The Relationship between social intelligence and behavioral functioning in students with learning disabilities

RIT Scholar Works

Theses Thesis/Dissertation Collections

4-28-1997

The Relationship between social intelligence and

behavioral functioning in students with learning

disabilities

James Vreeland

Follow this and additional works at:http://scholarworks.rit.edu/theses

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Thesis/Dissertation Collections at RIT Scholar Works. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses by an authorized administrator of RIT Scholar Works. For more information, please [email protected].

Recommended Citation

Functioning in Students With Learning Disabilities

Master's Thesis

Submitted to the Faculty

Of the School Psychology Program

College of Liberal Arts

ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

By

James S. Vreeland

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of

Master of Science

Rochester, New York

Approved:

April 28, 1997

James B. Hale, Ph. D. (Committee Chair)

Gerald T. Guild, Ph. D. (Committee Member)

Dean:, _

Wiliam Daniels, Ph. D., Dean

College of Liberal Arts

.SchoOI Psychology Program Permission to Reproduce Thesis

PERMISSION Title f thesis_,

II

Signature of Author: Date: _-+--:''--1""'''''-_ _

I James S. Vreeland hereby grant permission to the

Wallace Memorial Library of the Rochester Institute of Technology to reproduce my thesis in wh e or in part. Any reproduction will not be for commercial use or profit.

PERMISSION FROM AUTHOR REQUIRED

Title of thesis _

I prefer to be contacted each time a

request for reproduction is made. I can be reached at the following address:

PHONE: _

Date: _ Signature of Author: _

PERMISSION DENIED

TITLE

OF

I hereby deny permission to theWallace

Memorial Library of the Rochester Institute of Technology to reproduce my thesis in whole or in part.

Clinicians suggest that differences between the nonverbal Picture Arrangement (PA)

and verbal _{Comprehension (C) WISC subtests reflect poor social perception,}

understanding, or action. In _{this study,} data from 79 children with _learning

disabilities were subjected to repeated measures MANOVA to examine PAandC

social sensitivity. Although PA and C scores correlated _minimally with Teacher (TRF) and Parent _(CBCL) reportedbehaviorproblems, those who scored _{significantly}

higher on PA thanC (PA >C) displayed more TRF Internalizing, Withdrawal, Social,

and Thought Problems than the C > PA group. ThePA> _{C group had} moreTRF

Withdrawal and Thought Problems than the PA =Ccontrol group. _GroupC =PA

displayed more Total and _Delinquencyproblems thanC > PA andPA>C.

Implications willbe discussed.

All rights reserved.

The author would like to thank both Dr. HaleandDr. Guild for _guidingme through

this process, andfor _havinga great dealofpatience_alongthe way._Mydeepest

gratitude must also be extended to _my wife, Brenda, for providing her expertise in graphic design withthe layoutof theTables and presentation ofthis thesis.

I. Title Page i

II. Abstract ii

IE. Copyright Page iii

IV. _{Acknowledgements} iv

V. TableofContents v

VI. Literature Review. 1

A. Behavior_RatingScales 4

B. ObservationalMeasures 5

C. _{Information-Processing}Scales 6

VII. Methods 11

A. Subjects 11

B. Procedure 12

VIII.Results 13

IX. Discussion 21

A. _RelationshipBetween_GroupandCBCL 22

B. TRF_{Internalizing}Scale 23

C. TRF Thought Disorders Social and Withdrawn BehaviorScales 24

D. TRFTotaland_DelinquencyProblemsScales 25

LITERATURE REVIEW

Assessment of behavioral _functioning is a common andrequired practice of a

school psychologistin a public school setting. Referrals from teachers, staff, and parents often involve some type ofbehavioral concern or component. The

psychologist evaluates child behavioral _{functioning using} multiple data sources, as

well as examines the causes and consequences ofreported _concerns, and develops a

remediation plan in collaboration with the _{multidisciplinary} team. The potential

causes ofbehavior problems are_{multidimensional, but may be} affected _by perception of self and the environment _{(Erickson, 1992; Merrell, Cedeno,} & Johnson, 1993; Nicol, 1985).

Perceptions of self and _{the environment,} or social _perception, are _{significantly}

related to behavioral _functioning and social interactions in the school _setting (Erickson, 1992; Merrell et al. _{1993; Strain,Guralnick,} &_{Walker, 1986;} Vaughn & Haager, 1991). Childrenwith _{learning disabilities may have} perceptual or cognitive deficits thatimpair not _only academic _performance, but social _functioning as well (Vaughn &Haager, 1991). Social_skills, the behavioral component of social

perception, are the specific behaviors exhibited _during interpersonal interactions (McFall, 1982). Several studies have examined social skill deficits in students with learningdisabilities, with results _suggesting thatas _many as 75% _exhibiting some type of social skill deficit (Kavale &Forness, 1996). Thosewith stronger verbal skills

than nonverbal skills (nonverbal _{learning disabilities)} are _especially at risk for

psychosocial disturbance (Fuerst, Fisk, &_{Rourke, 1990) possibly}due to poor fluid abilities or novel _{problem-solving} abilities (Hale, 1994). In _addition,social skills

deficits displayed in _early childhood often continue throughout the developmental

Pederson, Babigan, Izzo, & _{Trost, 1973; Strain,} et al. 1986). As a result,children with

learning disabilities are at risk for _dropping out of high school,juvenile delinquency

and chronic unemployment _(Merrell, 1994).

Social intelligence or _competence, and academic achievement are interrelated

in areciprocal manner _(Dishion, 1990). For example,_{during early} adolescence, a

positive _relationship exists between the level of social _{responsibility} an individual

exhibits and academic performance _(Wentzel, 1991). _Furthermore, children who

exhibitprosocial behaviors_and, as a _result,are more _likely tobe accepted_bypeers,

tend to be high achievers _{(Dishion, 1990; Green, Forehand, Beck,} & _Vosk, 1980). On _{the contrary,} children who are _sociallyrejected tend to be at a greater risk

foracademicfailure _{(Dishion, 1990;} Green et al. 1980). For example,_reading

achievement has been found to be affected _by behavioral _functioning in _elementary

children (Vaughn, _{Hogan, Lancelotta, Shapiro,} & Walker, 1992). Though the

direction ofthis _relationship is not_{fullyunderstood,} ithas been suggested that the level of achievement _may determine the level of social competence (Bursuck &

Asher,1986). Yet othershave suggested thatspecifictypes of_{learning disabilities}

may precipitate academic andbehavior problems_(Fuerst, et al. 1990).

