social competence and affective characteristics of students with mild disabilities

http://rer.aera.netResearch

Review of Educational

http://rer.sagepub.com/content/67/4/377The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.3102/00346543067004377

1997 67: 377REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHFrank M. Gresham and Donald L. MacMillan

DisabilitiesSocial Competence and Affective Characteristics of Students With Mild

Published on behalf of

American Educational Research Association

and

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Review of Educational ResearchAdditional services and information for

http://rer.aera.net/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://rer.aera.net/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.aera.net/reprintsReprints:

http://www.aera.net/permissionsPermissions:

http://rer.sagepub.com/content/67/4/377.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Jan 1, 1997Version of Record >>

at UNIV TORONTO on November 11, 2014http://rer.aera.netDownloaded from at UNIV TORONTO on November 11, 2014http://rer.aera.netDownloaded from

http://rer.aera.net

http://rer.sagepub.com/content/67/4/377

http://www.aera.net

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://rer.aera.net/alerts

http://rer.aera.net/subscriptions

http://www.aera.net/reprints

http://www.aera.net/permissions

http://rer.sagepub.com/content/67/4/377.refs.html

http://rer.sagepub.com/content/67/4/377.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml

http://rer.aera.net

http://rer.aera.net

Review of Educational Research Winter 1997, Vol. 67, No. 4, pp. 377-415

Social Competence and Affective Characteristics of Students With Mild Disabilities

Frank M. Gresham and Donald L. MacMillan University of California, Riverside

Empirical research examining the social competence and affective functioning of children with mild disabilities was reviewed. Mild-disability groups included children variously classified as having specific learning disabilities, mild mental retardation, behavior disorders, and attention defìcit-hyperac-tivity disorder. Social competence was conceptualized as a multidimensional construct that included social skills, adaptive behavior, and peer relationship variables. Children with mild disabilities were shown to have difficulties in negotiating both peer-related and teacher-related adjustments in school settings. Consistent with previous reviews, this review showed that children with mild disabilities had poorer social skills, exhibited more interfering problem behaviors, and were poorly accepted or rejectedby peers. Conflicting evidence in the literature exists as it relates to the general self-esteem levels of various groups of students with mild disabilities. These findings were interpreted in terms of social comparison theory. The review concludes with a discussion of the methodological issues that should be addressed before the social competence and affective characteristics of children with mild disabilities can be understood more fully. These issues include sampling designs, heterogeneity of samples, influences of demographic variables, nosological error, and the paucity of available longitudinal research on these and related questions.

A persistent theme throughout the history of special education is the concern over how special education practices influence the social and affective states of children with disabilities. Hendrick and MacMillan (1987, 1988) observed that efforts to establish ungraded classes for slow learners in the early part of the 20th century were prompted in part by the desire to counter the persistent experiences of failure encountered by these students in regular classes. According to one official school publication, "the first concern of a development teacher is to help the child gain confidence in himself and his own ability to do something well" ("Development Schools and Classes," 1926, p. 14). In fact, throughout the early years of this century the literature contained numerous references "to the desir-

The present work was supported in part by Grants Nos. HC023C20002 and HC023C30103 from the Office of Special Education Research in the U.S. Department of Education. We appreciate reactions to an earlier draft of this manuscript provided by Steven R. Forness, Barbara K. Keogh, Gary N. Siperstein, and Hill M. Walker. Opinions expressed herein are those of the authors alone and should not be inteφreted as having agency endorsement. Requests for reprints may be sent to the first author.

377

at UNIV TORONTO on November 11, 2014http://rer.aera.netDownloaded from

http://rer.aera.net

Gresham and MacMillan

ability of making it possible for children with special needs to experience success in the special classes, as opposed to failure in the regular classes" (Hendrick & MacMillan, 1987, p. 13). The academic and social failures characterizing the regular class careers of these children were believed to adversely impact how children felt about themselves as well as their attitudes about school and learning, how they approached subsequent learning, and how other children in school reacted to them. Early efforts in special education were prompted by the desire to (a) remove such children from an environment in which they experienced academic and social failure (i.e., the regular class) and (b) place them in a more protective environment adapted to their academic weaknesses (i.e., special classes or special schools) in which they could experience success, albeit in a protective setting.

During the middle years of this century one finds continued interest in the social and affective status of these students. The so-called efficacy studies conducted in the 1950s and early 1960s employed two major sets of outcome variables against which to test the relative benefits of regular versus special class placement: (a) academic achievement and (b) social and personal adjustment (Guskin & Spicker, 1968). Various self-report measures were employed in these studies to measure personal adjustment (e.g., self-concept scales, personality inventories), while sociometric techniques and various teacher and peer ratings were utilized in an attempt to measure the social adjustment of these children. It is noteworthy that one of the two outcomes of importance was social and personal adjustment. Among the consistent findings was that children with low IQs in regular classes were seldom selected as friends and were more commonly neglected or actively rejected (Johnson, 1950; Johnson & Kirk, 1950). Such findings led most professionals to argue for placement in more protective environments.

After the 1950s sentiment turned against special classes, partially fueled by concern over the possible negative impact of labeling and segregation on the social and personal adjustment of children with mild mental retardation placed in separate classes. For example, Dunn (1974) wrote,

Certainly none of these labels are badges of distinction. Separating a child from other children in his neighborhood—or removing him from the regular classroom for therapy or special education placement—probably has a serious debilitating effect upon his self image, (p. 9)

Despite a shift in support away from special day classes and the press for "mainstreaming" that would develop, the importance placed on personal and social adjustment never wavered. The situation may be simply stated as follows. In the early 1900s we worried about the effects of failure and ridicule encountered by children with mild disabilities in regular classes. By the end of the 1960s we worried about the consequences of attaching the label mentally retarded to these children and segregating them from the mainstream of the regular classroom.

As the press for mainstreaming mounted, one of the anticipated benefits was captured by the phrase "the contact hypothesis" (Gottlieb, 1981). The contact hypothesis states that with increased contact between disabled and nondisabled children, the nondisabled children would realize that there is nothing to fear from social interactions with their disabled classmates and that these interactions will be rewarding, or at least not aversive. Consequently, with increased contact would

378


http://rer.aera.net

Social and Affective Functioning

come increased acceptance and a corresponding decrease in neglecting and rejecting of disabled classmates by their nondisabled peers. Contrary to these predictions, Gottlieb's (1981) review concluded that the more nondisabled students came to know their peers with disabilities, the less accepting they were of them. That is, familiarity bred contempt.

Proponents of mainstreaming had argued that at least three beneficial social outcomes would result from educating disabled students in regular classrooms: (a) increased peer acceptance and decreased peer rejection, (b) mutually beneficial and positive social interactions between disabled and nondisabled children, and (c) the modeling of appropriate social behavior by nondisabled children. Gresham's (1982) review of the mainstreaming literature at that time demonstrated that these alleged benefits of mainstreaming had little, if any, empirical support.

A more recent review by Hallenback and Kauffman (1995) offered almost no support for the notion that placement in regular classes somehow guarantees or even facilitates the modeling of appropriate social behavior by nondisabled children for the benefit of children with disabilities. Although observational learning or modeling is an effective teaching strategy, particularly for teaching social behavior, Hallenback and Kauffman noted, "If desirable models are both readily available and a pervasive influence on behavior in neighborhood schools and regular classes, then one might ask why these models do not prevent students from acquiring maladaptive patterns of behavior" (p. 47).

In recent years we have seen other models for delivering needed services to students with mild disabilities under the banners of the Regular Education Initiative (REI; Will, 1986) and inclusion or full inclusion for severely disabled students (Stainback & Stainback, 1984). Full inclusion urges placement of students with severe disabilities in neighborhood schools in age-appropriate classes (Gartner & Lipsky, 1987). While the REI was advanced in the belief that the academic achievement of children with mild mental retardation and learning disabilities would be enhanced, inclusion advocates have focused almost exclusively on anticipated benefits in the areas of peer acceptance, self-concept, and social skills (see Fuchs & Fuchs, 1994; MacMillan, Gresham, & Forness, 1996). To date, there is little solid empirical research supporting these presumed benefits of inclusion in social and affective domains for student with mild disabilities.

While the preferred service delivery model has changed repeatedly over the century, there has been a persistent concern over the plight of students with disabilities in the domains of personal and social adjustment. However, the apparent degree of concern over these outcomes has not been matched by efforts to develop and refine instruments and procedures for measuring these outcomes. Perhaps more importantly, intervention techniques designed to facilitate positive social and affective outcomes have been largely ignored. Until quite recently, those conducting this type of research frequently used existing scales standardized on students without disabilities or intervention procedures appropriate for students without disabilities. Findings were frequently interpreted with little regard for the unique features of students with disabilities. Within the last two decades, however, interest in noncognitive variables in general education has increased, and with the increased interest has come the development of new and more psychometrically adequate instruments and procedures for measuring these variables.

379


http://rer.aera.net


The importance of social and affective characteristics of children with mild disabilities goes beyond the fact that these have constituted some of the important outcomes against which program evaluators establish the utility of individual service delivery models. We have long recognized that children's personal behavior, inattentiveness in school, and social behaviors are implicated in teacher decisions to refer a child for prereferral interventions and for evaluation for special education eligibility (Gerber & Semmel, 1984; Hersh & Walker, 1983). Children exhibiting the same degree of academic underachievement are differentially at risk for referral if they differ on their deportment in class and interpersonal skills. Two major classroom behaviors that teachers often view as problems are inattentiveness and disruptive behavior (disruption of the classroom and other school activities). These two broad behavioral categories distinguish referred from nonreferred pupils and predict the need for special education services in later school years (Forness, Kavale, King, & Kasari, 1994; Walker & Severson, 1992). Moreover, these are among the behaviors that define groups of children with other disabilities, such as behavior disorders and attention deficit disorders.

The present article reviews empirical research focusing on the social and affective functioning of children and youth having mild or high-incidence disabilities. By mild disabilities, we mean children who experience a variety of difficulties in cognitive, academic, social, and personal functioning. These mild-disability groups include individuals currently classified by professionals as having specific learning disabilities, mild mental retardation, behavior disorders, and attention deficit and hyperactivity disorders. In the area of social and affective functioning, we focus on the domains of peer acceptance and rejection, social skills, problem behaviors (internalizing and externalizing), self-concept, and loneliness. We selected these domains of functioning because they have been consistently implicated in research as being problematic for students within these mild-disability groups (Barkely, 1990; Gresham, 1981b; Kauffman, 1993; MacMillan & Morrison, 1984; Swanson & Malone, 1992). We begin our review with a conceptualization of social competence and how it relates to the characteristics of children and youth in mild-disability groups. We then discuss what we consider to be important components within the domains of social and affective functioning. This is followed by a review of the empirical literature. Our review suggests a series of independent and moderating variables that should be considered in the design of research on social competence and affective characteristics. We also propose more complex models for the study of these domains in order to capture the multivariate nature of the interplay among affective characteristics and between affective and cognitive variables.

Conceptualization of Social Competence

Definition of Social Competence

Various approaches to measuring and defining social competence have been proposed in the available literature. Greenspan (1981) described the construct of personal competence as being divided into three domains: (a) academic competence, (b) social competence, and (c) physical competence. Academic and social competence have the most relevance for children with mild disabilities, whereas children with more severe cognitive disabilities (e.g., severe and profound mental

380


http://rer.aera.net


retardation) or health-related impairments (e.g., cerebral palsy, traumatic brain injury) generally have deficits in physical competence as well. Social competence characteristics of students with mild disabilities are emphasized in this article.

Gresham and Reschly (1988) conceptualized social competence as a multidimensional construct that included adaptive behavior, social skills, and peer relationship variables (e.g., peer acceptance, friendship, and peer rejection). McFalΓs (1982) conceptualization of social competence articulated a distinction between social competence and social skills. In this approach, social skills are the specific behaviors that a person uses to perform competently on social tasks. In contrast, social competence is an evaluative term based on social agents' judgments (given certain criteria) of whether a person has performed social tasks adequately. These judgments may be based on opinions of significant others (e.g., teacher, parents, and peers), comparisons to explicit criteria (e.g., number of social tasks performed correctly in relation to some criterion), or comparisons to a normative sample. McFalΓs notion of social competence views social skills as specific behaviors which result in judgments of social competence. Thus social skills are behaviors, and social competence represents a judgment about those behaviors.

This conceptualization is similar to Gresham's (1983) social validity definition of social skills. According to this definition, social skills are those behaviors which, within certain situations, predict important social outcomes for children and youth. In school settings, important social outcomes might include (a) peer acceptance, (b) significant others' positive judgments of social competence, (c) academic achievement, (d) adequate self-concept, (e) positive attitudes toward school, and (f) freedom from loneliness. This definition has the advantage of specifying behaviors in which children and youth may be deficient and relating these deficiencies to socially important outcomes in school settings.

Social Competence and Mild-Disability Groups

Social competence has been a fundamental notion associated with the criteria by which exceptional individuals are defined and classified.. This is apparent in the modern criteria used in classifying mental retardation, which have consistently emphasized and weighted equally the importance of cognitive and social competence (Gresham, MacMillan, & Siperstein, 1995; MacMillan, Gresham, & Siperstein, 1993).

