A Comparison of Three Methods of Measuring Pupil Status in the Classroom

Justman, Joseph; Wrightstone, J. Wayne

doi:10.1177/001316445101100305

Cited by 21 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Children were provided with five-point scales with faces placed above each point ranging from a frown to a happy face. The roster-and-rating-scale sociometric measure has been found to correlate highly with peer-nomination sociometric measures (Justman & Wrightstone 1951;Young 1947). The roster-and-rating-scale method has two particularly attractive features compared with the peer-nomination sociometric method.…”

Section: Pretraining Sociometric Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 97%

Coaching Children in Social Skills for Friendship Making

Oden¹,

Asher²

1977

Child Development

494

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Pretraining Sociometric Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 97%

Coaching Children in Social Skills for Friendship Making

Oden¹,

Asher²

1977

Child Development

494

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Although Lemann and Solomon (1952) and others (Justman & Wrightstone, 1951;Thompson & Powell, 1951) offered sociometric classification methods with improved ability to differentiate rejected and neglected children, Dunnington (1957) was the first to implement more fully the dimension of children's visibility in the peer group into a sociometric model. Liked and disliked scores were added to create a notice score, and disliked scores were subtracted from liked scores to create a status score.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Social impact and social preference as determinants of children's peer group status.

Newcomb

Bukowski²

1983

Developmental Psychology

262

281

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three sociometric procedures, which utilize a two-dimensional social-impact and social-preference framework, were evaluated on three independent samples of fourthand fifth-grade children (N = 334, 173, 89). The stability and distribution of classification, the relationship between dimensions, the validation of dimensions, and the validation of classification groups were considered. Overall, the Peery (1979) method appeared most problematic, due to both conceptual and practical drawbacks. The Coie, Dodge, and Coppotelli (1982) procedure was found to have nonexhaustive groups and had the potential of misrepresenting children's social networks when standardized scores were used. Furthermore, little support was found for the proposed controversial group in the Coie et al. classification system. An alternative two-dimensional sociometric model based on probability theory was proposed and was found to have excellent performance characteristics while still providing a constant frame of reference across social networks. The social reputational correlates of the impact and preference dimensions and the sociometric groups proposed by each model were also investigated. Although social impact and social preference are found to be reliable and valid determinants of peer group status, the need for alternative indicators of children's social standing in the peer group is discussed.

show abstract

“…Sociometric technics, devised by Moreno (124), have also had a considerable vogue, particularly in practical school situations as an aid in studying the structure of relationships in a group. Results obtained via guess-who and sociometric technics were compared by Justman and Wrightstone (95). Another relatively new approach uses an adjective checklist (20,68).…”

Section: Rating Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%