View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Did Prepandemic Perceptions of School Climate Protect Students' Internalizing Symptoms during COVID-19 School Closures?

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Did Prepandemic Perceptions of School Climate Protect Students' Internalizing Symptoms during COVID-19 School Closures?
Language: English
Authors: Gilbertson, Megan (ORCID 0000-0001-8456-4505), Pyun, Yoonsun (ORCID 0000-0001-8038-7660), Laffoon, Riley, Jeong, Ruth, Ogg, Julia, Demaray, Michelle, Malecki, Christine
Source: Psychology in the Schools. 2023 60(12):5189-5208.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 20
Publication Date: 2023
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Junior High Schools
Middle Schools
Secondary Education
Descriptors: Middle School Students, Student Attitudes, Pandemics, COVID-19, School Closing, Symptoms (Individual Disorders), Educational Environment, Values, Adjustment (to Environment), Cultural Influences, Self Concept, Gender Differences, Time Perspective
DOI: 10.1002/pits.23038
ISSN: 0033-3085
1520-6807
Abstract: The global COVID-19 pandemic significantly disrupted educational environments for all students when the majority of schools in the United States abruptly switched to remote learning. School climate, including support and structure, has been recognized as an important construct that influences student functioning. The current study explored student perceptions of school climate before school disruptions as a potential protective factor against negative outcomes during the pandemic. Middle school students (N = 225) completed assessments of their perceptions of school climate in Fall 2019 and self-reported internalizing symptoms in Spring 2020. Structural equation modeling was used to test both the association and directionality between school climate and internalizing symptoms. Positive perception of school climate before the pandemic was significantly associated with less internalizing symptoms during initial school closures, particularly for girls. The results highlight the importance of school climate in students' mental health, especially during periods of stress. Limitations and future directions are discussed.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1399638
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHiFzV36rjVkQHpPlM6xtXwAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDMu8glAhRlIbMigfrwIBEICBm2BFSP9KVhuTedzi4IlGSFgF4L19N_si_sEb-RyOuQM_0y39LYEnoTK8voev0sHhJQl71BPciKZKPH25yMlmt27C_6Eh1w9hWTTiq47ahIZIILa_smq7Q7NVO3tH_qvC7Z84xII3H52_hux2B7eWlrMmJx1bPBiDu3XGleH8t1j_JvNu_LT4lxwFxOEmDbPdbC7HET6MhKL0owXk
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0173485983;pis01dec.23;2023Nov10.04:13;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0173485983-1">Did prepandemic perceptions of school climate protect students' internalizing symptoms during COVID‐19 school closures? </title> <p>The global COVID‐19 pandemic significantly disrupted educational environments for all students when the majority of schools in the United States abruptly switched to remote learning. School climate, including support and structure, has been recognized as an important construct that influences student functioning. The current study explored student perceptions of school climate before school disruptions as a potential protective factor against negative outcomes during the pandemic. Middle school students (N = 225) completed assessments of their perceptions of school climate in Fall 2019 and self‐reported internalizing symptoms in Spring 2020. Structural equation modeling was used to test both the association and directionality between school climate and internalizing symptoms. Positive perception of school climate before the pandemic was significantly associated with less internalizing symptoms during initial school closures, particularly for girls. The results highlight the importance of school climate in students' mental health, especially during periods of stress. Limitations and future directions are discussed.</p> <p>Practitioner Points: Positive perceptions of school climate before the COVID‐19 pandemic were associated with lower levels of student internalizing symptoms during school closures.Girls benefited more from a positive school climate in terms of reduced internalizing symptoms during the pandemic.School climate support and structure can serve as protective factors for students' mental health even when they are not physically present in the school building.</p> <p>Keywords: COVID‐19; mental health; school climate; school structure; school support</p> <hd id="AN0173485983-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>In the spring of 2020, the COVID‐19 pandemic significantly disrupted educational environments for children and adolescents worldwide (Demaray et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref1">21</reflink>]; Jones et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref2">43</reflink>]; Styck et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref3">78</reflink>]). In the initial months of the pandemic, schools were closed across 186 countries due to international school closures, affecting 1.3 billion students (John Joseph et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref4">42</reflink>]). Research since the beginning of the pandemic has revealed this crisis increased mental health concerns for students. A systematic review of studies conducted with students globally demonstrated increased anxiety, depression, and stress worldwide due to the pandemic (Jones et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref5">43</reflink>]). One of the most significant issues for students was the change in daily education routines. Although research has been conducted during the pandemic, very few studies have examined pre‐existing protective factors for mental health in students as it relates to school.</p> <p>Conceptual frameworks have been proposed to help researchers and clinicians understand how the disruptions caused by the COVID‐19 pandemic may impact students' mental health. For example, Prime and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref6">65</reflink>]) draw from social‐ecological theory and family systems theory to describe the risk and resilience processes that may occur for children during the pandemic. Specifically, Prime et al. ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref7">65</reflink>]) noted that child adjustment during the pandemic is influenced by caregiver well‐being and processes, such as organization and communication. Likewise, the school context is an important source of support and connection to students. Aspects of the school, such as structure and support, can serve as protective factors by being a resource that can promote positive adaptation during stressful events (Fergus & Zimmerman, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref8">29</reflink>]). For instance, students who report positive connections and perceptions of school have more positive mental health outcomes (Wang & Degol, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref9">85</reflink>]; Wang & Eccles, [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref10">86</reflink>]). In particular, school climate is associated with positive students outcomes across a number of domains including higher academic achievement, lower levels of problem behaviors, and increased psychological and social functioning (Wang & Degol, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref11">85</reflink>]). In addition to concurrent associations between school climate and student outcomes, researchers have also found that aspects of school climate can have an enduring protective effect on student mental health (Shochet et al., [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref12">74</reflink>]; Way et al., [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref13">88</reflink>]). Thus, the goal of the current study was to determine if prior school climate structure or support was a protective factor during pandemic school closures.</p> <hd id="AN0173485983-3">Internalizing symptoms</hd> <p>Internalizing symptoms are typically defined as symptoms such as anxiety, depression, and worry that may cause distress. Internalizing disorders, such as anxiety and depression are prevalent disorders among youth. In a national sample of adolescents ages 13–18, the lifetime prevalence of an anxiety disorder was 32%, with 8% of youth experiencing severe impairment. The lifetime prevalence of mood disorders among this sample was 14% with 11% of youth having severe impairment (Merikangas et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref14">57</reflink>]). For both anxiety and depressive symptoms, there is an increase in prevalence across the middle school years (Hankin & Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref15">37</reflink>]; Palitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref16">62</reflink>]). For example, longitudinal studies have shown an increase in depression from 3% in childhood to 17% by age 18 (Hankin & Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref17">37</reflink>]). It is also of note that while levels of symptoms of anxiety and depression are often similar among children, in early adolescence and adolescence gender differences emerge with girls showing higher rates of many forms of anxiety and depression compared to boys (Hankin & Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref18">37</reflink>]; Palitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref19">62</reflink>]). Indeed, internalizing disorders tend to be more prevalent among girls compared to boys (Culbertson, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref20">19</reflink>]; Essau et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref21">26</reflink>]; Saluja et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref22">70</reflink>]; Van Oort et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref23">61</reflink>]) during adolescence and adulthood (Angold & Rutter, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref24">4</reflink>]; Hankin et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref25">36</reflink>]). Both anxiety and depression are associated with increased risk for psychopathology concurrently and in adulthood, as well as impairment in academic and social domains (Hankin & Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref26">37</reflink>]; Palitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref27">62</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0173485983-4">School climate</hd> <p>School climate has been recognized as an important construct that influences student functioning, ranging from social, emotional, and psychological to academic outcomes (Koth et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref28">48</reflink>]; Thapa et al., [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref29">82</reflink>]). School climate is a multidimensional construct that encompasses a variety of components at both individual and systems levels (e.g., interpersonal relationships between students and students, students and teachers, or norms and culture at school; Thapa et al., [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref30">82</reflink>]). While school climate has been defined and measured differently across the literature, the construct of school climate generally includes domains related to teaching and learning, relationships, school safety, and environment structure (Cohen et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref31">14</reflink>]; Salle et al., [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref32">69</reflink>]; Thapa et al., [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref33">82</reflink>]). Drawing from the seminal work of Baumrind ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref34">7</reflink>]) in the parenting literature, Gregory and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref35">33</reflink>]) proposed a theory of authoritative school climate. Similar to the two dimensions of authoritative parenting (e.g., responsiveness and demandingness; Baumrind, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref36">7</reflink>]), the authoritative school climate includes two dimensions related to consistent enforcement of rules (i.e., structure) and responsiveness to students' social and emotional needs from both adults and peers (i.e., support; Gregory et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref37">33</reflink>]). Gregory and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref38">33</reflink>]) found when students feel safe at school, experience consistent and fair enforcement of rules (i.e., structure), and have positive relationships (i.e., support), they perceive their school climate to be more positive (Derosier & Newcity, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref39">22</reflink>]; Kutsyuruba et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref40">50</reflink>]; Thapa et al., [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref41">82</reflink>]).