Abstract
The field of special education is recognized for conducting research designed to improve the quality of life for the children and families we serve. However, our field has been criticized for empirical approaches that are inconsistent with the values and beliefs we articulate as central to our scientific practice. As such, a shift in our research endeavors is warranted. Given the specific calls within early childhood special education for research programs that consider the marginalized experiences of children and families, we posit five guidelines to reframe social and emotional intervention research in early childhood special education as justice-oriented. These guidelines are (a) understand the historical and immediate context of research participants; (b) incorporate best practices in social and emotional assessment to reduce bias; (c) center children’s and families’ voices in social validity measures; (d) address confounding variables to fidelity of implementation; and (e) examine diversity in research team composition.
The goal of early childhood special education (ECSE) is to support families in addressing challenges that are important to them, including child development and access to high-quality inclusive education. Using practices that are rooted in empiricism, we are committed to ensuring that children and their families receive effective instruction and interventions that promote the best outcomes for our most valued populations (Division for Early Childhood, 2014). Historically, the field has demonstrated a commitment to serve young children with disabilities and their families in the absence of an integrated focus on the inequitable systems in which they live (Blanchard et al., 2021). A social justice-oriented approach to social and emotional research considers child and family well-being within these ecologies and reconceptualizes our empirical practices to account for differential experiences and their predetermined outcomes on the welfare of young children (Iruka, 2020). However, the field continues to grapple with its conscience to ensure that new discoveries in social and emotional science are not held captive by a myopic view of the varied contexts in which children and families thrive. Due to our history of falling short of this goal (Hilliard, 1992), the sustainability of our scientific practices necessitates a recalibration with a specific focus on intervention research as it relates to young children’s social and emotional development.
Social and emotional curricula in early childhood special education is designed to promote the best outcomes in young children’s social and emotional development using practices that are effective for all children, in a variety of settings, and under diverse conditions (see Blewitt et al., 2018, for a review of universal curricula). We define social and emotional development as the developing capacity of the child from birth through five years to form close and secure adult and peer relationships, experience, regulate, and express emotions in socially and culturally appropriate ways, explore their environment, and learn all in the context of family, community, and culture. (Yates et al., 2008, p. 2)
Hence, the goal of social and emotional intervention research is to be responsive to children’s rapid development by addressing their growth often within the context and care of their primary adult figures (e.g., caregivers, teachers, community leaders).
A “justice-oriented” social-emotional approach is a responsive posture that uncovers and seeks to eliminate oppression in our scientific practices. Based on our inherent values within the field of special education, we recommend that our research approaches demonstrate nurture, care, respect, dignity, and worth for all individuals (Council for Exceptional Children, 2020). That is, the scientific methods we employ should seek to promote equity, access, participation, and even liberation (Cokley & Awad, 2013). We aim to focus our discussion on Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) broadly given our collective experience conducting research, teaching, and providing services for children and families within these communities.
Using Empirical Research to Address Inequities in Practice
Decades of research on the suspension and expulsion of young children highlights the disconnect between empirical research on social and emotional intervention and the instruction used in early childhood settings where BIPOC children are served. Despite overwhelming evidence supporting positive outcomes for young children who receive social and emotional instruction and intervention (e.g., Blewitt et al., 2018; Hemmeter et al., 2021, 2016) as many as 8,000 young children were expelled from preschool at least once during the 2011–2012 school year (U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, 2016), and as many as 250 preschoolers are suspended or expelled from school daily (Malik, 2017; Meek et al., 2020). Alarmingly, these young children are disproportionately boys and girls of color who are inherently placed at a disadvantage when educated in low-quality early childhood settings (Blake et al., 2011; Gilliam et al., 2016; Losen et al., 2016; Rashid, 2009; U.S. Department of Education, 2015; U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, 2016). Furthermore, children of color are also overrepresented and underrepresented in special education categories (Harry & Klingner, 2014), often delineated based on the presence or absence of behaviors that are perceived as challenging. These disparities in exclusionary and punitive disciplinary practices are attributed to a variety of issues, including teachers’ poor relationships with children (Gregory et al., 2016; Wymer et al., 2020) and their families (cf. Freedle & Wahman, 2022; Wahman et al., 2022b; Zulauf-McCurdy, & Zinsser, 2022), implicit bias (Gilliam et al., 2016; Okonofua & Eberhardt, 2015), child care directors’ well-being (Clayback & Hemmeter, 2021), and teachers’ lack of knowledge and skill to address externalizing behaviors of concern (Snell et al., 2012). Notably, fundamental to each of these contributing factors is the absence of evidence-based social and emotional interventions implemented within a tiered model of support to meet the contextual needs of all young children (Hemmeter et al., 2021).
Evidence-Based for Whom?