Social competence deficits are used as criteria in identifying and classifying children as seriously emotionally disturbed (SED; Forness & Knitzer, 1992; Skiba & Grizzle, 1991). Arguably, the two most crucial criteria specified in the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for the classification of students with SED are (a) an inability to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships with peers and teachers and (b) inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under normal circumstances. We will use the term behavior disorder (BD) to refer to students who might be classified as SED under the IDEA for the remainder of this review.

Children are identified as having specific learning disabilities on the basis of a significant discrepancy between ability and achievement in one or more of seven areas of academic functioning (e.g., reading, mathematics, oral expression). Recently, however, a number of professionals have focused on the social competence deficits of children with learning disabilities (Gresham, 1992; Gresham &

381


http://rer.aera.net


Elliott, 1989, 1990; LaGreca & Stone, 1990; Vaughn & Hogan, 1990). The Interagency Committee on Learning Disabilities (1987) stated that consensus had developed that social skills deficits represent a specific learning disability. This proposal, however, has not been widely adopted or endorsed by professional organizations or the U.S. Department of Education (Conte & Andrews, 1993; Gresham, 1992, 1993; Swanson & Malone, 1992). Forness and Kavale (1991) argued that the consideration of social skills deficits as a specific learning disability would make this type of learning disability virtually indistinguishable from SED (behavior disorders).

Although they are not considered an eligible disability group under the IDEA, it is well-known that many children with attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) experience substantial deficits in social competence and peer relationships (Barkely, 1990; Guevremont, 1990; Landau & Moore, 1991). Pelham and Bender (1982) suggested that over half of children having ADHD experience substantial difficulties in interpersonal relationships with other children, parents, and teachers. Much of their difficulty in social competence functioning can be attributed to their behavioral characteristics of inattention, impulsivity, and overactivity (see Whalen & Henker, 1985, for a detailed review). The study of ADHD, as currently conceptualized, requires consideration of its comorbidity and trimorbidity with other categories of mild disabilities. A Venn diagram of ADHD and BD, learning disability (LD), and even mild mental retardation (MMR) would indicate considerable overlap of these groups indicative of this comorbidity. It should also be noted that ADHD children can be considered eligible for special education and related services under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

Domains of Social Competence

Teachability and the model behavioral profile. One reason that children with mild disabilities are referred and considered for special education is that they in some ways do not meet teachers' social behavior standards. The standards, expectations, and tolerance levels teachers hold for children's social behavior influence teaching behaviors as well as peer interactions in classrooms (Hersh & Walker, 1983). For example, students perceived as being brighter or more competent receive more teacher attention, greater opportunities to respond, more praise, and more verbal cues during teaching interactions than students perceived by their teachers as less competent (Brophy & Good, 1986).

In addition to academic expectations, teachers also hold certain expectations, standards, and tolerance levels for children's social behavior in the classroom. Most teachers would consider a behavioral repertoire to be indicative of successful adjustment if it (a) facilitated academic performance (e.g., listening to teacher, completing tasks, complying with teacher instructions) and (b) were marked by the absence of disruptive or unusual behaviors that challenge the teacher's authority and disturb the classroom ecology (e.g., cheating, stealing, defying the teacher) (Gresham & Reschly, 1988; Hersh & Walker, 1983). In short, most students with mild disabilities are considered problematic based on difficulties in their teachability. Teachability represents a pattern of social behavior that Hersh and Walker term a model behavioral profile expected by most teachers. Many, if not most, students with mild disabilities were initially referred for assessment and

382


http://rer.aera.net


placement in special education based on substantial deviations from this model behavioral profile which created difficulties in their teachability.

Crucial social behavior demands. Upon school entry, children have to negotiate two important kinds of adjustment in social behavior: teacher related and peer related (Walker, McConnell, & Clark, 1985). Teacher-related adjustment reflects the extent to which children meet the demands of the model behavioral profile described earlier. Peer-related adjustment, on the other hand, reflects children's abilities to establish and maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships that result in peer acceptance and the formation of friendships (Asher, 1990; Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, 1995). Teacher-related adjustment is indexed by teacher acceptance, whereas peer-related adjustment is reflected in peer acceptance and friendships.

Walker and colleagues (see Walker, Irvin, Noell, & Singer, 1992) have presented an extremely useful model of interpersonal social-behavioral competence for school settings. Table 1 presents the Walker et al. model, which describes both adaptive and maladaptive teacher and peer social-behavioral domains and outcomes. Note that the adaptive teacher-related adjustment behaviors operationalize the model behavioral profile (described earlier) that results in teacher acceptance and school success. The maladaptive domain is characteristic of behaviors that disrupt the classroom ecology and result in teacher rejection, school failure, and referral to special education.

The social behaviors in the adaptive peer-related adjustment domain are substantially different from those in the teacher-related adjustment domain. These behaviors are essential for the formation of friendships and peer acceptance, but have little to do with classroom success and teacher acceptance. The maladaptive behaviors in this domain are likely to result in peer rejection or neglect, but share many similarities with the maladaptive behaviors in the teacher-related maladjustment domain.

Students with mild disabilities are likely to have difficulties in both teacher-related and peer-related adjustment and maladjustment domains. The literature describing these difficulties will be reviewed later in this article. This model of social-behavioral functioning is essential for understanding the referral process, as well as predicting the outcomes of attempts to include all children with disabilities in general education classrooms.

Acquisition versus performance deficits. Another distinction useful in considering children's social-behavioral difficulties is that between acquisition and performance deficits (Gresham, 1981a, 1981b). This distinction is important because it suggests different intervention approaches in remediating social competence deficits and may suggest different venues for carrying out these interventions (classroom based versus pull-out groups). Social skills acquisition deficits refer to the absence of knowledge required for executing particular social skills even under optimal conditions. Social performance or production deficits represent the presence of social skills in a behavioral repertoire but the failure to perform these skills at acceptable levels in given situations. In short, acquisition deficits explain "can't do" failures, whereas performance deficits explain "won't do" failures.

Gresham and Elliott (1990) extended this two-way classification into a four-category classification scheme which is particularly relevant to children with mild

383


http://rer.aera.net

TABLE 1 Model of interpersonal social-behavioral competence within school settings

Teacher-related adjustment Peer-related adjustment

Adaptive Maladaptive Adaptive Maladaptive

Behavioral correlates Complies promptly Steals Cooperates with peers Disrupts group Follows rules Defies teacher Supports peers Acts snobbish Works independently Tantrums Defends self in arguments Agresses indirectly Follows directions Disturbs others Remains calm Starts fights Listens to teacher Cheats Leads peers Short temper Finishes classwork Swears Compliments peers Brags

Aggressive Affiliates with peers Gets in trouble with teacher Ignores teacher Seeks help constantly

Outcomes Teacher acceptance Teacher rejection Peer acceptance Social rejection School achievement and Referral to special education Positive peer reactions Loneliness success School failure and dropout Friendships Weak social involvement

Low performance expectations

Note. Adapted from ' A Construct Score Approach of Social Competence: Rationale, Technological Considerations, and Anticipated Outcomes," by H. M. Walker, L. Irvin, J. Noell, and G. Singer, 1992, Behavior Modification, 16, pp. 448^‡74.


http://rer.aera.net


disabilities. This two-dimensional classification scheme incorporates two dimensions of behavior: social skills and interfering problem behaviors. Children may have social skill acquisition or performance deficits with or without interfering problem behaviors. Interfering problem behaviors include internalizing or over-controlled (e.g., anxiety, depression) and externalizing or undercontrolled (e.g., aggression, impulsivity) behavior patterns preventing either the acquisition or the performance of socially skilled behaviors.

Review of Social Competence Characteristics

Assessment of Sociometric Status

A reading of the special education literature reveals that the term sociometric encompasses a variety of techniques which have been used to index the internal structure of a peer group. Peers are in a unique position to judge a child's social behavior and represent a critical source of information. Given that numerous methods are used to index peer acceptance or rejection, we provide a brief description of these various assessment strategies here and also refer the reader to other sources for more comprehensive treatments of this literature.

The broader term peer-referenced assessment includes both sociometric assessment and peer assessment and refers to a collection of techniques designed to measure either the attraction among members of a specific group or the specific behaviors, traits, or roles of persons in a specific social group (Gresham & Little, 1993). Asher and Hymel (1981) distinguished sociometric assessment from peer assessment by defining the former as describing the degree to which children like or dislike each other and the latter as indicating specific behaviors or characteristics of children in social groups. Distinctions between sociometric and peer assessment are important: Research findings can be misinterpreted if these separate methodologies are not distinguished (Asher & Hymel, 1981; Gresham & Little, 1993).

Sociometric assessments have involved a variety of methods—for example, peer nominations, peer ratings, and paired comparison methods. Peer nominations ask children to nominate peers according to certain criteria such as "liked most," "liked least," or "best friends." Peer nominations are typically used to tap two separate dimensions of sociometric status: social preference, which indicates the degree to which children are liked or disliked by peers, and social impact, which refers to social salience or noticeability of children (see Coie, Dodge, & Coppotelli, 1982; Newcomb, Bukowski, & Pattee, 1993). This combination of social preference and social impact has been used by researchers to form five separate sociometric status groups—popular, rejected, neglected, controversial, and average—each of which has different behavioral correlates (see Newcomb et al., 1993, for a meta-analytic review). Peer ratings, on the other hand, require children to rate peers on 3-point or 5-point scales according to preferences for engaging them in some activity (preferred play or work partners). Paired comparison methods involve presenting all possible pairs of peers and having children choose among the pairs according to some relevant dimension (e.g., playmate or friend).

Like sociometric assessments, peer assessments have also involved various methods, including the Guess Who? technique, in which children nominate peers for various roles (positive and negative) in a class play or nominate peers for

385


http://rer.aera.net


fitting certain behavioral descriptions or traits (e.g., argues, cooperates, leader, lonely). There are also a class of peer-referenced assessment strategies known as mixed assessments, which represent a combination of sociometric and peer assessment. For example, the Pupil Evaluation Inventory (Pekarik, Prinz, Leibert, Weintraub, & Neale, 1976) uses peer nominations to tap the factors of likability, aggression, and withdrawal (where the first is a sociometric factor and the last two are both peer assessment factors). Another measure, known as the Peer Perception Inventory, measures the sociometric factors of popularity and rejection and the peer assessment factors of aggression, hyperactivity, and sociability (Milich, Landau, Kilby, & Whitten, 1982).

A number of studies in the special education literature, conducted primarily with elementary-age samples, have demonstrated that students with mild disabilities are often poorly accepted or rejected by peers without disabilities. These studies consistently show that children with mild disabilities (LD, MMR, BD, ADHD) are less well accepted and more often rejected than their peers in general education classrooms. We offer a sample of these findings for each of the mild-disability groups to provide readers with an indication of the magnitude of these differences in peer acceptance and rejection.

Two meta-analytic reviews have focused on the sociometric status of children with LD (Ochoa & Olivarez, 1995; Swanson & Malone, 1992). Swanson and Malone's meta-analysis of 39 studies indicated that children with LD, on average, scored at the 18th percentile in peer acceptance using peer ratings (based on 37 effect sizes), the 30th percentile using peer nominations (based on 16 effect sizes), and the 78th percentile in peer rejection (based on 14 effect sizes). Whereas these data indicate that children with LD are more poorly accepted and more socially rejected than peers without LD, they also suggest that between 16% and 22% of children with LD are at least as well accepted as their peers without LD. These findings support the hypothesis that difficulties in peer relationships may coexist with learning disabilities, but are not necessarily defining characteristics or inevitable consequences of learning disabilities. It should also be noted that there are substantial gender and race differences in peer acceptance status of children with LD; White females classified as LD are least accepted, and African American males are as well accepted as White and African American children without LD (Gresham & Reschly, 1987; Swanson & Malone, 1992).

Ochoa and Olivarez (1995) conducted a meta-analysis of 17 sociometric status studies of children with LD that used peer rating sociometric procedures. Using various effect size estimates, Ochoa and Olivarez found slightly lower peer rating effect size estimates than did Swanson and Malone (1992) (Mdn = -.66 versus -.90, respectively). The Ochoa and Olivarez meta-analysis, however, supports the well established conclusion that children with LD are less well accepted than their peers without LD. These authors also suggested that the effect size estimates were not moderated by the gender or grade level of the rated students, by the research design, or by the sociometric scale type. The gender of the rater, however, was a significant moderator of sociometric status, with same-gender ratings producing lower sociometric ratings than opposite-gender and combined-gender ratings. These authors did not include the gender of either the raters or the rated students as a moderator variable in their meta-analysis, nor did they assess peer rejection of children with LD.

386


http://rer.aera.net


Kavale and Forness (1996) conducted a more comprehensive meta-analytic investigation of the degree and nature of social skills deficits of students with learning disabilities. Based on a quantitative synthesis of 152 studies, Kavale and Forness found that approximately 75% of students with LD were less socially competent than their non-LD peers. These differences were consistent across peer-, teacher-, and self-informant conditions and across different dimensions of social skill.

