Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Social Competence
1
Running Head: SOCIAL COMPETENCE
Social Competence in Peer-Accepted Children with Learning Disabilities
Andrea E- Brown
Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology
McGi11 University, Montreal
June, 1999
A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research in partial firlfilment of the requirements of the degree of
PhD in Educational Psychology Major in SchooVApplied Child Psychology
O Andrea E, Brown, 1999
National Library I*I of Canada Bibliothèque nationale du Canada
Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographic Services services bibliographiques
395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington OnawaON K l A O N 4 Ottawa ON K1A ON4 Canada Canada
Yow KI8 Votre rëfërence
Our fi& Notre refdr~nce
The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sell reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/nlm, de
reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.
The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts fkom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otheMise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author7s ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation.
Social Cornpetence
2
Acknowledgements
1 would iike to achowledge and express my sincere appreciation to the many
individuals who assisted, supported, and inspird me in completing this thesis.
F k t , gratitude is extended to the Lakeshore and Baldwin Cartier School Boards
for supporting this research. 1 am thankful to all of the principals, teachers, students, and
parents who particpated in this study. The wrllingness of students and teachers to share
their experiences and feelings with me made this project both possible and pleasurable.
Thank you to the members of Dr. Nancy Heath's research laboratory (Christina,
Daisy, Stephanie, Shana, Loretta) and the faithfiul 'stand-bys' (Marla, Alyssa, Lisa, Julie,
Cindy, and Tina) who diligently assisted with many phases of this project, Special thanks
to Cathy Masden and Linda Grey who assisted in data andysis, Marguerite and Litsa for
their discerning statisticd guidance, and Marie-Hélène for her translation skïlls.
I wouid like to thank the doctoral cornmittee members who have offered helpfid
suggestions and insights dong the way: Dr. Judy Dr. Bruce Shore, Dr. Evy
Lusthaus, and Dr. Mark Aulls-
1 would also like to acknowledge the hancial support provided by the Fonds pour
la formation de chercheurs et L'aide à la recherche (FCAR) and the McGili University
Social Sciences Research subcommittee (McGiU University interna1 grant) in completing
this research.
1 am especially gratefbl to my supervisor, Dr. Nancy Heath, for challenging me to
think and providing the sincere support and guidance needed in completing this thesis.
To my family, thank you for your patience, support, and endurance through the
years. Fkally, a very special thank you to Lisa, Annie, and Linda for knowing where 1
was headed before I even knew myself and for helping to point me in the right direction.
Social Cornpetence
3
Abs tract
Since the time of Brym's (1974) seminal work on the social status of children with
learning disabilities GD), research has consistently shown that children with LD stniggle
to eam social acceptance fiom non-LD peers. Recently, investigators have uncovered
within-group varïability among children with LD suggesting that some children with LD
are well accepted and even popular among non-LD peers. An appeal in the field of
leaming disabilities has emerged, calling for a shift fkom deficit-mode1 research focusing
on the deficiencies of children with LD, to the investigation of how children with LD
obtain positive social outcornes. Accordingly, a study was undextaken addressing this
request by examining the characteristics of peer-accepted children with LD from a muIti-
rater and multi-method perspective. Using the comprehensive mode1 of social
competence proposed by Vaughn and Hogan (1990) as the theoretical fhmework, data
were gathered fiom teachers, peers, and peer-accepted chiIdren with and without LD in
important areas of social functioning. Participants were grade four and five mainstreamed
students meeting the followïng criteria: (a) having a researcher-identified leaming
disability in at least one academic area (reading, speiling, or arïthmetic) and (b) peer-rated
social acceptance as determined via a modified version of the Asher and Dodge (1986)
sociometnc classification system. Statistical analyses consisted of multivariate and
univariate techniques. Findings indicated few significant diffierences between peer-
accepted children with and without LD in specific areas of social competence as rated by
peers. Significant interactions, however, between LD status and gender revealing variable
profiles of social-behavioural characteristics for boys and girls with and without LD did
emerge fiom the perspective of teachers. Implications for special education referral and
placement, inclusive education, and interventions are discussed.
Social Cornpetence
4
Résumé
Depuis l'époque du travail séminal de Bryan (1974) sur le statut social des enfants atteint de
difficultés d'apprentissages (DA), les recherches ont régulièrement démontré que ces
enfants luttent pour obtenir l'approbation sociale de leurs pairs qui n'ont pas de D A
Récemment, une recherche avec un groupe d'enfânts ayant des DA a démontré une certaine
variabilité dans ce groupe, ce qui suggère que certains enfants ayant des DA soient bien
accueillis et jouissent même d'une popularité auprès de leurs pairs sans DA. Une nouvelle
ligne de pensée dans le domaine des DA amène un revirement du modèle de recherche se
concentrant sur les déficiences de ces enfants vers une méthode de recherche axée sur les
moyens à travers lesquels ces enfants atteint de DA obtiennent des résultats positifs. Pour
répondre à cette demande, une étude a été entrepnse pour examiner les caractéristiques des
enfants avec des DA qui jouissent d'une bonne intégration sociale. Utilisant le modèle
compréhensif des compétences sociales proposé par Vaughn et Hogan (L990) comme base
théorique, des données sur d'important domaines du fonctionnement social ont été amassées
a partir de professeurs, de pairs et d'enfants avec et sans DA qui sont acceptés socialement.
Les participants étaient des élèves de quatrième et cinquième années intégrés dans des
classes régulières rencontrant Ies critères suivants: (a) ils avaient des DA reconnues par la
recherche dans au moins une matière (lecture, orthographe ou mathématiques) et (b) ils
étaient classés par leurs pairs selon leur acceptation sociale via une version modifiée du
système de classincation sociornétrique de Asher et Dodge (1986). Les analyses statistiques
consistaient de techniques à variables multiples et à variables simples. Les résultats
indiquent peu ou aucune différence entre les enfants acceptés socialement avec ou sans DA
sur la mesure globale d'acceptation sociale. Par contre, des interactions significatives entre
les variables de difficultés d'apprentissage et genres sont ressorties, ce qui révèle des
profIles variable des caractéristiques sociales et comportementales pour les garçons et les
filles avec et sans DA. Une discussion sur les implications des interventions et des
références en éducation adaptée ainsi que des placements est entrepnse.
Social Competence
5
Table of Contents
............................................................................................................ Aclmowledgements ..2
Abstract ................................................................................................................................ 3
Résumé ................................................................................................................................ -4
................................................................................................................ Table of Contents .5
.............................................................................. Chapter I r Literature Revïew .............. .. 9
Sociometric Profiles ............................................................................................... IO
Sociometric Profiles of Children with Learning Disabilities ............~.................... 14
..................................................................... Onginal Contribution to Knowledge 17
Theories of Social Cornpetence in Children with Leaming Disabilities ............... 18
Gresham and Reschly Mode1 of Social Cornpetence ............ ... .............. 18 ........ ....................... Vaughn and Hogan Mode1 of Social Cornpetence .... 19
............................................... .......................... Peer Relations ... -20
............................................................ Self-concept ................... .. 27
...................................................................... Behaviour Problems 3 1
Social Skills ................................................................................... 34
................................................................. Chapter II: Rationale and Research Questions -39
...................................................................... Hypotheses and Research Questions 40
................................................................. A- Peer Relations: Social Status 40
........................................................................................... B . Self-concept 40
............................................................................. C . Behavioural Conduct 41
D . Sociai Skills ................... ....... ............................................................ 41
........................................................................ E . Distinguishing Features -41
........................................................................................................... Chapter III: Method 43 . . ............................................................................................................ Participants -43
................................................................... ........ ...................... Measures ... ........ -47
IQ and Achievement .................... .... .............. 4
Social Competence
6
Sociometric Measures .......................... .... ....... ...................................... -48
.............................................................. .. Self-perceptions ..... ............. .. 51
Social Skills and Behaviour Problems .................................................. ...... 52
Peer and SeIf-ratings .. ................................................................................ 53
Open-ended InteMew ................................................................................ 54
Procedure ............................................................................................................... 54
Phase 1 ..................................................................................................... 55
....................................................................................................... Phase 2 57
Unitisation of data .......................................................................... 59
Unit sorting ..~..~.......~..~..................~.~...........~.............~.....~.............~ 59
Negotiation of categories ............................................................ - 3 9
Re-coding and validation .................. ..... .................................... -60
................................................................... Quantification of data -60
............................................................................................................ Chapter IV: Resuits 62
................................................................................................ Data Analysis .... . .... 62
.................................................................... LD and Non-LD Classification Rates 64
Sociometric Results ............................................................................................... 65
........................................................... Overall Analyses for Initial Sample 65 .
Descriptive Statistics for Target Sample ............................................................... -66
................................................ Social Cornpetence Mode1 ............................. .... 68
.......................... Sociornetric-s tatus Equivalence Between Target Groups 68
........................................ Intercorrelations Between Dependent Variables 68
Revised Class Play Rating: Peer Ratings ............................................................. 73
....... ................................. .... Original Factors ,... .... 74
Nonacademic Factor ...................................... ......................................... 75
.......................................................... .... Academic Factor .......................... 76
Revised Class Play Rating: Self-ratings ................... .. ....................................... 77
Social Competence
7
Original Factors .............. ........ ................................................................. 77 . .
Sensitive-Isolated Factor ............................................................................ 79
Nonacademic Factor ................................................................................. -79
Academic Factor ................................ ,.,,. ................................................... 81
Peer Raters Interview ................... ,., ................ .., .............................. 83 .................................................................................. Self-raters Interview .......... .,, -83
Chapter V: Discussion ....................................................................................................... 86
............................................................................ ..... ...................... Peer Status ... ... 87
Vaughn and Hogan Mode1 of Social Competence .........,,..................................... 90
...................................................... Social SUIS and Behavioural Conduct 90
.............................................................................................. Self-concept -95
Social, Emotional, and Behavioural Characteristics ..................... ..-. ................... 97 Peer Ratings ........................................................... ... -97 ....
................................................................................................ SeIf-ratings -97
Nonacademic and Academic Factors ..................................... ..................... 98
................................................................................................. Interview Findings 99
................................................ Conclusions and Contributions to Knowledge -99 . . * ................................................................................................. Study Limitations 102
.......................................................................... Educational Implications ......... .. 105
...........*.......*........................................... .......................*............................. References ,,.. 108
AppendYr A: Sociometrks Forms .................................................................................. 124
Appendix B: Revised Class Play Rating Questionnaire ................................................ 128
........................................................................................... Appendix C: Consent Fonns -133
Appendbc D: Sociometncs Distracter Tasks .................................................................... 137
Appendix E: Source Table for RCPR: Peer Repeated Measures MANOVA .............. .... 140
Appendix F: Breakdown of Peer-pleasing vernis Teacher-pleasing items on the
Social Skills factor of the Social Skills Rating System-Teacher Form (SSRS-T) ........... 142
Social Competence
8
List of Tables
Table 1 : Summary of Early Research Examining the Behavioural Correlates of
Popular and Rejected Status Children .............................................. ..,, .............................. 1 1
Table 2: Select Studies Showing Social Skills Deficits in Children with LD ................... 36
Table 3 : Open-ended I n t e ~ e w Categoïy Titles and Descriptions ................................... -6 1
Table 4: Sociometric Classifications for Initial Sample by LD Status and Gender ........... 66
............................ Table 5: Demographic and Achievement Data for Target Sample ........ 67
Table 6: S tandardised g-scores for Sociometric and Means and Social Competence
Model Variables ........-.......... ,., ...................................................... ...-. ..................... ..70 Table 7: Means and Standard Deviations for RCPR: Peer Factors,-- ................................. 75
Table 8: Mean Responses to RCPR: Peer Nonacademic Factor Items ............... .. ..... ..,..76 ........................ Table 9: Means and Standard Deviations for RCPR: Self-ratings Factors 78
......... Table 10: Mean Responses to RCPR: Self-ratings Sensitive-Isolated Factor Items 80
Table 11: Nonsimiificant F-tests for RCPR: Self-ratings Sensitive-Isolated
Factor Items .......................................................... ....................................................... 8 1
Table 12: Mean Responses to RCPR: SeK-ratings Nonacademic Factor Items .....-. ........ -82
Table 13: Frequency and (Percentage) of Peer Responses in Open-ended
Interview Categories ........................................................................................................ A4 Table 14: Frequency and (Percentage) of Self-rated Responses in Open-ended
InteMew Categories ...................-..S... ........... -.-.... .............-............................................. 85
Table 15 : Mean Scores and DEerence Scores Between Peer-pleasing and Teacher-
pleasing Social Skills on the SSRS-T ................... .. .... .. ........... .. ........................................ 93
List of Figures
Figure 1 : Significant LD Status-by-Gender univariate interactions for Social Skills and
Problem Behaviours and nonsignificant LD Status-by-Gender interaction for
Nonacademic Self-concept ....................................................... ... ........... 7 1
Social Cornpetence
9
Chapter 1: Literature Review
Over twenty years ago Bryan (1974) examined the peer popularity and social
relationships of children with learning disabilities 0) and their peers in a classroom
setting and concluded that children with LD were not well-liked and were rejected by
their peers without LD. Two years later, Bryan (1976) replicated these findings and added
that children with leaming disabilities continueci to be rejected by their peers over t h e .
Bryanrs pioneering research on the social status of children with LD has had an enormous
impact on the amount and quality of empirical research devoted to the social and
emotional hctioning of children with leaming disabilities,
Extensive research in the past two decades has consistently documented the
difficulties students with leaming disabilities have in fonning and maintainhg social
relationships (Bursuck, 1989; Gresham & Reschly, 1986; Horowitz, 198 1; La Greca &
Stone, 1990; Siperstein, Bopp, & Bak, 1978; Vaughn, Zaragoza, Hogan, & Walker,
1993). While reviews conducted in the area of social status and learning disabilities (e.g.,
Wiener, 1987) have served to confirm Bryanls early Sndings, more recently researchers
have discovered the merits of complementing between-group research designs with the
examination of within-group diffiences focusing on subgroups of students with learning
disabilities. Using two-dimensional classification schemes based on social impact and
social preference construct scores, researchers have detemiined that within-group
variability in sociometric status exists in children with LD, suggesting that some children
with LD are socially accepted and even popular among their non-LD peers (Kïstner &
Gatlin, 1989; La Greca & Stone, 1990; Ochoa & Palmer, 1991; Stone & La Greca, 1990).
These hdings have influenced researchers to make an appeal for moving away £kom pure
between-group designs and the "deficit model" of research in the field of learning
disabilities (i-e., research which focuses on what children with LD lack in cornparison to
non-LD peers) and investigating instead what exemp lary social and personal qualities
children with LD possess (Coleman & Minnett, 1992; Dudley-Marling & Edmiaston,
Social Cornpetence
10
1985; Haager & Vaughn, 1995; Ochoa & Olivarez, 1995).
Hence, while Bryan's (1974, 1976) early hypotheses conceming the low social
status and peer rejection of children with LD continue to be actively investigated (e.g.,
Conderman, 1995; Swanson & Malone, 1992; Wiener, Harris, & Shirer, 1990), there is a
movement in the field to supplement our lmowledge of poor peer status and social
maifùnctioniug in some chïldren with LD with an additional understanding of the nature
of peer acceptance and hedthy social fiinctioning in other children with LD. In keeping
with this recent trend, the present study utilises the comprehensive mode1 of socid
competence proposed by Vaughn and Hogan (1990) as the theoretical k e w o r k to
examine the social, behavioural, and emotional features of socially-accepted children
with LD in an attempt to iliuminate the nature of social competence for these children.
Sociometric Profiles
The task of deciphering the social-behavioural correlates of sociaily-accepted
children with learning disabilities must begin with a thorough understanding of the
features associated with sociaily success fiil and unsuccessful childm without LD.
Identification of the behaviours associated with normally-achieving children in various
sociometric status groups (i.e., popular, average, controversial, neglected, and rejected)
has been systematicdy approached by many investigators. Table 1 briefly summarises
the early studies exarnining the social-behavioural correlates of popular and rejected peer
status in normdly-achieving children.
Increasingly, studies using between-group cornparisons have also been conducted
comparing the behavioural correlates of students in different sociometxic categones. Ladd
(1983) studied the social networks and behaviour of third and fourth grade children with
differing sociometric status and found that popular and average status children engaged in
more cooperative play, more social conversations, less onlooking behaviour (Le.,
observing but not joinUlg peers), and spent more tirne interacting in groups compnsed o f
older (upper-grade) peers than rejected status children. Coie and Dodge (L988) examined
Social Cornpetence
Table 1.
Summarv of Earh Research Examining the Behavioural Correlates of Pouular and Reiected Status Children
Rejected Status Study
Conceitedness Feinberg, Smith, & Schmidt, 1958
Unattractiveness Elkins, 1958
Disruptive behaviour Bemdt, 1983; Carlson, Lahey, & Neeper, 1984; Coie, Dodge, & Coppoteili, 1982; Feinberg, Smith, & Schmidt, 1958
Aggressiveness Bemdt, 1983; Carlson, Lahey, & Neeper, 1984; Dodge, 1983
MaIadaptive social Carlson, Lahey, & Neeper, 1984 behaviour
OE-task behaviou. Gottman, Gonso, & Rasmussen, 1975; Vosk, Forehanci, Parker, & Rickard, 1982
- - --
Popular Status Study . - - - -
Intelligence Feinberg, Smith, & Schmidt, 1958
Athletic ability Feinberg, Smith, & Schmidt, 1958
Friendliness/ Bemdt, 1983; Coie, Dodge, & Coppotelli, 1982; Dodge, Cooperativeness 1983; Kuhlen & Lee, 1943; Rubin & Daniels-Behess, 1983
Sense of humour Elkins, 1958; Feinberg, Smith, & Schmidt, 1958; Gronlund & Anderson, 1957; Kuhlen & Lee, 1943
CheerfllVEnthusiasm Kuhlen & Lee, 1943
Faimesdhonesty Feiuberg, Smith, & Schmidt, 1958
On-task behaviour Vosk Forehand, Parker, & Rickard, 1982
Attractive Appearance Gronlund & Anderson, 1 957
Leadership Coie, Dodge, & Coppotelli, 1982; Dodge, 1983
Social Cornpetence
12
the behaviour pattern of various social status groups in first and third grade boys. Both
peers and teachers were asked to rate students dong specified factors. Results indicated
that peers view popular classmates as more prosocial, better at sports, and more h y
than average status classmates. A review by Coie, Dodge, and Kupersmidt (1990)
examined data fiom peers, teachers, and observers concerning the behavioural profiles of
8- to 12-year-old normally-achieving children in each sociometric group. The authors
reviewed many early and more recent investigations on behaviour and social status and
concluded that, in normal populations, being helpfiil, cooperative and considerate,
following rules, and demonstrating athletic ancl acadernic cornpetence were the reasons
that accounted for popular children's hi& acceptance.
More recently, research has not only sought to expand our understanding of
popular and rejected children in the normal but has begun increasing efforts
to better understand children classified as neglected and controversial. Newcomb,
Bukowski, and Pattee (1993) evaluated empirical support on sociometric status profiles in
a meta-analysis of 41 studies examining the behavioural differences among groups of
elementary children (aged 5-12 years) categorised into sociometric categories. The four
other status groups (Le., popular, neglected, rejected, and controversial) were compared
with the average status group. Criteria for study selection included use of peer
nominations or peer ratings, inclusion of a cornparison group of children with average
sociometric status, and elementary-school-age parlicipants. The results of the meta-
analysis indicated that children in each sociometric group had distinct behavioural
profiles when contrasted with children in the average status category. Generally, children
classified in the neglected category exhibited few differences f?om average status peers,
however, they appeared to be less aggressive, less socidy interactive, and not as well
known in cornparison to their average peers. Controversial children, on the other hancl,
were found to share characteristics of both rejected and popular children. For example,
controversial children had higher levels of aggression than students in the rejected
Social Cornpetence
13
category but levels of sociability sirnilar to those in the popular group than average
shidents. The authors concluded that controversial children, compared to rejected
children, have better cognitive and social abilities that buffer them fiom peer rejection
and social exclusion. Rejected children were found to be more aggressive, less sociaily
and cognitively skilled, more socially withdrawn, and exhibithg higher levels of
depression and anxiety than their average status counterparts. Finaliy, popular children
showed higher levels of sociability and cognitive abïlities and lower levels of aggression
and withdrawal, and positive social actions compared to average children. Newcomb et
al. (1993) concluded that the behavioural repertoire of popular children mainly contains
socially skilled and academicdy competent behaMour which lead to positive social
experiences and outcomes, thus making these children candidates for status as a preferred
peer.
Studies have been conducted examining less observable aspects of social status in
children as well. One of the few studies conducted to evaluate the self-perceptions of
popular children was canied out by Boivin and Bégin (1989). The authors evaluated the
relationship among peer status and self- and other-perceptions of social competence
among 9- and 1 1-year-old boys and girls. ResuIts revealed that the self-perceptions of
popular children were significantly more positive than the average children on the
academic, social acceptance, athIetic, and self-esteem dimensions of the Perceived
Cornpetence Scde (Harter, 1982). No significant differences were found between popular
and average children in self-perceived physical appearance or behavioural conduct. No
significant differences were f o n d between neglected and average children, while
controversiai children were sigdicantly more negative than average children on
academic, behaviour, and self-esteem dimensions.
Patterson, Kupersmidt, and Griesler (1990) studied the relationship among
children's subjective reports and objective measures of their competence in behavioural,
scholastic, social cornpetence, and global self-esteem according to sociomehic status.
Social Competence
14
Participants in the study were thkd and fourth grade boys and girls. The Self-Perception
Profile for Children (Harter, 1985) was used to assess self-perceptions. Results reveal that
(a) popular children perceived themselves as signifïcantly higher in behavioural
competence than rejected and neglected children, (b) popular children reported
signifïcantly higher self-perceived social competence than neglected children, (c) popular
and average children underestimated their =tuai liking by other children, and (d) no
status group effect in global self-worth was found In general, the trend was for popular
children to report hïgher, but not always significantly so, self-perceptions of competence
than al1 other status groups.
In summary, distinct behavioural profiles exist and can be rneasured in children of
varyîng sociometric status classifications. Popular children are seen as cooperative, better
leaders, fair and honest, good looking, athletic, able to stay on-task, funny, and generally
competent in social, cognitive, and academic domains. Rejected children are seen as
aggressive, dimptive, socially unskilled, weak a~adernically~ and socially withdrawn.
Neglected and controversial status children fall somewhere between the behavioural
extremes of rejected and popular chiIdren, while average-statu children have often been
used for cornparison purposes and infiequently studied on their own. Given our
understanding of the social-behavioural profles of average-achieving children, it is
important to determine whether simiIar behavioural profiles exist for students with LD, as
this knowledge can broaden our understanding ofthe social competence in this
population.
Sociometric Profiles of Children with Learning Disabilities
Despite a need for research in the area (Ochoa & Olivarez, 1995), very few
researchers have exarnined the social-behavioural profiles of different sociometric groups
of children with LD. Additionally, virtually no evidence exists regarding the self-
perceptions of competence of sociometrical1y classified children with LD. One of the
earliest studies addressing the relationship between child attributes and peer popularity
Social Cornpetence
was conducted by Siperstein, Bopp, and Bak (1978). The authors studied the relationship
of social status to athletic ability, physical appearance, and academic ability in 22
children with LD attending regular classrooms for at least 75% of the &y. Participants
with LD were compared to non-LD classrnates (0=155) on a series of peer ratings asking
children to nominate the best athlete, the smartest, and the best looking student in the
class. Children without LD were voted smartest in thek class, while an equal proportion
of children with and without LD received nominations for best athlete and best looking.
Of further interest, six of the twenty-two children with LD in the sample were liked by
one-third or more of the boys or girls in their classes. Of these children, five received
several nominations for best athlete in the class. The authors postulated that certain
nonacademic talents of children with LD may be considered as redeeming qualities
promoting positive peer status.
Another important study on the social-behavioural profiles of children with LD
was conducted by Kistner and G a t h (1989)- These authors administered a positive and
negative sociogram (PEI: Peer Evaluation Inventory; Pekarîk, Prinz, Liebert, Weintraub,
& Neale, 1976) and coiiected ratings of dependence, unassertiveness, and passivity fkom
44 mainstreamed children with LD in grades three through five. Higher scores on the
PEI'S aggression and withdrawal scales were positively correlated with negative
nominations. As well, negative nominations were positively correlated with peer mtings
of dependence, unassertiveness, and passivity . Lastly, rejected children with LD were
more Likely to be considered as aggressive and withdrawn than popular or accepted
children with LD. Ackerrnan and Howes (1 986) examined the relation between
sociometric status and participation in der-school social activïties ;in 6- to 1 3 -year-old
boys attending a private school for children with LD. Results indicated no signifïcant
relation between popularity and the nurnber or fiequency of after-school programmes
attended. PopuIarity was, however, significantly related to the nequency of informal get-
togethers with fkiends. Children not receiving nominations for being best liked (i.e.,
Social Cornpetence
unpopuiar children) were involved in fewer after-school programs, played with fiends
less often, and engaged in fewer social activities than other children in the sample.
Finally, Perlmutter, Crocker, Cordray, and Garstecki (1983) investigated peers' views of
weli-iiked and disliked grade ten adolescents with LD and found that well-üked students
with LD were rated as significantly more independent and withdrawn, and had more
insight into how others viewed themselves than disliked peers with LD.
One study which recognised the utility of sidtaneously examinuig behavioural
profiles of children with and without LD was conducted by Wiener, Harris, and Shirer
(1990). The authors e x h e d how non-LD peers view the social behaviour of their LD
peers and the extent to which these views are related to peer status. Participants for the
study were 9- to 12-year-old students with (@ = 90) and without LD (n = 499). Results
ftom the seven scaies of the peer-rated Social Behaviour Nomination Scale (adapted fiom
Dodge, 1983) indicated that overall, non-LD children were nominated by their peers
signincantly more often than children with LD as cooperative, as leader, and as clown.
Results M e r revealed significant between-group differences for the various social
status groups. For example, popular children without LD were viewed as more like
leaders, more cooperative, and more cornical than neglected, rejected, and average
children without LD- Unfortunately, due to extremely small cell sizes for certain social
status categones (popular-LD, = 1) the authors were unable to compare LD and non-LD
groups along the seven dimensions of the Social Behaviour Nomination Scale. Finally,
Nabuzoka and Smith (1993) attempted to i d e n w the behavioural profiles associated with
each of the sociometric status groups in 8- to 12-year-old children with and without LD.
The authors found that peer nominations for cooperation were significantly related to
being rated as "liked most" for children with LD and that nominations for being
disruptive, fighting, and bullying were sigd5cantly related to being rated as "liked least."
Few studies have been conducted examining the behavioural profiles of
sociometric groups of children with LD, especially those children with LD who are
Social Cornpetence
17
popular or weU-accepted. Of the existing studies, many used very small sample sizes and
lacked theoretical b e w o r k s . Thus, unlike the wealth of investigations dealing with the
social hctioning of socially-accepted chilciren without LD, M e r research is clearly
needed on the nature of social competence in weil-liked children with LD. m a t remains
to be detennined is whether the attributes associated with average-achieving children's
popularity and social acceptance are simïiar to or different fkom the attributes which
facilitate social acceptance in children with LD. Although Kistner and G a t b (1989)
concluded that the correlates of social status for children with LD are similar to those
reported for non-LD peers, they based this conclusion on minimal empirical evidence.
TUT-Kaspa and Bryan (1 995) have recently reiterated the notion that one of the paths to
social competence in children is academic achievement. Thus, as children with LD have a
Iower likelihood of being perceived as acadernicaüy competent by their peers, it is
possible they May not have the same opportunities for displaying socially competent
behaviour as their non-LD peers. Hence, there May be a greater potential for peer-
accepted students with LD to compensate for their Iack of academic ski11 wïth strengths in
nonacademic areas such as social skills, athletics, physical appearance, and leadership
skills.