The fundamental principle of our field is that children receive evidence-based intervention supports, accommodations, and modifications that serve as a buffer or protective factor for improving young children’s social and emotional outcomes. Evidence-based practice is the “gold standard” for determining the effectiveness and quality of intervention supports used in early childhood special education. As the framework for implementation science, evidence-based practice is grounded in empirical support to promote positive social and emotional outcomes for children and their families (Odom, 2009). Using science to identify what approaches are effective for whom, and under what conditions, creates a foundation for reducing bias in our practices informed by rigorous research (Cook & Odom, 2013). In addition, the use of rigorous research evidence requires that practices be applied across different contexts, people, and materials—the absence of Black children from our research samples preempts these scientific evaluations (Steed & Kranski, 2020). For these reasons, we posit that the utility of evidence-based interventions is conceptually a type of social justice because the intent is to ensure all children receive high-quality, scientifically proven supports. That is, children receive effective services that are critical to improving their quality of life, including their agency and independence. However, the extent to which these practices are individualized or adapted for children and families from BIPOC communities leads to the development of a science, or evidence, that is insufficient (Graves et al., 2021).
If the continued goal of our intervention research is to guarantee effective instruction for all children, we must reexamine our efforts to ensure that our empiricism is conceptualized within a civil rights framework that drives the equitable implementation of the services that follow. One avenue for addressing inequities in disciplinary practices and disproportionate special education identification is to increase teachers’ capacity to use evidence-based instruction to prevent instances of perceived challenging behaviors while also evaluating the effectiveness of an evidence-based practice for every child. Given the basis of social and emotional learning for young children begins with responsive relationships with educators and caregivers (Hemmeter et al., 2016), differential adult behavior toward children who are BIPOC can prohibit children’s access to supportive environments that promote social and emotional learning. While coaching teachers in effective instruction to increase social and emotional support for young children may ameliorate some inequities (Artman-Meeker et al., 2015), designing social and emotional interventions to align with the contextual fit for the child further enhances the likelihood of equitable implementation and the sustainability of our science. However, a recent review of challenging behavior intervention research, including social and emotional interventions, found less than half of studies investigating these interventions reported the race/ethnicity of children (Steed & Kranski, 2020). Furthermore, Graves and colleagues (2021) examined 16 social and emotional interventions that met the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) standards for effectiveness with and without reservations; authors found that one-third of group interventions did not include Black children or failed to report the race of participants at all (What Works Clearinghouse, 2017).
The lack of use of social and emotional strategies in practice with BIPOC child populations mimic their differential representation seen in our research and fails to account for their unique experiences (Dumas & Ross, 2016). Recent calls for “transformative social and emotional learning” focus on promoting equity and combating the institutional oppression of students of color by incorporating equity, power, privilege, and justice into social and emotional learning (see Jagers et al., 2019, for a comprehensive discussion). However, critical discourse of transformative social and emotional learning designed to support young children is particularly warranted given these discussions only include school-age students. Thus, a renewed focus on equitable social and emotional intervention research where equity and inclusion are central to our exercise in empiricism can provide such an evaluation. Specifically, as intervention researchers in early childhood, we must examine our scientific approaches with a justice-oriented lens, as we advocate for an important group within our society—our young children and their families.
Theoretical Framing: Moving From Functional to an Embodiment of Social Justice
Using Social Determinants of Early Learning (SDoEL) as a framework for understanding educational disparities acknowledges that disparate health outcomes, limited resources, and adverse living conditions among some children and families are associated with poorer outcomes in young children’s development (Iruka, 2020). That is, the social and political systems that exist within the US predetermine the extent to which children and families thrive. An accountability structure within our research system embeds SDoEL throughout its empirical fabric as a guide for designing research protocols, procedures, and practices that acknowledge these disparate contextual features to promote positive social, behavioral, and emotional outcomes in young children. Our current research practices could benefit from a broader understanding of SDoEL as a framework for our empirical exercises.
Traditionally, our social and emotional intervention research has occurred in isolation, apart from a central focus on equity and justice (Jagers et al., 2019; West et al., 2016). If these values are addressed within our empirical work, equity and justice often serve a functional purpose, or act of utility, as opposed to a practice of embodiment. Equity and justice should be an embodied practice within our professional fabric to deepen our relevance and meaning to the populations we study. Here, we define embodiment as “exhibiting the nature of justice” or “engaging as equal partners in justice-oriented practice.” The embodiment of justice is not mutually exclusive from science and must not be perceived as antithetical to empiricism. Specifically, science and justice can co-occur using a “both-and” lens (Stevenson, 2003). As we embrace the multiplicity of these principles, we are more inclusive and tempered in our approach with children and families. Thus, we posit that a more centralized justice-oriented approach in our social and emotional intervention research is necessary. In addition, explicit efforts to establish accountability and maintain an ethical and moral standard of scientific practice, moving from a functional approach to a more embodied practice, is imperative.
Shifting Our Lens: Social and Emotional Intervention Research as Justice
We propose five guidelines to encourage a paradigm shift for creating equitable evidence-based interventions that are inclusive of all young children and their families through an embodiment of justice in social and emotional intervention research. Furthermore, if we are to include a more equitable framing in our development of evidence-based interventions with an understanding of the SDoEL, we argue that we should adhere to the following guidelines in our practices. These guidelines are (1) understand the historical and immediate context of research participants; (2) incorporate best practices in social and emotional assessment to reduce bias; (3) center children’s and families’ voices in social validity measures; (4) address confounding variables to fidelity of implementation; and (5) examine racial/ethnic diversity in research team composition. Please see Table 1 for the list of guidelines and self-reflective questions.
Guidelines for Conducting Justice-Oriented Social-Emotional Intervention Research.
