
Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS)

A classroom-based social emotional learning program for elementary school students to reduce aggression and behavior problems.
Program Outcomes
- Academic Performance
- Antisocial-aggressive Behavior
- Conduct Problems
- Delinquency and Criminal Behavior
- Emotional Regulation
- Externalizing
Program Type
- Cognitive-Behavioral Training
- School - Individual Strategies
- Skills Training
- Social Emotional Learning
Program Setting
- School
Continuum of Intervention
- Universal Prevention
Age
- Late Childhood (5-11) - K/Elementary
Gender
- Both
Race/Ethnicity
- All
Endorsements
Blueprints: Model
Crime Solutions: Effective
OJJDP Model Programs: Effective
SAMHSA : 2.6-3.2
Program Information Contact
For curriculum and materials:
PATHS® Program
Phone: 1-877-71PATHS or 1-877-717-2847
pathsprogram.com
For training:
PATHS® Training
pathstraining.com
Also see:
SEL Worldwide
selworldwide.org
Contact: Dorothy Morelli
dorothy@selworldwide.org
dorothygm@hotmail.com
Phone: 615-364-6606
Program Developer/Owner
Mark Greenberg and Carol Kusché
Co-developers
Brief Description of the Program
The PATHS curriculum is a comprehensive program for promoting emotional and social competencies and reducing aggression and behavior problems in elementary school-aged children (grades K-6) while simultaneously enhancing the educational process in the classroom. The evaluation of the preschool version, called Head Start REDI, is treated separately by Blueprints.
The Grade Level PATHS Curriculum consists of separate volumes of lessons for each grade level (K - 6), all of which include developmentally appropriate pictures, photographs, posters, and additional materials. Five conceptual domains, integrated in a hierarchical manner, are included in PATHS lessons at each grade level: self-control, emotional understanding, positive self-esteem, relationships, and interpersonal problem-solving skills. Throughout the lessons, a critical focus of PATHS involves facilitating the dynamic relationship between cognitive-affective understanding and real-life situations. PATHS is designed to be taught two to three times per week (or more often if desired, but not less than twice weekly), with daily activities to promote generalization and support ongoing behavior. PATHS lessons follow lesson objectives and provide scripts to facilitate instruction, but teachers have flexibility in adapting these for their particular classroom needs. Although each unit of PATHS focuses on one or more skill domains (e.g., emotional recognition, friendship, self-control, problem solving), aspects of all five major areas are integrated into each unit. Moreover, each unit builds hierarchically upon and synthesizes the learning which preceded it.
The PATHS curriculum is designed to be used by educators and counselors in a multi-year, universal prevention model. To encourage parent involvement and support, parent letters, home activity assignments, and information are also provided.
The PATHS curriculum is a comprehensive program for promoting emotional and social competencies and reducing aggression and behavior problems in elementary school-aged children (grades K-6) while simultaneously enhancing the educational process in the classroom.
PATHS is now available by grade level in the following grades: Kindergarten, Grade 1, Grade 2, Grade 3, Grade 4, and Grade 5/6. The original multi-year version is also available from the publisher. The grade level versions maintain all key elements of the original version and now organize them more discretely by grade levels. The preschool version of the program, called Head Start REDI, is treated separately by Blueprints.
PATHS targets five major conceptual domains: (1) self control; (2) emotional understanding; (3) positive self-esteem; (4) relationships; and (5) interpersonal problem solving skills. In addition, a 30-lesson non-mandatory supplementary unit reviews and extends PATHS concepts that are covered in other units.
The PATHS curriculum is designed for use by regular classroom teachers. Lessons are sequenced according to increasing developmental difficulty and designed for implementation in approximately 20-30 minutes 2 to 3 times per week. The curriculum provides detailed lesson plans, exact scripts, suggested guidelines, and general and specific objectives for each lesson. However, the curriculum has considerable flexibility so that it can also be integrated with an individual teacher's style. Lessons include such activities as dialoguing, role-playing, story-telling by teachers and peers, social and self-reinforcement, attribution training, and verbal mediation. Learning is promoted in a multi-method manner through the combined use of visual, verbal, and kinesthetic modalities.
Outcomes
Across multiple studies, PATHS relative to a control group showed:
- Lower rate of conduct problems and externalizing behaviors (e.g., aggression),
- Lower internalizing scores and depression,
- Better understanding of cues for recognizing feelings in others,
- Better ability to resolve peer conflicts, identify feelings, identify problems, and greater empathy for others,
- Less anger and attribution bias,
- Reduction in ADHD symptoms, and
- Better scores on measures of authority acceptance, cognitive concentration, and social competence.
- Higher test score proficiency in reading, writing, and math
- Reduction in adolescent delinquency
- Higher child-reported psychological well-being
- Higher teacher-reported emotional adjustment
Significant Program Effects on Risk and Protective Factors:
- Improvements in social problem solving, emotional understanding, and self-control,
- Higher scores on peer sociability and social school functioning.
- Higher teacher-rated socio-emotional competence
- Ability to recognize, label and understand emotions
- Mutual understanding and respect of other groups
Brief Evaluation Methodology
Primary Evidence Base for Certification
Study 7
Averdijk et al. (2016) and Malti et al. (2011, 2012) used a randomized controlled trial with 56 public primary schools in Zurich assigned to four treatment conditions: PATHS (n = 442), Triple-P (n = 422), PATHS+Triple-P (n = 397), and control (n = 414). Students were followed for eight years, from ages 7-8 to 15. Assessments measured externalizing behavior, social competence, delinquency, and aggression.
Additional Studies
Study 1
Greenberg et al. (1995) used a randomized control trial with two schools assigned to the intervention group (n = 130 students) and two schools to the control group (n = 156 students). A posttest after one year of the program measured children's self-reported emotional understanding and teacher-reported emotional problems.
Study 2
Riggs et al. (2006) used a randomized controlled trial with two schools assigned to the intervention group (n = 153) and two schools to the control group (n = 165). Assessments at posttest (nine months after baseline) and one year after posttest measured executive function and teacher-reported behavior problems.
Study 3
Kam et al. (2004) used a randomized controlled trial with 18 teachers of special education classes and 133 special need children assigned to intervention or control groups. Assessments in the spring over the next three years measured depression, problem behavior, and social competence.
