konold et al relationships among informant based measures of social skills and student achievement

8/6/2019 KONOLD ET AL Relationships Among Informant Based Measures of Social Skills and Student Achievement

1/18

This article was downloaded by: [200.120.120.89]On: 20 July 2011, At: 06:21Publisher: Psychology PressInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Applied Developmental SciencePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hads20

Relationships Among Informant Based Measures of

Social Skills and Student Achievement: A Longitudinal

Examination of Differential Effects by SexTimothy R. Konold

a, Kristen R. Jamison

a, Tina L. Stanton-Chapman

a& Sara E. Rimm-

Kaufmana

aUniversity of Virginia,

Available online: 25 Jan 2010

To cite this article: Timothy R. Konold, Kristen R. Jamison, Tina L. Stanton-Chapman & Sara E. Rimm-Kaufman (2010):

Relationships Among Informant Based Measures of Social Skills and Student Achievement: A Longitudinal Examination of

Differential Effects by Sex, Applied Developmental Science, 14:1, 18-34

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10888690903510307

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic

reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form toanyone 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 doses shouldbe independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10888690903510307http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10888690903510307http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hads20


2/18

Relationships Among Informant Based Measuresof Social Skills and Student Achievement: A LongitudinalExamination of Differential Effects by Sex

Timothy R. Konold, Kristen R. Jamison, Tina L. Stanton-Chapman, andSara E. Rimm-Kaufman

University of Virginia

Childrens social skills are an important class of learned behaviors that facilitate success

in the classroom; the primary method used in the assessment of social skills involveshaving parents or teachers complete standardized checklists using judgments offrequency or intensity. Childrens (N 1,102) social skills were modeled as time-varyingpredictors of student achievements within a latent growth curve model that allowed forestimation of student level variation and the possibility of non-linear achievementgrowth across 45 years of age and grades one, three, and five. Separate modelswere examined to determine whether ratings provided by mothers accounted for moreachievement score variance than ratings provided by teachers, and multi-group time-varying conditional latent growth curve models were investigated for boys and girlsseparately by informant type. Results indicated that childrens social skills accountedfor levels of achievement score variance that were most pronounced at pre-schoolage, that teachers ratings of childrens social skills generally accounted for moreachievement score variance than those obtained by mothers regardless of the childssex, and that the explanatory power of social skills for boys and girls was dependent

upon the type of achievement considered.

Childrens social skills are an important class of learnedbehaviors that enable children to be successful in theclassroom (Konold & Pianta, 2005). In fact, a primarypurpose of the federal initiative to prepare at-risk pre-school children through the well known Head Startprogram was initially focused on enhancing childrenssocial skills (Fantuzzo et al. 2007). Although the con-struct of social skills can be operationalized in varietyof ways (Cummings, Kaminski, & Merrell, 2008), itincludes those behaviors that enable children to interact

successfully with others (Gresham & Elliott, 1987).Social skill development begins through infant-parentinteractions; and continues to take shape during the pre-school years and throughout the life-span through inter-actions with parents, teachers, peers, and other adults(Denham et al., 2003; La Paro & Pianta, 2000; Pianta,

1999; Rimm-Kaufman, Pianta, & Cox, 2000). Youngchildren cannot learn academic content if they have dif-ficulty following directions, interacting with adults andpeers, and controlling negative emotions, since learningis often described as a social process (Zins, Bloodworth,Weissberg, & Walberg, 2004).

Children with positive social skills are better able tonavigate the multitude of necessary responsibilities(e.g., listening, following directions, attending to activi-ties) associated with entry into formal schooling (Ladd,

Herald, & Kochel, 2006), and are better positioned toengage in more structured environments that definethe classroom in ways that contribute to long-term class-room success (Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Ladd & Burgess,1999; Ladd et al., 2006). Additionally, these childrendevelop positive attitudes towards school and achieveacademic success. For example, recent findings revealthat academic achievement in the first years of elemen-tary school appear to be built on a foundation of social

Address correspondence to Timothy R. Konold, Curry School ofEducation, University of Virginia, 405 Emmet Street South, P.O. Box400277, Charlottesville, VA 22904-4277. E-mail: [email protected]

APPLIED DEVELOPMENTAL SCIENCE, 14(1), 1834, 2010

Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1088-8691 print=1532-480X online

DOI: 10.1080/10888690903510307


3/18

and emotional skills that were developed from infancythrough preschool (Raver, 2002). By contrast, childrenthat fail to follow directions and otherwise mastersocially appropriate methods of interactions may failto keep pace with classroom instruction through theirlack of positive involvement (Elliott, Malecki, &Demaray, 2001) and develop negative school attitudes,

school avoidance, and underachievement during the firstfew years of school (Buhs & Ladd, 2001).

Social skills have been linked to childrens socialdevelopment in terms of the quality of their relation-ships with others. Children lacking positive social skillsare unable to successfully negotiate play with their peers,and experience feelings of sadness and loneliness; which,in turn, results in problem behaviors that manifest them-selves in both the home and classroom environments(Eisenberg et al., 1997; Stormshak & Webster-Stratton,1999; Vinnick & Erickson, 1994). If left unchecked, poorsocial behavior in the classroom often results in teacherreferrals for psych-educational evaluations (Gresham,

Noell, & Elliott, 1996). Social skills have also beenreported to have a pronounced relationship with studentengagement and motivation (Mashburn & Pianta, 2006;Merrell, 1995); wherein, children who are more success-ful in social interactions with adults and peers showmore engagement in learning environments.

A substantial body of literature also documents thecontribution of social skills to both concurrent andfuture academic achievements (e.g., Bursuck & Asher,1986; Downer & Pianta, 2006; Kupersmidt, Coie, &Dodge, 1990; Malecki & Elliott, 2002; Margalit, 1998;Parker & Asher, 1993; Vaughn, Hogan, Kouzekanai, &Shapiro, 1990; Wentzel, 1993). These associations have

been reported from school entry to well into middleschool grades. For example, ONeil, Welsh, Parke,Wang, and Strand (1997) found that socially acceptedkindergarten children were more likely to score highlyon academic achievement tests through second gradethan those children with non-favorable social accept-ance ratings. Similarly, Wasik, Wasik, and Frank(1993) found that children who were rated as moreaggressive and disruptive by their kindergarten teacherwere more likely to be identified as at risk for academicfailure by their second grade teacher. Malecki & Elliott(2002) revealed that children with better teacherreported social skills at the beginning of third gradewere more likely to have higher achievement scores atthe end of third grade. Analogous results were alsoreported for fourth grade students. In addition, Teo,Carlson, Mathieu, Egeland, and Sroufe (1996) foundthat prosocial behavior was an independent predictorof students standardized test scores, after controllingfor IQ, ethnicity, academic behavior, and teacher pre-ferences. A notable exception to the often documentedlink between poor social skills on student achievement

can be found in Duncan et al. (2007). Results of thisstudy failed to link social skills at school entry to stu-dent achievements in upper elementary or middleschool across six data sets examined, including theNICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Devel-opment, the data set used for the present study.

Research also suggests that in the aggregate, pre-

school and elementary school aged boys and girls dis-play different levels of social skill and behavioraldevelopment (Deater-Deckard, Dodge, Bates, & Pettit,1998; Steinberg & Dodge, 1983); wherein, girls aremore likely to demonstrate somewhat more pro-socialbehavior than boys (Elliott, Barnard, & Gresham,1989; Kochanska, 1997) and that young boys are morelikely than girls to display increasingly negative formsof behavior over the course of the year (Hammarberg& Hagekull, 2006). Moreover, the contribution ofchildrens social skills appears to have differentialassociations across gender groups and achievementtypes (Penner, 2003; Sanson, Prior, & Smart, 1996;

Trzesniewski, Moffitt, Caspi, Taylor, & Maughan,2006).

There are many different ways of assessing socialskills, including behavior rating scales, behavioral obser-vations, self-report instruments, projective techniques,and sociometric assessment (Merrell, 1999). Projectivetechniques (e.g., drawings and interviewing), however,demonstrate little empirical evidence to support theiruse in assessing social skills. Self-report instrumentsremain open to question with respect to childrensability to accurately report on their own social skills(Merrell, 2001). Sociometric techniques, such as peernomination, generally provide high levels of reliability

and validity (Gresham & Elliott, 1990). The principalmethod used in the assessment of childrens socialskills involves having parents or teachers completestandardized checklists using judgments of frequencyor intensity (Thomas et al., 1997).