Understand Historical and Immediate Context of Research Participants
Family-centered practices have derived from understanding the context in which children and families thrive (Dunst & Espe-Sherwindt, 2016). Children and families do not exist apart from their natural environments and are, in fact, a product of them. However, intervention research is conducted often in silos void of a deep understanding of the ecological habitat in which children and families live, perpetuating a “one-size-fits-all” approach to intervention design, development, and interpretation. That is, we often singularly apply a social and emotional intervention to a heterogeneous group of children without testing and evaluating its effectiveness for the population studied. In addition, we fail to attend to our inherent goal of social and emotional intervention, which is to improve the quality of life and supports for those children and families who are interested in social interaction, and instead mask characteristics of their identities in an attempt for children to act in accordance with what is considered “typically developing.” These harmful approaches to intervention may be the result of service providers failing to consider families’ positioning at “the intersection of race, culture, language, and disability, which results in them ultimately receiving culturally unresponsive and inappropriate services and interventions” (Blanchett et al., 2009, p. 392). Furthermore, the tools we use within our intervention research in special education are decontextualized and applied in very rigid frameworks without considering historical racism as part of the context in which many Black participants live (Severini et al., 2018). Engaging in an intentional understanding of this contextual history in which young children and families thrive necessitates designing interventions that match the features of their habitat from the bottom up (Nese et al., 2016). Thus, an inflexible approach to intervention implementation without a deep knowledge and understanding of how such practices disempower groups of children and families not only makes our attempts futile but misaligned (Jagers et al., 2019). A bottom-up approach to intervention design considers the contextual fit and the unique features (e.g., values, beliefs, customs, practices, experiences) of a group and designs interventions with these communal characteristics in mind.
Relatedly, while the laws of behavior are not subject to change based on demographic characteristics, we cannot always assume that the effectiveness of a behavioral intervention will be consistent across subgroups of a sample (see Shogren et al., 2018, for a detailed analysis of how culture and identity influence intervention effectiveness). Studies have shown that behavioral interventions implemented with White children were not effective for Black children and warranted an individualized or culturally adapted approach to achieve positive social/emotional/behavioral outcomes for Black children (Graves et al., 2012). Interventions that fail to improve outcomes for children do not mean that children are incapable but rather reflect the lack of cohesion between intervention fit and child characteristics. Thus, a bottom-up approach to intervention research allows us to be more sensitive in our design mechanics to build an intervention with the unique contextual features in mind of children and their families that increases its sustainability over time. Many scholars refer to this approach as “action-research,” which is often criticized for poor theoretical or empirical grounding (Buchanan et al., 2007). However, the intent of a people-first oriented research initiative is to work collaboratively as scientists and community agents to ensure contextual relevance and alignment of a product as shared owners.
WWC has emphasized the importance of addressing the congruence of interventions on individual differences (Kratochwill et al., 2021). That is, determining for whom and under what conditions interventions are most effective and identifying those participants who responded to an intervention and those who did not. However, the incongruence of interventions with Black populations has not been adequately addressed (Graves et al., 2021). Specifically, we need to consider whether an intervention has been designed, tested, and developed with the population the intervention will be used for (Chow et al., 2022; Steinbrenner et al., 2022). The generalization of an intervention can be limited if we do not examine whether an intervention is differentially effective. At the same time, we also cannot assume that there will be differences in a treatment effect across subgroups without empirically testing this assumption as well. In sum, our intent should be to design interventions that are effective for different groups, and this can be achieved through empirical tests that are inclusive of all children.
As we develop and test interventions according to WWC guidelines, a justice-oriented approach considers the children and families for which the intervention is designed. Specifically, a justice-oriented approach identifies the intersectional identities of children and families and considers how historical and immediate inequities influence intervention selection and delivery. Without knowledge of the immediate and historical context of the population studied, the incongruence of interventions used in research, and the individual differences of the populations in which we examine said interventions, creates a disconnect for the validity of our findings. In addition, failure to examine the relevance of interventions across difference can influence its generalizability (Shogren et al., 2018). Thus, we advocate for better representation among research participants and better reporting of participants by researchers, particularly for racial and ethnic groups (Chow et al., 2022; Steinbrenner et al., 2022). For example, in single case design, reporting more comprehensive information about participants allows for a consistent determination about whom the intervention does and does not work for. In addition to the current recommendations for including age, race/ethnicity, and ability levels of child participants (Kratochwill et al., 2021), researchers should consider including qualitative or quantitative data that captures the ecological context in which the social and emotional intervention will be employed. Specifically, a description of children’s strengths, their learning histories, valued cultural or community practices, and children’s relationship to the research context and intervening adults would enhance our understanding of the ecology in which the intervention is employed.
