KONOLD ET AL Relationships Among Informant Based Measures of Social Skills and Student Achievement

This article was downloaded by: [200.120.120.
89] On: 20 July 2011, At: 06:21 Publisher: Psychology Press Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Applied Developmental Science

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hads20
Relationships Among Informant Based Measures of Social Skills and Student Achievement: A Longitudinal Examination of Differential Effects by Sex
Timothy R. Konold , Kristen R. Jamison , Tina L. Stanton-Chapman & Sara E. RimmKaufman
a a a a a
University of Virginia,
Available online: 25 Jan 2010
To cite this article: Timothy R. Konold, Kristen R. Jamison, Tina L. Stanton-Chapman & Sara E. Rimm-Kaufman (2010): Relationships Among Informant Based Measures of Social Skills and Student Achievement: A Longitudinal Examination of Differential Effects by Sex, Applied Developmental Science, 14:1, 18-34 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10888690903510307
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
APPLIED DEVELOPMENTAL SCIENCE, 14(1), 1834, 2010 Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1088-8691 print=1532-480X online DOI: 10.1080/10888690903510307
Relationships Among Informant Based Measures of Social Skills and Student Achievement: A Longitudinal Examination of Differential Effects by Sex
Timothy R. Konold, Kristen R. Jamison, Tina L. Stanton-Chapman, and Sara E. Rimm-Kaufman
University of Virginia
Downloaded by [200.120.120.89] at 06:21 20 July 2011
Childrens social skills are an important class of learned behaviors that facilitate success in the classroom; the primary method used in the assessment of social skills involves having parents or teachers complete standardized checklists using judgments of frequency or intensity. Childrens (N 1,102) social skills were modeled as time-varying predictors of student achievements within a latent growth curve model that allowed for estimation of student level variation and the possibility of non-linear achievement growth across 45 years of age and grades one, three, and ve. Separate models were examined to determine whether ratings provided by mothers accounted for more achievement score variance than ratings provided by teachers, and multi-group timevarying conditional latent growth curve models were investigated for boys and girls separately by informant type. Results indicated that childrens social skills accounted for levels of achievement score variance that were most pronounced at pre-school age, that teachers ratings of childrens social skills generally accounted for more achievement score variance than those obtained by mothers regardless of the childs sex, and that the explanatory power of social skills for boys and girls was dependent upon the type of achievement considered.
Childrens social skills are an important class of learned behaviors that enable children to be successful in the classroom (Konold & Pianta, 2005). In fact, a primary purpose of the federal initiative to prepare at-risk preschool children through the well known Head Start program was initially focused on enhancing childrens social skills (Fantuzzo et al. 2007). Although the construct of social skills can be operationalized in variety of ways (Cummings, Kaminski, & Merrell, 2008), it includes those behaviors that enable children to interact successfully with others (Gresham & Elliott, 1987). Social skill development begins through infant-parent interactions; and continues to take shape during the preschool years and throughout the life-span through interactions with parents, teachers, peers, and other adults (Denham et al., 2003; La Paro & Pianta, 2000; Pianta,
Address correspondence to Timothy R. Konold, Curry School of Education, University of Virginia, 405 Emmet Street South, P.O. Box 400277, Charlottesville, VA 22904-4277. E-mail: Konold@Virginia.edu
1999; Rimm-Kaufman, Pianta, & Cox, 2000). Young children cannot learn academic content if they have difculty following directions, interacting with adults and peers, and controlling negative emotions, since learning is often described as a social process (Zins, Bloodworth, Weissberg, & Walberg, 2004). Children with positive social skills are better able to navigate the multitude of necessary responsibilities (e.g., listening, following directions, attending to activities) associated with entry into formal schooling (Ladd, Herald, & Kochel, 2006), and are better positioned to engage in more structured environments that dene the classroom in ways that contribute to long-term classroom success (Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Ladd & Burgess, 1999; Ladd et al., 2006). Additionally, these children develop positive attitudes towards school and achieve academic success. For example, recent ndings reveal that academic achievement in the rst years of elementary school appear to be built on a foundation of social
SOCIAL SKILLS
19
and emotional skills that were developed from infancy through preschool (Raver, 2002). By contrast, children that fail to follow directions and otherwise master socially appropriate methods of interactions may fail to keep pace with classroom instruction through their lack of positive involvement (Elliott, Malecki, & Demaray, 2001) and develop negative school attitudes, school avoidance, and underachievement during the rst few years of school (Buhs & Ladd, 2001). Social skills have been linked to childrens social development in terms of the quality of their relationships with others. Children lacking positive social skills are unable to successfully negotiate play with their peers, and experience feelings of sadness and loneliness; which, in turn, results in problem behaviors that manifest themselves in both the home and classroom environments (Eisenberg et al., 1997; Stormshak & Webster-Stratton, 1999; Vinnick & Erickson, 1994). If left unchecked, poor social behavior in the classroom often results in teacher referrals for psych-educational evaluations (Gresham, Noell, & Elliott, 1996). Social skills have also been reported to have a pronounced relationship with student engagement and motivation (Mashburn & Pianta, 2006; Merrell, 1995); wherein, children who are more successful in social interactions with adults and peers show more engagement in learning environments. A substantial body of literature also documents the contribution of social skills to both concurrent and future academic achievements (e.g., Bursuck & Asher, 1986; Downer & Pianta, 2006; Kupersmidt, Coie, & Dodge, 1990; Malecki & Elliott, 2002; Margalit, 1998; Parker & Asher, 1993; Vaughn, Hogan, Kouzekanai, & Shapiro, 1990; Wentzel, 1993). These associations have been reported from school entry to well into middle school grades. For example, ONeil, Welsh, Parke, Wang, and Strand (1997) found that socially accepted kindergarten children were more likely to score highly on academic achievement tests through second grade than those children with non-favorable social acceptance ratings. Similarly, Wasik, Wasik, and Frank (1993) found that children who were rated as more aggressive and disruptive by their kindergarten teacher were more likely to be identied as at risk for academic failure by their second grade teacher. Malecki & Elliott (2002) revealed that children with better teacher reported social skills at the beginning of third grade were more likely to have higher achievement scores at the end of third grade. Analogous results were also reported for fourth grade students. In addition, Teo, Carlson, Mathieu, Egeland, and Sroufe (1996) found that prosocial behavior was an independent predictor of students standardized test scores, after controlling for IQ, ethnicity, academic behavior, and teacher preferences. A notable exception to the often documented link between poor social skills on student achievement
can be found in Duncan et al. (2007). Results of this study failed to link social skills at school entry to student achievements in upper elementary or middle school across six data sets examined, including the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development, the data set used for the present study. Research also suggests that in the aggregate, preschool and elementary school aged boys and girls display different levels of social skill and behavioral development (Deater-Deckard, Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1998; Steinberg & Dodge, 1983); wherein, girls are more likely to demonstrate somewhat more pro-social behavior than boys (Elliott, Barnard, & Gresham, 1989; Kochanska, 1997) and that young boys are more likely than girls to display increasingly negative forms of behavior over the course of the year (Hammarberg & Hagekull, 2006). Moreover, the contribution of childrens social skills appears to have differential associations across gender groups and achievement types (Penner, 2003; Sanson, Prior, & Smart, 1996; Trzesniewski, Moftt, Caspi, Taylor, & Maughan, 2006). There are many different ways of assessing social skills, including behavior rating scales, behavioral observations, self-report instruments, projective techniques, and sociometric assessment (Merrell, 1999). Projective techniques (e.g., drawings and interviewing), however, demonstrate little empirical evidence to support their use in assessing social skills. Self-report instruments remain open to question with respect to childrens ability to accurately report on their own social skills (Merrell, 2001). Sociometric techniques, such as peer nomination, generally provide high levels of reliability and validity (Gresham & Elliott, 1990). The principal method used in the assessment of childrens social skills involves having parents or teachers complete standardized checklists using judgments of frequency or intensity (Thomas et al., 1997). Despite the wide use and potential advantages that standardized rating scales afford, there are also well known limitations (Cai, Kaiser, & Hancock, 2004; McConaughy, 1993; McConaughy & Ritter, 1995). Perhaps the most troublesome limitation is the apparent lack of agreement between different informants rating the same child (McConaughy & Ritter, 1995; Suen & Ary, 1989). In school settings, teachers are often the main referral source and thus have crucial information about presenting problems (McConaughy, 1993; Knoff, 1995), and are more likely than parents to take a normative approach (Konold, Brewster, & Pianta, 2004; Piacentini, 1993) in their judgments. At the same time, parents provide a critical perspective on childrens functioning and are perhaps the most widely-used informants, offering judgments that are more idiographic and unique to the child (Konold et al., 2004).
20
KONOLD ET AL.
Although agreement between pairs of informants in similar settings (e.g., mother vs. father or teacher-teacher pairs) is often reported as moderate in magnitude, relations of ratings between different informants from different settings (e.g., parents vs. teachers) are quite low (Achenbach & McConaughy, 1987; Canivez, Watkins, & Schaefer, 2002; NICHD, 1998; Ruffalo & Elliott, 1997). For example, Fagan and Fantuzzo (1999) found only modest agreement between mother and father reports of their childrens social skills in a sample of urban Head Start children and nonsignicant relationships between teacher and parent reports. In addition, Bentler and Lee (1979) reported differences in scores between peer, teacher, and selfratings of four personality variables. Recent explanations for these forms of discrepancy may rest in the fact that informant based ratings of children are inuenced by a heavy dose of informant specic variance (Konold & Pianta, 2007). As a result, one of the primary purposes of the current investigation is to examine the relationships between social skills and student achievement outcomes, taking into consideration different informant types. Although relations between social skills and student achievements are relatively well documented, the majority of these investigations are cross-sectional in nature or of limited longitudinal scope. They generally rely on a single measurement of childrens social skills captured at a single point in time by a single informant and have not utilized analytic approaches that allow for consideration of student level variation or examined whether these longitudinal relationships are moderated by child sex. The purposes of the current investigation were to examine the associations of childrens social skills in a time-series model that captured childrens development in social skills and achievement from 54 months of age through fth grade (i.e., pre-school through elementary school), to determine whether these associations varied as a function of informant type (i.e., mother vs. teacher) and=or sex of the child, and to do so across two achievement domains related to mathematics and reading. We systematically examine these issues through two sets of research questions; the rst set describes childrens achievement trajectories, considers the contribution of social skills on childrens achievement trajectories, and examines the role of informant types in relation to achievement growth. The second set revisits these same questions but considers how associations differ between boys and girls. The rst set of research questions asks: First, are childrens achievement trajectories from 54 months of age linear or non-linear? Second, are both mothers and teachers ratings of childrens social skills associated with childrens achievements at 54 months of age
