Chapter 3

A Developmental Framework for SEL

Assessment
Context, Culture, and Equity
Rebecca J. Bulotsky-Shearer, Pilar Alamos, Jenna Futterer, and
Jhonelle Bailey

As defined by the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL),
social and emotional learning (SEL) is:

the process through which all young people and adults acquire and apply the knowl-
edge, skills, and attitudes to develop healthy identities, manage emotions and achieve
personal and collective goals, feel and show empathy for others, establish and main-
tain supportive relationships, and make responsible and caring decisions.
(CASEL, 2021)

In this chapter we discuss the importance of applying a developmental perspective to

assess SEL competencies from early childhood through adolescence. First, we describe
what applying a developmental perspective to social and emotional learning competen-
cies “looks like,” illustrating the ideas of developmental change and continuity in SEL
constructs over time. Second, we apply a developmental perspective by considering: (1)
key contexts that support social and emotional development as opportunities for assess-
ing children’s SEL skills in ecologically valid ways over time; and (2) cultural relevance
and sensitivity when assessing SEL competencies for children from diverse ethnic, racial,
and linguistic backgrounds. Third, we review state-level SEL standards and showcase
exemplary states that apply a developmental perspective, and the implications for align-
ment of standards, curricula, and developmentally appropriate SEL assessment.
Two broad theoretical frameworks guide the application of a developmental perspec-
tive to assess SEL over time: the developmental cascades and the bioecological model. The
developmental cascades model highlights that children’s competencies and behaviors in
one developmental stage “drive” future outcomes over time and across domains (Masten
et al., 2005; Masten & Cicchetti, 2010), motivating the need for developmentally appro-
priate assessments that tap into continuity in SEL constructs over time. The bioecological
model emphasizes the dynamic, reciprocal interactions between children and key rela-
tional partners within their micro- and macrocontexts (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006),
recognizing the importance of considering context for assessing children’s SEL skills.

Applying a Developmental Perspective to the Assessment of

SEL Competencies
Applying a developmental perspective to SEL assessment requires thinking about change
and continuity over time (Waters & Sroufe, 1983). Here we briefly describe change and
continuity and illustrate these two concepts as applied to the CASEL domains of self-
awareness and relationship skills. More details on how to adopt a developmental per-
spective to SEL can be found in Denham (2018). Additionally, specific applications of
DOI: 10.4324/9781003102243-4
 A Developmental Framework for SEL Assessment  29

a developmental perspective to the study of self-regulation can be found in Bailey and

Jones (2019) and Murray et al. (2015).

Change
Children’s development is marked by change. Change is driven by each developmental
stage (e.g., early childhood or adolescence) including different social-emotional tasks
that are particularly salient for children or youth in that stage to master. Developmental
tasks include contextual demands that call for sets of SEL skills within proximal contexts
such as parent-child relationships, families, schools, and communities that children expe-
rience at different age periods. A developmental perspective is important to understand
how the nature of contextual demands change as children develop over time, as well as
the nature of SEL skills required to successfully navigate these task demands. A devel-
opmental perspective also informs what SEL skills to expect normatively (and therefore
what to assess) over time. Table 3.1 illustrates the idea of developmental tasks as applied
to two subskills within the CASEL multidimensional domains of self-awareness and rela-
tionship skills.
The example in the top of Table 3.1 shows how developing children’s ability to rec-
ognize their own emotions typically changes over time, evolving into increasingly more
sophisticated skills. During early childhood, children can recognize and understand basic
emotions such as happiness, anger, fear, surprise, and disgust (Denham et al., 2011). For
instance, we expect preschoolers to accurately label their own emotions and to understand
how basic emotions are linked to behavior within their cultural norm group (e.g., identify
that they would feel happy if given a present; Widen & Russell, 2010; 2011). By middle
childhood, we expect children to describe complex self-conscious emotions (e.g., shame,
guilt, and pride; Carr, 2017) and to develop awareness that they may feel conflicting emo-
tions about the same person (e.g., being mad at someone they like). Bleeding into the
CASEL’s social awareness domain, we also expect children to develop awareness that two
people may feel differently toward the same event (e.g., when failing a task, some may feel
sad whereas others angry; Denham et al., 2011). During late childhood and adolescence,
we expect youth to demonstrate a more sophisticated understanding of emotional com-
plexities as relevant to their culture (Denham et al., 2009). Youth can more accurately

Table 3.1  
E xample of Developmental Tasks as Applied to Two Subskills within the CASEL
MultiDimensional Competencies of Self-Awareness and Relationship Skills

Self-Awareness – Understanding your own emotions.

Early childhood Middle childhood Late childhood Adolescence
(3–6 years) (6–10 years) (11–13 years) (14–17 years)
Recognize and Recognize and Develop more Develop more
understand basic understand self- sophisticated sophisticated
emotions. conscious and understanding of understanding of
complex emotions. complex emotional complex emotional
situations. situations.
Relationship Skills – Engaging in positive social interactions with peers.
Early childhood Middle childhood Late childhood Adolescence
(3–6 years) (6–10 years) (11–13 years) (14–17 years)
Engage in interactions Engage interactions Engage interactions Engage interactions
with peers through with peers that with peers that with peers that
play. involve helping and involve helping and involve intimacy and
shared activities. shared activities. self-disclosure.
30  Rebecca J. Bulotsky-Shearer et al.