Incorporate Best Practices in Social and Emotional Assessment
A second way to ensure accountability using a justice-oriented approach in intervention research is to consider the impact of assessment outcomes on vulnerable populations. The American Psychological Association (APA) recently released a resolution acknowledging their role in promoting racism, racial discrimination, and privilege in their historical research, which also includes their assessment practices (APA, 2021). In accordance with this recognition, APA has a set of guidelines that include an examination of the social consequences of assessment use that few articles examine empirically (Kane, 1992; Messick, 1995). Social consequences, or consequential validity, refer to the value implications we place on measurement tools (positive or negative) and are important to the validity of test outcomes. For example, when a social and emotional measure is used to identify a subset of children who are of a lower socioeconomic status as having behaviors that are perceived as challenging, it would be important to consider the impact of these test results for this population, how their categorization may impact teachers’ disciplinary practices and responsiveness, and in more extreme circumstances, how assessment results may unintentionally characterize a group of children as “bad.” That is, considering how people may perceive a group of children based on their score meaning is important for consideration. Test scores should not be treated as absolutes because they are an incomplete picture of the whole child. Instead, scores should be used to frame children’s learning and development in the context of their strengths. Furthermore, if tests are used for different racial or cultural groups, it would be important to examine whether the meaning of the scores generalize to these groups, are relevant for the purpose and context of the cultural group, and whether the outcomes of the scores are valued in the same way (Hubley & Zumbo, 2011). These considerations are in alignment with a wider adoption of assessment practices that could support a justice-oriented approach to intervention in special education.
Although not a new recommendation, another important consideration of best practices in social and emotional assessment is using high-quality measurements with strong psychometric properties. Given the increase in diversity in early childhood programs (Park et al., 2018), there is a dire need for better outcome measures overall, including social and emotional measures that are sensitive to unique variations in children’s social and emotional development based on their cultural context, including measures that have been validated in languages other than English (D. G. Halle et al., 2011). In addition, outcome measures that are too discrete can lead to bias. However, if we learn to think broadly about behaviors like social communication, we can reach agreement and cause less harm to children (Ne’eman, 2021). Recognizing the critical importance of this issue, national early childhood organizations have articulated the need to advance the field of social and emotional measurement in early childhood (Darling-Churchill & Lippman, 2016; National Association for the Education of Young Children & National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education, 2003). For example, in a critical review of 75 measures of social and emotional development for young children, only six measures were rated as having strong psychometric properties (e.g., reliability, validity, and norming sample) and four were considered “strong” for the size and diversity of the norming sample (D. G. Halle & Darling-Churchill, 2016). If we are to assume an intervention-as-justice approach to assess young children’s social and emotional outcomes for the purpose of intervention, we must use strong measures in terms of their reliability, validity, and sample considerations while also moving the field forward in developing new social and emotional assessment measures. However, while we recognize that we need to improve our social and emotional measurement tools in the field of early childhood at large, there are a few practices we can incorporate to minimize how we frame narratives about young children and their families
Use of multiple informants
Consistent with best practice, the use of multiple informants enhances the behavioral narrative we communicate about children’s developmental outcomes across a variety of contexts, including an assessment of their possible strengths. Although agreement across informants is generally low (Graves et al., 2012), multiple informants can provide insight into children’s social and emotional development across varied contexts and in the context of different relationships (e.g., siblings, peers, neighbors). These data are important to paint a more holistic picture of a child’s development as opposed to a single data point that may isolate a child’s capabilities to a particular space and time. Furthermore, the use of multiple informants is important given that social and emotional development is a category in which professional judgments are used and are not exempt from bias (Fish, 2019).
The most common reporters of children’s social and emotional competence are their teachers and primary caregivers (Barton & Fettig, 2013). Although early childhood teachers have shown they can make reliable judgments about young children’s behavior (D. G. Halle et al., 2011), teachers tend to rate (a) children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds as having higher rates of challenging behavior and (b) males as demonstrating more externalizing behaviors than females (Graves et al., 2012). Furthermore, recent research has shown that teachers’ cumulative stress is associated with more negative perceptions of children’s developmental outcomes, including their behavioral development (Jeon et al., 2019). However, use of multiple informants can potentially counter the single narrative that is pervasive in our literature when describing young children with perceived challenging behaviors.
Use of multiple informants is not without its challenges and levels of disagreement are to be expected. Few techniques exist that provide direction on how to handle these discrepancies in reporting among informants (e.g., teachers, caregivers, related service personnel), including researchers. Particularly, researchers can be biased and privilege voices that are in alignment with their own values over voices that may challenge their perspectives. Empirically, informant discrepancies are typically treated as measurement error in psychological assessments using statistical tests (such as combinational algorithms, structural equations models) to address the variance in reporting (De Los Reyes et al., 2013). To address discrepancies, mitigation factors can be employed to ensure that all voices are represented and weighted equitably. First, when considering differences in respondent perspectives, researchers should examine the environmental contexts for where the behavior was assessed. Variable changes across environments may impact child behavior (e.g., peers versus siblings, access to adult attention, materials, resources), and an informants’ relationship to the participant may determine how their behaviors are evaluated (Heyman et al., 2018). Behaviors certainly differ across context, materials, people, and resources due to differing environmental variables, which is why a child’s ability to generalize a skill is usually treated as the strongest indicator of maintenance of a new skill (Cooper et al., 2020). Furthermore, each of these varied contexts may present different demands and/or expectations for the child, as well as opportunities to demonstrate specific skills. In addition, raters may perceive children’s behaviors differently based on how children are socialized and compared with other children (peers versus siblings; Heyman et al., 2018). If researchers observe patterns of divergent findings, one must determine whether the findings differ across context, people, resources, materials, and expectations. If there are differences across these variables, these differences should be reported, as well as the differences in the context where the behavior was observed. Second, researchers should identify common themes, patterns, and perceptions across informants, triangulate the data, and use common outcomes for intervention design. Finally, discrepant data can be used to address different needs for the developing child across contexts and with different people (Major et al., 2015). These are a few steps we can take from a justice-oriented perspective when using divergent findings across multiple perspectives as avenues for decision making.