</p> <p>Several studies have found support for authoritative school climate theory, where perceptions of higher disciplinary structure and support for students were associated with positive student outcomes such as higher student engagement, higher academic achievement, lower peer aggression, and lower substance use (Cornell & Huang, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref42">16</reflink>]; Cornell et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref43">17</reflink>]; Konold & Cornell, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref44">47</reflink>]; Konold et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref45">46</reflink>]). These results are consistent with the broader school climate literature which has found more positive perceptions of school climate to be associated with favorable outcomes, such as more positive levels of self‐esteem, self‐concept, psychological well‐being, school connectedness, and less engagement in risky behaviors such as drug use (Coelho et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref46">13</reflink>]; Hoge et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref47">38</reflink>]; LaRusso et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref48">51</reflink>]; Payton et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref49">63</reflink>]; Shochet et al., [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref50">74</reflink>]; Way et al., [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref51">88</reflink>]). Interestingly, a systematic review by Wang and Degol ([<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref52">85</reflink>]) noted that the majority of evidence linking positive perceptions of school climate and positive student outcomes are mostly established within students' perception of engagement with their school and how safe they feel. Further, Wang and Degol ([<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref53">85</reflink>]) noted that less is known about other domains of school climate (e.g., structure and support) and their associations with student outcomes; in the limited research available that examined the associations, the findings have been inconclusive. It is possible that different conceptualizations of school climate components may contribute to differences in measurement and leaving certain components of school climate relatively under‐examined (Aldridge & McChesney, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref54">2</reflink>]; Olsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref55">60</reflink>]; Thapa et al., [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref56">82</reflink>]; Wang & Degol, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref57">85</reflink>]). These highlight the need to expand our understanding of how students' perceptions of school climate for specific domains and investigate how specific components of school climate may be associated with student outcomes. The current study focused on the support and structure components of school climate, as these two were the components of school climate that were most likely to continue and be salient to students during the remote learning modality.</p> <p>Further, there is a dearth of literature investigating the association between authoritative school climate and student psychological outcomes. The broader literature on school climate offers better understanding about the associations between students' perceptions of school climate and students' mental health outcomes. A systematic review by Aldridge and McChesney ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref58">2</reflink>]) highlighted findings that positive relationships with teachers and peers and connectedness were associated with students' psychosocial well‐being and decreases in the prevalence of mental health difficulties. A more recent empirical study by Franco and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref59">31</reflink>]) further supported the findings by Aldridge and McChesney ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref60">2</reflink>]), exploring the concurrent association between school climate and mental health among 2768 middle school students. The results demonstrated negative associations between student–student relationships and depression where more positive student–student relationships were associated with less depressive symptoms. Relatedly, Wong and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref61">91</reflink>]) investigated the longitudinal association between perceptions of school climate and student mental health symptoms and found that students who reported more positive perceptions of school climate in 10th grade reported fewer depressive symptoms in 11th grade. These results suggest that positive perceptions of school climate could be beneficial for students' mental well‐being, even over time.</p> <p>The findings related to gender differences in perceptions of school climate have been mixed in the literature. A number of studies have found girls perceive school climate more positively than boys (Brighi et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref62">11</reflink>]; Koth et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref63">48</reflink>]; Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref64">87</reflink>]). However, other studies have found no gender differences in their perception of school climate (Dorio et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref65">24</reflink>]; Kuperminc et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref66">49</reflink>]). Gender differences in the association between school climate and students' mental health yield inconsistent findings. For example, a longitudinal study by Lester and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref67">53</reflink>]) investigated the relationship between perceptions of school climate and mental health among 3462 middle school students in Australia. The results demonstrated that increased connectedness to school was associated with decreased depression for girls, but this association was not significant for boys. In contrast, Suldo et al. ([<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref68">79</reflink>]) did not find gender differences in the associations between school climate (operationalized as student–teacher relations, peer relations, building appearance, sharing of resources, and order and discipline) and mental health among 415 high school students in the United States.</p> <p>Considering the magnitude of the disruption caused by the pandemic on students' lives and given the rise in students' mental health difficulties during the COVID‐19 pandemic (Demaray et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref69">21</reflink>]; Jones et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref70">43</reflink>]; Jones et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref71">44</reflink>]), it is imperative to identify factors that could potentially protect students from the negative impacts of the pandemic. To our knowledge, no study to date has been published that specifically investigated how positive perception of school climate before the pandemic‐related disruptions was related to students' internalizing symptoms during the early phase of the pandemic when schools were closed. At the same time, prior studies on the protective nature of school climate suggest that positive perception of school climate could buffer the effects of stress on students' mental health (Hopson & Lee, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref72">39</reflink>]; O'Malley et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref73">59</reflink>]; Starkey et al., [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref74">77</reflink>]; Wong et al., [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref75">91</reflink>]). Thus, it seems reasonable to deduce that students' positive perception of school climate before the COVID‐19 pandemic would be associated with less internalizing symptoms for students during the early phases of the pandemic when school environment was disrupted.</p> <hd id="AN0173485983-5">Current study</hd> <p>The current study considered how resources within the school environment, namely student perceptions of school climate (i.e., support and structure), were associated with internalizing symptoms for middle school students2qat of a global pandemic. In line with social‐ecological theory and empirical research, school climate has been found to be negatively associated with anxiety and depression symptoms in adolescents (Franco et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref76">31</reflink>]; Wong et al., [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref77">91</reflink>]). Further, given the context of a global pandemic, our unique data set with data collected before and after the initial onset of national school closures provided insight into the potential lasting salience of school climate to students even while not physically in a school building. We sought to build on the authoritative school climate theory (Gregory et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref78">33</reflink>]) to examine how school structure and support were associated with internalizing symptoms during the pandemic. Research on school climate and individual student outcomes has shown school climate to hold protective power; that is, when school climate was more positive, student levels of depression were lower and well‐being was higher (Lee et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref79">52</reflink>]; Pössel et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref80">64</reflink>]; Wang & Degol, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref81">85</reflink>]). Further, the systems that students are embedded in are important resources for students during stressful times, such as during a global pandemic (Prime et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref82">65</reflink>]). As such, school climate may function as a protective factor (Fergus & Zimmerman, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref83">29</reflink>]), both concurrently and longitudinally.</p> <p>Thus, we hypothesized that prepandemic school climate support and structure would be negatively associated with internalizing symptoms during the pandemic for students even while not physically in school. Regarding gender differences, while we predicted girls would demonstrate higher levels of internalizing symptoms than boys, associations between school climate and internalizing outcomes have been mixed. Research has demonstrated that girls exhibit higher levels of internalizing symptoms (Culbertson, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref84">19</reflink>]; Essau et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref85">26</reflink>]; Hankin & Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref86">37</reflink>]; Palitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref87">62</reflink>]; Saluja et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref88">70</reflink>]; Van Oort et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref89">61</reflink>]). Further, in light of prior work indicating an inverse association between school climate and depression for girls but no association for boys (Lester et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref90">53</reflink>]), we hypothesized that more positive perceptions of school climate support and structure would be associated with lower levels of internalizing outcomes for girls but not for boys.</p> <hd id="AN0173485983-6">METHOD</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0173485983-7">Participants</hd> <p>A total of <emph>N</emph> = 255 sixth to eighth‐grade students from a Midwestern, suburban middle school were included in the current sample, with 52.2% in sixth grade, 17.6% in seventh grade, and 30.2% in eighth grade. There was an option for the students to select "Gender Diverse" for their gender; however, because students in the current sample were only included if they completed the survey at both time points, no students identified as gender diverse. The sample consisted of 47.8% boy participants. The majority of the sample identified as White (80%), 9% Hispanic, 7.0% Asian, 1.1% identified as Black, 0.7% American Indian or Alaskan Native, and 0.7% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. Twenty‐seven students (9.5%) had an Individualized Educational Plan (IEP); students surveyed with an IEP qualified under speech‐language impairment (5.1%), specific learning disability (2.0%), autism (1.6%), emotional disability (1.2%), and traumatic brain injury (1.2%). Finally, 44 students (15.5%) were eligible for free or reduced lunch prices. Data were collected at two time points (Fall 2019 and Spring 2020).</p> <p>Students participating in both time points consisted of 19.5% of the total middle school population (1309 middle school students; Illinois Report Card, 2020, https://<ulink href="http://www.illinoisreportcard.com">www.illinoisreportcard.com</ulink>). The current sample had similar demographic characteristics as the school population, with the majority of the school population also consisting of White (75.9%) and a similar percentage of students eligible for free or reduced lunch prices (17.5%). The current sample differed by having an overrepresentation of sixth graders compared to the even split among grades in the overall school population (33.2%, 32.5%, and 34.2%, respectively). A prior data collection in this school had 2% of students identifying as gender diverse and the current sample had no gender diverse students. Additionally, 16% of the students in the school population had an IEP compared to 9.5% in the current sample.