psychometric characteristics of the california preschool social competence scale in a spanish...

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Harvard Grad Sch of Education]On: 14 October 2008Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 776110472]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Early Education & DevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t775653644

Psychometric Characteristics of the California Preschool Social CompetenceScale in a Spanish Population SampleJordi Julvez a; Maria Forns b; Núria Ribas-Fitó a; Carlos Mazon c; Maties Torrent d; Raquel Garcia-Esteban a;Lis Ellison-Loschmann a; Jordi Sunyer a

a Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology, Institut Municipal d'Investigació Mèdica, b PsychologyFaculty of University of Barcelona, c Primary Health Care Center of Flix, d Primary Health Care Center ofMahó,

Online Publication Date: 01 September 2008

To cite this Article Julvez, Jordi, Forns, Maria, Ribas-Fitó, Núria, Mazon, Carlos, Torrent, Maties, Garcia-Esteban, Raquel, Ellison-Loschmann, Lis and Sunyer, Jordi(2008)'Psychometric Characteristics of the California Preschool Social Competence Scale in aSpanish Population Sample',Early Education & Development,19:5,795 — 815

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/10409280802375430

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10409280802375430

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t775653644

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10409280802375430

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

PSYCHOMETRIC CHARACTERISTICSJULVEZ ET AL.

Psychometric Characteristics of theCalifornia Preschool Social Competence

Scale in a Spanish Population Sample

Jordi JulvezCentre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology

Institut Municipal d’Investigació Mèdica

Maria FornsPsychology Faculty of University of Barcelona

Núria Ribas-FitóCentre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology

Institut Municipal d’Investigació Mèdica

Carlos MazonPrimary Health Care Center of Flix

Maties TorrentPrimary Health Care Center of Mahó

Raquel Garcia-Esteban, Lis Ellison-Loschmann,and Jordi Sunyer

Centre for Research in Environmental EpidemiologyInstitut Municipal d’Investigació Mèdica

Research Findings: Few rating scales measure social competence in very youngSpanish or Catalan children. We aimed to analyze the psychometric characteristics of

EARLY EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT, 19(5), 795–815Copyright © 2008 Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1040-9289 print / 1556-6935 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10409280802375430

Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Jordi Julvez, Centre for Research inEnvironmental Epidemiology, Institut Municipal d’Investigació Mèdica, C\ Doctor Aiguader, 88,E-08003 Barcelona, Spain. E-mail: [email protected]

Downloaded By: [Harvard Grad Sch of Education] At: 14:46 14 October 2008

the California Preschool Social Competence Scale (CPSCS) when applied to a Span-ish- and Catalan-speaking population. Children were rated by their respective teach-ers within 6 months following their 4th birthday in two population-based birth co-horts in Spain (N = 378). A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to comparethe underlying structure of the Spanish–Catalan version with that of the original ver-sion. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used to determine the internal consistency ofeach of the confirmed factors. Cohen’s kappa formula was used to calculate thetest–retest reliability in a small subset of children who were rated again one monthlater. Five correlated factors (Considerateness, Task Orientation, Extraversion, Ver-bal Facility, and Response to Unfamiliar) were optimally confirmed as a result ofCFA. The first three factors had robust internal consistency. The kappa coefficientwas satisfactory in 29 items out of 30. Children’s cognitive abilities as assessed bythe McCarthy Scales, children’s gender, maternal social class and level of educationwere related to the social competence scores as indicators of criterion-related factors.Practice or Policy: The bilingual version of the CPSCS has good psychometric prop-erties allowing it to be used in further studies in either Spanish or Catalan popula-tions.

Studying psychological development in children requires the assessment of socialcompetence; thus, the majority of developmental tests include specific subtests tomeasure this behavioral area (Hart, Keller, Edelstein, & Hofman, 1998). Socialcompetence has been defined as the human capability to communicate and cooper-ate with other people, to negotiate options and make decisions, to adapt to new situa-tions, to tolerate certain degrees of stress, and to control egocentric and primaryemotions (Turner & Gartrell, 1978). Social competence is bidirectionally related toglobal cognitive development and plays an important role in the process of personal-ity structuring (Hart et al., 1998; Nigg, Quamma, Greenberg, & Kusche, 1999).

Empirical evidence has shown that social competence scores are associatedwith global cognition, including verbal and performance IQs (Block & Kremen,1996; Moffitt & Silva, 1988; Nigg et al., 1999), as well as with neurocognitivefunctions such as executive function and attention control in children (Nigg,Hinshaw, Carte, & Trueting, 1998; Rourke & Fuerst, 1991). There is also some ev-idence suggesting an interrelation between temperament and social skills such thatchildren with behavioral problems appear to have lower social competence scoresthan children without behavioral problems (Izard et al., 2001). Higher levels of so-cial stimulation in 4-year-old children have been found to be related to betterscores of McCarthy Scales of Children’s Abilities (MSCA) 6 months later (Cam-pion & Wohlfarth, 1989), and child’s emotional knowledge, specifically the abilityto recognize and label emotional expressions at 5 years of age, may be a predictorof social behavior and academic competence at 9 years of age (Izard et al., 2001).

Assessing social competence in young children is not easy, and debate contin-ues about the best strategies to use. Both the type of instrument used and the persondoing the assessment (informant) are important, and they appear to be related. In-

796 JULVEZ ET AL.


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/13685627_Childhood_personality_influences_on_social-cognitive_development_A_longitudinal_study?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-b1b91f5c-a204-4bb6-81eb-e78971bf5bf6&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI1NDMwMzk0MTtBUzo5NzIwODg3MTQyNDAwN0AxNDAwMTg3ODA5NDU2

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12040293_Emotion_Knowledge_as_a_Predictor_of_Social_Behavior_and_Academic_Competence_in_Children_at_Risk?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-b1b91f5c-a204-4bb6-81eb-e78971bf5bf6&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI1NDMwMzk0MTtBUzo5NzIwODg3MTQyNDAwN0AxNDAwMTg3ODA5NDU2

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12040293_Emotion_Knowledge_as_a_Predictor_of_Social_Behavior_and_Academic_Competence_in_Children_at_Risk?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-b1b91f5c-a204-4bb6-81eb-e78971bf5bf6&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI1NDMwMzk0MTtBUzo5NzIwODg3MTQyNDAwN0AxNDAwMTg3ODA5NDU2

formants have different abilities for accessing, detecting, and differentiating targetbehaviors and also for providing objective or accurate data (Ladd & Profilet,1996). Thus, the information obtained may differ depending on whether peers,parents, teachers, or external observers are used. Peers respond to sociometricquestionnaires in which they express their general preferences for children in theclassroom (Odom & McConnell, 1985), parents or teachers respond to general so-cial competence questionnaires based on their personal opinions and experiencesof the child, and external observers describe rates of social interaction and socialskills (Odom et al., 1999).

We were interested in knowing how children behave in a peer social context,thus we chose to obtain information from teachers. Teachers and educators have awide knowledge of children’s behaviors covering language; emotion; motor skills;and various situations such as learning, playing, dressing, and toileting. Further-more, teachers dedicate much of their daily time to guiding social developmentand observing behavioral differences in their pupils (Ladd & Profilet, 1996).