Strength-based reporting
As we continue to work to support children with social and emotional concerns, we should engage strengths-based reporting as a valued metric of our science. Specifically, there is a growing recognition to identify the social and emotional strengths in children from BIPOC populations (Cabrera, 2013). That is, assessment data should not be used to only document areas where children are still learning but also to inform and document what children are able to do so as not to perpetuate a static idea of deficiency. One could argue that social and emotional development is malleable and measuring children’s social and emotional development dynamically (measuring what children know, what they are able to learn, and teach within this window, aptly known as the Zone of Proximal Development; Vygotsky, 1986) would minimize emphasis on deficits. For example, if a child is assessed, and it is determined that they have strong empathy skills, their empathy skills can be harnessed to teach them how to comfort a peer or how to welcome a new child to the classroom. Researchers and scholars have documented how to use children’s social and emotional strengths to build on their areas of needed support and have found this approach to be much more responsive and in alignment with the values and customs of Black populations (National Black Child Development Institute, 2013). Furthermore, grounding the trajectories of student learning in asset-based language such as “emerging,” “developing,” and “learned” is one way to eliminate systems of oppression and repair harm caused by psychometric assessments that do not account for the developing capacity of young children (Nese et al., 2012; Randall et al., 2022). If we believe all children (a) are learning to navigate their environment; (b) hold important experiences, even if they are different than ours; and (c) are seeking ways to develop relationships with others, then we can use these core beliefs to enhance where they are on the way to who they are becoming. Our targeted support of this transactional exchange is a moral commitment to justice in shaping our society and its practices henceforth (Artiles, 2019).
Center Participant Voices in Social Validity Measures
Social validity is a way to objectively measure and reliably test the features of our science in the pursuit of social integrity (Wolf, 1978). In his seminal piece, Wolf (1978) articulated clear guidelines for assessing social validity in our intervention research. Recently, J. Halle (2019) has rearticulated the need for more comprehensive efforts to address social validity, as it needs to become a fully integrated component of our scientific practice (Snodgrass et al., 2018). It is a critical aspect of how we evaluate the social importance and authenticity of the goals, procedures, and outcomes of our work by direct and indirect consumers. Furthermore, with social validity assessment, those who receive the intervention can assess the acceptability or satisfaction of an intervention procedure and make decisions about its sustained usage.
The consideration of contextual fit is especially important when designing practices that have empirical value for children who are BIPOC, as well as strength-based approaches to address the social-emotional development of children from ethnically diverse backgrounds (Nese et al., 2016). Often, interventions may need to be adapted or conformed to the resources and approaches provided in these contexts. Thus, applying social validity within a social justice framework would mean that you would collect data on the validity of the intervention throughout the research process by interviewing the direct consumers and examining the contextual features of the environment (e.g., resources, people, time). Based on their feedback, researchers may need to change or adapt the intervention and its goals, posing a rhetorical question throughout the process: Is this the right intervention for this context based on the goals, procedures, and outcomes identified?
Families’ voices
Social validity is an important benchmark of intervention research because it incorporates the shared voice of the populations studied and establishes accountability in addition to providing an opportunity for consumers to share their evaluative perspectives about the intervention (Barton et al., 2018). The perspectives of our participants are especially important if we recruit the same participants from the same communities for our studies over time. Critically evaluating to what extent our research endeavors benefit our consumers and enhance their quality of life are social validity features that certify the validity of our practice and the integrity of our professions. Several scholars have documented the benefit of incorporating the voices of children and families in intervention outcomes (cf. Sabol & Pianta, 2012; Shogren et al., 2018). Their outcomes demonstrate that voices from the research field characterize our programmatic efforts in ways that encourage us to be more precise in our methods and procedures, as well as more people-centered in our justification for empiricism. As such, including the voices of people from BIPOC communities in intervention decision-making is essential as they have been evaluators, implementors, and change agents in creating tools and interventions that work in their own communities and in the broader scientific community (Bowman, 2018). By allowing consumers to provide feedback through social validity measures, they share with us knowledge of evidence that is in alignment with their values, customs, knowledge, and/or beliefs. Hence, as part of our accountability practice, we recommend that data be collected to examine whether the intervention tools used are in alignment with the values of the populations studied. That is, incorporating the authentic perspectives of those who consume our products to understand whether participants felt their values and cultural practices were in alignment with the intervention goals is a critical aspect of social validity that could enhance our future research evidence. For example, researchers could ask families about the value of using narratives, visual supports (e.g., video modeling), or explicitly teaching emotion words to address young children’s social and emotional development. Although families may already use some of these practices, assessing their perceptions is a starting point for understanding the acceptability and validity of our interventions.