identify mixed emotions (e.g., a face depicting a blend of anger and joy; van Beek &
Dubas, 2008), and report experiencing mixed emotions themselves (Larsen et al., 2007).
It is important to note that the example in Table 3.1 starts with the early childhood
period because the CASEL’s definition of self-awareness involves children’s “understand-
ing of their own emotions” (CASEL, 2021) as one dimension. Although younger children
cannot understand their emotions, precursors of emotional understanding can be observed
in infancy and toddlerhood (e.g., seven- month-olds can express emotions with differ-
ent sounds and expressions, 24-month-olds can recognize themselves in a mirror; Landy,
2009). The example in the bottom of Table 3.1 illustrates how change in SEL skills over
time can also be marked by changes in contextual task demands that children face at dif-
ferent developmental stages. For example, proximity and playing with peers in early child-
hood is an important developmental task that requires SEL skills, while helping others
and sharing activities with peers develops in middle and late childhood, and intimacy and
self-disclosure with friends emerges in adolescence (Furman & Rose, 2015). Similarly, SEL
skill precursors of children’s engagement in positive peer interactions can be found dur-
ing infancy and toddlerhood, such as joint visual attention or parallel play (Landy, 2009).
Developmental skills as they emerge across different task demands point to what to
assess at different ages and/or the key contexts in which to assess specific SEL skills. Each
developmental period brings new demands on children’s developmental SEL capacities;
assessing the quality of a child’s adaptation, given normative expectation of a develop-
mental task progression, also helps to identify critical opportunities to support children’s
development in a specific social or emotional skill.

Continuity
Children’s development is not only marked by change, but also by stability over time.
Whereas specific developmental skills change over time, the underlying SEL construct
stays largely the same. For instance, the examples in Table 3.1 illustrate that the skills “rec-
ognize and understand your own emotions” or “engage in positive social interactions with
peers” look different at subsequent developmental stages, as the child’s developmental
capacities become more sophisticated. However, the underlying core competencies (e.g.,
self-awareness or relationship skills) remain largely the same over time. The skills in the
examples in Table 3.1 were derived from the CASEL framework. But what specific SEL
skills to assess across different ages, and what constructs these skills tap into, will be largely
driven by the specific SEL framework and intervention being used, as assessments often
target the expected outcome or target of change of an intervention. In addition, skills to
assess will also vary by the child’s cultural or family values (detailed information about dif-
ferent SEL frameworks—including visuals about their unique features and the connections
between frameworks—can be found on the Explore SEL website; Ecological Approaches
to Social Emotional Learning [EASEL] lab, n.d.; also see chapter 2 in this book).
Children’s ability to master developmental tasks cascades over time, implying that earlier
competence supports subsequent mastery of more mature SEL skills (Masten et al., 2005;
Roisman et al., 2004; Seiffge-Krenke & Gelhaar, 2008). For example, children who are bet-
ter able to recognize and understand basic emotions in early childhood will likely be better
equipped to recognize more complex self-conscious emotions during middle childhood.
Conversely, children who show difficulties sharing activities with peers during late child-
hood may experience challenges sharing information about themselves (self-disclosure
skills) during adolescence. A developmental understanding of change and continuity in
SEL skills is important to inform developmentally appropriate assessments that can pro-
vide meaningful feedback to support children’s learning and development over time.
 A Developmental Framework for SEL Assessment  31

Contexts that Support SEL Skill Development and Inform

Assessment Over Time
A central tenet of bioecological theory is that children learn and grow within key ecologi-
cal contexts (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). Micro- and macro-contexts support the
development of children’s SEL competencies across each age range; importantly, under-
standing which contexts are central at what developmental period can inform appropri-
ate choice of source and method to assess children within relevant contexts. The most
proximal systems to the developing child (families and caregivers) are the most direct
influences during the earliest years. As children enter formal schooling, their develop-
ment of SEL competencies is supported optimally when the practices within the home
and community context are aligned with schoolwide and classroom culture, practices,
and policies (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). In accord with this model, the CASEL, in
its revised conceptualization of SEL, articulates the importance of the “outer rings” that
surround the child and developing SEL competencies (CASEL, 2021). Increased align-
ment through bidirectional communication and partnerships between home and school
supports educational equity and optimal learning experiences for children (CASEL,
2021). As such, this home-school alignment can be assessed and incorporated into SEL
assessments of the child as they enter school settings.
There are several implications for SEL assessment when considering that children
develop within the context of micro- and macro-systems, and within the context of rela-
tionships. First, in terms of ecological validity, relevant contexts must be considered for
appropriately assessing children’s SEL skills at different developmental stages (Brownell
et al., 2015). Second, in assessing SEL skills, there is the need to measure context itself;
ecological contexts (e.g., family, school)—and their dynamics (e.g., alignment)—that can
either support or hinder children’s SEL development over time. Below we briefly review
key ecological contexts that should be considered in assessing children over time (for
a comprehensive review of ecological developmental contexts for SEL assessment see
Bornstein et al., 2015; Brownell et al., 2015).
Before children enter kindergarten, during infancy, toddlerhood, and early childhood,
key relationships within the family (parent-child interactions) and early education pro-
grams (family-school communication, teacher-child, and peer relationships) are the pri-
mary contexts where children develop and display SEL skills (Burchinal et al., 2015). In
these contexts, parents and teachers are key sources and reporters of children’s SEL skills
as they interact with and observe children’s skills on a day-to-day basis. For instance, the
preschool classroom provides opportunities for young children to practice and to dis-
play self-management (e.g., follow instructions, organize building a tower in the blocks
area) and relationship skills (e.g., prosocial behaviors, communicating their needs to
the teacher). Teachers/educators are one of the most important sources of valid, sum-
mative data about children’s self-management and relationship skills as they have fre-
quent opportunities to observe these skills within the classroom during different activity
settings and routines throughout the day (e.g., during transitions, pick up/drop off,
small and large group instruction, free play choice time, or during outside playtime).
Early relational contexts within proximal settings (home, family, caregivers, and child-
care) are optimal, naturalistic settings for assessment and close adults are key informants
and resources for children’s SEL skills; consequently, those contexts and relationships
that provide safe, secure, consistent, and responsive, enriching interactions with trusted
adults and caregivers support the development of self-regulation, executive function,
and social and behavioral skills (National Scientific Council on the Developing Child,
2004; Osher et al., 2020).
32  Rebecca J. Bulotsky-Shearer et al.

