Pre-K SEL Databases and Search Strategy: Scoping Review

In a scoping review, the search strategy is where reproducibility lives or dies. The choice of databases determines which disciplinary traditions appear in the evidence map. The design of search strings determines whether the review captures the breadth of how a single concept is named across different research communities.

In a literature as cross-disciplinary as Pre-Kindergarten behavioral and social-emotional learning (SEL) research — sitting at the intersection of education, developmental psychology, behavioral science, and allied health — those choices are not minor.

This article documents the database selection, source rationale, and 13-string search architecture used in Ranya Omran’s PRISMA-ScR scoping review of behavioral modification and SEL frameworks for children aged 3 to 5, published between 2000 and 2024 [1].

The review is currently a Version 1.0 preprint and the screening phase is in progress; this account therefore focuses on the search protocol itself rather than final inclusion counts, which the author has explicitly flagged as pending prior to journal submission [1].

Why Search Strategy Is a Methodological Decision, Not a Logistical One

Search is not a neutral data-gathering step in evidence synthesis. The databases queried shape the disciplinary balance of the corpus. The strings applied shape which conceptual neighborhoods are surfaced. A Pre-K behavioral framework might be indexed as “social-emotional learning” in one literature, “self-regulation” in another, “behavioral modification” in a third, and “co-regulation” in a fourth — each term carrying the methodological commitments of a different research tradition.

For a scoping review whose explicit aim is to map what the field contains and what it lacks, this matters double. A gap finding only carries weight if the search demonstrably looked in the places where evidence of that feature might exist.

Omran’s review follows the PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR), the reporting standard developed by Tricco and colleagues, which emphasizes transparent documentation of search procedures so other researchers can reproduce or extend the protocol [2]. The PRISMA-ScR checklist for the review was completed in full and is included as a supplementary document with the manuscript [1].

For background on what a scoping review is and how it differs from a systematic review, see A9 — What Is a Scoping Review (PRISMA-ScR)?.

The Four Databases: A Cross-Disciplinary Search Architecture

Four databases were searched in the review: Google Scholar, the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) [1]. Each was selected for a specific reason tied to the research question’s cross-disciplinary footprint.

Google Scholar and ERIC: The Primary Education Search

Google Scholar and ERIC served as the primary sources for peer-reviewed education research [1]. ERIC is the U.S. Department of Education’s indexed bibliographic database covering education journals, reports, and curriculum literature; it is the conventional first stop for any education-focused systematic search. Google Scholar complements ERIC by extending reach across publisher platforms and surfacing recently published or interdisciplinary work that ERIC’s indexing latency might miss.

The combination is standard in education research, but not redundant. ERIC offers controlled-vocabulary precision and curated scope; Google Scholar offers breadth and recency. Together they form the backbone of a defensible education-literature search.

PsycINFO: Behavioral Science and Developmental Psychology Coverage

PsycINFO was included for its coverage of behavioral science and developmental psychology [1]. Much of the foundational research on early childhood self-regulation, executive function, and emotional development is indexed primarily in psychology databases rather than education repositories. PsycINFO captures journals such as Development and Psychopathology and the Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions — both directly relevant to the Pre-K behavioral literature and both cited within the review itself [1].

For a scoping review mapping frameworks that span SEL curricula, behavioral support systems, and cognitive training, PsycINFO is methodologically necessary. Omitting it would systematically under-represent the developmental-psychology evidence base on which much of the Pre-K SEL field rests.

CINAHL: The Deliberate Inclusion for Somatic and Sensory Regulation

The inclusion of CINAHL is the search architecture’s most distinctive feature. CINAHL was included specifically to capture studies on somatic and sensory regulation approaches in early childhood — a component of the literature that standard education databases tend to underrepresent [1].

This rationale is consequential because somatic regulation is one of the four structural features the review ultimately identifies as missing from existing Pre-K frameworks [1] A20 — The Four Missing Pieces. Body-based regulation work — interoception, sensory integration, breath-based interventions, occupational-therapy-informed practices — is frequently published in nursing, occupational therapy, and allied-health journals indexed in CINAHL but not consistently surfaced through ERIC or PsycINFO. Excluding CINAHL would have created a structural blind spot in exactly the area the review most needed to interrogate.

This is the kind of database choice that separates a scoping review designed around a defined question from a search conducted by convenience. The decision was made before screening began and reflects a deliberate effort to align search infrastructure with the conceptual scope of the review.

Summary: Database Rationale at a Glance

The 13 Search Strings: Concept-to-Query Mapping

The review applied 13 defined search strings across the four databases [1]. Each string targets a distinct conceptual domain within Pre-K behavioral and SEL research, and each is mapped to a specific subset of databases based on where that concept is most likely to be reliably indexed.

The full search-string matrix, as reported in the review’s Methods section, is reproduced below [1]:

Several design decisions are visible in this matrix.

The Logic of Database-Specific Routing

Not every string was applied to every database. The routing reflects how concepts are indexed across disciplinary literatures, and the variation is intentional.

The somatic and body-based regulation string was applied only to PsycINFO and CINAHL, consistent with the rationale for including CINAHL in the first place: this concept lives primarily in psychology and allied-health literatures and would generate noise without yield in education repositories.

Conversely, strings anchored in education terminology — “expulsion” “Pre-K” intervention prevention, “classroom disruption” “Pre-K” reduction intervention — were routed to Google Scholar and ERIC, where education-policy and program-implementation work concentrates.

The “teacher burnout” string was routed to Google Scholar and PsycINFO rather than ERIC, reflecting that workforce and educator-wellbeing research is more reliably indexed in psychology and general scholarly platforms than in education-specific databases A3 – is implicit here; not linked to avoid scope drift.

This database-specific routing is a feature of the design, not a limitation. A search that applies every string to every database typically produces less precise results than one that maps queries to the databases most likely to index relevant work.

Conceptual Coverage of the Search Architecture

The 13 strings collectively span the conceptual territory the review needed to map. The clusters can be grouped roughly as follows:

• Behavioral and SEL framing. “behavioral modification,” “social emotional learning,” “SEL,” “prosocial,” “classroom disruption.”
• Regulatory and cognitive constructs. “self-regulation,” “emotional regulation,” “executive function,” “somatic” / “body-based regulation.”
• Structural and tiered systems. “MTSS,” “multi-tiered,” “PBIS,” “tiered intervention.”
• Outcome and workforce concerns. “expulsion” intervention, “teacher burnout” “behavioral management.”

Each cluster maps to one or more of the six framework categories the review eventually identifies — Universal SEL Curricula, School-Wide Behavioral Systems, Mindfulness-Based Interventions, Executive Function Training, Teacher-Mediated Co-Regulation, and Hybrid/Multi-Component Frameworks [1] A6 — The Major SEL and Behavior Frameworks Used Today. The search architecture was designed to surface evidence across all six rather than privileging any single category.

Age- and Setting-Anchoring

Most strings include an age or setting anchor: “preschool,” “Pre-K,” “pre-kindergarten,” “early childhood,” or the specific age range “3-5 years.” This is essential in a literature where SEL and behavioral-framework research extends from infancy through high school. Without explicit age anchors, the search would have returned a substantial volume of elementary and adolescent SEL work irrelevant to the review’s defined population of children aged 3 to 5.

The use of multiple population terms is itself a deliberate redundancy. Different programs and journals follow different conventions: Head Start research often uses “preschool,” public-program research often uses “Pre-K” or “pre-kindergarten,” and developmental-psychology research often uses “3-5 years” or “early childhood.” Including multiple terms maximizes capture across these naming conventions.