through grade ve? Third, do mothers and teachers ratings of childrens social skills differentially account for achievement score variance at 54 months of age, and=or childrens longitudinal achievement score growth from 54 months of age through grade ve? The second set of research questions asks: First, do boys and girls demonstrate different rates of linear or non-linear achievement growth from 54 months of age through grade ve? Second, are both mothers and teachers ratings of social skills associated with boys and girls achievements at 54 months of age through grade ve. Third, do mothers and teachers ratings of social skills differentially account for achievement score variance for boys and girls at 54 months of age, and=or boys and girls longitudinal achievement growth from 54 months of age through grade ve? The rst research question from each set is less substantively interesting, but is included as necessary baseline questions to allow for quantication of the value added by inclusion of social skills across informant types and sex of the target child. Childrens social skills were modeled as time-varying predictors of student achievement within a latent growth curve model that allowed for estimation of student level variation and the possibility of non-linear achievement growth across time. Separate models were examined to determine whether social skill ratings provided by one informant (e.g., mother) accounted for more achievement score variance than ratings provided by a different informant (e.g., teacher), and multi-group time-varying conditional latent growth curve models were investigated for boys and girls separately by informant type.
METHODS Participants Data were obtained from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (SECCYD). The SECCYD study is a comprehensive, observational, repeated study of key developmental contexts from birth through 15 years of age. Mothers of children taking part in the SECCYD were recruited from hospitals located in or near Little Rock, Arkansas; Irvine, California; Lawrence, Kansas; Boston; Philadelphia; Pittsburgh; Charlottesville, Virginia; Morganton, North Carolina; Seattle, Washington; and Madison, Wisconsin. Additional details regarding recruitment, selection procedures, and variable selection=information is available on the Web at: http://secc.rti.org The sample (N 1,102) used for the current investigation consisted of those children with at least one assessment of the Social Skills Rating Scale (SSRS) completed by the childs mother and teacher and one WJ-R Applied
SOCIAL SKILLS
21
Problems and one Letter-Word Identication achievement score across times one through four of the current investigation. The sample was 81.7% White, 11.8% Black, 4.7% Hispanic, and less than 2% Asian American. There were slightly more boys (51%) than girls, and 30.5% of the children were from low-income families at one month of age (income-to-needs ratio <1.5). Measures Social Skills were measured using Parent and Teacher Forms of the SSRS (Gresham & Elliott, 1990). The SSRS is a standardized assessment that addresses social skills in three core domains: Cooperation, Assertion, and Self-Control. Cooperation includes behaviors such as helping others, sharing, and following rules. Assertion includes behaviors that require initiation, such as introducing oneself and asking questions; and Self-Control entails behaviors that require children to respond appropriately to others actions (Gresham & Elliott). Informants rate the frequency of behaviors within these domains on a 3-point scale (0 never, 1 sometimes, 2 very often). Mean internal consistency reliability estimates (coefcient alpha) for mothers and teachers have been reported to be .76 and .85, respectively (Fagan & Fantuzzo, 1999). Childrens social skills were measured by both mothers and teachers at four time points that aligned with their development at 45 years of age and grades 1, 3, and 5. Childrens academic achievements in mathematics and pre-reading and reading, were separately assessed with Applied Problems and Letter-Word Identication subtests from the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised (WJ-R, Woodcock & Johnson, 1990). Applied Problems measures childrens analytic and practical problem solving skills in mathematics. LetterWord Identication involves symbolic learning and measures the ability to identify complex representations of isolated letters and words. Reliability coefcients are reported to be in the .90s and concurrent validity correlations with other achievement tests range from .60 to .70 (Woodcock & Johnson). Childrens achievements on these measures were aligned with the same four time points in which social skills were assessed. Data Analysis Latent growth curve analysis (LGCA) is a form of structural equation modeling that is useful for understanding longitudinal growth with repeated measurements (Merideth & Tisak, 1990). In contrast to more traditional approaches to measuring change (e.g., repeated measures ANOVA, auto-regressive cross-lagged models) that focus only on group estimates, LGCA allows for estimation of both group and individual variation in
growth (Fan & Konold, 2009). These models allow for the estimation of: 1) linear and non-linear slopes reecting the rate of change across time; 2) mean intercept and slope values reecting the group average at initial status (or time 1) and the average rate of growth across individuals, respectively; 3) individual variation in intercepts and slopes; and 4) the correlation between the intercept and slope. Unconditional models in which additional explanatory variables are not included can be expanded to conditional models through inclusion of exogenous variables that are presumed to account for one or more of the various estimates of measured growth described previously. In fact, one of the primary advantages of modeling longitudinal data within a LGCA framework is the ability to examine the effects of predictor(s) on a variety of the aforementioned sources of measured change (Lawrence & Hancock, 1998). Conditional models can be obtained through incorporation of time-invariant predictors (Curran & Hussong, 2002) or time-varying predictors (see for example, Curran, Muthen, & Harford, 1998; Fan & Konold, 2009). The assumption underlying timeinvariant predictors is that they are stable and unchanging across the time period when repeated measurements are taken (e.g., SES, sex). By contrast, time-varying predictors can accommodate situations in which the measured predictors may change across the measurement occasions. In the current investigation, student achievement trajectories in Applied Problems and Letter-Word Identication were separately measured and modeled across four time points within the framework of an unconditional latent growth curve analysis (ULGCA). Measurements were obtained at roughly 2 year intervals beginning at 4.5 years of age (Time 1), and thereafter in grades one (Time 2), three (Time 3), and ve (Time 4). Following estimation of the unconditional models, conditional models were examined that considered the relationships among childrens social skills and their achievement growth across time. Here, social skills were modeled as time-varying covariates to reect the fact that like achievements, childrens social skills are likely to change across time as well as their potential relationships with achievement. In this application, contrasts between unconditional and conditional models allow for an examination of how much unique variance early social and emotional skills contribute to the prediction of later academic outcomes after controlling for earlier academic performance, and by extension shed light on how social skills may be related to enhanced learning. Separate conditional models were examined for social skill ratings obtained by mothers and teachers. Finally, multi-group unconditional and conditional latent growth curve models were examined for boys and girls.
22
KONOLD ET AL.
Prominent features of the full conditional latent growth curve model, with time-varying social skill covariates, are illustrated in Figure 1. Some model parameterizations were omitted from this gure for ease of presentation, but are described in following text. Unconditional Models The lower portion of Figure 1 illustrates the manner in which the measured student achievements were modeled through LGCA. LGCA allows for the estimation of both latent intercept and latent slope terms, as illustrated by the ellipses. The specication of a latent intercept allows for the estimation of initial status (i.e., achievement status at 4.5 years of age), and the latent slope provides a measure of growth across the time. The measured WJ-R achievements (i.e., Applied Problems and Letter-Word Identication) are distinguished from the directly unobserved latent variables by their enclosure in boxes. Unconditional growth-curves for both achievements were evaluated separately to estimate
the initial status (i.e., intercept) of children on these variables as well as their growth (i.e., slope) across the four, approximately equally spaced two year, time points. All paths linking the intercept to the observed achievements were xed to 1, and growth parameters were empirically estimated by freeing the middle two parameters (i.e., slope weights for Time 2 and Time 3) and xing the rst ( 0 for initial measurement) and fourth ( 6 for fourth measurement after six years) to provide a scale that reects the total number years for the repeated measurements. If the empirically estimated values for the 2nd and the 3rd coefcients are different from theoretical expectation (i.e., 2 and 4, respectively, given the approximate equal spacing of measurements in two year intervals) for the middle two coefcients under the linearity condition, evidence for a non-linear growth pattern would be indicated. This approach is often referred to as latent basis (McArdle & Bell, 2000) or spline modeling (Bollen and Curran, 1999), and provides a more exible approach to estimating patterns of growth than is afforded by linear constraints.
FIGURE 1 Conditional latent growth model of student achievement with time-varying social skill covariates across four time points.
SOCIAL SKILLS
23
