27 (17.30%) 154 ( 10.20% ) 10 ( 13.70% ) Attention and support from preschool principals 21 (2.60%) 10 (1.80%) 9 (4.20%) 27 (2.70%) 13 (2.20%) 23 (2.30%) 1 (2.00%) 16 (3.00%) 36 (2.50%) 4 (2.60%) 39 ( 2.60% ) 1 ( 1.40% ) and cooperation 176 (21.80%) 135 (23.90%) 51 (23.90%) 213 (21.70%) 149 (24.70%) 208 (20.80%) 20 (40.00%) 134 (25.00%) 323 (22.60%) 39 (25.00%) 334 ( 22.00% ) 28 ( 38.40% ) Inservice coaching from experienced practitioners 47 (5.80%) 40 (7.10%) 19 (8.90%) 61 (6.20%) 45 (7.50%) 58 (5.80%) 8 (16.00%) 40 (7.40%) 92 (6.40%) 14 (9.00%) 96 ( 6.30% ) 10 ( 13.70% ) Inservice training from research experts 89 (11.00%) 57 (10.10%) 29 (13.60%) 113 (11.50%) 62 (10.30%) 123 (12.30%) 4 (8.00%) 48 (8.90%) 157 (11.00%) 18 (11.50%) 169 ( 11.2 0% ) 6 ( 8.20% ) Chi square test 2 = 16.899 df = 10 p = .077 2 = 28.941 df = 5 p < .001 2 = 28.726 df = 10 p = .001 2 = 15.077 df = 5 p = .008 2 = 22.726 df = 5 p = .001 V -.135 .097 .098 .122 -.135 .137 .098 .122 Note: L T = lead teacher; AT = assistant teacher; ECE = early childhood education; N ECE = other than early childhood education. a indicated the Fisher Freeman Halton Exact test was used because the assumption (i.e., expected frequency is at least 5 per cell) was violated.

PAGE 185

185 Table 4 18 Frequency and percentage of supports needed by Chinese preschool teachers in different classrooms. Type s of Support s SE Curriculum a Child Age a Children with Disabilities Children with Persistent CB Yes No 3 4 years 4 5 years 5 6 years 6 7 years Mixed age Yes No Yes No A specific social emotional curriculum 37 (42.00%) 704 (46.90%) 194 (44.00%) 212 (45.10%) 230 (50.50%) 98 (49.20%) 7 (31.80%) 99 (39.60%) 640 (47.90%) 466 ( 46.20% ) 271 ( 47.50% ) Systematic preservice training 12 (13.60%) 152 (10.10%) 53 (12.00%) 47 (10.00%) 49 (10.80%) 12 (6.00%) 3 (13.60%) 26 (10.40%) 138 (10.30%) 104 ( 10.30% ) 58 ( 10.20% ) Attention and support from preschool principals 4 (4.50%) 36 (2.40%) 14 (3.20%) 14 (3.00%) 9 (2.00%) 3 (1.5 0%) 0 (0.00%) 8 (3.20%) 32 (2.40%) 23 ( 2.30% ) 17 ( 3.00% ) and cooperation 17 (19.30%) 345 (23.00%) 105 (23.80%) 111 (23.60%) 92 (20.20%) 46 (23.10%) 7 (31.80%) 62 (24.80%) 300 (22.50%) 244 ( 24.20% ) 117 ( 20.50% ) Inservice coaching from experienced practitioners 6 (6.80%) 100 (6.70%) 26 (5.90%) 34 (7.20%) 30 (6.60%) 13 (6.50%) 3 (13.60%) 23 (9.20%) 82 (6.10%) 68 ( 6.70% ) 37 ( 6.50% ) Inservice training from research experts 12 (13.60%) 163 (10.90%) 49 (11.10%) 52 (11.10%) 45 (9.90%) 27 (13.60%) 2 (9.10%) 32 (12.80%) 143 (10.70%) 103 ( 10.20% ) 70 ( 12.30% ) Chi square test 2 = 4.52 df = 5 p = .460 2 = 18.425 df = 20 p = .517 2 = 7.983 df = 5 p = .157 2 = 4.451 df = 5 p = .487 V -------Note: CB = challenging behavior; SE curriculum = social emotional curriculum. a indicated the Fisher Freeman Halton Exact test was used because the assumption (i.e., expected frequency is at least 5 per cell) was violated.

PAGE 186

186 Table 4 19 Frequency and percentage of supports needed by Chinese preschool teachers from different preschools. Type s of Support s City Region Funding Source Quality Rating a Beijing Ningbo Urban Rural Public Private Excellent Good Unrated A specific social emotional curriculum 315 (43.40%) 426 (49.40%) 534 (47.50%) 207 (44.60%) 643 (49.70%) 98 (33.30%) 369 (52.10%) 328 (44.70%) 44 (30.10%) Systematic preservice training 87 (12.00%) 77 (8.90%) 122 (10.90%) 42 (9.10%) 125 (9.70%) 39 (13.30%) 71 (10.00 %) 71 (9.70%) 22 (15.10%) Attention and support from preschool principals 27 (3.70%) 13 (1.50%) 29 (2.60%) 11 (2.40%) 35 (2.70%) 5 (1.70%) 19 (2.70%) 18 (2.50%) 3 (2.10%) support and cooperation 156 (21.50%) 206 (23.90%) 237 (21. 10%) 125 (26.90%) 268 (20.70%) 94 (32.00%) 130 (18.40%) 188 (25.60%) 44 (30.10%) Inservice coaching from experienced practitioners 58 (8.00%) 48 (5.60%) 76 (6.80%) 30 (6.50%) 85 (6.60%) 21 (7.10%) 47 (6.60%) 44 (6.00%) 15 (10.30%) Inserv ice training from research experts 82 (11.30%) 93 (10.80%) 126 (11.20%) 49 (10.60%) 138 (10.70%) 37 (12.60%) 72 (10.20%) 85 (11.60%) 18 (12.30%) Chi square test 2 = 18.828 df = 5 p = .002 2 = 6.787 df = 5 p = .237 2 = 31.960 df = 5 p < .0 01 2 = 34.565 df = 10 p < .001 V .109 -.142 .144 .109 -.141 .146 Note: a indicated the Fisher Freeman Halton Exact test was used because the assumption (i.e., expected frequency is at least 5 per cell) was violated.

PAGE 187

187 Figur e 4 1 Boxplot for Kruskal Wallis test on years of teaching experience.

PAGE 188

188 Figure 4 2. Boxplot for Kruskal Wallis test on child to teacher ratio.

PAGE 189

189 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION The primary purpose of the present study was to examine Chinese preschool teacher social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practice aligned with the Pyramid Model ( Hemmeter et al., 2014) and two nationally recognized and influential Chinese e arly childhood learning standards documents by using the SETP C. A secondary goal of the present study was to gather preliminary psychometric integrity evidence for this author developed measurement instrument. The present study employed a descriptive surv ey design. The target population for the current study was preschool teachers from Bei jing and Ningbo. All teachers from 120 randomly selected preschools in Beijing and Ningbo were invited to participate in the present study. Study research questions were addressed with cross sectional data from an analytic sample of 1,599 Chinese preschool teachers from the randomly selected preschools who completed either the paper and pencil version or the electronic version of the SETP C. C onfirmatory factor analysi s ( CFA) was used to provide score validity evidence for the internal structure of the SETP C. Four proposed CFA models were tested and compared by using chi square difference model comparison tests, in which model fit indices were used as interpretation aids to complement chi square statistics. Given the 70 teaching practices items on the SETP C were rated using frequency and confidence anchors all data analyses were conducted separately for responses to the How Often section and the How Confident section Fo llowing the identification of the best fitting model, descriptive analyses of derived composite scores were conducted to investigate the sample of

PAGE 190

190 implementation confidence for the latent variables. Multilevel modeling analyses were used to examine relationships between various teacher, classroom, and preschool characteristics and the latent variables. On the SETP C, Chinese preschool teachers were asked to report the types of support they needed to better implement preschool social education Non parametric tests were used to examine the association between variables (teacher, classroom, and preschool characteristics ) and types of supports reported by Chinese preschool teachers. In this chapter, findings from the present study are interpreted, implications of the findings are discussed, limitations are acknowledged, and recommendations for future research are presented, followed by a summary of th e study. Findings associated with each research question are integrated within each section. Interpretation of Findings The present study is the first study in which a sample of Chinese preschool teachers from randomly selected preschools in Beijing and Ni ngbo provided their perspectives about the frequency of use and confidence with implementing social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practice as measured by the SETP C. Therefore, d irect comparisons of findings from the present study using the SETP C an d findings reported in previous research are not possible. F indings are interpreted in relation to Pyramid Model practices in mainland China and in other countries, as well as existing research t hat used a similar measurement instrument (e.g., self report instrument developed based on the TPOT) and prior studies in which similar constructs were measured (e.g., teacher child interaction, classroom practices).

PAGE 191

191 Psychometric Evidence for the SETP C P rior to data collection for the present study, considerable efforts were made, as describe in Chapter 3, to develop and validate the SETP C scores. In the present study, the final version of the SETP C that included 70 teaching practices items was administ ered using either a paper and pencil or an online format. To examine the score validity evidence for the SETP C based on its internal structure, four proposed CFA models were evaluated and compared. The results yielded consistent evidence in favor of a sev en factor model interpretation of the SETP C, suggesting the SETP C provides a measure of seven latent variables related to preschool social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices. The RMSEA, CFI, and TLI indices indicated good model fit for the sev en factor solution. Further, chi square difference model comparison tests and practical improvement of TLI indices revealed that the seven factor model was a superior fitting model. Given the seven factor model was supported both statistically and substant ively it was selected as the best fitting model for the present study and was retained for the remaining analyses. Seven correlated latent variables were identified that corresponded to (a) building positive relationships with children, families, and coll eagues (labeled the Nurturing and Responsive Relationships subscale) ; (b) classroom activities and routines (labeled the Supportive Classroom Environment subscale) ; (c) pro viding explicit instruction in a variety of social skills and emotional competencies that are both developmentally appropriate and culturally valued (labeled the Social Emotional Instructional Content subscale) ; (d) using effective and comprehensive strate gies and approaches to teach social skills and emotional competencies (labeled the Social Emotional Instructional Strategies subscale) ; (e) using

PAGE 192

192 evidence based strategies to deal with challenging behavior (labeled the Responses to Challenging Behavior sub scale) ; (f) developing individualized interventions for children with persistent challenging behavior (labeled the Interventions for Children with Persistent Challenging Behavior subscale) ; and (g) supporting family use of social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices at home and in the community (labeled the Supporting Family subscale). Given the SETP C was developed and administered for the first time in the present study, it is not possible to directly compare and contrast findings regarding psyc hometric evidence reported in the present study and evidence from previous studies. However, the SETP C was developed based on practices included as part of the Pyramid Model framework and an observation and intervention informed, judgment based rating sc ale (i.e., TPOT P, Fox et al., 2008). Findings from the present study are interpreted with respect to the very limited number of existing studies conducted using similar self report measurement instruments Although the item sets for the present study dif fered from those used in other studies, similar and comparable latent variables were found in other studies, but they were labeled differently. For example, Heo et al. (2014) developed a questionnaire based on 38 items included on the TPOT P to assess Kore perspectives about the importance and implementation of social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices associated with the Pyramid Model Exploratory factor analysis was conducted using data from the sample of 256 Korean early childhood teachers (Heo et al., 2014). Four latent variables were identified and labeled (a) Responsive Interactions, (b) Classroom Preventive Practices, (c) Social Emotional

PAGE 193

193 Teaching Strategies, and (d) Individualized Interventions. Close inspection of questionnaire items associated with these four latent variables suggest they were generally comparable to the Nurturing and Responsive Relationships subscale, the Supportive Classroom Environment subscale, the Social Emotional Instruction al Content sub scale, and the Interventions for Children with Persistent Challenging Behavior subscales that were found in the present study. An examination of the factor loadings for each item associated with one of the latent variable subscales proposed in the seven f actor model indicated strong and statistically significant associations between items and latent variables, suggesting these items are good indicators of the latent variables intended to be measured. Furthermore, in the present study, internal consistency score reliability for each of the seven SETP C derived latent variable subscales was estimated based on classical test theory and a factor analytic model approach. According to commonly accepted indices ( DeVellis, 2012 ; George & Mallery, 2003 ; Kline, 2000 ) excellent range ( ) for almost all of the derived latent variable subscales across the How Often and How Confident sections indica t ing high inter item correlations within subscales. The except ion was one alpha coefficie nt that was in the good range ( 0.9 > ) The omega coefficient for each latent variable subscale was found to be very high (all exceed ed .90), providing further evidence for a high degree of internal consistency score reliability Taken together, fin dings from the psychometric analyses of SETP C scores in the present study suggest the SETP C provides a multidimensional measure of preschool social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices. In this sample of

PAGE 194

194 Chinese preschool teachers, the SETP C me asured seven correlated latent variables of the underlying construct that were psychometrically and conceptually distinct. Given substantial efforts have been undertaken in the development and validation of the SETP C, it was not unexpected that items on t he SETP C appear to be good indicators of the latent variables. Findings from the present study suggest the SETP C shows of social, emotional, and behavioral teaching prac tices. Some limitations in the generalization of these psychometric findings should be noted, however. The sample in the present study was predominantly Chinese teachers from urban areas, who majored in early childhood education, and who were highly educa ted Chinese teachers with a professional title were also overrepresented in the present study, when compared to the national data. Further validation of the SETP C that involves teacher participants from more diverse economic, geographic, program, and ed ucational backgrounds in China will provide important incremental validity evidence to enhance applicability and generalizability of data obtained. Also, the validation method used in the present study did not include a step to explore convergent score val idity evidence between the SETP C and other instruments measuring similar constructs. Moreover, the present study does not provide information about the consistency of the SETP C scores over time, given this study only involved cross sectional data collect ion. Frequency of Use and Implementation Confidence Consistent with previous evidence on the intercorrelations among key practice items and subscales included on the TPOT (Hemmeter et al., 2014; Luo et al. 2017), findings from this study suggest latent variable subscales of the SETP C correlated with

PAGE 195

195 each other in expected and theoretically meaningful ways; some latent variable subscales were highly correl ated, whereas some had moderate correlations. Among the seven latent variable subscales of the SETP C, the present study sample of Chinese preschool teachers were not only less likely to develop and conduct individualized interventions for children with persistent challenging behavior, but also reported the lowest confidence in implementing teaching prac tices associated with this subscale. This finding supports a previous observational study showing a small sample of Chinese preschools in Beijing were rated very low on the Supporting Children with Persistent Challenging Behavior item on the TPOT P (Luo et al., 2017). Similar results were also found in previous survey studies conducted in other countries. For example, Korean early childhood teachers reported less frequent use of teaching practices related to individualized interventions for children with pe rsistent challenging behavior when compared to the other practices (Heo et al., 2014). Faculty members from 2 and 4 year higher education programs in the United S ta tes According to the China on the Protection of Disabled Persons children eligible for special education in mainland China fall in to eight categories of disabil ity: visual impairment, hearing impairment, speech impair ment, physical disability, men tal retardation, psychiatric disability, multi ple disabilities, and ngress, 1990). Neither developmental delays in social emotional develop ment nor emotional disturbances are rec ognized as disa bility

PAGE 196

196 categories (Deng, Poon McBrayer, & Farnswort h, 2001). Generally speaking, Chinese preschool teachers have not been expected to develop individualized interventions for children with the most persistent and severe challenging behavior, in the absence of a program wide school psycholo gist, behavior sp ecialist, con sultation service, or intervention program. In the present study, SETP C items associated with the secondary or prevention level of the Pyramid Model practices (i.e., targeted social emotional supports) were divided into two domains: (a) the Social Emotional Instruction al Content subscale, which was focused on the What to Teach c omponent of instruction (i.e., skills targeted for instruction); and (b) the Social Emotional Instruction al Strategies subscale that emphasized the How to Teach compon ent of instru ction (e.g., instructional procedures and strategies). In contrast with findings from existing observational studies using the TPOT (Artman Meeker et al ., 2014; Hemmeter et al., 2016; Luo et al., 2017), however, findings from the present study suggest this sample of Chinese preschool teachers more often implement and feel more confident in their use of teaching practices associated with the Social Emotional Instruction al Content subscale and the Responses to Challenging Behavior subscale, compa red with the universal promotion practices related to nurturing and responsive relationships and a high quality supportive environment. On one hand, this finding might be a reflection of the findings indicating d observed use of classroom practices ( Debnam, Pas, Bottiani, Cash, & Bradshaw 2015; Luo et al., 2017; Wang & Sogin, 1997). On the other hand, although data collected in the present study were anonymous, self reported answers can often be exaggerated. F ur ther, various biases m ight affect

PAGE 197

197 data from self report measures, especially social desirability bias, in which teachers were potentially responding in a manner that would favor their pr views. In the present study, Chinese teachers were contacted by their principals to complete the SETP C. Overall, this sample of than their ratings of confidence across latent variable subscales. Furthermore, a statistically significant corre lation existed confidence across each of the latent variables subscales. The teaching practices that the present study sample reported they were more confident in implementing were also those they reported more freq uently employing. This finding m ight be reflective of activities and strategies on their sense of efficacy or confidence ( Emmer & Hickman, 1991; Holzberger, Philipp, & Kunter, 2013; Wertheim & Leyser, 2002 ). Teacher, Classroom, and Pr eschool Variables Associated with Reported Frequency and Confidence The extent to which v arious within and between preschool variables were associated with se and implementation confidence was explored by using multilevel model analyses. A salient finding from analysis of the within and between preschool differences was that most variance was found within preschools. This suggests a need for more attention t o within preschool variables. Several of the within preschool variables (including both teacher and classroom and confidence in implementing social, emotional, and b ehavioral teaching practices as measured by the SETP C.