Few rating scales analyze social competence in children in the preschool socialcontext, and even fewer have been developed for the Spanish context. The majorityof social competence scales were constructed between 1965 and 1988: DevereuxElementary School Behavior Rating Scale (Spivack & Swift, 1966), CaliforniaPreschool Social Competency Scale (CPSCS; Levin, Elzey, & Lewis, 1969), So-cial Competence Scale and Symptom Checklist (Kohn & Rosman, 1972), Pre-school Behavior Questionnaire (Behar & Stringfield, 1974), Classroom BehaviorInventory (Schaefer, 1975), Social Skills Rating Scale (Gresham, Elliott, & Black,1987), Teacher–Child Rating Scale (Hightower et al., 1987), Walker–McConnellScale of Social Competence and School Adjustment (Walker & McConnell,1988), and Social Competence and Behavior Evaluation (SCBE; Dumas, Mar-tínez, LaFreniere, & Dolz, 1998). These scales are heterogeneous and embracevery different social competence constructs, such as anxiety, apathy–withdraw-al, assertiveness, self-control, cooperation–compliance, creative–initiative, learningcompetence, dependent/autonomous, depressive/happy, externalizing/internalizingbehaviors, hostility/considerateness, and hyperactivity/distractibility/impatience.

The only Spanish adaptation of a rating scale for social competence in pre-schoolers is the SCBE (Dumas, Martinez, LaFreniere, & Dolz, 1998). The SCBEconsists of 80 items and is generally too long to be used as a screening tool. How-ever, the psychometric qualities of the Spanish version of the SCBE show goodinternal consistency, test–retest reliability, and criterion-related validity, althoughno confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) have been done and the SCBE is not ateacher-rated scale.

The CPSCS was designed in the United States by Levin et al. in 1969 specifi-cally for use by teachers within the context of a preschool program. The 30-itemCPSCS scale measures the appropriateness of preschool children’s interpersonalbehavior and their degree of social responsibility. The concept of independence,

PSYCHOMETRIC CHARACTERISTICS 797


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232568615_The_Child_Rating_Scale_The_development_of_a_socioemotional_self-rating_scale_for_elementary_school_children?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-b1b91f5c-a204-4bb6-81eb-e78971bf5bf6&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI1NDMwMzk0MTtBUzo5NzIwODg3MTQyNDAwN0AxNDAwMTg3ODA5NDU2

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232581103_The_Child_Behavior_Behavior_Scale_A_teacher-report_measure_of_young_children's_aggressive_withdrawn_and_prosocial_behaviors?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-b1b91f5c-a204-4bb6-81eb-e78971bf5bf6&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI1NDMwMzk0MTtBUzo5NzIwODg3MTQyNDAwN0AxNDAwMTg3ODA5NDU2

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240731116_A_Performance-based_Conceptualization_of_Social_Competence_of_Handicapped_Preschool_Children?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-b1b91f5c-a204-4bb6-81eb-e78971bf5bf6&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI1NDMwMzk0MTtBUzo5NzIwODg3MTQyNDAwN0AxNDAwMTg3ODA5NDU2

understood as interpersonal autonomy, is included in the definition of socialcompetence (Levin et al., 1969). The original scale was designed to be uni-dimensional, but Flint (1981) analyzed the underlying structure by exploratoryfactor analysis (EFA) and described five factors: Considerateness (low scoreson this factor may be indicative of hostile behavior), Task Orientation (lowscores on this factor indicate distractibility), Extraversion (low scores indicatechildren who hang back, take a passive stance, and avoid involvement with oth-ers), Verbal Facility (represents behaviors that entail verbal communicationskills), and Response to Unfamiliar (refers to the capability to adapt to new so-cial situations).

We chose this general social competence rating scale because (a) theCPSCS items are orientated to assess basic constructs of social competence,(b) it takes into account aspects of social competence that are not cross-cultur-ally or temporally dependent (Levin et al., 1969), and (c) the relative brevity ofthe screening tool facilitates its use by teachers who would complete the sur-vey during the school day. Many psychological and medical studies have usedthe CPSCS to assess social behavior in young children (Doussard-Roosevelt,McClenny, & Porges, 2001; Doussard-Roosevelt, Porges, Scanlon, Alemi, &Scanlon, 1997; NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2001), howeverfew studies have examined the construct validity and reliability of this scale(Brulle & Ivarie, 1989; Flint, 1981), and it has never been adapted into eitherSpanish or Catalan.

Empirical research has suggested that boys show more aggressive–impulsivebehaviors and less attention capabilities (Hynd, Hern, Kytja, & Marshall, 1991;Parke & Asher, 1983) and thus generally display lower scores in general socialcompetence than girls, who are perceived as being more altruistic than boys. Thesedifferences were observed in different cultural groups (Dumas et al., 1998; Zahn-Waxler, Radke-Yarrow, & King, 1983; Zarbatany, Hartmann, Gelfand, & Vin-ciguerra, 1985). Additionally, children of parents of high compared to low socio-educational status have been described as being more socially competent (Bornstein& Bradley, 2003; Dumas et al., 1998; Levin et al., 1969; Rimm-Kaufman, Pianta,Cox, & Bradley, 2003).

Our aim was to analyze the psychometric characteristics of a Spanish–Catalanversion of the CPSCS. Specifically, our objectives were (a) to study the constructvalidity of the CPSCS by testing the unidimensional (Levin et al., 1969) and multi-dimensional (Flint, 1981) structures of the scale using CFA; (b) to examine crite-rion-related validity by assessing the association of the CPSCS scale with chil-dren’s cognitive abilities, as assessed by the MSCA, comparing gender differencesin impulsive–aggressive (F1) and attention (F2) behaviors derived from the scale’sfactor structure, and by analyzing the effects of maternal socioeducational statuson children’s social competence scores; and (c) to analyze the test–retest reliabilityof the CPSCS after a 1-month interval.

798 JULVEZ ET AL.


METHODS

Participants

The study participants were selected from two population-based birth cohorts fromthe county of Ribera d’Ebre and Menorca Island, Spain. For the Ribera cohort, allsingleton children born in the main hospital of the study area between March 1997and December 1999 were recruited. A total of 102 children were enrolled, with 70(69%) having complete outcome data (psychometric assessment) from the visit at4 years of age. The Menorca cohort was set up in 1997 and recruited all womenpresenting for antenatal care over a 12-month period. A total of 482 children (94%of those eligible) were enrolled, and complete outcome data were available for 308children (64%) at the age 4 visit. All mothers provided signed consent forms, andthe study was approved by the ethics committee of the Institut Municipal d’Inves-tigació Mèdica (Julvez et al., 2007; Ribas-Fitó et al., 2006; see Table 1 for comple-mentary sample description). There is no risk that children who did not participatein this study were at greater developmental risk because there was no statistical dif-ference for MSCA general cognitive outcome between participants (n = 378) andnonparticipants (n = 122; p = .84).