Given the evidence _supporting the importance of_{understanding} the

relationship between social intelligence or competence and behavior in an academic setting, itis necessary toestablish a clear _{understanding} of a definitionofthis

construct. The terms social _skills, social _competence,social intelligence and social

perception have been used _{interchangeably} in _research, often _resulting in confusion to the reader and _{confoundingstudy} results _(Strain, et al. 1986). Socialperception has been definedas the _ability tojudge a social_situation, as compared to _acting

Early researchin this area revealed variable definitions of social competence,

resulting in inconsistent attempts at _measuring this construct (Anderson & Messick, 1974; Hops, 1983;Zigler &_Trickett, 1978).

Poor definitions of social competence lead to difficulties in construct

measurement and researchdesign. Definitions such as an _ability to _readily

recognize and _identify the significance and_meaning of the behavior of others have been provided, yet do not provide for observable and measurablebehaviors

(Johnson & _Myklebust, 1976). Another example of an non-measurable definition is

the _ability to recognize and interpret the nonverbal aspects of communication

which _may indicate the _feelings, attitudes, and intentions of another _{(Griffen, 1968;} Lerner,1976).

Further attempts at _developing observable and measurable behaviors

indicative of social intelligence or competence appeared to have been more

successful. _{Gresham's (1983) definition,} which states thatbehavior canbe considered _socially competent if it predicts important socialoutcomes for an individual, may provide for more reliable measurement of this construct. However, itdid not appeartoreflect the _complexity ofthe socialintelligence

construct. Further _specificity ofthese social outcomes haveresulted in more _clearly

observservable and measurablebehaviors which _{may be} indicative of social

intelligence or competence. These outcomes include peer _{acceptance, friendships,}

significant

others'

judgment of social _skills, positive feelings of_self-worth, academic

achievement, and positive adaptation _{to school,} home and _community

environements, all of which provide for more ecological _{validity (Gresham,} 1995). Building upon the importance ofspecific outcomes as _beingmeasures of

developed_byCavell (1990). This model was comprised of three specific

components, and appeared to provide a more accurate description of specific

behaviors _purportedly reflective of social competence. _According to this model,

social adjustment is a measure of the current achievement of age-appropriate

behaviors and _goals,and social perceptionis the _abilityto perform a certain social

task. _Finally, social skills are those overtbehaviors the individual engages in _during

various social interactions and situations. This approach could enable psychologists

and other social scientists to establish scales and measures of social intelligence or

competence with direct implications for intervention.

Behavior _Rating Scales

There are several measures and scales available that purport to evaluate the

construct of social _{competence, including} behavior _{rating scales,} observational

measures, and _{information-processing} techniques. Examples ofbehavior rating

scales include the Walker-McConnell Scales of Social Competence and School

Adjustment (Walker & McConnell, 1988), School Social Behavior Scales _(Merrell,

1993), Kohn Social Competence Scale _{(Kohn, 1986),} Waksman Social Skills _Rating

Scale _{(Waksman, 1983),} and Social Skills _RatingSystem (Gresham & _{Elliott, 1990),}

the latter _containing a self-reportform completed _by thechild.

Although behavior _rating measures possess _{strong discriminant} and

construct _{validity for} social competence, limitations do exist _(McConaughy& _Ritter,

1995). For example, the Walker-McConnell Scales of Social Competence and School

Adjustment, which measures a set of specific behaviors related to social competence

in K-12 students (such as socialrelationships, _sensitivity to others, empathy,

cooperation, classroom _demeanor, and self-restraint) did not discriminate _socially

disabilities from control subjects (Tur-Kaspa &_Bryan, 1995). In addition, an

evaluation of the Walker-McConnell Scales manual revealed limited statistical

analyses of_{validity (Demaray,} etal. _1995), such asthe use of small_validitysample

sizes, non-representative standardization _norms, and unclear presentation of

analyses.

The School Social Behavior _Scales, another example of a behavior _rating

scale of social _competence,assesses several specificbehavior domains ofK-12

students, _including skills in _{self-management,} academic _performance, and

interpersonal _abilities, as well as antisocial behaviors such as _hostility, aggression,

and disruptive behavior _{(Emerson, Crowley,}&_Merrell, 1994). Evidence suggests

that this scale of social competence has high internal consistency, and adequate

discriminant validity between regular education _students, and students with

behavior disorders or other special education students (Emerson et al. _{1994; Merrell,}

1994). _However, the School Social Behavior Scales does not measure and/or account

for behaviors such as _anxiety or_depression,which _may alsointerfere with adequate

social _{functioning (Merrell,} 1994).

Observational Measures

Other measures of social competence or intelligence include the use of

observational _techniques, which also have a _variety of limitations that _{may directly}

affect their validity. In addition, non-normative data on specified _behaviors,

single-setting data, and poorly constructed measurement systems could limit the _vailidity

ofthe results (Merrell, 1994). Measurable definitionsof the observed target

behaviors must be made _clear, observer influence on subject must be _minimized,

and observer _training on the measurement techniques needs to be implemented in

The Behavioral Assertiveness Test _{(Eisler, Hersen,} & Miller, 1973),an

observational technique used to assess social skills in an _{analog setting,} requires

subjects to _role-play specific interactions using both assertive and non-assertive

behaviors. These videotapes are_subsequently reviewed_by brained raters for target

behaviors, specifically behaviors reflecting social skills or competence. Research on the Behavioral _{Assertiveness Test indicates strong}construct _validity in clinical settings, such as residential treatment facilities _(Bornstein, Bellack, & _{Herson, 1977;} Merrell, 1994), although it is not intended for observational use in the classroom

due to the _{analog format (Merrell,} 1994).

The State-Event Classroom Observational System _(SECOS; Saudargas & _Slate, 1980) is another example of an observational technique used for measuring social competence. The SECOSutilizes a _coding system for observable state and event classroom behaviors _occurring within specified time intervals (Saudargas & _Lentz, 1986). Researchon the SECOS suggests _varying discriminant_{validity among}

disabled and control groups. Despiteevidence _indicating adequatediscriminant

validity between students withbehavior _disorders, who exhibitacting-out or

inappropriate _behaviors, from behaviors of regular peers (Slate & _{Saudargas, 1986a),} the SECOS did not _{adequately discriminate} students with_learning disabilities from average students (Slate &Saudargas, 1986b). Though research on_learning

disabilities has not been undertaken, the State-Event Behavior Observation Form

(SEBOF; Guild, 1997) mayreveal important differences because it utilizes a behavior coding system forboth targetand control subjects. This allows for directcomparison

of students within specific time and _setting events.

Information-Processing Scales

information-processing scales such as the Profile ofNonverbal _Sensitivity (PONS) tests, which assesses the _ability to decode or understand various facets of nonverbal

communication, such as facial expressions and _body language (Bryan, 1977).