Children’s voices
It may be perceived as a radical notion to consider the voice of a child in adult decision-making. However, a justice-oriented intervention approach warrants collecting data on the children’s acceptability of a practice to determine the validity of the intervention from the perspective of those being intervened upon. Typically, these social validity data from direct consumers are evaluated by the demonstration of skills acquired over time (Kennedy, 2005). However, children may continue to use certain skills because they are prompted to use the skill, or the contingencies are in place to support use of the skill. While these forms of social validity are certainly important to maintain, asking children about their perspectives of an intervention in developmentally appropriate ways may lend additional insight into how they view themselves in relation to the interventionist and the classroom context. Children may also share if they find intervening on the specific behavior or skill acceptable; children may not prefer to learn a specific skill or strategy selected by a researcher (e.g., taking turns), but would want to improve a skill they identify as important for their participation in the social context (e.g., stopping a peer from taking their toys). In this way, we build mutually beneficial relationships with the consumers of our intervention research so our efforts are more individualized and embodied, and less instrumental.
Some examples of gathering data on the child’s perspective include employing qualitative interviews with the child about their experience before, during, and after the intervention; using visual rating scale metrics to have children rate what they liked or did not like about the intervention; or conducting a descriptive analysis of a child’s temperament while the intervention occurs. We also recommend data be collected from the child’s perspective about the acceptability, usability, and feasibility of the intervention. For example, incorporating children’s choice in materials (Zimmerman et al., 2020), social partners (e.g., stay play talk interventions with two or more social partners; Osborne et al., 2019), instructional procedure (Ledford et al., 2017), or interventions (if more than one effective practice is available; Heal & Hanley, 2011; Nese et al., 2022), and culturally adapting social and emotional interventions (Castro-Olivo et al., 2018; Graves et al., 2017) can support children’s autonomy and voice in their learning experiences and improve their social/emotional/behavioral outcomes. That is, creating a “both-and” reality using social validity practices documents what is reported about children’s social and emotional outcomes and how the child perceives the intervention.
Evaluate child response
Studies have shown that a poor intervention match does not result in the outcomes that researchers anticipate. For example, although identified as an evidence-based practice (Morin et al., 2020), the use of Social Stories to address young children’s social and emotional development has received considerable attention in the literature for its mixed outcomes (Wahman et al., 2022a; Zimmerman et al., 2017). In fact, researchers assert that perhaps social narratives are not effective at all in isolation for many children without developmental disabilities (Zimmerman et al., 2017, 2020); It is certainly important to consider whether the behavioral characteristics of a child being intervened upon are an appropriate match for the intervention design, but equally important is to consider the temperament of the child as well. That is, if a child seems to disconnect or disengage from the interaction, then the intervention research should be stopped. Furthermore, if the intervention is not effective, we should engage in an iterative process to adapt or change our intervention tools to ensure that children are responsive to the intervention. The didactic interaction that occurs in the context of intervention implementation can be an indication of the effectiveness of the intervention. In sum, when considering fidelity of treatment, we implement an intervention with fidelity when we, as research scientists, are attuned to what a child needs in the moment, and we are flexible in how we respond to their need. This approach may call for adapted scientific research designs.
Our goal is to encourage an embodiment of justice where all consumers “see themselves” as part of the intervention practice. That is, instead of being “acted upon” they are willing participants in the intervention science, and we, as scientists, engage in a practice of shared perspectives that equalizes power. Engaging the perspectives of consumers, particularly children, in our research endeavors gives them a voice in the actions we engage in while holding us accountable to a higher moral and ethical standard. Through these exchanges, we can identify meaningful outcomes, interventions, and support strategies that will yield effective and sustainable effects. As we work collaboratively with children and their families in identifying outcomes and interventions, we must center the child’s individuality and the family’s needs above the need to “stick to prescription.”
Confounding Variables to Fidelity of Implementation
Fidelity of implementation, also termed treatment fidelity, has emerged as a cornerstone benchmark of our intervention science (Cook & Odom, 2013). The fidelity of treatment across the goals, procedures, and outcomes of an intervention is critical for determining whether an intervention was implemented as intended by the interventionist(s) and/or to provide an explanation for the intervention outcomes (Barton et al., 2018). Currently, fidelity of treatment results in a composite score or percentage that identifies to what extent treatment procedures were implemented. This composite score is important to our development of a body of evidence because if interventions are not implemented as intended, then the validity of our body of evidence is questionable. Furthermore, while evidence-base practice is an important starting point, we need to be flexible in how we interpret the outcomes of our intervention research. As such, to enhance our fidelity practices using a justice-oriented lens, we should examine variables that have the potential to impact the outcomes of our studies. These variables are (a) the positionality of the researcher; and (b) the disposition of the interventionist(s). These more subtle determinants of intervention outcomes provide further insight into the role of bias in our outcomes, as well as the quality and effectiveness of those outcomes.