Instruments

The CPSCS. The CPSCS was designed to be used for evaluating the socialcompetence of children aged 2.5 years to 5.5 years. The scale is composed of 30items, with each one having four answer choices on a Likert scale ordered from 1to 4, with high values indicating a higher degree of social competence. The itemscover a wide range of behaviors, such as responding to routine, responding to theunfamiliar, following instructions, making explanations, sharing, helping others,initiating activities, giving direction to activities, reacting to frustration, and ac-cepting limits (see the Appendix). The total social competence score is the sumof all level ratings for the 30 items. Total social competence raw scores can thusrange from 30 to 120. The total score represents the child’s Global Social Com-petence. The normative sample of the scale approximates the proportion of pre-school children in the major urban centers for each geographic region of theUnited States. The normative sample was based on 800 children (Levin et al.,1969).

Sociodemographic and medical data. Information on socioeconomic back-ground, maternal diseases, obstetric history, parity, child’s gender, fetal exposure toalcohol (ever exposed during pregnancy) and cigarette smoking (at least one ciga-rette a day during the last trimester), type and duration of breastfeeding, education,and social class was obtained through questionnaires administered in person after



delivery and at 4 years of age. The United Kingdom Registrar General’s 1990 clas-sification was used to group participants by social class according to maternal oc-cupation by using the International Standard Classification of Occupations–88(www.warwick.ac.uk/ier/isco/isco88.html). Education level was defined as (1)less than primary level, describing people who did not finish the level that is for-mally required by law; (2) primary level, describing people who completed onlythe schooling level formally required by law; (3) secondary level, describing peo-ple who completed high school; or (4) high level, describing people who finishedcollege or did further study (Alvarez-Dardet et al., 1995). We reduced the originaleducation levels into two categories (1 + 2 and 3 + 4) for the regression modelsanalyses, and no differences were found in the final results.

800 JULVEZ ET AL.

TABLE 1Description of Mother and Child Characteristics at Birth (N = 378)

and Social Competence Scores (CPSCS) by Gender

Covariate Boys Girls

Child’s cohort, % 49.8 50.2Ribera d’Ebre (n = 70) 48.1 51.9Menorca (n = 308) 50.1 49.9

Child’s age in years, M (SD) 4.58 (±0.30) 4.59 (±0.26)Child’s General Cognitive Index (MSCA), M (SD) 100 (15) 101 (15)Mother’s social class, %

Professional 2.7 3.6Managerial and technical 11.3 10.8Manual and nonmanual skilled 43.2 48.0Partly skilled 13.1 9.4Unskilled 5.4 4.5Unemployed 24.3 23.8

Mother’s education level, %High (>15 years) 12.4 10.6Secondary (12 years) 30.3 34.8Primary (8 years) 46.3 41.4Less than primary (<8 years) 11.0 13.2

CPSCS, Mdn (range)Global score* 89 (48–116) 97 (55–114)Considerateness (Factor 1)* 19 (7–24) 21 (9–24)Task Orientation (Factor 2)* 23 (9–32) 25 (11–32)Extraversion (Factor 3)* 14 (6–20) 14 (2–20)Verbal Facility (Factor 4)* 14 (7–16) 15 (7–16)Response to Unfamiliar (Factor 5) 9 (4–12) 9 (4–12)

Note: CPSCS = California Preschool Social Competency Scale; MSCA = McCarthy Scales ofChildren’s Abilities.

*p < .05 for chi-square tests of differences of percentages or F tests of mean differences, both, bychild’s gender.


Child cognitive development. This information was obtained by profes-sional psychologists using the MSCA (McCarthy, 1972/1996), the results of whichprovide a General Cognitive Index (M = 100, SD = 15). The test was performedduring the same time period as the social competence assessment.

Procedures

The CPSCS scale was translated and adapted into Spanish and Catalan by a psy-chologist and two epidemiologists following two standardized techniques (Brislin,1970): (a) committee translation, which required that the instrument be independ-ently translated by two or more trilingual people (English–Spanish/Catalan); and(b) back-translation into English.

Children from both cohorts were rated by their respective teachers on theCPSCS and by three trained psychologists on the MSCA during a 3-year-period(2001–2003). The bilingual version of the CPSCS (Spanish and Catalan) was com-pleted by the teacher during the school year after the child’s fourth birthday. InSpain, schooling is compulsory from ages 5 to 16 years, with a structured pre-school program available for children aged 3 to 5 years old. Preschool teachersspend approximately five hours per day with the children.

Two small subgroups of children from both cohorts (Ribera d’Ebre n = 34;Menorca n = 12) were randomly selected for the 1-month test–retest reliability ofthe Spanish–Catalan CPSCS instrument. Teachers from both subgroups com-pleted the CPSCS twice within a 1-month period, the second time without accessto the information they had supplied during the first assessment.

Statistical Analyses

All data analyses were carried out by using Stata and AMOS statistical software.There were no significant differences in CPSCS scores for the two cohorts,

therefore the results were pooled to gain statistical power.CFA is a more appropriate statistical technique than EFA when the objective is

to test the dimensional structure of a test identified previously. Levin et al. (1969)postulated a unidimensional structure and Flint (1981), a five-dimensional struc-ture. Because our aim was to assess both of these empirical structures as well as thecorrelation between the individual factors, we used CFA to test five different theo-retical models.

Model 0 (30 items) included the unidimensional (one-factor) scale as was spec-ified in the original version of the CPSCS (Levin et al., 1969). Model 1 (29 items)included the scale with five uncorrelated factors as derived by Flint (1981), usingEFA with a factor loading of >0.40 for the English version. Item 3 was excludedbecause it did not satisfy the criteria for any of the five factors. Model 2 (29 items)was based on Model 1 and took into account correlation between all factors in the



model. Model 3 (26 items) was based on Model 2 but excluded those items (i.e.,Items 4, 11, and 26) showing factor loadings of ≤0.40 for the Spanish–Catalan ver-sion. Model 4 (23 items) was based on Model 3 but excluded items (i.e., Items 1, 2,and 27) with factor loadings <0.45. Composite reliability, or Cronbach’s alpha co-efficient, was used to determine the internal consistency of each factor confirmedby CFA.

Children’s age, sex, General Cognitive Index, maternal education, and maternalsocioeconomic status were each considered to be potential predictors of CPSCSscores. To determine the effect of each of these variables in the Spanish–Catalanversion of the CPSCS, we performed multivariate logistic regressions taking intoaccount the Global Social Competence score and the five scores identified fromModel 3. The variables were dichotomized due to their nonnormal distribution; thereference group for each outcome was those children scoring above the 20th per-centile. This criterion is commonly used in clinical assessment to distinguish be-tween “normal” and “low” responses (Jacobson & Jacobson, 2005).

Cohen’s kappa formula was used to calculate test–retest reliability. We fol-lowed the Brulle et al. (1989) coding formula before applying the Absolute SimpleKappa Index in order to assess the interobserver reliability of the English versionof the CPSCS.

RESULTS

In our study population, the percentages of boys and girls were similar across cate-gories of covariates studied (see Table 1). Overall, the mean General Cognitive In-dex (MSCA) of 100 indicated a medium cognitive level; this was also very similarby gender. But when the different scores of our CPSCS version (global andsubscales) were compared, there were significant gender differences for each ofthe scores except for the Response to Unfamiliar subscale. In general, lower scoreswere observed for boys except for the Extraversion subscale, on which higherscores were observed among boys than among girls.

