behavioral risk, teacher–child relationships, and social skill development across middle...

Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 31 (2010) 1–14

⁎ CorrespondingE-mail address:

0193-3973/$ – see fdoi:10.1016/j.appdev

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology

Behavioral risk, teacher–child relationships, and social skill developmentacross middle childhood: A child-by-environment analysis of change

Daniel Berry a,⁎, Erin O'Connor b

a Harvard University, United Statesb New York University, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o

[email protected] (D. Berr

ront matter © 2009 Elsevier Inc. A.2009.05.001

a b s t r a c t

Available online 17 July 2009
The purposes of the present study were to examine the growth trajectories of children's socialskills from kindergarten through sixth grade, and to investigate the roles of early behaviorproblems and teacher–child relationships in children's social skill development, using datafrom phases I, II, and III of the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development. Therewere four main findings. First, on average, children showed curvilinear social skill growthtrajectories from kindergarten to sixth grade, with periods of marked acceleration in the earlyand later elementary years and a period of slight deceleration in the late elementary years.Second, childrenwith higher levels of preschool internalizing behavior problems demonstratedlower levels of kindergarten social skills and qualitatively different social skill growthtrajectories than their less-internalizing peers over time. Third, children with higher-qualityteacher–child relationships demonstrated greater social skills from kindergarten through sixthgrade than their peers with lower-quality relationships. The magnitude of the effect forteacher–child relationships increased as children aged andwasmarginally stronger for childrenwith lower levels of early internalizing problems. Implications for theory and practice arediscussed.
© 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords:Social skill developmentBehavior problemsTeacher–child relationshipsEarly childhoodMiddle childhoodGrowth model

1. Introduction

The ability to navigate one's social world is a critical component of school-readiness and psycho–social development (Ladd,1999). Children with higher-level social skills interact more positively with their peers and evidence greater academic skillsthroughout elementary school (Birch & Ladd, 1997; Dodge, 1983; National Educational Goals Panel, 1995; Vitaro, Gagnon, &Tremblay,1990). Some children, however, have social skills that lag behind their more normative peers. Childrenwith internalizing(e.g., anxiety, depression) and externalizing behavioral problems (e.g., aggression), in particular, tend to enter the first days ofschool with marked social skill deficits (Keane & Calkins, 2004).

The association between early behavior problems and maladaptive social skills is theorized to reflect complex child-by-environment transactions (Birch & Ladd, 1998; Caspi, Elder, & Bem, 1987, 1988; Crick & Dodge, 1994; Magnusson, 1988). Asubstantial literature suggests that behavior problems are predictive of maladaptive parent and peer interactions (see Deater-Deckard, 2001; Patterson, 1982; Rubin & Coplan, 2004). In turn, these negative social interactions with others shape the waychildren understand and process social information and re-enter the social arena (Crick & Dodge, 1994). For children with earlybehavior problems, these interactive processes may serve as maladaptive feedback loops, making positive social skills difficult tolearn over time (Boivin, Hymel, & Hodges, 2001; Coie, 2004).

Although such theoretical models would predict some continuity in children's social skills rank-order over time (i.e., cross-timecorrelation), little empirical work has modeled children's intra-individual social skill trajectories over this period or consideredwhether individual differences in these trajectories are explained by children's experiences with caretaking adults other than

y).

ll rights reserved.

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2009.05.001

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01933973

2 D. Berry, E. O'Connor / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 31 (2010) 1–14

parents. Teachers have a unique opportunity to support children's social skill development because they interact with children inthe important—and often challenging—social context of the school. The purpose of the present study is to examine the role ofteacher–child relationships in social skill development during elementary school from a child-by-environment framework.

1.1. Development of social skills

Social skills are a set of learned behaviors that allow one to successfully initiate and perpetuate positive social interactions, suchas sharing, helping, initiating relationships, and controlling one's temper (Gresham & Elliott, 1990). Although the two aresometimes conflated in the literature, positive social skills are not simply the absence of behavior problems. The two constructsoverlap but are distinct (Ladd, Herald, & Kochel, 2006).

Children with behavior problems, particularly aggressive children, tend to be rated by teachers and parents as having lowerlevels of social skills (Gresham& Elliott,1990). There is, however, substantial heterogeneity even in aggressive children's abilities tosuccessfully engage with others (see Estell, Farmer, Pearl, Van Acker, & Rodkin, 2003). A growing number of studies suggest thatsome aggressive children may also maintain positive behavioral repertoires that allow them to be social leaders (Estell, Cairns,Farmer, & Cairns, 2002; Estell et al., 2003). Similarly, children's prosocial behavior is uniquely predictive of more positive treatmentby their peers, controlling for antisocial behavior (e.g., Bukowski & Newcomb, 1984; Vitaro et al., 1990). If social skills werereducible to the mere absence of antisocial behavior, then one would not expect unique effects of prosocial behavior.

Despite the extensive literature on the development of behavior problems (e.g., Broidy et al., 2003; Moffitt, Caspi, Harrington, &Milne, 2002; NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2004)—particularly aggression—little is known about either the normativedevelopment of positive social skills or the processes by which children with early behavior problems acquire these positive skillsover time. In terms of the former, some evidence suggests that intra-individual growth in children's social skills may be curvilinear,with normative fits and starts over this period. Chan and colleagues (2000) found that mother-rated social skill development grewcurvilinearly between kindergarten and third grade, such that children showed positive growth from kindergarten to secondgrade, followed by a plateau through third grade.

The limited available data addressing children's social skill trajectories in the later elementary school years suggest positivegrowth across this developmental span. Studying children fromfifth to sixth grade, Gazelle andRudolph (2004) foundpositive, linearindividual growth trajectories inprosocial behavior over that period. BerryandMcCartney (2007) noted similar growth in social skillsfrom third to sixth grade. Collectively, this work suggests that there is positive growth in children's social skills from school-entry tothe late-elementary years; however, the qualitative shape of normative trajectories spanning the entirety of this period is less clear.

1.2. Early behavioral risk and social skill development

Beyond normative (i.e., average) growth, there are substantial individual differences in the way children develop social skills(Gazelle & Rudolph, 2004). A notable body of work suggests that childrenwith early behavior problems face sizable social hurdlesand are at particular risk for maladaptive social trajectories (Keiley, Bates, Dodge, & Pettit, 2000). Children with internalizingproblems, such as depression, anxiety and social withdrawal in early childhood are more likely to suffer peer rejection andexclusion (Gazelle & Ladd, 2003; Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 1998). Similarly, children evincing externalizing problems such asaggression tend to face substantial peer adversities, such as rejection and victimization (Deater-Deckard, 2001; Ladd & Burgess,1999; Schwartz, McFayden-Ketchum, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 1999). In addition, aggressive, disruptive, and socially withdrawnchildren often have more conflictual relations with their teachers (Howes, 2000; Ladd & Burgess, 2001), and more coerciverelations with parents (Patterson, 1982).

The early social skill deficits seen in children with behavior problems may have long-term impacts on children's social skilltrajectories, due to the recursive nature of early child-based behavioral risk and themaladaptive social interactions they experience(Boivin et al., 2001; Coie, 2004; Crick & Dodge, 1994; Patterson, 1982). Broadly, these types of recursive processes are sometimesreferred to as child-by-environment models, given the theorized reciprocal causation between children and their socialenvironments over time (Gazelle & Rudolph, 2004; Ladd, 2003; Magnusson, 1988). Children who enter school with behaviorproblems often lack the social skills to create or maintain positive social interactions. In turn, the negative experience of adversesocial interactions reinforces the original deficit in social behavior by making social interactions a source of socio-emotional stress(Crick & Dodge, 1994). In terms of social skill development, this stress may manifest in different ways depending upon the type ofearly behavioral risk factor (Gazelle & Ladd, 2003). Internalizing children may avoid further social interactions, whereas,externalizing children may continue to approach social interactions with their same ineffective social behaviors. In both cases,these children fail to experience the types of adaptive social exchanges that support positive growth in their social skills over time.As such, children with either socially withdrawn or socially active (yet ineffective) strategies would be expected to show moremaladaptive trajectories in social skills over time, compared to their peers who receive positive social interactions.