Study 4
Greenberg & Kusche (1998) combined a randomized controlled trial and a quasi-experimental design. The study randomly assigned six Seattle-area schools with 79 severely and profoundly hearing-impaired children to an intervention group or a waitlisted control group. The one-year posttest compared the two conditions on measures of academic achievement and behavioral difficulties, but the long-term analysis occurred after some control schools had joined the program.
Study 5
Kam et al. (2003) used a quasi-experimental matched-group design with three high-risk schools assigned to the intervention group (n = 164 students) and three lower-risk schools assigned to the control group (n = 186 students). The intervention combined PATHS with Big Brothers/Big Sisters. The study followed first-grade students from fall to spring, with teachers rating the students on social competence, aggression, and attentional control.
Study 6
Curtis & Norgate (2007) used a quasi-experimental design with five intervention schools (n = 114 students) matched to three control schools (n = 173 students) in the United Kingdom. The sample students, ages 5-7, were assessed at the end of one academic year on emotional symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity, peer problems, and consideration.
Study 8
Seifert et al. (2004) used a quasi-experimental design with one elementary school in Rhode Island and two cohorts of children - one younger cohort receiving the one-year intervention in 2001 during first grade (n = 62), and one older cohort not receiving the intervention (n = 75). Both cohorts were assessed in second grade, but in different years, on depression, socio-emotional competence, and peer relationships.
Study 9
The Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group (2010) used a cluster randomized controlled trial that assigned six schools to the intervention group and six schools to the control group. The sample of 2,937 students came from three cohorts and three different cities. A posttest assessment at the end of the three-year program included measures of social competence and peer relationships.
Study 10
Crean & Johnson (2013) and the SCDRCC (2010) used a randomized controlled trial with 14 schools assigned to intervention or control groups. The study followed third grade students (n = 779) for three years and included teacher-rated and child-reported measures of aggression, conduct problems, and delinquent behavior.
Study 11
Little et al. (2012) and Berry et al. (2016) used a randomized controlled trial with 64 schools in Birmingham, England, that were assigned to intervention or control groups. The 5,397 children in the schools were followed for two years. Teachers provided measures of strengths and difficulties.
Study 12
Schonfeld et al. (2014) used a randomized controlled trial with 24 schools assigned to an intervention group (n = 692 students) or control group (n = 702 students). The students were followed from third grade (baseline) to sixth grade (posttest) and assessed with statewide achievement tests.
Study 13
Fishbein et al. (2016) used a randomized controlled trial with four schools assigned to an intervention or control group. A total of 327 students in kindergarten were rated by teachers and nominated by peers in the fall and spring of the academic year. The measures included aggression, internalizing, emotional regulation, prosocial behavior, and academic skill.
Study 14
Goossens et al. (2012) used a quasi-experimental design that non-randomly assigned 18 Dutch schools and 1,331 students in kindergarten and grade 1 to intervention and comparison groups (n = 9 schools each) and followed the students over two-years. Teacher-rated and child-reported measures included problem behaviors, depression, and emotional regulation.
Study 15
David (2014) non-randomly assigned three Canadian schools and 98 students to an intervention and comparison group and followed the students over 14 months. The measures include reading achievement and social competence.
Study 16
The Manchester study (Barlow et al., 2015; Hennessey & Humphrey, 2019; Humphrey et al., 2016; Humphrey, Barlow, & Lendrum, 2018; Humphrey, Hennessey et al., 2018) was a cluster randomized controlled trial with a sample of 45 schools and 5,218 students in years 3-5 and 3,336 students in years 5-6. Measures of socio-emotional competence, mental health, and academic performance came at posttest (after two years of the program) and at 12- and 24-month follow-ups. An additional QED analysis (Panayiotou et al., 2020) examined program effects for students receiving most of the program lessons relative to those who did not.
Study 17
Novak et al. (2017) used a cluster randomized controlled trial that assigned 60 Croatian schools and 600 first-grade students to intervention and control conditions. The assessment at the end of second grade included teacher-reported measures of prosocial behavior, emotional regulation, hyperactivity, and aggression
Study 18
Hindley & Reed (1999) used a quasi-experimental design that non-randomly assigned four schools and three hearing-impaired units in northeast England to intervention and waitlisted control groups. The sample included 64 deaf children and assessments over the following year measured social and emotional adjustment, reading attainment, and self-control.
Study 19
Ross, Sheard et al. (2011) and Ross, Cheung et al. (2011) used a cluster randomized controlled trial with 12 schools in Northern Ireland, six in the intervention group (n = 650 students), and six in the comparison group (n = 780 students). Assessments of socio-emotional attitudes and prosocial behavior came yearly throughout the three years of the study, with the last assessment serving as a posttest.
Risk Factors
Individual: Antisocial/aggressive behavior, Early initiation of antisocial behavior, Favorable attitudes towards antisocial behavior, Hyperactivity*
School: Low school commitment and attachment, Repeated a grade
Protective Factors
Individual: Clear standards for behavior, Problem solving skills*, Prosocial behavior, Skills for social interaction*
Peer: Interaction with prosocial peers
School: Opportunities for prosocial involvement in education, Rewards for prosocial involvement in school
*
Risk/Protective Factor was significantly impacted by the program
See also: Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS) Logic Model (PDF)
Gender Specific Findings
- Male
Race/Ethnicity/Gender Details
Although samples have included the entire range of SES strata, as well as children from a wide diversity of ethnic, cultural, and family-structural backgrounds, there has been only one analysis that considered differences in program effects by race (CPPRG 1999). In examining the two sites with sufficiently diverse samples for comparison (Nashville and Seattle), it found similar program effects among African Americans and European Americans.For gender, one analysis found that PATHS boys had improved scores as contrasted with comparison boys on the overall teacher ratings of behavior and the dimensions of frustration tolerance and peer sociability. Another study found no gender differences on prosocial behaviors and emotional regulation as rated by teachers, although peers rated control boys as more aggressive and hyperactive than intervention boys (CPPRG, 2010).