</p> <hd id="AN0173485983-8">Procedure</hd> <p>Sixth‐grade to eighth‐grade students were given the opportunity to participate and complete an online survey through Qualtrics at two time points: Participant demographics were collected at both time points; school climate variables were collected in November 2019 (Time 1) while internalizing symptoms such as depression and anxiety were collected in May 2020 (Time 2). Because the schools were closed due to a statewide "stay at home order" from the high cases of COVID‐19 starting March 17, 2020, the survey links were sent to the students via email. Only the participants who completed at least one measure of the survey at both time points in November 2019 and May 2020 were included in the current sample, resulting in 255 students completing each measure (see Table 1). To collect and use the survey data, IRB approval was obtained. Additional data were collected for the purpose of school‐wide evaluation, and administration of all surveys were counterbalanced to reduce confounding variables resulting from order effect.</p> <p>1 Table General characteristics of the sample.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th>Factor</th><th><italic>N</italic></th><th align="left">Min</th><th align="left">Max</th><th align="left">Mean</th><th align="left"><italic>SD</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>T1 Delaware climate—structure: SEL ‐techniques</td><td>227</td><td align="char" char=".">1.67</td><td align="char" char=".">4.00</td><td align="char" char=".">2.92</td><td align="char" char=".">0.45</td></tr><tr><td>T1 climate—structure: positive behavior techniques</td><td>226</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td><td align="char" char=".">4.00</td><td align="char" char=".">2.61</td><td align="char" char=".">0.61</td></tr><tr><td>T1 climate—structure: fairness of rules</td><td>228</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td><td align="char" char=".">4.00</td><td align="char" char=".">3.04</td><td align="char" char=".">0.59</td></tr><tr><td>T1 climate—structure: clarity of expectations</td><td>229</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td><td align="char" char=".">4.00</td><td align="char" char=".">3.20</td><td align="char" char=".">0.50</td></tr><tr><td>T1 climate—support: student support school‐wide</td><td>228</td><td align="char" char=".">1.17</td><td align="char" char=".">4.00</td><td align="char" char=".">2.88</td><td align="char" char=".">0.47</td></tr><tr><td>T1 climate—support: student–student relationships</td><td>228</td><td align="char" char=".">1.40</td><td align="char" char=".">4.00</td><td align="char" char=".">2.95</td><td align="char" char=".">0.47</td></tr><tr><td>T1 climate—support: teacher–student relationships</td><td>228</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td><td align="char" char=".">4.00</td><td align="char" char=".">3.32</td><td align="char" char=".">0.57</td></tr><tr><td>T1 internalizing and externalizing symptoms (SFSS)</td><td>222</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td><td align="char" char=".">3.67</td><td align="char" char=".">1.87</td><td align="char" char=".">0.65</td></tr><tr><td>T2 anxiety symptoms (GAD)</td><td>214</td><td align="char" char=".">0.00</td><td align="char" char=".">21.00</td><td align="char" char=".">4.17</td><td align="char" char=".">4.71</td></tr><tr><td>T2 depression symptoms (CES‐DC)</td><td>213</td><td align="char" char=".">0.00</td><td align="char" char=".">52.00</td><td align="char" char=".">15.25</td><td align="char" char=".">10.52</td></tr><tr><td>T2 internalizing symptoms (SFSS subscale)</td><td>222</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td><td align="char" char=".">4.38</td><td align="char" char=".">1.95</td><td align="char" char=".">0.76</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note</emph> : November 2019 = T1; May 2020 = T2.</p> <p>2 Abbreviations: CES‐DC, Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale for Children; GAD, Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7‐item Scale; SD, standard deviation; SEL, social emotional learning; SFSS, Symptoms and Functioning Severity Scale.</p> <hd id="AN0173485983-9">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0173485983-10">School climate factors of support and structure</hd> <p>Several subscales from the <emph>Delaware School Survey—</emph>student versions (Bear et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref91">8</reflink>]) were completed by students in at Time 1 in November 2019. These subscales were selected to align with our theory on authoritative school climate. Seven subscales from the <emph>Delaware School Survey</emph> were used: Student–Student Relationships (5 items), Student–Teacher Relationships (5 items), School‐Wide Engagement (6 items), Positive Behavior Techniques (5 items), Social Emotional Learning (SEL) Techniques (6 items), Clarity of Expectations (4 items), and Fairness of Rules (4 items). Participant response choices ranged from <emph>Disagree A LOT, Disagree, Agree</emph>, to <emph>Agree A LOT</emph> on a 4‐point Likert scale. These subscales have demonstrated good psychometric properties (Bear et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref92">8</reflink>]). Internal consistency coefficients ranged from 0.70 to 0.88 across each of the seven subscales (Bear et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref93">8</reflink>]). In the same study, evidence of concurrent validity was provided with significant associations among the Delaware scores and data for suspensions/expulsions and academic achievement. In the current study, the School Climate—Support domain was operationalized using the following variables: Delaware Student–Student Relationships, Teacher–Student Relationships, and School‐Wide Engagement subscales. The School Climate—Structure domain was operationalized using the following variables: Delaware Positive Behavior Techniques, Social‐Emotional Learning Techniques, Clarity of Expectations, and Fairness of Rules subscales.</p> <hd id="AN0173485983-11">Anxiety symptoms</hd> <p>The <emph>Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7‐item Scale</emph> (GAD‐7; Spitzer et al., [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref94">76</reflink>]), was used to assess symptoms of anxiety via student self‐report at Time 2 in May 2020. The students were asked "Over the last two weeks, how often have you been bothered by the following problems?" to items such as "Trouble relaxing," or "Feeling afraid as if something awful might happen." Students were given the option to respond ranging from <emph>Not at all</emph> (0) to <emph>Nearly every day</emph> (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref95">3</reflink>), with higher scores indicating higher severity of anxiety symptoms. The current study utilized a continuous score of symptoms. The GAD‐7 has shown evidence of good reliability with Tiirikainen et al., ([<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref96">83</reflink>]) reporting <emph>a</emph> = .91, and construct validity, with a strong association between the GAD‐7 scores and self‐report measures of depression (two‐item evaluation; Whooley et al., [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref97">90</reflink>]) and social anxiety (Mini‐Social Phobia Inventory; Connor et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref98">15</reflink>]). For the current study, the Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> of the GAD‐7 was.89, indicating satisfactory internal consistency and the average score in May 2020 was 4.27 (SD = 4.71).</p> <hd id="AN0173485983-12">Depressive symptoms</hd> <p>The <emph>Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale for Children</emph> (CES‐DC; Weissman et al., [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref99">89</reflink>]) is one of the most widely used self‐report depression measures (Essau et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref100">25</reflink>]) consisting of 20 items. This measure was completed by students at Time 2 in May 2020. The students were requested to indicate their mood during the past week. They were asked to respond to statements such as "I was bothered by things that usually don't bother me" and "I felt down and unhappy." The response options ranged from 0 = Not <emph>at all</emph> to 3 = <emph>A lot</emph>. The CES‐DC considers a total score of 15 or higher as indicating significant levels of depressive symptoms and a total score of 31 or higher as indicating severe levels of depressive symptoms (Fendrich et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref101">28</reflink>]; Weissman et al., [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref102">89</reflink>]), though the current study utilized a continuous score. Mean scores were calculated if participants answered at least 80% of the measure with higher scores indicating more depressive symptoms. Validity and reliability have been examined by Fendrich et al. ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref103">28</reflink>]), indicating good internal consistency, reliability, and validity of the measure. Concurrent and convergent validity of the measure have been established as elevated scores on the CES‐DC were associated with DSM‐III diagnoses of depression and scores are significantly correlated with other established measures (Shaffer, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref104">73</reflink>]; <emph>r</emph> = .43; Coopersmith, 1967; <emph>r</emph> = .46). The CES‐DC demonstrated satisfactory reliability for the current sample (<emph>α</emph> = .81) and the average score in May 2020 was 15.25 (SD = 10.52).</p> <hd id="AN0173485983-13">Overall mental health and internalizing symptoms</hd> <p>The <emph>Symptoms and Functioning Severity Scale</emph> (SFSS, Bickman et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref105">10</reflink>]), Youth Short Form B, was used to measure students' emotional and behavior problems and was completed by students at both Time 1 and Time 2 in November 2019 and May 2020, respectively. The questionnaire asked participants to rate how frequently they experienced certain emotions or displayed certain behaviors over the last 2 weeks. The Short Form includes 13 items measuring internalizing and externalizing problems. For the current study, one item related to substance use was removed. The response option on the SFSS was a five‐point Likert scale: 1 = <emph>Never</emph>, 2 = <emph>Hardly Ever</emph>, 3 = <emph>Sometimes</emph>, 4 = <emph>Often, and</emph> 5 = <emph>Very Often</emph>. Higher scores indicate higher frequency of experiencing externalizing and internalizing behaviors, thoughts, and feelings. Items that represent internalizing behaviors include "worry about a lot of things" and "feel worthless." Items that represent externalizing behaviors include "throw things when mad" and "disobey adults." While the SFSS Short Form has less robust consistency estimates compared to the full version, internal consistency of the short version is within the satisfactory range with <emph>α</emph> = .86 (Bickman et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref106">10</reflink>]). The SFSS score correlated highly (approximately <emph>r</emph> = .80) with the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref107">1</reflink>]), the Youth Outcomes Questionnaire (Achenbach, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref108">1</reflink>]), and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaires (Goodman, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref109">32</reflink>]).</p> <p>The SFSS total score (representing overall mental health symptoms and including both internalizing and externalizing items) was used for Time 1 as a control variable and six items representing internalizing behaviors were averaged and used as an observed variable (one of three separate observed variables used to represent a broad latent construct of internalizing symptoms) for Time 2 analyses. Although the SFSS was intended for use as one overall internalizing and externalizing symptoms score, there is some precedence for utilizing separate subscales. For example, Bickman and others ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref110">10</reflink>]), utilizing the SFSS‐Full Youth form, identified the Internalizing and Externalizing subscale scores and while the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) fit indices did not meet scientific criteria in satisfactory ways, the two‐factor model was superior to a single‐factor model and recommended use of the two subscales (Athay et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref111">5</reflink>]). It should be noted that the short forms contain a different set of items but produce the same total and subscale scores as the full version.</p> <p>For the current study, an exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the SFSS internalizing items to determine whether one factor could explain the covariance structure of the data for these items. This analysis was completed in SPSS and R with the Psych and Lavaan packages (IBM Corp. Released, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref112">40</reflink>]; R Core Team, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref113">66</reflink>]). The six SFSS items developed to assess internalizing behaviors were examined for skewness and kurtosis, and all items were determined to have normal distribution. One factor (internalizing behaviors) was tested, and factor loadings presented a clean and interpretable solution, with all items loading significantly onto one factor, with adequate fit: <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref114">9</reflink>) = 28.78 <emph>p</emph> < .001, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.96; tucker‐lewis index (TLI) = 0.93, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.10, and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = 0.04. Therefore, the overall SFSS score was used as a control at Time 1 (representing overall mental health symptoms) and the internalizing subscale score was used at Time 2. The data in the current study demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency for the total score at Time 1 (<emph>α</emph> = .89) and internalizing items at Time 2 (<emph>α</emph> = .85).