Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Getting off to a good start : problem behaviours, teacher-child relationship quality, and early school… Lee, Matthew 2014

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2014_spring_lee_matthew.pdf [ 4.26MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0103405.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0103405-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0103405-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0103405-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0103405-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0103405-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0103405-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0103405-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0103405.ris

Full Text

 GETTING OFF TO A GOOD START: PROBLEM BEHAVIOURS, TEACHER-CHILD RELATIONSHIP QUALITY AND EARLY SCHOOL ADJUSTMENT  by  Matthew Lee  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  MASTER OF ARTS in The Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies (School Psychology)  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver)  April 2014  © Matthew Lee, 2014 ii Abstract Difficulty adjusting during the first years of school is associated with negative long-term academic and behaviour outcomes (Alexander, Entwisle, & Horsey, 1997; Ladd & Dinella, 2009; Qualter, Brown, Munn, & Rotenberg, 2010). Externalizing and internalizing behaviour problems can interfere with the ability to engage in learning or get along with others at school. Teacher-child relationship quality has been found to predict a variety of academic and social outcomes for children (e.g., Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Ladd & Burgess, 2001; Maldonado-Carreño & Votruba-Drzal, 2011; Pianta & Stuhlman, 2004). Of interest in the current study is whether teacher-child relationships moderate or mediate the association between problem behaviours observed at school and student ratings of school adjustment. The sample of students (n = 482) was taken from a longitudinal study of the school adjustment of Italian school children. Results from sequential regression analyses indicated that teacher ratings of students’ externalizing behaviours were related to student self-reports of loneliness at school and school liking. There was no evidence that teacher-child relationship features mediated the association between problem behaviours and school adjustment, although teacher-child closeness was found to moderate the relationship between physical aggression and school liking.     iii Preface This thesis, including the entirety of the introduction, results, and discussion sections is an original production of the author, Matthew Lee. The author made secondary used of data collected for a separate project by primary investigators Barry Schneider, of the University of Ottawa, and Mara Manetti, of the University of Genoa, and supported by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Data from the original study were published in an article by Schneider et al. in School Psychology International in 2013, and portions pertaining to the procedures were used with permission for this study. This research received ethics approval from the UBC Behavioural Research Ethics Board, UBC BREB Approval Number H13-03299.    iv Table of Contents Abstract .............................................................................................................................. ii Preface ............................................................................................................................... iii Table of Contents ............................................................................................................. iv List of Tables .................................................................................................................. viii List of Figures ................................................................................................................... ix Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... x Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1 Teacher-Child Relationships .................................................................................................... 3 Teacher-child relationship quality ....................................................................................... 3 Teacher-child relationship mechanisms of influence ......................................................... 6 Teacher-child relationships as moderators of student outcomes .................................................... 7 Teacher-child relationships as mediators of student outcomes ...................................................... 8 Adjustment in Early Elementary School ................................................................................. 9 Loneliness at school ............................................................................................................... 9 Teacher-child relationships and loneliness at school ................................................................... 12 School liking ......................................................................................................................... 13 Teacher-child relationships and school liking .............................................................................. 14 School Adjustment of Students with Problem Behaviours .................................................. 15 Externalizing problems ....................................................................................................... 15 Externalizing problems and loneliness at school .......................................................................... 16 Externalizing problems and school liking ..................................................................................... 18 Teacher-child relationships of children with externalizing probelms .......................................... 19  v  Internalizing problems ........................................................................................................ 20 Internalizing problems and loneliness at school ........................................................................... 20 Internalizing problems and school liking ...................................................................................... 22 Teacher-child relationships of children with internalizing problems .......................................... 22 Research Focus, Question, and Hypotheses .......................................................................... 23 Method ............................................................................................................................. 27 Participants ............................................................................................................................... 27 Procedure .................................................................................................................................. 28 Measures ................................................................................................................................... 28 Loneliness at school ............................................................................................................. 29 School liking ......................................................................................................................... 30 Problem behaviours ............................................................................................................ 31 Teacher-child relationship quality ..................................................................................... 32 Results .............................................................................................................................. 35 Plan of Analyses ....................................................................................................................... 35 Descriptive Information, Data Screening and Preliminary Analyses ................................. 35 Data cleaning procedures ................................................................................................... 35 Missing data ......................................................................................................................... 36 Sex differences ..................................................................................................................... 37 Sequential multiple regression analyses ............................................................................ 41 Loneliness ................................................................................................................................. 44 Physical aggression .............................................................................................................. 44 Moderation ...................................................................................................................................... 44  vi  Mediation ........................................................................................................................................ 45 Hyperactivity/impulsivity ................................................................................................... 45 Moderation ...................................................................................................................................... 45 Mediation ........................................................................................................................................ 46 Sadness/anxiety .................................................................................................................... 46 Moderation ...................................................................................................................................... 46 Mediation ........................................................................................................................................ 47 School Liking ............................................................................................................................ 51 Physical aggression .............................................................................................................. 53 Moderation ...................................................................................................................................... 53 Mediation ........................................................................................................................................ 55 Hyperactivity/impulsivity ................................................................................................... 56 Moderation ...................................................................................................................................... 56 Mediation ........................................................................................................................................ 57 Sadness/anxiety .................................................................................................................... 57 Moderation ...................................................................................................................................... 58 Mediation ........................................................................................................................................ 58 Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 65 Problem Behaviours and School Adjustment ....................................................................... 65 Teacher-child Relationship Quality and School Adjustment .............................................. 67 Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 70 Future Directions ..................................................................................................................... 72 References ........................................................................................................................ 74 Appendices ..................................................................................................................... 101  vii  Appendix A: Loneliness and Social Dissatisfaction Questionnaire (LSDQ) .................... 101 Appendix B: School Liking and Avoidance Questionnaire (SLAQ) ................................. 102 Appendix C: Child Behavior Problems Questionnaire (CBPQ) ....................................... 103 Appendix D: Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS) ................................................ 106!    viii List of Tables Table 1  Descriptive Statistics for the Independent and Dependent Variable Scales .............. 39 Table 2  Bivariate Correlations Between Independent and Dependent Variables ................... 40 Table 3  Sequential Multiple Regression Predicting Spring School Loneliness from Physical Aggression and Teacher-Child Relationship Quality ...................................................... 48 Table 4  Sequential Multiple Regression Predicting Spring School Loneliness from Hyperactivity/Impulsivity and Teacher-Child Relationship Quality ............................... 49 Table 5  Sequential Multiple Regression Predicting Spring School Loneliness from Sadness/Anxiety and Teacher-Child Relationship Quality .............................................. 50 Table 6  Descriptive Statistics for Low/High School Liking Groups ...................................... 52 Table 7  Sequential Logistic Regression Predicting Low/High Spring School Liking from Physical Aggression ......................................................................................................... 59 Tabe 8  Sequential Logistic Regression Predicting Low/High Spring School Liking from Hyperactivity/Impulsivity ................................................................................................ 61 Table 9  Sequential Logistic Regression Predicting Low/High Spring School Liking from Sadness/Anxiety ............................................................................................................... 63     ix List of Figures Figure 1.  Moderation Model of Behaviour Problems, School Adjustment and Teacher-Child Relationships .................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 2.  Mediation Model of Behaviour Problems, School Adjustment and Teacher-Child Relationships .................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 3.  Mediation Pathways of Behaviour Problems, School Adjustment and Teacher-Child Relationships .................................................................................................................... 43 Figure 4  Interaction of Physical Aggression and Teacher-Child Closeness on the Probability of School Liking ................................................................................................................... 55     x Acknowledgements I would like to acknowledge my supervisor, Dr. Shelley Hymel, and committee member, Dr. Sterett Mercer, for their advice and unparalleled patience.  I gratefully acknowledge Dr. Barry Schneider, who not only generously shared with me the data used for this master’s thesis, but also provided me with my first opportunities in psychology. I am ever thankful for his support, guidance and friendship. I would also like to thank Drs. Serge Lacroix and William McKee for their encouragement and advice; Jessica Trach for countless, selfless consultations; Tavinder Ark for her statistics help; and the members of the Social Emotional Education and Development research group for their time and feedback. And again, to Shelley Hymel, whose scholarship of human compassion is exceeded only by her practice.  I would like to acknowledge my parents Michael and Dora, and sister Alexandra, for their love and belief, as well as support in all its forms, financial, emotional, motivational, technical or otherwise. I also want to acknowledge the contribution of my family: my son Noah, whose beautiful distraction makes work nigh on impossible; and my wife, Masako, whose tireless support makes possible the impossible. 私はあなたがいないと何もできない。これからもよろしく。  1 Introduction The first years of school are a critical period during which children develop social competencies and acquire an affinity for school (Ladd, Buhs, & Seid, 2000; Ladd & Price, 1987). As Pianta (1999) suggested, the early school years “exert a disproportionate influence on the trajectories of children’s later adjustment in school” (p.16), and findings from research have shown that maladjustment during this period predicts negative long-term outcomes such as poor academic achievement (Ladd & Dinella, 2009), depression (Qualter, Brown, Munn, & Rotenberg, 2010), and early school withdrawal (Alexander, Entwisle, & Horsey, 1997). Young children (i.e., kindergarten, first and second grade) who show early signs of behavioural problems are at even greater risk of school maladjustment than their typically developing peers (Buyse, Verschueren, Verachtert, & Van Damme, 2009; Ladd & Price, 1987). Of interest in the current study was the role of relationships with teachers in students’ early school adjustment, especially for students with behavioural difficulties. Teachers are among the most salient adult figures in the lives of school-aged children, and research has shown that teacher-child relationships are important predictors of student academic engagement and achievement (Roorda, Koomen, Spilt, & Oort, 2011), as well as social and behavioural adjustment (Hamre & Pianta, 2001). Although teacher-student relationships are important at all grade levels (O’Connor, Dearing, & Collins, 2011), a teacher’s influence is arguably greatest in the lowest grades, when teachers spend more time and have closer relationships with students (Jerome, Hamre, & Pianta, 2009; Lynch & Cicchetti, 1997; Pianta & Stuhlman, 2004). As such, teacher-child relationships are linked to the healthy social-emotional development of the children in their care, and hold the potential to either enhance positive  2 outcomes or exacerbate negative outcomes (Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Pianta, 1999). Empirical research (to be reviewed below) has provided support for this hypothesis (e.g., Arbeau, Coplan, & Weeks, 2010; Baker, Grant, & Morlock, 2008; Baker, 2006; Ladd & Burgess, 2001), but has only begun to reveal how teacher-child relationships influence a variety of student outcomes, particularly among children who have existing behavioural difficulties (e.g., Arbeau et al., 2010; Silver, Measelle, Armstrong, & Essex, 2005). According to the academic risk hypothesis, children at risk for academic failure are more likely to be affected by social factors in the classroom than their peers, highlighting the importance of teacher-child relationships for at-risk youth (Hamre & Pianta, 2001). School adjustment is a multifaceted construct. The focus of the present study is on two self-report indices of social-emotional adjustment: school loneliness and school liking. Conceptually, loneliness at school is related to several indicators of school adjustment, including school belonging (Ma, 2003), school attachment (Libbey, 2004), and school engagement (Kalil & Ziol-Guest, 2007). School liking, or the degree to which children feel an affinity for school, is a salient indicator children’s emotional engagement with school (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004; Ladd et al., 2000), and is associated with school participation and academic success (Ladd et al., 2000; Ladd & Dinella, 2009). As demonstrated in the following literature review, both theory and research indicate that children who have emotional and behaviour problems are at risk of feeling alienated from peers and disliking school. The objective of the present study was to explore the relationships between problem behaviours and early school adjustment in a sample of young children, and to assess whether teacher-child relationships are associated with differential adjustment outcomes.  3 Teacher-Child Relationships  Several decades of research have shown that teachers contribute meaningfully to students’ experience of school, and authors have underlined the importance of the shared, dyadic relationship between teacher and student as a predictor of important outcomes (e.g., Baker, Grant, & Morlock, 2008; Baker, 2006; Birch & Ladd, 1997; Flanders & Havumaki, 1960; Harris, 2009; Ladd, 1989; Pianta, 1999; Schmuck, 1968). Specifically, favourable teacher-child relationships predict concurrent and future academic and behavioural adjustment (Birch & Ladd, 1997; Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Ladd & Burgess, 2001; Maldonado-Carreño & Votruba-Drzal, 2011; Pianta & Stuhlman, 2004), whereas poor teacher-child relationships are related to delinquency and poor academic achievement in adolescence (Brendgen, Wanner, Vitaro, Bukowski, & Tremblay, 2007). This research suggests that the quality of the relationship shared by student and teacher predicts student outcomes. Teacher-child relationship quality. The quality of dyadic, teacher-child relationships has been operationalized using three discrete relationship features, closeness, conflict and dependency, each of which has been associated to student development in different ways (Pianta, Steinberg, & Rollins, 1995). Closeness is the degree to which teacher and student share “affection, warmth and open communication” (Pianta, 2001, p. 2), and is associated with positive academic engagement and achievement (Roorda et al., 2011). In contrast, conflict denotes the degree to which the teacher-child relationship is “negative and conflictual” (Pianta, 2001, p. 2), and is negatively associated with active classroom engagement and school enjoyment (Ladd & Burgess, 2001). Finally, dependency is the degree to which a student is overly reliant upon the support of the teacher, and is associated with poor academic skill, teacher perceptions of school  4 avoidance (Birch & Ladd, 1997), and increased risk for peer victimization (Troop-Gordon & Kopp, 2011). The early school years are an intriguing time to study the development of teacher-child relationship quality for several reasons. Compared with late elementary and secondary school teachers, early elementary school teachers report sharing relationships with students that are characterized by greater closeness but also greater conflict (Koepke & Harkins, 2008; Lynch & Cicchetti, 1997; Pianta & Stuhlman, 2004; Pianta, 2001). In addition, findings have shown that the negative aspects of teacher-child relationships (i.e., conflict, dependency) are stronger predictors of outcomes for young children than are positive aspects, which is not the case among older children (Ladd, Birch, & Buhs, 1999; Roorda et al., 2011). For instance, O’Connor and McCartney (2007) found that, although teacher-child relationship quality increased in the years following preschool for the majority of students, students whose relationships with teachers declined scored lowest on measures of achievement. Also, children develop moderately consistent patterns of relationships with teachers from early childhood, particularly with regard to conflict (Birch & Ladd, 1998; Howes, Phillipsen, & Peisner-Feinberg, 2000; Jerome et al., 2009; Ladd & Burgess, 2001). Moreover, longitudinal studies have shown that early teacher-child relationship quality predicts future ratings of behaviour and academics in middle and late elementary school (Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Silver et al., 2005). Thus, the early school years represent an important period in the development of typical patterns of teacher-child interactions that are related to later school adjustment.   