Assessment of Self-Regulation at School Entry: A Literature Review of Existing Screening Tools and Suitability for the Aotearoa New Zealand Context

Abstract

This literature review investigates tools used to assess self-regulation at school entry and to inform recommendations for use in Aotearoa New Zealand. We were particularly interested in identifying self-regulation screening tools that had been developed from Indigenous frameworks to enhance likelihood of culturally empowering assessment. APA PsycInfo and Clarivate Web of Science databases were searched for articles on self-regulation screening at school entry. Screening tools were included if they met the following criteria: available in English or te reo Māori (the two predominant written languages of Aotearoa New Zealand); appropriate for children aged 5–6 years; and focus on self-regulation or contain a component assessing self-regulation. 39 screening tools which met the criteria were identified. Overall, most tools were developed from a Euro-American perspective and many were deficit- and/or clinically-focused. Issues with translating screening tools to other cultures are discussed, specifically in the context of Aotearoa New Zealand.

Keywords

self-regulation assessment school entry primary school social-emotional learning screening

Introduction

Tā te tamariki tāna mahi wāwāhi tahā – whakataukī (traditional Māori proverb) [literal translation: ‘it is the job of children to break the calabash’; meaning: it is accepted that children will explore the world and make mistakes; this is part of learning].

Self-regulation is considered to be a key developmental competency that enables children to succeed and thrive across the lifecourse. It is often considered a component of overall social-emotional competence (Ahmad et al., 2019), overlapping considerably with similar constructs such as emotional regulation, social competence, or executive functioning (Halle & Darling-Churchill, 2016). There are many definitions of self-regulation, but in the Euro-American literature it is broadly defined as the ability to plan and manage behaviour and regulate emotions (Campbell et al., 2016; Montroy et al., 2016). Self-regulation is multi-dimensional and relies on co-ordination across a variety of functions, including social-emotional, cognitive, behavioural, motor and executive functions (McClelland & Cameron, 2012; Montroy et al., 2016). However, Indigenous perspectives of self-regulation may be more holistic, encompassing mind, body, emotion and spirit (Tsethlikai et al., 2018). There is a need to broaden the cultural content and intent within the predominant definition of self-regulation, which has implications for assessment. This article will review self-regulation screening tools and their relevance to the bicultural context of Aotearoa New Zealand.

The Eurocentric construct of self-regulation predicts a number of outcomes across the lifecourse, including academic achievement (Caughy et al., 2018), physical health, mental health, socioeconomic outcomes (Moffitt et al., 2011), social support and life satisfaction (Richmond-Rakerd et al., 2021). It is theorised to be particularly important as children move from early childhood education to primary (elementary) school, where the learning environment becomes more structured and the cognitive, behavioural and social demands increase (McClelland & Cameron, 2012). Some self-regulation strategies developed by children from preschool to early primary school include problem solving, distraction, reframing the problem and seeking support (Denham, 2006). Examples of self-regulation in the primary school classroom might include sustained focus on a task or taking turns with peers (McClelland & Cameron, 2012), with self-regulation helping children to form positive social relationships (Campbell et al., 2016). The theorised importance of self-regulation for the transition to primary school has led researchers and educators to consider how best to assess this developing competency at this key developmental window.

Sociocultural influences on self-regu lation

The study of self-regulation has largely involved an individual-centred approach, focusing on children’s abilities and strategies and the individual differences that affect them (Trommsdorff, 2009). There is an underlying assumption in the literature that the predominant Eurocentric definition of self-regulation is ‘universal’. However, this approach assumes a homogeneity of children’s behaviour and development at specific ages that favours the hegemonic culture, despite evidence that self-regulation and social-emotional development is culturally specific (Sarma & Mariam Thomas, 2020). Subsequently, these universalistic approaches can overlook Indigenous peoples and alternative cultural constructs of social-emotional learning (Denston et al., 2022).

Self-regulation is a culturally-located phenomenon which is constructed within each specific cultural setting (Tromsdorff, 2009). Children learn self-regulation through socialisation, where they learn to adjust their behaviour to societal norms and internalise their culture’s values (Klein & Rye, 2004). Self-regulation, like other social-emotional skills, is therefore rooted in cultural context, as ‘good’ self-regulation consists of the necessary skills to conduct oneself appropriately in a specific cultural environment (Anziom et al., 2021). The definition of self-regulation is also held within the language of the culture. An ethnographic study of culturally diverse families in North America found that the ‘language of origin [held] more emotional value and connection to the traditions, symbols, and rituals of their culture’, such that using English negatively affected parent-child interactions regarding self-regulation and emotional regulation (Boyer, 2013, p. 155). This cultural embeddedness has implications for assessment: applying a tool that was developed for children in one cultural context to another cultural context, especially one that includes historically marginalised cultures, without appropriate validation involves assuming which skills are valuable in that society without confirming that this assumption is correct (Anziom et al., 2021). For example, Eurocentric perspectives on self-regulation typically distinguish between emotional, behavioural and cognitive self-regulation, but these skills are intertwined and this definition is not universally accepted (Campbell et al., 2016). Aotearoa New Zealand, the study context of this article, has a diverse population¹ that includes Indigenous peoples (Māori). Indigenous constructs come from differing worldviews, beliefs, languages and practices to Eurocentric constructs. Translating the Eurocentric concept of self-regulation to te ao Māori (the Māori worldview) may result in a definition that is more holistic and inclusive of Māori values, concepts and language that is intrinsically linked to all aspects of a child’s development and includes wairuatanga (spirituality) and whanaungatanga (sense of family connection). The whakataukī (traditional Māori proverb) above illustrates that development of self-regulation occurs throughout childhood and it is expected that children will display a lack of self-regulation at times. This traditional Māori saying is reflective of Māori culture’s way of considering the behaviour of children in the context of their development. However, literature on conceptualisations and assessments of self-regulation within Indigenous frameworks is scarce.

In one example of Indigenous research on children’s behavioural development, Māori researchers used kaupapa Māori (a methodological and philosophical approach to research that is consistent with Māori values) to define four constructs observed in the behaviour of preschool-aged tamariki Māori. Two of these constructs are particularly pertinent to the concept of self-regulation: manawaroa and piripono (Tamati, 2021). Manawaroa encompasses ‘courage in adversity, persisting despite difficulty, and having a positive outlook, motivated by collective interest’, while piripono comprises ‘integrity, commitment and responsibility for a shared kaupapa [project]’ (Tamati, 2021, pp. 23-24). Behaviours that demonstrate manawaroa, such as persisting at a task, staying calm when upset, and resolving issues positively, map closely to the Eurocentric child behaviour construct of self-regulation, but also more broadly to constructs such as self-efficacy, optimism, self-confidence, interpersonal understanding and problem solving that are not typically included in the Eurocentric construct of self-regulation (Tamati, 2021). Likewise, aspects of piripono are similar to the Western construct of self-regulation, but with crucial differences. Piripono encompasses a more social dimension than self-regulation typically does, with tamariki displaying close connections, shared values and sense of duty to their community (Tamati, 2021). Piripono is primarily about responsibility, both personal and collective, and thus a child who demonstrates piripono is demonstrating self-regulation alongside other skills which would be considered more broadly ‘social-emotional’ in a Eurocentric framework.

