Author
Listed:
- Shane L. Rogers
(School of Arts and Humanities, Edith Cowan University, Perth 6000, Australia)
- Nicole Brown
(Association of Independent Schools of Western Australia, Perth 6000, Australia)
- Kathryn Campbell
(Association of Independent Schools of Western Australia, Perth 6000, Australia)
- Matthew Goulding
(Institute of Education and Humanities, University of Wales Trinity Saint David, Lampeter SA48 7ED, UK)
Abstract
School-based mental health screening typically relies on single-time-point assessments, which assume that students’ emotional well-being is sufficiently stable for classification based on a single measurement. The present study examined this assumption by evaluating the stability of emotional well-being classifications under repeated mood monitoring. Students from two secondary schools (United Kingdom, n = 413; Australia, n = 354) completed the Brief Emotional Experience Scale weekly across six to seven weeks. Emotional well-being classifications were examined relative to a predefined low well-being threshold to assess stability across time, and a post-monitoring survey examined students’ self-reported perceptions of the monitoring experience. Most students (78%) showed consistently above-threshold classifications across monitoring occasions, while a small proportion (5%) showed persistently low classifications. However, 17% of students fluctuated above and below the low well-being threshold across weeks, indicating that classification status for this group was sensitive to assessment timing. When monitoring data were aggregated using different decision rules, the proportion of students flagged as low well-being varied substantially, ranging from approximately 5% under a conservative stability-based criterion to around 12% when classifications were based on averaged monitoring scores. Classifications derived from averaged monitoring scores showed high agreement with single-time-point classifications, while identifying a partially different subset of students as low well-being, underscoring the sensitivity of threshold-based decisions to classification approach. Student feedback provided preliminary contextual insight into the acceptability of repeated monitoring under routine school conditions, with over half of respondents reporting that the process supported their emotional understanding. A substantial minority also reported greater inclination to talk with others about their well-being. Overall, the findings indicate that single-time-point screening may provide an incomplete basis for emotional well-being classification for some students, and that repeated assessment offers additional temporal context for interpreting threshold-based screening decisions.
Suggested Citation
Shane L. Rogers & Nicole Brown & Kathryn Campbell & Matthew Goulding, 2026.
"Mood Monitoring in Schools: A Promising Alternative to Single-Time-Point Screening,"
IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 23(4), pages 1-19, March.
Handle:
RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:23:y:2026:i:4:p:423-:d:1908229
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:23:y:2026:i:4:p:423-:d:1908229. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask MDPI Indexing Manager to update the entry or send us the correct address
(email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.