As children enter formal school settings, relationships with teachers and peers provide
opportunities to practice and further develop more mature SEL competencies, as well as
opportunities for assessing these developing skills ( Jones et al., 2017; Yeager, 2017). Schools
that provide the following conditions are optimal environments for supporting SEL skills:
“support learning; emotional, intellectual, and physical safety; connectedness; support,
challenge, engagement, respect, and agency” in addition to student-centered instruction,
inclusive and culturally responsive teaching and assessment practices (Osher et al., 2020,
p. 12). Positive teacher-child interactions during preschool and early elementary school
can support SEL skills by providing age-appropriate, culturally relevant instruction that is
respectful of children’s unique strengths and needs, supports children’s feelings of psy-
chological safety, independence, self-regulation, motivation to learn, and identity devel-
opment (Hamre & Pianta, 2005). Emotionally supportive teacher-child interactions and
well-organized, predictable classroom routines are associated with greater self-esteem,
school engagement, higher attendance, and lower behavior problems (Hamre & Pianta,
2005). Teacher-child relationship quality can be assessed as an important context for
supporting SEL skills, using teacher report measures (Pianta, 2001) or observations of
teacher-child interactions (e.g., Classroom Assessment Scoring System [CLASS]; Pianta
et al., 2008). In addition, observational tools are available to assess the implementation
of teacher SEL practices (Rojas et al., 2021) and importantly those classroom practices
that support equitable sociocultural interactions for racial and ethnic minority children
in early childhood classrooms (Assessing Classroom Sociocultural Equity Scale (ACSES);
Curenton et al., 2020).
Peer relationships are an important naturalistic context for observing and assessing
children’s SEL skills during preschool and elementary school. During the preschool
years, as children develop social awareness and interpersonal skills, pretend play and
interactive peer play support the development of social-emotional and cognitive skills
(Bulotsky-Shearer et al., 2016). Teachers and caregivers can scaffold learning through
peer interactions, particularly within early childhood classrooms, to support children’s
self-regulation skills (Blair & Raver, 2014) and academic learning (Barnett et al., 2008).
Several tools are available for teachers to observe and rate children’s interactive peer
play and social skills during preschool and elementary school (e.g., Anthony et al., 2021;
Fantuzzo & Hampton, 2000). Direct observations of children’s interactive peer play are
also ecologically valid tools (e.g., Howes & Matheson, 1992; Milfort & Greenfield, 2002).
In addition, as children enter middle school and adolescence, relationships with other
school staff or mentors that may occur outside the classroom support children in simi-
lar ways (Chen et al., 2003; Yu et al., 2019). After-school programs or extracurricular
activities such as team sports, clubs, or other interest groups (Berger et al., 2020; Hurd &
Deutsch, 2017)—typically characterized by voluntary participation and shared activities/
interests—become important settings to assess and promote youth social and emotional
development. In these contexts, youth not only display social skills interacting with peers,
but also can develop strong relationships with supportive non-parental adults (e.g., teach-
ers, natural mentors, after-school program staff). This implies, for example, that after-
school programs could be leveraged to assess youth SEL strengths and obtain a more
complete picture of their SEL skills across settings.

Assessing Social-Emotional Learning Competencies Through

a Developmental Lens
Applying a developmental perspective to SEL requires that children’s SEL skills are assessed
using developmentally appropriate tools producing reliable and valid information within
 A Developmental Framework for SEL Assessment  33

relevant contexts, and by the appropriate source or method (See Table 3.2; Denham,
2018; Wigelsworth et al., 2010).
During early childhood, the primary method to assess SEL competencies is through
teacher or caregiver report, observations, and direct assessments (Denham et al., 2010
and see Chapters 7–9 in this book). Teacher-reports and caregiver-reports are completed
by children’s teachers and caregivers, respectively. Direct observations are collected from
observing the child in their natural environment (e.g., classroom or home), and direct
assessments use standardized measures to assess children’s skills. Typically developing pre-
schoolers, for example, are expected to be able to label and recognize emotions and this
can be assessed through the Denham Puppet Interview (DPI; Denham, 1986) to assess
their affective perspective-taking skills. Responsible decision-making can be assessed
using the Challenging Situations Task (Warren et al., 2010), a perspective-taking task
assessed through coding a child’s responses to a role play of three different scenarios that
could occur with peers. As children enter elementary school, the McKown et al. (2016)
SELweb assessment (see Chapter 8 in this book) can be administered to assess children’s
ability to read facial expressions, infer others’ perspectives, solve social problems, delay
gratification, and tolerate frustration.
In addition, preschool social awareness and relationship skills can be assessed through
interactions with their peers through play (Denham et al., 2011) in the classroom or
at home. As noted earlier, teachers and parents are appropriate reporters of children’s
social skills, and children’s SEL skills can be observed within naturalistic contexts such
as in early childhood classrooms or the home. Examples include the Penn Interactive
Play Scale—teacher/parent report (Fantuzzo et al., 1995; Fantuzzo et al., 1998) in which
teachers and caregivers rate children on a series of items associated with children’s peer
play skills or the Teacher-Child Structured Play Task (Whittaker et al., 2018) in which
teacher-child dyads are observed and rated on a series of tasks (e.g., clean up tasks).

Table 3.2  M ethods of Assessment as a Function of Developmental Stages and the CASEL SEL
Competencies

C ASEL SEL Early childhood Middle childhood Late childhood Adolescence

competencies (3–6 years) (6–10 years) (11–13 years) (14–17 years)

Self-Awareness Teacher-report, Teacher-report, Teacher-report, Self-report

Caregiver-report Caregiver-report, Self-report
Self-report
Self-Management Teacher-report, Teacher-report, Teacher-report, Self-report
Caregiver- Caregiver-report, Self-report
report, Direct Self-report
Observation
Social Awareness Direct Self-report Self-report Self-report
Observation,
Direct Assessment
Relationship Skills Teacher-report, Teacher-report, Self-report Self-report
Caregiver- Caregiver-report,
report, Direct Self-report
Observation
Responsible Self-Report, Direct Self-report, Self-report, Self-report
Decision-Making Assessment Peer-report Peer-report

Note. Teacher-reports, caregiver-reports, and peer-reports are completed by children’s teachers, caregivers,
and peers respectively. Self-report measures are completed by the child. Direct observations are collected
from observing the child in their natural environment (e.g., classroom or home), and direct assessments use
standardized measures to assess children’s skills.
34  Rebecca J. Bulotsky-Shearer et al.