Original Contribution to Knowled~e
This study compared the behavioural and emotional profiles of socially-accqted
children with and without LD in order to detennine the nature of social acceptance and
social competence in children with LD. Limited research has been conducted to
determine what behaviour or emotional characteristics distinguish accepted children with
LD fiom accepted children without LD. Whereas previous studies in this area have
utilised peer ratings or teacher ratings to determine correlates of popularity and social
acceptance in chWren with LD, this study provided an original contribution to the area
by also soliciting personal i n t e ~ e w s with peer-accepted children with and without LD
and thek peers. Objective instruments tapping peer and teacher ratings and self-ratings
Social Competence
18
were also admuustered in an attempt to better understand the nature of peer acceptance in
children with LD h m a multidimemional standpoint This study offered an essential and
unique theoretical contribution to the body of Iiterature on the social fhctioning of
children with LD by systematicaily examining the global social competence of peer-
accepted children with LD in comparkon to their peer-accepted non-LD peers within the
theoretical fiamework provided by Vaughn and Hogan's (1 990) mode1 of social
competence.
Theories of Social Competence in Children with Leaming Disabilities
Social competence is a broad term which is often used to describe a varie@ of
social behaviours ranging fkom understanding and using social skills to social acceptance
(Haager & Vaughn, 1995). Social competence has long been regarded as a basic
characteristic of human hctioning (Gresham, 1 988). For example, in its early
conception, social competence was declared by Thomdike (1927) as one of three kinds of
intelligence. Over fifty years later a similar notion of social competence as an
independent form of intelligence (Le., interpersonal intelligence) ernerged in the work of
Gardner (1983). SociaI competence and subsequent social adjustment can be considered
important and needed goals for ail school-aged children (Parker & Asher, 1987). Two
popuiar models of social competence to emerge in the literaîure on leaming disabiiïties
are the models proposed by Gresham and ReschIy (1988) and Vaughn and Hogan (1990).
Gresham and Reschlv Model of Social Cornpetence
Gresham (1 98 8) and Gresham and Reschly (1 98 8) conceptualised social
competence as encompassing two fundamental components, -each emphasising different
aspects of social behaviour: (a) adaptive behaviour and @) social skïlls. Adaptive
behaviour includes independent functioning skills, physical development, language
development, and academic competencies. Social skills, on the other hand, include: (a)
interpersonal behaviours (e-g., accepting authority, conversation skills, cooperative
behaviours, play behaviours), (b) self-related behaviours (e-g., expressing feelings, etbical
Social Competence
19
behaviour, positive attitudes towards self), and (c) task-related behaviours (e.g., attending
behaviour, completing tasks, following directions, independent work). This model of
social competence appears to be useful at a conceptud level because it distinguishes
between tangible behaviour within the context of adaptive, interpersonai, and task-related
fllnctioning and intangible self-related behaviours. However, it is a static model in that it
does not directly take into consideration the interaction between adap tive behaviour and
social skills nor the resuits of socially skilIed behaviour such as acceptance by peers.
Vau* and Hogan Mode1 of Social Competence
A second model of social competence has been advmced by Vaughn and Hogan
(1990). The authors proposed a similar, yet more comprehensive, model in which they
view social competence as a higher order construct, similar to intelligence, that includes
the following four components: (a) positive relations with others, (b) seK-evaluations of
competence, (c) absence of maladaptive behaviour, and (d) effective social skills. Positive
relations with others c m include general peer status, patterns of fiïendships and intimate
relations, or family relations and can be represented by meaSuTes of peer acceptance such
as peer rathgs and peer nominations. Self-evaluations of competence refer to the notion
of self-concept and can be measured by self-appraisal instruments tapping self-
perceptions in various domains of competence. Absence of maiadaptive behaviour can be
evaluated through behaviour-problem rathg scales including self-, peer-, and teacher-
ratings of behaviour. Finally, effective social skiils include a variety of cornpetencies
fkequently targeted for intervention withïn the school social context and appraised via
social skills teacher- or parent-rating systems (Vaughn & Haager, 1994).
Vaughn and Hogan (1990) asserted that the interaction and interrelationship
between the four components @eer relations, self-concept, behaviour problems, and
social skills) are likely to yield the truest understanding of socially competent behaviour.
They also stated that, for the purpose of assessrnent and research, the four components
must be isolated and measured separately, but that it is important in terms of
Social Cornpetence
20
interpretation and understanding of social competence that each component be considered
in consort with the others (Kaager & Vaughn, 1995). Despite this message, there bas been
no study conducted to date which simultaneously examines these components in a
multivariate model. Further, past studies referring to the Vaughn and Hogan model of
social competence have considered children with LD as one homogeneous group and
have not malysed the social competence of children with different social status.
Consequently, this study is unique in that it utilises the Vaughn and Hogan model as a
fhmework for examining the social competence of socidy-accepted children with and
without LD fÏom a rnultidimensional and multirater perspective. The model w i . be used
as a k e w o r k for organising the review of literature related to this study and for
generating research questions to be investigated.
Peer relations. Relationships with peers constitute a central element in chifdren's
social fives &hrîup, 1 983) and healthy peer relations are considered to be critical aspects
of sound social adjustment (Parker & Asher, 1987). Cbildren who expenence serious
problems with peer relationships are more at risk for developing additional adjustment
problems later in Life, including academic and behavioural problems during adolescence
(Roff, Sells, & Golden, 1972) and mental health difficulties (Cowen, Pederson, Babigian,
h o , & Trost, 1973).
Peer relations is a large concept which can be broken down into two related but
distinct categorïes (a) peer acceptance (popularity) and (b) fiiendship (dyadic relations).
Popularity and niendship are seen as distinct aspects of children's peer relations
(E3ukowski & Hoza, 1989; Parker & Asher, 1987; Schneider, Wiener, & Murphy, 1994)-
Popularity is a uni-directional construct related to general group perceptions towards a
particular individual, whereas friendship is bidirectional, specific, and refers to a de f i t e
type of expenence between two individuals (Bukowski & Hoza, 1989). Thus, it is
possible to be generally popular among peers while not having any really close fiends or
to be unpopular with peers at large and stiil have close, mutual fiïendships.
Social Cornpetence
It is well known that level of group acceptance and overall social status is a
consistent predictor of a wide range of positive and negative social-ernotional outcornes
@OU, 1996; Parker & Asher, 1987); however, our knowledge of the important social,
emotional, and behaviourai hks to group acceptance in children with LD rem-
Limited. As such, it was deemed necessary for this investigation to focus on gaining a
better understanding of the general, unilateral view (Le., peer acceptance) of the group
toward children with LD, rather than focus specifically on dyadic processes (Le.,
fiiendships) . Several assessment procedures are available to determine the existence of peer-
relation ~ c u l t i e s . The most fiequently used procedues are sociomeûics, rankings or
ratings b y others (e.g . , teachers, parents), and self-report. Sociometrïc assessrnent
procedures were developed by Moreno (1934) who used peer-nomination methods to
evaluate children's fïiendship patterns. Two basic types of sociometric procedures, each
of which appears to measure different aspects of sociometric status, have been used since
that time: (a) peer nominations and (b) peer ratings. Peer nomination procedures involve
asking children to name members of their class or playgroup who have certain
characteristics such as helpfulness, shyness, iXendliness or meet certain criteria such as
most or least liked, most or least desirable to play or work with, or as fiend, The basic
procedure in nominations is to have children name a specified number of peers according
to certain nonbehaviourd criteria, These criteria are temied nonbehavioural because they
are based upon activities such as work or play, or attributes such as being withdrawn or
pleasant, rather than on specific behaviour (e-g., shares the most). Nomination procedures
therefore tap children's attitudes toward or preferences for engaging in certain activïties
with peers rather than the speci£ic behaviourd performance of peers (Gresham &
Reschly, 1988)-
Nominations can be keyed to both positive or most liked and negative or least
liked criteria. Research using peer nominations indicates that positive and negative
Social Cornpetence
nominations are measuring two distinct dimensions of sociometrïc statu (Asher &
Hymel 198 1). Positive peer nominations measure popularity or fiiendship (when
reciprocal) in the peer group and negative nominations rneasure rejection in the peer
group (Gresham & Reschly, 1988). Asher and Renshaw (198 1) point out that acceptance
and rejection are not poles on the same continuum because some children receive few
nominations fiom their peers and are considered neglected and isolated because they do
not invoke much attention in their peers.
Rating-scale procedures require children to objectively rate every member of their
group on a continuum ranging fÏom a statement of strong acceptance (a rathg of 4 or 5)
to one that expresses strong rejection (a rating of 1) according to some specified criterion
(e.g., play partner, work partnery likability) rather than the preferential selections
associated with nomination techniques. The benefit of this technique is that each
participant in the class is rated, and because the students are provided with a roster of
consenting classmates, there is little chance that any child will be forgotten (Gresham &
Reschly, 1988). Peer nominations and peer ratings appear to measure independent
dimensions of social fhctioning (Asher & Hymel, 198 1); however, not all researchers
agree on this point (see Bukowski & Hoza, 1989). Positive peer nominations appear to
measure popularity among feliow peers or even friendships when considered reciprocdyY
as the rater is asked to nominate (or choose) a finite number of classmates for a given
interpersonal criterion. On the other hand, peer ratings appear to capture the child's
overd level of acceptance or Iikability among peers, as this fonn of memernent
requires that each classrnate be rated by fellow classmates (Gresham & Reschly, 198 8).
Used in combination, peer nominations and peer ratings provide a two-dimensional
sociometric approach to determine the sociai preference or sociai likability and social
impact or social salience of children.
Numerous studies have utilised sociometrics to study the peer diffïculties of
students with LD. In an extensive review of the relevant peer-status literature, Wiener
Social Competence
23
(1987) observed that 14 of 18 of the reported studies found children with LD to be lower
in peer status than their nondisabled peers. Seven of these 14 studies used the peer
nomination sociometrÏc technique (Bryan, 1974; Bryan, 1976; Garrett & Crump, 1980;
Horowitz, 198 1; Scranton & Ryckman, 1979; Siperstein, Bopp, & Bak, 1978; Siperstein
& Goding, 1983); three used the Peer Acceptame Scale (Bniininks, 1978% 1978b;
Sheare, 1978); and four used rating-scale procedures to measure peer status (Bender,
Wyne, Stuck, & Bailey, 1984; Gresham & Reschly, 1986; Hutton & Polo, 1976;
Perhutter, Crocker, Cordray, & ~arsteCki, 1983). The remaining four studies did not
iden- differences between children with LD and without LD in peer status (Bursuck,
1983; PriIlUnan, 1981; Sabomie & KauEinan, 1986; Sainato, Zigmond, & Strain, 1983).
Many of the early studies reviewed by Wiener (1987) conceming peer statu
among children with LD provided somewhat misleading results due to various
methodological shortcomings. Some smered fiom fiaws in their choice of samples. For
example, Bursuck (1 983) compared extremely s m d @ = 12)) exclusively male, and
poorly defïned samples of children with LD to low-achieving children in terms of their
sociometrîc status. At least two other studies were methodologically flawed in their use
of sociometric procedures. For example, Prilliman (1981) examined the social acceptance
of 362 students in fkst through sixth grade, 28 of whom had leamhg disabilities. While
results showed no ciifferences between children with and without LD in terms of
acceptance, these hduigs must be viewed with caution because the researcher employed
a nonspecific sociometric téchnique-children were simply asked to indicate their k t ,
second, and third choice of classrnates next to whom they would like to sit. Garrett and
Cnimp (1980) may have obscured their data by numerically combining acceptance and
rejection ratings in calculaîhg a total social status score. Finally, certain shidies in the
review presented misleading results. For example, Horowitz's (198 1) hypothesis that
children with LD are less popular than their normal peers is only confïrmed when the
subject's intelligence is not controlled for by means of an ANCOVA. Scranton and
Social Cornpetence
24
Ryckman's (1979) conclusion is thought to be based upon misinterpretation of statistical
interactions and a nonsignificant main effect for gender (see Dudley-Marling &
Edmiaston, 1985 for a complete critique). Despite the methodological problems in these
few studies, Wiener's overall obse~ation that the preponderance of h d i n g s indicated
that children with LD obtained lower peer status scores than their non-LD peers remains
accurate, since the majonty of studies cited in Wienefs review did not suffer fiom
methodological flaws.
Since the t h e of Wiener's (1987) review, many studies have aOtempted to dari@
the nature of peer acceptmce and social status in children with LD. Stone and La Greca
(1990) compared the sociomettric classification of 57 (38 boys, 19 girls) mainstreamed
fourth- to sixth-graders with school-identifïed LD to 490 (233 boys, 257 girls) non-LD
peers. The researchers found that LD students obtained significantly lower sociometric
scores relative to their nondisabled peers. As weli, students with LD were
overrepresented in the rejected and neglected categories and underrepresented in the
popular and average groups. More recently, Conderman (1995) compared the social status
of 74 school-identified sixth- and seventh-graders with LD (48 boys and 26 girls) to a
matched sample of 74 students without LD. Aii students with LD in the study were
receiving between 30 and 120 minutes of pull-out resource-room assistance daily and al1
were mainstreamed into a general social studies class at the t h e of investigation. Results
indicated that overall, when compared to their nondisabled peers, students with LD
received more negative and fewer positive votes on the sociometric technique. Swanson
and Malone (1992) reviewed over 20 studies relating to the social skills deficits of
children with learning disabilities and concluded that children with LD were less liked
and more rejected than non-LD peers. Likewise, Ochoa and Olivarez (L 995) conducted a
meta-analysis of the Literature concerning the social skills and sociometric status of
children with LD. The studies in their review were selected fiom between-group design
investigations that compared the peer acceptance or social status of children with and
Social Competence
without LD via the use of peer-rathg sociometric techniques. The authors concluded,
based on the results of 17 studies, that pupils with LD have lower sociomeûic status
when compareci with their nondisabled comterparts-
There is considerable evidence that low-achieving children in general are Iess
accepted than high-achieving peers (Hartup, 1983). Dehitive evidence indicating that
the social ~ c u l t i e s of chiidren with LD are mainly attributable to low achievement,
however, is lacking and the evidence that has been umvered is questionable due to
methodological problems involved in differentiating students with LD eom low-
achieving students (Wiener, personai cornmunication)- For example, Sater and French
(1989) found that both elementary level students with LD and low-achieving non-LD
pupils received signincantly lower ratùigs than normdly-achieving peers on a peer-rating
sociometnc measure, but the participants with LD did not m e r significantly h m low-
achieving children, indicating that achievement level rather than having a leaming
disability may be an important determinate of peer status, In contrast, Wiener, Harris, and
Shirer (1 990) examined the rdationship between IQ, achievement, and peer status in 9- to
12-year-old students with LD usïng positive and negative peer nominations. Students
with LD were less Ucely to be popular and more likely to be rejected and neglected than
students without LD. Additionally, both achievement Ievel and ZQ were deemed non-
meaningful predictors of peer status in childrm with LD.
Wiener, Harris, and Duval (1 993) re-analysed the data described in the Wiener et
al. (1990) study and determined that another variable to consider in examining the social
status of children with LD is the issue of identification, Identification was dehed as the
method and critena by which students were deemed to have met criteria for having a
leaming disability. Wiener et al. (1990) had pointed out that there was a relationship
between LD identification and peer preference in that children who are not school-
identified as having LD but who othenvise meet the cnteria for having LD obtain higher
peer preference scores than the school-identified children with LD. Vaughn, Hogan,
Social Cornpetence
26
Kouzekanani, and Shapiro (1990) examined the issue of identification, social status, and
social skills in (a) students with LD prior to identification, (b) low-achieving students, (c)
average-achievùig students, and (d) high-achieving kindergarten students. Peers'
perception of social status and teacheç' assessrnent of behaviour problems and social
skills were gathered in the fd and spring of the students' kindergarten year. Results
showed that as early as eight weeks &er entering kindergarten, children who were later
identified as LD received Iower peer acceptance ratings than their average-achieving and
high-achieving peers. The authors concluded that later social ~ c u l t i e s of some students
with LD are not exclusively due to a history of low achievement and low teacher
acceptance. Thus, as opposed to the conclusions that can be drawn regarding the poor
social acceptance of low-achieving children without LD (e.g., Hartup, 1983), the
relationship between social status and achievement level in children with LD is unclear at
this tirne.
FinalIy, as a challenge to some of the aforementioned investigations, numerous
studies have indicated that certain children with learning disabilities are as accepted as
their non-LD peers. Perhutter, Crocker, Cordray, and Garstecki (1983) studied 55 ninth
through twelfth grade students (41 boys, 14 girls) diagnosed by their school as havuig a
learning disability and spending a portion of each day in special education classes. These
researchers found that nearly a quater of the students with LD were among the most
popular classrnates of the non-LD students when using a peer-rating sociometrîc
procedure. Kistner and Gatlin (1989) studied the peer acceptance of children with and
without LD in third, fourth, and fifth grade c1assrooms. Children with LD (N = 44; 26
boys, 18 girls) were school-identified and enrolled in a resource specialist program for
not more than L2 hours a week. Positive and negative peer nominations indicated that
over 40% of their sarnple with LD was classifïed as either accepted or popular. Similarly,
Wiener, et al. (1990) reported that about half (48 out of 90) of their students with
research-identified LD (nine- to twelve-year-olds) had at least average sociometric status.
Social Cornpetence
27
Stone and La Greca (1990) utiliseci a positive peer nomination measure procedure with a
sample of 57 maimtreamed students with LD (38 boys, 19 girls) and 490 non-LD
students (233 boys, 257 girls) and found that while the children with LD were
overrepresented in the rejected and neglected groups (75%), at least 17% of theçe
children were classified as average or popular by îheir non-LD peers. Vaughn, McIntosh,
Schumm, Haager, and Callwood (1993) also found that 50% of students with LD in their
study were cfassified as either average or popular using the peer nomination sociornetric
technique, FinalIy, Conderman (1995) employed forced-choice peer-nomination
sociometrics with sixth and seventh grades with @ = 74) and without = 74) LD. Using
two social status classification systems (Asher & Dodge, 1986; Siperstein, Bopp, Bak,
1978), the author found that 50 to 70% of the students with Ieaming disabilities held
positions of at least average social status. Conderman (1995) concluded that certain
school-identified children with LD experience acceptable social standing among their
nondisabled peers.
Self-concept. Self-concept is difficult to define and even more difficult to
operationalise. Despite its elusive nature, the construct of seK-concept ments significant
interest in educational research because of its dual importance as both a consequence oÇ
and infiuence on, educational experiences (Shavelson, Hubner, & Stanton, 1976).
Generally, self-concept c m be defined as how a child perceives himself or herself and as
such can be used interchangeably with the term self-perception menick & Harter, 1988).
Specifically, self-concept or self-perception refers to the perception of ourselves
involving our attitudes, feelings, and knowledge about our skills, abilities, appearance,
and social accep tability (B yme, 1984).
Researchers have dBered with respect to the conceptuaiisation and measurement
of children's self-concepts (Clever, Bear, & Juvonen, 1992). Before the 1970s most
research in the area of children's self-concept used unidimensional instruments that
measured widely ranging percep fions or general self-concept (Chapman, 1 98 8).
Social Cornpetence
28
Shavelson, Hubner, and Stanton (1976), however, attempted to improve the usefiilness of
the self-concept construct by advancing a mdtifaceted model of self-perceptions. They
developed a hierarchical, multi-dimensional theory of sekoncept which places general
self-concept at the apex and more context-specifïc components (e-g., self-perception of
athletic or mathematical ability) at the bottom. A number of years later, Harter (1985)
b d t upon hm previous work (Harter, 1982) and the work of Shavefson and colleagues
(1976) and developed the SelfTerception Profile for Children (SPPC) to investigate the
relationship that specific cornpetencies bear to children's overd evaluation of the seK
Harter's (1985) SPPC utilises a multidimensional model assessing how competent an
individual feels in the following domains: (a) general intellectual ability, (b) scholastic
competence, (c) social acceptance, (d) athletic competence, (e) physical appearance, ( f )
behavioural conduct, and (g) global self-worth. It is important to note that Harter does not
view global self-worth as an additive fiinetion of one's self-concept across the specifïc
domains (Kloomok & Cosden, 1994). Consequently, the scale contains separate sets of
items for each domain, with only moderate interdomain correlations.
A more recent version of Harter's (1985) SPPC is the SeE-Perception Profile for
Leaming Disabled Students (SPPLD; Renick & Harter, 1988). The SPPLD is a self-
report measme for assessing domain-specZc judgements of competence and perceived
worth as a person by children both with and without learning disabilities (Renick &
Harter, 1 98 8). The scale contains ten subscales (general intellectual ability, reading,
spelling, writing, mathematics, athletics, social acceptance, physical appearance,
behavioural conduct, and global selE-worth), each tapping a separate aspect of an
individual's self-concept. The validity of the SPPLD (Renick & Harter, 1988) and its
multidimensional mode1 has been supported by studies finding that children with leaming
disabilities are able to make distinctions between theu perceptions of overd1 self-worth
and other domain-specific self-concepts (Kistner, Haskett, White, & Robbins, 1987; Prie1
& Lesham, 1990; Renick & Harter, 1989). The SPPLD remains one of the most widely
Social Cornpetence
29
utilised self-concept measures for children with leaming disabilities.
Several researchers have investigated the academic and nonacademic (i-e., social
acceptance, athletic ability, behavioillal conduct, physical appearance, and global self-
worth) self-perceptions of preadolescent students with leamhg disabilities (see Chapman,
1988, for a review). Results have consistently shown that students with LD report lower
self-concepts in academic domains, but comparable self-perceptions of general setf-
worth, relative to non-LD peers (Heath, 1995). For example, Kloomok and Cosden
(1994) explored how some children with LD maintain a positive global self-concept
despite academic difEculties. The study investigated the relationship between global self-
concept and perceived competence in general intellectual ability and specific academic
domains in third through sixth grade children with LD. Most of the children with LD in
the study were found to have a positive global self-concept (67%) and a negative
academic seif-concept (85%). Kistner, Haskett, White, and Robbins (1 9 87) found LD
students (grades 4 and 6) to hold lower opinions of their cognitive abilities and similar
ratings for general self-esteem compared to normally-achieving peers. Grolnick and Ryan
(1 990) studied the self-perceptions of third through six grade students with and without
LD and found more negative self-perceptions of academic competence in the LD group,
but no differences in global self-worth. The results of these studies suggest that children
with LD are able to make distinctions between global self-worth (i-e., self-esteem) and
academic self-concepts (Kloomok & Cosden, 1994) and that they may hold self-
perceptions of general self-worth comparable to their non-LD peers.
In the social acceptance domain the hdings have been inconsistent (Heath,
1995). For example, some researchers have found Iower self-perceptions of social
acceptance in children with LD, relative to non-LD peers. For example, Margalif Raviv,
and Pahn-Steinmetz (1 988) investigated the structure of social cornpetence in fourth
through seventh grade children with and without LD and found that children with LD
viewed themselves as less acceptable socially than non-LD peers. La Greca and Stone
Social Compet ence
30
(1990) studied the self-perceptions of social acceptance in fourth through sixth grade low-
achievers, average- to high-achievers, and children with LD. Children with LD perceived
themselves as significantly lower in social acceptance than low-achieving or average- to
high-achieving children. Stiehr-Smith and Nagle (1995) recently compared the self-
perceptions of children with LD to non-LD peers by administe~g the Self-Perception
Profile for Learning Disabled Students (Renick & Harter, 1988) to tbird and fourth grade
students with LD and a comparison group of non-LD peers. The groups dif5ered on the
domain of social acceptance, with the non-LD goups' self-perception ratings being
significantly higher.
Other studies have found no differences between students with LD and non-LD
students' self-perception of socid acceptance as measured by the Renick and Harter
(1988) scale. For example, Kistner, Haskett, White, and Robbins (1987) studied the self-
perceptions of eiementary and middle school chddren with LD in comparison to their
normally-achieving peers and found that the groups did not differ in evaluations of their
social competence. Coleman, McHam, and Minnett (1992) investigated the self-perceived
social cornpetencies of third through sixth grade children with LD in comparison~to their
low-achieving peers without LD and found that children with LD considered themselves
comparable to other iow-achieving children in terms of socid self-concept. Vaughn and
Haager (2994) examined the self-perceived social competence ratings of students with
LD, low-achievers, and average- to hi&-achievers fiom kindergarten through fifth grade
using Harteis measures (Harter, 1985; Karter & Pike, 1984; Renick & Harter, 1988) and
found no differences among any of the groups. Finally, some authors have even found
higher reported self-perceptions of social acceptance in children with LD, relative to non-
LD peers (Wime, Woodlands, & Wong, 1982). Thus, out understanding of self-perceived
social competence in chiidren with LD is unclear at this time.
Self-perceptions of nonacademic quaiities have been studied less fkequently.
Wime, Woodlands, and Wong (1982) contrasted the self-concept of children with LD,
Social Cornpetence
3 1
normaliy-achieving, and gifted children- They found that students w i ~ LD had better
self-perceptions of athletic ability than their gifted cohorts, In contrast t o the Winne et al.
(1 982) finduigs, Kistner and colleagues (1987) found that students with LD reported
significantly lower self-perceptions of athletic ability than non-LD peeas. Only a few
researchers have found no differences between LD and non-LD groups on self-perceived
athletic competence (Margalit, Raviv, & Pahn-Steinmetz, 1988; Renick & Harter, 1 988;
Stiehr-Smith & Nagle, 1995). Studies examining the self-perception o f physicai
appeamnce report no differences between LD and non-LD groups as a whole
(Montgomery, 1994; Renick & Harter, 1988; Stiehr-Smith & Nagle, 1995)- FinaUy, self-
perceived behavioural conduct has been investigated by very few investigators; however,
both Renick and Harter (1988) and Stiehr-Smith and Nagle (1995) have found that
children with LD report significantly lower self-perceptions of behavioural conduct than
their average-achieving peers.
Recently, Heath and Wiener (1996) combined self-perceptions of athletic ability,
social acceptance, physical appearance, and behavioural conduct into a global
nonacademic selkoncept score with fifth and eighth grade children with and without LD
using data fiom the Self-Perception Profile for Learning Disabled Students (Renick &
Harter, 1988). While the researchers were primarily interested in the moderathg effects
of self-reported depressive symptomatology on nonacademic self-perceptions, they also
reported no significant multivariate group effects on the nonacademic self-perceptions
between children with and without LD indicating that these groups don't differ in these
areas of self-percep tion. In silmmary, the study of nonacademic self-perceptions in
children with and without LD is fairly lhnited and generally contradictory in nature.
Behavioural ~roblerns. The third element of the Vaughn and Hogan (1990) mode1
of social competence is rnaladaptive behaviour. Behaviour problems in children c m be
classified into two broad general categones (a) environmental conflict Cextemalising
problems) and (b) persond disturbance (internalising problems) (Achenbach &
Social Competence
32
Edelbrock, 1978). Extemalising difficulties include aggression, acting out, poor attention,
or conduct problems, while internalising problems include inhibition, shy-withdrawn
behaviour, anxiety, or depression. Early research indicated that children with leaming
disabilities have behavioural profiles that are similar to children with externalising
behaviour disorders (KaufEnan, 1981; Moore & Simpson, 1983).
