Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Social skills training with learning disabled students : a preventative approach Elliott, Patricia Margaret 1988

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

Item Metadata


831-UBC_1988_A8 E44.pdf [ 5.93MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0055909.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055909-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055909-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055909-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055909-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055909-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055909-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

SOCIAL SKILLS TRAINING WITH LEARNING DISABLED STUDENTS: A PREVENTATIVE APPROACH by  PATRICIA MARGARET ELLIOTT B.Ed.  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, 1983  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE  REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in  THE  FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES  (DEPARTMENT OF COUNSELLING PSYCHOLOGY)  We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d  THE  standard  UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1988  Copyright  P a t r i c i a Margaret  Elliott  In presenting  this thesis in partial fulfilment  of the  requirements for an advanced  degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department  or  by  his  or  her  representatives.  It  is  understood  that  copying  or  publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  Department of Counselling Psychology The University of British Columbia 195f> Main. Mall Vancouver, Canada VGT 1Y3 Date  nF_<"./T/rt-n  October 4,  1988  A B S T R A C T  A  multidimensional study was  conducted with learning disabled students to  assess the effects of a social skills training program. Included were measures of self-concept,  peer  acceptance,  and social  competency  as  rated by  parents and  prior  the  teachers.  Forty-six and after  intermediate  13 weeks of  grade  children were  evaluated  either treatment, or no treatment.  to  program  In addition, evaluation  of the effect of different instructors was carried out. It was increases  hypothesized  in  competency  positive  that subjects  self-concept,  by parents and teachers.  would demonstrate peer  acceptance,  significant  and  (alpha=.05)  ratings  Support for this hypothesis  of  was  social  found for  parent ratings. A secondary hypothesis was that there would be no significant difference at the .05 level between subjects receiving treatment or the placebo from Instructor A  and  those  receiving  treatment  or  the  placebo  from  Instructor  B.  confirmation was found on the parent and teacher ratings of  social  The hypothesis was rejected for peer ratings and self-concept  measures.  Suggestions  for practices  in education  include: (a) the  Partial  competency.  expanding of  social  skills training throughout the elementary school by presenting it as a progressive skill building program, (b) ways to interest educators in teaching social behavior, (c)  application of  social  skills  assessment  counsellor or school psychologist's  and training as  role, and (d) the practical  up a social skills training program in an educational setting.  a  function  logistics  of  of  the  setting  Implications  for  future  research  suggest:  (a)  ways  to  refine  the  present  study's design, (b) an examination of social behavior and peer acceptance  in both  the regular and special education class environments, and (c) the need for further understanding of the developmental  stages in social  iii  competency.  T A B L E  O F  C O N T E N T S  Lint of Tables  viii  List of Figures  l X  ABSTRACT  '  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1.  X  INTRODUCTION  1  1.1  Statement of the Problem  2  1.2  Delimitations  5  1.3  Definition of Terms  5  1.3.1  Social Skills: .„  5  1.3.2  Social Skills Training:  6  1.3.3  Learning Disabled:  6  1.3.4  Mainstreaming:  7  1.3.5  Social Competence:  7  1.4 2.  ii  of the Study  Justification for the Study  REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2.1  2.2  2.3  7  ...„  9  History of Social Skills Training  9  2.1.1  Early Uses and Approaches  10  2.1.2  Shaping Procedures  11  2.1.3  Modelling Techniques  12  2.1.4  Direct Training  13  Major Social Skills Training Approaches  14  2.2.1  Modelling  14  2.2.2  Cognitive-Verbal Approaches  15  2.2.3  Skill Training Approaches  16  Social Skills in the Educational Setting  i v  .'.  17  2.4  2.5  2.6  2.7  2.3.1  Teacher/Student Social Interactions  18  2.3.2  Achievement and Social Skills  20  2.3.3  Peer Relationships  21  2.3.4  Implications for School Guidance Personnel  22  Application of SST with Learning Disabled Students  23  2.4.1  Social Skills and Language Development  24  2.4.2  Social Skills and Visual/Spatial Difficulties  25  2.4.3  Teacher/LD Student Interactions  26  2.4.4  LD Students and Peer Relationships  27  2.4.5  Social Skills and Mainstreaming  28  Assessment  of Social Skills in the Schools  2.5.1  Diagnosis/Identification  2.5.2  Intervention/Treatment Assessment  29  Assessment  30 32  Summary  33  2.6.1  Current State of the Field  33  2.6.2  Study Rationale  34  Hypotheses  36  2.7.1  Hypothesis  1  36  2.7.2  Hypothesis 2  36  3.  METHOD  37  J  3.1  Selection of Subjects  37  3.2  Design  39  3.3  Procedures  42  3.4  Measures  •  4  3  3.4.1  The Piers-Harris Children's Self Concept Scale  43  3.4.2  How I Feel About Some Other Kids  44  v  4.  5.  3.4.3  The S o c i a l S k i l l s Rating Scales - Teacher  46  3.4.4  The S o c i a l S k i l l s Rating Scale - Parent  47  3.5  Intervention  3.6  Analysis  •  48 5 1  RESULTS  •  5 2  4.1  Scale Reliability  Analyses  52  4.2  Descriptive Results  55  4.3  Test f o r Initial Differences  58  4.4  Test  60  4.5  Importance of Treatment  4.6  Importance of Instructor  of the Hypotheses '  60 64  DISCUSSION  • Nature of Results  70  5.1  General  70  5.2  Effect of Purpose  72  5.3  Effect of Instructors  74  5.4  Summary  of the Findings  75  5.5  Strengths  and Limitations of the Study  76  5.6  Implications  5.7  Suggestions  5.8  Implications f o r Future  78 f o r Practices in Education Research  82 85  REFERENCES  89  Appendix A: Details of Variance  99  Appendix B  100  1  Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept  2  Peer Rating Scale or How  3  Social Skills Rating Scale - Teacher  110  4  Social Skills Rating Scale - Parent  115  vi  Scale  I Feel About Others  100 106  Appendix C: Letters to Parents  LIST OF TABLES Table  Page  1  The Adapted Curriculum Outline  2  Reliabilities of  Total  Scores  50  and Subtest  Scores  for Piers-Harris, Peer  Rating, SSRS-T, SSRS-P  53  3  Means and Standard Deviations Across Pre and Post Testing  4  Intercorrelations  Among Pre and Post  Tests  on the  Piers-Harris, Peer  Rating, SSRS-T & SSRS-P  57  5  Summary of Pre-Treatment Differences  6  Summary of Multivariate Tests of Significance: Treatment, Instructor, Occasion, and Their Interactions Summary of Univariate Tests of Significance: Treatment, Instructor, Occasion, and Their Interactions  7  56  vi i i  Among Treatments  59  61 63  LIST OF FIGURES Figure  Page  1  Schematic for the Design  40  2  Treatment by Occasion Interaction  61  3  Instructor by Occasion Interaction  65  4a  Interaction of Treatment, Instructor, & Occasion Piers-Harris  67  4b  Interaction of Treatment, Instructor, & Occasion Peer Rating  67  ix  .  A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S  I would like to express my gratitude to my program advisor and chairman. Dr.  John Allan,  research  advisor, Dr. Robert Conry, and committee  Du-Fay Der for their guidance, patience and continued  I would  also  like  cooperation, and to  to  acknowledge  recognize  the  time  the  encouragement.  Coquitlam School  and effort  of  member Dr.  District  all those who  for  their  were kind  enough to participate in this research.  Thank  you  to  my  friends  for  their  care  and concern, and. for  taking  the  time to listen.  I  am  especially  indebted  to  Dr. Stuart  Brown  for  his  support,  and  for  believing in me and never doubting that I could succeed. To  my children, who were sometimes short-changed  thank you for your understanding and love.  x  in their time with me,  C H A P T E R  1  I N T R O D U C T I O N  Interpersonal experiences.  relationships  effect  on  According  arena  themselves  socially competent  For negative  to  go  to  every  Csapo  of  all  our  aspect  of  life  most  disadvantage  when  intense  human  are all dependent, to  whether  (1982) individuals who  at a serious  are  skills can have a  it  be  childhood  incompetent  compared to  in  or this  their more  peers.  children in school interaction  self-worth.  root  social interaction. A lack of social  nearly  adulthood. find  the  Our development, learning and accomplishments  some extent, on successful profound  are  with  with such a disadvantage, it means the likelihood of teachers  and  peers,  and  usually  low  self-esteem  Amidon and Hoffman (1965) found failure at social acceptance  hand-in-hand  with  difficulties  in  academic  learning  and  or  seems  inappropriate  classroom or playground behavior. Schools, however, have been accused of being negligent skills  in implementing systematic  (Combs & Slaby,  1977). Communication and  taught as part of the school explicit  training of  strategies for teaching  how to  language  children basic skills  are  social  certainly  curriculum, but what appears to be missing, is the use  these skills to  with others. The concern with how we  behave  acquire or improve with one  another  relationships  and the  social  guidance that parents and teachers, both inadvertently and purposefully, offer their children has always been understood as part of their role. What is still relatively new,  is  scientific  the  idea  that  this  training can  be  approached  in a more  systematic,  manner by assuming that social skills can be taught and practised.  1  From students,  my  I became  expectations regular  experience  as  an  aware of  and new  classrooms.  peer  educator  of  intermediate  social  codes  The assumption  during  that  this  their  integrated  exposure  other  students.  They  to  form of osmosis  Nor were the learning disabled students very successful these  disabled  their . difficulty when confronted with new teacher  would result in learning through some  with  learning  seemed  to  have  periods  positive  role  in the models  was just not happening. in establishing friendships  no  idea  of  what  behaviors  either facilitate making friends or alienate peers. I became convinced that social behaviors needed to be taught as part of  my regular curriculum.  It made sense  to me that these skills were just as vital to a child's development as academic skills. They were  maybe even  to equalize themselves  more important for children who could not hope  with the mainstream students  learning . disabled children, in particular, appeared to quite  intensively  if  they  were  expected  to  in many other ways. These need  successfully  this  type  integrate  of  training  and to break  down the stigma of being "special" and thereby "different".  1.1 Statement of the Problem  The main objective of  this study was  to  investigate  the effects  of social  skills training on self-concept, peer acceptance, and social competency (as rated by teachers and parents) of learning disabled students. The development of  appropriate social skills is one of the most important  issues for teachers and counsellors in schools to  be a critical  referrals survey  for  indicator of  both  conducted  Allan  competency appears  adjustment problems as judged by the majority of  psychological by  today. Social  assessment  and Barber  or  counselling.  (1986) with  2  the  In a recent  input of  two  needs hundred  elementary  school  teachers, "all teachers  regarding academic and 278). or  In spite of no  formal  social behaviors  this recognition of training  adult-to-child  social  responsibility  (Walker,  to  skills  deal  seemed  than emotional  need, teachers  with  and  more  do  either  not  1983). It is a  or physical behaviors" (p.  up  to this point have  peer-to-peer  tend  difficult  interested in information  to  see  assignment  social  it  as  to  teach  complex s k i l l , without  a systematic  However, Jackson, Jackson, and of  some  form  curriculum can  The  of  rationale for curriculum  acceptance  from  predictor 1973).  the  be  in this  is  inclusion further  peers during  emotional of  training  may  these As  their social  with  instruction, problems w i l l  left with skill  area, instruction  are  any arise.  deprived  d e f i c i t s " (p. 2), and  in the  of  supported  the  adjustment, and  2) lack  in  the  nine  to  skills  by  elementary  late s o c i a l malfunctioning  Children  social  research  school of  training  regular  peer  subject  twelve  competencies seem  peer interaction. She  part  years  of  year  age  to be  acceptance  is an  bracket  seem  another.  to  group and  important  impulses  2.  Peer interaction is a contributor to sexual  3.  It is a critical factor in the maturation  4.  It provides  easier admittance to playground  3  quite  devote a  incidences, from  towards their  socialization.  of the social  be  Trost,  Csapo (1982) believes  suggests that:  Children learn to control aggressive  1)  is a strong predictor  derived, in many  1.  the  that:  (Cowen, Pedersen, Babigian, Izzo, &  great deal of their play time interacting with one social  as  revealing  vulnerable to the influence of other children in the same age  specific  of  or  become next to impossible.  classroom  later  to  Monroe (1983) believe "children who  opportunities to learn such skills  without  of  approach  skills  part  skills since it i s , at present, the hidden curriculum in the. classroom.  little  self.  group activities.  peers.  this  5.  The  development  of  language  and  acceptable  communication  skills  is  enhanced.  Cartledge  and  Milburn  (1978) report  determinant of how the teacher  that  social  behavior  is  an important  interacts with the student. The child that is able  to conform to behaviors related to attending, cooperation, and responsibility will be likely to experience  a more positive  relationship with the teacher and receive  more opportunities to respond, less criticism, and more academic feedback. There is  also  considerable  evidence  that  certain  social  behaviors  are  important  for  success in academic skills. Children that are unable to sustain attention, conform to  teacher  successful  expectations,  or  in  good  achieving  display  disruptive  grades.  behaviors  An extensive  are  study  less by  likely  Hops  and  (1973) determined that attending, positive talk to peers, compliance (i.e. directions), and independence  were the behaviors most  predictive of  to  be  Cobb  following  achievement.  Walker and Hops (1976) found that reinforcing social skills, or reading skills, not only  demonstrated  an  improvement  in one  of  those  specific  areas, but has a  facilitative effect on the other.  Educators deficits have  in the  paid  part of  little  the  are only beginning to school  attention  basic  new,  academic  performance,  counsellor  workloads,  connected  pertinent  educators' the  development  to  Up to  research  peer and  efforts  lack of  the  this  consequences of  time, school  social  districts,  skill  generally,  implementing a plan for introducing these skills  curriculum. Because  relatively  addition,  environment.  recognize  the  on  the  interaction  impact  problems,  mainstreaming to  area of  develop  issues the  social skills competency  social  skills  such  deficits  teachers' has  whole  not child  training is can  have  discipline been has  on  In  specifically  with a child's troubled emotional  or delays in their social maturing process. Social acceptance  4  still  concerns,  addressed. not  as  appears  to  play such  can  no  an important role  longer  responsibility  afford to  of  the  in both childhood and adulthood that  operate  school  under the  system  assumption  or that  that  children will  it  is  educators  not  eventually  a direct  learn these  social skills without direct intervention.  1.2 Delimitations of the Study  The field of  Social Skills Training encompasses  populations, and settings.  It includes  both  many different  individual therapy  age  levels,  and group training,  and covers unstructured to very specifically designed programs. The focus of this present  study  learning  disabled  this special from  is  an  examination  elementary  population of  approximately  nine  of  aged  the  of  social  children. More specifically,  students in the to  effects  thirteen  regular school environment. It involves  intermediate  years,  and  skills  training  on  it concentrates  on  grades, who range in age  receive  their  training through the use  education  in a  of a ready-made  program designed for this age range, and for instruction in a group format.  1.3 Definition of Terms  1.3.1  Social  Skills:  The research literature reveals first as  is termed the  three general  "peer acceptance  definition" as  indicated, for example, by peer sociometrics  & Hymel,  1981;  Gottman, 1977;  Ladd,  definition  does  not,  provide  however,  behaviors lead to such acceptance  definitions  1981; any  to  social  skills. The  it uses acceptance determine  social  LaGreca & Santogrossi, concrete  (Gresham, 1984).  5  of  data  on  by peers  skill  (Asher  1980). This  what  specific  Several (Bellack  researchers  & Hersen, 1979;  situationally specific and  apply  decreasing  behavior.  a  more  Strain,  "behavioral  1977).  They  definition"  generally  of  define  social  social  skills  skills  as  and providing or maintaining the likelihood of reinforcement,  the  likelihood  Gresham  (1984)  of  punishment  points  out  or  that  extinction  although  because  the  of  this  antecedents  and  consequences can be determined through observation or behavioral role play, this approach  does  not  ensure  that  the  assessed  social  behaviors  are  socially  significant or important.  The definition  favored by Gresham (1984) and adopted  for this  study, has  been labelled the "social validity definition." He suggests: Social skills are those behaviors which, within a given situation, predict important social outcomes such as (a) peer acceptance or popularity, (b) significant others' judgments of behavior, or (c) other social behaviors known to correlate consistently with peer acceptance or significant others' judgments, (p. 292) The social validity of measures  specific  as peer sociometric  behaviors is determined by such assessment  indices, and social skill ratings by such significant  others' such as the child's teacher and parent.  7.3.2  Social In  Skills the  presentation  Training:  context of  of  skills  this to  study,  intact  social  classroom  skills groups  training  is  following  the  systematic  basic  teaching  methods and using structured lesson plans.  7.5.3  Learning  Disabled:  This term refers  to those children placed in a special  education classroom  based, in part, on an assessment  identifying average or better intellectual ability  with  and  a  specific  learning  deficit,  a discrepancy  6  of  more  than  1 standard  deviation  on a standardized achievement  test. (A more  complete  explanation  of  this screening and identification process for this sample population is provided in Chapter 3).  1.3.4  Mainstreaming: This refers to the physical placement  classroom  setting  for a portion of  of handicapped children in the regular  the school  day. This is most  often  for the  purpose of social integration.  7.3.5  Social  Competence:  Social others  Competence  on whether  is  used  as  an evaluative  a person has achieved  a level  term based of adequacy  on judgments in being  by  socially  skilled, In this study, it will be applied to ratings by the subject's teacher and parent.  1.4 Justification for the Study  Although training  for  recognized revision  of  Education, environment  the  research  school-aged  where has  now  policy been  United States through Bill  is  component  classroom the  the  children  as a significant basic  on  educational rapidly  firmly  increasing,  it  of  has  social not  Particularly  providing entrenched  education  in in  the' area the  in Canada, and  94-142, the ties between social  mainstreaming have not been investigated  least  acceptance  yet  been  skills, and  or  Special  restrictive in the  successful  to any extent by those involved in the  by peers, increase  7  of  legislated  process. This research objective was to determine that the systematic such skills can increase  skills  by those involved in the development  curriculum. of  implications  teaching of  self-esteem, and improve  social  interaction  skills  training  improving occur,  the  with  would  such also  classroom  facilitating  significant  others  appear  be  environment  mainstreaming,  to for  as  teachers  an  extremely  more  productive  decreasing  behavioral  and  parents.  useful  approach  academic  concerns,  to  learning to and,  providing for a more positive attitude in both students and educators.  8  Social  thereby  C H A P T E R  R E V I E W  This  chapter  outlining  the  methods and  reviews  early  used at the  implications  impact  on  role.  disabled school examined.  summary  approaches,  Social then  time. The focus Skills  Training  specific  discusses  narrows to  in  teacher/student  Skills Training.  the  application  of  three  peer  such  major training  address  educational  relations,  It begins by  the  relevance  setting  relations,  training  with  and and  the  of  identifying  programs  discusses  through  the  needy  various  current  students  and  assessment  state  of  the  determining  techniques  field  and  the  is  the the  learning  population, and the unique problems these children experience  Ways  intervention  and  Social  The  L I T E R A T U R E  literature on  present  of  T H E  the  achievement,  counsellor's  present  uses  O F  2  is  appropriate  reviewed.  rationale  The  for  the  study.  2.1 History of Social Skills Training  The an  ability to successfully  important  part  developmental competence believed through  which  behavior.  theorists  adequately  psychosocial  developing  a  child's were  social  development.  focusing  on  the  In  sense  of  socialized  stages self  in  more  cognitively  children  moved  Social  beginning adulthood. oriented  from  competence  children  an  was  were  with  trust  Piaget  becoming  9  those  to  1960s, prominent between  in  successful infancy,  an  altruistic  conceptualized  to  Kohlberg  involving social  egocentric,  adults is  social  in adulthood. Erikson (1963)  (1962) and  theories  the  relationship  in childhood and psychological adjustment  that  approved  in  of  interact with one's peers and significant  as  in  moving  a  socially  (1969) were  and moral stages style a  of  social  developmental  process  that  paralleled  identify the specific  age  and  social skills necessary  Further interest  in this area was  correlation between socially Children  who  school  were  maladjustment  difficulties  although  for  there  was  generated  (Gronlund  &  their  (Roff, Sells  (Cowen,  Pedersen,  attempt  to  by numerous studies showing a  peers  Anderson,  no  competence.  unskilled children and a variety of  unpopular with  (Ullman, 1957), delinquency health  maturation  showed 1963),  a  social  high  dropping  problems.  occurrence out  of  of  school  & Golden, 1972), and more adult mental Babigian,  Izzo,  &  Trost,  1973).  Socially  unskilled children were found to have difficulty in responding positively to peers, behaving Gonso,  cooperatively, & Rasmussen,  or  1975;  1977). Moreover, social peer  rejection  of  communicating  skill  their  own  needs  Gottman, Gonso, & Schuler, deficits  in children were  handicapped populations  Corman, Gottlieb, & Kaufman, 1978), the  such as  to  others  1976;  shown  mentally  to  (Gottman,  Oden & Asher, be  related  to  handicapped (Ballard,  learning disabled (Bruininks, 1978; Bryan,  1978) , and the emotionally disturbed (Morgan, 1977).  2.1.1  Early  Uses  and  Early  efforts  psychiatric patients are caused alleviated p.  Approaches  in  actual  a wide  training  was  populations.  range  training  (SST). were  by a lack of social competence  of training in social  1). However, such treatment  with  skills  and based on the idea that, "some forms of  or exacerbated by means  social  of  applied  was  soon  expanded to  Remediation  children, was  identified as withdrawn, socially  the  frequently  More  emphasis  and can be cured or  directed  other  at  initially children  isolated, or overly aggressive.  10  1978,  clinical populations  specifically, when was  with  mental disorder  skills" (Trower, Bryant, & Argyle,  behavioral problems. to  common  on who  social  skill  preschool had  been  (Evers & Schwarz,  1973;  O'Connor,  1972;  Strain,  Shores,  & Timm,  1977).  worked with individually or in small groups and often from  the  normal  generalization  of  peer social  group skills  setting.  This  acquired : in  a  playground, or neighborhood street setting these new skills, where  were  usually  in an environment  caused clinical  Children  a  difficulty  setting,  to  away  with  a  the  classroom,  where peers could be unresponsive  to  negative behaviors could be modelled and reinforced by  others, and where opportunities to apply cooperative behaviors were limited.  Social  behaviors  towards  others  are  learned  by  children  in  three  major  ways: (1) adult guidance, instruction, and reinforcement; (2) observation of  social  behaviors (and their consequences) displayed by adults, peers, and media and  (3)  direct  experience  in  interacting  with  peers . and  working  models;  out  social  problems (Roedell, Slaby, & Robinson, 1977). These could be similarly categorized into: (1) shaping procedures, (2) modelling techniques, and (3) direct training that makes use of the child's cognitive and verbal abilities (Combs & Slaby, 1977).  