During middle childhood, children are beginning to develop their ability to manage
their own emotions as well as to reflect on their own thought processes (Taylor et al.,
2018). In the beginning of the middle childhood period most SEL competencies still
are measured best by teachers and caregivers who know children well and can report
accurately on observable behaviors and skills. Later, in middle childhood, children’s self-
report becomes more reliable and appropriate, as children’s reading comprehension,
emotional literacy, and self-understanding develops. For example, children who are six
or seven years old may not yet be ready to read and rate themselves on measures assessing
their peer relationship skills, but they may be able to reliably complete them once they
are nine or ten years old. Once children have transitioned to late childhood and ado-
lescence, they have a greater understanding of themselves and self-report becomes the
most reliable and cost-effective assessment method (Keefer, 2015; Nagaoka et al., 2015).
Finally, sociometric methods and peer reports of SEL skills are used in middle childhood
and adolescence, as appropriate methods and sources (Denham et al., 2010).

Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate SEL Assessment

A development-in-context perspective highlights the critical need for culturally and linguis-
tically appropriate assessments of children’s SEL competencies—assessments that respect
and honor children’s cultural and linguistic backgrounds, and assessments with adequate
evidence for reliability and validity for children from diverse backgrounds. Regarding cul-
tural sensitivity, assessments should evaluate skills that are relevant and appropriate to the
child’s culture of origin, and identify strengths and assets within culturally diverse groups
(see Jagers et al., 2018 for a full review). For example, whereas learning to use “inner con-
trol” to calm down may be critical for a child raised in an individualistic or Western culture,
learning to depend on adult’s help may be more important for a child raised in a collec-
tivistic culture (Iruka et al., 2020). While both skills are likely important for all children,
assessments that overemphasize “inner controls” for self-regulating behavior, as normative
expectancy, will not equitably capture the skills of children raised in more collectivistic
home environments, typically children of color and children from under-resourced, his-
torically disenfranchised communities (Curenton et al., 2010; Iruka et al., 2020).
With respect to language, children who are dual language learners should be assessed
using appropriate measures in their primary language to ensure that their SEL skills are
being assessed in a reliable and valid way (Snow & Van Hemel, 2008). This is particularly
important, if self-reports, teacher, or primary caregiver report instruments are used to
assess children’s SEL competencies; measures should be available in the dominant or pre-
ferred language of the rater and developed/adapted to capture skills relevant to a child’s
cultural background (Bulotsky-Shearer et al., 2021). Assessing SEL competencies using a
developmental and cultural lens will provide the most accurate picture of children’s skills
and support the broader notion of a transformative SEL approach with downstream sys-
tem-level changes that lead to more equitable, inclusive, and nurturing educational prac-
tices that support each and every child’s well-being and school success (Jagers et al., 2019).

Current Challenges in Equitable SEL Assessment

Currently, there are several gaps in the field in the application of a developmental, con-
textual, and culturally/linguistically appropriate lens to SEL assessment. First, there is
a lack of validated SEL tools, especially in early childhood, that are culturally and lin-
guistically relevant. Few measures currently exist that are developed or validated in mul-
tiple languages. More research is needed to develop assessments in partnership with
 A Developmental Framework for SEL Assessment  35

community members such as parents and teachers, who can provide input and share
cultural wisdom to identify those SEL skills and strengths valued for children within
racial, ethnic, and linguistic minority groups rather than assuming existing assessments
normed on middle-class, predominantly White children (Cabrera et al., 2012).
A second challenge in SEL assessment across development, is the changing and fluid
nature of social-emotional skills underlying central SEL constructs over time. The skills
that children display change over time as children’s brains, bodies, and minds develop
and mature, making it difficult to create reliable measurement tools that accurately assess
discrete tasks and skills underlying the broader construct that is continuously developing
over time (Brownell et al., 2015). Establishing invariance in measurement over time is
a challenge to developmental SEL assessment and units of measurement are often not
comparable over time. For example, few measures are vertically equated or linked over
time, to measure growth in SEL skills from early childhood, middle childhood, adoles-
cence, and early adulthood. Further, often the developmental task or skill changes in
form over time and must be captured over time. For example, if aggressive behavior is to
be measured from early childhood prospectively, and biting is a measure of aggression
during toddlerhood, it would be difficult to measure whether there are real changes in
aggression since the form of aggression displayed by children changes over time.
Finally, children naturally move from context to context as they develop, shifting the
relevant and appropriate contexts to assess children by adults, peers, and self-report from
parent-child relationships in the home, to teacher-child and peer relationships in early
childhood classroom, to the adolescent peer networks, and adult mentor relationships
later on. The nature of reliability and validity evidence changes across sources, raters, and
methods across developmental time so assessments need to be evaluated for adequate
reliability and validity evidence at each developmental period. Identifying unique sources
of bias and measurement error is important and a balanced decision is needed, when
choosing methods and sources over time. For example, several scholars have identified
bias inherent in teacher perceptions of children’s social-emotional skills and behavior in
the early childhood classroom (Gilliam et al., 2016; Waterman et al., 2012). Therefore,
observation or direct assessment of children’s SEL skills may be more objective or seem
“less biased”; however, there are tradeoffs. Observations or direct assessments measure
just a snapshot of children’s skills in that moment and may not be as comprehensive as
teacher or parent ratings, missing patterns or changes in children’s skills across contexts
and time (McDermott, 1993). Finally, direct observations and assessments may also be
inherently biased if they are not developed or validated with diverse children.