Measurement of children's behaviour varies along at least two dimensions (a) rater
(parent, teacher, peer, experimenter) and (b) setting (home and school). T ypically,
children's classroom behaviour is measured using checklists, questionnaires,
observational techniques, and teacher interviews. Children's behaviour in nonacademic
settings can be assessed by similar means. Research on the behavioural patterns of
children with leaming disabilities suggests an elevated prevalence of several kinds of
behavioural difficulties among children with LD compared to non-LD controls (Eliason
& Richman, 1988). These behaviours include attention problems, hyperactivity, and off-
task behaviow (McKinney & Feagans, 1984; McKinney, McClure, & Feagans, 1982), as
well as anti-social behaviour, aggression, and conduct problems (Cornwall & Bawdcn,
1992; La Greca & Stone, 1990; Stanton, Feehan, McGee, & Silva, 1990)-
The classroom behaviour of students with LD has received a great deal of
attention from researchers. Bryan (1974) observed third grade boys with and without LD
in their regular and special education ciassrooms and found that boys with LD attended
less than their non-LD peers during certain academic activities. M c h e y and colleagues
examined the classroom behaviours of early elementary-aged children with LD using
observational techniques and concluded that children with LD were more off-task and
more likely to interact with teachers than non-LD peers @fcKinney, McClure, &
Feagans, 1982; McKinney & Speece, 1983; Richey & McKinney, 1978). Haskins,
Walden, and Ramey (1983) found children with LD to be more disruptive in groups than
non-LD peers. In a meta-analysis of 25 studies using either teacher ratings or classroom
observations of classroom behaviour to directly compare children with LD and
Social Cornpetence
33
nonhandicapped children, Bender and Smith (1990) identified Iack of on-task behaviour
and excessive off-task behaviour, conduct disorders, distractibility, and shy-withdrawn
behaviour as problem areas for students with LD. Evidence gathered fiom the meta-
analysis supported earlier ideas that children with LD tend to behave inappropriately in
the classroorn (Bender, 1985; McKinney & Feagans, 1983). In summary, early studies in
the area consistently report that children with LD display more behaviourai diEculties in
the classroorn than non-LD peers. It is important to note that in the majority of cases boys
with LD outnumbered girls with LD in these studies' d e s i p .
Since Bender and Smith's (1990) meta-analysis, many researchers have continuai
to study the behaviour problems of children with leaming disabilities. For example,
Vaughn, Zaragoza, Hogan, and Walker (1993) conducted a longitudinal study
investigating the social skills and behaviour problems of children with LD, low-
achievers, and average- to hi&-achievers in kindergarten through third grade. Significant
group differences in problem behaviour were found, with the average- to hi&-achievers
obtaining significantly lower levels of behaviour problems than both the low achieving
and LD groups. However, analysis of simple effects showed no sigxiificant differences
among the three groups for conduct disorder, socialised aggression, anxiety, withdrawal,
or motor excess. Significant group differences in attention-problem scores were found
with the low-achieving group obtaining simiificantiy higher scores than both the LD and
average to high-achieving groups, while differences between the average- to hi&-
achieving and LD groups were not significant. The authors point out, in a later summq
of the study (Vaughn & Haager, 1994), that these results contrast with previous research
yielding higher behaviour problems for students with LD, compared to non-LD students.
The authors expressed caution about the vdidity of thek results, however, since most
research examining the behaviou. problems of youngsters with LD had been conducted
with children in at least the fourth grade rather than kindergarten to third grade and the
behaviour problems investigated in their study may not be evident at such early ages
Social Cornpetence
34
(Hogan, Quay, Vaughn, & Shapiro, 1989). Haager and Vaughn (1995) investigated the
extent to which third through sixth graders with LD, low achievers, and average- to hi&-
achievers ciiffer on ratings of behaviour problems fiom the perspective of parents and
teachers. The Social SkilIs Rating System (for Teachers and Parents) yielchg three
subscales (externalishg problems, internalising problems, and hyperactivity) was used in
the study. Significant group differences were found for ail three of the behaviour problem
scales as rated by teachers, with children with LD and low-achievers receiving more
problematic behaviour ratings than the average- to high-achievers. Results M e r
indicate a significant group difference for two of the behaviour problems as rated by
parents. The LD and low-achievers groups received signincantly higher ratings of
hyperactivity and internalising behaviour problems such as acting sad or depressed or
appearing anxious, shy, and withdrawn than the average to high-achieving group.
In summary, there have been numerous studies conducted comparing the
behavioural conduct of children with and without LD. The majority of these studies have
uncovered significant ciiffer ences between the behavioural characteristics of these
leamers (Bender & Wall, 1994), indicating that children with LD receive more
problematic behaviour ratings from parents and teachers than non-LD peers.
Socid skills. Social skills refer to positive social behaviours that contribute to the
initiation and maintenance of positive social interactions and to the avoidance of negative
responses (Elliott & Gresham, 1993; La Greca, 1993). The constmct of social skills has
often erroneously been considered synonymous with social competence (Elliott &
Gresham, 1993). Social competence should, however, be viewed as a summary phrase
referring to social judgement about the quality of an individual's performance in a given
situation (Elliott & Gresham, 1 993). Social skills refer more specifically to actual positive
behaviours such as cooperating, sharing, following instructions, complimenting, taking
turns in conversations, or joining ongoing peer groups. Elliott and McKùinie (1 993) point
out that "social skills are the bridge that connects the individual and his or her environ-
Social Competence
35
ment and the mechanisrn by which social interactions are initiated, acted on, and
maintained" (p. 2).
. The development of appropnate social skills is a very important outcome of the
schooling process. Social skills facilitate a child's engagement in social interactions with
peers while integrating those skiiis needed to resolve conflict, maintain respect, affection,
and positive interactions with peers (Elliott & McKinnie, 1993). Fortunately, most
children are able to acquire and employ appropriate social skills in social interactions,
thus enabling positive relations with peers to develop. However, there is a large group of
children who have been found to be at risk for establiskg poor peer relations due to
social skills deficits (Elliott & Gresham, 1993). A number of investigators have
documenteci that students with mild handicaps such as learning disabilities, behaviour
disorders, or mild inteliectual impairments exhibit notable deficits in social skills (Coie,
1985; Gresham & Elliott, 1989; Gresham & Reschly, 1986).
Researchers have used several methods to assess social skills in school-aged
children, such as (a) self-report instruments, @) sociometric measures, (c) parent ratings,
(d) behaviourd observations, and (e) teacher ratings (Gresham & Elliott, 1984). R e g s
or ratings by others (e-g., teachers and parents) have been used fiequently in research on
the sociai skills of children with Iearning disabilities (e-g., Bursuck, 1989; Elliott &
McKinnie, 1993; Gresham & Reschly, 1986; Vaughn & Haager, 1994; Vaughn,
Zaragoza, Hogan, & Walker, 1993). One of the most comprehensive teacher-rating
procedures developed in recent years is the Social Skills Rating System-Teacher rating
fonn (SSRS-T; Gresham & Elliott, 1990). The SSRS-T is a nationally standardised rating
scale designed to measure a broad range of social behaviours for children between the
ages of 3 and 18 years. It consists of three broad domains with associated subscales: (a)
Social S kiils (cooperation, assertion, self-control); (b) Behaviour Problems (extemalising,
intemalking, hyperactivity); and (c) Academic Competence.
A number of researchers have provided empirïcal evidence on the social skills
Social Competence
36
deficits of children with LD. Table 2 contains a List of select studies in this area and the
specific social skills deficits exhibited by children with LD in relation to non-LD peers,
Research has consistently documenteci that many children with LD suffer serious social
skilis deficits that may lead to impaired social interactions. Other studies suggest,
however, that some children with LD are not deficient in social skills (Horowitz, 198 1;
Perlmutter, Crocker, Cordray, & Garstecki, 1983; Sater & French, 1989). Hence, children
Table 2.
Select Studies Showine: Social Skills Deficits in Children with LD
Area of Deficit Study
Task-related social skills such as attendkg, completing tasks, following directions, on-task behaviour
Helping others
Accepting authority
Expressing feelings appropriately
Social cognition and social problem-solving
Cooperation, Assertion, Self-control
Responding to the feelings of others
Interpersonal communication skills;
Deciphering social cues
Social perspec tive-taking
Self-control in social situations
Gresham & Reschly, 1986; Bender & Smith, 1990
Gresham & Reschly, 1986
Gresham & Reschiy, 1986
Gresham & Reschly, 1986
Schumaker, Hazel, Shennan, & Sheldon, 1982; Vau- Mchtosh, & Spencer-Rowe, 1991
Haager & Vaughn, 1995
Bruck & Hebert, 1982
. Axelrod, 1982; Bryan, Sherman, & Fisher, 1980; Soenksen, Flagg, & Schmits, 1981
Wong & Wong, 1980
Elliott & McKinnie, 1993
Social Cornpetence
37
with LD should be considered a population at heightened risk for certain social skills
nifftculties, and not as a population which is consistently charocterised by such problems
(Sater & French, 1989). In fact, a general consensus is emerging in the field whereby it is
concluded that social skius deficits may coexist with learning disabilities but are not
necessarily caused by them (Kavale & Fomess, 1996)-
In summary, the Vaughn and Hogan (1990) four-domain model of social
competence (Le., relations with others, self-concept, behavioural conduct, and social
skills) is a very usefiil means by which researchers may study the overall social
competence of children. The model provides for the interrelationship among the four
components in effectively understanding and deteminhg the nahire of socially
competent behaviour exhiiited by youngsters. Shidies conducted on the peer status of
children with LD tend to affirm the notion that although groups of studentts with LD
remain either socially rejected or neglected, many children with LD experience
acceptable social standing among their non-LD peers. Recently, researchers are realising
that chiidren with LD rnay hold lower self-perceptions in academic areas, but comparable
self-perceptions of general self-worth, relative to non-LD peers, Studies conducted on the
behavioural patterns of children with LD have consistently revealed more behavioural
problems in students with LD (Bender & Smith, 1990); however, it has recently been
suggested that this may not always be the case (Vaughn & Haager, 1994). Finally,
numerous studies have shown that many children with LD dispIay social skills deficits
and subsequent low peer acceptance (Hazel& Schumaker, 1988). Despite this growing
body of knowledge concerning the social fiuictioning of children with LD in general,
Little is h o w n about the profile of social competence in children with LD who are well
accepted b y their peers.
Zn order to clar* the nature of social competence in children with LD it is
necessary to study whether distinguishing behaviours, characteristics, or cognitions exist
between peer-accepted children with and without LD. The present investigation
Social Cornpetence
38
comparing the social, emotional, and behavioural feiztures of average to high social statu
children with and without LD will enhance the existing body of literature on the social
competence of children with LD. Haager and Vaughn (2995) have recently conducted a
study investigating the sociai hctioning of students with leaming disabilities, low
achievement, and average to high achievement in which they concluded that because the
population of students with LD is heterogeneous with respect to many social competence
variables, it would be interesting t o h o w more about the characteristics of those children
with LD who exhibit high sociai functioning. This c d has been echoed by a number of
prominent researchers in the field Coleman & Minnett, 1992; Juvonen & Bear, 1992,
Vaughn & Hogan, 1994) and is addressed in the present study.
Social Competence
39
Chapter IX: Rationale and Research Questions
Since the time of Bryan's research on the social functioning of children with LD,
research has consistently documenteci the diffïculties students with LD have in forming
and maintaining social relationships (Vaughn, Zaragoza, Hogan, & Walker, 1993). More
recently, researchers have discovered a certain amount of within-group variability ui
children with LD, suggestïng that some children with LD are socially accepted and even
popular amongst their non-LD peers (Kistner & Gatlin, 1989; La Greca & Stone, 1990;
Ochoa & Palmer, 1991; Stone & La Greca, 1990). Cuxrently, very little is known about
the social, emotional, or behavioral functioning of socially-accepted children with LD,
thus prompting researchers to call for M e r investigation of the exemplary qualitties
possessed by these children with LD (Coleman & Minnett, 1992; Haager & Vaughn,
1995).
Investigating the social competence of socially accepted children with LD is a
very important endeavour for a number of reasons, First, by studying the social
competence of accepted children with LD, more may be leamed about the socialising
conditions and personal attributes or skills inf2uencuig interpersonal and intrapersonal
success in the developing child with LD. Second, in planning intervention programmes
for children with LD who display or are at risk for low social status, information
regarding the key s u s and characteristics of accepted children with similar academic
profiles c m be very helpful. Finally, an increased understanding of the social-behavioral
profile of socially-accepted children with LD cm better inforni inclusionary efforts and
programming decisions.
In an attempt to address the need for such research, this study offers a unique
investigation into the nature of social acceptance in children with LD based on the four
domains of the Vaughn and Hogan (1990) mode1 of social competence: (a) peer relations,
(b) seif-concept, (c) behavioural conduct, and (d) social skills. The extent to which peer-
accepted children with LD differ fiom non-LD peers in social, emotional, and
Social Cornpetence
40
behavioural areas were specifically examined, in addition to investigation of the
distinguishing social, exnotional, or behavioural features between peer-acceptai children
with and without LD.
Hwotheses and Research Ouestions
Using the h e w o r k of the Vaughn and Hogan model of social competence,
specifk hypotheses and research quetions for this exploratory study were presented.
-4. Peer Relations: Social Status
Based upon previous research (Kistner & Gatlin, 1989; Stone & La Grma, 1990;
Vau& McIntosh, Schumm, Haager, & Caliwood, 1993; Wiener, Hams, & Shirer,
1990), it was hypothesised that:
k(i) Within the initial screening sample of children with LD all five categories of
sociometric social status (Le., popular, average, conhoversial, rejected, neglected)
would be represented.
A(@ A moderate proportion of students with LD (Le., roughly 40%) would
receive a favourable social status rating (i-e., sociometncally average or popular),
and approximately 10-20% of all students with LD wodd be rated as
sociometrically "popular" by their regular class peers.
B. Self-concmt
Considering that the Vaughn and Hogan (1990) model does not clearly allow for
an analysis of self-perceptions of academic competence and because the sample under
investigation in this study was considered, by definition, to display poor academic
achievement, this study focused exclusively on nonacademic self-concept.
Few studies to date have exarnined the nonacademic self-perceptions of children
with LD in high status sociometric groups (Le., average and popular). Because children
with LD may not have the opportunity of enhancing their social standing and self-
concepts through average or high average achievement in academic areas, it is possible
that they are more likely to engage in positive nonacademic self-perceptions as a way to
Social Competence
41
compensate for reduced opportunities to gain social acceptance and feel positive self-
concepts through traditional academic means (see Hamip, 1983). Thus, it was suggested
that :
B.(i) Socially-accepted children with LD would have higher self-perception scores
in nonacademic domains than their matched non-LD geers,
C. Behavioural Conduct
In keeping with previous research indicating that many cbildren with LD exhibit
off-task behaviour, distractibility, and aggression (La Greca & Stone, 1990; McKinney &
Feagans, 1984), it was believed that:
C.(i) SocialIy-accepted children with LD would be rated by teachers as exhibiting
higher levels of disruptive classroom behaviour than matched non-LD peers.
D. Social Skills
Contrary to previous studies utilising the SSRS-T (e.g., Elliott & McKinnie,
1993), in which children with LD were rated by their teachers as less cooperative, less
assertive, and less able to exhibit self-control in social situations than non-LD peers, it is
likely that peer-accepted children with LD can compensate for their relative lack of
academic cornpetence and be perceived as more sociaily skilied by their teachers, relative
to non-LD counterparts. Inus, it was beiïeved that:
D.(i) Socially-accepted children with LD would be rated by their teachers as
exaibiting higher levels of sociaUy skilied behaviour than matched non-LD peers-
E. Distinmishinn Features
Research is limited in the area of peer ratings on sociometrically classified
children with LD. A few studies have shown, however, îhat well-liked children with LD
may be seen as more independent, as having more insight into how others feel about
hem, as more assertive, and as more cooperative than theu disliked peers with LD (e-g.,
Kistner & Gatlin, 1989; Nabukoza & Smith, 1993; Perlmutter, Crocker, Cordray, &
Garstecki, 1983). Kistner and Gatlin (1 989) suggest that the social, emotional, and
Social Competence
42
behavioural correlates of social status for children with LD may be similar to those
reported for their non-LD peers, although this conclusion remains to be tested directly.
Thus, the question becomes:
E-(i) To what extent do socially-accepted children LD differ fiom their non-LD
peers on specific aspects of social, emotional, and behavioural fiinctioning?
Social Cornpetence
43
Chapter III: Method
Particioants
The onginal sample of participants consisted of 320 fourth and fifth graders in
four elementary schools withh the Montreal area AU four schools upheld inclusion
policies and practices followhg regular education initiatives wherein students with
academic or emotional difficulties were mainstreamed for the majorïty of the school day.
Schools varied, however, in how services were provided children with identified needs,
with only one school in the sample offering pull-out services for students identified with
special needs, and the other schools offering Limited identification and remedial senrices.
Participants were screened in areas of cognitive, academic, and social fünctioning
to obtain a final sample of socially-accepted children with LD and their matched controls
without LD. All participants attended regular (80% English, 20% French instruction) or
French Immersion (50% English, 50% French instruction) programmes. The schook and
participants represented low-middle to high socioeconomic status comunities. The
children came- fkom a variety of ethnic backgrounds (e.g., Anglo-Saxon, Greek, Italian)
and al l participants had Engtish as their fkst language. Participating children were
screened in order to obtain two target groups of students: (a) Socially Accepted-LD (LD)
and @) Socially Accepted non-LD (non-LD) matched controls. Participants were matched
on the basis of gender, age, IQ estimate, and classroom.
Extensive criteria were used in determinhg group membership. To be considered
as a student with a leamhg disability participants had to be meet two major cnteria: (a)
regular cIassroom placement with no resource room withdrawal or mainstreamed in the
regular class with resource room withdrawal of no more than one hour per day and (b)
independently classified as having a leaming disability on the basis of researcher-
administered standardised achievement and intelligence tests results. A researcher-
identification procedure for detemrining students with leaming disabilities was utilised in
place of a school-identified procedure due to the unique manner in which children with
Social Competence
44
academic difficulties are identified and s e ~ c e d in the province of Quebec.
In Canada, education is a provincial jurisdiction where each province has its own
education act and policies p e r t e g to special education. The Ministry of Education in
the province of Quebec defines major categones of students with handicaps, leaming, or
adjustment d~cu l t i e s . The label learning disability is not found within the Quebec
special education regulations; rather, the concept of students with learning diffcuZties is
used. Under Quebec regulations, students with academic difficulties and delays are coded
as belonghg to one of the following sub-categories (a) code 1: mild leaming difficulty or
minor academic delay, dehed by an academic delay exceeding one year in the language
of instruction or mathematics and @) code 2: serious leaming difficulty, defined as either
a severe academic delay exceeding two years in the language of instruction or
mathematics, or as a specific and persistent learning difficulty in one or more of the
following processes that are essential to the development, use, or comprehension of
language: reading, writing, communication, or reasoning. Exclusionary criteria relatuig to
leaming difficulties not being primarily caused by sensory, mental, or physicai handicaps
are also recognised under Quebec special education guidelines.
The concept and definition of a learning disability as hrst described in Public Law
94-142 of the Education for Al1 Handicapped Children Act and updated in Public Law
101-476 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (DEA) in the United States is
well-understood in educational training and practice within Canada However, special
education identification and funding policies in Quebec follow a different set of
guidelines fkom those in the United States. In recent years, students in Quebec schools
identified (Le., coded) as expenencing academic delays have not always been able to
receive remedial instruction or seMces due to major hancial cut-backs to speciai
education fiinding. As a result, and in keeping with desired inclusionary practices, one of
the School Boards (goveming the majority of schools participating in the present study)
has drastically reduced psychoeducational assessments that once identified children with
Social Cornpetence
45
academic delays. As a consequence, very few students in these schools are fo rmdy
identified by school personnel as experiencing learning disabilities. Thus, in an effort to
secure the highest level of generalisability of results to past and £üture research conducted
in the broad field of leaming disabilities, participants in the present study were c1assifÏed
as having a leaming disability according to the following criteria parallehg the
interpretation of standards outlined in IDEA and endorsed by the Learning Disabilities
Association of Canada &DAC): (a) average or above average intelligence (Le., an IQ
score estimate of 85 and above) as measured by the IQ estimate comprïsing the WISC-III
subtest dyad of Block Design and Vocabulary; @) a discrepancy between the IQ estimate
and measured achievement on standardised measures (Le., WRAT-3) of 18 standard
points or more in at Ieast one area of achievement (i-e., spelling, arithmetic, o r reading);
(c) measured achievement in at least one area of the m T - 3 at or below one standard
deviation below the mean (i.e., standard score of 85 or below), and (d) absence of other
concomitant disabilities (e-g., senous emotional disturbance) or insuffr.cient o r
inappropriate instruction.
A significant discrepancy between IQ and measured achievernent is a
conventional method for determining classification as having a learning disability in
research of this nature. Researchers commonly utilise a discrepancy Eom 1 to 1.5
standard deviations between IQ and achievement in their criteria for having a leamïng
disability (Conderman, 1995; Stone & La Greca, 1990; Vaughn, McIntosh, Schumm,
Haager, & Callwood, 1993). In this study, a discrepancy of 18 standard points between
the IQ estimate and measured achievement corresponds to a difference of more than one
standard deviation (Le., 15 points) between standardised measures and is utilised since it
takes into account the approximate standard error of measurement (SEM) on the WRAT-
3 of between 3 and 5 points; that is, with a discrepancy of 18 points and a SEM of
approximately 3 points, the "true" discrepancy between eamed scores is free to vary
between 15 and 21 points which is roughly a difference of 1 to 1.5 standard deviations
Social Cornpetence
46
(i.e., the amount needed for a significant discrepancy).
Students were classified as non-LD based on the following criteria: (a) average
intelligence (Le., standard score estimate between 85 and 114) as measured by the IQ
estimate; and (b) average achievement (Le., standard score above 84) in a l l three areas of
the WRAT-3 (i-e-, spelling , reading, and arithmetic).
Using the aforementioned criteria, 38 (1 1.87%) students out of 320 were
classified as having a leaming disability, 156 (48.75%) as not having a learning
disability, and 126 (39.37%) as not classinable as either having or not having a learning
disabiiity- While the percentage of students classifTed as having speciflc LD in this study
is higher than the approximately five percent estimate reported by the U.S. Department of
Education (1994), conceptual and methodological variations in the definition and
measurement of LD have lead to inconsistent estimations of the number of students
experiencing LD in any one school population, and incidence rates as high as ten percent
have been reported (Ingersoll& Goldstein, 1993). Thus, the present incidence rate for LD
of nearly twelve percent is not seen as out of the ordinary, especially when considering
that some of the schools targeted by the researcher attracted high numbers of students
with learning dificulties due to their excellent inclusiooary practices.
The majonty (70.59%) of participants were classified as having LD based on
discrepancies between cognitive ability and reading or speliing achievement (35.29% for
reading and spellïng, 3 5.29% for spelling alone), while 17.65% had significant
discrepancies in al1 three achievement areas (reading, spelling, and arïthmetic), with the
remaïnder (1 1.76%) of students experiencing significant difficulty in arithmetic. The
relatively high number of students classified as having LD based on IQ-achievement
discrepancies in spelling alone raised concern given the number of participants attending
French Immersion schools, as these students may have expenenced less opportunity for
written English than non-French immersion populations. Conceni was considerably
lessened, however, in detemiining that mean WRAT-3 Spellùlg standard scores for the
Social Compet ence
47
three French Immersion schools were solidly in the average range (M = 103.48 where =
83, M = 109.22 where n = 74, and M = 102.51 where = 83).
Mesures
IO and Achievement
A short form of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-IIi (WISC-III;
Wechsler, 199 1) and a standardised test of achievernent, the Wide Range Achievement
Test-3 (WRAT-3; Wiikinson, 1993), were used to identi& children with learning
disabilities fkom those without learning disabilities. The Block Design and Vocabulary
subtests of the WISC-III were utilised to provide a short form IQ estimate for each child
in the study. The Block Design subtest assesses the ability to perceive and analyse forms
by breaking down a whole into its component parts and thea assembling the components
into the identical design (Sattler, 1992)- The task involves visual-motor coordination,
spatial visualisation, percephial organisation, logic, and reasoning- The Vocabulary
subtest assesses word knowledge and verbal reasoning by having children explain orally
the meaning of various words. The subtest involves a variety of cognitive-related factors
including ability to leam, depth of information, richness of ideas, memory, concept
formation, and language development (Sattler, 1992). Both subtests have excellent
reliabiiity and used together represent a popular short form estimate of IQ corretating
highly with the Full Scale IQ (Sattler, 1992).
The WRAT-3 was used to determine achievement in spelling, arithmetic, and
reading for each subject. The WRAT-3 is a bnef achievement test with a mean of 100, a
standard deviation of 15, and a standard error of meastuement of 3 points. The WRAT-3
contains three subtests (a) Reading: the ability to name letters and pronounce words of
increasing phonological and orthographie difficulty; (b) Spelling: the ability to write
single wordç nom dictation; and (c) Anthmetic: mathematical calculation skills such as
counting, reading number sytnbols, and perfonning written computations Test-retest
coefficients for the WRAT-3 are reported in the manual (Wilkinson, 1993) as being
Social Cornpetence
48
higher than .90 for individuals ranging in age fiom 6 to 16 years old. Interna1 reliability
coefficients are also reljorted in the -80s and .90s for most age groups.
The short form of the WISC-III (e-g., Vocabulary and Block Design) has been
found to be highly correlated = -89) to the WISC-III F d Scde IQ (Sattler, 1992) and
has been fiequently utilised md supported in the literature as a valid and reliable IQ
estimate (e-g., Heath, 1995; Heath & Wiener, 1996; Masten, Morison, & Pellegrini, 1985;
Morison & Masten, 199 1). Likewise, the WRAT-3 has been a popular measure of
achievement in this area of research because it (a) is relatively quick to administer, (b) is
scaled in a manner which is comparable to the WISC-III (Le., M = 100, SD = 15), and (c)
measures three essential areas of academic achievement (reading, spelling, and
arithmetic) in which leaming disabilities are commoniy manifest. Both the Education for
AU Hmdicapped Children Act (PL 94- 142) and the Learning Disabilities Association of
Canada endorse the idea that spelling alone c m be a manifestation of a leaming disability
and that a learning disability is a disorder in one or more of the basic processes involved
in understanding or using language, spoken or M e n .
Two types of sociometric measures based upon the Asher and Dodge (1 986)
method of sociornetxic classification were employed in the present study. The Asher and
Dodge (1986) method utilises a combination of positive norriinations with peer ratings in
order to replicate the social status groups described in Coie, Dodge, and Coppotelli
(1982). The k s t part of the Asher and Dodge sociometric technique involved the peer-
rating process. Children were given a roster of al1 consenthg peers in their classroom and
were asked to indicate how much they liked to "play with" each peer by circluig a number
on a Likert-type scale from 1 to 4, where 1 indicated "not at dl" and 4 indicated "very
much." The primary advantage of this method is that important sociometric data are
obtained for al1 participating children and not just for those students nominated as a
preferred classrnate.
Social Cornpetence
49
To assess peer popuiarity, positive nominations were obtained by providing
participants with a class list of participating children and asking thern to circle the names
of three individuals fiom the list that they "Iïked the most" (see Appendix A). This
procedure was chosen over the standard Coie, Dodge, and Coppotelli (1982) method of
soliciting both positive nominations ("like the most") and negative nominations ("like the
least") due to ethical concems regarding the administration of negative peer nominations.
Furthemore, the nature of the present study does not require that rejected and neglected
children be explicitiy identified; rather, the interest of the present study is in those
children rated as average or better by their peers (i-e., those students who obtain more
"liked the most" nominations than feiïow classrnates).
Membership in social status groups was initially determined in the following
manner (cf. Asher & Dodge, 1986). First, the number of positive nominations received by
each child was calculated and standardised within each classroom- Next, the total number
of 1 ratings ("not liked at ail") received by each subject on the peer-rating scale was
tabulated and standardised withuz each classroom to index negative nominations. This
procedure yielded standardised Eed-most (Lw scores fiom the positive nomination data
and standardised liked-least P L ) scores from the number one ratings for each child. To
detemiine the sociometric status of the participants, social preference (SP) and social
impact (SI) scores were detennined fiom the liked-least and like&-rnost data Social
preference was computed as the LM score minus the LL score, while the social impact
score was computed as the sum of the LM and LL scores. These scores were then
standardised by classroom and used to denve the following five sociometric
classifications: (a) popular, children with an SP score greater than 1 .O, a LM score greater
than 0, and a LL score less than O; (b) rejected, children receiving a SP score less than - 1.0 (e-g., -1.2), a LM score less than 0, and a LL score greater than O; (c) neglected,
children receiving a SI score less than -1 .O (e.g., -1.2), and LM and LL scores each less
than O; (d) controversial, children receiving a SI score greater than 1.0, and LM and LL
Social Cornpetence
50
scores each greater than O; (e) average, children receiving a SP score between 0.0 and 1.0,
and a SI score between -1 -0 and 1 .O.