PAGE 198

198 Results from the present study suggest certification in early childhood education, years of teaching experience, use of a social emotional curriculum, child to teacher ratio, and child age in the cla ssroom were significant predictors of reported frequency and confidence across several SETP C subscales. These findings were supported by previous research conducted in mainland China and other countries on factors associated wit h frequency of use of classroom practices (e.g., Burchinal Cryer, Clifford, & Howes 2002; Heo et al., 2014; Hu, Fan, Wu, & Yang, 2017; Hu, Wu, Su, & Roberts, 2017; Kim, Stormont & Espinosa, 2009; Mohamed & Al Qaryouti, 2016 ; Phillips en, Burchinal Howes & Cryer 1997 ; Wenz Gross & Upshur, 2012 ). was associated with their reported frequency and confidence. Lead teachers tended to endorse more frequent use of teaching practices and reported higher practice confidence than did teachers who identified themselves as roles other than lead and assistant teachers, such as child care workers. This result is logical due to the designated responsibilities of most child care wor kers in Chinese preschool classrooms. In mainland China child care workers are generally not Their major responsibilities are related to personal care, such as serving snacks/meals, engaging in cleaning/sanitizing, assisting with toileting/diapering, and performing other health related practices (Li & Yang, 2007). An unexpected finding from the present study was that teachers with an implement and felt more confident in supporting famil ies t o use social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices, as compared to

PAGE 199

199 teachers who ha d degree or a graduate degree. This result is different from previous research (e.g., Blau, 2000; Early et al., 2016; Hu, Fan, Yang, & Neitzel, 2017 ; Slo t, Leseman, Verhagen, & Mulder, 2015 ), which has show n a positive and significant relationship between teacher s level of education and their classroom practice s There are a number of possible reasons for these contradictory findings First, it could be r elated to the various ways t eacher education has been measured leading to difficulty in comparing findings across studies (Maxwell, Field, & Clifford, 2005). For example, some studies calculated total years of education, some categorized the highest degree earned, classroom practices that have been measured vary dramatically across studies. Reg social, emotional, and behavioral competence of young children. It is possible that the o f social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices appear different than the T eachers in the present study who had classrooms where no children with disabilities were enroll ed reported more frequent use of practices and a higher level of practice confidence than did those in classrooms where children with and without disabilities were enro lled. This finding with respect to the inclusion of children with disabilities contrasts teachers who had children with disabilities in their classroom reported implementing more social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices than teachers from

PAGE 200

200 classrooms without children with disabilities. This finding might be a reflection of the known challenges for Chinese preschool teachers to work with young children with disabilities. In mainland China, most preschool s have not adopted inclusion as a service model to meet the needs o f young children with disabilities and their families. Chinese preschool teachers typically are not trained in and lack experience with special education populations (Liu, 2012). Researchers have found that Chinese preschool teachers were not well equipped to meet the educational needs of children with disabilities due to lack of knowledge, skills, and resources (Hu, Roberts, Wang, & Zhao, 2011). Another possible explanation might be that teachers who have children with disabilities in their classrooms migh t be more aware of the difficulties of teaching all children social emotional and behavioral skills (Yan, 2008 ; Zhou, 2006 ). reported frequency of and confidence in impl ementing social, emotional, and behavioral with persistent challenging behavior. In mainland China, professional title is a certain position granted by education adm professional expertise, practical skills, and work performance. However, Chinese teachers from public preschool s or urban areas have benefited largely by local professional title evaluation systems and are offered more opportunities to receive a professional title ( Han Zhang, & Yang, 2015 ; Hong et al., 2015 ). In the present study, the finding about the relationship between and s of frequency and confidence should be inte rpreted with caution because this Chinese sample predominantly was teachers with an early childhood education major Given the

PAGE 201

201 typically large class size in a Chinese preschool classroom (e.g., 25 to 35 children) it is not unexpected that having a very sm all proportion of children who persistently frequency and confidence, especially when the majority of teachers in the present study reported having children with persi stent challenging behavior in their classrooms. Although a few group differences were found based on the city from which sample respondents came, results from the present study indicate most preschool level features (i.e., region, funding source, and qual ity level) were not significantly related to implementation of social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices might be associated with policies or curriculum guidance specific to a particular city (Fox et al., 2011), which might explain the few significant differences between Beijing and Ningbo. Given the two cities involved in the present study were among the most economically developed cities in mainland China, it was not unexpected that no significant differences were found between teachers from preschools located in urban areas and rural areas, as well as between teachers who worked in public and private preschools. Theoretically, the quality of preschool program wou ld have been expected to be associated with One possible explanation for the between the quality of preschool and practice frequency and confidence might be the provincial preschool quality rating systems in Beijing an d Ningbo primarily assess the structural aspect of program quality, including value orientation, physical environment personal qualifications, and management, with less emphases on teacher child interaction s or

PAGE 202

202 process quality, which is more aligned with social, emotional and behavioral teaching practices (Hu, 2015; Pan, Liu, & Lau, 2010). Types of Supports Teachers Needed In the present study, teachers were asked to report the most needed types of supports that would assist them in better implementing pr eschool social education A specific social emotional curriculum was the highest rated type of support identified. In over the past three decades and has been emphasized a s an independent domain in preschool curricula (Li, 2006). Although consensus has been reached on the importance of a specialized approach in preschool social education, instruction in social emotional competence was more likely to be embedded into other c urricula domains (Sun & Hu, 2015; Ye, 2012). Chinese literature suggests that the social domain is the most difficult domain for preschool teachers to teach among the five curricular do mains and that preschool teachers lack strategies for teaching skills a ssociated with social competence (Ji, 2011; Tian, 2013). One possible reason might be the lack of curricula and supplemental materials specifically designed for promoting social emotional development and learning of preschool children (Li, Liu, & Feng, 200 9). Evidence of a lack of preschool social emotional curriculum was further supported by data in the present study which show ed only 5.5% of participating teachers reported that they were currently implementing a named social emotional curriculum in their classrooms during the period of data collection. The support and cooperation. In mainland China, program family partnership has been highly valued in preschool social education for a long time (Liu, 2008). As an important

PAGE 203

203 component of preschool social education family involvement is fundamental for the social, emotional, and behavioral development of children. Guidance it is clearly stipulated that families are crucial e ducation partners, and preschools should capacities to educate their child (Ministry of Educati on, 2001). Preschool teachers in mainland China have generally accepted th ese principles with respect to social education, including (a) teachers and parents are the most important models in emotional learning, their behavior may directly and indirectly affect children; and (b) effective social emotio nal instruction cannot be achieved in early care and education programs alone, it needs the cooperation of the family and even the whole community (Liu, 2007). Therefore, it is logical that Chinese preschool teachers identify on as a needed support for social education. It is important to note that Beijing and Ningbo are economically powerful and well developed cities in mainland China and have been ranked as the 2nd and 16th top cities by gross domestic product among hundreds of mainland Chinese big cities (China Internet Watch Team, 2016). Considering the remarkable diversity in socioeconomic development across mainland China, preschool teachers in Beijing and Ningbo who completed the SETP C were not representative of the popu lation of mainland China preschool teachers. The majority of participating teachers were recruited from public pr eschools located in urban areas and these preschools have received quality ratings of population, preschool teachers involved in the present study were highly educated and qualified. Therefore, findings presented could not be generalized to all Chinese preschool teachers.

PAGE 204

204 Implications from the Present Study for Practice and Policy The pres reported frequency of use and confidence with implementing social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices were examined The associations between teacher, classroom, and preschool char acteristics confidence were also investigated. Findings from the present study may offer meaningful insights relevant to early childhood practice and policy in the Chinese socio cultural context. Practic e Implications of Findings The present study has provided some encouraging results related to the preliminary psychometric evidence for the SETP C, which includes multicomponent preschool social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices. Using the Pyramid Model as a conceptual framework, a comprehensive array of teaching practices in preschool classrooms are related to promoting social emotional competence and A univ ersally accepted principle of preschool social education in mainland China is that social emotional development and education for young children should be an integrative and interconnecting area that involves all daily teaching and learning activities (Liu 2017). Aligned with this principle, findings from the present study indicate comprehensive and inter correlated social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices can be categorized into several domains related to (a) building nurturing and responsive relationships; (b) creating a supportive classroom environment; (c) providing explicit social emotional instruction; (d) using effective strategies and approach es to teach

PAGE 205

205 social emotional competence; (e) using evidence based strategies in response to chal lenging behavior; (f) developing and conducting individualized interventions for children with persistent challenging behavior; and (g) supporting family use of social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices. The preschool social, emotional, and beh avioral teaching pr actices included on the SETP C classroom practices for working with young children and their families. Results from the present study support that the SETP C appears to be a promising instrument for measuring perspectives about their social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices in t he classroom. The SETP C might provide Chinese teachers with a framework for understanding the domains of the ir teaching practices aimed at promoting the social emotional and behavioral competence of young children. Further, the SETP C might be used to provide Chinese teachers with direct feedback about their areas of strength and needs in implementing social, em otional, and behavioral teaching practices. Preschool teachers must be prepared and supported to implement a range of teaching practices in order to meet the needs of all young children in the classroom, especially for children at risk for social emotiona l delays and those who exhibit persistent challenging be havior (Hemmeter & Lox, 2009). Results from the present study might provide guidance for the design and delivery of professional development and ongoing supports to Chinese preschool teachers focused on social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices. A comprehensive set of professional development supports could be developed around each of the seven domains identified in the

PAGE 206

206 present study, and more attention could be put into particular domains w ith which Chinese teachers were less likely to endorse either for frequency or confidence. The SETP C can be used as a professional development tool to identity the teaching practices that are in place and areas of focus for training, coaching, or other supports. Then, professional development and ongoing supports could be delivered with a full appreciation for the needs of a diverse population of preschool teachers. Based on the relationships of various teacher, classroom, and preschool characteristics t o groups of teachers who are potentially in need of more systematic supports. For example, teachers from classrooms that enroll children with disabilities and teachers who are working with 3 to 4 year olds might benefit from additional supports When c ompared to lead teachers, child care workers might need more guidance and coaching competence Furthermo re, it might be necessary to differentiate the form and dosage of professional development supports needed to guide teachers with different amount s of teaching experience or with larger class sizes to implement with fidelity the comprehensive array of prac tices listed above. Policy Implications of Findings Prior to the 1980s, a subject separate curriculum approach conducted via whole group lessons was dominant in preschools nationwide in mainland China. However, this approach was criticized for the didacti c teaching of academic content and isolating day life, including their play (Li, Liu, DeBey, McFadden, & Pan, 2016). Since then, preschool curriculum in mainland China has undergone reform and profound changes. Instead of a su bject separate curriculum approach, the

PAGE 207

207 Integrated Theme Based Curriculum approach is being widely adopted, which has been largely influenced by western theories and models such as the Progressive Education movement, Constructiv ist t heory, d evelopmentally a ppropriate p ractice, the Project Approach, and Reggio Emilia (Zhu & Zhang, 2008). Within the Integrated Theme Based Curriculum approach, each of the five curricular domains stipulated in is connected to a topic that is referred to as a t heme. Centered on a theme, learning and teaching activities are integrated across curricular domains over days or weeks or months. One of its major drawbacks is that considerable teacher expertise is required in its development and implementation. Literatu re suggests among the five Chinese preschool curricular domains, social was reported as the most difficult content area to teach, especially in the case of lacking well developed social emotional curricula and supporting materials ( Ji, 2011; Tian, 2013 ). I t appears t here is a need to develop a domain based curriculum model that combines the advantages of the subject separate and theme based curriculum approaches (Yu, 2017). In the present study, near ly half of Chinese preschool teachers identified a specifi c social emotional curriculum as the type of support that they most needed to support their implementation of social education In mainland China, evidence based preschool social emotional curricul a /program s /framework s are greatly needed Chinese early chi ldhood researchers and practitioners are encouraged to adapt and localize the existing evidence based curricula/programs/frameworks that have been originally developed in other countries, rather than blindly cop y ing them for Chinese preschools due to diffe rent societal, cultural, and educational traditions across countries (Li, Rao, & Tse, 2012). Further, relevant professional development and trainings are

PAGE 208

208 needed to help teachers implement effective curricula and teaching practices. Policymakers should ensu re that technical assistance resources, and implementation supports are available to help teachers implement these teaching practices with fidelity. Findings from the present study might help inform policy recommendations related to family involvement in preschool social education. The present study shows an emphasis on building a collaborative relationship with families. As a lifelong source of emotional development Family involvement in early childhood education has been & Childs 2004; Marcon, 1999 ; Miedel & Reynolds 1999). C onsistent with the tenets of the Pyramid Model preschool so cial education is reliant on the participation of families. Exploring the various components of preschool social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices using the SETP C has unveiled the importance of family involvement. Supporting family use of soci al, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices is one of the seven domains i dentified in the present study. Further, other domains also reflect preschool family partnership, such as building positive relationships with families. In the present study, fam needed type of support by teachers. The present study identifies the need for developing partnerships with families. As policymakers make decisions regarding preschool social education, family i nvolvement should always be considered as a key element. Strategies and systems for family involvement within each component of preschool social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices will ensure these teaching practices are in place in preschool cl assrooms.

PAGE 209

209 The present study highlights the need to prepare Chinese teachers for working with children with disabilities in preschool settings. Chinese preschool teachers who had children with disabilities in their classrooms rated items lower on the How Of ten an d How Confident sections of the SETP C In mainlan d China, prescho ol inclusion is in its infancy ( Yan, 2007). Studies have noted the majority of Chinese preschool teachers fe el unequipped and have not mastered the skills needed to work effectively wi th children with disabilities and they were more likely to feel overwhelmed when children with disabilities we re enrolled in their classrooms (Yan, 2008 ; Zhou, 2006 ). The lack of special education teacher preparation in China might be one reason. For exam ple, in mainland China and found only 13.9% of them had offered either compulsory or elective course s on special education. Further, t eacher preparation programs in early childhood educati on and special education are mostly separate degree programs with separate coursework (Liu, 2012). Both special education and early childhood teacher education programs need to work together to better prepare preservice teachers to work with young children with and without disabilities. There may be a need for early childhood policy maker s and professionals to develop effective plans for both preservice and inservice training to help current and future teachers acquire the necessary knowledge and skills to work with children with disabilities and their families. Recommendations for Future Research The present study is only the beginning of a comprehensive research agenda of social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices. A number of recommendations for future research are noted. First, there is a need for more comprehensive validity

PAGE 210

210 studies of the SETP C that use analytical procedures drawn from more advanced methodolog ies, such as multidimensional item response theory (MIRT) models. In the present study, factor analytic procedures were used to gather score validity evidence for the SETP C. Although factor analysis and MIRT have virtually identical statistical formulatio ns when applied to matrices of item response s MIRT is different from factor analysis at (a) modeling the interaction between persons and items, (b) focusing on the differences in means and variances of the item scores, and (c) having item parameter estima tes on common metrics ( Reckase 2009). Further, a short form of the SETP C could be investigated to reduce response burden given the current version of the SETP C contained 70 teaching practice items being rated twice for frequency and confidence Due to limited resources, the present study relied exclusively on the use of a self report measure completed by teachers. Previous research has documented the weak reported and observed use of teaching practic es (e.g., Hu, Chen, & Fan, 2017; Luo et al., 2017). Self report and direct observation are two major techniques used to measur e have their strengths and weakness (Hu et al., 2017; Prince, Adamo, Hamel, Hardt, Gorber, & Tremblay 2008). A combination of self report and direct observation may lead to more comprehensive and representative information about t teaching practices in their classrooms and reveal correspondence or lack thereof between what teachers say the y do and what they are observed doing. The present study examined the effect of various teacher, classroom, and preschool characteristics

PAGE 211

211 social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices as me asured by the SETP C. Although a few noteworthy relationships were identified, interpretations related to these relationships were preliminary given the limited research that has examined these variables in a sample of Chinese preschool teachers. Further, the analytic sample for the present study involved 1,599 teachers from 120 preschools located in Beijing and Ningbo, which is considered fairly large and representative of diverse preschools within these two cities. However, the extent to which the study sample was representative of the population of preschool teachers in mainland China remains somewhat uncertain. Considering the differences in economic development across different regions of mainland China, additional research that involves participants f rom more diverse economic, geographic, program, and educational backgrounds is needed to better understand the relationships revealed in the present study, and to explore the extent to which these relationships are replicate d in future studies. Future stud of social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices and child outcomes in the Chinese context. The present study did not examine child outcomes associated with n of social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices. The primary reported frequency and confidence in implementing social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices. Severa l other empirical studies have examined the relationship Pyramid Model practices and young Artman Meeker & Hemmeter, 2012; Hemmeter et al. 2016), however, t hese studies were primarily conducted in the United

PAGE 212

212 States. It would be important to study whether similar results would be found between Chinese preschool teachers fidelity of emotional, and behavioral l earning outcomes. A final recommendation for future research pertains to designing a culturally appropriate, multicomponent professional development intervention for supporting ractices. In tandem with the development and validation of the professional development intervention, the effect of a emotional skills and challen ging behavior should be examined. Such studies would contribute to an important line of worldwide research that provides empirical evidence about the effects of professional development interventions associated with the Pyramid Model on teacher practice an d child outcomes in preschool settings. Summary In mainland China, there has been growing interest in promoting the social competence of young children, and the social domain has officially been identified as one of the five curricular domains in preschoo ls nationwide since 2001 (Li & Feng, 2013). Little is known, however, about the specific teaching practices that Chinese preschool teachers are using to emotional competence and to prevent or address challenging behavior. A need e xist ed to characterize and quantify the teaching practices that Chinese preschool teachers are using to promote the social, emotional, and behavioral development o f young children (Jiang, 2015). The primary purpose of the present study was to exam ine the p erspectives of a sample of Chinese preschool teachers from 120 randomly selected preschool programs in Beijing and

PAGE 213

213 Ningbo about their social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices using the SETP C. The teaching practices on the SETP C aligned with t he Pyramid Model and two nationally recognized and influential Chinese ear ly childhood learning standards documents. Before the collection of data for the present study, the SETP C was developed and various sources of validity evidence were gathered using systematic and iterative quantitative and qualitative approaches, particularly through the cultural and practice lenses of Chinese early childhood researchers leaders, practitioners, and Beginning in 2013 the development and validation of the SETP C consisted of four phases: item generation and selection, initial validation and item reduction, external expert review, and wording and translation. The present study employed a cross sectional descriptive s urvey research design confidence in implementing social, emotional, and beh avioral teaching practices and relationships of frequency and confidence to various teacher, classroom, and p reschool characteristics In addition, the present study included a focus on identifying the types of supports Chinese preschool teachers reported were needed to better prepare them to implement preschool social education The analytic sample for the prese nt study involved 1,599 Chinese teachers from 120 preschools in Beijing and Ningbo. Four confirmatory factor analytic models of the SETP C were tested and compared to provide score validity evidence based on internal structure, and a seven factor solution was ultimately chosen due to its conceptual and statistical soundness. The present study provides preliminary evidence that support s the multidimensionality of preschool social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practi ces as measured by the

PAGE 214

214 SETP C. Seven latent variables or domains of preschool social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices were found: (a) Nurturing and Responsive Relationships, (b) Supportive Classroom Environment, (c) Social Emotional Instruction al Content (d) Social Emotional In structional Strategies, (e) Responses to Challenging Behavior, (f) Interventions for Children with Persistent Challenging Behavior, and (g) Supporting Families Use of Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Teaching Practices. The adequacy of the internal consis tency score reliability for each of the seven latent variable s as was also supported in the present study. Findings suggest preschool teachers in the present study were less likely to implement and w ere not well equipped to address the needs of children with persistent challenging behavior. Their ratings of frequency were significantly associated with their ratings of confidence across all latent variables. Generally, various teacher and classroom cha racteristics ( e.g., t childhood education, years of teaching experience, social emotional curriculum, child to teacher ratio, inclusion of children with disabilities, and child age in the classroom ) wer e associated with frequency of use or confidence with implementing social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices. Two primary requests in terms of needed types of supports were a specific social emotional curriculum and fa S everal t eacher, classroom, and preschool characteristics were also significantly associated with the types of supports requested by Chinese teachers.