Despite the wide use and potential advantages thatstandardized rating scales afford, there are also wellknown limitations (Cai, Kaiser, & Hancock, 2004;McConaughy, 1993; McConaughy & Ritter, 1995). Per-haps the most troublesome limitation is the apparentlack of agreement between different informants ratingthe same child (McConaughy & Ritter, 1995; Suen &Ary, 1989). In school settings, teachers are often themain referral source and thus have crucial informationabout presenting problems (McConaughy, 1993; Knoff,1995), and are more likely than parents to take anormative approach (Konold, Brewster, & Pianta,2004; Piacentini, 1993) in their judgments. At the sametime, parents provide a critical perspective on childrensfunctioning and are perhaps the most widely-used infor-mants, offering judgments that are more idiographicand unique to the child (Konold et al., 2004).

SOCIAL SKILLS 19


4/18

Although agreement between pairs of informantsin similar settings (e.g., mother vs. father orteacher-teacher pairs) is often reported as moderate inmagnitude, relations of ratings between different infor-mants from different settings (e.g., parents vs. teachers)are quite low (Achenbach & McConaughy, 1987;Canivez, Watkins, & Schaefer, 2002; NICHD, 1998;

Ruffalo & Elliott, 1997). For example, Fagan andFantuzzo (1999) found only modest agreement betweenmother and father reports of their childrens social skillsin a sample of urban Head Start children and non-significant relationships between teacher and parentreports. In addition, Bentler and Lee (1979) reporteddifferences in scores between peer, teacher, and self-ratings of four personality variables. Recent explana-tions for these forms of discrepancy may rest in the factthat informant based ratings of children are influencedby a heavy dose of informant specific variance (Konold& Pianta, 2007). As a result, one of the primarypurposes of the current investigation is to examine

the relationships between social skills and studentachievement outcomes, taking into considerationdifferent informant types.

Although relations between social skills and studentachievements are relatively well documented, themajority of these investigations are cross-sectional innature or of limited longitudinal scope. They generallyrely on a single measurement of childrens social skillscaptured at a single point in time by a single informantand have not utilized analytic approaches that allow forconsideration of student level variation or examinedwhether these longitudinal relationships are moderatedby child sex. The purposes of the current investigation

were to examine the associations of childrens socialskills in a time-series model that captured childrensdevelopment in social skills and achievement from 54months of age through fifth grade (i.e., pre-schoolthrough elementary school), to determine whether theseassociations varied as a function of informant type (i.e.,mother vs. teacher) and=or sex of the child, and to do soacross two achievement domains related to mathematicsand reading.

We systematically examine these issues throughtwo sets of research questions; the first set describeschildrens achievement trajectories, considers the contri-bution of social skills on childrens achievement trajec-tories, and examines the role of informant types inrelation to achievement growth. The second set revisitsthese same questions but considers how associationsdiffer between boys and girls.

The first set of research questions asks: First, arechildrens achievement trajectories from 54 months ofage linear or non-linear? Second, are both mothersand teachers ratings of childrens social skills associatedwith childrens achievements at 54 months of age

through grade five? Third, do mothers and teachersratings of childrens social skills differentially accountfor achievement score variance at 54 months of age,and=or childrens longitudinal achievement scoregrowth from 54 months of age through grade five?The second set of research questions asks: First, do boysand girls demonstrate different rates of linear or

non-linear achievement growth from 54 months of agethrough grade five? Second, are both mothers andteachers ratings of social skills associated with boysand girls achievements at 54 months of age throughgrade five. Third, do mothers and teachers ratings ofsocial skills differentially account for achievement scorevariance for boys and girls at 54 months of age, and=orboys and girls longitudinal achievement growth from 54months of age through grade five?

The first research question from each set is lesssubstantively interesting, but is included as necessarybaseline questions to allow for quantification of thevalue added by inclusion of social skills across inform-

ant types and sex of the target child. Childrens socialskills were modeled as time-varying predictors of stu-dent achievement within a latent growth curve modelthat allowed for estimation of student level variationand the possibility of non-linear achievement growthacross time. Separate models were examined to deter-mine whether social skill ratings provided by oneinformant (e.g., mother) accounted for more achieve-ment score variance than ratings provided by a differentinformant (e.g., teacher), and multi-group time-varyingconditional latent growth curve models were investi-gated for boys and girls separately by informant type.

METHODS

Participants

Data were obtained from the NICHD Study of EarlyChild Care and Youth Development (SECCYD). TheSECCYD study is a comprehensive, observational,repeated study of key developmental contexts frombirth through 15 years of age. Mothers of children tak-ing part in the SECCYD were recruited from hospitalslocated in or near Little Rock, Arkansas; Irvine,California; Lawrence, Kansas; Boston; Philadelphia;Pittsburgh; Charlottesville, Virginia; Morganton,North Carolina; Seattle, Washington; and Madison,Wisconsin. Additional details regarding recruitment,selection procedures, and variable selection=informationis available on the Web at: http://secc.rti.org

The sample (N 1,102) used for the current investi-gation consisted of those children with at least one assess-ment of the Social Skills Rating Scale (SSRS) completedby the childs mother and teacher and one WJ-R Applied

20 KONOLD ET AL.


5/18

Problems and one Letter-Word Identification achieve-ment score across times one through four of the currentinvestigation. The sample was 81.7% White, 11.8% Black,4.7% Hispanic, and less than 2% Asian American. Therewere slightly more boys (51%) than girls, and 30.5% of thechildren were from low-income families at one month ofage (income-to-needs ratio


6/18

Prominent features of the full conditional latent growthcurve model, with time-varying social skill covariates,are illustrated in Figure 1. Some model parameteriza-tions were omitted from this figure for ease of presen-tation, but are described in following text.

Unconditional Models

The lower portion of Figure 1 illustrates the mannerin which the measured student achievements were mod-eled through LGCA. LGCA allows for the estimation ofboth latent intercept and latent slope terms, as illu-strated by the ellipses. The specification of a latent inter-cept allows for the estimation of initial status (i.e.,achievement status at 4.5 years of age), and the latentslope provides a measure of growth across the time.The measured WJ-R achievements (i.e., Applied Pro-blems and Letter-Word Identification) are distinguishedfrom the directly unobserved latent variables by theirenclosure in boxes. Unconditional growth-curves for

both achievements were evaluated separately to estimate

the initial status (i.e., intercept) of children on thesevariables as well as their growth (i.e., slope) across thefour, approximately equally spaced two year, timepoints. All paths linking the intercept to the observedachievements were fixed to 1, and growth parameterswere empirically estimated by freeing the middle twoparameters (i.e., slope weights for Time 2 and Time 3)

and fixing the first ( 0 for initial measurement) andfourth ( 6 for fourth measurement after six years) toprovide a scale that reflects the total number years forthe repeated measurements. If the empirically estimatedvalues for the 2nd and the 3rd coefficients are differentfrom theoretical expectation (i.e., 2 and 4, respectively,given the approximate equal spacing of measurementsin two year intervals) for the middle two coefficientsunder the linearity condition, evidence for a non-lineargrowth pattern would be indicated. This approach isoften referred to as latent basis (McArdle & Bell,2000) or spline modeling (Bollen and Curran, 1999),and provides a more flexible approach to estimating

patterns of growth than is afforded by linear constraints.

FIGURE 1 Conditional latent growth model of student achievement with time-varying social skill covariates across four time points.

22 KONOLD ET AL.


7/18


8/18

TABLE 2

Correlations among Social Skills and WJ-R Achievements for Mothers and Teachers across Four Time Points

Time 1 (T1) Time 2 (T2) Time 3 (T3) Time 4 (T4)

AP LWI AP LWI AP LWI AP LWI

Mother

T1 Cooperation .17 .12 .13 .14 .12 .16 .11 .14

T1 Assertion .19 .13 .16 .13 .14 .16 .16 .17

T1 Self-Control .24 .17 .18 .18 .17 .19 .18 .20

T2 Cooperation .08

.07

.09

.09

.11

.12

.10

.12

T2 Assertion .17 .10 .20 .13 .19 .17 .19 .18

T2 Self-Control .16 .13 .16 .15 .17 .16 .19 .19

T3 Cooperation .17 .06 .07 .13 .12 .14 .11 .16

T3 Assertion .23 .14 .20 .15 .22 .19 .19 .20

T3 Self-Control .19 .17 .18 .21 .19 .22 .21 .24

T4 Cooperation .06 .01 .04 .07 .06 .10 .04 .10

T4 Assertion .21 .09 .16 .11 .17 .15 .17 .16

T4 Self-Control .19 .15 .15 .19 .16 .21 .18 .22

TeacherT1 Cooperation .37 .29 .30 .27 .30 .28 .34 .26

T1 Assertion .31 .20 .23 .21 .22 .22 .23 .20

T1 Self-Control .27 .17 .17 .16 .20 .18 .19 .14

T2 Cooperation .34 .24 .32 .31 .34 .31 .31 .29

T2 Assertion .23 .16 .23 .17 .24 .19 .20 .19

T2 Self-Control .19 .14 .15 .16 .17 .17 .15 .15

T3 Cooperation .29 .22 .30 .27 .28 .30 .30 .29

T3 Assertion .24 .16 .23 .22 .19 .20 .20 .19

T3 Self-Control .21 .18 .17 .22 .17 .22 .20 .19

T4 Cooperation .27 .24 .24 .24 .26 .27 .32 .26

T4 Assertion .21 .14 .23 .15 .19 .17 .23 .16

T4 Self-Control .21 .17 .17 .16 .20 .22 .25 .22

Mean 425.25 370.08 471.15 453.21 497.28 493.90 509.84 510.24Standard Deviation 19.45 22.00 15.75 24.03 13.24 18.77 12.78 17.50

Note: APApplied Problems, LWILetter-Word Identification.p < .05.