Evidence suggests that thePONS _adequatelydiscriminates the _ability to comprehend

nonverbal communication _among students with _learning disabilities and subjects without _{learning disabilities,} for both _elementary level students _{(Bryan, 1977)} and adolescents _(Creasey &Jarvis, 1987). _{In addition,} results from the PONS indicate that students with _learning disabilities show improvement in their _ability to decode nonverbal messages from age 11 to _17, yet_they continue to showless _abilitythan

their non-disabled peers _{(Jackson, Enright,} &_Murdock, 1987). The PONSis related

to other purported measures of social competence or_{intelligence,} such as the

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised (WISC-R) Comprehension and

Picture Arrangement subtest (Reiff&_{Gerber, 1990),} butnot the Behavior Problems

Checklistscales ofSocial Competence (Stone& _LeGreca, 1984).

The Minnesota Test ofAffective _Processing (MN-TAP) is another

information-processing measure of social intelligence (Lai & _Shapiro, 1990). This scale consists of three broad sections, or _{subscales, involving} visual and _auditory presentations of emotional expression. Pictures and videotapes offacial and_body

gestures are presented for the visual _subscale, and audiotapes of spoken information

comprise the _auditory subscale. Research reveals a _{strong relationship between}

deficits on social skills ratings and MN-TAP scores. In children with_learning

disabilities, low MN-TAPscores and social skills ratingswere associated withscores

on the WISC-III Performance scale.

In addition to the use of behavior _rating scales, observational _measures, and

assess social intelligence or perception. The Wechsler Scales _(Wechsler,1991;

Wechsler, 1974; Wechsler, 1949) include two specific subtests,Comprehension and

Picture _Arrangement, which purport to measure _{understanding} ofand an _ability to

act upon _everyday social situations _{(Sattler, 1992;Sattler,} 1979). Bothofthese subtests

have been found tobe related to social perception (Reiff& _Gerber, 1990),as well as

social intelligence andjudgment _{(Sipps, Berry,}&_{Lynch, 1987; Kaufman, 1994;}

Kaufman, 1979). The Comprehension subtest _reportedly measures _{understanding} of

social conventions _{(Allison, Blatt,} & Zimmer, 1988; Sattler, 1992), common-sense

judgment of _everyday situations (Glasser & _{Zimmerman, 1967;} Kaufman, 1994;

Kaufman, 1979; Kellerman & _{Burry, 1997; Sattler, 1992;),} interpersonal _maturity

(Brannigan, 1975) and social competence (Krippner, _{1964; Lipsitz, Dworkin,} &

Erlenmeyer-Kimling, 1993; Lipsitz, 1992). The Picture Arrangement subtest ofthe

Wechsler scales has beenpurported to measure an _ability to understand cause and

effect relationships in social interactions (Allison et al. _{1988; Kaufman, 1994;}

Kaufman, 1979; Sattler,1992; Sattler, 1982), knowledge of interpersonal relationships

(Kellerman & _Burry, 1997), social alertness and awareness (Glasser & Zimmerman,

1967).

In addition to the specific abilities _purportedly tapped_by the Comprehension

and Picture Arrangement subtests, significantdifferences between subtestscores _may

be indicative of a deficit in social intelligence or competence. A _{significantly} higher

score on the Comprehension subtest as compared to the Picture Arrangement

subtest _may indicate an_{understanding} of social _situations, but a deficit in _acting

upon them in an acceptable manner (Allison, et al. _{1967; Sattler, 1992; Sattler,}1982).

A higher score on the Picture Arrangementsubtest as compared to the

disregard for accepted social conventions _(Allison, et al. _{1967; Sattler, 1992; Sattler,}

1979). In other _words, an individual may_accurately interpretthe socialbehavior of

others, yet fail torespond in a _socialy acceptable manner.

Although _many in clinical practice accept that these measures _tap social

intelligence, evidence _supporting these hypotheses has been limited or

contradictory. A comparison of children classified as _learning disabled and behavior

disordered revealed children with behavior disorders performed lower on both the

WISC-R Comprehension and Picture Arrangement subtests (Vance, _Fuller, &_Ellis,

1983). Additional WISC-R Comprehension and Picture Arrangment subtest

analyses revealed a greater rate ofbehavior problems instudents with _learning

disabilities who has higher Picture Arrangement than Comprehension scores

(Wickers & O'Sheel, 1983). When compared to teacher ratings on a non-published

scale of social _maturity, which included _{academic, interpersonal,} and emotional

items, a negative _relationship was found with the WISC Picture Arrangement

subtest (Brannigan, 1975). _Similarly, whencompared to teacher ratings ofSocial Age

on the Vineland Social _{MaturityScale,} a negative _relationship was found with the

WISC Picture Arrangement subtest _(Krippner, 1964). Scores onthe

Marlowe-CrowneSocial _DesirabilityScale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960), a measure thatindicates

the number of_{socially desirable responses,} were not related to the Wechsler Adult

Intelligence Scale-Revised _(WAIS-R) Picture Arrangement subtest (Nobo & _Evans,

1986; Ramos &_Die, 1986). _{In addition, the}subtest was not relatedto theJackson

Personality Inventory, which_purportedly assesses _conformity, social _self-esteem,

and interpersonal skills (Nobo & Evans, 1986), nor to scores on non-standardized

Although the Comprehension subtest of the Wechsler scales _maypossess

more characteristics ofsocial competence than the Picture Arrangement subtest

(Lipsitz, 1992), research results have been contradictory. When compared to the

Marlowe-Crowne Need For Approval scale (Crowne & _Marlowe, 1960), a measure of

social _skills, no significant _relationship was found with scores on the WAIS

Comprehension subtest (Dickstein & MacEvitt, 1971). In support of these_findings,

scores onthe Jackson_{Personality Inventory} indicated a lackof a positive

relationship with WAIS-R Comprehension subtest scores (Nobo & _Evans, 1986).

In the current _{investigation,} the _relationship between social intelligence and

behavioral _functioning in students with _learning disabilities was investigated

utilizing the widely-used WISC-III Comprehension and Picture Arrangement

subtests. _{Specifically,} the analyses of the _{relationship between} the level of social

intelligence and the presence ofbehaviorproblems was investigated. Itwas

hypothesized that the presence of a deficit in social intelligence or perception would

increase the likelihood of parent and teacher-reportedbehavior problems. Research

suggesting a positive _relationship between deficits in social _intelligence and poor

social _adjustment, as well as _{delinquency, (Cowen,Pederson, Babigan, Izzo,} &_Trost,

1973; Merrell, 1994; Strain, Guralnick, & _{Walker, 1986)} supports this hypothesis.