PATHS program training is usually done on site at a school or school district. The initial training workshop consists of two separate days scheduled approximately 4-8 weeks apart. The first day provides teachers/trainees with theory, research background, lessons modeled by the trainer, practice to prepare teachers to use PATHS lessons, and implementation planning. During the 4-8 week period prior to the second day of training, teachers gain initial experience with the curriculum. This leads to a more interactive learning experience on the second workshop day since teachers have had some realistic experiences with lesson implementation. Trainer and teachers discuss advanced curriculum issues, trade ideas and engage in problem solving, and teachers model interactive lessons. Another option is to schedule training for two consecutive days.
For optimal implementation, sites should consider additional training/technical assistance activities each year. Ongoing consultation and booster visits are available and are often desired by comprehensive, long-term implementations. The trainer can provide a booster visit each year (one day in length) to meet with the staff and provide continued professional development. One day of fidelity visits is another option, in which the trainer visits schools, observes lessons, etc. The trainer can also provide ongoing consultation by means of regularly scheduled phone calls/conference calls and on-call email consultation with the school's or agency's PATHS coordinator.
In addition to training for teachers, when a multi-school site implementation is conducted, separate training workshops are also provided to school principals on issues in building-wide use and principal leadership. Additional trainings can be arranged for other school staff.
Training for PATHS coaches-a position often utilized by larger implementations to provide feedback, ideas, and encouragement to classroom teachers implementing the PATHS program-typically involves six on-site trainer visits per year, for training, observation, and continued professional development in social-emotional learning. Every-other-week team conference calls typically take place in between on-site training sessions, with everyone checking in to engage in problem-solving and receive additional professional development.
Training and technical assistance is available from two sources:
PATHS™ Education Worldwide
Dorothy Morelli, CEO
615-364-6606
dorothygm@hotmail.com
Carol A. Kusché, Ph.D.
PATHS® Training LLC
927 10th Ave. East
Seattle, WA 98102
206-323-6688
ckusche@comcast.net
Training Certification Process
The PATHS Training Program is designed to develop highly experienced, high quality trainers who are fully competent to provide training in the PATHS Curriculum to their local educational entity. Trainers can include staff (teachers, support staff, staff developers) from local school districts/boards, Local Education Agencies (LEAs) and non-profit agencies focused on the promotion of children's mental health and youth development. PATHS Training LLC trains these qualified "educators" to conduct school-based or regional workshops for the preparation of teachers and school support staff who plan to implement PATHS Curricula within these educational entities. Once certified, PATHS Trainers conduct workshops and provide follow-up technical assistance and coaching services for their district or regional personnel in accordance with the PATHS workshop training materials, agenda and guidelines.
To be considered as an Affiliate Trainer requires meeting the following prerequisites:
- High Quality Performance for at least two years as a PATHS teacher or PATHS Coach
- Master's degree (or comparable credentials)
- Classroom experience with students in a learner role (teaching, administration, and school counseling preferred)
- Training experience with educators
After meeting the pre-requisites above, the requirements to be certified as a trainer include participation in the following four-step training/certification process. The AT candidate(s) receive four days of coaching from a PATHS Senior Trainer in addition to participation in an Observation Workshop and two Shared Workshops. The first day of coaching follows the Observation Workshop. The second day precedes the Shared Workshop. The third day follows the Shared Workshop in preparation for the second Shared Workshop. The fourth day follows the second Shared Workshop in preparation for certification as a PATHS trainer. The primary purpose of the coaching days are to provide detailed and personalized instruction in how to conduct the PATHS workshop and to observe and provide feedback on candidates' training skills. Candidates who successfully complete the program are certified as Affiliate Trainers.
Program Benefits (per individual):
$8,135
Program Costs (per individual):
$366
Net Present Value (Benefits minus Costs, per individual):
$7,769
Measured Risk (odds of a positive Net Present Value):
63%
Source: Washington State Institute for Public Policy
All benefit-cost ratios are the most recent estimates published by The Washington State Institute for Public Policy for Blueprint programs implemented in Washington State. These ratios are based on a) meta-analysis estimates of effect size and b) monetized benefits and calculated costs for programs as delivered in the State of Washington. Caution is recommended in applying these estimates of the benefit-cost ratio to any other state or local area. They are provided as an illustration of the benefit-cost ratio found in one specific state. When feasible, local costs and monetized benefits should be used to calculate expected local benefit-cost ratios. The formula for this calculation can be found on the WSIPP website.
Start-Up Costs
Initial Training and Technical Assistance
$4,000 + trainer travel costs for initial two-day teacher training for up to 40 teachers. There is usually another day for training set up and meeting with the school administration at $2,000.
Curriculum and Materials
$350 to $600 per classroom, depending on the grade level.
Materials Available in Other Language: Parent and home materials have been translated to Spanish and are free of charge with the curriculum.
PATHS is available in the following languages:
German
British English (http://www.pathseducation.co.uk/what-is-paths-across-the-uk)
Croatian (some grades)
Chinese (some grades)
Swedish (preK and K)
Dutch
Welsh
Portuguese
French (under development as of 9/20/17)
For these translations, interested persons can contact Mark Greenberg or Channing-Bete.
Licensing
None.
Other Start-Up Costs
No information is available
Intervention Implementation Costs
Ongoing Curriculum and Materials
$100 per year per classroom for photocopying activity sheets, poster replacement and books.
Staffing
Qualifications: None required but typically delivered by classroom teachers or school counselors.
Ratios: None required. Program designed for classroom delivery with typical classroom ratios of 15 - 25 students per teacher, depending on grade level.
Time to Deliver Intervention: Curriculum is taught three times per week for a minimum of 20 - 30 minutes and ideally should be taught throughout the school year from kindergarten through grade five.
Other Implementation Costs
A local coach is recommended for at least the first year. Coaches are usually teachers with special PATHS training. Whether a full- or part-time coach is needed depends upon how many teachers need the support.
Implementation Support and Fidelity Monitoring Costs
Ongoing Training and Technical Assistance
Technical assistance by email and phone is available from PATHS Training, LLC. While coaches are used, funds should be budgeted for annual site visits by national trainers at a cost of $4,000 plus travel.
Fidelity Monitoring and Evaluation
Local coach takes the lead in fidelity monitoring. If site does not have a coach, a local coordinator responsible for fidelity monitoring should be designated.