PAGE 215

215 The present study is one of a handful of empirical studies that have exam ined self reported implementation of social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices associated with the Pyramid Model It is the first of its kind to be conducted in the mainland Chin a socio cultural context. Despite the previousl y noted limitations, the present study provides important score validity and reliability evidence related to the internal structure of the SETP C and useful information about the status of social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices in preschool p rograms located in Beijing and Ningbo As additional research is conducted to examine which teaching pra measure like the SETP C will be useful for research, program evaluation, and professional development. The practical and policy implications of findings from the present study were discussed, followed by recommendations for future research that could build upon the knowledge gained from the present study.

PAGE 216

216 APPENDIX A S EARCH STR ATEGY IN PSYCINFO 1. TX program* 2. TX treatment* 3. TX intervent* 4. TX therap* 5. TX educat* 6. TX teach* 7. TX instruct* 8. TX train* 9. TX curricul* 10. DE intervention 11. DE education 12. DE teaching 13. DE training 14. DE curriculum 15. 1 OR 2 OR 3 OR 4 OR 5 OR 6 OR 7 OR 8 OR 9 OR 10 OR 11 OR 12 OR 13 OR 14 16. TX social* 17. 18. 19. TX emotion* 20. 21. 22. 23. cial 24. 25. TX behavior* 26. 27. DE behavior 28. 16 OR 17 OR 18 OR 19 OR 20 OR 21 OR 22 OR 23 OR 24 OR 25 OR 26 OR 27 29. 15 AND 28

PAGE 217

217 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. emotio 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62.

PAGE 218

218 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 30 OR 31 OR 32 OR 33 OR 34 OR 35 OR 36 OR 37 OR 38 OR 39 OR 40 OR 41 OR 42 OR 43 OR 44 OR 45 OR 46 OR 47 OR 48 OR 49 OR 50 OR 51 OR 52 OR 53 OR 54 OR 55 OR 56 OR 57 OR 58 OR 59 OR 60 OR 61 OR 62 OR 6 3 OR 64 OR 65 OR 66 OR 67 OR 68 OR 69 OR 70 OR 71 OR 72 OR 73 OR 74 OR 75 77. 29 AND 76 78. TX (infan* OR toddler* OR preschool* OR kindergarten* OR prekindergarten OR prek OR pre 79. 77 AND 78 80. g OR OR Mac ao OR Macanese OR Taiwan OR Taiwanese) 81. 79 AND 80 82. Limit 81 to Document Type: Journal Article

PAGE 219

219 APPENDIX B SOURCES OF SOCIAL, EMOTIONAL, AND BEHAVIORAL TEACHING PRACTICES INCLUDED ON THE PRELIMIALRY DRAFT OF THE SETP C Domain Item TPOT P ELDG Guidance Systematic Review Existing Instrument Pilot Version Teaching practices related to building nurturing and responsive relationships (12 items ) their pl ay at least twice a day. making comments. 3. I use descriptive praise with children. 4. I use alternative strategies to communicate with children who are language dela yed. 5. I have a plan for classroom activities AND know what I should be doing. 6. I coordinate daily schedules AND discuss roles/responsibilities with other staff members. 7. I work with other staff members to take turn leadi ng or co leading activities. 8. I work together to clean up or prepare activities with other staff members. 9. I offer families ongoing opportunities to visit the classroom. 10. I regularly provide families with information on what is occurring in the classroom. 11. I use different methods of communication with different families to connect with all families. 12. I establish bi directional communication systems that offer families a way to share information about the family or child with me. 13. I review the classroom schedule of daily activities with children AND refer to it throughout the day. 14. I structure at least one small group activity during a day. 15. I prepare class room activities before children arrive at the activity. 16. I plan the daily schedule so children spend more time in child directed activities than teacher directed activities.

PAGE 220

220 Domain Item TPOT P ELDG Guidance Systematic Review Existing Instrument Pilot Version Teaching practices related to creating a high quality supportive classroom environment (18 items ) 17. I make learning centers with clear boundaries. 18. I stop a teacher directed activity when more than 25% of children loose interest. 19. I provide whole class notice about a transition at least 1 day. 20. I use transition strategies (e.g., songs, games) to keep children activ ely engaged in the transitions. 21. I describe what children should do during the transitions. 22. I effectively guide individual children who need extra support during the transitions. 23. I provide developmentally appropriat e activities that will support the engagement of almost all of the class. 24. I assist individual children in selecting activities AND becoming actively engaged. 25. I use descriptive praise to children who are engaged in activities. 26. I provide children with multiple opportunities to make choices within activities. 27. I use directions that tell children what to do rather than what not to do. 28. I use descriptive praise to children who follow direc tions. 29. I check in with children to make sure they understand the directions. 30. I individualize directions for children who need more support. 31. I explicitly teach children classroom expectations or rules of behavior. 32. I explicitly teach children friendship skills (e.g., helping, sharing, taking turns). 33. I explicitly teach children social problem solving (e.g., resolve conflicts with peers). 34. I explicitly teach children how to initiate AND respond to peers. *

PAGE 221

221 Domain Item TPOT P ELDG Guidance Systematic Review Existing Instrument Pilot Version Teaching practices rel ated to instruction on targeted social or emotional skills ( 42 items ) 35. I exp licitly teach children how to initiate AND respond to adults. * 36. I explicitly teach children how to develop autonomy AND independence. 37. I explicitly teach children how to develop self confidence AND self esteem. 38. I explicitly teach children strategies for joining in activities or participating with others. 39. I explicitly teach children how to develop self restraint/self control. 40. I explicitly teach children how to show concern AND r egard for others. 41. I explicitly teach children how to adjust themselves to group life. 42. I explicitly teach children how to develop a sense of belonging. 43. I explicitly teach children basic knowledge about their s ocial groups. 44. I explicitly teach children about emotion vocabulary (e.g., happy, sad, proud). 45. I explicitly teach children how to recognize emotions in themselves or others. 46. I explicitly teach children appropria te ways to express their emotions. emotions appropriately. 48. I explicitly teach children how to understand the consequences of emotions. 49. I explicitl y teach children how to regulate their emotions. 50. I explicitly teach children how to show empathy to others. 51. I plan lessons to systematically teach children social emotional competence. 52. I use naturally occu rring opportunities to teach children social emotional competence.

PAGE 222

222 Domain Item TPOT P ELDG Guidance Systematic Review Existing Instrument Pilot Version Teaching practices related to instruction on targeted social or emotional skills ( 42 items ) 53. I use eduplay to teach children social emotional competence. 54. I embed social emotional teaching into curricular domains other than social domain. 55. I post classroom expectations or rules of behavior by using visual representation. 56. I review classroom expectations or rules of behavior with children. 57. I intentionally structure activities or opportunities for children to work together. 58. I describe my observations of chil dren in the classroom who demonstrated social emotional competence. 59. I model expected social emotional competence while describing my behavior. 60. I help children reflect on their use of social emotional competence. 61. I individualize instruction of social emotional competence 62. I use descriptive praise to children who are showing social emotional competence. 63. I facilitate discussions where child ren are involved in critically thinking about social emotional competence AND its importance in the classroom. * 64. I provide children with planned opportunities to practice social emotional competence. 65. I provide individualized assistance to help children maintain interactions (multiple interaction exchanges) with their peers. 66. I support children in helping their friends learn or practice social emotional competence. lping children talk about their emotions. 68. I provide children with strategies to use when they are angry to calm down. 69. I engage children in generating possible solutions to common classroom problems.

PAGE 223

223 Domain Item TPOT P C ELDG Guidance Systematic Review Existing Instrument Pilot Version 70. I use visuals (e.g., pictures, line drawings, photographs, magazine clippings) to teach children social emotional competence. 71. I have children to model expec ted social emotional competence for their peers. 72. I use role playing to teach children social emotional competence. Teaching practices related to addressing challenging behavior (11 items ) challenging behavior (e.g., obtain attention or toys). 74. I state the expected behavior or provide instruction in an acceptable alternative behavior when responding to challenging behavior. 75 I remind children of behavior expectation s or rules when challenging behavior occurs. 76 I implement developmentally appropriate strategies (e.g., redirection, planned ignoring, taking a break from an activity) in response to challenging behavior. 77. I provide positive attent ion or positive descriptive feedback to children when the children who exhibited challenging behavior begin behaving appropriately. 78. I provide support to children who are angry or upset by assisting them with problem solving related to the cha llenging behavior. 79. I refer children with persistent challenging behavior to a team or individual. 80. I participate in the development of a behavior support plan by providing assessment data on children with persistent challenging be havior. 81. I participate in the development of a behavior support plan by contributing ideas for strategies to be included on the plan for children with persistent challenging behavior. 82. I implement or follow through with the individu alized behavior support plan. challenging behavior.

PAGE 224

224 Domain Item TPOT P ELDG Guidance Systematic Review Existing Instrument Pilot Version Teaching practices re lated to supporting family use (6 items ) 84. I provide families with information on the importance of social emotional development. 85. I provide families with information on community resources emotional developm ent or challenging behavior. 86. I give families practical strategies that they can use during emotional development. 87. I work with families to develop strategies that familie s can use at home to address challenging behavior. 88. I work with families to collect information on the behavior of children to determine if there is a need for more intensive support or planning. 89. I involve families in the proce ss of developing a support plan for addressing challenging behavior at school. Note: indicates a n item that was directly drawn from a specific source; represents a n item that was indirectly drawn from a specific source.

PAGE 225

225 APPENDIX C ENGLISH VERSION OF THE CONTENT VALIDATION RATING SCALE Preschool Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Teaching Practices Rating Scale [For Chinese preschool principals] September, 2016 Hello! My name is Li Luo. I am a doctoral student in early childhood specia l education at the University of Florida. I am inviting you to participate in a survey. The purpose of this survey is to understand Chinese Principals play an important role in preschool curriculum decision making and provid e support and guidance to preschool teachers about their instruction and interactions with children. Your responses will offer information about the importance and cultural relevance of social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices that preschool teachers might be using in everyday routines and activities. This survey will take about 20 minutes to complete. If you choose to participate, your information will be kept both anony mous and confidential and your name will not appear anywhere on the survey. If you choose to complete the survey, please answer each question and return the completed survey to me. Completion and return of the survey will indicate your consent to partici pate in this study. Please feel free to ask me any questions about this study or need for any additional information. Thank you very much for helping with this study. Sincerely, Li Luo, M.Ed. Anita Zucker Center for Excellence in Early Childhood Studie s University of Florida Luoli@ufl.edu Patricia Snyder, Ph.D. Doctoral Advisor to Li Luo Professor and David Lawrence Jr. Endowed Chair in Early Childhood Studies Anita Zucker Center for Excellence in Early Childhood Studies University of Florida patricia snyder@coe.ufl.ed

PAGE 226

226 Eighty ocial, emotional, and behavioral development and learning. For each teaching practice listed below, there are two sections to which you should respond: (1 ) how important you believe the teaching practice is for Chinese preschool teachers to use in promoting the social, emotional, and behavioral development of young children, and (2) to what extent the teachin g practice is culturally relevant for use in Chinese preschool classrooms. Please read each teaching practice and think about your preschool during the past 6 months. Then, rate each teaching practice across two sections on a scale of 1 to 6 by placing a checkmark ( ) on the number that corresponds most with your belief. The black pies and texts in the table below illustrate what each number means across the two sections. Rating 1 = 2 = 3 = 4 = 5 = 6 = How Important Not at all important Sligh tly important Somewhat important Moderately important Very important Extremely important How Cultural Relevant Not at all relevant Slightly relevant Somewhat relevant Moderately relevant Very relevant Extremely relevant Teaching Practice Section I How i mportant is this practice for Chinese preschool teachers to use? Section II How culturally relevant is this practice for use in Chinese preschool classrooms? twice a day. 3. Teacher uses descriptive praise with children. 4. Teacher uses alternative strategies to co mmunicate with children who are language delayed. 5. Teacher has a plan for classroom activities AND knows what she/he should be doing. 6. Teacher coordinates daily schedules AND discusses roles/respons ibilities with other staff members. 7. Teacher works with other staff members to take turns leading or co leading activities. 8. Teacher works together to clean up or prepare activities with other staff members. 9. Teacher offers families ongoing opportunities to visit the classroom. 10. Teacher regularly provides families with information on what is occurring in the classroom. 11. Teacher uses different methods of communication with different families to connect with all families.

PAGE 227

227 Rating 1 = 2 = 3 = 4 = 5 = 6 = How Important Not at all important Slightly important Somewhat important M oderately important Very important Extremely important How Cultural Relevant Not at all relevant Slightly relevant Somewhat relevant Moderately relevant Very relevant Extremely relevant Teaching Practice Section I How important is this practice for Chi nese preschool teachers to use? Section II How culturally relevant is this practice for use in Chinese preschool classrooms? 12. Teacher establishes bi directional communication systems that offer families a way to share information about the family or child with the teacher. 13. Teacher reviews the classroom schedule of daily activities with children AND refers to it throughout the day. 14. Teacher structures at least one small group activity du ring a day. 15. Teacher prepares classroom activities before children arrive at the activity. 16. Teacher plans the daily schedule so children spend more time in child directed activities than teacher directed activities. 17. Teacher makes learning centers with clear boundaries. 18. Teacher stops a teacher directed activity when more than 25% of children loose interest. 19. Teacher provides whole class notice about a transition at least 1 minute prior to the majority 20. Teacher uses transition strategies (e.g., songs, games) to keep children actively engaged in the transitions. 21. Teacher describes what children should do during the transitions. 22. Teacher effectively guides individual children who need extra support during the transitions. 23. Teacher provides developmentally appropriate activities that will support the engagement of almost all of the class. 24. Teacher assists individual children in selecting activities AND becoming actively engage d. 25. Teacher uses descriptive praise to children who are engaged in activities. 26. Teacher provides children with multiple opportunities to make choices within activities. 27. Teacher uses directions that tell children what to do rather than what not to do.

PAGE 228

228 Rating 1 = 2 = 3 = 4 = 5 = 6 = How Important Not at all important Slightly important Somewhat important Moderately important Very important Extremely important How Cultural Relevant Not at all relevant Slightly relevant Somewhat relevant Moderately relevant Very relevant Extremely relevant Teaching Practice Section I How important is this practice for Chinese preschool teach ers to use? Section II How culturally relevant is this practice for use in Chinese preschool classrooms? 28. Teacher uses descriptive praise to children who follow directions. 29. Teacher checks in with children to make sure they understand the directions. 30. Teacher individualizes directions for children who need more support. 31. Teacher explici tly teaches children classroom expectations or rules of behavior. 32. Teacher explicitly teaches children friendship skills (e.g., helping, sharing, taking turns). 33. Teacher explicitly teaches childre n social problem solving (e.g., resolve conflicts with peers). 34. Teacher explicitly teaches children how to initiate AND respond to peers. 35. Teacher explicitly teaches children how to initiate AND r espond to adults. 36. Teacher explicitly teaches children how to develop autonomy AND independence. 37. Teacher explicitly teaches children how to develop self confidence AND self esteem. 38. Teacher explicitly teaches children strategies for joining in activities or participating with others. 39. Teacher explicitly teaches children how to develop self restraint/self control. 40. Teacher explicitly teaches children how to show concern AND regard for others. 41. Teacher explicitly teaches children how to adjust themselves to group life. 42. Teacher explicitly teaches c hildren how to develop a sense of belonging. 43. Teacher explicitly teaches children basic knowledge about their social groups. 44. Teacher explicitly teaches children about emotion vocabulary (e.g., ha ppy, sad, proud).

PAGE 229

229 Rating 1 = 2 = 3 = 4 = 5 = 6 = How Important Not at all important Slightly important Somewhat important Moderately important Very important Extremely important How Cultural Relevant Not at all rel evant Slightly relevant Somewhat relevant Moderately relevant Very relevant Extremely relevant Teaching Practice Section I How important is this practice for Chinese preschool teachers to use? Section II How culturally relevant is this practice fo r use in Chinese preschool classrooms? 45. Teacher explicitly teaches children how to recognize emotions in themselves or others. 46. Teacher explicitly teaches children appropriate ways to express their emotions. 48. Teacher explicitly teaches children how to understand the consequences of emotions. 49. Teacher explicitly teaches children how to regulate their emotions. 50. Teacher explicitly teaches c hildren how to show empathy to others. 51. Teacher plans lessons to systematically teach children social emotional competence. 52. Teacher uses naturally occurring opportunities to teach children soci al emotional competence. 53. Teacher uses eduplay to teach children social emotional competence. 54. Teacher embeds social emotional teaching into curricular domains other than social domain. 55. Teacher posts classroom expectations or rules of behavior by using visual representation. 56. Teacher reviews classroom expectations or rules of behavior with children. 57. Teacher intentionally structures activities or opportunities for children to work together. 58. Teacher describes her/his observations of children in the classroom who demonstrated social emotional competence. 59. Teacher models expected social emotional competence while describing her/his behavior. 60. Teacher helps children reflect on their use of social emotional competence. 61. Teacher individualizes ins truction of social developmental needs.