Examining researcher’s positionality
Examining one’s position as a researcher and the role that bias plays in research decisions and processes has been a metric used to increase the rigor of qualitative research (Hannes, 2011). Positionality is defined as the worldview of a person and their social/cultural/political position within the research context (Bourke, 2014). Researchers should reflect on their research process, their role as research scientists, and how these roles influence the goals, procedures, and outcomes of the interventions we design. Self-reflection, also termed self-location, can involve asking oneself several questions to examine positionality during the research exchange (Kwame, 2017). First, researchers may want to consider their role and whether they are an insider or outsider in the research context. Access to resources, visibility, and experiences, in addition to demographic characteristics, can determine one’s status as an insider or outsider. Researchers also may need to consider how to establish credibility with an observed community and find ways to connect with them in authentic ways (e.g., share resources, provide a service, and/or advocate for their needs) to address factors that likely impact participant recruitment of children and families from BIPOC populations. Studies conducted in other fields focused on behavioral health and medicine show that “buy-in” from key community members (e.g., religious leaders, barbershop owners) is associated with positive health outcomes, increased responsiveness to research participation, and greater trust between researchers and participants (McNeill et al., 2018; Stevenson et al., 2021). Second, researchers may want to explore their identity as insiders or outsiders and how it contributes or limits access to participants, materials, and research supports, and how it influences decision-making during the research process. One’s status may change depending on the goals of the research, how the data will be used, and who will benefit from the outcomes. Researchers may assume multiple identities and positions in relation to participants in their communities based on their shared history and participation in the observed community. Third, researchers may want to examine their role related to how it influences one’s interaction with research participants and their level of engagement, responses, and outcomes. Researchers may need to recruit and train neutral investigators to engage in selection of participants, data collection, reliability measures, and data analysis. Finally, researchers should be willing to engage in a “shared dance” to balance their positionality as an outsider. A shared dance may involve a willingness to take an “other-centered” approach that reconciles one’s assumptions about people from different groups and centers their interests and perspectives instead in the empirical process (Kwame, 2017). These strategies can aid in neutralizing the outsider dynamic to engage participants as co-creators of knowledge.
Examine interventionist’s disposition
The National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) defines disposition as the “attitudes, beliefs, values, habits, and tendencies toward particular actions” (National Association for the Education of Young Children [NAEYC], 2019, p. 52). When implementing an intervention, the didactic intervention should occur within responsive, supportive, and developmentally appropriate interactions and environments (Fox et al., 2003). The disposition of an interventionist should be fundamental to evaluating the outcomes of an intervention practice. Without a more comprehensive understanding of how the intervention is being applied, and in what manner, we devalue the interpretation of the response from the person being intervened upon and compromise the integrity of our intervention outcomes. For example, while social praise, also called behavior specific praise (Kennedy & Jolivette, 2008; Royer et al., 2019) or descriptive praise (Barton et al., 2016), has been documented as an effective practice in our field, researchers have recommended that the quality of praise (i.e., speech tone) also be examined to further understand the extent to which praise can be effective (Jenkins et al., 2015). That is, if a teacher, as the interventionist, delivers social praise in response to an expected behavior with high fidelity to two different children, but there is a discernible difference in the teacher’s disposition upon delivering the contingency, the impact of the social praise may be experienced very differently by both children. Consequently, the resulting child response to the expectation may differ as well.
While teachers’ perceptions of the intervention tools and/or bias toward non-evidence-based practices can serve as a barrier to implementation fidelity and impact how children experience social and emotional supports in their classroom environment (Wahman & Lewis, 2020), teachers can also demonstrate bias toward children. Specifically, scholars have examined teachers’ relationships with children in the classroom who engage in behaviors perceived as challenging and have found that teachers do engage in differential behavioral practices based on children’s disability and race status (Gilliam et al., 2016; Irvine, 2012; Wehby et al., 1995). In fact, in one study, students’ risk status explained teachers’ differential treatment of second- through fifth-grade students in the classroom (Green et al., 2020). Our field has done significant work in encouraging responsive relationships as a universal approach to supporting young children’s social and emotional adjustment (Hemmeter et al., 2016; Stanton-Chapman et al., 2016), and these considerations should be adopted in our fidelity measurements. Hence, a justice-oriented approach to fidelity would examine inter-participant consistency. That is, it would not only evaluate if all children received the same treatment but also if the treatment was of the same intent and quality for those experiencing the impact of the intervention. With these additional metrics, we would be able to determine whether all children received the same intervention and its resulting benefits, and whether the other parties in the intervention contexts could benefit from intervention as well. Thus, a comprehensive understanding of the systems in place that contribute to the behaviors that occur, or do not occur, provides a clearer perspective on the true developing needs of the child.
Examine Racial/Ethnic Diversity in Research Team Composition
Our recommendations for enhancing our intervention research practice would not be complete without addressing the need to increase the racial/ethnic diversity of our research teams with people who reflect the populations we study. Thus, as a final point for discussion, we need to advance our inclusion efforts of scientists who are BIPOC to ensure that we include people who have related experiences to the population studied. The term “cultural broker” was coined by early anthropologists who recognized that in community groups with differing cultural backgrounds there was a negotiator or advocate who acted as a go-between for the colonial governments and the people they ruled to minimize conflict and produce change (cf. Jezewski, 1990; Mortier et al., 2021; Pang et al., 2020). That is, cultural brokering establishes a bridge between a community group and those in power to advance and engineer practices that incorporate an understanding of the customs, practices, habits, beliefs, and differences of a particular community. Thus, we are arguing for a “cultural broker” approach to diversifying our research teams to ensure they are reflective of the communities we study.