Culturally Sensitive Assessment

Culturally sensitive assessment is crucial because of the various cultural factors that influence children’s development, including cultural activities (such as yoga, martial arts, music or mindfulness), different parenting styles, or children’s experiences of discrimination or prejudice (Sarma & Mariam Thomas, 2020). It is particularly important to consider children’s ethnicity within a wider social context when developing a measure of self-regulation, as experiences of racism negatively affect young children’s social-emotional development (Macedo et al., 2019; Priest et al., 2013). In fact, it has been argued that culturally sensitive, strengths-based assessment is vital to progressing anti-racism in the educational sector (Bruno & Iruka, 2022), and by extension, the ongoing decolonisation of educational systems. At its foundation, culturally sensitive sociocultural assessment requires acknowledging that children bring their cultural background to the various contexts they operate in, including school, and that diverse cultural perspectives influence assessment and learning (Ministry of Education, 2004). Culturally sensitive sociocultural assessment aims to enable learners to participate and develop interpretations to better understand their world, rather than measuring prescribed behaviours and practices (Rameka, 2012).

Culturally sensitive assessment is particularly important for Indigenous children who may be raised in cultural settings that differ markedly from the dominant culture of their geographic location. Indigenous cultures may have different conceptualisations of childhood, including self-regulation and social-emotional competencies. One of the few studies to investigate social-emotional constructs from an Indigenous perspective found that Aboriginal Canadians (First Nations, Métis and Inuit) had a unique view of what was considered important to the social-emotional development of their young people (Tremblay et al., 2013). Among the concepts identified that are not typically included in Eurocentric conceptualisations of social-emotional competence was having a strong sense of identity and cultural heritage; other culturally-specific factors, such as acknowledgement and discussion of intergenerational trauma and forgiveness for past wrongs, were seen as essential in the development of social-emotional competence (Tremblay et al., 2013). Importantly, the authors found that these culturally-specific social-emotional competencies required by Indigenous children were not included in screening or assessment tools (Tremblay et al., 2013).

An Indigenous Perspective on Assessing Self-Regulation

The colonisation of Aotearoa New Zealand by Britain has had ongoing effects on the indigenous Māori as a result of ethnocide (systemic eradication of cultures, including language, traditional practices and social structures) and epistemicide (systemic eradication of traditional bodies of knowledge and ways of knowing; Reid et al., 2019). Inequitable outcomes for tamariki Māori (Maori children) in Aotearoa reflect systemic biases within the education system, as well as the health, justice and social services systems (Reid et al., 2019). The signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, New Zealand’s founding document, marked a formal partnership between Māori and the Crown; this partnership includes honouring and incorporating Māori values into education and assessment (Rameka, 2011). As the effects of colonisation are felt not just by Māori but also by Pākehā (New Zealand Europeans) and other ethnicities (Kiddle, 2020), we chose to take a Māori perspective when evaluating self-regulation assessment tools with the goal of helping children of all ethnicities.

The Present Study

Tier 1 screening, also known as universal screening, is conducted with an entire population, such as all students in a classroom or area, with the objective of identifying those at risk of poor outcomes such as behavioural issues or academic difficulties (Glover & Albers, 2007), or, alternatively, of identifying potential needs that require a response (Yang, 2016). Tier 1 screening should be brief, cost effective and able to be applied across the entire population to identify individuals who would benefit from further intervention or support (McCrae & Brown, 2018).

This literature review reports on the results of a review of self-regulation screening and assessment tools for young tamariki (children) at school entry. Its purpose was to investigate and describe existing self-regulation screening and assessment tools for tamariki aged 5–6 years old to inform the development of a tier 1 screening tool for all children at school entry and throughout the child’s first months at school. In Aotearoa New Zealand, children usually begin primary school on or shortly after their fifth birthday, although they can start any time before age 6; some schools offer cohort entry, where tamariki begin school at the start of the following term after they turn 5 years old (Ministry of Education, 2013). Thus, the goal of this review is to identify screening tools which may be used by teachers to assess the development of self-regulation across the first year of school.

Method

American Psychological Association (APA) PsycInfo and Clarivate Web of Science databases were used in the literature search. Search terms used were ((‘self-regulation’ OR ‘social-emotional’ OR ‘socio-emotional’) AND (‘screener’ OR ‘screening tool’ OR ‘screen*’) AND (‘school entry’ OR ‘kindergarten’ OR ‘new entrant’)). We especially wanted to identify measures that were developed and evaluated in New Zealand, in particular those that had been deemed effective with tamariki Māori. However, as we assumed there would be few, if any, tools developed within a New Zealand context, these were not included as search terms initially in order to identify a broad range of measures. Titles, abstracts and method sections were screened for mention of self-regulation screening tools; publications which included self-regulation screening tools were then read in detail. As many of these publications described studies that used the tool in their design, but did not necessarily include detailed information about the structure of the tool, subsequent searches of Google Scholar and Google were undertaken to seek further information about specific self-regulation screening tools and, where relevant, publishers’ website were consulted. Reference lists and review articles were also consulted to ensure adequate coverage. Searches were conducted from December 2021 to June 2022.

Initial criteria for including screening tools in this literature review were (1) screener must be in English or te reo Māori; (2) screener must be appropriate for children aged 5–6 years old; (3) screener must either focus exclusively on self-regulation, or include a component (scale, subscale or items) assessing self-regulation. Following identification of screening tools based on initial criteria, further searches on each screening tool were conducted to identify screening tools that met the additional criteria: (1) evidence that reliability and validity studies have been undertaken and tools were found to be reliable and valid in at least one population; (2) tool can be completed or administered by teachers. It was also desirable for tools to have been used, or ideally validated and/or adapted, with culturally diverse samples; however, it was challenging to ascertain whether this had occurred for many of the tools identified. These additional criteria were decided upon because sociocultural context influences development of self-regulation, so it is important that any screening measure of self-regulation must be validated with children from different sociocultural backgrounds in Aotearoa New Zealand. This is consistent with internationally accepted standards for test development (American Educational Research Association et al., 2014; International Test Commission, 2017).

Results

39 screening tools were identified that met the initial criteria. As we were interested in Indigenous perspectives, the term ‘Indigenous’ was added to the search but returned no results. See Table 1 for a summary of all self-regulation screening tools identified. Durations are approximate based on information provided by the publishers, authors of original research articles that used the measure, or authors’ judgement. Where US school grades were given, the approximate ages corresponding to these grades were used. The literature search identified a combination of brief screening measures and more comprehensive assessment tools.

Table 1.

Self-Regulation Assessment Measures.