Empirical work lends support for child-by-environment interaction effects in social development. In their study of prosocialbehavior between fifth and sixth grade, Gazelle and Rudolph (2004) found that anxious-solitary children who were excluded bytheir peers showed low initial levels of prosocial behavior in fifth grade, followed by little positive individual growth across thefollowing year. In contrast, their equally anxious-solitary but non-excluded peers showed positive growth over the same period.Similarly, children who were aggressive in fifth grade, yet not excluded by peers, showed positive growth in their prosocialbehavior. These children served as a distinct contrast to excluded, aggressive children who evinced marked declines. Other workhas shown that children illustrating internalizing and externalizing behavior in third gradewho also experienced peer exclusion or

3D. Berry, E. O'Connor / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 31 (2010) 1–14

victimization had far more maladaptive social skill trajectories through sixth grade, compared to their equally at-risk peers whoescaped such peer adversity (Berry & McCartney, 2007).

1.3. Teacher–child relationships and social development

A growing body of theoretical and empirical work suggests that teachers play a vital role in children's social development.Teacher–child relationships have many of the properties and functions of parent-child attachment relationships (Howes, 2000;Pianta, 1999). As such, high-quality relationships offer the support—or the affordance value—necessary to encourage children'ssocial skill development (Pianta, 1999). Teacher–child relationships based on high levels of perceived support and trust by thechild provide the child security to explore the social environment, as well as the internalized sense that he or she can depend uponthe teacher as a source of safety when in emotional disequilibrium. This relational support helps children to regulate theiremotions and thoughts in ways likely to encourage more positive social exchanges between the child and the teacher him-orherself, as well as between the child and his or her peers (Pianta, 1999). Further, positive interactions between teachers andchildren likely serve as important models of prosocial exchanges. Thus, high-quality teacher–child relationships help to provideboth the skill set, as well as the support for children to practice these newfound skills in the social context of the classroom. As newskills emerge, maladaptive recursive cycles would be expected to dissipate, and slowly be replaced by positive cycles that supportadaptive social behavior. In other words, high-quality teacher relationships would be predicted to support positive developmentaltrajectories for children with early behavior problems.

To date, little empirical work has investigated-teacher–child relationships and growth in social skills during middle childhood,but there is mounting support for the importance of teacher–child relationships in social development (see Davis, 2003 forreview). In one study, toddlers and preschoolers showing secure relationships with their child-care providers got along better withpeers later as four-year-olds (Howes, Hamilton, & Matheson, 1994). Secure toddlers behaved less aggressively, were moregregarious (e.g., initiated peer interactions), and engaged in more complex play. Similar associations have been noted for teacher–child relationships in preschool and social skill competence in the early elementary school years (Howes, 2000). Moreover, studieswith children in early childhood indicate that teacher–child relationships are associated with change in social skill development.For example, conflict in the kindergarten teacher–child relationship is associatedwith decreases in prosocial behavior through firstgrade (Birch & Ladd, 1998).

There is also an indication that teacher–child relationships may be particularly important for children with early behaviorproblems. For example, findings from Hamre and Pianta's (2001) longitudinal study of children from kindergarten through eighthgrade indicated that children with low levels of teacher conflict and dependency in kindergarten had fewer disciplinary problemsin late elementary school and middle school. In the late elementary years, this effect was particularly strong for children who hadbehavior problems (measured as composite of internalizing-and externalizing-type problems) in kindergarten. There is also someevidence that aspects of the classroom may be particularly important for children with internalizing-type behavior problems,specifically. Gazelle (2006) found the effects of early childhood anxious solitude—a construct operationalized somewhat similarlyto internalizing problems—on peer rejection, peer acceptance (for boys) and depression (for girls) in first gradeweremoderated byclassroom climate. Although classroom climate taps classroom-level aspects, as opposed to teacher–child relationships, per se,important aspects of classroom climate, such as emotional support, likely manifest as a function of teacher's being able to readeffectively children's emotional needs—a key facet of high-quality teacher–child relationships. Indeed, there is empirical supportfor positive relations between classroom climate and teacher–child relationship quality (Hamre & Pianta, 2005). Taken together, itis possible that the effects of teacher–child relationships on social skill development are particularly strong for childrenwith earlybehavior problems.

Alternatively, it could be the case that the effects of teacher–child relationship quality on social skill development may becomparably smaller for children with early behavior problems—at least for those with early internalizing problems. This would beexpected if, for instance, children with higher levels of early behavior problems were less receptive to social cues. This alternativeseems theoretically plausible, given the biased socio–cognitive representations often seen among children with internalizingproblems. The negative self-perceptions and tendencies to attribute their (often weak) social abilities to stable personal traits,rather than contextual factors (Burgess et al., 2006; Dodge, 1993; Wichmann, Coplan, & Daniels, 2004; Zahn-Waxler, Klimes-Dougan, & Slattery, 2000) may lead them to turn away from and/or be less affected by social relationships with their teachers.Indeed, some work suggests that socially withdrawn children rarely initiate interactions with their teachers; rather, most of thesechildren's teacher–child exchanges tend to be teacher-driven (Coplan & Prakash, 2003).

In sum, there is some indication that teacher–child relationship effects on social skill developmentmay be different for childrenwith higher levels of behavior problems (broadly conceived) and/or between childrenwithmore internalizing versus externalizingtendencies. Yet the extant empirical and theoretical support for whether teacher–child relationships will be more or less beneficialfor these children is somewhat equivocal.

1.4. Present study

We examined children's social skill trajectories from kindergarten through sixth grade using individual growthmodeling. Theseanalyses allowed us to examine patterns of growth in social skills across middle childhood. We chose social skills beginning inkindergarten, given that the transition to kindergarten marks the start of formal schooling when children face novel socialchallenges (National Educational Goals Panel, 1995). To extend previous research on social skill development, we addressed the


following research questions: (a) Do children evidence growth in social skills from kindergarten through sixth grade, and, if so, isthis growth linear?; (b) do childrenwith higher levels of internalizing and externalizing behavior problems in preschool show lessadaptive social skill development across middle childhood?; (c) do children with higher-quality teacher–child relationships showmore adaptive trajectories in social skills over time?; and (d) do higher-quality teacher–child relationships differentially facilitatethe social skill development of children with early behavior problems?

We advanced no hypotheses regarding the exact qualitative shape of children's social skill trajectories, due to a lack ofempirical evidence from previous studies. However, based on the limited available work, we hypothesized that growth would bepositive overall, and curvilinear, possibly with multiple periods of acceleration/deceleration. We also hypothesized that childrenevincing higher levels of behavior problems as preschoolers would have less adaptive social skill trajectories compared to theirpeers with fewer behavior problems. Similarly, we hypothesized that children who experienced higher-quality teacher–childrelationships over time would fare better than their peers with lower quality teacher–child relationships. We made nodirectional hypotheses regarding the degree to which teacher–child relationship effects could be larger or smaller for childrenwith early behavior problems. Theoretical justifications could be made for either scenario. These analyses should, thus, beconsidered exploratory.

2. Method

2.1. Sample

We obtained our data from a sample of children, mothers, and teachers, participating in the NICHD Study of Early ChildCare and Youth Development (SECCYD), a longitudinal study of 1364 children (52% male) and their families in 10 sites acrossthe U.S. Potential participants were originally recruited from among 8986 mothers who gave birth within a 24-hour samplingperiod in 31 hospitals across the sites. Families were excluded if the mother was younger than 18-years-old, did not speakEnglish, had a substance abuse problem, planned to relocate, or if there were medical complications during childbirth (seeNICHD, 1997 for a comprehensive review of the sampling procedure). Participating children and families were assessed on awide array of environmental and developmental measures at regular intervals for the subsequent 15 years. The studycontinues at present.

Although the sample is not nationally representative, it does show some socio-demographic diversity. The analytic sampleconsists of 1168 of the original 1364 children and families who contributed at least some data to the analysis (i.e., did not havemissing values for all variables in our model). Approximately 84, 9, and 7% of children in the analytic sample are European-American, African-American, and of other ethnicities, respectively. Mothers are fairly highly educated. Fourteen percent had lessthan a high school diploma or GED, 25% had a high school diploma or GED, 49% had at least some college or a four-year degree, and12% had post-graduate schooling at the time of the study child's birth. Despite the high education levels, there is a moderaterepresentation of families below or near the poverty line. Approximately, 15% of families in the sample lived at or below the federalpoverty line at the 54-month assessment (as indexed by an income-to-needs ratio of 1 or lower).

