Department of Gender & Diversity Studies, Radboud Social Cultural Research, Radboud University Nijmegen, P.O. Box 1908, 6500 VC Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University Nijmegen, P.O. Box 9104, 6500 VC Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Dec 30;20(1):654. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20010654.
About 16% of Dutch children are reported to have social, emotional, and behavioral difficulties (SEBDs). SEBDs generate distress and pose risks for various negative outcomes; thus, their timely identification is deemed important to respond appropriately to children's needs and avoid such negative outcomes. Primary schools are considered convenient places to implement early SEBD identification, but the ways in which schools achieve this in practice may be inadequate, although the issue remains under-researched. Although there are several systematic school-based early identification methods (e.g., universal or selective screening), primary schools predominantly rely on school staff to recognize children at risk for, or experiencing, SEBDs. As differences in identification practices could impact whether and when (signs of) SEBDs are identified, this study aimed to increase our understanding of differences in identification practices used by school staff and their potential implications for early identification effectiveness. Thirty-four educational and clinical professionals working at nine primary schools participated in in-depth semi-structured interviews. We used MAXQDA to thematically code and analyze the data. Our analysis of these interviews illustrated that schools' identification practices differed on three elements: the frequency of observations, maintaining a four-eyes principle, and the utilization of specialist knowledge. We argue that differences in these elements have potential consequences for the timeliness and quality of SEBD identification.
约 16%的荷兰儿童被报告存在社交、情感和行为困难（SEBD）。SEBD 会引起痛苦，并对各种负面后果构成风险；因此，及时识别这些问题被认为对于适当回应儿童的需求和避免这些负面后果至关重要。小学被认为是实施早期 SEBD 识别的便利场所，但学校在实践中实现这一目标的方式可能不够充分，尽管这个问题仍然研究不足。尽管有几种基于学校的系统早期识别方法（例如，普遍或选择性筛查），但小学主要依赖学校工作人员来识别有 SEBD 风险或正在经历 SEBD 的儿童。由于识别实践的差异可能会影响 SEBD 是否以及何时（出现）得到识别，因此本研究旨在增进我们对学校工作人员使用的识别实践差异的理解及其对早期识别效果的潜在影响。九所小学的 34 名教育和临床专业人员参加了深入的半结构化访谈。我们使用 MAXQDA 对数据进行主题编码和分析。我们对这些访谈的分析表明，学校的识别实践在三个方面存在差异：观察的频率、保持四眼原则以及利用专业知识。我们认为，这些因素的差异可能会对 SEBD 识别的及时性和质量产生影响。