The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children- _{Third Edition (WISC-III)}

Comprehension and Picture Arrangement subtests were chosen as measures of

social perception. Reasons for this include the common practice of _utilizing the

WISC-III in school _settings, and the use ofthe Comprehension and Picture

Arrangement subtests as measures of social intelligence, _perception, and judgment

(Kaufman, 1994; Kaufman, 1979; Reiff &_{Gerber, 1990; Sipps, Berry,}&_Lynch, 1987).

subtest as a measure of social intelligence. Adeficit in social intelligence was

definedas the existence of a significant _discrepancybetween Comprehension and

Picture Arrangement subtestscores (Allison et al. _{1967; Sattler,}1992).

Behavioral _functioning was measured _using the Child Behavior Checklist

and Teacher ReportForm (CBCL & _{TRF, Achenbach,} 1991). This behavior _rating

scale includes a comprehensive checklist ofspecific _behaviors, rated on a three-point

Likert scale,whichis completed_by aparent (CBCL)or teacher (TRF). The Likert

scores are transferred to a graph_depicting a series ofspecificBroad-bandand Narrow-_{band classes ofbehavior. The two Broad-band scales include}

Externalizing

(Aggressive and Delinquent behaviors), and _{Internalizing} (Withdrawn, Somatic

Complaints, and Anxious-Depressed behaviors) factors. Narrow-band behaviors

include Withdrawal, Somatic _Complaints, Anxious-Depressed, Social _Problems,

Thought _Problems, Attentional _Problems, Delinquent _Behavior, andAggressive

Behavior.

The Achenbach scales were chosenfor this_study because oftheir _many

strengths, _including the largeresearchbase available that supportsthe differential

validity ofthe specificscales and the large number ofpublishedjournal articles that provide a more comprehensive interpretation of scores than the CBCL and TRF manuals (Kamphaus & _Frick, 1996). In addition, the scales possesshigh test-retest

reliability over short periods oftime _{(Erickson, 1992),} include supplemental forms (Youth Self-Reportand Direct Observation) for multisource data collection

(Wodrich & _Kush, 1990), possess excellent _{discriminant validity between} clinical and

non-clinical samples (Knoff, _1986), and support cross-cultural _{validity (Degroot,}

METHOD

Subjects

The subjects for this _{study included} 79 individuals with _learning disabilities

referred to a pediatric _{neuropsychology} clinicin the Midwest. The sample included

61 males and 18_{females, ranging}from sixto 16 years of age. The _{learning disability}

classificationwas basedon thepresenceof a significant_discrepancy (1.96xSED;

Anastasi, 1989) between overall cognitive _ability, as measured _by the _WISC-III,and

academic _achievement, asmeasured _by standardized achievement tests. The range

ofWISC-m Full Scale Intelligence Quotients _(FSIQ) was 80 to 120 (M =_99.80,SD=

9.68). The mean for the normative sample is _100, with an associated standard

deviation of 15. Subjects were excluded fromthe _study ifthere was a _historyofbrain

trauma or _any other medical condition which _{may have} interfered with intellectual,

academic, or psychosocial functioning.

Procedure

Referrals to the clinic were made for the purpose of _evaluating individual

cognitive and psychosocial functioning. Cognitive _functioning was assessed with

the WISC-III and other neuropsychological measures, from which Comprehension

and Picture Arrangement subtest scores were obtained. Behavioral _functioning was

evaluated_by the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) andTeacher Report Form _(TRF)

scales, whichincludeeight narrow-band and two broad-band behavior factors.

Standardized achievement scores were obtained from the Woodcock-Johnson Tests

of Achievement-Revised (WJ-R) and Wechsler Individual Achievement Test

(WIAT). Subjects from the database were reviewed forinclusion in the _studybased

upon the significant discrepancy between intellectual and achievement _measures,

identification number to maintain confidentiality.

The data were entered into the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSSX)

program, andincluded _{gender, age,} grade in _{school, WISC-III} results _(including IQ,

factor, and subtestscores),and behavior ratingscores from the CBCL and TRF. Raw

CBCL andTRFscores were used to avoid the flooreffect associated withf-scores.

Differences in social intelligence were determined using Wechsler's (1991)

four-point _discrepancy guideline between Comprehension _(C) and Picture Arrangement

(PA) subtestscores. Subjects weredivided into the _following three groups based

upon Wechsler'sguidelines: _Group1 = C_>PA (n =11 );

Group 2=PA_>C(n =5);

and_Group3=C =_PA (n = _{45 )} (no _4-pointdifference).

RESULTS

Descriptive Statistics

The means and standard deviations ofthe _study measures are presented in

Table 1. The WISC-III results indicate the sample had overall average cognitive

ability based on the national standardization norms. Comprehension and Picture

Arrangement subtest scores also fell within the average range of cognitive _ability

when comparedto same-aged peers (M =_10,SD= 3). Achievement _scores indicate the sample had overall average academic _skills, with the exception of_spelling,

which indicate low average development of these skills. Both overall _(Total) parent (CBCL) and teacher _(TRF) reported mean behavior problems fell within the average

range (CBCLmean t = _49.36; TRF mean t =51.30) _{comparedto same-age peers} (M=50, SD=10). _However, large standard deviations for the _ability and achievement

measures accountfor the_variability and _{discrepancybetween individual} scores

c PA 10.53 9.75 2.96 3.18 Comprehension _Writing 96.36 94.20 17.85 16.03 Table 1

Descriptive Statistics For _Study Measures

Wechsler Intelligence Scales for Children

FSIQ VIQ PIQ

M 99.80 99.65 100.01

SD 9.68 12.79 11.50

Achievement Results

Decoding Spelling Math Calculation

M 91.55 86.50 95.67

SD 17.07 13.71 14.47

Child Behavior Checklist

Total Int Ext Withd Som Anx Soc Thou ADD Del Aggr

3.95 2.30 2.30 7.49 1.72 8.44 3.27 13.89

3.45 3.10 3.10 5.61 2.14 4.48 3.38 9.17

Teacher Report Form

Withd Som Anx Soc Thou ADD Del Aggr

3.82 1.10 6.13 4.16 .92 20.80 2.25 13.18

3.66 1.79 5.57 3.52 1.57 8.24 2.53 9.97

Note._FSIQ =Full Scale_{IQ; VIQ} = Verbal_IQ;PIQ=Performance_IQ;C =

Comprehension; PA = Picture Arrangement; Int = _{Internalizing; Ext} =

Externalizing;

Withd = Withdrawn; Som = Somatic; Anx =

Anxious-Depressed;Soc = Social

Problems; Thou = Thought Problems; ADD = Attention _{Problems; Del} =

Delinquency;Aggr = Aggression. M 49.36 13.18 17.13

SD 27.84 9.33 11.77

Total Int Ext

M 51.30 10.44 15.43

Zero Order Correlations Between WISC-III and CBCL/TRF

The relationships between parent-reported problems _(CBCL), andWISC-III IQ,

C,andPA scores are presentedin Table 2. All ofthe significant correlations

indicated a negative _relationship between cognitive _ability and incidence of reported

behavior problems. This suggests that deficits in cognitive _abilityare _inversely

related to overall behavior problems. _However, thesezero order correlations

should be interpreted with cautionbecause ofthe increased likelihood of a Type I error.