</p> <hd id="AN0173485983-14">Analytical approach</hd> <p>The current study used structural equation modeling (SEM) as the main analysis to assess the posited causal relationships among variables. In our construction of school climate in this study, we investigated two identified components of this multidimensional construct (see Thapa et al., [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref115">82</reflink>]), specifically support and structure as described by Gregory and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref116">33</reflink>]). Support was operationalized as relationships and overall school participation while Structure was operationalized by the disciplinary and academic environment. The model used School Climate Structure and School Climate Support as the latent independent variables with Internalizing Outcomes as the latent dependent variable. Free and reduced lunch price status and overall mental health symptoms at Time 1 were utilized as control variables to take into account any potential environmental or mental health challenges students experienced pre‐COVID.</p> <p>To begin, the measurement model was fit to the data, including assessment of measurement invariance, followed by fitting of the structural model. To account for missing data, a maximum likelihood estimation (ML) was implemented in Lavaan (Rosseel, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref117">68</reflink>]). This method accounts for missing data on the estimation of the parameters' standard‐errors and model fit indices. Finally, to assess whether gender differences exist in the proposed model, we fit a multigroup model to the data and compare paths between boys and girls by applying successive <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> tests to models constrained by differing paths.</p> <hd id="AN0173485983-15">RESULTS</hd> <p>SPSS was used to screen the data, manage missing data, calculate means and standard deviations for all study variables, and examine appropriate statistical assumptions (e.g., checking for normality, linearity, and outliers). The univariate normality of the data was examined using the Shapiro–Wilk test to assess skewness and kurtosis (Mendes & Pala, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref118">56</reflink>]); with kurtosis values ranging from 8 to 20 indicating high levels of kurtosis, and values greater than three indicating skew (Kline, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref119">45</reflink>]). This indicated confirmation of the normal distribution assumption. Multivariate normality was inspected using Mardia's coefficient (Mardia, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref120">54</reflink>]). The Mardia's coefficient exceeded the suggested thresholds (Mardia's coefficient = 140.59, <emph>p</emph> < .001), indicating multivariate kurtosis; a scaled test statistic ML with robust standard errors was employed to account for nonnormally distributed data.</p> <p>The <emph>Lavaan</emph> package in R was utilized to run SEM analyses to determine which aspects of school climate were associated with internalizing symptoms (R Core Team, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref121">67</reflink>]). School Climate factors of Support and Structure were the latent independent variables and Internalizing Outcomes was the latent dependent variable. The School Climate Support domain was operationalized using the following observed variables: Delaware Student–Student Relationships, Teacher–Student Relationships, and Student Support School‐Wide subscales. The Structure domain was operationalized using the following observed variables: Delaware Positive Behavior Techniques, Social‐Emotional Learning Techniques, Clarity of Expectations, and Fairness of Rules subscales. The Internalizing Outcomes latent variable was operationalized with the measured variables: Depression Symptoms (CES‐DC), Anxiety Symptoms (GAD‐7), and Internalizing Symptoms (SFSS). See Table 1 for means and standard deviations of all key study variables.</p> <p>To investigate differences in school climate factors and internalizing outcomes between genders, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted on the measured variables. Assumptions for MANOVA were assessed; two participants were removed as outliers as evidenced by Mahalanobis distance. Multicolinary was assessed with Pearson's correlations and Variance Inflation Factors (VIF) and predictor variables were not highly correlated; the dependent variables of Anxiety and Depression were the most correlated (0.83) though this did not meet criteria for high correlation (Anxiety VIF = 2.50; Depression VIF = 0.383; James et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref122">41</reflink>]) so analyses proceeded. Q–Q Plots of the dependent variables were analyzed and all variables were determined to be normally distributed. Gender differences in internalizing outcomes were found (Wilks' λ = 0.93, <emph>F</emph> = 5.40, <emph>p</emph> = .001). Follow‐up ANOVAs revealed differences in all internalizing outcomes (all <emph>p</emph> < .001), with girls reporting higher symptoms of anxiety (<emph>p</emph> < .001), depression (<emph>p</emph> = .001), and internalizing symptoms (<emph>p</emph> = .001) than boys. A MANOVA was also completed on the School Climate variables (i.e., student–student relationships, student–teacher relationships, student support, positive behavior techniques, SEL techniques, clarity of expectations, and fairness of rules); no gender differences were found (Wilks' λ = 0.94, <emph>F</emph> = 1.93, <emph>p</emph> = .07).</p> <hd id="AN0173485983-16">SEM</hd> <p>To analyze the associations of School Climate Structure and Support factors with Internalizing Outcomes, SEM was utilized. SEM allows simultaneous testing of both the association and directionality among latent variables of interest which reflect a construct that is not directly observable (Kline, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref123">45</reflink>]; Schreiber et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref124">72</reflink>]; Teo, [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref125">81</reflink>]). To account for potential pre‐existing differences, whether a student qualified for free/reduced‐priced lunch and the SFSS scores from November 2019 were regressed onto the internalizing symptoms outcomes from Time 2.</p> <p>Within the measurement model, the psychometric properties of all study measures were examined. Reliability indices were calculated to ensure validity of the constructs. Regarding internal reliability, Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> estimates ranged from 0.78 to 0.90, indicating acceptable reliability (Support = 0.84; Structure = 0.78; Internalizing Outcomes = 0.89). Average variance extracted values ranged from 0.57 to 0.83, again reflecting good evidence of reliability (Fornell & Larcker, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref126">30</reflink>]). During the CFA process, all factor loading parameters were statistically significant (<emph>p</emph> < .05) and over 0.5, and all error terms were also significant, indicating that the constructs exhibit convergent validity (Hair et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref127">35</reflink>]).</p> <p>Fit indices were examined to determine the fit between the SEM models and the observed data. The total model was determined to have fit index values that are suggested as acceptable in the related literature based on Kline ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref128">45</reflink>]) guidelines (CFI ≥ 0.90–0.95, TLI ≥ 0.90–0.95, RMSEA ≤ 0.06, SRMR ≤ 0.08), with the following measures: <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref129">50</reflink>) = 144.88, <emph>p</emph> < .001, RMSEA = 0.092, CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.90, SRMR = 0.05. Notably, the RMSEA value was above acceptable fit guidelines based on Kline; we proceeded in the analysis based on Fabrigar et al. ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref130">27</reflink>]) guidelines of RMSEA values between 0.08 and 0.10 as being marginal.</p> <p>The structural model determined the relationship between the school climate variables and internalizing outcomes. To assess the strength of the relationship between variables in the structural model the level of the path coefficient (β) and the significance (<emph>p)</emph> were calculated (Hair et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref131">34</reflink>]). Path coefficients measure the influence of a variable on another. The individual path coefficients and their corresponding level of significance obtained from the models are summarized in Table 2. In the structural path model, as illustrated in Figure 1, internalizing outcomes were significantly negatively associated with school climate structure (<emph>β</emph> = −0.15, <emph>p</emph> = .020) and school climate support (<emph>β</emph> = −0.16, <emph>p</emph> = .003). Qualifying for free/reduced‐priced lunch was not associated with internalizing symptom outcomes (<emph>p</emph> = .492), nor were prior internalizing symptom scores (<emph>p</emph> = .477).</p> <p>2 Table Results from invariance analysis of measurement model for latent constructs.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th>Model</th><th align="left"><italic>χ</italic><sup>2</sup></th><th><italic>df</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>χ</italic><sup>2</sup>diff</th><th align="left">CFI</th><th align="left">RMSEA</th><th align="left">CFIdiff</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Configural model</td><td align="char" char=".">156.280001</td><td>64</td><td align="char" char=".">—</td><td align="char" char=".">0.918</td><td align="char" char=".">0.124</td><td align="char" char=".">—</td></tr><tr><td>Metric invariance model</td><td align="char" char=".">158.670001</td><td>71</td><td align="char" char=".">0.936</td><td align="char" char=".">0.922</td><td align="char" char=".">0.115</td><td align="char" char=".">0.004</td></tr><tr><td>Scalar model</td><td align="char" char=".">255.090001</td><td>120</td><td align="char" char="."><0.0010001</td><td align="char" char=".">0.885</td><td align="char" char=".">0.110</td><td align="char" char=".">0.037</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 * <emph>p</emph> < .05. <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>diff is the Satorra and Bentler ([<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref132">71</reflink>]) scaled <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> difference statistic.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/PIS/01dec23/pits23038-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="pits23038-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Total model. *p < .05." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0173485983-18">Multigroup model</hd> <p>To investigate whether the predictors of school climate variables and internalizing outcomes differs by gender, a multigroup model was created (Anderson & Gerbing, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref133">3</reflink>]; Ding et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref134">23</reflink>]; Tabachnick & Fidell, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref135">80</reflink>]; Tinsley & Tinsley, [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref136">84</reflink>]). The multigroup configural measurement model and measurement invariance were assessed, then the structural model was assessed. Invariance testing was conducted based on changes with CFI fit indices (Satorra & Bentler, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref137">71</reflink>]). Determination of the adequacy of the configural measurement model and measurement invariance of the latent constructs across genders was provided successively by fitting and comparing constrained sets of models. First, a multigroup configural model was fitted, followed by a metric invariance model with factor loadings between groups constrained to be equal, and then scalar invariance, wherein factor loadings and intercepts constrained to be equal. Metric and scalar invariance were established based on Cheung and Rensvold guidelines ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref138">12</reflink>]; Table 3). Omega values (McDonald, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref139">55</reflink>]) indicated good reliability across all latent constructs (Support = 0.79; Structure = 0.86; Internalizing Outcomes = 0.90).</p> <p>3 Table Results of structural model analysis.