Ongoing License Fees
None.
Other Implementation Support and Fidelity Monitoring Costs
None.
Other Cost Considerations
The size of implementation is key to lowering costs. Training many teachers at one time is most cost effective.
Year One Cost Example
This example will be to implement PATHS in two elementary schools using 20 teachers and their classes of 25 students each. Schools can expect to incur the following costs:
With 500 students participating, the cost per student is $119.
Funding Overview
It is relatively inexpensive to get PATHS started in schools, with districts only needing to identify funds for initial training and curriculum purchase. To be most effective, the ongoing implementation of PATHS requires a relatively significant commitment of classroom time in grades K-5. District and school administrators must view the development of social and emotional competence and reduction of disruptive behavior as a priority in order to commit the time.
Funding Strategies
Improving the Use of Existing Public Funds
Sustaining this program requires the ongoing allocation of existing classroom teaching time for the intervention to be delivered by teachers or counselors. To the extent that existing interventions in schools aimed at fostering the development of social and emotional competence and the reduction of disruptive behavior are not evidence-based, funding for these interventions can be considered for re-direction to PATHS.
Allocating State or Local General Funds
State and local funds, most typically from school budgets, are often allocated to purchase the initial training and curriculum. State departments of education or health may also allocate state funds toward prevention programs, and administer them to school districts competitively or through formula. Some states have put in place legislative set-asides requiring a certain portion of state agency budgets be dedicated to evidence-based programs and/or prevention programs.
Maximizing Federal Funds
Formula Funds:
- Title I can potentially support curricula purchase, training, and teacher salaries in schools that are operating schoolwide Title I programs (at least 40% of the student population is eligible for free and reduced lunch). In order for Title I to be allocated, PATHS would have to be viewed as contributing to overall academic achievement.
- Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Formula Funds support a variety of improvements to delinquency prevention programs and juvenile justice programs in states. Evidence-based programs are an explicit priority for these funds, which are typically administered on a competitive basis from the administering state agency to community-based programs.
- The Mental Health Services Block Grant (MHSBG) can fund a variety of mental health promotion and intervention activities and is a potential source of support for school-based mental health promotion programs, depending on the priorities of the administering state agency.
Discretionary Grants: There are relevant federal discretionary grants administered by SAMHSA (Department of Health and Human Services), OJJDP (Department of Justice), and the Department of Education that could support the PATHS program.
Foundation Grants and Public-Private Partnerships
Since the initial training and curriculum purchases, while inexpensive, may still be prohibitive to districts interested in implementing the program, a public-private partnership in which private foundations or local education funds provide funding for initial training and curriculum and schools agree to commit staff time to implementation can be an effective approach for financing PATHS.
Debt Financing
No information is available
Generating New Revenue
New revenue streams are not typically created for this program, though the program is so low-cost that interested schools could potentially consider community fundraising through Parent Teacher Associations, student civic societies, or partnerships with local businesses and civic organizations as a means of raising dollars to support the initial training and curriculum purchases.
Data Sources
All information comes from the responses to a questionnaire submitted by the developer of the program, Mark Greenberg, to the Annie E. Casey Foundation.
Program Developer/Owner
Mark Greenberg and Carol KuschéCo-developersPrevention Research CenterPenn State UniversityPenn State UniversityUniversity ParkUniversity Park16802-6504(814) 863-0112mxg47@psu.educkusche@comcast.net
Program Outcomes
- Academic Performance
- Antisocial-aggressive Behavior
- Conduct Problems
- Delinquency and Criminal Behavior
- Emotional Regulation
- Externalizing
Program Specifics
Program Type
- Cognitive-Behavioral Training
- School - Individual Strategies
- Skills Training
- Social Emotional Learning
Program Setting
- School
Continuum of Intervention
- Universal Prevention
Program Goals
A classroom-based social emotional learning program for elementary school students to reduce aggression and behavior problems.
Population Demographics
PATHS is implemented with elementary school age youth (grades K-6). A modified version to be age-appropriate for preschool students (called Head Start REDI) is treated separately by Blueprints. PATHS has been shown to be effective for both males and female
Target Population
Age
- Late Childhood (5-11) - K/Elementary
Gender
- Both
Gender Specific Findings
- Male
Race/Ethnicity
- All
Race/Ethnicity/Gender Details
Although samples have included the entire range of SES strata, as well as children from a wide diversity of ethnic, cultural, and family-structural backgrounds, there has been only one analysis that considered differences in program effects by race (CPPRG 1999). In examining the two sites with sufficiently diverse samples for comparison (Nashville and Seattle), it found similar program effects among African Americans and European Americans.
For gender, one analysis found that PATHS boys had improved scores as contrasted with comparison boys on the overall teacher ratings of behavior and the dimensions of frustration tolerance and peer sociability. Another study found no gender differences on prosocial behaviors and emotional regulation as rated by teachers, although peers rated control boys as more aggressive and hyperactive than intervention boys (CPPRG, 2010).
Other Risk and Protective Factors
Risk: poor self-control, lack of commitment to school, favorable attitudes toward problem behavior and early initiation, impulsiveness, and peer rejection.
Protective: prosocial orientation, positive peer relations, bonding to school.
Risk/Protective Factor Domain
- Individual
- School
- Peer
Risk/Protective Factors
Risk Factors
Individual: Antisocial/aggressive behavior, Early initiation of antisocial behavior, Favorable attitudes towards antisocial behavior, Hyperactivity*
School: Low school commitment and attachment, Repeated a grade
Protective Factors
Individual: Clear standards for behavior, Problem solving skills*, Prosocial behavior, Skills for social interaction*
Peer: Interaction with prosocial peers
School: Opportunities for prosocial involvement in education, Rewards for prosocial involvement in school
*Risk/Protective Factor was significantly impacted by the program
See also: Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS) Logic Model (PDF)
Brief Description of the Program
The PATHS curriculum is a comprehensive program for promoting emotional and social competencies and reducing aggression and behavior problems in elementary school-aged children (grades K-6) while simultaneously enhancing the educational process in the classroom. The evaluation of the preschool version, called Head Start REDI, is treated separately by Blueprints.