There are also noteworthy sex differences in the teacher-child relationship literature. With some exceptions (Decker, Dona, & Christenson, 2007; Murray, Murray, & Waas, 2008),  5 teachers generally report greater closeness and dependency, and less conflict, with girls than boys (Birch & Ladd, 1998; Howes et al., 2000; Jerome et al., 2009; Koepke & Harkins, 2008; Silver et al., 2005). Koepke and Harkins (2008) suggested that girls may be more open to intimacy with adults than boys, particularly as many early childhood caregivers are female. As for conflict, it is unsurprising that teachers report more conflict with boys than girls given that boys are more often responsible for classroom disruptions (Hamre, Pianta, Downer, & Mashburn, 2008). Accordingly, Hamre and Pianta (2001) hypothesized that positive teacher-child relationships would have a greater effect on outcomes for boys because they are at greater risk of maladjustment. To date, there are mixed results regarding whether teacher-child relationships are better predictors of outcomes for boys than girls: some researchers have found a stronger associations between teacher-child relationships and outcomes among boys (Furrer & Skinner, 2003), whereas others have not (Baker, 2006; J. N. Hughes, Wu, Kwok, Villarreal, & Johnson, 2012).  Although the findings summarized above suggest that teacher-child relationship quality plays a role in children’s school adjustment, methodological issues present in several studies may to overestimate its effects. Common (or shared) method variance is “the variance that is attributable to the measurement method rather than to the constructs the measures represent” (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003, p. 879). Research paradigms in which measures from a single informant are used as both independent and dependent variables are vulnerable to biases (e.g., mood, social desirability, consistency; see Podsakoff et al., 2003 for a summary of common rater effects) that can account for a relationship between two variables (S.-J. Chang, van Witteloostuijn, & Eden, 2010). In the teacher-child relationship literature, teacher  6 ratings of teacher-child relationship quality are often used to predict teacher-rated behavioural (e.g., aggression, sociability, social standing) or academic (academic competence, grades) outcomes (e.g., Baker et al., 2008; Baker, 2006; Buyse et al., 2009; Maldonado-Carreño & Votruba-Drzal, 2011). To illustrate, of the 92 studies included in a recent meta-analysis on the influence of teacher-child relationships on academic engagement and achievement conducted by Roorda et al. (2011), approximately 40% obtained measures of independent and dependent variables from the same informant. Not surprisingly, effect sizes were significantly larger in same-informant studies than in studies that used different informants. In order to minimize the effects of common method variance in the current study, independent variables collected from teachers were evaluated in conjunction with dependent variables collected from students. Although some bias was introduced into the current study through the use of both teacher ratings of teacher-child relationship quality and student problem behaviours (i.e., a teacher who holds a personal bias towards a student may perceive more problem behaviours), this is to some degree the object of interest: Do students who are perceived by teachers as having problem behaviours and a poor teacher-child relationship report worse adjustment than those students whose teachers perceive problem behaviours but indicate a positive teacher-child relationship?   Teacher-child relationship mechanisms of influence. Russian-American psychologist Urie Bronfenbrenner (1977) proposed the ecological systems theory as a way to consider individual development in relation to the environmental systems that encircle them. Robert Pianta (1999) later applied ecological systems theory to the development of children in schools. At the centre of this model is the child, including his or her cognitive, emotional and behavioural constitution. Beyond the child, arranged in a series of concentric circles are the increasingly  7 distal systems of influence (e.g., family, community, culture). The most proximal system to the child is the dyadic relationship that he or she shares with other individuals, such as peers, parents and teachers. Within this framework, researchers have argued that teachers are important environmental influences that can shape the experiences of children at school (Farmer, McAuliffe, & Hamm, 2011). A teacher’s ability to appraise and adapt to a given child’s needs is critical to forming a positive teacher-child relationship. And so, positive teacher-child relationships can be a boon to students who are at risk for adjustment problems, such as children with problem behaviours (Pianta, 1999).   Teacher-child relationships as moderators of student outcomes. A teacher who is able to recognize the individual needs of students, and build warm, caring and cooperative relationships with children who have behaviour problems may facilitate the adjustment of those students during the critical first years of school. For instance, students with problem behaviours who share a positive relationship their teacher may benefit from the protective social support that this relationship provides (S. Cohen & McKay, 1984; Compas, 1987). Also, students whose teachers practice inclusive instructional strategies and strive to meet the individual needs of their pupils benefit from positive social outcomes (Donohue, Perry, & Weinstein, 2003; Mikami, Griggs, Reuland, & Gregory, 2012). In keeping with the above, a number of studies with young children have shown that positive teacher-child relationships moderate the link between child-level variables and outcomes, such as child temperament and interactive play (Griggs, Gagnon, Huelsman, Kidder-Ashley, & Ballard, 2009), shyness and school adjustment (including school loneliness and liking; Arbeau, Coplan, & Weeks, 2010), and internalizing/externalizing behaviours and school adjustment (Baker, 2006). Contrarily, teacher-child relationships of low  8 quality (i.e., low closeness, high conflict and dependency) may not only deprive students of an important source of support, but can compound the challenges to academic and social success that students face, resulting in worse their outcomes. For example, Troop-Gordon and Kuntz (2013) found that among elementary students who were victimized by peers, children who shared a highly conflictual teacher-child relationship were at risk of worse school adjustment than those whose relationship was low in conflict. Though correlational data cannot establish causation, these findings are nonetheless consistent with the hypothesis that dyadic teacher-child relationship quality can predict differential outcomes for students at risk of poor school adjustment.   Teacher-child relationships as mediators of student outcomes. It is important to note that not all published research has found support for the moderation effect of positive or negative teacher-child relationships, which raises the question: do teacher-child relationships act as mediators, rather than moderators, of school adjustment outcomes in the early school years? In contrast with a moderation model, a mediation model emphasizes child characteristics (e.g., temperament, behaviour) as the force that determines outcomes for students (Rudasill, Niehaus, Buhs, & White, 2013). It is possible that child variables (such as behaviour or temperament) influence both the teacher-child relationships and outcomes (such as school adjustment). For instance, a student’s problem behaviours may negatively influence the teacher’s perception of said student. The teacher’s negative attitude and/or behaviour towards that student may in turn negatively influence the social or academic outcomes for that student (e.g., Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Schmuck, 1968; White & Kistner, 1992). Findings from several cross-sectional studies bare out the link between student characteristics and teacher-child relationship quality (e.g.,  9 Birch & Ladd, 1998; K. Hughes, Bullock, & Coplan, 2013), as well as that between teacher-child relationship and various academic and behavioural outcomes (e.g., Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Ladd & Burgess, 2001; Maldonado-Carreño & Votruba-Drzal, 2011; Pianta & Stuhlman, 2004). Researchers have also found support for the mediating model of teacher-child relationships using correlational data. For example, Gest, Welsh and Domitrovich (2005) found that student-perceived teacher support mediated the link between student aggression and school liking among middle elementary students. Rudasill, Niehaus, Buhs and White (2013) found that teacher-child relationships mediated, but did not moderate, the relationship between child temperament and peer interactions. Similarly, Chang et al. (2007) found that teacher support mediated the link between student social behaviour and peer acceptance, and that this link was stronger among young children than old. Thus, it is equally plausible that teacher-child relationships mediate the association between child problem behaviours and adjustment outcomes. As such, both moderation and mediation models of teacher-child relationships are tested in the present study. As discussed in the following sections, loneliness at school and school liking are two indicators of school adjustment that are potentially sensitive to differences in teacher-child relationship quality. Adjustment in Early Elementary School  Loneliness at school. Baumeister and Leary (1995) posited that belonging is a fundamental and universal human need. Loneliness is “a sad or aching sense of isolation…of being alone, cut-off or distanced from others” (Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1999, p. 58) that arises from the inability to fulfill this need. In recent years, a number researchers have highlighted the importance of feeling a sense of belonging, relatedness, and connection to the school community  10 as an important component of school adjustment (Finn, 1989; Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Libbey, 2004; Osterman, 2000). Loneliness is the natural consequence of failing to bond, and feeling estranged, or alienated, from classmates and teachers (Osterman, 2000).  Loneliness at school is part of a nomological network that includes several indicators of social adjustment. For example, loneliness is associated with peer group processes such as being unpopular (Hymel, Rubin, Rowden, & LeMare, 1990) or rejected/disliked by classmates (Cassidy & Asher, 1992; Mercer & DeRosier, 2008). Loneliness has also been linked to dyadic peer processes, such as having few mutual friends (Ladd & Coleman, 1997; Renshaw & Brown, 1993); having few or no best friends (Asher, Hymel, & Renshaw, 1984); or having friendships characterized by low harmony (Youngblade, Berlin, & Belsky, 1999), high conflict (Ladd, Kochenderfer, & Coleman, 1996; Parker & Asher, 1993), low support (Qualter & Munn, 2005), and even victimization (Crick & Nelson, 2002). Yet, research has shown that there is more to loneliness than peer processes, as not all rejected children feel lonely, nor are all lonely children rejected (Ladd & Burgess, 1999; Ladd & Coleman, 1997; Qualter & Munn, 2002). Asher et al. (1984) proposed that loneliness is mediated by the degree to which a child is aware of being rejected, or desires intimate relationships. Alternatively, loneliness may arise concurrently with other emotional disturbances. For instance, children who feel lonely struggle with negative attribution bias and lower levels of self-worth (Qualter & Munn, 2002), and loneliness is positively correlated with depression in both children (Nangle, Erdley, Newman, Mason, & Carpenter, 2003; Pedersen, Vitaro, Barker, & Borge, 2007) and adolescents (Lasgaard, Goossens, & Elklit, 2011; Qualter et al., 2010).   11 Early theories of loneliness posited by Sullivan (1953) and later, Weiss (1973), suggested that loneliness is often first experienced during pre-adolescence, when youth develop a need for intimacy. However, researchers have demonstrated that children as young as five years of age can ably demonstrate an understanding of loneliness that includes concepts of social isolation, exclusion and sadness (Cassidy & Asher, 1992; Hymel, Tarulli, Thompson, & Terrell-Deutsch, 1999), yet is distinguishable from similar concepts, such as aloneness (which is the state of being by one’s self; Galanaki, 2004; Liepins & Cline, 2011); and numerous studies of loneliness have included young children as participants (Cassidy & Asher, 1992; Coplan, Closson, & Arbeau, 2007; Qualter & Munn, 2002). Nevertheless, young children’s definitions of loneliness are somewhat less consistent or detailed than that of older children (Liepins & Cline, 2011).  According to the developmental theory of loneliness proposed by Parkhurst and Hopmeyer (1999), loneliness is related to the capacity to cognitively process and manage increasingly complex social networks. For children in early primary school, loneliness is a consequence of estrangement from adult caregivers, lack of playmates, and the absence of first mutual friends. Children who fail to master the social competencies required to form and maintain early interpersonal relationships are at risk of being socially isolated and/or rejected by schoolmates, and thus feel alienated at school. In addition, the social destabilization that accompanies the transition from preschool to elementary school places some children at greater risk of poor social integration (Ladd & Price, 1987). Thus, the transition into elementary school is an ideal time to examine children’s feelings of loneliness, particularly given that children who express loneliness at school perform poorer on measures of academic achievement and school  12 engagement (Buhs & Ladd, 2001), and chronic loneliness in early childhood predict elevated symptoms of depression in adolescence (Qualter et al., 2010).  Teacher-child relationships and loneliness at school.  According to Farmer et al. (2011), teachers are positioned to influence the social relationships of the students in their care, in part through the dyadic relationships they form with students. In keeping with this hypothesis, findings from psychological experiments carried out with both early elementary (White, Jones, & Sherman, 1998; White & Jones, 2000; 1992) and high school students (Flanders & Havumaki, 1960) have shown that students’ preferences for peers are susceptible to teacher influence. For example, White, Sherman and Jones (1996) found that derogatory public criticism had a negative effect on peer perceptions of a target child. The indirect social influence of teachers is important as positive interactions with teachers and peers predict positive school adjustment (Birch & Ladd, 1998; Ladd, Kochenderfer, & Coleman, 1997). If such is the case, than children’s social integration may be determined to some degree by the quality of the relationship teachers perceive sharing with them, such that sharing a positive relationship with the teacher will improve a student’s chances of social acceptance, and sharing a negative relationship may impede a student’s social acceptance. To date, only a handful of published investigations have explored the link between teacher-child relationships and loneliness in children of any age. Mercer and DeRosier (2008) found that third-grade students who received low ratings of teacher preference reported greater initial, as well as prospective, loneliness. The only known study dealing with teacher-child relationships and loneliness among young children was conducted by Birch and Ladd (1997), who found that teacher ratings of student dependency accounted for 3% of the variance in  13 kindergartner’s concurrent self-reported loneliness, though neither closeness nor conflict contributed to this relationship. Clearly, there is much yet to be learned about the link between teachers-child relationship quality and loneliness. Accordingly, the focus of the present study was to extend these findings by examining whether teachers’ ratings of students’ problem behaviours were related to students’ self reports of loneliness; and whether teachers’ ratings of their relationship quality would differentially predict, or account for, this association. School liking. Whereas loneliness at school may reflect a lack of belonging, affinity for school is an indication of emotional engagement with school (Finn, 1989; Fredricks et al., 2004; Ladd et al., 2000). Finn (1989)’s participation-identification model of school engagement describes a cyclical pattern wherein students who participate actively in school achieve success, which results in stronger identification with school and future active participation. In contrast, unsuccessful students miss out on the reinforcement that successful students receive, develop a negative perception of school, and begin to disengage. Findings from both cross-sectional and longitudinal research have supported this hypothesis. Students who report trying hard to succeed also report enjoying school, and are perceived by their teachers as being academically competent (Ramey, Lanzi, Phillips, & Ramey, 1998). In a pair of studies involving kindergarten students, Ladd and colleagues (Ladd et al., 2000; Ladd & Dinella, 2009) found that kindergarteners’ reports of school liking positively predicted both present and future teacher ratings of cooperative classroom participation and academic achievement, even after controlling for other factors such as sex, ethnicity, parent education, and family and school socio-economic status. In contrast, children who dislike school find ways of disengaging; Ladd and Price (1987) found children’s reported school liking negatively predicted days absent and visits to the school nurse.   14 Teacher-child relationships and school liking. Although elementary school teachers are responsible for students’ educational instruction, behavioural compliance and social development (British Columbia Ministry of Education, 2013), there is little data on the relationship between school liking and teacher-child relationship quality. Birch and Ladd (1997) found that sharing a close teacher-child relationship accounted for 10% of the variance in teacher reports of kindergarten children’s school liking, beyond which conflict and dependency explained a further 2% of the variance. Troop-Gordon and Kuntz (2013) found that positive teacher-child relationships moderated the reduction in school liking reported by third- and fourth-grade students who were victimized by peers. Although not directly related to teacher-child relationship quality, Baker (1999) found that third- to fifth-grade students who received a high frequency of negative to positive teacher interactions and perceived little teacher support reported greater dissatisfaction with school. Murray, Murray and Waas (2008) found that student, but not teacher, reports of teacher-child relationship quality significantly predicted student reports of school liking. As with loneliness, school liking is an important indicator of school adjustement for which very little published data exists in relation to teacher-child relationship quality, hence the focus of the current study. In addition, special attention was given to the school liking of students with problem behaviours, who, as described further in the following section, are at greater risk of suffering maladjustment in the first years of school than typically developing peers, and for whom teacher-child relationships are potentially an important predictor of school adjustment.  15 School Adjustment of Students with Problem Behaviours Problem behaviours can impede a child’s ability to partake in classroom activities and form positive social relationships with classmates and teachers, thus posing a significant barrier to integration at school (Hinshaw, 1992; Ladd & Burgess, 2001; Ladd & Price, 1987). Problem behaviours have often been organized into two broad dimensions: externalizing and internalizing (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1978; Achenbach, 1966; Barkley, 2003). The following section includes a brief definition of externalizing and internalizing problems, a description of how these relate to the outcomes of interest, namely, loneliness at school and school liking, as well as a review of what is currently known of the importance of teacher-child relationships for children with externalizing and internalizing behaviour problems.  Externalizing problems. Externalizing problems are behaviours that are oriented outwardly, with physical aggression and hyperactivity/impulsivity being two common examples of externalizing difficulties among school aged youth (Mash & Barkley, 2003). Physical aggression is behaviour aimed at harming others by punching, pushing or hitting (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). Hyperactive/impulsive behaviour are generally related to disinhibition, high levels of physical activity (e.g., fidgeting), excessive talking, emotional lability, and the inability to maintain focus or remain at rest (Barkley, 2003). Boys have consistently rated higher on measures of externalizing problems than girls (Birch & Ladd, 1997; Mash & Barkley, 2003). As described in the following section, data from previous research suggest that externalizing problems are associated with poor school adjustment, but there is evidence that teacher-child relationships can play a role in the association between problem behaviours and outcomes (Silver et al., 2005).   16 Externalizing problems and loneliness at school. Because aggressive and hyperactive/impulsive behaviours are generally incompatible with maintaining positive social relationships, children with externalizing problems are potentially more vulnerable to rejection by classmates and loneliness than typically developing peers (Horney, 1992; Newcombe, Bukowski, & Pattee, 1993; Whalen & Henker, 1985). However, the evidence of poor peer outcomes for aggressive youth is equivocal. For instance, there is an extensive body of research linking physical and relational aggression with a negative peer perceptions (e.g., Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Dodge et al., 2003; Hymel, Rubin, Rowden, & LeMare, 1990; Ladd & Price, 1987; Parker & Asher, 1993; Parkhurst & Asher, 1992; Tomada & Schneider, 1997; see Newcombe, Bukowski, & Pattee, 1993 for a review of empirical findings). However, some research has shown that a subset of school-aged children and adolescents who engage in physical or relational aggression are neither rejected nor neglected, and may even enjoy high status among peers (Crick, Bigbee, & Howes, 1996; Prinstein & Cillessen, 2003; Vaillancourt & Hymel, 2006). Boys in particular appear derive some degree of social status from acting aggressively, possibly because aggression is associated with strength, which is a characteristic valued by boys (Crick et al., 1996; Crick, Casas, & Mosher, 1997). A meta-analysis by Newcombe et al. (1993) indicated that popular children were only slightly less aggressive than rejected peers, but were significantly more prosocial, leading the authors to suggest that the rejected status of aggressive children may be due to a combination of low social ability and extreme aggression.  The link between aggression and loneliness has been found to be similarly tenuous. Stormshak and Webster-Strantton (1999) found that student self-reports of loneliness were  17 positively correlated with observations of aggressive behaviours. Cassidy and Asher (1992) found that aggression predicted loneliness, but the relationship was entirely mediated by sociometric status, such that the relationship between loneliness and behaviour problems was no longer significant after accounting for peer liking. Similarly, the results of other studies did not support the link between aggression and loneliness at school (Hymel et al., 1990; Renshaw & Brown, 1993). There is also evidence of sex differences in perceptions of loneliness among aggressive children such that aggressive girls report greater social fallout and higher levels of loneliness than aggressive boys (Coplan et al., 2007; Crick et al., 1997).  