Conditional Models The top of Figure 1 illustrates the social skill measurement models at each of the four time points that served as time varying covariates of achievement, as illustrated through the use of single headed arrows linking social skills to achievements. In each instance, the observed social skill indicators of Cooperation, Assertion, and Self-Control are enclosed in boxes to differentiate them from the directly unobservable social skill factor. Each of these observed variables was modeled to be directly related to a single factor as illustrated through the use of single headed arrows. Parameterization of the model included xing one factor loading to one in order to set the scale of the latent variables. Curved double-headed arrows reect the fact that factor correlations were estimated, as well as covariances among same variable different time uniqueness terms (e.g., Cooperation unique variances among Times 1, 2, 3, and 4). In addition, latent variable (i.e., social skill factors and uniqueness terms) means were xed to 0, and intercepts of the repeated variable achievements were xed to 0. Conditional models were separately estimated for social skill ratings obtained by mothers and teachers. Multi-Group Models The unconditional and conditional models described previously were further investigated for invariance through multi-group analyses that focused on differences between boys and girls. Multi-group unconditional models were rst examined to estimate differential growth patterns on the two achievements. Thereafter, conditional models with the time-varying social skill variables were considered to determine whether the importance of social skills varied across boys and girls, as well as informant (i.e., mother vs. teacher). Within the conditional model framework, nested model comparisons contrasted freely estimated relationships among social skills and achievement with constrained models in which these paths were xed to 0. Nested model comparisons between the two multi-group models were 2 evaluated with chi-square difference (XD ) tests. All models were estimated with the Analysis of Moment Structures 7.0 (AMOS) program, using full information maximum likelihood estimation to accommodate missing data. Numerous measures of model t exist for evaluating the quality of measurement models, most developed under a somewhat different theoretical framework focusing on different components of t (Browne & Cudeck, 1993; Hu & Bentler, 1995). For this reason, it is generally recommended that multiple measures be considered to highlight different aspects of t (Tanaka, 1993). Four measures of t were considered in evaluating model quality. These included the
Bentler-Bonett normed t index (NFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), comparative t index (CFI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). These four measures generally range between 0 and 1.0. Traditionally, values of .90 or greater on the rst three measures are often taken as evidence of good tting models (Bentler & Bonett, 1980). However, more recent research suggests that better tting models produce values around .95 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Alternatively, smaller RMSEA values support better tting models, with values of .10 or less indicating good t (Fan, Thompson, & Wang, 1999).
RESULTS Means, standard deviations, and correlations among mothers and teachers social skill ratings across four time points are presented in Table 1. Table 2 presents WJ-R achievement means and standard deviations at each time point, along with correlations between achievements and social skills as rated by mothers and teachers. For ease of presentation, results of the unconditional growth models of achievement, conditional growth models with time-varying social skill covariates, and multi-group sex models are organized around the two sets of research questions presented separately by the following achievement type.
Applied Problems Are childrens Applied Problems achievement trajectories from 54 months of age linear or non-linear? Total sample unconditional model summary statistics are presented on the left side of Table 3. All measures of t were favorable. The NFI, TLI, and CFI were all above .95 for the total sample. In addition, the RMSEA was less than .05. Inspection of the empirically estimated pattern coefcients for the middle two time points (3.24 and 5.10, respectively) revealed deviations from expectation under the linearity assumption (i.e., the theoretical expectation under the linearity assumption for equally spaced observations separated by two years would be 2 and 4, respectively). The rate of growth (i.e., slope 14.15) was found to be statistically signicant. When applied to the parameterization of the growth factor (i.e., 0, 3.24, 5.10, 6.00), childrens growth from 4.5 years of age to grade one was [3.24 14.15] 45.85; from grade one to grade three was [(5.103.24) 14.15] 26.32; from grade three to grade ve was [(65.10) 14.15] 12.74; and across all six years was [6 14.15] 84.91. Consequently, average overall growth was greatest from time 1 to time 2 (45.85=84.91 54%), and slowed somewhat from time 2 to time 3 (26.32=84.91 31%), and from time 3 to time
24
KONOLD ET AL. TABLE 1 Social Skill Descriptive Statistics for Mothers and Teachers across Four Time Points Teachers C T1 A T1 .17 .25 .24 .11 .28 .13 .15 .27 .15 .07 .26 .11 12.96 4.14 SC T1 .13 .03 .13 .10 .14 .19 .14 .21 .21 .09 .18 .20 15.19 3.68 C T2 .15 .05 .11 .20 .15 .23 .25 .20 .25 .23 .21 .22 15.52 4.06 A T2 .12 .18 .18 .13 .28 .15 .17 .30 .17 .13 .24 .11 13.25 3.86 SC T2 .10 .02 .10 .14 .16 .24 .20 .20 .28 .19 .21 .24 15.19 3.71 C T3 .16 .02 .10 .18 .10 .20 .25 .21 .27 .19 .16 .22 15.28 4.45 A T3 .13 .13 .12 .13 .20 .14 .19 .29 .20 .13 .25 .17 12.99 3.98 SC T3 .09 .03 .11 .12 .11 .21 .16 .21 .29 .12 .20 .25 14.92 3.94 C T4 .17 .03 .10 .22 .11 .17 .26 .17 .21 .26 .22 .22 15.72 4.14 A T4 .12 .14 .13 .11 .17 .13 .17 .25 .16 .15 .30 .14 12.81 4.11 SC T4 .11 .05 .11 .12 .14 .22 .19 .20 .26 .17 .25 .29 15.09 3.95 Mothers M SD
Mothers T1 Cooperation (C) T1 Assertion (A) T1 Self-Control (SC) T2 Cooperation T2 Assertion T2 Self-Control T3 Cooperation T3 Assertion T3 Self-Control T4 Cooperation T4 Assertion T4 Self-Control Teachers M SD
.16 .01 .11 .16 .13 .19 .19 .20 .19 .13 .16 .17 15.95 4.01
12.21 14.38 12.86 12.76 17.22 13.05 12.18 17.02 13.68 12.26 17.01 13.89
2.88 2.98 2.54 3.06 2.34 3.31 3.24 2.69 3.39 3.25 2.60 3.29
Note: T1 Time 1, T2 Time 2, T3 Time 3, T4 Time 4. p < .05.
TABLE 2 Correlations among Social Skills and WJ-R Achievements for Mothers and Teachers across Four Time Points Time 1 (T1) AP Mother T1 Cooperation T1 Assertion T1 Self-Control T2 Cooperation T2 Assertion T2 Self-Control T3 Cooperation T3 Assertion T3 Self-Control T4 Cooperation T4 Assertion T4 Self-Control Teacher T1 Cooperation T1 Assertion T1 Self-Control T2 Cooperation T2 Assertion T2 Self-Control T3 Cooperation T3 Assertion T3 Self-Control T4 Cooperation T4 Assertion T4 Self-Control Mean Standard Deviation
Time 2 (T2) AP .13 .16 .18 .09 .20 .16 .07 .20 .18 .04 .16 .15 .30 .23 .17 .32 .23 .15 .30 .23 .17 .24 .23 .17 471.15 15.75 LWI .14 .13 .18 .09 .13 .15 .13 .15 .21 .07 .11 .19 .27 .21 .16 .31 .17 .16 .27 .22 .22 .24 .15 .16 453.21 24.03
Time 3 (T3) AP .12 .14 .17 .11 .19 .17 .12 .22 .19 .06 .17 .16 .30 .22 .20 .34 .24 .17 .28 .19 .17 .26 .19 .20 497.28 13.24 LWI .16 .16 .19 .12 .17 .16 .14 .19 .22 .10 .15 .21 .28 .22 .18 .31 .19 .17 .30 .20 .22 .27 .17 .22 493.90 18.77
Time 4 (T4) AP .11 .16 .18 .10 .19 .19 .11 .19 .21 .04 .17 .18 .34 .23 .19 .31 .20 .15 .30 .20 .20 .32 .23 .25 509.84 12.78 LWI .14 .17 .20 .12 .18 .19 .16 .20 .24 .10 .16 .22 .26 .20 .14 .29 .19 .15 .29 .19 .19 .26 .16 .22 510.24 17.50
LWI .12 .13 .17 .07 .10 .13 .06 .14 .17 .01 .09 .15 .29 .20 .17 .24 .16 .14 .22 .16 .18 .24 .14 .17 370.08 22.00
.17 .19 .24 .08 .17 .16 .17 .23 .19 .06 .21 .19 .37 .31 .27 .34 .23 .19 .29 .24 .21 .27 .21 .21 425.25 19.45
Note: AP Applied Problems, LWI Letter-Word Identication. p < .05.
SOCIAL SKILLS TABLE 3 Standardized Growth Curve Estimates: Applied Problems Multi-Group: Boys vs. Girls Total Sample Conditional Models Unconditional Model Mother Ratings Teacher Ratings Pattern Coefcients 1, 0 1, 3.24 1, 5.10 1, 6.00 424.99 14.15 238.66 1.89 .69 5.91 (3) .99 .99 .99 .03 1, 0 1, 3.24 1, 5.101 1, 6.00 425.00 14.15 .18 .15 .12 .12 218.11 8.61% 1.85 2.12% .66 232.78 (77) .97 .97 .98 .04 1, 0 1, 3.24 1, 5.10 1, 6.00 424.94 14.16 .24 .12 .06 .14 207.04 13.25% 1.89 0% .63 407.62 (77) .95 .92 .96 .06 Unconditional Models Boys 1, 0 1, 3.38 1, 5.15 1, 6.00 422.21 14.65 328.89 3.07 .75 Girls 1, 0 1, 3.09 1, 5.05 1, 6.00 427.62 13.67 169.45 1.15 .59 Conditional Models Mother Ratings Boys Girls
25
Teacher Ratings Boys 1, 0 1, 3.38 1, 5.15 1, 6.00 422.17 14.66 .22 .10 .06 .13 290.14 11.78% 3.17 .71 Girls 1, 0 1, 3.10 1, 5.05 1, 6.00 427.61 13.67 .18 .17 .08 .17 147.05 13.22% .93 19.13% .56
Intercept Slope Time-Varying Covariates SS1 on Ach 1 SS2 on Ach 2 SS3 on Ach 3 SS4 on Ach 4
1, 0 1, 0 1, 3.38 1, 3.10 1, 5.15 1, 5.05 1, 6.00 1, 6.00 422.27 427.61 14.64 13.67 .18 .16 .15 .14 .17 .16 .09 .11
Intercept Variance % Decrease Slope Variance % Decrease Correlation I,S Fit Statistics Chi-sq (df) NFI TLI CFI RMSEA
301.31 154.86 8.39% 8.61% 3.03 1.12 1.30% 2.61% .74 .56 339.17 (154) .96 .96 .98 .03
8.982 (6) 1.00 1.00 1.00 .02
468.10 (154) .94 .92 .96 .04
p < .0.
4(12.74=84.91 15%). At the same time, there was statistically signicant variation in Applied Problem scores among children both at 4.5 years of age, 2 S2 Intercept 238.66, p < .05; and across time, SSlope 1.89, p < .05. The intercept-slope correlation of .69 indicates that children with lower initial Applied Problem scores had faster growth rates across future time points. Are both mothers and teachers ratings of childrens social skills associated with childrens Applied Problems achievements at 54 months of age through grade ve? Do mothers and teachers ratings of childrens social skills differentially account for Applied Problems achievement score variance at 54 months of age, and=or childrens Applied Problems achievement score longitudinal growth from 54 months of age through grade ve? Total sample conditional model summary statistics in which social skills were modeled to have a direct association with Applied Problems across time, are presented separately for social skill ratings obtained from mothers and teachers on the left side of Table 3. Model t statistics were all suggestive of good t for both mothers and teachers reports. A comparison of t between these conditional models and an unconditional model in which the paths linking social skills to each of the four achievements
were constrained to 0, revealed a statistically signicant decline in t for the constrained model for mothers, 2 2 XD (4) 58.28, p < .05; and teachers ratings XD (4) 86.69, p < .05. Estimates of the direct effects of social skills on Applied Problems were statistically signicant for both mothers and teachers ratings across all four time points, see left side of Table 3 for standardized estimates. Although these effects had little impact on the empirically estimated pattern coefcients, slope estimates, or intercept-slope correlation; they did have a notable, and somewhat differential, impact on student level variation. The modeling of mothers social skill ratings accounted for 8.61% of the variance in childrens 4.5 year old (i.e., time 1 or intercept) Applied Problem scores, and 2.12% of the variance in childrens growth (i.e., slope) on this achievement variable; whereas, the modeling of teachers social skill ratings accounted for 13.25% of the variance in time 1 scores and 0% of the variance in childrens growth. Do boys and girls demonstrate different rates of linear or non-linear Applied Problems achievement growth from 54 months of age through grade ve? Multi-group unconditional model results for boys and girls are presented
26
KONOLD ET AL.