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th>Outcome</th><th align="left"><italic>Β</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>SE</italic>(β)</th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic> Value</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Support</td><td align="char" char=".">−.16</td><td align="char" char=".">0.007</td><td align="char" char=".">.001</td></tr><tr><td>Structure</td><td align="char" char=".">−.15</td><td align="char" char=".">0.009</td><td align="char" char=".">.020</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 <emph>Note</emph>: For Support, <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.07, for Structure, <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.03. Bold items indicate statistically significant (<emph>p</emph> < .05) outcome effects.</p> <p>A multigroup model by gender showed adequate fit to the data, with the following observed fit statistics: <emph>χ<sups>2</sups></emph>avg(<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref140">100</reflink>) = 204.52, <emph>p</emph> < .001, RMSEA = 0.09, CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.90, SRMR = 0.06. The multigroup model is illustrated in Figure 2. To assess differences between the latent variable associations between genders, successive constraining of each pathway was performed and compared to the unconstrained fit. Both of the associations between Support (<emph>p</emph> < .001) and Structure (<emph>p</emph> < .001) with Internalizing Outcomes were significantly greater for boys girls students than for boys students (Table 4). Associations within the boys girls model latent variables were similar in significance and directionality to the total model. For boys girls, Support was significantly and negatively associated with Internalizing Outcomes (<emph>β</emph> = −.17, <emph>p</emph> = .011), and Structure was similarly associated with Internalizing Outcomes (<emph>β</emph> = −.20, <emph>p</emph> = .011); neither free/reduced‐priced lunch qualification (<emph>p</emph> = .570) nor prior internalizing symptoms (<emph>p</emph> = .650) were significant. For the boys model, associations within the latent variables were not significant. Notably, free/reduced‐priced lunch qualification was significantly and positively associated with internalizing symptoms during COVID shutdowns for boys (<emph>β</emph> = .152, <emph>p</emph> = .023), though again, prior internalizing symptoms was not (<emph>p</emph> = .391). Table 5 demonstrates parameter estimates resulting from the multigroup structural model fitted to gender data.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/PIS/01dec23/pits23038-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="pits23038-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Multigroup gender model. *p < .05." /> </p> <p></p> <p>4 Table Results from paths analysis of latent constructs.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th>Model</th><th align="left"><italic>χ</italic><sup>2</sup></th><th><italic>df</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>χ</italic><sup>2</sup>diff</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Unconstrained model</td><td align="char" char=".">1498.780001</td><td>882</td><td align="char" char=".">—</td></tr><tr><td>Support</td><td align="char" char=".">151.680001</td><td>65</td><td align="char" char=".">1347.10001</td></tr><tr><td>Structure</td><td align="char" char=".">151.610001</td><td>65</td><td align="char" char=".">1347.20001</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>5 * <emph>p</emph> < .05. <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>diff is the Satorra and Bentler ([<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref141">71</reflink>]) scaled <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> difference statistic.</item> <item>5 Table Results of multigroup structural model analysis by gender.</item> </ulist> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th align="left">Girls</th><th align="left">Boys</th></tr><tr valign="bottom"><th>Outcome</th><th align="left"><italic>β</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>SE</italic>(β)</th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic> Value</th><th align="left"><italic>β</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>SE</italic>(β)</th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic> Value</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Support</td><td align="char" char=".">−.17</td><td align="char" char=".">0.06</td><td align="char" char=".">.008</td><td align="char" char=".">−.18</td><td align="char" char=".">0.09</td><td align="char" char=".">.44</td></tr><tr><td>Structure</td><td align="char" char=".">−.20</td><td align="char" char=".">0.08</td><td align="char" char=".">.009</td><td align="char" char=".">−.19</td><td align="char" char=".">0.13</td><td align="char" char=".">.13</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>6 <emph>Note</emph>: For Support, <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.05 (Boys) and <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.10 (Girls). For Structure, <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.03 (Boys) and <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.08 (Girls). Bold items indicate statistically significant (<emph>p</emph> < .05) outcome effects.</p> <hd id="AN0173485983-20">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>The COVID‐19 pandemic created disruptions for students in the home and school environments, resulting in increased levels of stress for students. In an effort to understand factors that could potentially protect students from the negative impacts of the pandemic, the current study examined school climate before the pandemic as a protective factor against student internalizing symptoms during the pandemic. School climate, a multidimensional construct that can be conceptualized as consisting of both support and structure within a school, has been shown to be a protective factor for students against negative outcomes like anxiety and depression (Aldridge & McChesney, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref142">2</reflink>]; Derosier & Newcity, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref143">22</reflink>]; Franco et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref144">31</reflink>]; Wang & Degol, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref145">85</reflink>]). Building upon what is known about the protective factor of school climate, the goals of the current study were to (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref146">1</reflink>) analyze if school climate support and structure before the pandemic were associated with internalizing symptoms during initial school closures and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref147">2</reflink>) determine whether these associations differed between genders.</p> <p>The results supported our first hypothesis, in that more positive perceptions of school climate (i.e., support and structure) before COVID‐19 were associated with lower levels of internalizing symptoms during the initial school closures. The results align with existing literature that aspects of school climate are linked to students' behavioral, psychological, and social functioning (Aldridge & McChesney, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref148">2</reflink>]; Franco et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref149">31</reflink>]; Wang & Degol, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref150">85</reflink>]). Further, our findings underscore the use of a social‐ecological systems framework to recognize the associations between school climate and student outcomes, including internalizing symptoms. The results support the notion that aspects of the school can serve as a protective factor during stressful events (Fergus & Zimmerman, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref151">29</reflink>]), even when not physically in school. As this study focused specifically on support and structure domains of school climate, results also provided support for an authoritative school climate being adaptive; adding to the current literature (Derosier & Newcity, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref152">22</reflink>]; Kutsyuruba et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref153">50</reflink>]; Thapa et al., [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref154">82</reflink>]).</p> <p>If students believed that school rules were consistently and fairly enforced, and perceived positive, supportive relationships with peers and adults before the pandemic, they were less likely to experience internalizing symptoms during the pandemic. These results align with prior research demonstrating that support (i.e., student–student relationships, teacher–student relationships, and student support school‐wide) are associated with better mental health outcomes (Aldridge & McChesney, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref155">2</reflink>]; Franco et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref156">31</reflink>]). Additionally, the results supported prior studies that having structure in school (i.e., Positive Behavior Techniques, Social‐Emotional Learning Techniques, Clarity of Expectations, and Fairness of Rules) are also associated with better mental health (Aldridge & McChesney, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref157">2</reflink>]). Moreover, highlighting the longitudinal nature of the current study, these findings illustrate the association of school climate with students' internalizing symptoms even when not physically in school, and potentially protecting students from mental health struggles during times of adversity. Taken together, the associations between school climate domains of support and structure provide further evidence that school climate indeed contributes to the well‐being of students (Baker et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref158">6</reflink>]). Additionally, the findings expand the literature to note the longitudinal nature of the protective associations during global crises events, providing evidence of school climate supporting student resilience.</p> <p>Alternatively, it should be noted that students with poor perceptions of their school climate before the pandemic were more likely to have higher internalizing problems during the initial phase of the pandemic. This is concerning for those students because even though schools may have tried to provide structure and support for remote learning during school closures, it is likely that relationships and structure were even more impacted for these students during school closures. Next, in support of our second hypothesis, we found evidence that associations differed by gender, with more positive reports of school climate factors of structure and support being associated with lower levels of internalizing outcomes for girls but not for boys. School climate structure and support were both significantly negatively associated with internalizing outcomes, but these associations were significantly greater for girls than for boys. These results imply that the more positively girls felt about the overall environment of their school, as well as the level of structure and support they experienced in school before the pandemic, the lower they rated their self‐reported internalizing symptoms during initial closures, while the boys' perception of school climate were not associated with self‐reports of internalizing symptoms. Alternatively, for girls poorer perceptions of school climate prepandemic were associated with more internalizing problems for them during the initial phases of school closure. The gender differences in this finding may be explained either by the importance girls place on close friendships and social support (Davidson & Demaray, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref159">20</reflink>]) or boys typically experiencing less internalizing symptoms (Hankin et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref160">36</reflink>]; Nolen‐Hoeksema & Girgus, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref161">58</reflink>]), where the effects of school climate are not as significant for boys as they are for girls. It may be that these two components of school climate (i.e., support and structure) are more important to the functioning of girls than boys when it comes to internalizing outcomes. Additionally, there could be other factors outside of school climate that provide more of a buffer for boys such as keeping up with their peers via videogaming systems or support from parents, where the boys may not benefit as much as girls do in their perception of school climate.</p> <p>Finally of note, in examining levels of internalizing symptoms, girls were more likely to report symptoms of anxiety, depression, and internalizing symptoms than boys. These findings are consistent with prior literature finding that girls are typically more likely than boys to experience internalizing symptoms (Hankin et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref162">36</reflink>]; Nolen‐Hoeksema & Girgus, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref163">58</reflink>]). This is especially true during early adolescence, as students are shifting toward more independence and may experience relational shifts or strains, which may be particularly difficult for girls (Berndt & Hoyle, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref164">9</reflink>]; Crockett et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref165">18</reflink>]; Simmons et al., [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref166">75</reflink>]). Though no gender differences were found in the students' perceptions of various aspects of school climate, gender differences were found in the model examining school climate support and structure associations with internalizing outcomes.