TABLE 1

Social Skill Descriptive Statistics for Mothers and Teachers across Four Time Points

Teachers Mothers

C T1 A T1 SC T1 C T2 A T2 SC T2 C T3 A T3 SC T3 C T4 A T4 SC T4 M SD

MothersT1 Cooperation (C) .16 .17 .13 .15 .12 .10 .16 .13 .09 .17 .12 .11 12.21 2.88

T1 Assertion (A) .01 .25

.03 .05 .18

.02 .02 .13

.03 .03 .14

.05

14.38 2.98T1 Self-Control (SC) .11 .24 .13 .11 .18 .10 .10 .12 .11 .10 .13 .11 12.86 2.54T2 Cooperation .16 .11 .10 .20 .13 .14 .18 .13 .12 .22 .11 .12 12.76 3.06T2 Assertion .13 .28 .14 .15 .28 .16 .10 .20 .11 .11 .17 .14 17.22 2.34

T2 Self-Control .19 .13 .19 .23 .15 .24 .20 .14 .21 .17 .13 .22 13.05 3.31T3 Cooperation .19 .15 .14 .25 .17 .20 .25 .19 .16 .26 .17 .19 12.18 3.24

T3 Assertion .20 .27 .21 .20 .30 .20 .21 .29 .21 .17 .25 .20 17.02 2.69T3 Self-Control .19 .15 .21 .25 .17 .28 .27 .20 .29 .21 .16 .26 13.68 3.39

T4 Cooperation .13 .07 .09 .23 .13 .19 .19 .13 .12 .26 .15 .17 12.26 3.25T4 Assertion .16 .26 .18 .21 .24 .21 .16 .25 .20 .22 .30 .25 17.01 2.60T4 Self-Control .17 .11 .20 .22 .11 .24 .22 .17 .25 .22 .14 .29 13.89 3.29

TeachersM 15.95 12.96 15.19 15.52 13.25 15.19 15.28 12.99 14.92 15.72 12.81 15.09

SD 4.01 4.14 3.68 4.06 3.86 3.71 4.45 3.98 3.94 4.14 4.11 3.95

Note: T1Time 1, T2Time 2, T3Time 3, T4Time 4.p < .05.

24 KONOLD ET AL.


9/18

4(12.74=84.91 15%). At the same time, therewas statistically significant variation in Applied Problem

scores among children both at 4.5 years of age,S2Intercept 238.66, p< .05; and across time, S

2Slope 1.89,

p< .05. The intercept-slope correlation of.69 indicatesthat children with lower initial Applied Problem scoreshad faster growth rates across future time points.

Are both mothers and teachers ratings of childrens

social skills associated with childrens Applied Problems

achievements at 54 months of age through grade five?

Do mothers and teachers ratings of childrens social

skills differentially account for Applied Problems achieve-

ment score variance at 54 months of age, and=or chil-drens Applied Problems achievement score longitudinal

growth from 54 months of age through grade five? Totalsample conditional model summary statistics in whichsocial skills were modeled to have a direct associationwith Applied Problems across time, are presented separ-ately for social skill ratings obtained from mothers andteachers on the left side of Table 3. Model fit statisticswere all suggestive of good fit for both mothers and tea-chers reports. A comparison of fit between these con-ditional models and an unconditional model in which thepaths linking social skills to each of the four achievements

were constrained to 0, revealed a statistically significantdecline in fit for the constrained model for mothers,X2D (4) 58.28, p< .05; and teachers ratings X2D (4)86.69, p< .05.

Estimates of the direct effects of social skills onApplied Problems were statistically significant for bothmothers and teachers ratings across all four timepoints, see left side of Table 3 for standardized esti-mates. Although these effects had little impact on theempirically estimated pattern coefficients, slope esti-mates, or intercept-slope correlation; they did have anotable, and somewhat differential, impact on studentlevel variation. The modeling of mothers social skill rat-ings accounted for 8.61% of the variance in childrens4.5 year old (i.e., time 1 or intercept) Applied Problemscores, and 2.12% of the variance in childrens growth(i.e., slope) on this achievement variable; whereas, themodeling of teachers social skill ratings accounted for13.25% of the variance in time 1 scores and 0% of thevariance in childrens growth.

Do boys and girls demonstrate different rates of linear or

non-linear Applied Problems achievement growth from 54

months of age through grade five? Multi-group uncon-ditional model results for boys and girls are presented

TABLE 3

Standardized Growth Curve Estimates: Applied Problems

Multi-Group: Boys vs. Girls

Total Sample Conditional Models

Conditional Models Unconditional Models Mother Ratings Teacher Ratings

Unconditional M odel Mother Ratings Teacher Ratings B oys Girls Boys Girls Boys G irls

Pattern Coefficients 1, 0 1, 0 1, 0 1, 0 1, 0 1, 0 1, 0 1, 0 1, 01, 3.24 1, 3.24 1, 3.24 1, 3.38 1, 3.09 1, 3.38 1, 3.10 1, 3.38 1, 3.10

1, 5.10 1, 5.101 1, 5.10 1, 5.15 1, 5.05 1, 5.15 1, 5.05 1, 5.15 1, 5.051, 6.00 1, 6.00 1, 6.00 1, 6.00 1, 6.00 1, 6.00 1, 6.00 1, 6.00 1, 6.00

Intercept 424.99 425.00 424.94 422.21 427.62 422.27 427.61 422.17 427.61

Slope 14.15 14.15 14.16 14.65 13.67 14.64 13.67 14.66 13.67

Time-Varying CovariatesSS1 on Ach 1 .18 .24 .18 .17 .22 .18

SS2 on Ach 2 .15 .12 .16 .16 .10 .17

SS3 on Ach 3 .12 .06 .15 .09 .06 .08

SS4 on Ach 4 .12 .14 .14 .11 .13 .17

Intercept Variance 238.66 218.11 207.04 328.89 169.45 301.31 154.86 290.14 147.05

% Decrease 8.61% 13.25% 8.39% 8.61% 11.78% 13.22%

Slope Variance 1.89 1.85 1.89 3.07 1.15 3.03 1.12 3.17 .93

% Decrease 2.12% 0% 1.30% 2.61% 19.13%

Correlation I,S .69 .66 .63 .75 .59 .74 .56 .71 .56

Fit StatisticsChi-sq (df) 5.91 (3) 232.78 (77) 407.62 (77) 8.982 (6) 339.17 (154) 468.10 (154)

NFI .99 .97 .95 1.00 .96 .94TLI .99 .97 .92 1.00 .96 .92

CFI .99 .98 .96 1.00 .98 .96RMSEA .03 .04 .06 .02 .03 .04

p < .0.

SOCIAL SKILLS 25


10/18

on the right side of Table 3. Measures of model fit werefavorable for the unconditional model. The NFI, TLI,and CFI were all above .95 and the RMSEA was less than.05. Results of the unconditional models revealed that, onaverage, boys Applied Problem scores were slightly lower(Intercept 422.21) than those of girls (Intercept427.62) at 4.5 years of age (i.e., Time 1). However, boys

overall growth from 4.5 years of age to grade five(6 14.65 87.9) was somewhat greater than that of girls(6 13.67 82.02). Boys outpaced girls from 4.5 years ofage to grade one, demonstrating [(3.38 14.65 49.52)=87.9] 56% of their total growth during this period com-pared to [(3.09 13.67 42.24)=82.02] 51% for girls.Thereafter, boys rate of growth [((5.153.38) 14.6525.93)=87.9 29%] fell slightly below that of girls[((5.053.09) 13.67 26.79)=82.02 33%], and wasonly marginally different from grade three to gradefive for boys [((65.15) 14.65 12.45)=87.9 14%]and girls [((65.05) 13.67 12.99)=82.02 16%]. Atthe same time, there was statistically significant variation

among boys and girls Applied Problem scores at 4.5years of age (i.e., Time 1: S2Intercept;boys 328:89, p< .05;S2Intercept;girls 169:45, p < .05) and across measurementoccasions (S2Slope;boys 3:07, p < .05; S

2Slope;girls 1:15,

p< .05); with boys demonstrating considerably morevariation than girls. The intercept-slope correlation of.75 for boys and .59 for girls indicates that childrenwith lower initial Applied Problem scores had fastergrowth rates across future time points.