Goodness-of-fit indexes for the five CPSCS models are shown in Table 2.Models 1 and 2 did not reach the minimum points on their indexes for an accept-able goodness of fit. Model 3 showed an acceptable goodness of fit on almost allindexes except for CFI, which was just below the 0.90 cutoff point. Model 4 wassimilarly acceptable but without significant improvement from the Model 3 in-dexes. Model 3 theorized that the Spanish–Catalan CPSCS fit acceptably with thefive-factor structure proposed by Flint (1981), that all of the factors were corre-lated, and that any items (3, 4, 11, and 26) with low weights (≤0.40) should be ex-cluded from the model.

Table 3 describes the standardized factor loadings and their composite relia-bilities for Model 2 and for the best fitting model (Model 3). Most of the factor

802 JULVEZ ET AL.


loadings in Model 2 were significantly associated with a moderate to high level ofweight, and the composite reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha coefficients) were ac-ceptable (>.81) for all factors except Response to Unfamiliar factor (F5). All thefactor loadings from Model 3 were significantly associated with a high to moderatelevel of weight (between 0.41 and 0.86), but their composite reliabilities, calcu-lated by Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, were satisfactory for F1 (Considerateness),F2 (Task Orientation), and F3 (Extraversion) and unsatisfactory for F4 (Verbal Fa-cility) and F5 (Response to Unfamiliar).

Table 4 describes the intercorrelations between factors assessed in Model 3.The highest correlations were found between F1 (Considerateness) and F4 (VerbalFacility), F2 (Task Orientation) and F4 (Verbal Facility), F2 (Task Orientation) andF3 (Extraversion), and F3 (Extraversion) and F5 (Response to Unfamiliar). Somecorrelations (e.g., F1 with F2, F1 with F5, F2 with F3, F2 with F5, and F3 with F5)were relatively similar to the ones found by Flint (1981), but others (e.g., F1 withF4, F2 with F4, and F4 with F5) were relatively different in Flint’s study.


TABLE 2Fit Indexes of Five Models Assessed by Confirmatory Factor Analyses

Variable Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

χ2 2,085.712 1,874.295 1,103.019 813.825 674.706Number of parameters 57 65 75 62 56df 378 370 360 289 220Model–sample discrepancymeasures

χ2 / df (<3)a 5.518 5.066 3.064 2.816 3.067GFI (>0.85) 0.624 0.712 0.815 0.852 0.864AGFI (>0.80) 0.568 0.661 0.777 0.821 0.829RMR (<0.10) 0.103 0.181 0.066 0.058 0.061

Measures based on populationdiscrepancies

RMSEA (<0.08) 0.109 0.104 0.074 0.069 0.074Comparisons to baseline models

CFI (=0.90) 0.653 0.694 0.849 0.878 0.888Information–theoretic measures

AIC (low scores) 2,199.712 2,004.295 1,253.019 937.825 786.706

Note: Model 0 (30 items): hypothesized, one factor; Model 1 (29 items): hypothesized, fiveuncorrelated factors; Model 2 (29 items): hypothesized, five correlated factors; Model 3 (26 items): Re-vised Model 2: items with factor loadings ≤0.40 excluded; Model 4 (23 items): Revised Model 3: itemswith factor loadings <0.45 excluded. GFI = goodness-of-fit index; AGFI = adjusted GFI; RMR =root-mean-square residual; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CFI = comparative fitindex; AIC = Aikake’s information criterion.

aCutoff point criterion (in parentheses) for each of the fit indexes excluding for H0 (i.e., limit pointcriterion for not accepting the proposed model).


804

TABLE 3Standardized Factor Loadings and Composite Reliabilities of Model 2

and Model 3

Maximum LikelihoodEstimate, Model 2

Maximum LikelihoodEstimate, Model 3

Factor, Item

StandardizedFactor

Loading

CompositeReliability

( )

StandardizedFactor

Loading

CompositeReliability

( )

Considerateness (F1) .84 .85It4cs 0.40It7cs 0.02*It13cs 0.87 0.86It14cs 0.82 0.81It15cs 0.70 0.71It21cs 0.57 0.55It22cs 0.46 0.62It24cs 0.71 0.72

Task Orientation (F2) .89 .88It6cs 0.56 0.56It7cs 0.70 0.73It8cs 0.73 0.70It9cs 0.79 0.80It10cs 0.82 0.83It11cs 0.39It22cs 0.22It23cs 0.64 0.64It25cs 0.63 0.64It30cs 0.64 0.63

Extraversion (F3) .82 .78It11cs 0.18It16cs 0.55 0.54It17cs 0.67 0.68It18cs 0.72 0.73It19cs 0.74 0.74It20cs 0.61 0.59It28cs –0.06*

Verbal Facility (F4) .81 .63It1cs 0.44 0.43It2cs 0.42 0.42It5cs 0.61 0.60It8cs –0.03*It9cs –0.22*It11cs 0.24It12cs 0.75 0.73

Response to Unfamiliar (F5) .63 .60It26cs 0.40It27cs 0.44 0.41It28cs 0.67 0.63It29cs 0.72 0.76

Note: F = factor.*p > .05.


The multivariable regression models showed that children’s IQ, gender, mater-nal social class, and maternal level of education were associated with Global So-cial Competence. Having a low IQ score was associated with lower scores on allCPSCS subscales. Male gender was associated with a lower score on F1, F2, F4,and Global Social Competence. Children of mothers of higher social classes orhigher education levels presented better scores in Global Social Competence, F2,and F4. Children’s age was associated only with F2 (see Table 5).

Test–retest kappa index analyses of the Spanish–Catalan CPSCS showed an un-acceptable coefficient of agreement (<0.60) for Item 2 only. The other item in-dexes ranged from 0.62 to 0.85, with a median of 0.78.

DISCUSSION

The aim of the current study was to validate a screening tool to assess social com-petence among young children. Few rating scales for preschoolers with similarproperties to the CPSCS are also short enough to be used in epidemiologicalstudies (Carney & Merrell, 2002; Castro, Mendez, & Fantuzzo, 2002; Damián,2000; Dumas et al., 1998; Hogan, Scott, & Bauer, 1992). In addition, the Span-ish–Catalan version of the CPSCS fills an important gap in social competencescreening instruments for preschoolers in Spain and other Spanish-speakingcountries.

We found that the five factors assessed by Flint (1981) using the original ver-sion of the CPSCS were statistically acceptable (Gonzalez-Gutierrez, Moreno-Jimenez, Garrosa-Hernández, & López-López, 2005; Hu & Bentler, 1999) in theSpanish and Catalan versions of the CPSCS. The best fitting model that we testedwas Model 3, which considered five intercorrelated factors and excluded fouritems (3, 4, 11, and 26) from the original form. In addition, our analyses did notconfirm the CPSCS as a unidimensional scale (Levin et al., 1969). Our analysesconfirmed that it cannot be conformed by five independent factors as it was con-


TABLE 4Estimated Correlations Between the Factors of Model 3

Factor 1 2 3 4 5

1. Considerateness (F1) — .62 (.65) .34 (.35) .79 (.01) .30 (.46)2. Task Orientation (F2) — .71 (.55) .85 (.27) .69 (.53)3. Extraversion (F3) — .65 (.38) .81 (.56)4. Verbal Facility (F4) — .66 (.14)5. Response to Unfamiliar (F5) —

Note: Original California Preschool Social Competency Scale factor correlations described inFlint et al. (1981) are in parentheses. F = factor.