Studies utilising sociornetric procedures tend to Vary in how they operationalise
the traditional sociometric categories (Le., popular, average, rejected, neglected, and
controversial). The most variability appears to centre around the criteria for mernbership
in the average sociometric category. Some authors (e-g., Vaugbn, McIntosh, Schumm,
Haager, & Callwood, 1993) have followed the earliest mode1 set forth by Coie, Dodge,
and Coppotelli (1982) whereby the average sociometric category is sirnply defked as a
social preference score greater than -.5 and less than +S. Other authors (e-g., Conderman,
1995; Wiener, Harris, & ShÏrer, 1990) have chosen to define average social status
according to the Coie and Kupersmidt (1983) method, that is, as a "catch-ail" category
wherein average group social preference and socid impact -scores range fkom - 1 .O to
1.0. The Coie and Kupersmidt method is credited with creating a more traditional
definition of average status that allows for a greater inclusion of sociograrn data
(Conderman, 1995). The Coie and Kupersmidt (1 98 3) variation for determinkg average
social status participants was used in thîs study, however, one important change
narrowing the average category lllnits was adopted. In this study, the criteria of having a
social preference score between 0.0 and +1.0, rather than between -1 -0 and +I .O, was
employed to avoid including in the average category those participants receiving liked
least scores higher than the classroom mean and liked most scores lower than the
classroom mean, as would be the case were social preference scores below 0.0 included.
Utilising the sociometric classification cnteria, five students with LD out of 38
were classified as popular and 12 as average in social status. Together, these 17 children
with LD were redefined as target children belonging to the Socially Accepted category of
social status. Subsequent analyses do not distinguish between popular and average target
children due to the small number of children with LD who were classified as
sociometrically popular. Therefore, in the current study, the terms "sociaily accepted" and
SociaI Cornpetence
51
"peer accepted" are used to refer to those children obtaining average or better (i-e.,
popular) social status ratings.
Self-perceptions
The SelfTerception Profile for Leatning Disabled Students (SPPLD; Renick &
Harter, 1988) was used to assess self-perception of competence in specific areas of
ability. The SPPLD is a self-report measure for assessing domain specific judgements of
competence and perceived self-esteem as a person in both children with and without
leaming disabilities. The SPPLD consists of 46 questions with a format designed to
reduce the incidence of socidy desirable responses (Renick & Harter, 1988). Each item
is comprised of two contrasting statements (e-g., "Some kids know how to speU most
words they corne across BUT Other kids h d it bard to spell most words" or "Some kidç
are happy with themselves as a person BUT Other kids are often not happy with
themselves"). The child is asked to decide which of two contrasting statements best
describes him or her and then check if that statement is "Really hue for me" or "Sort of
true for me." Items are scored fiom a low self-evaluation (a score of 1) to a high self-
evaluation (a score of 4). The SPPLD has ten subscales, nine assessing nine specific
domains of academic and nonacademic self-percep tion (generd intellectual ability,
mathematics ability, reading abdïty, spelling ability, writing ability, social acceptance,
athletic competence, behavioural conduct, and physical appearance) and one global self-
worth subscale. Each of the nine subscales and the global self-worth subscale are distinct
fkom each other, with very low to moderate subscale intercorrelations (Renick & Harter,
1988). Interna1 consistency reliabilities for each of the ten subscales, based on Cronbach's
alphas, range fkom .78 to .89. Test-retest retiability coefficients for the ten SPPLD
domains on a sample of 104 grade 7 and 8 students over a seven week period have been
found to be high (Heath & Brown, 1999): general intellectual ability, -72; reading
competence, -85; spelling competence, -84; writing competence, .69; math competence,
.83; social acceptance, .79; athletic competence, -81; physical appearance, .78;
Social Cornpetence
52
behaviourai conduct, -73; and global self-worth, -76.
Heath and Brown (1999) also determined the naturd groupings of SPPLD
subdomains by a principal components andysis on the ten domains of the SPPLD using a
sample of 102 grade five and six children. As expected, a two-factor solution emerged
fiom the ten subscales: Nonacademic SelfTerceptions (Factor 1) and Academic Self-
Perceptions Factor 2). In the present study, only the Factor 1 aggregate score fiom the
five nonacademic subscales (social acceptance, behavioural conduct, athletic abilîty,
physical appearance, and global self-worth) was examined, as nonacademic self-concept
is a key component of the Vaughn and Hogan model of social cornpetence.
Social Skills and Behaviour ProbIems
The Social Skills Rathg System-Teacher (SSRS-T; Gresham & Elliott, 1990) was
utilised in the present study to assess teacher-rated social skills and extemalising
behaviour problems of children with and without LD. The SSRS-T is a standardised
rating scale measuring a broad range of social behaviours for children between the ages
of 3 and 18 years and can serve as a v h b l e measure in the identification of children
with internalishg and extemalising difficulties @&tg, Vasa, Reid, & Torrey, 1995).
Teachers are asked to rate the fiequency with which students evidence 30 specific sociai
skill items on a 3-point Likert scale (O = never, 1 = sometimes, 2 = very often). Each item
is categorised into a sociai skills factor comprising three separate dimensions of skill:
cooperation, assertion, and self-control. Cooperation items include behaviours such as
helping others, sharing materials, and complying with rules and directions. Assertion
items include behaviours such as asking others for information, introducing oneself, and
responding appropriately to actions of others. Self-control items consist of behaviours
such as responding appropnately to teasing, arguing with others, and embarrassrnent in
social situations.
Three additional scales on the SSRS-T indicate the extent to which youngsters
display problem behaviours such as externalising problems, hyperactivity, or intemalking
Social Competence
problems. Extemalisïng problems entail verbal or physical aggression toward others, poor
control of temper, and arguing. Items on the Hyperactivity subscale reflect excessive
movement, fidgeting, and impulsive reactions. Intemalising problems encompass
behaviom indicating sadness, loneLiness, anxiety, and poor self-esteem. In addition, the
SSRS-T inchdes an academic competence domain in which the teacher rates the student
on a five-point scde in reading, mathematics, motivation, parental support, and general
cognitive abilities. Extemalising, intemalising, and hyperactivity subscaies combine to
form an overail Uidicator of Problem Behaviours, while the cooperation, assertion, and
self-control subscales combine to indicate level of Social Skills. The Academic Problems
subscale was incorporated in data analysis as an indication of teacher-perceived academic
competence. The interna1 reliability (Cronbach's alpha) for the three scales of the SSRS-T
(Problem Behaviours, Social SkiLls, and Academic Competence) are very high, ranging
fiom -73 to -95. Test-retest reliabilities over a four-week period for the SSRS-T are also
very high, ranging fkom -84 to .93 (Gresham & Elliott, 1990).
This study employed a modification of Masten, Monson, and Pellegrini's (1985)
Revised Class Play (RCP). In its standard administration, the RCP is a peer- nomination
technique asking raters to select classrnates fÏom a roster whom they feel are best suited
for 15 positive (e.g., 'good leader,' 'plays f&') and 15 negative roles (e.g., 'gets into a lot
of fights,' 'shows off a lot') in an imaginary class play. Three factors emerge fkom the 30
questions--one positive factor called Sociability-Leadership and two negative factors
called Aggressive-Disruptive and Sensitive-Isolated. The RCP has intemal consistency
coefficients of -81 to .95, 17-month stability comelates of -77 to 30, and cross-sex
reliability of .78 to -86 (Masten et al., 1985). Two author-modified versions (Peer and
Self) of the Revised Class Play were employed,
Items fiom the original RCP were reworded into positive staternents for the
Sociability-Leadership scale and negative statements for the Aggresçive-Disruptive and
Social Cornpetence
54
Sensitive-Isolated scales. Further, five new positively phrased items were added to the
measure tapping academic (school work and intelligence) and nonacademic areas
(athletic ability, physical appearance, and personai possessions) of functioning (see
Appendix B). The questionnaire was renamed the Revised Class Play & h g (RCPR) in
order to distinguish it fiom the original RCP-
Target children and the peers who rated the target children as prefmed playmates
chose their level of agreement for each RCPR statement via a 5-point Likert scale (1 =
very false to 5 = very true). This method yielded two types of scores: (a) peer ratings of
target children and @) target children's self-ratings, in five domains of functioning: (a)
sociability-leadership, @) aggressive-disruptive, (c) sensitive-isolated, (d) academic
competence, and (e) nonacademic competence.
%en-ended Interview
An open-ended interview question was included at the end of the administration
of the RCPR askuig (a) the peer rater to describe in thek own words why they chose the
target child as a preferred playmate and @) the target child why they thought they were
favourably rated by their peers. The open-ended question is an important component of
the data gathering process as it promotes ecological validity through its allowance for
relevant information in the child's own words to be obtained - information that is
otherwise difficult to capture via structured questionnaire items. By including an open-
ended interview question, it was felt that important social-behavioural characteristics not
otherwise accounted for in the standardised data g a t h e ~ g procedure could be ascertained
and understood fiom peer and self-raters.
Procedure
Consent forms were initially distributed to al1 students (N = 510) in the
participating classrooms (see Appendix C). Consent forms were retumed by 464 (9 1 %) of
the students. Of these students, 320 consented to participate in the study; thus the overall
level of participation from the original sample was 63% (Le., 320 out of 510). Data
Social Cornpetence
55
collection proceeded in two distinct phases as describeci below. Phase 1 was considered
the screening phase.
Phase 1
During the initial screening phase, the WRAT-3 S p e h g and fithmetic subtests
were administered to the participants in their classrooms. The standardised instructions
for group testing discussed in the manual (Wilkinson, 1993) were adhered to during
administration. Nonparticipating students remained in the classroom and were asked to
work quietly on their homework while testing took place with the consenting students.
Within two weeks of the initial assessrnent of spelling and arithmetic, students were
individually administered the short form IQ test (VUSC-III: Block Design and
Vocabulary) and the Reading portion of the UrRAT-3, again following standardised
procedures. Results of the achievement testing and short form IQ screenulg phase were
then analysed to determine student eIigibility in one of the three categories: (a) LD, (b)
non-LD, and (c) no category.
A few weeks later, students having met criteria for LD or non-LD group
membership completed the SPPLD in their classroorns, Nonparticipants were asked to
work quietly at their desks while testing was underway. Before administering the SPPLD,
children were provided with extensive instructions on how to complete the SPPLD forms.
A larninated poster containhg three SPPLD-like items was displayed at the fiont of the
classroom. A trained research assistant guided the participants through three sample
questions. Al1 SPPLD items were read out loud while the participants followed dong and
marked their answers. Children completed their questionnaires uidependentiy at their own
desk and were periodically reminded of task instructions and not to share their answers
with children seated near them.
The sociometric procedure was administered to al1 classroorns in the months of
May and June, 1996 thus ensuring that al1 children were very familiar with the traits and
charactenstics of their fellow classrnates. To set the stage for the sociometrics, children
Social Cornpetence
56
were told that they would be taking part in an activity designed to help the researchers
understand why some children have an easy time making fiiends and getting dong with
people, and why other children seem to have difficdty in these areas. They were told that
the study dedt with children's fkiendships and social acceptance and that they would be
filling out questionnaires and nominating classmates as in a pretend voting situation.
Children participated in the peer rating and nomination process as a group in their
classrooms. They were told that they were about to participate in a simulated vote
concerning how much they liked to play with certain classmates and how much they liked
to engage in certain play activities. The following measures were taken to assure that al1
answers pertaining to classmates were private and confidentid: (a) Desks were separated
before the voting process began, (b) AU forms relating to the vote were identified by
subject numbers rather than by proper names, and (c) AU materials pertauùng to the peer
rathg and peer nomination procedures were distributed and collected in unmarked
envelopes. Consenting students were provided with a letter-sized envelope containing
instructions as to the nature of the sociometric task and al l materials needed in order to
complete the evduation. Each envelope contained: (a) an example of the peer rating task,
@) the peer rating fom, (c) an example of the peer nomination task, (d) the peer
nomination task, and (e) a distracter task (see Appendix D). Students marked theu
answers on typed, non-alphabetical class lists which had their own name blackened-out.
Children were given a roster of aLl participating peers (Le., cross-gender ratings)
in their classroom and were asked to ûidicate how much they liked to play r i th each peer
by circling a number on a scale &orn 1 to 4, where 1 indicated "not at dl" and 4 indicated
"very much." Next, children were asked to complete the peer-nominations portion of the
sociometnc procedure. Children were provided with a list of participating classmates and
were instnicted to circle the names of three individuals they "like rnost" fiom this page.
Finally, following termination of the voting task, students were given a distracter task in
which they rated various play activities on a four-point Likert scale and chose three
Social Coqetence
57
activities which they Ued to play the most. This distracter task paralleled the primary
voting tasks in form and structure; however, participants rated how much they liked to
engage in certain play activities and which play activities they Liked the best, rather than
asking how they felt about certain classmates. The distracter tasks were designed to divert
the child's attention away fkom thicking about his or her classmates and toward ratings of
play activities instead,
The major@ of participants completed the sociometric measure in their own
classroom. However, in some schools, due to space restrictions, the participating children
left their classrooms and went to an empty classroom to complete the sociometric portion
of data coilection. Throughout the testing session, trained graduate assistants
simultaneously guided all students through the sociometric task booklet and answered
my questions that arose.
Lastly, the teacher of each target child with whom they spent the greatest amount
of class time was asked to complete the Social Skills Rating System-Teacher (SSRS-T)
measure on the student. Since many target students came from the same classroorn, each
teacher involved in this portion of data collection completed between one and five SSRS-
T forms. Teachers were given an envelope containing the tkneline, instructions on how to
complete the forms, and the forms themselves in the late Spring and asked to return them
before the end of the school year in June. Teachers were not provided with any data
concerning specific students before or after they completed the SSRS-T- At the end of the
school year, the sociometric data were analysed and participating students were
categorised into one of the five sociometric categories (i-e., popular, average, rejected,
neglected, and controversial).
Phase 2
Phase two of data collection took place in early Fall of the subsequent academic
school year and involved (a) detemilnation of same-gender peer raters for target children,
(b) obtaining same-gender peer ratings on the target children with the RCPR: Peer and the
Social Cornpetence
58
open-ended question, and (c) obtaining self-ratings fiom target children on the RCPR:
Self and the open-ended question. As it was not possible to determine who the target
children of the study were pnor to ariministering tbe sociometric instrument, the initial
consent form distributed to parents in phase one did not mention that follow-up data
collection sessions and short interviews would be requested fiorn certain students-
Consequentiy, a second consent form was issued to parents of children who met the
following criteria: (a) a target child with or without LD, classified as socially accepted or
(b) one of two same-gender peers choosing either target children with or without LD as a
preferred playmate (see Appendix C). Potentiai consenting same-gender raters had to
have circled the target peers' name on the peer nomination form and rated the target child
with a 3 or 4 on the peer-rating scale to be eligible for continued participation This
procedure ensured that those children chosen to complete the RCPR: Peer nominated the
target child as someone they liked the most and rated the child as someone they liked to
play with either ''pretty much" or "very much." As such, each target child received peer
ratings on the RCPR-Peer fkom two same-sex classrnates. Of the 17 consent forms
distributed to target children with LD, al1 but one came back positive. T'us, for phase
two of the study the number of target children with and without LD was 32 (Le., 16 in
each group) and the number of peer raters was 64 (Le., two raters for each of the 32 target
children) . Consenthg participants left the classroom for approxirnately 20 minutes to
complete the RCPR: Peer or RCPR: Self and be interviewed by the researcher. The
session took place in a private room in the child's school in which a tape recorder was
unobtnisively positioned. Participants were reminded that this study involved trying to
better understand why some children have an easy thne making fiends and how they go
about doing this. Peer raters and target children were told that al1 information was stnctly
confidentid and that no one except the interviewer would h o w how they answered the
questions. Peer raters and target chilâren were provided with thorough instructions and an
Social Compet ence
59
example as to how the RCPR scale worked. Items on the RCPR were then read to each
student and the responses were noted by the researcher. Periodic checks on
comprehension were made by the investigator to ensure accuracy of completion,
Following administration of the RCPR items, the tape recorder was tumed on and raters
were asked a final open-ended question. Peer raters were asked, "In your own words,
please tel me why you chose as someone you lïke to play with the most." Prompts
for clarifications and elaborations were used as needed. Target children were asked, "In
your own words, please teli me why you think you were chosen as sorneone many kids
like to play with; what is it about you that other kids like?"
Responses to the open-ended interview questions were transcribed verbatim and
then analysed. Analysis of this qualitative data followed procedures outlined by Lincoln
and Guba (1985). This method was chosen as it allows categories to emerge fkom the data
rather than imposing the category structure a priori. A surnrnary of the procedures that
were used follows.
1. Unitisation of data Initial categories for the responses were developed
independently by the author and one &ed graduate assistant. The researchers fïrst read
the interview transcript and identified salient bits of information or meaningfùl idea units
within each interview. Units varied in length fiom single to severai words and each unit
represented a single thought or idea Units were underlined on the transcript and iisted in
a paraphrased manner on a separate sheet by each researcher.
2. Unit sortinrr. Researchers then independently sorted the iisted units into more
refined categories consisting of similar content. Categories were named and initiai mies
established for belonging to the category. Categories were then checked for thoroughness
and completeness.
3. Negotiation of categories. The two researchers met to discuss the coding
process and negotiate the categories. The author acted as Ieader, amouncing her
categones to determine whether the other researcher had fonnulated a similar category.
Social Competence
60
The two researchers then discussed the category, the rules for categorisation, and the
exernplar units for each category. Rules for category membership were discussed and
revised and those categones deemed very similar in nature were collapsed and merged as
needed. A single system for categorisation resulted and is presented in Table 3.
4. Re-codin~: and validation. The author coded ail of the transcnpts a second time
using the system for categorisation redting fiom steps 1,2, and 3. A superscript numeral
was written beside each meaningfül unit within the transcript pertaining to one of the
eight categories fkom Table 3. Next, a second trained graduate student was asked to apply
the revised categorisation system to a representative sample of transcripts (Le., 40% of
peer interviews and target child interviews). Inter-rater reliability was established
between the two researchers and was equivalent to 89% agreement between independent
raters.
5. Quantification of data After the re-coding of transcripts, each interview was
evaluated for the presence or absence of a reference to each of the eight categories by
noting the superscript numerals within the transcrïpt and then endorsing the appropriate
category on the data spreadsheet. The number of categones endorsed for each interview
was calculated for al1 target children. Thus, in total, 64 peer (Le., two peers per target
child) and 3 1 target child interviews were categorised via this procedure (one target child
declined the interview process).
Social Competence
61
Table 3-
Open-ended I n t e ~ e w Category Titles and Descriptions
Category Title Category Description
Humourous
Talent
Enjoyable Company
Positive Traits
Outside Affiliation
LeadershipKharisma
Non-descrip t
Reference to having shared interests or partaking in cornmon activities; having a lot in common with the peer; feeling that the other person is similar to themselves,
Reference to the peer's sense of humour or ability to make people Iaugh; description as funny or cornical.
Reference to the peeis ability in academic (e-g., school) and nonacademic (e.g., sports) endeavours; description as being "good" or able to "help" in certain activities.
Reference to the idea that the peer is kind to others and fh to be around; ideas such as having an easy-going and positive attitude; treating people with respect; and not performing discourteous behaviours-
Reference to speczflc positive qualities, like being loyal, reliable, helpfid, generous, or ûushirUrthy.
Reference to an association the peer has with something or someone else (e-g., reference to nice belongings, pleasant farnily members, many other fïiends, or being popdar),
Reference to the peers' ability to get others to listen; having an unique and engaging personality.
Any non-descriptive reference without clanfication (i-e., "is nice," "is a good fiiend").
Social Cornpetence
62
Chapter N: Resnlts
Data Analvsis
A section on data analysis is provided as clarification for the choice of statistical
procedures utilised in this study. It is understood that a study of this nature, containhg
relatively small sample sizes, will involve certain limitations depending on the statistical
analyses performed. Accordingly, a number of measures have been taken to reduce error
variance in this study, particularly when the statistical analyses involve small nlmibers:
(a) Extraneous variables such as age of child, grade in school, and type o f school have
been controlled; @) Participants have been matched on relevant variables (e-g., gender,
IQ, age, classroom); and (c) Statistical power has been increased when sample size is
srnall (i.e., less than 20) according to the Stevens' (1 986) recommendations.
Stevens (1986) points out that statistical power (i-e., the ability to find a
significant difference) is considered to be questionable with less than 20 participants per
group. He suggests, however, that meaningful parametric analyses can be performed on
srnail data sets when the following guidelines to increase statistical power are followed:
(a) adopting a more lenient alpha level (Le., p c -10); @) using a one-tailed test where the
- literature supports a directional hypothesis; and (c) reducing within-group variability by
choosing a more homogeneous sample (i-e., matching on essential variables or choosing
resûicted age groups). The first and third recommendations have been foliowed in this
study, while the second was not possible due to a lack of prior research.
Stevens (1986) fürther points out that the alpha level set by the experimenter is a
subjective decision and that there are situations, such as when sample sizes are small,
when it makes sense to use alpha levels other than the standard .O5 and .O 1 levels.
Accordingly, and especially in consideration of the dearth of prior research in this area,
the present study utilised a less stringent alpha level of E = .IO. The potential drawback to
using a lenient alpha (e-g., a greater chance of a type I error where there is a greater risk
of rejecting a tn ie n d l hypothesis) is well understood by the researcher; however, in Light
Social Cornpetence
63
of cautions fiom prominent authors in the field of statistics (e-g., Glass & Hopkins, 1996;
Stevens, 1986) concerning the seriousness of committting a type II error (i.e., saying that
the groups don't differ when they do) and the desire to obtain adequate levels of statistical
power given such a small sample size, it is felt that the previously mentioned advantages
of a lenient alpha outweigh the disadvantages, particularly for an exploratory study of this
nature.
Stevens (1986) draws an important distinction between exploratory and
c o ~ a t o r y studies. An exploratory study is one in which the investigator first has to
establish that an effect may exist, while a c o ~ a t o r y study is one in which the
experimenter, based upon past research, has specific questions wishing to be asked of the
data In confirmatory studies, it is reasonable to Lunit the number of comparisons made in
order to improve power; however, in exploratory studies it is understood that although the
comparisons made are planned, due to the lack of prior research in the area, they are not
necessarily limited in number. The present study follows the guidelines of an exploratory
study and consequently the statistical analyses reflect this investigative focus by not
reducing the number of planned cornparisons to be made.
Stevens (1986) M e r notes that in exploratory studies it is wise to fïrst
demonstrate an overall significance in the data and then to foilow this up with assessrnent
of the subsources of variation (Le., group dinerences). Similarly, Huberty and Morris
(1 989) point out that multiple univariate analyses are appropriate when the research being
conducted is exploratory in nature. Consequently, in the present study, where appropriate,
multivariate analyses are conducted and then followed by univariate analyses. An initial
multivariate approach to data analysis is warranted in the present study since the
measures chosen in this investigation both theoretically and practically measure one
underlying construct, namely social cornpetence (see Harwell, 1988).
Finally, significant multivariate effects at the g = -10 level in this study were
followed by univariate analyses, also conducted at the E = -10 level. This procedure,
Social Competence
64
suggested by Stevens (1986), was chosen over the Bonferroni inequality post hoc method
because it offered greater power in detecting group differences given the small sample
and moderate levels of statisticd power in this study* Further, as has been suggested by
Glass and Hopkins (1 996), taking a slightly greater risk of a Type 1 error in order to gain
a substantial increase in the probability of detecting tme differences (i.e., power) is wise
practice. As such, and in keeping with the exploratory nature of thÏs study, a Bonferroni
inequality @mm, 196 1) lowering alpha levels and subsequently reducing statistical
power was not employed in this study.
LD and non-LD Classification Rates
Using the categonsation criteria mentioned pre&ously, 38 children (1 1.87%; 22
mdes, 16 females) fiom the initial sample of 320 were classified as having a leamhg
disability and 156 (48.75%; 85 mdes, 71 females) were classified as not having a
leaming disability. Of the 38 children with LD, 17 were classifïed as target children
having average or better social status. A group of matched peers without LD was
subsequently determined fiom the remaining sample of 156 non-LD peers. IndividuaI
participants were matched for age, gender, IQ, and classroom.
A manipulation check on the classification of LD and non-LD groups was
obtained via the Academic Competence subscale of the SSRS-T. A two-way ANOVA
was conducted with LD Status (LD, non-LD) and Gender as the independent variables
and teacher-rated overall academic competence as the dependent variable. Results
revealed a non-significant LD Status-by-Gender interaction (1,30) = 1.62, a, a non-
significant Gender main effect (F (1,30) = -78, &, but a significant main effect for LD
Status (F (1,30) = 9.25, g < .O 1). Teachers rated research-identified children with LD as
signincantly Iower (M = 86.06, SD = 9.44) than non-LD peers a = 97.00, SD = 7-37) in
overall academic competence. Results were in the anticipated direction and indicated that
participants identified as having LD were rated by their teachers as lower in achiai
academic cornpetence than those identified as not having LD.
Social Competence
65
Sociometric Results
Overall Analvses for Initial S m l e
Sociometric categorisation procedures resulted in the categorisation of 78.3 5%
(152 out of 194) of the entire sarnple into one of five sociometric categories. Similar
categonsation rates have been found by other authors (e.g., Asher & Wheeler, 1985;
Stone & La Greca, 1990)- Overall, 79.49% of the initial non-LD group (124 out of 156)
and 73 -68% of the initial LD group (28 out of 3 8) were classifiable into one of the five
sociometrk categories (popular, average, rejected, neglected, or controversial). Overall,
classification rates were comparable for both groups (1, N = 194) = -607, os) and are
acceptable as they indicate that approlamately three-quarters of the initial LD and non-
LD populations in the shidy were classified into a sociometric category. Propotions of
participants in each of the five specifk sociometric categories by LD Status and Gender
are found in Table 4-
An overd chi-square analysis on the LD and non-LD group proportions was
conducted for the sociometric categories (excluding the controversial category due to low
fkequencies) to determine whether the participants with and without LD were
disproportionately represented in one of the remaining four sociometnc categories. A 2 x
4 chi-square analysis ushg LD status (LD or non-LD) by sociometric category (popular,
average, rejected, and neglected) was not significant OZ (3, N = 143) = -856, nS),
indicating that participants with and without LD had comparable representations across
each of the sociometric categories. Based on these results it is concluded that, in the
initial sample of students, the likelihood of being classified into one of the four
sociometric categories did not appear to be associated with the presence or absence of a
learning disability. A chi-square analysis examinuig gender effects in the sociometnc data
was not possible due to smdl cell frequencies.
Social Cornpetence
66
Table 4.
Sociometric Classifications for Initial Sample bv LD S tatus and Gender
.-
Initial Sample POP Avg Rej Neg Cont - - - - - - -- - -
LD - Boys(o=17) f 2 8 4 3 O
P - (1 1.76) (47.06) (23 253) (17.65) (0)
Girls (n = I l ) f 3 4 2 2 O
P (27.27) (36.3 6) (18.18) (18.18) (0)
Total (n = 28) f 5 12 6 5 O
P - (17.86) (42.8 6) (2 1 -43) (17.86) (0)
Total &L= 124) f 27 43 20 25 9
P - (21.77) (34.68) (16.13) (20.16) (7 -26)
Note. LD = leaming disabilities; f = fiequency; P = percentage; Pop = popular; Avg = average; Rej = rejected; Neg = neglected; Cont = controversial
Descri~tive Statistics for Target Sample
Descriptive statistics for target sample participants (Le., socially-accepted children
with LD, = 27 and non-LD matched peers, fi = 17) were calculated and appear in Table 5.