State SEL Standards

Applying a developmental perspective to SEL assessment also extends to the policy/state
level through state adoption of SEL standards that align with SEL curricula and assess-
ment. Our goal is not to present a comprehensive review of state SEL standards, but
rather to provide a brief overview of what a developmental perspective “looks like” when
applied to state standards.
SEL standards apply a developmental lens, if they include specific developmental
benchmarks, indicators, or tasks within each standard or goal to define what competen-
cies children should be able to achieve at the end of a developmental period and their
continuity over time (Denham, 2018; Waters & Sroufe, 1983). Currently 14 states adopt
SEL standards appreciative of developmental stages from K through 12th grade (Illinois,
Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode
Island, Tennessee, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin). Of these 14 states, eight
36  Rebecca J. Bulotsky-Shearer et al.

have fully aligned the structure of their early learning/preschool and K–12th grade SEL
standards and goals (Indiana,* Illinois,* Kansas, Michigan, Rhode Island, Tennessee,*
West Virginia,* and Wisconsin), an increase by three states from the CASEL’s recent state
scan (Dusenbury et al., 2018). (*Note that these state SEL standards do not yet align
with birth to age three standards). More states are moving forward to include SEL com-
petencies within their educational standards or expanding upon existing SEL standards,
although there is considerable variation across the nation.
Other states are in different stages and have different approaches for SEL standards,
including: (1) incorporating SEL standards only in the earlier school years (e.g., birth–
kindergarten, preschool–third grade; Idaho); (2) implementing SEL standards in K–12th
grade without including developmental stages (e.g., New. Jersey); (3) currently develop-
ing SEL standards (e.g., California); and/or (4) incorporating SEL-related competencies
within a standards domain, rather than standing on their own (e.g., Texas). Overall, there
is no standardized approach to implementing SEL standards, resulting in a national lack
of alignment across SEL standards, instructional strategies, and assessments. Although
more states are moving toward implementing SEL within educational standards, or
expanding upon existing SEL standards, there is still considerable discrepancy in which
SEL competencies are incorporated across states.
The structure of SEL standards and content domains differ state-to-state. See Table 3.3
for a comparison of SEL standard domains and developmental stages across three state
examples. As discussed above, eight states are adopting fully aligned and developmentally
appropriate expectations for their SEL standards. Of those eight states, Michigan is con-
sidered an exemplar state for two reasons: (1) the general SEL standards are the same
from infancy through 12th grade; and (2) standards include a wide range of developmen-
tal stages with appropriate expectations. See Table 3.4 for an example of developmental

Table 3.3  C omparison of SEL Standards and Developmental Stages in the States of Wisconsin,
Indiana, and Michigan

State SEL Standard Domains Developmental Stages Aligned with Early

Learning?
Wisconsin Emotional Development Birth-K; Preschool-K Yes
Self-Concept First-Third grade
Social Competence Fourth-Fifth grade
Sixth-Eighth grade
Ninth-10th grade
11th-adult
Indiana Sensory-Motor Integration Infant-Older Preschool* No
Mindset Preschool-Second Grade
Self-Awareness Third-Fifth grade
Self-Management Sixth-Eighth grade
Social Awareness Ninth-10th grade
Relationship Skills 11th–12th grade
Responsible Decision-Making
Michigan Self-Awareness Infant/Toddler Yes
Self-Management Preschool
Social Awareness K-Second grade
Relationship Skills Third-Fifth grade
Responsible Decision-Making Sixth-Eighth grade
Ninth-10th grade
11th–12th grade
* Note: Infant–Older Preschool stages are not aligned with Preschool-12th grade standard
 A Developmental Framework for SEL Assessment  37

Table 3.4  E xample from SEL Standards in Michigan: Developmental Progression for One Subskill
within the CASEL Domain of Self-Awareness

Self-Awareness – Demonstrate an awareness of their emotions

Infant/Toddler Early Childhood: Childhood: K – 2nd Middle Childhood:
Preschool grade 3rd–5th grade
• Increasing awareness, • Show an emerging • Recognize and • Recognize intensity
understanding, and sense of self label their levels of their
appreciation of their • Continue to emotions/feelings emotions
bodies and how they develop personal • Describe their • Recognize how
function preferences emotions and emotion can change
• Growing capacity to • Identify a variety of the situations • Recognize how
tolerate and enjoy feelings and moods that cause them thoughts are linked
a moderate degree in themselves (triggers) with emotions and
of change, surprises, emotions are linked
uncertainty, and to behavior
potentially puzzling • Describe ways
events emotions impact
• Increasing ability to their behavior(s)
identify their own • Draw an ‘anger
emotional responses thermometer’ and
and those of others discuss why they
might move along
the thermometer
Self-Awareness – Demonstrate an awareness of their emotions
Late Childhood: Early Adolescence: Late Adolescence: 11th–12th grade
6th–8th grade 9th–10th grade
• Recognize • Distinguish their • Describe how changing their interpretation
uncomfortable real feelings from of an event can alter how they feel about it
emotions as how others expect • Use self-reflection to make sure the
indicators of them to feel intensity of their emotions is in line with
situations in need of • Describe the the situation
attention external event • Acknowledge emotions and determine
• Identify emotional or thought that the appropriate time and place to safely
states that contribute triggered an process them
to or detract from emotion
their ability to
problem solve
• Explain the
possible outcomes
associated with the
different forms of
communicating their
emotions

progression and stability of a substandard for self-awareness competency in Michigan.