on the right side of Table 3. Measures of model t were favorable for the unconditional model. The NFI, TLI, and CFI were all above .95 and the RMSEA was less than .05. Results of the unconditional models revealed that, on average, boys Applied Problem scores were slightly lower (Intercept 422.21) than those of girls (Intercept 427.62) at 4.5 years of age (i.e., Time 1). However, boys overall growth from 4.5 years of age to grade ve (6 14.65 87.9) was somewhat greater than that of girls (6 13.67 82.02). Boys outpaced girls from 4.5 years of age to grade one, demonstrating [(3.38 14.65 49.52)= 87.9 ] 56% of their total growth during this period compared to [(3.09 13.67 42.24)=82.02 ] 51% for girls. Thereafter, boys rate of growth [((5.153.38) 14.65 25.93)=87.9 29%] fell slightly below that of girls [((5.053.09) 13.67 26.79)=82.02 33%], and was only marginally different from grade three to grade ve for boys [((65.15) 14.65 12.45)=87.9 14%] and girls [((65.05) 13.67 12.99)=82.02 16%]. At the same time, there was statistically signicant variation among boys and girls Applied Problem scores at 4.5 years of age (i.e., Time 1: S2 Intercept;boys 328:89, p < .05; S2 169:45, p < .05) and across measurement Intercept;girls 2 occasions (S2 Slope;boys 3:07, p < .05; SSlope;girls 1:15, p < .05); with boys demonstrating considerably more variation than girls. The intercept-slope correlation of .75 for boys and .59 for girls indicates that children with lower initial Applied Problem scores had faster growth rates across future time points. Are both mothers and teachers ratings of social skills associated with boys and girls Applied Problems achievements at 54 months of age through grade ve? Do mothers and teachers ratings of social skills differentially account for Applied Problems achievement score variance for boys and girls at 54 months of age, and=or boys and girls Applied Problems longitudinal achievement growth from 54 months of age through grade ve? Multi-group conditional models introduced social skills as separately measured by mothers and teachers on Applied Problem scores. These direct effects were found to be statistically signicant for both boys and girls at all four time points, and across informants, see right side of Table 3. Constraining these paths to 0 further substantiated their importance by revealing a statistically signicant decline in t for ratings obtained by mother reports, 2 2 XD (8) 58.76, p < .05; and teacher reports XD (8) 84.48, p < .05. The modeling of mothers social skill ratings accounted for approximately equal amounts of variance in boys (8.39%) and girls (8.61%) 4.5 year old (i.e., Time 1 or intercept) Applied Problem scores. By contrast, the modeling of teachers social skill ratings accounted for 11.78% of the variance in boys 4.5 year old scores, and 13.22% of the variance in girls scores at the same point in time. Social skill ratings obtained from mothers
accounted for somewhat less achievement score variance across time for boys (1.3%) and girls (2.61%); whereas, teachers ratings accounted for 19.13% of the growth variance among girls and actually served to increase the variance among boys. Letter-Word Identication Are childrens Letter-Word Identication achievement trajectories from 54 months of age through grade ve linear or non-linear? Total sample unconditional model summary statistics are presented on the left side of Table 4. Most measures of t were favorable. The NFI and CFI were within expectation for good tting models (i.e., !.95), and the TLI and RMSEA left room for improvement. The rate of growth (i.e., slope 23.36) was found to be statistically signicant, and the empirically estimated pattern coefcients for the middle two time points (3.55 and 5.30, respectively) revealed deviations from expectation under the linearity assumption (i.e., 2 and 4, respectively). The percentage of childrens total growth [6 23.36 140.16] was found to be greater from 4.5 years of age to grade one was [(3.55 23.36 82.93)=140.16 59%], than from grade one to grade three [((5.303.55) 23.36 40.88)= 140.16 29%], or grade three to grade ve [((65.3) 23.36 16.35)=140.16 12%]. At the same time, there was statistically signicant variation in Letter-Word scores among children both at 4.5 years of age, S2 Intercept 353:33, p < .05; and across time, S2 5:76, p < .05. The intercept-slope correlation of Slope .48 indicates that children with lower initial Letter-Word scores had faster growth rates across future time points. Are both mothers and teachers ratings of childrens social skills associated with childrens Letter-Word Identication achievements at 54 months of age through grade ve? Do mothers and teachers ratings of childrens social skills differentially account for Letter-Word Identication achievement score variance at 54 months of age, and=or childrens Letter-Word Identication achievement score longitudinal growth from 54 months of age through grade ve? Total sample conditional model summary statistics in which social skills were modeled to have a direct association with Letter-Word scores across time, are presented separately for ratings obtained from mothers and teachers on the left side of Table 4. Model t statistics for both models were suggestive of good t. A comparison of t between these conditional models and an unconditional model in which the paths linking social skills to each of the four achievements were constrained to 0, revealed a statistically signicant decline in t for the constrained model for both mother reports, 2 2 XD (4) 34.87, p < .05; and teacher reports XD (4) 45.87, p < .05. Similar to the results obtained with
SOCIAL SKILLS TABLE 4 Standardized Growth Curve Estimates: Letter-Word Identication Multi-Group: Boys vs. Girls Total Sample Conditional Models Unconditional Model Mother Ratings Teacher Ratings Pattern Coefcients 1, 0 1, 3.55 1, 5.30 1, 6.00 370.16 23.36 353.33 5.76 .48 116.389 (3) .95 .85 .95 .18 1, 0 1, 3.55 1, 5.30 1, 6.00 370.17 23.35 .10 .15 .12 .11 337.68 4.43% 5.68 1.39% .49 334.25 (77) .96 .95 .97 .06 1, 0 1, 3.55 1, 5.30 1, 6.00 370.13 23.37 .12 .15 .09 .06 326.60 7.57% 5.66 1.74% .47 443.93 (77) .94 .92 .95 .07 Unconditional Models Boys 1, 0 1, 3.53 1, 5.30 1, 6.00 367.93 23.66 344.93 7.08 .46 Girls 1, 0 1, 3.56 1, 5.29 1, 6.00 372.40 23.05 348.60 4.20 .50 Conditional Models Mother Ratings Boys Girls
27
Teacher Ratings Boys 1, 0 1, 3.53 1, 5.30 1, 6.00 367.89 23.67 .15 .16 .08 .04 314.29 8.88% 7.03 0.71% .44 Girls 1, 0 1, 3.56 1, 5.29 1, 6.00 372.40 23.05 .05 .12 .10 .07 333.97 4.20% 4.18 0.48% .50
Intercept Slope Time-Varying Covariates SS1 on Ach 1 SS2 on Ach 2 SS3 on Ach 3 SS4 on Ach 4
1, 0 1, 0 1, 3.53 1, 3.56 1, 5.30 1, 5.29 1, 6.00 1, 6.00 367.97 372.41 23.66 23.05 .16 .19 .16 .15 .04 .10 .07 .08
Intercept Variance % Decrease Slope Variance % Decrease Correlation I,S Fit Statistics Chi-sq (df) NFI TLI CFI RMSEA
321.57 342.42 6.77% 1.77% 6.79 4.24 4.10% .47 .51 440.74 (154) .95 .95 .97 .04
119.79 (6) .95 .85 .95 .13
509.59 (154) .93 .92 .95 .05
p < .0.
Applied Problems, these nested model comparisons substantiate the importance of social skills in these models. Estimates of the direct effects of social skills on Letter-Word scores were statistically signicant for both mothers and teachers ratings across all four time points, see left side of Table 4 for standardized estimates. These effects had a notable, and somewhat differential, impact on student level variation. The modeling of mothers social skill ratings accounted for 4.43% of the variance in childrens 4.5 year old (i.e., time 1 or intercept) Letter-Word Identication scores, and 1.39% of the variance in childrens growth on this achievement variable; whereas, the modeling of teachers social skill ratings accounted for 7.57% of the variance in time 1 scores and 1.74% of the variance in childrens growth. Do boys and girls demonstrate different rates of linear or non-linear Letter-Word Identication achievement growth from 54 months of age through grade ve? Multi-group unconditional model results for boys and girls are presented on the right side of Table 4. Here again, most measures of t were favorable. The NFI and CFI were within expectation for good tting models (i.e., !.95), and the TLI and RMSEA left room for improvement. On average, boys initial Letter-Word
scores (Intercept 367.93) were only slightly lower than those of girls (Intercept 372.40) at 4.5 years of age (i.e., Time 1). However, boys total growth [6 23.66 141.96] across the six year period was somewhat greater than that for girls [6 23.05 138.31]. At the same time, boys paced girls in terms of their percentage of total growth between adjacent measurements. This occurred between 4.5 years of age to grade one for boys [(3.53 23.66 83.52)=141.96 59%] and girls[(3.56 23.05 82.06)=138.31 59%], from grade one to grade three for boys [((5.33.53) 23.66 41.88)=141.96 30%] and girls [((5.293.56) 23.05 39.88)=138.31 29%], and from grade three to grade ve for boys [((65.3) 23.66 16.56)=141.96 12%] and girls [((65.29) 23.05 16.37)=138.31 12%]. There was also statistically signicant individual variation in Letter-Word scores both initially and over time. Boys S2 Intercept 344:93, p < .05 demonstrated somewhat less variation than girls S2 Intercept 348:60, p < .05 at 4.5 years of age; and somewhat more variation across time S2 7:08, p < .05, than girls S2 4:20, p < .05. Slope Slope Intercept-slope correlations for boys .46 and girls .50 suggest that children with lower initial Letter-Word scores had faster growth rates across future time points.
28
KONOLD ET AL.
Are both mothers and teachers ratings of social skills associated with boys and girls Letter-Word Identication achievements at 54 months of age through grade ve? Do mothers and teachers ratings of social skills differentially account for Letter-Word Identication achievement score variance for boys and girls at 54 months of age, and=or boys and girls Letter-Word Identication longitudinal achievement growth from 54 months of age through grade ve? Multi-group conditional models introduced social skills as separately measured by mothers and teachers on Letter-Word scores. These direct effects were found to be statistically signicant for both boys and girls at most points. The only exceptions occurred for girls at Time 1 (i.e., 4.5 years of age). Here, neither mother or teacher ratings of girls social skills were found to have a statistically signicant relationship with Letter-Word achievements see right side of Table 4. Constraining the four paths to 0, however, substantiated their overall importance by revealing a statistically signicant decline 2 in t for ratings obtained by mothers, XD (8) 38.07, 2 p < .05; and teachers XD (8) 46.26, p < .05. Mothers social skill ratings accounted for somewhat more variance in boys (6.77%) 4.5 year old (i.e., Time 1 or intercept) Letter-Word scores than girls (1.77%). Similarly, teachers social skill ratings accounted for 8.88% of the variance in boys 4.5 year old scores, and 4.20% of the variance in girls scores at the same point in time. Social skill ratings obtained from mothers accounted for 4.10% of the achievement score variance across time for boys, and actually served to increase the variance among girls. Teachers social skill ratings accounted for less than 1% of the achievement score growth variance for both boys (0.71%) and girls (0.48%).
DISCUSSION Childrens social skills were modeled as time-varying predictors of student achievement within a latent growth curve model that allowed for estimation of student level variation and the possibility of non-linear achievement growth across time. Two standardized achievements were examined. One measure tapped into childrens analytic skills (i.e., Applied Problems) and the second measured developmentally appropriate reading skills (i.e., Letter-Word Identication). Treating social skills as time-varying predictors allowed for the likely possibility that social skills, and their relationships with achievement, change across stages of childrens development (Denham et al., 2003; Rimm-Kaufman, 2000; La Paro & Pianta, 2000; Pianta, 1999). In general, social skills were found to demonstrate statistically signicant relations with student achievements in Applied Problems and Letter-Word Identication. The relationship