As is common with longitudinal designs, not all children have complete data. Missing data can potentially bias the fittedestimates and inferential statistics. To begin to address these potential biases, we fitted all models usingMaximum Likelihood (ML)estimation methods. ML estimation uses all available data from all those who contribute some data to the analysis (Singer &Willett, 2003), and simulation studies indicate that thesemethods substantially reduce biases due tomissing data (Collins, Schafer,& Kam, 2001). ML methods have been shown to be as effective as (or more effective than) other approaches, such as MultipleImputation (Chueng, 2007; Collins et al., 2001). ML estimation also preserves the nested structure of repeated measures designs,unlike single-level multiple imputation. Although it is impossible to know whether biases due to missing data will be completelyremedied, there is some indication that these approaches may help to limit them.

2.2. Procedures

Maternal ratings of behavior problems, along with family income information, were obtained via questionnaires when theirchildren were approximately 54-months old. Measurements of both teacher–child relationship quality and child social skills werecollected multiple times across middle childhood. Upon school-entry in kindergarten, each child's teacher was asked to rate thequality of his or her relationship with the child using a common questionnaire measure. This was done for each successive yearbetween kindergarten and sixth grade. Similarly, maternal ratings of social skills were collected in each successive year fromkindergarten through sixth grade, save the child's second grade year.

2.3. Measures

2.3.1. Outcome variableChildren's positive social skills (SSRS) were measured using the Social Skills Rating Scale (SSRS; Gresham & Elliott, 1990). We

used the Social Skills total raw score as the outcome in the present analysis. The total raw score was derived from responses to 30questionnaire items describing the children's social skills observed by the mother (e.g., sharing, initiating friendships, controllingtemper). Items are rated on a 3-point Likert scale describing the frequency of child behaviors, from 0 = “Never” to 2 = “Very


Often.” Higher scores are indicative of better social skills. Internal-consistency reliability estimates for this scale were high in eachgrade (Cronbach's alpha, .87–.91).

2.3.2. Predictor variablesWe created a TIME variable to represent each potential timeperiod inwhich a child could have an observation for the outcome (i.e.,

social skills) and the time-varying predictor (i.e., teacher–child relationships). Thus, TIME was represented by six time periods—eachyear between kindergarten and sixth grade. We centered TIME at kindergarten, such that TIME zero represents the kindergartenmeasurement period. This allows substantive interpretation of the Level 1 intercept as the population average initial status in socialskills in kindergarten (when all other conditional predictors are zero).

Teacher–child relationship quality (TCREL) was assessed using the Student Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS; Pianta, 1992), anadaptation of the Attachment Q-set (Waters & Deane, 1985). The questionnaire contains 15 items rating teachers' perceptionsabout the quality of their relationship with the focus child. Items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale that ranged from 1 =“Definitely does not apply” to 5 = “Definitely applies.” Higher scores are indicative of more positive teacher–child relationships.The internal-consistency reliability was high (Cronbach's alpha, .86–.89).

Children's behavior problems were measured via maternal reports when the child was approximately 54-months old, usingthe internalizing and externalizing t-scales of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach, 1991). For each item, therespondent is asked to determine howwell the item describes the child currently or within the last 6months: 0= not true,1=“Somewhat or sometimes true”, and 2 = “Very true or often true.” The 118 items can be broken into two sub-scales:Internalizing (INTERN), which measures child depressive and anxious/solitary behavior, and somatic complaints, andexternalizing (EXTERN), whichmeasures aggressive and delinquent behavior. Higher scores indicate worse behavior problems.Both the internalizing and externalizing scales show acceptable internal-consistency reliabilities (Cronbach's alphas, .81 and.88, respectively).

2.3.3. CovariatesPoverty status was included as a covariate in the final model because prior research has demonstrated its relationwith behavior

problems and social skills (Dearing, Berry, & Zaslow, 2006; Duncan, Brooks-Gunn, & Klebanov,1994; Owens & Shaw, 2003). Povertystatus (POVERTY) is a dichotomous variable. We created this variable by dividing the family's total self-reported income at thekindergarten assessment by the U.S. federal poverty threshold for the size of the family and designating families with income-to-needs ratios less than or equal to one as impoverished.

We also controlled for the effects of gender in the final model, given its association with teacher–child relationship quality,behavior problems (Rose-Krasnor,1997) and (albeit, less consistently) social skills (Eisenberg &Mussen,1989). Girls were coded as0, and boys were coded as 1.

There are costs and benefits to our choice of raters and measures. Because teachers rated the key predictor variable—teacher–child relationship quality—we selected maternal ratings of social skills to avoid problems arising from shared-ratervariance. Although we recognize that maternal ratings may not capture fully children's social skills in the context of school, wereasoned that maternal ratings likely reflect children's behaviors across several contexts, owing to the extensive periods ofobservation that parenting affords, as well as likely exchanges between teachers and parents. A second consideration is that,like most checklist measures of children's behavior, nuances of within-child contextual effects (e.g., social skills with peersversus adults, friends versus general, during particular times or situations, but not others, etc.) are often lost. Thus, the presentmeasure should be considered to be a more general representation of children's positive social behavior across contexts.However, we offer that the disadvantages of losing contextual specificity should be weighed against the benefits of limitedshared-rater variance.

2.4. Data analytic plan

To address the two levels of investigation—within-child growth in social skills, and between-child differences in social skilldevelopment attributed to early behavior problems and teacher–child relationship quality—we fitted a taxonomy of multilevelmodels for change. Conceptually, themultilevel model for change consists of two levels of analysis (Singer &Willett, 2003). Level 1allows us to model true intercepts and true growth rates in social skills for each child. In the conditional growth models, the maineffect of time-varying teacher–child relationships was also considered at Level 1, and its effect was permitted to vary as a functionof TIME. Level 2 treats the true social skill trajectories specified in Level 1 as an outcome that can be predicted by between-childdifferences in behavior problems and teacher–child relationship quality, controlling for the other variables in the model. Weprovide the exact specifications for our final models in the Results section.

To investigate our first research question, we examined the empirical growth plots of 200 randomly selected children. We thenfitted a taxonomy of unconditional, multilevel models for change. All models were fitted using the SAS PROC MIXED procedure,using ML estimation and a freely estimated (co)variance structure. We calculated changes in goodness-of-fit (i.e., Δ-2LL) betweennested models, as each new variable was added. Only variables that significantly improved goodness-of-fit were included insubsequent models. Similarly, additional variance parameters were only included if their respective residual variances significantlydiffered from zero in the population.

To answer our second and third research questions, we fitted an additional taxonomy of multilevel models for change. Thepredictors, behavior problems (internalizing behavior and externalizing) and time-varying teacher–child relationship quality were


first considered alone, and then gradually fitted in collective models to estimate their unique effects on the social skill growthtrajectory. Gender and poverty status were added to the final model as covariates.1

Finally, to address our fourth research question we fitted an additional model that estimated the two-way interaction effect ofbehavior problems and time-varying teacher–child relationships on initial status and social skills over time. This allowed us toconsider whether the magnitude of the time-varying teacher–child relationship effect varied as a function of early behaviorproblems.

3. Results

We fitted a taxonomy of multilevel models to examine children's social skill trajectories from kindergarten through sixth grade.First, we examined the main effect of linear time. In the next three models we added the quadratic, cubic and quarticparameterizations of time, respectively (models available from the authors upon request). Based on the fitted multilevel modelsand exploratory analyses, the quartic growth model best represented children's underling growth trajectories in social skills. Thismodel significantly improved the goodness-of-fit beyond each prior model (e.g., quartic compared to cubic model, df=1,Δ-2LL=13.8; χ2crit = 3.84). The quartic model also appeared to represent many of the trajectories observed in the empirical growth plots.For parsimony, we dropped the non-significant variance component for quadratic growth. This did not significantly reducegoodness-of-fit. Thus, the quartic model without the variance components for quadratic and quartic growth represents thepopulation average growth trajectory for social skills between kindergarten and sixth grade. On average, children showed positivesocial skill growth, with three points of acceleration/deceleration. The first point of positive growth/acceleration occurred betweenkindergarten and first grade and the second between third and fifth grades. A period of slightly negative growth/decelerationoccurred between fifth to sixth grade.