Denham (2018) asserts that SEL standards should not only include developmentally
appropriate benchmarks, but also align their framework with evidence-based curricula
and instruction. Michigan includes instructional strategies within their SEL standards
that correspond with each developmental benchmark to guide caregivers and teachers.
By including developmentally appropriate SEL competencies aligned with instructional
strategies, Michigan is an example of a state with a high quality, developmental SEL stan-
dards framework.
Incorporating SEL standards for all developmental stages acknowledges the contribu-
tion of social and emotional development to learning for all students across all stages of
38  Rebecca J. Bulotsky-Shearer et al.

their educational career. When developmentally appropriate SEL standards are supple-
mented with high quality instructional strategies and/or curricula, districts put resources
toward support for teachers to effectively teach and nurture SEL competencies within
the school setting (Dusenbury et al., 2018). However, more resources are needed to align
local curricula and administer standardized assessments of SEL skills, with SEL standards.
There is no national assessment that is centrally administered across all states that is
aligned with curricula or standards, making it difficult to assess or monitor children’s
progress nationally in SEL skills. The roll out and emphasis on SEL skills is not standard-
ized or equivalent across the nation, with some students accessing different resources
and support for SEL skills state-to-state. To prevent equity issues related to SEL at a state
or national level, it is essential to further examine the differences between state SEL
standards and work toward developing standardized developmental benchmarks, instruc-
tional strategies, and assessments for all states to implement.

Summary and Future Directions

In this chapter, we have argued that a developmental perspective is essential to assess SEL
competencies as foundational sets of skills that support children’s development across
all ages. SEL assessments are needed to provide a holistic profile of children’s learning
and development, from birth to adolescence and early adulthood. To promote positive
educational trajectories for all children, early assessment is important to identify and sup-
port the development of SEL skills when children’s brains and developmental capacities
are most malleable. Assessment of SEL skills in a developmental, contextual, and cultur-
ally sensitive manner using tools that provide reliable and valid evidence, is especially
important for those children who may need extra support during infancy and early child-
hood, before early SEL difficulties escalate or cascade to predict future difficulties later
on (Masten & Cicchetti, 2010). More importantly, for children living in historically under-
resourced communities, developing and implementing assessment tools that highlight,
promote, and build upon SEL strengths are critical to contribute to broader educational
systems change and equitable access to resources that support positive education trajec-
tories for all children.
Key considerations for assessment tools providing reliable and valid information must
include the context, and importantly the culture, in which children’s SEL skills develop
over time. Opportunities are presented for children to master developmental tasks within
proximal contexts and the contexts of relationships over time—children’s skills should be
assessed within these contexts so that interventions can be implemented to best support
the development of SEL skills. The dynamic and relational nature of development within
these contexts makes it challenging to assess SEL skills uniformly over time and to iden-
tify assessment tools that are developmentally and culturally appropriate at more than
one point in time. For example, measurement invariance is difficult to attain over time
within the same social-emotional construct assessed, and few tools are available to reliably
assess the same underlying SEL competency across development. Finally, there is a lack of
clear alignment between conceptualization of social-emotional skills in the developmen-
tal literature and published SEL frameworks. For example, models of social-emotional
skill development do not directly map onto the SEL domains and different terminology
is used to describe similar constructs (Jones et al., 2017). Efforts by developmental psy-
chologists provide excellent guidance (Denham et al., 2010; Jones et al., 2017, http://
exploresel.gse.harvard.edu/compare-domains/) but more work is needed.
In summary, recent efforts put SEL squarely in the educational space where attention
to noncognitive areas is needed to best support the educational success and well-being
 A Developmental Framework for SEL Assessment  39

of all children. However, more work is needed to expand alignment of SEL policies at
state level in order to align curricula, standards, and appropriate SEL assessment across
all ages of development, and to bring national attention to the importance of teaching
SEL skills and embedding SEL foundational skills within district curriculum and assess-
ment practices.

References
Anthony, C. J., Elliot, S. N., Di Perna, J. C., & Li P-W. (2021). Initial development and vali-
dation of the Social Skills Improvement System—Social and Emotional Learning Brief
Scales-Teacher Form. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 39(2), 166–181. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0734282920953240
Bailey, R., & Jones, S. M. (2019). An integrated model of regulation for applied settings. Clinical
Child and Family Psychology Review, 22(1), 2–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-019-00288-y
Barnett, W. S., Jung, K., Yarosz, D. J., Thomas, J., Hornbeck, A., Stechuk, R., & Burns, S. (2008).
Educational effects of the Tools of the Mind curriculum: A randomized trial. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 23(3), 299–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2008.03.001
Berger, C., Deutsch, N., Cuadros, O., Franco, E., Rojas, M., Roux, G., & Sánchez, F. (2020). Adolescent
peer processes in extracurricular activities: Identifying developmental opportunities. Children
and Youth Services Review, 118, 105457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105457
Blair, C., & Raver, C. C. (2014). Closing the achievement gap through modification of neurocogni-
tive and neuroendocrine function: Results from a cluster randomized controlled trial of an inno-
vative approach to the education of children in kindergarten. PloS one, 9(11), e112393. https://
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0112393
Bornstein, M. H., Leventhal, T., & Lerner, R. M. (Eds.). (2015). Handbook of child psychology and devel-
opmental science: Ecological settings and processes (7th ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In R.
M. Lerner & W. Damon (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical models of human development
(pp. 793–828). John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Brownell, C. A., Lemerise, E. A., Pelphrey, K. A., & Roisman, G. I. (2015). Measuring socioemo-
tional development. In M. E. Lamb & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and devel-
opmental science: Socioemotional processes (pp. 11–56). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Bulotsky-Shearer, R. J., McDermott, P. A., Lopez, M., Gort, M., Bouza, J., Fernandez, V., & Bichay-
Awadalla, K. (2021). Development and initial validation of the Spanish form of the adjustment
scales for preschool intervention (ASPI). Journal of School Psychology, 84, 124–142. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jsp.2020.11.003
Bulotsky-Shearer, R. J., McWayne, C., Mendez, J., & Manz, P. (2016). Preschool peer play interac-
tions, a developmental context for learning for all children: Revisiting issues of equity and oppor-
tunity. In K. Sanders & A. Wishard Guerra (Eds.), Attachment peers & child care in the 21st century:
Where we have been and where we are headed. Oxford University.
Burchinal, M., Magnuson, K., Powell, D., & Hong, S. S. (2015). Early childcare and education. In M.
H. Bornstein, T. Leventhal, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental
science: Ecological settings and processes (pp. 223–267). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Cabrera, N. J., Beeghly, M., & Eisenberg, N. (2012). Positive development of minority children:
Introduction to the special issue. Child Development Perspectives, 6(3), 207–209. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2012.00253.x
Carr, A. (2017). Social and emotional development in middle childhood. In D. Skuse, H. Bruce, &
L. Dowdney (Eds.), Child psychology and psychiatry: Frameworks for practice (3rd ed., pp. 83–90). John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119170235.ch10
Chen, C., Greenberger, E., Farruggia, S., Bush, K., & Dong, Q. (2003). Beyond parents and peers:
The role of important non-parental adults (VIPS) in adolescent development in China and the
United States. Psychology in the Schools, 40(1), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.10068
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (2021, March 31). What is SEL?
https://casel.org/what-is-sel/
40  Rebecca J. Bulotsky-Shearer et al.