Measure	Reference	Availability	Age range	Completed by	Approximate duration	Scales & subscales/areas screened
Ages & stages questionnaires: Social emotional, 2nd ed. (ASQ:SE-2)	(Squires et al., 2001)	Proprietary	0–6 years	Parent/caregiver	10–15 minutes	Self-regulation, compliance, communication, adaptive functioning, autonomy, affect, interaction with people.
Behaviour assessment system for children behavioural and emotional screening system (BESS)	(Kamphaus & Reynolds, 2007)	Proprietary	2–18 years	Teacher, parent/caregiver	5–10 minutes	Internalising (locus of control, social stress, anxiety, depression, sense of inadequacy); self-regulation (self-control, hyperactivity, attention); personal adjustment (relationship with parents, interpersonal, self-esteem, self-reliance).
Behaviour rating inventory of executive function, 2nd ed. (BRIEF-2)	(Gioia et al., 2000, 2015)	Proprietary	5–18 years	Teacher, parent/caregiver; child >10 years	10 minutes	Behaviour regulation (inhibition, self-monitoring); emotional recognition (shift, emotional controls); cognitive regulation (initiate, working memory, plan/organise, task-monitor and organisation of materials).
Behavioural and emotional rating scale, 2nd ed. (BERS-2)	(Epstein, 2004)	Proprietary	5–18 years	Teacher, parent/caregiver	10–15 minutes	Interpersonal strength, family involvement, intrapersonal strength, school functioning and affective strength
Burks behaviour rating scale, 2nd ed. (BBRS-2)	(Burks & Gruber, 2006)	Proprietary	4–18 years	Teacher, parent/caregiver	10–15 minutes	Disruptive behaviour, attention and impulse control problems, emotional problems, social withdrawal, ability deficits, physical deficits, weak self-confidence.
Caregiver-teacher report form (C-TRF)*	(Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000)	Proprietary	1.5–5 years	Teacher	10–15 minutes	Syndrome scales: Emotionally reactive; anxious/depressed, somatic complaints, withdrawn, attention problems, aggressive behaviour.
Caregiver-teacher report form (C-TRF)*	(Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000)	Proprietary	1.5–5 years	Teacher	10–15 minutes	DSM-oriented scales: Depressive problems, anxiety problems, ASD problems, ADHD problems, ODD problems.
Child behaviour checklist (CBCL)* *Note: The CBCL and C-TRF are very similar measurement tools that are both part of the Achenbach system of empirically based assessment (ASEBA). The CBCL is primarily intended to be completed by parents but is often also completed by teachers, and the C-TRF is intended to be completed by teachers. The key difference is that the CBCL has a sleep problems subscale and contains items specific to eating habits.	(Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000)	Proprietary	1.5–5 years	Teacher, parent/caregiver	10–15 minutes	Syndrome scales: Emotionally reactive; anxious/depressed, somatic complaints, withdrawn, sleep problems, attention problems, aggressive behaviour.
	(Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000)	Proprietary	1.5–5 years	Teacher, parent/caregiver	10–15 minutes	DSM-oriented scales: Depressive problems, anxiety problems, ASD problems, ADHD problems, ODD problems.
Child behaviour questionnaire - teacher short form (CBQ-TSF)	(Putnam & Rothbart, 2006; Teglasi et al., 2015)	Proprietary	3–7 years	Teacher	10–15 minutes	3 factors: Extraversion/surgency, negative affectivity and effortful control.
	(Putnam & Rothbart, 2006; Teglasi et al., 2015)	Proprietary	3–7 years	Teacher	10–15 minutes	15 subscales: Positive anticipation, smiling/laughter, high intensity pleasure, activity level, impulsivity, shyness, discomfort, fear, anger/frustration, sadness, soothability, inhibitory control, attentional focusing, low intensity pleasure and perceptual sensitivity.
Child behaviour rating scale (CBRS)	(Bronson et al., 1990; shorter version by Matthews et al., 2009)	Open access (available in original research articles)	3–5 years	Teacher	2 minutes	Classroom self-regulation, social skills.
Child rating scale (CRS)	(Hightower et al., 1987)	Proprietary	5–11 years	Child, with teacher assistance	2–5 minutes	Rule compliance/acting out; anxiety/withdrawal; peer-social skills; school interest.
Childhood executive functioning inventory (CHEXI)	(Thorell & Nyberg, 2008)	Open access	4–12 years	Teacher, parent/caregiver	2–5 minutes	Inhibition, regulation, working memory, planning.
Child self-regulation and behaviour questionnaire (CSBQ – part of the early years toolbox)	(Howard & Melhuish, 2017)	Open access	2:6 to 5 years	Teacher, parent/caregiver	3 minutes	Sociability, externalising, internalising, prosocial, behavioural self-regulation, cognitive self-regulation, emotional self-regulation.
Developmental indicators for the assessment of learning, 4th ed. (DIAL-4)	(Mardell-Czudnowski & Goldenberg, 2011)	Proprietary	2:6 to 5:11 years	Teacher, parent/caregiver	35–40 minutes	Motor, concepts, language, self-help development, social-emotional development.
Speed developmental indicators for the assessment of learning, 4th ed. (Speed DIAL-4)	(Mardell-Czudnowski & Goldenberg, 2011)	Proprietary	2:6 to 5:11 years	Teacher, parent/caregiver	20 minutes	Motor, concepts, language, self-help development, social-emotional development.
Developmental neuropsychological assessment, 2nd ed. (NEPSY-II)	(Korkman et al., 2007)	Proprietary	3–16 years	Child	1 hour	Executive function & attention (includes self-regulation), language, memory & learning, sensorimotor, visuospatial processing, social perception.
Devereux early childhood assessment for preschoolers, 2nd ed. (DECA-P2)	(LeBuffe & Naglieri, 2012)	Proprietary	3–5 years	Teacher, parent/caregiver	3–5 minutes (web), 5–10 minutes (paper)	Total protective factors (initiative, self-regulation, attachment/relationships); behavioural concerns.
Devereux students strengths assessment K-8th grade (DESSA)	(LeBuffe et al., 2014)	Proprietary	5–14 years	Teacher, parent/caregiver	5–8 minutes	Self-awareness, social awareness, self-management, goal-directed behaviour, relationship skills, personal responsibility, decision making, optimistic thinking.
Devereux students strengths assessment – Mini version (DESSA-mini)	(Naglieri et al., 2014)	Proprietary	5–14 years	Teacher	1 minute	None.
Direct behavior rating scale (DBR), also known as DBR-multiple item scale (DBR-MIS)	(Chafouleas et al., 2009)	Available from authors	5–14 years	Teacher	5–10 minutes	Academically engaged, disruptive, respectful.
	(Chafouleas et al., 2009)	Available from authors	5–14 years	Teacher	5–10 minutes	Note: Authors state this method can and should be adapted to target behaviours.
Direct behavior rating single item scale (DBR-SIS)	(Chafouleas et al., 2013)	Available in original research articles	5–14 years	Teacher	1 minute	Academically engaged, disruptive, respectful.
Direct behavior rating single item scale (DBR-SIS)	(Chafouleas et al., 2013)	Available in original research articles	5–14 years	Teacher	1 minute	Note: Authors state this method can and should be adapted to target behaviours.
Disruptive behaviour disorders rating scale (DBD)	(Pelham, Jr. et al., 1992)	Open access	5 years or older	Teacher, parent/caregiver	5–10 minutes	Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional-defiant disorder, conduct disorder.
Early development instrument (EDI)	(Janus et al., 2007)	Open access	3.5–6.5 years	Teacher	10–15 minutes	Physical health and wellbeing, social competence, emotional maturity language and cognitive development, communication skills and general knowledge.
Early development instrument (EDI)	(Janus et al., 2007)	Open access	3.5–6.5 years	Teacher	10–15 minutes	Note: This tool is intended to be used in the second half of the kindergarten year.
Impairment rating scale (IRS)	(Fabiano et al., 2006)	Available from authors	4–7 years	Teacher, parent/caregiver	2 minutes	Relationship with peers, relationship with teacher, academic progress, self-esteem, influence on classroom functioning, overall impairment.
Kindergarten academic and behaviour readiness screener (K-ABR)	(Stormont et al., 2015)	Available from authors	Age 5 (transition to kindergarten)	Teacher	1 minute	School readiness (academic, behavioural and cognitive).
Kindergarten student entrance profile (KSEP)	(Lilles et al., 2009)	Available from authors	Age 5 (transition to kindergarten)	Teacher	5–10 minutes	Social-emotional/behavioural, physical, cognitive.
Māori child behaviour questionnaire (MCBQ)	(Tamati, 2021)	In development	1–5 years	Teacher, parent/caregiver	20–40 minutes	Tuakiri (secure local māori identity); whānauranga (acting as a member of a whānau); manawaroa (persisting despite difficulty); piripono (having integrity, commitment and responsibility)
Penn interactive peer play scale (PIPPS-T)	(Fantuzzo et al., 1995)	Available from authors (may be research-only)	3–5 years	Teacher	5–10 minutes	Play interaction, play disruption and play disconnection.
Preschool and kindergarten behaviour scales, 2nd ed. (PKBS-2)	(K. W. Merrell, 1994)	Proprietary	3–6 years	Teacher, parent/caregiver	12 minutes	Social skills (3 subscales: Social co-operation, social interaction and social independence).
						Problem behaviour (2 subscales: Externalising problems, internalising problems).
						5 supplementary problem behaviour subscales (optional).
Rutter child scale B	(Rutter, 1967)	Open access	Preschool to adolescence	Teacher	2–5 minutes	Conduct disorder, emotional disorder, hyperactivity
School social behavior scales, 2nd ed. (SSBS-2)	(Merrell, 2008a)	Proprietary	5–18 years	Teacher	5 minutes	Social competence (3 subscales: Peer relations, self-management/compliance, academic behaviour).
School social behavior scales, 2nd ed. (SSBS-2)	(Merrell, 2008a)	Proprietary	5–18 years	Teacher	5 minutes	Antisocial behaviour (3 subscales: Hostile/irritable, antisocial/aggressive, defiant/disruptive).
Social-emotional assets and resilience scales – child (SEARS-C)	(Merrell, 2008b)	Proprietary	5–18 years	Teacher, parent/caregiver, child older than 8 years	20 minutes	Self-regulation, social competence, empathy, responsibility.
Social skills improvement system social-emotional learning edition (SSIS-SEL)	(Gresham & Elliott, 2017)	Proprietary	3–18 years	Teacher, parent/caregiver, child	15–20 minutes	Self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills, responsible decision making.
	(Gresham & Elliott, 2017)	Proprietary	3–18 years	Teacher, parent/caregiver, child	15–20 minutes	Note: This scale replaced the social skills rating scales (SSRS).
Social, academic, emotional behaviour risk screener (SAEBRS)	(Kilgus et al., 2013)	Proprietary	5–18 years	Teacher	1–3 minutes	Social behaviour problems, academic behaviour problems, emotional behaviour problems.
Strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ)	(Goodman, 1997)	Open access	3–16 years	Teacher, parent/caregiver, child >10 years	5–10 minutes	Emotional symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity/inattention, peer relationship problems, prosocial behaviour
Student risk screening scale (SRSS)	(Drummond, 1994)	Open access	5–11 years	Teacher	1 minute	None.
Systematic screening of behaviour disorders, 2nd ed. (SSBD)	(Walker et al., 2014)	Proprietary	3–15 years	Teacher	2–3 minutes	Staged system: Stage 1 scales are externalising and internalising behaviour; stage 2 scales are critical events, combined frequency of adaptive and maladaptive behaviours, aggressive behaviour and social interaction.
Teacher observation of classroom adaptation – Checklist (TOCA-C)	(Koth et al., 2009)	Open access	5–11 years	Teacher	2–5 minutes	Concentration problems, disruptive/aggressive behaviour, prosocial behaviour.
	(Koth et al., 2009)	Open access	5–11 years	Teacher	2–5 minutes	*Note: This is the checklist version of the TOCA-R, which is administered by an interviewer via structured interview with a teacher.
Teacher-child rating scale (T-CRS 2.1)	(Perkins & Hightower, 2002)	Proprietary	3–9 years	Teacher	3–5 minutes	Task orientation, behaviour control, assertiveness, peer-social skills.
Texas kindergarten entry assessment (TX-KEA)	(Montroy et al., 2020)	In development	Transition to kindergarten (age 5)	Teacher, child	10–15 minutes	Language, literacy, STEM, social-emotional, executive function, academic motor skills.