PAGE 230

230 Rating 1 = 2 = 3 = 4 = 5 = 6 = How Important Not at all important Slightly important Somewhat important Moderately important Very impo rtant Extremely important How Cultural Relevant Not at all relevant Slightly relevant Somewhat relevant Moderately relevant Very relevant Extremely relevant Teaching Practice Section I How important is this practice for Chinese preschool teachers to us e? Section II How culturally relevant is this practice for use in Chinese preschool classrooms? 62. Teacher uses descriptive praise to children who are showing social emotional competence. 63. Teacher facilitates discussions where children are involved in critically thinking about social emotional competence AND its importance in the classroom. 64. Teacher provides children with planned o pportunities to practice social emotional competence. 65. Teacher provides individualized assistance to help children maintain interactions (multiple interaction exchanges) with their peers. 66. Teacher supports children in helping their friends learn or practice social emotional competence. 68. Teacher provides c hildren with strategies to use when they are angry to calm down. 69. Teacher engages children in generating possible solutions to common classroom problems. 70. Teacher uses visuals (e.g., pictures, lin e drawings, photographs, magazine clippings) to teach children social emotional competence. 71. Teacher has children to model expected social emotional competence for their peers. 72. Teacher uses role playing to teach children social emotional competence. toys). 74. Teacher states the expected behavior or provides instruction in an acceptable alternative behavior when responding to challenging behavior. 75. Teacher reminds children of behavior expectations or rules when challenging behavior occurs. 7 6. Teacher implements developmentally appropriate strategies (e.g., redirection, planned ignoring, taking a break from an activity) in response to challenging behavior.

PAGE 231

231 Rating 1 = 2 = 3 = 4 = 5 = 6 = How Important N ot at all important Slightly important Somewhat important Moderately important Very important Extremely important How Cultural Relevant Not at all relevant Slightly relevant Somewhat relevant Moderately relevant Very relevant Extremely relevant Teachin g Practice Section I How important is this practice for Chinese preschool teachers to use? Section II How culturally relevant is this practice for use in Chinese preschool classrooms? 77. Teacher provides positive attention or positive descriptive f eedback to children when the children who exhibited challenging behavior begin behaving appropriately. 78. Teacher provides support to children who are angry or upset by assisting them with problem solving related to the challen ging behavior. 79. Teacher refers children with persistent challenging behavior to a team or individual. 80. Teacher participates in the development of a behavior support plan by providing assessment d ata on children with persistent challenging behavior. 81. Teacher participates in the development of a behavior support plan by contributing ideas for strategies to be included on the plan for children with persistent challenging behavior. 82. Teacher implements or follows through with the individualized behavior support plan. 84. Teacher provides families with information on the importance of social emotional development. social emotional develo pment or challenging behavior. 86. Teacher gives families practical strategies that they can use during everyday activities to emotional development. 87. Teacher works with families to develop strategies that families can use at home to address challenging behavior. 88. Teacher works with families to collect information on the behavior of children to determine if there is a need for more inten sive support or planning. 89. Teacher involves families in the process of developing a support plan for addressing challenging behavior at school.

PAGE 232

232 Below are questions about you and your preschool. Ple ase answer each question below. (Please do not include your name on any section of the survey) 1. In which province is your preschool located? _______________ 2. Where is your preschool located? Please check ( ) one. Province level city (Beijing, Tianjin, Shangh ai, or Chongqing) Provincial capital (e.g., Nanchang) Prefecture level city or autonomous prefecture (e.g., Fuzhou ) County level city (e.g., Guangchang) Town/village (e.g., Ganzhu) Other (please specify)______________ 3. What is the funding source for your pr eschool? Please check ( ) one. Public Private Other (please specify)______________ 4. What is your role in your preschool? Please check ( ) one. Principal Vice principal Other (please specify)______________ 5. What is the highest degree you have earned? Pleas e check ( ) one. High School or below Normal school graduate Doctoral degree 6. Is your degree in any of the following areas? Please check ( ) all that apply. Early childhood education Early child hood special education Elementary education Psychology Management and leadership in education Other (please specify)_______________ 7. How long have you been a preschool principal ? ________ Year(s)________ Month(s) 8. How long have you worked in pre school settings? ________ Year(s)________ Month(s) 9. Does your preschool have a social emotional curriculum? If yes, please specify the name of your social emotional curriculum. No Yes (please specify) _______________

PAGE 233

233 Thank you for taking time to complete this survey. Your help in providing information about preschool social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices is greatly appreciated. If there is anything else you would like to tell us about your experience in preschool social education, addressing challenging behavior of preschool children, and your feedback about this survey, please do so in the space provided below. Please return your completed survey! Thank you again for your participation! 1. Your experience in preschool social education 2. Your perspectives about addressing challenging behavior of pre school children 3. Your feedback about this survey (e.g., overall quality of the survey, items need to be revised, or new items should be added)

PAGE 234

234 APPENDIX D CHINESE VERSION OF THE CONTENT VALI DATION RATING SCALE 2016 9 20 Anita Zucker LuoLi@ufl.edu Patricia Snyder David Lawrence Jr. Anita Zucker patriciasnyder@coe.ufl.edu

PAGE 235

235 89 ( ) 1 = 2 = 3 = 4 = 5 = 6 = ( 1 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. / 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

PAGE 236

236 1 = 2 = 3 = 4 = 5 = 6 = ( 18. 19. 20. ( ) 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. ( ) 33. ( ) 34. 35. 36. 37. 38.

PAGE 237

237 1 = 2 = 3 = 4 = 5 = 6 = ( 39. 4 0. 41. 42. 43. 44. ( ) 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. ( ) 56. 57. 58. 59. 60.

PAGE 238

238 1 = 2 = 3 = 4 = 5 = 6 = ( 61. 62. 63. 64. 6 5 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. ( ) 71. 72. 73. ( ) 7 4 7 5 76. ( ) 77. 78. 79.

PAGE 239

239 1 = 2 = 3 = 4 = 5 = 6 = ( 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89.

PAGE 240

240 ( ) 1. _______________ 2. ( ) ( ) ( ) ______________ 3. ( ) ( ) ______________ 4 ( ) ( ) ______________ 5. ( ) 6. ( ) ( ) ( ) ______________ 7. __________ __________ 8. __________ __________ 9. ( ) ________________________________________

PAGE 241

241 1. 2. 3.

PAGE 242

242 APPENDIX E ENGLISH VERSION OF THE CONTENT VALIDATION INTERVIEW PROTOCOL Content Validation Interviews with Chinese Early Childhood Faculty Par t 1. Conceptual Basis of the SETP C Instruction: The primary construct of interest on t he SETP C is social, emot ional, and behavioral teaching practices appropriate for use in preschool classrooms. The SETP C is designed to be completed by Chinese preschool teachers working in public and private preschool programs in mainland China and in preschool programs with var ying levels of quality. When completing the SETP C, teachers provide information about the importance of the teaching practices, their use of the teaching practices in their classrooms, and their confidence in implem enting the practices. There are five hyp othesized domains of preschool social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices based on the Pyramid Model (Hemmeter, ent Guidelines for Children 3 6 Yeas Old (ELDG), and Chinese research literat ure: (1) teaching practices related to building nurturing and responsive relationships, (2) teaching practices related to creating a high quality supportive classroom environment, (3) teaching practices related to instruction on targeted social or emotiona l skills, (4) teaching practices related to addressing challenging behavior, and (5) teaching practices related to supporting family use of social, emotional, and behavi oral teaching practices. Question 1: Does our conceptualization of social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices based on the Pyramid Model (Hemmeter, Fox, & Question 2: Are there any domains that we have missed? Question 3: Are there any domains incl uded in our conceptualization that are not relevant in Chinese preschool contexts? Question 4: The SETP C will be used in preschool programs with varying levels of quality and preschool programs with different funding sources Is our conceptualization of social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices relevant for these different types of preschool programs? Do you think our conceptualization is appropriate for each of these different preschool programs?

PAGE 243

243 Part 2. Item Matching Task Instruction: Plea se read each item listed below. For each item, use the scale below to identify (a) which one of the five domains is clearly measured not measuring by putting a appropriate column. If it is unclear 1 = clearly measuring 1 = clearly not measuring 0 = unclear For example: Item Domain Nurturing and responsive relationships High quality su pportive classroom environment Instruction on targeted social or emotional skills Addressing challenging behavior Supporting family use of social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices Teacher offers families ongoing opportunities to visit the cla ssroom. 1 1 1 1 1 Item Domain Nurturing and responsive relationships High quality supportive classroom environment Instruction on targeted social or emotional skills Addressing challenging behavior Supporting family use of social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices about their play. making comments. Teacher uses alternative strategies to communicate with children who are language delayed. Teacher has a plan for classroom activities AND knows what she/he should be doing. Teacher coordinates daily schedules AND discusses roles/responsibilities with other staff members. Teacher works with o ther staff members to take turns leading or co leading activities. Teacher works with other staff members to clean up or prepare activities. Teacher regularly provides families with information on what is occurring in the classroom.

PAGE 244

244 1 = c learly measuring 1 = clearly not measuring 0 = unclear Item Domain Nurturing and responsive relationships High quality supportive classroom environment Instruction on targeted social or emotional skills Addressing challenging behavior Supporting fam ily use of social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices Teacher uses different methods of communication with different families to connect with all families. Teacher establishes bi directional communication systems that offer families a way to share information about the family or child with the teacher. Teacher structures at least one small group activity during a day. Teacher prepares classroom activities before children arrive at the activity. Teacher plans the daily sche dule so children spend more time in child directed activities than teacher directed activities. Teacher uses transition strategies (e.g., songs, games) to keep children actively engaged in the transitions. Teacher effectively guides individual children who need extra support during the transitions. Teacher provides developmentally appropriate activities that will support the engagement of almost all of the class. Teacher assists individual children in selecting activities AND becomi ng actively engaged. Teacher provides children with multiple opportunities to make choices within activities. Teacher uses directions that tell children what to do rather than what not to do. Teacher checks in with children to make sure they understand the directions. Teacher individualizes directions for children who need more support. Teacher explicitly teaches children classroom expectations or rules of behavior. Teacher explicitly teaches children friendship skills ( e.g., helping, sharing, taking turns).

PAGE 245

245 1 = clearly measuring 1 = clearly not measuring 0 = unclear Item Domain Nurturing and responsive relationships High quality supportive classroom environment Instruction on targeted social or emotional skil ls Addressing challenging behavior Supporting family use of social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices Teacher explicitly teaches children social problem solving (e.g., resolve conflicts with peers). Teacher explicitly teaches children ho w to initiate AND respond to peers. Teacher explicitly teaches children how to develop autonomy AND independence. Teacher explicitly teaches children how to develop self confidence AND self esteem. Teacher explicitly teaches children h ow to develop self restraint/self control. Teacher explicitly teaches children how to show concern AND regard for others. Teacher explicitly teaches children about emotion vocabulary (e.g., happy, sad, proud). Teacher explicitly teaches c hildren how to participate as part of a social group. Teacher explicitly teaches children how to recognize emotions in themselves or others. Teacher explicitly teaches children appropriate ways to express their emotions. Teacher explicitl y teaches children how to regulate their emotions. Teacher explicitly teaches children how to show empathy to others. Teacher reviews posted classroom expectations or rules of behavior with children. Teacher describes her/his observations of children in the classroom who demonstrated positive social or emotional skills. Teacher models expected positive social or emotional skills while describing her/his behavior. Teacher individualizes instruction of positive social or emotiona l

PAGE 246

246 1 = clearly measuring 1 = clearly not measuring 0 = unclear Item Domain Nurturing and responsive relationships High quality supportive classroom environment Instruction on targeted social or emo tional skills Addressing challenging behavior Supporting family use of social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices Teacher uses descriptive praise when children engage in positive social or emotional skills. Teacher provides children with planned activities or opportunities to practice positive social or emotional skills. Teacher provides individualized assistance to help children maintain interactions (multiple interaction exchanges) with their peers. Teacher uses peer mediated strategies to support peers to learn AND practice pro social behaviors for use with their classmates who have social skills delays. their emotions. Teacher provides childre n with strategies to use when they are angry to calm down. Teacher engages children in generating possible solutions to common classroom social or emotional problems. Teacher uses visuals (e.g., pictures, line drawings, photographs, magazine cl ippings) to teach children positive social or emotional skills. Teacher uses role playing to teach children positive social or emotional skills. Teacher plans lessons to systematically teach children positive social or emotional skills. T eacher uses routines to teach children positive social or emotional skills. Teacher uses eduplay to teach children positive social or emotional skills. Teacher embeds instruction of positive social or emotional skills into curricular domains ot her than social domain. (e.g., obtain attention or toys). Teacher states the expected behavior or provides instruction on an acceptable alternative behavior when responding to challenging behavior.

PAGE 247

247 1 = clearly measuring 1 = clearly not measuring 0 = unclear Item Domain Nurturing and responsive relationships High quality supportive classroom environment Instruction on targeted social or emotional skills Addressing c hallenging behavior Supporting family use of social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices Teacher implements developmentally appropriate strategies (e.g., redirection, planned ignoring, taking a break from an activity) in response to challenging b ehavior. Teacher provides families with information on the importance of social emotional development. Teacher provides families with information on community resources emotional development or challenging behav ior. Teacher gives families practical strategies that they can use during emotional development. Teacher works with families to develop strategies that families can use at home to address challenging behavior. Teacher works with families to collect information on the behavior of children to determine if there is a need for more intensive support Teacher involves famil ies in the process of developing a written

PAGE 248

2 48 Part 3. The Use of the SETP C scores Instruction: I nformation gathered from the SETP C is intended to help inform decisions about professional development or preservice training for Given the SETP C only assesses some aspects of teacher cial, emotional, and behavioral competence, it is worth noting that C are not intended to be used for performance evaluation or the awarding of a teaching credential. Question 1: What are your opinio ns about the intended use o f SETP C scores? Question 2: How useful would SETP C information be for informing decisions about professional development or preservice training for Chinese preschool teachers? Question 3: Are there any unintended eff ects you can identify of using S ETP C scores?

PAGE 249

249 APPENDIX F CHINESE VERSION OF THE CONTENT VALIDATION INTERVIEW PROTOCOL (Pyramid Model) 3 6 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 250

250 :

PAGE 251

251 67 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1. 2. ( 3. 4. ( ) 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

PAGE 252

252 1 1 0 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. ( )

PAGE 253

253 1 1 0 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39.

PAGE 254

254 1 1 0 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. ( ) 48. ( ) 49. 50. 51. 52. ( ) 53. 54.

PAGE 255

255 1 1 0 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. / 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. ( ) 67.

PAGE 256

256

PAGE 257

257 APPENDIX G COGNITIVE INTERVIEWING PROTOCOL Date: __________ Interv iewee ID: __________ Interviewer initials: __________ START TIME: __________ END TIME: __________ Instructions for Cognitive Interviewer To start the in paraphrased. When you start, make sure to enter the START TIME. feel that you n eed to probe every question extensively. Use conditio nal probes listed in Appendix as necessary. Enter comments, under each questionnaire item, about problems or issues that come up. When you are done, enter the END TIME. Look back over the protocol and a dd other comments as appropriate. Instructions to be Read to Interviewee Note to Interviewer Either read these instructions in their entirety or paraphrase them (but make sure to include elements 1 6) t me first tell you a little more about what we will be doing today. 1. We are testing a new questionnaire with the help of people such as yourself. 2. The purpose of this interview is to find out what you think about the items on our questionnaire, so we can ge t a better idea of how these questionnaire items are working. 3. This interview includes 3 sections and I will be handing you a material for each section. For the first section, I would like you to think aloud as you answer each questionnaire item just tel l me everything you are thinking about as you go about answering them. For the second and third sections, I will ask you more questions about the terms or phrases in the questionnaire items and what you think a question is asking about. I will take notes. 4. 5. Finally, we will do this for about an hour, unless I run out of things to ask you before then. 6.

PAGE 258

258 Section 1 : Think Aloud Interviewer: say out lo u d all the things that come into your o Hand the Material A t hat includes the following 15 questionnaire items to the interviewee. 15 Questionnaire Items Item 1 I join AND engage in conversations about their play. Item 4 I have a plan for classroom activities AND know what I should be doing. Item 16 I provide developmentally appropriate activities that will support the engagement of almost all of the class. Item 17 I assist individual children in selecting activities AND becoming actively engaged. Item 20 I check in with children to make s ure they understand the directions. Item 21 I individualize directions for children who need more support. Item 26 I explicitly teach children how to develop autonomy AND independence. Item 32 I explicitly teach children how to recognize emotions in themselves OR others. Item 36 I review posted classroom expectations OR rules of behavior with children. Item 42 I provide individualized assistance to help children maintain interactions (multiple interaction exchanges) with their peers. Item 46 I enga ge children in generating possible solutions to common classroom social or emotional problems. Item 47 I use visuals (e.g., pictures, line drawings, photographs, magazine clippings) to teach children positive social or emotional skills. Item 55 I provide positive attention OR descriptive praise when children who exhibit challenging behavior begin behaving appropriately. Item 63 emotional development OR challenging beh avior. Item 66 I work with families to collect information on the behavior of children to determine if there is a

PAGE 259

259 Section 2 : Concurrent Verbal Probing 1 Interviewer: o Hand the Material B that includes the following 10 questionnaire items to the interviewee. Proceed with the first questionnaire item and its scripted probe, and then go to next item. Repeat this process until all items are completed. Questionnaire Item Scripted Probes Item 3 I use alternative strategies to communicate with children who are language d elayed. Meaning oriented probe: Translation Item 9 I use different methods of communication with different families to connect with all families. Fairness What type of families do you think Item 10 I establish bi directional communication systems that offer families a way to share information about the family or child with the teacher. Paraphrasing: this item in your own Item 11 I structure at least one small group activity during a day. Meaning group group Process Item 25 I explicitly teach children how to initiate AND respond to peers. Item 30 I explicitly teach children about emotion vocabulary (e.g., happy, sad, proud ). Fairness Item 39 I individualize instruction of positive social or emot ional developmental needs. Item 43 I use peer mediated strategies to supp ort peers to learn AND 1 Concurrent verbal probing refers to applying verbal probes as the questionnaire items are administered to the interviewees (Willis, 2015).