2.1.2  Shaping  Procedures  •In early social skills training research, contingent used  as  the  main  influence  has  become  amount  of  social  training  studies  of  source  of  quite  common.)  interaction social  reinforcement.  among  interaction  (More  recently,  Many had as socially  attention  their  isolated  two  the  preschool  engaged  peer contact to  in isolated  when they  only - actual  peer  play. Their teachers  approached or observed  interaction. Isolated  play was  11  was  of  peer  increase  In two  children who  the  operant  Harris, & Wolf,  very little time interacting with peers were found to attract most when they  use  goal, to  children.  (Allen, Hart, Buell,  Johnson, Kelley, Harris, Wolf, & Baer, 1964)  from adults  1964; spent  adult attention  were trained to approximate  others, and gradually to noticeably  attend  reduced and social  interaction increased. Hart, Reynolds, Baer, Brawley, and Harris (1968) concentrated on shaping  cooperative  Contingent  adult  However,  in  immediacy contingent  reinforcement  both  of  behavior with peers during play with  cases  the  and noncontingent  using  behaviors is  by  observation by  and changed  techniques  alone,  their  internal  that  preschoolers  with  a  history  of  groups.  viewed  a film  depicting  Half  interaction The  Behavioral  no change  with  other  the  peers  half  observations  had viewed  frequency  were  reinforcement,  on  the  experiments  of  the  work  of  four  procedures were effective  to  perform  external  these  reinforcement 1973;  1977).  by a  after  years  a  and  divided  child  reinforcing  film  the  modelling  new  in children. He selected a group of  unrelated  film  them  engaging  in  consequence to  peer  indicated 5 of  showed  a dramatic  into  two  increased for  such  interaction.  the 6 children increase  in the  interaction, while the control group showed later, Cooke and Apolloni  (1976) combined  with, live modelling. Their purpose was  to increase four  behaviors (smiling, sharing, positive in  by  processes (Bandura, 1969;  a withdrawn  shown  experimental  in behavior. A few  complimenting)  motivation  withdrawal  followed  and quality of their social  emotional  influenced  the  fears  social  immediately  other training techniques social  dependent  modelling procedures could be used to teach  skills and help eliminate social  activity.  highly  rapidly when  were  and  and vicarious reinforcement  O'Connor (1969) believed  social  was  behavior.  learning theory. He demonstrated that children can acquire  determined  contingencies,  that  behavior  cooperative  reinforcement were tried.  modelling  Bandura and his social  behaviors  shaped  in increased  old girl.  Techniques  Approaches  social  the  resulted  adult reinforcement  2.7.3 Modelling  new  again  a 5-year  learning  disabled  physical contact, and verbal  elementary  school  children.  The  in increasing each trained behavior although, generalized  12  effects rates  were of  less  consistent.  smiling  and  sharing  Apolloni  felt  this  research  has  shown  that  to  teach  children  employed  Interestingly, during  behavior the  behavioral  2.1.4  Training third,  generalization  more  direct  approach,  apply  this  preschool  method  children  alternate  solutions  situations  was  were  involving  to  Chittenden  encouraged  social-conflict  became treatment  aggressive  effects  were  and still  more  learn  conflicts. of  to  responsibility,  concluded  from that  adjustment. treating  discover  and  The approach was  perspective  who  participate  and  point  the  problem-solving  Ross,  Ross,  a 6-year-old  boy  evaluate  and  of  value  of  skills Evans  were  of  for a phobic  a  in  skills, first  study  where  after  the  dolls  preschool  training.  that  In  play the  and  1970s,  program to help preschool solutions  to  interpersonal  children were given a lot  possible  found  using  The children involved  their  own  in  solutions  solutions.  social  (1971)  cognitive  devised  actively  10-week  the  positive,  the  their  view  successfully  The children did not reenact  month  their own  be  of  rather unique in that  their  which  one  "The present  dynamic,  and  and  discussions  cooperative  evident  of  verbal  an adult role-play  Spivack and Shure (1974) devised children  (1942)  various aggressive and cooperative  less  can  Cooke  problem-solving. One of the  situations.  themselves, but watched  demonstrated  to  techniques  components  encompasses coaching, role-playing, and active to  sessions.  and concluded that,  modification  relationships" (p. 77).  The  the  untrained children increased their  approach had some promise  social-emotional  Direct  the  consequences  skill  was  was  judged.  Results  to  be  correlated  with  designed  an  elaborate  method  like avoidance  of  peer  the  social of  interaction with  one purpose being to build the child's social skills. Gradually, through discussion, role-playing,  guided  practice,  and  modelling,  13  this  more  verbal  treatment  was  effective  in  reducing  avoidance  behaviors  effective way of training specific  and  offered  some  promise  as  an  social skills.  2.2 Major Social Skills Training Approaches  The  current  seems to fall symbolic  approaches  to  social  skills  training with  handicapped children  under three major headings: (a) modelling (including both live and  modelling),  training approaches.  (b)  cognitive-verbal  Although the  approaches,  teaching  techniques  and  (c)  traditional  may differ, all reflect  skill the  notion of the social  learning theory (Bandura, 1977). Each approach assumes that  social  learned  behavior  is  and  can  therefore  be  taught  under  appropriate  required  in training  experimental conditions (Spence & Shepherd, 1983).  2.2.1  Modelling Bandura  (1977) maintains  that  the  cognitive  processes  through modelling (e.g. coding, rehearsal) are identical for both symbolic and live presentations  although the  comparative effectiveness  of  the  two  approaches  has  not, to this point, been determined. For practical reasons, live modelling appears to offer the most flexibility in teaching methods, and eliminates  the problems of  accessibility and expense of special video or film equipment. Modelling teaching  of  has  been  social  skills  applied to  effectively  handicapped  in  children  Gresham & Nagle, 1980; LaGreca & Santogrossi, needed  in  evaluating  mainstreamed  the  classroom.  simply imitate the social  generalization The assumption  the  of that  education (Bierman  system &  to  Furman,  the 1984;  1980). However, further work is  modelling these  training  handicapped  effects  to  the  children would  and academic behaviors of the regular class peers has  14  not been supported by research studies in this area (Marburg, Houston, & Holmes, 1976; to  Strain, Shores, & Kerr, 1976;  Cartledge  and  Milburn  (1980), for  should involve four sequential rehearsal,  (c)  feedback  on  Synder, Apolloni, & Cooke, 1977). According successful  modelling  steps: (a) presentation  performance, and  of  to  occur  instruction  a model, (b) behavioral  (d) practice  in a real-life  setting.  Gresham and Evans (in press) state: The observer's attention to and understanding of the most important aspects of the modeled behavior is crucial for the success' of this procedure. As such, trainers must ensure that the most salient features of the modeled behavior are pointed out to the observers.  2.2.2  Cognitive-Verbal  Approaches  Cognitive-verbal techniques. for  approaches  rehearsal  with  suggestions for improvement approach has  often  been  & Schuler,  1976;  because of not  been  both  coaching  and  Coaching uses direct verbal instruction presenting  behavior,  Gonso,  involve  the used  increased as  a  the  coach  or  peer-partner,  problem-solving  rules and standards and  feedback  with  (Gresham, 1981b; Gresham & Evans, in press). This  applied to the  socially  Gresham & Nagle, conceptual  singular  withdrawn population (Gottman,  1980;  Oden & Asher,  and verbal components  social  skills  training  method  of  1977)  but,  coaching, it has  with  the  severely  handicapped populations.  The problem-solving  approach has  been  extensively  developed  by Spivack  and Shure (1974). It is base on the conception that if children can be helped to develop  a  cognitive  problem-solving  generate their own solutions,  style  for  their  it will make them better  real-life able to  problems  and  cope, and result  in improved behavioral adjustment.  Camp and Bash's (1981) Think Aloud program  follows  developed  their  the  self  same theory. control.  It was  In troublesome  situations,  15  for  aggressive  they  are  children to  trained to  improve  address  four  basic questions:  (1) What is my problem? (2) What is my plan? (3) Am I using  my  (4)  plan? and,  How  did  I do?  This  is  meant  to  provide  them  with  a  consistent method for calmly tackling the issue at hand.  2.2.3  Skill  Training  Approaches  The skill  training approach is  modelled  on  research  academic  or social  literature  skills  based  that  on  a directive  suggests  the  teaching  best  way  model.  to  It  teach  is  both  is through direct instruction (Gresham, 1985). programs  apply the basic steps of structured learning and include: (a) establishing the need, (b)  identifying  the  skill  components,  (c)  modelling,  and  (d)  rehearsal  and  generalization of the training. Goldstein, Sprafkin, Gershaw, and Klein (1980) have developed  a  social  skills  program  for  Structured Learning Curriculum. Very Goldstein which  and  offers  (McGinnis, program  colleagues:  lessons  for  Goldstein,  recently,  Skills  teaching  Sprafkin,  &  Training 50  17  Along  With  socially  Others:  skills  Gershaw,  Teaching  validated  Walker's (1983) A C C E P T S enter and be socially  skills  sequel  skills  through a direct  Program  successful  adolescents  has  been  for the Elementary  social  to  1985).  Social defined  components. This program will be discussed  to  a  problem  this  A  by Jackson, Jackson, and Monroe (1983) was  study: Getting includes  his  behavior  School  terms  of  for  by Child  age  commercially  Effectiveness in  released  younger  chosen  entitled,  group  packaged  this  present  to Children  that  their  behavioral  in the following chapter.  is aimed at preparing handicapped children in the  mainstream setting.  instruction approach that  facilitates  It teaches social  classroom  adjustment  and improves peer acceptance.  In this author's opinion, the program appears best  suited  handicapped students rather than learning disabled  for mild to  moderately  students.  16  2.3 Social Skills in the Educational Setting  Two  developments  social of  seem to have been important influences  skills training interest  the  in the educational community. One was the  This legislation  lead  to  exceptional  the  adoption,  in  children into the  much as  Federation,  possible. although  A  Integration of Children documented  that  states,  regular classrooms stance  through  With  these  most  similar  not  Handicapped  mandated all school boards in the United States to  provide appropriate education to all children in the  as  passing  Public Law 94-142 in 1975 known as the Education for All  Children Act.  This  in the growth of  was  children  policy  of  environment. mainstreaming  with their nonhandicapped peers  in  by  the  their  in 1981.  Needs  handicapped  the  taken  legislation,  Special  of  least restrictive  Canadian  discussion  Teachers' paper The  Research had already clearly  were  poorly  accepted  by  their  nonhandicapped peers and, therefore, suggested an important need for social skills training  to  enhance  their  Rynders, & Gross, 1974;  potential  for  Bryan, 1974;  positive  social  interaction  (Bruininks,  Bryan & Wheeler, 1972; Cowen, Pederson,  Babigian, Izzo, & Trost, 1973; Gottlieb & Budoff, 1973).  The  other, was  further research in the social skills area that revealed many  correlates  between  (Cartledge  & Milburn,  1968;  1969)  rates  of  teachers  academic 1978;  and evidence  negative  achievement  and  peers  (Bryan,  Charlesworth,  1967).  These  school  and  Strain, Cooke, & Apolloni,  that  interaction  in  socially  findings  1976;  rates  Gresham  &  indicated  of  positive  Nagle, the  identifying social behaviors and skills that would facilitate and  improved peer relations.  17  & Spivack, much higher  interaction with their  1980;  need  competence  Swift  unskilled children displayed  and lower 1978;  social  for  Hartup, further  Glazer, & study  in  both academic learning  2.3.1  Teacher  /Student  Social  interactions  Teachers are powerful are  often  the  important  student's  and influential people  role  model  impact on the kinds of  for  in a child's environment. They  behaviors  and  attitudes,  and have  an  behaviors that are reinforced (Becker, Madsen,  Arnold, & Thomas, 1967; Hall, Panyan, Rabon, & Broden, 1968; Madsen, Becker, & Thomas,  1968).  teachers  The  establish  standards  with  each  and  of  tolerance  their  levels  charges  has  for  social  an effect  behavior  that  on their individual  relationships with these children. Research has revealed that students perceived to be  brighter  and  more  competent  tend  to  receive  more  attention,  more  praise,  more verbal cues during lessons, and are given more opportunity to respond by their teachers  (Brophy & Good, 1974; Good & Brophy, 1978). Brophy (1981) further  reports  teachers  that  expectations  that  prefer  teachers  to  have  interact for  a  with  children  child  has  achievement  levels (Rosenthal & Jacobsen, 1968;  and  education  special  behavior  facilitates  teachers  academic  consider  a  achievement  also  Seaver,  child  and  who  is  are  been  correlated  with  1971), and both regular  well-adjusted not  popular. The  if  disruptive  their to  social  the  class  environment (Hersh & Walker, 1983; Walker & Rankin, 1983).  The effect in several Miller  studies  by  (1971) taught  classroom, the straight These  of student  students  involved.  College  frowning,  gazing  behaviors  from  controlling the  a group  skills  in their  behavior on teacher responses has been  of  desks,  of  seven  making eye  students  contact,  the  teachers,  while  asking  positive  used  window,  education  comments,  increased were  behavior. Graubard, Rosenburg, and  special  making positive  significantly  out  student  by  talking  smiling,  18  demonstrated  extra  (1971)  class  with to  would  nodding, taking  outside  help, sitting  and coming contacts  Klein in  for  students,  to  class the  notes,  and  up  early.  teachers  demonstrate increase  the  that  negative answering  questions  would  produce  positive  behaviors  from  teachers.  If  these  skills  have such an effect, it appears that the teaching of such skills in a fashion could achieve  important results  in positive  in turn, increase the student's chance to succeed  The  teaching  of  however, necessarily peers.  Such  necessarily class.  aforementioned  of  the  kind  systematic  teacher pupil relationships and  (Cartledge & Milburn, 1978).  classroom  make a child socially competent  behaviors  social  skills  does  not,  in the arena of coping with  preferred or expected  by  teachers,  are  not  the ones that impress peers or build a student's social status in the  Often  attention,  the  can  it  is  the  negative  encouragement,  behaviors  and laughter.  that  Teachers  are  reinforced  tend  skills concerned with order, cooperation, accepting  to  value  by  peers  most  with  highly  consequences, following  the  rules,  and independent work habits. Lower in their priorities are the interpersonal skills of greeting, conversation, assertiveness, and initiating contact with others (Milburn, 1974)  and academic  skills  are held higher  in value  than social  or interpersonal  skills (Gartledge & Milburn, 1980; Milburn, 1974).  Further  to  this,  Hersh  interpersonal/self-related and  Winkler  reinforcing  (1972)  and  skills  claim  much  and  Walker  (1983)  as  lowest  in their  that  for  preferred  most  over  an  However, disruptive behaviors are often with  an  position  increase to  foster  control  aggression  children  had their  their verbal  verbal and  in their  attention.  cooperation towards  physical  that  order of  teachers, assertive,  a  others  Nevertheless,  behaviors  aggression  rated  quiet,  active,  docile  noisy  class  is  environment.  reinforced quite inadvertently by teachers  (Slaby,  towards  teachers  importance. Winnett  schools  are  and prosocial behavior and to  cooperative  cooperativeness  revealed  1976). increased  others,  (Slaby  19  &  and  In one  in  teach  example,  an  excellent  students a  group  of  attention  to  through  teacher  showed  simultaneously,  Crowley,  1977).  Rather  to  than  less such  interventions choices  in ways  situations  2.3.2  being to  and  Gresham remediation  of  more effort  reciprocal  of  academic  also who  showed  devoted  the  close  responses  were  been  theory  academic correlation  without  also  series  achievement  the  of  to  of  allow  more peer  social  does  appear  to  levels  between  two,  reinforcing the  acceptable,  (Cartledge & Milburn,  children high in academic peers,  positive  viewed  interactions  problems. Far  by  is  it  academic  still an  and is  social  in the  important  social  social  difficult  others  as  to  behaviors may  were less  than  that  directions,  1978). Research  standing  skill  behaviors  following  teachers  with  of  be  achievement the  on  children, rather than  competence  that some  popular with  research  major components  In other words, it appears success  and  definitional  attention,  efforts  consistently deviant, and  those  low  on  standings (Green, Forehand, Beck, & Vosk, 1980).  of  studies  measures  attention,  that  1968;  and social  identified  and specific  (Kim, Anderson, & Bashaw, independence,  emphasis  (i.e.  that  possible  the  related  there  The correlation between achievement a  actually  particular, difficult  competence  specifying  responses  discovered  more  to  However,  for academic  achievement  in  they  and, in  that  intellectual  between  academic  be essential  believe  children, have  relationship  the  those  interactions  press)  and/or  development.  remaining on task).  have  (in  a practical, unified  Because  make  of  has been  of  improve  choices,  Skills  academic  learning, while  levels.  children's  social  Social  & Elliott  competence  process  handle  to  (Roedell, Slaby, & Robinson, 1977).  Achievement  social  controlling  a  behaviors  relationship  has  between  been  shown  standardized  topics, or factors, on behavior rating scales Swift  self-control,  & Spivack, 1968;  following  20  directions,  1969). Skills such and  compliance  as  with  teacher  demands  teacher  grades.  were  highly correlated with various achievement  Hops  and his  associates  (Hops & Cobb,  measures  1973;  1974;  and  Cobb &  Hops, 1973; Walker & Hops, 1976) have developed a set of behaviors they define as  "survival  precede  skills".  academic  performance  have  of  target  responding  (e.g.  Reinforcement  The  attending,  and  have  for a  concentration  (1971) experimented  with  effect  modification  direct  on  these behaviors by teacher  a significant, positive  academic  behaviors  relationship  work,  study  attention  on academic  are  those  with  habits,  academic  responding).  and praise was  achievement.  concurrently reinforcing social  work. Their program produced marked increases  found to  Chadwick  classroom in the  which  and Day  behavior and percentage  of  time students remained on task, and in the output and general accuracy of their work.  2.3.3  Peer  Relationships  The establishment important  component  Freudian position years,  of good peer relationships has usually been viewed as an  was  a  of  insisted  latency  any  the  adolescent  that the  period  significance  that  child's  development.  was  psychologically  of  theorists  are now finding that during this period, from  Of  significance,  cooperation, 1968).  is  the  compromise,  Children  with  occurred. Contrary  to  important developmental ability and  friendship  to  develop  understanding problems  level  stable  this  are  the at  occur with  other's  risk  when  few  approximately ages 6 to  relationships of  and  school  position, contemporary  changes  relationships (Asher & Taylor, 1981) and acceptance school  traditional  middle childhood stage, or elementary  changes  10 years, a number of  The  in  (D'Andrea, 1983). peers  based  perspective terms  of  on  (Flavell,  later  peer  from peers at the elementary  is a strong indicator of later emotional adjustment (Cowen, Pedersen,  Babigian, Izzo, & Trost, 1983).  21  A  second  thought  to  important  peak  intermediate-aged because of  in  issue  the  adolescence,  children. Students  their difficulty  management.  is  pressure but  are  now  often  approval. If noncompliance  to  such  is the established  often  behavior. D'Andrea  characterize  impulsivity  at  this  this  age  stage  of  is  are  growth,  as  as  needing  frequently  -  once  occurring  established  in  counselling  for classroom  rewarded by  behavior of the  peer  "in group", a child  anxious to win friends through his  (1983) states the  group  conformity  recognized  identified  rules  at risk for peer acceptance, will be extremely out  group  in conforming to guidelines  However, resistance  or her acting  for  reflective  and  the  emotional  of  the  outbursts  that  egocentrism  counselling  process  and  needs  to  encourage social skills that develop other ways of gaining acceptance.  2.3.4  Imp/ications  for  School  Guidance  Personnel  Until quite recently, most social skills training was based on the concept of remediation  with  Considerable children  individual  research  has  children been  (Allen, Hart, Buell,  rather  published  than  on  Harris, & Wolf,  group  socially  1964;  training  isolated  Amidon,  procedures.  or  1961;  withdrawn  Csapo,  1981;  1983; Gottman, Gonso, & Schuler, 1976; Hops, 1981; Oden & Asher, 1977; Strain, Shores,  &  Timm,  1977),  and  children's  aggressive  behavior  Nasahiro, 1984; Walker, Hops, & Greenwood, 1981). Further has  grown  with  the  uncovering  development  and  their  long-term  Bellack, skills  1979). This  training  proportion  of  by  discovery school  referrals  has  of  adjustment important  counsellors made  by  correlations  and  implications  school  teachers  involves  1981;  in this area  children's  social  Hersen, Whitehill, &  for the  psychologists  relationships in the classroom, and behavioral concerns.  22  interest  between  (VanHasselt,  (Goldstein,  friendship  use since  of  social  a  major  issues,  peer  Current leanings towards more emphasis on group counselling in social skills training  (Amerikaner & Summerlin, 1982; LaGreca & Santogrossi,  been encouraged by the  difficulty  their natural peer  setting,  group  in generalizing the training of and the  realization of  skills training to be used in a preventative This  shift  individual  offers  counsellors  counselling  curriculum  that  the  services  can  foster  1980) has  and  to  go  individuals into  potential  capacity as well  opportunity  for  social  as a remedial one.  beyond  the  involved  in  students'  expansion  of  counsellors  or school  psychologists  the  become  the  also  traditional  introducing social  changes  awareness  in and  understanding.  A by  further application for  Brockman (1985) who  valuable  evaluation  maintains  strategy  that  that, can  social  be  skill  applied  assessment as  part  of  is is  suggested  a new  the  and  assessment  repertoire. She claims, "By including social skills assessment instead of or as an adjunct to more traditional methods of evaluation, school psychologists successfully  may more  address the needs of the children they serve" (p. 31).  2.4 Application of SST with Learning Disabled Students  Learning social  disabled  development  assumption modelling  that of  students  than  good  teachers  the  social  appear  average  to child  understanding  and regular-class  have  even  (Kronick, will  students  more  marked  delays  in  1981; Gresham, 1982). The  somehow does  not  be  absorbed  seem  to  be  by  the  totally  valid. This, however, seems to be one of the underlying ideas behind the United States students.  Bill  P.L. 94-142  in  promoting  mainstreaming  settings  Expectations seemed to be that by engaging  in social  non-handicapped peers, they would be helped to acquire better  23  for  handicapped  interactions with social  skills and  break  down  the  barrier  handicapped students regular class usually  of  differences.  However,  studies  of  mainstreamed  show they do not automatically imitate behaviors of their  peers  (Gresham, 1982;  inconsistent  and  infrequent  1983) and, : in fact, interaction with them is (Bryan,  1976;  Gresham,  1982;  Gresham  &  Reschly, 1986).  In addition, two  major  social  adjustments  occurs.  Firstly, these  learning disabled  teacher  expectations,  as  well  as  to  students the  are  required  must  adapt  expected  secondly, learn to cope with a new peer group.  when to  academic  integration  a new  set  of  adjustment, and  It appears that many of these  handicapped students are just not prepared for these changes. Systematic training in  preparation  for  such  demands  seems  sensible  not.  only  for  the  children  involved, but to relieve the pressure on the receiving teachers and to make it a more positive experience for the other students in the class as well.  2.4.1  Social  Skills  Kronick  and  Language  Development  (1981) believes  student's  development  important  role  of  that both  in their social  specific  deficiencies  receptive  and  in the  expressive  interaction problems. She  learning disabled language  play  maintains the  an  LD child  needs to learn to process social information accurately to be able to judge the affective  state of others. Such minimal differences  the rules or forms of interact  with  them.  conversational language, will  Often  interrupt conversations, to mutually  interesting.  