Separate 2 x 2 ANOVAs were conducted with demographic variables (Age, IQ estimate,
and WRAT-Spelling, Reading, and Anthmetic) as dependent variables and LD Status (LD
Social Cornpetence
67
Table 5.
Demosa~hic and ,',chievernent Data for Target S a m ~ l e
Target Sample Age in IQ Speiiing Reading Arithmetic
months Estimate SS SS SS
LD - Boys&=lO) M 132.20 1 02 -40 76.60 87.90 95.10
SD - (9.03) (5 -97) (3 -84) (1 1.73) (1 5.07)
M Girls (n= 7) - 130.43 106.43 82.29 91.57 99.43
SD - (1 0.23) (5 -03) (2-36) (10.45) (14.77)
Total(n=17) M 126.59 99.94 102.59 105.41 105.94
SD - (7.53) (8 -62) (1 1.05) (7.65) (9.68)
Note. LD = learning disabiiities; SS = standard scores (NJ = 100; SD = 15)
or non-LD) and Gender as independent variabIes. Results revealed no significant LD Status-
by-Gender interaction @ (1,30) = .42, ns) and no LD Status @ (1,30) = 2.26, ns) or
Gender @ (1,30) = 0.00, ns) main effects for Age. Sirnilarly, no si@cant LD Status-by-
O Gender interaction @ (1,3 0) = .O 1, nsJ, LD Status main effect @ (1,3 0) = 2.66, ns), or
Social Cornpetence
68
Gender main effect (1,3 0) = 2.17, ns) were found for IQ estimate.
LD Status-by-Gender interactions for S p e b g 7 Reading, and Arithmetic were not
signïficant (F (2,30) = 1.03, -02, -00, ns, respectively), Additionally, no Gender main
effects were found for Spelling, Reading7 or Anthmetic @ (1,30) = -85, .89, .84, ns,
respectively). A significant main effect for LD Status, however, was found in ai l three
achievement areas. As expected, children with LD eamed significantly lower standard
scores than the non-LD group in Spelling @ (1,30) = 62.31,~ < .01), Reading @ (1,30)
= 22.34, c .O l), and Anthmetic (F (1,30) = 4.18, p_ < -05).
Social Com~etence Mode1
Sociometric-status Equivalence Between Target Groups
Before statistical analyses codd be perfonned on the Vaughn and Hogan model
data, it was k t necessary to determine the statistical equivalence of Sociometric S tatus
between target samples. Consequently, a 2 x 2 MANOVA was conducted to determine
whether LD and non-LD groups were statistically equivalent in measured social status,
with LD Status (LD, non-LD) as the independent variable and Social Preference (SPZ)
and Social Impact (SIZ) -scores as dependent variables. The social preference and social
impact -scores were chosen as the most appropriate numerical representation of the
sociometrïc classification of participants because these numbers were used to numencally
delineate socid status soup membership.
Resuits of the MANOVA did not indicate a si@cant multivarîate effect for LD
Status, (F (2,3 1) = -717, &. Results reveded that LD and non-LD target groups did not
differ in measured social status; thus, it was deemed appropriate to nin al1 subsequent
statistical analyses without Sociometric S tatus as a dependent variable-
Intercorrelations Behiveen Dependent Variables
To evaluate the Vaughn and Hogan model of social cornpetence, a series of
multivariate and univariate analyses were conducted comparing target participants with
and without LD on data gathered nom the administration of the SPPLD (nonacademic
Social Cornpetence
69
self-concept) and the SSRS-T (teacher-rated social skills and behavioural conduct). As an
additional preliminary step before conducting the multivariate analyses, it was necessary
to jusw the theoretical intercorrelations between dependent variables. Preiiminary
Pearson product-moment correlations were therefore conducted with the three dependent
variables (Social Skills, Problem Behaviours, and Nonacademic Self-concept)- Overail,
the Pearson resdts were in the expected direction. Social Skills and Problem Behaviours
were sigdicantly correlated @ = 4 2 , E c . O l ) , as were Social Skills and Nonacademic
Self-concept = -40, E (.OS), and ProbIem Behaviours and Nonacademic Self-concept (r
= 4 4 , p c.01). niese results support the theoretical overlap between dependent variables.
Mean sociometric 2-scores and LD Status-by-Gender standard scores for tbe three
dependent variables of Social Skills, Problem Behaviours, and Nonacademic Self-concept
are found in Table 6* To detennine whether significant differences existed between the
two groups of target children, a 2 x 2 x 3 MANOVA was undertaken with LD Status (LD
and non-LD) and Gender as independent variables and Social Skills, Problem
B ehaviours, and Nonacademic Self-concept as dependent variables.
Results indicated no significant multivarïate LD Status-by-Gender interaction
effect (Wirks' Lambda = -848, F (3,28) = 1.68, ns), Likewise, no si@cant multivariate
main effect for LD Status ('Wih' Lambda = ,868, F (3,28) = 1.42, ns) was found, A
significant multivariate Gender main effect (Wilks' Lambda = -764, F (3,28) = 2.88, E <
.IO) was found, however, suggesting that socially-accepted boys and girls are different in
overall Social Skills, Problem Behaviours, and Nonacademic Self-concept, regardless of
LD status.
To clariQ the multivariate Gender main effect and to M e r explore the
possibility of univariate differences, a post hoc procedure examining the univariate F- tests was conducted- At the univariate level, a significant LD Status-by-Gender
interaction was found for the dependent variables of Social S W s (1,30) = 4 . 7 4 , ~ <
-10) and Problem Behaviours @ (1,3 0) = 2.97, g < -10)- No significant results emerged,
Social Competence
70
however, for the dependent variable of Nonacademic SelFconcept, (F (1,30) = .01, oS)
These results are displayed in Figure 1.
A significant univariate main effect for LD Status was found for the Problem
Behaviours variable @ (1,3 0) = 3 -66, == -1 0). Specifically, children with LD were rated
Table 6.
Standardised z-scores for Sociometric and Means for Social Competence Mode1 Variables
Target Sample SPZ S E SS PB NASC
Boys(n=10) M -35 .48 84.90 118.70 3.13
SD - (-51) (-68) (1 5.72) (16.67) (-75)
Girls (n= 7) &J .96 .5 1 105-14 97.57 3 -46
SD - (-69) (-34) (1 4.6 1) (7.57) (-43)
Total @ = 17) M -60 .49 93 -24 11 0.00 3 -27
SD - (-65) (-55) (1 8.02) (17.1 1) (-64)
Non-LD
Boys@=lO) M -90 .42 200-90 102.30 3.18
SD - (-75) (-49) (15.86) (1 1.32) (-56)
Girls @= 7) M -84 .84 99.43 96.71 3 -46
SD - (-59) (-52) (7-96) (1 3 -06) (-47)
0 Note. LD = learning disabilities; SPZ = Social Preference; SIZ = Social Impact; SS = Social Skills; PB = Problem Behaviours; NASC = Nonacademic Self-concept
Social Cornpetence
71
Figure Caption
F i m e 1 - Significant LD Status-b y-Gender univariate interactions for Social Skills and
Problem Behaviours and nonsignificant LD Statu-by-Gender interaction for
Nonacademic Self-concept.
Social Cornpetence
Social Skills
-
LD non-LD
Problem Behaviours
Nonacademic Self-concept Males [ -a- h m m h
Social Cornpetence
73
by their teachers as exhibiting more problematic behaviours = 1 10.00; SD = 17.1 1)
than their non-LD counterparts = 100.00; SD = 12-01}, No significant ciifferences in
either Social Skills @ (1,30) = 1-06, & or Nonacademic Self-concept @ (1,30) = -01,
ns) were found between LD and non-LD.
Gender main effects also emerged for both the Social Skills and Problem
Behaviours scales, revealing signifïcant differences between boys and girls in teacher-
rated Social Skills, @ (1,30) = 3.54, c -10) and Problem Behaviours @ (1,30) = 8.78,
p -C -10). SpecikaUy, teachers rated males as sig-nificantly lower in Social Skills than
females (M = 92.90; SD = 17.43 and M = 102.28; SD = 11.68, respectively) and as
signîfïcantly higher in Problem Behaviours than females = 110.50; SD = 16.22 and M = 97.1 4; SD = 10.27, respectively). No simiificant Werences between males and females
(F(1,30) = 2.29, nsJ in Nonacademic Self-concept emerged (males &J = 3-14; SD = -64,
fernales M = 3.46; SD = -43). Overd, LD Status and Gender univariate main effects for
Social Skills and Problem Behaviours c m ody be interpreted, however, when
considerhg the significant LD Status-by-Gender univariate interactions.
Revised Class Play Ratinn: Peer Ratinas
Before anaiyses could be conducted on the Revised Class Play Rating: Peer
Ratings (RCPR: P) questionnaire, it was f b t necessary to establish intercorrelations and
interna1 reliabilities for the original RCPR- P factors (Sociability-Leadership, Aggressive-
Disruptive, Sensitive-Isolated). A Pearson product-moment correlation conducted on the
three original factors of the RCPR: P indicated significant intercorrelations at the E < .O1
Ievel. Next, a series of Cronbach alpha coefficient calculations was conducted to
detennine intemal reliabilities for each target group. Aipha coefficients for the
Sociability-Leadership, Aggressive-Disruptiveness, and Sensitive-Isolated factors were
.87, -85, and -77, respectively for target participants with LD and .88, .87, and -54,
respectively for target participants without LD. These alpha levels indicate substantiai
intemal reliability within factors.
Social Cornpetence
74
Coefficient alpha's were also determined for the two additional RCPR: P factors
of Academic and Nonacademic cornpetence. Alphas for the Academic scaie were .82 for
the group with LD and -78 for the non-LD group, while alphas for the Nonacademic
scales were -18 for the group with LD and .73 for the non-LD group. The Iow alphas for
the Nonacademic scale in the group with LD supported the decision to examine
individual item responses, rather than overall factor scores. The three items in the
Nonacademic scale are: (a) Physical Appearance ( - is good looking); (b) Personal
Possessions ( - has a lot of neat st-; and (c) Athletic Ability ( - is better than others
hidher age in sports). Raw scores fkom the RCPR: P were summed and averaged across
all five factors (Le., the original three RCPR factors plus the Academic and Nonacademic
factors). Means and standard deviations for each group, broken down by gender, appear
in Table 7.
Scores on the RCPR: P range fiom 1-00 (statement is very fdse) to 5.00
(statement is very true), with higher scores indicating greater endorsement for a paaicuiar
factor. It should be pointed out that the Aggressive-Disruptive and Sensitive-kolated
factors are scaled in the opposite direction to the Sociability-Leadership, Academic, and
Nonacademic scales (Le., they contain negatively phrased statements) and hence higher
scores on these two factors indicate an endorsement of more negative characteristics (Le.,
higher levels of aggressive-disruptive or sensitive-isolated behaviours).
Onginal Factors
A between-within repeated measures MANOVA was conducted on the RCPR: P
data to determine whether group differences existed between children with and without
LD on the three original factors of the RCPR: P. LD Status and Gender were the two
crossed between-subjects variables, while Questionnaire Factor (Sociability-Leadership,
Aggressive-Disruptive, Sensitive-Isolated) and Peer Rater were the two within-subjects
variables. The Peer Rater factor was included to measure whether significant differences
existed between peers' ratings of individual target participants. Overall, there were no
Social Competence
75
Table 7.
Means and Standard Deviations for RCPR: Peer Factors
- --
LD LD Total Non-LD Non-LD Total
Boys Girls LD Boys Girls non-LD
(n = 9) @=7> (g = 16) @= 9) @= 7) (O= 16)
Factor M SD M SD M SD - M m - M SD - M SD
SL 3.77 (-64) 3.74 (-56) 3.76 (-73) 3.67 (-73) 4.26 (-23) 3.93 (-71)
NAC 3.57(.54) 3.69(.56) 3.63 (-72) 3.39(.73) 4.02 (-88) 3.67(.95)
Note. RCPR = Revised Class Play Rating; LD = learning disabilities; SL = Sociabiiity- Leadership; AD = Aggressive-Disniptive; SI = Sensitive-Isolated; AC = Academic; NAC = Nonacademic
signincant multivariate repeated measures m a h effects or interactions for the RCPR: P
factors dong any of the variables (see Appendur E for MANOVA source table). N o
further analyses were conducted with the RCPR: P factors.
Nonacademic Factor
Separate two-way ANOVAs with LD Status and Gender as independent variables
were conducted for the three Nonacademic factor items. Means and standard deviations
for target participants are presented in Table 8. Results reveal no significant LD Status-
by-Gender interaction @ (1,60) = -09, nS), no significant main effect for LD Status fF (1,
60) = -49, a, and a significant main effect for Gender (F (1,60) = 4.18, E < -10)
on the Physical Appearance item. In general, girls (M = 3.86; = 1.18) rated their
same-sex peers as beirig more "good looking" than did boys (M = 3.27; = 1.06). No
Social Cornpetence
76
Table 8.
Mean Responses to RCPR: Peer Nonacademic Factor Items
Items LD LD Total non-LD non-LD Total
Boys Girls LD Boys Girls non-LD
(n= 9) (n = 7) (n= 16) &=9) @ = 7) (g = 16)
M SD - - M SD - M SD - M SD - M SD - - M SD
Note. RCPR = Revised Class Play Rating; LD = IeamiBg disabilities; PA = Physicai Appearance; PP = Personal Possessions; AA = Athletic Ability
other interactions @ (1,60) = 2.35, -; F (1,60) = -73, a, LD Status main effects @ (1,
60) = -54, -; F (1,60) = -47, -), or Gender main effects (F (1,60) = 2.35, -; F (1,60) =
-17, -) were found for the Personai Possessions o r Athletic Ability items, respectively.
Academic Factor
A two-way ANOVA with Gender and LD Status as independent variables was
conducted on the Academic factor of the RCPR: P- Results indicated significant main
effects for Gender (F (1,28) = 6.59, Q c -10) and LD Status (F (1,28) = 3.39, c .IO),
with no significant interaction between the variables (F (1,28) = -25, as). On this scale,
participants without LD (M = 3.50; = -98) were rated by their peers as higher in
academic competence than participants with LD = 2.98; = 1.06), while females
(M = 3 -66; = -94) were rated higher than males &f = 2.92; = 1 .O 1). These results
provide a manipulation check for the study's design by indicating peer-perceived
differences in academic ability, with the group with LD rated as least competent.
Social Cornpetence
77
Revised Class Plav rat in^: Self-ratinns
Before analyses could be conducted on the Revised Class Play Rating: Self-
ratings (RCPR: S) questionnaire, it was k t necessary to establish the intercorrelations
and interna1 reliabilities for the RCPR: S and its component factors. To begin, a Pearson
product-moment correlation was conducted on the three original factors of the RCPR- S.
Results indicate that the Sociabiw-Leadership scale was sîgnificantly negatively
correlated to both the Aggressive-Dîsruptive (g = -.35, g c -05) and Sensitive-Isolated =
-.38, p c -05) scales, but that the Aggressive-Disniptive and Sensitive-Isolated scales
were not significantly correlated with each other & = .04, ns)- Next, a series of Cronbach
coefficient alpha's was calculated to determine the internai reliability for the three RCPR:
S factors for each target group. Alpha coefficients for the Sociability-leadership,
Aggressive-Disruptive, and Sensitive-Isolated factors were determined to be -76, .8 0, and
-73, respectively, for participants with LD, and -64, -74, and .06, respectively, for
participants without LD. The low alpha for the SI scale for non-LD pupils supported the
decision to examine individual item responses on this scale for both participants with and
without LD. The seven items in the SI scde are: (a) 1 am often left out; (b) My feelings
get hurt easily; (c) 1 am usually sad; (d) 1 would rather play alone than with others; (e) I
have trouble making fkiends; (f) 1 can't get others to listen; and (g) 1 am very shy.
Coefficient alpha's were also determined for each target group for the two
additional Academic and Nonacademic cornpetence factors included in the questiomaire.
Alphas for the Academic scale were detemiined to be -66 for both the group with and
without LD. Alphas for the Nonacadernic scale were detemiined to be -44 for the group
with LD and -18 for the non-LD group. Again, the low coefficeint alphas for the
Nonacadernic scale supported the decision to examine individual item responses.
Orifinal Factors
Raw scores fiom the RCPR: S were summed and averaged across al1 factors for
both groups of target participants. Scores on the RCPR: S range fkom 1.00 (statement is
Social Cornpetence
78
very false) to 5.00 (statement is very true), with higher scores indicating greater
endorsement for a particular factor. Means and standard deviations on di RCPR factors,
broken down by LD Status and Gender, appear in Table 9.
Table 9.
Means and Standard Deviations for RCPR: Self-ratin~s Factors
- --
LD LD Total non-LD non-LD Total non-
Boys Girls LD Boys Girls LD
@ = 8 ) @=7) (n = 15) @ = 9 ) (n = 7) b= 16)
Note. RCPR = Revised Class Play Rating; LD = leaming disabilities; SL = Sociability- Leadership; AD = Aggressive-Disruptive; SI = Sensitive-Isolated; AC = Academic; NAC = Nonacademic
To determine whether group ciifferences existed between children with and
without LD on the factors of the RCPR: S, a LD Status-by-Gender MANOVA was
conducted on the Sociability-Leadership (SL) and Aggressive-Disruptive (AD) subscales,
as only these subscales were highly correlated and had adequate Cronbach alpha levels to
a justiQ a multivariate analysis. No signiflcant multivariate LD Status-by-Gender
Social Cornpetence
79
interaction ( W W Lambda = -897, F (2,26) = 1.49, ns) or LD Status multivariate main
effect (Wilks' Lambda = -993, F (2,26) = -09, ns) was observed. However, a significant
multivariate main effect for Gender (Wilks' Lambda = -775, F (2,26) = 3 -78, g < -10) was
found, thus necessitating a univariate follow-up procedure to detennine where significant
ciifferences existe&
A post-hoc procedure examining the univariate F-tests for the Gender main e h t
was found to be signifïcant only for the Sociability-Leadership factor @ (2,27) = 4 . 3 6 , ~
c .1 O), where males (M = 4.28; SD = -32) rated themselves lower than fernales (&l= 4.50;
SD = -24). It shodd be pointed out that the mean self-ratings received by males, although - significantly lower than fernales, can nonetheless be considered very positive, as the
scores on this particular scale ranged f?om 1 (stating "very false" to positive qualities) to
5 (stating "very tme" to positive categories). When considering Gender as a variable,
males and femdes did not differ in self-ratings on the Aggressive-Disruptive @ (1,27) =
-45, ns) factor.
Sensitive-Isolated Factor
Means and standard deviations for participants with and without LD, broken
down by gender, on the seven items of the Sensitive-Isolated factor are presented in Table
10. Scores range fkom 2.00 to 5.00, with higher scores indicating increased agreement
with negative self-statements.
Separate two-way ANOVAs with LD Status and Gender as independent variables
and questionnaire item as dependent variables were conducted on the seven Sensitive-
kolated (SI) subscale items.
Results reved no signincant LD Status-by-Gender interactions and no LD Status
or Gender main effects on any of the seven items. ANOVA results (i.e., F-values) for .
each of the seven tests are presented in Table 11.
Nonacademic Factor
Separate two-way ANOVAs with LD Status and Gender as independent variables
Social Cornpetence
80
Table 10.
Mean Remonses to RCPR: Self-ratings Sensitive-Isolated Factor Items
LD LD Total non-LD non-LD Total
Boys Girls LD Boys Girls Non-LD
(n = 8) (n = 7) (n = 15) (n=9) @ = 7) (&= 16)
- - - - - -- - -
(a) 1.50(.54) 1.43(.79) 1.47(.64) 1.33(.50) 1.43(.79) 1.38(.62)
(b) 2.25 (1.58) 1.71 (-76) 2.00 (1.25) 2.56 (1.33) 2.14 (1.46) 2.38 (1-36)
(c) 1-50 (1.07) 1.29 (-49) 1-40 (33) 1.33 (-71) 1-14 (-39) 1-25 (-58)
(d) 1-13 (.35) 1.43 (-79) 1.27 (-59) 1.44 (1.33) 1.14 (-39) 1.31 (1-01)
(e) 1.12 (.35) 1.00 (-00) 1.07 (-26) 1.22 (-44) 1.14 (-39) 1.19 (-40)
(0 2.25(1.04) 1.43(.79) 1.87(.99) 1.44(.53) 1.57(1.13) 1.50(.82)
(g) 2.38 (1.51) 2.57 (1.72) 2.47 (1.56) 2.1 1 (1.54) 2.71 (1.70) 2.38 (1.59)
Note. RCPR = Revised Class Play Rating; LD = learning disabilities; Item: (a) 1 am often left out; (b) My feelings get hurt easily; (c) 1 am usually sad; (d) 1 would rather play done than with others; (e) 1 have trouble making fi-ïends; ( f ) 1 can't get others to lïsten; and (g) I am very shy.
and questionnaire item as dependent variables were conducted for Nonacademic factor
items: (a) Physical Appearance, (b) Personal Possessions, and (c) AthIetic Ability.
Means and standard deviations for both groups on the three items are presented in
Table 12. For the Physical Appearance item, results reveal no LD Status-by-Gender
interaction @ (1,27) = 2.61, ns), no LD Status main effect (F (1,27) = .49, a, but a
significant main effect for Gender @ (1,27) = 7.49, < .IO). In general, girls = 3 -7 1 ;
Social Cornpetence
81
Table 11.
Nonsiwcant F-tests for RCPR: S elf-ratîngs Sensitive-Isolated Factor Items
Item LD S tatus-by-Gender LD Status Gender Interaction Main Effect Main Effect
(g) - F (L,27) = -12 - F (1,27) = -01 F (1,27) = -47 Note. RCPR = Revised CIass Play Rating; LD = learning disabilities; Item: (a) 1 am often lefi out; @) My feelings get hiut easily; (c) 1 am usually sad; (d) 1 would rather play alone than with others; (e) I have trouble making Ken&; (f) 1 can't get others to listen; and (g) 1 am very shy-
SD = -99) rated themselves as more "good lookuig" than did boys @ = 2.88; = .78). - For the Personal Possessions item, resdts reveal no LD Status-by-Gender interaction
(1,27) = .87, ns), no LD Status main effect (F (1,27) = -30, ns), and no signincant
main effect for Gender @ (1,27) = -30, ns). Likewise, for the Athletic Ability item,
results reveal no LD Status-by-Gender interaction @ (1,27) = 1.03, ns), no LD Status
main effect @ (1,27) = .53, ns), and no significant main effect for Gender (1,27) =
.05, ns).
Acadernic Factor
0 A two-way ANOVA with LD Statu and Gender as independent variables was
Social Cornpetence
82
Table 12.
Mean Responses to RCPR: Self-ratiners Nonacademic Factor Items
LD LD Total non-LD Non-LD Total
Boys Girls LD Boys Girls Non-LD
(&= 8 ) @ = 7) @= 15) @= 9) (n = 7) (&= 16)
Note. RCPR = Revised Class Play Rating; LD = learning disabilities; PA = Physical Appearance; PP = Personal Possessions; kA = Athletic Ability
conducted on the Academic factor of the RCPR: S- Results reveai a significant LD - Status-by-Gender interaction @ (1,27) = 3.25, p < .IO), a main effect for LD Status (1,
27) = 4 . 3 9 , ~ c .IO), and amain effect for Gender @ (1,27) = 5.10, p c .IO). Overall,
girls = 3.96; SD = -66) had higher academic self-perceptions than boys a = 3.41; SD
= .8 1) and children without LD (M = 3 -94; SD = -63) had higher academic self-
perceptions than children with LD @ = 3.43; = = -85). More importantly, when the
interaction between LD Status and Gender was examined, it became clear that gender was
an important variable to consider for participants with LD, but not for those without LD.
Results indicate that boys with LD &X = 2.94; = -62) held lower self-perceptions of
academic competence than girls with LD = 3.93; SD = .79), with no corresponding
gender differences noted in the non-LD group (boys M = 3.89, SD = -70; girls M = 4.00,
SD = 33). Thus, the presence of LD was related to a relatively lower self-perception of - academic functioning only for boys.
Social Cornpetence
83
Peer Rater Interviews
Ail peer raters for children with and without LD were able to provide reasons as
to why they chose the target peer as a preferred playmate. Interviewers were periodically
required to probe rater's responses and encourage exp lanation of vague statemmts;
however, extensive probing was discouraged.
In general, responses to the open-ended question ("What is it about that made
you choose as someone you like to play with?") corroborated the r d t s fiom both
the MANOVA on the Vaughn and Hogan mode1 and the RCPR data. No differences were
found between the raters of children with LD and the raters of cbildren without LD with
regard to why the target children were chosen as prefmed playmates, as each group of
peer raters endorsed al1 eight categories of responses to the interview question.
Differences between groups did emerge in the fiequency with which certain categories
were endorsed, Table 13 contains the fiequencies of responses per category for
participants with and without LD, broken down by gender.
To test for LD Status and Gender differences in peer raters' responses to the
i n t e ~ e w question, a test for the signifrcance of merences betweem proportions was
conducted on comparisons yielding the highest relative discrepancies (Le., largest
absolute merence between percentages), until no differences were found at which point
no M e r comparisons were made. A -score of 1.645 (Le., p c -10) was used as the cut-
off for significance. Results indicated significant differences between the proportion of
girls and boys with LD ea&g responses in the Non-descript (z = 2.05, E < -10) and
Leadership (& = 2.03, p < .IO) categories, with girls with LD receiv3ng relatively more
responses than boys with LD. One other significant clifference was found between boys
and *Is without LD where boys without LD received relatively more responses in the
Outside Associations category than girls without LD (Z = 1.66, Q < -10).
Self-raters Interview
Al1 target children with and without LD (except one boy with LD declining the
Social Competence
84
Table 13.
Frequencv and (Percentage) of Peer Remonses in @en-ended Interview Categories
LD LD Total non-LD non-LD Total
Girls Boys LD Girls Boys Non-LD
Category @ = 14) (n=18) (n=32) @=14) @=18) @=32)
ND 13 (92.86) 11 (61.1 1) (75.00) 11 (78.57) 14 (77.77) (78.12)
Note. LD = learning disabïIities; Category: S = Similady; H = Hurnourous; T = Talent; EC = Enjoyable Company; PQ = Positive Qualities; OA = Outside Associations; L = Leadership; ND = Non-descript
interview process) self-reported reasons as to why they felt fellow peers had chosen them
as preferred playmates. Table 14 contains these fiequencies and percentages, broken
down by gender.
To test for LD status and gender differences in self raters' responses to the
i n t e ~ e w question, tests for the significance of differences between proportions were
conducted using a Z-score of 1.645 (Le., I) c -10) as the cut-off for significance. Results
Social Cornpetence
85
Table 14.
Frequencv and Wercentage) of Self-rated Responses in Open-ended Interview Categories
LD LD To ta1 Non-LD non-LD Tot al
Category Girls Boys LD Girls Boys Non-LD
b=7) @=8) @=15) @=7) b=9) @=i6)
Note. LD = leamhg disabilities; Category: S = Similarity; H = Humornus; T =Talent; EC = Enjoyable Company; PQ = Positive Qualities; OA = Outside Associations; L = Leadership; ND = Non-descript
indicated a significant clifference between the proportion of girls with and without LD,
and boys without LD in the Positive Qualities response category, with girls with and
without LD offering more responses related to Positive Qualities than boys without LD &
= 2.09, p < -10). One other significant difference was found between girls and boys with
LD in the Non-Descript category, where girls with LD provided relatively more
responses in this category ttian boys with LD (z = 2.35, Q c -10).
Social Competence
86
Chapter V: Discussion
Overview
To secure an understanding of the social-emotional fiinctioning of socially
successful children with LD in cornparison to their equally accepted peers without LD,
this study examined the characteristics of peer-accepted students with LD from the
multiple perspectives of the peer, self, and teacher. Social fiuictioning was investigated
f?om a multi-domain perspective by using the muitidimensional model of social
competence proposed by Vaughn and Hogan (1990) as a framework.