PAGE 260

260 practice pro social behaviors for use with their classmates who have social skills delays. Paraphrasing: Item 53 I state the expected behavior or provide instruction on an acceptable alternative behavior when responding to challenging behavior Process answer? Tell me what you were t Item 58 I participate in the development of a written plan to address by providing assessment data. Meaning a written Translation

PAGE 261

261 Section 3 : Retrospective Verbal Probing 2 Interviewer: When o Hand the Material C that includes the following 10 questionnaire items to the interviewee. Wait until the interviewee finishes answering all items and then pro ceed with the probes for specific areas of each item. Questionnaire Item Scripted Probes Item 2 asking questions AND making comments. E Item 5 I coordinate daily schedules AND discuss roles/responsibilities with other staff members. period were you thinking abo Fairness Item 14 I use transition strategies (e.g., songs, games) to keep children actively engaged in the transitions. Paraphrasing: Item 15 I effectively guide individual children who need extra support during the transitions. Process oriented Item 22 I explicitly teach children classroom expectations or rules of behavior. this item is easy or not easy Item 27 I explicitly teach children how to develop self confidence AND self esteem. Meaning Item 29 I explicitly teach children how to show concern A ND regard for others. Meaning oriented probe: Translation Item 31 I explicitly teach children how to participate as p art of a social group. Paraphrasing: Process Item 40 I use descriptive praise when Meaning oriented probe:

PAGE 262

262 c hildren engage in positive social or emotional skills. Translation Item 61 the written plan by collecting data related to their challenging behavior Meaning oriented probe: Fairness

PAGE 263

263 Appendix: Conditional Probes When Needed 3 If the interviewee: The interviewer may respon d: Asks what s/he is Appears to be having Answers after a period of silence Answers with uncertai nty, using explicitly cues such answer, etc. Erroneous answer; verbal report implies misconception or inappropriate respo nse process used. For example, if the interviewee appeared to misunderstand the term to a child using wo rds that describe the behavior for which the child is being Requests information instead of providing an answer Is thinking aloud with no Say something

PAGE 264

264 APPENDIX H ENGLISH VERSION OF THE SETP C USED FOR THE PRESENT ST UDY Social Emotional Teaching Practices Questionnaire China May 2017 Hello! My name is Li Luo. I am a doctoral student in early childhood special education at the University of Florida. I am inviting you to participate in a survey study (IRB201701186 ). The purpose of this survey is to teaching practices. Your responses will offer information about the frequency of use and confidence with implementing social, emotional, and behavioral teaching practices in everyday routines and activities. This survey will take about 10 minutes to complete. If you choose to participate, your information will be kept both anonymous and confidential and your name will n ot appear anywhere on the survey. Please answer each question and return the completed survey. Completion and return of the survey will indicate your consent to participate in this study. There are no anticipated risks or direct benefits to you a s a pa rticipant in this study. You will not be compensated for completing the survey. If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact the University of Florida Institutional Review Board 02 Office at (352) 392 0433 or irb2@ufl.edu Please feel free to ask any questions about this study or let me know if you need any additional information. Thank you very much for helping with this study. Sincerely, Li Luo, M.Ed University of Florid a Luoli@ufl.edu Cell phone: (86)15810205292 Patricia Snyder, Ph.D. Doctoral Advisor to Li Luo Professor and David Lawrence Jr. Endowed Chair in Early Childhood Studies University of Florida patriciasnyder@coe.ufl.edu

PAGE 265

265 Listed below are 70 teaching practices These are practices that preschool teachers might use to support listed, there are two sections to which you should respond: (1) how often you use the teaching practice in your classroom, and (2) how confident you are about using the teaching practice in your classroom. Please read each teaching practice and think about your behaviors or actions in your classroom during the past 6 months. Then, rate eac h teaching practice across the two sections using the 1 to 6 scale for each section shown below. Place a checkmark ( ) on the number that corresponds to the rating you want to use. The text in the table below shows what each number means for Section I and Section II. Rating Section I : How Often? Almost never Very rarely Rarely Occasionally Very frequently Almost always Section II : How Confident? Not at all confident Slightly confident Somewhat confident Moderately confident Very confident Ext remely confident Teaching Practice Section I How Often you use this practice in your classroom ? Section II How Confident you are about using this practice? 1. While they are playing, I talk with children about their play. 2. I respond to ideas children share with me by making comments or asking questions. 3. I use alternative strategies to communicate with children who are language delayed. 4. I coordinate the p lanning for daily activities with other staff members in the classroom. 5. I discuss and coordinate responsibilities for implementing daily activities with other staff members in the classroom. 6. I wor k with other staff members in the classroom to take turns leading or co leading activities. 7. I provide families with information on what is occurring in the classroom every day. 8. I use different meth ods of communication with different families to connect with all families. 9. I establish bi directional communication systems with families. 10. I structure at least one small group activity during a d ay. 11. I prepare classroom activities before children arrive at the activity. 12. I plan the daily schedule so children spend more time in child directed activities than teacher directed activities. 13. I use transition strategies (e.g., songs, games) to keep children actively engaged in the transitions. 14. I effectively guide individual children who need extra support during the transitions. 15. I provide developmentally appropriate activities that will support the engagement of almost all of the class.

PAGE 266

266 Rating Section I : How Often? Almost never Very rarely Rarely Occasionally Very frequent ly Almost always Section II : How Confident? Not at all confident Slightly confident Somewhat confident Moderately confident Very confident Extremely confident Teaching Practice Section I How Often you use this practice in your classroom ? Section II How Confident you are about using this practice? 16. I assist individual children in selecting activities and becoming actively engaged. 17. I provide children with multiple opportunities to make choices within activities. 18. I use directions that tell children what to do rather than what not to do. 19. I check i n with children to make sure they understand the directions. 20. I individualize directions for children who are not able to follow the directions given to all children in the classroom. 21. I explicitly teach children classroom rules of behavior. 22. I explicitly teach children friendship skills (e.g., helping, sharing, taking turns). 23. I explicitly teach children social problem solving (e.g., resolve conflicts with peers). 24. I explicitly teach children how to initiate and respond to peers. 25. I explicitly teach children how to develop autonomy and independence. 26. I exp licitly teach children how to develop self confidence and self esteem. 27. I explicitly teach children how to develop self restraint and self control. 28. I explicitly teach children how to show concern and regard for others. 29. I explicitly teach children about emotion vocabulary (e.g., happy, sad, proud). 30. I explicitly teach children how to participate as part of the collective. 31. I explicitly teach children how to develop a sense of belonging. 32. I explicitly teach children how to recognize emotions in themselves or others. 33. I explicitly teach children appropriate ways to express their emotions. 34. I explicitly teach children how to regulate their emotions.

PAGE 267

267 Rating Section I : How Often? Almost never Very rarely Rarely Occasionally Very frequently Almo st always Section II : How Confident? Not at all confident Slightly confident Somewhat confident Moderately confident Very confident Extremely confident Teaching Practice Section I How Often you use this practice in your classroom ? Sect ion II How Confident you are about using this practice? 35. I explicitly teach children how to show empathy to others. 36. I post classroom rules of behavior in the classroom. 37. I describe my observations of children in the classroom who demonstrated positive social or emotional skills. 38. I model expected positive social or emotional skills while describing my behavior. 39. I individualize instruction of positive social or emotional skills 40. When pr aising children, I describe the positive social or emotional skills for which the children are being praised. 41. I provide children with planned opportunities or activities to practice positive social or emotional skills. 42. I provide individualized assistance to help children maintain interactions with their peers. 43. I explicitly teach peers strategies about to interact with their classmates with social skills delays. 44. I support peers to use pro social behaviors with their classmates who have social skills delays. 45. their emotions. 46. I provide children with strategies to use when they are angry to calm down. 47. I engage children in generating possible solutions to common classroom social or emotional problems. 48. I use role pla ying to teach children positive social or emotional skills. 49. I use visuals (e.g., pictures, line drawings, photographs, magazine clippings) to teach children positive social or emotional skills. 50. I plan lessons to systematically teach children positive social or emotional skills. 51. I use routines to teach children positive social or emotional skills. 52. I use eduplay to teach children positive so cial or emotional skills. 53. I embed instruction of positive social or emotional skills into curricular domains other than the social domain.

PAGE 268

268 Rating Section I : How Often? Almost never Very r arely Rarely Occasionally Very frequently Almost always Section II : How Confident? Not at all confident Slightly confident Somewhat confident Moderately confident Very confident Extremely confident Teaching Practice Section I How Often you u se this practice in your classroom ? Section II How Confident you are about using this practice? 54. (e.g., obtain attention or toys). 55. I teach children what alternative beh a viors to do instead of the challenging behavior. 56. When challenging behavior occurs, I remind children of classroom rules of behavior. 57. I implement developmentally appropriate strategies (e.g., redirection, planned ignoring, taking a break from an activity) in response to challenging behavior. 58. When children who exhibit challenging behavior begin behaving appropriately, I describe the appropriate behavior for which they are being praised. 59. 60. 61. 62. behavior. 63. 64. I provide families with information on the importance of social emotional development. 65. I provide families with information on community resources emotional development. 66. I provide families with information on community resources 67. social emotiona l development. 68. I work with families to develop strategies that families can use at home to address challenging behavior. 69. I work with families to collect information on the behavior of children to determine if there is a need for more intensive behavior. 70. I involve families in the process of developing a written plan r at school.

PAGE 269

269 Below are questions about you and your preschool/classroom. Please answer each question. (Please do not include your name on any section of the questionnaire) Q1. Where is your preschool located? ____________ Q2. What is the funding source for your preschool? Please check ( ) one. Educational department Public, but non educational department (including public enterprises and army) Private, but receiving funding from government Other private Q3. What is the qua lity level of your preschool as rated by the Preschool Quality Rating System ? Please check ( ) one. Excellent Good Acceptable Unrated Q4. What is your role in the classroom? Please check ( ) one. Lead teacher Assistant teacher Other (please specify)_____ __________ Q5. What is your professional title? Please check ( ) one. None Level 3 Level 2 Level 1 Senior 1 Senior 2 Q6. What is the highest degree you have earned? Please check ( ) one. High school diploma or below Normal school graduate Associate Doctoral degree Q7. Is your degree in any of the following areas? Please check ( ) all that apply. Early childhood education S pecial education Elementary education Art education Psychology Other (please specif y)_______________ Q8. Do you currently hold a certificate in early childhood education? Please check ( ) one. Yes No Q9. How long have you been in a paid teaching pos ition as a preschool teacher? ______Year(s)_____Month(s)

PAGE 270

270 Q10. How long have you worked i n your current preschool? ______Year(s)_____Month(s) Q11. Are you currently implementing a social emotional curriculum in your classroom? If yes, please specify the name of your social emotional curriculum. No Yes (please spe cify name of curriculum) _______________ Q12. What is the age of most of the children in your classroom? Please check ( ) one. 3 to 4 year olds 4 to 5 year olds 5 to 6 year olds 6 to 7 year olds Mixed ages Q13. Which and how many of the following peopl e work in your classroom each day? Please check ( ) all that apply and list how many for each response you check. Professional Role How Many Lead teacher Assistant teacher Child care worker Other instructional personnel Q14. How many children ar e in your classroom? ____________ Q15. How many children in your classroom have been identified as children with disabi lities? ____________ Q16. Which categories of disability do children in your classroom have? Please check ( ) all that apply. Visual impa irment Hearing impairment Speech impairment Physical disability Intellectual disability Psychiatric disability Multiple disabilities Other (please specify) _______________ Q17. How many children in your classroom have persistent chall enging behavior? ____________ Q18. Which kind of su pport listed below do you most want to receive in preschool social education? Please check ( ) one A specific social emotional curriculum Sys tematic preservice training Attention and support from preschool principal(s) Inservice coaching from experienced practitioner(s) Inservice training from research expert(s) Other (please specify) _______________

PAGE 271

271 APP ENDIX I CHINESE VERSION OF THE SETP C USED FOR THE PRESENT STUDY 2017 5 (IRB201701186 ) 15 02 (352) 392 0433 irb2@ufl.edu LuoLi@ufl.edu (86)15810205292 Patricia Snyder David Lawrence Jr. patriciasnyder@coe.ufl.edu

PAGE 272

272 70 ( ) ( ) ( ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11 12 13. ( ) 14 15 16 17. 18 19 20. 21.

PAGE 273

273 ( ) ( ) 22. ( ) 2 3 ( ) 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. ( ) 30 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46.

PAGE 274

274 ( ) ( ) 47. 4 8 4 9 ( ) 50 51. 52. 53. 5 4 ( ) 55 5 6 57. ( ) 58. 5 9. / 60. / 61. / 62. 63 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70

PAGE 275

275 ( ) 1. ___________ 2. 3. 4. ( ) ____________ 5. 6. 7. ( ) ( ) ( ) ____________ 8. 9. _______ _______ 10. _______ _______

PAGE 276

276 11. ( ) ________________________ 12. 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 13. ________ 14. ________ 15. ____________ 16. ( ) ( ) ____________ 17. ________ 18. ( ) ( ) ____________

PAGE 277

277 APPEN DIX J VARIABLE CODING SYNTAX */SPSS syntax to re code missing data; RECODE F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19 F20 F21 F22 F23 F24 F25 F26 F27 F28 F29 F30 F31 F32 F33 F34 F35 F36 F37 F38 F39 F40 F41 F42 F43 F44 F45 F46 F47 F48 F49 F50 F51 F52 F53 F54 F55 F56 F57 F58 F59 F6 0 F61 F62 F63 F64 F65 F66 F6 7 F68 F69 F70 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 C17 C18 C19 C20 C21 C22 C23 C24 C25 C26 C27 C28 C29 C30 C31 C32 C33 C34 C35 C36 C37 C38 C39 C40 C41 C42 C43 C44 C45 C46 C47 C48 C49 C50 C51 C52 C53 C54 C55 C56 C57 C58 C59 C60 C61 C62 C63 C64 C65 C66 C67 C68 C69 C70 Cit y Region RecodedTypeofPreschool RecodedQualityofP reschool Role ProfessionalTitle Educa tionalLevel Major ECCertificate YearsofTeaching YearsinCurrentPreschool SECurricula Chil Age No.ofTeachers No. ofChildren ChildTeacherRatio SpecialNeeds No.ofChildrenwithPersistentCB TypeofSupport ( 9=SYSMIS). EXECUTE. */SPSS syntax to recode demographic variables with two categories; RECODE Role (1=0) (2=1) (3=2) (SYSMIS=SYSMIS). EXECUTE. RECODE Professi onalTitle (1=1) (2=0) (3=0) (4=0) (5=0) (6=0) (SYSMIS=SYSMIS). EXECUTE. RECODE EducationalLevel (1=1) (2=1) (3=2) (4=0) (5=0) (6=0) (SYSMIS=SYSMIS). EXECUTE. RECODE Major (1=0) (2=1) (3=1) (4=1) (5=1) (6=1) (SYSMIS=SYSMIS) (10 thru 20=0) (30 thru 9 0=1) (100 thru Highest=0). EXECUTE. RECODE ECCertificate (1=0) (2=1) (SYSMIS=SYSMIS). EXECUTE. RECODE SECurricula (1=1) (2=0) (SYSMIS=SYSMIS). EXECUTE. RECODE ChilAge (1=0) (2=1) (3=2) (4=3) (5=4) (SYSMIS=SYSMIS). EXECUTE. RECODE SpecialNe e ds (0=1) (SYSMIS=SYSMIS) (1 thru 9999=0). EXECUTE. RECODE No.ofChildrenwithPersistentCB (0=1) (SYSMIS=SYSMIS) (1 thru 9999=0). EXECUTE. */SPSS syntax to d ummy code demographic variables with more than 2 categories; RECODE RecodedQualityofPresc hool (1=1) (SYSMIS=SYSMIS) (ELSE=0) INTO Quality_Good. EXECUTE.

PAGE 278

278 RECODE RecodedQualityofPreschool (2=1) (SYSMIS=SYSMIS) (ELSE=0) INTO Quality_Unrated. EXECUTE. RECODE Role (1=1) (SYSMIS=SYSMIS) (ELSE=0) INTO Role_AT. EXECUTE. RECODE Role (2=1) ( SYSMIS=SYSMIS) (ELSE=0) INTO Role_Other. EXECUTE. RECODE EducationalLevel (1=1) (SYSMIS=SYSMIS) (ELSE=0) INTO Education_BelowAssociate. EXECUTE. RECODE EducationalLevel (2=1) (SYSMIS=SYSMIS) (ELSE=0) INTO Education_Associate. EXECUTE. RECODE Ch ilAge (1=1) (SYSMIS=SYSMIS) (ELSE=0) INTO Age_1. EXECUTE. RECODE ChilAge (2=1) (SYSMIS=SYSMIS) (ELSE=0) INTO Age_2. EXECUTE. RECODE ChilAge (3=1) (SYSMIS=SYSMIS) (ELSE=0) INTO Age_3. EXECUTE. RECODE ChilAge (4=1) (SYSMIS=SYSMIS) (ELSE=0) INTO A ge_4. EXECUTE. */SPSS syntax to c ompute summated composite scores for each latent variable subscale; COMPUTE Trelationships=SUM(F1,F2,F3,F4,F5,F6,F7,F8,F9). EXECUTE. COMPUTE Tenvironment=SUM(F10,F11,F12,F13,F14,F15,F16,F17,F18,F19,F20). EXECUTE. COMPUTE TSETeachingContent=SUM(F21,F22,F23,F24,F25,F26,F27,F28,F29,F30,F31,F32,F33,F34,F35). EXECUTE. COMPUTE TSETeachingStrategies=SUM(F36,F37,F38,F39,F40,F41,F42,F43,F44,F45,F46,F47,F48,F49,F50,F51,F 52,F53). EXECUTE. COMPUTE TresponseCB=SUM(F54,F55,F56,F57,F58). EXECUTE. COMPUTE TinterventionCB=SUM(F59,F60,F61,F62,F63). EXECUTE. COMPUTE Tfamily=SUM(F64,F65,F66,F67,F68,F69,F70). EXECUTE. COMPUTE TcRelationships=SUM(C1,C2,C3,C4,C5,C6,C7,C8,C9)

PAGE 279

279 EXECUTE. COMPUTE TcEnvironment=SUM(C10,C11,C12,C13,C14,C15,C16,C17,C18,C19,C20). EXECUTE. COMPUTE TcSETeachingContent=SUM(C21,C22,C23,C24,C25,C26,C27,C28,C29,C30,C31,C32,C33,C34,C35). EXECUTE. COMPUTE TcSETeachingStrategies=SUM(C 36,C37,C38,C39,C40,C41,C42,C43,C44,C45,C46,C47,C48,C49,C50,C 51,C52,C53). EXECUTE. COMPUTE TcResponseCB=SUM(C54,C55,C56,C57,C58). EXECUTE. COMPUTE TcInterventionCB=SUM(C59,C60,C61,C62,C63). EXECUTE. COMPUTE TcFamily=SUM(C64,C65,C66 ,C67,C68,C69,C70). EXECUTE. */ R code to convert csv file to dat file # ; > data< read.csv("~/Desktop/Dissertation Data_7.24.csv", header=TRUE) > write.table(data, file="~/Desktop/Dissertation Data_7.24.dat", row.names=FALSE, col.names=FALSE)