as the ignorance of some of  They  these  students  are  affect  unaware  tend  to  initiate  more  (Bryan, Wheeler, Felcan, & Henek, 1976)  and  more  Bryan,  child.  If  1978)  than  the  of  change the subject, or how to also  regular-streamed  24  the ways  nasty  that people  appropriate times select topics  competitive statements  LD students  have  to  that are  statements (Bryan & not  been  successful  in learning possible  interaction, they encounter of  tend  to  social  resort  to  behaviors the  that one  same  greeting  might use or topic  someone. Kronick (1981) tells us that, "When persons  whenever violate  they  the rules  language, we presume that the violation is purposeful and take the content of  that language less seriously, become In the area of receptive understand what  the role of  Language is often often  language, the learning disabled child often the  interpreted  impatient, or devaluate their status "(p. 114).  listener  in a very  entails  fails  to  (Pearl, Donahue, & Bryan, 1980).  literal fashion  and contextual  clues are  ignored. Bryan (1977) also found that LD children were less accurate than  the regular-stream population in their comprehension  of  (e.g.  less  body  messages,  when conversing  facial  essence  expressions) and  used  nonverbal communication face  to-face  behavior  (Bryan, Sherman, & Fisher, 1980). They tend to forget, lose the  thread, or mishear what the  in a verbal  of  the  people  ongoing  are saying. social  If processing  information  and  too  fail  slowly, they  to  lose  comprehend  the  situation accurately (Kronick, 1981).  2.4.2  Social  Skills  and  Visual/spatial and  social  Visual  /Spatial  processing  interaction.  expressions  or  body  pain. They  are  often  Difficulties  ability  Frequently,  signals not  that  aware  plays learning  suggest of  an  important disabled  such  in communication  students  things  appropriate use  role  of  as  misread  facial  sarcasm, humor, and  space  between  people,  spatial organization when cueing or passing someone, or do not understand when, or who it is appropriate to touch (Kronick, 1981).  25  2.4.3  Teacher/LD  Student  Intetactions  Research suggests that children with learning disabilities determining hence are educator  the  acceptable  less  likely to  approval  addressed  the  classroom  setting.  actually  and  acceptance. of  The  for  produce the  question  behave  boundaries  what  major  differently  behavior  academic A  study  learning  goal  was  from  set  their  by  their  teachers  and social  behaviors  by  and  Bryan  disabled  to  do a poor job of  children  determine peers.  that merit  Wheeler  actually  whether  Significant  and  (1972)  do  in a  LD children did differences  were  discovered, as the learning disabled children spent considerably less time on task oriented activities and more time off task than their regular-streamed peers. In a follow-up  study,  efforts  were  made  to  gather  data  teachers'  attitudes  and  treatment  of  these  two  groups.  learning  disabled  teachers  than  interaction teachers  average  as  and  children  the  do  achieving  comparison  peers  when  need  to  be  different students.  The  initiated  an  LD  recognized  as  social  differences  relations  likely  interaction  to  (Bryan,  had be  that  with  their  as  much  ignored  1974).  instructions, and  behaviors that  in  indicated  students  more  with attention, following  any  Results  interpersonal  group, but were  they  therefore, their difficulties work habits  have  on  It  by  seems,  independent  affect  their school  status and- should be part of any social skills training directed at this population of  children  teachers  particular.  do not  task-related press).  in  view  skills  In teacher  As  previously  interpersonal  for success ratings  of  or social  in the what  they  data  competence  classroom  behaviors in their classroom, the 10 most control and have  mentioned,  setting  considered  skills  26  as  suggest important  that as  (Gresham & Reschly, in  to  be  socially  significant  important deal primarily with order and  little to do with peer relationship skills  & Walker, 1983; Stephens, 1978).  would  (Gresham, 1984; Hersh  2.4.4  LD Students Social  disabled  and  Peer  skills  Relationships  training  children  in  appears  establishing  to  or  be  particularly  remediating  peer  important relationships.  relationships have an influence on both social development Rosenblum, 1975). Numerous studies have revealed that are  less  accepted,  and  more  frequently  rejected  by  for  learning  Good  peer  and learning (Lewis &  learning disabled students their  nonlearning  disabled  peers (Bruininks, 1978; Bryan, 1974; Bryan & Bryan, 1978; Siperstein, Bopp, & Bak, 1978). They receive and are also  seen  less  interact  as  lower  having  accurate  at  less often,  sociometric lower  ratings from peers (Hutton & Polo,  social  assessing  status  their  own  (Garret & Crump, social  status  1976)  1980). They are  (Bruininks, 1978)  and  or more negatively, with peers than nonhandicapped children  (Bryan, 1974; 1978; Bryan & Bryan, 1978).  Because  poor  peer  relationships  is  a major problem with  many  of  these  children, social skill appears to be an important prerequisite to success in school life. Vaughn (1985) claims, "Learning disabled students are at risk for being social rejects  and  isolates.  They are  frequently  uninvolved  and  ignored.  Their  social  relationships with peers and with adults produce frustration, lowered self  concept,  and  a  loneliness"  association pathology, difficulty  with may  (p.  590).  low give  The  findings  self-esteem, some  further  in gaining acceptance  that  poor  peer  rejection  interpersonal  indication  of  why  skills,  has  such  and  LD students  close  psychological have  more  among their normal achieving classmates (Hummel,  1982).  27  2.4.5  Social  Skills  These  and  findings  Mainstreaming may  have  disabled  some  children  important  mainstreaming  of  major goal  mainstreaming has been an attempt  of  learning  also  in the  implications  school  system.  the  area  of  whole premise  social  skills  (Gresham, 1982;  result  in  an  1983b).  is not directed  Gresham claims  increase  in  social  children. Second,  regular  setting  will  that  is  result  interaction  that in  the  between  placement  increased  of  social  will  handicapped these  and  children  acceptance  the  The first,  of handicapped children in regular classrooms  nonhandicapped class  Although a  of mainstreaming is based on three faulty assumptions.  is that the physical placement  the  to place children in the least  restrictive environment, the opposite effect may occur if attention to  for  in a  by  their  handicapped peers. Third, is the faulty assumption that the integrated children will model  the  social  behavior  increased exposure The  the  nonhandicapped  students  mentioned  low  studies  levels of  on  peer  rejection  and  learning the  model  disabled,  research  behaviorally  the  a  result  behavior  with  handicapped of  & Cooke, 1978; Marburg,  of  learning  of  disabled  interaction with their nonlearning disabled  lend support to the erroneous' nature of these assumptions. to  as  (Gresham. 1981b; 1982).  previously  children, and the  of  handicapped  has  shown  peers unless specific  Although not  preschoolers,  that  mentally  handicapped  training efforts  peers, specific  retarded,  children  do  not  are made (Apolloni  Houston, & Holmes, 1976; Strain, Shores, & Kerr, 1976).  This would appear to apply to the learning disabled population as well.  Gresham (1985) further outlines some potential mainstreaming government  process.  The  priorities  regard academic achievement  and  values  reasons for problems held  by  school  in the  systems  and  as paramount. Mainstreaming as a social  28  policy  may,  therefore,  be  attainment.  Mainstreaming  deficits  handicapped  where  of they  have  antithetical also  previously  hold  for  important children's  mainstreamed experience  do  are  unsuccessful  fit  this  not  predominant  seem  placing  experienced  to  goal  consider  them  in  of  the  regular  academic  motivational  class  settings,  failure, with no training or support on  in this environment.  the  social  not  does  children when  how to deal more effectively  Equally  to  expectations  and  behavior.  Most  model  behavior  the  interactions  with  their  tolerance  levels  that  teachers  handicapped  children . who  profile  consequently,  and  teachers  as  well  as  are often  peers.  appears that a particularly important outcome  of  which these handicapped children are accepted  by the peer group. It follows  It  mainstreaming is the extent to  social skills assessment and evaluation need to be part of a responsible  that  decision  concerning placement of special needs students (Brockman, 1985).  2.5 Assessment  of Social Skills in the  The assessment methods  Schools  for evaluating social skills in handicapped children  have rapidly increased in the last few methods play,  that  include sociometrics,  interviews,  and  self-report  years. Reviewers have identified six major  ratings by others, observation, behavioral role measures  (Asher  &  Hymel,  1981;  Foster  &  Ritchey, 1979; Gresham, 1981a; 1981b; Hops, 1983; VanHasselt, Hersen, Whitehill, & Bellack, assessing  1979). social  practicality.  At  present,  skills  there  but choices  Unfortunately,  there  are  is  no  should few  recognized be  based  assessment  standard  on  procedure  for  reliability, validity, and  instruments  and  methods  presently available that meet this criteria (Gresham & Elliott, in press). Moreover, there is a tendency for data obtained from different sources to correlate in only  29  the  moderate  would  to  suggest  low  the  range  necessity  (Matson,  Esveldt-Dawson,  of  multiple  using  & Kasdin,  sources  of  1983)  information  which in any  such assessment.  A  useful  them  under  upon  the  way to  classify  social  diagnosis/identification  purpose  or  use  of  the  skill  or  assessment methods  intervention/treatment  information  being  include  existence and type be  sociometrics,  latter,  more  of  procedures  social  ratings  helpful  by  in  skill  that  2.5.1  to  others,  self-report,  designing  Two  basic  dentification  types  and 2) peer ratings  1986;  information on the  behavioral  category role  programs, , include  would  play. The behavioral  as they allow for a functional analysis, of  Assessment  of  sociometric  which measure  measures  different  used  are:  aspects of  1) peer  social  1981c; Hymel & Asher, 1977). The peer nomination technique peers  certain activities  according  to  their  attitudes  is designed  nominations,  and  to  measure  rejection  However, Gresham (1981c) and Hymel more a measure  and  in  the  acceptance group  acceptance  for  in the  peer  negative  engaging  in  behaviors of group with nominations.  & Asher (1977) caution that this  of popularity rather than acceptance  concern of whether  status (Gresham,  on specific  with  nominations,  is to have children  preferences  with these peers rather than focusing  these children. This positive  (Gresham,  behaviors (Gresham, 1986).  Diagnosis/I  nominate  dependent  Under this  and  appropriate  methods  Hops & Greenwood,  generate  problems present.  interviews and naturalistic observations specific  tend  categorize  gathered  Gresham & Elliott, in press; Gresham & Reschly, in press; 1981). The former  is to  may be  or rejection, and raises the  or popularity should be the goal  of  social  skills  training. Peer ratings have the advantage of having each child rated by all of his  30  or  her  classmates  which  provides  a  comprehensive  index  acceptance.  The rating scales also include both positive  which  child  the  can  choose  peers.  In  addition,  of  the  child's  peer  and negative criteria by  this  procedure  reduces  likelihood that a child is not selected because he or she was forgotten  the  (Oden &  Asher, 1977).  Ratings by others relative  ease  teacher/parent focuses  on  of  (e.g.  using  teachers, parents) are often these  procedures.  rankings or sociometrics, specific  behaviors  rather  (Gresham, 1986). Three of the most Social  Behavior  The  a  difference  ratings,  global  is  the  between  that  the  latter  of  the  child  perception  commonly used rating scales include: 1) the  (SBA) by Stephens  Assessment  major  and behavior than  popular because of  (1978; 1979;  1980), where  teachers  rate 136 social skills according to the degree to which these skills are exhibited; 2) the  Guess  Who  (teacher version) by Gottlieb, Semmel, and Veldman (1978)  Scale  that suggests the presence and  the  Walker  McConnell, applies  a  Social  Holmes, Likert  of three factors: (a) disruptive, (b) bright, and (c) dull; Ski lis  Todis,  scale  Curriculum  Walker,  according  particular child. A very  new  or  & Golden to  rating. Since two  will be discussed  (1983),  the. degree  rating scale,  Gresham & Elliott (in preparation), offers self  ACCEPTS  by  28-item  the  Ski/Is  separate  item  Rating  Walker,  measure  that  describes  that  Scale  (SSRS) by  forms for teacher, parent and  of these forms were chosen  Behavior role play tests (BRPs) offer  a  that  Social  in more detail in a subsequent  Program  for this present  study, they  chapter.  several  advantages  over  sociometrics,  ratings, and observation: (1) BRPs can assess social behaviors that occur at low frequencies skill  in the natural environment. (2) BRPs represent  rather  controlled to  than  a  rating  of  it.  (3)  assess a child's response  Simulated to  31  settings  specific  stimuli  actual enactment can  be  more  of a tightly  (Hops & Greenwood,  1981). The disadvantages naturalistic  setting  is  are that the correspondence to the same behavior in a  quite  low,  and  they  do  not  predict  sociometric  status  (Bellack, Hersen, & Turner, 1978; Berler, Gross, & Drabman, 1982; Grasham, 1983b; LaGreca & Santogrossi, 1980; VanHasselt, Hersen, & Bellack, 1981).  Self-report techniques. measures  measures  The  are  subjectivity  not  and  as  frequently  lack  of  used  as  criterion-related  has resulted in very little development  in this  other  assessment  validity  of  these  approach (Michelson &  Wood, 1980).  2.5.2  I ntervention  /Treatment  Assessment  For intervention or treatment, the in  observable  terms  and  identifying  interview is helpful in defining behaviors antecedents,  and  consequent  conditions  surrounding the behaviors (Gresham & Elliott, in press). Gresham (1983) reviewed 21  studies  investigating  the psychometric characteristics of  behavioral interviews  and concluded that they have a reasonably strong nucleus of research supporting their reliability and validity.  Although of  time  social  and expense, they  have  been  are more difficult to used  frequently as  carry out  outcome  in terms  measures  in  skills research (Asher &. Hymel, 1981; Foster & Ritchey, 1979; Gresham &  Elliott, occur  naturalistic observations  1984).  A  distinct  disadvantage  infrequently, particularly  Observer .bias or drift  of  this  in classrooms  method  where  is  that  many  behaviors  peer  interaction is curtailed.  may also threaten the accuracy of  data collected. On the  other hand, such observations are the most direct form of behavioral assessment, they  require an operational definition  than relying on a global  of  the  social  or trait description (e.g.  conducive to repeated measurement which allows  32  skill  being  assessed rather  friendly, outgoing), and it is  for within-subject variability in  social behavior (Gresham & Reschly, in press).  2.6 Summary  2.6.1  Current  As  State  a field  of  of  the  Field  research  history. However, the  study, social  skills training does not  last ten years have shown rapid advances  have  a long  in this  the correlations of social skills to many aspects of child development  area as  have been  documented.  The application of social skills training seems to be shifting away from the early  individual  with special  treatment  populations  methods  and towards  serious  problems  group-oriented approach  of children, including the handicapped. Research with the  latter, in particular, has revealed significant and  a more  with  their  peer  social skill deficits  sociometric  status.  discovery of strong correlations with student achievement  in these children,  This, along  with  the  levels and teacher/pupil  interactions has led to increased interest from the educational community. At  present,  Despite  the  developments  setting.  focus  research  correlated, there  produced  the  in the  findings  has not yet  in  several  programs  that  been  commercially  schools social  skills  on  and  are  social  specifically  skills  achievement.  achievement  are  highly  curriculum. Recent  training  designed  for  programs the  have  classroom  This provides educators the opportunity to adopt a preventative approach  to social skills training that parallels similar approaches abuse  academic  any changes in the school  designed  that  remains  and family  counselling  life  methods  developmental  work  education.  It also  seems  be  to  follow  that  appears  to  in the  schools  rather than focusing  33  in such areas  emphasizing  the  more  recent  as  sexual  trend in  preventative  on strictly  or  remedial or  crisis-intervention work.  The current state have  a  f acil itative  legislation,  Bill  of  the  effect  on  literature  suggests  mainstreaming  94-142, and the  Canadian  that  social  success.  policy  of  With  skills the  training can  United  integration, the  handicapped children in the regular classes for social  placing of  interaction benefits,  without  such training, seems to have been relatively unsuccessful  (Gresham, 1982;  1984).  assumptions  Gresham  maintains  this  mainstreaming policies, (b) the  is  due  to:  (a)  priorities that  faulty  schools,  States  1983a;  underlying  including both regular and  special education programs, place on academic achievement, and (c) the standards for  classroom  attention  behavior  expected  by  the  regular class  educators.  As  yet,  little  has been paid to these concerns, and the concentration for remediation  remains with academics, while  the teaching  of  social  behavior in the  classroom  continues to have low priority (Gresham & Reschly, in press). There  are  important  implications  for  school  guidance  personnel  as  well.  Many of the referrals received are for students experiencing difficulty with social interactions. aggressive  This  may  behavior  teacher/pupil  take  with  relationships.  the  peers,  form  of  lack  classroom  The training of  of  friends,  attention-seeking relevant  social  social  isolation,  problems,  skills  or poor  in this natural,  ready-made environment seems appropriate. In addition, Brockman (1985) suggests the  need  for  social  skills  assessment  of  children  documented  on  social  considered  for  special  placement or integration.  2.6.2  Study  Rationale  Little  research  has  been  skills  training with  classroom groups. Most studies have approached this training by first children  with  specific  problems  such  34  as  withdrawal,  social  intact  identifying  isolation,  and  aggression. program  Students  is  designed  remediation special social  with and  intervention.  education skills  similar difficulties implemented  This  classes,  is  training based  present  then  outside  to  grouped  the  study, with  an attempt on the  are  regular  children  apply  together, classroom  in four  an preventative  philosophy that  and a as  a  intermediate approach to  all children can benefit  and  develop socially from direct instruction in this area. It follows, therefore, that all students  should  be  involved, and the  program treated  as  part  of  the  weekly  classroom curriculum.  Research relations,  has  and  revealed  how  teacher/student  relations  Because this particular sample students,  their  also be  unique  exposure  to  this  self-esteem,  are  the  with  correlated  in coping  with  by this preventative  program will positively  and  problems  with  achievement, poor  social  peer skills.  is made up of intermediate aged, learning disabled  difficulties  indirectly influenced  frequently  perception  of  affect  their  mainstreaming  situations  may  approach. It is hoped that the the  social  student's  peer  competency  by  relationships, parents  and  teachers. This study skills  training  responses  is an opportunity to as  from  part the  of  the  teachers  examine  special and  the  feasibility  education  pupils  of  classroom  involved,  the  adopting curriculum.  testing  commitments to such a program, and the practicality of the specific chosen  can  be  evaluated.  The  format  and  training  method  social  of  The time  skill lessons  selected  for  this  particular population and age group can be studied.  This project may be considered the first in an anticipated series of studies to show: 1.  whether  learning  disabled  children  exposed  35  to  social  skills  training  will  exhibit improved self-esteem in the mainstreamed setting; 2.  whether  social  skills  learned  in  a  special  education  classroom  will  be  generalized to other school settings (e.g. regular class, playground); 3.  whether  these  skills  can  be  successfully  applied  in  the  mainstream  classroom setting.  2.7 Hypotheses  The  2.7.1  major hypotheses for the. present study "are:  Hypothesis  Children  1  in  classes  assigned  to  the  significantly greater gains over the  treatment  condition  will  show  13 week training period than children in  classes assigned to control condition. To test this hypothesis, pre and post measures  will  Piers-Harris  by  the  Rating  taken  Children's How  teacher  be  I  ratings  Feel  of  of:  Self-Concept About  social  Some  (a)  self-concept,  competence  measured  (b) peer acceptance; as  Scale; Other  as  Kids  as  scale  (Peer  measured  by  the  Social  as measured by the  Social  Skills  Rating  Scales-Parent  the  measured  Rating Scale);  (SSRS-T); and (d) parent ratings of social  Scales-Teacher  by  (c) Skills  competence  (SSRS-P). Significance  is tested at alpha = .05  2.7.2  Hypothesis  The  2  differential  gains  hypothesized  above  will  not  differ  between Instructors. The same dependent variables and Type used.  36  significantly  1 error will be  C H A P T E R  3  M E T H O D  This chapter provides a description of the subjects, the geographical and  the  the  study.  design  method of  selection  for both the subjects and the  Method constraints  and  treatment  are  explained, followed  procedures.  Each  of  the  by  four  schools  setting,  involved in  a discussion  dependent  of  the  measures  is  described, and a detailed outline of the social skills training program topics and format  is  provided.  It  concludes  with  a  summary  of  the  selected  statistical  analysis.  3.1 Selection of  Students Coquitlam  were selected from  School  Programs" academic  Subjects  (SDP) learning  achievement  intermediate-aged  special  education classes in  District, Coquitlam, British Columbia. These are  designed  and, because  levels expected  for of  children  this,  have  "Skill  demonstrating fallen  2 to  Development  difficulties  3 years  below  with the  for their age and grade. The operational definition of  learning-disabled students for this study, and for assignment  to these classes, is  based on the following criteria: 1.  Psychoeducational  testing  perceptual  language  Results standard  tests,  must  indicate  deviation),  which  includes:  measures,  average  a specific  or  and better  IQ measures, a  general  achievement  intellectual  learning deficit,  -  ability  37  of  one more  test (i.e. primary -  more than 2 years, secondary -  3 years). The discrepancy between learning potential  battery.  (within  and a discrepancy  than 1 standard deviation on a standardized achievement more than 1 year, grade 5/6  auditory and visual  more than  and actual performance  should  not  be primarily  due to  other factors  such as  sensory impairment,  behavior disorder, cultural or environmental disadvantage, or E.S.L. 2.  Observation by the Area Counsellor  3.  Consultation, recommendations  and  agreement  among  the  teacher,  school  counsellor and parents. 4.  Formal  screening  procedures  involving  the  presenting  counsellor  and four  District Screening Committee members.  Each class is limited to  12 students ranging in age from 9 to 13 years and  located  in a  follows  a mainstreaming model so integration for these special needs students is  encouraged  for  regular elementary  all  school  non-academic  setting.  subjects  (e.g.  The school  homeroom  district  philosophy  announcements,  field  to  This  trips, lunch, P.E., Music, Art).  Four  classes,  from  separate  schools,  were  chosen  participate.  selection was determined by several factors: 1.  the  willingness  of  the  school  administrator  to  have  his  or  her  to  be  an  Skill  Development Program involved; 2.  the  readiness  for  participant  in the  class was  selected  the  Skill  Development  experiment as  for  the  an experimental  Program  thirteen  teacher  week  period  if  his  active or her  group, or alternately, acceptance  of  the placebo treatment during that period if his or her class was selected as a control group; 3.  logistical  considerations  involved,  for  the  two  such  as  timetable  instructors  program, and travelling time.  38  coordination  conducting  the  for  social  both  classes  skills  training  and  Two of  the four classrooms  two  as  control  of  the  sections  geographical fairly  from  These  district  which  differences.  socio-economic  classroom could  However, level,  units  and  were  have  the  as  located  introduced  school  students  experimental  district  assigned  groups  in  different  the  bias  involved to  these  of  has  a  classes  a natural mix to some degree as the majority of them are bussed in  various  classes  school  location  uniform  represent  groups.  