</p> <p>Overall, an authoritative model of school climate including structure and support, before the pandemic, was found to be significantly negatively associated with internalizing symptoms during initial school closures, particularly for girls. These results suggest that the protective effect of school climate support and structure may extend across contexts, even while students are not physically in the school building.</p> <hd id="AN0173485983-21">LIMITATIONS</hd> <p>The current findings should be considered in light of several limitations. First, there was attrition in the sample from the fall data collection to the spring. Specifically, 19.5% of the middle school population participated in the study in the spring. However, it is noted that compared to the population from which students were drawn, the current sample was similar in terms of the majority of students identifying as White (80% in our sample vs. 76% in the school population) and being eligible for free or reduced lunch prices (16% in our sample vs. 18% in the school). However, our sample had a larger percentage of sixth‐grade students (52% compared to 33% in the school population) and fewer students with IEPs (10% compared to 16% in the school). These differences limit the generalizability of our findings. We know that students with disabilities and gender‐diverse students may be more at risk for internalizing problems, so the fact that they were underrepresented in our sample is a limitation.</p> <p>There were also limitations with regard to the measures used in the study. One consideration in interpreting the study findings is that the measures of anxiety and depression were collected in the first few months of the pandemic during the stay‐at‐home order and thus represent mental health during that specific time period. Given the long duration and ongoing impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic, it is important to examine mental health outcomes beyond that initial period. Our control variables of free and reduced lunch price and pre‐COVID mental health symptoms were used as direct controls for our outcome measure. Future research could further explore these earlier challenges in more interactional models.</p> <p>In addition, we relied on one method and informant for school climate and study outcomes. Using multiple informants and methods would likely yield a more accurate and reliable assessment of these constructs (Wang & Degol, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref167">85</reflink>]). In addition, our model included two school climate factors—structure and support. Being that school climate is a broad construct encompassing many factors (Thapa et al., [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref168">82</reflink>]), it is possible that there are factors outside of structure and support that can influence internalizing symptoms. In addition, we considered school climate as a protective factor in predicting later internalizing symptoms; it is also possible that the directionality could be reversed (i.e., internalizing symptoms could predict later perceptions of school climate) and future research should consider potential bidirectional associations between these variables.</p> <hd id="AN0173485983-22">FUTURE DIRECTIONS</hd> <p>An important extension of this study would be to continue to understand the longitudinal effects of the COVID‐19 pandemic on schools and students. As schools adapted to remote and hybrid instruction, it is crucial to continue to understand the association between school climate and student mental health. School climate structure and support during extended remote instruction and hybrid instruction may be very different for students who had previously held both positive or negative views of those aspects of school climate. Thus, it is important to understand the dynamic nature of this construct within this unprecedented period to account for changing effects on outcomes. Further, as the pandemic continued, internalizing symptoms may also have been negatively impacted, making it vital to understand whether the associations found in this study hold over time.</p> <p>Additionally, though this work investigated one facet of adolescents' microsystems, there are other aspects to examine. Family, peers, and community factors all play a role in the development of young people and understanding how these systems affect both school climate and internalizing outcomes would be of benefit. Further, school climate is a multidimensional construct and has been measured in various ways within the literature (Thapa et al., [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref169">82</reflink>]). It may be important to understand school climate through other lenses, such as safety and interpersonal relationships. This work may add additional factors of school climate that could be important to address with intervention and prevention strategies.</p> <hd id="AN0173485983-23">IMPLICATIONS</hd> <p>No one could guess there would be an abrupt ending to in‐person schooling for millions of children across the United States. In March 2020, the COVID‐19 pandemic resulted in students going from mid‐spring routines at school to learning from home in an unprecedented way. We think of school climate as being important while physically at school. However, the current study investigated how school climate support and structure before the pandemic were associated with student outcomes during a time when students were not physically present at school, during the pandemic school shut‐downs. Our results indicated that a positive perception of school climate support and structure was protective for students during the shutdown, particularly for girls. Thus, the current study results might be important to consider during other types of school breaks. There may be carryover positive effects from positive school climate that are associated with positive outcomes for students over summer break when students are not present in school.</p> <p>Similarly, girls who report more negative school climate perceptions may experience more internalizing symptoms during school closures or school breaks. School personnel could explicitly work on building a more positive school climate both in encouraging meaningful engagement of students via strengthening student–student relationships and teacher–student relationships, and by creating a positive environment though clear and positive behavior expectations. For schools struggling with a positive school climate, providing services and supports before and during transitions out of school could be helpful. Regarding these supports, there are a multitude of ways school staff could address student needs. School psychologists specifically, with their wealth of knowledge in multitiered systems of support, could advocate for the importance of tier‐one universal efforts to improve school climate. This could include educating staff members on outcomes associated with positive school climate and ways to foster a positive climate, as well as implementation of school‐wide check‐ins after being out of school. More targeted supports could include individual or small group check‐ins with school staff to foster the relational aspect of school climate, services such as counseling either in‐school or with community agencies, or more individualized support plan development. This could also include identification of students who may be more at risk for internalizing symptoms or who already have more negative perceptions of school climate who may be most in need of supports and resources. Schools could also target interventions for students with lower perceptions of school climate during a crisis event (e.g., school closure for a natural disaster). These students could be identified to be checked up remotely on during any time of school closure. In this way, schools can most effectively support all students and meet their needs while considering the role of school climate on supporting students even while out of school.</p> <hd id="AN0173485983-24">CONCLUSION</hd> <p>This study highlights the associations between school climate factors of support and structure with internalizing outcomes, contributing to a vast body of work on school climate. Further, gender differences in these associations point to the importance of improving school climate as a preventative measure in reducing internalizing symptoms within adolescents. Consistent with prior research, this study underscores the importance of an authoritative model of school climate for girls not only during the difficult middle school years but also during the COVID‐19 pandemic and remote schooling. These findings imply the great need for school personnel and policy makers to address school climate to support student mental health during and post‐COVID‐19 as well as during school breaks.</p> <hd id="AN0173485983-25">CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflict of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0173485983-26">DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT</hd> <p>Data not yet available as it is part of a larger data set off of which multiple projects are ongoing.</p> <ref id="AN0173485983-27"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref107" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Integrative guide for the 1991 CBCL/4‐18, YSR, and TRF profiles. University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref54" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Aldridge, J. M., & McChesney, K. (2018). The relationships between school climate and adolescent mental health and wellbeing: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Educational Research, 88, 121 – 145.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref95" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two‐step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103 (3), 411 – 423.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref24" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Angold, A., & Rutter, M. (1992). Effects of age and pubertal status on depression in a large clinical sample. Development and Psychopathology, 4 (1), 5 – 28.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref111" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Athay, M. M., Riemer, M., & Bickman, L. (2012). The symptoms and functioning severity scale (SFSS): Psychometric evaluation and discrepancies among youth, caregiver, and clinician ratings over time. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 39, 13 – 29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-012-0403-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref158" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Baker, J. A., Dilly, L. J., Aupperlee, J. L., & Patil, S. A. (2003). The developmental context of school satisfaction: Schools as psychologically healthy environments. School Psychology Quarterly, 18 (2), 206 – 221.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref34" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Baumrind, D. (1968). Authoritarian vs. authoritative parental control. Adolescence, 3 (11), 255.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref91" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bear, G. G., Yang, C., & Pasipanodya, E. (2015). Assessing school climate: Validation of a brief measure of the perceptions of parents. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33 (2), 115 – 129.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref114" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Berndt, T. J., & Hoyle, S. G. (1985). Stability and change in childhood and adolescent friendships. Developmental Psychology, 21, 1007 – 1015.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bickman, L., Athay, M., Riemer, M., Lambert, E. W., Douglas Kelley, S., Breda, C., Tempesti, T., Dew‐Reeves, S. E., Brannan, A. M., & Vides de Andrade, A. R. (2010). Manual of the peabody treatment progress battery (2nd ed.). Vanderbilt University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brighi, A., Guarini, A., Melotti, G., Galli, S., & Genta, M. L. (2012). Predictors of victimisation across direct bullying, indirect bullying and cyberbullying. Emotional & Behavioural Difficulties, 17 (3–4), 375 – 388. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632752.2012.704684</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness‐of‐fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9 (2), 233 – 255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coelho, V. A., Bear, G. G., & Brás, P. (2020). A multilevel analysis of the importance of school climate for the trajectories of students' self‐concept and self‐esteem throughout the middle school transition. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49 (9), 1793 – 1804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-020-01245-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen, J., McCabe, E. M., Michelli, N. M., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate: Research, policy, practice, and teacher education. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 111 (1), 180 – 213.