Compared to children with LD, children with MMR have been the subject of fewer recent sociometric studies—and no meta-analytic studies. This is most likely due to the progressive decline in the identification of children as MMR over the past several years and the corresponding increase in the number of children labeled as LD (MacMillan & Reschly, in press; MacMillan, Siperstein, & Gresham, 1996).

Despite wide variations in sociometric techniques and criteria for sociometric choice, the sociometric literature on children with MMR consistently reveals that these children are less accepted and more frequently rejected than their peers without MMR (MacMillan & Morrison, 1984). Likewise, major reviews of the mainstreaming literature have indicated that children with MMR in general education classrooms are more poorly accepted and more often rejected than their peers without MMR (Gottlieb, 1981; Gresham, 1981b, 1982; Madden & Slavin, 1983; Semmel, Gottlieb, & Robinson, 1979). There is some evidence, admittedly dated, to suggest that children with MMR are better accepted by peers when they are taught in special education classrooms than when they are integrated in general education classrooms (Goodman, Gottlieb, & Harrison, 1972; Gottlieb & Budoff, 1973). However, conclusions based on populations of students with MMR in the 1960s and 1970s must be generalized with caution to current groups of children identified as MMR (MacMillan, 1989), since those identified as MMR in that earlier era included children with IQ scores into the mid-80s. Many of those old MMRs would today be classified as LD (Gottlieb, Alter, Gottlieb, & Wishner, 1994) or even as low-achieving nondisabled students (Forness, 1985).

Two studies illustrate the behavioral and nonbehavioral correlates of sociometric status in children with MMR (Gottlieb, Semmel, & Veldman, 1978; Morrison, Forness, & MacMillan, 1983). Using a path analytic model, Morrison et al. found that peer and teacher perceptions of cognitive competencies act as mediating variables between (a) observed social behavior in the classroom and (b) academic achievement and sociometric status. Using a multiple regression model, Gottlieb et al. found that acceptance and rejection scores of children with MMR were associated with different predictor variables. Acceptance was associated with perceptions of academic performance, while rejection was related to disruptive behavior. Moreover, there was no relationship between the degree of integration and sociometric status; contrary to the expectations of mainstreaming advocates.

In contrast to the large base of research on children with LD and MMR, there is a paucity of research on the sociometric status of children identified by schools as having BD. The little research that does exist suggests that these children are much more likely to be rejected by their peers without disabilities (Sabornie & Kauffman, 1985; Sabornie, Kauffman, Ellis, Marshall, & Elksnin, 1988; Walker & Bullis, 1991). There is, however, a great deal of research concerning the behavioral correlates of various sociometric groups (e.g., rejected, neglected,

387


http://rer.aera.net

Gresham and MacMìllan

controversial). Most children identified by schools as having BD are identified as such on the basis of an externalizing behavior pattern (aggressive, disruptive, and noncompliant behavior) (Kauffman, 1993; Walker et al, 1995). This externalizing behavior pattern shows a high correlation with the sociometric status rejected (Newcomb et al., 1993), and it is therefore likely that many, if not most, children classified by schools as having BD would be assigned the sociometric status rejected.

According to the two-dimensional sociometric classification model of Coie et al. (1982), rejected children have a low social preference and a high social impact. Newcomb et al.'s (1993) meta-analytic findings suggested that rejected children were more aggressive, less sociable, and less cognitively skilled than children with average sociometric status. These findings are consistent with the very criteria used when children are identified by schools as BD (see Kauffman, 1993; Walker et al, 1995) and when children are identified clinically as having conduct disorders (Hinshaw, 1992; Reid, 1993; Short & Shapiro, 1993). In addition, rejection in childhood is predictive of more serious adjustment difficulties in adolescence and into the adult years (Kupersmidt, Coie, & Dodge, 1990; Parker & Asher, 1987).

Somewhat more sociometric research has been conducted with children having attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Landau and Moore (1991) suggested that children with ADHD evoke negative responses from their peers and are therefore often rejected by peers based on an externalizing behavior pattern (e.g., impulsivity, disruption, aggression). Whalen and Henker's (1985) review indicated that children with ADHD are described by peers as annoying, boisterous, irritating, and intrusive. Some research suggests that children with ADHD might be considered more unpopular than are aggressive children when they are referred by teachers for interpersonal problems (Milich et al., 1982). Pelham and Bender (1982) investigated the behavioral correlates of negative peer status in a group of ADHD and non-ADHD children, all of whom were initially unfamiliar with each other. These authors reported that children with ADHD quickly achieved a peer status of rejected and this status was related to high rates of aggressive, destructive, and noncompliant behaviors in group play situations.

An intriguing study by Erhardt and Hinshaw (1994) investigated both the behavioral and the nonbehavioral correlates of sociometric status in a sample of 6- to 12-year-old boys with ADHD (n = 25) and a comparison group of boys without ADHD (n = 24). All 49 boys were attending a 5-week summer camp and did not know each other prior to attending the camp. These authors found that the externalizing behaviors of aggression and noncompliance were the best predictors of peer rejection and that the prosocial behaviors (e.g., leadership, conflict resolution, norm setting) best predicted friendship ratings. Nonbehavioral variables such as intelligence, academic achievement, physical attractiveness, and motor competence (e.g., running, jumping, throwing a football, shooting a basketball) did not predict sociometric status.

The findings in the ADHD literature validate the long-held assumption—and the empirical evidence based on research with nondisabled groups—that social behavior is primarily responsible for either positive or negative sociometric status (see Coie, 1990; Dodge, 1983; Newcomb et al., 1993). Thus, the weight of the evidence to date suggests that negative sociometric status or peer rejection is

388


http://rer.aera.net


caused by high rates of externalizing behavior (e.g., aggression, disruption, noncompliance) rather than a "reputational bias" (e.g., being labeled as ADHD) or nonbehavioral factors (e.g., intelligence, achievement, physical attractiveness, physical prowess). Whether these findings extend to other mild-disability groups is open to question and awaits empirical investigation. Children with ADHD have been described as negative social catalysts and elicit negative behaviors from peers and teachers (Whalen & Henker, 1985; Wheeler & Carlson, 1994). To date, there have been no meta-analytic syntheses focusing on the sociometric status of children with ADHD. Given that many children classified as ADHD can also be classified as LD and vice versa (comorbidity), one might be able to cautiously generalize from the meta-analytic findings of Swanson and Malone (1992) and Ochoa and Olivarez (1995) concerning the sociometric status of children with LD. It is clear that much more research concerning the sociometric status of children with ADHD is needed.

Social Skills and Interfering Problem Behaviors

There is a substantial body of literature suggesting that children in all mild-disability groups exhibit deficient social skills and excesses in interfering problem behaviors (Gresham, 1992; Gresham & Elliott, 1990; Landau & Moore, 1991; Merrell, Johnson, Merz, & Ring, 1992; Swanson & Malone, 1992; Walker & McConnell, 1988). This holds true for students with learning disabilities, mild mental retardation, emotional and behavioral disorders, and attention deficit disorders, as well as for children who are low in academic achievement but not classified as mildly disabled. As mentioned earlier, we conceptualize social skills deficits as being either acquisition or performance deficits which may or may not be accompanied by internalizing and/or externalizing interfering problem behaviors. Using this conceptualization, we now turn to a review of exemplary studies and findings in this literature conducted with mild-disability groups.

Several studies have shown students with mild disabilities to exhibit deficient social skills and excesses in interfering problem behaviors relative to nondisabled controls. Almost all of these studies, however, have detected few differences among mild-disability groups. Gresham, Elliott, and Black (1987) contrasted three groups in Grades 1-8 defined as LD, MMR, and BD with nondisabled controls using teacher ratings of social skills. No differences were found among the mild-disability groups, but large differences were found between these groups and the nondisabled group. On average, the mild-disability groups scored 1.15 standard deviations below the nondisabled group, or, alternatively, at the 12th percentile of the nondisability group. A cross-validated discriminant function analysis correctly classified 71% of the mild-disability groups and 78% of the nondisabled group using a total social skills score. Studies contrasting students with learning disabilities and nondisabled students have reported similar effect sizes (Gresham & Reschly, 1986; Kistner & Gatlin, 1989).

A comprehensive investigation by Merrell et al. (1992) contrasted four groups of students—classified as LD, MMR, BD, and low achieving (LA)—in Grades K-6 with nondisabled controls using teacher ratings of social skills. Consistent with Gresham et al.'s (1987) findings, no differences were found between LD or MMR groups using teacher ratings of social skills, nor were there any differences between these groups and the LA group. Overall, LD, MMR, and LA groups

389


http://rer.aera.net


scored approximately 1.2 standard deviations below the nondisabled group, which suggests that these groups' social skills functioning is exceeded by 88% of the nondisabled group.

There were, however, significant differences between the BD groups and the other mild-disability groups (.58 standard deviations) and the nondisabled group (1.81 standard deviations). Merrell et al. (1992) concluded that social skills is a weak discriminating variable in differentiating LD, MMR, and LA groups, but is a strong predictor of membership in the BD group. Similar findings were reported by Gresham, MacMillan, and Bocian (1996), who also contrasted LD, MMR, and LA groups.

Several studies have focused on contrasting students classified as LD with LA groups to determine if low academic achievement is the so-called common denominator of social competence difficulties (Coleman, McHam, & Minnett, 1992; Gresham et al., 1996; LaGreca & Stone, 1990; Merrell et al., 1992; Sater & French, 1989). The Coleman et al., Gresham et al., and Merrell et al. studies suggest that there are few differences between students classified as LD and low academic achievers in social skills functioning. The study by LaGreca and Stone yielded group differences in social competence, but interpretation of these findings is limited by a large attrition rate and some difficulties in matching LD and LA students. Overall, there is little evidence to suggest that the social skills functioning of students with LD is any different from that of students classified as LA.

Swanson and Malone's (1992) meta-analytic synthesis of the literature regarding the social competence of students with LD showed that these students had poorer social problem-solving skills than 79% of nondisabled students, spent less than 80% less time on task than nondisabled students, and had more interfering problem behaviors (internalizing and externalizing) than 78% of nondisabled students.

An earlier meta-analysis by Kavale and Nye (1986) showed that the largest difference between students with LD and their non-LD peers was in the area of interpersonal behavior (effect size = .653). This quantitative synthesis showed that about 3 out of 4 students with LD had interpersonal deficits characterized by peer rejection, poor peer acceptance, and interactional difficulties with teachers, peers, and parents.

The literature regarding mild-disability groups clearly demonstrates that these students experience deficits in their social skills functioning relative to nondisabled peers. There is little evidence to suggest that these groups differ among themselves in social competence functioning. The notable exception is the social functioning of students classified as BD, who seem to demonstrate substantially greater social skills deficits than other mild-disability groups (Merrell et al., 1992; Rhode, Jenson, & Reavis, 1992; Walker et al., 1995). In fact, difficulties in establishing and maintaining satisfactory interpersonal relationships with peers and teachers is the central, defining characteristic of children with BD (Forness & Knitzer, 1992; Kauffman, 1993).

An investigation by McConaughy and colleagues (McConaughy, Mattison, & Peterson, 1994) used both teacher (Teacher Rating Form) and parent (Child Behavior Checklist) ratings of 366 pairs of children with BD and LD matched for age, gender, socioeconomic status, and geographical region to normal controls.

390


http://rer.aera.net


This investigation offered further support for the premise that children with BD differ substantially from other mild-disability groups in terms of internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors. Children with BD could be reliably differentiated from children with LD on all teacher and parent subscales with the exception of Somatic Complaints. A discriminant function analysis found that the most accurate group separation could be obtained using a weighted combination of teacher and parent subscales. This analysis indicated that 73% of the BD cases and almost 79% of the LD cases could be accurately classified.

Children with ADHD are also deficient in social skills functioning relative to their nondisabled peers (Whalen & Henker, 1985). Loney and Milich (1982) suggested that the social skills difficulties of these children may be performance deficits rather than acquisition deficits. Carrying this logic further, Wheeler and Carlson (1994) argued that externalizing interfering problem behaviors (e.g., impulsivity, inattention, noncompliance) prevent the performance of social skills in children classified as having ADD with hyperactivity and that internalizing interfering problem behaviors (e.g., anxiety, shyness, social withdrawal) prevent the acquisition of social skills in children classified as having ADD without hyperactivity. This is an interesting hypothesis that may explain the social competence deficits of children with ADD; however, this hypothesis awaits empirical testing.

We could locate no studies contrasting ADHD children with students classified as LD, MMR, BD, or LA on measures of social skills functioning. Given the high comorbidity and sometimes trimorbidity between and among the groups with mild disabilities, as well as the vagaries in the classification of these groups, we doubt that substantial differences would be found; if such differences were found, we would not be sure how to interpret them. Overall, we can safely conclude (a) that the social functioning of students with mild disabilities is between 1 to 1.5 standard deviations below that of their peers without disabilities and (b) that of the students with mild disabilities, those with BD are the most deficient in social skills. It is reasonable to conclude that social skills deficits and interfering behavior excesses of BD students represent part of the diagnostic criteria for defining this group. Social skills deficits appear to characterize all mild-disability groups; however, it is unclear whether this represents a cause, an effect, or a concomitant of a mild disability. Interpretations of these possibilities are discussed later in this review.