Are both mothers and teachers ratings of social skills

associated with boys and girls Applied Problems achieve-

ments at 54 months of age through grade five? Do

mothers and teachers ratings of social skills differentially

account for Applied Problems achievement score variance for boys and girls at 54 months of age, and=or boys andgirls Applied Problems longitudinal achievement growth

from 54 months of age through grade five? Multi-groupconditional models introduced social skills as separatelymeasured by mothers and teachers on Applied Prob-lem scores. These direct effects were found to be statisti-cally significant for both boys and girls at all four timepoints, and across informants, see right side of Table 3.Constraining these paths to 0 further substantiatedtheir importance by revealing a statistically significantdecline in fit for ratings obtained by mother reports,X2

D(8) 58.76, p < .05; and teacher reports X2

D(8)

84.48, p < .05.The modeling of mothers social skill ratings

accounted for approximately equal amounts of variancein boys (8.39%) and girls (8.61%) 4.5 year old (i.e., Time1 or intercept) Applied Problem scores. By contrast, themodeling of teachers social skill ratings accounted for11.78% of the variance in boys 4.5 year old scores, and13.22% of the variance in girls scores at the same pointin time. Social skill ratings obtained from mothers

accounted for somewhat less achievement score varianceacross time for boys (1.3%) and girls (2.61%); whereas,teachers ratings accounted for 19.13% of the growthvariance among girls and actually served to increasethe variance among boys.

Letter-Word Identification

Are childrens Letter-Word Identification achievement

trajectories from 54 months of age through grade five lin-

ear or non-linear? Total sample unconditional modelsummary statistics are presented on the left side ofTable 4. Most measures of fit were favorable. The NFIand CFI were within expectation for good fitting models(i.e., !.95), and the TLI and RMSEA left room forimprovement. The rate of growth (i.e., slope 23.36)was found to be statistically significant, and theempirically estimated pattern coefficients for the middletwo time points (3.55 and 5.30, respectively) revealeddeviations from expectation under the linearity

assumption (i.e., 2 and 4, respectively). The percentageof childrens total growth [6 23.36 140.16] was foundto be greater from 4.5 years of age to grade one was[(3.55 23.36 82.93)=140.16 59%], than from gradeone to grade three [((5.303.55) 23.3640.88)=140.16 29%], or grade three to grade five[((65.3) 23.36 16.35)=140.16 12%]. At the sametime, there was statistically significant variation inLetter-Word scores among children both at 4.5 yearsof age, S2Intercept 353:33, p < .05; and across time,S2Slope 5:76, p < .05. The intercept-slope correlation of.48 indicates that children with lower initialLetter-Word scores had faster growth rates across future

time points.Are both mothers and teachers ratings of childrens

social skills associated with childrens Letter-Word Identi-

fication achievements at 54 months of age through grade

five? Do mothers and teachers ratings of childrens social

skills differentially account for Letter-Word Identification

achievement score variance at 54 months of age, and=orchildrens Letter-Word Identification achievement score

longitudinal growth from 54 months of age through grade

five? Total sample conditional model summary statisticsin which social skills were modeled to have a directassociation with Letter-Word scores across time, arepresented separately for ratings obtained from mothersand teachers on the left side of Table 4. Model fitstatistics for both models were suggestive of good fit.A comparison of fit between these conditional modelsand an unconditional model in which the paths linkingsocial skills to each of the four achievements were con-strained to 0, revealed a statistically significant declinein fit for the constrained model for both mother reports,X2D(4) 34.87, p < .05; and teacher reports X

2D(4)

45.87, p < .05. Similar to the results obtained with

26 KONOLD ET AL.


11/18

Applied Problems, these nested model comparisons sub-stantiate the importance of social skills in these models.

Estimates of the direct effects of social skills onLetter-Word scores were statistically significant for bothmothers and teachers ratings across all four timepoints, see left side of Table 4 for standardized esti-mates. These effects had a notable, and somewhat differ-ential, impact on student level variation. The modelingof mothers social skill ratings accounted for 4.43% ofthe variance in childrens 4.5 year old (i.e., time 1 orintercept) Letter-Word Identification scores, and 1.39%of the variance in childrens growth on this achievementvariable; whereas, the modeling of teachers social skillratings accounted for 7.57% of the variance in time 1scores and 1.74% of the variance in childrens growth.

Do boys and girls demonstrate different rates of linear

or non-linear Letter-Word Identification achievement

growth from 54 months of age through grade five?

Multi-group unconditional model results for boys andgirls are presented on the right side of Table 4. Hereagain, most measures of fit were favorable. The NFIand CFI were within expectation for good fitting models(i.e., !.95), and the TLI and RMSEA left room forimprovement. On average, boys initial Letter-Word

scores (Intercept367.93) were only slightly lowerthan those of girls (Intercept 372.40) at 4.5 years of

age (i.e., Time 1). However, boys total growth[6 23.66 141.96] across the six year period was some-what greater than that for girls [6 23.05 138.31]. Atthe same time, boys paced girls in terms of their percent-age of total growth between adjacent measurements.This occurred between 4.5 years of age to grade onefor boys [(3.53 23.66 83.52)=141.96 59%] andgirls[(3.56 23.05 82.06)=138.31 59%], from gradeone to grade three for boys [((5.33.53) 23.6641.88)=141.9630%] and girls [((5.293.56) 23.0539.88)=138.3129%], and from grade three to grade fivefor boys [((65.3) 23.66 16.56)=141.96 12%] andgirls [((65.29)23.05 16.37)=138.31 12%].

There was also statistically significant individual vari-ation in Letter-Word scores both initially and over time.Boys S2Intercept344:93, p< .05 demonstrated somewhatless variation than girls S2Intercept348:60, p< .05 at 4.5years of age; and somewhat more variation across timeS2Slope7:08, p< .05, than girls S

2Slope4:20, p< .05.

Intercept-slope correlations for boys .46 and girls .50suggest that children with lower initial Letter-Word scoreshad faster growth rates across future time points.

TABLE 4

Standardized Growth Curve Estimates: Letter-Word Identification

Multi-Group: Boys vs. Girls

Total Sample Conditional Models

Conditional Models Unconditional Models Mother Ratings Teacher Ratings

Unconditional M odel Mother Ratings Teacher Ratings B oys Girls Boys Girls Boys G irls

Pattern Coefficients 1, 0 1, 0 1, 0 1, 0 1, 0 1, 0 1, 0 1, 0 1, 01, 3.55 1, 3.55 1, 3.55 1, 3.53 1, 3.56 1, 3.53 1, 3.56 1, 3.53 1, 3.56

1, 5.30 1, 5.30 1, 5.30 1, 5.30 1, 5.29 1, 5.30 1, 5.29 1, 5.30 1, 5.291, 6.00 1, 6.00 1, 6.00 1, 6.00 1, 6.00 1, 6.00 1, 6.00 1, 6.00 1, 6.00

Intercept 370.16 370.17 370.13 367.93 372.40 367.97 372.41 367.89 372.40

Slope 23.36 23.35 23.37 23.66 23.05 23.66 23.05 23.67 23.05

Time-Varying CovariatesSS1 on Ach 1 .10 .12 .16 .04 .15 .05

SS2 on Ach 2 .15 .15 .19 .10 .16 .12

SS3 on Ach 3 .12 .09 .16 .07 .08 .10

SS4 on Ach 4 .11 .06 .15 .08 .04 .07

Intercept Variance 353.33 337.68 326.60 344.93 348.60 321.57 342.42 314.29 333.97

% Decrease 4.43% 7.57% 6.77% 1.77% 8.88% 4.20%

Slope Variance 5.76 5.68 5.66 7.08 4.20 6.79 4.24 7.03 4.18

% Decrease 1.39% 1.74% 4.10% 0.71% 0.48%

Correlation I,S .48 .49 .47 .46 .50 .47 .51 .44 .50

Fit StatisticsChi-sq (df) 116.389 (3) 334.25 (77) 443.93 (77) 119.79 (6) 440.74 (154) 509.59 (154)

NFI .95 .96 .94 .95 .95 .93TLI .85 .95 .92 .85 .95 .92

CFI .95 .97 .95 .95 .97 .95RMSEA .18 .06 .07 .13 .04 .05

p < .0.