The following equations represent the Level 1 and Level 2 specifications for the final model for the population average growthtrajectory in social skills from kindergarten to sixth grade:

Level 1:

1 Wewithin-estimat

Yij = π0i + π1iTIMEij + π2iTIME2ij + π3iTIME3ij + π4iTIME4ij + eij ð1Þ

Level 2:

π0i = γ00 + f0i ð2Þ

π1i = γ10 + f1i

π2i = γ20

π3i = γ30 + f3i

π4i = γ40

Outcome Yij represents the social skills score of individual i at time j. In Level 1, the symbol π0i represents the intercept of thetrue change trajectory for individual i in the population. The symbol π1i represents individual i's true initial instantaneousgrowth rate in social skills. The symbols π2i, π3i, and π4i represent the quadratic, cubic, and quartic contributions to individual i'strue growth rate respectively. εij represents the Level 1 residual, or the differences between true and observed social skilltrajectories due to measurement error for individual i at time j (Singer & Willett, 2003). At Level 2, γ00 represents populationaverage initial status and γ10 represents the population average instantaneous growth rate in social skills. The symbols γ20, γ30,and γ40 represent the population average quadratic, cubic, and quartic contributions to average growth in social skills. Thestochastic parts of the Level 2 specification are represented by the following symbols: ζ0i, ζ1i, and ζ3i. The symbol ζ0i representsthe portion of initial status in social skills that is not predicted by the Level 2 predictor variables; ζ1i and ζ3i are the portions of thelinear and cubic contributions to the growth rate (respectively) that are not predicted by the Level 2 predictors. This fitted quarticgrowth model served as the baseline to which Level 2 between-child predictors were added to address research questions twoand three.

Based on a taxonomy of multilevel models (all models available from authors upon request), the following model bestrepresents the underlying association between early behavior problems, teacher–child relationships, and social skill developmentfrom kindergarten through sixth grade in the population (see Table 1). The Level 1 and Level 2 specifications of the model belowaddress each effect.

also fitted a model with site fixed effects to control for the possible influence of site differences and account for the possibility of correlated residualssite. However, because site was not predictive of social skills in kindergarten nor social skill growth, and because it did not affect any of the other pointes or inferential statistics, we do not discuss this in detail below.

Table 1Multilevel model for change describing the effects of internalizing and externalizing behaviors at 54 months, and time-varying teacher–child relationships onchildren's social skill growth trajectories between kindergarten and sixth grade (n = 1,168).

Parameter estimates

Fixed effectsInitial status

Intercept γ00 80.23⁎⁎⁎INTERN γ01 − 0.25∼EXTERN γ02 − 0.27⁎⁎⁎TCREL γ50 − 0.11MALE γ03 − 1.35⁎⁎POVERTY γ04 − 4.62⁎⁎⁎INTERN⁎TCREL γ51 0.003

Rate of changeTIME γ10 − 6.52⁎TIME 2 γ20 2.98TIME 3 γ30 − 0.76TIME 4 γ40 0.06INTERN⁎TIME γ11 0.18*INTERN⁎TIME 2 γ21 − 0.09*INTERN⁎TIME 3 γ31 0.02*INTERN⁎TIME 4 γ41 − 0.002~MALE⁎TIME γ13 − 0.16∼TCREL⁎TIME γ60 0.06⁎INTERN⁎TCREL⁎ TIME γ61 − 0.001∼

Random effectsLevel 1: Residual σε

2 20.52⁎⁎⁎Level 2: Initial status variance σ0

2 49.10⁎⁎⁎Linear variance σ1

2 2.43⁎⁎⁎Covariance w/IS σ01

2 − 0.84Cubic variance σ3

2 0.001⁎⁎⁎Covariance w/IS σ03

2 − 0.04∼Covariance w/linear σ13

2 − 0.04⁎⁎⁎Deviance (-2LL) 33740.1

∼ pb .10. ⁎ pb .05. ⁎⁎ pb .01. ⁎⁎⁎ pb .001.


Level 1:

Yij = π0i + π1iTIMEij + π2iTIME2ij + π3iTIME3ij + π4iTIME4ij + π5iTCRELij + π6iTCRELij4TIMEij + eij ð3Þ

Level 2:

π0i = γ00 + γ01INTERNi + γ02EXTERNi + γ03MALEi + γ04POVERTYi + f0i ð4Þ

π1i = γ10 + γ11INTERNi + γ13MALEi + f1i

π2i = γ20 + γ21INTERNi

π3i = γ30 + γ31INTERNi + f3i




The Level 1 specification is similar to the unconditional growth model, but the time-varying predictor, teacher–childrelationship quality, and its interaction term as a cross-product with TIME were added. The effect of individual i's teacher–childrelationship at time j on Yij is represented by π5i, and the parameter, π6i,represents the degree to which this effect varies as afunction of time. The addition of these parameters also slightly changes the interpretation of the intercept and slopes. The interceptis now interpreted as social skill scores when all Level 1 predictors are zero. The effects of each of the slope parameters are nowinterpreted as the conditional true rate of change, controlling for the effects of teacher–child relationship quality. The Level 1residual, εij, is the part of individual i's social skills at time j, not predicted by TIME or time-varying teacher–child relationships.

The symbols γ01 and γ02 represent the population average difference in SSRS scores at kindergarten for each one unit differencein internalizing (γ01) and externalizing (γ02) behavior problems, controlling for the effects of gender (γ03) and poverty (γ04). The

2 Because teacher–child relationship quality is a time-varying predictor, we used the 25th and 75th percentile score for a given time point. For exampleprototypically high teacher–child relationship quality in kindergarten is based on the 75th percentile for kindergarten and that for first grade is based on the 75thpercentile score in first grade.

Fig. 1. Social skill growth trajectories from kindergarten through sixth grade for prototypical children with combinations of high- and low-levels of internalizingproblems and high- and low-quality teacher–child relationships, controlling for externalizing behavior problems at 54-months and demographic covariates (n=1168)


.

population average difference in instantaneous rate of change per unit difference in internalizing behavior problems and genderare represented by the parameters γ11 and γ13, respectively. γ21, γ31, and γ41 are the average difference in the respective quadratic,cubic, and quartic contributions to rate of change per unit difference in internalizing problems. The symbols γ51 and γ61 allow theeffect of teacher child relationship on social skill intercept (i.e., kindergarten) and social skills over time to vary as a function earlyinternalizing problems, respectively.

In the final model (Table 1) internalizing behavior at 54 months was conditionally predictive of linear (γ11 = .18, p=.005),quadratic (γ21 = − 0.09, p = .02), cubic (γ31 = 0.02, p = .03), and quartic (γ41 = − 0.002, p =.04) growth in children's socialskills from kindergarten to sixth grade (Table 1), beyond the interaction between teacher–child relationships and internalizing(discussed below). On average, children with fewer internalizing behaviors showed more positive linear and cubic accelerationand less quadratic and quartic decay in their trajectories over time. In contrast, higher 54-month externalizing problems werepredictive of lower kindergarten social skills (γ02 = − .27 p b .001) but not of social skill growth.

Higher-quality teacher–child relationships had a positive effect on children's trajectories. The magnitude of the effect, however,varied over time and—at a level of marginal statistical significance—across children with varying levels of 54-month internalizingproblems. Irrespective of children's early internalizing problems, experiencing higher-quality relationships with teachers wasassociated with higher social skill ratings, but the significant Level 1 interaction between teacher–child relationships and time(γ60 = .06, p = .02) indicated that the magnitude of this effect increased as children aged. In kindergarten, the estimated socialskill differential between those with high-and low-quality teacher–child relationships (75th and 25th percentiles, respectively)was fairly small, regardless of internalizing level. However, by sixth grade the social skill differential between high-and low-qualityteacher–child relationships increased substantially. The statistically marginal cross-level interaction between internalizing,teacher–child relationships, and time suggested the possibility that the time-varying teacher–child relationship effect wasstronger (in the long-term) for children with low levels of early internalizing problems (γ61 = − .0001, p = .07).

Poverty was predictive of lower levels of kindergarten social skills (γ04 =− 4.62, p b .001), but not growth in social skills overtime. Boys tended to enter kindergarten with significantly fewer social skills (γ03 = − 1.35, p b .001) and show marginally less-positive rates of change in social skills, compared to girls (γ13 = − 0.16, p = .08). Neither gender nor poverty moderated theinteraction effects between internalizing and time-varying teacher–child relationship quality.