were randomly chosen  is  residential  based,  in  screening for special  areas  within the  part, upon  the  district.  available  (Their assignment  openings  at  the  to  time  specific of  their  placement.)  The four school  populations, and the  sample, were all Caucasian, with the  exception of two students, and all were fluent in English. The teachers  (three females,  male) in the four participating  classrooms  were qualified Special Education educators, each with over nine years  experience  in the profession. The two in  the  study,  teachers,  and  were  female  trained  familiar  one  Area  with  program instructors, who voluntarily took part Counsellors  both  the  in  the  educational  school  setting  district, and  this  qualified district's  structure and philosophy.  3.2 Design  Since of  this  study  required the  a quasi-experimental  classroom. The two  design  use  was  of  intact  necessary  classes assigned  classroom  with one  as experimental  groups,  treatment  employment condition per  groups included a total of  24 subjects (16 boys and 8 girls), and the control groups, a total of 22 subjects (16  boys  particularly  and low  6  girls).  Screening  self-esteem,  poor  for peer  selection acceptance,  39  of  only  or weak  those social  pupils  with  competence  was not carried out. It was the experimenter's belief that any student, regardless of  their  ratings  development  from  on  such  criteria,  of  the  evidence of  benefit  and  improve  exposure to a social skills training program.  considered unnecessary to choose end  would  measurement  their  social  It was therefore  only those students who ranked near the  scales to  determine the treatment's  effectiveness.  any individual gain from the pre to post testing, was  low The  used as the  major indicator of positive change.  The  design for this study was 2X2X2 (treatment condition by instructor, by  occasion) as shown in Figure 1. TREATMENT  INSTRUCTOR A  INSTRUCTOR B  CONTROL  PRE  POST  PRE  POST  Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4  Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4  Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4  Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4  Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4  Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4  Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4  Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4  Y1 - Piers-Harris Y2 - Peer Rating Scale Y3 -  SSRS-T  Y4 -  SSRS-P Figure 1: Schematic for the Design  40  The nonequivalent control group design, as defined by Campbell and Stanley (1963), is distinguished by the following  features:  1.  administration of repeated measures (pre and post),  2.  multiple (peer  dependent  rated),  variables  social  of  self-worth  competency  (teacher  (child  rated),  rated),  and  peer  social  acceptance competency  (parent rated), 3.  factorial features a.  of:  two program instructors (in this case two Area Counsellors) who were incorporated into the design to help test generalization, and  b. This  the treatment program.  design  controls  instrumentation. However, since  The  for  the  major  effects  internal  of  validity  history,  maturation,  problem  is  that  testing, of  and  regression.  none of the comparison groups was selected for extreme  scores,  then a difference in degree of shift from pretest to posttest between the groups should be authentic treatment  effect, rather than a product of  regression to the  mean.  The possibility of a reactive arrangement affecting the external validity was avoided by the following procedures: 1.  classes receiving treatment were unaware that the social skills program was part of an experiment and told only that we were trying out a new way to teach them skills for getting along with others,  2.  the  instructors  coming  were  into the  known  classroom to  Area  Counsellors  in  the program was  school  district  provide such a program would be  and seen as similar to other preventative counselling 3.  the  41  expected,  services,  held in the subjects' regular classroom setting  by their own teacher.  and  and co-led  3.3 Procedures  Pre and post setting were  completed  during  the  on  the  within one program.  groups, there was items  was  carried  and all four classes were present  during  testing  the  out by the  completed within a 3-day  pretesting.  The  week  of  the  During  the  pretest  unexpected  Piers-Harris  instructors  other  students.  from  Concept  two  Scale.  during  posttesting  One subject  were  transferred out  one  students to  One  classroom  period. All subjects  administration with  resistance  Self  absentees  in the  of  the control  answering  eventually  some  completed  the  aloud  by  the  a reading disability could affect  the  scale, while the other refused and invalidated his score.  The  directions,  instructor to students'  eliminate  answers  completing  and  the  the  from  item  on  possibility  because  measure.  embarrassment  each  of  Desks  others  the  that  scales,  poor  comprehension  were  well  seeing  or  separated  response  were  lack  to  choices.  read  of  avoid  Students  motivation  copying were  decisions  and post  with their classmates.  testing  was  carried  out  To help  immediately  reinforce this after  the  or any  told their  information would be kept strictly confidential and were requested not to their  in  discuss  confidentiality, pre  lunch break so  Recess  and Lunch Hour were over and the measures would be completed well before the 3PM  school  bell. Pretest  after  posttesting  had been  results  were  not  examined  completed. This was  to  by  the  experimenter  until  avoid any experimenter  bias  during the instructional procedures of the social skills training program.  The two a week, for own  experimental classrooms  received 60 minute training sessions  13 weeks. The lessons were  classroom  environment  and  conducted separately  followed  "Getting Along With Others: Teaching Social  42  a  standard  Effectiveness  in the  format. to  The  once  students' program  Children (Jackson,  Jackson & Monroe, 1983), is specifically elementary-aged  children.  It  is  a  designed  direct  for use  intervention  in the classroom with  approach with  systematic  instructional techniques. These techniques can be categorized into: 1.  a  method  for  determining  personal  expectations  of  social  behavior  and  breaking behaviors into learnable components, 2.  a method for delivering instruction of new skills,  3.  methods  of  managing children's social  behavior  in ongoing  interaction with  them. A Program Guide, plus a Skills Lessons and Activities book are included. Further information on the program will be provided in a subsequent  Three  Instructors'  Counsellors and  practise  was  one  training  meetings  had an opportunity to the  lessons.  of the two a  preview  carried  out  so  program, arrange the  scheduling,  classroom  placebo  treatment, also  format.  led by one  The of  the  in each  Area  Area Counsellors who worked together with the  team-teaching  instructor  the  classroom  in  The major  the  first  experimental  teacher  once a week for the  were  section.  two  control  counsellors  13-week period. Typical  classrooms and the  academic  received  regular  a  teacher,  instruction, followed  by  supervision and assistance, was delivered to control for the attention effects and any inadvertent modelling of social behavior from the visiting counsellor.  3.4 Measures  3.4.7  The  Piers-Harris  The  Piers-Harris Children's Self  standardized, 80-item  Children's  self-report  Self  Concept  Concept Scale  instrument.  minutes to complete, and is designed  Scale  (Piers & Harris,  The test  requires  1969)  approximately  for Grades 3 through 12. The eighty  43  is a 20  items  are  presented  statement  is  as  a set  generally  of  statements  like you, or  with  directions  "no" if the  to  circle  statement  is  you. Scoring instructions and a key are included. The total overall  level  of  self-concept  structure separates physical  items  appearance  comprehensive  data  analysis) and provides  attitude  into factors  and on  or  of  attributes,  development  towards  self.  of  anxiety.  the  internal consistency  if  represents  (i.e.  an  factor  and school manual  the  not like  An unweighted  The  scale  generally  score  behavior, intellectual and  "yes"  status,  provides  standardization,  item  and stability reliability. To judge the  homogenity of the test, the Kuder-Richardson Formula 21 was used with resulting coefficients  ranging from .78 to .93. On a retest after four months, one half of  the standardization sample resulted in coefficients rated as satisfactory scale  is  therefore  of .72, .71 and .72 which were  for a personality instrument in the experimental stage. The judged  to  have  good  internal  consistency  and  adequate  temporal stability. Information on construct, content, and concurrent validities are provided along with norm tables  offering percentile  and stanine  rankings. Means  and'standard deviations from at least ten different sample groups are available.  3.4.2  How  The  I  Feel  About.  Some  Other  Kids  Peer Rating Scale, or How I Feel About  Some  Other Kids (Feldhusen,  Hynes, & Widlak, 1973) is designed for children aged 6 to  12, or Grades 1 to 6.  The variable is Socialization and, as the :  name suggests, a peer rating approach  is used where each child rates the three classmates that have been identified on his  or her protocol. An individual's score  made on the child by his or her classmates. was  superior over the  is  obtained  by averaging the  It was felt this peer rating method  peer nomination method where the  the students nominate peers  ratings  procedure is to  have  according to certain nonbehavioral criteria (i.e. best  friend, preferred work partner). This appears to often result in a large number of  44  students many  choosing  group  same  members  distributions. children  the  highly  receive  With  the  peer  be  rated  so  will  few  no  rating each  popular  individuals. The result  score,  thus  instrument,  it  receives  an  producing is  possible  equal  number  is  severely to of  that  skewed  control  which  ratings.  UBC's  Amdahl V8 Computer has a resident program for random grouping of numbers of subjects.  This  program  was  applied  to  students  in  each  student was rated by a randomly formed group of three  A  60-item  available  reading  form,  for Grades 3 to  involving  30  minutes  class  is easily  adapted  that  administration  to  the  time,  examiner  reading  for 208 fourth graders, .88 for 86 third and fourth graders, and .89 for 93  for  93  graders.  fifth  predicted  Interjudge  and sixth  factor  reliability was  graders.  structures  of  .45  Factor-analytic  the  instrument.  for 208 results  is  and in a simple  aloud if considered necessary. For this reading form, internal consistency was  and sixth  each  others.  6. All items are worded positively,  "yes", "no", "sometimes" format that  so  .89 fifth  fourth graders, and .61 indicate  The following  support  for  the  three  aspects of a  leadership,  independence,  child's social behavior in the classroom are assessed:  1.  Individual Prosocial . Actions  -  those  that  involve  assertiveness, and competitiveness, 2.  Social  Interactions  -  those  relations, and control of 3.  Affective  Relationships  that  involve  cooperation,  conformity, authority  aggression, -  as  evidenced  being liked, and popularity.  45  by  liking others,  social  acceptance,  3.4.3  The  Social  The  Skills  rating  of  Rating  Scales  social  skills  behavior is both useful comprehensive  and  -  Teacher  through  and defendable.  representative  teachers'  judgments  of  Conclusions are able to be based on a  sample  of  behavior  in  this  setting  period of time. Teachers are in a position to examine social skill academic  achievement,  peer  student's ability to cope  classroom  interaction,  adult-child  over  a  in relation to  interaction, as  well  as  the  in a variety of problematic situations. The Social Skills  Rating Scale -  Teacher version (SSRS-T) (Gresham & Elliott, in preparation) is a  50-item  scale  rating  Frequency  (2  Importance  =  (2  of  Often =  children's True,  Critical  1 =  for  social  skills  Sometimes  Success  in  based  True, 0  my  on  two  =  Never  Classroom,  Success in my Classroom, 0 = Unimportant for Success Importance Dimension was specific  target  on the  SSRS-T  not scored  behaviors was indicates  Reinforcement  Dimension adequate  has  that  it has  internal  internal consistency  1987b). Gresham et  =  and  Important  (a) (b) for  in my Classroom). The selection  of  not the basis for intervention. Preliminary evidence  (Gresham, Elliott,  high  True),  in this particular study since  a stable factor  factors: (a) Academic Performance, (b) Social Peer  1  dimensions:  for  1987a). the  that  The  total  for each of the factors  al., (1987a) demonstrated  four  different  Initiation, (c) Cooperation, and (d)  & Black,  consistency  structure of  (.75 -  the  SSRS-T  score  (r  Frequency =  .97  and  .93) (Gresham et al.,  frequency  ratings  of  the  SSRS-T appear to be free of rater racial bias, and ratee racial and sexual bias.  A  recent  study by Elliott, Gresham, Freeman, and McCloskey  indicated  that  behavior  in terms  well  the  SSRS-T of  is  stability,  a reliable and valid measure internal consistency,  of  (in press) has  children's  social  and interrater reliability, as  as construct, discriminant, and criterion-related validity. The stability of  SSRS-T  over  a six-week  period was  .90.  46  Interrater reliability was  .80  the  (median),  and the internal consistency  of the SSRS-T total score was .96 with the internal  consistencies for the four factor scores ranging from .71 to .93 (median r The construct  validity was  = . 8 6 X  established by comparisons with the Revised Behavior  Problem Checklist (Quay &. Peterson, 1983) and The Teacher Rating of Academic Performance (Reschly, 1982).  The SSRS-T  seems  to  have  instruments designed to measure manageable  in terms  of  three  major advantages  over  other  children's social skills. First, the scale is highly  length. Secondly, the  categories of  skills were derived  factor analytically and fit together logically as well.. Finally, the Importance  dimension  available  provides  important  additional  clues  to  inclusion of an the  selection  of  appropriate target behaviors when designing an individualized intervention program.  3.4.4  The  Social  Skills  Rating  To date, research social  competence  (SSRS-P)  provide some  quite  of  in  environment. This scale  United  States  twelfth  grade. The SSRS-P  social  skills  in  the  The  is  parent ratings of  Social  environment.  of  Rating  included  social  being  sample  is a 60-item  Skills  was  of the  presently  representative  home  of  preparation)  generalization  school  a  Parent  the use  limited.  & Elliott,  measure  on  -  investigating  is  (Gresham  Scale  their childrens' Scale  in  this  -  study  to  skills training outside  the  standardized nationally  children  from  preschool  parent rating scale designed Completion  Parent  time  is  to  in the to  the  assess  approximately  20  minutes. The factor structure "is the same as that described for the SSRS-T, and is  based  on  the  same  two  dimensions  of  (a)  Frequency  and  (b)  Importance.  Items are either identical, or similarly worded, but adapted to a home setting. A comparative before  example  asking  for  would  your  be:  Teacher  assistance."  Parent  47  Form Form  -  "Attempts -  "Attempts  classroom  tasks  household  tasks  before  asking for your help." All items, on both SSRS scales, are stated in the  positive. Therefore, the higher the score, the more socially skilled the student  is  considered to be.  Differences  in responses between teacher and parent ratings of social  should perhaps be expected, given the differences demands  and social  between home and school. Social skills do not necessarily  general response the  in setting  conditions  behavior  represent a  disposition, but are determined by a variety of factors in which the  behavior  is  assessed, and the  skills  such as  expectations  of  the  particular environment in which it occurs.  3.5  Intervention  Getting  Along  With  Others:  Jackson, & Monroe, 1983) instructional  techniques  Teaching  is a social  for  the  Social  Effectiveness  to  (Jackson,  Children  skills training program offering  elementary  school  child.  These  techniques  applicable to both regular classroom situations and learning disabilities where The  students have  Skill  Lessons  the  ability to  and Activities  follow  verbal discussion  notebook  presents  17  systematic  with  classrooms  relative  important  are  skills  ease. to  be  taught in a group format. The  lesson  hour time  allotment.  modifications suggest  in  for their  components, implement  format  he  the  is  Because  this  best  she  of  study  Program or  designed  were  possible  were, therefore, condensed to  able  once  logistical  Guide that  is  for  to  a week  problems  necessary. once design  adaptations  for  the  instruction using  with  Jackson, user  is  a plan  for  each  unique  these  time  Jackson,  and  familiar  with  program use setting.  13 weeks but still included 15 of the  48  a  two  demands, Monroe all that  the will  The sessions 17 skills. Of  the  two  omitted,  Skill  #14;  "Using Positive  Consequences",  has  very  similar  behavior components to those covered in "Giving & Receiving Positive Feedback." Skill  #12:  "Asking for Clear Directions" was  chosen  as the most  the opinion of the experimenter, as it did not appear to affect scales In two adapted  in anyway of  the  as there were  no scale items  lessons, related skills were  curriculum  outline  is  outlined  specific  expendable, in  the  to this particular skill.  combined into a single  in Table  1.  measurement  Since  one  session. The  skill  builds  on  another to some degree, it is recommended that the skill sequence be followed.  The session schedule one  hour format, by  was  reduced from the original two hour format, to a  omitting: Free Play, Relaxation Training,  and  Snack  Time  from the packaged program outline. The modified format includes: 1.  Homework review  2.  Introduction of a new skill modelled by co-leaders, both inappropriately and appropriately, with discussion  3.  Students role play skill and get a.  Discuss rationale for using the skill. **  b.  Lead  students  techniques 1.  feedback  Activity -  through  a  "reality  response"  checklist  (i.e.  coping  leaders  observe  if their overture is rejected) **  students interact and apply the  new  skill  while  and encourage 2.  Discussion  -  as  a  group,  discuss  the  success  or  problems  with  interaction 3.  Assign homework. **  ** These items are considered, by the experimenter, to be very important components of this program. 1  49  the  Table 1 The Adapted Curriculum Outline Session 1:  Session 6:  Skill Skill Skill Skill Skill Skill Skill Skill  #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8  Session Session Session Session Session  7: 8: 9: 10: 11:  Skill Skill Skill Skill Skill  #9 #10 #11 #13 #15  Session 12: Session 13:  Skill Skill  #16 #17  Session 2: Session 3: Session 4: Session 5:  The  Getting  Along  However, those  in the  perform  it,  would  demonstrated discussion.  With  program  Others  group observed  still  through the  It was  Introduction to Program Introducing Following Directions Giving & Receiving Positive Feedback Sending an "I'm Interested" Message Sending as "Ignoring" Message Interrupting a Conversation Joining a Conversation Starting a Conversation and Keeping It Going Sharing Offering to Help Compromising Problem Solving Giving & Receiving a Suggestion for Improvement Handling Name-Calling & Teasing Saying "No" To Stay Out of Trouble  chosen  benefit  from  as  takes  a  having the  exposure  to  skills  skill the  deficit  approach.  but choosing possible  appropriate and inappropriate role  to  consequences  play and the  group  over other commercially, packaged social skills training  programs for the following reasons: 1.  age appropriate format and topics  2.  lessons provide sound educational techniques such as:  3.  not  a.  clear presentation of skill  components,  b.  visual reinforcement (through role modelling),  c.  experiential activity (through application and practise of the skill),  d.  positive reinforcement, and  e.  review and generalization of the skill  minimal cost and availability of program materials  50  4.  format and instructional approach is suitable for classroom settings.  5.  minimal preparation time for lessons  6.  inclusion of the previously mentioned components.  The key components are as follows: Rationale: The rationale should be drawn from the students as much as as they need to believe  in both the value of the skill, and it's practical use.  Reality response: The reality response rejection from others  possible  prepares the students for the possibility of  although they may have  mastered the  skill  and performed  it well. It provides an opportunity to discuss why this may happen, and how to deal with this problem.  Homework: The homework outside  the  instructional  sheet setting  forces and  the  students  increases  the  to  apply their  likelihood  of  new  skills  generalization  occurring.  3.6 Analysis  The ' two versus  none)  occasion)  independent  variables in this study are treatment  and Instructor (A versus  fixed  effects  B). A 2x2x2 (treatment  model factorial multivariate analysis  of  (skills instruction by  instructor by  variance will  be  applied to examine the main effects for the independent variables, any interaction effects between independent  variables and/or between treatment  and occasion. If  the interaction is significant, analysis of simple mean effects will help determine where the significance  lies. The alpha =.05  51  level will be utilized.  C H A P T E R  4  R E S U L T S  This chapter begins with reliability analyses of the internal consistency stability  of  the  program was pre  measures.  The LERTAP  used to access the internal consistency  (Nelson,  1975)  computer  of each subscale, for both  and post test sessions. Means and standard deviations are presented for both  individual A  four dependent  and  2X2  and combined groups. ANOVA  treatments.  was  run to  Finally, to  test  Intercorrelations  test the  for  initial  among the  differences  scales are reported.  between  hypotheses, a MANOVA  was  teachers  run on  and  the  total  scores of the four measures.  4.1 Scale Reliability Analyses  Reliabilities of subscale are presented subscales;  scores and total  scores on the dependent  in Table 2. Hoyt internal consistency  Cronbach's alpha and a pre-post  measures  estimates are given  stability  coefficient  is  for the  provided for  each total score. Generally,  the  Piers-Harris  consistencies that were subtest  length,  as  Self  Concept  low. This did not  those  containing  more  subscales  appear simply to items  were  less  shorter subtests. The test manual does not offer  subscale  total  determined  coefficients  ranging  from  .78  to  .93  produced be  a reflection  reliable  than  alphas  coefficient  was  of  low  .66 at  (at  Time  .25 when  1)  and  compared to  52  .83 the  (at test  of  other,  reliability, but reports by  applying  Kuder-Richardson Formula 21. In the present study, total scores showed acceptable  internal  Time  2).  The  the  lower but stability  manual coefficients  of  Table 2 Reliabilities* of  Total  Scores and Subtest  Scores for  Piers-Harris, Peer Rating, S S R S - T ,  SSRS-P Internal Consistencies  Posttest  Pretest  Test  Hoyt  Subscales  Piers-Harris  Hoyt  66 Behavior Intellectual & School Status Physical Appearance & Attributes Anxiety Popularity Happiness & Satisfaction  00 16 64 43 59 33  Prosocial Action Social Interaction  60 71  72 75  Affective  Relationships  68  72  Academic Performance Social Initiation Cooperation Peer Reinforcement  91 88 94 73  Academic Performance Social Initiation Cooperation Peer Reinforcement  71 82 90 59  Peer Rating  74  SSRS-P  rounded  to  2  significant  figures; decimals  omitted.  Stability  83  25  88  40  78  79  70  50  89 88 93 69 75  coefficients  Alpha  31 31 72 42 70 45 81  SSRS-T  •Reliability  Alpha  83 58 93 74  .72, .71, and .72 that were gathered with one half of the standardization sample. Analysis  of  the  Peer  Rating  Scale  revealed  subscales  that  appear to  be  quite highly interrelated with very little differentiation. All indices were slightly higher them  at  Time  to  be  Consequently, difficult  to  2.  Examination  consistently it  was  of  higher  decided  to  the  intercorrelations between  than  .63,  with  concentrate  determine whether the subscale  on  just  one  total  test  factors were  like constructs. Alphas for the total test at" Time  scales  exception scores  as  showed at  .48.  it  was  measuring different, or  1 and Time 2 were  .81 and  .88 respectively, indicating acceptable consistency when subscales were combined. The stability score was .40, suggesting  limited reliability over time.  Subscale scores on the SSRS-T showed the highest consistency of the four measures  used.  Although  the  larger  SSRS-P  reliability  subscale,  Indices  which  at  Time  1 and Time  measures  differences  the  same  between  remained quite  factors  occasions  stable, was  reliability in the dependent variables, it was total  scores.  Alphas  for  the  2 show  SSRS-T  as  for  almost the  identical  SSRS-T,  SSRS-P.  an exception.  values.  there  The  were  Cooperation  To assure maximum  decided to analyze and report only  ranged  from  .74  to  .78,  SSRS-P, from .70 to .75 indicating acceptable internal consistency  and  for  the  levels. Stability  reliability for the SSRS-T was at .79, and at .50 for the SSRS-P.  Overall,  internal  consistency  reliabilities for  subscale  scores  were  deemed  not to be high enough to use as dependent variables in the MANOVA, with the exception of the SSRS-T measure. For the sake of unity in reporting, only total scores  were  used.  