The Grade Level PATHS Curriculum consists of separate volumes of lessons for each grade level (K - 6), all of which include developmentally appropriate pictures, photographs, posters, and additional materials. Five conceptual domains, integrated in a hierarchical manner, are included in PATHS lessons at each grade level: self-control, emotional understanding, positive self-esteem, relationships, and interpersonal problem-solving skills. Throughout the lessons, a critical focus of PATHS involves facilitating the dynamic relationship between cognitive-affective understanding and real-life situations. PATHS is designed to be taught two to three times per week (or more often if desired, but not less than twice weekly), with daily activities to promote generalization and support ongoing behavior. PATHS lessons follow lesson objectives and provide scripts to facilitate instruction, but teachers have flexibility in adapting these for their particular classroom needs. Although each unit of PATHS focuses on one or more skill domains (e.g., emotional recognition, friendship, self-control, problem solving), aspects of all five major areas are integrated into each unit. Moreover, each unit builds hierarchically upon and synthesizes the learning which preceded it.
The PATHS curriculum is designed to be used by educators and counselors in a multi-year, universal prevention model. To encourage parent involvement and support, parent letters, home activity assignments, and information are also provided.
Description of the Program
The PATHS curriculum is a comprehensive program for promoting emotional and social competencies and reducing aggression and behavior problems in elementary school-aged children (grades K-6) while simultaneously enhancing the educational process in the classroom.
PATHS is now available by grade level in the following grades: Kindergarten, Grade 1, Grade 2, Grade 3, Grade 4, and Grade 5/6. The original multi-year version is also available from the publisher. The grade level versions maintain all key elements of the original version and now organize them more discretely by grade levels. The preschool version of the program, called Head Start REDI, is treated separately by Blueprints.
PATHS targets five major conceptual domains: (1) self control; (2) emotional understanding; (3) positive self-esteem; (4) relationships; and (5) interpersonal problem solving skills. In addition, a 30-lesson non-mandatory supplementary unit reviews and extends PATHS concepts that are covered in other units.
The PATHS curriculum is designed for use by regular classroom teachers. Lessons are sequenced according to increasing developmental difficulty and designed for implementation in approximately 20-30 minutes 2 to 3 times per week. The curriculum provides detailed lesson plans, exact scripts, suggested guidelines, and general and specific objectives for each lesson. However, the curriculum has considerable flexibility so that it can also be integrated with an individual teacher's style. Lessons include such activities as dialoguing, role-playing, story-telling by teachers and peers, social and self-reinforcement, attribution training, and verbal mediation. Learning is promoted in a multi-method manner through the combined use of visual, verbal, and kinesthetic modalities.
Theoretical Rationale
PATHS incorporates seven factors considered critical for effective, school-based SEL curricula. These included the use of:
- an integration of a variety of successful approaches and promising theories
- a developmental model, including neuropsychological brain development
- a multi-grade level paradigm
- a strong focus on the role of emotions and emotional development
- generalization of skills to everyday situations
- ongoing training and support for implementation
- multiple measures of both process and outcome for assessing program effectiveness
PATHS is based on five conceptual models. The first, the ABCD (Affective-Behavioral-Cognitive-Dynamic) Model of Development focuses on the promotion of optimal developmental growth for each individual. The ABCD model places primary importance on the developmental integration of affect (i.e., emotion, feeling, mood) and emotion language, behavior, and cognitive understanding to promote social and emotional competence. The second model incorporates an eco-behavioral systems orientation and emphasizes the manner in which the teacher uses the curriculum model and generalizes the skills to build a healthy classroom atmosphere (i.e., one that supports the children's use and internalization of the material they have been taught). The third model involves the domains of neurobiology and brain structuralization/organization. PATHS incorporates strategies to optimize the nature and quality of teacher-child and peer-peer interactions that are likely to impact brain development as well as learning. The fourth paradigm involves psychodynamic education (derived from Developmental Psychodynamic Theory) which aims to coordinate social, emotional, and cognitive growth. Finally, the fifth model includes psychological issues related to emotional awareness, or as it is more popularly labeled, emotional intelligence. As such, a central focus of PATHS is encouraging children to discuss feelings, experiences, opinions, and needs that are personally meaningful, and making them feel listened to, supported, and respected by both teachers and peers. As a result, the internalization of feeling valued, cared for, appreciated, and part of a social group is facilitated, which, in turn, motivates children to value, care for, and appreciate themselves, their environment, their social groups, other people, and their world.
Theoretical Orientation
- Skill Oriented
- Cognitive Behavioral
- Biological - Neurobiological
- Self Efficacy
- Social Learning
Brief Evaluation Methodology
Primary Evidence Base for Certification
Study 7
Averdijk et al. (2016) and Malti et al. (2011, 2012) used a randomized controlled trial with 56 public primary schools in Zurich assigned to four treatment conditions: PATHS (n = 442), Triple-P (n = 422), PATHS+Triple-P (n = 397), and control (n = 414). Students were followed for eight years, from ages 7-8 to 15. Assessments measured externalizing behavior, social competence, delinquency, and aggression.
Additional Studies
Study 1
Greenberg et al. (1995) used a randomized control trial with two schools assigned to the intervention group (n = 130 students) and two schools to the control group (n = 156 students). A posttest after one year of the program measured children's self-reported emotional understanding and teacher-reported emotional problems.
Study 2
Riggs et al. (2006) used a randomized controlled trial with two schools assigned to the intervention group (n = 153) and two schools to the control group (n = 165). Assessments at posttest (nine months after baseline) and one year after posttest measured executive function and teacher-reported behavior problems.
Study 3
Kam et al. (2004) used a randomized controlled trial with 18 teachers of special education classes and 133 special need children assigned to intervention or control groups. Assessments in the spring over the next three years measured depression, problem behavior, and social competence.
Study 4
Greenberg & Kusche (1998) combined a randomized controlled trial and a quasi-experimental design. The study randomly assigned six Seattle-area schools with 79 severely and profoundly hearing-impaired children to an intervention group or a waitlisted control group. The one-year posttest compared the two conditions on measures of academic achievement and behavioral difficulties, but the long-term analysis occurred after some control schools had joined the program.