Findings from research on the peer relationships of children who present hyperactive/impulsive behaviours are only somewhat more consistent. Compared with typically developing children, children with hyperactive/impulsive behaviours are at greater risk for negative social outcomes such as peer rejection (Hodgens, Cole, & Boldizar, 2000; Hoza et al., 2005) and friendlessness (Blachman & Hinshaw, 2002), possibly because they behave in ways that are difficult for peers to tolerate. For instance, children with ADHD can be bossy and insensitive to the needs of their friends, and may fail to respect the rules of fair play (Normand et al., 2010; Pelham & Bender, 1982; Walcott & Landau, 2004). Yet, despite evidence of impaired peer relationships, there is no data to suggest that children with hyperactive/impulsive behaviours feel lonely. Results from two published studies on the loneliness of children with attention problems did not indicate a significant relationship between these variables (Diamantopoulou, 2005; Heiman, 2005). The lack of findings with regards to loneliness is likely because hyperactive/impulsive behaviour is associated with impaired social perception, meaning that children with attention problems are believed to be poor judges of their own social  18 performance, and so may be unaware of being disliked by peers (Hoza et al., 2004; Ohan & Johnston, 2002).  In sum, the literature on the peer relationships of children with externalizing problems generally indicates a tenuous link with feelings of loneliness that may be subject to sex differences (Coplan et al., 2007). Previous studies conducted with samples consisting mainly of middle elementary students with attention problems suggest that children with externalizing problems may fail to report feelings of loneliness (Diamantopoulou, 2005; Heiman, 2005), but the research in this area among young children is lacking.  Externalizing problems and school liking. Aggressive and hyperactive/impulsive behaviours are antithetical to the goals of early school education, namely, selfless cooperation, mutual respect and classroom harmony. Compared to problem-free children, aggressive and hyperactive children disrupt classroom functioning (Henricsson & Rydell, 2004), attract the teacher’s attention more frequently and are often admonished (Coplan & Prakash, 2003; Whalen, Henker, & Dotemoto, 1980). Specifically, hyperactive children struggle to remain on task and often disrupt class with noisy behaviour, which also makes them the frequent target teacher discipline (Whalen et al., 1980). Indeed, children with inhibition problems generally have conflictual teacher-child relationships (Berry, 2012). Similarly, compared with classmates, aggressive children receive more verbal abuse from teachers (Brendgen et al., 2007). Given the negative attention children with externalizing problems receive, it is unsurprising that these students report liking school less than typically developing peers (Gest et al., 2005; Ladd & Burgess, 2001). Externalizing problems in kindergarten are associated with a higher risk of  19 externalizing problems and psychological maladjustment in elementary school (Ladd & Burgess, 1999; Ladd & Troop-Gordon, 2003).  Teacher-child relationships of children with externalizing problems. Findings from previous studies indicate that students with externalizing problems have impaired teacher-child relationships characterized by less closeness and more conflict than problem-free peers, and that this low teacher-child relationship quality is associated with adverse outcomes for these children (Henricsson & Rydell, 2004; K. Hughes et al., 2013; Sette, Spinrad, & Baumgartner, 2013). For instance, aggressive children whose teachers indicate greater teacher-child conflict scored highly on measures of disobedience and school maladjustment (Ladd & Burgess, 2001). However, several studies shown that a positive teacher-child relationship is related to improved outcomes for children with externalizing problems. For example, children with externalizing problems who share a supportive and close relationship with their teacher scored higher on measures of academic achievement than those whose teacher-child relationship is poor (Baker et al., 2008; Hamre & Pianta, 2005); and positive teacher-child relationships also predict an attenuation of the externalizing problems normally observed among children who have early behaviour problems (Meehan, Hughes, & Cavell, 2003; Silver et al., 2005). In sum, a growing body of evidence indicates that teacher-child relationship quality predicts different outcomes than those normally associated with externalizing problems. There are few published data on the relationship between externalizing behaviours and outcomes of loneliness and school liking specifically (Gest et al., 2005), and only one known study whose sample included young children (Ladd & Burgess, 1999). Consequently, the purpose of the present study was to examine whether teacher-child  20 relationships moderate or mediate the association between teacher-rated externalizing behaviours and student self-reports of school adjustment in a sample of young children.  Internalizing problems. Internalizing problems are those that concern inner emotional functioning, including feelings of anxiety and fear, sadness and depression, and shyness and withdrawal. Internalizing problems are theorized to interfere with children’s ability to engage with the academic and social aspects of school, leaving them at greater risk for poor school adjustment (Coplan, Arbeau, & Armer, 2008) and impaired relationships with teachers and classmates (Henricsson & Rydell, 2004; Rydell, Bohlin, & Thorell, 2005). Internalizing problems and loneliness at school. Some studies of school-aged children indicate a link between internalizing problems and impaired peer process. For example, internalizing problems were negatively associated with peer popularity (Hymel et al., 1990) and number of friendships (Pedersen et al., 2007) among school-aged youth. Yet, the link between internalizing difficulties and impaired peer relationships is less robust among young children. Much of the research on the peer processes of children with internalizing problems has focused on shyness and withdrawal. Some researchers have found that withdrawn, shy and anxious behaviours are related to exclusion (Gazelle & Ladd, 2003), including low peer acceptance (Nelson, Rubin, & Fox, 2005), and victimization (Perren & Alsaker, 2006). And yet Ladd and Troop-Gordon (2003) found no link between ratings of anxious-withdrawn behaviour and peer rejection in a sample which included kindergarten to fourth grade children, and Ladd and Burgess (1999) found that withdrawn children had as many friends as non-withdrawn children in sample kindergarten students. Collectively, the research conducted by Rubin and others (Rubin, Burgess, Kennedy, & Stewart, 2003; Rubin, Chen, & Hymel, 1993; Rubin, Coplan, & Bowker,  21 2009; Rubin, Hymel, & Mills, 1989; Younger & Boyko, 1987) indicates that internalizing problems are not associated with peer rejection among younger children, but are among older children, for whom internalizing problems may be more salient. Nevertheless, Rubin et al. (2006) found that shy/withdrawn children perceived their mutual friendships as less intimate, close and caring than did control children, thus potentially providing less protection against loneliness. Whether children with internalizing problems suffer peer relationship impairment or not, authors have stressed that it is the perception of social isolation that may cause feelings of loneliness (Asher & Paquette, 2003; Hawkley & Cacioppo, 2010). Although the evidence from empirical studies of older children supports the link between internalizing difficulties and loneliness (Galanaki, Polychronopoulou, & Babalis, 2008; Kingery, Erdley, & Marshall, 2011; Rubin et al., 1993), there are fewer findings to this effect in studies of young children. Results of several cross-sectional studies of kindergarten students have indicated that peer ratings of shyness and parent ratings of anxiety and emotional problems predicted self-reports of loneliness (Cassidy & Asher, 1992; Coplan et al., 2008, 2007). Yet, Youngblade and colleagues (1999) failed to find a relationship between teacher ratings of children’s anxious behaviour and children’s self reports of loneliness three years later, and Ladd and Burgess (1999) found that withdrawn children did not differ from non-withdrawn children in the degree of loneliness that they experienced. Nevertheless, whereas much attention has been given to the peer relationships of shy/withdrawn children, there is less in the scientific literature with regard to children who are sad and/or anxious. It may be that among young children, loneliness is more strongly associated to self-reported feelings of sadness, depression and anxiety than to self-reports shyness and  22 withdrawal. In light of the above, the focus of the present study was on the relationship of depressed, anxious behaviour and feelings of loneliness at school.   Internalizing problems and school liking. The negative, anxious and withdrawn nature of children with internalizing problems may prevent them from participating actively in class and forming positive relationships with peers and teachers, both of which are important to creating and sustaining emotional engagement and affinity for school (Finn, 1989; Fredricks et al., 2004). For example, teachers perceive socially anxious kindergarteners as less academically skilled than classmates (Weeks, Coplan, & Kingsbury, 2009), possibly because teachers also associate reticence in class with a low intelligence (Coplan, Hughes, Bosacki, & Rose-Krasnor, 2011). Weeks et al. (2009) reported that, compared to non-anxious peers, socially anxious second graders reported significantly lower ratings of school liking, and Coplan et al. (2008) found that parent reports of their kindergarteners’ internalizing symptoms negatively predicted child self-reports of school liking. There are currently too few data on the relationship between internalizing problems and school liking to draw any firm conclusions as to whether children with internalizing problems are at greater risk of disliking school, highlighting the need for more research with young children.  Teacher-child relationships of children with internalizing problems. As with externalizing problems, the teacher-child relationships of children with internalizing problems are believed to play an important role during the first years of school (Pianta, 1999). Generally speaking, children with internalizing problems share relationships with their teachers that are characterized as either aloof, with low levels of both closeness and conflict (Baker, 2006; Justice, Cottone, Mashburn, & Rimm-Kaufman, 2008; Rydell et al., 2005), or clingy, with high levels of  23 dependency (Birch & Ladd, 1998; Sette et al., 2013). Teachers who perceived having a conflictual relationship with a student with internalizing problems were also more likely to perceive that student having poor work habits and problems with classroom adjustment (Baker et al., 2008). However, as with children with externalizing problems, there appear to be benefits to those children with internalizing problems who form a high quality relationship with their teacher. For instance, Baker (2006) found that among children with internalizing problems, those with positive teacher-child relationships faired better on teacher-rated academic and behavioural outcomes than did those who had poor quality teacher-child relationships. Using longitudinal data, O’Connor et al. (2011) found that a close relationship with teachers served as a buffer against the worsening of internalizing problems five years later. In a similar vein, Arbeau and colleagues (2010) found that teacher-child closeness attenuated the association between shyness and aversion for school among first graders. One objective of the current study was to examine whether the association observed by Arbeau et al. (2010) between internalizing problems feelings for school held true in a comparable sample using slightly different measures of internalizing problem (i.e., sadness/anxiety) and school liking. Moreover, in addition to moderation, models of mediation were also tested.  Research Focus, Question, and Hypotheses  To summarize, the first years of school are a critical time during which children establish enduring patterns of behaviour at school. Children with externalizing and internalizing problems generally have greater difficulty adjusting to school than those without problems, and teacher-child relationships are considered an important factor that contribute to the adjustment of these children (e.g., Baker, Grant, & Morlock, 2008; Gest, Welsh, & Domitrovich, 2005; Hamre &  24 Pianta, 2005; O’Connor, Dearing, & Collins, 2011). The aim of the current study was to answer the following research questions: 1) do ratings of problem behaviours predict school adjustment in a sample of young children? 2) Does teacher-child relationship quality moderate or mediate the relationship between externalizing and internalizing problems and student school adjustment? More specifically, 1) do teacher ratings of children’s physical aggression, hyperactivity/impulsivity and sadness/anxiety predict child ratings of loneliness at school and school liking? And, 2) do the relationships between these problem behaviours and adjustment outcomes vary as a product of (moderation), or depend upon (mediation), teacher ratings of closeness, conflict and dependency?  The first set of hypothesis concerned the relationship between ratings of problem behaviours and measures of school adjustment. Based on the research summarized above, it was expected that, after controlling for fall levels of school adjustment (i.e., loneliness at school and school liking), spring teacher ratings of externalizing problems (physical aggression and hyperactivity/impulsivity) and internalizing problems (sadness/anxiety) would be positively related to spring student reports of loneliness at school, and negatively related to spring student reports of school liking.  The second set of hypotheses involved testing the moderation and mediation effects of teacher-child relationship quality on the links between student problem behaviours and school adjustment. First, a model of moderation was tested to determine whether the association between teacher ratings of student physical aggression, hyperactivity/impulsivity, and sadness/anxiety, and student reports of school loneliness and school liking varied according to the levels of teacher-perceived teacher-child relationship quality (see Figure 1). More precisely,  25 students with externalizing and internalizing problems whom teachers reported sharing high levels of closeness were expected to report lower levels of loneliness, and higher levels of school liking than those students with whom teachers shared low levels of closeness; and students with externalizing and internalizing problems with whom teachers report high levels of conflict and dependency were expected to report higher levels of loneliness and lower levels of school liking than those students with whom teachers shared low levels of conflict and dependency.  Alternatively, mediation effects were also tested to determine whether the association between problem behaviours and school adjustment was partially, or completely, accounted for by teacher-child relationship quality (see Figure 2). Specifically, teacher ratings of students’ physical aggression, hyperactivity and sadness/anxiety were expected to predict teacher ratings of teacher-child closeness, conflict and dependency, and students’ self-reports of loneliness and school liking. Moreover, teacher-child closeness, conflict and dependency was expected to partially, or completely, account for the association between physical aggression, hyperactivity and sadness/anxiety and students’ self-reports of loneliness and school liking.    26 Figure 1.  Moderation Model of Behaviour Problems, School Adjustment and Teacher-Child Relationships   Figure 2.  Mediation Model of Behaviour Problems, School Adjustment and Teacher-Child Relationships    27 Method Data used in this research were obtained as part of a three-year longitudinal research project conducted by Schneider et al. (2013) on the adjustment of Italian schoolchildren following the transition from kindergarten to primary school and used secondarily for the current study. Information regarding data collection procedures was obtained from Schneider (personal communication, November 20, 2013) and is documented in an article by Schneider and colleagues (2013).  Participants The third and fourth waves of data were used for this study, which corresponds to the fall and spring of first grade. The first grade cohort consisted of 482 students (240 boys, 242 girls) from 25 elementary schools and their teachers (n = 67). All participants were from the municipalities of Genoa and La Spezia, large port cities in northern Italy.  Although data regarding ethnic composition of the sample population was unavailable, Schneider et al. (2013) estimated that approximately 5% of the sample population consisted of first- or second-generation immigrants to Italy, many of South America or Northern African descent. The average age for mothers (n = 440) at the first time point was 36.8 years (SD = 4.6). The highest level of education reported by mothers was as follows: 14% held university degrees, 4% held professional degrees, 40% held secondary school diplomas, 25% completed middle school, and 1% completed elementary school. With regard to employment status, 8% of mothers held professional positions, 33% were employed by large firms, 14% were employed at factories or port facilities, and 21% worked in the home. The average age of fathers (n = 255) was 40.6 years (SD = 5.1). The highest level of education reported by fathers as follows: 8% held  28 university, 4% held professional training/college, 25% secondary school, 14% middle school, and 1% elementary school. With regard to employment status, 14% of fathers held professional positions, 18% were employed by large firms, 16% were employed at factories or port facilities.  Procedure The Italian research team obtained approval from the research ethics boards of the participating municipalities and subsequently contacted local kindergartens regarding participation in the research. Children began the study when they were 5 or 6 years of age. Data were collected during the second (fall) and ninth (spring) month of each school year, over a period of three years (kindergarten, first and second grade). When the initial cohort graduated to elementary school (in first grade), recruitment was opened to include students at the new school. Parents were contacted through the schools and invited to individual sessions during which they provided informed consent for their child to participate. Research assistants then went into the schools to collect data from the participating students and their teachers. Student participants completed all measures individually, and teachers completed a set of measures for each of the participating children in their class. When children who participated in the first year of data collection left their school of origin, teacher consent and data was sought from the children’s new teacher at the new school. The participation rate reported by Schneider et al. (2013) was 91%. Measures All measures used in this study were translated from English to Italian by Mara Manetti, and then back translated by Dr. Barry Schneider in order to ensure translation fidelity. Both are  29 child development researchers who are fluent in English and Italian. Although expert- and back-translation methods are frequently used in research and often result in linguistically equivalent measures, these methods do not always result in functionally or culturally equivalent measures (Peña, 2007). As discussed below, some of the translated scales included in the present study did not function in the same manner as the original English versions and were modified accordingly.  Loneliness. Students completed the Loneliness and Social Dissatisfaction Questionnaire (LSDQ; Cassidy & Asher, 1992) in the fall and spring of first grade. The LSDQ is a self-report measure based on the Illinois Loneliness Questionnaire, developed by Asher, Hymel and Renshaw (1984) to measure feelings of loneliness and social dissatisfaction among young children in the school setting. The LSDQ has good psychometric properties when used with school-aged children, with consistently high internal consistency, Cronbach’s ! = .78 to .93 (e.g., Galanaki et al., 2008; B. Hoza, Bukowski, & Beery, 2000; Nangle et al., 2003; Terrell-Deutsch, 1999). The measure consists of 16 principal items related to loneliness at school (e.g., Do you feel lonely at school? Do you have friends at school?) and eight filler items (e.g., Do you watch TV a lot? Do you like to paint and draw?). For each item, children responded with either yes, no, or sometimes. Cassidy and Asher (1992), who used the measure with a sample of 352 kindergarten and first graders, reported that a single principal factor was obtained for the loneliness (non-filler) items, with evidence of good internal consistency, ! = .79. Comparable results have been reported in other published studies of young children (e.g., Coplan, Closson, et al., 2007). An Italian translation used in a cross-cultural comparison of loneliness among  30 children aged 9 to 12 years was also reported to have good internal consistency, ! = .84 (Chen et al., 2004).  Several items were modified from the original measure to be more easily understood by kindergarten students (e.g., Do you like science? was changed to Do you like dinosaurs?; Do you like to read? was changed to Do you like to listen to stories?). In the present sample, internal consistency of the 16-item scale was adequate, fall, ! = .72, and spring, ! = .77. However, one item, Do the kids at school like you? was found to reduce the overall reliability of scale. Inspection of the item revealed a minor difference in meaning between the original English item and that of the Italian version, Ci sono bambini come te a scuola? (Are there children like you at school?). As the item no longer reflected the desired construct and reduced the internal consistency of the measure, it was excluded, which resulted in an improvement in the internal consistency of the scale from ! = .72 to .75 for fall, and ! = .77 to .79 for spring ratings of loneliness at school. The LSDQ scale scores were generated by reversing then averaging the remaining 15 principal items, such that higher scores indicate greater feelings of loneliness  School liking. Children’s reports of school liking were measured in the fall and spring of first grade using the school liking subscale from an Italian translation of the widely used School Liking and Avoidance Questionnaire (SLAQ). The SLAQ was adapted by Birch and Ladd (1997) for use with young children from an earlier measure by Ladd and Price (1987). The school liking scale consists of nine items that reflect feelings of affinity for school (e.g., Are you happy when you are at school? Do you hate school?). Reponses were recorded as either yes or no. Previous research has demonstrated that the items load upon a single latent factor, which demonstrated adequate to excellent internal consistency, ! = .68 to .91, when used with populations of  31 kindergarten, first- and second-graders (e.g., Arbeau et al., 2010; Birch & Ladd, 1997; Ladd et al., 2000; Smith, 2011). Using an Italian translation of the measure, Tomada et al. (2005) found that the SLAQ had excellent psychometric properties: results of confirmatory factor analyses conducted on the 9-item School Liking scale revealed that the data fit the model well, CFI = .97; RMSEA = .04, and internal consistency was high, ! = .89.  