was most pronounced in earlier years, as childrens social skills accounted for somewhat more levels of achievement score variation at pre-school age (i.e., 54 months) and somewhat less variation in achievement scores across grades one, three, and ve. In the current study, social skills were measured through informant-based reports obtained by both mothers and teachers. Because of the general lack of agreement between these different informant types when evaluating the same child (Achenbachand & McConaughy, 1987; Cai et al., 2004; Canivez, Watkins, & Schaefer; 2002; NICHD, 1998; Ruffalo & Elliott, 1997), separate models were examined to determine whether ratings provided by one informant (e.g., mother) accounted for more achievement score variance than ratings provided by a different informant (e.g., teacher). Both informants were found to account for meaningful levels of achievement score variance. However, with few exceptions, teachers ratings of childrens social skills generally accounted for more achievement score variance than that of mothers ratings, regardless of the childs sex. This was most pronounced when the relationship of social skills was evaluated in relation to growth in childrens Applied Problem scores. Here, teachers ratings accounted for 19.3% of the individual variation in growth vs. the 2.6% accounted for by mothers ratings. However, the exception occurred for the relationship of mothers social skill ratings of boys. Here, mothers ratings accounted for 4.1% of the growth variance in Letter-Word Identication, versus teachers ratings which accounted for less than 1%. Explanations for the lack of agreement between informants when evaluating the same child have included the idea that such ratings may reect as much about the informant as about the child, and that childrens social behaviors are in part a function of experiences with these informants in settings such as schools and homes (Kraemer et al., 2003). Moreover, recent evidence suggests that mothers and teachers ratings of children each contribute signicant and unique portions of variance to the constructs being measured, and that ratings obtained by these informants are differentially response to different dimensions of child functioning (Konold & Pianta, 2007). Accordingly, both parents and teachers are important sources for determining a childs overall disposition, and a multi-method approach to examining childrens social and problem behavior remains advised. Consistent with this nding, best practices in school psychology recommend assessment of childrens skill levels across informants and across settings to enhance the ability to identify behaviorally at-risk students and intervene early to address their social and emotional problems (Severson, Walker, Hope-Doolittle, Kratochwill, &
SOCIAL SKILLS
29
Gresham, 2007). Finally, due to reported differences in social skills between boys and girls (Steinberg & Dodge, 1983; Dodge, 1990), multi-group time-varying conditional latent growth curve models were investigated separately for boys and girls by informant type. Here, results differed for the two types of achievements that were considered. While results of the current study suggest that social skills account for proportionate levels of math achievement variance for both young boys and girls (i.e., 54 months of age) within informant, the variance accounted for in math achievement growth was greater for girls than boys. This difference was most pronounced when examining teacher based assessments of social skills. In contrast to the ndings reported above, social skills were found to account for more reading achievement score variance for young boys (i.e., 54 months of age) than young girls, regardless of the informant providing the ratings of social skills. Similarly, the variance accounted for in reading achievement growth was greater for boys than girls, with the contribution being most pronounced when mothers reports of social skills were employed. Findings point to a differential prediction of growth patterns between boys and girls that emerge in the late elementary school years and reect differences in raters judgments (teachers versus mothers). Three explanations for the gender difference ndings are most plausible. Each explanation rests on the nding that boys tend to show slightly greater growth in math skills than girls and girls tend to show slightly greater growth in reading than boys. The rst explanation considers the sub-constructs included in social skills, including cooperation, assertion, and self-control (Gresham & Elliott, 1990), and the degree to which the presence of these skills creates different social environments for boys and girls. Children high in social skills (i.e., ability to make friends, invite others to participate, follow directions) may be more equipped to take full advantage of the classroom environments afforded to them. Specically, learning is an inherently social task requiring contact and conversation with teachers and peers, the ability to take academic risks, and skills in managing and directing attention (Hamre & Pianta, 2007). As a result, children with strength in social skills may show greater growth in areas of achievement that otherwise would lag behind (girls in analytic skills; boys in reading). Research on kindergarten childrens development of reading skills shows that girls learn more literacy skills in kindergarten than boys, a gap that was reduced when childrens social skills (operationalized as teachers ratings of childrens approach to learning) were considered (Ready, LoGerfo, Burkam, & Lee, 2005). Likewise, Trzesniewski et al.s (2006) longitudinal examination
of 5 to 7 year old twins revealed that relations between antisocial behavior and reading achievement in boys could be accounted for by environmental factors that inuenced both constructs. This explanation suggests that social skills may be acting as a protective process in relation to skills less likely to emerge in typical patterns of development. The second explanation reects the processes and experiences that are most likely to improve boys and girls skills differentially during childhood. Although families and schools both clearly have an impact on childrens achievement (Xue & Meisels, 2004; Pianta, Belsky, Vandergrift, Houts, & Morrison, 2008), variability in math achievement tends to be more sensitive to quality of instruction at school; whereas, variability in reading achievement is more multi-determined, reecting out-of-school opportunities to practice reading skills as well as home literacy practices (Bryk & Raudenbush, 1988; Harris, Kelly, & Valentine, 2000; Hill, Bloom, Black, & Lipsey, 2008). In the present ndings, the relation between social skills and reading skills for boys is more evident in the mothers report than the teachers report. Most likely, mothers observations of their boys social skills put into motion a series of social interactions and exchanges that promote reading growth, both directly (e.g., through episodes of shared reading) and indirectly (e.g., through increased conversation and interaction). Likewise, it is plausible that the same processes exist in the classroom. When teachers perceive better social skills in children, particularly girls, it may initiate a series of interactions more likely to promote achievement in an area where children may typically underperform. Such ndings require further empirical study that considers the specic responses that children elicit from their teachers based upon their child attributes (Mantzicopoulos, 2005; Rudasill & Rimm-Kaufman, 2009; Sameroff & MacKenzie, 2003). A third explanation is possible, as well. The present study shows gender differences in variability of achievement growth as a function of social skills, suggesting that very small initial difference in gender are becoming reied (through social skills) as children approach the middle school grades. Although it is most likely that these gender differences may be attributed psychological processes embodied in social skills, it is also possible that social skills may be a proxy for unmeasured processes such as stereotype threats that operate through gender and emerge in the years immediately prior to adolescence. Children with stronger social skills may be able to compensate for such psychological processes that otherwise could produce disadvantage. Taken together, the ndings are consistent with a broader and systematic set of ndings in educational,
30
KONOLD ET AL.
school, and developmental psychology that suggest that children at greater risk for lower achievement benet more from supports in their environment (Kellam, Rebok, Mayer, Ialongo, & Kalodner, 1994; Gutman, Sameroff, & Cole, 2003). Following the logic that boys are less likely to develop strong reading skills (Freeman, 2004; Ready et al., 2005) and girls are less likely to develop strong math skills (Leahey & Guo, 2001; Penner, 2003); the presence of strong social skills may play a role in eliciting the types of behaviors from parents, teachers, and even peers that produce resiliency and contribute to academic growth. Although our results are largely consistent with the ndings of others that have demonstrated linkages between social skills and student achievements (e.g., Bursuck & Asher, 1986; Downer & Pianta, 2006; Kupersmidt, Coie, & Dodge, 1990; Ladd, 1990; Ladd, Kochenderfer, & Coleman, 1997; Malecki & Elliott, 2002; Margalit, 1998; Parker & Asher, 1993; Rissi, Gerhardstein, & Kistner, 2003; Vaughn, Hogan, Kouzekanai, & Shapiro, 1990; Wentzel, 1993), they stand in contrast to results reported by Duncan et al. (2007) in which social skills only occasionally revealed statistically signicant relationships with achievements. Duncan et al.s investigation was a well conceptualized and executed study that employed six large data sets; and provided some consideration of differential effects for boys and girls, as well as informants. However, the current investigation differs in at least two important ways. First, we more explicitly examine the role of informant (i.e., mothers vs. teachers) in combination with boys and girls. As described previously, some of the more pronounced ndings in the current study emerged through these interactions. Second, the Duncan et al. study examined the association between early social skills and achievement measures obtained at one or more discrete points in time (in upper elementary or middle school). By contrast, our examination simultaneously modeled multiple measurements of social skills and their associations with multiple measurements of achievement across four time points, and allowed for estimation of the amount of variance in achievement growth that could be attributed to childrens social skills. Third, results of the current investigation did not control for extraneous variables that might account for the magnitude of some effects we observed. To investigate the potential role of confounding variables, we examined a parallel set of conditional models in which a proxy of socio-economic status was added as a time invariant covariate on the latent intercept and slope achievement factors. Here, socio-economic status was measured with the incometo-needs ratio computed from maternal reports at one month. The ratio represents family income divided by the appropriate poverty threshold for each
household (U.S. Department of Labor, 1994). This additional specication to the already conditional models, that included social skills as time-varying covariates, revealed only modest changes in the amount of shared variance between social skills and achievement after controlling for family income. Without controlling for family income, the average amount of shared variance between social skills and Applied Problems across all conditional models was 10.64% and 4.19%, respectively, for the intercept (54 months of age) and slope (growth) factors. Inclusion of both social skills and family income resulted in average shared intercept and slope variance estimates of 9.28% and 3.85% or an average reduction of 1.36% and 0.34% in the shared variance between social skills and Applied Problems after controlling for family income. Similarly, the average reduction in shared variance between social skills and Letter-Word Identication after controlling for family income was 1.33% and 0.10%, respectively for the intercept and slope factors. Childrens social skills dictate patterns of interactions in a classroom setting and may inuence the degree of cohesion between a teacher and a child and peer-to-peer relationships (Pianta, 1999). Children with positive interaction patterns are more likely to be engaged in the learning environment (Mashburn & Pianta, 2006), and by extension will be more likely to succeed academically. Ostensibly, the earlier positive interaction patterns are developed, the more likely children will be to achieve better academically over time. The current study shows that social skills account for levels of achievement variance when modeled within a longitudinal framework, supporting the notion that better early social skill patterns may show positive associations with long term achievement. Although the design of the current investigation does not permit causal inferences, the ndings contribute to the notion of ensuring that early interventions for young children include attention to not only improving cognitive skills but also social behaviors. A considerable number of evidence-based approaches are available to guide professionals in efforts to improve childrens social skills in schooling environments. Current best practices recommend that, programming begin in the preschool and continue through the school-age years and beyond and that social skill development be infused into instruction throughout the day in a way that prevents fragmentation (Zins et al., 2004). The Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL, 2003) provide essential competencies for effective social-emotional development and academic success, including self-awareness, social awareness, self-management, relationship skills, and responsible decision-making skills. Recommended programs include Incredible Years: Dina Dinosaur Classroom Curriculum