Study 5
Kam et al. (2003) used a quasi-experimental matched-group design with three high-risk schools assigned to the intervention group (n = 164 students) and three lower-risk schools assigned to the control group (n = 186 students). The intervention combined PATHS with Big Brothers/Big Sisters. The study followed first-grade students from fall to spring, with teachers rating the students on social competence, aggression, and attentional control.
Study 6
Curtis & Norgate (2007) used a quasi-experimental design with five intervention schools (n = 114 students) matched to three control schools (n = 173 students) in the United Kingdom. The sample students, ages 5-7, were assessed at the end of one academic year on emotional symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity, peer problems, and consideration.
Study 8
Seifert et al. (2004) used a quasi-experimental design with one elementary school in Rhode Island and two cohorts of children - one younger cohort receiving the one-year intervention in 2001 during first grade (n = 62), and one older cohort not receiving the intervention (n = 75). Both cohorts were assessed in second grade, but in different years, on depression, socio-emotional competence, and peer relationships.
Study 9
The Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group (2010) used a cluster randomized controlled trial that assigned six schools to the intervention group and six schools to the control group. The sample of 2,937 students came from three cohorts and three different cities. A posttest assessment at the end of the three-year program included measures of social competence and peer relationships.
Study 10
Crean & Johnson (2013) and the SCDRCC (2010) used a randomized controlled trial with 14 schools assigned to intervention or control groups. The study followed third grade students (n = 779) for three years and included teacher-rated and child-reported measures of aggression, conduct problems, and delinquent behavior.
Study 11
Little et al. (2012) and Berry et al. (2016) used a randomized controlled trial with 64 schools in Birmingham, England, that were assigned to intervention or control groups. The 5,397 children in the schools were followed for two years. Teachers provided measures of strengths and difficulties.
Study 12
Schonfeld et al. (2014) used a randomized controlled trial with 24 schools assigned to an intervention group (n = 692 students) or control group (n = 702 students). The students were followed from third grade (baseline) to sixth grade (posttest) and assessed with statewide achievement tests.
Study 13
Fishbein et al. (2016) used a randomized controlled trial with four schools assigned to an intervention or control group. A total of 327 students in kindergarten were rated by teachers and nominated by peers in the fall and spring of the academic year. The measures included aggression, internalizing, emotional regulation, prosocial behavior, and academic skill.
Study 14
Goossens et al. (2012) used a quasi-experimental design that non-randomly assigned 18 Dutch schools and 1,331 students in kindergarten and grade 1 to intervention and comparison groups (n = 9 schools each) and followed the students over two-years. Teacher-rated and child-reported measures included problem behaviors, depression, and emotional regulation.
Study 15
David (2014) non-randomly assigned three Canadian schools and 98 students to an intervention and comparison group and followed the students over 14 months. The measures include reading achievement and social competence.
Study 16
The Manchester study (Barlow et al., 2015; Hennessey & Humphrey, 2019; Humphrey et al., 2016; Humphrey, Barlow, & Lendrum, 2018; Humphrey, Hennessey et al., 2018) was a cluster randomized controlled trial with a sample of 45 schools and 5,218 students in years 3-5 and 3,336 students in years 5-6. Measures of socio-emotional competence, mental health, and academic performance came at posttest (after two years of the program) and at 12- and 24-month follow-ups. An additional QED analysis (Panayiotou et al., 2020) examined program effects for students receiving most of the program lessons relative to those who did not.
Study 17
Novak et al. (2017) used a cluster randomized controlled trial that assigned 60 Croatian schools and 600 first-grade students to intervention and control conditions. The assessment at the end of second grade included teacher-reported measures of prosocial behavior, emotional regulation, hyperactivity, and aggression
Study 18
Hindley & Reed (1999) used a quasi-experimental design that non-randomly assigned four schools and three hearing-impaired units in northeast England to intervention and waitlisted control groups. The sample included 64 deaf children and assessments over the following year measured social and emotional adjustment, reading attainment, and self-control.
Study 19
Ross, Sheard et al. (2011) and Ross, Cheung et al. (2011) used a cluster randomized controlled trial with 12 schools in Northern Ireland, six in the intervention group (n = 650 students), and six in the comparison group (n = 780 students). Assessments of socio-emotional attitudes and prosocial behavior came yearly throughout the three years of the study, with the last assessment serving as a posttest.
Outcomes (Brief, over all studies)
Primary Evidence Base for Certification
Study 7
Malti et al. (2011, 2012) and Averdijk et al. (2016) found that, relative to students in the control schools, students in the intervention schools had significantly lower aggressive behavior (based on parent and teacher reports), ADHD symptoms (based on teacher reports), and adolescent delinquency (based on police contacts).
Additional Studies - The following findings should be interpreted within the context of study limitations
Study 1
Greenberg et al. (1995) found that, relative to the control group, the intervention group showed significantly greater improvements in affective vocabulary, understanding of feelings in others, and comprehension of complex feeling states.
Study 2
Riggs et al. (2006) found that, relative to students in the control group, students in the intervention group showed significantly greater improvements in teacher-reported externalizing and internalizing behavior.
Study 3
Kam, Greenberg, and Kusche (2004) found that, for a sample of special-needs students, the intervention group relative to the control group had significantly lower scores on internalizing symptomology, internalizing, externalizing behavior, depression, and self-control.
Study 4
Greenberg and Kusche (1998) found that, for a sample of deaf children, the intervention group relative to the control group showed significantly greater improvements in social problem-solving skills, emotional recognition skills, reading achievement and non-verbal planning skills, and teacher and parent-rated social competence.
Study 5
Kam et al. (2003) found that, in a study of PATHS combined with Big Brothers/Big Sisters, the intervention group relative to the control group showed significantly greater reductions in aggression and behavioral dysregulation, and significantly greater increases in emotional competence, but only in schools with high fidelity and high principal support.
Study 6
Curtis & Norgate (2007) found that the intervention group relative to the control group showed significantly greater improvements on emotional symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity, peer problems, and consideration.
Study 8
Seifert et al. (2004) found that, relative to the control cohort, the intervention cohort showed significantly greater improvements on global social competence and social-emotional competence.
Study 9
CPPRG (2010) found that the intervention group relative to the control group showed significantly greater reductions in teacher-rated scores on authority acceptance, cognitive concentration, and social competence, and for boys only, significantly reduced peer ratings of aggression and hyperactivity.