Table 2

Two Tailed Zero Order Correlations for Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children III

and Child Behavior Checklist

WISC Total Int Ext Withd Som Anx Soc Thou ADD Del Aggr

FSIQ -.31 -.15 -.33 -.23 .02 -.15 -.27 -.29 -.27 -.37 -.29

VIQ -.25 -.11 -.28 -.24 .06 -.10 -.14 -.26 -.23 -.33 -.25

PIQ -.17 -.09 -.16 -.05 -.08 -.10 -.25 -.14 -.16 -.17 -.14

C -.12 -.02 .14 -.14 .10 -.02 -.05 -.21 -.09 -.19 -.12

PA -.01 -.04 .03 -.10 -.11 .05 -.10 -.09 .04 .01 .04

Note. FSIQ = Full ScaleIQ;VIQ =VerbalIQ; PIQ=PerformanceIQ;C=

Comprehension; PA = Picture _{Arrangement; Int} = _{Internalizing; Ext} = _{Externalizing;}

Withd = Withdrawn;Som = _Somatic; Anx = _{Anxious-Depressed; Soc} = Social

Problems; Thou = Thought Problems; ADD = Attention

Problems; Del =

Delinquency; Aggr = Aggression; Absolute Value Correlation Coefficients _> .29

significantat_{p <.01;} Absolute Value CorrelationCoefficients > .22 but < .28

The relationships between teacher-reported behavior problems (TRF), and

WISC-III_IQ,C,andPA-IIIIQ, C,andPA are presentedin Table 3. Similar to the

results in Table _2, all _{significantly} related scores indicatea negative correlation.

However, one cannot determine the cause and effect _relationship between these two

variables _using these statistics.

Table 3

Two Tailed Zero Order Correlations for Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children III

and Teacher Report Form

WISC Total Int Ext Withd Som Anx Soc Thou ADD Del Aggr

FSIQ -.36 -.18 -.32 .13 -.24 -.06 -.30 -.11 -.34 -.29 -.31

VIQ -.40 -.27 -.30 .24 -.29 -.15 -.26 -.21 -.34 -.31 -.28

PIQ -.08 .06 -.16 .10 -.00 .09 -.16 .09 -.12 -.08 -.18

C -.29 -.15 -.16 -.18 -.14 -.07 -.14 -.31 -.28 -.11 -.17

PA .10 .20 -.05 .28 .11 .16 .12 .09 .13 .00 -.06

Note. FSIQ = FullScaleIQ;VIQ = VerbalIQ;PIQ=PerformanceIQ; C=

Comprehension; PA = Picture _Arrangement; Int = _{Internalizing;Ext} = _{Externalizing;}

Withd = _Withdrawn;Som = _Somatic; Anx = _{Anxious-Depressed;} Soc = Social

Problems; Thou = Thought _Problems; ADD = Attention _{Problems; Del} =

Delinquency; Aggr = Aggression; Absolute Value Correlation Coefficients _>

.30

significant at_{p <.01;} Absolute Value CorrelationCoefficients> .22 but < .29

significant at_p < .05.

Comparison _of CBCL Scores _{By Group}

The comparison oftheCBCL scoresfor the three groups _(GroupC>PA;

Group

PA>_C;and_GroupC=PA) is _shown in Table 4. Multivariate

analysis of variance results revealed non-significant relationships between the level of social intelligence _(Group) and incidence of parent-reported behavior problems

(CBCL). _{Therefore,only} the descriptive information for theCBCL will be reported.

Table 4

Child Behavior Checklist _{by Group}

Child Behavior Checklist

Total Int Ext Withd Som Anx Soc Thou ADD Del Aggr

C>PA

M 43.33 13.39 14.11 3.78 3.00 7.12 3.56 1.72 7.61 2.78 11.33

SD 31.49 12.13 11.87 3.92 4.04 6.47 3.75 2.02 5.12 3.30 9.20

PA>C

M 45.33 10.67 15.78 3.78 1.00 6.56 4.11 2.56 7.22 3.33 12.44

SD 25.28 9.31 11.51 3.96 .70 6.33 2.32 2.13 3.83 3.60 9.15

C=_PA

M 52.20 13.55 18.43 4.04 2.28 7.77 4.02 1.57 8.96 3.43 15.04

SD 27.03 8.29 11.79 3.26 2.93 5.25 2.92 2.18 4.40 3.42 9.12

Note. C = Comprehension; PA = _{PictureArrangement; Int} = _{Internalizing;}Ext = Externalizing; Withd = _Withdrawn; Som = Somatic; Anx = _{Anxious-Depressed;} Soc

= Social _Problems; Thou = Thought_Problems; ADD= Attention

problems; Del =

Delinquency; Aggr = _Aggression; No _{univariate or multivariate tests were}

significant for Child Behavior Checklist

ANOVA for TRF Total Score

Analysis of variancefor the TRF Total score is presentedin Table5. The

study. Thesesuggest differences betweenthe groups _exist,but further posthoc

analyses were _necessaryto interpret these statistics.

Table 5

Analysis of Variance for Teacher Report Form Total Score

SV _df SS MS F _p

403

1)23

Group 2 4743.33 2371.67

Error 58 34103.35 587.99

Total 60 38846.69

Note. SV= Source _ofVariance

Repeated Measures MANOVA for TRF _{Internalizing} and _{Externalizing} Scales

The repeated measures MANOVA results for the TRF _{Internalizing} and

Externalizing scales are shown in Table 6. A multivariate approach to the data was

used because of the violation of_homogeneity and _sphericity assumptions. The

between-subjects analyses revealed a significant main effect for_{Group; however,} no

significant differencewas found between the _{Internalizing} and _{Externalizing} scales

of the TRF. Within-subjects effects indicated a _{Group by} Repeat_interaction,

suggesting significant differences were not uniform between the _{Internalizing} and

Externalizing scales ofthe TRF.

Averaged Repeated Measures MANOVA for the TRF Subscales

The averaged repeated measures MANOVAresults for the TRF subscales is

presented in Table 7. Significantmain effects between andwithin the groups

problem subscales.