Alphas  measures. Stability scores scales were  were  within  acceptable  ranges  for  all  four  total  suggest stronger reliability over time when the rating  completed by adults (i.e. teachers  54  and parents) than those, such as  the  Piers-Harris and Peer Rating Scale, where  children were directly involved in  the ratings.  4.2 Descriptive Results  The  means  presented  standard  deviations  the  Piers-Harris self-concept  exception  of  the  Control  measure  pretest.  Control  pre  A similar result was  Group with  double  that  of  score.  The  Control  and  noted  change  post  testing  are  occurred over  time,  Instructor A. The posttest  mean  nearly two  on the  and a half times that of  Peer Rating Scale  Instructor A. The standard deviation  the  proportion on the  little  Group with  dropped, while the . standard deviation was the  across  in Table 3. Results are shown for both treatment and instructor.  On the with  and  pretest, while Group posttest  with  there was Instructor  increased to  a noticeable B  showed  mean, although, in this  in this  decrease  an  more than  in the  increase  case, the  same  change  of  mean similar  in variance  was not of the same magnitude. Results on both the SSRS-T and the SSRS-P were quite consistent with no substantial  changes.  Intercorrelations  among pre and post tests on the Piers-Harris, Peer Rating,  SSRS-T, and SSRS-P are provided. in Table 4. Significance revealed,  as  measure  for  suggests  some  over  time.  Peer  Rating  might all  be  four real  expected, tests.  changes  Statistically Scale  with  However, in rank  significant the  on  the the  pre  highest  post  and the  55  results  of  correlation, r=.694  order on measures  correlations  SSRS-T,  and  at the .05  between  of  affective  pretest  scores  Piers-Harris with  both  level the  was same  (SSRS-T), constructs were the  the Peer  Table Means  3 and Standard Deviations  Treatment  Across  Instructor  Pre and Post  Testing  Occasion  Piers-Harris x  Experimental  Ln  Control  Entire  Sample  SO  Peer  Rating  x"  SD  SSRS-T x  SSRS-P  SD  x  SD  Pre  42.08  08.45  122.17  13.39  103.08  1 1.93  134.17  18.53  Post  42.92  07.66  128.00  14.8 1  101.33  00.98  136.33  1 6.22  Pre  49.58  5.43  128.33  08.49  1 13.00  20.03  128.25  18.85  Post  49.83  05.65  1 3 1.08  10.85  109.42  15.59  137.75  14.57  Pre  42.42  06.96  129.92  09.44  1 14.67  21.46  136.53  12.90  Post  25.75  17.23  1 19.00  21.38  109.17  21.89  133.50  15.08  Pre  40.22  07.24  1 14.89  20.27  108.22  20.10  132.22  13.49  Post  42.00  07.16  125.33  13.81  109.78  17.31  127.00  14.54  Pre  43.80  07.74  124.42  13.87  109.84  18.61  132.84  16.11  Post  40.00  13.82  125.89  15.96  107.27  15.76  134.09  15.15  .  Table  4  Intercorrelations  Among  Pre  and Post  Tests  on  the Piers-Harris, Peer  Rating, S S R S - T  & SSRS-P  (N=46)  Post  Pre  Occasion  Test  1a  Pre  1a Piers-Harris 2a Peer  Lri  Post  •values  were  2a  3a  4a  1b  2b  3b  1.00  Rating  .315*  1.00  3a  SSRS-T  .298*  .493*  1.00  4a  SSRS-P  -.241  .001  .177  1.00  1b  Piers-Harris  .416*  .011  .047  -.224  1.00  2b  Peer  .257  .509*  .292*  -.084  .306*  1.00  3b  SSRS-T  .227  .395*  .694*  .049  .188  ,338*  1.00  4b  SSRS-P  .075  .302*  .436*  .643*  -:123  .188  .306*  significant  Rating  at  4b  alpha  =  .05  1.00  Rating Scale and the SSRS-T. Although not strong, three correlations were found between posttest scores: the Piers-Harris with the Peer Rating Scale, the SSRS-T with  the  Peer  Rating  Scale,  and  correlations that were significant with  the  posttest  posttest  Peer  SSRS-T, the  Rating  pretest  the  SSRS-T  with  the  at the  p =.05  level  were: the  Scale,  Peer  the  pretest  Rating Scale  Peer  SSRS-P.  Rating  and SSRS-T  Other  pretest Scale  with  cross  SSRS-T with  the  the  posttest  SSRS-P.  4.3 Test for Initial Differences  To  investigate  possible  occurred, a 2X2 ANOVA interaction  effects  are  was  differences  between  run for each dependent  reported  in  Table  5.  A  groups  before  treatment  variable. Main effects and  more  detailed  presentation  is  provided in Appendix A. In examining and  main effects, there  (b) no difference  were discovered  took are  was  this  between Treatment and Instructor on two  taken  (a) and (b) could be  and differences  into account  discussed  pretest score  on the  Scale  were  and a repeated  in a subsequent  assumed  measures  section.  interaction  measures.  to  MANOVA  was  Instructor B, was  Instructor A, in groups designated  of  conservative  run. Its of  effects  Because  exist. Subsequent  On further examination  analysis details  Table 3, the considerably  for treatment. For the  Groups, the scores were shown to be quite similar. For the Peer Rating  interaction effect, large differences  Control  between Treatment,  misleading. Therefore, a  Piers-Harris for students of  higher than for those of Control  (a) no difference  between Instructors. However, significant  this, interpretation of position  was  Groups. Variance was  in pretest means were apparent for the  considerably greater  58  for  Instructor B's group when  TABLE 5 Summary  of  Pre-Treatment  Differences  Among Treatments  Piers-Harris, Peer  Peer  Piers-Harris  Source  of  Rating, S S R S - T ,  &  SSRS-P  SSRS-T  Rating  SSRS-P  df  Variance  Treatment  (T)  1,43  3.799-  ,058  .268  .607  .520  .475  .409  .526  Instructor  (I) -  1,43  2.028  .162  .849  .362  .179  .674  1.125  .295  Treatment  (T)xlnstructor(l)  1,43  5.174*  .028  7.251  .010  2.129  .152  .025  .875  •values were  significant  at alpha  =  .05  compared  to Instructor A's group. In the Treatment Groups, the direction of the  difference  was  reversed, with  interaction  effects  and no  a  higher  mean  significant main  f o r Instructor  effects  B. No  f o r Treatment  significant  or  Instructor  were uncovered on either the SSRS-T or the SSRS-P measures.  4.4 Test of the Hypotheses  The  research  hypotheses were presented  Chapter 2. They are discussed The  in null form  in directional form  at the end of  in this section f o r statistical testing.  criterion f o r rejection of the hypotheses was the conventional  alpha level of  •05.  4.5 Importance of Treatment  Hypothesis increase  1 stated  that subjects  at the .05 level from  measures: a) Piers-Harris Social  Skills  Rating  receiving treatment will show a significant  the pre to post  Children's  Self-Concept  Scale-Teacher  (SSRS-T);  scores Scale; and  on the four  dependent  b) Peer Rating d)  Social  Scale; c)  Skills  Rating  Scale-Parent (SSRS-P). A was  repeated  performed  measures to examine  presents a summary summary  multivariate  analysis  the between  of variance,  and within  subject  SPSS:X  (Nie,  variances.  1983)  Table  6  of the multivariate tests of significance. Table 7 presents a  of the univariate tests of significance. The relationship between the two  main variables (i.e. Treatment-by-Occasion) is graphically displayed  60  in Figure 2.  SSRS-P ( P a r e n t  Rating)  130 136 H Mean value  1 3 4  -Q- Experimental Control  132 130 120 Protost  Posttosl Occasion  P i e r s - l l a r r i s S e l f Concept S c a l e  Mean v a l ue  -Q- Experimental Control  Protest  Posttest Occasion  F i g u r e 2: Treatment hy O c c a s i o n ' I n t e r a c t i o n ,  61  Table 6  Summary  of  Multivariate Tests  and Their  Interactions  of  Significance:  Treatment, Instructor, Occasion,  Sources of Variance  Between  Subjects  Treatment (T)  5.25  .002  Instructor (I)  2.31  .076  Treatment x Instructor (Txl)  0.50  .739  Occasion (0)  1.65  .181  Occasion x Treatment (OxT)  5.55  .001*  Occasion x Instructor (Oxl)  4.46  .005*  Occasion x Treatment x Instructor (OxTxl)  5.12  .002*.  Within Subjects  * Significant at alpha = .05, df(4,38)  As can be seen, in Table 7, the within subjects effect the  measures: The Piers-Harris Self  F(7,20)=0.010. SSRS-T  The  were  within  not  identified  by  a  minimally  over  significant  decline  subject  significant.  higher  pretest  is significant  for two of  Concept Scale F(7,64)=0.009, and the SSRS-P effects  The  interaction  mean  time, and a pretest  on  for  mean  the  the  effect  Rating on  Treatment  for the  over time. The interaction effect  62  Peer  Control  the Group  Scale  and  Piers-Harris  the is  that  increases  Group that  shows a  on the SSRS-P  is  identified  Table  7  Summary  of  Sources  of  Between  Univariate  Tests  of  Significance: Treatment,  Variance  Instructor, Occasion, and Their  Piers-Harris  Interactions  Peer Rating  SSRS-T  SSRS-P  Subjects  Treatment  (T)  13.58  .001*  1.72  .197  0.62  .434  0.17  .682  Instructor  (I)  09.51  .004*  0.01  .972  0.41  .525  0.78  .383  Treatment  x  00.01  .969  1.32  .256  1.58  .216  0.13  .717  05.71  .022*  1.07  .307  1.17  .285  0.20  .654  Within  Instructor  (Txl)  Subjects  Occasion  (0)  Occasion  x  Treatment  (OxT)  07.64  .009*  1.33  .255  0.03  .872  7.20  .010*  Occasion  x  Instructor  (Oxl)  09.55  .004*  5.43  .025*  0.37  .546  0.49  .489  Occasion  x  Treatment  x  Instructor  10.84  .002*  9.70  .003*  1.08  .306  1.62  .210  at alpha  =  .05  * Significant  (OxTxl)  by a lower pretest results  mean for the Treatment Group that increases  in a higher posttest  mean, while the  Control  over time and  Group mean declines  over  time. These results indicate a significant interaction effect between Treatment, and Control  Groups  competency  for  from  the  self-concept  pre-to-post  testing.  the parent rating that demonstrates  rating,  and  Hypothesis  parent  rating  of  social  1 is, therefore, confirmed for  a significant increase. The self-concept rating  scale, although demonstrating an interaction, does not show a significant increase over  time.  Hypothesis  1  is  rejected  for  the  peer  rating  and  teacher  rating  measures.  4.6 Importance of Instructor  Hypothesis  2 stated  that  the  subjects  receiving treatment  or the  placebo  from Instructor A , would show no significant difference at the .05 level in their pretest  to  posttest  scores  when  compared to  scores  from  subjects  receiving  treatment or the placebo from Instructor B. The  repeated  within subjects Table  measures  MANOVA  (SPSS:X)  was  used  to  investigate  the  variance for Instructor-by-Occasion. These results are reported in  6. A graphic illustration of  the  interaction effects  between  Instructor A's  groups and Instructor B's groups is given in Figure 3. As  shown  Piers-Harris  in  Self  Table  Concept  6,  the  Scale  within F  subject  (9,55)=.004,  effect and  is  the  significant  Peer  Rating  for  the  Scale  F  (5,43)=.025. The null hypothesis 2 was, therefore, not rejected on these measures. The  remaining  significant  two  measures,  interaction effects.  the  SSRS-T  and  SSRS-P,  did  Consequently, the null hypothesis  rejected for these measures.  64  not  show  any  2 is able to be  P i o r s - l l a r r i s S e l f Concept  Mean v a l ue  -a- Instructor A Instructor B  Pretost  Posttost Occasion  Peer R a t i n g  Mean v a l ue  -o- Instructor A -•- Instructor B  Pretest  Posttest Occasion  f i g u r e 3: I n s t r u c t o r  by O c c a s i o n  65  Interaction.  The interaction between Instructor A's group and Instructor B's group on the Piers-Harris increases  is  identified  slightly  significant  by a higher pretest mean for  over time. The mean scores for  decline  from  pre to post testing.  Instructor B's group that  Instructor A's group show a  The interaction effect  on the  Rating Scale shows a higher pretest mean for Instructor A's group that over time. The mean for Instructor B's group increases  significantly  Peer  declines  from pre to  post testing.  These  results  suggest  variables  over  measures.  No significant  rating  scales.  ratings  of  time  was  interaction  significant  effect  for  2  was,  competency,  therefore,  and  of  the  interaction effect was  Hypothesis  social  the  rejected  the  Instructor-by-Occasion  self-concept  evident  peer  rating  for the teacher or parent  confirmed for  and  for  parent  self-concept  and  and  peer  teacher rating  measures.  The interaction effects  of  the Treatment-by-lnstructor-by-Occasion variables  are illustrated in Figures 4a & 4b. Table 6 also shows the significant among these variables  on the  Piers-Harris  Self  Concept Scale  interaction  F(10,84)=.002 and  the Peer Rating Scale F(9,70)=.003. For the Piers-Harris, Instructor A's results are identified by similar pretest means for the two groups, with the Treatment Group remaining  fairly  significantly. means  for  constant  Instructor B's results both  Treatment  Instructor A's Control the  over  and  time  while  the  Control  show a very slight Control  Groups.  Treatment Group shows an increase  from  increase  On  Group shows a decrease from  Group  the  pre to  mean  from  Peer  drops  pre-to-post  Rating  Scale,  post  means, while  pre to post means.  Instructor B's  Control Group has a similar pretest mean to the Treatment Group but decreases significantly over time, while the Treatment Group mean increases  66  over time.  I n s t r u c t o r A: P i e r s - H a r r i s  Mean value  •o- Experimental Control  Pretest  Posttest Occasion  I n s t r u c t o r B: P i e r s - H a r r i s 50 48 H  46 H Mean value  -o- Experimental - • - Control  44-1 42 -i 40 Pretest  Posttest Occasion  H o u r e 4a: I n t e r a c t i o n o f Treatment, I n s t r u c t o r , & O c c a s i o n : P i e r s - H a r r i s  67  Instructor A: Poor Rating  -o-  Mean value  Pretest  Exporlmontal Control  Posttest Occasion  Instructor B: Peer Rating  135  130  Mean val ue  125 -Q- Exporlmontal Control  120 -  115 Pretest  Posttest Occasion  Figure 4 b : Interaction of Treatment, Instructor, & Occasion: Peer Rating  68  These stable Control  over  results  indicate  time  that  in Treatment  for  the - Piers-Harris, the  Groups for  Instructor  remained fairly  A and  Instructor B.  Group means were inconsistent, with Instructor A's group decreasing and  Instructor B's group remaining stable. means  both  mean  for  both  instructors  For the  decreased  Peer  over  Rating Scale, Control  time.  Treatment  Group  Group means  increased over time for both Instructor A and Instructor B.  In  summary,  the  receiving treatment Social  showed  supported  Hypothesis  a significant  increase  Skills Rating Scale-Parent. A significant  the Piers-Harris Self their pre-to-post No significant the  data  Social  significant  1  only  in  in pre-to-post  interaction was  part. scores  scores minimally, while those receiving no treatment  at  the  .05  level  for  increased decreased.  found for the Peer Rating Scale, or  Skills Rating Scale-Teacher. For hypothesis difference  on the  also apparent on  Concept Scale. However, those receiving treatment  increase at the .05 level was  Subjects  pre-to-post  2, the  data supported no  scores  when  comparing  Instructors on the SSRS-T and SSRS-P measures, but rejected this hypothesis the Piers-Harris and Peer Rating measures.  69  on  C H A P T E R  5  D I S C U S S I O N  This  final  chapter  reviews  the  findings  and examines  them  in relation  to  research considered in earlier chapters. Strengths and limitations of the study are discussed, followed by suggestions for practice in education and implications for future research.  5.1 General Nature of Results  It was  speculated  that  a social  skills training program would result  increase in the subjects' self-concept,  peer acceptance, and social competency  rated by parents and teachers. The data supported this hypothesis rating measure  only. Secondly, it was  instructors was the peer  teacher rating  not expected  and parent measures.  to  hypothesized  be significant.  rating measures, In analyzing  in an  that the  scale  for the parent  effect  This premise was  but rejected  for the  reliability, the  of  different  confirmed for  self  decision  as  concept was  made  and to  report only total scores to assure maximum reliability in the dependent -variabies. Internal  consistency  Interestingly,  alphas were  stronger  stability  within acceptable reliability  was  ranges  on all four  suggested  for  the  measures. measures  completed by adults (i.e. the SSRS-T and SSRS-P) than those completed by the subjects  themselves (i.e. the Piers-Harris and Peer Rating Scale). This may imply  that these constructs, with a high, and more immediate affective susceptible and  to  confounding  variables  such  as  the  current classroom  the emotional climate present at the time of testing.  70  component, are interactions  In examining the means and standard deviations across pre and post testing, this affective  element  appears to surface again. One particular group stands out.  Instructor A's Control the  Piers-Harris  Group shows a noticeable  and  the  Peer  administered to these students the  SSRS-T  and SSRS-P  Rating  drop in the posttest mean for  Scale.  These  two  measures  were  in their classroom setting which is in contrast to  scales  that  were  completed  outside  of  school  time.  Instructor A reported a negative atmosphere in the room on testing day that had been  triggered by  class.  This  a playground fight  precipitated the  need  for  involving several considerable  of  effort  the  students  in the  in calming the group  before beginning. This confound should be considered when interpreting results.  A  noticeable  increase  in the  posttest  mean on the  Peer Rating  Scale  Instructor B's Control Group should also be addressed. This change was exaggerated,  due to  a high anxiety  level  during the  initial  testing  for  possibly  session that  may have artificially depressed the pretest mean. There appeared to be a distrust among the students  and considerable apprehension of how others would evaluate  them. This distrust was also directed at the instructor, who was unknown to the group  at this  stage, and yet  would  reveal  personal  session,  the  undergone experienced  rapport a in  was  asking them to  interpretations  between  positive Instructor  Instructor  change.) B's  of  This  their  self-worth.  B and the type  of  Treatment Group  complete  nor  (By  students  reaction  Intercorrelations  the  in this was,  in either  groups. Nevertheless, it does raise several issues for possible will be discussed in a subsequent  rating scales  of  that  posttesting group had  however,  not  Instructor A's  future studies that  section.  among pre and post  tests  suggest  some  real  changes  in  rank order over time. This, again, may be a reflection of the immediate climate affecting the measurement of affective, constructs.  71  Because  of the necessity of using intact classroom  groups in this study, a  2X2 analysis of variance was run to test for initial differences. were  present  for  either  of  the  Instructor). However, • significant  independent  variables  No main effects  (i.e.  Treatment  interaction effects on two of the four  and  dependent  variables were discovered. It was, therefore, decided to test the hypotheses with a  multiple  analysis  of  variance  that  would  control  for  the  pretreatment  differences.  5.2 Effect of Purpose  The social  central  skills  self-concept,  hypothesis  training  was  program,  peer acceptance,  that  subjects  would  show  and social  receiving a  treatment,  significant  competency  as  improved social  correlation  skill  between  behavior, which  is  social competency  on self  poor often  concept  emotional  has not been development  a reflection  of  low  increase  13-week in  their  rated by teachers  parents. Evidence of previous research studies specifically of  a  and  investigating the effect uncovered. However, the  and  inappropriate  self-concept,  and  that  school of  poor  is well documented in the literature (Amidon & Hoffman, 1965;  Csapo, 1982; Cowen, Pedersen, Babigian, Izzo, & Trost, 1973). This appears to be particularly true for learning disabled children in the school  system (Bryan,  1978;  Gresham & Nagle, 1980).  Peer unskilled  acceptance children  interactions, others  was  were  chosen  found  communicating  to  their  as  a variable for  have own  (Gottman, Gonso, & Rasmussen,  difficulty needs 1975;  developing  since  socially  positive  peer  cooperating  with  Gottman, Gonso, & Schuler,  1976;  to  in  investigation  others,  and  Oden & Asher, 1977). Peer rejection was also shown to be directly connected  72  to  social skill deficits  in handicapped populations (Bruininks, 1978; Bryan, 1978).  Support for the main hypothesis of  self-concept  or peer  acceptance.  reported for the self-concept a decrease in the Control  was not found for the dependent Although there was  a significant  variables interaction  rating scale, it appears to have resulted more from  Group mean, rather than the predicted increase  Treatment Group mean (Figure 2). Nevertheless,  in the  the graph does illustrate a slight,  but positive change for the Treatment Group subjects.  At  the  gathered  on  acceptance.  completion the  effects  An informal  of  the  of  study,  social  discussion  evidence  skills with  of  training  the  a  subjective  on  Treatment  nature  was  and  peer  self-concept Group  students  elicited  such responses as: "I'm making more friends now." "Now I stay out of trouble more." "There's more things to say to people." "Now I know what to do when someone's teasing or name-calling me." "I liked the compromising part." "Saying no has changed. I can say it now." This direct feedback confidence,  and  suggests that there  in their  own  are some changes in the subjects'  perception  of  being  more  successful  with  self their  peers.  Contrary measure.  to  Teacher  expectations, ratings  of  no the  significant most  effect  socially  was  found  significant  for the  behaviors  SSRS-T in  their  classroom are directly connected to order and control, and have little to do with peer  interaction  skills  Conditions necessary  (Gresham, 1984;  for change  Hersh & Walker,  1983;  Stephens,  1978).  in this area may have as much to do with the  73  teacher's  interpersonal skills  in disciplining, as the change  in the students'  social  behavior. It also appears that the acquisition of social skills may be, initially, a process skill,  of  internalizing, the skill and developing a self confidence  before  factors  the  may  actual  account  overt  for  having gained from the an increase  The  their  child  in  behavior  discrepancy  between  measure  increase (Figure  that  over 2).  is  recognizable.  the  students'  training program, and the teachers'  in the social competency  one  significant  the  change  This  was  was  These  two  comments  inability to  of  perceive  of the students over the 13-week period.  supported  time  to perform the  the  the  main  parent  evaluated  hypothesis  rating of  by  the  by  social  child's  showing  a  competency  in  performance  of  the  taught social skills in an environment away from the school. Although it must be recognized that the homework assignment applied  in the  home  out successfully,  setting, the  and it was  fact  was designed to ensure the skills were  that the  evaluated  subjects were able to carry this  by the parent as an attained social  skill,  is encouraging for the problem of generalization over setting and situation.  5.3 Effect of  Instructors  The second of  Instructor  measured  hypothesis  A, or  outcome.  stated that  Instructor Partial  social  B, would  support  was  not  skills have  found  training under the a significant  as  no  effect  interaction  tutorage on  effect  the was  evident for either the teacher rating or parent rating variable over time. However, significant rating  interactions  measures.  As  were  present  previously  for  discussed,  both the  the  self-concept  rating and peer  Instructor-by-Occasion  interaction  on both the Piers-Harris Self-Concept Scale, and the Peer Rating Scale, seems to have  been  influenced  by  the  negative  74  atmosphere  present  in  Instructor  A's  Control Group during the posttesting  Two questions  arise  from  session.  this. First, is whether the established  interactive  patterns in the class, that now must adapt to new standards of behavior set by the  Instructor during the  relations  lessons, impact on the students' self-concept  and confound the  effects  that  may occur from  the  and peer  training program.  Second, is whether the effect of the training program may be conditional on the success or failure of the Instructor in establishing rapport with the students, and the degree  to which they  support, the powerful  offer encouragement  and praise during this period. In  literature reports that the teacher, in this case the  Instructor, is a  model of behavior and attitudes and has an important influence on the  kinds of behaviors that are reinforced (Becker, Madsen, Arnold, & Thomas, 1967) and  that  students  perceived  as  brighter and  more  competent  tend  to  receive  more attention, praise, and opportunities to respond (Brophy & Good, 1974; Good & Brophy, 1978).  5.4 Summary of the Findings  The findings and the conclusions that can be drawn from this  investigation  are presented below:  1.  Treatment in the form of a 13-week social skills training program produced a  significant  effect  in self  concept  ratings  and parent  ratings  of  social  competency. However, only the latter demonstrated the predicted, measurable increase  in  social  skills  over  acceptance  and teacher rating of  significant  at  program  of  the  this  .05 level. length  time. social  These  may not  The  75  competency  findings  allow  effect  for  of  treatment  was  suggest  not shown  that  a measurable  on  an  peer to be  intervention  change  in these  constructs.  1  It's  effect,  however,  may  have  been  diluted  by  confounding  factors, or simply been undetected with the chosen dependent measures an  internal  change  in  cognition  or  self-perception  that  was  not  (e.g.  yet  an  observable, or measurable behavior change).  Receiving social skills training from Instructor A was not expected to result  2.  in any measurable difference training received parent  rating  from  and  on the dependent  Instructor B. This hypothesis  teacher  rating  measures.  