To display these effects more concretely we constructed fitted growth plots from the final model (Fig. 1). These trajectoriesrepresent the four possible sub-groups of prototypic children: 1.) High internalizers with consistently high-quality relationships,2.) high internalizers with consistently low-quality relationships, 3.) low internalizers with consistently high-quality relationships,and 4.) low internalizers with consistently low-quality relationships. The thresholds for high and low levels of internalizingbehaviors and teacher–child relationship quality were the 25th and 75th percentiles respectively2. All other variables in the modelwere held constant at their respective means.

,


Although the effect is ultimately moderated (at a marginal level of significance) by quality of the teacher–child relationship,the main effects of early internalizing problems on social skill growth are clearly illustrated by the qualitatively distinct differencesbetween the growth trajectories of children with high and low levels of early internalizing problems. Whereas low-internalizingchildren show rather learning-curve shaped social skill growth prior to fifth grade, high-internalizing children show a markedplateau between first and third grade. The time-varying teacher–child relationship effect is represented by the way the social skillsof both high-and low-internalizing children respectively diverge over time as a function of relationship quality, albeit slightly moreso for low-internalizing children.

As would be expected, prototypical children with low levels of internalizing behaviors at 54 months who experiencedconsistently high-quality teacher–child relationships showed the most adaptive social skill trajectories over time. Identically low-internalizing children who experienced low-quality relationships, however, showed comparably much less positive growth andmore dramatic negative growth in the late-elementary years. The predicted tenth of a point social skill differential between thesetwo groupings in kindergarten grew by 1.57 points (∼ 16% SD) by sixth grade as a function of teacher–child relationship quality.Higher-quality teacher–child relationships were similarly associated withmore positive social skill growth for highly-internalizingchildren, but to a somewhat lesser extent than low-internalizing children. The approximately half-point social skill differencepredicted for these children in kindergarten grew by .75 points (∼ 7.5% SD) by sixth grade.

Thedifferences in the teacher–child relationship effecton social skill growthbetweenhigh-and low-internalizingchildren is largelyexplainedby the comparablymoredramaticnegative growth seen for low internalizerswith low-quality teacher–child relationships inthe late elementary years. In fact, by sixth grade, these children's social skill scores are largely identical to those of high-internalizingchildren who experienced consistently low-quality teacher–child relationships. In contrast, the sixth-grade social skill differencebetween high-and low-internalizing children with consistently high-quality relationships is .54 points (∼ 5% SD).

4. Discussion

This study builds on previous work by considering intra-individual growth in social skills from the kindergarten through sixthgrade. Overall, children showed curvilinear social skill trajectories from kindergarten through sixth grade, with periods ofheightened acceleration between kindergarten and first grade and third and fifth grades and a period of slight deceleration fromfifth to sixth grade. Children's social skill growth trajectories modeled in this study support findings from earlier researchconsidering children's social skill development over much shorter developmental spans. Similar to the findings by Chan et al.(2000), on average, children showed dramatic growth in social skills at school entry. This acceleration in social skills in thebeginning of middle childhood maps onto socio–cognitive shifts seen in children during this developmental period. For example,children's ‘theory of mind' abilities become much more complex around the mid-elementary school years, when they begin tomore reliably predict other's emotions (Bradmetz, & Schneider, 1999; Harris, 1991). The finding that children's average social skilldevelopment showed a second period of acceleration around third grade extends the literature on children's social skilldevelopment in middle childhood, and somewhat confirms the results of others who have found positive social skill growth in thislater period (e.g., Berry & McCartney, 2007, March; Gazelle & Rudolph, 2004). Collectively, these studies seem to indicate thatnormative social skill growth is comprised of multiple points of acceleration across middle childhood, rather than constant, linearchange.

Due to limited research exploring normative developmental trajectories in social skills in middle-childhood, it is difficult topoint explicitly to the mechanisms underlying the second period of acceleration. However, Selman's (1980, 2003) work suggeststhat children show advances in mutual perspective taking abilities frommiddle to late elementary school. This is the same periodin which the second acceleration was observed. Such socio–cognitive growth has been used to explain an increasing intimacy ofchildren's friendships at these ages (see Laursen & Hartup, 2002). Children's friendships gain depth and become more specifiedover this time period (Berndt, 2004; Laursen & Hartup, 2002). In fact, stage-based theories of friendship development, such asSullivan's (1953), posit that children begin to develop close, intimate relationships as they enter preadolescence. There is empiricalsupport for these normative developmental patterns, with children showing deeper appreciations for closer, intimate relationshipsacrossmiddle childhood and preadolescence (Berndt,1982). If positive social skills can, at least to some degree, be considered to bereflective of social–cognition, then the present work may provide some support for the theory that late middle childhood topreadolescence is a period of growth in these abilities.

The slight decline in social skills from fifth to sixth grade was unexpected. This negative trajectory somewhat contradicts thepositive growth over this period noted by others (Gazelle & Rudolph, 2004), and interpretation of this decline remains somewhatunclear. One possible reason for the decline is that social skills weremeasured usingmaternal reports. Growth in autonomy aroundpreadolescence may result in children showing less positive social behavior around their parents, on average. As such, thematernal-report of social skills used presently might reflect changes in social skills that are specific to familial interactions. Thismight explain the discrepancy with the positive growth observed by Gazelle and Rudolph (2004) who used exclusively teacher-reported outcomes.

Another possibility is that the slight downward trend in social skills seen in early pre-adolescence is reflective of more generalsocio–affective changes that occur around this period. For instance, some work has shown declines in children's self-esteem andbeliefs about their own social-competence around this age (Eccles, Wigfield, Flanagan, Miller, Reuman, & Yee, 1989; however, seeCantin & Boivin, 2004 for contradictory results). Similarly, other studies have shown that children's affective states tend to becomeincreasingly negative and decreasingly positive around this developmental span (Larson, Moneta, Richards, &Wilson, 2002). Thus,it could be the case that shifts toward more negatively valenced emotional states and less confidence in their social abilities may


lead to less positive social behavior over this same period. Future work examining children's social skill development during thisperiod and across raters is clearly necessary.

4.1. Early behavioral risk factors and social skill development

As hypothesized, children with higher levels of internalizing behavior problems at 54 months began kindergarten with lower-level social skills and showed less adaptive trajectories over time. Unlike their less-internalizing peers who showed rathercontinuous, learning-curve-shaped, positive growth in early middle childhood, children with higher levels of internalizingproblems showed a marked plateau between first and third grade. These plateaus were followed by subsequent positive growth insocial skills from third to fifth grade and a slight deceleration from fifth to sixth grade.

These qualitatively different developmental trajectories between children with higher and lower levels of internalizingbehaviors may be partially explained by the dual roles of maturational shifts in social cognition and feedback-loops between thechild and her experiences in the social environment. Although they beginwith lower-level social skills, childrenwith internalizingproblems show the seemingly normative pattern of positive growth between kindergarten and first grade. This pattern might bepredicted, given normative socio–cognitive maturation observed around this period (Harris, 1991). Children, on average, mayshow substantial social skill growth in the early elementary years, as a function of their emerging socio–cognitive capabilities (e.g.,emotional perspective taking; Bradmetz & Schneider, 1999). However, after this initial maturational spurt, interactions with thesocial environment may largely determine individual differences in growth. As such, children with positive social skills wouldevoke social experiences that provide themwith the opportunity to build and practice their growing repertoires of positive socialskills over time. That is, onewould expect rather continual positive growth. In contrast, childrenwho begin this transitional periodwith some social skill deficits would be expected to evoke negative social experiences. In turn, these experiences would fail toprovide the learning opportunities required for positive social skill development and would reinforce the original social deficit—amaladaptive feedback-loop. Such theoretical child-by-environment transactions could lead to less adaptive trajectories similar tothose noted presently. Although limited, there is some empirical support for such maladaptive recursive cycles with youngerchildren. For example, Snyder and colleagues (2003) found that five-year-olds showing internalizing-type behaviors increasinglybecame targets of peer victimization through age seven, and that the experience of victimization increased early internalizingbehaviors over that period.