Table 6

Repeated Measures MANOVA For Teacher Report Form _{Internalizing} and

Externalizing Scales

SV _df SS MS F _V

Between Subjects

Group 2 791.04 395.52 3.10 .050

Error 58 7395.44 127.51

Within Subjects

Repeat 1 2.09 2.09 .03 .869

Group x Repeat 2 582.71 291.35 3.85 .027

Error 58 4386.79 75.63

Note. SV= Source _ofVariance

Post-Hoc Analyses for TRF Results

Post-hocanalyses ofTRF subscales, _usingTukey's _Honestly Significant

Difference procedure,presented in Table_8, revealed a series ofsignificant

relationships between the three groups. _Group PA> Cexhibited a greaterincidence

of _{Internalizing, Withdrawn,} Social,and Thought Problems than _Group C > PA.

Additionally,_Group PA> C also exhibited a higherrateofWithdrawn and Thought

Problems than _Group C =_{PA, the} control group. _However, results indicated that

GroupC =PA _{showed a} higherrate ofTotalreported behavior problems than _Group

C>_PA, and greater incidence of_DelinquencyBehavior thanboth Groups C > PA and

Table 7

Average Repeated Measures MANOVA For Teacher Report Form Subscales

SV _df SS MS F _V

Between Subjects

Group 2 651.25 325.63 4.31 .018

Error 58 4381.04 75.54

Within Subjects

Repeat 7 8352.54 1193.22 56.68 .000

GroupxRepeat 14 587.04 41.93 1.99 .017

Error 406 8547.58 21.05

Note. SV= _{Source ofVariance}

DISCUSSION

Social intelligencehas _long been a subjectof_studyin psychology.

Measurement of this construct has been a challenge to researchers and results have

varied across studies. Having undergone _scrutinyfor such a _long period of _time, the

definition and measurement of social intelligence has been _tremendously refined.

Definitions of social intelligence have evolved from_{being broad,} such as the _ability

to recognize and _identify the significance of the behavior of others (Johnson &

Myklebust, 1976) to _veryspecific and _measurable, such as the presence of a positive

relationship between social skills and social adjustment (Cowen, et al. 1973; Strain,

et al. 1986).

This _study investigated the _relationship between social intelligence and

Table 8

Post Hoc Analyses for Teacher Report Form Results

Group Group Group

C>PA PA>C C=PA

Total Score

M 33.09 62.60 54.49a

SD 18.73 24.10 25.35

Internalizing

M 6.36 19.80a 10.40

SD 6.12 17.18 7.52

Externalizing

M 8.82 11.40 17.49

SD 6.21 5.51 12.82

Withdrawn

M 2.27 8.60a'c

3.67

SD 4.03 7.02 2.62

Somatic

M .46 2.20 1.13

SD .93 2.49 1.83

Anxious-Depressed

M 3.55 9.80 6.36

SD 3.05 9.47 5.37

Table 8 Continued

Group Group Group

C>PA PA>C C=PA

Social Problems

M 1.82 7.20a

4.40

SD 2.40 5.76 3.17

Thought Problems

M .64

3.00a'c

.76

SD 1.03 2.55 1.42

Attention Problems

M 15.64 23.60 21.04

SD 8.32 4.62 8.22

Delinquency

M .91 .80

273a,b

SD .94 .84 2.75

Aggression

M 7.91 10.60 14.76

SD 6.06 5.32 10.69

Note. a=

significantly> GroupC>PA;

b

=

significantly> _GroupPA>_C;c=

significantly >Group C=PA.

students is especially atrisk for academicand social deficits due toimpaired

measured _by the WISC-III Comprehension _(C) and Picture Arrangement (PA) subtests. Behavioral _functioningwas assessed _by the Child BehaviorChecklist (CBCL),completed _{bythe parent,} andTeacher Report Form (TRF). Hypotheses

pertaining to the C andPA subtests as measures of social _{intelligence,} perception,

and judgment are numerous _{(Allison, Blatt,} & _{Zimmer, 1988;}Glasser &

Zimmerman, 1967; Kaufman, 1994; Kaufman, 1979; Kellerman & Burry, 1997; Reiff &_{Gerber,1990; Sattler, 1992; Sipps,Berry,}&_Lynch, 1987). Itwas hypothesizedthat deficitsin social _{intelligence,} basedupon a significant four-point_discrepancy (Wechsler, 1991)between CandPA subtests _scores, would resultin differences in

teacher _(TRF) and parent (CBCL) reportedbehavior problems. Relationship Between Groups and CBCL

In regards to the firstproposedhypothesis,the CBCLresults were

inconclusive. No _{group differences} on _any CBCL Broad orNarrow-band scores were

found. This suggests that deficits in social intelligence were not related to _clinically

significant parent-reportedbehavior problems for the subject groups. A possible

reason for these results _{may be} the alteration of the Picture Arrangementsubtest in

the WISC-HI from the WISC-R andWAIS-R _(Kaufman, 1994). Wechsler (1991)

eliminated ormodified a number of the emotionally-laden items on the subtest for

the WISC-HI. For example, items such as "fight" and "burglar" were eliminated

from the subtest. These items could provide _clinically significant information on

children's interpretation of social situations. In _{addition, the} drawings were _altered,

such as the "smoke" item. On the WISC-R "smoke"

item the _boy is the source of the

problem, yet on the WISC-III he becomes the hero. Another example of the alteration of the pictures includes the "bench" item. On the WISC-R the men

may affect _{interpretation,} and parent-reported behavior problems of the subject

groups _maybe influenced. Future research could examine this hypothesis _{by using}

the WISC-Rinstead of the WISC-III PA subtest. Because the WISC-R PA subtest

includes more emotionally-laden items different interpretations _may result, with

the PA < _{C group demonstrating} more problematicbehavior than was found in this

study.

TRF _{Internalizing} Scale

Despite the negativefindings for the first_hypothesis, posthoc findings the

TRF are worth noting. PA > C subjectsdisplayed greater TRF_{Internalizing} behavior

problemsthan C > PA subjects. These results suggest that children with _learning

disabilities who exhibit deficits in verbal _{problem-solving} abilities _(using C as a

measure of verbal _{problem-solving} ability) _maybe at a greater riskfor internalized

psychosocial disturbance than children who exhibit deficits in nonverbal

problem-solving abilities _(using PA as a measure of nonverbal _{problem-solving} ability).

These children _may exhibit internalized behaviors such as _{depression, anxiety,}

withdrawal, and somatic complaints. This is in contrast to the evidence _suggesting

that children with nonverbal _learning disabilities may be at greater riskfor

psychopathology than children with verbal _{learning disabilities} (Rourke et al. 1990).