Curenton, S. M., Iruka, I. H., Humphries, M., Jensen, B., Durden, T., Rochester, S. E., Sims, J.,
Whittaker, J. V., & Kinzie, M. B. (2020). Validity for the Assessing Classroom Sociocultural Equity
Scale (ACSES) in early childhood classrooms. Early Education and Development, 31(2), 284–303.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2019.1611331
Denham, S. A. (1986). Social cognition, prosocial behavior, and emotion in preschoolers:
Contextual validation. Child Development, 57, 197–220.
Denham, S. A. (2018). Keeping SEL developmental: The importance of a developmental lens for
fostering and assessing SEL competencies. https://casel.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/
Keeping-SEL-Developmental.pdf
Denham, S. A., Ji, P., & Hamre, B. K. (2010). Compendium of preschool through elementary school social-
emotional learning and associated assessment measures. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED581721.
pdf
Denham, S. A., Warren, H. K., von Salisch, M., Benga, O., Chin, J-C., & Geangu, E. (2011).
Emotions and peer relationships. In C. Hart & P. K. Smith (Eds.), Wiley/Blackwell Handbook
of childhood social development (2nd ed., pp. 413–433). Blackwell Publishers. https://doi.
org/10.1002/9781444390933.ch22
Denham, S. A., Wyatt, T. M., Bassett, H. H., Echeverria, D., & Knox, S. S. (2009). Assessing social-
emotional development in children from a longitudinal perspective. Journal of Epidemiology and
Community Health, 63(Suppl 1), i37–i52. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2007.070797
Dusenbury, L., Dermondy, C. & Weissberg R. P. (2018) State Scorecard Scan. Collaborative for Academic,
Social, and Emotional Learning. https://casel.org/state-scan-scorecard-project-2/#info
Ecological Approaches to Social Emotional Learning [EASEL] lab. (n.d.). Explore SEL. http://
exploresel.gse.harvard.edu
Fantuzzo, J., Coolahan, K., Mendez, J., McDermott, P., & Sutton-Smith, B. (1998). Contextually-
relevant validation of peer play constructs with African American Head Start children: Penn
interactive peer play scale. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13(3), 411–431.
Fantuzzo, J. W., & Hampton, V. R. (2000). Penn interactive peer play scale: A parent and teacher
rating system for young children. In K. Gitlin-Weiner, A. Sandgrund, & C. Schaefer (Eds.), Play
diagnosis and assessment (pp. 599–620). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Fantuzzo, J., Sutton-Smith, B., Coolahan, K. C., Manz, P. H., Canning, S., & Debnam, D. (1995).
Assessment of preschool play interaction behaviors in young low-income children: Penn interac-
tive peer play scale. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 10(1), 105–120.
Furman, W., & Rose, A. J. (2015). Friendships, romantic relationships, and peer relationships. In M.
E. Lamb & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science: Socioemotional
processes (pp. 932–974). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118963418.
childpsy322
Gilliam, W. S., Maupin, A. N., Reyes, C. R., Accavitti, M., Shic, F. (2016). Do early educa-
tors’ implicit biases regarding sex and race relate to behavior expectations and recom-
mendations of preschool expulsions and suspensions. A research study brief. https://
medicine.yale.edu/childstudy/zigler/publications/Preschool%20Implicit%20Bias%20
Policy%20Brief_final_9_26_276766_5379_v1.pdf
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2005). Can instructional and emotional support in the first-grade
classroom make a difference for children at risk of school failure? Child Development, 76(5), 949–
967. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00889.x
Howes, C., & Matheson, C. C. (1992). Sequences in the development of competent play
with peers: Social and social pretend play. Developmental Psychology, 28, 961–974. doi:
10.1037/0012-1649.28.5.961
Hurd, N., & Deutsch, N. (2017). SEL-focused after school programs. The Future of Children, 27(1),
95–115.
Iruka, I. U., Curenton, S. M., Durden, T. R., & Escayg, K. A. (2020). Don’t look away: Embracing anti-
bias classrooms. Gryphon House.
Jagers, R., Rivas-Drake, D., & Borowski, T. (2018). Toward transformative social and emotional
learning: Using an equity lens. https://measuringsel.casel.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/
Framework_EquitySummary-.pdf
 A Developmental Framework for SEL Assessment  41