The slight increase in positive growth noted for internalizing children from third to fifth grade may also reflect children'sdevelopment of intimate friendships over this period. Despite the fact that internalizing children often face social adversities fromtheir peers, en large, these children do often manage to foster close friendships (Hodges, Boivin, Vitaro, & Bukowski, 1999). Asinternalizing children's abilities to form close, intimate friendships develop across middle-childhood, interactions with these closefriends likely serve as positive social experiences that allow them to build positive social skills. If this is the case, onewould predicta positive growth in social skills around the time these deeper friendships become more common. Thus, the emergence of closeintimate friendships might explain the second period of acceleration seen for internalizing children; however, this remains anempirical question to be studied directly.

Interestingly, early externalizing problems were predictive of lower-level social skills in kindergarten but not of individualgrowth. That is, individual differences in 54-month externalizing behavior predicted kindergarten social skills, but variation insocial skill growth rates was not accounted for by children's early externalizing behavior. This was somewhat surprising, as onemight expect that children with fewer externalizing behaviors, and thereby fewer early social skill deficits, might show moregrowth in social skills over time. Although we are cautious about substantively interpreting null findings, one way that this nulleffect could occur is if growth effects are restricted to the lower end of the externalizing distribution (i.e., more externalizingchildren show more intra-individual stability). If this is the case, then one would expect the average effect of externalizingbehaviors on growth to be minimal. Further work is needed to fully unpack the long-term social skill development of childrenshowing early externalizing behaviors.

4.2. Teacher–child relationship quality and social skill development

Our results demonstrate that teacher–child relationship quality is positively associated with children's social skill development.High-quality relationships from kindergarten through sixth grade were associated with more positive social skills trajectories.These findings are in accord with studies that have demonstrated that teacher–child relationships are associated with classroombehavior problems (Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Hughes, Cavell, & Jackson,1999; Ladd & Burgess, 2001;Meehan, Hughes, & Cavell, 2003;Pianta, Steinberg, & Rollins,1995; Silver, Measelle, Armstrong, & Essex, 2005). Somewhat unexpectedly, however, themagnitude ofthe effect varied across time, such that teacher–child relationship quality effect was quite weak in the early years, but increased aschildren grew older. This somewhat challenges prior work showing early teacher–child relationship quality to be predictive ofbetter social outcomes in late elementary and middle school (Hamre & Pianta, 2005). However, this finding may be partly due tothe fact that prior studies have not considered teacher–child relationship effects as time-varying. As such, prior findings may beexplained by intra-individual stability in relationship quality over time. For instance, children with higher-quality earlyrelationships may have higher-quality relationships later in development when the social outcomes were measured. Thus, prioreffects might be better explained by later relationship quality than early relationship quality. Indeed, the available evidenceindicates that teacher–child relationship quality is correlated over time, at least in early childhood (Howes & Hamilton, 1992;Howes, Phillipsen, & Peisner-Feinberg, 2000).


The comparably larger teacher–child relationship effect seen in the late elementary/early middle school years coincides withwork suggesting that this stressful transitional period in development may require particularly strong support from teachers, interms of facilitating students' senses of competence and autonomy (see Eccles et al., 1993). Given that aspects of autonomy havebeen linked to behavior problems (Ryan, Deci, & Grolnick, 1995), it seems reasonable to conjecture that children's/pre-adolescents'feeling about competence and autonomy could also be reflected behaviorally in their positive social skills.

4.3. Child-by-environment effects on social skill development

The findings indicated that the teacher–child relationship effect was stronger for children with lower levels of earlyinternalizing problems, compared to those with higher levels. On one hand, this means that children with low levels of earlyinternalizing problems show the largest gains from positive teacher–child relationships—the socially rich get richer. On the otherhand, it means that: (1) Low levels of early internalizing do not protect children against the negative effects of low-quality teacher–child relationships, and (2) higher levels of early internalizing problems seem to function as a protective factor against the negativeeffects of low-quality teacher–child relationship quality. Given that this interaction effect only reached marginal statisticalsignificance, however, it should be interpreted with caution.

Interestingly, this differs from the findings of prior studies that have shown the effects of teacher–child relationships and othersupportive aspects of the classroom on children's social development to be larger for those with higher levels of early behaviorproblems (Gazelle, 2006; Hamre & Pianta, 2001). Yet, it should be noted that these prior studies considered different outcomes(i.e., behavior problems versus social skills), over different developmental spans, and employed different methods (i.e., cross-timecorrelation versus growth; time-invariant aspects of the teacher-relationship/emotional support versus time-varying). Thus, thepresent findings are not contradictory, per se, but they are somewhat different than what has been found by others.

In terms of explaining the present findings, one possibility is that the socio–cognitive tendencies of highly-internalizingchildren may make them less responsive to the social environment (positively or negatively). For example, internalizing-relatedproblems like depression and social withdrawal have been linked with negative attribution biases, such that highly-internalizingchildren tend to view social exchanges as being due to enduring, negative aspects of the self (Burgess et al., 2006; Dodge, 1993;Wichmann, Coplan, & Daniels, 2004; Zahn-Waxler, Klimes-Dougan, & Slattery, 2000). That is, one causes one's own problems andthe environment has little impact. Highly-internalizing children may receive the types of sensitive, supportive teacher behaviorone would associate with high-quality teacher–child relationships. Yet, the tendencies of these children to imbue socialinformation with a negative valence and perceive it as having little causal impact on the self may mitigate what is actually gained(cognitive and behaviorally) from high-quality teacher–child relationship. Our measure of teacher–child relationship quality maymiss the child's true perspective, as it is based on teacher report. Although limited, the available evidence suggests that teachersand children may often disagree about the quality of their relationship (Murray, Murray, &Waas, 2008). To our best knowledge, nostudies have considered social information processing as a mediator of the longitudinal associations between early internalizingand later social development. However, given that multiple studies have supported similar mediational hypothesis for childhoodaggression and environmental experiences like peer adversity (e.g., Crick & Dodge, 1994; Dodge & Pettit, 2003), it seemstheoretically plausible that socio–cognitive mechanisms may also be at play with early internalizing problems and teacher–childrelationships.

4.4. Implications

The current findings demonstrate the importance of high-quality teacher–child relationships for children's social skilldevelopment. Higher-quality relationships help high-internalizing children become more like their less-internalizing peers overtime. The positive effect of teacher–child relationships holds true for all children, regardless of early behavior problems; however,there is some indication (at the trend level) that themagnitude of the effect is slightly stronger for childrenwith low levels of earlyinternalizing. Such findings underscore the importance of helping teachers develop positive relationships with all children.Furthermore they stress the fact that having low-quality teacher–child relationships over time is a risk factor for less adaptivesocial skill trajectories, even for children without early behavioral risk factors.

Although the current study did not measure the actual processes underlying these differing developmental trajectories forchildren with early behavioral risk factors, the findings are consistent with the theoretical propositions of child-by-environmentfeedback loops. As would be expected according to this model, childrenwith early endogenous risk factors who were provided thesocial opportunity to learn and use positive social behaviors showed more adaptive trajectories over time—a break in themaladaptive loop. In contrast, those with the identical risk factor who failed to form such relationships showed the least adaptivetrajectories, perhaps because they remained in such negative recursive interactions with the social environment. Together, thisgives some indication that teacher–child relationships may be another important factor in the way early social skill deficits persistor are improved over time.

4.5. Limitations and future directions

The direction of the causal links between early behavior problems, teacher–child relationships and social skills remainssomewhat unclear. Social interactions and development are inherently dynamic processes; the causal pathways are often difficultto illuminate. In the current study, early child behavior problems were lagged approximately a year and half prior to the


measurement of teacher–child relationships and social skills to reduce endogeneity concerns, but it remains unclear whetherteacher–child relationships cause changes in social skills or the reverse. Experimental training studies are promising next steps toconsidering the causal mechanisms underlying behavioral risk, teacher–child relationships and social skill development.

Although the findings appeared to support the proposed theory regarding feedback-loops between early child risk factors andthe social environment, these were not directly measured in our analyses. Future work might use latent growth modeling toconsider the mediational roles that changing peer relationships and/or within-child socio–cognitive development play betweenteacher–child relationships and social skill growth. Similarly, althoughwe propose that socio–cognitive differences associatedwithinternalizing may explain the somewhat stronger effects of teacher–child relationship quality for children with lower levels ofinternalizing problems, we did not address these processes directly. Promising next steps will be to include measures of children'sexplicit and implicit perceptions about the quality of their relationships with their teachers into the hypothesized model.