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228079281_Cut-Off_Criteria_for_Fit_Indexes_in_Covariance_Structure_Analysis_Conventional_Criteria_Versus_New_Alternatives?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-b1b91f5c-a204-4bb6-81eb-e78971bf5bf6&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI1NDMwMzk0MTtBUzo5NzIwODg3MTQyNDAwN0AxNDAwMTg3ODA5NDU2

806

AB

LE5

Ass

ocia

tion

(Odd

sR

atio

san

d95

%C

onfid

ence

Inte

rval

s)B

etw

een

Mot

her

and

Chi

ldC

ovar

iate

san

dC

ogni

tive

Dev

elop

men

tan

dth

eS

pani

shan

dC

atal

anV

ersi

ons

ofth

eC

alifo

rnia

Pre

scho

olS

ocia

lCom

pete

ncy

Sca

le(C

PS

CS

)

Cov

aria

teG

loba

lSoc

ial

Com

pete

nce

Fact

or1

Fact

or2

Fact

or3

Fact

or4

Fact

or5

Chi

ld’s

Gen

eral

Cog

nitiv

eIn

dex

(MSC

A)

>Pe

rcen

tile

751

11

11

1Pe

rcen

tile

75–5

03.

09(1

.04,

9.30

)1.

90(0

.81,

4.40

)3.

26(0

.98,

10.8

7)4.

83(1

.30,

17.9

8)1.

70(0

.68,

4.27

)5.

01(1

.76,

14.3

0)Pe

rcen

tile

<50

–25

3.51

(1.1

7,10

.51)

1.18

(0.4

6,3.

01)

4.26

(1.2

8,14

.24)

5.68

(1.5

3,21

.13)

2.89

(1.1

9,6.

98)

4.45

(1.5

2,13

.05)

<Pe

rcen

tile

2512

.23

(4.1

4,36

.26)

3.97

(1.6

5,9.

56)

14.1

8(4

.28,

46.9

6)16

.09

(4.4

0,58

.83)

9.39

(3.8

4,22

.94)

8.70

(2.9

8,25

.37)

Chi

ld’s

age

inye

ars

0.34

(0.0

8,1.

42)

0.50

(0.1

3,2.

00)

0.16

(0.0

3,0.

78)

0.71

(0.1

7,2.

94)

0.50

(0.1

4,1.

77)

1.20

(0.3

3,4.

32)

Chi

ld’s

gend

erFe

mal

e1

11

11

1M

ale

2.73

(1.5

2,4.

93)

2.60

(1.4

,4.6

)3.

59(1

.88,

6.84

)1.

68(0

.93,

3.04

)2.

32(1

.38,

3.91

)1.

05(0

.61,

1.82

)C

hild

’sco

hort

Rib

era

d’E

bre

11

11

11

Min

orca

1.73

(0.7

8,3.

83)

0.68

(0.3

4,1.

33)

2.08

(0.8

9,4.

89)

1.01

(0.4

5,2.

25)

1.28

(0.6

3,2.

59)

1.00

(0.4

7,2.

15)

Mot

her’

sso

cial

clas

sPr

ofes

sion

al,t

echn

ical

,an

dm

anag

eria

l1

11

11

1

Skill

edm

anua

land

nonm

anua

l2.

42(0

.77,

7.57

)0.

90(0

.37,

2.25

)2.

11(0

.67,

6.66

)2.

88(0

.90,

9.12

)2.

79(1

.01,

7.71

)1.

41(0

.59,

3.36

)

Part

skill

edan

dun

skill

ed4.

40(1

.33,

14.7

0)1.

60(0

.60,

4.2)

3.63

(1.0

6,12

.38)

2.81

(0.8

1,9.

80)

4.05

(1.3

7,12

.0)

0.97

(0.3

4,2.

76)

Not

wor

king

5.80

(1.8

0,18

.60)

2.2

(0.8

8,5.

53)

4.79

(1.4

7,15

.64)

2.79

(0.8

3,9.

32)

4.06

(1.4

1,11

.71)

1.30

(0.5

0,3.

36)

Mot

her’

sed

ucat

ion

Hig

han

dse

cond

ary

11

11

11

Prim

ary

and

less

2.22

(1.2

3,4.

02)

1.60

(0.9

1,2.

81)

2.17

(1.1

6,4.

04)

1.05

(0.5

7,1.

95)

2.01

(1.1

9,3.

39)

1.11

(0.6

3,1.

94)

Not

e:E

ach

colu

mn

isa

mul

tivar

iabl

ere

gres

sion

mod

elin

clud

ing

age,

gend

er,c

ohor

t,an

dal

tern

ativ

ely

mat

erna

lsoc

ialc

lass

orm

ater

nale

duca

tion.

MSC

A=

McC

arth

ySc

ales

ofC

hild

ren’

sA

bilit

ies.


ceived by Flint when he prioritized the formal result presentation of a varimax ro-tation EFA instead of oblique EFA results, even though his results were similar inboth analyses. A varimax rotation technique option assumes that the factors underexploration are independent, and an oblique rotation technique assumes that thesefactors are intercorrelated. Internal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient) wasconsistent for the three first factors but was slightly below the cutoff criteria (<.70)for the other two factors, possibly due to the reduced number of items (Becker,2000). However, CFA showed suitable goodness-of-fit indexes with the inclusionof five factors, and the decision to retain all five factors fitted conceptually withone of the primary aims of the study, given the important role that Verbal Facilityhas on child socialization and the fact that Response to Unfamiliar is considered auseful mechanism of social and personal adaptation.

The intercorrelations between the factors obtained in the current study show asimilar pattern to those obtained by Flint (1981), with one difference. Our data in-dicate that Verbal Facility (F4) is highly correlated with all other factors. This canbe explained in part by the fact that our final F4 was relatively different comparedto Flint’s. Three items from a total of seven had to be excluded in the final version;the content of these items was related to following verbal instructions and expres-sive language (see Items 8, 9, and 11 in the Appendix). The rest of the items have amore communicative content, emphasizing the use of language in different socialcontexts, which are important skills for each of the areas of social competence(Nigg et al., 1999). Another explanation is that our population age was only 4 yearsold, whereas the population assessed by Flint included other preschool ages. Sucha difference in age can provide a different range of verbal and communicative abil-ities differently related to social abilities.

Inclusion of the first three factors, Considerateness, Task Orientation, andExtraversion, is consistent with previous work reviewing social–emotionalbehavior (Behar & Stringfield, 1974; Flint, 1981; Kohn & Rosman, 1973;Schaefer, Baker, & Zawel, 1975). The most conceptually significant concor-dances are the three factors found in Schaefer’s Classroom Inventory EFAlisted as Task Orientation/Distractibility, Hostility/Considerateness, and Intro-version/Extraversion.