Despite extensive research dealing with the social status of children with and
without LD, a void clearly existed in the literature on social competence in socialiy-
accepted children with l e h g disabilities. The riterature failed to examine the extent to
which pathways to peer acceptance for children with LD were similar to or different fÏom
those of their non-LD peers. It has been shown (e-g., Coie, Dodge, & Kupersmidt, 1990;
Newcomb, Bukowski, & Pattee, 1993) that socialiy-accepted children without LD exhibit
certain noteworthy and measurable characteristics related to their social success such as
acadernic competence, cooperation, honesty, good looks, humour, and athletic ability.
However, it was not known whether the attributes associated with normally-achieving
children's popularity and social acceptance were similar to the attributes which facilitate
social acceptance in children with LD. Further, since children with LD, by dennition,
have a lower likelihood of being perceived as academically competent b y their peers, it
followed that children with LD may not have the same opportunities, academically, for
gaining social accep tance as their non-LD peers. This investigation detennined whether
peer-accepted students with LD must compensate for their lack of academic ski11 with
abilities in nonacademic areas (e-g., social skiils, athletics, appearance, behavioural
conduct) that are at least equal to, if not better than, those of their non-LD peers.
Results are discussed as they relate to the components of the Vaughn and Hogan
(1990) model of social competence. The statisticd effectiveness of the ~ a u g h n and
Social Cornpetence
87
Hogan model was not directly assessed in this study; rather, the model was utilised as an
organisational heuristic in the examination of social competence in children with and
without LD. To review, the Vaughn and Hogan model of social competence suggests that
there are four important areas to consider in the social functioning of children with LD
and that an individual's social competence is comprised of a unique pattern of strengths
and weaknesses across these four components waughn & Hogan, 1990). This model
allows for the logical hypothesis that if a particular group of children (i.e., those with LD)
differs in social competence fiom another group, then group ciifferences should emerge in
the areas covered by the model- The pragmatic nature of this model lent itself to the
development of one underlying question guiding this investigation: To what extent do
socially-accepted children with LD differ £iom their sociaily-accepted non-LD
couterparts in social competence areas such as selficoncept, behaviourd conduct, and
social skills? Finaiiy, the need to determine whether socially-accepted children with LD
possess unique social-behavioural characteristics relative to non-LD peers prompted the
inclusion of various objective and qualitative tools in this study.
Peer Status
In this study, peer status was used as an independent variable rather than a
dependent variable and as such this component of the Vaughn and Hogan model was not
included in multivariate analyses. Nonetheless, a hypothesis was offered as to the
proportion of children with and without LD being represented in each of the five
sociometric categones. The hypothesis that children with LD would be represented in al1
five sociometric categories was not c o h e d , as no children with CD were classifïed in
the controversial category. Further analysis, however, reveaied that children with and
without LD did not ciiffer significantly in the rates with which they were assigned to the
remaining four sociometric categories. These results were unexpected, however, given the
wealth of research in this area finding that children with LD eam proportionaliy more
rejection classifications and less popular classifications than non-LD peers (Condeman,
Social Competence
88
1995; Stone & La Greca, 1990; Wiener, Harris, & Shirer, 1990)- That this study failed to
find significant differences in the classification rates of LD and non-LD peers may be
explained in three important ways related to (a) sampling methods involving sample size
and composition, (b) identification procedures, and (c) classification procedures.
First, the small sample @ = 32) of students identifled as having LD in the initial
sample of participants dong with the relatively high number of participants within this
sample falling in the unclassifiable category resulted in small numbers of participants
with LD being compared to the larger non-LD sample. Thus, small sample size may have
prevented the emergence of significant differences in sociometric classification rates (cf.
Vaughn, McIntosh, Schiimm, Haager, & Callwood, 1993). Additionaliy, the possibility
that some children with very severe learning and behavioural difficulties were not being .
serviced by the two school boards in this study as a resdt of pnvate school placement
must be considered when interpreting the non-significant sociometric results.
Secondly, the participants in the present study were non-school-identified children
with learning disabilities attending regular classrooms for the majority of the school day.
Consequently, the greater inclusion and minimal segregation of these children (compared
to others following a pdl-out or separate class model) may be important factors
contributing to the lack of significant Werence between LD and non-LD participants'
sociometric ratings. Bryan and Bryan (1986) point out the importance of situational
influences and social context in detennlliing the social status of children with LD;
however, inconsistent ernpirical evidence exists for the assumption that students with LD
will be better accepted by peers if placed in general education classrooms (Vaughn,
Elbaum, Schumm, & Hughes, 1998) despite research that indicates the social benefits of
inclusion for students with disabilities (Baker, Wang, & Walberg, l994/l995). Within the
context of inclusive settings, some studies have revealed different social status
classification patterns between students with and without LD (Sale & Carey, 1995;
Madge, Affleck & Lowenbraun, 1990; Vaughn, Elbaum, & Schumm, 1996; Wiener,
Social Cornpetence
89
Hams, & Shirer, 1990), whereas other studies have found no differences between these
groups (Juvonen & Bear, 1992).
The situational variable of whether participants have been school- or researcher-
identified as having LD is important to consider. For instance, Wiener, Harris, and Duval
(1993), utilising a similar classification procedure as was used in this study, found that
children who were not school identified as having LD but who met the criteria for LD on
relevant measures, obtained significantly higher peer preference and popularity ratings
than school-identified children with LD. Further, the authors found no differences
between the school- and non-school-identified groups in peer rejection. Wiener et al.
(1993) concluded that school-identiifcation of LD may not directly contribute to peer
rejection but it does appear to make being rated as popular very difficdt. Previous studies
(Stone & La Greca, 1990) have found over 12 percent of school-identifid mainstreamed
children with LD as sociometricaiIy popular, however, this number was simüficantly less
than that of non-LD peers earning popuhr status. Thus, the variable of school-
identification of LD appears influentid in whether similar or dissimilar sociometric
classification rates are found between LD and non-LD peers. It is plausible that as the
target children with LD in this study were not school-identified as having learning
di fficulties, they were less at-risk for davourable sociornetric status outcornes compared
to school-identified peers.
Thirdly, there is a lack of consistency in sociometric classification procedures in
past research, especially in relation to whether peer ratings or nominations are used, how
the "average" status category is defined, and whether same-gender or cross-gender ratings
are gathered (see Teny & Coie, 199 1). For example, in the 19 studies pert-g to the
peer status of children with LD reviewed by Wiener (1987), four different types of
sociomeûic methodologies were utilised Likewise, Swanson and Malone's (1992) review
cites 22 studies in this area, six of which utilised peer nominations and 16 of which
utilised peer ratings. Terry and Coie (1991) pointed out that there has been no clear trend
Social Cornpetence
90
arnong researchers in the use of same- or cross-gender ratings and that no evidence exists
that different status designations result fiom the two methodologies. Unfortunately, the
lack of consistent methodology in social status research detracts kom k t cornparisons
between p s t studies and the present investigation.
It was also hypothesised that at least 40% of children with LD would receive a
favourable social status rating (Le., average or popular) and that 10 to 20% would receive
a popular rating. Both hypotheses were c o h e d as 12 out of 28 children with LD
(42.86%) received a sociomeûic rating of average or better and 5 out of 28 (1 7.86%)
children with LD received a sociometric rating of popular, When interpreting the
classification rates for the LD and non-LD groups in light of normal ctwe distribution
rates, it appears that both groups are normaily distributed within the sociometric
categories (excluding the controversial category where there were no children with LD).
In conclusion, that no differences in sociometric classification rates between
children with and without LD were found suggests that at lest fiom a sociometnc stand-
point children with researcher-identifïed LD may be more similar to than different h m
their non-LD peers. Further, children classitied as having LD in uiis study were not
categoncally rejected by their peers and some were even the most popular children in
their cIassrooms. These results support the growing realisation that many children with
LD are able to eam positive peer ratings and nominations fkom their cIassmates and that
the variables of identification, labeliing, and classroom placement must be considered
when drawing conclusions on the peer relations of students with LD. Future studies need
to clarie the roIe that school versus non-school identification plays in the social status of
children with LD and the extent to which sociometric status varies as a fünction of
programming differences such as full inclusion, mainstreaming, or segregation.
Vaughn and Honan Mode1 of Social Cornnetence
Social Skills and Behavioural Conduct
Comparing children with and without LD on the three social competency domains
Social Competence
91
of the Vaughn and Hogan mode1 yielded a small number of significant group and gender
rnultivariate and univariate main effects and interactions. The question of how
participants with and without LD would compare on teacher-ratings of social skiils and
problem behaviours indicated that, consistent with previous research @ender & Smith,
1990), children with LD were rated by their teachers as higher in problem behaviours
than non-LD peers- Significant group differences were not found in teacher-rated social
skills, however, oniy boys with LD were rated by teachers as having low average social
skills, based on instrument nonns. These results are most meanin@ when viewed within
the context of the significant LD Status-by-Gender univariate interactions illustfating that
boys with LD were rated as the highest in problem behaviour and the lowest in social
skills of auy other group.
Past research related to gender differences in ctassroom behaviour has found that
boys tend to be rated by teachers as behaving more poorly than girls and to be referred
more often than girls for acadeanic difficulties (e-g., Bryan, 1974; Cullinau, Epstein, &
Lloyd, 1981; Offord, Boyle, & Racine, 1991; Shaywitz, Fletcher, & Shaywitz, 1994).
This study supports this notion and m e r reveals that boys experiencing academic
difficulties may be rated by their teachers as demonstrating the lowest social and
behavioural skills in any given classroom.
The extent to which low academic standing influences teachers' perceptions of
students' sociai and behaviouraf skills is unclear at this time as few studies have
simultaneously investigated children with LD, low-achieving, and average-achieving
children in these areas. One study which did such a cornparison waager, 1992) found that
teachers rated both the students with LD and the low-achieving students more negatively
than average-achieving peers on the Social Skills scale of the SSRS-T. The present
flndings, however, reveal that low achievement may not be the decisive factor in negative
teacher ratings because girls with LD, who did not difEer significantly fiom boys with LD
in measured achievement, were rated by teachers as possessing relatively positive sociai
Social Competence
92
skills and few problem behaviours. Thus, it appears that the presence of leaming
disabilities is an especiaily potent factor related to teacher-ratings of boys, more so than
of girls who experience simiIar academic difficulties,
To more M y explain the results fiom the SSRS-T, it is helpfid to take a closer
look at the specific skills contained within this measure. Most skills tapped by the SSRS-
T deal with either social skills related to classroom success (Le., teacher-pleasing
behaviours such as listenhg, cooperating with peers, completing assignments) or social
skills related to making and ma in tahg fiends (Le., interpersonal social skills such as
being polite, fnendly, caring). Researchers have used factor analysis to create altemate
versions of the SSRS-T (1986 version), containing only those items fiom the Sociai Skilis
scale that load on one of two factors labelled (a) Cooperative/Responding and @)
Outgoinghitiating (Vaughn & Hogan, 1990; Vaughn, Zaragoza, Hogan, & Waiker,
1993). This procedure has been used to more precisely analyse the interpersonal or peer-
pleasing social skills of children with LD. In appreciation of the Vaughn et al. (1990;
1 993) methodology, it was deemed important to determine whether students with LD in
the present sttidy were rated by teachers as particulady weak in classroom social skills
(Le-, teacher-pleasing skills), fkiendship making and maintaining social skïlls (i. e., peer-
pleasulg skills), or both Spes of skills- Recently, Bryan (1 997) has no ted that teachers are
often more lïkely to attend to behaviours that inteifere with a child's academic progress
than to social relations between peers. As such, it is possible that the boys with LD in this
study received negative teacher ratings because they were more likely to engage in
academic-interfering (Le., non-teacher-pleasing) behaviours within the classroom setting
than other participants. To examine this question, a post hoc analysis on teacher-rated
peer-pleasing versus teacher-pleasing behaviours was conducted.
Due to the small sample size in the present study a factor analytic examination of
SSRS-T (1990) items was not feasible; nonetheless, post hoc procedures were undertaken
to fùrther examine teacher-pleasing versus peer-pleasing behavîours on the SSRS-T. Each
Social Cornpetence
93
of the 30 items on the SSRS-T Social Skills factor was recategorised by the author, based
on face validity7 as ref&ng to either a peer-pleasing (e-g., gives compliments to peers) or
teacher-pleasing (e.g., attends to your instructions) behaviour (see Appendix F for a
breakdown of peer-pleasing and teacher-pleasing items). Next, mean peer-pleasing and
teacher-pleasing scores were caicdated for each target group (scores range fkom 0-2-00)
and were followed by the calculation of difference scores between rneans. Table 15
summarïses this data
Table 15.
Mean Scores and Difference Scores Between Peer-deasing and Teacher-deashg Social
Skills on the SSRS-T
Peer-pleasing Teacher-pleasing DBerence
Target Group - M - SD - M - SD Score I)
LD boys .95 -39 -92 -44 0.03 ns
LD girls 1.59 -27 1-56 -31 0.03 ns
non-LD boys 1.44 -43 1.28 -49 0.16 11s
non-LD girls 1.35 .32 1.63 -59 -0.28 ~ < . 1 0
Note. S S ~ T : Social Skills Rating System-Teacher, LD = learning disabilities
T-tests for related measures using mean peer-pleasing and teacher-pleasing scores
were calculated for each target group and revealed a significant difference between peer-
pleasing and teacher-pleasing scores only for girls without LD, t (6) = -2.14, c -10.
Interpretation of this post hoc data suggests that girls without LD are rated by teachers as
displaying more teacher-pleasing than peer-pleasing behaviour, although they are rated
Social Cornpetence
94
relatively high on both types of behaviour. The supposition that boys with LD would be
xated as displayhg less teacher-pleasing than peer-pleasing behaviour was not confirmed;
however, consistent with MANOVA results, boys with LD were rated as displaying the
lowest levels of social skills of ali groups- More research using larger samples and factor
analysis is needed in this area as it rernains unclear whether boys wîth LD have more
difficulties displaying teacher-pleasing behaviours within the classroom than girls with
LD. For example, Wiener, Harris, and Shirer (2990) found that boys with LD have a
tendency to take on the role of class clown and that this disruptive classroom behaviour is
looked upon with high regard by peers, but not by teachers. Classroom disruptiveness
may be best understood on a continuum, where small amounts of disruptive behaviour are
not troublesome, but where increasing levels of negative behaviours are associated with
unfavourable teacher perceptions. Thus, there may exist a threshold Ievel of disruptive
behaviour that when surpassed withh the classroom context and among peers carries with
it negative consequenees for teacher relations (Le., negative teacher-perceptions), but
which preserves or even fost ers positive p eer relations. This speculative conclusion
remains to be more fully investigated.
A M e r point must be made conceming the possibility of gender biases in
teacher's perceptions of students with academic nifficulties. It is possible that teachers
perceive the behaviours of boys with LD in a more negative light than they do for girls
with similar deficits, despite fêw differences in actual behaviour. For example, it has been
shown that certain teachers have a differential attitude towards males and females and
that they favour referriag males for academic or behaviourai probtems even when females
have identical problems ('Vogel, 1990). In this study it was not possible to determine
whether teacher perceptions of problem behaviours and low social skills reflected actual
differences in behaviour or negative perceptual biases by teachers towards boys
experiencing academic difficulties. Future studies utilising teacher-ratings of social skills
and problem behaviours may wish to look more closely at the relationship between actual
Social Cornpetence
95
and perceived behaviour of boys and girls with LD in understanding the significance of
teacher bias.
Finally, longitudinal studies conducted by Vaughn and coileagues have explored
teacher acceptance as influencing the peer acceptance of children with LD. The
researchers found that when controllhg for teacher acceptance by choosing students ftom
classes where teachers were identÏfied as "accepting" and "effective" with mainstreamed
students, no signifïcant ciifferences emerged among achievement groups (LD, low-
achieving, averagelhigh-achieving) in overall peer acceptance or peer rejection (Vaughn,
McIntosh, Schumm, Haager, & Callwood, 1993). These hdings suggest that teacher
acceptance is associated with, and may be a facilitaor of, peer acceptance for children
with LD. The present results, however, indicate that positive teacher perceptions towards -
children with LD are not necessarily au essential cornponent in the pathway toward peer
acceptance, as peer-accepted boys with LD in this study were not favourably viewed by
their teachers mese conflicting hdings speak to the multiple potential pathways to
social acceptance in children with LD and to the need for fiirther research in this area
In conclusion, peer-accepted boys in this study were rated by their teachers as less
sociaily skilled and more prone to problematic school behaviours- This outcome diiffers
fkom past research indicating that higher teacher ratings of problem behaviour and lower
teacher ratings of social skills are inversely related to social success and positive social
status (Cantrell & Prinz, 1985; Coie & Dodge, 1988; French & Waas, 1985). Direct
cornparisons between these studies and the present investigation are cautioned, however,
as previous studies were conducted with nomaliy-achieving children, did not use a
restricted social status range, and did not utilise similar measures.
Self-concep t
Research has consistently shown that children with LD have lower academic self-
concept but comparable general self-worth, in cornparison to their non-LD peers
(Grolnick & Ryan, 1990; Heath, 1995; Kistner, Kaskett, White, & Robbins, 1987;
Social Competence
96
Kloomok & Cosden, 1994). Further, children with LD have reduced prospects of
enhancing their social standing and seif-concepts via normal or high achievement in
academics and rnay therefore be more likely to engage in positive self-perceptions in
nonacademic domains in compensahg for their inability to gain acceptance and positive
self-perceptions through traditional academic means (cf. Bear & Minke, 1996; Hartup,
1983). Thus, it was questioned whether children with LD in this study wodd hold higher
overall self-perceptions in nonacademic domains than their non-LD peers. This
hypothesis was not codhned, however, as children with LD in this sample did not ciiffer
fiom their non-LD cornterparts in overall nonacademic self-concept. It is important to
note that the mean nonacademic self-concept domain raw scores for both groups of
participants c m be described as "positive" (i-e., above a score of 3-00). As Kloomok and
Cosden (1994) point out, a mean score of 3-00 or more on any of the SPPLD domains
indicates that the student has endorsed positive items as either "sort of true for me" or
"really true for me," whereas a value of less than 3.00 indicates that the student has
endorsed negative items as being self-relevant- Thus, a mean score above 3.00 is
interpreted as reflecting a relatively positive nonacademic self-concept. Results indicate
that in tems of nonacademic selfkoncept, sociaîiy-accepted children with LD hold self-
perceptions that are positive and comparable to their non-LD peers.
The possibility that cfüldren with LD will develop higher nonacademic self-
concepts over time as a self-preserving and compensatory rnechanism in response to
repeated academic shortcomings is important to consider. As Harter (1982) and Marsh
(1989) point out, children's self-concepts tend to become more differentiated with age.
That is, as a result of continued exposure to the skills and abilities of other students of the
same age, children develop an understanding that there are some things at which they are
good and some things at which they are not. Thus, with t h e the nonacademic self-
concept of socially-accepted children with LD may become increasingly differentiated
(Le., more distinguished fiom their academic self-concepts) and more positive. With this
Social Competence
97
possibility comes the reaIïsation that nonacademic self-concept should continue to be
assessed in children with LD weli into the hi& school years, as it is possible that
nonacademic self-concept will change in response to fluctuations in academic
hctioning, experiences, and settings.
Social, Emotional, and Behavïoural Characteristics
Peer Ratinns
No statistically significant group differences in the peer ratings of positive and
negative social characteristics of children with and without LD were found on the
Revised Class Play Rating (RCPR) scale, ït was originally questioned whether children
with LD need to excel in at least one measurable area of nonacademic hctioning in
order to garner sirnilar levels of peer acceptance as children without LD. Resdts,
however, do not lend themselves to thïs interpretation. In contrast, the present results
support Kistner and Gatlids (1989) suggestion that the correlates of social status for
mainstrearned children with LD are similar to those reported for their non-LD peers.
S imilarly, Siperstein, Bopp, and Bak (1 978) also found that an qua1 proportion of
students with and without LD received positive nominations for athletic ability @est
athlete) and physical appearance (best Iooking), The authors concluded that nonacademic
talents possessed by children with LD may be the necessary redeeming qualities in
obtaining peer acceptance that is on par with non-LD peers- Support for this view cornes
fiom evidence in this study that children with and without LD with similar peer status
profiles display positive nonacademic skills and do not differ in peer-rated social,
emotional, and behavioural characteristics.
S elf-ratings
Overall, s i m c a n t merences were found on the RCPR: S between boys and
girls in self-rated skïlls on the Sociability-Leadership scale, with girls rating themselves
higher (Le., more favourably) on this factor than boys. This outcome may be explained in
part when considering the research examining gender differences (Le., Maccoby &
Social Cornpetence
98
Jacklin, 1974) suggesting that the dynamics within and between girls' and boys' social
groups differ. Finally, whiIe no other simiificant results were found for the RCPR: S, it is
interesthg to note the pattern that emerged whereby boys with LD provided lower (Le.,
more favourable) self-ratings on the Aggressive-Disruptive scale than a l l other peers. The
disparity in rathgs between boys with LD and their teachers is puzzhg and may be
explained by self-perceived or teacher-perceived biases, Studies comparing the actual and
perceived behavioural conduct of children with LD are needed to cl- this issue.
Nonacademic and Academic Factors
The question of whether children with LD wodd
RCPR: P as possessing unique strengths in nonacademic
group differences on any of the three nonacademic items
be rated by their peers on the
skiIls was not supported. No
of the RCPR- P were found. In
academic areas, the fÏnding that children with LD were rated as lower in academic
competence than children without LD supported the intended group differences in
academic functioning between children with and without LD,
The question of whether children with LD wodd have higher self-perceptions,
relative to non-LD peers, in nonacademic areas as rneasured by the RCPR: S was not
supported. Resuits h m the RCPR: S support the fïndings fkom the SPPLD Nonacademic
domain analyses showing no group or gender differences in nonacademic self-
perceptions. The notion that chiltiren with LD would have lower self-perceptions in
academic areas, however, was supported- Further, the significant LD Status-by-Gender
interaction on the Acadernic competence factor was interesting as it indicated that boys
with LD held the lowest self-perceptions in academic areas. Thus, despite poor academic
hctioning and accurate peer and self-perceptions ofsame, children with LD in this
study were able to secure positive peer and self-perceptions in nonacademic areas which
were comparable to ratings for non-LD peers. Previous research (Heath & Wiener, 1996;
Kloomok & Cosden, 1994) suggests that despite actual, peer-perceived, and self-
perceived diflEicuIties in academic areas, children with LD are able to obtain peer
Social Cornpetence
99
perceptions and hold self-perceptions in nonacademic areas that are positive and
comparable to those held b y their non-LD peers. Sirnilar patterns of academic and
nonacademic self-perceptions were found in the present study.
I n t e ~ e w Findin~s
In general, results of the peers' and target child's open-ended interviews
corroborated the fïndings from the quantitative analyses of this study. Boys and girls with
and without LD in this sample were described by their peers and by themselves as fbn to
be around, fkiendly, kind, humourous, good leaders, and as having things in common with
fellow peers. The few significant ciifferences that emerged in the interview data suggest
that girls with LD are seen by their peers, more often than boys with LD, as leaders. This
hding is noteworthy considering that girls with LD rated themselves as somewhat
higher on the Sociability-Leadership factor of the RCPR: S than did boys with LD. These
fïndings suggest that leadership may be an important pathway toward peer acceptance for
girls with LD.
In general, that few differences in the ftequency of category endorsement were
found within peer and self-raters lends M e r support to the contention that peer-
accepted children with LD are more similar to than diEaent fiom their non-LD
counterparts. It appears fiom the results of the i n t e ~ e w process that social acceptance is
a condition which is achieved and described by peers in similar ways for both children
with and without LD.
Conclusions and Contributions to Knowledge
Early research with children with LD identified that a disproportionate number of
youngsters with leaming difficulties were not well liked by their peers (Bryan, 1974;
1976). Since that time, the focus of most research has been on confinning the low
acceptance and social difficulties of students with LD rather than on examining positive
social-emotional outcornes. Because children and adolescents with LD represent a
heterogeneous group characterised by underachievement, it is surprising that more
Social Cornpetence
100
research has not been conducted with subgroups of children with LD in sociornetric status
categones. This is an area in need of further study.
Despite few significant differences between LD and non-LD students in peer
ratings, interesting gender and LD status interactions did emerge in teacher-ratings.
Generally, results show a variable pattern of social-emotional features for peer-accepted
boys and girls with LD in cornparison to non-LD counterparts. SpecZcally, boys were
distinguishable fiom girls in teacher-rated social skills and problem behaviour and boys
with LD were distinguishable fiom aLi other peers in teacher-rated problem behaviour.
The most important contribution of this study cornes fiom the conclusion that
children with LD are able to secure healthy social fiinctioning without having to
necessarily excel beyond their non-LD peers in nonacademic or social-emotional realms,
Findings support the presence of minimal distinguishing features between socially
successfiil children with and without LD in terms of their self-perceived and other-
perceived social, emotional, and behavioural characteristics- Results suggest that there
may not be a "secret recipe" for social success that eludes children with LD; rather, it
appears that heaithy social fiuictioning is possible for many children with LD. Research
conducted by Siperstein, Bopp, and Bak (1 978) pointai to the importance of children
with LD possessing positive nonacademic traits as possible avenues toward peer
acceptance. The present study supports this conclusion and fürthers our understanding of
the quality and quantity of nonacademic traits or abilities that are needed by children with
LD in securing social acceptance fiom peers.
Cornparison of teacher and peer ratings obtained in this study suggests that a
certain amount of variability exists between teacher's and peer's evaluation of the social-
behavioural fünctioning of socially-accepted children with LD. This conclusion is
consistent with past research indicating a fiequent lack of inter-rater agreement in social-
emotional domains between raters such as teachers, peers, parents, and students
(Achenbach, McConaughy, & Howeii, 1987; Conne11 & ïlardi, 1987). It is clear from the
Social Cornpetence
101
present results that students with LD are perceived as demonstrating strengths in social
fiuictioning in some, but not all settings, and fkom the perspectives of some, but not al1
raters. As Achenbach, McConaughy, and Howell(l987) pointed out, one would not
expect cross-situational ratings to converge. Rather, pieces of information provided by
different raters with perspectives on different settings should be combined to pauit a more
coruprehensive picture of the child's socio-behavioural charactenstics (Haager & Vaughn,
1995)-
In this study, teachers' perceptions of target chiIdren with LD tended to ciiffer
fiom peers' perceptions of these children, especiaily in social skills areas. These results
are similar to those found by Lancelotta and Vaughn (1989) who found that teacher's
view of peer acceptance had only a modest correlation to the views held by students, and
by Nabuzoka and Smith (1993) who found that peer assessments of chitdren with LD
were not related to those of classroom teachers. As Achenbach et al. pointed out, reasons
for clifferences in ratings between raters may be due in part to one of several factors. First,
differences between children and adults in the b e s of reference used is an important
variable to consider as teachers and peers tend to view other students in different ways,
through different lenses (Landau, Milich, & Whitten, 1984). For example, teachers are
Likely to hold expectations for school behaviour which are clearly defined (i.e., progress
toward academic success) and based on their prior teaching experiences, whereas peers
may not hold such well-defied behavioural expectations. Also, teachers have reiatively
limited opportunity to observe children in unstructured play with their peers and to
become privy to the intricacies of these social interactions. Finally, differences in ratings
between teachers and peers may arise as a consequence of the differential values placed
on particular abilities or skills by teachers and classrnates. For example, the same
behaviour by a student may be seen as making fellow peers laugh (peer perception) or as
disrupting the cIass (teacher perception), depending on who is doing the evaluating. In
this study, the finding that socially-accepted boys with LD were seea by teachers as more
Social Competence
102
problematic and as less socidy skilled in the school setîing than other children lends
support for the contention that dimptive classroom behaviour may be valued by peers
and a potential route to peer popularity, despite the negative perceptions this behaviour
induces in teachers,
Study Limitations
This investigation is one of the few studies focusing exclusively on socidly
successful students with LD and as such assurned an exploratory, rather than
conknatory, b c t i o n in the field. The author was aware of the dangers inherent in
exploratory-type research (i-e., increased chance of Type 1 errors and reduced statistical
power) and necessary adjustments were made accordingly. Nonetheless, other limitations
regarding sample size, definition, rneasurement, and identification techniques are
important to consider.