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Connor, K. M., Kobak, K. A., Churchill, L. E., Katzelnick, D., & Davidson, J. R. T. (2001). Mini‐SPIN: A brief screening assessment for generalized social anxiety disorder. Depression and Anxiety, 14 (2), 137 – 140.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cornell, D., & Huang, F. (2016). Authoritative school climate and high school student risk behavior: A cross‐sectional multi‐level analysis of student self‐reports. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45 (11), 2246 – 2259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0424-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cornell, D., Shukla, K., & Konold, T. R. (2016). Authoritative school climate and student academic engagement, grades, and aspirations in middle and high schools. AERA Open, 2 (2), 233285841663318. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858416633184</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crockett, L. J., Petersen, A. C., Graber, J. A., Schulenberg, J. E., & Ebata, A. (1989). School transitions and adjustment during early adolescence. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 9, 181 – 210.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Culbertson, F. M. (1997). Depression and gender. An international review. American Psychologist, 52 (1), 25 – 31. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.52.1.25</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davidson, L. M., & Demaray, M. K. (2007). Social support as a moderator between victimization and internalizing–externalizing distress from bullying. School Psychology Review, 36 (3), 383 – 405.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Demaray, M. K., Ogg, J. A., Malecki, C. K., & Styck, K. M. (2022). COVID‐19 stress and coping and associations with internalizing problems in 4th through 12th grade students. School Psychology Review, 51 (2), 150 – 169.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Derosier, M. E., & Newcity, J. (2005). Students' perceptions of the school climate: Implications for school safety. Journal of School Violence, 4 (3), 3 – 19. https://doi.org/10.1300/j202v04n03_02</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ding, L., Velicer, W. F., & Harlow, L. L. (1995). Effects of estimation methods, number of indicators per factor, and improper solutions on structural equation modeling fit indices. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 2 (2), 119 – 143.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dorio, N. B., Clark, K. N., Demaray, M. K., & Doll, E. M. (2020). School climate counts: A longitudinal analysis of school climate and middle school bullying behaviors. International Journal of Bullying Prevention, 2 (4), 292 – 308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-019-00038-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Essau, C. A., Olaya, B., Pasha, G., Gilvarry, C., & Bray, D. (2013). Depressive symptoms among children and adolescents in Iran: A confirmatory factor analytic study of the centre for epidemiological studies depression scale for children. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 44, 123 – 136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-012-0314-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Essau, C. A., Conradt, J., Petermann, F. (2000). Frequency, comorbidity, and psychosocial impairment of anxiety disorders in German adolescents. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 14 (3), 263 – 279. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0887-6185(99)00039-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4 (3), 272 – 299.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fendrich, M., Weissman, M. M., & Warner, V. (1990). Screening for depressive disorder in children and adolescents: Validating the center for epidemiologic studees depression scale for children. American Journal of Epidemiology, 131 (3), 538 – 551.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fergus, S., & Zimmerman, M. A. (2005). Adolescent resilience: A framework for understanding healthy development in the face of risk. Annual Review of Public Health, 26, 399 – 419.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (3), 382 – 388.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Franco, K., Baumler, E., Torres, E. D., Lu, Y., Wood, L., & Temple, J. R. (2022). The link between school climate and mental health among an ethnically diverse sample of middle school youth. Current Psychology, 1 (11), Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03016-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goodman, R. (1999). The extended version of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire as a guide to child psychiatric caseness and consequent burden. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40 (5), 791 – 799. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-7610.00494</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gregory, A., Cornell, D., Fan, X., Sheras, P., Shih, T. H., & Huang, F. (2010). Authoritative school discipline: High school practices associated with lower bullying and victimization. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102 (2), 483 – 496.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS‐SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19, 139 – 151. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). Partial least squares structural equation modeling: Rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance. Long Range Planning, 46 (1–2), 1 – 12.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hankin, B. L., Abramson, L. Y., Moffitt, T. E., Silva, P. A., McGee, R., & Angell, K. E. (1998). Development of depression from preadolescence to young adulthood: Emerging gender differences in a 10‐year longitudinal study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107 (1), 128 – 140.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hankin, B. L., & Cohen, R. (2020). Depression. In E. A. Youngstrom, M. J. Prinstein, E. J. Mash, & R. A. Barkley (Eds.), Assessment of disorders in childhood and adolescence (5th ed., pp. 159 – 191). Guilford.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoge, D. R., Smit, E. K., & Hanson, S. L. (1990). School experiences predicting changes in self‐esteem of sixth‐ and seventh‐grade students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82 (1), 117 – 127. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.117</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hopson, L. M., & Lee, E. (2011). Mitigating the effect of family poverty on academic and behavioral outcomes: The role of school climate in middle and high school. Children and Youth Services Review, 33 (11), 2221 – 2229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.07.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> IBM Corp. Released. (2019). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 26.0. IBM Corp.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> James, G., Witten, D., Hastie, T., & Tibshirani, R. (2013). An introduction to statistical learning (Vol. 112, p. 18). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> John Joseph, S., Singh Bhandari, S., Ranjitkar, S., & Dutta, S. (2020). School closures and mental health concerns for children and adolescents during the covid‐19 pandemic. Psychiatria Danubina, 32 (2), 309 – 310.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones, E. A. K., Mitra, A. K., & Bhuiyan, A. R. (2021). Impact of COVID‐19 on mental health in adolescents: A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18 (5), 2470. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18052470</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones, S. E., Ethier, K. A., Hertz, M., DeGue, S., Le, V. D., Thornton, J., Lim, C., Dittus, P. J., & Geda, S. (2022). Mental health, suicidality, and connectedness among high school students during the COVID‐19 pandemic—Adolescent behaviors and experiences survey, United States, January‐June 2021. MMWR Supplements, 71 (3), 16 – 21. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.su7103a3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kline, R. B. (2011). Convergence of structural equation modeling and multilevel modeling.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Konold, T., Cornell, D., Jia, Y., & Malone, M. (2018). School climate, student engagement, and academic achievement: A latent variable, multilevel multi‐informant examination. AERA Open, 4 (4), 233285841881566. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858418815661</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Konold, T. R., & Cornell, D. (2015). Measurement and structural relations of an authoritative school climate model: A multi‐level latent variable investigation. Journal of School Psychology, 53 (6), 447 – 461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2015.09.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koth, C. W., Bradshaw, C. P., & Leaf, P. J. (2008). A multilevel study of predictors of student perceptions of school climate: The effect of classroom‐level factors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100 (1), 96 – 104.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuperminc, G. P., Leadbeater, B. J., & Blatt, S. J. (2001). School social climate and individual differences in vulnerability to psychopathology among middle school students. Journal of School Psychology, 39 (2), 141 – 159. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(01)00059-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kutsyuruba, B., Klinger, D. A., & Hussain, A. (2015). Relationships among school climate, school safety, and student achievement and well‐being: A review of the literature. Review of Education, 3 (2), 103 – 135. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3043</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> LaRusso, M. D., Romer, D., & Selman, R. L. (2008). Teachers as builders of respectful school climates: Implications for adolescent drug use norms and depressive symptoms in high school. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37 (4), 386 – 398.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, E., Reynolds, K. J., Subasic, E., Bromhead, D., Lin, H., Marinov, V., & Smithson, M. (2017). Development of a dual school climate and school identification measure–student (SCASIM‐St). Contemporary Educational Psychology, 49, 91 – 106.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lester, L., Waters, S., & Cross, D. (2013). The relationship between school connectedness and mental health during the transition to secondary school: A path analysis. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 23 (2), 157 – 171. https://doi.org/10.1017/jgc.2013.20</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mardia, K. V. (1970). Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika, 57 (3), 519 – 530.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McDonald, R. P. (2013). Test theory: A unified treatment. Psychology press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mendes, M., & Pala, A. (2003). Type I error rate and power of three normality tests. Information Technology Journal, 2 (2), 135 – 139.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Merikangas, K. R., He, J., Burstein, M., Swanson, S. A., Avenevoli, S., Cui, L., Benjet, C., Georgiades, K., & Swendsen, J. (2010). Lifetime prevalence of mental disorders in U.S. adolescents: Results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication‐Adolescent Supplement (NCS‐A). Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 49, 980 – 989.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nolen‐Hoeksema, S., & Girgus, J. S. (1994). The emergence of gender differences in depression during adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 115 (3), 424 – 443.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Malley, M., Voight, A., Renshaw, T. L., & Eklund, K. (2015). School climate, family structure, and academic achievement: A study of moderation effects. School Psychology Quarterly, 30 (1), 142 – 157. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000076</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Olsen, J., Preston, A. I., Algozzine, B., Algozzine, K., & Cusumano, D. (2018). A review and analysis of selected school climate measures. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 91 (2), 47 – 58. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2017.1385999</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Oort, F. V. A., Greaves‐Lord, K., Verhulst, F. C., Ormel, J., & Huizink, A. C. (2009). The developmental course of anxiety symptoms during adolescence: The TRAILS study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50 (10), 1209 – 1217. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02092.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Palitz, S. A., Davis, J. P., & Kendall, P. C. (2019). Anxiety disorders. In M. J. Prinstein, E. A. Youngstrom, E. J. Mash, & R. A. Barkley (Eds.), Treatment of disorders in childhood and adolescence (4th ed., pp. 281 – 310). Guilford.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Payton, J., Weissberg, R. P., Durlak, J. A., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., Schellinger, K. B., & Pachan, M. (2008). The positive impact of social and emotional learning for kindergarten to eighth‐grade students: Findings from three scientific reviews. Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pössel, P., Rakes, C., Rudasill, K. M., Sawyer, M. G., Spence, S. H., & Sheffield, J. (2016). Associations between teacher‐reported school climate and depressive symptoms in Australian adolescents: A 5‐year longitudinal study. School Mental Health, 8 (4), 425 – 440.