Our findings regarding the criterion-related validity of the scale are consistentwith previous studies. We found a high positive association for all CPSCS scoresand MSCA IQs scores assessed during the same period. This finding was expected,because cognitive development is part of a child’s psychological development andis closely related to other behavioral areas, such as social competence (Nigg et al.,1998; Rourke & Fuerst, 1991). When we compared children’s gender, boysshowed lower levels for all scores except Extraversion (F3) and Response to Unfa-miliar (F5), whereas clue factors such as Considerateness (F1) and Task Orienta-tion (F2) showed the highest score differences between genders. Children withparents of lower social classes and education levels obtained lower scores in



Global Social Competence and on the Task Orientation (F2) and Verbal Facility(F4) subscales, which are probably the factors having most verbal cognitive influ-ence and most highly affected by a child’s sociocultural environment (Schmidt &Lawson, 2002).

The Spanish–Catalan CPSCS results concerning gender and maternal socio-educational differences described above are in agreement with those observedwhen the authors of the original CPSCS studied its statistical characteristicsamong a representative sample of children in the United States (n = 800; Levin etal., 1969). This is indicative of their psychometric similarities, even though there isa large cross-cultural and temporal distance between both versions’ samples.

Overall, the bilingual version of the CPSCS appears to have good construct andcriterion-related validity; however, these findings are insufficient to conclude thatour scale has robust psychometric characteristics, because an analysis of thetest–retest reliability would also be needed. Brulle and Ivarie (1989) studied inter-observer reliability of the CPSCS and concluded that the reliability of the scalewas not satisfactory because it measured teachers’ opinions more than objectivestatements of social competence. However, data obtained in the present study showsatisfactory test–retest reliability.

Several limitations of the study need to be considered. First, because we onlytested the scale in a population of 4-year-old children, we cannot be sure of theappropriateness of this scale for children of other preschool ages, although itwould not be unreasonable to expect similar psychometric characteristics forother age groups. Second, because interobserver reliability was not tested, wecannot be certain that the scale measures objective statements of social compe-tence. Third, our sample size was sufficient, but small, for CFA. The conse-quences of a smaller sample include more convergence failures and lower accu-racy of parameter estimates and, in particular, standard errors (Loehlin, 1992).Finally, we were unable to assess cross-cultural differences between the bilin-gual version and the original scale to determine the effects of time (1973), culture(New York State), and specific characteristics of the sample (children with learn-ing and behavioral problems) (Flint, 1987).

In conclusion, the adaptation and validation of this screening instrument for as-sessing social competence in the preschool context, given that there are currentlyso few of them in Spanish and Catalan languages, is important. This screening toolcan be used by preschool personnel to easily assess all children and identify formore extensive assessment those who may be at risk for developing socio-behavioral problems. As we have shown (Julvez et al., 2007; Ribas-Fitó et al.,2007), this instrument could also be used in epidemiological studies to effi-ciently evaluate other behavioral areas apart from cognitive functions. Finally, thisCPSCS version is a useful contribution to the literature, and it may be of interestfor use in other places where Spanish is spoken either as a national language or by apercentage of the population.

808 JULVEZ ET AL.


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank all the teachers of preschool classes from Ribera D’Ebre County andMenorca Island; all the psychologists who coordinated the fieldwork; the nursesand administrative personnel from Primary Health Care Center of Mahó and Pri-mary Health Care Center of Flix; all the people who supported us from the CREALFoundation, especially Dave MacFarlane for editing assistance, Estel Plana, LauraBouso, and Gemma Perelló. We received funding from the Instituto de SaludCarlos III INMA Project (G03/176). This study was also supported in part by theFundació “La Caixa” (00/077-00).

REFERENCES

Álvarez-Dardet, C., Alonso, J., Domingo, A., & Regidor, E. (1995). La Medición de la clase social enciencias de la salud: Informe de un grupo de trabajo de la Sociedad Española de Epidemiología[The measure of social class in health sciences: The report of a working group from the SpanishSoceity of Epidemiology]. Barcelona, Spain: SG Editores S.A.

Becker, G. (2000). Creating comparability among reliability coefficients: The case of Cronbach alphaand Cohen kappa. Psychological Reports, 87, 1171–1182.

Behar, L., & Stringfield, S. (1974). A behavior rating scale for the preschool child. Developmental Psy-chology, 10, 601–610.

Block, J., & Kremen, A. M. (1996). IQ and ego-resiliency: Conceptual and empirical connections andseparateness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 349–361.

Bornstein, M. H., & Bradley, R. H. (2003). Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child development.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychol-ogy, 1(3), 185–216.

Brulle, A. R., & Ivarie, J. (1989). Teacher checklists: A reliability analysis. Special Services in theSchool, 5(1/2), 67–75.

Campion, J., & Wohlfarth, R. (1989). Theory and research in practice: An opportunity group for youngchildren with developmental difficulties. Child Care, Health and Development, 15(5), 343–361.

Carney, A. G., & Merrell, K. W. (2002). Reliability and comparability of a Spanish-language form ofthe Preschool and Kindergarten Behavior Scales. Psychology in the Schools, 39(4), 367–373.

Castro, M., Mendez, J. L., & Fantuzzo, J. (2002). A validation study of the Penn Interactive Peer PlayScale with urban Hispanic and African American preschool children. School Psychology Quar-terly, 17(2), 109–127.

Damián, M. D. (2000). Escala del desarrollo comunicativo-social aplicada a niños españoles y mexicanos[Scale of Social Development applied to Spanish and Mexican children]. Psicothema, 12(Suppl.2), 163–165.

Doussard-Roosevelt, J. A., McClenny, B. D., & Porges, S. W. (2001). Neonatal cardiac vagal tone andschool-age developmental outcome in very low birth weight infants. Developmental Psychobiology,38(1), 56–66.

Doussard-Roosevelt, J. A., Porges, S. W., Scanlon, J. W., Alemi, B., & Scanlon, K. B. (1997). Vagalregulation of heart rate in the prediction of developmental outcome for very low birth weight preterminfants. Child Development, 68, 173–186.



Dumas, E. J., Martínez, A., LaFreniere, J. P., & Dolz, L. (1998). La versión española del cuestionario“Evaluación de la Conducta y la Competencia Social en Preescolares” (Social Competence and Be-havior Evaluation SCBE): Adaptación y validación [Spanish version of the Social Competence andBehavioral Evaluation—Preschool Edition (SCDE)]. Psicológica, 19(2), 107–121.

Flint, L. D. (1981). Dimensionality of the California Preschool Social Competency Scale. Applied Psy-chological Measurement, 4(2), 203–212.

Gonzalez-Gutierrez, J., Moreno-Jimenez, B., Garrosa-Hernández, E., & López-López, A. (2005).Spanish version of the Swedish Occupational Fatigue Inventory (SOFI): Factorial replication, reli-ability and validity. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 35, 737–746.

Gresham, F., Elliott, S., & Black, F. (1987). Teacher-rated social skills of mainstreamed mildly handi-capped and nonhandicapped children. School Psychology Review, 16(1), 78–88.

Hart, D., Keller, M., Edelstein, W., & Hofman, V. (1998). Childhood personality influences on so-cial-cognitive development: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74,1278–1289.