Discussion

This literature review identified a number of brief and more comprehensive screening tools that assessed self-regulation. Only one tool that we identified, the Māori Child Behaviour Checklist, had been developed from an Indigenous perspective, and none had been validated for use throughout Aotearoa New Zealand. A number of limitations of the tools were identified. Recognising te Tiriti o Waitangi in Aotearoa, we have taken a culturally sensitive assessment approach to analysing the literature in order to identify issues with the tools and make suggestions for the future.

Suitability of Identified Tools for Tier 1 Screening of New Entrant Children

The goal of this review was to identify a screening tool that could be used in a tier 1 setting, that is, for screening all children beginning school for the first time in Aotearoa. Some of the tools identified by our search were more suitable to diagnostic screening, i.e., intended to screen children showing certain behaviours for referrals to secondary interventions. However, the tools were generally not clearly categorised by their creators as either ‘universal screening tools’ or ‘diagnostic assessments’, so the extent to which the tool could serve as a screening tool for all children in Aotearoa New Zealand was often unclear. There is also a growing trend towards multi-dimensional and multi-stage assessments which obfuscate the distinction between different types of assessment (Glover & Albers, 2007). Tier 1 screening tools are administered across a population (in this case, our target population was all children in Aotearoa beginning school for the first time), while clinical assessments are designed to evaluate the extent to which an individual’s behaviours or cognitions align with predetermined criteria and/or how likely an individual is to benefit from intervention (Glover & Albers, 2007). Specifically, the end-point of clinical referral may not be aligned with the intended end-point of assessment-for-learning, specifically informing teachers’ practices in the classroom.

Tools that are intended to be administered by a professional do not necessarily translate well to widespread screening, as the administration and target audience of the test may change (American Educational Research Association et al., 2014). Many of the tools in Table 1 were designed as diagnostic assessments but could potentially be adapted for tier 1 screening use; however, considerable effort would be required to adapt the tool for application to all children in Aotearoa New Zealand at school entry, including but not limited to abbreviating the number of items presented, designing more automated interpretation systems rather than relying on highly trained assessors to interpret each individual’s results, and assessing validity and reliability in the intended population. Moreover, a universalistic approach to screening does not take into account the contexts or backgrounds of children coming to school from early childhood education where the national curriculum has been developed from a bicultural perspective (Ministry of Education, 2017). The clinically-focused intent of these tools also highlighted the gap between Indigenous knowledges (e.g., mātauranga Māori) and the Eurocentric definitions of assessment.

Generally, the screening tools were estimated as taking around 5 minutes per child, with a maximum of 1 hour (note this was for a full assessment; administration of only the relevant component of this assessment would likely be substantially shorter). This represents a significant amount of time spent on assessment when multiplied across a classroom, particularly when administered as part of a battery of assessments. Ultimately, however, the optimal amount of time taken to complete a screening tool for each child should be determined in consultation with teachers, while allowing time to meet the minimum requirements for the tool.

Historically, the field of professional psychology has been primarily concerned with identifying individuals’ weaknesses or signs of pathology (Jimerson et al., 2004). This ‘deficit-based’ approach characterises the individual’s behaviours as ‘problems’ that require intervention, and does not consider children’s abilities, strengths or protective factors (Climie & Henley, 2016). Although it is difficult to clearly categorise many of the tools in Table 1 as ‘strengths-based’ or ‘deficit-based’, and many tools may contain items that fit both categories, many of the existing psychometric tools used in educational settings are based on a deficit-focused approach (Climie & Henley, 2016; Jimerson et al., 2004). However, there has been a gradual shift from this deficit-based perspective to strengths-based assessments, with evidence suggesting that a good understanding of a child’s strengths and positive character traits is at least as important as identifying their weaknesses (Climie & Henley, 2016; Jimerson et al., 2004). School-based assessment can influence how children think about themselves and how parents and teachers think about children (Buckley & Epstein, 2004), and focusing on a child’s strengths can help foster the teacher-pupil relationship as well as the child’s self-identity. Strengths-based approaches may improve interactions between the teacher and children, particularly children exhibiting problem behaviours (Sutherland et al., 2010); whereas deficit-based assessments may be less acceptable to teachers and so are less likely to become incorporated into their everyday practice (Sjö et al., 2021).