This study used only maternal ratings of children's behavior problems and social skills, and teacher ratings of teacher–childrelationships. Comparing across studies (i.e., Berry & McCartney, 2007; Chan et al., 2000; Gazelle & Rudolph, 2004) there is someindication that social skill growth trajectories may be qualitatively different, depending upon rater. It is difficult to parse the degreeto which rater differences reflect aspects of measurement error and/or rater bias or actual differences in the way children behaveacross different contexts. But utilizing multiple raters will be a first step to considering possible rater differences. Similarly,children's perspectives regarding their relationships with teachers, and possibly observational ratings of relationships, wouldsubstantially add to the literature. The generalizability of the findings could also be challenged, given the fairly well-educatednature of mothers. However, it is noteworthy that the sample does show some demographic diversity, in terms of income andethnicity.

Finally, we hasten to add that the magnitudes of both the internalizing and teacher–child relationship effects were somewhatsmall in absolute terms. At its largest effect in the trajectory (i.e., third grade), high-(75th percentile) compared to low-internalizing (25th percentile) ratings corresponded to only an approximate .89 scale point difference in social skills (i.e., 9% SD)for children who had constantly high-quality teacher–child relationships and .86 for children rated as having consistently low-quality teacher–child relationships (i.e., 9% SD). Teacher–child relationship effects were somewhat larger, particularly at the end ofelementary school years. However, they are still small to moderate in absolute terms. Having a high-compared to low-qualityteacher relationship in sixth grade is associated with approximately a 1.28 (13% SD) to 1.68 (17% SD) scale point difference in socialskills for high-and low-internalizing children, respectively.

With that caveat in mind, we agree with McCartney and Rosenthal (2000) that considering relative effect sizes is useful forunderstanding the practical importance of effects. For instance, although the predicted sixth grade social skill difference betweenthose with high-and low-quality teacher relationships is small, it is approximately a third of the size of the social skill differenceassociated with poverty (4.62 points). So although the effects may be somewhat small, they are about a third of the size of a well-accepted risk factor for maladaptive social development that encapsulates several levels of contextual risk (e.g., prenatal, familyprocesses, neighborhood, school, etc.).

4.6. Conclusion

As the use of powerful statistical models for change has become more common-place in developmental psychology, the factthat much of children's growth is not constrained to linear patterns becomes increasingly clear. The present findings suggest thatsocial skill growth across middle-childhood may be another case in which children's growth is represented by complexdevelopmental patterns. Moreover, there appears to be substantial heterogeneity in these patterns. The present findings suggestthat children with internalizing behavior problems as early as preschool show qualitatively different trajectories in positive socialbehavior across the entirety of middle-childhood than their less internalizing peers. There is also evidence that higher-qualityteacher–child relationships support adaptive social development over this period, particularly as children grow older. Whenconsidered together, the present findings suggest that children with early internalizing problems who experience consistentlyhigh-quality relationships with their teachers become more like their less-internalizing counterparts over time. This opens thedoor for future study into the specific transactional mechanisms between child-based risk, teacher–child relationships, and thedevelopment of social skills across middle childhood.

Acknowledgment

Wewould like to thank Kristen Bub, KathleenMcCartney, Gabrielle Rappolt-Schlichtmann, and JohnWillett for their thoughtfulcomments on prior versions of this paper.

References

Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the child behavior checklist/4–18 and 1991 profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.Berndt, T. J. (1982). The features and effects of friendship in early adolescence. Child Development, 53, 1447–1460.Berndt, T. J. (2004). Children's friendships: Shifts over a half-century in perspectives on their development and their effects.Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50, 206–223.Berry, D., & McCartney, K. (2007, March). Fueling the fire? Peer adversity as a moderator between behavior problems and social skill growth across middle childhood.

Poster session presented at the Biennial Conference of the Society for Research in Child Development, Boston, MA.Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1997). The teacher–child relationship and children's early school adjustment. Journal of School Psychology, 35, 61–79.Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1998). Children's interpersonal behaviors and the teacher–child relationship. Developmental Psychology, 34, 934–946.


Boivin, M., Hymel, S., & Hodges, E. V. E. (2001). Toward a process view of peer rejection and harassment. In J. Juvonen, & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school:The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 265–289). New York: Guilford Press.

Bradmetz, J., & Schneider, R. (1999). Is Little Red Riding Hood afraid of her grandmother? Cognitive vs. emotional response to false-belief. British Journal ofDevelopmental Psychology, 17, 501–514.

Broidy, L. M., Nagin, D. S., Tremblay, R. E., Bates, J. E., Brame, B., Dodge, K. A., et al. (2003). Developmental trajectories of childhood disruptive behaviors andadolescent delinquency: A six-site, cross-national study. Developmental Psychology, 39, 222–245.

Burgess, K. B., Wojslawowicz, J. C., Rubin, K. H., Rose-Krasnor, L., & Booth-LaForce, C. (2006). Social information processing and coping strategies of shy/withdrawnand aggressive children: Does friendship matter? Child Development, 77, 371–383.

Bukowski, W. M., & Newcomb, A. F. (1984). Stability and determinants of sociometric status and friendship choice: A longitudinal perspective. DevelopmentalPsychology, 20, 941–952.

Cantin, S., & Boivin, M. (2004). Change and stability in children's social network and self-perceptions during transition from elementary to junior high school.International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28, 561–570.

Caspi, A., Elder, G. H., Jr., & Bem, D. J. (1987). Moving against the world: Life-course patterns of explosive children. Developmental Psychology, 23, 208–313.Caspi, A., Elder, G. H., Jr., & Bem, D. J. (1988). Moving away from the world: Life-course patterns of shy children. Developmental Psychology, 24, 824–831.Chan, D., Ramey, S., Ramey, C., & Schmitt, N. (2000). Modeling intraindividual changes in children's social skills at home and at school: A multivariate latent growth

approach to understanding between-settings differences in children's social skill development. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 35, 365–396.Chueng, M.W. (2007). Comparison of methods of handling missing time-invariant covariates in latent growthmodels under the assumption of missing completely

at random. Organizational Research Methods, 10, 609–634.Coie, J. D. (2004). The impact of negative social experiences on the development of antisocial behavior. In J. Kupersmidt, & K. A. Dodge (Eds.), Children's peer

relations: From development to intervention (pp. 243–267). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Collins, L. M., Schafer, J. L., & Kam, C. M. (2001). A comparison of inclusive and restrictive strategies in modern missing-data procedures. Psychological Methods, 6,

330–351.Coplan, R. J., & Prakash, K. (2003). Spending timewith teacher: Characteristics of preschoolers who frequently elicit versus initiate interactions with teachers. Early

Childhood Research Quarterly, 18, 143–158.Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in children's social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin,

115, 74–101.Davis, H. A. (2003). Conceptualizing the role and influence of student–teacher relationships on children's social and cognitive development. Educational

Psychologist, 38, 207–234.Dearing, E., Berry, D., & Zaslow, M. J. (2006). Poverty in early childhood. In K. McCartney, & D. Phillips (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Early Childhood Development

(pp. 399–423). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Deater-Deckard, K. (2001). Annotation: Recent research examining the role of peer relations in the development of psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology

and Psychiatry, 42, 565–579.Dodge, K. A. (1983). Behavioral antecedents of peer social status. Child Development, 54, 1386–1399.Dodge, K. A. (1993). Social-cognitive mechanisms in the development of conduct disorder and depression. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 559–584.Dodge, K. A., & Pettit, G. S. (2003). A biopsychosocial model of the development of chronic conduct problems in adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 39, 349–371.Duncan, G. J., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Klebanov, P. K. (1994). Economic deprivation and early childhood development. Child Development, 65, 296–318.Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Rueman, D., Flanagan, C., et al. (1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stage-environmental

fit on young adolescents' experiences in schools and in families. American Psychologist, 48, 90–101.Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Flanagan, C. A., Miller, C., Reuman, D., & Yee, D. (1989). Self-concepts, domain values, and self-esteem: Relations and changes at early

adolescence. Journal of Personality, 57, 283–310.Eisenberg, N., & Mussen, P. H. (1989). The roots of prosocial behavior in children. Cambridge University Press.Estell, D. B., Cairns, R. B., Farmer, T. W., & Cairns, B. D. (2002). Aggression in inner-city early elementary classrooms: Individual and peer-group configurations.

Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 48, 52–76.Estell, D. B., Farmer, T.W., Pearl, R., Van Acker, R., & Rodkin, P. C. (2003). Heterogeneity in the relationship between popularity and aggression: Individual, group, and

classroom influences. In S. C. Peck, & R. W. Roeser (Eds.), Person-centered approaches to studying development in context. New directions for child and adolescentdevelopment (pp. 75–85). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gazelle, H. (2006). Class climate moderates peer relations and emotional adjustment in children with an early history of anxious solitude: A child × environmentmodel. Developmental Psychology, 42, 1179–1192.

Gazelle, H., & Ladd, G. W. (2003). Anxious solitude and peer exclusion: A diathesis-stress model of internalizing trajectories in childhood. Child Development, 74,257–278.

Gazelle, H., & Rudolph, K. D. (2004). Moving toward and away from the world: Social approach and avoidance trajectories in anxious solitary youth. ChildDevelopment, 75, 829–849.

Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). Social Skills Rating Scale: Manual. Circle Pines, MN: AGS Publishing.Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher–child relationships and the trajectory of children's school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72,

625–638.Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2005). Can instructional and emotional support in the first-grade classroom make a difference for children at risk of school failure?

Child Development, 76, 949–967.Harris, P. L. (1991). Children and emotion: The development of psychological understanding. Cambridge: Blackwell.Hodges, E. V. E., Boivin, M., Vitaro, F., & Bukowski, W.M. (1999). The power of friendship: Protection against an escalating cycle of peer victimization. Developmental

Psychology, 35, 94–101.Howes, C. (2000). Social–emotional classroom climate in child care, child–teacher relationships and children's second grade peer relations. Social Development, 9,

191–204.Howes, C., & Hamilton, C. E. (1992). Children's relationships with child care teachers: Stability and concordance with parental attachments. Child Development, 63,

867–878.Howes, C., Hamilton, C. E., & Matheson, C. C. (1994). Maternal, teacher, and child care history correlates of children's relationships with peers. Child Development, 65,

264–273.Howes, C., Phillipsen, L., & Peisner-Feinberg, C. (2000). The consistency and predictability of teacher–child relationships during the transition to kindergarten.

Journal of School Psychology, 38, 113–132.Hughes, J. N., Cavell, T. A., & Jackson, T. (1999). Influence of the teacher–child relationship on childhood conduct problems: A prospective study. Journal of Clinical

Child Psychology, 28, 173–184.Keane, S. P., & Calkins, S. D. (2004). Predicting kindergarten peer social status from toddler and preschool problem behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,

32, 409–423.Keiley, M. K., Bates, J. E., Dodge, K. A., & Pettit, G. S. (2000). A cross-domain growth analysis: Externalizing and internalizing behaviors during 8 years of childhood.

Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 28, 161–179.Ladd, G. W. (1999). Peer relationships and social competence during early and middle childhood. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 333–359.Ladd, G. W. (2003). Probing the adaptive significance of children's behavior and relationships in the school context: A child by environment perspective. In R. Kail

(Ed.), Advances in child behavior and development (pp. 43–104). New York: Wiley.Ladd, G. W., & Burgess, K. B. (1999). Relationship trajectories of aggressive, withdrawn, aggressive/withdrawn children during school. Child Development, 70, 910–929.Ladd, G. W., & Burgess, K. B. (2001). Do relational risks and protective factors moderate the linkages between childhood aggression and early psychological and

school adjustment? Child Development, 72, 1579–1601.


Ladd, G. W., Herald, S. L., & Kochel, K. P. (2006). School readiness: Are there social prerequisites? Early Education and Development, 17, 115–150.Larson, R. W., Moneta, G., Richards, M. H., &Wilson, S. (2002). Continuity, stability and change in daily emotional experience across adolescence. Child Development, 73,

1151–1165.Laursen, B., & Hartup, W. (2002). The origins of reciprocity and social exchange in friendships. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 95, 25–40.Magnusson, D. (1988). Individual development from an interactional perspective: A longitudinal study. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum.McCartney, K., & Rosenthal, R. (2000). Effect size, practical importance, and social policy for children. Child Development, 71(1), 173–180.Meehan, B. T., Hughes, J. N., & Cavell, T. A. (2003). Teacher–student relationships as compensatory resources for aggressive children. Child Development, 74, 1145–1157.Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Harrington, H., & Milne, B. J. (2002). Males on the life-course-persistent and adolescence-limited antisocial pathways: Follow-up at age 26

years. Development and Psychopathology, 14, 179–207.Murray, C., Murray, K. M., & Waas, G. A. (2008). Child and teacher reports of teacher–student relationships: Concordance of perspectives and associations with

school adjustment in urban kindergarten classrooms. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29, 49–61.National Education Goals Panel (1995). Reconsidering children's early development and learning: Toward common views and vocabulary. Washington, DC: National

Education Goals Panel.NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (1997). The effects of infant child care on infant–mother attachment security: Results of the NICHD Study of Early Child

Care. Child Development, 68, 860–879.NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (2004). Trajectories of physical aggression from toddlerhood to middle childhood.Monographs of the Society for Research

in Child Development, 69 (4, Serial No. 278).Owens, E. B., & Shaw, D. S. (2003). Poverty and early childhood adjustment. In S. A. Luthar (Ed.), Resilience and Vulnerability: Adaptation in the context of childhood

adversities (pp. 267–292). New York: Cambridge University Press.Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family process. Eugene, OR: Castalia Publishing Co.Pianta, R. C. (1992). Conceptual and methodological issues in research on relationships between children and nonparental adults. In Robert Pianta (Ed.), New

directions for child development: Vol. 57. Beyond the parent: The role of other adults in children's lives. (pp. 121–129). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.Pianta, R. C. (1999). Enhancing relationships between children and teachers. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Pianta, R. C., Steinberg, M. S., & Rollins, K. B. (1995). The first two years of school: Teacher–child relationships and deflections in children's classroom adjustment.

Development and Psychopathology, 7, 295–312.Rose-Krasnor, L. (1997). The nature of social competence: A theoretical review. Social Development, 6, 111–135.Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W., & Parker, J. (1998). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and

personality development 5th ed., (pp. 619–700). New York: Wiley.Rubin, K. H., & Coplan, R. J. (2004). Paying attention to and not neglecting social withdrawal and social isolation. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50, 506–534.Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., & Grolnick, W. S. (1995). Autonomy, relatedness, and the self: Their relation to development and psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti, & D. J.

Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Theory and methods, Vol. 1. (pp. 618–655). New York: Wiley.Schwartz, D., McFayden-Ketchum, S., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (1999). Early behavior problems as a predictor of later peer group victimization:

Moderators and mediators in the pathways of social risk. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 27, 191–201.Selman, R. L. (1980). The growth of interpersonal understanding: Developmental and clinical analyses. Orlando, FL.: Academic Press.Selman, R. L. (2003). The promotion of social awareness: Powerful lessons from the partnership of developmental theory and classroom practice. New York: Russell Sage.Silver, R. B., Measelle, J. R., Armstrong, J. M., & Essex, M. J. (2005). Trajectories of classroom externalizing behavior: Contributions of child characteristics, family

characteristics, and the teacher–child relationship during the school transition. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 39–60.Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. New York: Oxford University Press.Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton.Snyder, J., Brooker, M., Patrick, M. R., Snyder, A., Schrepferman, L., & Stoolmiller, M. (2003). Observed peer victimization during early elementary school: Continuity,

growth, and relation to risk for antisocial and depressive behavior. Child Development, 74, 1881–1898.Vitaro, F., Gagnon, C., & Tremblay, R. E. (1990). Predicting stable peer rejection from kindergarten to first grade. Journal of Child Clinical Psychology, 19, 257–264.Waters, E., & Deane, K. E. (1985). Defining and assessing individual differences in attachment relationships: Q-methodology and the organization of behavior in

infancy and early childhood. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50, 41–65.Wichmann, C., Coplan, R. J., & Daniels, T. (2004). The social cognitions of withdrawn children. Social Development, 13, 377–392.Zahn-Waxler, C., Klimes-Dougan, B., & Slattery, M. J. (2000). Internalizing problems of childhood and adolescence: Prospects, pitfalls, and progress in

understanding the development of anxiety and depression. Developmental Psychopathology, 12, 443–466.

behavioral risk, teacher–child relationships, and social skill development across middle...

Documents