Teacher ratings of social skills in popular and rejected males and females.

Abstract

Contrasted social competence differences between popular and rejected elementary-age students using the Social Skills Rating System (Gresham & Elliott, 1990), a standardized measure of social skills and interfering problem behaviors. Using the Coie, Dodge, and Coppotelli (1982) method of sociometric classification, 25 children were classified as Rejected and 24 students were classified as Popular out of an initial screening sample of 336 students in grades kindergarten through 6. Initial grade-level analysis (kindergarten through 2 vs. 3 through 6) yielded no age effects on any dependent measure for popular and rejected groups. Subsequent analyses showed that popular students had higher levels of social skills and fewer interfering problem behaviors than rejected students. No Gender nor Gender X Sociometric Status interaction effects as noted. Interpretation of the lack of gender effects centered around the use of extreme groups in the current investigation compared to prior studies using behavior rating scales with children whose behavioral functioning was distributed across the full range of possible scores. Directions for future research include studies with other sociometrically defined groups, investigations of sociometrically defined groups in handicapped populations, and research on the effects of reputational "biases" on rejected children's behavioral functioning in peer groups.Identification of and intervention with children who experience problems in initiating and maintaining satisfying relationships with peers have received increasing interest within the school psychological community. For example, an entire issue of the School Psychology Review was devoted to social competence (Carroll & Elliott, 1984), and there have been numerous empirical and conceptual articles in the school psychology literature concerning social corn-Requests for reprints should be directed to

The Study of Mentoring in the Learning Environment (SMILE): A Randomized Evaluation of the Effectiveness of School-based Mentoring

“…Prior research has shown connectedness to culturally different peers and to school to correlate positively with academic engagement and other prosocial activities that are condoned by adults (Battistich et al 2004;Henrich et al 2005;Karcher 2003;Karcher and Finn 2005;Thomas and Smith 2004). The two social skills on which elementary male mentees improvedempathy and cooperation-and the Hope scale also have been shown to predict academic engagement and improved interpersonal relationships (Elliott et al 1988;Shorey et al 2003;Stuart et al 1991). These findings, because of their relevance to success in school (both academically and interpersonally), seem to provide the most unequivocal support for the positive effects of SBM but only apply to elementary school boys.…”

Social Behavior and Skills in Children

“…Construct validity has been reported a number of times (Merrell & Popinga, 1994;Stage, Cheney, Walker, & LaRocque, 2002;Stuart, Gresham, & Elliott, 1991). Reliability between teacher and parent ratings have also been evaluated (Fagan, & Fantuzzo, 1999;Merrell & Popinga, 1994;.…”

Sociometry as a method for investigating peer relationships: what does it actually measure?

“…Sociometrically popular students demonstrate higher levels of sociability and cognitive abilities as compared with average students and are less aggressive and socially withdrawn (Newcomb et al, 1993). They achieve better results at school (Frentz et al, 1991) and have more developed social skills for reaching interpersonal goals and positive social relationships (Coie & Dodge, 1988;Stuart et al, 1991;Newcomb et al, 1993), choose topics for speaking that are viewed positively by their peers and have good conversational skills (Dygon et al, 1987) and have more positive self-concept, especially social self-concept, as compared to students from other sociometric groups (Boivin & Bégin, 1989;Jackson & Bracken, 1998). Differently, the correlates of peer perceived popularity are athletic ability, team membership, having money, making good grades, being fashionable and being physically attractive (Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998).…”