Preliminary internal consistency analyses showed good internal consistency with the current sample, fall ! = .78, and spring ! = .87. However, two items, Does your school ever make you feel like crying, and When you get up in the morning, do you feel happy about going to school? reduced the internal consistency of the scale. It is possible that the children in the current sample interpreted these items differently than those in the sample used by Tomada et al. (2005). The elimination of these two items resulted in an improvement of the internal consistency, ! = 78 to .87 for fall, and ! = 78 to .90 for spring. A SLAQ composite score was generated by averaging of the remaining seven items, with higher scores indicating greater school liking.  Problem behaviours. Children’s externalizing and internalizing problems were rated by teachers in the spring of first grade using the Child Behavior Problems Questionnaire (CBPQ), a subset of questions used in National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (NLSCY; Statistics Canada, 2009) to measure the behavioural, social, and emotional adjustment of children and youth aged 2 to 11 years. The measure includes the following three scales used in the current study: physical aggression, six items (e.g., Physically attacks people; Kicks, bites, or hits other children); hyperactivity/impulsivity, eight items, (e.g., Can’t sit still, or is restless; Acts without thinking); sadness/anxiety, eight items (e.g., Is worried; Is nervous, tense; Seems unhappy, sad or depressed). For each item, parents and teachers indicated either never or not  32 true, somewhat or sometimes true, often or very true with regard to the behaviour of the child in question. According to Statistics Canada (2009), the average internal consistency of the composite measures, when used with teachers of children aged 4 to 9 years, was adequate: physical aggression, ! = .77; hyperactivity/impulsivity, ! = .81; sadness/anxiety, ! = .71. As there was no psychometric data available for the translated version of the scale used in this study, a principal component analysis with direct oblimin rotation was conducted. Results indicated that all items loaded on their respective scales greater than ! .49, and no item loaded on a second factor greater than .40. However, two of the hyperactive/impulsive scale items (Is impulsive, acts without thinking, and Has difficulty waiting his/her turn in groups) cross-loaded on the physical aggression scale (both factor loadings = .40), but this was deemed acceptable given the high comorbidity between impulsivity and aggressive behaviour, and that the two items were more highly correlated with the hyperactive/impulsive scale factor. In the present sample, internal consistency for the subscales were as follows: physical aggression, ! = .87; hyperactivity/impulsivity subscale, ! = .89; sadness/anxiety subscale items, ! = .86. Composites for each subscale were generated by averaging the items from each measure, with higher scores reflecting greater levels of the identified behaviour  Teacher-child relationship quality. The quality of each child’s relationship with his or her teacher was assessed in spring of first grade using the Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS; Pianta, 2001), a frequently used, research-validated tool designed to capture the teacher perceptions of the quality of the relationship they share with individual children. The measure is divided into three sub-scales, closeness, conflict and dependency. The STRS closeness scale consists of 11 items (e.g., This child values his/her relationship with me, and If upset, this child  33 will seek comfort from me). The conflict scale consists of 12 items (e.g., This child easily becomes angry with me, and This child sees me as a source of criticism and punishment). The dependency scale consists of five items (e.g., This child reacts strongly to separation from me, and, This child is overly dependent on me). Responses are recorded using a Likert-type scale that ranges from 1 (definitely does not apply) to 5 (definitely applies). This STRS has been shown to have psychometrically sound characteristics when used with children from kindergarten to sixth grade (Hamre & Pianta, 2001). According to the test author (Pianta, 2001), factor analysis of the items resulted in a three-factor solution, with all items loading on their respective factors greater than .40, and similar results were obtained by researchers in other samples (Birch & Ladd, 1997; Hamre & Pianta, 2001). Figures reported in previous studies involving young and middle elementary students have indicated satisfactory to excellent internal consistency across the three subscales: closeness, ! = .80 to .90; conflict, ! = .86 to .93; and dependency, ! = .64 to .75 (Baker, 2006; Birch & Ladd, 1997; Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Pianta, 2001; Troop-Gordon & Kopp, 2011).  Evidence for validity of the Italian translation of the STRS was reported in studies by Fraire, Longobardi and Sclavo (2008) and Sette et al. (2013). Consistent with the original English measure, a principal components analysis conducted by Fraire et al. (2008) yielded three unique dimensions. However, the Italian researchers found that the following items failed to load on the expected dimensions: This child is uncomfortable with physical affection or touch from me, This child expresses hurt or jealousy when I spend time with other children, and When this child is misbehaving, he/she responds well to my look or tone of voice. Both groups of Italian  34 authors obtained values of internal consistency that were comparable to those obtained by Pianta with original English version: closeness, ! = .84; conflict, ! = .90; and dependency ! = .67.  A principal components analysis was conducted on the data for the sample used in the current study. With several exceptions, all items loaded on the expected three-factor structure, with factor loadings greater than .30. Consistent with the findings of Fraire et al. (2008), the items This child is uncomfortable with physical affection or touch from me, and When this child is misbehaving, he/she respond well to my look or tone of voice were problematic, in that they were only weakly associated with the expected factor, and also cross-loaded on other factors. Moreover, for the later item, 92% of the sample attributed the maximum points (always true), and thus this item contributed very little variability to the scale score. As such, these two items were excluded from further analyses. Internal consistency analyses revealed that two further items (This child tries to please me, and I’ve noticed this child copying my behaviour) reduced the internal consistency of the closeness scale. Eliminating these two items resulted in an improvement in the internal consistency of the scale from ! = .83 to .84. The 11-item conflict subscale showed good internal consistency, ! = .86. Finally, for the dependency subscale, eliminating one item (This child appears hurt or embarrassed when I correct him) improved internal consistency from ! = .59 to .71, and therefore the reduced, 4-item scale was used. Subscale composites scores were generated by averaging the items of each measure, with higher scores indicating greater levels of the identified relationship feature. 35 Results Plan of Analyses Analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS 21 software. As described in the following section, data cleaning procedures were applied in order to reduce the influence of outliers and normalize the distribution of the data. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted using sex as the grouping variable to examine differences between boys and girls on the independent and dependent variables. Finally, analyses were conducted on both dependent variables (i.e., school loneliness and school liking) in order to determine 1) whether problem behaviours predicted school adjustment; and 2) whether teacher-child relationship quality moderated or mediated the association between problem behaviours and school adjustment.  Descriptive Information, Data Screening and Preliminary Analyses Descriptive data for all measures, including means, standard deviations, and minimum and maximum scale values, as well as internal alpha coefficient statistics are presented in Table 1. Visual inspection of the plotted data revealed non-normal distributions for all continuous variables. Specifically, the data for loneliness, physical aggression, hyperactivity/impulsivity, sadness/anxiety, teacher-child conflict and teacher-child dependency were positively skewed, and the data for school liking, teacher-child closeness were negatively skewed.  Data cleaning procedures. Several procedures were undertaken to attempt to normalize the distributions. Each scale was examined for outliers. Outlying scores (i.e., scores that were above the 95th percentile) were winsorized by systematically replacing outliers with scores that were one unit above the preceding score. This method is preferred to trimming (i.e., eliminating outlying scores) or no adjustment because it retains the outlying case in the sample while  36 reducing the influence it may have on the distribution (Kennedy, Lakonishok, & Shaw, 1992). Next, consistent with the steps outlined by Osborne (2010), Box-Cox transformations were applied to the skewed data. The following transformation were made: to fall loneliness a lambda of -1.3 was applied, resulting in a improvement in skewness from 0.51 to 0.01; to spring loneliness a lambda of -2.0 was applied resulting in an improvement in the skewness from 0.59 to .02; to sadness/anxiety a lambda of -10.1 was applied resulting in an improvement in the skewness from 1.5 to 0.04; to hyperactivity/impulsivity a lambda of -4.4 was applied resulting in an improvement in the skewness from 1.5 to 0.01; to teacher-child closeness a lambda of 2.6 was applied resulting in an improvement in the skewness from -0.86 to -0.01; to teacher-child dependency a lambda of -1.9 was applied resulting in an improvement in the skewness from 1.01 to 0.01. The data for physical aggression, teacher-child conflict, spring and fall school liking were significant skewed, 2.40, 1.29, -4.19 and -2.99, respectively. These data were not amenable to transformation and thus were included in their winsorized forms. All analyses were conducted first using the unmodified then the modified data. Similar results were obtained with both sets of data, although the untransformed data frequently failed to meet the assumptions required for regression (e.g., normally distributed residuals). Therefore, the analyses reported here are those that were conducted with the modified variables described above. Missing data. There were cases of cross-sectional (i.e., teachers failing to provide answers to each item) and longitudinal (e.g., students/teachers absent at the time of data collection, or students changing schools mid-year) missing data. An analysis of the missing data indicated that they met criteria for missing completely at random, Little’s !2(8030) = 8155.96, p = .160. Moreover, the only missing data on measures of the dependent variables were due to four  37 absent students in the spring (i.e., loneliness, school liking). Scale-level missing data were minimal, between 1.4 and 2.9 %, and so listwise procedures were used for cases of missing data in the subsequent analyses (Pigott, 2001; Schlomer, Bauman, & Card, 2010). The ranges of scale-level missing data are presented in Table 1.  Preliminary analyses. Bivariate correlations between the independent and dependent variables were computed, and are presented in Table 2. As expected, measures of problem behaviours were positively interrelated, though not excessively, and were also positively related to measures of negative teacher-child relationship quality, namely conflict and dependency. Indeed, the correlation between physical aggression and teacher-child conflict, r = .48, p < .001, and hyperactivity/impulsivity and teacher-child conflict, r = .50, p < .001, were the strongest detected among all the variables. Also as expected, problem behaviours were positively related to self-reported loneliness at school in spring, and externalizing problems (i.e., physical aggression and hyperactivity/impulsivity) shared a significant negative relationship with school liking in both fall and spring. Finally, among the teacher-child relationship variables, conflict was the strongest predictor of self-reported school adjustment, sharing a significant positive correlation with school loneliness in fall, r = .16, p < .001, and spring, r = .09, p = .040; and a negative correlation with school liking in both fall, r = -.17, p < .001 and spring, r = -.12, p = .008. However, neither teacher-child closeness nor dependency shared a significant correlation with any of the school adjustment outcomes, save for a single significant positive relationship between dependency and loneliness in fall, r = .13, p = .006. Sex differences. A one-way ANOVA was conducted in order to determine whether boys and girls differed on measures of the predictor and dependent variables. The assumption of  38 homogeneity of variance was violated for the variables physical aggression, Levene’s F(1, 476) = 114, 63, p < .001, teacher-child conflict, Levene’s F(1, 475) = 10.71, p < .001, and fall, Levene’s F(1, 480) = 18.13, p < .001, and spring school liking, Levene’s F(1, 476) = 11.17, p < .001. For these cases, the Welch statistic, which is a robust measure of group differences when the assumption of homogeneity of variance is violated, was used. There were several significant differences observed between boys and girls in the present sample. With regard to problem behaviours, teachers rated boys higher than girls on measures of physical aggression, F(1, 377.57) = 38.22, p < .001, and hyperactivity/impulsivity, F(1, 477) = 34.01, p < .001, but not sadness/anxiety, F(1, 477) = 1.53, p = .217. With regard to teacher-child relationship quality, teachers reported greater closeness, F(1, 476) = 10.23, p < .001, and less conflict, F(1, 465.67) = 13.97, p < .001, with girls than with boys, but no difference for dependency, F(1, 475) = 0.013, p = .908. Finally, boys reported higher scores of loneliness in the fall of first grade than did girls, F(1, 477) = 5.15, p = .024, and girls endorsed greater school liking than boys in both spring, F(1, 427.20) = 5.16, p = .024, and fall, F(1, 453.15) = 4.37, p = .037. These sex differences are consistent with previous research and with expectations.  Despite the mean differences observed between boys and girls on several variables, the decision was made not to examine sex differences separately in subsequent regression analyses, as this would reduce the statistical power available to detect moderation and mediation effects (J. Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). Nevertheless, the subsequent regression analyses were tested three ways: 1) including sex as a covariate in the initial step; 2) including sex as an interaction term; and 3) using the full sample without including sex as a variable. Sex of subject did not contribute significantly to the prediction of the outcomes in any of the above models (i.e.,  39 there was no significant R2 change associated with the inclusion of sex in any model), nor were there any interaction effects between sex and the other predictors (as determined by significant R2 change by including an interaction term that included sex, or a significant beta coefficient that included sex). Given these results, the analyses reported below are those that examined the research question excluding sex as a variable.   Table 1  Descriptive Statistics for the Independent and Dependent Variable Scales Variable n ! Mean Standard Deviation Range Missing Data (%) Minimum Maximum Behaviour Physical aggression  478 .87 1.10 0.26 1.00 2.67 2.4 Hyperactivity/impulsivity  478 .90 1.33 0.42 1.00 3.00 2.4 Sadness/anxiety  478 .86 1.23 0.32 1.00 2.75 2.4 Teacher-child Relationship Feature    Closeness  477 .84 3.93 0.74 1.13 5.00 2.7 Conflict  477 .89 1.28 0.54 1.00 4.20 2.7 Dependency  476 .71 1.65 0.78 1.00 4.50 2.9 School Adjustment        Loneliness (fall) 482 .75 0.30 0.27 0.00 2.00 1.8 Loneliness (spring) 478 .79 0.29 0.29 0.00 2.00 2.4 School liking (fall) 482 .87 6.67 1.12 0.00 7.00 1.8 School liking (spring) 478 .90 6.41 1.54 0.00 7.00 2.4    Table 2  Bivariate Correlations Between Independent and Dependent Variables  Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 Sex           Behaviour           2 Physical Aggression   .27**          3 Hyperactivity/Impulsivity  .26**  .36**         4 Sadness/Anxiety   .06  .19**  .30**        Teacher-Child Relationship Feature      5 Closeness  -.15** -.08 -.18** -.08       6 Conflict   .17**  .48**  .50**  .31** -.15**      7 Dependency -.01  .19**  .29**  .30**  .18**  .41**     School Adjustment           8 Loneliness (fall)  .06  .05  .10*  .11* -.02  .16**  .13**    9 Loneliness (spring)  .10*  .12*  .13**  .10* -.01  .09*  .09  .36**   10 School Liking (fall) -.10* -.18** -.10*  -.03  .03 -.17** -.07 -.21** -.12*  11 School Liking (spring) -.10* -.15** -.13** -.07  .08 -.12** -.08 -.13** -.30**  .25** Note: Girls = 0, boys = 1.  * p < .05. ** p < .001. 40  41 Sequential multiple regression analyses. Sequential multiple regression analyses were conducted in order to test 1) whether teacher-rated problem behaviours accounted for a significant amount of the variability in the spring scores of student-rated school adjustment (loneliness or school liking) after accounting for fall levels; and 2) whether teacher-rated teacher-child relationship quality moderated or mediated the relationship between problem behaviours and spring scores of student-rated school adjustment. To conserve statistical power, problem behaviours (i.e., physical aggression, hyperactivity/impulsivity, sadness/anxiety) were examined in separate regression equations for each dependent variable. Moderation analyses were structured following the recommendations outlined by Frazier, Barron and Tix (2004). Predictor (physical aggression, hyperactivity/impulsivity, sadness/anxiety) and moderator variables (teacher-child closeness, conflict, dependency) were centered prior to analyses. In step one, fall student ratings of the dependent variable (loneliness or school liking) were entered as a covariate in order to control for the initial levels of school adjustment. In step two, the predictor variable, either teacher ratings of physical aggression, hyperactivity/impulsivity, or sadness/anxiety were entered into the model. In step three, all three teacher-child relationship quality variables were entered into the equation. In the fourth and final step, two-way interactions between the problem behaviour (i.e., physical aggression, hyperactivity/impulsivity, or sadness/anxiety) and the three teacher-child relationship features (i.e., closeness, conflict and dependency) were entered. Moderation was assessed by examining whether the inclusion of the interaction terms resulted in a significant change in the overall variance explained by the model (i.e., examining for R2 change).  Mediation effects were tested following the steps outlined in Frazier et al. (2004). The pathways are outlined in Figure 3. Although direct effects are not necessary for there to be a  42 significant indirect effect (Hayes, 2009), the direct effect (path c) was tested by regressing the dependent variable (loneliness, school liking) on the predictor variable (either physical aggression, hyperactivity/impulsivity, or sadness/anxiety) after controlling for initial levels of the dependent variable in fall. Next, the indirect effect pathway was tested. First, the association between the predictor and the mediator (path a) was tested by regressing teacher-child closeness, conflict and dependency on either physical aggression, hyperactivity/impulsivity, or sadness/anxiety. Second, the relationship between the mediator variable and the dependent variable (path b) was tested by regressing the loneliness or school liking on teacher-child closeness, conflict and dependency. Following the recommendations of Preacher and Hayes (2008), mediator variables were included simultaneously in the same model for each problem behaviour.1 Finally, complete or partial mediation was tested by regressing the dependent variable on the both the predictor and mediator variables, controlling for initial levels of the dependent variable in fall (path c’). Indirect effects were tested using bias-corrected bootstrapping procedures, and inspecting 95% confidence intervals obtained from 5000 resamples (Preacher & Hayes, 2004).                                                     1 Supplementary analyses were conducted including teacher-child relationship variables in separate equations, but no significant differences in the results were noted, and thus the simultaneous, combined models are reported.   43 Figure 3.  Mediation Pathways of Behaviour Problems, School Adjustment and Teacher-Child Relationships  Following each regression analysis, collinearity and interdependence of error statistics, as well as residual plots were examined to ensure that the data met the assumptions of no perfect multicollinearity (tolerance index < 0.1; variance inflation factor > 4), interdependence of errors terms (non-significant Durbin-Watson statistic), and normality of the residuals. If further examination was required, eigenvalues of each regression coefficient were computed and examined to ensure that no two variables loaded highly on any single eigenvalue. Notably, the Durbin-Watson statistic for all regression models was significant, indicating a violation of the assumption of independence of errors. Autocorrelation of residuals can lead to incorrect standard errors that bias the significance of statistical tests (J. Cohen et al., 2003). First described are results obtained for the outcome of loneliness at school.  44 Loneliness The initial model, which included only student self-reports of loneliness in the fall, fit the data well, F(1, 475) = 71.57, p < .001, and accounted for approximately 13% of the variance in  the scores of loneliness in spring. Physical aggression. The addition of physical aggression in the second step resulted in a increase in the R2 of .01, F(1, 473) = 5.49, p = .02, indicating that physical aggression accounted for a statistically significant but very small amount of the variance in the scores of self-reported loneliness after controlling for initial levels of loneliness in fall, !R2 = .01.  Moderation. There were no meaningful increases in the amount of variability accounted for at either the third, !R2 = .001, F(1, 473) = 0.22, p = .882, or fourth, !R2 = .003, F(1, 473) = 0.58, p = .629, step. Thus, teacher-child relationship features did not moderate the relationship between physical aggression and feelings of loneliness at school in the current sample. Of possible concern in interpreting these results is the overlap among the variables considered. Although the tolerance index and the variance inflation factor (VIF) were within acceptable ranges (i.e., tolerance index were > .02; VIF were < 4 for each variable) , the average VIF value for all variables in the final model was greater than 1.0, which can indicate a problem with multicollinearity (Bowerman & O’Connell, 1990) . Examination of the eigenvalues revealed that no two coefficients were highly loaded on the same eigenvalue (> .40) . In addition, the negative beta weight and negative Pratt index associated with teacher-child conflict indicated the presence of a suppressor effect. In an attempt to rectify these problems, data were re-analysed, including each teacher-child relationship variable in isolation, but there were no changes in the significance or the strength of the effects for either the teacher-child relationship variables, nor interactions of  45 problem behaviours and teacher-child relationship variables in these supplementary analyses. The complete model is presented in Table 3.  