In addition, focusing on an individual’s deficits is not aligned with te ao Māori, where the acquisition of knowledge is seen as a lifelong process and Māori knowledge is valued (Rameka, 2021). As stated by Gaffney et al. (2021):

The approaches to self-regulation, positive behaviour management and readiness for school dominant in current discourses are based on Western psychological paradigms requiring all tamariki to comply to a set of cultural values often completely different to their own and thus they are already set up for failure. (p. 242).

Deficit-based tools are thus less likely to be supported by Māori whānau (families) and kaiako (teachers), and therefore less socially valid for assessing tamariki Māori. In a qualitative study of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) in the New Zealand context, Māori participants described their concerns that a deficit-based tool would be used to judge tamariki Māori and whānau, leading to a distrust of the tool and fear of how the results could be used (Kersten et al., 2016).

Issues with Translating Screening Tools to Other Cultures

Psychological assessments can result in misdiagnosis if they are based on constructs or behaviours which are not validated in the population they are used in (American Educational Research Association et al., 2014; Dingwall & Cairney, 2010; International Test Commission, 2017). Lack of cultural validity also limits the interpretation of test results more broadly, particularly when evaluating the development of self-regulation, which is intrinsically linked to the sociocultural context to which an individual is exposed (Klein & Rye, 2004). Moreover, technical adequacy must be determined in each new context, including validation of norms in a new population (American Educational Research Association et al., 2014). This is especially important as Aotearoa New Zealand has some of the highest rates of educational inequality in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD; Chzhen et al., 2018). Culturally relevant assessment, particularly where it is developed from a Māori perspective, has been postulated to address this inequality (Rameka, 2011). All the above screening tools, except the Māori Child Behaviour Checklist, were developed outside of Aotearoa New Zealand and thus are likely to suffer from this limitation. Few studies have investigated the validity of these tools in an Aotearoa New Zealand context, so it is currently unclear whether these tools will meet their stated objectives with Aotearoa New Zealand children.

One of the most commonly used social-emotional measures, the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), is the most extensively studied tool for its applicability to the Aotearoa New Zealand context. The SDQ is used as a universal screening tool for all 4-year-old children in Aotearoa through the B4 School Check (Ministry of Health, 2015). In a series of papers, Kersten and colleagues concluded that the SDQ was not suited to screening New Zealand children for behavioural or emotional problems. Firstly, the researchers conducted qualitative interviews with Māori, Pākehā (New Zealand European), Pacific Island, Asian and new immigrant parents, who identified several issues with the SDQ (Kersten et al., 2016). Among the concerns raised were that cultural contexts were not taken into consideration, such as the expected relationships between children and other family members, or that some cultures may have more shame or negative emotions attached to stating children’s weaknesses or difficulties. Additionally, Māori participants felt that the behaviour of tamariki Māori was a consequence of colonisation and therefore needed to be viewed within a historical context, which the SDQ does not specifically account for (Kersten et al., 2016). Participants also indicated that the wording in some items were not typically used terms or had slightly different meanings in New Zealand, which made answering the questions difficult or confusing (Kersten et al., 2016). The authors concluded that the SDQ has cross-cultural construct bias and therefore does not assess the same constructs in New Zealand children as originally intended.

Furthermore, Kersten et al. (2018) found that the SDQ did not achieve cross-cultural equivalence, with ethnicity biases evident for specific items and the scale as a whole. For example, among children with the same level of emotional problems, tamariki Māori were more likely to be endorsed as being nervous or clingy than children of other ethnicities, and Pasifika children were least likely to be described this way. Ethnicity differences were also identified within other scales of the SDQ: in children with the same level of hyperactivity, Asian children were more likely to be endorsed on the item, ‘easily distracted, concentration wanders’ than children of other ethnicities; and for children with the same level of conduct problems, Pasifika children were more often endorsed for the item, ‘often fights with other children’, and Pākehā children were less often endorsed than Asian or Māori children for that item (Kersten et al., 2018). These findings, which used data from the nationwide B4 School Check, are supported by findings from the Growing Up in New Zealand study, a large birth cohort of children from Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland. In the GUiNZ study, European mothers rated their children more positively on all SDQ subscales and the overall SDQ scale than Māori, Pacific Island or Asian mothers, with children of Pacific Island mothers receiving the worst scores (D’Souza et al., 2017).

A consequence of cross-cultural bias and ethnicity differences in screening tools means that children of particular ethnicities may be either over-referred to secondary services or may not get the support that they need to thrive. Another study on the SDQ found that the best thresholds for referrals of tamariki Māori were lower than the published thresholds, suggesting a number of children who could have benefited from additional support would not have been deemed eligible when standard criteria were applied (Kersten et al., 2017). Conduct disorders are reported at higher rates among tamariki Māori than the wider population, suggesting that the SDQ was not sufficiently sensitive to detect children who would likely benefit from further investigation or intervention (Kersten et al., 2017). Although these issues were raised in research focusing on only one of the screening tools identified in our literature search, we were unable to find comparable studies examining the suitability of other tools in the Aotearoa context, or with tamariki Māori. We are, therefore, unable to say whether these issues are specific to the SDQ or whether they may also apply to other self-regulation screening tools developed outside of Aotearoa.

Māori Child Behaviour Questionnaire

Only one screening tool identified in our literature search had been developed from an Indigenous perspective: the Māori Child Behaviour Questionnaire (Tamati, 2021).

The researchers first used a ground-up approach to conceptualise children’s behaviour within a Māori worldview (Tamati et al., 2021a). The measurement of these constructs was operationalised in the Māori Child Behaviour Questionnaire (MCBQ). This tool has particular strengths in that it was developed from an Indigenous/Māori perspective; it was developed specifically for tamariki Māori; it considers the local (regional) context of children’s development; and has excellent reliability (Tamati et al., 2021b) and predictive validity (Tamati et al., 2021b). This tool was not designed with nationwide implementation as an objective, and so some aspects of the tool may not be appropriate for use outside the context in which it was developed. Specifically, the tool was developed for tamariki in a region-specific kura kaupapa (Māori language immersion preschool); thus, the tool has some regional-specific references which would need to be altered for nationwide use. It is also too long for use a brief screening tool and so far has only been validated in children up to the age of five but not beyond. It has potential to be adapted for nationwide use but it is likely that each rohe (area) would have to consider making specific adaptations for their region.

Future Directions

Here we have reviewed existing self-regulation assessment tools for new entrant children. However, we have identified a number of gaps in the literature, specifically the dearth of literature on Indigenous perspectives of self-regulation and corresponding assessment tools. Thus, we suggest that qualitative research undertaken with teachers, parents, and Indigenous families and communities to define and understand self-regulation within their culture should precede development and testing of a screening tool with children. Moreover, research should focus on what a strengths-based approach may look like within that cultural context. In Aotearoa New Zealand, this should encompass a partnership approach with Te Tiriti o Waitangi partners (i.e. tangata whenua [lit. ‘people of the land’; Māori] and non-Māori working together to achieve better outcomes for all tamariki), with the goal of facilitating the development of screening tools that will be effective and useful for all tamariki in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Moreover, it is crucial that reliability and validity testing with the target population is undertaken any time that an assessment tool is to be used outside its original development population to ensure that the tool retains its validity in new sociocultural environments. As reliability and validity testing had not been undertaken for each tool in the Aotearoa context (with the exception of the SDQ), it is plausible that the tools identified here could be used as a culturally sensitive and culturally empowering assessment to capture the sociocultural aspects of self-regulation. However, future research would need to investigate such a tool from multiple cultural perspectives; including the practical reality of how screening culturally specific social-emotional competencies can be assessed. Finally, Indigenous cultures are heterogenous and will have differing cultural perspectives on self-regulation and the assessment process; it is important that each culture is involved in the development and implementation of any self-regulation screening tool for their children.