First, the small sample size is a concem that requires the study to be replicated.
With recognition of the difficulty in hding large samples of socially successful children
with LD, it is suggested that fûture studies with adequate sample sizes compare the social
and behavioural profiles of average and popular studenk with LD to students without LD,
rather than combining these two categories of students into a homogeneous socialiy-
accepteci group as was done in this study. Also, fbture studies might wish to include
rejected status control groups in order to compare the profiles of students with LD in
various status groups. In so doing, it will be possible to compare past research
investigating the correlates of social status in average-achieving participants to sùnilar
studies with subgroups of children with LD.
In this study, participants classified as having LD were so defined on the basis of
significant discrepancies between estirnates of cognitive fiinctioning and measured
achievement in spelling, reading, and arithmetic. While the majonty of participants were
so defined on the basis of at least a significant discrepancy between IQ and reading
(52.94%), it is important to consider the hi& number of participants with the
Social Cornpetence
103
classification of LD havhg significant discrepancies in spelling achievement aione
(35.29%). This is an especially important concem when considering that many
participants attended French Immersion programmes where the majority of subjects were
taught in French. Concern regarding this Limitation is lessenecl, however, when
considering the mean spelling achievement scores fiom the schools where these children
attende& In al1 three schools where children were emolled in French Immersion
classrooms, mean WRAT-3 spelling achievement standard scores for participaihg
students were solidly in the average range, given the normal curve distribution. Th,
children scoring below the defïned standard score of 85 were still performing
significantly below the expected average for chrldren in their curriculum.
A m e r limitation of this study was the variable intemai reliabilities and
resultant inability of the Revised Class Play Rating (RCPR) scale to pinpoint the subtle
différences that may egst between sociaUy successfid children with and without LD. The
small sample size precluded a cornparison of dl individual RCPR item scores between
the two groups in this study. It is possible that a more sensitive measure and one which
has strong interna1 reliability for both groups would be able to detect differences in
samples of LD and non-LD chiidren.
Results from the interview potion of this study supported the quantitative
hdings of minimal merences found between socially-accepted boys and girIs with and
without LD. These results are somewhat contrary to expectations for it was postulated
that children with LD would be perceived by their peers as excelhg in at least one or
more nonacadernic areas. It is possible that the Iack of structured probes to accompany
the open-ended interview, however, detracted fiom the ability to pinpoint clifferences
between target participants and gain a better understand of vague responses (e-g., "she's a
good fiend"). While each child was able to provide appropriately phrased responses to
the interview question, it was nonetheless noted that many children had difficulty putting
their sentiments into words. This difficulty was apparent in the numerous phrases
Social Competence
104
assigned to the Nomdescript category. Also, it was obsewed that many of the children's
responses to the interview question reflected personal characteristics similar to the items
contained in the RCPR questionnaire- It is possible that as the RCPR was administered in
close temporal proximity to the interview that peer raters' responses were influenced by
RCPR item content. Future investigations cm circumvent this difficulty by carefûlly
timing the interview process and by devising probes facilitating oral expression of ideas.
Finally, one of the most important limitations of the present study was the
exclusive use of researcher-identifiecl children with LD and the resulting impact this
methodology has on the generalisability to past and fiiture studies. Studies examining the
social fiinctioning of children with LD typically utilise preselected, school-identified
populations of students with LD, identified as such based on either local, state, or national
identification criteria for having LD. Researcher-identified populations, where
identification of students as having LD is performed for research purposes, are
hûequently used. In the present study, however, the use of school-identified participants
with LD w 2 not feasible given the inclusive and non-labelling philosophy of targeted
schooIs. According to teacher feedback (formal school records were not available), only a
small number of students in the present sample (4 out of 17) had been foxmally referred
or evaluated for Learnïng difficulties by school personnel and as such the majority of
participants in this study had not been officially labelled as having iearnîng dificulties.
While non-labehg practices are admirable for a number of social and emotional reasons
(see KLiewer & Biklen, 1996) they nonetheless diminishes the generalisability of the
present results to previous studies in the area using school-identified populations.
However, it is important to note that despite its widespread use, there are severai
problems inherent in using system-identified samples of children with LD, namely, the
trend in underidentification of girls with LD and the biasing influence of student
behaviour in teacher referral rates (Vogei, 1990). Future studies may wish to combine
both school and researcher identification procedures in their designs to avoid potential
Social Cornpetence
105
genedisability or sampling-bias limitations.
Educationai IniDlications
This study expands our understanding of the processes involved in social success
for chiIdren with LD and helps in providing a number of implications for educational
practice. Extending the interpretation of fïndùigs to the areas of educational programming
and interventions, two ideas are offered. First, the results of the present study suggest that
there may be social and personal advantages for chiidren with leaming diniculties who
attend completely integrated settings- Despite research showing that social problems
related to LD are not entirely alieviated by simply placing a child with LD in a fùlly-
integrated classroorn (Madge, Afûeck, & Lowenbraun, 1990), research does show that
integrated settings provide better opportunities for special education students to blend in
socially with their peers and estabiïsh reciprocal fiendshïps (Baneji & Dailey, 1995). In
fact, researchers have recently suggested that students themselves prefer inclusive to pull-
out models because ofthe increased opportunities to make fiends that are present in
incIusive classrooms (Klinger, Vaughn, Schumm, Cohen, & Forgan, 1998).
The social benefits of inclusive classrooms and the negative academic and social
effects of labelling students with LD have been illuminated by many professionals in the
field (Baker, Wang, & Walberg, l994/1995; Baneji & Dailey, 1995; Kliewer & Biklen,
1996; Wang, Reynolds, & Walberg, 19941 1 995). A number of researchers, however,
continue to emphasise the importance of rnaintaining a continuum of support seMces for
students with special needs (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1994; Vaughn & Schumm, 1995). This
study, while unabIe to offer conclusions regarding the academic benefits or drawbacks of
inclusion, does support the notion of social advantages of inclusive classrooms (e.g.,
more opportunities for developing social competence). Although not specifically studied
in the present investigation, results speak to the conclusion that when labeliing practices
are decreased and inclusive practices are increased, students with LD do not differ fjrom
non-LD peers in representation across social statu categories. Contrary to previous
Social Cornpetence
106
research indicating the lower social status of children with LD in mainstreamed
classrooms (Madge, Afneck, & Lowenbraun, 1990; Sale & Carey, 1995), no difference in
the proportions of children falling in the sociometrïc categories was found in this shidy
between children with and without LD,
AdditionaUy, the results of the present study can better inform pre-service and in-
s e ~ c e teachers on the nature of effective inclusion in relation to social development-
Fbt, recent publications have emerged describing best practices for teaching students
with disabilities in inclusive settings (Friend, Bursuck, & Hutchinson, 1998) and despite
effective qualitative research in this area (e-g., Hutchinson, 1996), there remains a need to
understand how the promotion of social cornpetence and social acceptance take place in
inclusive settings,
Secondly, when plauning social skills interventions for students, caution shouId
be afXorded when considering who is rating the social skills of the student (teachers,
parents, self, or peers) and the Iand of social skills to include in intemention programs
(i-e., classroom skills, interpersonal skills, task management skills). G e n d education
teachers are typically responsible for reporting students' classroom difficulties and
making refenals for remedial assistance, making their perspective critical when
examining the sociai-emotiond hctioning of children. If teacher ratings are the sole
method utilised in choosing who will benefit fkom social skills training programs, many
children chosen to receive such services may be those with a tendency toward displaying
teacher-displeasing behaviours, but who otherwise function well with their peers. Thus, a
caution is warranted when using teachers as exclusive infonnants regarding the social and
behavioural fUnctioning of students with academic difficulties, as it is possible that
children who otherwise experience social success with their peers may be identified by
teachers as lacking in social skiils.
Additionally, the teacher-perceived behavioural difnculties experienced by boys
or girls with LD in the classroom may be important avenues through which these children
Social Cornpetence
107
gain acceptance h m their peers. It is possible that mildly disruptive, class-clown
behaviour is highly valued arnong students and that this type of classroom behaviour is
associated with positive social outcomes among peers (Wiener, Harris, & Shirer, 1990).
Thus, it is conceivable that teacher-identified children with social and behavioural
weaknesses may actually experience social success among peers and be most in need of
classroom, rather than interpersonal, social skiils remediation.
In summary, results of the present study inform us that students with LD possess
many positive social-behwioural traits and that, despite th& academic s horicomings, are
able to achieve nonacademic success s d a r to non-LD peers. Hence, in their efforts to
enhance the scholastic success of students with LD, educators are rerninded of the
importance of i d e n w g and distinguishing between peer-perceived versus teacher-
perceived social fiinctioning strengths and weaknesses of students with LD. Finally, it is
important to consider the present raults as providing support for non-labelling and
inclusive educational practices for students with LD.
Overall, the paucity of significant differences between socially-accepted children
with and without LD in the present study, whiie not entirely expected, cm nonetheless be
seen as encowaging as it appears fkom these r e d t s that cbildren with LD do not
necessarily have to excel above and beyond their non-LD peers in social and
nonacademic areas in order to gain peer acceptance. A large amount of literature has been
devoted to the topic of social competence in general, and social skills deficits in
particular, in children with LD. Although social skills deficits are argued to be an integral
part of the constellation of learning disabilities profile @Cavale & Fomess, 1996), it is
imprudent to overlook the proportion of the LD population that manages to succeed
socialiy. It is now well established that not al1 children with LD expenence problems in
their social lives (Bryan, 1997); the time is right to broaden our scope in the study of the
social functioning of children with LD by complementing deficit-model research with
competency-mode1 investigations.
Social Competence
108
References
Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. S. (1978). The classification of child
psychopathology. A review and analysis of empirical efforts. Psvchologicai Bulletin. 85,
1275-1301.
Achenbach, T. M., McConaughy, S. &, & Howell, C . T. (1 987). Child/adolescent
behaviourai and emotional problems: Implications of cross-informant correlations for
situational specincity. PsychoIonical Bulletin, 10 1,2 13-232.
Ackerman, Dey & Howes, C. (1986). Sociometric status and after-school social
activity of children with learning disabilities. Journal of Leamine. Disabilities. 19,416-
419,
Asher, S. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1986). Identïfying children who are rejected by
their peers. Developmental Psycho 10 W. 22,444449.
Asher, S. R, & Hymel, S. (1981). ChiIdren's social cornpetence in peer relations:
SociornetTic and behavioral assessrnent In J. D. Wine & M.D. Smye (Eds.), Social
cornpetence @p. 125-1 57). New York: Guilford.
Asher, S. R., & Renshaw, P. D. (198 1). Children without fnends: Social
knowledge and social skills training In S. R Asher & I. M. Gottman (Eh.), The
develovrnent of children's fi-iendships @p. 273-296). New York: Cambridge Universi@
Press.
Asher, S. R., & Wheeler, V. A- (1985). Children's loneliness: A cornparison of
rejected and neglected peer status. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psvchologv. 53,
500-505.
Axelrod, L. H. (1982). Social perception in learning disabled adolescents.
Journal of le am in^ Disabilities, 15,610-613,
Baker, E. T., Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H. J. (1994/1995). The effects of inclusion
on leaming. Educational Leadership. 52,33-35.
Banerji, M., & Dailey, R. A. (1995). A study of the effects of an inclusion mode1
on students with specific leaming disabilities. Journal of Leamine Disabilities. 28,s 1 1 -
Social Cornpetence
109
522.
Bear, G. G., & Minke, K. M. (1996). Positive bias in maintenance of self-worth
among children with LD. Leamin~ Disabilitv Ouarterlv. 19,23-32.
Bender, W. N. (1 985). Differences between learning disabled and non-learning
disabled children in temperament and behavior. Leaming Disability Ouarterly- 8,1148.
Bender, W, N., & Smith, J. K (1990). Classroom behavior of children and
adolescents with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. Journal of Learnin~ Disabilities,
23,298-305.
Bender, W. N., & Wall, M. E- (1994). Social-emotional development of students
with l e d g disabilities- Leaminn Disabilitv Ouarterlv. 17,323-341.
Bender, W. N., Wyne, M. D., Stuck, G. B., & Bailey, D. B. (1984). Relative peer
status of leaming disabled, educable mentally handicapped, low-achieving and normally
achieving children. ChiId Studv Journal, 13,209-2 16.
Berndt, T. J- (1983). Correlates and causes of sociometric status in childhood: A
commentary on six current studies of popular, rejected, and negIected children- M e d l
Palmer Ouarterlv. 29,43 9-448.
Boivin, M., & Bégin, G. (1989). Peer status and self-perception among early
elementary school children: The care of rejected childrem Child Develo~ment, 60,59L-
596.
Bruck, M., & Hebert, M. (1982)- Correlates of leaming disabled students' peer
interaction problems. Learnlli~ Disability Ouarterlv. 5,353-362.
Bniininks, V. L. (1978a). Actual and perceived peer status of leaming-disabled
students in mainstream programs. Journal of S~ecial Education. 12,51-58.
Bnllninks, V. L. (1978b). Peer status and personality characteristics of leaming
disabled and nondisabled students. Journal of Leamhg Disabilities. 1 M8), 29-34.
Bryan, T. H. (1 974). Peer popularity of learning disabled children. Journal of
Leaming; Disabilities, T l O), 3 1-35,
Bryan, T. H. (1976). Peer popularity of Ieaming disabled children: A replication.
Social Competence
110
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 9(5), 49-53,
Bryan, T. H- (2997). Assessing the personal and social skills of students with
learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, t2,63-76.
Bryan, T. H. & Bryan, J. (1986). un der stand in^ learning disabilities. PaIo Alto,
CA: Mayfîeld-
Bryan, J. H., Sherman, R., & Fisher, A. (1980). Learning disabled boys' nonverbal
behaviors with a dyadic interview- Learnin~ - Disabilitv Ouarterly, 3,6572,
Bukowski, W. M., & Hoza, B. (1989). Popularïty and fiiendship: Issues in theory,
measurement, and outcorne. In T. Bemdt & G. Ladd (Eds.), Peer relationships in child
development (pp.15-45). New York: Wiley.
Bursuck, W. D. (1983). Sociometric status, behavior ratings, and social
knowledge of learning disabled and low-achieving students. Leamine Disabilitv
OuarterIv. 6,329-33 8.
Bursuck, W. (1989). A comparison of students with learning disabilities to Iow
achieving and higher achieving students on three dimensions of social competence.
Journal of Learninn Disabilities. 22,188-194.
Byme, B. M. (1984). The generaVacademic self-concept nomological network: A
review of constmct validation research, Review of Educational Research, 54,427-456.
Cantrell, V. L., Prinz, R. J. (1985). Multiple perspectives of rejected, neglected,
and accepted children: Relationship between sociorneûic status and behavioral
characteristics. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psvchologv. 53,8 84-8 89.
Carlson, C. L., Lahey, B. B., & Neeper, R (1984). Peer assessrnent of the social
behavior of accepted, rejected, and neglected children. Journal of Abnormal Child
PSVC~O~OEY. 12,189-198,
Chapman, J. W. (1988). Learning disabled children's self-concepts. Review of
Educational Research. 58,347-37 1.
Clever, A., Bear, G., & Juvonen, J. (1992). Discrepancies between competence
and importance in self-perceptions of children in integrated classes. Journal of Soecial
Social Cornpetence
111
Education, 26,125-13 8.
Coie, J. D. (1985). Fitting social skills intervention to the target group. In B.
Schneider, IL Rubin, & J. Ledingham (Eds.), Children's peer relations: Issues in
assessrnent and intervention (pp. 141-156), New York: Springer-
Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1988). Multiple sources of data on social behavior
and social status in the school: A cross-age cornparison. Child Development, 59,815-
829.
Coie, 1. D., Dodge, K. A., & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and types of
social status: A cross-age perspective. Develo~rnenta.1 Psvcholoev. 1 8,557-570.
Coie, J. D., Dodge, K A., & Kupersmidt, J. B. (1990). Peer group behavior and
social status. In S. R. Asher & J- D. Coie (Eds.), Peer reiection in childhood (pp. 17-59).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Coie, J. D., & Kupersmidt, J. (1983). A behaviourai analysis of ernerging social
status in boys' groups. Child Development, 54,1400-1416.
Coleman, J. M., McHam, L. A., & Minnett, A. M. (1992)- Similarities in the
social cornpetencies of learning disabled and low-achieving elementary school children.
JoumaI of Leaniinrr Disabilities. 25,671-677.
Coleman, J. M., & Minnett, A. M. (1992). Learning disabilities and social
competence: A social ecological perspective. Exceptional Children, 59,234246-
Conderman, G. (1995). Social status of surth-and-seventh-grade students with
learning disabilities. Learning Disabilitv Ouarterlv. 1 8,13 -24.
Connell, J. P. & flardi, B. C- (1987). Self-system concomitants of discrepancies
between children's and teachers' evaluation of academic competence. Child Development,
58 1297-1307. d
Cornwall, A-, & Bawden, H. N. (1992). Reading disabilities and aggression: A
critical review. Journal of Leamine; Disabilities. 25,28 1-288.
0 Cowen, E. L., Pederson, A., Babigian, H., Izzo, L. D., & Trost, M. A. (1973).
Long-term follow-up of early detected vulnerable children. Journal of Consulting and
Social Competence
112
Clinical P S V C ~ O ~ O W ~ 41,438-446,
CuUinan, D., Epstein, M. IL, & Lloyd, J. (1 98 1). School behavior problems of
leaming disabled and nomial girls and boys. Learnïne Disabiiity Quarterlv. 4,163-169.
Dodge, K. A. (1983). Behaviord antecedents of peer social status. Child
Develo~ment. 54,1386-1399-
Doll, B. (l996). Children without fnends: Implications for practice and policy.
School Psvcholow Review, 25,165-183-
Dudley-Marling, C. C., & Edmiaston, R (1985). Social status of learnuig disabled
chïldren and adolescents: A review. Learning Disability Ouarterly. 8,189-204.
Eliason, M- J., & Richman, L. C. (1988). Behavior and attention in LD children-
Learning Disability Quarterly, 1 1,360-369.
Elkins, D. (1958). Some factors relate to the choice status of ninety eighth-grade
children in a school society. Genetic Psycholom Monopphs. 58,207-272.
Eliiott, S. N., & Gresham, F. M. (1993). Social skills interventions for children.
Behavior Modification, 17,287-3 13-
Elliott, S. N., & McKùinie, D. M. (1993). Relationships and differences among
social skills, problem behaviors, and academic cornpetence for mainstrearned learning-
disabled and nonhandicapped students. Canadian Journal of School Pmcholow, 10,l-14.
Feinberg, M. R., Smith, M., & Schmidt, R (1 958). An analysis of expressions
used by adolescents at varying economic levels to descnbe accepted and rejected peers.
Journal of Genetic Psychologv, 93,133-148,
French, D. C., & Waas, G. A- (1985). Behavior problems of peer-neglected and
peer-rej ected elementary-age children: Parent and teacher perspectives. Child
Development. 56,246-252.
Fnend, M., Bursuck, W., & Hutchinson, N. L. (1996'). Including- students with
mecial needs: A practical mide for classroom teachers. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1994). Inclusive schools movement and the
radicalization of special education reform. Exceotional Children 60,294-309.
Social Cornpetence
113
Gardner, H. (1983). Multi~le intellicrences: The theorv in ~ractice. New York:
Basic Books.
Garrett, M. K, & C m p , W. D. (1 980). Peer acceptance, teacher preference, and
self-appraisal of social status among leaming disabled students. Learninn Disabil i~
Ouarterk3,42-47.
Glass, G.V. & Hopkins, K.D. (1996). Statisticd methods in education and
psvcholonv (3rd ed.). Toronto: AIlyn & Bacon.
Gottman, J. M., Gonso, J., & Rasmussen, B. (1975). Social interaction, social
competence, and fiendship in children. Child Development. 46,709-71 8.
Gresham, F. M. (1 98 8). Social competence and motivational characteristics of
1 e a . g disabled students. In M C Wong, M.C. Reynolds, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.).
Handbook of special education: Research and practice, Wol, 2): Mildlv handica~ued
conditions @p. 283-302). Toronto: Pergarnon.
Gresham, F., & Elliott, S- (1984). Advances in the assessment of children's social
skills. School of Psvcholonv Review. 13,292-301,
Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S- N. (1989). Social skills deficits as a primary
learning disability. Journal of Leaming Disabilities. 22, L20-124-
Gresham, F. M., & Eiliott, S. N. (1990)- Social Skills Rating Svstem- Circle
Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Gresham, F. M., & Reschly, D. J. (1986). Social skiU deficits and low peer
acceptance of maïnstreamed learning disabled children. Leaming Disabilitv Ouarterlv. 9,
23-32.
Gresham, F. M., & Reschly, D. J. (1988). Issues in the conceptualisation,
classification, and assessment of social skills in the mildly handicapped. In T. R
Kratochwill (Ed.), Advances in school ~svcholom. Vol. 6 @p. 203-247). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1990). Self-perceptions, motivation, and
adjustment in children with leaming disabilities: A multiple group cornparison study.
Social Competence
114
Journal of Learninn Disabilities, 23(3), 177-1 84.
Gronlund, N. E., & Anderson, L. (1957). Personality characteristics of socially
accepted, socially neglected, and socidly rejected junior hi& school pupils. Educational
Administration and MuItivle Pemectives Suvervision, 43,329-338.
Haager, D. S. (1992). M u h i e perspectives on the social functioning; of students
with Iearning disabilities: Teacher. parent, self, and peer reports- Dissertation Abstracts
International, 53(6), 1868-A (DA922720 1)
Haager, D., & Vaugbn, S. (2995). Parent, teacher, peer, and self-reports of the
social competence of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
28,205-225,231.
Harter, S - (1982)- The Perceived Competence Scale for Children. Child
Develo~ment. 53,87-97.
Harîer, S. (1 985). Manual for the Self-Percmtion Profile for Children (Revision of
the Perceived Competence Scale for Children). Unpublished manuscript, University of
Denver, Denver, CO.
Harter, S., & Pike, R (1984). The pictorial scale of perceived competence and
social acceptance of young children. Child Development, 55,2969-1982.
Hartup, W. W. (1983). Peer relations. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of Child
Psvcholow, Vol- 4. Toronto: John Wiley & Sons.
Harwell, M. R (1988). Univariate and multivariate tests: Anova versus Manova,
Educational Research Ouarterlv, 12,20-28.
Haskins, R., Walden, T., & Ramey, C. T. (1983). Teachers and student behavior
in hi&- and low-ability groups. Journal of Educational Psvcholoav. 25,865-876.
Kazel, J. S., & Schumaker, J. B. (1988). Social skills and leaming disabilities:
Currents issues and recommendations for fiiture research. In J. Kavmaugh & T. J. Tniss
(Eds.), Learnina disabilities: Proceedings of the national conference @p. 293-344).
Parkton, MD: York Press.
Heath, N. L. (1995) Distortion and deficit: Self-perceived versus actual acadernic
Social Cornpetence
115
cornpetence in depressed and nondepressed children with and without learning
disabilities. Learning Disabilities: Research and Practice. 10,2-f 0-
Heath, N. L., & Brown, A. E- (1999). Self-concept differentiation and depressive
symptomatology International Journal of Psvcholonv. 34,95-105.
Heath, N. L., & Wiener, J. (1996). Depression and non-achievement self-
perception in children with and without learning disabilities, Learning Disabilitv
Chmrteriy. L 9,34-44.
Hogan, A, E., Quay, H. C,, Vaughn, S., & Shapiro, S , K. (1989)- Revised
Behavior Problem Checklist : Stability, prevalence, and incidence of behavior problems in
kindergarten and ht-grade children. PsychoIonical Assessment. lXlO3-ll 1.
Horowitz, E. C. (198 1)- Popdarity, decentering ability, and role-taking skills in
leaming disabled and normal children, Learning Disabilitv Ouarterlv. 4,23-3 0.
Huberty, C. J., & Moms, J. D. (1989). Multivariate analysis versus univariate
analyses. PsycholoeJcal Bulletin, 105,302-308.
Hutchinson, N. L. (1996)- Creating an inclusive classroom with young
adolescents in an urban school, Exceptionality Educatïon Canada. 6,51-67.
Hutton, J., & Polo, L. (1976). A sociometric study of leaming disability children
and Spes of teaching strategy. gr ou^ Psvchothemv and Psvchodrama 29,113- 120.
Ingersoll, B. D.& Goldsteïn, S. (1993)- Attention Deficits and Learning
Disabilities: Realities. Mvths. and Controversial Treatments, NY: Doubleday.
Juvonen, J., & Bear, G. (1 992)- Social djustment of children with and without
learning disabilities in integrated classrooms. Journal of Educational Psvchologv, 84,
322-330.
Kaufhan, J- M. (198 1). Characteristics of children's behavior disorders (2nd-
edJ, Columbus, OH: Merrill,
Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S- R; (1996)- Social skills deficits and leaming
a disabilities: A meta-analysis. Journal of Leaming Disabilities. 29,226-237.
Kistner, J. A., & Gatlin, D. (1989). Correlates of peer rejection among children
Social Cornpetence
116
with leaming disabilities. Learninn Disabilitv Ouarterl~, 12,133-1 40.
Kistner, J., Haskett, M., White, R7 & Robbins, F. (1987)- Perceived competence
and self-worth of l e d g disabled and nomaliy achieving students- Learnin~ Disabilitv
Quarterlv. 1 O, 37-44.
Kliewer, C-, & Biklen, D- (1996). Labelling: Who wants to be cailed retarded? In
W. Stainback & S. Stainback (Eds.), Controversial issues codinnting. mecial education:
Divergent perspectives. (RD, 83-951- Toronto: Allyn & Bacon.
Klingner, J. K, Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., Cohen, P., & Forgan, J. W. (1998).
Inclusion or puli-out: Which do students prefer? Jownal of Learninn Disabilities. 3 1,
148-158.
Kloomok, S., & Cosden, M. (1994). Self-concept in children with learning
disabilities: The relationship between global self-concept, academic "discounting,"
nonacademic self-concept, and perceived social support. Learning Disabilitv Ouarterlv,
17 140-153. d
Kuhlen, R G., & Lee, B. 5. (1943). Personality characteristics and socid
acceptability in adolescence- Journal of Educational Psvcholog;v. 34,321-340.
Ladd, G. W. (1983). Social networks of popular, average, and rejected children in
school settings. Merrill Palmer Ouarterlv. 29,283-307.
La Greca, A. M. (1993). Social skills training with children: Where do we go fiom
here? Journal of Clinical Child Psvcholow. 22,288-298.
La Greca, A. M., & Stone, W L (1990). LD status and achîevement:
Confomding variables in the study of children's social status, self-esteem, and behaviord
hctioning- Journal of L e h g Disabilities, 23,483-490.
Lancelotta, G. X. & Vaughn, S. (1989). Relation between types of aggression and
sociometric stahis: Peer and teacher perceptions. Journal of Educational Psycholow. 8 1,
86-90.
Landau, S., Milich, R., & Whitten, P. (1984). A cornparison of teacher and peer
assessrnent of social status. Journal of Clinical Child Psycholow. 13,4449.
Social Cornpetence
117
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1485)- Naturalistic InauuVuuv Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Maag, J. W., Vasa, S. F., Reid, R7 & Torrey, G. K- (1995). Social and behaviorai
predîctors of popular, rejected, and average children Educational and Psvcholoeical
Measurement, 55,196-205.
Maccoby, Et E. & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The Psvcholow of Sex Differences.
SWord, CA: S tdord University Press.
Madge, S., Afneck, J., & Lowenbraun, SS. (1990). Social effects of integrated
classrooms and resource room/regular class placements on elementary students with
learning disabilities. Journal of Leaming Disabilities. 23,439-444,
Margalit, M., Raviv, A., & Pahn-Steinmetz, N. (1988). Social cornpetence of
learning disabled children: Cognitive and emotiond aspects. The Excmtional Child. 35,
179-189.