Jagers, R. J., Rivas-Drake, D., & Williams, B. (2019). Transformative social and emotional learn-
ing (SEL): Toward SEL in service of educational equity and excellence. Educational Psychologist,
54(3), 162–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2019.1623032
Jones, S. M., Barnes, S. P., Bailey, R., & Doolittle, E. J. (2017). Promoting social and emotional com-
petencies in elementary school. The Future of Children, 27(1), 49–72.
Keefer, K. V. (2015). Self-report assessments of emotional competencies: A critical look at
methods and meanings. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33(1), 3–23. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0734282914550381
Landy, S. (2009). Pathways to competence: Encouraging healthy social and emotional development in young
children (2nd ed.). Brookes Publishing.
Larsen, J. T., To, Y. M., & Fireman, G. (2007). Children’s understanding and experience of mixed emo-
tions. Psychological Science, 18(2), 186–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01870.x
Masten, A. S., & Cicchetti, D. (2010). Developmental cascades [Editorial]. Development and
Psychopathology, 22(3), 491–495. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579410000222
Masten, A. S., Roisman, G. I., Long, J. D., Burt, K. B., Obradović, J., Riley, J. R., Boelcke-Stennes,
K., & Tellegen, A. (2005). Developmental cascades: Linking academic achievement and external-
izing and internalizing symptoms over 20 years. Developmental Psychology, 41(5), 733–746. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.41.5.733
McDermott, P. A. (1993). National standardization of uniform multisituational measures of child
and adolescent behavior pathology. Psychological Assessment, 5, 413–424. https://psycnet.apa.org/
doi/10.1037/1040-3590.5.4.413
McKown, C., Russo-Ponsaran, N. M., Johnson, J. K., Russo, J., & Allen, A. (2016). Web-based assess-
ment of children’s social-emotional comprehension. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 34(4),
322–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282915604564
Milfort, R., & Greenfield, D. (2002). Teacher and observer ratings of Head Start children's social
skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17(4), 581–595.
Murray, D. W., Rosanbalm, K., Christopoulos, C., & Hamoudi, A. (2015). Self-regulation and toxic
stress report 1: Foundations for understanding self-regulation from an applied perspective. OPRE Report #
2015-21. Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/report_1_foundations_paper_final_012715_submitted_508_0.pdf
Nagaoka, J., Farrington, C. A., Ehrlich, S. B., Heath, R. D., Johnson, D. W., Dickson, S., Turner, A.
C., Mayo, A., & Hayes, K. (2015). Foundations for young adult success: A developmental framework.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED559970.pdf
National Scientific Council on the Developing Child. (2004). Young children develop in an envi-
ronment of relationships. Working Paper No. 1. https://developingchild.harvard.edu/wp-con-
tent/uploads/2004/04/Young-Children-Develop-in-an-Environment-of-Relationships.pdf
Osher, D., Cantor, P., Berg, J., Steyer, L., & Rose, T. (2020). Drivers of human development: How
relationships and context shape learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(1),
6–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2017.1398650
Pianta, R. C. (2001). Student teacher relationship scale. Psychological Assessment Resources.
Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K., & Hamre, B. K. (2008). The classroom assessment scoring system: Pre-K manual.
Brookes.
Roisman, G. I., Masten, A. S., Coatsworth, J. D., & Tellegen, A. (2004). Salient and emerging devel-
opmental tasks in the transition to adulthood. Child Development, 75(1), 123–133. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00658.x
Rojas, N. M., Mattera, S., Morris, P., & Raver, C. C. (2021). Measuring preschool teachers’ social-
emotional practices: A comparison of two measures. Early Education and Development (online first).
https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2020.1864838
Seiffge-Krenke, I., & Gelhaar, T. (2008). Does successful attainment of developmental tasks lead to
happiness and success in later developmental tasks? A test of Havighurst’s (1948) theses. Journal
of Adolescence, 31(1), 33–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2007.04.002
Snow, C. E., & Van Hemel, S. B. (2008). Early childhood assessment: Why, what, and how. National
Academies Press.
42  Rebecca J. Bulotsky-Shearer et al.

Taylor, J. J., Buckley, K., Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., Read, L., & Schweig, J. (2018). Choosing and
using SEL competency assessments: What schools and districts need to know. https://measuringsel.casel.
org/pdf/practitioner-guidance.pdf
van Beek, Y., & Dubas, J. S. (2008). Age and gender differences in decoding basic and non-basic
facial expressions in late childhood and early adolescence. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 32(1),
37–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-007-0040-8
Warren, H. K., Way, E., Kalb, S. C., Denham, S. A., & Bassett, H. H. (2010). Utilizing emotion and
behavior for understanding preschoolers’ social information processing: The predictive validity
of the challenging situations task. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Waterman, C., McDermott, P. A., Fantuzzo, J. W., & Gadsden, V. L. (2012). The matter of asses-
sor variance in early childhood education—Or whose score is it anyway? Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 27(1), 46–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.06.003
Waters, E., & Sroufe, L. A. (1983). Social competence as a developmental construct. Developmental
Review, 3(1), 79–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-2297(83)90010-2
Whittaker, J. E. V., Williford, A. P., Carter, L. M., Vitiello, V. E., & Hatfield, B. E. (2018). Using a
standardized task to assess the quality of teacher–child dyadic interactions in preschool. Early
Education and Development, 29(2), 266–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2017.1387960
Widen, S. C., & Russell, J. A. (2010). Children’s scripts for social emotions: Causes and conse-
quences are more central than are facial expressions. British Journal of Developmental Psychology,
28(3), 565–581. https://doi.org/10.1348/026151009X457550d
Widen, S. C., & Russell, J. A. (2011). In building a script for an emotion, do preschoolers add
its cause before its behavior consequence? Social Development, 20(3), 471–485. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2010.00594.x
Wigelsworth, M., Humphrey, N., Kalambouka, A., & Lendrum, A. (2010). A review of key issues in
the measurement of children’s social and emotional skills. Educational Psychology in Practice, 26(2),
173–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/02667361003768526
Yeager, D. S. (2017). Social and emotional learning programs for adolescents. The Future of Children,
27(1), 73–94.
Yu, M., Deutsch, N. L., Futch Ehrlich, V. A., Arbeit, M. R., Johnson, H. E., & Melton, T. N. (2019).
“It’s like all of his attention is on you”: A mixed methods examination of attachment, supportive
non-parental youth-adult relationships, and self-esteem during adolescence. Journal of Community
Psychology, 47(2), 414–434. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22129