SOCIAL SKILLS 27


12/18

Are both mothers and teachers ratings of social skills

associated with boys and girls Letter-Word Identification

achievements at 54 months of age through grade five? Do

mothers and teachers ratings of social skills differentially

account for Letter-Word Identification achievement score

variance for boys and girls at 54 months of age, and=orboys and girls Letter-Word Identification longitudinal

achievement growth from 54 months of age through gradefive? Multi-group conditional models introduced socialskills as separately measured by mothers and teacherson Letter-Word scores. These direct effects were foundto be statistically significant for both boys and girls atmost points. The only exceptions occurred for girls atTime 1 (i.e., 4.5 years of age). Here, neither mother orteacher ratings of girls social skills were found to havea statistically significant relationship with Letter-Wordachievements see right side of Table 4. Constrainingthe four paths to 0, however, substantiated their overallimportance by revealing a statistically significant declinein fit for ratings obtained by mothers, X2D(8) 38.07,

p < .05; and teachers X2D(8) 46.26, p < .05.Mothers social skill ratings accounted for somewhat

more variance in boys (6.77%) 4.5 year old (i.e., Time 1or intercept) Letter-Word scores than girls (1.77%).Similarly, teachers social skill ratings accounted for8.88% of the variance in boys 4.5 year old scores,and 4.20% of the variance in girls scores at the samepoint in time. Social skill ratings obtained frommothers accounted for 4.10% of the achievement scorevariance across time for boys, and actually served toincrease the variance among girls. Teachers social skillratings accounted for less than 1% of the achievementscore growth variance for both boys (0.71%) and girls

(0.48%).

DISCUSSION

Childrens social skills were modeled as time-varyingpredictors of student achievement within a latent growthcurve model that allowed for estimation of student levelvariation and the possibility of non-linear achievementgrowth across time. Two standardized achievementswere examined. One measure tapped into childrensanalytic skills (i.e., Applied Problems) and the secondmeasured developmentally appropriate reading skills(i.e., Letter-Word Identification). Treating social skillsas time-varying predictors allowed for the likely possi-bility that social skills, and their relationships withachievement, change across stages of childrens develop-ment (Denham et al., 2003; Rimm-Kaufman, 2000; LaParo & Pianta, 2000; Pianta, 1999). In general, socialskills were found to demonstrate statistically significantrelations with student achievements in Applied Pro-blems and Letter-Word Identification. The relationship

was most pronounced in earlier years, as childrenssocial skills accounted for somewhat more levels ofachievement score variation at pre-school age (i.e., 54months) and somewhat less variation in achievementscores across grades one, three, and five.

In the current study, social skills were measuredthrough informant-based reports obtained by both

mothers and teachers. Because of the general lack ofagreement between these different informant typeswhen evaluating the same child (Achenbachand &McConaughy, 1987; Cai et al., 2004; Canivez,Watkins, & Schaefer; 2002; NICHD, 1998; Ruffalo& Elliott, 1997), separate models were examined todetermine whether ratings provided by one informant(e.g., mother) accounted for more achievement scorevariance than ratings provided by a different inform-ant (e.g., teacher). Both informants were found toaccount for meaningful levels of achievement scorevariance. However, with few exceptions, teachersratings of childrens social skills generally accounted

for more achievement score variance than that ofmothers ratings, regardless of the childs sex. Thiswas most pronounced when the relationship of socialskills was evaluated in relation to growth in childrensApplied Problem scores. Here, teachers ratingsaccounted for 19.3% of the individual variation ingrowth vs. the 2.6% accounted for by mothers ratings.However, the exception occurred for the relationshipof mothers social skill ratings of boys. Here, mothersratings accounted for 4.1% of the growth variance inLetter-Word Identification, versus teachers ratingswhich accounted for less than 1%.

Explanations for the lack of agreement between

informants when evaluating the same child haveincluded the idea that such ratings may reflect as muchabout the informant as about the child, and that chil-drens social behaviors are in part a function of experi-ences with these informants in settings such as schoolsand homes (Kraemer et al., 2003). Moreover, recentevidence suggests that mothers and teachers ratingsof children each contribute significant and unique por-tions of variance to the constructs being measured,and that ratings obtained by these informants are dif-ferentially response to different dimensions of childfunctioning (Konold & Pianta, 2007). Accordingly,both parents and teachers are important sourcesfor determining a childs overall disposition, and amulti-method approach to examining childrens socialand problem behavior remains advised. Consistentwith this finding, best practices in school psychologyrecommend assessment of childrens skill levels acrossinformants and across settings to enhance the abilityto identify behaviorally at-risk students and interveneearly to address their social and emotional problems(Severson, Walker, Hope-Doolittle, Kratochwill, &

28 KONOLD ET AL.


13/18

Gresham, 2007). Finally, due to reported differences insocial skills between boys and girls (Steinberg &Dodge, 1983; Dodge, 1990), multi-group time-varyingconditional latent growth curve models were investi-gated separately for boys and girls by informant type.Here, results differed for the two types of achieve-ments that were considered. While results of the cur-

rent study suggest that social skills account forproportionate levels of math achievement variancefor both young boys and girls (i.e., 54 months ofage) within informant, the variance accounted for inmath achievement growth was greater for girls thanboys. This difference was most pronounced whenexamining teacher based assessments of social skills.In contrast to the findings reported above, social skillswere found to account for more reading achievementscore variance for young boys (i.e., 54 months ofage) than young girls, regardless of the informant pro-viding the ratings of social skills. Similarly, the vari-ance accounted for in reading achievement growth

was greater for boys than girls, with the contributionbeing most pronounced when mothers reports ofsocial skills were employed. Findings point to a differ-ential prediction of growth patterns between boys andgirls that emerge in the late elementary school yearsand reflect differences in raters judgments (teachersversus mothers).

Three explanations for the gender difference findingsare most plausible. Each explanation rests on the find-ing that boys tend to show slightly greater growth inmath skills than girls and girls tend to show slightlygreater growth in reading than boys. The first expla-nation considers the sub-constructs included in social

skills, including cooperation, assertion, and self-control(Gresham & Elliott, 1990), and the degree to which thepresence of these skills creates different social environ-ments for boys and girls. Children high in social skills(i.e., ability to make friends, invite others to partici-pate, follow directions) may be more equipped to takefull advantage of the classroom environments affordedto them. Specifically, learning is an inherently socialtask requiring contact and conversation with teachersand peers, the ability to take academic risks, and skillsin managing and directing attention (Hamre & Pianta,2007). As a result, children with strength in social skillsmay show greater growth in areas of achievementthat otherwise would lag behind (girls in analyticskills; boys in reading). Research on kindergartenchildrens development of reading skills shows thatgirls learn more literacy skills in kindergartenthan boys, a gap that was reduced when childrenssocial skills (operationalized as teachers ratings ofchildrens approach to learning) were considered(Ready, LoGerfo, Burkam, & Lee, 2005). Likewise,Trzesniewski et al.s (2006) longitudinal examination

of 5 to 7 year old twins revealed that relations betweenantisocial behavior and reading achievement in boyscould be accounted for by environmental factors thatinfluenced both constructs. This explanation suggeststhat social skills may be acting as a protective processin relation to skills less likely to emerge in typicalpatterns of development.

The second explanation reflects the processes andexperiences that are most likely to improve boys andgirls skills differentially during childhood. Althoughfamilies and schools both clearly have an impact onchildrens achievement (Xue & Meisels, 2004; Pianta,Belsky, Vandergrift, Houts, & Morrison, 2008), varia-bility in math achievement tends to be more sensitiveto quality of instruction at school; whereas, variabilityin reading achievement is more multi-determined,reflecting out-of-school opportunities to practice read-ing skills as well as home literacy practices (Bryk &Raudenbush, 1988; Harris, Kelly, & Valentine, 2000;Hill, Bloom, Black, & Lipsey, 2008). In the present

findings, the relation between social skills and readingskills for boys is more evident in the mothers reportthan the teachers report. Most likely, mothers obser-vations of their boys social skills put into motion a ser-ies of social interactions and exchanges that promotereading growth, both directly (e.g., through episodesof shared reading) and indirectly (e.g., throughincreased conversation and interaction). Likewise, it isplausible that the same processes exist in the class-room. When teachers perceive better social skills inchildren, particularly girls, it may initiate a series ofinteractions more likely to promote achievement inan area where children may typically underperform.

Such findings require further empirical study thatconsiders the specific responses that children elicitfrom their teachers based upon their child attributes(Mantzicopoulos, 2005; Rudasill & Rimm-Kaufman,2009; Sameroff & MacKenzie, 2003).

