The feasibility of TOGETHER: a collaborative educator-parent programme for teaching social and emotional competence in young children

Figures & data

Table 1. Participant demographics, cultural considerations, group training and communication preferences for all participants.

Participant	Gender	Home language	Nationality	Age	Education Level	Years teaching in Early Childhood	Cultural conside- rations	Group prefe-rences	Commun-ication preferences
Educator Sue	Female	English	Australia	45–49	Bachelor of Education (Primary and Early Childhood)	3	No	Small	Email orphone calls phone calls
Educator Ali	Female	English	Australia	45–49	Diploma of Early Childhood Education	16	No	Small	Face toface, text message face, text message
Tamati’s Mother	Female	English	New Zealand	35–39	NA	NA	No	Small or large	Face toface, email, phone, text face, email, phone, text
Henry’s Mother	Female	English	Australia	35–39	NA	NA	No	Small	Face to face, email
Child Tamati	Male	English	Australia	5	NA	NA	No	NA	NA
Child Henry	Male	English	Australia	4	NA	NA	No	NA	NA

Note: NA = not applicable.

Table 2. Tamati’s scores on the social development rating scale.

Participant	Pre		Post
	M	SD	M	SD
Tamati	113.5	11.5	122	6

Table 3. Frequency counts for adult response code to child behaviour from baseline to post-intervention.

Variable	Baseline	Post-Intervention	Follow-up
	Total Number of responses	Total Number of responses	Total Number of responses
Educator Sue
Contingent Praise	2	8	4
Positive Praise	4	7	2
Discouragements	6	4	4
Non-contingent response	35	19	11
Educator Ali
Contingent Praise	0	13	17
Positive Praise	6	7	2
Discouragements	13	0	0
Non-contingent response	38	3	4
Tamati’s Mother
Contingent Praise	2	32	11
Positive Praise	9	10	9
Discouragements	7	1	1
Non-contingent response	21	13	17

Figure 1. The number of times Tamati engaged in appropriate or inappropriate behaviour when interacting with educator Sue and educator Ali.

Figure 2. The number of times Henry was engaged in appropriate or inappropriate behaviour when interacting with educator Sue and educator Ali.

Figure 3. The number of times Tamati engaged in appropriate or inappropriate behaviour when interacting with mother.

Table 4. Effect size (SMDall) of Tamati and Henry’s appropriate and inappropriate behaviours across the preschool and home settings.

	Baseline	Combined Post-Intervention	SMDall
	M(SD)	M(SD)
Tamati (preschool)
Appropriate behaviour	13(5.89)	9.67(2.62)	0.56
Inappropriate behaviour	11.67(8.22)	3.67(3.30)	0.97
Tamati (home)
Appropriate behaviour	10.67(3.68)	17(6.03)	1.72
Inappropriate behaviour	2.67(0.94)	.33(.47)	2.49
Henry (preschool)
Appropriate behaviour	10(2.16)	7.83(5.84)	1.00
Inappropriate behaviour	0.33(0.47)	.17(.37)	0.34

Table 5. Paired-sample T-test of educator and parent responses to child behaviour and behaviour of Tamati and Henry.

	Shapiro-Wilk’s test of normality	Sig. (2-tailed)	d
Adult responses
Overall positive responses	.225	0.101	1.68
Non-contingent responses	.988	0.133	1.42
Discouragements	.993	0.272	0.87
Overall child behaviour
Appropriate behaviour	.031	0.851	0.12
Inappropriate behaviour	.225	0.024	1.42

Note: Child behaviour recorded when interacting with an educator or parent.

Table 6. Educators and parents social validity survey.

Questions	Adult 1	Adult 2	Adult 3	Adult 4
The training met my expectations	5	5	5	4
I have been able to apply the knowledge learned	4	5	5	4
The content was organised and easy to follow	5	5	5	4
The quality of instruction was good	5	5	5	4
I will continue to use the strategies taught	5	5	5	4
The strategies have proven to be an effective and efficient method for reducing behaviour problems	4	4	5	4
Overall, I feel comfortable with the strategies and consider them to be parent/educator friendly	4	5	5	4

Note: Likert scoring 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.

Table 7. Educators and parents Social Validity Survey Short Answer responses.

Questions	Adult 1	Adult 2	Adult 3	Adult 4
What aspects of the TOGETHER program training could be improved?	Scheduled follow up for teachers.	More ‘real life’ examples	NR	NR
What aspects of the training the participants had found useful?	Emphasis on specific praise. Opportunity to collaborate with parents.	Planned ignoring. Praise others	The Strategies	NR
Had training had influenced educator/parenting practice? Please state why or why. not?	Consolidated my education and beliefs. Tools are easy and effective to implement. Increased positive interactions with children. Increased positive interaction with families.	Sometimes (influenced practice). Children are usually quite well behaved	Strategies have really helped	NR

Note: NR = no response from participant.