Study 10
Crean & Johnson (2013) found that, relative to the control group, the intervention group showed significantly greater reductions in teacher-reported conduct problems and in student-reported aggressive social problem solving, hostile attribution bias, and aggressive interpersonal negotiation strategies.
Study 11
Little et al. (2012) and Berry et al. (2016) found no significant effects on youth strengths and difficulties or on teacher and classroom behaviors.
Study 12
Schonfeld et al. (2014) found that, relative to the control group, the intervention group showed significantly higher test score proficiency in reading, writing, and math.
Study 13
Fishbein et al. (2016) found that, relative to the control group, the intervention group showed significantly greater improvements in researcher-rated outcomes of inhibition task accuracy and impulsivity and teacher-rated outcomes of aggression, internalizing, social competence, emotion regulation, prosocial behavior, impulsivity, inattention, closeness and conflict with teacher, peer relationship problems, and academic skills.
Study 14
Goossens et al. (2012) found only one significant effect (higher emotional awareness in the intervention group than the comparison group) in 27 tests.
Study 15
David (2014) found no significant program effects on measures of social competence or reading achievement.
Study 16
Barlow et al. (2015), Hennessey & Humphrey (2019), Humphrey et al. (2016), Humphrey, Barlow, & Lendrum et al. (2018), Humphrey, Hennessey et al. (2018), and Panayiotou et al. (2020) found only two significant program benefits in numerous tests for measures of socio-emotional competence, mental health, and English and math achievement tests. The intervention group had significantly higher teacher ratings of socio-emotional competence and higher child self-reported psychological well-being than the control group. However, a QED analysis demonstrated stronger effects for students who received most of the program lessons.
Study 17
Novak et al. (2017) found no significant main effects of the intervention for the full sample but found significant benefits for several outcomes among those classified as being low risk at baseline.
Study 18
Hindley & Reed (1999) found that the intervention children improved significantly more than the control children on self-image, emotional adjustment, and ability to recognize, label and understand emotions.
Study 19
Ross, Sheard et al. (2011) and Ross, Cheung et al. (2011) found that, relative to the control group, the intervention group did significantly better on several teacher-rated measures of empathy, perseverance, negative affect, and aggression, and on several child-assessed measures of emotional understanding, responses to challenging scenarios, and mutual understanding.
Outcomes
Across multiple studies, PATHS relative to a control group showed:
- Lower rate of conduct problems and externalizing behaviors (e.g., aggression),
- Lower internalizing scores and depression,
- Better understanding of cues for recognizing feelings in others,
- Better ability to resolve peer conflicts, identify feelings, identify problems, and greater empathy for others,
- Less anger and attribution bias,
- Reduction in ADHD symptoms, and
- Better scores on measures of authority acceptance, cognitive concentration, and social competence.
- Higher test score proficiency in reading, writing, and math
- Reduction in adolescent delinquency
- Higher child-reported psychological well-being
- Higher teacher-reported emotional adjustment
Significant Program Effects on Risk and Protective Factors:
- Improvements in social problem solving, emotional understanding, and self-control,
- Higher scores on peer sociability and social school functioning.
- Higher teacher-rated socio-emotional competence
- Ability to recognize, label and understand emotions
- Mutual understanding and respect of other groups
Mediating Effects
Models used regression analyses in which the significance of the direct effect between intervention and later conduct problems were compared with and without entering the mediator into the model. Prevention impact on teacher reports of externalizing problems was partially mediated by emotion regulation (ß reduced from p <.01 to p =.26). A similar impact was also found for students' self-report of conduct problems in which emotion regulation partly mediated (ß reduced from p <.01 to p =.29). No mediational effects were found for either understanding of emotional cues or social problem-solving.
In a different study (Riggs et al., 2006), inhibitory control at immediate posttest significantly mediated the relation between experimental condition and both teacher-reported externalizing and internalizing behavior at 1-year follow-up.
Effect Size
For PATHS, the effect sizes of significant results were small to moderate (Malti et al. 2011). Compared to a control group, PATHS significantly reduced aggressive behavior across time (teacher reports: d=0.42; p<.05; parent reports: d=0.26, p<.05)
Generalizability
It is unknown if this program can be generalized to all special-needs classrooms or is better suited to a particular form of special needs child (e.g., behavioral problems vs. learning disabilities). Based on the overall success of multiple evaluations of the PATHS curriculum, however, it would appear that the program is generalizable to a wide array of hearing and deaf children in both regular and special needs classrooms. No analysis of effects by race was provided in any of the evaluations, but samples are generally ethnically/racially diverse. In two recent evaluations PATHS was found to be effective among children in elementary schools in Zurich, Switzerland (Malti et al., 2011; Averdijk et al., 2016). However, it was not effective among children in elementary schools in the Netherlands, Croatia, eastern Canada, Birmingham, England, or Manchester, England. A study in North Ireland found program benefits for attitudes and understanding.
Potential Limitations
Primary Evidence Base for Certification
Study 7
Malti et al. (2011, 2012), Averdijk et al. (2016)
- Researchers rating children may not have been masked to group membership
- No reliability or validity was reported for some outcome measures
- No baseline outcome controls (due to large gap in ages from baseline to follow up)
- Incomplete tests for baseline differences
- No tests for differential attrition
- Few significant findings for the PATHS-only condition
Additional Studies
Studies 1-2
Greenberg et al. (1995), Riggs et al. (2006)
Sample attrition in the first year of implementation was high and reduced the sample size significantly, thus reducing the power to accurately detect differences. High levels of student mobility further limited comparisons between students receiving one or two years of the intervention. No analysis of differential attrition or mobility was conducted for the full sample (although this was done for the regular classroom subsample), which would further inform the interpretations of the analyses.
Studies 3-6
Kam et al. (2004), Greenberg & Kusche (1998), Kam et al. (2003), Curtis & Norgate (2007)
Small sample sizes within treatment groups make it difficult to generalize the outcomes to larger, more diverse populations. No analyses of differential attrition were performed.
Study 8
Seifert et al. (2004)
- No pretest assessment, assessment of baseline equivalence, or information on attrition.