SOCIAL SKILLS
31
(Webster-Stratton, 2002); Als Pals (Wingspan, 1999); Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS; Greenberg & Kusche, 1998); Skills, Opportunities, and Recognition (SOAR): Capacity-building among students, teachers, and parents (Hawkins, Catalano, Kosterman, Abbott, & Hill, 1999); and Families and Schools Together (FAST; Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, 1999). Limitations The results of this study should be interpreted with the following limitations in mind. First, the social and behavioral data for this study is based on parent and teacher report. Systematic observation may highlight other areas of concern and yield different results. Although previous research (e.g., Cai et al., 2004) has found a lack of agreement between teachers and parents on behavior rating scales, both parents and teachers are important evaluators of a childs overall behavioral disposition; thus a multi-method approach to examining childrens social and problem behavior is suggested. Information from these multiple sources can aid in designing intervention programs for young children with social and emotional problems. Second, the cognitive data for this study is based on the Applied Problems and Letter=Word sections of the WJ-R. These subscales assess childrens comprehension knowledge, auditory processing, short-term memory, and quantitative abilities; providing a measure of their g-based IQ for predicting academic achievement (Woodcock & Johnson, 1990). Performance in school (e.g., grades, state assessments, work samples) and teacher judgments of student learning may also yield valuable information regarding students abilities. Despite these limitations, the present work clearly implicates the contribution of social skills in accounting for variability in achievement. Although the ndings are correlative, not causal in nature; the ndings do suggest that early interventions to bolster childrens social skills may have implications not only for later social and behavioral skills but cognitive performance as well. REFERENCES
Achenbach, T. M., & McConaughy, S. H. (1987). Empirically based assessment of child and adolescent psychopathology: Practical applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Signicance tests and goodness-of-t in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588606. Bentler, P. M., & Lee, S. (1979). A statistical development of three-mode factor analysis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 32(1), 87104.
Bollen, K. A., & Curran, P. J. (1999, July). Latent Trajectory=Growth Curve Analysis: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach. Summer Institute by Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR), University of Michigan. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model t. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1988). Toward a more appropriate conceptualization of research on school effects: A three-level hierarchical model. American Journal of Education, 97, 65108. Buhs, E. W., & Ladd, G. W. (2001). Peer rejection as antecedent of young childrens school adjustment: An examination of mediating processes. Developmental Psychology, 37, 550560. Bursuck, W. D., & Asher, S. R. (1986). The relationship between social competence and achievement in elementary school children. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 15, 4149. Cai, X., Kaiser, A. P., & Hancock, T. B. (2004). Parent and teacher agreement on child behavior checklist items in a sample of preschoolers from low income and predominately African American families. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 303312. Canivez, G. L., Watkins, M. W., & Schaefer, B. A. (2002). Interrater agreement for discriminant classications for the adjustment scales for children and adolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 375384. Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. (2003). Safe and sound: An educational leaders guide to evidence-based social and emotional learning programs. Chicago: Author. Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (1999). Initial impact of the fast track prevention trial for conduct problems: II. Classroom effects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 4857. Cummings, K. D., Kaminski, R. A., & Merrell, K. W. (2008). Advances in the assessment of social competence: Findings from a preliminary investigation of a general outcome measure for social behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 930946. Curran, P. J., & Hussong, A. M. (2002). Structural equation modeling of repeated measures data: Latent curve analysis. In S. L. Hershberger & D. S. Moskowitz (Eds.), Modeling intraindividual variability with repeated measures data: Methods and applications (pp. 5985). Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum. Curran, P. J., Muthen, B. O., & Harford, T. C. (1998). The inuence of changes in marital status on developmental trajectories of alcohol use in young adults. Journal of Studies o Alcohol, 59, 647658. Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1998). Multiple risk factors in the development of externalizing behavior problems: Group and individual differences. Development and Psychopathology, 10(3), 469493. Denham, S. A., Blair, K. A., DeMulder, E., Levitas, J., Sawyer, K., Auerbach-Major, S., et al. (2003). Preschool emotional competence: Pathway to social competence. Child Development, 74(1), 238256. Downer, J. T., & Pianta, R. C. (2006). Academic and cognitive functioning in rst grade: Associations with earlier home and child care predictors and with concurrent home and classroom experiences. School Psychology Review, 35(1), 1130. Duncan, G. J., Claessans, A., Engel, M., Dowsett, C. J., Huston, A., Magnuson, K., et al. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43, 14281446. Eisenberg, N., Guthrie, I. K., Fabes, R. A., Reiser, M., Murphy, B. C., Holgren, R., et al. (1997). The relations of regulation and emotionality to resiliency and competent social functioning in elementary school children. Child Development, 68(2), 295311. Elliott, S. N., Malecki, C. K., & Demaray, M. K. (2001). New directions in social skills assessment and intervention for elementary and middle school students. Exceptionality, 9, 1932.
32
KONOLD ET AL. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model t. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 7699). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kaplan, B. J., & Weisberg, F. B. (1987). Sex differences and practice effects on two visualspatial tasks. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 64, 139142. Kellam, S. G., Rebok, G. W., Mayer, L. S., Ialongo, N., & Kalodner, C. R. (1994). Depressive symptoms over rst grade and their response to a developmental epidemiologically based prevention trial aimed at improving achievement. Development and Psychopathology, 6, 463581. Knoff, H. M. (1995). Best practices in personality assessment. In A. Thomas, & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology-III (pp. 849864). Washington, D.C.: National Association of School Psychologists. Kochanska, G. (1997). Multiple pathways to conscience for children with different temperaments: From toddlerhood to age 5. Developmental Psychology, 33, 228240. Konold, T. R., & Pianta, R. C. (2007). The inuence of informants on ratings of childrens behavioral functioning: A latent variable approach. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 25(3), 222236. Konold, T. R., & Pianta, R. C. (2005). Empirically-derived, personoriented patterns of school readiness in typically developing children: Description and prediction to rst grade achievement. Applied Developmental Science, 9, 174187. Konold, T. R., Brewster, J. C., & Pianta, R. C. (2004). The behavior of child behavior ratings: Measurement structure of the Child Behavior Checklist across time, informants, and child gender. Journal of Behavioral Disorders, 29, 372383. Kraemer, H. C., Measelle, J. R., Ablow, J. C., Essex, M. J., Boyce, W. T., & Kupfer, D. J. (2003). A new approach to integrating data from multiple informants in psychiatric assessment and research: Mixing and matching contexts and perspectives. American Journal of Psychiatry, 160(9), 15661577. Kupersmidt, J. B., Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. (1990). The role of poor peer relationships in the development of disorder. In S. R. Asher, & J. D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood. Cambridge studies in social and emotional development (pp. 274305). New York: Cambridge University Press. Ladd, G. W. (1990). Having friends, keeping friends, making friends, and being liked by peers in the classroom: Predictors of childrens early school adjustment. Child Development, 61, 10811100. Ladd, G. W., Birch, S. H., & Buhs, E. S. (1999). Childrens social and scholastic lives in kindergarten: Related spheres of inuence? Child Development, 70, 13731400. Ladd, G. W., & Burgess, K. B. (1999). Charting the relationship trajectories of aggressive, withdrawn, and aggressive=withdrawn children during early grade school. Child Development, 70, 910929. Ladd, G. W., Herald, S. L., & Kochel, K. P. (2006). School readiness: Are there social prerequisites? Early Education and Development, 17, 115150. Ladd, G. W., Kochenderfer, B. J., & Coleman, C. C. (1997). Classroom peer acceptance, friendship, and victimization: Distinct relational systems that contribute uniquely to childrens school adjustment. Child Development, 67, 11031118. Lawrence, F. R., & Hancock, G. R. (1998). Assessing changes over time using latent growth modeling. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 30, 211225. Leahey, E., & Guo, G. (2001). Gender differences in mathematical trajectories. Social Forces, 80, 713732. La Paro, K. M., & Pianta, R. C. (2000). Predicting childrens competence in the early school years: A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 70(4), 443484.