Hightower, A., Cowen, E., Spinell, A., & Lotyczewski, B. (1987). The Child Rating Scale: The devel-opment of a socioemotional self-rating scale for elementary school children. School Psychology Re-view, 16(2), 239–255.

Hogan, A. E., Scott, K. G., & Bauer, C. R. (1992). The Adaptive Social Behavior Inventory (ASBI): Anew assessment of social competence in high-risk three-year-olds. Journal of Psychoeducational As-sessment, 10(3), 230–239.

Hoyle, R. (1995). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and applications. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conven-tional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.

Hynd, W. G., Hern, L. K., Kytja, K. V., & Marshall, M. R. (1991). Neurobiological basis of atten-tion-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). School Psychology Review, 20(2), 174–186.

Izard, C., Fine, S., Schultz, D., Mostow, A., Ackerman, B. P., & Youngstrom, E. A. (2001). Emotionknowledge as a predictor of social behavior and academic competence in children at risk. Psycholog-ical Science, 12, 18–23.

Jacobson, J. L., & Jacobson, S. W. (2005). Methodological issues in research on developmental expo-sure to neurotoxic agents. Neurotoxicology and Teratology 27, 395–406.

Julvez, J., Ribas-Fito, N., Foros, M., Garcia-Esteban, R., Torrent, M., & Sunyer, J. (2007). Attention be-haviour and hyperactivity at age 4 and duration of breast-feeding. Acta Paediatrica, 96, 842–847.

Kohn, M., & Rosman, L. B. (1972). A social competence scale and symptom checklist for the preschoolchild: Factor dimensions, their cross-instrument generality, and longitudinal persistence. Develop-mental Psychology, 6, 430–444.

Kohn, M., & Rosman, L. B. (1973). Cross-situational and longitudinal stability of social-emotionalfunctioning in young children. Child Development, 44, 721–727.

Ladd, W. G., & Profilet, M. S. (1996). The Child Behavior Scale: A teacher-report measure of young chil-dren’saggressive,withdrawn,andprosocialbehaviors.DevelopmentalPsychology,32,1008–1024.

Levin, S., Elzey, F. F., & Lewis, M. (1969). California Preschool Social Competency manual. San Fran-cisco: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Loehlin, J. C. (1992). Latent variable models. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.McCarthy, D. (1996). Manual for the McCarthy Scales of Children’s Abilities. Madrid, Spain: TEA

Ediciones, S.A. (Original work published 1972).Moffitt, T. E., & Silva, P. (1988). Self-reported delinquency neuropsychological deficit, and history of

attention deficit disorder. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 16, 553–569.NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2001). Nonmaternal care and family factors in early de-

velopment: An overview of the NICHD Study of Early Child Care. Journal of Applied Developmen-tal Psychology, 22, 457–492.

810 JULVEZ ET AL.


Nigg, T. J., Hinshaw, S. P., Carte, E., & Trueting, J. (1998). Neuropsychological correlates of antisocialbehavior and comorbid disruptive behavior disorders in children with ADHD. Journal of AbnormalPsychology, 107, 468–480.

Nigg, T. J., Quamma, P. J., Greenberg, T. M., & Kusche, A. C. (1999). A two-year longitudinal study ofneuropsychological and cognitive performance in relation to behavioral problems and competenciesin elementary school children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 27, 52–63.

Odom, S. L., & McConnell, S. R. (1985). A performance-based conceptualization of social competenceof handicapped preschool children: Implications for assessment. Topics in Early Childhood SpecialEducation, 4(4), 1–19.

Odom, S. L., McConnell, S. R., McEvoy, M. A., Peterson, C., Ostrosky, M., Chandler, L. K., et al.(1999). Relative effects of interventions supporting the social competence of young children withdisabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 19(2), 75–91.

Parke, D. R., & Asher, R. S. (1983). Social and personality development. Annual Review of Psychology,34, 465–509.

Ribas-Fito, N., Torrent, M., Carrizo, D., Julvez, J., Grimalt, J. O., & Sunyer, J. (2007). Exposure tohexachlorobenzene during pregnancy and children’s social behavior at 4 years of age. EnvironmentalHealth Perspectives, 115, 447–450.

Ribas-Fitó, N., Torrent, M., Carrizo, D., Munoz-Ortiz, L., Julvez, J., Grimalt, J., et al. (2006). In uteroexposure to background concentrations of DDT and cognitive functioning among preschoolers.American Journal of Epidemiology, 164, 955–962.

Rimm-Kaufman, E. S., Pianta, C. R., Cox, J. M., & Bradley, H. R. (2003). Teacher-rated family in-volvement and children’s social and academic outcomes in kindergarten. Early Education and De-velopment, 14, 179–198.

Rourke, B. P., & Fuerst, D. R. (1991). Learning disabilities and psychosocial functioning: A neuro-psychological perspective. New York: Guilford Press.

Schaefer, C., Baker, E., & Zawel, D. (1975). Major replicated dimensions of adjustment and achieve-ment: Cross-cultural and longitudinal research. Symposium presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.

Schmidt, C., & Lawson, C. (2002). Caregiver attention-focusing and children’s attention-sharing be-haviours as predictors of later verbal IQ in very low birthweight children. Journal of Child Lan-guage, 29(1), 3–22.

Spivack, G., & Swift, M. S. (1966). The Devereaux Elementary School Rating Scale: A study of the na-ture and organization of achievement related to disturbed classroom behavior. Journal of Special Ed-ucation, 1(1), 71–90.

Turner, J., & Gartrell, W. J. (1978). Social factors in psychiatric outcome: Toward the resolution of in-terpretive controversies. American Sociological Review, 43, 368–382.

Walker, H. M., & McConnell, S. R. (1988). The Walker–McConnell Scale of Social Competence andSchool Adjustment. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Zahn-Waxler, C., Radke-Yarrow, M., & King, K. (1983). Early altruism and guilt. Academic Psychol-ogy Bulletin, 5(2), 247–259.

Zarbatany, L., Hartmann, P. D., Gelfand, M. D., & Vinciguerra, P. (1985). Gender differences in altruis-tic reputation: Are they artifactual? Developmental Psychology, 21, 97–101.



APPENDIXOriginal Items of the California Preschool Social

Competency Scale (CPSCS)

1. Identification: 1. Can state first name only; 2. Can state full name; 3. Canstate full name and age as of last birthday; 4. Can state name, age and address.

2. Using Names of Others: 1. Uses no proper names in interacting with thosearound him; 2. Uses the names of no more than five children or adults; 3.Uses the names of from five to ten children; 4. Uses the names of virtuallyall children and adults.

3. Greeting New Child, when a new child joins the group: 1. He inadver-tently physically overpowers child in greeting him (i.e., hugs, bumps,pulls); 2. He makes a limited and brief physical contact (i.e., pats, pokes,rubs) with child and some verbal contact; 3. He usually makes verbal con-tact and sometimes touches child; 4. He nearly always makes verbal con-tact with child without physical contact.