PAGE 280

280 APPENDIX K ANALYTICAL SYNTAX Syntax to address research question 1 */An example of M plus syntax to evaluate a CFA model; T itle: 7 Factors CFA Model_How Often section D ata: file is "M: \ Dissertation Data_7.24.dat"; V ariable: names= ID PreID F1 F70 C1 C70 CITY REGION TYPE QUA ROLE TITLE EDU MAJOR CERT TEACH WORK CURRI AGE NUMt NUMc RATIO SPEN CB SUPPORT QUA_good QUA_NR ROLE_AT ROLE_oth EDU_B EDU_A AGE_1 AGE_2 AGE_3 AGE_4 FE1_Sum FE2_Sum FE3_Sum FE4_Sum FE5_Sum FE6_Sum FE7_Sum Con1_Sum Con2_Sum Con3_Sum Con4_Sum Con5_Sum Con6_Sum Con7_Sum; Usevariables are PreID F1 F70; Categorical are F1 F70; Cluster PreID; missing are all ( 9); Analysis: Type = complex; Estimator is WLSMV; Iterations = 1000; Convergence = 0.00005; Model: Relationship by F1* F2 F9; Environmen t by F10* F11 F20; Teaching by F21* F22 F35; Strategies by F36* F37 F53; CB by F54* F55 F58; PCB by F59* F60 F63; Family by F64* F65 F70; Relationship@1; Environment@1; Teaching@1; Strategies@1; CB@1; PCB@1; Family@1; Output: sampstat; MOD (3.84); stdyx; tech4 S avedata: DIFFTEST=HO .7F.dat;

PAGE 281

281 */An example of M plus syntax to compare CFA model s ; Title: CFA model comparisons_7 factors vs 5 factors_ _How Often section Data: file is "C: \ Users \ luoli \ Desktop \ Dissertation Data_7.24.dat"; Variable: names= ID PreID F1 F70 C1 C70 CITY REGION TYPE QUA ROLE TITLE EDU MAJOR CERT TEACH WORK CURRI AGE NUMt NUMc RATIO SPEN CB SUPPORT QUA_good QUA_NR ROLE_AT ROLE_oth EDU_B EDU_A AGE_1 AGE_2 AGE_3 AGE_4 FE1_Sum FE2_Sum FE3_Sum FE4_Sum FE5_Sum FE6_Sum FE7_Sum Con1_Sum Con2_S um Con3_Sum Con4_Sum Con5_Sum Con6_Sum Con7_Sum; Usevariables are PreID F1 F70; Categorical are F1 F70; Cluster PreID; missing are all ( 9); Analysis: Type = complex; Estimator is WLSMV; Iterations = 1000; Convergence = 0.00005; DIFFTEST=HO .7F.dat ; Model : Relationship by F1* F2 F9; Environment by F10* F11 F20; Teaching by F21* F22 F53; CB by F54* F55 F63; Family by F64* F65 F70; Relationship@1; Environment@1; Teaching@1; CB@1; Family@1; Output: sampstat; MOD (3.84); stdyx; tech4; */An example of SPSS s yntax to estimate latent variable subscale; RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 /SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA /SUMMARY=TOTAL. RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19 F20

PAGE 282

282 /SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA /SUMMARY=TOTAL. RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=F21 F22 F23 F24 F25 F26 F27 F28 F29 F30 F31 F32 F33 F34 F35 /SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA /SUMMARY=TOTAL. RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=F36 F37 F38 F39 F40 F41 F42 F43 F44 F45 F46 F47 F48 F49 F50 F51 F52 F53 /SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA /SUMMARY=TOTAL. RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=F54 F55 F56 F57 F58 /SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA /SUMMARY=TOTAL. RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=F59 F60 F61 F62 F63 /SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA /SUMMARY=TOTAL. RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=F64 F65 F66 F67 F68 F69 F70 /SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA /SUMMARY =TOTAL. Syntax to address research question 2 */SPSS syntax to c ompute average composite scores for each latent variable subscale; COMPUTE Mrelationships=MEAN(F1,F2,F3,F4,F5,F6,F7,F8,F9). EXECUTE. COMPUTE Menvironment=MEAN(F10,F11,F12,F13, F14,F15,F16,F17,F18,F19,F20). EXECUTE. COMPUTE MSETeachingContent=MEAN(F21,F22,F23,F24,F25,F26,F27,F28,F29,F30,F31,F32,F33,F34,F35). EXECUTE. COMPUTE MSETeachingStrategies=MEAN(F36,F37,F38,F39,F40,F41,F42,F43,F44,F45,F46,F47,F48,F49,F50,F 51, F52,F53). EXECUTE. COMPUTE MresponseCB=MEAN(F54,F55,F56,F57,F58).

PAGE 283

283 EXECUTE. COMPUTE MinterventionCB=MEAN(F59,F60,F61,F62,F63). EXECUTE. COMPUTE Mfamily=MEAN(F64,F65,F66,F67,F68,F69,F70). EXECUTE. COMPUTE McRelationships=MEAN(C 1,C2,C3,C4,C5,C6,C7,C8,C9). EXECUTE. COMPUTE McEnvironment=MEAN(C10,C11,C12,C13,C14,C15,C16,C17,C18,C19,C20). EXECUTE. COMPUTE McSETeachingContent=MEAN(C21,C22,C23,C24,C25,C26,C27,C28,C29,C30,C31,C32,C33,C34,C35). EXECUTE. COMPUTE M cSETeachingStrategies=MEAN(C36,C37,C38,C39,C40,C41,C42,C43,C44,C45,C46,C47,C48,C49,C50, C51,C52,C53). EXECUTE. COMPUTE McResponseCB=MEAN(C54,C55,C56,C57,C58). EXECUTE. COMPUTE McInterventionCB=MEAN(C59,C60,C61,C62,C63). EXECUTE. COM PUTE McFamily=MEAN(C64,C65,C66,C67,C68,C69,C70). EXECUTE. */SPSS syntax to conduct descriptive analyses; DESCRIPTIVES VARIABLES=Trelationships Tenvironment TSETeachingContent TSETeachingStrategies TresponseCB TinterventionCB Tfamily TcRelati onships TcEnvironment TcSETeachingContent TcSETeachingStrategies TcResponseCB TcInterventionCB TcFamily Mrelationships Menvironment MSETeachingContent MSETeachingStrategies MresponseCB MinterventionCB Mfamily McRelationships McEnvironment McSETeachingContent McSETeachingStrategies McResponseCB McInterventionCB McFamily /STATISTICS=MEAN STDDEV VARIANCE RANGE MIN MAX. */SPSS syntax to conduct correlational analyses; CORRELATIONS /VARIABLES=Mrelationships McRelationships /PRINT=T WOTAIL NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE. CORRELATIONS /VARIABLES=Menvironment McEnvironment /PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE.

PAGE 284

284 CORRELATIONS /VARIABLES=MSETeachingContent McSETeachingContent /PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE. CORRELATIONS /VARIABLES=MSETeachingStrategies McSETeachingStrategies /PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE. CORRELATIONS /VARIABLES=MresponseCB McResponseCB /PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE. CORRELATIONS /VARIABLES=Minterv entionCB McInterventionCB /PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE. CORRELATIONS /VARIABLES=Mfamily McFamily /PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE. Syntax to address research question 3 */An example of M plus syntax to conduct uncondit ional model; T itle: Unconditional Model for How Often section _Factor 1 Data : file is "M: \ Dissertation Data_7.24.dat"; Variable : names= ID PreID F1 F70 C1 C70 CITY REGION TYPE QUA ROLE TITLE EDU MAJOR CERT TEACH WORK CURRI AGE NUMt NUMc RATIO SPEN CB S UPPORT QUA_good QUA_NR ROLE_AT ROLE_oth EDU_B EDU_A AGE_1 AGE_2 AGE_3 AGE_4 FE1_Sum FE2_Sum FE3_Sum FE4_Sum FE5_Sum FE6_Sum FE7_Sum Con1_Sum Con2_Sum Con3_Sum Con4_Sum Con5_Sum Con6_Sum Con7_Sum; usevar = PreID FE1_Sum; cluster = PreID; missing are all ( 9 ); within = ; between = ; A nalysis: type = twolevel random; estimator = ml; M odel: %within%

PAGE 285

285 FE1_Sum; %between% FE1_Sum; */ An example of M plus syntax to conduct multilevel model analysis; Title: Multile vel analysis for How Often section _Factor 1 D at a: file is "M: \ Dissertation Data_7.24.dat"; V ariable: names= ID PreID F1 F70 C1 C70 CITY REGION TYPE QUA ROLE TITLE EDU MAJOR CERT TEACH WORK CURRI AGE NUMt NUMc RATIO SPEN CB SUPPORT QUA_good QUA_NR ROLE_AT ROLE_oth EDU_B EDU_A AGE_1 AGE_2 AGE_3 AGE_4 FE 1_Sum FE2_Sum FE3_Sum FE4_Sum FE5_Sum FE6_Sum FE7_Sum Con1_Sum Con2_Sum Con3_Sum Con4_ Sum Con5_Sum Con6_Sum Con7_Sum; usevar = PreID CITY REGION TYPE TITLE MAJOR CERT TEACH CURRI RATIO SPEN CB QUA_good QUA_NR ROLE_AT ROLE_oth EDU_B EDU_A A GE_1 AGE_2 AGE_3 AGE_4 FE1_Sum; cluster = PreID; missing are all ( 9); within = ROLE_AT ROLE_oth TITLE EDU_B EDU_A MAJOR CERT TEACH CURRI RATIO S PEN CB AGE_1 AGE_2 AGE_3 AGE_4; between = CITY REGION TYPE QUA_good QUA_NR; D efine: Center TEACH RATIO(GRANDMEAN); A nalysis: t ype = twolevel random; estimator = ml; M odel: %within% FE1_Sum on ROLE_AT ROLE_oth TITLE EDU_B EDU_A MAJOR CERT TEACH CURRI RATIO SPEN CB AGE_1 AGE_2 AGE_3 AGE_4; %between% FE1_Sum on CITY REGION TYPE QUA_good QUA_NR; Syntax to address research question 4 */ An example of SPSS syntax to conduct the chi square test of association; CROSSTABS /TABLES=TypeofSupport BY ProfessionalTitle /FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES /STATISTICS=CHISQ CC PHI /CELLS=COUNT EXPECTED COLUMN SRESID /COUNT ROUND CELL.

PAGE 286

286 */ An example of SPSS syntax to conduct the Fisher Freeman Halton exact test ; CROSSTABS /TABLES=TypeofSupport BY EducationalLevel /FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES /STATISTICS=CHISQ CC PHI /CELLS=COUNT EXPECTED COLUMN SRES ID /COUNT ROUND CELL. CROSSTABS /TABLES=TypeofSupport BY EducationalLevel /FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES /STATISTICS=CHISQ CC PHI /CELLS=COUNT EXPECTED COLUMN SRESID /COUNT ROUND CELL /METHOD=EXACT TIMER(30). CROSSTABS /TABLES=TypeofS upport BY EducationalLevel /FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES /STATISTICS=CHISQ CC PHI /CELLS=COUNT EXPECTED COLUMN SRESID /COUNT ROUND CELL /METHOD=MC CIN(99) SAMPLES(10000). */An example of SPSS syntax to conduct the test of normality ; EXAMINE V ARIABLES=ChildTeacherRatio /PLOT BOXPLOT STEMLEAF HISTOGRAM NPPLOT /COMPARE GROUPS /STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES EXTREME /CINTERVAL 95 /MISSING LISTWISE /NOTOTAL. */An example of SPSS syntax to conduct the Kruskal Wallis test; *Nonparamet ric Tests: Independent Samples. NPTESTS /INDEPENDENT TEST (ChildTeacherRatio) GROUP (TypeofSupport) KRUSKAL_WALLIS(COMPARE=PAIRWISE) /MISSING SCOPE=ANALYSIS USERMISSING=EXCLUDE /C RITERIA ALPHA=0.05 CILEVEL=95. NPAR TESTS /K W=ChildTeacher Ratio BY TypeofSupport(1 6) /STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES QUARTILES /MISSING ANALYSIS.

PAGE 287

287 REFERENCES (All references with are articles included in the literature review described in Chapter 2) Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. (1983). Manual for the Ch ild Behavior Checklist and Revised Behavior Profile Burlington, VT: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry. Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2000). Manual for the ASEBA Preschool Forms and Profiles: An integrated system of multi informant as sessment. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological t esting Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Artman Meeker, K. M., & Hemmeter, M. L. (2013). Effects of training and feedback on Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 33 112 1 23. doi:10.1177/0271121412447115 Beatty, P. C., & Willis, G. B. (2007). Research synthesis: The practice of cognitive interviewing. Public Opinion Quarterly 71 287 311. doi:10.1093/poq/nfm006 Beijing Municipal Commission of Education (1996). Beijing Pr eschool Standards Retrieved from http://www.mtg.bjedu.cn/mtgedu/zcfg/webinfo/2011/03/1300688622015812.htm Beijing Statistics Bureau (2017). 2016 [ Statistical c ommuniqu of Beijing on the 2016 economic and social development ] Retrieved from http://zhengwu.beijing.gov.cn/gzdt/bmdt/t1469683.htm?from=timeline Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. P sychological Bulletin 107 238 246. doi:10.1037/0033 2909.107.2.238 Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin 88 588 606. doi:10.1037/0033 2909.88.3.5 88 Bauermeister, J. A., Pingel, E., Zimmerman, M., Couper, M., Carballo Diguez, A., & Strecher, V. J. (2012). Data quality in HIV/AIDS web based surveys: Handling invalid and suspicious data. Field Methods 24 272 291. doi:10.1177/1525822X12443097

PAGE 288

288 *Bi H., & Li, Z. (2014). [Promoting autonomy of young children: An experimental study]. New Education Era, 17, 5. Blau, D. M. (2000). The production of quality i n child care centers: Another look. Applied Developmental Science, 4 136 148. doi:10.1207/ S1532480XADS04033 Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (1993). Introduction. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds ) Testing structural equation models (pp.1 9), Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Bourque, L. B., & Fielder, E. P. (2003). How to conduct s elf administered and mail surveys (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. perceived needs: Development and validation of the 34 item Supportive Care Needs Survey (SCNS SF34). Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 15 602 606. doi: 10.1111/j.1365 2753.2008.01057.x Brannick, M. T. (1995). Critical comment on applying covariance structure modeling. Journal of Organizational Behavior 16 201 213. doi:1 0.1002/job.4030160303 Brislin, R.W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross cultural p sychology (pp.389 444). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Bryant, F. B., & Satorra, A. (20 12). Principles and practice of scaled difference chi square testing. Structural Equation Modeling 19 372 398. doi:10.1080/10705511.2012.687671 Burchinal, M. R., Cryer, D., Clifford, R. M., & Howes, C. (2002). Caregiver training and classroom quality in child care centers. Applied Developmental Science, 6 2 11. doi:10.1207/S1532480XADS060101 Chan, Y., & Walmsley, R. (1997). Learning and understanding the Kruskal Wallis One Way Analysis of Variance by Ranks Test for differences among three or more inde pendent groups. Physical Therapy 77 1755 1762. doi: 10.1093/ptj/77.12.1755 *Chen, H. (1986). [The effect of short Theory and Practice of Education, 1, 33 38. *Chen, Y (1996). An experimental study of interpersonal cognitive problem solving 5 year Psychological Science, 19 (5), 282 286.

PAGE 289

289 Chen, H., Li, S., & Wang, L. (1997). The effect of training on cognitive de velopment for friendship qualities of 6 year old children. Acta Psychologica Sinia, 2, 137 143. Cheung, F. M., & Cheung, S. (2003). Measuring personality and values across cultures: Imported versus indigenous measures. Online Readings in Psychology and Cu lture, 4 (4), 1 12, doi:10.9707/2307 0919.1042 China Internet Watch Team (2016, January 28). Top 30 Chinese cities by GDP in 2015 Retrieved from https://www. chinainternetwatch.com/16998/primary chinese cities gdp figures 2015/ Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd e d.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Collins, D. (2003). Pretesting survey instruments: An o verview of cognitive methods. Quality of Life Research 12 229 238. doi:10.1023/A:1023254226592 Crocker, L. & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Group. *Dan, F. (2001). [The effect of eduplay on self control ability of young children: An experimental study]. Psychological Science, 24 (5), 616 617. *Dan, F., Yang, L., & Feng, L. (2005). [Promoting self control ability of young children during eduplay: An expe rimental study]. Studies in Preschool Education, 11, 15 17. *Dan, F., Zhao, L., & Gao, Y. (2011). The effect of physical play on social behaviors of children aged 3 6 years: An experimental study. Journal of Shenyang Normal University (Social Science Edit ion), 35 (2), 102 105. Debnam, K. J., Pas, E. T., Bottiani, J., Cash, A. H., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2015). An examination of the association between observed and self reported culturally proficient teaching practices. Psychology in t he Schools 52 533 548. DEC Evidence Synthesis Group (2016a). Conducting evidence reviews for the DEC recommended practices: Guidelines and procedures manual Unpublished manual. DEC Evidence Synthesis Group (2016b). DEC recommended practices evidence syntheses generic coding sheet Unpublished coding sheet. DEC Evidence Synthesis Group (2016c). Coding scheme for group experimental design studies Unpublished coding scheme.

PAGE 290

290 Deng, M., Poon McBrayer, K.F., & Farnsworth, E. B. (2001). The development of special education in China: A sociocultural review. Remedial and Special Education 22 288 298. doi:10.1177/074193250102200504 Denham, S. A., & Burton, R. (2003). Social and emotion al prevention and intervention programming for preschoolers New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press. Department of Development & Planning. (2017 ). 2016 Educational statistics yearbook of China Beijing: China Statistics Press. Department of Basic Educat ion ( ) [Guidance for preschool education: Interpretation]. Nanjing, China: Jiangxu Education Press. DeVellis, R. F. (2012). Scale development: Theory and applications Los Angeles: Sage. Dong, H. (2010). Peer victimization and its relation to from age 3 to 5. Studies in Preschool Education 8 27 32. vior: Perspectives regarding current knowledge. Behavioral Disorders, 32 29 45. Dunlap, G., Wilson, K., Strain, P., & Lee, J. (2013). Prevent teach reinforce for young children: The early childhood model of individualized positive behavior support. Balti more: Paul H. Brookes. Dong, Q., & Xia, Y. (1991). [An overview and analysis of Chinese literature on child development and education research]. Journal of Beijing Normal University (Social Sciences), 1, 17 24. Early, D. M., Brya nt, D. M., Pianta, R. C., Clifford, R. M., Burchinal, M. R., Ritchie, S., to classroom quality and children's academic gains in pre kindergarten? Early Childhood Research Qu arterly 21 174 195. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.04.004 Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. A. (1987). The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin 101 91 119. doi:10.1037/0033 2909.101.1.91 Emmer, E. T., & Hickman, J. (199 1). Teacher efficacy in classroom management and discipline. Educational and Psychological Measurement 51 755 765. doi:10.1177/0013164491513027 Epstein, A. S. (2009). Me, you, us: Social emotional learning in preschool Ypsilanti, MI: HighScope Press.