were apparent on the self-concept the  instructors' individual  personal have  interaction  skills  are  have  was  Significant  all  classroom  interaction  possible  behavior  confounding  Classroom atmosphere  had some  supported for the effects  and peer rating measures. The impact of  training style,  influenced this outcome.  also seems to  variables when compared to  effect  on the  standards, and  factors  that  at the time of  level  of  anxiety  could testing  experienced  by the subjects while completing the rating scales. The  present  investigation  limitations. The conclusions  has,  like  all  research,  drawn should therefore  it's  own  be entertained  strengths  and  with these in  mind.  5.5 Strengths and Limitations of the Study  In  this  period  of  severe  financial  restraint  in  the  educational  system,  funding for student research studies is very sparse. This necessitated the limiting of  the  cost  of  sensitive  experiment employing to  the  to  a fairly  extra  small  help.  generally  personnel that could possibly  It  lower  sample  also  that  increased  morale  and  could be the  76  importance  building  lead to seeing involvement  handled without  pressures  of  the  remaining on  school  in such a study as an  unnecessary burden. Money concerns also influenced a decision not to use formal observational behaviors.  measures  This  would  as  a further evaluation technique  have  required the  training of  of  the  outside  students' social  persons,  to  avoid  observer bias as much as possible, and employing them for pre and post ratings.  An obstacle  to the  ideal of  using random assignment  of subjects  was  the  fact that the school classes involved had to be treated as members of an intact group. Natural grouping promotes the contextual  validity of the study but makes  it more difficult to determine whether differences preexisting  group differences  rather than treatment  need to test for initial pretreatment  Because addition  to  a the  social  skills  classroom  on the post testing are due to effect.  This  precipitated the  differences.  training  program  was  curriculum, cooperation  perceived  from  as  teachers  a  desirable  and parents of  the assigned control groups was assured with the offer of the program materials, combined with in-service training for the teachers, so the program could be run with these classes once the experiment was concluded. The  opportunity  to  present  social  skills  training  in  the  subjects' natural  classroom environment provided a practical way to test educational application of such a curriculum.  It allowed  program  the  content,  ability  for an examination of of  learning  the  disabled  appropriateness of  children  to  productively  participate, the appropriateness of the match between material and age the logistics The  the  level, and  of time and space management for the instructor.  use  of  instructors  School  District as Area  school  system  who  were  currently  Counsellors offered  in which they  were  the  employed  benefits  working. The fact  of  in  the  Coquitlam  familiarity with the  that they  also  held valid  teaching credentials, and had worked several years in this capacity, meant skill in  77  instructional techniques they were  and experience  acquainted with the school  in handling groups of children. In addition, principals and classroom teachers  involved  which was helpful in establishing a level of support and trust in their efforts.  5.6 Implications  The  central  hypothesis  stated  that  a social  skills  training program would  result in a measurable increase in the subjects' self-concept, peer acceptance, and social competency for  only the  as rated by their teacher and parent. Confirmation was found  latter. The failure to  produce the  expected  change  requires further  reflection to try and determine possible reasons for this outcome. Self-concept and experiences. They  have  is  a characteristic that  is  molded by a multitude  Gresham (1987c) states that children do not have  self-concept  in  relation  to  specific  situations  of  factors  self-concept. (i.e.  socially,  academically, athletically). In attempting to measure change in self-concept specific  domain  of  social  competency,  it  appears  that  the  in the  Piers-Harris  Concept Scale incorporates too many variables outside the realm of social that could influence the outcome. skills positively affecting academic  achievement  self-concept  or difficulty  could be nullified by a negative  in athletic  concern is the  be recognizable on  the  day  of  accomplishment.  change in  Perhaps, too, an  may have uncovered an increase in a specific  area that wasn't apparent using only the total  second  fragile  scores.  nature of  self-concept.  Improvement may  in peer interactions, for example, but a single, negative measurement  particular time period. This was  skills  In other words, any perceived change in social  examination of individual subscales  A  Self  could  dramatically  suspected  78  in one  affect  self-concept  of the Control  incident at  that  Groups in the  posttesting  session.  A third unexpected difficulty was the level of anxiety for some subjects in completing a scale that requires a revelation of personal information. This must now  be  recognized  as  a  possible  confounding  factor  in the  study,  as  some  groups reacted with notable anxiety, while others did not appear to be threatened by this assignment  in any noticeable way. In trying to correct this problem, it is  recommended that the instructors for the program spend time in getting to know the subjects, in both the experimental and control groups, before teaching anxiety.  occurs  so  that  an  Ideally, in a school  improved level setting  of  such as  trust, can  this, the  any testing or  reduce  the  level  instructor should be  of the  homeroom teacher who has the opportunity to build rapport over time.  A  further, unforeseen  confound  styles in the four classroom  was  the  preexisting  difference  in teaching  involved. Variations in the teacher expectations  for  student behavior appears to have an effect on the readiness of these students to receive  instruction  in social  skills. This  should  be  recognized  as  having some  impact on the success of the treatment. Peer  acceptance  Friendships established to continue  seems  to  be  a  factor  that  is  quite  stable  over  time.  in the middle childhood period (6 to 10 years) often seem  into the preadolescent  period (11 to  13 years) with strong  For example, it is not uncommon at this age to find peer conflicts  loyalties.  arising from  a variation on the eternal triangle dilemma. The confusion over loyalty boundaries often  results  classmates.  in a problems  of  possessiveness  or jealousy  between  same  sex  In attempting to measure the impact of social skills training through  peer rating measures, such loyalties  may be influencing the evaluations  other classmates in a comparative sense.  79  made on  It  is  also  perceptions  of  possible peer  that  behavior,  changes are  in  not  peer  social  observable  interactions,  after  a  or  13-week  other period.  Although it is not clear whether social skills training just creates new behavioral skills or actual changes in cognition strategies, different expectations), occur.  Incorporation  precede  of  new  (i.e.  reduced anxiety, more problem-solving  it seems likely that the cognition changes must  thinking  processes  time  and  may  have  to  behavioral changes in this area. This would require even more time with  learning disabled students who frequently process other  takes  words,  changes  in peer  relations  may  information at a slower rate. In  actually  be  occurring and  in the  beginning stages, but not yet at a measurable level.  Since the teacher rating scale (SSRS-T) was very similar to the rating scale completed by parents (SSRS-P) there is the question of why the former showed no  statistically  measurable  increase  in social  while  the  latter did  reflect  a noticeable  change  in each of the items included in the rating scale would be more difficult  to  monitor  monitoring  for only  change. Two possibilities  competency,  a teacher one  with  child.  a class  of  Secondly,  the  come to mind. Firstly, recognizable  12  children, compared to  homework  component,  a parent  purposefully  included to improve the generalization of the skill, may have provided the parent with- a  built-in  teacher.  The subjects  environment  opportunity were  and record the  for asked  observation to  that  perform the  interaction  carry  week. A  out, or not  carry  out, the  skill  be  away  in a written homework  observation would give the parent quite concrete to  wouldn't  social  skill  feedback being  available from  the  to  the  school  assignment.  This  on their child's ability  addressed  that particular  follow-up study, or an evaluation made several weeks, or months, after  the completion of the lessons and assignments may have given a truer indication of any real change in social  competency.  80  I would suspect that rather than the main hypothesis on three  of  the  measurement  four measures,  and treatment  being rejected outright  it appears that these several  techniques  need to occur before  corrections to the accurate  conclusions  can be drawn.  The second whether  the  hypothesis  subjects  stated that no significant  effect would be  trained  or  were  by  Instructor  A  Instructor  evidenced  B. This  was  supported by the ratings made by teachers and parents, but not for ratings made by the  subjects themselves. This again brings up the  outcome.  It seems  class, the for  on  logical  higher the trust  the  self-concept  success in establishing student involvement  that  the  better  the  in sharing personal and  peer  rating  instructor's  scales.  so  anxiety  relationship  and judgmental  affecting with  the  information asked  In retrospect,  the  instructors'  such trust, seems to have impacted on both the level of  in class lessons, and their willingness  assignments as well. Furthermore, the other two were not  issue of  directly connected  to  to complete homework  measures  (SSRS-T and SSRS-P)  a relationship with the  instructor, or to  the  atmosphere created in the learning environment.  Interestingly, Instructor, minimally  and  when  Occasion,  improved  treatment, showing groups those positive  receiving receiving  examining  in  decline  showed  treatment,  seemed  cases, with  a significant  no  interaction  self-concept  most  treatment  the  only  to one  effects be  almost  group, those  in the mean score.  an  improvement  declined  for  effect from the program in this area.  81  both  between  for  Treatment,  unchanged not  or  receiving  On the peer ratings,  both  instructors,  instructors, while suggesting  some  5.7 Suggestions for Practices in Education  This study social  provided an opportunity to evaluate  skills training in the  using such a program as  educational  setting.  a preventative  the  practicality of applying  It also examined  measure  the effects  rather than the  of  usual remedial  application.  Although the  preventative  approach may produce less dramatic results than  that of remediating children with obvious deficits  in social ability, it still seems  to  use  be an area that  referral from  basis.  All students  specific  attitude,  training  and  involved.  the  difference offered  to  study  behavior.  the  to  appeared This  participation  suggests  to  on a strictly selective or benefit  comment  and  importance attentional  atmosphere  is  some  based  comments of  to  from  social  degree  on the  general students  competence  on  skills and peer relations. These;  and behavior, and therefore,  the  learning  students.  learning disabled  skills,  in this social  classroom  potential of the  these  educators  relations, achievement,  turn, effect  For  in  vital to  enthusiastic  Research  teacher-student in  is too  acceptance both  students,  by  their  self-esteem  in a typical  who  usually  regular  class  and emotional  instructional  format, gives  experience  more  difficulties  peers  make  an  can  well-being. them  the  in  important  Social  skills training,  chance  to  experience  success and be on an equal plane with other students in a way they will never achieve when the sole emphasis make  integration  a  positive  is on academic achievement.  and  motivating  restrictive environment for their education.  82  experience,  It offers  and  truly,  a way to the  least  A number of suggestions, and some subjective  observations  are offered for  those contemplating use of such a program in a similar environment:  1.  The homeroom teacher or school counsellor is in a position to build rapport and trust with the students over time  and can be a good judge of  needs and issues in the class. The classroom offers  a natural social  where  life.  children  establishes position  spend  good  to  a  control,  effectively  large  portion  in  democratic  a  deliver  a  of  social  their  environment, skills  program  social setting  A  teacher  who  is  in  best  to  the  a  receptive  audience. This climate will effect participation in role play activities, provide good modelling, and the opportunity to use  incidental teaching of  skills  as  real-life situations arise.  2.  The education setting for social skills training also offers the opportunity to apply a long-term developmental  approach. Cognitive growth seems to play  a part in the acquisition of social skills in the same way it does in other skill  areas.  school  By  grades,  expanding for  social  example,  it  skills  training throughout  could be  presented  as  the  elementary  a progressive  skill  building program that keeps pace with the child's maturity. In this way, the acquisition  of  cognitive  understanding  of  social  interactions  is  given  the  necessary  time for appropriate application, or the comprehension of purpose  for  skills,  such  to  occur.  A  further  benefit  is  the  chance  to  promote  continued review of social skills and the maintenance of treatment gains.  3.  This study provided an opportunity to test the logistical concerns that arise when  incorporating a new  tends to obvious  program into an educational  be overloaded with curriculum issue.  At  present  in British  83  demands. Time  Columbia,  setting  that already  management  a relatively  new  is the program,  Family  Life  includes  has been mandated as part of school curriculum. This  Education,  such  subjects  as  physical  health,  sex  education,  and  substance  abuse, and is built on a continuum from Kindergarten to Year Twelve. Social skills training would appear to be a logical subject area  as  a developmentally  previous social education  graded  program that  to incorporate into this could  gradually build  on  learning. This would apply for either the regular or special  setting.  With ready-made social skills training programs, lesson preparation time is  very  brief.  usually follow  Many  include  lesson  plans  and  activity  a consistent format for presentation  suggestions  and  which, therefore, quickly  becomes familiar. The materials for implementing a social skills program are minimal. The Getting Along With Others program is inexpensive  to purchase,  requires no special  equipment, and can be handled quite adequately  space  the  available  in  average  classroom.  Several  other  in the  programs, with  similar benefits, are currently on the market.  4.  The inclusion of social  skills that affect  directions, and handling criticism These could provide the  of  being  better  creates the positive in academic the  social  advantages  to  the  teacher.  able  it is a change to  handle  in teacher  social  issues  expectation,  with  or a  students,  that  climate for change. These skills, that relate to success  performance, may also play a part in convincing educators  necessity  incidental  obvious  "initial hook" that leads to commitment from many  educators. Once involved, often feeling  have  such things as attention, following  of  learning  competency  instruction as as  in  these  children grow an  important  areas  up.  goal  Program) planning in the special education  84  It  rather  may  also  for  IEP  setting.  than help  leaving in  (Individual  it  of to  legitimizing Education  5.  Counsellors and school instructor.  A  preventative  social  psychologists  skills  counselling,  or  group  addition  settings.  to  program  remedial  work  themselves  offers  with  a  in the  medium  students  role for  having  Measurement  of  social  assessments  causes for the students'  skill  level  can  and frequently  of  both  identified  adapted from larger classroom environments  psychoeducational  into possible  find  training  social problems. It is easily small  may  be  a  provides  to  useful insight  difficulties.  5.8 Implications for Future Research  The incorporation of social skills training in the education setting, and with special The  needs students in particular, offers  flexibility  multi-faceted.  and With  adaptability regard to  the  of  a great  such  present  a  potential  program  for future research.  makes  study, a number of  its  application  suggestions  are  offered  to improve both the design and the usefulness of the data produced for  similar  studies  undertaken  in the  future.  These  suggestions  have  been  outlined  below: 1.  Use  of  instructors  that  are  very  familiar  with  the  subjects  would  help  alleviate the anxiety at revealing personal and judgmental information on the self-concept factor.  and peer rating scales and, hopefully, eliminate this confounding  If this  is  not  subjects before testing 2.  More  attention  treatment expectations  to  groups for  possible, time  may  students to receive  develop  rapport and trust with the  is recommended.  matching  social  to  teaching  reduce behavior  the  styles  preexisting  standards  instruction in this area.  85  in classrooms  when  variability  and therefore  the  in  selecting teacher  readiness  of  3.  Thirteen weeks appears to be in  social  s k i l l s , seems  social of  behavior  to  is so  situations  a behavioral change  be  a  review  subjects' behavior. The for at  least  necessary  skills  as  when to apply  preliminary step. Since  the  correct  before  the  school  year  seem  appropriate  even  requires  consistently  provides  where  to be  several weeks, or  behavior  it becomes  educational setting  research design, it would measurement  the comprehension of where and  decide  and  new  situationally specific, opportunity to evaluate a variety  and  reinforcement,  mileu  short a time to see  skills. Time for the cognitive element of absorbing  part of one's repertoire, and such  too  this  a  experience, part  unique,  could  intact  occur.  In  beneficial, therefore, for a months, after  the  of  the  social  a  future  follow-up  program  has  been  completed.  4.  The  inclusion  strength  of  of  parents  the  in the  design.  rating  This  measures  allowed  for  appears the  to  have  examination  been of  a the  generalization of skills away from the training environment. However, a later f o l l o w - u p measure would be helpful here, as w e l l , so the parent of  homework  practice . immediately  differentiated  from  appropriately  in a  . parents  the  child's  ability  spontaneous  after to  skill  attempts  check  that  the  and  skills  apply  fashion. A  is the opportunity to train them  social  learning the  second  to be  the  observation  skill,  skill  is  clearly  voluntarily  advantage  of  and  involving  sensitive to their children's  encourage further reinforcement. It also provides a  taught  are  appropriate  for the  family's  culture  and  value system. 5.  It continues important  to be  impact  measure this. The  the on  experimenter's  self-concept. The  Piers-Harris  belief that social difficulty  Children's Self  86  competency  seems  Concept  to  Scale  be  has  in how  appears to  an to be  too broad a measure to successfully  identify a change in self concept when  it is related specifically to social competence.  A self  rating scale, designed  for this construct in particular, would seem to be a more suitable choice.  6.  The literature provides considerable one  of  the  1982;  1985;  would  be to  behavior  most  elements  in  that social  successful  skills are probably  mainstreaming (Gresham  1986). A recommendation for further investigation  and  integrated  critical  evidence  design  a study  peer  acceptance  classroom.  If  that  the  in  measures  the  both  special  skills  the  of  these  in this area  subjects' change class  in social  setting  students  are  and  the  to  be  able  generalized from the protected environment to the mainstreamed environment, what  effect  these  will  this  have  on acceptance,  learning disabled students?  students for more successful 7.  And, is  and the  sociometric  it an effective  way  status  for  of preparing  integration?  Extending the program to the training of both special education and regular class  students  feedback  for  likelihood  of  in the integrated social  same  school,  students  skills  being  would  likely  result  in particular. It would generalized  to  in more also  different  positive  increase  settings.  the  A pilot  study that involved social skills training for a whole school population over a full  school year might might be a way of measuring the effect on peer  relations  and teacher-student  combining stages.  of  ages  Further  competency,  and  means,  study how  in this  relations however,  in the  working with  understanding relates  larger school  to  different  developmental developmental  abilities, offers the researcher an interesting challenge.  87  community. The developmental  stages stages  in  in  social  cognitive  8.  Specific  suggestions for working with learning disabled students in this area  would be to: a.  Give  more than the  usual  body language, facial  attention  to  nonverbal social  behavior  expression).  b.  Simplify the language used in explaining or discussing social skills.  c.  Conduct  lessons  (i.e.  more  than  once  a  week  as  these  students  need  frequent review. d.  Extend lessons to two or three sessions. This would allow  more time  to shape the skill through further rehearsal and explanation.  While the main objective  of the study was  to  skills training on children, such a program cannot  study the effects be considered  of  social  a panacea for  all childhood social problems. Unfortunately, even if it can be demonstrated the  child's skills  have  increased, if the  situation  he  or she  that  lives with daily is  destructive to the goals of a social skills program, it will likely make no more than  a  marginal  generalization'  difference  to  remains  and  still  that  child's  appears  to  programmed for. Playgrounds, other classrooms, enormously. school child  Training  and continued  and involve other staff are  measurable,  to  be  maintained.  significant  the  difficulties  appears  to  be  be  a  encouragement  Although in  the  The  problem  difficulty that  must  data  self-concept  be  this  or  peer  all vary  study  made by each did  not  relationships  such  an approach that  an intervention may  have  impact on children's lives.  88  program worth the  potential  for  a long-term,  reveal after  available on the importance of these variables  in developing  be  spread throughout a  if the gains  in  with  must  and home environments  members and parents  changes  13-week program, evidence  existence.  a  makes  effort.  It  positive  R E F E R E N C E S  Allan,  J . , & Barber, J. example. Elementary  (1986). School  Teacher  needs  Guidance  and  and  Counseling,  counselor response: 20, 277-282.  Allen, K.E., Hart, B.M., Buell, J.S., Harris, F.R., & Wolf, M.M. (1964); Effects social reinforcement on isolate behavior of a nursery school child. Devel opment, 35, 511-518.  one of Child  Amerikaner, M., & Summerlin, M. (1982). Group counseling with learning-disabled children: Effects of social skills and relaxation training on self-concept and classroom behavior. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 15, 340-343. Amidon,  E., &  Hoffman, C.  Elementary  School  (1965).  Journal,  66,  Can teachers 149-154.  help  the  socially  rejected?  Apolloni, T., & Cooke, T.P. (1978). Integrated programming at the infant, toddler, and preschool levels. In M.J. Guralnick (Ed.), Early intervention and the integration of handicapped and nonhandicapped children. Baltimore: University Park Press. Asher, S.R., & Hymel, S. (1981). Children's social competence in peer relations: Sociometric and behavioral assessment. In J.D. Wine, & M.D. Smye (Eds.), Social competence. New York: Guildford Press. Ballard, M. Corman L , Gottlieb, J . , & Kaufman, M.J. (1977). Improving the social status of mainstreamed retarded children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 605-611. Bandura, A., (1969). Winston.  Principles  Bandura, A., (1973). Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1977).  of  Aggression:  Social  learning  behavior  A  social  theory.  New York: Holt, Rinehart &  modification.  learning  analysis.  Englewood  Cliffs, NJ:  Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.  Becker, W.C., Madsen, C.H.,Jr., Arnold, C. & Thomas, D.R. (1967). The contingent use of teacher attention and praise in reducing classroom behavior problems. Journal of Special Education,1, 287-307. Bellack, A.S., Hersen, M., & Turner, S.M. (1978). Role play tests social skills. Are they valid? Behavior Therapy, 9, 448-461. Berler,  E.S., Gross, A . M . , & Drabman, children: Proceed with caution. 41-53.  R.S. Journal  (1982). of  Social  Applied  Bierman, K., & Furman, W. (1984). The effects of social involvement on the social adjustment of Development, 55, 151-162.  89  skills Behavior  for  assessing  training Analysis,  with 15,  skills training and peer preadolescents. Child  Brockman, P. (1985). Best practices in social skills Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.). Best practices in National Assoc. of School Psychologists. Brophy, J (1981). Reasearch,  Brophy,  Teacher 51,  J., & consequences.  