Conclusion

Self-regulation is increasingly recognised as a core skill for new entrants to learn, enabling them to adapt to and thrive in the school environment (Sawyer et al., 2015). Accordingly, a number of screening tools have been developed with the goal of measuring self-regulation in primary-school aged children. This literature review identified and described self-regulation screening assessments, adding to the literature by evaluating screening tools which were specific to self-regulation, rather than social-emotional learning more generally. This is important as self-regulation has been demonstrated to be a good predictor of academic success as well as financial stability and health in later life (Moffitt et al., 2011; Richmond-Rakerd et al., 2021), and is an ideal target for classroom-wide interventions (e.g. Healey & Halperin, 2015). However, a number of issues were identified that suggest that none of the identified screening tools are entirely appropriate for school-entry screening in Aotearoa New Zealand. Among these issues were a tendency to focus on clinical referrals as an end-point rather than informing teacher practices; taking too long to complete per child for effective implementation across a classroom; and a tendency to be deficit-focused, rather than strengths-based.

Furthermore, all but one tool were developed outside of Aotearoa, meaning that their validity in the New Zealand context is unassured. The few studies investigating the use of international social-emotional assessments in Aotearoa New Zealand suggest that cross-cultural validity is a major issue, and therefore any international assessment tool would need substantial testing to ensure it is valid and reliable before it could be used in Aotearoa. Self-regulation is a culturally specific competency, therefore it is important to consider Indigenous perspectives when assessing self-regulation competencies. As the whakataukī at the beginning of this article illustrates, children develop self-regulation in their own time. It is therefore important to understand how each child is developing self-regulation at school entry to best facilitate their continuing development, empowering children to thrive.

Footnotes

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 authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and publication of this article: This work was supported by the Ministry of Education (New Zealand). The funder had no role in the design of the study or in the analysis and interpretation of the data.

ORCID iDs

Ashleigh Barrett-Young

Rachel Martin

Amanda E. Clifford

Note

Appendix

References

Achenbach

T. M.

Rescorla

L. A.

(2000). Manual for the ASEBA preschool forms & profiles. University of Vermont Research Center for Children, Youth and Families

Ahmad

Peterson

E. R.

Waldie

K. E.

Morton

S. M. B.

(2019). Development of an index of socio-emotional competence for preschool children in the growing up in New Zealand study. Frontiers in Education, 4, 00002. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00002

American Educational Research Association American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education Joint Committee on Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (US) (Eds.). (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.

Anziom

Strader

Sanou

A. S.

Chew

(2021). Without assumptions: Development of a socio-emotional learning framework that reflects community values in Cameroon. Frontiers in Public Health, 9, 602546. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.602546

Boyer

(2013). Getting back to the woods: Familial perspectives on culture and preschoolers’ acquisition of self-regulation and emotion regulation. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(2), 153–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-012-0536-7

Bronson

M. B.

Goodson

B. D.

Layzer

J. I.

Love

J. M.

(1990). Child behavior rating scale. Abt Associates.

Bruno

E. P.

Iruka

I. U.

(2022). Reexamining the Carolina Abecedarian Project using an antiracist perspective: Implications for early care and education research. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 58(1), 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2021.09.001

Buckley

J. A.

Epstein

M. H.

(2004). The behavioral and emotional rating scale-2 (BERS-2): Providing a comprehensive approach to strength-based assessment. California School Psychologist, 9(1), 21–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03340904

Burks

H. F.

Gruber

C. P.

(2006). Burks’ behavior rating scales, Second edition (BBRS-2). Western Psychological Services.

10.

Campbell

S. B.

Denham

S. A.

Howarth

G. Z.

Jones

S. M.

Whittaker

J. V.

Williford

A. P.

Willoughby

M. T.

Yudron

Darling-Churchill

(2016). Commentary on the review of measures of early childhood social and emotional development: Conceptualization, critique, and recommendations. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 45(3), 19–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2016.01.008

11.

Caughy

M. O.

Mills

Brinkley

Owen

M. T.

(2018). Behavioral self-regulation, early academic achievement, and the effectiveness of urban schools for low-income ethnic minority children. American Journal of Community Psychology, 61(3–4), 372–385. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12242

12.

Chafouleas

S. M.

Kilgus

S. P.

Jaffery

Riley-Tillman

T. C.

Welsh

Christ

T. J.

(2013). Direct behavior rating as a school-based behavior screener for elementary and middle grades. Journal of School Psychology, 51(3), 367–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2013.04.002

13.

Chafouleas

S. M.

Riley-Tillman

T. C.

Christ

T. J.

(2009). Direct behavior rating (DBR): An emerging method for assessing social behavior within a tiered intervention system. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 34(4), 195–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508409340391

14.

Chzhen

Rees

Gromada

Cuesta

Bruckauf

(2018). An unfair start: Inequality in children’s education in rich countries. In Drohan

(Ed.). UNICEF Office of Research-Innocenti.

15.

Climie

Henley

(2016). A renewed focus on strengths-based assessment in schools. British Journal of Special Education, 43(2), 108–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12131

16.

Denham

S. A.

(2006). Social-emotional competence as support for school readiness: What is it and how do we assess it? Early Education & Development, 17(1), 57–89. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15566935eed1701_4

17.

Denston

Martin

Hochstrasser Fickel

O’Toole

(2022). Strengthening Socio‑Emotional Learning in Aotearoa New Zealand: Teacher and Whānau Understandings of Wellbeing. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 57, 385–406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-022-00261-4

18.

Dingwall

K. M.

Cairney

(2010). Psychological and cognitive assessment of indigenous Australians. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 44(1), 20–30. https://doi.org/10.3109/00048670903393670

19.

Drummond . (1994). The student risk screening scale (SRSS). Josephine County Mental Health Program.

20.

D’Souza

Waldie

K. E.

Peterson

E. R.

Underwood

Morton

S. M. B.

(2017). Psychometric properties and normative data for the preschool strengths and difficulties questionnaire in two-year-old children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 45(2), 345–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-016-0176-2

21.

Epstein

M. H.

(2004). Behavioral and emotional rating scale (2nd ed.). A strengths-based approach to assessment. PRO-ED.

22.

Fabiano

G. A.

Pelham

W. E.

Jr. Waschbusch

D. A.

Gnagy

E. M.

Lahey

B. B.

Chronis

A. M.

Onyango

A. N.

Kipp

Lopez-Williams

Burrows-Maclean

Burrows-MacLean

(2006). A practical measure of impairment: Psychometric properties of the impairment rating scale in samples of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and two school-based samples. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology: The Official Journal for the Society of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 35(3), 369–385. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp3503_3

23.

Fantuzzo

Sutton-Smith

Coolahan

K. C.

Manz

P. H.

Canning

Debnam

(1995). Assessment of preschool play interaction behaviors in young low-income children: Penn interactive peer play scale. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 10(1), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/0885-2006(95)90028-4

24.

Gaffney

J. S.

Ritchie

Skerrett

Smith

G. H.

Mara

Macfarlane

A. H.

Sleeter

(2021). Imagining possible worlds with young children, families, and teachers: Sustaining indigenous languages and family pedagogies. Kōtuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online, 16(2), 234–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/1177083X.2021.1958877

25.