PAGE 291

291 E rden, F. T., & Sonmez, S. (2011). Study of Turkish preschool teachers' attitudes toward science teaching. International Journal of Science Education 33 1149 1168. doi:10.1080/09500693.2010.511295 Fantuzzo, J., McWayne, C., Perry, M. A., & Childs, S. (20 04). Multiple dimensions of family involvement and their relations to behavioral and learning competencies for urban, low Income children. School Psychology Review 33 467 480. *Feng, L., & Wang, P. (2012). [Promoting self confidenc e of neglected young children in dramatic play: An experimental study]. Journal of Educational Development, 5, 33 37. Fichman, M., & Cummings, J. N. (2003). Multiple imputation for missing data: Making the most of what you know. Organizational Research Me thods 6 (3), 282 308. doi:10.1177/1094428103255532 Fink, A. (2003). The survey handbook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Fink, A., & Kosecoff, J. (1998). How to conduct surveys: A step by step guide (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Pub lications. Fowler, F. J. (2009). Survey research methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Fox, L., Carta, J., Strain, P. S., Dunlap, G., & Hemmeter, M. L. (2010). Response to intervention and the Pyramid Model Infants & Young Children 23 3 13. doi:10.1097/IYC.0b013e3181c816e2 Fox, L., Hemmeter, M. L., & Snyder, P. (2008, August). Teaching Pyramid Observation Tool for preschool classrooms: Research version (Unpublished instrument and manual). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University. Fox L., Hemmeter, M. L., Snyder, P., Binder, D. P., & Clarke, S. (2011). Coaching early childhood special educators to implement a comprehensive model for promoting young children's social competence. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 31, 178 192. doi:10.1177/0271121411404440 George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1990 ). Social skills rating system: Manual Circl e Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Groves, R. M., Fowler, F. J., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R. (2004). Survey methodology Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

PAGE 292

292 *Guan, B., Yang, Z., & Zhang, M. (2013). Influence of situation al sport games on 5 6 Journal of Shenyang Sport University, 32 (1), 37 41. GZJTZ. (1993). [ Patriotic education on young children: An experimental study ] Journal of Educational Development, 11 43 47. Goldstein, H. (2002). Communication intervention for children with autism: A review of treatment efficacy. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders 32 373 396. Guillemin, F., Bombardier, C., & Beaton, D. (1993). Cross cultural adaptation of hea lth related quality of life measures: Literature review and proposed guidelines. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 46 1417 1432. *Han, Y., Li, Y., & Zhou, K. (2008). A psychological research on cultivating sympathy of preschoolers. Studies in Preschool E ducation, 10, 31 33. Han, Y., Zhang, Y., & Yang, X. (2015). Analysis on the differences of preschool education development in western China from the perspective of balanced urban and rural areas development: Taking Chongqing city as an example. Open Journ al of Social Sciences, 4, 115 121. He, L., & Zhang, L. (2014). : [Response to intervention: A new model of early childhood inclusion in the United States]. Journal of Soochow University (Educational Science Edition), 4 111 118. He, M. (2015). [A literature review of social development in children]. Modern Education Science, 2, 23 26. Heck, R. H., & Thomas, S. L. (2009). An introduction to multilevel modeling techniques New York, NY: Routledge. Hemmeter, M. L., Fox, L., & Snyder, P. (2014). Teaching pyram id observation tool for preschool classrooms (TPOT TM ): Research edition manual Baltimore: Brookes. Hemmeter, M. L., Ostrosky, M., & Fox, L. (2006). Social and emotional foundations for early learning: A conceptual model for intervention School Psycholo gy Review, 35, 583 601. Hemmeter, M. L., Santos, R. M., & Ostrosky, M. M. (2008). Preparing early childhood educators to address young children's social emotional development and challenging behavior: A survey of higher education programs in nine states. Journal o f Early Intervention 30 321 340. doi:10.1177/1053815108320900

PAGE 293

293 Hemmeter, M.L., Snyder, P., Fox, L., & Algina, J. (2016). Evaluating the implementation of the Pyramid Model for promoting social emotional competence in early childhood classrooms. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 36, 133 146. doi:10.1177/0271121416653386 Heo, K. H., Cheatham, G. A., Hemmeter, M. L., & Noh, J. (2014). Korean early to addres emotional competence. Journal of Early Intervention 36 49 66. doi:10.1177/1053815114557280 Hibberts, M., Johnson, R. B., & Hudson, K. (2012). Common survey sampling techniques. In L. Gideon (Ed.), Handbook of survey methodology for the social sciences (pp. 53 74). New York: Springer. Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 2 (1), 104 121. Holzberger, D., Philipp, A., & Kunter, M. efficacy is related to instructional quality: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology 105 774 786. doi:10.1037/a0032198 Hong, X., & Jiang, L. (2015). Review and analysis on social development and education o f early childhood: Based on the literature of year 2011 to 2013. Early Childhood Education (Educational Sciences), 10, 8 12. Hong, X., Liu, P., Ma, Q., & Luo, X. (2015). The way to early childhood education equity: Policies to tackle the urban rural dispa rities in China. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 9 (5) 1 23 doi:10.1186/s40723 015 0008 9 Horn, C., Snyder, B. P., Coverdale, J. H., Louie, A. K., & Roberts, L. W., (2009). Educational research questions and study design. Acade mic Psychiatry, 33 261 267. doi: 10.1176/appi.ap.33.3.261 Hox, J. J., De Leeuw, E. D., & Dillman, D. A. (2008). The cornerstones of survey research. In E. D., De Leeuw, J. J. Hox, & D. A. Dillman (Eds ), International handbook of survey methodology (pp. 1 17). New York, NY: Psychology P ress. Hu, B. (2015). Comparing cultural differences in two quality measures in Chinese kindergartens: T he Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale Revised and the Kindergarten Quality Rating System. Compare: A Journal of C omparative & International Education 45 94 117. Hu, B., & Cao, S. (2011). A review of social emotional teaching strategies for preschool children in America. Early Childhood Education (Educational Sciences), 7 84 87.

PAGE 294

294 Hu, B., Chen, L., & Fan, X. (2017) Profiles of teacher child interaction quality in Educational Psychology Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2017.1328488 Hu, B., Fan, X., Wu, Y., & Yang, N. (2017). Are structural quality indicators associated with preschool process quality in China? An exploration of threshold effects. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 40, 163 173. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2017.03.006 Hu, B., Fan, X., Yang, Y., & Neitzel, J. (2017). Chine se preschool teachers' knowledge and practice of teacher child interactions: The mediating role of teachers' beliefs about children. Teaching and Teacher Education 63, 137 147. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2016.12.014 Hu, B., Roberts, S. K., Wang, Y., Zhao, H. (20 11). The initiation of early childhood inclusion in china: A case study from Beijing. International Journal of Early Years Education, 19 (2), 111 131. doi:10.1080/09669760.2011.59639 Hu, B., & Szente, J. (2009). Exploring the quality of early childhood ed ucation in China: Implications for early childhood teacher education. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 30 247 262. doi:10.1080/10901020903084330 Hu, B. Wu, H. P., Su, X. Y., & Roberts, S. K. (2017). An examination of Chinese preservice and importance and feasibility of the implementation of key characteristics of quality inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education 21 (2), 187 204. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff cri teria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling 6 (1), 1 55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 Hu, X., & Yang, X. (2013). Early intervention practices in China: Present situat ion and future directions. Infants & Young Children 26 4 16. doi:10.1097/IYC.0b013e3182736cd3 Ji, J. (2011). On problems in Chinese kindergarten social education practice and solutions. Early Childhood Education (Educational Sciences), 7, 14 19. Ji, J. (2012). On the content of social area teaching activities in the kindergarten. Studies in Preschool Education, 3, 42 47. recent years. The Guide of Science & Education, 9, 136 138.

PAGE 295

295 Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International Inc. *Ju, Y. (1991). 5 6 [The effect of empathy training on prosocial behavior in 5 to 6 year old children: An exper imental study]. Educational Science Research, 6, 20 26. confidence development. The Guide of Science & Education, 4, 145 146. Kang, J., & Liu, J. (2014). [A case study on a child with emotional disorder]. [Forum on Education and Teaching], 5, 257 258. *Kang, D., & Wang, Y. (1996). [An experimental study Studies in Preschool Educat ion 5, 32 35. Kim, Y. H., Stormont, M., & Espinosa, L. (2009). Contributing factors to South Korean early childhood educators' strategies for addressing children's challenging behaviors. Journal of Early Intervention 31 227 249. doi:10.1177/10538151093 38946 Kline, P. (2000). The handbook of psychological testing (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Time, 10 Retrieved from http://healthland.time.com/2013/01/10/little empero rs/ *Kong, Y. (2006). [Modification of sociometric status with neglected young children]. [Psychological Health Education in Elementary and Secondary Schools], 6, 16 19. Konstan, J. A., Rosser, B. S., Ross, M. W., Stanton, J., & Edwards, W. M. (2005). The story of subject naught: A cautionary but optimistic tale of internet survey research. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 10 (2). doi: 10.1111/j.1083 6101.2005.tb00248.x Kruskal, W. H., & Wallis, W. A. (1952). Use of ran ks in one criterion variance analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association 47, 583 621. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1952.10483441 Lai, M. H. C., & Kwok, Q. (2015). Examining the rule of thumb of not using multilevel Journal of Experimental Education, 83 423 438. doi: 10.1080/00220973.2014.907229

PAGE 296

296 Lam, L. L., & Wong, E. W (2017). Enhancing social emotional well being in young children through improving teachers' social emotional competence and cu rriculum design in Hong Kong. International Journal of Child Care & Education Policy 11 (1), 1 14. doi:10.1186/s40723 017 0031 0 school years: A meta analytic review. Re view of Educational Research, 70 443 484. Lehtonen, R., & Pahkinen, E. (2004). Practical m ethods for d esign and a nalysis of c omplex s urveys ( 2 nd e d .) Chichester UK : John Wiley and Sons. Leung, C. (2011). An experimental study of eduplay and social co mpetence among preschool students in Hong Kong. Early Child Development and Care, 181 535 548. d oi:10.1080/03004431003611487 *Li, B. (1995). [Empathy and prosocial behavior in young children: An experimental study]. Studies in Preschool Education 1, 32 33. *Li, F. (1994). [The effect of empathy training on prosocial behavior of young children]. Shanghai Research on Education, 10, 45 46. Li, F., & Yao, J. (2010). On influencing factors in correlations between empathy and Journal of Zhejiang Normal University (Social Sciences), 2, 46 51. *Li, F., Ye, W., & Chen, L. (1994). Effect of the training of transference on young Psychological Science, 3, 150 154. Li, H., Rao, N., & Tse, S. K. (2012). Adapting western pedagogies for Chinese literacy instruction: Case studies of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, and Si ngapore preschools. Early Education and Development 23 603 621. doi:10.1080/10409289.2010.536441 Studies in Preschool Education, 2, 11 13. Li, J., & Feng, X. (2013). 3 6 [ Early learning and development guidelines for children 3 6 years old : Interpretation]. Beijing, China: domain. Journal of Early Childho od Education (Educational Sciences), 447 29 33.

PAGE 297

297 Li, T. (2012). 3 6 [Speech at the national 6 Years Old]. Journal of Studies in Preschool Education, 12 4 7. Li, X., Liu, S., DeBey, M., McFadden, K., & Pan, Y. (2016) Investigating Chinese cultural perspective, Early Years Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/09575146.2016.1228615 Li, Y. (2000). [Social development and moral education in children]. Journal of Tianjin Normal University (Elementary Education Edition), 1, 3 7. Li, Y., Coplan, R. J., Wang, Y., Yin, J., Zhu, J., Gao, Z., & Li, L. (2016). Preliminary evaluation of a social skills training and facilitated play early intervention programme for extremely shy young children in China. Infant and Child Development 25 (6), 565 574 doi:10.1002/icd.1959 *Li, Y., Han, Y., & Chen, S. (2013). Survey on the influence of empathy training on Studies in Preschool Education 2, 43 47. *Li, Y., & Wang, X. (1996). [Effect of role playing on helping behavior in young children: An experimental Study]. Journal of Tianjin Normal University (Social Science), 5, 26 29. *Li, Y., & Zhou, K. (2010). A research on cultivating sy mpathy and its effects on prosocial behaviors of preschoolers. Psychological Science, 2, 341 345. Li, Z., & Yang, W. (2007). A case study on child situations. Chinese Journal of Studies in Preschool Education, 149 40 4 2. *Lin, Q. (1996). [Social play and development of social skills in young children]. Shanghai Research on Education, 99 (3), 46 48. *Lin, X. (2001). [Preschool environmental education in Xiamen: An experimental study]. Journal of Xiamen Ed ucational College, 3, 18 25. (Eds.), Early childhood education: An international encyclopedia (Vol. 4, pp. 999 1001). Westport, CT: Praeger. Liu, J., Cheng, H., & Leun g, P.W. (2011). The application of the preschool child behavior checklist and the caregiver teacher report form to mainland Chinese

PAGE 298

298 children: Syndrome structure, gender differences, country effects, and inter information agreement, Journal of Abnormal Chil d Psychology, 39 251 265. doi: 10.1007/s10802 010 9452 8 Liu, M. (2012). A review of Chinese inclusive preschool education in recent years. Chinese Journal of Chongqing University of Arts and Sciences (Social Sciences Edition), 31 (4), 153 157. *Liu, S Journal of Henan Institute of Education (Philosophy and Social Sciences), 3, 52 54. soc ial education in China. Educational Research, 2, 100 105. Liu, Y., & Pan, Y. (2013). A review and analysis of the current policy on early childhood education in mainland China. International Journal of Early Years Education, 21, 141 151. Doi: 10.1080/0966 9760.2013.832947 Lomax, R.G., & Hahs Vaughn, D.L. (2012). An introduction to statistical concepts (3rd. ed.). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. relationship. Chinese Jou rnal of Special Education, 101 (11), 69 75. *Lu, L., Qi, X., & Wang, H. (1987). [Promoting self confidence in young children: An experimental study]. Early Childhood Education, 9, 13 16. *Lu, Z., & Huo, X. (2004). A study of the influences capacity for cooperation. Educational Research, 11, 52 56. Model practices in mainland China: A pilot study. Infants & Young Childr en, 30 221 237. Lydersen, S., Pradhan, V., Senchaudhuri, P., & Laake, P. (2007). Choice of test for association in small sample unordered r x c tables. Statistics in Medicine, 26 4328 4343. Mao, Y., & Zuo, X. (2009). Analyses and suggestions on the sta tue of demonstrative preschools for children with disabilities in Beijing Paper presented at the Retrieved from http://edu.wanfangdata.com.cn/Conference/Detail/7271698

PAGE 299

299 Marcon, R. A. (1999). Positive relationships between parent school involvement and public school inner School Psychology Review 28 395 412. Marsh, H. W., Balla. J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness of fit indices in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103 391 410. Maxwell, K. L., Feild, C., & Clifford, R. M. (2005). Defining and meas uring professional development in early childhood research. In M. Zaslow & I. Martinez Beck (Eds.), Critical issues in early childhood professional development (pp. 21 48). Baltimore: Brookes Publishing. McClelland, M. M., & Morrison, F. J. (2003). The e mergence of learning related social skills in preschool children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 206 224. doi:10.1016/S0885 2006(03)00026 7 McClelland, M. M., Morrison, F. J., & Holmes, D. L. (2000). Children at risk for early academic problems: The role of learning related social skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15 307 329. doi:10.1016/S0885 2006(00)00069 7 McHorney, C. A., Bricker, D. E., Robbins, J., Kramer, A. E., Rosenbek, J. C., & Chignell, K. A. (2000). The SWAL QOL outcomes to ol for oropharyngeal dysphagia in adults: II. Item reduction and preliminary scaling. Dysphagia, 15 122 133. doi:10.1007/s004550010013 McMullen, M., Elicker, J., Wang, J., Erdiller, Z., Lee, S., Lin, C., & Sun, P. (2005). Comparing beliefs about appropr iate practice among early childhood education and care professionals from the U.S., China, Taiwan, Korea and Turkey. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 20 451 464. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2005.10.005 Mei, W, Zhang, Y., Zhang, H., Liang, X., Ye, H., Kuang, 4 5 [ Problem behaviors of children aged 4 to 5 in Zhuhai]. Chinese Journal of Child Health Care 11 (4) 273 274. *Mei, X. (2006). [A case study on promoting social emotional development of young childre n]. [Forum on Education and Teaching], 2 46 47. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 13 103). New York, NY: American Council on Education & Macmillan. Miedel, W. T., & Reynolds, A. J. (1999). Parent inv olvement in early intervention for disadvantaged children: Does it matter? Journal of School Psychology 37 379 402. doi:10.1016/S0022 4405(99)00023 0

PAGE 300

300 Ministry of Education. (2001). Guidance for preschool e children 3 6 years old. Retrieved from http://www.moe.edu.cn/publicfiles/busi ness/htmlfiles/moe/s3327/201210/143254. html Ministry of Education (2015). Preschool p rincipal q ualifications. Retrieved from http://www.moe.edu.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/s7148/201501/183350. html Ministry of Education. (2016). Preschool w ork r egulations and p rocedures Retrieve d from http://www.moe.edu.cn/srcsite/A02/s5911/moe_621/201602/t20160229_231184. html Ministry on Human Resources and Social Secu rity. (2015). Guidance on the r eform of e lementary and m iddle s chool t p rofessional t itles Retrieved from http://www.mohrss.gov.cn/SYrlzyhshbzb/ldbk/rencaiduiwujianshe/zhuanyejishure nyuan/201509/t20150902_219575.htm Mohamed, A. H., & Al Qaryouti, I. A. (2016). The association between preschool Early Child Development & Care 186 1972 1982. doi:10.1080/03004430.2016.1146260 Muthn, L. K., & Muthn, B. O. (1998 2017). Mpl (8 th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthn & Muthn. modeling. Sociological Methodology, 25 267 316. Mou, Q. (2014). [The effect of empathy traini ng on sharing behavior of young children]. Early Education, 3, 21 27. National Bureau of Statistics (2006). [The urban rural classification in statistics]. Retrieved from http:// www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/tjbz/tjyqhdmhcxhfdm/ p rotection of d isabled p ersons Retrieved from http://www.gov.cn/banshi/200508/04/content_20235.htm