praise:  A functional  and peer school  interaction. In A. Kent, Ohio:  psychology.  analysis.  Review  of  Educational  5^32.  Good, T. (1974). Teacher-student relationships: New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.  Bruininks, V.L. (1978). Actual and perceived students in mainstream programs. Journal  peer  status  of  Special  of  Causes  and  learning-disabled 12, 51-58.  Education,  Bruininks, R.H., Rynders, J.E., & Gross, J.C. (1974). Social acceptance retarded pupils in resource rooms and regular classes. American Mental Deficiency, 78, 377-383.  of mildly Journal  of  Bryan, T.H. (1974). An observational analysis of classroom behaviors of children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities 7, 34-43. Bryan, T.H. (1976). Journal  Bryan,  of  Peer  popularity  Learning  of  Disabilities,  T.H. (1977). Learning communication. Journal  learning disabled 307-311.  disabled of  children: A replication.  9,  children's  Learning  comprehension 10, 501-506.  Disabilities,  Bryan, T.S. (1978). Social relationships and verbal interactions children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 11, 107-115. Bryan, T.H., & Bryan J.H. (1978). Social Learning  Disability  Quarterly,  1,  interactions 33-38.  of  nonverbal  of learning disabled  of learning disabled children.  Bryan, J.H., Sherman, R;, & Fisher, A. (1980). Learning disabled boys' nonverbal behavior within a dyadic interview. Learning Disability Quarterly, 3, 6572. Bryan, T.S., & Wheeler, R. (1972). Perceptions eye of the observer. Journal of Learning  of learning Disabilities,  disabled children: The 5, 484-488.  Bryan, T., Wheeler, R., Felcan, J . , & Henek, T. (1976). "Come on dummy". An observational study of children's communications. Journal of Learning Disabilities,  Camp,  9, 53-61.  B.W., & Bash, M.S. (1981). skills  -a problem-solving  Cartledge, G., & Milburn, J. (1978). classroom: A review. Review Cartledge,  G. & Milburn,  Innovative  approaches.  Think  program  Aloud:  The case of  Increasing  for children:  Educational  for teaching Research,  J. (Eds.) (1980). Teaching New York: Pergamon.  90  social  Primary  social  and  cognitive  level.  social skills 133-156.  in the  48,  skills  to  children:  Chadwick, B.A., & Day, R.C. (1971). Systematic performance of unachieving students. Journal of 4, 311-319.  reinforcement: Applied  Chittenden, G.E. (1942). An experimental study in measuring assertive behavior in young children. Monographs of Research in Child Development, 7, (1, Serial No. 31). Cobb, J.A., & Hops, H. (1973). Effects achieving first graders. Journal  of academic of  skills in  Analysis,  and the  modifying Society  for  survival skill training on low Research, 67, 108-113.  Educational  Combs, M.L., & Slaby, D.A. (1977). Social Lahey, & A.E. Kazdin (Eds.), Advances . York: Plenum.  Academic  Behavior  training with  Clinical  Child  children.  Psychology,  In B.B. 1, New  Cooke, T.P., & Apolloni, T. (1976). Developing positive social-emotional behaviors: A study of training and generalization effects. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 9, 65-78. Cowen, E.L., Pedersen, A., Babigian, H., Izzo, L.D., & Trost, M.A. (1973). Long-term follow-up of early detected vulnerable children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 41, 438-446. Csapo, M. (1981). specific  Effectiveness social skills.  of  coaching  socially  withdrawn/isolate  children  in  Unpublished manuscript. Vancouver: The University of  British Columbia. Csapo,  M. (1983). Effects of social learning children. Behavioral Disorders, 8, 199-208.  D'Andrea, M. (1983). Social development misconceptions. Elementary School  training  with  socially  rejected  during middle childhood: clarifying some Guidance and Counseling, 17, 214-219.  Elliott, S.N., Gresham, F.M., Freeman, T., & McCloskey, G. (in press). Teacher and observer ratings of children's social skills: Validation of the Social Skills Rating  Scale.  Erikson, E.H. (1963).  Chilhood  and  Society.  New York: Norton.  Evers, W.L., & Schwarz, J.C. (1973). Modifying social withdrawl in The effects of filmed modelling and teacher praise. Journal Psychology, 1, 248-256. Flavell, J. (1968). The development children. New York: Wiley. Foster, Garret,  of  role-  taking  S.L., & Ritchey, W.L. (1979). Issues competence in children. Journal of Applied  and  in  the  Behavior  preschoolers: of  communication  skills  assessment Analysis,  Abnormal  12,  in  of social 625-638.  M.K., & Crump, W.D. (1980). Peer acceptance, teacher preference, and self-appraisal of social status among learning disabled students. Learning Disability  Quarterly,  3, 42-48.  91  Goldstein, A. (1981). Social skills training. In A. Goldstein, E. Carr, W. Davidson, & P. Wehr (Eds.), In response to aggression. New York: Pergamon. Goldstein,  A., Sprafkin, R., Gershaw, N., & Klein, Champaign,!I: Research Press.  P.  (1980).  Ski 11 streaming  the  adolescent.  Good, T., & Brophy, J. (1978).  Looking  in  classrooms.  New  York: Harper & Row.  Gottlieb, J . , & Budoff, M. (1973). Social acceptability of nongraded schools differing in architecture. American Deficiency, 78, 15-19.  retarded  children in  Journal  Gottman, J.M., Gonso, J . , & Rasmussen, B. (1975). Social competence, and friendship in children. Child Development,  of  Mental  interaction, social 46, 7088-718.  Gottman, J.M., Gonso, J . , & Schuler, P. (1976). Teaching social skills to children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 4, 179-197.  isolated  Graubard, P., Rosenburg, H., & Miller, M.B. (1971). Student applications of behavior modification to teachers and environments or ecological approaches to social deviancy. In E. Ramp & B. Hopkins (Eds.), A new direction for education: Behavior analysis. Lawrence: University of Kansas. Green, K.D., Forehand, R., Beck, S.J., & Vosk, B. (1980). An assessment of the relationship among measures of children's social competence and children's academic achievement. Child Development, 51, 1149-1156. Gresham, F.M. (1981a). Assessment Psychology,  19,  120-  of  children's social  skills.  Journal  of  School  133.  Gresham, F.M. (1981b). Social skills training with handicapped children: A review. Review of Educational Research, 51, 139-176. Gresham, F.M. (1981c). Validity of social skills measures for assessing the social competence in low-status children: A multivariate investigation. Developmental Psychology, 17, 390-398. Gresham, F.M. (1.982). Misguided mainstreaming: The case for social skills training with handicapped children. Exceptional Children, 48, 422-433. Gresham, F.M. (1983a). Social skills assessment as a component of mainstreaming placement decisions. Exceptional Children, 49, 331-336. Gresham, F.M. (1983b). Social validity skills: Establishing standards Psychoeducational  Gresham,  F.M. (1984).  Exceptional  Assessment,  Social  Children,  51,  1,  in the assessment of children's social for social competency. Journal of 299-307.  skills and 253-261.  92  self-efficacy  for  exceptional  children.  Gresham, F.M. (1985). Strategies mainstreaming: A necessary Mainstreaming directions  handicapped  for enhancing the social outcomes of ingredient for success. In J . Meisel (Ed.), children:  Outcomes,  controversies,  and  new  (pp. 193-218). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence.  Gresham, F.M. (1986). Conceptual issues in the assessment of social competence in children, in P. Strain, M. Gutalnick, & H. Walker (Eds.), Children's social behavior: Development, assessment, and modification (pp. 143-179). New York: Academic Press. Gresham, F:M. (1987-January).  Relevance handicapped  of  mainstreaming  mildly  George School  District Conference,  social children.  skills: A  review of  and  peer  acceptance  Paper presented at Prince George, British Columbia.  Gresham, F.M., & Elliott, S.N. (1984). Assessment social  skills  methods and  and classification  issues. School  in  Prince  of  children's  Psychology  Review,  13, 292-301. Gresham, F.M., & Elliott, S.N. (in press). The relationship between adaptive • behavior and social skills: Issues in definition and assessment. Journal of Special  Education.  Gresham, F.M., & Elliott, S.N. (in preparation). Unpublished test, Louisiana State University.  Social  Skills  Rating  Scales.  Gresham, F.M., Elliott, S.N., & Black, F.L. (1987a). Social skills comparisons across diagnostic subgroups of children. School Psychology Review, 16, 87-94. Gresham, F.M., Elliott, S.N., & Black, F.L. (1987b). Factor congruence and bias of the Teacher Rating of Social Skills. Journal of School Psychology, 25, 81-92. Gresham, F.M., & Evans, S.E. (in press). Conceptualization and treatment of social withdrawl in the schools. To appear in a thematic issue of Special Services in the Schools, on School-Based Affective and Social Interventions: Susan G. Forman, Guest Editor. Gresham, F.M., & Nagle, R.J. (1980). Social skills training with children: Responsiveness to modeling and coaching as a function of peer orientation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 48, 718-729. Gresham, F.M., & Reschly, D.J. (1986). Social skill deficits and acceptance of mainstreamed learning disabled children. Learning Quarterly,  low  peer Disability  9, 23-32.  Gresham, F.M., & Reschly, D.J. (in press-a). classification, and assessment of social To appear in T.R. Kratochwill (Ed.), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, Inc..  93  Issues in the conceptualization, skills in the mildly handicapped. Advances  in  School  Psychology.  Gresham, F.M., & Reschly, D.J. (in press-b). Social competence in the mildly handicapped. In T.R. Kratochwill (Ed.), Advances in School Psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, Inc.. Gronlund, H., & Anderson, L. (1963). Personality characteristics of socially accepted, socially neglected, and socially rejected junior high school pupils. In J. Sederman (Ed.), Educating for Mental Health. New York: Crowell. Hall,  R.B., Panyan, M., Rabon, D., & Broden, M. (1968). Instructing beginning teachers in reinforcement procedures which improve classroom control. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 315-322.  Hart, B.M., Reynolds, N.J., Baer, D., Brawley, E.R., & Harris, F.R. (1968). Effects of contingent and noncontingent social reinforcement on the cooperative play of a preschool child. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 73-78. Hartup, W.W., Glazer, J.A., & Charlesworth, R. (1967). Peer sociometric status. Child Development, 38, 1017-1024.  reinforcement  Hersh, R.H., & Walker, H.M. (1983). Great expectations: Making schools for all students. Policy Studies Review, 2, 147-188.  and  effective  Hops, H. (1981). Social skills training for socially withdrawn/isolated children, In P. Karoly & J. Steffen (Eds.), Advances in child behavior analysis and therapy (Vol. 2) I ntel lectual and social deficiencies. New York: Gardner Press. Hops, H. (1983). Children's social competence and skill: Current research practices and future directions. Behavior Therapy, 14, 3-18. Hops, H., & Cobb, J.A. (1973). Survival behaviors in the educational setting: Their implications for research and intervention. In L.A. Hamerlynck, L.C. Handy, & E.J. Mash (Eds.), Behavior change: Methodology, concepts, and practice. Champaign, Illinois: Research Press. Hops, H., & Cobb, J.A. (1974). Initial investigations into academic survival-skill training, direct instruction, and first-grade achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 548-553. Hops, H., & Greenwood, C.R. (1981). Social skills deficits. In .E.J. Mash & L.G. Terdal (Eds.), Behavioral assessment of childhood disorders (pp. 347-394). New York: Guildford. Hummel, J.W. (1982). A social skills training approach "to the interpersonal problems of learning disabled children. Child We/fare, LX1, 467-473. Hutton, J.D., & Polo, L. (1976). A sociometric study of learning disability children and type of teaching strategy. Group Psychotherapy, Psychodrama and Sociometry, 29, 113-120.  94  Hymel,  S.  & Asher, S.R. (1977). Assessment and training of isolated children's skills. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 136 930).  social  Jackson,  N.F., Jackson, D.A., & Monroe, C. (1983). Getting Along social effectiveness to children. IL: Research Press.  With  Others:  Teaching  Johnston, M.K., Kelley, C.S., Harris, F.R., Wolf, M.M., & Baer, D.M. (1964). of positive social child. Unpublished  Kim,  reinforcement  on  isolate  behavior  of  a  Effects  nursery  school  manuscript, University of Washington.  Y., Anderson, H.E., & Bashaw, W.L. (1968). Social maturity achievement and basic ability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 28, 535-543.  Klein,  S.S.  (1971).  Research  Student  Journal,  8,  influence 403-  on  teacher  behavior.  American  Educational  421.  Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive- developmental to social action. In D.A. Gosline (Ed.), Handbook of socialization research. Chicago, Illinois: Rand McNally. Kronick, D. (1981). Social Jossey-Bass.  development  of  learning  disabled  approach theory  and  San Francisco:  persons.  LaGreca, A . M . , & Santogrossi, D.A. (1980). Social skills training with elementary school students: A behavioral group approach. Journal of . Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 48, 220-227. Lewis,  M., & Rosenblum,  L.A. (Eds.).  (1975).  Friendship  and  peer  relations.  New  York: Wiley & Sons Inc.. Madsen,  C.,Jr., Becker, W., & Thomas, D. (1968). Elements of elementary classroom control. Analysis, 1, 139-150.  Rules,  praise,  Journal  of  and  Applied  ignoring: Behavior  Marburg, C.C., Houston, B.K., & Holmes, D.S. (1976). Influence of multiple models on the behavior of institutionalized retarded children: Increased generalization to other models and other behaviors. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 44, 514-519. Matson, J . , Esveldt-Dawson, K., & Kazdin, A.E. (1983). Validation of assessing social skills in children. Journal of Clinical Child 12, 174-180.. McGinnis, E., Goldstein, A., Sprafkin, R., & Gershaw, N. (1985). elementary  school  child:  A  guide  for  teaching  prosocial  methods for Psychology,  Ski 11 streaming the skills. Champaign,  IL: Research Press. Michelson, L., & Wood, R.R. (1980). A group elementary school children. Child Behavior  95  assertive Therapy,  2,  training 2-10.  program  for  Mi I burn, J. (1974). Special education and regular class teacher attitudes regarding social behaviors of children: Steps toward the development of a social skills curriculum. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Columbus: Ohio State University. Morgan, S.R. (1977). A descriptive analysis of maladjusted rejected children. Behavioral Disorders, 3, 23-30. Nasahiro, w.T. (1984). Social role children. Dissertation Abstracts Nelson, Nie,  L.R. (1975). Laboratory [Computer program]  taking: A International,  behavior  treatment model 44, 2717.  of Educational  Research  Test  in  socially  for  aggressive  Analysis  Package  N.H. (1983). (Ed.). [Computer program] SSPS: Statistical package sciences New York: McGraw-Hill.  for the social  O'Connor, R.D. (1969). Modification of social withdrawl through symbolic Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 15-22.  modeling;  O'Connor, R.D. (1972). Relative efficacy of modeling, shaping and the combined . procedures for modification of social withdrawl. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 79, 327-334. Oden, S.L., & Asher, S.R. (1977). Coaching children in social making. Child Development, 48, 496-506. Pearl,  skills  R.A., Donahue, M.L., & Bryan, T.H. (1980). Learning disabled and normal children's responses to requests for clarification which vary in explicitness. Unpublished manuscript, Chicago Institute for Learning Disabilities, University of Illinois.  Piaget, J. (1962). The moral  judgment  of the child.  Quay, H.C., & Peterson, D.R. (1983). Quay & Peterson. Reschly, D.J. (1982). The Teacher Iowa State University.  Rating  Revised  New York: Collier.  Behavior  of Academic  Problem  Performance.  Checklist.  M., Sells, development  Miami:  Unpublished test,  Roedell, W.C., Slaby, R.G., & Robinson, H.B. (1977). Social development children. Monterey, California: Brooks/Cole. Roff,  for friendship  in  young  S.B., & Golden, M.M. (1972). Social adjustment and personality in children. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.  Rosenthal, R., & Jacobsen, expectation and pupils Winston.  L.F. (1968). Pygmalion intellectual development.  96  in the classroom: Teacher New York: Holt, Rinehart &  Ross,  D., Ross, S., & Evans, T.A. (1971). The modification of extreme withdrawl by modification with guided practice. Journal of Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 2, 273-279.  Seaver,  W. (1971). performance  Effects of of pupils  Northwestern  University.  naturally induced expectancies on the academic in primary grades. Unpublished dissertation,  Siperstein, G.N., Bopp, M.J., & Bak, J.J. (1978). Social status of children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 11, 98-102. Slaby,  D.A. (1976). Day treatment and manuscript. Children's Orthopedic Washington.  parent  training  Hospital  learning  programs.  and  Medical  Slaby, R.G., & Crowley, C.G. (1977). Modification of cooperation through teacher attention to children's speech. Journal Child Psychology, 23, 442-458. Spence, S., & Shepherd, G. (Eds.). (1983). New York: Academic Press. Spivack,  G., & Shure, M.B. (1974). Francisco: Jossey-Bass.  Stephens, T.M. (1978). Strain,  P.S.,  Cooke,  Assessing  Strain,  and  Social  skills  Developments  in  adjustment  of  Social  in  the  classroom.  R.P., & Apolloni, T. modifying  social Behavior  social  social  disabled  Unpublished Center, Seattle,  and aggression of  Experimental  skills  young  training.  children.  San  Columbus.OH: Cedars Press.  (1976). Teaching exceptional New York: Academic Press.  children:  behavior.  P.S., Shores, R.E., & Kerr, M.M. (1976). An experimental analysis of "spillover" effects on the social interaction of beha.viorally handicapped preschool children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 9, 31-40.  Strain, P.S., Shores, R.E., & Timm, M.A. (1977). Effects of peer social initiations on the behavior of withdrawn preschool children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 289-298. Swift,  M.S., & Spivack, G. (1968). classroom behavior. Journal of  The Special  assessment Education,  2,  of achievement-related 137-153.  Swift,  M.S., & Spivack, G. (1969). Clarifying the relationship between academic success and overt classroom behavior. Exceptional Children, 36, 89-104.  Synder,  L , Apolloni, T., & Cooke, T.P. (1977). Integrated settings childhood level: The role of nonretarded peers. Exceptional 262-266.  Trower,  P.,  Bryant,  B.,  &  Argyle,  M.  (1978).  London: Methuen.  97  Social  skills  and  the  early  Children,  at  43,  mental  health.  Ullman,  C.A. (1957). Journal  of  Teachers,  Educational  peers,  and  Psychology,  48,  tests as 257-267.  predictors  of  adjustment.  M . , Whitehall, M., & Bellack, A. (1979). Social skill training for children: An evaluative review. Behavior Therapy, 17, 413-437.  VanHasselt, V., Hersen, assessment and Research  and  Vaughn, S. (1985). Why teach of  Learning  Disabilities,  social skills to 18, 588-591.  learning disabled  students?  Journal  Walker, H.M., & Hops, H. (1976). Increasing academic achievement by reinforcing direct academic performance and/or facilitative nonacademic responses. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 218-225. Walker, H., Hops, H., & Greenwood, of a behavior management the school setting. In P. behavior change agents. New  C. (1981). RECESS: Research and development package for remediating social aggression in Strain The utilization of classroom peers as York: Plenum Press.  Walker, H.M., McConnell, S., Holmes, D., Todis, B., Walker, J . , & Golden, N. (1983). The  Walker  Social  Skills  Curriculum:  The  ACCEPTS  Program.  Austin,  TX:  H.M., & Rankin, R. (1983). Assessing the behavioral expectations demands of less restrictive settings. School Psychology Review, 274-284.  and  Pro-Ed. Walker,  Winnett,  R.A., & classroom: Analysis,  5,  Winkler, R.C. (1972). Current behavior Be still, be quiet, be docile. Journal 499-504.  98  modification of  Applied  in  12,  the  Behavior  A P P E N D I X  A :  D E T A I L S  O F  V A R I A N C E  Details of Analyses of Variance - Pre Treatment Scores  Source of Variance  df  SS  MS  F  P  Treatment Group (T)  1  191.079  191.079  3.799  .058  Instructor (I)  1  102.007  102.007  2.028  Treatment(T)xlnstructor (I)  1  260.259  260.259  5.174  .028*  1) Piers-Harris  ,  .162  2) Peer Rating Treatment Group (T)  1  46.011  46.011  0.268  .607  Instructor (I)  1  145.648  145.648  0.849  .362  Treatment(T)xlnstructor (I)  1  1243.951  1243.951  7.251  .010*  Treatment Group (t)  1  181.154  181.154  0.520  .475  Instructor (I)  1  62.345  62.345  0.179  .674  Treatment(T)xlnstructor (I)  1  741.284  741.284  2.129  .152  Treatment Group (T.)  1  109.488  109.488  0.409  .526  Instructor (I)  1  301.154  301.154  1.125  .295  Treatment(T)xlnstructor (I)  1  6.701  6.701  0.025  .875  3) SSRS-T  3) SSRS-P  99  T H E PIERS H A R R I S CHILDREN'S SELF CONCEPT S C A L E (The Way I Feel About Myself)  E L L E N V. PIERS, Ph.D. and D A L E B. HARRIS, Ph.D.  Published by Counselor Recordings and Tests BOX 6184 A C K L E N STATION  N A S H V I L L E , TENNESSEE 37212  10.0  THE WAY I FEEL ABOUT MYSELF  NAME A  G  •••  E  GIRL OR BOY  GRADE  SCHOOL  DATE  ..  •  ©Ellen V. Piers and Dale B. Harris, 1969  ioi  Here are a set of statements. Some of them are true of you and so you will circle the yes. Some are not true of you and so you will circle the no. Answer every question even if some are hard to decide, but do not circle both yes and no. Remember, circle the yes if the statement is generally like you, or circle the no if the statement is generally not like you. There are no right or wrong answers. Only you can tell us how you feel about yourself, so we hope you will mark the way you really feel inside. 1.  My classmates make fun of me  yes no  2.  I am a happy p e r s o n . . .  3.  It is hard for me to make friends  4.  lam often sad  5.  I am smart  6.  I am shy  7.  I get nervous when the teacher calls on me — . . . . f — . i r . . .yes no  8.  My looks bother m e . .  9.  When I grow up, I will be an important person :v...v.. • . . . . . . . . yes no  10.  I get worried when we have tests in school.. ..-.;".>..:....... .yes no  11.  I am unpopular..  12.  I am well behaved in school  13.  It is usually my fault when something goes wrong . ' i v . . . . . . ' : . .yes no  14.  I cause trouble to my family  — . . . . . y e s no . . y e s no . . . . . y e s no — ...— .  yes no . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . yes no  yes no  '.  % . >:\ . . . .  . . . . yes no  V T ' . . . . . . - . : . ?i.". yes no  . v . . . . . . . . . yes ho  15. ••! am strong .  — . . . . . . . . . . . yes no  16.  I have good ideas  •  17.  I am an important member of my family . ,  18.  I usually want my own way  19.  I am good at making things with my hands  20.  I give up easily  J......  yes no . . . yes no : . y e s no yes no  ,  1 102  yes no  21.  I am good in my school work — ; — . . .  yes  no  22.  I do many bad things  yes  no  23.  I can draw well..  yes  no  24.  I am good in music  .yes  no  25.  I behave badly at home  ,.. yes  no  26.  I am slow in finishing my school work.. —  .....yes  no  27.  I am an important member of my class  yes  no  28.  I am nervous  ...yes  no  29.  I have pretty eyes  yes  no  30.  I can give a good report in front of the class  yes  no  31.  In school I am a dreamer.  yes  no  32.  I pick on my brother(s) and sister(s)  yes  no  33.  My friends like my ideas  yes  no  34.  I often get into trouble.  yes  no  35.  I am obedient at home  .... yes  no  36.  I am lucky  yes  no  37.  I worry a lot  yes  no  38.  My parents expect too much of me  ..yes  no  39.  I like being the way I am  yes  no  40.  I feel left out of things  yes  no  '. -.  —  •  —  103  3  41.  I have nice hair....  42.  I often volunteer in school  43.  I wish I were different J  44.  I sleep well at night  45.  —  •  yes  no  ....yes  no  yes  no  ......yes  no  I hate s c h o o l . . .  yes  no  46.  I am among the last to be chosen for games  yes  no  47.  I am sick a lot  yes  no  48.  I am often mean to other people  yes  no  49.  My classmates in school think I have good ideas . . . .  yes  no  50.  I am unhappy  yes  no  51.  I have many friends  yes  no  52.  I am cheerful  yes  no  53.  I am dumb about most things  yes  no  54.  I am good looking  yes  no  55.  I have lots of pep  ..yes  no  56.  I get into a lot of fights  yes  no  57.  I am popular with boys  yes  no  58.  People pick on me  yes  no  59.  My family is disappointed in me  yes  no  60.  I have a pleasant face  yes  no  —  —  :  104  4  61.  When I try to make something, everything seems to go wrong, ye  62.  lam picked on at home  63.  I am a leader in games and sports  64.  I am clumsy  — . — yes no  65.  In games and sports, I watch instead of play  — . . . . . y e s no  66.  I forget what I learn  67.  I am easy to get along with  68.  I lose my temper  69.  I am popular with g i r l s . . . . . . . . . : . . . J . :  70.  I am a good reader  71.  I would rather work alone than with a group  72.  I like my brother (sister)  73.  I have a good figure . . .  yes  no  74.  I am often afraid  yes  no  75.  I am always dropping or breaking t h i n g s . . .  yes  no  76.  I can be trusted  ..yes  no  77.  I am different from other people  yes  no  78.  I think bad thoughts  yes  no  79.  I cry easily  80.  I am a good person  :  :  easily........ :  —  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..  :  no  yes  no  yes  no  yes  no  yes  no  t . . . yes no  :  v..  yes  no  yes  no  yes  no  . . . . . . . y e s no  -  . . . y e s no •••  105  yes  no  Longitudinal Study of Elementary School Effects  How I Feel About Some Other Kids  Prepared for the UNITED STATES OFFICE OF EDUCATION by Purdue Educational Research Center Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana  Your Name  Think About E s a ^ Your Best Friend A. B.  DOES YOUR FRIEND LIKE TO READ BOOKS?  DOES YOUR FRIEND LIKE SCHOOL?  