A third explanation is possible, as well. The presentstudy shows gender differences in variability ofachievement growth as a function of social skills, sug-gesting that very small initial difference in gender arebecoming reified (through social skills) as childrenapproach the middle school grades. Although it is mostlikely that these gender differences may be attributedpsychological processes embodied in social skills, it isalso possible that social skills may be a proxy forunmeasured processes such as stereotype threats thatoperate through gender and emerge in the yearsimmediately prior to adolescence. Children with stron-ger social skills may be able to compensate for suchpsychological processes that otherwise could producedisadvantage.

Taken together, the findings are consistent with abroader and systematic set of findings in educational,

SOCIAL SKILLS 29


14/18

school, and developmental psychology that suggest

that children at greater risk for lower achievement

benefit more from supports in their environment

(Kellam, Rebok, Mayer, Ialongo, & Kalodner, 1994;

Gutman, Sameroff, & Cole, 2003). Following the logic

that boys are less likely to develop strong reading skills

(Freeman, 2004; Ready et al., 2005) and girls are less

likely to develop strong math skills (Leahey & Guo,2001; Penner, 2003); the presence of strong social skills

may play a role in eliciting the types of behaviors from

parents, teachers, and even peers that produce resili-

ency and contribute to academic growth.

Although our results are largely consistent with the

findings of others that have demonstrated linkages

between social skills and student achievements (e.g.,

Bursuck & Asher, 1986; Downer & Pianta, 2006;

Kupersmidt, Coie, & Dodge, 1990; Ladd, 1990; Ladd,

Kochenderfer, & Coleman, 1997; Malecki & Elliott,

2002; Margalit, 1998; Parker & Asher, 1993; Rissi,

Gerhardstein, & Kistner, 2003; Vaughn, Hogan,

Kouzekanai, & Shapiro, 1990; Wentzel, 1993), theystand in contrast to results reported by Duncan et al.

(2007) in which social skills only occasionally revealed

statistically significant relationships with achievements.

Duncan et al.s investigation was a well conceptualized

and executed study that employed six large data sets;

and provided some consideration of differential effects

for boys and girls, as well as informants. However, the

current investigation differs in at least two important

ways. First, we more explicitly examine the role of

informant (i.e., mothers vs. teachers) in combination

with boys and girls. As described previously, some of

the more pronounced findings in the current study

emerged through these interactions. Second, theDuncan et al. study examined the association between

early social skills and achievement measures obtained

at one or more discrete points in time (in upper

elementary or middle school). By contrast, our examin-

ation simultaneously modeled multiple measurements

of social skills and their associations with multiple

measurements of achievement across four time points,

and allowed for estimation of the amount of variance

in achievement growth that could be attributed to

childrens social skills. Third, results of the current

investigation did not control for extraneous variables

that might account for the magnitude of some effects

we observed. To investigate the potential role of

confounding variables, we examined a parallel set of

conditional models in which a proxy of socio-economic

status was added as a time invariant covariate on the

latent intercept and slope achievement factors. Here,

socio-economic status was measured with the income-

to-needs ratio computed from maternal reports at

one month. The ratio represents family income

divided by the appropriate poverty threshold for each

household (U.S. Department of Labor, 1994). This

additional specification to the already conditional

models, that included social skills as time-varying

covariates, revealed only modest changes in the

amount of shared variance between social skills and

achievement after controlling for family income. With-

out controlling for family income, the average amount

of shared variance between social skills and AppliedProblems across all conditional models was 10.64%

and 4.19%, respectively, for the intercept (54 months

of age) and slope (growth) factors. Inclusion of both

social skills and family income resulted in average

shared intercept and slope variance estimates of

9.28% and 3.85% or an average reduction of 1.36%

and 0.34% in the shared variance between social skills

and Applied Problems after controlling for family

income. Similarly, the average reduction in shared

variance between social skills and Letter-Word

Identification after controlling for family income was

1.33% and 0.10%, respectively for the intercept and

slope factors.Childrens social skills dictate patterns of interactions

in a classroom setting and may influence the degree of

cohesion between a teacher and a child and peer-to-peer

relationships (Pianta, 1999). Children with positive

interaction patterns are more likely to be engaged in

the learning environment (Mashburn & Pianta, 2006),

and by extension will be more likely to succeed academi-

cally. Ostensibly, the earlier positive interaction patterns

are developed, the more likely children will be to achieve

better academically over time. The current study shows

that social skills account for levels of achievement vari-

ance when modeled within a longitudinal framework,

supporting the notion that better early social skill pat-terns may show positive associations with long term

achievement. Although the design of the current investi-

gation does not permit causal inferences, the findings

contribute to the notion of ensuring that early interven-

tions for young children include attention to not only

improving cognitive skills but also social behaviors.

A considerable number of evidence-based approaches

are available to guide professionals in efforts to improve

childrens social skills in schooling environments. Cur-

rent best practices recommend that, programming begin

in the preschool and continue through the school-age

years and beyond and that social skill development be

infused into instruction throughout the day in a way

that prevents fragmentation (Zins et al., 2004). The

Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional

Learning (CASEL, 2003) provide essential competencies

for effective social-emotional development and academ-

ic success, including self-awareness, social awareness,

self-management, relationship skills, and responsible

decision-making skills. Recommended programs include

Incredible Years: Dina Dinosaur Classroom Curriculum

30 KONOLD ET AL.


15/18

(Webster-Stratton, 2002); Als Pals (Wingspan, 1999);Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS;Greenberg & Kusche, 1998); Skills, Opportunities, andRecognition (SOAR): Capacity-building amongstudents, teachers, and parents (Hawkins, Catalano,Kosterman, Abbott, & Hill, 1999); and Families andSchools Together (FAST; Conduct Problems Prevention

Research Group, 1999).

Limitations

The results of this study should be interpreted with thefollowing limitations in mind. First, the social and beha-vioral data for this study is based on parent and teacherreport. Systematic observation may highlight otherareas of concern and yield different results. Althoughprevious research (e.g., Cai et al., 2004) has found a lackof agreement between teachers and parents on behaviorrating scales, both parents and teachers are importantevaluators of a childs overall behavioral disposition;

thus a multi-method approach to examining childrenssocial and problem behavior is suggested. Informationfrom these multiple sources can aid in designingintervention programs for young children with socialand emotional problems. Second, the cognitive datafor this study is based on the Applied Problems andLetter=Word sections of the WJ-R. These subscalesassess childrens comprehension knowledge, auditoryprocessing, short-term memory, and quantitativeabilities; providing a measure of their g-based IQ forpredicting academic achievement (Woodcock &Johnson, 1990). Performance in school (e.g., grades,state assessments, work samples) and teacher judgments

of student learning may also yield valuable informationregarding students abilities.

Despite these limitations, the present workclearly implicates the contribution of social skills inaccounting for variability in achievement. Althoughthe findings are correlative, not causal in nature; thefindings do suggest that early interventions to bolsterchildrens social skills may have implications notonly for later social and behavioral skills but cognitiveperformance as well.

REFERENCES

Achenbach, T. M., & McConaughy, S. H. (1987). Empirically

based assessment of child and adolescent psychopathology: Practical

applications . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and

goodness-of-fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychologi-cal Bulletin, 88, 588606.

Bentler, P. M., & Lee, S. (1979). A statistical development ofthree-mode factor analysis. British Journal of Mathematical and

Statistical Psychology, 32(1), 87104.

Bollen, K. A., & Curran, P. J. (1999, July). Latent Trajectory=GrowthCurve Analysis: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach.

Summer Institute by Inter-university Consortium for Political andSocial Research (ICPSR), University of Michigan.

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing

model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structuralequation models (pp. 136162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1988). Toward a more appropriateconceptualization of research on school effects: A three-level

hierarchical model. American Journal of Education, 97, 65108.Buhs, E. W., & Ladd, G. W. (2001). Peer rejection as antecedent of

young childrens school adjustment: An examination of mediating

processes. Developmental Psychology, 37, 550560.Bursuck, W. D., & Asher, S. R. (1986). The relationship between social

competence and achievement in elementary school children. Journal

of Clinical Psychology, 15, 4149.

Cai, X., Kaiser, A. P., & Hancock, T. B. (2004). Parent and teacher

agreement on child behavior checklist items in a sample of pre-schoolers from low income and predominately African American

families. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33,303312.

Canivez, G. L., Watkins, M. W., & Schaefer, B. A. (2002). Interrateragreement for discriminant classifications for the adjustmentscales for children and adolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 39,

375384.Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. (2003).

Safe and sound: An educational leaders guide to evidence-based social

and emotional learning programs. Chicago: Author.

Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (1999). Initial impact ofthe fast track prevention trial for conduct problems: II. Classroomeffects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 4857.

Cummings, K. D., Kaminski, R. A., & Merrell, K. W. (2008).Advances in the assessment of social competence: Findings from apreliminary investigation of a general outcome measure for social

behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 930946.Curran, P. J., & Hussong, A. M. (2002). Structural equation modeling

of repeated measures data: Latent curve analysis. In S. L.Hershberger & D. S. Moskowitz (Eds.), Modeling intraindividualvariability with repeated measures data: Methods and applications

(pp. 5985). Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum.Curran, P. J., Muthen, B. O., & Harford, T. C. (1998). The influ-

ence of changes in marital status on developmental trajectoriesof alcohol use in young adults. Journal of Studies o Alcohol,

59, 647658.

Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1998).

Multiple risk factors in the development of externalizing behaviorproblems: Group and individual differences. Development andPsychopathology , 10(3), 469493.

Denham, S. A., Blair, K. A., DeMulder, E., Levitas, J., Sawyer, K.,Auerbach-Major, S., et al. (2003). Preschool emotional competence:

Pathway to social competence. Child Development, 74(1), 238256.Downer, J. T., & Pianta, R. C. (2006). Academic and cognitive

functioning in first grade: Associations with earlier home and

child care predictors and with concurrent home and classroomexperiences. School Psychology Review, 35(1), 1130.

Duncan, G. J., Claessans, A., Engel, M., Dowsett, C. J., Huston, A.,Magnuson, K., et al. (2007). School readiness and later achieve-

ment. Developmental Psychology, 43, 14281446.Eisenberg, N., Guthrie, I. K., Fabes, R. A., Reiser, M., Murphy, B. C.,

Holgren, R., et al. (1997). The relations of regulation and emotion-

ality to resiliency and competent social functioning in elementaryschool children. Child Development, 68(2), 295311.

Elliott, S. N., Malecki, C. K., & Demaray, M. K. (2001). New direc-

tions in social skills assessment and intervention for elementaryand middle school students. Exceptionality, 9, 1932.

SOCIAL SKILLS 31


16/18

Elliott, S. N., Barnard, J., & Gresham, F. M. (1989). Preschoolerssocial behavior: Teachers and parents assessments. Journal of

Psychoeducational Assessment, 7(3), 223234.

Fagan, J., & Fantuzzo, J. W. (1999). Multirater congruence on thesocial skills rating system: Mother, father, and teacher assessments

of urban head start childrens social competencies. Early ChildhoodResearch Quarterly, 14(2), 229242.

Fan, X., & Konold, T. R. (2009). Latent growth curve analysis instructural equation modeling: Concepts and implementations. In

T. Teo, & M. S. Khine (Eds.), Structural equation modeling:

Concepts and applications in educational research (pp. 2958).

Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Fan, X., Thompson, B., & Wang, L. (1999). The effects of samplesize, estimation methods, and model specification on SEM fitindices. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,

6, 5683.

Fantuzzo, J., Bulotsky-Shearer, R., McDermott, P. A., McWayne, C.,

Frye, D., & Perlman, S. (2007). Investigation of dimensions ofsocial-emotional classroom behavior and school readiness for low-

income urban preschool children. School Psychology Review, 36,4462.

Freeman, C. E. (2004). Trends in educational equity of girls & women:2004 (NCES 2005-016). U.S. Department of Education, National

Center for Educational Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office.Greenberg, M. T., & Kusche, C. A. (1998). Promoting alternative

thinking strategies: Blueprintfor violence prevention. Book 10.

Institute of Behavioral Sciences, University of Colorado.

Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1987). The relationship betweenadaptive behavior and social skills: Issues and definition in assess-ment. Journal of Special Education, 21, 167181.

Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). Social skills rating system:Manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Gresham, F. M., Noell, G. H., & Elliott, S. N. (1996). Teachers as

judges of social competence: A conditional probability analysis.School Psychology Review, 25(1), 108117.

Gutman, L. M., Sameroff, A. J., & Cole, R. (2003). Academic growthcurve trajectories from 1st grade to 12th grade: Effects of multiple

social risk factors and preschool child factors. Developmental

Psychology, 39(4), 777790.Hammarberg, A., & Hagekull, B. (2006). Changes in externalizing

and internalizing behaviours over a school-year: Differencesbetween 6-year-old boys and girls. Infant and Child Development,

15(2), 123137.

Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher-child relationships

and the trajectory of childrens school outcomes through eighthgrade. Child Development, 72, 625638.

Hamre, B., & Pianta, R. C. (2007). Learning opportunities inpreschool and early elementary classrooms. In R. C. Pianta,M. J. Cox, & K. L. Snow (Eds.), School readiness and the

transition to kindergarten in the era of accountability. Baltimore,

MD: Brookes Publishing Co.

Harris, C., Kelly, C., & Valentine, J. C. (2000). Making the most

of summer school: A meta-analytic and narrative review. Mono-

graphs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Vol 65(1).

Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., Kosterman, R., Abbott, R., & Hill,K. G. (1999). Preventing adolescent healthrisk behaviors by

strengthening protection during childhood. Archives of Pediatric

Adolescent Medicine, 153, 226234.

Hill, C. J., Bloom, H. S., Black, A. R. & Lipsey, M. W. (2008).

Empirical benchmarks for interpreting effect sizes in research. ChildDevelopment Perspectives, 2, 172177.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in

covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new

alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 155.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle(Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applica-

tions (pp. 7699). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kaplan, B. J., & Weisberg, F. B. (1987). Sex differences and practiceeffects on two visualspatial tasks. Perceptual and Motor Skills,

64, 139142.

Kellam, S. G., Rebok, G. W., Mayer, L. S., Ialongo, N., & Kalodner,

C. R. (1994). Depressive symptoms over first grade and theirresponse to a developmental epidemiologically based prevention

trial aimed at improving achievement. Development and Psychopath-

ology, 6, 463581.

Knoff, H. M. (1995). Best practices in personality assessment. In

A. Thomas, & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in schoolpsychology-III (pp. 849864). Washington, D.C.: National

Association of School Psychologists.

Kochanska, G. (1997). Multiple pathways to conscience for childrenwith different temperaments: From toddlerhood to age 5. Develop-

mental Psychology, 33, 228240.

Konold, T. R., & Pianta, R. C. (2007). The influence of informants

on ratings of childrens behavioral functioning: A latent variableapproach. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 25(3),

222236.

Konold, T. R., & Pianta, R. C. (2005). Empirically-derived, person-oriented patterns of school readiness in typically developing

children: Description and prediction to first grade achievement.Applied Developmental Science, 9, 174187.

Konold, T. R., Brewster, J. C., & Pianta, R. C. (2004). The behavior ofchild behavior ratings: Measurement structure of the Child Beha-

vior Checklist across time, informants, and child gender. Journal

of Behavioral Disorders, 29, 372383.

Kraemer, H. C., Measelle, J. R., Ablow, J. C., Essex, M. J., Boyce,

W. T., & Kupfer, D. J. (2003). A new approach to integrating datafrom multiple informants in psychiatric assessment and research:Mixing and matching contexts and perspectives. American Journal

of Psychiatry, 160(9), 15661577.

Kupersmidt, J. B., Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. (1990). The role of poor

peer relationships in the development of disorder. In S. R. Asher, &J. D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood. Cambridge studiesin social and emotional development (pp. 274305). New York:

Cambridge University Press.Ladd, G. W. (1990). Having friends, keeping friends, making

friends, and being liked by peers in the classroom: Predictorsof childrens early school adjustment. Child Development, 61,

10811100.

Ladd, G. W., Birch, S. H., & Buhs, E. S. (1999). Childrens social andscholastic lives in kindergarten: Related spheres of influence? Child

Development, 70, 13731400.

Ladd, G. W., & Burgess, K. B. (1999). Charting the relationship trajec-tories of aggressive, withdrawn, and aggressive=withdrawn childrenduring early grade school. Child Development, 70, 910929.

Ladd, G. W., Herald, S. L., & Kochel, K. P. (2006). School readiness:Are there social prerequisites? Early Education and Development, 17,115150.

Ladd, G. W., Kochenderfer, B. J., & Coleman, C. C. (1997). Class-room peer acceptance, friendship, and victimization: Distinct

relational systems that contribute uniquely to childrens schooladjustment. Child Development, 67, 11031118.

Lawrence, F. R., & Hancock, G. R. (1998). Assessing changes overtime using latent growth modeling. Measurement and Evaluation inCounseling and Development, 30, 211225.

Leahey, E., & Guo, G. (2001). Gender differences in mathematicaltrajectories. Social Forces, 80, 713732.