Elliott, S. N., Barnard, J., & Gresham, F. M. (1989). Preschoolers social behavior: Teachers and parents assessments. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 7(3), 223234. Fagan, J., & Fantuzzo, J. W. (1999). Multirater congruence on the social skills rating system: Mother, father, and teacher assessments of urban head start childrens social competencies. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 14(2), 229242. Fan, X., & Konold, T. R. (2009). Latent growth curve analysis in structural equation modeling: Concepts and implementations. In T. Teo, & M. S. Khine (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts and applications in educational research (pp. 2958). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Fan, X., Thompson, B., & Wang, L. (1999). The effects of sample size, estimation methods, and model specication on SEM t indices. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 5683. Fantuzzo, J., Bulotsky-Shearer, R., McDermott, P. A., McWayne, C., Frye, D., & Perlman, S. (2007). Investigation of dimensions of social-emotional classroom behavior and school readiness for lowincome urban preschool children. School Psychology Review, 36, 4462. Freeman, C. E. (2004). Trends in educational equity of girls & women: 2004 (NCES 2005-016). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Ofce. Greenberg, M. T., & Kusche, C. A. (1998). Promoting alternative thinking strategies: Blueprintfor violence prevention. Book 10. Institute of Behavioral Sciences, University of Colorado. Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1987). The relationship between adaptive behavior and social skills: Issues and denition in assessment. Journal of Special Education, 21, 167181. Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). Social skills rating system: Manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Gresham, F. M., Noell, G. H., & Elliott, S. N. (1996). Teachers as judges of social competence: A conditional probability analysis. School Psychology Review, 25(1), 108117. Gutman, L. M., Sameroff, A. J., & Cole, R. (2003). Academic growth curve trajectories from 1st grade to 12th grade: Effects of multiple social risk factors and preschool child factors. Developmental Psychology, 39(4), 777790. Hammarberg, A., & Hagekull, B. (2006). Changes in externalizing and internalizing behaviours over a school-year: Differences between 6-year-old boys and girls. Infant and Child Development, 15(2), 123137. Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher-child relationships and the trajectory of childrens school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72, 625638. Hamre, B., & Pianta, R. C. (2007). Learning opportunities in preschool and early elementary classrooms. In R. C. Pianta, M. J. Cox, & K. L. Snow (Eds.), School readiness and the transition to kindergarten in the era of accountability. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Co. Harris, C., Kelly, C., & Valentine, J. C. (2000). Making the most of summer school: A meta-analytic and narrative review. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Vol 65(1). Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., Kosterman, R., Abbott, R., & Hill, K. G. (1999). Preventing adolescent healthrisk behaviors by strengthening protection during childhood. Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine, 153, 226234. Hill, C. J., Bloom, H. S., Black, A. R. & Lipsey, M. W. (2008). Empirical benchmarks for interpreting effect sizes in research. Child Development Perspectives, 2, 172177. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for t indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 155.
SOCIAL SKILLS Malecki, C. K., & Elliott, S. N. (2002). Childrens social behaviors as predictors of academic achievement: A longitudinal analysis. School Psychology Quarterly, 17(1), 123. Mantzicopoulos, P. (2005). Conictual relationships between kindergarten children and their teachers: Associations with child and classroom context variables. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 425442. Margalit, M. (1998). Sense of coherence and loneliness experience among preschool children with learning disabilties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 173180. Mashburn, A. J., & Pianta, R. C. (2006). Social relationships and school readiness. Early Education and Development, 17(1), 151176. McArdle, J. J., & Bell, R. Q. (2000). An Introduction to latent growth models for developmental data analysis. In T. D. Little, K. U. Schnabel, & J. Baumert (Eds.), Modeling longitudinal and multilevel data (pp. 69108). Mahwah, New Jersey: LEA. McConaughy, S. H. (1993). Advances in empirically based assessment of childrens behavioral and emotional problems. School Psychology Review, 22(2), 285307. McConaughy, S. H., & Ritter, D. R. (1995). Best practices in multidimensional assessment of emotional or behavioral disorders. In A. Thomas, & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best Practices in School Psychology-III (pp. 865877). Washington, D.C.: National Association of School Psychologists. McDermott, P. A. (1984). Comparative functions of preschool learning style and IQ in predicting future academic performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 9, 3847. Meredith, W., & Tisak, J. (1990). Latent curve analysis. Psychometrika, 55, 107122. Merrell, K. W. (2001). Assessment of childrens social skills: Recent developments, best practices, and new directions. Exceptionality, 9(12), 318. Merrell, K. W. (1999). Behavioral, social, and emotional assessment of children and adolescents. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Merrell, K. W. (1995). An investigation of the relationship between social skills and internalizing problems in early childhood: Construct validity of the preschool and kindergarten behavior scales. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 13(3), 230240. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (NICHD). (1998). Early child care and self-control, compliance, and problem behavior at twenty-four and thirty-six months. Child Development, 69, 11451170. ONeil, R., Welsh, M., Parke, R. D., Wang, S., & Strand, C. (1997). A longitudinal assessment of the academic correlates of early peer acceptance and rejection. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 26(3), 290303. Penner, A. (2003). International gender X item difculty interactions in mathematics and science achievement tests. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 650655. Piacentini, J. (1993). Checklists and rating scales. In T. H. Ollendick, & M. Hersen (Eds.), Handbook of child and adolescent assessment (pp. 8297). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Pianta, R. C. (1999). Enhancing relationships between children and teachers. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. Pianta, R. C., Belsky, J., Vandergrift, N., Houts, R., & Morrison, F. J. (2008). Classroom effects on childrens achievement trajectories in elementary school. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 365397. Raver, C. (2002). Emotions matter: Making the case for the role of young childrens emotional development for early school readiness. Social Policy Report of the Society for Research in Child Development, 16, 120. Ready, D. D., LoGerfo, L. F., Burkam, D. T., Lee, V. (2005). Explaining girls advantage in kindergarten literacy learning: Do
33
classroom behaviors make a difference? Elementary School Journal, 106(1), 2138. Reynolds, A. J. (1991). Early schooling of children at risk. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 392422. Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Pianta, R. C., & Cox, M. J. (2000). Teachers judgments of problems in the transition to kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15(2), 147166. Rissi, S., Gerhardstein, R., & Kistner, J. (2003). Childrens classroom peer relationships and subsequent educational outcomes. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 32, 351361. Rudasill, K. M., & Rimm-Kaufman, S. E. (2009). Teacher-child relationship quality: The roles of child temperament and teacherchild interactions. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24, 107120. Ruffalo, S. L., & Elliott, S. N. (1997). Teachers and parents ratings of childrens social skills: A closer look at cross-informant agreements through an item analysis protocol. School Psychology Review, 26, 489501. Sameroff, A. J., & MacKenzie, M. J. (2003). Research strategies for capturing transactional models of development: The limits of the possible. Development and Psychopathology, 15, 613640. Sanson, A., Prior, M., & Smart, D. (1996). Reading disabilities with and without prior behavior problems at 78 years: Prediction from longitudinal data from infancy to 6 years. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 37, 529541. Severson, H. H., Walker, H. M., Hope-Doolittle, J., Kratochwill, T. R., & Gresham, F. M. (2007). Proactive, early screening to detect behaviorally at-risk students: Issues, approaches, emerging innovations, and professional practices. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 193223. Steinberg, M. S., & Dodge, K. A. (1983). Attributional bias in aggressive adolescent boys and girls. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 1(4), 312321. Stormshak, E. A., & Webster-Stratton, C. (1999). The qualitative interactions of children with conduct problems and their peers: Differential correlates with self-report measures, home behavior, and school behavior problems. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 20(2), 295317. Suen, H. K., & Ary, D. (1989). Analyzing quantitative behavioral observation data. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Tanaka, J. S. (1993). Multifaceted conceptions of t in structural equation models. In K. S. Bollen, & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 1039). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Teo, A., Carlson, E., Mathieu, P. J., Egeland, B., & Sroufe, L. A. (1996). A prospective longitudinal study of psychosocial predictors of achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 34(3), 285306. Thomas, J. M., Benham, A. L., Gean, M., Luby, J., Minde, K., Turner, J. M., et al. (1997). Practice parameters for the psychiatric assessment of infants and toddlers (036 months). Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36, 2146. Trzesniewski, K. H., Moftt, T. E., Caspi, A., Taylor, A., & Maughan, B. (2006). Revisiting the association between reading achievement and antisocial behavior: New evidence of an environmental explanation from a twin study. Child Development, 77, 7281. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1994). Current population survey, March (1991), as cited in U.S. Department of Labor, Womens Bureau, 1993 Handbook on women workers: Trends and issues. Washington, DC: Government Printing Ofce. Vaughn, S., & Haager, D. (1994). Social competence as a multifaceted construct: How do children with learning disabilities fare. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 17, 253266. Vaughn, S., Hogan, A., Kouzekanani, K., & Shapiro, S. (1990). Peer acceptance, self-perception and social skills of learning disabled
34
KONOLD ET AL. Wingspan, L. L. C. (1999). Als pals: Kids making healthy choices. Richmond, VA: Author. Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1990). Tests of achievement. WJ-R. Examiners manual. Allen, TX: DLM Teaching Resources. Xue, Y., & Meisels, S. J. (2004). Early literacy instruction and learning in kindergarten: Evidence from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Kindergarten Class of 19981999. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 191229. Zins, J., Bloodworth, M., Weissberg, R., & Walberg, H. (2004). The scientic base linking social and emotional learning to school success. In J. Zins, R. Weissberg, M. Wang, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Building academic success on social and emotional learning: What does the research say? (pp. 122). New York: Teachers Press, Columbia University.
students before identication. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 101106. Vinnick, L. A., & Erickson, M. T. (1994). Social skill in third and sixth grade children: A moderator of lifetime stressful life events and behavior problems? Journal of Child and Family Studies, 3(3), 263282. Wasik, B. H., Wasik, J. L., & Frank, R. (1993). Sociometric characteristics of kindergarten children at risk for school failure. Journal of School Psychology, 31, 241257. Webster-Stratton, C. (2002). Effective classroom management skills training and dina dinosaurs social skills and problem-solving curriculum training for the classroom:Leaders guide. Seattle, WA: Incredible Years. Wentzel, K. R. (1993). Does being good make the grade? Social behavior and academic competence in middle school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 357364.