Gioia

G. A.

Isquith

P. K.

Guy

S. C.

Kenworthy

(2000). Test review: Behavior rating inventory of executive function. Child Neuropsychology, 6(3), 235–238. https://doi.org/10.1076/chin.6.3.235.3152

26.

Gioia

G. A.

Isquith

P. K.

Guy

S. C.

Kenworthy

(2015). Behavior rating inventory of executive function®, Second Edition (BRIEF®2). PAR Inc.

27.

Glover

T. A.

Albers

C. A.

(2007). Considerations for evaluating universal screening assessments. Journal of School Psychology, 45(2), 117–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.05.005

28.

Goodman

(1997). The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: A research note. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 38(5), 581–586. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1997.tb01545.x

29.

Gresham

F. M.

Elliott

S. N.

(2017). Social skills improvement system social-emotional learning edition rating forms. Pearson Assessments.

30.

Halle

T. G.

Darling-Churchill

K. E.

(2016). Review of measures of social and emotional development. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 45(1), 8–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2016.02.003

31.

Healey

D. M.

Halperin

J. M.

(2015). Enhancing neurobehavioral gains with the aid of games and exercise (ENGAGE): Initial open trial of a novel early intervention fostering the development of preschoolers’ self-regulation. Child Neuropsychology: A Journal on Normal and Abnormal Development in Childhood and Adolescence, 21(4), 465–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/09297049.2014.906567

32.

Hightower

A. D.

Cowen

E. L.

Spinell

A. P.

Lotyczewski

B. S.

Guare

J. C.

Rohrbeck

C. A.

Brown

L. P.

(1987). The child rating scale: The development of a socioemotional self-rating scale for elementary school children. School Psychology Review, 16(2), 239–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.1987.12085288

33.

Howard

S. J.

Melhuish

(2017). An early years toolbox for assessing early executive function, language, self-regulation, and social development: Validity, reliability, and preliminary norms. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 35(3), 255–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282916633009

34.

International Test Commission . (2017). The ITC guidelines for translating and adapting tests (Second ed.). www.InTestCom.org.

35.

Janus

Brinkman

Duku

Hertzman

Santos

Sayers

Schroeder

Walsh

(2007). The early development instrument: A population-based measure for communities. A handbook on development, properties, and use. Offord Centre for Child Studies.

36.

Jimerson

S. R.

Sharkey

J. D.

Nyborg

Furlong

M. J.

(2004). Strength-based assessment and school psychology: A summary and synthesis. California School Psychologist, 9(1), 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03340903

37.

Kamphaus

R. W.

Reynolds

C. R.

(2007). Behavior assessment system for children—2nd ed. (BASC–2): Behavioral and emotional screeningsystem (BESS). Pearson.

38.

Kersten

Dudley

Nayar

Elder

Robertson

Tauroa

McPherson

K. M.

(2016). Cross-cultural acceptability and utility of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire: Views of families. BMC Psychiatry, 16(1), 347. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-016-1063-7

39.

Kersten

Vandal

A. C.

Elder

McPherson

K. M.

(2018). Strengths and difficulties questionnaire: Internal validity and reliability for New Zealand preschoolers. BMJ Open, 8(4), Article e021551. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021551

40.

Kersten

Vandal

A. C.

Elder

Tauroa

McPherson

K. M.

(2017). Concurrent validity of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire in an indigenous pre-school population. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(8), 2126–2135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-017-0725-5

41.

Kiddle

(2020). Colonisation sucks for everyone. In Elkington

Jackson

Kiddle

Mercier

O. R.

Ross

Smeaton

Thomas

(Eds.), Imagining Decolonisation (pp. 83–106). Bridget Williams Books.

42.

Kilgus

S. P.

Chafouleas

S. M.

Riley-Tillman

T. C.

(2013). Development and initial validation of the social and academic behavior risk screener for elementary grades. School Psychology Quarterly: The Official Journal of the Division of School Psychology, American Psychological Association, 28(3), 210–226. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000024

43.

Klein

P. S.

Rye

(2004). Interaction-oriented early intervention in Ethiopia: The MISC approach. Infants & Young Children, 17(4), 340–354. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001163-200410000-00007

44.

Korkman

Kirk

Kemp

(2007). Nepsy II: Clinical and interpretive manual (2nd ed.). Harcourt Assessment, PsychCorp.

45.

Koth

C. W.

Bradshaw

C. P.

Leaf

P. J.

(2009). Teacher observation of classroom adaptation—checklist: Development and factor structure. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 42(1), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175609333560

46.

LeBuffe

P. A.

Naglieri

J. A.

(2012). Devereux early childhood assessment for preschoolers (DECA-P2) (2nd ed.). Kaplan Early Learning Company.

47.

LeBuffe

P. A.

Shapiro

V. B.

Naglieri

J. A.

(2014). DESSA Devereux student strengths assessment K-8th grade: A measure of social-emotional competencies of children in kindergarten through eighth grade. Aperture Education.

48.

Lilles

Furlong

Quirk

Felix

Dominguez

Anderson

(2009). Preliminary development of the kindergarten student entrance profile. California School Psychologist, 14(1), 71–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03340952

49.

Macedo

D. M.

Smithers

L. G.

Roberts

R. M.

Paradies

Jamieson

L. M.

(2019). Effects of racism on the socio-emotional wellbeing of Aboriginal Australian children. International Journal for Equity in Health, 18(1), 132. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-019-1036-9

50.

Mardell-Czudnowski

Goldenberg

D. S.

(2011). Developmental indicators for the assessment of learning, Fourth edition (DIAL-4). NCS Pearson.

51.

Matthews

J. S.

Ponitz

C. C.

Morrison

F. J.

(2009). Early gender differences in self-regulation and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 689–704. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014240

52.

McClelland

M. M.

Cameron

C. E.

(2012). Self-regulation in early childhood: Improving conceptual clarity and developing ecologically valid measures. Child Development Perspectives, 6(2), 136–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00191.x

53.

McCrae

J. S.

Brown

S. M.

(2018). Systematic review of social–emotional screening instruments for young children in child welfare. Research on Social Work Practice, 28(7), 767–788. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731516686691

54.

Merrell

(2008a). School social behavior scales user’s guide (2nd ed.). Brookes Publishing.

55.

Merrell

(2008b). Social and emotional assets and resiliency scales (SEARS). School Psychology Program, University of Oregon.

56.

Merrell

K. W.

(1994). Preschool and kindergarten behavior scales. Test manual. Clinical Psychology Publishing Company, Inc. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED378210

57.

Ministry of Education . (2004). Sociocultural assessment: He aromatawai ahurea pāpori. Learning Media Ltd. https://assets.education.govt.nz/public/Documents/Early-Childhood/Kei-Tua-o-te-Pae/ECEBooklet2Full.pdf

58.

Ministry of Education . (2013, December 17). Education in New Zealand. https://www.education.govt.nz/our-work/our-role-and-our-people/education-in-nz/

59.

Ministry of Education . (2017). Te whāriki: He whāriki mātauranga mō ngā mokopuna o Aotearoa, early childhood curriculum. https://www.education.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Early-Childhood/ELS-Te-Whariki-Early-Childhood-Curriculum-ENG-Web.pdf

60.

Ministry of Health . (2015, June 26). B4 School Check information for early learning services. https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/life-stages/child-health/b4-school-check/b4-school-check-information-early-learning-services

61.

Moffitt

T. E.

Arseneault

Belsky

Dickson

Hancox

R. J.

Harrington

Houts

Poulton

Roberts

B. W.

Ross

Sears

M. R.

Thomson

W. M.

Caspi

(2011). A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(7), 2693–2698. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1010076108

62.