We advocate for the inclusion of personnel from BIPOC communities at all levels of the research team. That is, their voices should be integrated at the data collection (i.e., research assistants), administrative (i.e., project managers), and conceptual and/or dissemination levels (i.e., primary investigators, post-doctoral). These steps will aid in intentionally and purposefully diversifying research teams so different perspectives are shared and recognized and power dynamics that inherently exist within teams are minimized. To achieve these goals, we have to recruit and retain doctoral students who are BIPOC in the field of special education (deBettencourt et al., 2016). The Institute for Education Sciences (IES) has taken a step in advancing our inclusive practices in this area by creating pathways to diversify the research workforce and awarding points to research teams that include people who are BIPOC (U.S. Department of Education, 2020). This is an important benchmark from an equity standpoint, and incentives should remain in place to encourage the inclusion of scientists who are BIPOC at the pre-research level. However, sole inclusion of such scientists on research teams should not remain the ultimate goal. The field needs systematic efforts to create sustainable practices in recruiting, retaining, and hiring scientists who are BIPOC in institutions of higher education (IHEs) that are less emblematic of tokenism but rather reflect a concerted effort to position them as equal leaders in the academy.
The national shortage of full-time faculty members at IHEs is well documented (Chronicle of Higher Education, 2022), including that of special education faculty who are BIPOC (Smith & Montrosse, 2012; Smith et al., 2010). While data collected from a recent study indicates that faculty express commitment to address student diversity, systematic and comprehensive strategies to support a racially/ethnically diverse student body is lacking (Maggin et al., 2022). However, there are effective strategies that can be implemented to recruit doctoral students from these communities and increase their placement in IHEs. Systematic strategies may include addressing barriers to recruitment (e.g., such as standardized tests that measure aptitude and intelligence but reinforce negative stereotypes, expose inequities, and exclude capable ethnic minorities from doctoral study; Gómez et al., 2021; Randall, 2021; Woo et al., 2022), providing student-centered mentoring and advising (Santa-Ramirez, 2022), social support (Slay et al., 2019; Trent et al., 2021), funding (Hill & Conceição, 2020; Jones & Mandell, 2020; Merrell-James et al., 2020; Shealey, 2009), and transitional supports into the academy (Dieker et al., 2014). Using a tiered model to evaluate and identify supports for incoming students is another strategy that could increase access to the aptly termed “hidden curriculum” in doctoral studies (Felder & Barker, 2013). Within this model, faculty may identify students who need intensive training in statistical methods, research design, publishing, and/or grant writing. In addition, mentors may identify doctoral students who need focused training to acquire more nuanced skills, such as how to network and/or collaborate with colleagues, increase one’s visibility in the field, and advocate for oneself in predominantly White contexts. Explicit and systematic practices should be in place to target support for doctoral students who are BIPOC, including those with mainstream research interests. In doing so, you create a pipeline of investigators who are trained in empirical science but also have unique experiences that can enhance a justice orientation in intervention research.
Finally, as we disseminate our research, we should consider the social consequences of the lack of a racially diverse research team and include more demographic data about researchers in published papers. For example, if a homogeneous group of White scholars disseminate their findings about a social and emotional intervention for Black children, it would be important for consumers to have data on who conducted the research to help consumers make an informed decision about whether to adopt the product for consumption. Furthermore, the perspectives of researchers who are BIPOC is invaluable, but more importantly, inclusion of their voice certifies that the populations we study matter, and interventions designed will likely be reflective of this practice (Steinbrenner et al., 2022). These avenues will seek to mend historical distrust among BIPOC communities due to a lack of diversity in research teams and potentially bridge connections (Shaia et al., 2020). Notably, recent research has shown that gender-diverse teams produce more innovative and impactful science (Yang et al., 2022). These results have implications for considering the intersectionality of team members as it relates to race/ethnicity. Ensuring a racially diverse membership with purpose and intent bolsters our scientific outcomes and is likely to be an effective recruitment tool for future doctoral students. Although representation alone is not enough, it does indicate some semblance of an inclusive and welcoming environment (Jones & Mandell, 2020). Study team members could identify their roles, gender, race/ethnicity in a section termed “reflexivity or positionality statement” as seen in Adams et al. (2021) or similar to what is described in a section on research participants. In summary, the field needs to engage in collective efforts to fill the needed gaps for scientists who are BIPOC and can serve as contributing team members to the scientific practice in early childhood special education.
Conclusion
There are certainly systemic concerns with the practice of schooling in early childhood and beyond. History, however, has demonstrated that the current educational system is unlikely to be dismantled rapidly enough to neglect teaching young children and intervening when warranted. As such, we endeavor to advance what is within our control: effective social and emotional instruction and intervention for young children and their families. Intervention research, therefore, must be “justice-oriented” to ensure all children and their families have access to effective practices that are designed with their persons in mind to support their goals related to social/emotional/behavioral outcomes in a variety of contexts. Echoing through the chambers of our collective history is now a call to reflect on our past, our present, and our hopes for a future where the validity of scientific practices are enhanced by a justice-oriented approach that affirms and dignifies the abilities of all children and their families. In sum, we argue that intervention research, or empiricism, is just when applied within a framework of responsiveness and humility. More specifically, intervention research acts as justice when children and families historically marginalized by our practices become our central focus in a restorative movement toward equity.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge Drs. Scott L. Graves Jr, Rhonda Nese, Joshua Plavnick, Christopher Rivera, Maria Reina Santiago-Rosario, Ilene Schwartz, and Adrea Truckenmiller for their feedback on the manuscript.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