106  _ YES  NO  SOMETIMES  ; YES  NO  ——. SOMETIMES  TH INK A R O U I IF THIS CHILD WANTS TO DO SOMETHING, DO THE OTHER K2DS FOLLOW7 J DOES -THIS ck+LD 'HELP  2  DOES WIS  otitis '.an? ar  YES  NO  SOMETIMES  |  TEC  SO  SOMETIMES  2  YES  1*0  SOMETIMES  3  YES  HO  SOMETIMES  4  NO  SOMETIMES  ^  NO  SOMETIMES  6  N E reu«  CHILD SAY NICE THINGS AkX/T OTHER  3  HtB1  DOES W I S CHI 12) SPEAK UP AND GIVE IDEAS:  4  DOES THIS CHILD FOLLOW THE RULES WHEN PLAYING GAMES? ^)  YES 10 KIDS LET THIS CHILD WORK WITH THEM IN SCHOOL*  6  YES  DOES THIS CEILb ASK A QUESTION IF SOMETHING IS NOT CLEAR?  ~7  YES  HO  7  SOMETIMES  WHEN" YOU WORK TOGETHER 1H CLASS, DOES THIS CHILD DO SOHb'  CO  <""SWOWT  YES  NO  8  SOMETIMES  DO OTH&t HJiS PEltL BAD 1* THiS CHiLD IS ABSENT PROM SCHOOL* YES HO SOMETIMES  9  9  DOES THIS CHILD KEEP TRYING TO DO TKIM3S THAT ARE RAHD TO DOT  10  YES  NO  SOMETIMES  10  YI8  BO  SOMETIMES  j j  NO  SOMETIMES  12  DOES THIS CHILD r££P Q U I E T WHEN MAD? j  j  DO OTHER KHS SAY GQCDltHlNGS ABOUT THIS CHILD?  12  YES  13  DOES THIS CHILD LIKE K> READ A BOOK WITHOUT GETTING HELP FROM THE TEACHER? ^ SOMETIMES K  0  13  D0E3 THIS CHILD. Do WHAT THE OTHER KIDS WAWT TO DO?  14  YES  NO . SOMETIMES  14  NO  15  DOES THIS CHILD LAUGH WHEN SOMETHING FUNNY HAPPENS?  15  YES  SOMETIMES  DOES THIS CHILT) Li*£ TO lb A l l ACS ".ir.WJUT & L P FROM OTHERS?  16  YES  11613' tilt  17  "CklLfi  THE "TTACHER S K  19 20  DOES' THIS mVb  U  L  E  YES  WILL icIbs""LW""¥Kls"'cki:Lb Wok  18  1  N?  MiEitTteAMf  S  "  S0METIME3  16  T  "  "  "  [7  NO  SOMETIMES  YES  NO  SOMETIMES  18  YES  NO  SOMETIMES  19  •  -  • •  ••  BiiHAVE WEIL AT SCHOOL?  ARE OTHER KIDS HAPPY WHEN THIS CHILD WALKS IN T I E hOOM? YES  (i) 107  NO  SOKETD-M  20  THINK ABOUT • » 13 IT EASY FOR THIS CHILD TO TALX IN FRONT Q? THE CLASST YES bobs-THiS CHILL "36'AL&wS I F SOME" k l b S 2  E  "  L  £  2  NO  TO bo S o K i l f t i Y M  Ukiri  YES  ?  BO  bo KIDS LIKE TO PLATtriTJi THIS C u i U AT RECESS* ^  SOKETBeSE  BOMCTIMSS 7 ? ~ ~ "  YES  '  RO  —  SOXETBSS  ^  DOES THIS CHILD GET'REALLY EXCITED WHEN THE TEAM IS WIHRIKG? <^j-  YES  •toesfas'  a W 2  AOTTTCTEVEN  uteri  lUfi  SOMETIMES  ^  S0KE0& LS MEANT  *•  1  5 DOES' THE TEACHES  WO  YES  HO  SOMETTHBS  ^  YES  SO  SOMETIMES  ^  SOMETTM2S  ~J  M S OKtLb?  0  DOES THIS CHILD TRY HARD TO G E T POINTS I N A GAME? YES  NO  '"' \t THIS CHILD GOOD AT WORKING WITH OTHER KIDS IK CLASS? Q  YES HILL KIDS LET THIS CHILD BS IN" THEIR  YES  10  Q  SOMETIMES  *  Q ff' THE TREACHER HEEDS HEIFER^, DOES  SO  GROUP?  MS CKlLB'S  BO  HAJffi  GO  YES RO DOES THIS CHILD 12Y TO DO 1'KIKuS TO HELP THE TEAM HINT 1 J  YES  KG  SOMETIHSB  0  Ut> Fidl*  ~  60METBSS  jQ  BOMETIKES  | J  DOES THIS CHILD THY To HAVE A LoT Of F R T S S S I j 2  m  so  SGMZTWES  I  DURING ART, DOES THIS CHILD THINK OF THINGS TO DO WITHOUT HELP? YES  j^  MO  SOMETUSS  WOULS THlo CHILD KEEP COOL EVEN TMfcH OTHER KtDS CHEAT " TS k \C l  2  ~ j  ^  *  YES  NO  SOMOTKSS  j A  YES  BO  SOMETIMES  j  YES  RO  SOMETIMES  j  YES  NO  SOMETIMES  j "J  g5ES"THlb' CUllb DCLS A ZSYT | ^ IS THIS CHILD GOOD AT STARTltG A GAME? | DOES THIS CHILD TRY TO HELP THE TEACHER?  ^  "  | ~J  DO OTHER KIDS CHOOSE THIS CHILD TO BE ON THEIR TzAkl j Q '13 W i s CHILD A W m i  :  NO  SCKETIKES  j Q  YES  NO  SOMETIMES  j  '  J0 '  YES  & OTitEft KIDS TRY TO WORjT&TTh THIS CHlLDt  20  YES (2)  108  0  :  NO  B0METTX2S  20  m L JW w  • I flllMIN  i  w  DOES THIS CHILD LI ICE TO PICK KiDS POK A TEAM? J  YES DOES" M s  (JitiLb'cH ALoto UiW »W WAdHbt?  2 DOES Tttts  cHilfi  A Lcn  YES NO 6QJCTBS3  2  YES KO SOKBTIIC3  ^  df" MHglt' KUBT  ~\ "  j  HO SOKETI&E8  IS THIS CHILD <UICK A t AHSUEKIKC THE WACHEA'S ^its'rtoNfi?  ^  YES NO  — ^  M s ckttb Matoi  WELL WITU O*KEH  kios  SOMSTIHSS  6^  61* A T E A k i — '  ^  YES KO 30MKtU®e bO OTHER KIDS TRY TO GET THIS CHI It) TO BE THEtS FRIEHD*  i & m  ^  &  ^ ^  YES  KO  SOMETIMES  YES  KO SOMETIMES  ^  ?  toSS'THiS telLD GO AlDKo' WlTH WkEfc #bs tf' W W VkkT TO PtA* 3  A  YES  G A i J E I  KO  SO>ETI>E3  g  DO OTHER KXte EMJLS Af TtiiS CHHBf Q  YES BO  ——DOES |Q  « i J s CHILD  ins i s y6SK  XH euss •iHHBW'Aauite 6wia  HELP?  YES RO  AFTER LOSING A WHO WOK?  J | KIDS  ~~~  GAME, DOES THIS CHILD STILL yj29  0  SOMETIMES  m  SOMETIMES  | Q  THE KD SOMETIMES  j J  LIKE  bo oTteh Kifis LfifTSCS CtttLb WAtk V1W W E M 2 DOES THIS C ' H L L V T W ^rM^'TO  YES BO  SOMETIMES  j  YES RO  SOMETIMES  J  2  Wiri "M 'GAMES?  3  DOES THIS CHILD GO ALONG HiTK WHAT OTHER KIDS UAKT TO PLAY |4  A  T  A  P  A  M  •  T  YES KO  DO OTHER KIDS LIKE TO T A U ' W I T ^ ' T H I S CHILDT  SOMETIMES  \d.  8QMETIKES  j  SOMETIMES  ) G>  "  j ^)  YE8  NO  ' ^  IS IT EASY FOR THIS CHILD TO BE TH3 LEADER IN GAMES? VD DOES THIS CHILD STAY OUT OP FIGHTS?  YES KO YES  Hill THE KIDS  -  TO  j Q  1  YES  SOWETlfeS  DOES THIS CHILD TRY TO DC THIlSs BETTKK tHAJf CriHErTKIDSf K B KQ SOWETIMES I  20  | ~J  Lsi M i cHJLb oEt INTO A zhtzi  Q  Q  KO SOMETIMES  S  m  l  s  c ) i I L I  ) ooofl  A  T  j  ^  TALKING TO THE TEACHER"?  .  _ 109  YES KO  SOMETIMES  20  SSRS - T. Social Skills Rating Scale - Teacher Preschool and Elementary School Form Frank M. Gresham, PhD and Stephen N. E l l i o t t , PhD Louisiana State University PUPPCSE & INSTRUCTIONSThis rating scale i s designed to measure the FREQUENCY and IMPORTANCE of a student's social behavior. The development of social s k i l l s i s important to the educational and psychological well-being of students. Therefore, your careful rating of each item on this scale i s requested. Please complete the information about the student f i r s t . Then read each item and think about the student's present behavior and rate this student on the FREQUENCY scale by circling a 0 i f the statement i s Never True, 1 i f the statement i s Sometimes True, or 2 i f the statement i s Very Often True. After rating the frequency of a behavior, indicate hew IMPORTANT the described behavior i s for success in your classroom by circling 0 i f i t i s Not Important, 1 i f i t i s Important, or 2 i f i t is C r i t i c a l . Please do not skip any items and be sure to provide TWO RATINGS for each item. The information you provide w i l l help us better understand student's social behavior and identify which behaviors are most important to teachers. STUDENT INFORMATION Student's Name  Male  Name of Parent(s)  Address  Female  '  _"_ (City / State)  School:  '  Physical Health Status: Educational Status: Race:  White  Grade:  Date of Birth:  Excellent  Average  Nonhandicapped Black  Handicapped  Hispanic  Asian  Native American Language Ability:  / / Mo. Day Year Poor  Other (Explain)  Excellent  Average  Poor  TCftCHSR AND SCHQQL, IMFQRWTIQN Teacher's Name . Type of Classroom:  Regular  Years of Teaching Experience: School Setting:  Female  Male  Rural .  Resource 0-2 yrs. Suburban I'lO  Self-Contained  3-5 yrs. Urban  6-8 yrs.  Other 9+ yrs.  SSRS-Tpe RK-'S-IBEP.: Rate the Frequency and Importance of the student's behavior. Please do not skip any items. FREQUENCY RATIMJ  IMPQRB*NCS R m r o  0 = NEVER TRUE  0 = NOT IMPORTANT FOR SUCCESS IN MY CLASSROOM  1 = Sa-IETIMES TRUE  1 = IMPORTANT FOR SUCCESS IN MY CLASSROOM  2 = VERY OFTEN TRUE  2 = CRITICAL FOR SUCCESS IN MY CLASSROOM  -FP£QUBKT/ . W i r e Never True Easily makes transition from one classroom activity to another  Very Sometimes jOften True 1 True  IflPOKCA.NCE RAT,E L Not Important Important Critical.  X  2  0  1  2  Accepts peers' ideas for group activities  1  2  0  1  2  3. Displays a sense of humor 0  1  2  0  1  2  4.  0  Acknowledges compliments or praise from peers  0  Says nice things about himself or herself when appropriate  0  Gets along with people who are different (e.g., different ethnic group or race)  0  1  2  0  2  7.  Invites others to play  0  1  2  0  2  8.  Follows rules when playing games with others 0  9.  Attends to your instructions  5.  0  10. Finishes class assignments within time limits 0  1  0  2  11. Shows empathy for peers  0  1  0  2  12. Complies with your directions  0  13. Appropriately questions rules that may be unfair  0  111  SSRS-Tpe * - t f J r t r t J W J ^ .fa  Never True  14. Responds appropriately to teasing by peers 0  Sometimes True  Very Often True  IMPQFffiNCS RUTINS Not Iircortant Important C r i t i c a l 0  15. Responds appropriately to physical aggression from peers 0 16. Initiates conversations with ceers  0  17. Attempts classroom tasks before asking for your assistance  0  18. Uses time appropriately while waiting for your help  0  19. Uses free time in an acceptable way  0  1  20. Recognizes truth from untruth  0  1  21. Participates in games or group activities  0  2  0  1  2  22. Gets along with peers  0  2  0  1  2  23. Joins ongoing activity or group without being told to do so 0 24. Introduces himself or herself to new people without being told to  0  r  2  0  1  2  25. Receives criticism well  0  1  2  0  1  2  26. Gives compliments to peers 0  1  2  0  1  2  27, Waits turn in games or other activities  1  Shares materials with others  0  1  29. Cooperates with peers without prompting 112  3  4  SSRS-Tpe FREQUENCY RATING. . Very Never Sometimes Often True True True  IMPORTANCE RAT] Not Lmportant Important C r i t i c a l  Compromises in conflict situations by changing own ideas to reach agreement 0  1  2  0  1  2  Pequests help or instructions from you in an appropriate manner  1  2  0  1  2  Controls temper in conflict situations with peers  0  V 1,,  2  0  1  2  Keeps desk clean and neat Q without being reminded  •1 •  2  0  i  2  Puts -work materials or school property away  0  1  2  0  1  2  Produces correct school work  0  1  2  0  1  2  Appropriately expresses feelings when wronged  0  1  z  0  1  2  Asks questions of you when unsure of what to do in school work 0  1  2  0  1  •2  2  0  1  2  0  Controls temper in conflict situations with adults  0  Appropriately expresses thoughts on subjects by giving reasons for their own opinions  0  i- -  2  0  1  2  Volunteers to help peers on classroom tasks  0  i  2  0  1  2  Nonverbally interacts with other students with smiles, waves, or nods 0  T J.  2  0  1  2  Politely refuses unreasonable requests from others  0  1  2  0  1  2  Ignores peer distractions 0 when doing, class 'work  1  0  1  2  2 113"  SSRS-Tpe IMPORTANCE RATING  FREQUENCY RATING Never True  Sometimes True  Very Often True  0  1  2  0  1  2  45. Responds appropriately to 0 peer pressure  1  2  0  1  2  46. Makes friends easily  0  1  .2  .0  1  2  47. Helps you without being asked  0  1  2  0  1  2  48. Orally presents school work in front of a group of peers  0  • --1 •  0  1  2  49. Listens to classmates when they present their work or ideas  0  1  0  1  2  50. Appropriately t e l l s you' when he or she thinks you have treated him or her unfairly  0  1  0  1  2  44. Responds appropriately to false accusations  Not Important Important C r i t i c a l  2  2  **The last 10 items require that you rate only the Frequency of the behavior. FREQUENCY RATING Never True  Sometimes True  Very Often True  51. Has temper tantrums  0  1  2  52. Fidgets or moves excessively  0  1  2  - 0  1  2  54. Disturbs ongoing activities  0  1  2  55. Says nobody likes them  0  1  2  56. Appears lonely  0  1  2  57. Is aggressive toward people or objects  0  1  58. Defies instructions or commands  0  1  2  59. Shows anxiety about being with a group of children  0  1  2  60. Acts sad or depressed  0  1  2  53. Argues with others  114  1  2  5  7^ SSRS - P Social S k i l l s Rating Scale - Parent Preschool and Elementary School Form Frank M. Gresham, PhD & Stephen N. E l l i o t t , PhD Louisiana State University Purpose & Instructions This rating scale i s designed to measure the FREQUENCY and IMPORTANCE of your child's social behavior. The development of social s k i l l s i s important to the educational and psychological well-being of children. Therefore, your careful rating of each item on this scale i s requested. Please complete the information about your child and family f i r s t . Then read each item and think about your child's present behavior. Rate your child on the FREQUENCY scale by circling 0 i f the ...statement i s Never True, 1 i f the statement i s Sometimes True, or 2 i f the statement is Very Often True. After rating the frequency of a behavior, indicate how IMPORTANT the behavior described is to ycu for your child's development by circling 0 i f i t i s Not Important, 1 i f i t i s Important, or 2 i f i t i s C r i t i c a l . Please do not skip any items and be sure to provide TWO RATINGS for each item. The information you provide w i l l help us better understand children's social behavior and identify which behaviors are most important to parents. ChildftFgmiiy MonpaUpn Child's Name  \  Name of Parent(s)  :  Address: Child's Sex:  . Female  Male  Date of Birth:  Child's School Grade: Child's Race:  White  . Black  Native American Quid's Educational Status: Child's Physical Health:  -  Excellent  Number of Brothers at Home:  ;  Average Average  Other (Explain) Handicapped Poor Poor  Number of Sisters at Home:  Single Parent Two Parents with Two Parents with Two Parents with Two Parents with  Person Completing this Form:  Asian  Norihandicapped Excellent  Child's Language Ability:  Family Situation:  Hispanic  / / Mo. Day Year  Mother 115  Only Father Working Only Mother Working Father and Mother Working Neither Father or Mother Working Father  Other (Explain)  SSRS-Pe  2  REMEMBER: Rate the Frequency and Importance of your child's behavior. Please do not skip any items.  FLUENCY RATira  IMPORTANCE  m n x  0 = NEVER TRUE'  0 = NOT IMPORTANT FOR MY CHILD'S DEVELOPMENT  1 = SOMETIMES TRUE  1 = IMPORTANT FOR MY CHILD'S DEVFJ£SPMENT  2 = VERY CFTEN TRUE  2 = CRITICAL FOR MY CHILD'S DEVEIX3PMENT IMPORTANCE RATI[NG Not Tmcortant Important C u t i c a l  1. Easily rrakes transition from one activity to another in the home (e.g., from watching T.V. to eating dinner)  0  2. Accepts friends' or siblings' ideas for playing  0  1  2  0  1  2  3.  Displays a sense of humor 0  1  2  0  1  2  4.  Acknowledges compliments or praise from friends . 0  2  1  2  0  2  1  2  Follows rules when playing games with others 0  2  5. Says nice things about himself or herself when appropriate 6.  Gets along with people who are different (e.g., different ethnic group or race) 0  7. Invites others to your home 8. 9.  0  Attends to your instructions  0 0  0  10. Attends to speakers at meetings such as i n church or youth groups 0  116  SSRS-Pe __  FREQUENCY RATI Never _.._Irue 11. Conpletes household tasks 0 within a reasonable time  3  .IMPORTJtfjCEBATJ  Sonsetimes True  Very Often True  1  2  0  j.  2  2  0  1  2  Not Important Important C r i t i c a l  12. Shows concern for friends and siblings  o  13. Speaks in an appropriate tone of voice at home  0  1  2  0  1  2  14. Follows your instructions  0  1  2  0  1  2  1  2  0  I  2  16. Responds appropriately to teasing from friends or siblings G  1  2  0  1  2  17. Reacts appropriately to physical aggression from peers or siblings  0  1  2  0  2  2  18. Initiates conversations with others rather than waiting for others to talk f i r s t 0  1  2  0  1  • 2  19. Attempts household tasks before asking for your help  0  1  2  .0  1  2  20. Recognizes truth from untruth  0  •1  2  0  1  2  21. Ends disagreements with you calmly  0  1  2  0  1  2  22. Uses time appropriately while waiting for your help with homework or some other task  0  1  2  0  1  2  23. Uses free time at home in an acceptable way  0  1  2  0  1  2  24. Participates in organized activities such as sports or clubs  0  1  2  0  1  2  Appropriately questions household rules that may be unfair  o  ..  117  SSRS-Pe  USVery Sometimes Often True ..„ Iiue„ /  fever True 25. Gets along with friends and acquaintances  27. Introduces herself or himself to new people without being told 28. Gives compliments to friends or siblings 29. Waits turn in games or other activities 30, Shares possessions with siblings or friends without being asked 31. Cooperates with family members without being asked to do so 0  33. Requests help from you in an appropriate way  0  34. Asks permission before using another family member's property  0  35. Compromises in conflict situations by changing own ideas to reach agreement 0 36. Controls temper in conflict situations with siblings or peers  0  37. Keeps room clean and neat without being reminded 0 38. Puts toys or other household property away properly  Not Important Critical 0  26. Joins an ongoing activity or group without being told to do so  32. Requests permission before leaving the house  rtlPORTANCS RATING  D A T  0  0 118  4  SSRS-Pe  5  IMPOEIftNCS PAD?TNG  TRECUEMCY Never True  Sometimes True  Very Often True  feelings when wronged  0  1  2  0  1  2  40. Appropriately expresses thoughts on subjects by giving reasons for his or her own opinions  0  1  2  0  i J_  2  Volunteers to help- family members with tasks  0  1  2  0  1  2  0  '1  0  1  z  43. Congratulates family members on accomplishments 0  1  2  0  1  2  44. Receives criticism well  0  1  2  0  1  2  45. Responds appropriately to 0 false accusations  1  2  0  1  2  46. Responds appropriately to peer pressure 0  1  2  0  • 1  2  0  1  2  0  1  2  48. Makes friends easily  0  1  2  ,0  1  2  49. Is liked by others  0  1  2  0  1  2  50. Avoids situations that are likely to result in trouble  0  1""  2  0  1  2  51. Has nice friends  0  1  2  0  1  2  52. Is self-confident in social situations such as parties or group outings 0  1  2  0  ±  2  53. Shows interest in a variety of things  0  1  2  0  1  2  54. Follows household rules  0  1  2  0  1  2  39. Appropriately expresses  42. Politely refuses unreasonable requests from others  47. Helps you with household  tasks without being asked  •  119  Not Important Important C r i t i c a l  SSRS-Fe FRECUENC' PAT! :NG Very Never Sometimes Often True True  6  IMPORTANCE FATING 1 1 Not Important Tmoortant'critical  Reports accidents to appropriate persons  0  1  2  0  1  2  Answers the phone appropriately  0  1  2  0  i  2  Asks sales clerks for information or assistance  0  X  0  1  2  Gets along with siblings  0  1  2  0  1  2  Controls temper in confli situations with you  0  1-  2  0  1  2  Communicates problems to you  0  1  2  0  1  2  1  **The last 10 items require that you rate only the Frequency of the behavior.  Never  Sonetimes True  Very Often True  61. Has temper tantrums  0  I  2  62. Fidgets or moves excessivley  0  1  2  63. Argues with others  0  1  2  64. Disturbs ongoing activities  0  1  2  65. Says nobody likes him or her  0.  i  2  66. Appears lonely  0 ' -. .  1  2  67. Is aggressive toward people or objects  0  1  2  68. Defies instructions or commands  0  1  2  69. Shows anxiety about being with a group of children  0  1  2  70. Acts sad or depressed  0  1  2  120  A P P E N D I X  C :  L E T T E R S  T O  P A R E N T S  Letter to Experimental Group Parents Prior to Pretesting November 14, 1986 DEAR PARENTS Beginning in January Mrs. Pat Elliott, Area Counsellor, will be teaching a program in the Skill Development Class designed to help children develop their social skills. This will involve such topics as: starting a conversation and keeping it going, sharing, compromising, giving and receiving positive feedback, and handling name calling and teasing. These lessons will be once a week, one hour in length, and co-lead by Ms. Rosemarie Bell, their regular teacher. The students will see the skills modelled, discuss their value and purpose, practise them with their classmates, and asked to practise them both at home and at school during that week. To measure the value of the Social Skills Program Mrs. Elliott will be measuring the students social skill level both before and after the 13 week program in several areas: self-concept, peer acceptance, teacher rating of social skill, and parent rating of social skill. This means each child will complete, in class, a self-concept scale and a peer-rating scale in early January and again at the end of the program in late April. The teacher will complete a rating scale for each of her students and parents will be asked to participate by completing a rating scale on their own child at those same time intervals. All information will be kept strictly confidential and individual names removed when the results are analysed. No one outside those involved in the Department of Counselling Psychology at U.B.C. or the Coquitlam School District will have access to this information. Parents have the right to refuse the participation of their child or to withdraw their child at any time and alternate study arrangements would be made. Further details on the program and the rating scales will be available at an informational meeting to be held at the school on Thursday, December 4th at 7:15 p.m. in Ms. Bell's room. All parents are encouraged to attend and any questions or concerns will be answered by Mrs. Elliott at that time. Mrs. Elliott can also be reached through the school phone number The parental consent form is attached. If you prefer to first attend the informational meeting or discuss the details with the counsellor before signing and returning the form, please feel free to do so. We hope that by participating in this program your child will develop confidence dealing with other children and adults. 1.  2.  I consent/do not consent to my child Skills Program with his/her class.  participating in the Social  Signature of Parent/Guardian I plan/do not plan to attend the information meeting. Signature of Parent/Guardian  121  Letter to Control Group Parents Prior to Pretesting DEAR PARENT Beginning in January a Social Skills Program will be piloted in our district in two of the Intermediate Skill Development Classes. The program will be taught by an Area Counsellor and the regular classroom teacher involved. The lessons will be once a week for 13 weeks and include the teaching of such skills as: sharing, compromising, joining a conversation, giving and receiving positive feedback, following directions, and handling name-calling or teasing. In order to determine the success and value of such a program, it is necessary to measure the students' social skill level in several ways both before beginning, and after the program ends in April. It also requires that two additional Skill Development classes act as control groups in the study, which means these students would also have their social skill level measured at these same intervals, although not actually receive the program at this time. By doing this, we hope to discover whether or not changes in the children's social interactions are due to the learning of these social skills. Mrs. Jong's class has been asked to participate as a control group in the study. This means the students in her class would fill in a self-concept rating scale and a peer rating scale in January, and again in April, but not be included in the program lessons at this particular time. The teacher will be completing a rating scale for each student and the parents will be asked to complete a single social skills rating form (approx. 20 min. in length) for their own child. (January and April) The goal of this program is to help students develop confidence and skill in their relationships with other children and adults. Your participation would be a necessary and valuable contribution in helping to determine the benefits of teaching such skills. All information collected will be kept confidential and will not have individual names included once the data is analyzed. Only those directly involved from the Department of Counselling Psychology at U.B.C. and the Coquitlam School Board will have access to this material. If you would like further information of any kind, please contact the Counsellor at the school or Pat Elliott, the Counsellor, in charge of the study, through the School Board Office We would be happy to discuss your concerns or questions at any time. Thank you for your continued support. Pat Elliott, Counsellor Laura Marchand, Principal I consent/do not consent to my child participating as part of the control group in the Social Skills Training Program study. Parent/Guardian's Signature Telephone Number.  122  Letter to Experimental Group Parents Prior to  April  Posttesting  15th, 1987  Dear Parents The Social Skills Program is nearly at an end after thirteen weeks of lessons. Now is the time to try to determine whether these lessons have made an identifiable difference for your child by completing the same rating scale you previously filled in before the program began in January. Your responses should help determine whether you have recognized any changes in your child's social skills over these last four months. The class has been delightful to work with and it has been a very enjoyable project. They, too, seem to have enjoyed our sessions together and have maintained a really positive and enthusiastic attitude. Your support and willingness to participate with us in this study has very much appreciated. Thank you all very much. The enclosed April 24th.  form should be completed  Sincerely  Lynn Will - Area Counsellor Pat Elliott- Consulting Area Counsellor Shams Iqbal - Classroom Teacher  123  and returned to  school  been  by Friday,  Letter to Control Group Parents Prior to Posttesting  1987 04 16 DEAR PARENTS Your support and cooperation in the Social Skills Program project has been very valuable. Although your child was part of the Control Group who did not actually receive the lessons at this time, your role in helping measure whether change has occurred between those classes that did, and those that did not have the program is extremely important to the study. This will, hopefully benefit your child in the long-term if the use of this program can be extended to other Skill Development Classes in the near future. The attached form is the same as the one you filled in before we began the program in early January. If this can be completed and returned to school by Friday, April 24th it will be very much appreciated. I have been visiting in your child's class for one period a week during this semester and have enjoyed the chance to get to know all of them as individuals. Thank you all so much for your help and consideration. Sincerely  Pat Elliott, Counsellor Frieda Jong, Teacher  124  


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



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"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items