Mediation. After controlling for fall loneliness, physical aggression was positively related to both teacher-child conflict, b = 0.779, t(473) = 11.48, p < .001, and dependency, b = 0.213, t(473) = 4.04, p < .001, but not significantly related to teacher-child closeness, b = -2.767, t(473) = -1.77, p = .077. Also, none of the teacher-child relationship variables were significantly related to self-reports of students’ loneliness in spring beyond the effects of fall loneliness and physical aggression, closeness, b = -0.001, t(470) = -0.13, p = .894; conflict, b = -0.013, t(470) = -0.58, p = .564; dependency, b = -0.021, t(470) = 0.021, p = .457. Results of the mediation analyses did not support an indirect effect for teacher-child closeness, CI = -0.040 to 0.104; conflict, CI = -0.056 to 0.030; or dependency, CI = -0.035 to 0.077, and the direct effect of physical aggression on spring loneliness remained significant after controlling for fall loneliness and teacher-child relationship variables, b = .722, t(470) = 8.24, p < .001.  Hyperactivity/impulsivity . The addition of teacher ratings of hyperactive/impulsive behaviour in the second step resulted in a small but significant increase in the amount of variance accounted for by the model, !R2 = .01, F(1, 473) = 5.14, p = .02. This indicated that teacher ratings of student hyperactive/impulsive behaviour did predict a small but statistically significant amount of the variance in student self-reports of loneliness at school.  Moderation. There was no meaningful change in amount of variability accounted for at either the third, !R2 = .001, F(3, 470) = 0.12, p = .949, or fourth, !R2 =.002, F(1, 473) = 0.29, p = .831, step, which suggests that teacher-child relationship quality did not moderate the relationship between hyperactivity/impulsivity and loneliness at school. As with physical aggression, there was some evidence of moderate multicollinearity, as indicated by an average  46 VIF greater than one, and a suppressor effect related to teacher-child conflict. Again, re-analysis of the data investigating teacher-child variables and interaction effects in isolation did not yield any significant or stronger effects. The complete model and steps are presented in Table 4. Mediation. After controlling for fall loneliness, hyperactivity/impulsivity was negatively related to teacher-child closeness, b = -11.494, t(473) = -3.88, p = .001, and positively related to teacher-child conflict, b = 1.535, t(473) = 12.12, p < .001, and dependency, b = 0.617, t(473) = 6.40, p < .001. Teacher-child relationship variables were not significantly related to self-reports of students’ loneliness in spring after controlling for fall loneliness and hyperactivity/impulsivity, closeness, b = 0.001, t(470) = 0.17, p = .868; conflict, b = -0.085, t(470) = -0.40, p = .691; dependency, b = 0.012, t(470) = 0.43, p = .670. The direct effect of hyperactivity/impulsivity on spring loneliness remained significant after controlling for fall loneliness and teacher-child relationship quality, b = 0.132, t(470) = 2.05, p = .041. Results of the mediation analyses did not support an indirect effect for teacher-child closeness, CI = -0.002 to 0.011; conflict, CI = -0.013 to 0.034; or dependency, CI = -0.008 to 0.017.  Sadness/anxiety. The inclusion of teacher ratings of sadness/anxiety in the second step did not account for a significant increase in the variance in student self-reports of loneliness, !R2 = .003, F(1, 473) = 1.89, p = .170. Therefore, teacher-rated sadness/anxiety was not a significant predictor of students’ ratings of their loneliness at school.  Moderation. There were no meaningful changes in amount of variability accounted for by adding either teacher-child relationship quality variables, !R2 = .001, F(3, 470) = 0.26, p = .926, nor the sadness/anxiety x teacher-child relationship quality interaction terms, !R2 = .004, F(1, 467) = 0.77, p = .513. Teacher-child relationships variables did not moderate the  47 relationship between sadness/anxiety and loneliness in the present sample. The complete model and steps are presented in Table 5.  Mediation. After controlling for fall loneliness, sadness/anxiety was positively related to conflict, b  = 1.921, t (473) = 6.77, p < .001, and dependency, b  = 1.275, t (473) = 6.45, p < .001, but not significantly related to teacher-child closeness, b  = -10.464, t (473) = -1.70, p = .089. None of the teacher-child relationship variables were significantly related to self-reports of students’ loneliness in spring beyond the effect of fall loneliness and sadness/anxiety, closeness, b = -0.001, t (470) = -0.57, p = .955; conflict, b = 0.005, t (470) = 0.24, p = .813; dependency, b = 0.015, t (470) = 0.50, p = .616. The direct effect of sadness/anxiety on spring loneliness, which was non-significant to begin with, remained non-significant after controlling for fall loneliness and teacher-child relationship quality, b  = 0.127, t (470) = 1.05, p = .296. Results of the mediation analyses did not support an indirect effect for teacher-child closeness, CI = -0.021 to 0.026; conflict, CI = -0.072 to 0.084; or dependency, CI = -0.055 to 0.100.     48 Table 3  Sequential Multiple Regression Predicting Spring School Loneliness from Physical Aggression and Teacher-Child Relationship Quality  Predictor R2 !R2 b SE b b* Pratt Index Step 1 - Covariates  .131 -     Loneliness (fall)    0.329** 0.039 0.362 - Step 2 – Problem behaviour  .141  .010*     Loneliness (fall)    0.325** 0.005 0.358 .92 Physical aggression     0.012* 0.005 0.100 .08 Step 3 – Teacher-child Relationship Quality  .142  .001     Loneliness (fall)    0.325** 0.039 0.358 .91 Physical aggression     0.013* 0.006 0.108 .08 Closeness    -0.001 0.005 -0.006   <.01 Conflict    -0.004 0.006 -0.031 -.02 Dependency     0.004 0.006 0.036  .02 Step 4 – Interactions  .146  .004     Loneliness (fall)    0.326** 0.040 0.359 .89 Physical aggression     0.015 0.008 0.126    .10 Closeness    -0.001 0.005 -0.008  <.01 Conflict    -0.004 0.007 -0.030   -.02 Dependency    0.005 0.006 0.046    .03 Physical aggression x closeness   -0.005 0.006 -0.044 .02 Physical aggression x conflict   -0.006 0.006 -0.090   -.04 Physical aggression x dependency    0.008 0.008 0.071    .02 * p < .05. ** p < .01.    49  Table 4  Sequential Multiple Regression Predicting Spring School Loneliness from Hyperactivity/Impulsivity and Teacher -Child Relationship Quality   Predictor R2 !R2 b SE b        b* Pratt Index Step 1 - Covariates  .131 -     L oneliness (fall)     0.329**  0.039  0.362        - Step 2 – Problem behaviour  .141   .009      Loneliness  (fall)     0.320**  0.039  0.352       .90  H yperactivity/impulsivity      0.011*  0.005  0.097      .10 Step 3 – Teacher-child Relationship Quality  .141   .000     Loneliness (fall)      0.320**  0.039  0.352     .90  Hyperactivity/impulsivity      0.012*  0.006  0.103    .10 Closeness     0.001 0.005  0.008    <.01 Conflict    -0.002 0.005  -0.021    -.01 Dependency     0.002 0.006  0.021     .01 Step 4 – Interactions  .143   .002     Loneliness  (fall)     0.321**  0.040 0.353      .89  H yperactivity/impulsivity      0.012*  0.006  0.099    .09  Closeness     0.001 0.005  0.004   <.01 Conflict    -0.002 0.008  -0.018     -.01 Dependency     0.003 0.006  0.026    .02 H yperactivity/impulsivity x closeness    -0.005  0.005  -0.038    .02 H yperactivity/impulsivity x conflict    -0.003 0.007  -0.024    -.01 H yperactivity/impulsivity x dependency    -0.004 0.006  0.036    <.01 *  p < .05. ** p < .01.    50 Table 5  Sequential  Multiple Regression Predicting Spring School Loneliness from Sadness/A nxiety and Teacher-Child Relationship Quality   Predictor  R2 !R2 b S E b        b* Pratt Index Step 1 - Covariate .129 -     Loneliness  (fall)    0.329**  0.039 0.362 - Step 2 – Problem behaviour .135 .003     Loneliness  (fall)    0.323**  0.039 0.355 .95 Sadness/anxiety     0.007 0.005 0.059 .05 Step 3 – Teacher-child Relationship Quality .135 .000     Loneliness  (fall)    0.319**  0.040 0.351 .94 Sadness/anxiety     0.006 0.005 0.048 .04 Closeness    0.000 0.005 -0.003 <.01 Conflict    0.001 0.006 0.012 .01 Dependency     0.003 0.006 0.025 .01 Step 4 – Interactions .140 .004     Loneliness  (fall)    0.318**  0.040 0.350 .91 Sadness/anxiety     0.005 0.005 0.046 .03 Closeness    0.000 0.005 0.004 <.01 Conflict    0.004 0.006 0.031 .02 Dependency     0.003 0.006 0.024 .02 Sadness/anxiety  x closeness   -0.004 0.005 -0.034 .01 Sadness/anxiety  x conflict   -0.004 0.006 -0.032 <.01 Sadness/anxiety  x dependency   -0.004 0.006 -0.037 .01 *  p < .05. **  p < .01.    51 School Liking School liking data was severely skewed, and there was very little variability in the data. Although categorizing continuous data reduces the available information and increases the error terms (J. Cohen, 1983), given the distribution of the school liking scores, standard regression analyses would not have been appropriate. Cut-offs were derived by examination of the distribution in the school liking data, and several groups were examined before determining that a high/low school liking grouping best represented the students in the sample. The high school liking group, approximately 81% of the sample, consisted of students who reported a maximum score for school liking (i.e., average score of 1.0); the low school liking group, approximately 19% of the sample, consisted of students who reported a less than perfect school liking score (i.e., between 0.0 to 0.9).   In order to test that the high/low school liking groups represented qualitatively different groups of children, a one-way ANOVA was conducted to compare the means of the independent variables included in the subsequent analyses. Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 6. Levene’s test of homogeneity of variance was significant for physical aggression, Levene’s F(2, 475) = 10.93, p < .001, and fall teacher-child conflict, Levene’s F(2, 474) = 12.80, p < .001, and thus the robust Welch statistic was interpreted for these variables. Post-hoc comparisons were examined using Hochberg’s GT2 statistic. A significant main effect was detected for physical aggression, F(1, 117.29) = 9.13, p < .003, and for hyperactivity/impulsivity, F(1, 477) = 10.52, p = .001. Compared to the children in the low school liking group, children in the high school liking group received significantly lower ratings of physical aggression and hyperactivity/impulsivity from teachers. With regard to teacher-child relationship quality, there was a significant main effect for teacher-child conflict, F(1, 118.42) = 9.07, p = .003, and  52 closeness, F (1, 476) = 3.88, p = .049. Teachers reported sharing significantly closer and less conflictual relationships with students in the high school liking group than with students in the low school liking group.   Table 6  Descriptive Statistics for Low/High School Liking Groups Variable Mean Standard Deviation 95% Confidence Interval Lower Upper Physical aggression  Low school liking  1.14a 0.23 1.07 1.22 High school liking 1.07b 0.16 1.05 1.08 Hyperactive/Impulsive       Low school liking 0.130a 0.089 0.101 0.159 High school liking 0.094b 0.092 0.085 0.104 Sadness/anxiety      Low school liking 0.051a 0.045 0.036 0.066 High school liking 0.044a 0.045 0.040 0.049 Teacher-child closeness     Low school liking 12.72a 6.17 10.69 14.75 High school liking 14.36a 5.97 13.76 14.95 Teacher-child conflict      Low school liking 1.31a 0.37 1.18 1.43 High school liking 1.18b 0.27 1.16 1.21 Teacher-child dependency     Low school liking 0.277a 0.204 0.210 0.344 High school liking 0.234a 0.200 0.206 0.246 Note :  Different superscript (a, b) denote differences at the p < .05 level; low school liking n  = 92, high school liking n = 386.  Sequential binary logistic regressions were conducted to determine whether the addition of the predictor variables increased the likelihood of students membership in either the high  or low  school liking groups. The assumption of linearity of the logit was tested by including the interaction of the continuous variables and their respective log transformation into the logistic  53 regression model; there were no significant interactions, meaning that the assumption of linearity was met. The final model, including the beta coefficients, standard errors, Wald statistic, odd ratio, goodness-of-fit indices (Hosmer and Lemeshow and Nagelkerke index) and confidence intervals are presented in its respective table.  The baseline model (included only the constant) and the first step in the model (including only fall school liking) were the same for each set of analyses. The baseline model had a -2 log-likelihood of 467.38. The addition of fall school liking to the baseline model resulted in a significant -2 log likelihood decrease of 13.68, p < .001. The first step model correctly classified 80.9% of the cases into the low or high school liking groups.  Physical aggression. The addition of the teacher-rated physical aggression resulted in statistically significant but very small improvement in the model fit, !2 (1) = 7.10, p = .008. According to the Wald statistic, the physical aggression contributed significantly to the model, Wald !2(1) = 7.53, p = .006. The addition of physical aggression did not result in a significant improvement in the number of correctly classified cases (80.9% vs. 80.3%). The Hosmer-Lemeshow test was significant, indicating that the model did not fit the data well, !2(2) = 16.99, p < .01.  Moderation. The inclusion of the teacher-child relationship variables in the third step did not significantly improve the model, !2 (3) = 5.50, p = .139. However, the addition of the interactions terms in the fourth and final step significantly improved the model from the third step, !2 (3) = 10.33, p = .016, and represented an overall improvement of the model from the initial step !2 (8) = 36.59, p < .001. The final, full model correctly classified 81.7% of the cases correctly, and the Hosmer-Lemeshow test was not significant, indicating that the model fit the data well, !2(8)= 2.67, p = .953.  54 Several variables significantly contrib uted to the predictive ability of the final model. First, both fall school loneliness, b = - .1.77, Wald !2(1) = 7.89, p = .005, and physical aggression, b = - .40, Wald !2(1) = 6.26, p = .012, were significant in the final model. In addition, there was a significant effect for the interaction between physical aggression and teacher-child closeness, b = - .330, Wald !2(1) = 7.14, p = .008. Plotting the slopes revealed that children with low levels of aggression had significantly different levels of school liking depending on whether teachers indicated sharing a close relationship. Less aggressive children who had closer relationships with teachers reported greater school liking than low aggressive children who did not have a close relationship with their teachers. By contrast, and contrary to expectations, the level of school liking reported by aggressive children did not vary as a function of the closeness of their relationship with their teacher. It must also be noted that this interaction was the only significant effect detected from among 18 total interaction terms tested, and using a statistical probability value of .05, may be a product of chance. Notably, several of confidence intervals for the odds ratios in the final model crossed 1.0, which means that the direction of the relationship in the sample population may not generalize to the general population. This is likely cause d by a combination of a weak effect s and large standard errors associated with those variables.     55 Figure 4  Interaction of Physical Aggression and Teacher -Child Closeness on the Probability of School Liking    Mediation. After controlling for fall school liking , physical aggression was positively related to conflict, b = 0.779, t(473) = 11.148, p < .001, and dependency, b = 0.213, t(473) = 4.04, p = .001, but not significantly related to teacher-child closeness, b = -2.683, t(473) = -1.69, p = .091. Moreover, no t eacher-child relationship variable was significantly related to self-reports of students’ school liking  in spring after controlling for the effect of fall school liking  and physical aggression; closeness, b = 0.034, !2(6) = 1.60, p = .109; conflict, b = -0.518, !2(6) = -1.07, p = .285; dependency, b = -0.637, !2(6) = -0.64, p = .524. Although direct effect of physical aggression on spring school liking  was no longer significant after controlling for fall school liking  and teacher-child closeness, conflict and dependency, b = -1.041, !2(6) = -1.53, p = .126, the results of the mediation analyses did not support an indirect effect for any individual teacher-child relationship variable, closeness, CI = -0.341 to 0.012; conflict, CI = -1.207 to 0.415; or dependency, CI = -0.443 to 0.207.   56 Hyperact ivity/impulsivity . The addition of the teacher-rated hyperactivity/impulsivity resulted in a minor, but statistically significant improvement in the model fit, !2 (1) = 8.37, p = .004. The Wald statistic indicated that  hyperactivity/impulsivity contributed significantly to the model, Wald !2(1) = 8.13, p = .004, meaning that the higher the teacher ratings of hyperactive/impulsive behaviour were, the less likely t he child would be in the high school liking group. As with physical aggression, the addition of hyperactivity/impulsivity did not result in a significant improvement in the number of correctly classified cases (80.9% vs. 80.7%). The Hosmer -Lemeshow test wa s not significant, indicating that the model fit the data well, !2(2) = 6.50, p = .369. Moderation. The inclusion of teacher-child relationship variables in the third step did not significantly improve the model from the previous step, !2 (3) = 4.17, p = .244, nor did the inclusion of the interaction of the hyperactive/impulsive behaviour terms with teacher-child quality features, !2(3) = 2.31, p = .511 in the fourth step. Moreover, there was no statistical change in the number of correctly classified cases from the model that included only fall school liking  (80.3% vs. 80.9%, respectively ). Thus, the addition of the teacher-child relationship features did not significantly contribute to the ability to predict whether a child would be in the low or high school liking group  beyond the effects of hyperactivity/impulsivity and fall school liking , and teacher-child relationship features did not moderate the link between student hyperactive/impulsive behaviour and low or high in school likin g.  As with physical aggression, several of the confidence intervals included in the final model for hyperactivity/impulsivity crossed 1.0. Thus, although tests of model fit suggested that the addition of teacher-child relationship quality and interaction variables resulted in a significantly lower log likelihood value as compared to the initial model (i.e., fall school liking),  57 the minute effects sizes and poorer classification statistics indicate that there were no meaningful effects associated with the addition of the teacher-child relationship or interaction variables.  Mediation. After controlling for fall school liking, hyperactivity/impulsivity negatively predicted teacher-child closeness, b = -11.401, t(473) = -3.85, p = .001, and positively predicted teacher child conflict, b = 1.533, t(473) = 12.12, p < .001, and dependency, b = 0.630, t(473) = 6.51, p < .001. Teacher-child relationship variables were not significantly related to students’ self-reports of spring school liking beyond the effect of fall school liking and hyperactivity/impulsivity, closeness, b = 0.029 !2(6) = 1.35, p = .176; conflict, b = -0.551, !2(6) = -1.17, p = .242; dependency, b = -0.276, !2(6) = -0.396, p = .692. The direct effect of hyperactivity/impulsivity on spring school liking was no longer significant after controlling for fall school liking and teacher-child relationship quality, b = -2.321, !2(6) = -1.49, p = .135, but neither was there support for an indirect effect for teacher-child closeness, CI = -1.007 to 0.187; conflict, CI = -2.257 to 0.536; or dependency, CI = -1.125 to 0.756.  Sadness/anxiety. The addition of the teacher-rated sadness/anxiety resulted in a small and statistically non-significant decrease in the log likelihood figure, !2 (1) = 3.59, p = .058. The Wald statistic indicated that the ratings of sadness/anxiety failed to make a significant contribution to the model, Wald !2(1) = 3.55, p = .060. Therefore, the teacher-rated sadness/anxiety did not significantly contribute to the prediction of whether children would be in the low or high school liking groups after controlling for fall levels of school liking. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test was non-significant, indicating that the model did fit the data well, !2(2)= 4.37, p = .497.  58 Moderation. The inclusion of teacher-child relationship variables in the third step did not result in a significant decrease in the log likelihood of the model, !2(3) = 4.17, p = .244. Similarly, the inclusion of the interaction terms in the fourth step failed to yield a significant decreased in log likelihood, !2(3) = 2.31, p = .511. Overall, although the Hosmer and Lemeshow test indicated a good fit for the final model, !2(8) = 2.67, p = .953, and the log likelihood change from the first to the last model was significant, !2(7) = 14.49, p = .043, but the final model did not improve the accuracy of the classification of cases. Finally, as with the previous models, the confidence intervals for the odds ratios associated with the predictor variables and their interactions terms frequently crossed over 1.0.  Mediation. After controlling for fall school liking, sadness/anxiety predicted teacher-child conflict, b = 2.049, t(473) = 7.32, p < .001, and dependency, b = 1.333, t(473) = 6.78, p < .001, but not teacher-child conflict, b = -10.730, t(473) = -1.76, p = .079. No t eacher-child relationship variable was significantly related to self-reports of students’ spring school liking after controlling for fall school liking and sadness/anxiety, closeness, b = 0.032, !2(6) = 1.51, p = .131; conflict, b = -0.755, !2(6) = -1.71, p = .087; dependency, b = -0.313, !2(6) = -0.45, p = .656. The direct effect of sadness/anxiety on spring school liking was non-significant to begin with, and remained so after controlling for fall school liking and teacher-child closeness, conflict and dependency, b = -2.495, !2(6) = -0.86, p = .387. The results of the mediation analyses did not support an indirect effect for teacher-child closeness, CI = -1.391 to 0.062, conflict, CI = -3.572 to 0.211, or dependency, CI = -2.257 to 1.462.   Table 7  Sequential Logistic Regression Predicting Low/High Spring School Liking from Physical Aggression           95% Confidence Interval Variable -2 Log  likelihood ! -2 Log  likelihood (! 2) Hosmer &  Lemeshow Test Nagelkerke’s Pseudo R 2 b SE  Wald Lower Odds Ratio Upper Step 0 – Baseline model 467.38 -         Step 1 - Covariate 453.70       13.68*** - .05       School liking (fall)     2.26 0.61 13.81*** 2.91 9.60 31.63 Step 2 – Problem behaviour 446.60         7.10**         8.80* .07       School liking (fall)     1.99 0.62 10.29*** 2.17 7.31 24.63 Physical aggression      -0.29 0.10   7.53** 0.61 0.75 0.92 Step 3 – Teacher-child relationship  441.11         5.49         4.69 .08       School liking (fall)     1.91 0.62   9.49** 2.00 6.75 22.75 Physical aggression      -0.18 0.12   2.35 0.66 0.83 1.05 Teacher-child closeness     0.21 0.13   2.57 0.96 1.23 1.58 Teacher-child conflict     -0.15 0.14   1.15 0.65 0.86 1.13 Teacher-child dependency     -0.09 0.14   0.41 0.70 0.92 1.20 59          95% Confidence Interval Variable -2 Log likelihood ! -2 Log likelihood (! 