- The comparisons across cohorts may be confounded by time.
- Only outcomes based on interviewer ratings reached significance, not outcomes based on child self-reports.
- Interviewers rating children likely were not blinded to the condition.
- Reports of teacher dissatisfaction with the program suggest implementation problems.
Study 9
CPPRG (2010)
- A concurrent intervention for high-risk students meant that the sample excluded the worst behaving students and that the other ongoing intervention might have influenced the program outcomes.
- Baseline tests for equivalence compared schools but not children.
- Teachers who delivered the intervention also did ratings of classroom children, and results proved stronger for teacher ratings than child ratings.
- Attrition was high because the study was limited to children who had stayed in the same school for all three years, and differential attrition was apparent on several baseline measures.
- Contrary to intent-to-treat procedures, only students who participated in the program for all three years were followed and used in the analysis.
Study 10
Crean & Johnson (2013), SCDRC (2010)
- Teachers who delivered the program also provided some student measures
- Models adjusted for clustering but may have too few schools to obtain reliable estimates
- No effects on independent behavioral outcomes
- Some evidence of iatrogenic effects on conduct problems in first two years of the program
Study 11
Little et al. (2012), Berry et al. (2016)
- Randomized 64 schools but eight dropped out before baseline
- Most measures of children came from teachers who delivered the program
- Measures validated by others but no study-specific figures
- Incomplete tests for differential attrition
- No significant effects on behavioral outcomes
Study 12
Schonfeld et al. (2014)
- Not an intent-to-treat study - excluded those not participating in all four program years
- No tests for baseline equivalence of outcomes
- No controls for baseline scores
- Tests for differential attrition incomplete
- Sample from one large, urban school district
Study 13
Fishbein et al. (2016)
- No information on student-level attrition
- No information on reliability/validity provided for 8 of the 14 outcome measures
- Teachers who delivered the program also completed the assessments (with effects in favor of the treatment on 13 of the 13 teacher-rated measures)
- There was an effect on 15 out of 23 measures, but only 2 of these effects were assessed using independent measures (and it still wasn't clear whether those collecting these data were blind to condition)
- Small sample size (n = 4 schools, and schools were the unit of assignment)
- Incorrect level of analysis with no adjustment for unit of randomization (schools)
Study 14
Goossens et al. (2012)
- Non-random assignment of schools
- Many student measures came from teachers who delivered the program
- Adjusted for clustering, but the sample of 18 clusters may be too small for reliable estimates
- Tests for baseline equivalence showed many differences
- No reliable program effects
Study 15
David (2014)
- Non-random assignment of schools with only one control school
- Some student measures came from teachers who delivered the program
- Low reliabilities for some measures
- Incorrect level of analysis
- No tests for differential attrition
- No significant program effects
- Small sample of only three schools
Study 16
Barlow et al. (2015), Hennessey & Humphrey (2019), Humphrey et al. (2016), Humphrey, Barlow, & Lendrum (2018), Humphrey, Hennessey et al. (2018), Panayiotou et al. (2020)
- Some posttest child measures provided by teachers who delivered the program
- Evidence of differential attrition
- Few ITT effects at posttest, though stronger effects in QED complier analysis
- No program effects at long-term follow-up
Study 17
Novak et al. (2017)
- Teachers who delivered the program provided all child measures
- Adjusted for clustering within classrooms but not within schools, the unit of randomization
- No significant baseline differences for outcomes but no tests for sociodemographic characteristics
- No significant main effects at posttest, only effects for a low-risk subgroup
Study 18
Hindley & Reed (1999)
- Non-random assignment of schools/units (n = 7)
- Some measures came from teachers who delivered the program
- No reliability or validity information
- Unclear if used intent-to-treat sample
- Incorrect level of analysis
- Incomplete tests for baseline equivalence
- No tests for differential attrition
Study 19
Ross, Sheard et al. (2011), Ross, Cheung et al. (2011)
- Cluster RCT but one of 13 schools dropped out right after assignment and comparison schools adopted the program before the posttest
- Teachers who delivered programs provided behavioral measures of children
- Little information on reliability and validity of measures
- Did not attempt to follow the oldest students after they left middle school
- Incorrect level of analysis
- Baseline controls not always used
- Some baseline differences between conditions
- Incomplete tests for differential attrition
- No significant effects on independently measured behavioral outcomes
Notes
A preschool version of PATHS called Head Start REDI is treated as a separate program in Blueprints.
The PATHS curriculum has been integrated into the FAST track program, which seeks to integrate the provision of universal, selective, and indicated services into a comprehensive model that involves the child, school, family and community. Please see the FAST Track write-up for detailed information on this comprehensive program.
Riggs, Sakuma, and Pentz (2007) modified the PATHS program to address obesity (see writeup on PATHWAYS).
Riggs, N. R., Sakuma, K. K., & Pentz, M.A. (2007). Preventing risk for obesity by promoting self-regulation and decision-making skills. Evaluation Review, 31, 287-310.
Endorsements
Blueprints: Model
Crime Solutions: Effective
OJJDP Model Programs: Effective
SAMHSA : 2.6-3.2
Peer Implementation Sites
Denine Goolsby
Executive Director Humanware
Cleveland Public Schools
1111 Superior Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44114
PH: 216-838-0107
Flavia Hernandez, Principal
McCormick Elementary School
Chicago Public Schools
2712 S. Sawyer Avenue
Chicago, IL 60623
PH: 773-535-7252
Carmen Navarro, Principal
Mariano Azuela Elementary School
Chicago Public Schools
3707 W. Marquette Road
Chicago, IL 60629
PH: 773-535-7395
Caroline Boxmeyer, Associate Professor University of Alabama
Hale County/Sawyerville Head Start Center
850th 5th Avenue East
Box 870326
Tuscaloosa, Alabama
PH: 205-348-1325
Program Information Contact
For curriculum and materials:
PATHS® Program
Phone: 1-877-71PATHS or 1-877-717-2847
pathsprogram.com
For training:
PATHS® Training
pathstraining.com
Also see:
SEL Worldwide
selworldwide.org
Contact: Dorothy Morelli
dorothy@selworldwide.org
dorothygm@hotmail.com
Phone: 615-364-6606