Domains of Affective Functioning

A number of affective characteristics have been investigated in samples of children having mild disabilities. These affective characteristics have included, but are not limited to, self-concept, locus of control, achievement motivation, learned helplessness, effectance motivation, attributional style, school attitudes, loneliness, and self-efficacy. Two of these affective characteristics, self-concept and loneliness, seem most relevant to the current presentation and perhaps are the most salient affective variables to be considered in administrative placement options for students with mild disabilities. We will address other affective variables (e.g., attributions, learned helplessness, self-efficacy, school attitudes) in the concluding discussion as they interrelate with the constructs emphasized in this review. We will provide theoretical explanations of variables that may, in some

391


http://rer.aera.net


instances, serve a moderating role in the complex multivariate nature of affective characteristics of children with mild disabilities.

Self-Concept

Definitional issues. Self-concept is considered a critical variable in both general and special education, as evidenced by the large number of studies conducted using self-concept as an outcome variable (Byrne, 1984; Harter, 1985; Wylie, 1974, 1979). As noted in the introduction of this article, the field of special education has been continuously concerned in the broadest sense with children's self-attitudes. Distinctions are made in more recent writings between self-concept, self-esteem, and other concepts that differ slightly, yet significantly, from one another. Shavelson, Hubner, and Stanton (1976) compiled and distinguished 17 definitions of self-concept that have been used in the research literature. These various definitions of self-concept share six features (see Byrne, 1984; Marsh & Shavelson, 1985): (a) organized, (b) hierarchical, (c) stable, (d) evaluative, (e) differentiable, and (f) multifaceted.

The extent to which these six features are exhibited by students with mild disabilities has not been established. For example, self-concept seems to become more differentiated as children mature (Byrne, 1984); however, there are relatively few data to inform us regarding the extent to which children with MMR, BD, and other mild disabilities are differentiated by self-concept. Moreover, self-concept may be correlated with different variables at different ages or grades (e.g., with social behavior in Grade 2 and physical competence and attractiveness in Grade 7). Additionally, we do not know if self-concept is stable for one group and unstable for another. For instance, it may be that self-concept fluctuates for children with emotional and behavioral disorders but is relatively stable for children with MMR. Most of the systematic research in self-concept among mild-disability groups has focused on students with MMR and/or students with LD. Little systematic research in self-concept has involved students with BD and ADHD.

Mild mental retardation. A review of the research on self-concept in children with MMR up to the mid-1960s (Gardner, 1966) concluded that efforts in this vein were hampered by the fact that most scales were verbal in nature and required verbal skills (e.g., vocabulary) beyond those of most persons with MMR. Moreover, Sternlicht and Deutsch (1972) suggested that MMR individuals' conception of their own retardation is so emotionally laden that they are incapable of accepting, and admitting to, their limitations. Sternlicht and Deutsch went on to note that because persons with MMR may feel a need to protect themselves from negative evaluations, self-report measures must be interpreted with extreme caution. In fact, several authors (Edgerton, 1967; Gutherie, Butler, & Gorlow, 1964; Gutherie, Butler, Gorlow, & White, 1964) concluded that in a majority of instances attributions of inferiority or incompetence were rejected because a denial mechanism. Hence, this early research (up until 1970) on self-concept in individuals with MMR alerted us to the fact that individuals who are unsuccessful at many life tasks may become defensive and deny negative statements about themselves, which is cause to be concerned about the possibility of invalid data and unrealis-tically favorable self-concepts being reported (Bialer, 1970).

Does one interpret high or favorable scores found for children with MMR as

392


http://rer.aera.net


reflecting the effectiveness of treatments in protecting children from undue failure and their relative incompetence, or should these scores be interpreted as reflecting a refusal to admit to negative self-descriptions? One interesting investigation by Cleland, Patton, and Seitz (1967) suggested the vulnerability of individuals with MMR to their low intellectual status. A group of persons with mental retardation and another group without mental retardation attending business school were instructed to pretend to insult someone with whom they were angry. Persons with mental retardation generated insults that were related to the intelligence of the person they were insulting, while the group without mental retardation provided insults directed at the character of the person they wished to insult. The authors interpreted these findings as evidence of the vulnerability that persons with mental retardation feel toward their low intellectual functioning.

A differing interpretation for the "higher" self-concepts revealed by persons with mental retardation comes from the work of Edgerton and Sabagh (1962). These investigators used ethnographic methods, and "self was not measured with one of the existing self-concept scales. Nevertheless, in their study of residents in a state institution for persons with mental retardation, they provided evidence that bears on the later speculation of Dunn (1968) that labeling children as mentally retarded may lead to "mortifications of the self." Edgerton and Sabagh reported that labeling and placement in the institution resulted in certain "aggrandizements of the self for higher-ability individuals with mental retardation, since it permitted comparisons with a peer group of lower ability. For children from minority and/or low-socioeconomic-status backgrounds, labeling did not lead to mortifications of the self, because these children's families frequently denied the validity of the diagnosis. Edgerton and Sabagh explained,

This nonacceptance may have been facilitated by several circumstances. For instance, the entire family of the retarded person may have been rejected and mortified by the community at large and feel the need to protect its members against the onslaught of "authorities." Many of the mentally retarded come from families of low socioeconomic status, and family members may have had humiliating experiences with law enforcement or welfare agencies. Such a family will protect its members against those who "accuse" them of mental retardation, and may not even believe that the accused is retarded. To them, this may simply be another instance of discrimination against the whole family, (pp. 265-266)

Although Edgerton and Sabagh employed ethnographic methods in their work, Marsh and Shavelson (1985) have utilized self-concept scales and described a similar phenomenon. Marsh (1988) has described this as a "self-serving bias."

The research conducted during the 1960s on self-concept in persons with MMR yielded a mixed pattern of findings. Some of the studies reported lower self-concepts for groups of individuals with MMR (Borg, 1966; Mann, 1960; Meyerowitz, 1962), while others found just the opposite (Drews, 1962; Goldberg, Passow, & Justman, 1961). One study (Bacher, 1965) reported no differences between groups with and without MMR.

One series of studies is of particular interest because it addressed the consequences of placement and the experiences of the child prior to placement in special education (Schurr, Towne, & Joiner, 1972; Towne, Joiner, & Schurr,

393


http://rer.aera.net


1967). Posttest-only findings of lower self-concepts expressed by children with MMR could reflect the effects of special class placement and labeling, the effects of experiences in regular education prior to placement in special education, or some combination of the two. Towne et al. administered a measure of self-concept of ability to 62 children prior to the notification of the children and their parents that they had been selected for placement in special education. This first administration was in the month of June. The scale was then administered again in September, December, March, and June of the following academic year, while the children were enrolled in special education. Contrary to the hypothesized decline in self-concept scores, self-concept of ability progressively increased from June through March and declined slightly in June of the following year. This pattern of findings is consistent with Edgerton and Sabagh's (1962) "aggrandizement of the self and Marsh's (1988) "big fish, small pond effect," experienced when the immediate social comparison group, by virtue of being less capable, permits favorable comparisons. These findings are also consistent with Silon and Harter's (1985) results concerning mainstreamed and segregated groups of children with MMR. However, in Silon and Harter's study placement (e.g., special day class versus general education) was taken as a proxy for the social comparison group, and, as will be discussed later, it may be necessary to examine more closely exactly how children select and define their social comparison groups.

Learning disabilities. One encounters mixed findings when reading the literature regarding the self-concepts of students with LD. The literature is quite clear that students with LD have lower academic self-concepts than non-LD students (Bear & Minke, 1996; Chapman, 1988; Chapman & Boersma, 1979; Clever, Bear, & Juvonen, 1992; Cooley & Ayers, 1988; Hagborg, 1996; Kistner, Haskett, White, & Robbins, 1987; Kistner & Osborne, 1987; Renick & Harter, 1989). Chapman's meta-analytic review showed an average effect size of -.88 between students with LD and non-LD students in academic self-concept. Our review of additional studies (Bear & Minke, 1996; Clever et al., 1992; Hagborg, 1996; Kistner et al., 1987; Kistner & Osborne, 1987) showed a similar effect size of -.79.

However, research contrasting students with and without LD reveals a conflicting picture when looking at global self-concept or self-esteem. Chapman (1988) reviewed 21 studies in which students with LD and non-LD students were contrasted on general self-concept and found an effect size of -.50, with students with LD having lower general self-concepts than their non-LD peers. Similarly, Kavale and Nye (1986) showed an effect size of-.535 between students with LD and their non-LD peers. This suggests that approximately 70% of students with LD experience lower self-esteem than non-LD students. More recent studies, however, have found no differences between students with LD and their non-LD counterparts on global self-concept (Bear et al., 1991; Bear & Minke, 1996; Clever et al., 1992; Hagborg, 1996; Kistner et al., 1987; Kistner & Osborne, 1987).

As was found for children with mental retardation, placement has been the independent variable of greatest interest to investigators studying children with LD, and special class placement has frequently been contrasted with regular class placement. Advocates of the REI have reasoned that placing LD students in regular classes without labeling them should result in more favorable self-con-

394


http://rer.aera.net


cepts than would result if these children were served in special day classes and labeled (Wang & Birch, 1984).

There is far less available literature comparing the self-concepts of students with ADHD and BD. An intriguing investigation by Hoza and colleagues (Hoza, Pelham, Milich, Pillow, & McBride, 1993) showed that boys with ADHD were equivalent to controls in self-concepts of scholastic competence, social acceptance, physical appearance, and athletic competence. Interestingly, the global self-worth of boys with ADHD was almost identical to that of controls (3.30 versus 3.33, respectively). This positive self-image of boys with ADHD persisted in spite of clear academic failure and social rejection by peers. Hoza et al. interpreted their findings as an example of a positive illusory bias, which some authors have argued is related to positive mental health and adjustment (see Taylor & Brown, 1988). This positive illusory bias, sometimes called a self-serving bias, characterizes some students with BD, in that they take responsibility for positive social events and deny responsibility for negative social events. Similar findings have been reported for students with externalizing behavior disorders (Gresham, MacMillan, Bocian, & Ward, 1997; Schneider & Leitenberg, 1989).

Theoretical explanations. Evidenced published to date, however, fails to support the hypothesized benefits of regular class placement on the self-concept of students with LD and MMR. Social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954) has provided a theoretical framework in which to consider such findings. Coleman (1983) and Renick and Harter (1989) invoked social comparison theory to explain the negative self-concepts found for mainstreamed students with LD. They reasoned that children with LD compare their level of achievement to that of non-LD classmates—a comparison that leads to negative academic self-concept. Chapman's (1988) meta-analysis compared the magnitudes of the differences in academic self-concept scores of children with and without LD in different placements across studies. Chapman reported effect size statistics of -.59 for segregated placement, -.68 for mainstream settings, and -1.31 for unplaced students with LD when compared to children without LD. The unplaced students with LD had lower academic self-concept scores than approximately 90% of students without LD.

Silon and Harter (1985) also used social comparison theory to explain their pattern of findings on self-concepts of children with MMR placed in special day classes and mainstream settings. They found no differences as a function of placement, and they explained this finding by claiming that mainstreamed children with MMR compared themselves to other mainstreamed children with MMR rather than to their non-MMR peers. Further, it was argued that the social comparison group for the students with MMR in special day classes were their special class peers. Coleman et al. (1992) found no differences in general or social self-concept between students with LD and students who were LA but had comparable academic skill levels in regular classrooms. These authors also interpreted their findings as being consistent with social comparison theory.

Widaman, MacMillan, Hemsley, Little, and Balow (1992) argued that their findings suggested greater complexity in defining the social comparison group than had been proposed in previous research. In their study, three groups of eighth graders were studied: (a) regular class students scoring above the 25th percentile on achievement tests, (b) educationally marginal students who were enrolled in

395


http://rer.aera.net


regular classes but achieved in the bottom quartile on standardized tests of achievement, and (c) students with mild disabilities served in special education. The regular class students were significantly higher in academic self-concept than were the educationally marginal students and the students with mild disabilities, while the latter two groups did not differ. Although this pattern of findings could be consistent with social comparison theory, the study also revealed ethnic group differences. Despite the fact that all three ethnic groups (African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian) did not differ on measured achievement, African American students had significantly higher academic self-concept scores than did Hispanic and Caucasian students. The authors interpreted these findings as suggesting the salience of ethnicity for children in defining their social comparison groups. Furthermore, the authors suggested the importance of more closely examining the roles of disability group, educational placement, gender, and ethnicity in determining how children define their social comparison groups.

The development and refinement of new and more psychometrically adequate scales for measuring self-concept (Bracken, 1992; Gresham, Elliott, & Evans-Fernandez, 1993; Harter, 1985; Marsh, 1988) has provided those conducting research on students with and without disabilities with better methods of indexing self-concept. Strein (1993) has described the most commonly posited structural models of self-concept: nomothetic, hierarchical, taxonomic, and compensatory models. He went on to present the theoretical research on the respective models and drew implications of these models for intervention. The newer instruments permit examination of the hierarchical and taxonomic models, and a new generation of research on self-concept—research that moves beyond whether a group's global self-concept is higher or lower than that of a comparison group—is at hand.