KONOLD ET AL Relationships Among Informant Based Measures of Social Skills and Student Achievement

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

KONOLD ET AL Relationships Among Informant Based Measures of Social Skills and Student Achievement

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

This article was downloaded by: [200.120.120.

Applied Developmental Science

Available online: 25 Jan 2010

Downloaded by [200.120.120.89] at 06:21 20 July 2011

Downloaded by [200.120.120.89] at 06:21 20 July 2011

Downloaded by [200.120.120.89] at 06:21 20 July 2011

Downloaded by [200.120.120.89] at 06:21 20 July 2011

Downloaded by [200.120.120.89] at 06:21 20 July 2011

Downloaded by [200.120.120.89] at 06:21 20 July 2011

Downloaded by [200.120.120.89] at 06:21 20 July 2011

Note: T1 Time 1, T2 Time 2, T3 Time 3, T4 Time 4. p < .05.

Note: AP Applied Problems, LWI Letter-Word Identication. p < .05.

Downloaded by [200.120.120.89] at 06:21 20 July 2011

8.982 (6) 1.00 1.00 1.00 .02

468.10 (154) .94 .92 .96 .04

Downloaded by [200.120.120.89] at 06:21 20 July 2011

Downloaded by [200.120.120.89] at 06:21 20 July 2011

119.79 (6) .95 .85 .95 .13

509.59 (154) .93 .92 .95 .05

Downloaded by [200.120.120.89] at 06:21 20 July 2011

Downloaded by [200.120.120.89] at 06:21 20 July 2011

Downloaded by [200.120.120.89] at 06:21 20 July 2011

Downloaded by [200.120.120.89] at 06:21 20 July 2011

Downloaded by [200.120.120.89] at 06:21 20 July 2011

Downloaded by [200.120.120.89] at 06:21 20 July 2011

Downloaded by [200.120.120.89] at 06:21 20 July 2011

Вам также может понравиться