Montroy

J. J.

Bowles

R. P.

Skibbe

L. E.

McClelland

M. M.

Morrison

F. J.

(2016). The development of self-regulation across early childhood. Developmental Psychology, 52(11), 1744–1762. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000159

63.

Montroy

J. J.

Zucker

T. A.

Assel

M. M.

Landry

S. H.

Anthony

J. L.

Williams

J. M.

Hsu

H.-Y.

Crawford

Johnson

U. Y.

Carlo

M. S.

Taylor

H. B.

(2020). The Texas kindergarten entry assessment: Development, psychometrics, and scale-up of a comprehensive screener. Early Education & Development, 31(5), 701–738. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2020.1726700

64.

Naglieri

J. A.

LeBuffe

P. A.

Shapiro

V. B.

(2014). DESSA mini: Devereux student strengths assessment K-8th grade: A universial screenig and progress monitoring system for social-emotional competencies. Apperson SEL+. https://f.hubspotusercontent30.net/hubfs/2613587/Stock_images/DESSA-mini_Manual_Redacted_2022.pdf?__hstc=95304899.689f65a5311df62aa4a2fc126b3dc87e.1652825055561.1652825055561.1652825055561.1&__hssc=95304899.4.1652825055562&__hsfp=644975042

65.

Pelham

W. E.

Jr. Gnagy

E. M.

Greenslade

K. E.

Milich

(1992). Teacher ratings of DSM-III-R symptoms for the disruptive behavior disorders. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 31(2), 210–218. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-199203000-00006

66.

Perkins

P. E.

Hightower

A. D.

(2002). T-CRS 2.1 teacher-child rating scale: Examiner’s manual. Children’s Institute.

67.

Priest

Paradies

Trenerry

Truong

Karlsen

Kelly

(2013). A systematic review of studies examining the relationship between reported racism and health and wellbeing for children and young people. Social Science & Medicine, 95, 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.11.031

68.

Putnam

S. P.

Rothbart

M. K.

(2006). Development of short and very short forms of the children’s behavior questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87(1), 102–112. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8701_09

69.

Rameka

L. K.

(2011). Being Māori: Culturally relevant assessment in early childhood education. Early Years, 31(3), 245–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2011.614222

70.

Rameka

L. K.

(2012). Whakapapa: Culturally valid assessment in early childhood. Early Childhood Folio, 16(2), 33–37. https://doi.org/10.18296/ecf.0138

71.

Rameka

L. K.

(2021). Kaupapa Māori assessment: Reclaiming, reframing and realising Māori ways of knowing and being within early childhood education assessment theory and practice. Frontiers in Education, 6, 687601. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.687601

72.

Reid

Cormack

Paine

S.-J.

(2019). Colonial histories, racism and health: The experience of Māori and Indigenous peoples. Public Health, 172, 119–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2019.03.027

73.

Richmond-Rakerd

L. S.

Caspi

Ambler

d’Arbeloff

de Bruine

Elliott

Harrington

Hogan

Houts

R. M.

Ireland

Keenan

Knodt

A. R.

Melzer

T. R.

Park

Poulton

Ramrakha

Rasmussen

L. J. H.

Sack

Schmidt

A. T.

Moffitt

T. E.

(2021). Childhood self-control forecasts the pace of midlife aging and preparedness for old age. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118(3), Article e2010211118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2010211118

74.

Rutter

(1967). A children’s behaviour questionnaire for completion by teachers: Preliminary findings. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 8(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1967.tb02175.x

75.

Sarma

U. A.

Mariam Thomas

(2020). Breaking the limits of executive functions: Towards a sociocultural perspective. Culture & Psychology, 26(3), 358–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X19898673

76.

Sawyer

A. C. P.

Chittleborough

C. R.

Mittinty

M. N.

Miller-Lewis

L. R.

Sawyer

M. G.

Sullivan

Lynch

J. W.

(2015). Are trajectories of self-regulation abilities from ages 2–3 to 6–7 associated with academic achievement in the early school years? Child: Care, Health and Development, 41(5), 744–754. https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12208

77.

Sjö

N. M.

Kiil

Jensen

(2021). Teachers’ perspectives on strength-based and deficit-based instruments for assessing socioemotional development in early childhood. Infants & Young Children, 34(1), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1097/IYC.0000000000000180

78.

Squires

Bricker

Heo

Twombly

(2001). Identification of social-emotional problems in young children using a parent-completed screening measure. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 16(4), 405–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006(01)00115-6

79.

Stats NZ Tatauranga Aotearoa . (2018). Ethnicity, culture, and identity. New Zealand Census 2018. https://www.stats.govt.nz/tools/2018-census-place-summaries/new-zealand#ethnicity-culture-and-identity

80.

Stormont

Herman

K. C.

Reinke

W. M.

King

K. R.

Owens

(2015). The kindergarten academic and behavior readiness screener: The utility of single-item teacher ratings of kindergarten readiness. School Psychology Quarterly: The Official Journal of the Division of School Psychology, American Psychological Association, 30(2), 212–228. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000089

81.

Sutherland

K. S.

Conroy

Abrams

(2010). Improving interactions between teachers and young children with problem behavior: A strengths-based approach. Exceptionality, 18(2), 70–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362831003673101

82.

Tamati

(2021). He Piki Raukura (the flight feathers of the toroa): Understanding and assessing ao Māori child development constructs within kaupapa Māori early years education [PhD Thesis]. University of Otago.

83.

Tamati

Treharne

G. J.

Kokaua

Theodore

Ratima

Hond-Flavell

Edwards

Hond

(2021a). He Piki Raukura: Assessing Ao Māori developmental constructs – Part II: Mapping positive change over 10 months among preschool Māori children. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 50(2), 35–45. http://hdl.handle.net/10523/12429

84.

Tamati

Treharne

G. J.

Theodore

Ratima

Hond-Flavell

Edwards

Hond

Poulton

(2021b). He Piki Raukura: Assessing Ao Māori developmental constructs – Part I: Reliability of novel strengths-based measures among preschool Māori children. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 50(2), 22–34.

85.

Teglasi

Schussler

Gifford

Annotti

L. A.

Sanders

Liu

(2015). Child behavior questionnaire–short form for teachers: InformanT CORRESPONDENCES AND DIVERGences. Assessment, 22(6), 730–748. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191114562828

86.

Thorell

L. B.

Nyberg

(2008). The childhood executive functioning inventory (CHEXI): A new rating instrument for parents and teachers. Developmental Neuropsychology, 33(4), 536–552. https://doi.org/10.1080/87565640802101516

87.

Tremblay

Gokiert

Georgis

Edwards

Skrypnek

(2013). Aboriginal perspectives on social-emotional competence in early childhood. International Indigenous Policy Journal, 4(4). https://doi.org/10.18584/iipj.2013.4.4.2

88.

Trommsdorff

(2009). Culture and Development of Self-Regulation. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3(5), 687–701. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00209.x

89.

Tsethlikai

Murray

D. W.

Meyer

A. M.

Sparrow

(2018). Reflections on the relevance of ‘self-regulation’ for native communities. OPRE brief #2018-64. Office of planning, research, and evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, US. Department of Health and Human Services.

90.

Walker

H. M.

Severson

H. H.

Feil

E. G.

(2014). Systematic screening for behavior disorders (SSBD): Administrator’s guide (2nd ed.). Pacific Northwest Publishing.

91.

Yang

(2016). Inquiry into the identification and support for students with the significant challenges of dyslexia, dyspraxia, and autism spectrum disorders in primary and secondary schools. Education and Science Committee, NZ House of Representatives.