As noted in the introduction, the origins of special education for students with mild disabilities are intimately linked to considerations of the self-concept of these children. The development of hierarchical models (Shavelson et al., 1976) and scales that capture the multidimensionality of self-concept opens the door to asking more sophisticated questions and examining developmental aspects of self-concept. For example, it is posited that the self becomes more differentiated with age. Silon and Harter (1985) identified a two-factor solution for their group with MMR in elementary school, whereas four factors emerged for the group without MMR. Yet Widaman et al. (1992), studying eighth graders, found that the factor structure of the Self-Description Questionnaire II (Marsh, 1988) was the same for adequately achieving regular class students, low-achieving regular class students, and students with mild disabilities receiving special education. This raises some interesting questions about whether differentiation is more related to stage of cognitive development (e.g., mental age) than to chronological age. If so, does differentiation proceed more slowly but in the same manner for children with MMR (i.e., the similar sequence hypothesis)?

Scales tapping multiple dimensions of self-concept permit testing of some very interesting and potentially important questions about the consequences of failure. For example, do children whose failure in school occurs primarily in the academic domain evidence lower self-concept scores in the academic domain and academic subdomains (e.g., math self-concept, reading self-concept) than in nonacademic domains (e.g., physical self-concept, social self-concept)? Such a pattern in the case of students with LD and MMR might be just what is sought when special

396


http://rer.aera.net


education services are successful. That is, we might be able to preclude overgeneralization of the effects of academic failure into nonacademic domains, despite being unable to prevent children who are inefficient learners from evaluating themselves negatively in the academic domain.

Linking dimensions of self-concept to achievement (e.g., reading, mathematics), social competence (e.g., peer acceptance, social skills), and other affective factors (e.g., loneliness, school attitudes) is now feasible. Moreover, findings from this line of research can assist in evaluating the outcomes of intervention efforts and placement options and may also serve to inform policymakers regarding the education of children with mild disabilities.

Loneliness

Definitional issues. An emerging literature regarding children's experiences of loneliness suggests that these experiences may have detrimental effects on peer relationships and self-concept (Asher, Parkhurst, Hymel, & Williams, 1990). Recent work by Asher and colleagues suggests that children's experience of loneliness consists of three interrelated dimensions: (a) an affective or emotional dimension, (b) a social dimension, and (c) a situational or context dimension.

Affective loneliness is described by references to unpleasant emotions (e.g., sadness or boredom) and references to feelings (e.g., feeling left out, feeling like an outsider, or feeling that no one likes you). It may stem from a lack of close friendships (Asher et al., 1990) and may be independent of overall acceptance by the peer group. For example, it is possible for children to be accepted by the peer group and yet have no close friends. It is also possible to be poorly accepted by peers and have one or more close friendships. Bukowski and Newcomb (1987) demonstrated that having at least one good friend in a classroom predicted children's feelings of self-worth even after the effects of peer group acceptance were statistically removed. As such, it may be that lack of friendship and lack of peer acceptance make independent contributions to children's feelings of affective or emotional loneliness.

Social loneliness refers to an absence of a network of social relationships, which results in children's feeling isolated from the peer group. As might be expected, social loneliness is negatively correlated with peer acceptance. These correlations, however, are only moderate (-.30), which suggests that not all unpopular children are lonely and that some well accepted children do feel lonely (Asher et al., 1990; Newcomb et al., 1993).

Situational or contextual loneliness refers to experiences of loneliness in specific or circumscribed contexts. That is, children may associate feelings of loneliness with events such as moving to an unfamiliar setting, temporary absence of a significant other, or being excluded in certain situations. Clearly, the move toward full inclusion for many children with disabilities may have its most profound effects on children's perceptions of situational loneliness.

Peer relationship variables are predictive of the levels of loneliness expressed by children, and, in turn, loneliness is related to self-concept and social anxiety (Crick & Ladd, 1993). Low sociometric status, having no friends in class, and having relationships that are low in supportiveness and other important features of friendship are indicative of situations in which children are dissatisfied. These findings are based on a growing empirical literature of the study of general

397


http://rer.aera.net


education students; however, they are extremely relevant to students with mild disabilities, given the social skills deficits and peer acceptance difficulties (documented previously in this article) for this group relative to their nondisabled peers.

Review of the literature. Several studies have appeared recently in which the construct of loneliness has been investigated with mild-disability groups. Luftig (1988) reported that high school students with mental retardation experienced greater loneliness and dissatisfaction with peer relationships than did nondisabled students. At the elementary level, mainstreamed children with MMR were found to be more dissatisfied with their peer relationships than were general education students in a matched sample (Taylor, Asher, & Williams, 1987).

Children with MMR enrolled in special day classes at the elementary level and a matched sample of nondisabled students were studied by Williams and Asher (1992). Students were administered the Loneliness Questionnaire (Asher & Wheeler, 1985), and responses were probed in an effort to examine whether the concept of loneliness was meaningful to children with MMR. A high proportion of children with MMR understood the concept of loneliness and how to alleviate its feelings. Boys with MMR were significantly more lonely than girls with MMR and nonretarded children of either gender. The authors concluded "that many children with mild mental retardation may be experiencing relatively high levels of loneliness and distress in their social lives at school" (Williams & Asher, 1992, p. 382).

In a comparison of LD and LA students, Coleman et al. (1992) found that children with LD were less lonely than LA students. One explanation for these findings can be couched in social comparison theory: Children with LD placed in resource classrooms are provided with a second reference group against which to judge the quality of their interpersonal relationships and feelings of self-worth, whereas LA children are indexing their self-judgments relative to the general education classroom (Coleman et al., 1992).

While research on loneliness as an outcome in investigations of students with mild disabilities is extremely limited at this time, it would seem to be most salient for study in light of the current press for the inclusion of students with disabilities in regular classes (see The Journal of Special Education, 1995, No. 2, special issue). To what extent are these children satisfied with the peer relationships they encounter in regular classes, or, conversely, to what extent do they experience loneliness? It is important to recognize that Williams and Asher (1992) and Coleman et al. (1992) found variability among children with MMR, LD, and LA in the extent to which they experienced loneliness and dissatisfaction with their peer relationships. Williams and Asher emphasized the need for further work to assess the potential differences as a function of setting. They wrote,

Certainly, the mainstream environment poses a host of special challenges for students with mild mental retardation, such as a larger class size, relatively few hours of contact with peers, and a more demanding academic environment, as well as peers with greater social, academic, and athletic ability who tend to reject them. (p. 383)

A recent investigation by Gresham et al. (1997) sheds some light on the perceptions of self-concept and loneliness in students at risk for BD. Students who were comorbid for ADHD and conduct problems (HIA+CP) were contrasted with

398


http://rer.aera.net


students who were comorbid for externalizing and internalizing problems (I+E) and controls on measures of loneliness and self-concept. Surprisingly, the HIA+CP, I+E, and control groups reported equal levels of academic, social, and general self-concept. The HIA+CP group, however, reported more loneliness than the other two groups. The HIA+CP group has been referred to as "fledgling psychopaths" in the literature, based on their being at great risk for juvenile delinquency, adult criminal behavior, and antisocial behavior patterns in adulthood (see Lynam, 1996).

The concept of loneliness has been examined as it relates to the work situation for workers with mental retardation ranging in age from 19 to 38 years (Chadsey-Rusch, DeStefano, O'Reilly, & Gonzalez, 1992). An adaptation of Asher's Loneliness Questionnaire revealed that some workers with mental retardation did indeed experience loneliness on the job; however, it was not a pervasive feeling that characterized adults with mental retardation. No differences were found between groups having mild and moderate mental retardation, nor did groups working in integrated and segregated settings differ. Nevertheless, an individual's feelings concerning his or her social relationships on the job are an important dimension in assessing job satisfaction, and we hope that additional work exploring this dimension will be forthcoming.

In addition to using loneliness as an outcome variable, we suggest that research efforts relating loneliness to other personal and social outcomes (e.g., social status, social skills, self-concept) would be informative. For example, sociometrically rejected children tend to experience greater loneliness than children of other sociometric statuses (e.g., neglected, controversial). Interestingly, sociometrically controversial students (i.e., those who are highly liked by some peers and highly disliked by other peers) and popular students experience significantly less loneliness that do rejected children (Crick & Ladd, 1993). Many students with BD (e.g., conduct disorders and ADHD) resemble the sociometrically rejected group and are likely to feel more lonely than students with MMR or LD, whose sociometric status tends to fit the criteria for neglected or poorly accepted. This hypothesis received some empirical verification from the Gresham et al. (1997) investigation but requires further study.

Paths to loneliness. Recent research with typical students distinguishes two paths by which children become rejected. The first is an externalizing path and is characterized by aggressive behavior, disruption, bullying, and fighting. The second is an internalizing path and is characterized by children's being timid, shy, socially withdrawn, and submissive. In studies to date (Asher et al., 1990), the externalizing group and those who are most likely to be sociometrically rejected have substantially higher loneliness scores than do children who exhibit an internalizing behavior pattern and who are more likely to be neglected by peers. In their meta-analysis, Newcomb et al. (1993) found that rejected children had substantially higher scores on loneliness, depression, social anxiety, and sociability than other sociometric status groups (i.e., neglected, controversial, popular, and average). Research exploring this distinction between externalizing and internalizing behavior patterns promises to be informative in describing the social plight of children with BD in educational settings.

There is the risk that placing children with disabilities into classes having few or no other children with disabilities will isolate these children socially. As a

399


http://rer.aera.net


consequence of such social isolation, the child with disabilities could interpret or perceive many social situations in which he or she feels lonely. An evaluation of such placement should probably include an assessment of loneliness, which is clearly related to peer acceptance, peer rejection, social skills, and feelings of self-worth. To date, we find no empirical work on loneliness in children with LD or BD.

Discussion

General Findings

Children in all mild-disability groups experience a number of difficulties in social competence and affective domains. The pattern of social behavior for most students with mild disabilities is problematic for teachers because it deviates substantially from a model behavioral profile, which is characterized by behaviors facilitating academic performance (i.e., academic survival skills) and distinguished by the absence of disruptive, noncompliant behaviors that disturb classroom ecology. We argue in this article that the degree to which students deviate from this model behavioral profile largely accounts for their referral to school study teams and subsequent placement in special education. Moreover, these same behavioral deviations complicate efforts to include these students in general education classrooms after they have been classified as having a mild disability. In addition to deficits in the cognitive domain such as general intelligence and academic achievement, these students are at risk for repeated episodes of school failure. These experiences, in turn, often have unfortunate effects on self-concept, teacher-student interactions, perceptions of loneliness, and peer relationships.

The literature is quite clear about the social competence functioning of children with mild disabilities. These children are more poorly accepted and more often rejected and have lower levels of social skills and higher levels of externalizing and internalizing problem behaviors than their nondisabled peers. The available research to date suggests that children with LD and MMR, as well as LA children (not a disability category), cannot be distinguished from each other on most measures of social competence. Children classified as SED or BD, however, can clearly be differentiated from the other mild-disability and LA groups on measures of social skills and interfering problem behaviors. This is not unexpected, given that the criteria for classifying children as SED and BD are based primarily on social competence deficits and problem behavior excesses.

Research in the affective domain has yielded mixed results to date, particularly in the area of self-concept. Some research shows lower self-concepts for children with mild disabilities, other research shows higher self-concepts, and still other research reveals no differences between students with mild disabilities and nondisabled students. Much of the research in this area has been interpreted in light of social comparison theory. That is, self-concept is largely dependent upon the characteristics of a given comparison group. Thus, self-concept for a person in a special education classroom should be higher than self-concept for the same person in a general education classroom because of the differing characteristics of the groups against which the person is referencing his or her comparisons.

A similar interpretation might be made when considering the research on children's perceptions of loneliness. Although this construct is not as well re-

400


http://rer.aera.net


searched as self-concept, an increasingly large base of literature suggests that students with mild disabilities may experience loneliness in their lives. Also, there are potentially strong relationships among the constructs of loneliness, self-concept, and sociometric status. These relationships will be addressed later in this section.

Methodological Issues

A number of methodological issues arise as one analyzes the literature base on social competence and affective characteristics of students with mild disabilities. The sampling designs employed in the reported studies have consisted primarily of between-group comparisons. Students identified as LD or MMR are compared with nondisabled classmates on some social competence or affective characteristic as the dependent variable. Or, students with MMR in regular classes are contrasted with students with MMR in special day classes on self-concept, peer acceptance, or some other dependent variable. The overwhelming majority of these investigations have used disability category membership (LD, MMR, SED) or educational placement (e.g., special day classes, resource room, mainstreamed) as the independent variable and have compared one group to another on the dependent variable(s) (between-groups design). Such designs have served to demonstrate that students with LD generally have lower academic self-concepts than do non-LD students and that students with MMR in regular grades experience less peer acceptance than do their classmates who are not MMR; however, assumptions made by investigators employing this type of between-groups design regarding between-group and within-group variances present certain problems.