2) Hosmer & Lemeshow Test Nagelkerke’s Pseudo R 2 b SE Wald Lower Odds Ratio Upper Step 4 – Interaction terms 430.78         10.33*           3.07 .12       School liking (fall)         1.77 0.63   7.89** 1.70 5.84 20.01 Physical aggression      -0.40 0.16   6.26* 0.49 0.67 0.92 Teacher-child closeness     0.24 0.13   3.28 0.98 1.28 1.66 Teacher-child conflict     -0.17 0.14   1.42 0.64 0.84 1.12 Teacher-child dependency     -0.11 0.14   0.65 0.68 0.89 1.18 Physical aggression x closeness      -0.33 0.12   7.14** 0.56 0.72 0.92 Physical aggression x conflict     -0.01 0.12   0.01 0.78 0.99 1.26 Physical aggression x dependency     0.29 0.16   3.27 0.98 1.33 1.82 * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < .001.     60  Table 8  Sequential Logistic Regression Predicting Low/High Spring School Liking from Hyperactivity/Impulsivity         95% Confidence Interval Variable -2 Log likelihood ! -2 Log likelihood (! 2) Hosmer &  Lemeshow Test Nagelkerke’s Pseudo R 2 b SE Wald Lower Odds Ratio Upper Step 0 – Baseline model 467.38 -         Step 1 - Covariate 453.70      13.68*** - .05       School liking (fall)     2.26 0.61  13.81*** 2.91 9.60 31.63 Step 2 – Problem behaviour 445.33        8.37** 6.50 .07       School liking (fall)     2.10 0.62   11.68*** 2.45 8.17 27.25 Hyperactivity/impulsivity     -0.35 0.12     8.13** 0.56 0.71 0.90 Step 3 – Teacher-child relationship  441.16         4.17 9.34 .08       School liking (fall)     1.98 0.62  10.35*** 2.17 7.27 24.34 Hyperactivity/impulsivity     -0.21 0.14     2.24 0.61 0.81 1.07 Teacher-child closeness     0.18 0.13     1.83 0.92 1.19 1.54 Teacher-child conflict     -0.16 0.14     1.37 0.65 0.85 1.12 Teacher-child dependency     -0.06 0.14     0.16 0.72 0.95 1.25    61         95% Confidence Interval Variable -2 Log likelihood ! -2 Log likelihood (! 2) Hosmer & Lemeshow Test Nagelkerke’s Pseudo R 2 b SE Wald Lower Odds Ratio Upper Step 4 – Interaction terms 438.85 2.31 8.51 .09       School liking (fall)      1.95 0.62 9.94** 2.09 7.05 23.72 Hyperactivity/impulsivity     -0.27 0.15   3.13 0.56 0.76 1.03 Teacher-child closeness       0.20 0.13   2.22 0.94 1.22 1.58 Teacher-child conflict     -0.01 0.21 < 0.01 0.66 0.99 1.49 Teacher-child dependency     -0.06 0.14    0.19 0.71 0.94 1.24 Hyperactivity/impulsivity x closeness      -0.14 0.13    1.09 0.67 0.87 1.13 Hyperactivity/impulsivity x conflict     -0.22 0.19    1.46 0.56 0.80 1.15 Hyperactivity/impulsivity x dependency      0.10 0.15    0.45 0.83 1.10 1.47 * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < .001.   62  Table 9  Sequential Logistic Regression Predicting Low/High Spring School Liking from Sadness/Anxiety         95% Confidence Interval Variable -2 Log likelihood ! -2 Log likelihood (! 2) Hosmer & Lemeshow Test Nagelkerke’s Pseudo R 2 B SE Wald Lower Odds Ratio Upper Step 0 – Baseline model 467.38 -         Step 1 - Covariate 453.70       13.68*** - .05       School liking (fall)      2.26 0.61 13.81*** 2.91 9.60 31.63 Step 2 – Problem behaviour 450.15         3.59 4.37 .06       School liking (fall)      2.33 0.61 14.59*** 3.11 10.29 34.04 Sadness/anxiety     -0.23 0.12   3.55 0.63 0.80 1.01 Step 3 – Teacher-child relationship  442.66         7.45 9.58 .08       School liking (fall)      2.06 0.62 11.08*** 2.34 7.88 26.55 Sadness/anxiety     -0.11 0.13   0.75 0.69 0.89 1.15 Teacher-child closeness      0.20 0.13   2.27 0.94 1.22 1.57 Teacher-child conflict     -0.22 0.13   2.94 0.62 0.80 1.03 Teacher-child dependency     -0.06 0.14   0.20 0.71 0.94 1.24   63          95% Confidence Interval Variable -2 Log likelihood ! -2 Log  likelihood (! 2) Hosmer & Lemeshow Test Nagelkerke’s Pseudo R 2 B SE Wald Lower Odds Ratio Upper Step 4 – Interaction terms 439.37 3.29 2.67 .09       School liking (fall)     1.98 0.62 10.08*** 2.14 7.25 24.64 Sadness/anxiety     -0.10 0.13    0.55 0.70 0.91 1.17 Teacher-child closeness     0.16 0.13    1.46 0.91 1.17 1.52 Teacher-child conflict     -0.27 0.14    3.69 0.58 0.77 1.01 Teacher-child dependency     -0.08 0.14    0.34 0.70 0.92 1.21 Sadness/anxiety x closeness      0.18 0.13    1.93 0.93 1.20 1.56 Sadness/anxiety x conflict     0.08 0.14    0.39 0.84 1.09 1.42 Sadness/anxiety x dependency     0.07 0.14    0.25 0.82 1.07 1.41 * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < .001.          64 65 Discussion The present study had two objectives: 1) to determine whether teacher ratings of children’s problem behaviours were significantly related to children’s ratings of school adjustment; and 2) to determine whether teacher-reported teacher-child relationship quality moderated or mediated the association between problem behaviour and school adjustment. In the sections that follow, the findings are summarized and interpreted, beginning with the results of the preliminary analyses, followed by the findings with regard to the first and second objectives. Finally, limitations and future directions are discussed.  Findings with regard to sex differences were congruent with those reported in published studies. Teachers recorded higher ratings of both physical aggression and hyperactivity/impulsivity for boys than girls, consistent with studies showing that boys are generally more physically aggressive (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Tomada & Schneider, 1997) and hyperactive/impulsive (Diamantopoulou, 2005; Sciutto, Nolfi, & Bluhm, 2004). Teachers also indicated greater closeness with girls and greater conflict with boys, which are common findings in the teacher-child relationship literature (e.g., Birch & Ladd, 1998; Koepke & Harkins, 2008; Pianta, 2001; Troop-Gordon & Kopp, 2011).  Problem Behaviours and School Adjustment  Consistent with previous research on the links between problem behaviour and poor school adjustment, findings from the present study showed that teacher-rated externalizing difficulties were associated with student feelings of estrangement from schoolmates, as well as less affinity for school, as early as first grade. A potentially novel finding was that hyperactive/impulsive behaviour was positively associated with feelings of loneliness among the  66 young children in the present sample, which was not the case in previous studies  (Diamantopoulou, 2005; Heiman, 2005) . However, it is important to note that those studies also slightly older children, and different covariates  than the present study, which may account for these differences. In addition,  and consistent with previous findings,  there was a relatively strong correlation (r = .48 ~ .50) between teacher ratings of externalizing beh aviours and teacher-child conflict (Henricsson & Rydell, 2004; K. Hughes et al., 2013; Sette et al., 2013) . These findings are in keeping with the hypothesis that externalizing problems predict greater social and academic difficulties (Diamantopoulou, 2005; Hinshaw, 1992; Lad d & Burgess, 1999) . However, given the correlational nature of the data, it may also be that the school context is not adequately engaging children who are more active and aggressive. Given that externalizing  problems in early elementary students are relatively stable (Ladd & Burgess, 1999)  and also predict later school maladjustment (Kupersmidt & Coie, 1990) , these findings highlight the importance of early identification and intervention for young children who show signs of aggressive and hyperactive/impulsive behaviour.  Unlike externalizing problems , internalizing problems were neither related to self-reports of loneliness nor school liking. The current findings are consistent with studies that showed that young children with internalizing problems do not diffe r from other youth on measures of social or academic engagement (Ladd & Burgess, 1999; Ladd & Troop -Gordon, 2003; Youngblade et al., 1999) , evidence that supports the hypothesis that internalizing problems are stronger predictors of adjustment outcomes in later childhood than early childh ood. Internalizing problems generally, and shy/withdrawn behaviour specifically, may be more salient to peer s of older children than younger children, and thus n ot necessarily result in rejection or friendlessness   67 (Rubin et al., 1993, 2009, 1989; Younger & Boyko, 1987) . In addition, some studies have shown that children with internalizing problems are generally obedient and do not disrupt class, and thus are less likely to draw the ire of teachers (Coplan et al., 2011; Evans, 2010) . That internalizing problems were associated with neither loneliness nor school liking contrast with the results obtained by Weeks et al. (2009) and Arbeau et al. (2010). However, differences in methodology may account for the differences in results found here. Weeks et al. (2009) used self-reports of social anxiety,  loneliness and school liking, thereby introducing issues of shared method variance that were avoided in the current study. Whereas Arbeau et al. (2010) used parent ratings of shyness, the focus of the present study was on teacher ratings of sadness/anxiety , which may have resulted in a different subset of children. The weak relationship between internalizing problems and school adjustment  outcomes in the present sample may have been due to teachers’ difficulty to detect internalizing problems compared with either parent or self reports  (Achenbach, McConaughy, & Howell, 1987; Hammarberg & Hagekull, 2006; Stanger & Lewis, 1993).  Teacher-child Relationship Quality and School Adjustment Broadly speaking, the results from several analyses failed to support the hypothesis that teacher-child relationships moderate,  or mediate,  the association between student problem behaviours and adjustment at  school. Only one interaction effect was detected: t eacher-child closeness predicted school liking at different levels of physical aggression. However, the interaction was not in expected form : n on-aggressive students with whom teachers reported close relationships were significantly more likely to report liking school than other non-aggressive students who did not share close relationships with their teachers. However,  close teacher-child  68 relationship predicted no difference in ratings of school liking among highly physically aggressive students. One way to int erpret these results is that for students who are low in aggression, the positive regard they receive from their teachers adds to their experience of school, and in turn their positive feelings for school (Birch & Ladd, 1997; Finn, 1989) . In contrast, students who are physically aggressive may be indifferent or unaware of the closeness that their teachers perceive sharing with them, possibly because aggression goes hand- in- hand with distorted or biased social perception (Hymel, Bowker, & Woody, 1993) .  With the exception of the above, teacher- child relationship variables did not mediate or moderate any of the associations between problem behaviours and outcomes in the sample population. This was due in part to the weak associations between teacher- rated teacher- child relationship quality and students’ ratings of their loneliness at school and school liking. Unlike Birch and Ladd (1997), who found that teacher- child dependency to be a unique (albeit weak) predictor of the variability in scores of kindergarten students’  loneliness, only conflict was significantly correlated with spring loneliness in the present sample of first grade students; and this relationship was no longer significant after accounting of initial fall levels of loneliness, problem behaviours, and other teacher- child relationship variables. It is possible that the relationship between teacher- child relationship quality and student reported loneliness is too weak to remain significant beyond the effect of more prominent, student- level variables, such as problem behaviour. Moreover, because the majority of the items from the LSDQ focus on students’ relationships with peers, this measure may be too narrow to capture teacher’s influence on students’ sense of belonging at school . As with loneliness,  students’ self - reported school liking were weakly correlated with teacher perceptions of teacher- child relationship variables,  69 suggesting that teacher-child relationships were not strong predictors of children’s enjoyment of school.  Although older children may be able to detect teachers’ feelings towards other students (Babad, Bernieri, & Rosenthal, 1991)  and themselves (Mercer & DeRosier, 2010) , young children may be unaware of how they are perceived by their teachers, thereby weakening the link between teacher-perceived relationship quality and student school liking. In line with this, Murray, Murray and Waas (2008) found young children’s and teacher’s reports of teacher-child relationship quality shared low agreement. The authors also found that only student, not teacher, reports  of teacher-child relationship quality predicted student self-reports of school liking. Finally, t he paucity of published reports of the link between teacher-rated relationship quality and student reports of loneliness and school liking may be due to the lack of strong association between these variables among studies of young children.  There were several important design differences between the present study and previous teacher-child relationship studies in which either a moderator or mediator effect was detected. Effects for teacher-child relationships have been found in studies with large sample sizes (i.e., greater than 800 participants;  e.g.,  L. Chang et al., 2008; Hamre & Pianta, 2005; Rudasill et al., 2013; Wang, Brinkworth, & Eccles, 2013) , which increases statistical power to detect significant moderation and/or mediation effects. Also, an objective of the present study was to determine whether teacher-rated relationship variables moderated (or mediated) the relationship between two variables measured by different informants, whereas several of the moderations effects that have been detected in studies in which shared method variance may have been a factor (Baker et al., 2008; Griggs et al., 2009) . It is possible that moderation or mediation effects associated with teacher-child relationships are not strong enough to be readily detected using cross-informant,  70 non-experimental designs. Finally , several of the teacher-child relationship effects found by researchers involved the attenuation of existing behaviour problems at a later time, a design that is fundamentally different from the concurrent, cross-informant model tested here (Maldonado -Carreño & Votruba -Drzal, 2011; Meehan et al., 2003; Silver et al., 2005) . There were also several methodological limitations, discussed in the following section, which may further explain why moderation or mediation effects were not detected.  Limitations  The following limitations qualif y the present findings, but also give rise to avenues for future research. To begin, the effect sizes associated with several of the significant results were very small, and thus may not represent strong, meaningful relationships between the problem behaviours and adjustment outcomes. Also, the violation of several of the assumptions for regression analyses means that the findings from the current sample may not generalize  beyond the sample population.  The variance observed for the dependent measures included in the present study was limited. Indeed, fewer than 8% indicat ed they felt very lonely, and more than 80% of the children sampled recorded the maximum score on a multi-item measure of school liking. On one hand, these findings suggest a positive message with regard to the well-being of the children in the present sample; o n the other hand, the lack of children who were lonely and disliked school presented a challenge when attempting to identify the variables and mechanisms that contribute to school loneliness and liking. The restriction in the range of the data may have been further hampered by the coar s enes s , that is, the limited response set, of the loneliness and school liking measures. The LSDQ and SLAQ were designed for use with young children, and include only  71 three and two response options, respectively. Coarse Likert-type scales limit the response variability, and thus decrease the likelihood of detecting significant effects in regression analyses (Russell & Bobko, 1992) . Limited range also compromises the ability to detect moderation and mediation effects (Frazier et al., 2004; McClelland & Judd, 1993) . Mediation is especially difficult to detect when the relationship between the predictor and mediator is substantially stronger than that between the mediator and outcome, as was the case in the current sample (Frazier et al., 2004) . A larger sample size may have resulted in greater response variability, thereby increasing the ability to detect either moderation or mediation effects. U nfortunately, because this research involved the secondary use of collected data, correcting the issue by oversampling the problem population was not possible.  The use of teacher ratings of both behaviour problems and teacher-child relationship quality may have introduced a degree of rater bias. The use of two teacher-measures as predictors may also have resulted in minor issues of multicollinearity, such that several of the scales may have shared variance with other constructs (e.g., teacher-child conflict, physical aggression). This is not unexpected, given that previous studies have demonstrated that teacher-rated teacher-child relationship quality and children’s  problem behaviours are correlated (Hamre et al., 2008). Nevertheless , multicollinearity can result in inflated standard errors that reduce the accuracy of the beta coefficients, limit the available variance that can be attributed to multiple variables, and make interpretation difficult due to overlapping variables (Field, 2009) . In attempt to rectify the problem, supplemental regressions analyses were conducted by entering the variables separately, but there were no substantial difference in results.   72 The present study lacked a measure of peer relationships. Previous research has shown that peer-rated social functioning is a predictor of both loneliness at school (Mercer & DeRosier, 2008; Parker & Asher, 1993)  and school liking (Kwon, Kim, & Sheridan, 2012) . Accounting for the influence of peer relationships would have strengthened the theoretical foundation of current study.  Lastly, the data herein was concurrent and correlational, which precludes the ability to make causal inferences. Future Directions  The current study provided little to no evidence that teacher-child relationship quality moderated or mediated the relationship between problem behaviours and early school adjustment . Nevertheless, there is a substantial extant body of research that links the quality of teacher-child relationships and a variety of academic and behavioural measures of school adjustment, as well as a growing body of literature that shows that teacher-child relationships also predict students’ social adjustment at school . Experimental and longitudinal studies are necessary to move beyond documenting correlational patterns and begin to explore the causal mechanisms that underlie the associations between teacher-child relationships and important student outcomes.  Interventions studies provide the ideal paradigm for testing models of moderation or mediation as they allow researchers to manipulate mechanisms to affect outcomes, and in the case of randomly-assigned designs, allow for the inference of causal relationships between variables (J. Cohen et al., 2003; McClelland & Judd, 1993; Rose, Holmbeck, Coakley, & Franks, 2004). Compared with the surfeit of cross-sectional studies of teacher-child relationships, there are relatively few intervention studies. There is some evidence that interventions aimed at  73 fostering positive relationships with adults at school benefit students (Anderson, Christenson, Sinclair, & Lehr, 2004) . Banking Time, a simple intervention in which teachers spend non-instructional time together with a target student engaging in activities of interest to the child, has  been linked to improvements in teacher-perceptions of their relationships with targeted students (Driscoll & Pianta, 2010; Driscoll, Wang, Mashburn, & Pianta, 2011) . Somewhat more intensive, the My Teaching Partner (MTP)  is an internet-based,  teacher professional development resource and consultation system designed to enhance teacher-student interactions and improve academic instruction (Pianta, Mashburn, Downer, Hamre, & Justice, 2008) . Results from randomized controlled trials involving preschool and secondary school teachers indicated that participation in the MTP was associated with improved teacher-student interactions and student academic outcomes (Allen, Pianta, Gregory, Mikami, & Lun, 2011; Hamre et al., 2010; Pianta et al., 2008) . There is also a small but growing literature that shows teacher-delivered interventions aimed at ameliorating outcomes for children with problem behaviours have beneficial effects for target and non-target children alike (Mikami, Reuland, Griggs, Jia, & Suldo, 2013; Walker et al., 1998) . Given the proof of principle these data provide , it is surprising that there are not more published studies of teacher-child relationship focused interventions. Intervention studies are key to determining what teacher-child relationship factors (if any) can enhance or exacerbate school adjustment for children, especially children whose early problem behaviours may already have them on a path to later maladjustment. Teacher -focused intervention studies can also serve to answer two critical questions that correlation research cannot: To what degree are teacher-child relationships amenable to intervention, and do these interventions have discernable and meaningful effects on student outcomes?   74 References Achenbach, T. M. (1966). The classification of children’s psychiatric symptoms: A factor-analytic study. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(7), 1–37. doi:10.1037/h0093906 Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. S. (1978). The classification of child psychopathology: A review and analysis of empirical efforts. Psychological Bulletin, 85(6), 1275–1301. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.85.6.1275 Achenbach, T. M., McConaughy, S. H., & Howell, C. T. (1987). Child/adolescent behavioral and emotional problems: Implications of cross-informant correlations for situational specificity. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 213–232. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.213 Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Horsey, C. S. (1997). From first grade forward: Early foundations of high school dropout. Sociology of Education, 70(2), 87–107. doi:10.2307/2673158 Allen, J. P., Pianta, R. C., Gregory, A., Mikami, A. Y., & Lun, J. (2011). An Interaction-Based Approach to Enhancing Secondary School Instruction and Student Achievement. Science, 333(6045), 1034–1037. doi:10.1126/science.1207998 Anderson, A. R., Christenson, S. L., Sinclair, M. F., & Lehr, C. A. (2004). Check & connect: The importance of relationships for promoting engagement with school. Journal of School Psychology, 42(2), 95–113. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2004.01.002 Arbeau, K. A., Coplan, R. J., & Weeks, M. (2010). Shyness, teacher-child relationships, and socio-emotional adjustment in grade 1. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 34(3), 259–269. doi:10.1177/0165025409350959  75 Asher, S. R., Hymel, S., & Renshaw, P. D. (1984). Loneliness in children. Child Development, 55, 1456–1464. doi:10.2307/1130015 Asher, S. R., & Paquette, J. A. (2003). Loneliness and peer relations in childhood. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(3), 75–78. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.01233 Babad, E., Bernieri, F., & Rosenthal, R. (1991). Students as Judges of Teachers’ Verbal and Nonverbal Behavior. American Educational Research Journal , 28(1), 211–234. doi:10.3102/00028312028001211 Baker, J. A. (1999). Teacher-student interaction in urban at-risk classrooms: Differential behavior, relationship quality, and student satisfaction with school. The Elementary School Journal, 100, 57–70. doi:10.1086/461943 Baker, J. A. (2006). Contributions of teacher–child relationships to positive school adjustment during elementary school. Journal of School Psychology, 44(3), 211–229. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2006.02.002 Baker, J. A., Grant, S., & Morlock, L. (2008). The teacher-student relationship as a developmental context for children with internalizing or externalizing behavior problems. School Psychology Quarterly , 23(1), 3–15. doi:10.1037/1045-3830.23.1.3 Barkley, R. A. (2003). Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. In E. J. Mash & R. A. Barkley (Eds.), Child Psychopathology  (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guildford Press. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497  76 Berry, D. (2012). Inhibitory control and teacher–child conflict: Reciprocal associations across the elementary-school years. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 33, 66–76. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2011.10.002 Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1997). The teacher-child relationship and children’s early school adjustment. Journal of School Psychology, 35, 61–79. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.34.5.934 Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1998). Children’s interpersonal behaviors and the teacher–child relationship. Developmental Psychology, 34(5), 934–946. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.34.5.934 Blachman, D. R., & Hinshaw, S. P. (2002). Patterns of friendship among girls with and without attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30(6), 625–640. doi:10.1023/A:1020815814973 Bowerman, B. L., & O’Connell, R. T. (1990). Linear statistical models: An applied approach. Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury. Brendgen, M., Wanner, B., Vitaro, F., Bukowski, W. M., & Tremblay, R. (2007). Verbal abuse by the teacher during childhood and academic, behavioral, and emotional adjustment in young adulthood. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 26–38. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.26 British Columbia Ministry of Education. British Columbia School Act: School Regulations (2013). Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32(7), 513–531. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513  77 Buhs, E. S., & Ladd, G. W. (2001). Peer rejection as antecedent of young children’s school adjustment: An examination of mediating processes. Developmental Psychology, 37(4), 550. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.37.4.550 Buyse, E., Verschueren, K., Verachtert, P., & Van Damme, J. (2009). Predicting school adjustment in early elementary school: Impact of teacher-child relationship quality and relational classroom climate. The Elementary School Journal, 110(2), 119–141. doi:10.1086/605768 Cassidy, J., & Asher, S. R. (1992). Loneliness and peer relations in young children. Child Development, 63(2), 350–365. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1992.tb01632.x Chang, L., Liu, H., Fung, K. Y., Wang, Y., Wen, Z., Li, H., & Farver, J. A. M. (2007). The mediating and moderating effects of teacher preference on the relations between students’ social behaviors and peer acceptance. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 53(4), 603–630. Chang, S.-J., van Witteloostuijn, A., & Eden, L. (2010). From the Editors: Common method variance in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(2), 178–184. doi:10.1057/jibs.2009.88 Chen, X., He, Y., Oliveira, A. M. D., Coco, A. L., Zappulla, C., Kaspar, V., … DeSouza, A. (2004). Loneliness and social adaptation in Brazilian, Canadian, Chinese and Italian children: A multi-national comparative study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(8), 1373–1384. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00329.x Cohen, J. (1983). The cost of dichotomization. Applied Psychological Measurement, 40, 249–253. doi:10.1177/014662168300700301  78 Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates. Cohen, S., & McKay, G. (1984). Social support, stress and the buffering hypothesis: A theoretical analysis. In A. Baum, S. E. Taylor, & J. E. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology and Health (Vol. 4, pp. 253–267). Hillsdale, N.J. Compas, B. E. (1987). Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 101(3), 393. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.101.3.393 Coplan, R. J., Arbeau, K. A., & Armer, M. (2008). Don’t fret, be supportive! Maternal characteristics linking child shyness to psychosocial and school adjustment in kindergarten. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36(3), 359–371. doi:10.1007/s10802-007-9183-7 Coplan, R. J., Closson, L. M., & Arbeau, K. A. (2007). Gender differences in the behavioral associates of loneliness and social dissatisfaction in kindergarten. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48(10), 988–995. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01804.x Coplan, R. J., Hughes, K., Bosacki, S., & Rose-Krasnor, L. (2011). Is silence golden? Elementary school teachers’ strategies and beliefs regarding hypothetical shy/quiet and exuberant/talkative children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(4), 939–951. doi:10.1037/a0024551 Coplan, R. J., & Prakash, K. (2003). Spending time with teacher: Characteristics of preschoolers who frequently elicit versus initiate interactions with teachers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18(1), 143–158. doi:10.1016/S0885-2006(03)00009-7  79 Crick, N. R., Bigbee, M. A., & Howes, C. (1996). Gender differences in children’s normative beliefs about aggression: How do I hurt thee? Let me count t he ways. Child Development, 67(3), 1003–1014. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01779.x Crick, N. R., Casas, J. F., & Mosher, M. (1997). Relational and overt aggression in preschool. Developmental Psychology, 33(4), 579–588. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.33.4.579 Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social -psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66(3), 710–722. doi:10.2307/1131945 Crick, N. R., & Nelson, D. A. (2002). Relational and physical victimization within friendships: Nobody told me there’d be friends like these. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30(6), 599–607. doi:10.1023/A:1020811714064 Decker, D. M., Dona, D. P., & Christenson, S. L. (2007). Behaviorally at-risk African American students: The importance of student–teacher relationships for student outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 45(1), 83–109. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2006.09.004 Diamantopoulou, S. (2005). ADHD symptoms and peer relations of children in a community sample: Examining associated problems, self-perceptions, and gender differences. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29(5), 388–398. doi:10.1177/01650250500172756 Dodge, K. A., Lansford, J. E., Burks, V. S., Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S., Fontaine, R., & Price, J. M. (2003). Peer rejection and social information-processing factors in the development of aggressive behavior problems in children. Child Development, 74(2), 374–393.  80 Donohue, K. M., Perry, K. E., & Weinstein, R. S. (2003). Teachers’ classroom practices and children’s rejection by their peers. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 24(1), 91–118. doi:10.1016/S0193-3973(03)00026-1 Driscoll, K. C., & Pianta, R. C. (2010). Banking Time in Head Start: Early Efficacy of an Intervention Designed to Promote Supportive Teacher–Child Relationships. Early Education & Development , 21 (1), 38–64. doi:10.1080/10409280802657449 Driscoll, K. C., Wang, L., Mashburn, A. J., & Pianta, R. C. (2011). Fostering Supportive Teacher–Child Relationships: Intervention Implementation in a State-Funded Preschool Program. Early Education & Development , 22(4), 593–619. doi:10.1080/10409289.2010.502015 Evans, M.-A. (2010). Language, performance, academic performance, and signs of shyness. In K. H. Rubin & R. J. Coplan (Eds.), The Development of Shyness and Soc ial Withdrawal  (pp. 172–212). New York, NY: Guildford Press. Farmer, T. W., McAuliffe, M., & Hamm, J. V. (2011). Revealing the invisible hand: The role of teachers in children’s peer experiences. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32, 247–256. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2011.04.006 Field, A. P. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research , 59(2), 117–142. doi:10.3102/00346543059002117 Flanders, N. A., & Havumaki, S. (1960). The effect of teacher-pupil contacts involving praise on the sociometric choices of students. Journal of Educational Psychology , 51 (2), 65–68. doi:10.1037/h0040534  81 Fraire, M., Longobardi, C., & Sclavo, E. (2008). Contribution to validation of the student-teacher relationship scale (STRS Italian Version) in the Italian education setting. European Journal of Education and Psychology , 1 (3), 49–59. Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51 (1), 115–134. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.51.1.115 Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review o f Educational Research , 74(1), 59–109. doi:10.3102/00346543074001059 Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology , 95(1), 148–162. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.148 Galanaki, E. P. (2004). Are children able to distinguish among the concepts of aloneness, loneliness, and solitude? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28 (5), 435–443. doi:10.1080/01650250444000153 Galanaki, E. P., Polychronopoulou, S. A., & Babalis, T. K. (2008). Loneliness and social dissatisfaction among behaviourally at-risk children. School Psychology International, 29(2), 214–229. doi:10.1177/0143034308090061 Gazelle, H., & Ladd, G. W. (2003). Anxious solitude and peer exclusion: A diathesis–stress model of internalizing trajectories in childhood. Child Development, 74(1), 257–278. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00534  82 Gest, S. D., Welsh, J. A., & Domitrovich, C. E. (2005). Behavioral predictors of changes in social relatedness and liking school in elementary school. Journal of School Psychology, 43(4), 281–301. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2005.06.002 Griggs, M. S., Gagnon, S. G., Huelsman, T. J., Kidder -Ashley, P., & Ballard, M. (2009). Student-teacher relationships matter: Moderating influences between temperament and preschool social competence. Psychology in the Schools, 46 (6), 553–567. doi:10.1002/pits.20397 Hammarberg, A., & Hagekull, B. (2006). Changes in externalizing and internalizing behaviours over a school-year: Differences between 6-year-old boys and girls. Infant and Child Development, 15 (2), 123–137. doi:10.1002/icd.444 Hamre, B. K., Justice, L. M., Pianta, R. C., Kilday, C., Sweeney, B., Downer, J. T., & Leach, A. (2010). Implementation fidelity of MyTeachingPartner literacy and language activities: Association with preschoolers’ language and literacy growth. Early Childhood Research Quarterly , 25(3), 329–347. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.07.002  Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher –child relationships and the trajectory of children’s school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72 (2), 625–638. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00301 Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2005). Can instructional and emotional support in the first -grade classroom make a difference for children at risk of school failure? Child Development, 76 (5), 949–967. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00889.x  83 Hamre, B. K., Pianta, R. C., Downer, J. T., & Mashburn, A. J. (2008). Teachers’ perceptions of conflict with young students: Looking beyond problem behaviors. Social Development, 17, 115–136. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00418.x Harris, J. D. (2009). The nurture assumption: Why children turn out the way they do. New York: Free Press. Hawkley, L. C., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2010). Loneliness matters: A theoretical and em pirical review of consequences and mechanisms. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 40(2), 218–227. doi:10.1007/s12160-010-9210-8 Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408–420. doi:10.1080/03637750903310360 Heiman, T. (2005). An examination of peer relationships of children with and without attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. School Psychology International, 26(3), 330–339. doi:10.1177/0143034305055977 Henricsson, L., & Rydell, A. M. (2004). Elementary school children with behavior problems: Teacher-child relations and self-perception. A prospective study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50(2), 111–138. doi:10.1353/mpq.2004.0012  Hinshaw, S. P. (1992). Externalizing behavi or problems and academic underachievement in childhood and adolescence: Causal relationships and underlying mechanisms. Psychological Bulletin, 111(1), 127–155. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.111.1.127  84 Hodgens, J. B., Cole, J., & Boldizar, J. (2000). Peer-based differences among boys with ADHD. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29(3), 443–452. doi:10.1207/S15374424JCCP2903_15 Horney, K. (1992). Our inner conflicts: A constructive theory of neurosis. New York: Norton. Howes, C., Phillipsen, L. C., & Peisner-Feinberg, E. (2000). The consistency of perceived teacher–child relationships between preschool and kindergarten. Journal of School Psychology, 38(2), 113–132. doi:10.1016/S0022-4405(99)00044-8 Hoza, B., Bukowski, W. M., & Beery, S. (2000). Assessing peer network and dyadic loneliness. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29, 119–128. doi:10.1207/S15374424jccp2901_12 Hoza, B., Gerdes, A. C., Hinshaw, S. P., Arnold, L. E., Pelham, W. E., Jr., Molina, B. S. G., … Wigal, T. (2004). Self-perceptions of competence in children with ADHD and comparison children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72(3), 382–391. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.72.3.382 Hoza, B., Mrug, S., Gerdes, A. C., Hinshaw, S. P., Bukowski, W. M., Gold, J. A., … Arnold, L. E. (2005). What aspects of peer relationships are impaired in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(3), 411–423. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.73.3.411 Hughes, J. N., Wu, J.-Y., Kwok, O., Villarreal, V., & Johnson, A. Y. (2012). Indirect effects of child reports of teacher–student relationship on achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(2), 350–365. doi:10.1037/a0026339  85 Hughes, K., Bullock, A., & Coplan, R. J. (2013). A person-centred analysis of teacher-child relationships in early childhood. British Journal of Educational Psychology , 1–15. doi:10.1111/bjep.12029 Hymel, S., Bowker, A., & Woody, E. (1993). Aggressive versus withdrawn unpopular children: Variations in peer and self-perceptions in multiple domains. Child Development , 64 (3), 879–896. doi:10.2307/1131224 Hymel, S., Rubin, K. H., Rowden, L., & LeMare, L. (1990). Children’s peer relationships: Longitudinal prediction of internalizing and externalizing problems from middle to late childhood. Child Dev elopment, 61 (6), 2004–2021. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1990.tb03582.x Hymel, S., Tarulli, D., Thompson, L. H., & Terrell -Deutsch, B. (1999). Loneliness through the eyes of children. In K. J. Rotenberg & S. Hymel (Eds.), Loneliness in childhood and adolescence (pp. 80–106). Cambridge, MASS: Cambridge University Press.  Jerome, E. M., Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2009). Teacher-child relationships from kindergarten to sixth grade: Early childhood predictors of teacher-perceived conflict and closeness. Social De velopment, 18 (4), 915–945. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00508.x Justice, L. M., Cottone, E. A., Mashburn, A., & Rimm-Kaufman, S. E. (2008). Relationships between teachers and preschoolers who are at risk: Contribution of children’s language skills, temperamentally based attributes, and gender. Early Education and Development , 19 (4), 600–621. doi:10.1080/104092802231021  86 Kalil, A., & Ziol-Guest, K. M. (2007). Teacher support, school goal structures, and teenage mothers’ school engagement. Youth & Society , 39 (4), 524–548. doi:10.1177/0044118X07301001 Kennedy, D., Lakonishok, J., & Shaw, W. H. (1992). Accommodating outliers and nonlinearity in decision models. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance , 7(2), 161–190. doi:10.1177/0148558X9200700205 Kingery, J. N., Erdley, C. A., & Marshall, K. C. (2011). Peer acceptance and friendship as predictors of early adolescents’ adjustment across the middle school transition. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 57(3), 215–243. doi:10.1353/mpq.2011.0012 Koepke, M. F., & Harkins, D. A. (2008). Conflict in the classroom: Gender differences in the teacher–child relationship. Early Education & Development , 19 (6), 843–864. doi:10.1080/10409280802516108 Kupersmidt, J. B., & Coie, J. D. (1990). Preadolescent peer status, aggression, and school adjustment as predictors of externalizing problems in adolescence. Child Development, 61(5), 1350–1362. doi:10.2307/1130747 Kwon, K., Kim, E. M., & Sheridan, S. M. (2012). A contextual approach to social skills assessment in the peer group: Who is the best judge? School Psychology Quarterly, 27(3), 121–133. doi:10.1037/a0028696 Ladd, G. W. (1989). Children’s social competence and social supports: Precursors of early school adjustment? In B. H. Schneider, G. Attili, J. Nadel, & R. Weissberg (Eds.), Social competence in developmental perspective (pp. 277–291). Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishers.  87 Ladd, G. W., Birch, S. H., & Buhs, E. S. (1999). Children’s social and scholastic lives in kindergarten: Related spheres of influence? Child Development, 70 (6), 1373–1400. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00101 Ladd, G. W., Buhs, E. S., & Seid, M. (2000). Children’s initial sentiments about kindergarten: Is school liking an antecedent of early classroom participation and achievement? Merrill -Palmer Quarterly , 46 , 255–279. Ladd, G. W., & Burgess, K. B. (1999). Charting the relationship trajectories of aggressive, withdrawn, and aggressive/withdrawn children during early grade school. Child Development, 70 (4), 910–929. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00066 Ladd, G. W., & Burgess, K. B. (2001). Do relational risks and protective factors moderate the linkages between childhood aggression and early psychological and school adjustment? Child Development, 72 (5), 1579–1601. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00366 Ladd, G. W., & Coleman, C. C. (1997). Children’s classroom peer relationships and early school attitudes: Concurrent and longitudinal associations. Early Education & Development , 8 (1), 51–66. doi:10.1207/s15566935eed0801_5 Ladd, G. W., & Dinella, L. M. (2009). Continuity and change in early school engagement: Predictive of children’s achievement trajectories from first to eighth grade? Journal of Educational Psychology, 101 (1), 190–206. doi:10.1037/a0013153 Ladd, G. W., Kochenderfer, B. J., & Coleman, C. C. (1996). Friendship quality as a predictor of young children’s early school adjustment. Child Development, 67 , 1103–1118. doi:10.2307/1131882  88 Ladd, G. W., Kochenderfer, B. J., & Coleman, C. C. (1997). Classroom peer acceptance, friendship, and victimization: Distinct relational systems that contrib ute uniquely to children’s school adjustment? Child Development, 68 , 1181–1197. doi:10.2307/1132300 Ladd, G. W., & Price, J. M. (1987). Predicting children’s social and school adjustment following the transition from preschool to kindergarten. Child Development, 58 , 1168–1189. doi:10.2307/1130613 Ladd, G. W., & Troop -Gordon, W. (2003). The role of chronic peer difficulties in the development of children’s psychological adjustment problems. Child Development, 74(5), 1344–1367. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00611 Lasgaard, M., Goossens, L., & Elklit, A. (2011). Loneliness, depressive symptomatology, and suicide ideation in adolescence: Cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 39(1), 137–150. doi:10.1007/s10802-010-9442-x  Libbey, H. P. (2004). Measuring student relationships to school: Attachment, bonding, connectedness, and engagement. Journal of School Health , 74(7), 274–283. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2004.tb08284.x  Liepins, M., & Cline, T. (2011). The development of concepts of l oneliness during the early years in school. School Psychology International, 32(4), 397–411. doi:10.1177/0143034311404132 Lynch, M., & Cicchetti, D. (1997). Children’s relationships with adults and peers: An examination of elementary and junior high school  students. Journal of School Psychology, 35(1), 81–99. doi:10.1016/S0022-4405(96)00031-3  89 Ma, X. (2003). Sense of belonging to school: Can schools make a difference? The Journal of Educational Research , 96 (6), 340–349. doi:10.1080/00220670309596617 Maldonado-Carreño, C., & Votruba -Drzal, E. (2011). Teacher -child relationships and the development of academic and behavioral skills during elementary school: A within- and between-child analysis. Child Development, 82 , 601–616. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01533.x Mash, E. J., & Barkley, R. A. (Eds.). (2003). Child psychopathology (2nd ed.). New York: Gilford Press. McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin , 114 (2), 376. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.114.2.376 Meehan, B. T., Hughes, J. N., & Cavell, T. A. (2003). Teacher –student relationships as compensatory resources for aggressive children. Child Development, 74 (4), 1145–1157. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00598 Mercer, S. H., & DeRosier, M. E. (2008). Teacher preference, peer rejection, and student aggression: A prospective study of transactional influence and independent contributions to emotional adjustment and grades. Journal of School Psychology, 46 (6), 661–685. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2008.06.006 Mercer, S. H., & DeRosier, M. E. (2010). A prospective investigation of teacher preference and children’s perceptions of the student–teacher relationship. Psychology in the Schools, 47 (2), 184–192. doi:10.1002/pits.20463  90 Mikami, A. Y., Griggs, M. S., Reuland, M. M., & Gregory, A. (2012). Teacher practices as predictors of children’s classroom social preference. Journal of School Psychology, 50 (1), 95–111. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2011.08.002 Mikami, A. Y., Reuland, M. M., Griggs, M. S., Jia, M., & Suld o, S. (2013). Collateral effects of a peer relationship intervention for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder on typically developing classmates. School Psychology Review , 42 (4), 458–476. Murray, C., Murray, K. M., & Waas, G. A. (2008). Children and teacher reports of teacher-student relationships: Concordance of perspectives and associations with school adjustment in urban kindergarten classrooms. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29 , 49–61. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2007.10.006  Nangle, D. W., Erdley, C. A., Newman, J. E., Mason, C. A., & Carpenter, E. M. (2003). Popularity, friendship quantity, and friendship quality: Interactive influences on children’s loneliness and depression. Journal of Clinical and Adolescent Psychology, 32 , 546–555. doi:10.1207/S15374424JCCP3204_7  Nelson, L. J., Rubin, K. H., & Fox, N. A. (2005). Social withdrawal, observed peer acceptance, and the development of self -perceptions in children ages 4 to 7 years. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20 (2), 185–200. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2005.04.007 Newcombe, A. F., Bukowski, W. M., & Pattee, L. (1993). Children’s peer relations: A meta-analytic review of popular, rejected, neglected, controversial, and average sociometric status. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 99–128. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.113.1.99 Normand, S., Schneider, B. H., Lee, M. D., Maisonneuve, M. -F., Kuehn, S. M., & Robaey, P. (2010). How do children with ADHD (mis)manage their real-life dyadic friendships? A  91 multi-method investigation. Journal of Abnormal Ch ild Psychology, 39 , 293–305. doi:10.1007/s10802-010-9450-x O’Connor, E. E., Dearing, E., & Collins, B. A. (2011). Teacher -child relationship and behavior problem trajectories in elementary school. American Educational Research Journal , 48 (1), 120–162. doi:10.3102/0002831210365008 O’Connor, E. E., & McCartney, K. (2007). Examining Teacher -Child Relationships and Achievement as Part of an Ecological Model of Development. American Educational Research Journal , 44(2), 340–369. doi:10.3102/0002831207302172 Ohan,  J. L., & Johnston, C. (2002). Are the performance overestimates given by boys with ADHD self-protective? Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 31(2), 230–241. doi:10.1207/153744202753604502 Osborne, J. W. (2010). Improving your data transformations: Apply ing the Box-Cox transformation. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation , 15(12), 1–9. Osterman, K. F. (2000). Students’ need for belonging in the school community. Review of Educational Research , 70(3), 323–367. doi:10.3102/00346543070003323 Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1993). Friendship and friendship quality in middle childhood: Links with peer group acceptance and feelings of loneliness and social dissatisfaction. Developmental Psychology, 29 (4), 611–621. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.29.4.611 Parkhurst, J. T., & Asher, S. R. (1992). Peer rejection in middle school: Subgroup differences in behavior, loneliness, and interpersonal concerns. Developmental Psychology, 28 (2), 231–241. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.28.2.231  92 Parkhurst, J. T., & Hopmeyer, A. (1999). Developmental change in the sources of loneliness in childhood and adolescence: Constructing a theoretical model. In K. J. Rotenberg & S. Hymel (Eds.), Loneliness in Childhood and Adolescence  (pp. 56–79). Cambridge, MASS: Cambridge University Press.  Pedersen, S., Vitaro, F., Barker, E. D., & Borge, A. I. (2007). The timing of middle-childhood peer rejection and friendship: Linking early behavior to early-adolescent adjustment. Child Development , 78(4), 1037–1051. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01051.x Pelham, W. E. , & Bender, M. E. (1982). Peer relationships in hyperactive children: Description and treatment. In K. D. Gadow & I. Bialer (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavior disabilities  (Vol. 1, pp. 365–436). Greenwich: JAI. Peña, E. D. (2007). Lost in translatio n: Methodological considerations in cross-cultural research. Child Development , 78(4), 1255–1264. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01064.x Perren, S., & Alsaker, F. D. (2006). Social behavior and peer relationships of victims, bully-victims, and bullies in kindergarten. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47(1), 45–57. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01445.x Pianta, R. C. (1999). Enhancing relationships between children and teachers . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Pianta, R. C. (2001). Student- teacher relationship scale . Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Pianta, R. C., Mashburn, A. J., Downer, J. T., Hamre, B. K., & Justice, L. (2008). Effects of web-mediated professional development resources on teacher–child interactions in pre- 93 kindergarten classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23(4), 431–451. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2008.02.001 Pianta, R. C., Steinberg, M. S., & Rollins, K. B. (1995). The first two years of school: Teacher -child relationships and deflections in children’s classroom adjustment. Development and Psychopathology, 7(2), 295–312. doi:10.1017/S0954579400006519 Pianta, R. C., & Stuhlman, M. W. (2004). Teacher -child relationships and children’s success in the first years of school. School Psychology Review, 33(3), 444–458. Pigott, T. D. (2001). A review of methods for missing data. Educational Research and Evaluation, 7(4), 353–383. doi:10.1076/edre.7.4.353.8937 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. -Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effect s in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 717–731. doi:10.3758/BF03206553 Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879 Prinstein, M. J., & Cillessen, A. H. (2003). Forms and functions of adolescent peer aggression associated with high levels of peer status. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49(3), 310–342. doi:10.1353/mpq.2003.0015  94 Qualter, P., Brown, S. L., Munn, P., & Rotenberg, K. J. (2010). Childhood loneliness as a predictor of adolescent depressive symptoms: An 8-year longitudinal study. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 19(6), 493–501. doi:10.1007/s00787-009-0059-y Qualter, P., & Munn, P. (2002). The separateness of social and emotional loneliness in childhood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43(2), 233–244. doi:10.1111/1469-7610.00016 Qualter, P., & Munn, P. (2005). The fri endships and play partners of lonely children. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(3), 379–397. doi:10.1177/0265407505052442 Ramey, S. L., Lanzi, R. G., Phillips, M. M., & Ramey, C. T. (1998). Perspectives of former head start children and their parents on school and the transition to school. The Elementary School Journal, 98, 311–327. doi:10.1086/461898 Renshaw, P. D., & Brown, P. J. (1993). Loneliness in middle childhood: Concurrent and longitudinal predictors. Child Development, 64(4), 1271–1284. doi:10.2307/1131339 Roorda, D. L., Koomen, H. M. Y., Spilt, J. L., & Oort, F. J. (2011). The influence of affective teacher-student relationships on students’ school engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic approach. Review of Educational Research, 82(4), 493–529. doi:10.3102/0034654311421793 Rose, B. M., Holmbeck, G. N., Coakley, R. M., & Franks, E. A. (2004). Mediator and moderator effects in developmental and behavioral pediatric research. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 25(1), 58–67. doi:10.1097/00004703-200402000-00013  95 Rubin, K. H., Burgess, K. B., Kennedy, A. E., & Stewart, S. L. (2003). Social withdrawal in childhood. In Child Psychopathology (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guildford Press. Rubin, K. H., Chen, X., & Hymel, S. (1993 ). Socioemotional characteristics of withdrawn and aggressive children. Merrill - Palmer Quarterly, 39 (4), 518–534. Rubin, K. H., Coplan, R. J., & Bowker, J. C. (2009). Social withdrawal in childhood. Annual Review of Psychology , 60(1), 141–171. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163642 Rubin, K. H., Hymel, S., & Mills, R. S. L. (1989). Sociability and social withdrawal in childhood: Stability and outcomes. Journal of Personality, 57 , 237–255. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1989.tb00482.x Rubin, K. H., Wojslawowicz , J. C., Rose-Krasnor, L., Booth-LaForce, C., & Burgess, K. B. (2006). The Best Friendships of Shy/Withdrawn Children: Prevalence, Stability, and Relationship Quality. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34(2), 139–153. doi:10.1007/s10802-005-9017-4 Rudasill, K. M., Niehaus, K., Buhs, E., & White, J. M. (2013). Temperament in early childhood and peer interactions in third grade: The role of teacher–child relationships in early elementary grades. Journal of School Psychology . doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2013.08.002 Russell, C. J., & Bobko, P. (1992). Moderated regression analysis and Likert scales: too coarse for comfort. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77 (3), 336. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.77.3.336 Rydell, A.-M., Bohlin, G., & Thorell, L. B. (2005). Representations of attachment to parents and shyness as predictors of children’s relationships with teachers and peer competence in  96 preschool. Attachment & Human Development , 7 (2), 187–204. doi:10.1080/14616730500134282 Schlomer, G. L., Bauman, S., & Card, N. A. (2010). Best p ractices for missing data management in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57 (1), 1–10. doi:10.1037/a0018082 Schmuck, R. A. (1968). Helping teachers improve classroom group processes. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science , 4(4), 401–435. doi:10.1177/002188636800400402 Schneider, B. H., Manetti, M., Frattini, L., Rania, N., Santo, J. B., Coplan, R. J., & Cwinn, E. (2013). Successful transition to elementary school and the implementation of facilitative practices specified in the Reggio-Emilia philosophy. School Psychology International , 1–16. doi:10.1177/0143034313511003 Sciutto, M. J., Nolfi, C. J., & Bluhm, C. (2004). Effects of child gender and symptom type on referrals for ADHD by elementary school teachers. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders , 12 (4), 247–253. doi:10.1177/10634266040120040501 Sette, S., Spinrad, T. L., & Baumgartner, E. (2013). Links among Italian preschoolers’ socioemotional competence, teacher–child relationship quality, and peer acceptance. Early Education & Development , 24 (6), 851–864. doi:10.1080/10409289.2013.744684 Silver, R. B., Measelle, J. R., Armstrong, J. M., & Essex, M. J. (2005). Trajectories of classroom externalizing behavior: Contributions of child characteristics, family characteristics,  and the teacher–child relationship during the school transition. Journal of School Psychology , 43(1), 39–60. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2004.11.003  97 Smith, J. (2011). Measuring school engagement: A longitudinal evaluation of the school liking and avoidance question naire from kindergarten through sixth grade . Arizona State University, AZ. Retrieved from http://repository.asu.edu/attachments/56844/content/Smith_asu_0010N_10812.pdf  Stanger, C., & Lewis, M. (1993). Agreement among parents, teachers, and children on internalizing and externalizing problems. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 22 , 107–115. doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp2201_11  Statistics Canada. (2009). National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth. Statistics Canada. Stormshak, E. A., Bierman, K. L., Bruschi, C., Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (1999). The relation between behavior problems and peer preference in different classroom contexts. Child Development , 70 (1), 169–182. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00013 Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The Interpersonal Theory of Ps ychiatry. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Terrell-Deutsch, B. (1999). The conceptualization and measurement of childhood loneliness. In K. J. Rotenberg & S. Hymel (Eds.), Loneliness in childhood and adolescence  (pp. 11–33). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Unive rsity Press. Tomada, G., Schneider, B., de Domini, P., Greenman, P., & Fonzi, A. (2005). Friendship as a predictor of adjustment following a transition to formal academic instruction and evaluation. International Journal of Behavioral Development , 29 (4), 314–322. doi:10.1080/01650250544000099  98 Tomada, G., & Schneider, B. H. (1997). Relational aggression, gender, and peer acceptance: Invariance across culture, stability over time, and concordance among informants. Developmental Psychology, 33(4), 601–609. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.33.4.601 Troop-Gordon, W., & Kopp, J. (2011). Teacher -Child relationship quality and children’s peer victimization and aggressive behavior in late childhood. Social Development, 20(3), 536–561. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2011.00604.x Troop-Gordon, W., & Kuntz, K. J. (2013). The unique and interactive contributions of peer victimization and teacher -child relationships to children’s school adjustment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41(8), 1191–1202. doi:10.1007/s10802-013-9776-2 Vaillancourt, T., & Hymel, S. (2006). Aggression and social status: The moderating roles of sex and peer-valued characteristics. Aggressive Behavior, 32(4), 396–408. doi:10.1002/ab.20138 Walcott, C. M., & Landau, S. (2004). The relation between disinhibition and emotion regulation in boys with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33(4), 772–782. doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp3304_12  Walker, H. M., Kavanagh, K., Stiller, B., Golly, A., Severson, H. H., & Feil, E.  G. (1998). First step to success: An early intervention approach for preventing school antisocial behavior. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 6(2), 66–80. doi:10.1177/106342669800600201  99 Wang, M.-T., Brinkworth, M., & Eccles, J. (2013). Moderating effects of teacher–student relationship in adolescent trajectories of emotional and behavioral adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 49(4), 690–705. doi:10.1037/a0027916 Weeks, M., Coplan, R. J., & Kingsbury, A. (2009). The correlates and consequences of early appearing social anxiety in young children. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 23(7), 965–972. doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2009.06.006 Weiss, R. S. (1973). Loneliness: The experience of emotional and social isolation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Whalen, C. K., & Henker, B. (1985). The social worlds of hyperactive (ADDH) children. Clinical Psychology Review, 5(5), 447–478. doi:10.1016/0272-7358(85)90004-2 Whalen, C. K., Henker, B., & Dotemoto, S. (1980). Methylphenidate and hyperactivity: Effects on teacher behaviors. Science, 208, 1280–1282. doi:10.1126/science.7375940 White, K. J., & Jones, K. (2000). Effects of teacher feedback on the reputations and peer perceptions of children with behavior problems. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 76(4), 302–326. doi:10.1006/jecp.1999.2552 White, K. J., Jones, K., & Sherman, M. D. (1998). Reputation information and teacher feedback: Their influences on children’s perceptions of behavior problem peers. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 17(1), 11–37. doi:10.1521/jscp.1998.17.1.11 White, K. J., & Kistner, J. (1992). The influence of teacher feedback on young children’s peer preferences and perceptions. Developmental Psychology, 28(5), 933–940. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.28.5.933  100 White, K. J., Sherman, M. D., & Jones, K. (1996). Children’s perceptions of behavior problem peers: Effects of teacher feedback and peer -reputed status. Journal of School Psychology , 34 (1), 53 – 72. doi:10.1016/0022-4405(95)00025-9 Youngblade, L. M., Berlin, L. J., & Belsky, J. (1999). Con nections among loneliness, the ability to be alone, and peer relationships in young children. In K. J. Rotenberg & S. Hymel (Eds.), Loneliness in childhood and adolescence . Cambridge, MASS: Cambridge University Press.  Younger, A. J., & Boyko, K. A. (1987).  Aggression and withdrawal as social schemas underlying children’s peer perceptions. Child Development , 58 (4), 1094– 1100. doi:10.2307/1130549      101 Appendices Appendix A: Loneliness and Social Dissatisfaction Questionnaire (LSDQ) Loneliness and Social Dissat isfaction Questionnaire (LSDQ)  Inform the child that you are “interested in what kids do and how they feel when they are at school.” Ask the child to respond to each question with a “ yes ”, “ no”, or “ sometimes ”.  1. Is it easy for you to make new friends at sch ool?  2. Do you like to hear stories?  3. Do you have other kids to talk to at school?  4. Are you good at working with other kids at school?  5. Do you watch T.V. a lot?  6. Is it hard for you to make friends at school?  7. Do you like school?  8. Do you have lots of friends at school?  9. Do you feel alone at school?  10.  Can you find a friend when you need one?  11.  Do you play outside a lot?  12.  Is it hard to get kids in school to like you?  13.  Do you like to learn about dinosaurs?  14.  Do you have kids to play with at school?  15.  Do you like  singing songs?  16.  Do you get along with other kids at school?  17.  Do you feel left out of things at school?  18.  Are there kids you can go to when you need help in school?  19.  Do you like to paint and draw?  20.  Is it hard for you to get along with the kids at school ?  21.  Are you lonely at school?  22.  Do the kids at school like you?  23.  Do you like playing games?  24.  Do you have friends at school?   * Ask the child if they know what lonely means and if yes, to tell you what it means before asking this question. Tell them that lonely means “feeling sad and alone”.     102 Appendix B: School Liking and Avoidance Questionnaire (SLAQ) School Liking and Avoidance Questionnaire (SLAQ) Tell your child that she and "interested in knowing how children behave and how they feel when they are in school." Ask your child to answer every question with a "yes", "no" or "sometimes. "  No Sometimes Yes Is it easy for you to make friends at school?     Do you like fairy tales?    Do you have other children to talk to at school?     Do you like working with other kids at school?    Do you watch a lot of TV?    It is hard to make friends at school?    Do you like school?    Do you have lots of friends at school?    Do you feel lonely at school?    Can you find a friend when you need one?    Do you often play outdoors?    Do you have a hard time being liked by the other kids at school?    Do you like to learn about dinosaurs?    Are there kids who will play with you at school?    Do you like to sing?    Do you get along with other children at school?    Do you feel left out at school?    Are there children you can get help from at school?    Do you like to paint and draw?    Is it hard to get along with other kids at school?    Are you alone at school?    Are there children like you at school?    Do you like to play?    Do you have friends at school?     * Ask your child if he knows what it means to be lonely and if you answer yes, ask him to explain what it means before you ask this question. Tell them that the term solitary means "to feel sad and alone."    103 Appendix C: Child Behavior Problems Questionnaire  (CBPQ)  Child Behavior Problems Questionnaire from NLSCY  (CBPQ)  Following is a series of descriptions of behaviours often shown by children. If the child shows the behaviour described by the statement frequently or to a great degree, place an "X" in the space under "Certainly Applies." If the child shows behaviour described by the statement to a lesser degree, place an "X" in the space under "Applies Sometimes." If, as far as you are a ware, the child does not show the behaviour, place an "X" in the space under "Doesn't Apply." Please put ONE "X" for EACH statement.   Rate each item on 5 point scale:   Doesn’t Apply Applies Certainly applies Sometimes Applies Always applies 1. Will try to help someone who has been hurt.      2. Volunteers to help clear up a mess someone else has made.      3. If there is a quarrel or dispute, will try to stop it.      4. Offers to help other children who are having difficulty with a task.      5. Comforts a child who is crying or upset.      6. Spontaneously helps to pick up objects which another child has dropped.      7. Will invite bystanders to join a game.       8. Helps other children who are feeling sick.      9. Takes the opportunity to praise the work of less able children.      10. Is worried.      11. Cries a lot.       12.  Appears miserable, unhappy, tearful, or distressed.      13.  Is nervous, highstrung, or tense.        104 14.  Has trouble enjoying him/herself.      15. Gets into many fights.       16.  When another child accidentally hurts him/her, assumes that the other child meant to do it and then reacts with anger and fighting.      17.  Physically attacks people.       18.  Is cruel, bullies or is mean to others.       19.  Kicks, bites, hits other children.      20. Can’t sit still, is restless of hyperactive.       21.  Is distractible, has trouble sticking to any activity.       22.  Fidgets.      23.  Can’t concentrate, can’t pay attention for long.      24.  Is impulsive, acts without thinking.       25.  Has difficulty awaiting turn in groups.       26.  Cannot settle into anything for more than a few moments.       27.  Is inattentive       28. Difficult to feed      29. When mad at someone, tries to get others to dislike that person.      30.  When mad at someone, becomes friends with another as revenge.       31.  When mad at someone, says bad things behind other’s back.      32.  When mad at someone, says to others: let’s not be with him/her.       33.  When mad at someone,, tells the other one’s secret to a third person      34.  Destroys his/her own things.        105 35.  Steals at home.      36.  Destroys things belonging to family or other children.       37.  Tells lies or cheats.       38.  Vandalizes.          106 Appendix D: Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS) Student -Teacher Relationship Scale  (STRS)  Please  reflect on the degree to which each of the following statements occurs frequently in the relationship with this boy/girl. Please answer the  questions by filling in the corresponding box  on a scale from 1 (=occurs never) to 5 (= definitely occurs).   Occurs never Does not really occur Neutral/Not sure Occurs sometimes Definitely occurs 1. I share an affectionate, warm relationship with this child.      2. This child and I always see to be struggling with each other.      3. If upset, this child will seek comfort from me.      4. This child is uncomfortable with physical affection or touch from me.       5. This child values his/her relationship with me.      6. This child appears hurt or embarrassed when I correct him/her.      7. When I praise this child, he/she beams with pride.      8. This child reacts strongly to separation from me.      9. This child spontaneously shares information about himself/herself.       10. This child is overly dependent on me.      11. This child easily becomes angry with me.      12. This child tries to please me      13. This child feels that I treat him/her unfairly.      14. This child asks for my help when he/she really does not need help.       107  15.  It is easy to be in tune with what this child is feeling.      16.  This child sees me as a source of punishment and criticism.      17.  This child expresses hurt or jealousy when I spend time with other children.      18.  This child remains angry or is resistant after being disciplined.      19.  When this child is misbehaving, he/she responds well to my look or tone of voice.      20. Dealing with this child drains my energy.      21. I’ve noticed this child copying my behaviour or ways of doing things.      22. When this child is in a bad mood, I know we’re in for a long and difficult day.      23.  This child’s feelings towards me can be unpredictable or can change suddenly.       24.  Despite my best efforts, I’m uncomfortable with how this child and I are getting along.      25.  This child whines or cries when he/she wants something from me.      26.  This child is sneaky or manipulative with me.      27.  This child is openly shares his/her feelings and experiences with me.      28.  My interactions with this child make me feel effective and confident.        

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0103405/manifest

Comment

Related Items