La Paro, K. M., & Pianta, R. C. (2000). Predicting childrens

competence in the early school years: A meta-analytic review.Review of Educational Research, 70(4), 443484.

32 KONOLD ET AL.


17/18

Malecki, C. K., & Elliott, S. N. (2002). Childrens social behaviors aspredictors of academic achievement: A longitudinal analysis. School

Psychology Quarterly, 17(1), 123.

Mantzicopoulos, P. (2005). Conflictual relationships between kinder-garten children and their teachers: Associations with child and class-

room context variables. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 425442.Margalit, M. (1998). Sense of coherence and loneliness experience

among preschool children with learning disabilties. Journal of

Learning Disabilities, 31, 173180.

Mashburn, A. J., & Pianta, R. C. (2006). Social relationships andschool readiness. Early Education and Development, 17(1), 151176.

McArdle, J. J., & Bell, R. Q. (2000). An Introduction to latent growth

models for developmental data analysis. In T. D. Little, K. U.Schnabel, & J. Baumert (Eds.), Modeling longitudinal and multileveldata (pp. 69108). Mahwah, New Jersey: LEA.

McConaughy, S. H. (1993). Advances in empirically based assessmentof childrens behavioral and emotional problems. School Psychology

Review, 22(2), 285307.

McConaughy, S. H., & Ritter, D. R. (1995). Best practices in multi-

dimensional assessment of emotional or behavioral disorders. InA. Thomas, & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best Practices in School

Psychology-III (pp. 865877). Washington, D.C.: National Associ-

ation of School Psychologists.

McDermott, P. A. (1984). Comparative functions of preschool learn-

ing style and IQ in predicting future academic performance.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 9, 3847.

Meredith, W., & Tisak, J. (1990). Latent curve analysis. Psychome-

trika, 55, 107122.

Merrell, K. W. (2001). Assessment of childrens social skills: Recentdevelopments, best practices, and new directions. Exceptionality,9(12), 318.

Merrell, K. W. (1999). Behavioral, social, and emotional assessment ofchildren and adolescents. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,

Inc.

Merrell, K. W. (1995). An investigation of the relationship betweensocial skills and internalizing problems in early childhood:

Construct validity of the preschool and kindergarten behaviorscales. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 13(3), 230240.

NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (NICHD). (1998).

Early child care and self-control, compliance, and problem behaviorat twenty-four and thirty-six months. Child Development, 69,

11451170.

ONeil, R., Welsh, M., Parke, R. D., Wang, S., & Strand, C. (1997).

A longitudinal assessment of the academic correlates of early peeracceptance and rejection. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology,

26(3), 290303.

Penner, A. (2003). International gender X item difficulty interactions in

mathematics and science achievement tests. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 95, 650655.

Piacentini, J. (1993). Checklists and rating scales. In T. H. Ollendick, &

M. Hersen (Eds.), Handbook of child and adolescent assessment(pp. 8297). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Pianta, R. C. (1999). Enhancing relationships between children and

teachers. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological

Association.

Pianta, R. C., Belsky, J., Vandergrift, N., Houts, R., & Morrison, F. J.(2008). Classroom effects on childrens achievement trajectories

in elementary school. American Educational Research Journal, 45,365397.

Raver, C. (2002). Emotions matter: Making the case for the role of

young childrens emotional development for early school readiness.Social Policy Report of the Society for Research in Child Develop-

ment, 16, 120.

Ready, D. D., LoGerfo, L. F., Burkam, D. T., Lee, V. (2005).

Explaining girls advantage in kindergarten literacy learning: Do

classroom behaviors make a difference? Elementary School Journal,106(1), 2138.

Reynolds, A. J. (1991). Early schooling of children at risk. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 28, 392422.

Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Pianta, R. C., & Cox, M. J. (2000). Teachers

judgments of problems in the transition to kindergarten. EarlyChildhood Research Quarterly, 15(2), 147166.

Rissi, S., Gerhardstein, R., & Kistner, J. (2003). Childrens classroompeer relationships and subsequent educational outcomes. Journal ofClinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 32, 351361.

Rudasill, K. M., & Rimm-Kaufman, S. E. (2009). Teacher-childrelationship quality: The roles of child temperament and teacher-

child interactions. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24, 107120.Ruffalo, S. L., & Elliott, S. N. (1997). Teachers and parents ratings of

childrens social skills: A closer look at cross-informant agreements

through an item analysis protocol. School Psychology Review, 26,489501.

Sameroff, A. J., & MacKenzie, M. J. (2003). Research strategies forcapturing transactional models of development: The limits of the

possible. Development and Psychopathology, 15, 613640.Sanson, A., Prior, M., & Smart, D. (1996). Reading disabilities with

and without prior behavior problems at 78 years: Prediction fromlongitudinal data from infancy to 6 years. Journal of Child Psy-chology and Psychiatry, 37, 529541.

Severson, H. H., Walker, H. M., Hope-Doolittle, J., Kratochwill, T. R.,& Gresham, F. M. (2007). Proactive, early screeningto detect behavio-

rally at-risk students: Issues, approaches, emerging innovations, andprofessional practices. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 193223.

Steinberg, M. S., & Dodge, K. A. (1983). Attributional bias in aggress-ive adolescent boys and girls. Journal of Social & ClinicalPsychology, 1(4), 312321.

Stormshak, E. A., & Webster-Stratton, C. (1999). The qualitativeinteractions of children with conduct problems and their peers:Differential correlates with self-report measures, home behavior,

and school behavior problems. Journal of Applied DevelopmentalPsychology, 20(2), 295317.

Suen, H. K., & Ary, D. (1989). Analyzing quantitative behavioral obser-

vation data. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Tanaka, J. S. (1993). Multifaceted conceptions of fit in structural equa-

tion models. In K. S. Bollen, & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structuralequation models (pp. 1039). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Teo, A., Carlson, E., Mathieu, P. J., Egeland, B., & Sroufe, L. A.(1996). A prospective longitudinal study of psychosocial

predictors of achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 34(3),285306.

Thomas, J. M., Benham, A. L., Gean, M., Luby, J., Minde, K.,

Turner, J. M., et al. (1997). Practice parameters for the psychi-

atric assessment of infants and toddlers (036 months). Journalof the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,

36, 2146.

Trzesniewski, K. H., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Taylor, A., &Maughan, B. (2006). Revisiting the association between readingachievement and antisocial behavior: New evidence of an environ-

mental explanation from a twin study. Child Development, 77,7281.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1994).Current population survey, March (1991), as cited in U.S.

Department of Labor, Womens Bureau, 1993 Handbook on

women workers: Trends and issues. Washington, DC: Government

Printing Office.

Vaughn, S., & Haager, D. (1994). Social competence as a multifacetedconstruct: How do children with learning disabilities fare. LearningDisabilities Quarterly, 17, 253266.

Vaughn, S., Hogan, A., Kouzekanani, K., & Shapiro, S. (1990). Peeracceptance, self-perception and social skills of learning disabled

SOCIAL SKILLS 33


18/18

students before identification. Journal of Educational Psychology,82, 101106.

Vinnick, L. A., & Erickson, M. T. (1994). Social skill in third and sixthgrade children: A moderator of lifetime stressful life events and beha-vior problems? Journal of Child and Family Studies, 3(3), 263282.

Wasik, B. H., Wasik, J. L., & Frank, R. (1993). Sociometric character-istics of kindergarten children at risk for school failure. Journal ofSchool Psychology, 31, 241257.

Webster-Stratton, C. (2002). Effective classroom management skills train-ing and dina dinosaurssocial skillsand problem-solving curriculum train-

ing for the classroom:Leaders guide. Seattle, WA: Incredible Years.

Wentzel, K. R. (1993). Does being good make the grade? Social

behavior and academic competence in middle school. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 85, 357364.

Wingspan, L. L. C. (1999). Als pals: Kids making healthy choices.Richmond, VA: Author.

Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1990). Tests of achievement.WJ-R. Examiners manual. Allen, TX: DLM Teaching Resources.

Xue, Y., & Meisels, S. J. (2004). Early literacy instruction and learning

in kindergarten: Evidence from the Early Childhood LongitudinalStudy-Kindergarten Class of 19981999. American E ducationalResearch Journal, 41, 191229.

Zins, J., Bloodworth, M., Weissberg, R., & Walberg, H. (2004). The

scientific base linking social and emotional learning to school suc-cess. In J. Zins, R. Weissberg, M. Wang, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.),Building academic success on social and emotional learning: What

does the research say? (pp. 122). New York: Teachers Press,

Columbia University.

34 KONOLD ET AL.

konold et al relationships among informant based measures of social skills and student achievement

Documents