Typically, the within-group variances on any number of salient individual differences related to the specific dependent variable are uncontrolled. For example, we know that physical attractiveness is related to peer acceptance, and yet there is no control for this when LD and non-LD children are compared. About the only way in which the sample of students with LD or MMR is homogenous is with reference to the behavioral characteristics defining the condition. That is, LD groups are somewhat homogeneous with regard to discrepancy between aptitude and achievement, and MMR samples are homogeneous with regard to IQ being below 70 or 75. On any other dimension, however, the assumption of homogeneity within groups is frequently invalid. These variations in attributes are thus unaccounted for in the design approaches typically used in these studies.

An examination of the studies summarized in this review also reveals the need to provide better descriptions of, and control for, any number of demographic variables that could influence the dependent measure of interest. For instance, fundamental demographic characteristics such as gender, social class, age, and ethnicity are known to influence many social competence and affective characteristics of interest. Cross-gender choices in sociometrics during primary grades in school have different meanings than do cross-gender choices in high school. Social class differences in the importance of education could certainly influence academic self-concept measures, while ethnic differences in performance of certain social skills have been shown to exist. Yet, in the research base examined in this article we find few efforts to control for such variables, and until rather recently few studies have employed regression models that might examine the influence of such factors as they interact with the independent variables of

401


http://rer.aera.net


primary interest (e.g., group membership or placement). The heavy reliance on between-group designs essentially provides a weak test

of the no-differences hypothesis on the dependent variable, and even when one is able to reject the null hypothesis the explanation of why differences exist often eludes the investigator. To illustrate, consider the studies comparing the peer acceptance of students with MMR in regular classes. Typically, sociometric scores of students with and without MMR are compared, and the mean scores for students without MMR are found to differ reliably from the mean scores for students with MMR. For more than a decade we have speculated as to why these differences were found because the designs used did not permit isolating the reason(s). Some have attributed the differences to negative effects of labeling, others to the observation that students with MMR typically exhibit more inappropriate social behaviors (aggression, disruption) that are associated with rejection. The point to be made here, however, is that the failure to differentiate within the group of students with MMR and the classmates who are not MMR on dimensions beyond group membership precludes examination of the relative importance of factors such as attractiveness, ethnicity, gender, social cognitive skills, and degree of familiarity to the social status of these children.

Presently, there are insufficient data to explain the causes of the social competence and affective difficulties that children with mild disabilities so often experience. A major issue involving the study of social competence and affective functioning in mild-disability groups is the validity of the current classification system used in differentiating these groups. Garber and Hollon (1991) indicated that specificity research design logic rests on the tenuous assumption that specific disorders are truly distinct in terms of either etiology or observable features. In short, there is an unacceptable degree of nosological error in our current classification system for mild-disability groups (see Gottlieb et al, 1994; Gresham & Gansle, 1992; Gresham et al., 1996; MacMillan, Gresham, Siperstein, & Bocian, 1996).

For example, the classification system for mental retardation (published by the American Association on Mental Deficiency) has undergone five revisions between 1959 and 1992. The largest changes occurred between the 1961 and 1973 definitions and between the 1973 and 1992 definitions. In 1973 the intellectual functioning criterion was reduced from IQ < 85 to IQ < 70, thereby effectively eliminating approximately 14% of all cases of mental retardation (see Grossman, 1973). In the 1992 definition, all levels of mental retardation (mild, moderate, severe, and profound) were eliminated, and the IQ cutoff was shifted upward from 70 to 75, thereby potentially more than doubling the number of cases eligible for classification based on the intellectual functioning criterion (from 2.28% to 4.75%).

Another example of nosological or classification error can be found in a study by Gottlieb et al. (1994). This investigation showed that many students with MMR are being classified and served as students with specific learning disabilities (SLD). Thus, the mean IQ of the SLD population has steadily declined, accompanied by a general obscuring of differences between low-functioning students with SLD and high-functioning students with MMR. This nosological blurring of these formerly distinct groups makes much of the research on social competence and affective characteristics uninterpretable.

402


http://rer.aera.net


A similar problem is encountered in comparing students with SLD and LA students. At the heart of this problem is the degree to which SLD can be differentiated from LA and the extent to which these groups' cognitive, academic, and social competence functioning overlap (see Kavale, Fuchs, & Scruggs, 1994; Ysseldyke, Algozzine, Shinn, & McGue, 1982). Gresham et al. (1996) contrasted children classified as SLD, LA, and MMR on cognitive, achievement, school history, perceptual-motor, and social competence measures. Whereas these groups differed on cognitive and achievement measures, no differences among these three groups were found on most measures of social competence (e.g., social skills, externalizing behaviors, hyperactivity, conduct problems, inattention). These data suggest that there are more similarities than differences in the social competence realm for students classified as SLD, MMR, and LA. Similar findings were reported by Merrell et al. (1992).

Differentiation among mild-disability groups is a tenuous process, given the amount of nosological error in classification, the large degree of overlap among categories, and the similarities of social competence and affective difficulties among these groups. Using specificity research design logic, there is little evidence to support even a weak causal model of social competence and affective characteristics being specific to and/or causal of each of the mild-disability groups discussed in this article. At best, social competence and affective difficulties exist concurrently in a sizable portion for each of the mild-disability groups, with the group of students classified as BD having the most difficulties in the social competence domain. These difficulties essentially define this group.

A major impediment to any applied research on groups of students with mild disabilities, regardless of whether that research focuses on achievement/cognitive or social and affective characteristics, derives from the use of system-identified students. By system-identified we refer to the practice of taking children identified by the public schools as LD, MMR, BD, or ADHD and assuming (a) that the children in each category meet appropriate definitions and diagnostic criteria and (b) that children not so identified by the school system fail to meet these definitions and diagnostic criteria. Despite repeated discussions of the threats posed by the use of system-identification to the internal and external validity of this form of research (Keogh & MacMillan, 1983; MacMillan, Meyers, & Morrison, 1980; Morrison, MacMillan, & Kavale, 1985), it continues as a common practice in the investigation of cognitive and affective characteristics of students having mild disabilities.

An ongoing project directed by the authors (MacMillan & Gresham, 1995) has examined the congruence of children referred to school study teams and the resulting classification decisions made based on behavioral profiles developed by the project to conform to definitions of the various categories. In Grades 2-4 we found that the overwhelming majority of children who met the criteria for MMR and BD were erroneously classified by the schools as LD or speech and language impaired, or were deemed ineligible for any special education. The false negative classifications of children qualifying as MMR and SED/BD (92% and 100%, respectively) and the resultant false positive cases of LD illustrate the magnitude of the risk involved in using such system-identified samples. It highlights the point raised previously about the assumptions of within-group and between-group variance and the resulting invalidity of conclusions made.

403


http://rer.aera.net


Another methodological issue that arises out of the research base concerning the social and affective characteristics of this population derives from the heavy, if not exclusive, reliance on cross-sectional research. The reasons that cross-sectional research predominates are fairly obvious: It is less expensive to do, it does not present problems of subject attrition, it is consistent with the pressure to publish, and it minimizes problems in maintaining working relationships with schools. Nevertheless, certain confounds can distort conclusions drawn from cross-sectional research, and they warrant our attention. For example, suppose that investigator employs a cross-sectional sampling design to study differences in peer acceptance of students with LD in primary elementary school (CA = 7-8 years), upper elementary school (CA = 9-10 years), middle school (CA = 11-12 years), and high school (CA = 13-14 years) and finds that there is a progressive decline in peer acceptance for LD students. The investigator wants to interpret this decline as reflecting age differences; however, there is a possible confound in this interpretation. As students with LD move into middle school and high school, there are greater opportunities for tracking (due to the structure of secondary schools), and this allows the more capable (or less disabled) students with LD to succeed in lower-track classes of English and math. As a consequence, the population of students with LD at the secondary level is perceived as more disabled than the elementary population of students with LD, which could explain the lower peer acceptance independent of age factors.

Longitudinal research would permit the examination of age effects, while cross-sectional research, at best, can only examine age differences. Moreover, longitudinal research permits us to examine the stability of constructs over time and to establish developmental trajectories for those affective and social competence characteristics of interest. At present, the evidence for temporal stability of many of these social and affective characteristics is somewhat limited. Longitudinal research on the same subjects would enlighten us regarding both the stability and the developmental trajectories for each of these constructs. Does a child's social status correlate with different variables at different ages? Does differentiation of self-concept proceed in the same manner for children with mental retardation, but simply at a lower pace? That is, does it conform to the similar-sequence hypothesis postulated for cognitive development?

Methodological Advances and Refinements

Throughout this review we have noted the development of new scales and more sophisticated procedures for measuring the constructs involved in social competence and affective functioning of children with mild disabilities. However, our improved understanding hinges not only on measuring these constructs more reliably but also, as discussed in a previous section, in achieving greater precision in identifying the population of children to be classified as LD, MMR, and BD. In this section, we attempt to highlight these advances and to suggest directions for future research.

On balance, the amount of published research on the cognitive/achievement domain far outweighs that conducted on the social and affective domains of students having mild disabilities. In part, this may be a consequence of the belief that two of the high-incidence conditions (LD and MMR) primarily involve learning and cognition. (After all, they are called learning disabilities and mental

404


http://rer.aera.net


retardation.) However, the consequences of learning and cognitive problems are not restricted to the cognitive domain. In fact, the definition of SED adopted and articulated in the IDEA (dating from its initial adoption in 1975) requires that emotional problems be demonstrated to adversely impact the child's educational performance in recognition of the reciprocal influence of cognitive and social/ affective functioning. Children with mild disabilities are neither exclusively cognitive nor exclusively social and affective entities, but rather are children with physical, cognitive, motivational, social, and affective dimensions that influence one another in a reciprocal fashion. An influence on one of these dimensions potentially impacts others in a transactional manner. Consequently, our research models have to capture the complexities of these transactional effects, and the study of exclusively cognitive or social and affective variables will not capture this complexity.

To illustrate, consider the link between academic achievement and academic self-concept. The validation work by Marsh (Marsh, Parker, & Barnes, 1985) included the testing of structural models relating academic self-concept to achievement. What is the direction of the causal effect? One model predicts that improvement in reading skills, for example, will cause a child to evaluate his or her academic competence more favorably. A competing model, however, predicts that making a child evaluate himself or herself more positively as a student will yield improvements in academic achievement. An example of a program based on this second model is Project Self-Esteem, which attempts to directly influence children's self-esteem in the belief that this will, in turn, result in improved achievement.

A meta-analysis by Hattie (1992), however, brings this reasoning into question. A meta-analysis of 128 studies investigating the relationship between self-concept and academic achievement in primary and secondary grade students showed a median effect size of .23 (SD = .23) between self-concept and achievement. Given the minuscule relationship between self-concept and achievement, the development and testing of causal models between the two variables (cf. Byrne, 1986) may be practically insignificant. Perhaps the greater importance of standardized achievement test scores relative to grades received from teachers needs to be explored, as they explain variance on academic self-concept and predict future performance. It stands to reason that elementary grade children are more cognizant of their classroom performance (i.e., as indicated by grades) than they are of their reading stanine or percentile rank on a nationally standardized test of achievement.

We have discussed the need for better descriptions of, and control for, demographic variables on which children vary, as well as better descriptions of how such variables relate to affective outcomes. We have noted the refinements in assessment scales that permit more refined dimensions of self-concept and children's social competence functioning. One recent refinement found in the literature is the examination of attribution of causality as a moderating or intervening variable, although Marsh (1986) has characterized the "self-serving effect" as an individual difference characteristic. This self-serving effect refers to the observation that people are more likely to attribute their successes to internal causes (e.g., ability, effort) and to attribute their failures to external causes (e.g., task difficulty, luck). The particular attribution made in the self-serving effect consists

405


http://rer.aera.net


of taking credit for success and denying responsibility for failure in order to protect or enhance self-esteem. From an enhancement perspective, this is a helpful effect. Marsh reported that the size of the self-serving effect is large among more able students and among students with higher academic self-concepts. While no specific studies have employed the self-serving effect with students having mild disabilities, Marsh's findings lead to predictions about those students who are less able and lower in academic self-concept—namely, that such students are less prone to the self-serving effect and are therefore less proficient in enhancing their own self-esteem.

Attributions have also been invoked as moderating variables in research addressing loneliness (Crick & Ladd, 1993). These investigations related children's sociometric status (e.g., popular, controversial, rejected) to the attributions they make about social outcomes (i.e., successful or unsuccessful). They found that children's feelings were related to their attributions about social outcomes. For popular children, feeling lonely was negatively related to taking credit for relationship success; however, for rejected children, the avoidance of peers was positively related to blaming others for failed relationships. For neglected children, feelings of loneliness were negatively related to taking credit for successful relationships. These findings were secured on students without disabilities, and research invoking attributions as moderating feelings of loneliness for children with mild disabilities has not been conducted to date. Whether sociometric status or child disability status (or the interaction of the two) is related to the attributional pattern employed to explain successful and failed relationships remains to be established. It would be interesting to know, for example, whether children with mild disabilities attribute their academic successes and their social successes in the same manner. That is, do they take credit for successes in both academic and social endeavors, or do they differentially attribute successes in these two domains given their histories of academic failure? Do these attributional differences explain why some children with LD have lower academic self-concepts than others?