In addition, the findings ofthis _{study indicating}the presence of _{significantly} more

internalizing behavior problems (PA> _C) support previous research_suggesting the

validity of the Comprehension subtest as a possible measure of social intelligence

(Brannigan, 1975; Krippner, 1964; Lipsitz, Dworkin, &_{Erlenmeyer-Kimling, 1993;}

Lipsitz, 1992), and the likelihood ofindividuals with higher PA than C scores

TRF Thought Problems , Social & Withdrawn Behavior Scales

The higher teacher-reported Thought Problems for PA>C as comparedto

both _Group PA>C andC> PAwarrants attention. The descriptive results of the

Thought Problems scale indicated agreat amount of_{variability for} this _group which

suggests that some children exhibited a much higher rate of pathology, while others

did not. Possible hypotheses to explain this _{variability may} include _that, although

low verbal _skills, as measured _{by C,} can result in more _{Internalizing}behaviors

(Brannigan, 1975; Krippner, 1964;Lipsitzetal. _{1993; Lipsitz, 1992),}thepresence of

thought _{disorders may} also resultin similar problems.

The Comprehension and Picture Arragnement subtest requires both

crystallized (experience and education) and fluid (novel problem-solving) abilities

(Hale, 1994). Some children with_learning disabilities_{may display}low C scores

because of crystallized _deficits, whereas others_maynotperform wellbecause of of

fluid deficits. It isthe latter _group which _probablyrepresentsthose who were rated

higher on thought disorders. Children _may exhibit these disorders_{by experiencing}

visual or _{auditory hallucinations, engaging} in self-abusive _{behavior,expressing fear} in novel _{situations, engaging} in repetitive _behavior, or_expressingstrange ideasor

behaviors. This symptomology, in combination with fluid processing _deficits, makes

it difficultfor these children to discernambiguous social situations _and, as a_result,

they may struggle in such situations. _However,as is the casewith the _Personality

Inventory for Children Intellectual Screening scale _{(Wirt, Lacher, Klinedinst,} & _Seat,

1984), the Thought Problems scale could reflect poor academic _abilityor

performance. Further research is needed to determine the the role of_fluid and

crystallized abilities on low Comprehension scores in conjunction with _thought

The greaterrate ofwithdrawn and socialbehavior on _Group PA>CthanC>

PAreported _byteachers _maybe related to thoughtdisorders. For example,

withdrawn individuals in this particular _{group (low} verbal abilities) _may feel

uncomfortable with verbal comprehension and _expression, and instead _rely on their

nonverbal skills to decipher social situations. As a _{result, withdrawing} from social

interaction may occur. Relatedto this withdrawal_{may be} an increase in social

problems, such as _loneliness, feelings of_{worthlessness, being teased,} and immature

behavior As a _{result, the individual,} wouldbe _likely to have _{difficulty using}

appropriate social skills _during interpersonal interactions _(McFall, 1982).

TRF Total & _Delinquency Problems Scales

A somewhat _{interesting finding} ofthis _study involves the _{significantly} fewer

Totaland _DelinquencyTRFbehavior problems exhibited_byboth_GroupC > PA and

Group PA>Cas comparedto_GroupC=_{PA, the control subjects.} These findings

suggest that the abilities measured _by theComprehension and Picture Arrangement

subtests, when _equally developed, _{may be necessary}for _{developing externalizing}

behaviors, such as _delinquency or antisocial behavior. Individuals who exhibit

socialized _{delinquencymay} possess _{equally developed} verbal andnonverbal

problem-solving skills, such as the subjectsin_Group C = PA. In addition, these

individuals _may exhibitbehaviors such as _{lying, cheating, stealing, swearing,}

truancy, and _socializing with similar peers. Such _individuals often socialize with

peers who exhibit delinquentbehaviors, yet remainloyal to their _{group despite}

engaging in negative behavior. A _strongexample of such a _{group is} a_{gang (i.e.,}

street gangs). Due to their repeated school failures and resultantlow self-esteem and

efficacy, _theymay seek outnegative peer groups and engage in antisocial activities to

Basedupon theresults of_{this study,} recommendations for practice in the

school _setting are presented here. Practitioners shouldbe aware thatlow

Comprehension subtest scores in children with _learning disabilities _may reflect a

need for a thorough evaluation ofpsychosocial _functioning, although results

should be interpretedwith caution. LowC scores onthe WISC-III are result of

several _{factors, including understanding} of cause and effect _{relationships,}

common-sense, social _judgment, and verbal _reasoning and concept formation _(Kaufman,

1994). _{In addition,} factors such as the development of crystallized andfluid

problem-solving abilities affect performance on the Comprehension subtest (Hale,

1994), as well asbehavior in social situations.

The most effective method of _assessing social _{intelligence, competence,} or

skills includes a multimodal approach _using several _sources, such as _parents,

teachers, and other individuals involved with the child's _daily academic and social

functioning (Sattler, 1992). In addition, the use of valid and reliable measures of

psychosocial _functioning and systematic observation techniques will further assist

in the proper diagnosis and treatment of the_presenting problems. This process

enables the clinician to _develop a comprehensive _{understanding} of the student's

psychological _functioning and make sound treatment recommendations based on a

REFERENCES

Achenbach, T.M. (1991).Manual for the CBCL/TRF 4-18 and 1991 Profile.

Burlington: _University of _Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.

Achenbach, T. M. (1991).Manual for the Teacher's Report Form.

Burlington: _University of _Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.

Allison, J., Blatt, S., &_Zimet, C. N. (1988). The interpretation _of psychological

tests. Washington: Hemisphere _Publishing Corp.

Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological _testing (6th edition).New York: Macmillan.

Anderson, S., &_Messick, S. (1974). Socialcompetence in _young children.

Developmental _Psychology, 10,282-293.

Bornstein,M. _{R., Bellack,} A. _S., &_Herson, M. (1977). Social skills _training for

unassertive children: A multiple-baseline analysis. Journal _of Applied

Behavior _{Analysis, 10,} 183-195.

Brannigan, G. G. ₍₁₉₇₅₎Wechsler Picture Arrangement and Comprehension

scores as measures of social maturity. Journal _{of Psychology, 89,}133-135.

Bryan, T. H. (1977). _Learning disabled children's comprehension of nonverbal

communication. Journal _{of Learning Disabilities, 10,}501-506.

Bursuck, W., &_Asher, S. R. (1986). The _relationship between social

competence and achievement in _elementary school children. Journal _of Clinical

Child _Psychology, 15,41-49.

Cavale, T. A. (1990). Social _adjustment, social performance and social skills: A

tri-component model of social compenence. Journal _of Clinical Child

Psychology,19,111-122.

Creasey, G. _L.,&_Jarvis, E A. (1987). _Sensitivity to nonverbal communication

DeGroot, A., Koot,H. _M.,&_Verhulst, F. C. (1994). Cross-cultural

generalizability of the CBCLcross-informantsyndromes. Psychological Assessment,

6,225-230.