4. Safe Use of Equipment: 1. He proceeds with activity, ignoring hazards in-volving height, weight, and distance (climbing on unstable equipment,stacking boxes too high, jumping onto off-balanced structures); 2. He pro-ceeds with hazardous activity, sometimes seeking help sometimes gettinginto difficulty; 3. He proceeds with hazardous activity but frequently seekshelp when he is in difficulty; 4. He corrects hazards or seeks help beforeproceeding with activity.

5. Reporting Accidents, when he has an accident (e.g., spilling, break-ing): 1. He does not report accidents; 2. He sometimes reports accidents; 3.He frequently reports accidents; 4. He nearly always reports accidents.

6. Continuing in Activities: 1. He wanders from activity to activity with nosustained participation; 2. He continues in his own activity but is easilydiverted when he notices activities of others; 3. He continues in his ownand leaves only when he is interrupted by others; 4. He continues in hisown activity in spite of interruptions.

7. Performing Tasks: 1. He usually has to be asked two or three times beforehe will begin a task; 2. He usually begins task the first time he is asked butdawdles and has to be reminded; 3. He begins task the first time he is askedbut is slow in completing task; 4. He begins task the first time he is askedand is prompt in completing task.

8. Following Verbal Instructions, he can follow verbal instructions: 1.When they are accompanied by demonstrations; 2. Without demonstra-tions, if one specific instruction is involved; 3. Without demonstrations,when it involves two specific instructions; 4. Without demonstrations,when it involves three or more specific instructions

812 JULVEZ ET AL.


9. Following New Instructions: 1. He carries out one familiar instruction; 2.He carries out one new instruction the first time it is given; 3. He followsnew instructions given one at a time, as well as familiar ones; 4. He followsseveral new instructions given at a time, as well as familiar ones.

10. Remembering Instructions: 1. He nearly always needs to have instruc-tions or demonstration repeated before he can perform the activity on hisown; 2. He frequently requires repetition, a reminder, or affirmation that heis proceeding correctly; 3. He occasionally needs repetition of instructionfor part of the activity before completing the activity; 4. He performs theactivity without requiring repetition of instructions.

11. Making Explanation to Other Children, when attempting to explain toanother child how to do something (put things together, play a game,etc.): 1. He is unable to do so; 2. He gives an incomplete explanation; 3. Hegives a complete but general explanation; 4. He gives a complete explana-tion with specific details.

12. Communicating Wants: 1. He seldom verbalizes his wants; acts out bypointing, pulling, crying, etc; 2. He sometimes verbalizes but usually com-bines actions with words; 3. He usually verbalizes but sometimes acts outhis wants; 4. He nearly always verbalizes his wants.

13. Borrowing: 1. He takes objects when in use by others without asking per-mission; 2. He sometimes asks permission to use other’s objects; 3. He fre-quently asks permission to use other’s objects; 4. He nearly always askspermission to use other’s objects.

14. Returning Property, when he has borrowed something: 1. He seldomattempts to return the property to its owner; 2. He occasionally attempts toreturn the property to its owner; 3. He frequently attempts to return theproperty to its owner; 4. He nearly always returns the property to its owner.

15. Sharing: 1. He does not share equipment or toys; 2. He shares but only af-ter adult intervention; 3. He occasionally shares willingly with other chil-dren; 4. He frequently shares willingly with other children.

16. Helping Others, when another child is having difficulty (such as usingequipment, dressing): 1. He never helps the other child; 2. He helps anotherchild only when they are playing together; 3. He sometimes stops his own playto help another child; 4. He frequently stops his own play to help another child.

17. PlayingwithOthers:1.Heusuallyplayshimself;2.Heplayswithothersbutlim-its play to one or two children; 3. He occasionally plays with a larger group (threeormorechildren);4.Heusuallyplayswithalargergroup(threeormorechildren).

18. Initiating Involvement, when other children are involved in an activitywhich permits the inclusion of additional children: 1. He seldom initi-ates getting involved in the activity; 2. He sometimes initiates getting in-volved in the activity; 3. He frequently initiates getting involved in the ac-tivity; 4. He nearly always initiates getting involved in the activity.



19. Initiating Group Activities: 1. He nearly always initiates activities whichare solely for his own play; 2. He initiates his own activities and allows onechild to join him; 3. He sometimes initiates activities which include two ormore children; 4. He frequently initiates activities which are of a group na-ture.

20. Giving Direction to Play, when playing with others: 1. He typically fol-lows the lead of others; 2. He sometimes makes suggestions for the direc-tion of the play; 3. He frequently makes suggestions for the direction of theplay; 4. He nearly always makes suggestions for the direction of the play.

21. Taking Turns: 1. He frequently interrupts or pushes others to get ahead ofthem in an activity taking turns; 2. He attempts to take turn ahead of timebut does not push or quarrel in order to do so; 3. He waits for turn, butteases or pushes those ahead of him; 4. He waits for turns or waits to becalled.

22. Reaction to Frustration, when he does not get what he wants or thingsare not going well: 1. He has a tantrum (screams, kicks, throws, etc.); 2.He finds a substitute activity without seeking help in solving the problem;3. He seeks help from others in solving the problem without making an at-tempt to solve it himself; 4. He seeks help from others in solving the prob-lem after making an effort to solve it himself.

23. Dependence upon Adults: He will continue in an activity on his ownwithout having an adult participate with him or encourage him: 1. Hardlyever; 2. Sometimes; 3. Frequently; 4. Nearly always.

24. Accepting Limits, when an adult sets limits on the child’s activity(play, space, use of material, type of activity) he accepts the limits: 1.Hardly ever; 2. Sometimes; 3. Frequently; 4. Nearly always.

25. Effecting Transitions, in changing from one activity to another: 1. Herequires personal contact by adult (i.e., holding hands, leading); 2. He willnot move toward new activity until the physical arrangement have beencompleted; 3. He moves toward new activity when teacher announces theactivity; 4. He moves toward new activity without physical or verbal cues.

26. Changes in Routine, the child accepts changes in routine (daily sched-ule, room arrangements, adults) without resistance or becoming up-set: 1. Hardly ever; 2. Sometimes; 3. Frequently; 4. Nearly always.

27. Reassurance in Public Places, when taken to public places he must begiven physical or verbal reassurance: 1. Nearly always; 2. Frequently; 3.Sometimes; 4. Hardly ever.

28. Response to Unfamiliar Adults: 1. He avoids or withdraws from any con-tact with unfamiliar adults; 2. He, when initially approached by unfamiliaradults, avoids contact, but if approached again, is responsive; 3. He re-sponds to overtures by unfamiliar adults but does not initiate contact; 4. Hereadily moves toward unfamiliar adults.

814 JULVEZ ET AL.


29. Unfamiliar Situations: 1. He restricts himself to activities in which he haspreviously engaged; 2. He joins in an activity which is new for him only ifother children are engaged in it; 3. He joins with other children in an activ-ity which is new to everyone; 4. He engages in an activity which is new forhim even though other children are not involved.

30. Seeking Help, when he is involved in an activity in which he needs help:1. he leaves the activity without seeking help; 2. He continues in the activ-ity but only if help is offered; 3. He persists in the activity and finally seekshelp; 4. He seeks help from others after making a brief attempt.



psychometric characteristics of the california preschool social competence scale in a spanish...

Documents