Environmental factors might also be examined in more complex research models. The work on academic self-concept has been interpreted as a self-assessment of relative rather than absolute competence (Strein, 1993). For example, Marsh and Parker (1984) invoked the term big fish, little pond effect to describe the mechanism whereby a child's academic self-concept is formed by comparing his or her academic performance to that of other students in the same classroom or school building, rather than against the broader reference group comprised of community or national standards. Strein stressed the importance of understanding that the big fish, little pond effect does not contradict the notion that higher-achieving students will have higher academic self-concepts, but rather predicts that for a given student (i.e., holding skill level constant) placement in environments where the average skill level is greater should result in lower academic self-concepts. As such, the big fish, little pond notion relates directly to current discussions of inclusion, but would not predict outcomes on self-concept supporting recommendation of placement of children with disabilities into environments with higher skill levels.

With the development of more sophisticated statistical procedures for fitting models, coupled with more psychometrically adequate scales for measuring social and affective constructs, it is now possible to examine the complexities of the

406


http://rer.aera.net


reciprocal and interactive effects of various social and affective characteristics and how they relate to cognitive and achievement characteristics. We are now in a position to move beyond simple group differences and into causal models that help explain the bases for these differences.

References

Asher, S. (1990). Recent advances in the study of peer rejection. In S. Asher & J. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 3-16). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Asher, S., & Hymel, S. (1981). Children's social competence in peer relations: Sociometric and behavioral assessment. In J. Wine & M. Smye (Eds.), Social competence (pp. 125-157). New York: Guilford Press.

Asher, S., Parkhurst, J. T., Hymel, S., & Williams, G. A. (1990). Peer rejection and loneliness in childhood. In S. R. Asher & J. D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 253-273). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Asher, S., & Wheeler, V. (1985). Children's loneliness: A comparison of rejected and neglected peer status. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 500-505.

Bacher, J. H. (1965). The effect of special class placement on the self-concept of the adolescent mentally retarded in relation to certain groups of adolescents. Dissertation Abstracts, 25, 2846-2847.

Barkely, R. (1990). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: A handbook for diagnosis and treatment. New York: Guilford Press.

Bear, G., &Minke, K. (1996). Positive bias in maintenance of self-worth among children with LD. Learning Disability Quarterly, 19, 23-32.

Bialer, I. (1970). Relationship of mental retardation to emotional disturbance and physical disability. In H. C. Hay wood (Ed.), Socio-cultural aspects of mental retardation (pp. 607-660). New York: Appleton-Century Crofts.

Borg, W. R. (1966). Ability grouping in the schools. Madison, WI: Dembar Educational Research Services.

Bracken, B. (1992). The multidimensional self-concept scale. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Brophy, J., & Good, T. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M.

Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 328-375). New York: Macmillan.

Bukowski, W., & Newcomb, A. (1987, April). Friendship quality and the "self during early adolescence. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Baltimore.

Byrne, B. (1984). The general/academic self-concept nomological network: A review of construct validation research. Review of Educational Research, 54, 427-^456.

Byrne, B. (1986). Self-concept/academic achievement relations: An investigation of dimensionality, stability, and causality. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 18, 173-186.

Chadsey-Rusch, J., DeStefano, L., O'Reilly, M., & Gonzalez, P. (1992). Assessing the loneliness of workers with mental retardation. Mental Retardation, 30, 85-92.

Chapman, J. W. (1988). Learning disabled children's self-concepts. Review of Educational Research, 58, 347-371.

Chapman, J. W., & Boersma, F. J. (1979). Academic self-concept in learning disabled children: A study with the "Student's Perception of Ability Scale." Psychology in the Schools, 16, 291-301.

Cleland, C, Patton, W., & Seitz, S. (1967). The use of insult as an index of negative reference groups. American Journal on Mental Deficiency, 72, 30-33.

Clever, A., Bear, G., & Juvonen, J. (1992). Discrepancies between competence and importance in self-perceptions of children in integrated classes. The Journal of

407


http://rer.aera.net


Special Education, 26, 125-138. Coie, J. (1990). Toward a theory of peer rejection. In S. Asher & J. Coie (Eds.), Peer

rejection in childhood (pp. 365^K)2). New York: Cambridge University Press. Coie, J., Dodge, K., & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and types of social status:

A cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18, 557-570. Coleman, J. M. (1983). Self-concept and the mildly handicapped: The role of social

comparisons. The Journal of Special Education, 17, 37-45. Coleman, J. M., McHam, L. A., & Minnett, A. M. (1992). Similarities in the social

competencies of learning disabled and low achieving elementary school children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 671-677.

Conte, R., & Andrews, J. (1993). Social skills in the context of learning disability definitions: A reply to Gresham and Elliott and directions for the future. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 146-153.

Cooley, E., & Ayers, R. (1988). Self-concept and success-failure attributions of nonhandicapped students and students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 174-178.

Crick, N., & Ladd, G. (1993). Children's perceptions of their peer experiences: Attributions, loneliness, social anxiety, and social avoidance. Developmental Psychology, 29, 244-254.

Development schools and classes. (1926). Educational Research Bulletin (Los Angeles City School District), 5(9), 13-14.

Dodge, K. (1983). Behavioral antecedents of peer social status. Child Development, 54, 1386-1399.

Drews, E. M. (1962). The effectiveness of homogeneous and heterogeneous ability grouping in ninth grade English classes with slow, average, and superior students. Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State University.

Dunn, L. (1968). Special education for the mildly retarded: Is much of it justifiable? Exceptional Children, 34, 5-22.

Dunn, L. M. (1974). Special education for the mildly retarded—Is much of it justifiable? In R. L. Jones & D. L. MacMillan (Eds.), Special education in transition (pp. 5-20). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Edgerton, R. B. (1967). The cloak of competence: Stigma in the lives of the mentally retarded. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Edgerton, R. B., & Sabagh, G. (1962). From mortification to aggrandizement: Changing self conceptions in the careers of the mentally retarded. Psychiatry, 25, 263-272.

Erhardt, D., & Hinshaw, S. (1994). Initial sociometric impressions of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and comparison boys: Predictions from social behaviors and from nonbehavioral variables. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 833-842.

Festinger,L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 2,117-140.

Forness, S. (1985). Effects of public policy at the state level: California's impact on MR, LD, and ED categories. Remedial and Special Education, 6, 3 6 ^ 3 .

Forness, S., & Kavale, K. (1991). Social skill deficits as a primary learning disability: A note on problems with the ICLD diagnostic criteria. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 6, 4 4 ^ 9 .

Forness, S., Kavale, K., King, B., & Kasari, C. (1994). Simple versus complex conduct disorders: Identification and phenomenology. Behavioral Disorders, 19, 306-312.

Forness, S., & Knitzer, J. (1992). A new proposed definition and terminology to replace "serious emotional disturbance" in Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. School Psychology Review, 21, 12-20.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (1994). Inclusive schools movement and the radicalization of

408


http://rer.aera.net


special education reform. Exceptional Children, 60, 294-309. Garber, J., & Hollon, S. (1991). What can specificity designs say about causality in

psychopathology research? Psychological Bulletin, 110, 129-136. Gardner, W. I. (1966). Social and emotional adjustment of mildly retarded children and

adolescents: Critical review. Exceptional Children, 33, 97-105. Gartner, A., & Lipsky, D. K. (1987). Beyond special education: Toward a quality system

for all students. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 367-395. Gerber, M., & Semmel, M. (1984). Teacher as imperfect test: Reconceptualizing the

referral process. Educational Psychologist, 19, 137-148. Goldberg, M. L., Passow, A. H., & Justman, J. (1961). The effects of ability grouping.

Unpublished manuscript, Teachers College, Columbia University. Goodman, H., Gottlieb, J., & Harrison, R. (1972). Social acceptance of EMRs integrated

into a nongraded elementary school. American Journal on Mental Deficiency, 76, A\2-Λ\l.

Gottlieb, J. (1981). Mainstreaming: Fulfilling the promise? American Journal on Mental Deficiency, 86, 115-126.

Gottlieb, J., Alter, M., Gottlieb, B. W., & Wishner, J. (1994). Special education in urban America: It's not justifiable for many. The Journal of Special Education, 27, 453-465.

Gottlieb, J., & Budoff, M. (1973). Social acceptability of retarded children in nongraded schools differing in architecture. American Journal on Mental Deficiency, 78, 15-19.

Gottlieb, J., Semmel, M., & Veldman, D. (1978). Correlates of social status among mainstreamed mentally retarded children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 396-405.

Greenspan, S. (1981). Social competence and handicapped individuals: Practical implications and a proposed model. Advances in Special Education, 3, 41-82.

Gresham, F. M. (1981a). Assessment of children's social skills. Journal of School Psychology, 19, 120-134.

Gresham, F. M. (1981b). Social skills training with handicapped children: A review. Review of Educational Research, 51, 139-176.

Gresham, F. M. (1982). Misguided mainstreaming: The case for social skills training with handicapped children. Exceptional Children, 48, 422^-33.

Gresham, F. M. (1983). Social validity in the assessment of children's social skills: Establishing standards for social competency. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 1, 299-307.

Gresham, F. M. (1992). Social skills and learning disabilities: Causal, concomitant, or correlational? School Psychology Review, 21, 348-360.

Gresham, F. M. (1993). Social skills and learning disabilities as a Type III error: Rejoinder to Conte and Andrews. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 154-158.

Gresham, F. M., & Elliott S. N. (1989). Social skills deficits as a primary learning disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 120-124.

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

Gresham, F. M., Elliott, S. N., & Black, F. L. (1987). Teacher-rated social skills of mainstreamed mildly handicapped and nonhandicapped children. School Psychology Review, 16, 78-88.

Gresham, F. M., Elliott, S. N., & Evans-Fernandez, S. (1993). Student self-concept scale. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Gresham, F. M., & Gansle, K. (1992). Misguided assumptions of DSM-III-R: Implications for school psychological practice. School Psychology Quarterly, 7, 79-95.

Gresham, F. M., & Little, S. G. (1993). Peer-referenced assessment strategies. In T.

409


http://rer.aera.net


Ollendick & M. Hersen (Eds.), Handbook of child and adolescent assessment (pp. 165-179). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Gresham, F. M., MacMillan, D. L., & Bocian, K. (1996). Learning disabilities, low achievement, and mild mental retardation: More alike than different? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 570-581.

Gresham, F. M., MacMillan, D. L., Bocian, K. M., & Ward, S. L. (1997). Precursors of emotional and behavioral disorders: Continuum of risk factors in academic, social, and affective domains. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Gresham, F. M., MacMillan, D. L., & Siperstein, G. N. (1995). Critical analysis of the 1992 A AMR definition: Implications for school psychology. School Psychology Quarterly, 10, 1-19.

Gresham, F. M., & Reschly, D. J. (1986). Social skills deficits and peer acceptance of mainstreamed learning disabled children. Learning Disability Quarterly, 9, 23-32.

Gresham, F. M., & Reschly, D. J. (1987). Sociometric differences between mildly handicapped and nonhandicapped Black and White students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 195-197.

Gresham, F. M., & Reschly, D. J. (1988). Issues in the conceptualization, classification, and assessment of social skills in the mildly handicapped. In T. Kratochwill (Ed.), Advances in school psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 203-247). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Grossman, H. (Ed.). (1973). Manual on terminology and classification in mental retardation. Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Deficiency.

Guevremont, D. (1990). Social skills and peer relationship training. In R. Barkley (Ed.), Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: A handbook for diagnosis and treatment (pp. 540-572). New York: Guilford Press.

Guskin, S., & Spicker, H. (1968). Educational research in mental retardation. In N. R. Ellis (Ed.), International review of research in mental retardation (Vol. 3, pp. 217— 278). New York: Academic Press.

Gutherie, G., Butler, A., & Gorlow, L. (1964). Patterns of self-attitudes of retardates. American Journal on Mental Deficiency, 66, 222-229.

Gutherie, G., Butler, A., Gorlow, L., & White, G. (1964). Non-verbal expression of self-attitudes in retardates. American Journal on Mental Deficiency, 69, 4 2 ^ 9 .

Hagborg, W. J. (1996). Self-concept and middle school students with learning disabilities: A comparison of scholastic competence subgroups. Learning Disability Quarterly, 19, 117-126.

Hallenback, B., & Kauffman, J. (1995). How does observational learning affect the behavior of students with emotional or behavioral disorders? A review of research. The Journal of Special Education, 29, 45-71.

Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the Self-Perception Profile for Children. Denver, CO: University of Denver.

Hattie, J. (1992). Self-concept. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hendrick, I. G., & MacMillan, D. L. (1987). Coping with diversity in city school

systems: The role of mental testing in shaping special classes for mentally retarded children in Los Angeles, 1900-1930. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 22, 10-17.

Hendrick, I. G., & MacMillan, D. L. (1988). Expanding the public school's mission: William Maxwell, Elizabeth Farrell, and the development of ungraded classes in New York City, 1900-1920. The Journal of Special Education, 22, 395^17.

Hersh, R., & Walker, H. M. (1983). Great expectations: Making schools effective for all students. Policy Studies Review, 2, 147-188.

Hinshaw, S. (1992). Externalizing behavior problems and academic underachievement in childhood and adolescence: Causal relationships and underlying mechanisms. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 127-155.