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prime, H., Wade, M., & Browne, D. T. (2020). Risk and resilience in family well‐being during the COVID‐19 pandemic. American Psychologist, 75 (5), 631 – 643. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000660</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://<ulink href="http://www.R-project.org/">www.R-project.org/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://<ulink href="http://www.R-project.org/">www.R-project.org/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1 – 36.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Salle, T. P. L., Meyers, J., Varjas, K., & Roach, A. (2015). A cultural‐ecological model of school climate. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 3 (3), 157 – 166.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saluja, G., Iachan, R., Scheidt, P. C., Overpeck, M. D., Sun, W., & Giedd, J. N. (2004). Prevalence of and risk factors for depressive symptoms among young adolescents. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 158 (8), 760 – 765. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.158.8.760</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi‐square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66 (4), 507 – 514.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A., & King, J. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of educational research, 99 (6), 323 – 338. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400005538</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shaffer, D. (1983). A children's global assessment scale (CGAS). Archives of General Psychiatry, 40 (11), 1228 – 1231.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shochet, I. M., Dadds, M. R., Ham, D., & Montague, R. (2006). School connectedness is an underemphasized parameter in adolescent mental health: Results of a community prediction study. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 3535 (2), 170 – 179. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp3502_1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simmons, R. G., Blyth, D. A., Cleave, E. F. V., & Bush, D. M. (1979). Entry into early adolescence: The impact of school structure, puberty, and early dating on self‐esteem. American Sociological Review, 44, 948 – 967.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spitzer, R. L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J. B., & Löwe, B. (2006). A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: The GAD‐7. Archives of internal medicine, 166 (10), 1092 – 1097. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Starkey, L., Aber, J. L., & Crossman, A. (2019). Risk or resource: Does school climate moderate the influence of community violence on children's social‐emotional development in the Democratic Republic of Congo? Developmental Science, 22 (5), e12845. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12845</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Styck, K. M., Malecki, C. K., Ogg, J., & Demaray, M. K. (2021). Measuring COVID‐19‐related stress among 4th through 12th grade students. School Psychology Review, 50 (4), 530 – 545.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Suldo, S. M., McMahan, M. M., Chappel, A. M., & Loker, T. (2012). Relationships between perceived school climate and adolescent mental health across genders. School Mental Health, 4 (2), 69 – 80.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics (Fourth Edition). Allyn & Bacon.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Teo, T. (2010). A case for using structural equation modelling (SEM) in educational technology research: Colloquium. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41 (5), E89 – E91.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins‐D'Alessandro, A. (2013). A review of school climate research. Review of Educational Research, 83 (3), 357 – 385. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313483907</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tiirikainen, K., Haravuori, H., Ranta, K., Kaltiala‐Heino, R., & Marttunen, M. (2019). Psychometric properties of the 7‐item generalized anxiety disorder scale (GAD‐7) in a large representative sample of finnish adolescents. Psychiatry research, 272, 30 – 35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2018.12.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tinsley, H. E. A., & Tinsley, D. J. (1987). Uses of factor analysis in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34 (4), 414 – 424.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. L. (2016). School climate: A review of the construct, measurement, and impact on student outcomes. Educational Psychology Review, 28 (2), 315 – 352.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, M. T., & Eccles, J. S. (2013). School context, achievement motivation, and academic engagement: A longitudinal study of school engagement using a multidimensional perspective. Learning and Instruction, 28, 12 – 23.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, W., Vaillancourt, T., Brittain, H. L., McDougall, P., Krygsman, A., Smith, D., Cunningham, C. E., Haltigan, J. D., & Hymel, S. (2014). School climate, peer victimization, and academic achievement: Results from a multi‐informant study. School Psychology Quarterly, 29 (3), 360 – 377. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000084</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Way, N., Reddy, R., & Rhodes, J. (2007). Students' perceptions of school climate during the middle school years: Associations with trajectories of psychological and behavioral adjustment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 40 (3–4), 194 – 213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9143-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weissman, M. M., Orvaschel, H., & Padian, N. (1980). Children's symptom and social functioning self‐report scales comparison of mothers' and children's reports :. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 168 (12), 736 – 740.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Whooley, M. A., Avins, A. L., Miranda, J., & Browner, W. S. (1997). Case‐finding instruments for depression: Two questions are as good as many. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 12 (7), 439 – 445.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wong, M. D., Dosanjh, K. K., Jackson, N. J., Rünger, D., & Dudovitz, R. N. (2021). The longitudinal relationship of school climate with adolescent social and emotional health. BMC Public Health, 21 (1), 207.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Megan Gilbertson; Yoonsun Pyun; Riley Laffoon; Ruth Jeong; Julia Ogg; Michelle Demaray and Christine Malecki</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref124"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref126"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref127"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref131"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref132"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref134"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref135"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref136"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref138"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref139"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib100" firstref="ref140"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref159"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref161"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref165"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref166"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1399638
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Did Prepandemic Perceptions of School Climate Protect Students' Internalizing Symptoms during COVID-19 School Closures?
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gilbertson%2C+Megan%22">Gilbertson, Megan</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8456-4505">0000-0001-8456-4505</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Pyun%2C+Yoonsun%22">Pyun, Yoonsun</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8038-7660">0000-0001-8038-7660</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Laffoon%2C+Riley%22">Laffoon, Riley</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jeong%2C+Ruth%22">Jeong, Ruth</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ogg%2C+Julia%22">Ogg, Julia</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Demaray%2C+Michelle%22">Demaray, Michelle</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Malecki%2C+Christine%22">Malecki, Christine</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Psychology+in+the+Schools%22"><i>Psychology in the Schools</i></searchLink>. 2023 60(12):5189-5208.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 20
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Junior+High+Schools%22">Junior High Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Middle+Schools%22">Middle Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Middle+School+Students%22">Middle School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pandemics%22">Pandemics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22COVID-19%22">COVID-19</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Closing%22">School Closing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Symptoms+%28Individual+Disorders%29%22">Symptoms (Individual Disorders)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Environment%22">Educational Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Values%22">Values</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adjustment+%28to+Environment%29%22">Adjustment (to Environment)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cultural+Influences%22">Cultural Influences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Concept%22">Self Concept</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Gender+Differences%22">Gender Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Time+Perspective%22">Time Perspective</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/pits.23038
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0033-3085<br />1520-6807
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The global COVID-19 pandemic significantly disrupted educational environments for all students when the majority of schools in the United States abruptly switched to remote learning. School climate, including support and structure, has been recognized as an important construct that influences student functioning. The current study explored student perceptions of school climate before school disruptions as a potential protective factor against negative outcomes during the pandemic. Middle school students (N = 225) completed assessments of their perceptions of school climate in Fall 2019 and self-reported internalizing symptoms in Spring 2020. Structural equation modeling was used to test both the association and directionality between school climate and internalizing symptoms. Positive perception of school climate before the pandemic was significantly associated with less internalizing symptoms during initial school closures, particularly for girls. The results highlight the importance of school climate in students' mental health, especially during periods of stress. Limitations and future directions are discussed.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1399638
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1399638
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/pits.23038
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 20
        StartPage: 5189
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Middle School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pandemics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: COVID-19
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: School Closing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Symptoms (Individual Disorders)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Values
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adjustment (to Environment)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cultural Influences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Concept
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Gender Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Time Perspective
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Did Prepandemic Perceptions of School Climate Protect Students' Internalizing Symptoms during COVID-19 School Closures?
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Gilbertson, Megan
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Pyun, Yoonsun
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Laffoon, Riley
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jeong, Ruth
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ogg, Julia
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Demaray, Michelle
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Malecki, Christine
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0033-3085
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1520-6807
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 60
            – Type: issue
              Value: 12
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Psychology in the Schools
              Type: main
ResultId 1