Marsh, H. W. (1989). Age and sex effects in multiple dimensions of self-concept:
Preadolescence to early adulthood. Journal of Educational Psychologv. 8 1,4 17-430.
Masten, A., Morison, P., & Pellegrhi, D. (1985). A revised cIass play method of
peer assessment. Developmentai Psvcholoav, - - 2 1,523-533.
McKinney, J. D., & Feagans, L. (1984). Acadernic and behavioral characteristics
of learning disabled children and average achievers: Longitudinal studies. Learning
Disabilitv Ouarterly. 7,25 1-265.
McKinney, J. D., McClure, S., & Feagans, L. (1982). Classroom behavior of
learning disabled children. Learninn Disabilitv Ouarterlv. 5,4542.
McKinney, J. D., & Speece, D. L. (1 983). Classroorn behavior and the acadernic
progress of Iearning disabled students. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychoiogv. 4,
149-161.
Montgomery, M. S. (1994). Self-concept and children with leamhg disabilities:
Observer-child concordance across six context-dependent domains. Journal of Leaminq
Disabilities, 27,254-262.
Social Competence
118
Moore, S. R-, & Simpson, R L. (1983). Teacher-pupil and peer verbal
interactions of leaming disabled, behavior-disordered, and nonhandicapped students.
Learning; Disability Quarterlv. 6,273-282-
Moreno, J. (1934). Who shall survive? A new amroach to the ~roblem of human
interrelations. Washington, DC: Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing Co.
Morison, P. & Masten, k S- (199 1). Peer reputation in middle childhood as a
predictor of adaptation in adolescence: A seven-year follow-up. Child Development. 62,
991-1007.
Nabuzoka, D., & Smith, P. K. (1993). Sociornetric status and social behavior of
children with and without learning difficulties. Journal of Child Psvcholo~y and
Psvchiatrv. 34,1435-1448.
Newcomb, A. F., Bukowski, W. M., & Pattee, L. (1993). Children's peer
relations: A meta-analytic review of populae, rejected, neglected, controversid, and
average sociometric status. Psvcholo-&al Bulletin. 1 l3,99-128.
Ochoa, S. H., & Olivarez, A. (1 995). A meta-analysis of peer rating sociometnc
studies of pupils with leaming disabilities. Journal of S~ecial Educatioa 29,149.
Ochoa, S. H., & Palmer, D. J. (1991). A sociometric analysis of between-group
ciifferences and within-group status variability of Kispank learning disabled and
nonhandicapp ed pupils in academic and play contexts. Learning Disabilitv Ouarterlv, 14,
208-218.
Offord, D. R, Boyle, M. H., & Racine, Y. A (1991). The epedemiology of
antisocial behaviours in children and adoIescents. In: D. J. Pepler & K. H. Rubin (Eds.),
The development and treatment of childhood anmession @p. 3 1-54), Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaurn.
Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later persona1 adjustment:
Are low-accepted children at risk. Psychological Bulletin 102,357-3 89.
Patternon, C. J., Kupersrnidt, J. B., & Gnesler, P. C. (1990). Children's
perceptions of self and of relationships with others as a fiinction of sociomeûic status.
Social Cornpetence
119
Child Development, 61,1335-1349,
Pekarik, E. G., Prinz, R J., Liebert, D. E., Weintraub, S., & Neale, J. M. (1976)-
The Pupil Evaluation Inventory: A sociometric technique for assessing children's social
behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psvcholo~. 4,83-97.
Perlrnutter, B. F., Crocker, J- Cordray, D., & Garstecki, D. (1983). Sociomeû5c
status and related personality characteristics of mainstreamed leaming disabled
adolescents. Learninp; Disability Quarterly. 6,20-30.
Priel, B., & Lesham, T. (1990). Self-perceptions of first- and second-grade
children with learning disabilities. Journal of Leamhg Disabilities, 23,637-642.
Prillunan, D. (1981)- Acceptance of learning disabled students in the mainstream
environment: A failure to replicate. Journal of Learnin~ Disabilities, 14,334-346,368.
Renick, M. J., & Harter, S. (1988)- Self-Percemtion Profile for Learning Disabled
Students. Denver: University of Denver.
Renick, M. J., & Harter, S. (1989). Impact of social cornparisons on the
developing self-perceptions of learning disabled students. Journal of Educational
Psvcholonv. 8 1,63 1-63 8.
Richey, D. D., & McKinney, J. D. (1978). Classroom behavior styles of leaming
disabled boys. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 1 1,297-301.
Roff, M., Seiis, S. B., & Golden, M. W. (1972). Social adiustment and ~ersonalitv
development in children. Minneapolis: Univerisity of Minnesota Press.
Rubin, K. H., & Daniels-Beirness, T. (1983). Concurrent and predictive correlates
of sociornetnc status in kindergarten and grade one children. Merrïll-Palmer Ouarterlv,
29,337-352.
Sabomie, E. J., & Kauffinan, J. M. (1986). Social acceptance of learning disabled
adolescents. Learning; Disability Ouarterlv, 9,55-60.
Sainato, D. M., Zigmond, N., & Strain, P. S. (1983). Social status and initiations
m on interaction by learning disabled students in a regular education setting, Anahsis and
Intervention in Develo~mental Disabilities, 3,71-87.
Social Cornpetence
120
Sale, P. & Carey, D. M. (1995)- The sociometric status of students with
disabilities in a full-inclusion school. Excmtional Children. 62,6- 19.
Sater, G. M., & French, D. C. (1989). A cornparison of the social cornpetencies of
learning disabled and low-achieving elementary-aged children. Journal of Soecial
Education. 23,2942,
Sattler, J. M. (1992). Assessrnent of children (4th ed.). San Diego, CA: J M.
Sattler,
Schneider, B. H., Wiener, J., & Murphy, K. (1994). Children's riendships: The
giant step beyond peer acceptance. Joumal of Social and Personalitv Relationshbs. 11,
323-340.
Schumaker, J. B., Hazel, J. S., Sherman, J. A., & Sheldon, J. (1982). Social skill
pefiormances of leaming disabled, non leamïng-disabled, and delinquent adolescents.
Learning Disabilitv Ouarterlv, 5,409-414.
Scranton, T. R-, & Ryclanan, D. B. (1979). Sociometric status of learning
disabled children in an integrative program. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 12,49-54.
Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J., & Staton, G. C . (1976). Self-concept: Validation of
constmct interpretations- Review of Educational Research, 46,407-441.
Shaywitz, B. A., Fletcher, J. M., & Shaywïtz, S. E. (1994). A conceptual
framework for leamhg disabilities and attention-deficithyperactivity disorder. Canadian
Journal of Special Education, 9,l-32.
Sheare, J- B. (1978). The impact of resource programs upon the self-concept and
peer acceptance of learning disabled children. Psvcholow in the Schools. 15,40642.
Siperstein, G. N., Bopp, M. J., & Bak, J. J. (1978). Social status of learning
disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabifities, 1 1.49-53.
Siperstein, G. N., & Goding, M. J. (1983). Social integration of leamuig disabled
children in regular classroorns. Advances in Learnin~ and B ehavioral Disabili ties, 2,227-
263.
Soenksen, P. A., FIagg, C. L., & Schmits, D. W. (1981). Social communication in
Social Cornpetence
121
learning disabled students : A pragrnatic analysis. Journal of Learninn Disabilities. 2 4,
283-286.
Stanton, W. R., Freehan, M., McGee, R, & Silva, P. A. (1990)- The relative
values of reading abïlity and IQ as predictors of teacher-reported behavior problems.
Journal of L e d g Disabilities, 23,5 14-517,
Stevens, J. (1986). Applied multivarïate statistics for the social sciences-
Hïllsdale, NJ: Erlbaum-
Stiehr-Smith, D., & Nagle, R. i, (1995). Self-perceptions ancL social cornparisons
among children with leaming disabilities. Ioumai of Learning Disabilities. 28,364-371.
Stone, W. L., & La Greca, A. M- (1990). The social status of children with
leaming disabilities: A re-examination. Journal of Leaming Disabilities. 23,32-37.
Swanson, H. L., & ~aloxie, S. (1992). Social skiils and leamÉng disabilities: A
meta-analysis of the fiterature. School Psvcholow Review. 2 1,427-443.
Terry, R., & Coie, J. D. (1991). A cornparison of methods for definhg
sociometric status among children- Develo~rnental Psvchologv. 27,867-880.
Thomdike, E- L. (1927). Intelligence and its uses. Harper's Magazine. 140,227-
235.
TUT-Kaspa, H., & Bryan, T. (1 995). Teachers' ratings of the social competence
and school adjustment of students with leaming disabilities in elementary and junior high
school. Journal of Learninn Disabilities, 28,4442.
Vau-, S., Elbaum, B. E., & Schumm, J. S. (1996). The effeçts of inclusion on
the social hctioning of students with Leamuig disabilities. Jounial o f Leaming
Disabilities, 29,598-608.
Vaughn, S., Elbaum, B. E., Schumm, J- S., &Hughes, M. T. (1998). Social
outcornes for students with and without leaming disabilities in inclusive classrooms.
Journal of Learning; Disabilities, 3 1,428436.
Vaughn, S., & Haager, D. (1994). Social competence as a rndtifaceted construct:
How do students with learning disabilities fare? Leamhg Disabilitv Ouarterlv. 17,253-
Social Competence
122
Vaughn, S., & Hogan, A. (1 990)- Social competence and leaming disabilities: A
prospective study. In H- L. Swanson & B. K. Keogh (Eds.), Learning disabilities:
Theoretical and research issues (pp. 175-1 9 1)- Hilisdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Vaughn, S., & Hogau, A. (1994). The social competence of students with Iearning
disabilities over time: A within-individual examination. Journal of Learnin~ Disabilities,
27,292-303 - Vaughn, S., & Hogan, A., Kouzekanani, K-, & Shapiro, S. (1990). Peer
acceptance, seIf-perceptions, and social skills of learning disabled students prior to
identification. Journal of Educational Psvcholoav, 82,101-106.
Vaughn, S., McIntosh, R, Schumm, J_ S., Haager, D., & Cdlwood, D. (1993).
Social status, peer accep tance, and reciprocal fiiendships revisited. Leaming Disabilities:
Research and Practice, 8,82-88.
Vaughn, S., McIntosh, R, & Spencer-Rowe, J- (1991). Peer rejection is a
stubborn thing: Increasing peer accep tance of rejected students with learning disabilities.
Leaming Disabilities: Research and Practice, 6,83 -88-
Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. S. (1995). Responsible inclusion for students with
learning disabilities. Journal of Learnin~ Disabilities. 28,264-270,290.
Vaughn, S., Zaragoza, N., Hogan, A., & Walker, J- (1 993). A four-year
longitudinal investigation of the social skills and behavior problems of students with
leamhg disabilities. J o u a l of Learning Disabilities. 26,404412.
Vogel, S. A. (1990). Gender differences in intelligence, language, visual-motor
abilities, and academic achievement in students with learning disabifities: A review of the
literature. Journal of Learnine Disabilities. 23,4452.
Vosk, B., Forehand, R, Parker, J I B., & Rickard, K. (1982). A multimethod
cornparison of popdar and unpopular children. Develo~mentd Psvcholom. 18,57 1-575.
Wang, M. C., Reynolds, M. C., & Walberg, H. J- (L994/1995). Serving students at
the margins. Educational Leadership, 52, 12-17.
Social Competence
123
Wechsler, D. (1991). Manual for the Wechsler Intelli~ence Scale for Children - Third Edition. New York: Psychological Corporation.
Wiener, J. (1 987). Peer status of Iearnùig disabled children and adolescents: A
review of the literature. Learning Disabilities Research. 2,62-79.
Wiener, J., Harris, P. J., & Shirer, C. (1990). Achievement and social-behavioral
correlates of peer status in learning disabled children. Leaming Disabil& Ouarterlv. 13,
114-127.
Wiener, J., Hams, P. J., & Duval, L. (1993). Placement, identification and
subtype correlates of peer status and social behaviour of children with leaming
disabïlities. Exceptionality Education Canada 3,129-1 55.
Wiikinson, G. S- (1993). The Wide Range Achievement Test-Revision 3.
Wilmington, DE: Jastak Associates.
Winne, P. H., Woodlands, M- H., & Wong, B. Y. L. (2982)- Comparability of
self-concept among leaming disabled, normal and gified students. Journal of Leaming
Disabilities, 1 5,470-475.
Wong, B. Y. L., & Wong, R (1980). Role-taking skills Ui nomal achieving and
le&g disabled children. Learninn Disabilitv Quarterlv, 3,ll-18. \
Social Cornpetence
124
Appendix A: Sociometrics Forms
Social Cornpetence
125
1. This is an EXAMPLE of what you will be asked to do:
How much do you like to PLAY with J o h n ~ ?
l=not at aU
2= not much
3= pretty much
4= very much
Choose one number fiom below to show how much you like playing with
Bobby. CUcle one number.
Bobby Black
not at al1 not much pretty much very much
1 2 3 4
... DO NOT GO ON UNTIL TOLD TO
Social Cornpetence
126
2. Rate EACH of the CLASSMATES listed below by using this 4-number scale. Circle ONE number only for each classrnate- Rate ALL classrnates. Your answers are PRIVATE.
l=not at al1 2=not much 3=pretty much W e r y much
... HOW MUCH DO YOU LIKE TO PLAY WITH
not at al1 not much ' urettv much verv much
(names)
Did you give an Answer for each person ??
Turn the page and wait for instructions ...
Social Cornpetence
127
3. Here is an EXAMPLE of what you will be asked to do next.
CIRCLE the names of the THREE (3) FAMOUS PEOPLE/ CHARACTERS fkom this list that you LIKE THE MOST. Circle ONLY 3 names. Your answers are PRIVATE.
J h Carrey
Michael Jordan
Oprah W ~ e y
Bart Simpson
Pauly Shore
Madonna
CeLine Dion
Mariah Carey
Babe
Pocahontas
Roseanne
Whoopee Goldberg
Michael Jackson
Alanis Momsette
Robin Williams
Jocelyn Thibeault
4. CIRCLE the names of the THREE (3) CLASSMATES fkom this Iist that you LIKE THE MOST. Circle ONLY 3 names. Your answers are PRIVATE.
- STOP -
CHECK YOUR WORK - TWEN SLIDE YOUR PAPERS IN YOUR ENVELOPE.
DO NOT LICK THE ENVELOPE.
Social Cornpetence
128
Appendùr B: Revised Class Play Rating Questionnaire:
a) Peer-rater Fonn
b) Target Form
Social Cornpetence
129
Revised Class PIay Rating-Peer
a) Please read each of the following 35 statements and decide how much you agred disagree with what it says. Remember to think about the person you are rating very carefùlly when making your choices. Do not put your name on this questionnaire. Ali of your answers are private and no one in this school wiil ever know how you answered these questions. Please answer as honestly as possible and do not skip any items. Let's do an example to start,
Il Example: "My (da& mom, sister, brother) is good at playing video games"
1 2 3 4 5 VerY a Little almost a lïttle VerY false false even true tme
very a iittle almost a iittle very Items: false false even true true
1- - is a good Ieader
2, Everyone likes to be with
3- - has many fiiends
4- - has a good sense of humour
5. Everyone listens to
6- - has good ideas for things to do
7- - makes new fiends easiiy
8- - is someone you c m trust
9- - helps other people when they need it
10- can get things going
I l . plays fair
12, is poiïte
13. Wces to pIay with others rather than alone
14. is usualiy happy
15. waits hisher turn
Social Cornpetence
130
very alittle almost alittle very Items: false fdse even true true
16. picks on other kids
17. is too bossy
18- teases other kids too much
19. gets mto a lot of fights
20. Ioses temper e a d y
21. shows off a lot
22. intemipts when other children are speaking
23. acts Iike a little kid (immature)
24. is often left out
25- feelings' get easily hurt
26. is usually sad
27. would rather play alone than with others
28. has trouble making fnends
29 - can't get others to listen
30. is very shy
31. is good looking
32. is more intelligent than others his/her age
33- has a Iot of neat s t u f f
34. does very well in school work
35. is better than others hisher age in sports
In your own words, please tell me why you chose as someone you like to play witb the most What
is it about them that you Iike?
Social Cornpetence
13 1
Revised Class Play Rating-Target
b) Please read each of the followuig 35 statements and decide how much you agreddisagree with what it says. Think very carefiilly about how you feel about yourself in each of these areas and then make your choice. Do not put your name on this questionnaire. AU of your answers are private and no one in this school will ever know how you answered these questions. Please answer as honestIy as possible and do not skip any items. Let's do an example to starl.
Example: "1 am good at playing video games"
1 2 3 4 5 VerY a little almost a Little VerY
false fdse even true tme
Items: very a IittIe almost a litde very false false even true true
1.1 am a good leader
2, Everyone &es to be with m e
3- 1 have many firiends
4-1 have a good sense of humour
5. Everyone listens to me
6.1 have good ideas for things to do
7.1 make new fnends easily
8.1 am someone you can trust
9- 1 help other people when they need it
10.1 cm get things going
1 1.1 play fair
12.1 am polite
13.1 like to play with others rather than alone
14.1 am usuaUy happy
15.1 wait my tum
Social Cornpetence
132
very a Iittle almost a Little very Items: false fdse even tme Inie
16-1 pick on other kids
17.1 am too bossy
18.1 tease other kids too much
19.1 get into a lot of fights
20- 1 Iose my temper easily
21. I show off a lot
22. L intermpt when other children are speaking
23. I act like a little kid (immature)
24.1 am often lefi out
25, My feelings get easily hurt
26, I am usuaIiy sad
27, I would rather play alone than with others
28-1 have trouble making fiiends
29.1 can't get others to ïisten
30.1 am very shy
3 1.1 am good looking
32.1 am more intelligent than others my age
33.1 have a lot of neat sNfi
34. I do very weii in school work
35.1 am better than others my age in sports
In your own words, please tell me why you think you were chosen as someone many kids Iïke to play with
What is it about you that other kids me?
Social Cornpetence
133
Appendùc C: Consent Forrns
a) Screening Phase
b) Peer-raters (P)
c) Target Group (T)
McGill Social Cornpetence
134
Social Cornpetence
135
Dear Parent(s) or Guardian(s),
As you are already aware, your soddaughter participated in the McGill University/ Faculty of Education study at hidher school this past year- My name may sound farniliar to you because 1 am Dr. Nancy Heath's graduate student who has been, and will continue tu be, the Research Director for the McGiii University study in which your chiid is involved As a follow-up to the phone c d which you will receive or have received fiom either Dr. Nancy Heath or myself, here is a brief description of my study and a request for consent regarding participation- Please ask your child to retum the attached consent fonn (once you have signed it) to hidher teacher as soon as possible.
While the individual results for your son/daughter cannot be provided to you, 1 am able to tell you that yow soddaughter has indicated that there is a certain child in hismer grade that hdshe particularly Iikes as a fiend, E wodd like your child to fill-out a quesüonnalre that will help me better understand why he/she has chosm this child as a prefmed playmate. As part of the larger project currently underway with myself and Dr, Heath, 1 a m particularly interested in why some children are weil-liked and accepted by their peers- Unhappily, much of the research conducted in schools today focuses on the problems or the failures experienced by children, My research project is a welcomed change to this trend in that 1 am interested in what children are doing weil and where they are succeeding, rather than where are they failing. Because your child has rated certain of hisher peers as chifdren he/she particularly likes to play wiîh, 1 am w-riting to you to request your and your child's pennission to briefly meet wiîh your child to leam more about why he/she likes certain studeats ia his class.
What is involved? If you gant your childs' permission to participate in m y study, your child will be asked to complete ONE short questionnaire (35 items) pertaining to the classrnate with which your soddaughter has indicated he/she mes to play. Your chiid will be asked to circle a number fÏom one ("very false") to five ("very tme") indicating how much helshe agrees with each of the 35 statements (sample statements are: " has a good sense of humour?" or "- helps other people when they need it?"). Finally, your child wiU be asked one last question where hefshe gets a chance to explain m their own words why they like to play with the classrnate in question.
The entire session with your child will take approximately 15-20 minutes and wiU be conducted by either rnyselfor a trained doctoral student in a private area at your child's school- The session will be audiotaped to ensure accurate recording of your chdd's responses, There are no nght or wrong answet-s to these questions, rather the questions sirnply ask your child to express hidher thoughts concerning these fnendship related topics.
Scheduling of the session will be done in agreement with your child's teacher. Confidentiality of a l i information gathered from your child remains assure& Your child's responses will be identified by a code number, and not by name, on rnaterial associated with the study. Your child will be fiee to withdraw hisher participation fiom the study at any time.
1 would very much appreciate your child's participation in this activity in order to help me, and others, better understand the nature of fnendships and social acceptance in children- If you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to c d me at 845-2170 and 1 will return your c d within 24 hours, Please complete the consent form below. Than . you!
SincereIy, Andrea Brown, M.Sc. McGill University Doctoral Student
Social Cornpetence
136
As you are already aware, your soddaughter participated in the McGiU University/ Faculty of Education study at hidha schoo1 this past year. My name may sound famiiiar to you because 1 am Dr. Nancy Heath's graduate student who has been, and will continue to be, the Research Director for the McGiIi University study in which your child is involved, As a foUow-up to the phone c d which you will receive or have received fiom either Dr. Nancy Heath or myself, here is a brief description of my study and a request for consent regarding participation, Please ask your chiId to retuni the attached consent form (once you have signed it) to his/her teacher as soon as possible.
While the individual results for your soddaughter cannot be provided to you, 1 am able to tell you that your sorddaughter has been chosen by some of his /ha classmates as someone many children me to play with, As part of the larger project currentiy underway with myseIf and Dr, Heath, 1 am particularly interested in why some children are weII-liked and accepted by their peers. Unhappily, much of the research conducted in schools today focuses on the problems or the failures experienced by children, My research project is a welcomed change to this trend in that 1 am interested in what children are doing well and where they are succeeding, rathm than where are they failing- Because your child has been rated by his peers as someone that is experiencing social success, 1 would like to get a better understanding of how your cMd perceives hisher own social skills and how your child's peers perceive hidher social abilities.
M a t is involved? If you grant your child's permission to participate in my study, your child will be asked to complete ONE short questionnaire (35 items) about his/her self-perceptions in various areas of social fiuictioning. Your chiid will be asked to circie a number fkom one ("very fdse") to five ("very îrue") indicating how much hekhe agrees with each of the 35 statements (sample statements are: "1 have a good sense of humour?" or "1 help other people when they need it?"). Your chiId will be asked one last question where he/she gets a chance to explain in heir own words why they think other classmates picked t'hem as someone fun to play with Finally, permission is also requested in having two of your child's classmates (those who have indicated that they like to play with your child) complete a similar questionnaire that your child wili £ill out, with the only change being that the "I" will be replaced by your child's name. Peer raters wiil be asked to think about your child and histher social skills as they complete the brief questionnaire-
Scheduling of the session will be doue in agreement with your child's teacher. The entire session with your chiid wiU take approximately 15-20 minutes and will be conducted by either myselfor a trained doctoral student in a pnvate area at your child's school. The session will be audiotaped to ensure accurate recording of your child's responses. There are no right or wrong answers to these questions, rather the questions sirnply ask your child to express m e r thoughts concerning these. fiiendship related topics.
Confldentiality of al1 information gathered corn your child and the peer raters remains assured- Ail responses obtained fkom the participants wiU be identified by a code number, and not by name, on the material associated with the study. Your child will be kee to withdraw M e r participation fiom the study at any time.
1 would very much appreciate your child's participation in this activity in order to help me, and others, better understand the nature of fiiendships and social acceptance in children. Eyou have any questions or concerm pIease do not hesitate to call me at 845-2170 and 1 will return your call within 24 hours- Please complete the consent form below. Thank you!
Sincerely, Andrea Brown, M.Sc, McGiil University Doctoral Student
Social Competence
137
Appendix D: Sociometrics Distracter Tasks
Social Cornpetence
5. Rate EACH of the ACTMTIES Iisted below by using this 4-number scale. Circle ONE nurnber only for each activity. Rate ALL activities.
HOW MUCH DO YOU LIKE TO DO THE FOLLOWING:
not at al1 not much arettv much verv much
Riding Bikes
Playing vide0 games in arcades
Reading
Watching TV
Talking on phone to fiends
Playing Hackie-Sack
Watching movies
Playing computer games
Staying &et school for sports
Skateboarding
Snowboarding
Spendùig time on the Internet
Goin% fiien s t" house
Spending time alone
Shopping
Pla g games WI X" friends
Music Lessons
Social Cornpetence
139
6. CIRCLE the names of the THREE (3) PLAY ACTIVITIES fkom this list that you LIKE THE MOST. Circle ONLY 3 activities. Your answers are PRIVATE.
Riding Bikes
Playing video games in arcades
Reading
Watching TV
Talking on phone to Eends
Playing Hackie-Sack
Watching movies
Playing cornputer games
Staying after school for sports
S kateboardhg
Snowboarding
Spending t h e on the Internet
In-line skating
Going to fiiends house
Spending time alone
Shopping
Playing games with fiends
Music Lessons
- STOP EERE - PLEASE CHECK YOUR WORK AND PUT YOUR
PAPERS IN THE ENVELOPE. THANK YOU!
Social Cornpetence
140
Appendix E: Source Table for RCPR: Peer
Repeated Measures MANOVA
Social Competence
141
Source Df - F - Wilks' Lambda
Between ~ d c i p a n t s
Questionnaire Factor (QF)
QF x Gender
QF x LD Status
QF x LD Status x Gender
Within Participants
QF x Peer
QF x Peer x Gender
QF x Peer x LD Status
QF x Peer x Gender x LD Status
Social Competence
142
Appendix FI Breakdown of Peer-pleasing versus Teacher-pleasing items on the Social
Skills factor of the Social Skius Rating System-Teacher Form (SSRS-T)
Social Cornpetence
Peer-Pleasing Behaviours Teacher-Pleasing B ehaviours
1. Controls temper in conflict situation with
peers
2. htroduces herself or himself to new people
without being told
4. Compromises in confIict situation
5- Responds approprÏately to peer pressure
6. Says nice things about hirnself or herseif
7. Invites others to join in activities
10, Makes firiends easily
1 1. Responds appropriately to teasing by peers
14. Initiates conversations with peers
18, Accepts peers' ideas for group activities
19, Gives compliments to peers
24- Joins ongoing activity or group without
being told to do so
25. Responds appropriately when pushed or
hit by other children
30- Gets along with people who are différent
3, Appropnately questions d e s that may be
d a i r
8, Uses fkee time in an appropriate manner
9. Finishes class assignments within tirne
limits
12- Controls temper in conflict situations with
adults
13. Receives crïticism well
15. Uses time appropriately while waiting for
help
16. Produces correct school work
17. Appropriately tells you when thinking he
or she was treated unfairly
20, Foilows your directions
2 2 , Puts school materiaIs properly away
22. Cooperates with peers without prornpting
23. Volunteers to help peers with ckssroom
tasks
26- Ignores peer distractions when doing class
work
27. Keeps desk clean and neat without being
reminded
28, Attends to your .instructions
29, Easily makes transitions
Note, Numbw refers to the actual item number fkom the SSRS-T (Gresham & Elliott, 1990)
MCGiLL UNIVERSIN FACULTY OF EDUCATION
A review commit& consisting of three of the following members:
1, Prof. E. Lusthaus 1. Prof. M. ~aguire
2, Prof, R Ghosh 2. Prof. G. Isherwood
3- Prof. M. Downey 3. Prof- R. Tumtte
has examined the application for certification of the ethical acceptability of the project nmemplary fea -ues of s o c i u y accepted chLl*en e t h l e m i n g disabil i tg '
The review cornmittee considers the research procedures as explained by the applicant in this application. to be acceptable on ethical grounds,
(Signatures)
March Y996