410


http://rer.aera.net


Hoza, B., Pelham, W., Milich, R., Pillow, D., & McBride, K. (1993). The self-perceptions and attributions of attention deficit hyperactivity disordered and nonref erred boys. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 21, 271-286.

Interagency Committee on Learning Disabilities. (1987). Learning disabilities: A report to the U.S. Congress. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health.

Johnson, G. O. (1950). A study of the social position of mentally handicapped children in regular grades. American Journal on Mental Deficiency, 55, 60-89.

Johnson, G. O., & Kirk, S. A. (1950). Are mentally handicapped children segregated in regular grades? Exceptional Children, 17, 65-68.

Kauffman, J. (1993). Characteristics of emotional and behavioral disorders of children and youth (5th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill/Macmillan.

Kavale, K., & Forness, S. (1996). Social skill deficits and learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 226-237.

Kavale, K., Fuchs, D., & Scruggs, T. (1994). Setting the record straight on learning disability and low achievement: Implications for policy making. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 9, 10-11.

Kavale, K., & Nye, C. (1986). Parameters of learning disabilities in achievement, linguistic, neuropsychological, and social/behavioral domains. The Journal of Special Education, 19, 443-458.

Keogh, B., & MacMillan, D. L. (1983). The logic of sample selection: Who represents what? Exceptional Education Quarterly, 4, 84-96.

Kistner, J., & Gatlin, D. (1989). Sociometric differences between learning disabled and nonhandicapped students: Effects of sex and race. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 118-120.

Kistner, J., Haskett, M., White, K., & Robbins, F. (1987). Perceived competence and self-worth of LD and normally achieving students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 37-44.

Kistner, J., & Osborne, M. (1987). A longitudinal study of LD children's self-evaluations. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 258-266.

Kupersmidt, J., Coie, J., & Dodge, K. (1990). The role of peer relationships in the development of disorder. In S. Asher & J. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 274-308). New York: Cambridge University Press.

LaGreca, A., & Stone, W. (1990). Children with learning disabilities: The role of achievement in their social, personal, and behavioral functioning. In H. L. Swanson & B. Keogh (Eds.), Learning disabilities: Theoretical and research issues (pp. 333-352). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Landau, S., & Moore, L. (1991). Social skill deficits with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. School Psychology Review, 20, 235-251.

Loney, J., & Milich, R. (1982). Hyperactivity, inattention, and aggression in clinical practice. In M. Wolraich & D. Routh (Eds.), Advances in behavioral pediatrics (Vol. 2, pp. 113-147). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Luftig, R. L. (1988). Assessment of the perceived school loneliness and isolation of mentally retarded and nonretarded students. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 92, 472-475.

Lynam, D. R. (1996). Early identification of chronic offenders: Who is the fledgling psychopath? Psychological Bulletin, 120, 209-234.

MacMillan, D. L. (1989). Equality, excellence, and the mentally retarded populations: 1970-1989. Psychology in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 15, 3-10.

MacMillan, D. L., & Gresham, F. M. (1995). Utility of alternative assessment models for identification of mildly handicapped children. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs.

411


http://rer.aera.net


MacMillan, D. L., Gresham, F. M., & Forness, S. R. (1996). Full inclusion: An empirical perspective. Behavioral Disorders, 21, 145-159.

MacMillan, D. L., Gresham, F. M., & Siperstein, G. N. (1993). Conceptual and psychometric concerns about the 1992 AAMR definition of mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 98, 325-335.

MacMillan, D. L., Gresham, F. M., Siperstein, G., & Bocian, K. (1996). The labyrinth of IDEA: School decisions on referred students with subaverage intellectual functioning. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 101, 161-174.

MacMillan, D. L., Meyers, C. E., & Morrison, G. M. (1980). System-identification of mildly mentally retarded children: Implications for interpreting and conducting research. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 85, 108-115.

MacMillan, D. L., & Morrison, G. (1984). Sociometric research in special education. In R. Jones (Ed.), Attitude and attitude change in special education (pp. 93-117). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

MacMillan, D. L., & Reschly, D. J. (in press). Issues of definition and classification. In W. E. MacLean, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of mental deficiency: Psychological theory and research (3rd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

MacMillan, D. L., Siperstein, G. N., & Gresham, F. M. (1996). Mild mental retardation: A challenge to its viability as a diagnostic category. Exceptional Children, 62, 356-371.

Madden, N., & Slavin, R. (1983). Mainstreaming students with mild handicaps: Academic and social outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 58, 519-569.

Mann, M. (1960). What does ability grouping do to the self-concept? Childhood Education, 26, 357-360.

Marsh, H. (1986). Self-serving effect (bias?) in academic attributions: Its relation to academic achievement and self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 190-200.

Marsh, H. (1988). Self-Description Questionnaire I: Manual. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

Marsh, H., & Parker, J. (1984). Determinants of student self-concept: Is it better to be a relatively large fish in a small pond even if you don't learn to swim as well? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 173-187.

Marsh, H. W., Parker, J., & Barnes, J. (1985). Multidimensional adolescent self-concepts: Their relationship to age, sex, and academic measures. American Educational Research Journal, 22, 422^44 .

Marsh, H., & Shavelson, R. (1985). Self-concept: Its multifaceted, hierarchical structure. Educational Psychologist, 20, 107-125.

McConaughy, S., Mattison, R., & Peterson, R. (1994). Behavioral/emotional problems of children with serious emotional disturbances and learning disabilities. School Psychology Review, 23, 81-98.

McFall, R. M. (1982). A review and reformulation of the concept of social skills. Behavioral Assessment, 4, 1-33.

Merrell, K., Johnson, E., Merz, J., & Ring, E. (1992). Social competence of students with mild handicaps and low achievement: A comparative study. School Psychology Review, 21, 125-137.

Meyerowitz, J. H. (1962). Self-derogations in young retardates and special class placement. Child Development, 33, 443-451.

Milich, R., Landau, S., Kilby, G., & Whitten, P. (1982). Preschool peer perceptions of the behavior of hyperactive and aggressive children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 10, 497-510.

Morrison, G., Forness, S., & MacMillan, D. L. (1983). Influences on sociometric ratings of mildly handicapped children: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology,

412


http://rer.aera.net


75, 63-74. Morrison, G., MacMillan, D. L., & Kavale, K. (1985). System identification of learning

disabled children: Implications for research sampling. Learning Disability Quarterly, 8, 2-10.

Newcomb, A., Bukowski, W., & Pattee, L. (1993). Children's peer relations: A meta-analytic review of popular, rejected, neglected, controversial, and average sociomet-ric status. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 99-128.

Ochoa, S., & Olivarez, A. (1995). A meta-analysis of peer rating sociometric studies of pupils with learning disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 29, 1-19.

Parker, J., & Asher, S. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are low-accepted children at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102, 357-389.

Pekarik, E., Prinz, R., Leibert, D., Weintraub, S., & Neale, J. (1976). The Pupil Evaluation Inventory: A sociometric technique for assessing children's social behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 4, 83-97.

Pelham, W., & Bender, M. (1982). Peer relationships in hyperactive children: Description and treatment. In K. Gadow & I. Bialer (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities: A research annual (Vol. 5, pp. 365-^436). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Reid, J. (1993). Prevention of conduct disorder before and after school entry: Relating interventions to developmental findings. Development andPsychopathology, 5,243-262.

Renick, J., & Harter, S. (1989). Impact of social comparisons on the developing self-perceptions of learning disabled students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 631-638.

Rhode, G., Jenson, W., & Reavis, H. (1992). The tough kid book. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Sabornie, E., & Kauffman, J. (1985). Regular classroom sociometric status of behav-iorally disordered adolescents. Behavioral Disorders, 10, 268-274.

Sabornie, E., Kauffman, J., Ellis, E., Marshall, K., & Elksnin, L. (1988). Bi-directional and cross-categorical social status of learning disabled, behaviorally disordered, and nonhandicapped adolescents. The Journal of Special Education, 21, 39-56.

Sater, G., & French, D. (1989). A comparison of the social competencies of learning disabled and low achieving elementary aged children. The Journal of Special Education, 25, 671-677.

Schneider, M., & Leitenberg, H. (1989). A comparison of aggressive and withdrawn children's self-esteem, optimism and pessimism, and causal attributions for success and failure. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 17, 133-144.

Schurr, K. T., Towne, R. C, & Joiner, L. M. (1972). Trends in self-concept of ability over 2 years of special class placement. Journal of Special Education, 6, 161-166.

Semmel, M., Gottlieb, J., & Robinson, N. (1979). Mainstreaming: Perspectives on educating handicapped children in the public school. Review of Research in Education, 7, 223-279.

Shavelson, R., Hubner, J., & Stanton, G. (1976). Self-concept: Validation of construct interpretations. Review of Educational Research, 46, 407-^441.

Short, R., & Shapiro, S. (1993). Conduct disorders: A framework for understanding and intervention in schools and communities. School Psychology Review, 22, 362-375.

Silon, E. L., & Harter, S. (1985). Assessment of perceived competence, motivational orientation, and anxiety in segregated and mainstreamed educable mentally retarded children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 217-230.

Skiba, R., & Grizzle, K. (1991). The social maladjustment exclusion: Issues of definition and assessment. School Psychology Review, 20, 577-595.

Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. (1984). A rationale for the merger of special and regular

413


http://rer.aera.net


education. Exceptional Children, 51, 102-111. Sternlicht, M., & Deutsch, M. (1972). Personality development and social behavior in

the mentally retarded. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Strein, W. (1993). Advances in research on academic self-concept: Implications for

school psychology. School Psychology Review, 22, 273-284. Swanson, H. L., & Malone, S. (1992). Social skills and learning disabilities: A meta-

analysis of the literature. School Psychology Review, 21, 427^143. Taylor, S., & Brown, J. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological

perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193-210. Towne, R. C, Joiner, L. M., & Schurr, T. (1967). The effects of special classes on the

self-concepts of academic ability of the educable mentally retarded: A time series experiment. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Council for Exceptional Children, St. Louis, MO.

Vaughn, S., & Hogan, A. (1990). Social competence and learning disabilities: A prospective study. In H. L. Swanson & B. Keogh (Eds.), Learning disabilities: Theoretical and research issues (pp. 175-194). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Walker, H., & Bullis, M. (1991). Behavior disorders and the social context of regular class integration: A conceptual dilemma? In J. Lloyd, N. Singh, & A. Repp (Eds.), The Regular Education Initiative: Alternative perspectives on concepts, issues, and models (pp. 73-93). Sycamore, IL: Sycamore.

Walker, H., Colvin, G., & Ramsey, E. (1995). Antisocial behavior in school: Strategies and best practices. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Walker, H., Irvin, L., Noell, J., & Singer, G. (1992). A construct score approach to the assessment of social competence: Rationale, technological considerations, and anticipated outcomes. Behavior Modification, 16, 448^-74.

Walker, H., & McConnell, S. (1988). Walker-McConnell scale of social competence and school adjustment. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Walker, H., McConnell, S., & Clark, J. (1985). Social skills training in school settings: A model for the social integration of handicapped children into less restrictive settings. In R. McMahon & R. Peters (Eds.), Childhood disorders: Behavioral developmental approaches (pp. 140-168). New York: Brunner-Mazel.

Walker, H. M., & Severson, H. (1992). Systematic screening for behavior disorders. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Wang, M., &Birch, J. (1984). Effective special education in regular classes. Exceptional Children, 52, 411-416.

Whalen, C, & Henker, B. (1985). The social worlds of hyperactive (ADHD) children. Clinical Psychology Review, 5, 447^78 .

Wheeler, J., & Carlson, C. (1994). The social functioning of children with ADD with hyperactivity and ADD without hyperactivity: A comparison of their peer relations and social deficits. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 2, 2-12.

Widaman, K. F., MacMillan, D. L., Hemsley, R. E., Little, T. D., & Balow, I. H. (1992). Differences in adolescents' self-concept as a function of academic level, ethnicity, and gender. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 96, 387-^í-04.

Will, M. (1986). Educating children with learning problems: A shared responsibility. Exceptional Children, 52, 411—416.

Williams, G., & Asher, S. (1992). Assessment of loneliness at school among children with mild mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 96,373-385.

Wylie, R. (1974). The self-concept: Vol. J. A review of methodological considerations and measuring instruments. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Wylie, R. (1979). The self-concept: Vol. 2. Theory and research on selected topics. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Ysseldyke, J., Algozzine, B., Shinn, M., & McGue, M. (1982). Similarities and

414


http://rer.aera.net


differences between low achievers and students classified as learning disabled. The Journal of Special Education, 16, 73-85.

Authors FRANK M. GRESHAM is Professor, School of Education, University of California,

Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521; [email protected]. He specializes in social skills, learning disabilities, and behavior disorders.

DONALD L. MACMILLAN is Distinguished Professor of Education, School of Education, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521; [email protected]. He specializes in mild mental retardation, special education, and classification of high-incidence disabilities.

Received February 18, 1997 Revision received July 7, 1997

Accepted July 11, 1997

415


mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://rer.aera.net

social competence and affective characteristics of students with mild disabilities

Documents