PAGE 301

301 National Research Council. (2008) Early childhood assessment: Why, what, and how Washington, DC: National Academies Press. ISBN 13:978 0 309 12465 2 National Bureau of Statistics of China. (2011). [The eastern, central, western, and northeast regions in China]. Retrieved from http://www.stats.gov.cn/ztjc/zthd/sjtjr/dejtjkfr/tjkp/201106/t20110613_71947.htm Ningbo Municipal Statistics Bureau (2017a). [Statistical c ommun iqu of Ningbo on the 2016 economic and social development] Retrieved from http://gtob.ningbo.gov.cn/art/2017/2/21/art_249_790520.html Ningbo Municipal Statistics Bureau (2017 b ). 2016 2017 [Preschool education in Ningbo] Retrieved from http ://www.nbedu.gov.cn/zwgk/article/show_article.asp?ArticleID=51855 Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author. Odom, S. L., McConnell, S. R., & Brown, W. H. (2008). Social competence of children: Co nceptualizations, assessment, and influences. In W. H. Brown, S. L. Odom, & S. R. McConnell (Eds.), Social competence of young children: Risk, disability, and evidence based practices (2nd ed., pp. 3 29). Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Padilla, J., & Bentez, I. (2014). Validity evidence based on response processes. Psicothema 26 136 144. Pan, Y., Liu, Y., & Lau, E. Y. H. (2010). Evaluation of the kindergarten quality rating system in Beijing. Early Education and Development, 21 186 204. doi: 10.1080/10409281 003631134 *Pang, L. (1992). [The effect of training on sociometric status of neglected young children]. Psychological Development and Education, 2, 8 13. *Pang, L. (1993). [The effect of training on sociometric status of rejected young children]. Psychological Development and Education, 1, 23 29. Pang, L. (2009). Three decades of reform in education in China: Early c hildhood e ducation Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press. Phillipsen, L. C., Burchinal, M. R., Howes, C., & Cryer, D (1997). The prediction of process quality from structural features of child care. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12 281 303. doi:10.1016/S0885 2006(97)90004 1

PAGE 302

302 Prince, S. A., Adamo, K. B., Hamel, M. E., Hardt, J., Gorber, S., & Tremblay, M. (2008). A comparison of direct versus self report measures for assessing physical activity in adults: A systematic review. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 56 556 579 doi: 10.1186/1479 5868 5 56 *Quan, H., & Ma, C. (2014). Th cooperative behavior. Journal of Physical Education, 2, 95 98. *Quan, H., Zhang, J., & Zhang, Y. (2014). Promoting role of situation priming sports games on altruistic behavior of 4 to 6 years old young children. Journal of Shenyang Sport University, 4, 7 12. R Development Core Team (2012). R: A language and environment for statistical computing Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. ISBN 3 900051 07 0, http://www.R project.org / Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (1986). A hierarchical model for studying school effects. Sociology of Education 59 1 17 Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd. ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2011). Introduction to psychometric theory New York: Taylor and Franci s Group. Rea, L. M., & Parker, R. A. (2014). Designing and conducting survey research: A comprehensive guide (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. Reckase, M. (2009). Multidimensional item response theory New York: Springer. Rhoades, B. L., Warren, H. K., Domitrovich, C. E., & Greenberg, M. T. (2011). Examining the link between preschool social emotional competence and first grade academic achievement: The role of attention skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 26 182 191. doi:10.1016 /j.ecresq.2010.07.003 Richman, M. B. (1987). Rotation of principal components: A reply. Journal of Climatology, 7 511 520. doi:10.1002/joc.3370070507 Roth, P. L. (1994). Missing data: A conceptual review for applied psychologists. Personnel Psychology 47 537 560. doi:10.1111/j.1744 6570.1994.tb01736.x Schopler, E., Reichler, R. J., DeVellis, R. F., & Daly, K. (1980). Toward objective classification of childhood autism: Childhood Autism Rating Scale (CARS). Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 10 91 103. doi:10.1007/BF02408436

PAGE 303

303 *Shang, Y. (2008). [Using cooperative games to improve cooperative competence of young children: A reversal design study]. Journal of Hotan Teachers College, 51 (1), 78 79. *Shen, X. (2015). [The effect of empathy education on sharing behavior of young children: An experimental study]. New 4 5. Shonkoff, J. P., & Phillips, D. A. (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Singh, K., Junnarkar, M., & Kaur, J. (2016). Measures of positive psychology: Development and validation India: Springer. Slot, P. L., Leseman, P. P., Verhagen, J., & Mulder, H. (2015). Associations between str uctural quality aspects and process quality in Dutch early childhood education and care settings. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 33, 64 76. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.06.001 Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (2012). Multilevel analysis: An introduct ion to basic and advanced multilevel modeling (2nd ed.). London: Sage. Snyder, P., Hemmeter, M. L., & Fox, L. (2015). Supporting implementation of evidence based practices through practice based coaching. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 35 133 143. doi:10.1177/0271121415594925 Snyder, P., Hemmeter, M. L., McLean, M. E., Sandall, S. R., & McLaughlin, T. (2013). Embedded instruction to support early learning in response to intervention frameworks. In V. Buysse & E. S. Peisner Feinberg (Eds.) Handbook of response to intervention in early childhood (pp. 383 3 98) Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Snyder, P., & Luo, L. (2017). The Social Emotional Teaching Practices Questionnaire China (SETP C) Unpublished instrument. Gainesville, FL: University of F lorida, Anita Zucker Center for Excellence in Early Childhood Studies. Snyder, P., Rakap, S., Hemmeter, M. L., McLaughlin, T. W., Sandall, S., & McLean, M. E. (2015). Naturalistic instructional approaches in early learning: A systematic review. Journal o f Early Intervention 37 (1), 69 97. doi:10.1177/1053815115595461 Song, Z., Zhu, J., Xia, Z., & Wu, X. (2014). The early childhood education of disadvantaged children in China. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. 22, 355 365. Doi: 10.1080/ 1350293X.2014.912898

PAGE 304

304 National Plan for medium and long term education reform and development (2010 2020) Retrieved from http://www.gov.cn/jrzg/2010 07/29/content_1667143.htm Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural mo del evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25 173 180. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr2502_4 *Sui, L., Wang, M., & Yao, L. (2010). Interpersonal cognitive problem solving skills training of preschoolers with different sociometric status. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 4, 535 538. *Sun, J. (2008). [The treatment of social withdrawal in young children: A multiple baseline design study]. The Science Education Article Collects, 10, 31. Sun, L., & Hu, Y. (2015). Kindergarten permeation education in social field imple mentation. Journal of Liaoning Normal University (Social Science Edition), 6, 802 806. Sun, Y., Jin, F., He, M., Shen, Y., & Yang, L. (2015). Games training improves self control ability in preschool children: Evidences from ERP. Journal of Psychological Science, 38 (5), 1109 1115. *Tan, X., Lu, Y., Liu, C., Wu, H., Hu, W., & Li, F. (1999). [Role perceptions and cooperating behavior of young children: An experimental study]. Journal of Guilin College of Education, 1, 75 77. Thompson, B., Diamond, K., McWilliam, R., Snyd er, P., & Snyder, S. (2005). Evaluating the quality of evidence from correlational research for evidence based practice. Exceptional Children, 71, 184 194. doi:10.1177/001440290507100204 Tian, J. (2013). [On kindergarten social curricul um based on the life philosophy] (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://cdmd.cnki.com.cn/Article/CDMD 10542 1013234171.htm Tobin, J., Wu, D., & Davidson, D. (1989). Preschool in three cultures: Japan, China, and the United States. New Haven, CT: Y ale University Press. Torgerson, W. S. (1958). Theory and methods of scaling New York, NY: John Wiley. Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika 38 (1), 1 10. doi:10.1007/BF0229 1170 Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for

PAGE 305

305 organizational research. Organizational Research Methods 3 ( 1), 4 69. doi:10.1177/109442810031 002 van de Vijver, F., & Hambleton, R. K. (1996). Translating tests: some practical guidelines. European Psychologist, 1 (2) 89 99. doi:10.1027/1016 9040.1.2.89 van de Vijver, F., & Tanzer, N. K. (2004). Bias and equivalence in cross cultural assessment : An overview. Revue europenne de psychologie applique, 54 119 135. doi:10.1016/j.erap.2003.12.004 Vaughan, J. (1993). Early childhood education in China. Childhood Education 69 196 198. doi: 10.1080/00094056.1993.10520931 Wang, A., & Zhang, Q. (20 Journal of Anhui University of Technology (Social Sciences), 5, 149 150. Wang, C. C., & Sogin, D. W. (1997). Self reported versus observed classroom activities in elementary general music. Jou rnal of Research in Music Education 45 444 456. doi:10.2307/3345538 self confidence. Education Science, 2, 86 89. Wang, H. (2002). 4 6 [Development of sharing behaviors and its mental mechanism in 4 6 year old children] (Master thesis). Available from Beijing Normal University Dissertations and Theses database. Wang, H. (2006). [An investigation on the special education courses in normal universities and colleges]. Chinese Journal of Special Education, 78, 13 17. Wang, J., Elicker, J., McMullen, M., & Mao, S. (2008). Chinese and American preschool teachers' beliefs about early childhood curriculum. Early Child Development and Care 178 227 249. doi:10.1080/03004430600722671 *Wang, Q. (2012). 4 6 [The effect of dramatic play on peer interaction of young children who are neglected]. Journal of HuBei TV Univeristy, 32 (12), 143 144. *Wang, Q., & Yang, Y. (2001). [Promoting social interaction in young children: An experimental study]. Studies in Preschool Education, 4, 43 45. *Wang, S. (1998). [The effect of TV education on social behavior of young children: An experimental study]. e Education Research, 2, 89 95.

PAGE 306

306 *Wang, Y ., Zhou, L., & Shen, D. (2000). [An experimental Youth & Juvenile Research, 1, 37 38. *Wang, Z., Wang, J., & Chen, H. (2000). The influence of training on rejected and neglected children. Psychological De velopment and Education, 1, 6 11. *Wei, Y., & Li, Y. (2001). The experimental research on the influence of different Journal of Psychological Science, 5, 557 562. Wenz Gross, M., & Upshur, C. (2012 ). Implementing a primary prevention social skills intervention in urban preschools: Factors associated with quality and fidelity. Early Education and Development 23 427 450. doi:10.1080/10409289.2011.589043 Werner, O., & Campbell, D. T. (1970). Transla ting, working through interpreters, and the problem of decentering. In R. Naroll & R. Cohen (Eds.), A handbook of method in cultural anthropology (pp. 398 420). New York: The Natural History Press. Wertheim, C., & Leyser, Y. (2002). Efficacy beliefs, back ground variables, and differentiated instruction of Israeli prospective teachers. The Journal of Educational Research 96 (1), 54 63. doi:10.1080/00220670209598791 Willis, G. B. (2005). Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design Tho usand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Willis, G. B. (2015). Analysis of the cognitive interview in questionnaire design New York: Oxford University Press. Willis, G. B., & Artino, A. R. (2013). What do our respondents think we're asking? Using cognitive interviewing to improve medical education surveys. Journal of Graduate Medical Education 5 353 356. doi:10.4300/JGME D 13 00154.1. *Wu, W. (2001). [A study on social education in young children]. Journal of Liaoning Education Institute, 11, 53 55. Wu, K. B., Young, M. E., & Cai, J. (2012). Early child development in China: Breaking the cycle of poverty and improving future competitive ness Washington DC: World Bank. doi: 10.1596/978 0 8213 9564 6. License: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0 *Xiao, H., & Lin, H. (2002). [ How to promote social interaction in young children: Training on cooperative behavior s of young children]. Journal of Educational Development, 8, 23 24.

PAGE 307

307 Xiao, F., Zheng, Z., & Chen, Y. (2014). Neural basis and effects of empathy on prosocial behaviors. Psychological Development and Education, 2, 208 215. *Xie, F. (2011). A case study on The Science Education Article Collects, 9, 54 55. *Xu, C. (2013). [The effect of eduplay on social withdrawal of preschool children: An experimental study]. Course Education Research, 33, 293. *Xu, D. (1994). [An experimental study on patriotic education for young children]. Jour nal of Educational Development, 12, 41 44. *Xu, Q. (2004). A research report on the development of the third year kindergarten Journal of Yancheng Teachers College (Humanities & Social Sciences), 4, 122 125. Yan, L (2007). [A discussion about popularizing early childhood inclusion in China]. Studies in Preschool Education, 151, 46 52. Yan, L. (2008). Studies in Pr eschool Education, 161, 17 21. *Yang, L., & Jin, F. (2005). [Promoting young Studies in Preschool Education, 6, 22 24. *Yang, L., & Wang, E. (2005). Experiments on how to cultivate chi confidence. Studies in Preschool Education, 4, 22 24. *Yang, L., Xin, X., & Hu, J. (2005). Natural experiments on the development of Studies in Preschool Education, 5, 20 22. *Yang, W., Lei, Y., Chen, K., & Hong, X. (201 4). The experimental research of training by using social theme picture story books to promote the development of Journal of Educational Studies, 6, 87 94. *Yang, X. (1998). [Dramatic play and development of prosocial behavior in young children]. Psychological Development and Education, 2, 8 11. *Yao, J., & Mao, Y. (2011). Researching into the influence of the play therapy acting on the ab ility of communication of autism children. Chinese Journal of Health Psychology, 19 (1), 123 126.

PAGE 308

308 *Ye, P. (2004). A reversal design experiment on the game modification of preschool children's social withdrawal. Psychological Science, 27 (1), 31 33. *Ye, P. (2006). A case study of games intervention to preschoolers' social withdrawal. Studies in Preschool Education, 4, 10 15. Ye, X. (2012). [An investigation of preschool social education in China]. Journal of Changsha Railway University (Social Science), 3, 93 95. Yu. K. (2012). A comparison of the preschool social curriculum goals in China and other countrie s. Studies in Preschool Education, 3, 48 51. Yu, Y. (2000). [ Preschool curriculum: Social] Nanjing, China: Nanjing Normal University Press. Yu, Y. (2007). Early childhood curriculum development in China. In R. Nirmala, J. Zhou, & J. Sun (Ed s.), Early childhood education in Chinese societies (pp. 101 110). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Yu, H., & Liu, G. (2006). [Relations among empathy, moral reasoning, perspective taking, and prosocial behavior: A literature rev iew ]. Psychological Development and Education, 1, 113 116. Yuan, X. (2016). The changes of family planning policy and the balanced development of population in China: From the o ne child policy to the t wo child policy. Population Journal, 2016, 38 (5), 5 14 Yuan, A., & Wang, J. (2008). On the preschool social education objective of China. Journal of Baoding University, 1, 69 73. *Zhang, H. (1998a). Social interaction and altruistic behavior of children aged 2.5 3.5 years: An experimental study. Studies in Preschool Education, 67 (1), 20 23. *Zhang, L. (1998b). [The effect of modeling and empathy on sharing behavior of young children: An experimental study]. Psychological Development and Education, 1, 26 32. *Zhang, L., & Bai, X. (2010) Experimental research on effect of training of cooperative play on cooperation behavior of young children. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 8 (3), 218 222. cooperative cognition and cooperative behavior. Psychological Science, 33 (1), 12 15.

PAGE 309

309 *Zhang, L., & Dai, Q. (1998). [The effect of empathy training on sharing behavior of young children: An experimental study]. Educational Research and Experiment, 1, 55 59. Zhang, L., Fang, H., & Yang, L. (2006). An experimental study of the fostering of esteem via games. Chinese Journal of Applied Psychology, 1, 67 72. Zhang, F., & Yang, F. (2011). [ Early intervention to children with disabilities ] Shanghai, China: East China Normal University Publishing H ouse. *Zhang, Z., & Zeng, B. (2016). Experimental study on picture books to the formation of Journal of Shaanxi Xueqian Normal University, 1, 83 86. Zhao, B. (2011). [An overview of social emotional development res earch in young children]. Chinese Journal of Child Health Care, 12, 1107 1109. Zhao, Y., Wang, L., & Su, Y. (2011). The influence of different discourse contents on the sharing behavior development of 5 to 6 years old children. Studies in Preschool Educ ation, 3, 47 51. *Zhong, C. (2014). [The effect of a picture books reading curriculum on emotional competence of young children: An experimental study]. Chinese & Foreign Entrepreneurs, 3, 123 124. Zhou, N. (2006). [A comparative study on Early Childhood Education (Educational Sciences), 352, 35 37. *Zhou, Q., & Yang, Z. (1995). [The effect of modeling on altruistic beha vior in young children: An experimental study]. Journal of Shaanxi Normal University (Social Science), 24 (1), 156 160. Zhou, Y. (1998). [Problems on preschool social development research in China]. Studies in Preschool Education, 2, 3 7. *Zhu, L., & Hu, J. (2004). [An experimental study on promoting empathy of young children]. Journal of Inner Mongolia Normal University (Educational Science), 8, 114 116. Zhu, J. (2007). : [Should preschool teachers t each: An question that need no discussion]. Journal of Early Childhood Education, 9 4 6.

PAGE 310

310 Zhu, J. (2009). Early childhood education and relative policies in China. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 3 (1), 51 60. doi: 10.1007/2288 67 29 3 1 51 Zhu, J., & Zhang, J. (2008) Contemporary trends and developments in early childhood education in China, Early Years, 28 (2), 173 182, doi: 10.1080/09575140802163584 Zhu, X. (2013). [Approaches in preschool social education]. Education Teaching Forum, 50, 246 247. Zhu, X. (2015). [A study on promoting sharing behavior of young children in dramatic play]. Journal of Inner Mongolia Normal University (Education and Science), 10, 54 56. instructive picture book reading. Studies in Preschool Education, 6, 39 35.

PAGE 311

311 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Li Luo earned her doctor of philosophy degree from the University of Florida in 2017. Her major area of study was special education with a minor in research evaluation and methodology and coursework concentration in early childhood studies. Her primary research interests focus on evi dence based social emotional interventions for young children. During her 5 years in the doctoral program, she worked as a research assistant for two Goal 3 (efficacy) research projects funded by the Institute of Education Sciences, served on the student e ditorial board for the Young Exceptional Children journal, co taught an undergraduate course, and presented at several national and international conferences. Normal University in Beijing Beijing Normal University that year. From 2012 to 2016, she was awarded a scholarship from the C Republic of China to pursue her doctoral studies in the United States. In 2017, she received the University of Florida Graduate School Doctoral Research Award to conduct her doctoral research overseas. To date, she ha s five peer reviewed publications in Chinese and English, contributed chapters in two Chinese early childhood education policy books, and co authored a translated book focus ed on the High Scope Approach. Following the comp letion of her doctoral degree, Li assumed a position as an assistant professor in the College of Preschool Education, Capital Normal University, located in Beijing, China.