Demaray, M. _{K., Ruffalo,} S. _{L.,Carlson,J., Busse,} R._{T, Olson,} A. _{E., McManus,}

S. _M., & _Leventhal, A. (1995). Social skills assessment: A comprehensive evaluation

of six published_ratingscales. School _{Psychology Review,24,}648-671.

Dickstein, L. _S., & MacEvitt, M. (1971). Comprehension subtest of theWAIS

and need for approval. Psychological _{Reports, 28,}482.

Dishion, T. J. (1990). The _{family ecology} ofboys' peer relationsin middle

childhood. Child _Development, 61,874-892.

Emerson, E.,Crowley, S., & _Merrell, K. (1994). Convergent_validity of the

School Social Behavior Scales with the Child Behavior Checklist and Teacher

Report Form. Journal _of Psychoeducational Assessment, 12,372-380.

Erickson, M. T. (1992).Behavior disorders _of children and adolescents:

Assessment, etiology, and intervention. EnglewoodCliffs,New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Fombonne, E. (1992). Parentreports on behavior and competencies _among

6-11-year-old French children. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 1,

233-243.

Glasser, A._J., &_Zimmerman, I. L. (1967). Clinical interpretation _of the

Wechsler Intelligence Test for Children (WISC).New York: Grune & Stratton.

Green, K. _{D., Forehand, R., Beck,} S. _J., & Vosk,B. (1980). An assessment ofthe

relationships _among measures of children's social competence and children's

academic achievement. Child Development, 51,1149-1156.

Gresham, F. A. (1983a). Social_validity in the assessment of children's social

Griffen, M. (1968). The role of_psychiatryin_learning disabilities. In H. R.

Myklebust(Ed.)Progress in _learning disabilities (pp. 75-97).NewYork: Grune &

Stratton.

Guild, G. (1997). The State Event Behavior ObservationForm (SEBOF).

Unpublished scale.

Hale,J. B. (1994). The _relationship between latentfactors of the WISC-R and

behavioral _functioning as measured _by the Child Behavior Checklist

(Doctoral _{dissertation,} Loyola _University,1993). Dissertation Abstracts

International, 55, 1693B.

Hintze, J. _M., &_Shapiro, E. S. (1995). Systematicobservation of classroom

behavior. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes _(Eds.), Best practices in school _psychology (3rd

ed., 651-660). Washington: NASP.

Hops,H. (1983). Children's social competence andskill. Behavior Therapy,

14,3-18.

Jackson,S. _{C, Enright,} R. _D.,&_Murdock,J. Y. (1987). Social perception

problems in _learning disabled youth: Developmental _lag or perceptual deficit?

Journal _{of Learning Disabilities,} 20,361-364.

Johnson, D. J.,&Mykelbust,H. R. (1967)._Learning disabilities: Education

principles and practices.NewYork: Grune & Stratton.

Kamphaus, R. _W.,& _Frick,P. J.(1996). Clinical assessment _of child and

adolescent _personality and behavior. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Kavale, K. _A., & _Forness, S. R. (1996). Social skill deficits and _learning

disabilities: A meta-analysis.Journal _{of Learning} Disabilities, 29,226-237.

Kellerman, H., & _Burry,A. (1997). Handbook _of psychodiagnostic testing:

Knoff,H. _(Ed.) (1986). The assessment _of child and adolescent personality.

New York: Guilford Press.

Krippner, S. (1964). WISC Comprehension and Picture Arrangement subtests

as measures of social competence. Journal _of Clinical _{Psychology, 20,}266-367.

Lai,Z. _C,&_Shapiro,E. S. (1990). Deficits in social skills and affect _procesing

in _learning disabled children. Presented at International Neuropsychological

Societymeeting, _February 1990,OrlandoFL.

Lerner,J. W. (1976). Children with _learning disabilities. Boston: Houghton

Mifflin.

McFall, R. M. (1982). Areview and reformulation of the concept of social

skills. Behavioral _{Assessment, 4,} 1-33.

Merrell, K. W.(1994).Assessment _{of behavioral, social,} and emotional

problems.New York: Longman.

Merrell, K. _W,Cedeno, C. _J., &_Johnson,E. R. (1993). The _relationship

between social behavior and self-conceptinschool settings. _Psychology in the

Schools, 30,293-298.

Lipsitz,J. (1992).Wechsler subscales and social adjustment in childhood and

adolescence. Dissertation Abstracts International, 53 _(6-8),3158-3159.

Nicol, A. R. (Ed.) (1985).Longitudinal studies in child _psychology and

psychiatry: Practical lessons from research experience. NewYork: John _Wiley &

Sons.

O'Neill,R. _{E., Ramsey, E., Shinn,} M. _{R., Todis, B.,Walker,} H._M., &_Spira,D.

(1985) The target peer interaction code. Available from The Center on Human

Development, Clinical Services _{Building, University} of_Oregon, Eugene ,

Ramos, M. _C, &_Die, A. H. (1986). The WAIS-RPicture Arrangement subtest:

What do scores indicate? Journal of General _{Psychology, 113,}251-261.

Reiff, H. _B., & _Gerber,P. J. (1990). Cognitive correlates of social perceptionin

students with _learning disabilities. Journal of _{Learning Disabilities, 23,}230-262.

Rosenthal, R., Hall,J., DiMatteo, M., Rogers, P., & Archer,D. (1979).

Sensitivity to nonverbal communication: The PONS test. Baltimore: The Johns

Hopkins _University Press.

Saudargas,R. _A., &Lentz_Jr.,F. E. (1986). _Estimating percentoftime and ratvia

observation: A suggested observational procedure and format. _{SchoolPsychology}

Review,15,36-48.

Shinn, M. _{R., Ramsey, E., Walker,}H. _{M.,Steiber, S.,}&_O'Neill, R. E. (1987)

Antisocial behavior in school settings: Initial differences in an at-risk and normal

population. Journal _{of Special Education,} 21,69-84.

Slate,J. _R., & Saudargas, R. A. (1986a). Differences in the classroom behaviors

of behavior disorderedand regular class children. Behavioral _{Disorders, 11,}

45-53.

Slate,J. _R.,& Saudargas, R. A. (1986b). Differences in_learning disabledand

average

students'

classroom behaviors. _Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 9,61-67.

Simon, J. _M., & _Evans,J. R. (1980). WISC-R Picture Arrangementand peer

acceptance/rejection. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 51,588.

Stone, W. _C, & LeGreca,A. M. (1984). Comprehension of nonverbal

communication: A re-examination of the social competencies of _learning disabled

Strain, P. _{S., Cowen,} E._{L.,Pederson, A.,Babigan, H., Izzo,}L. _D.,&Trost,M. A.

(1973). Long-term_follow-up of_{early detected} vulnerable children. Journal _of

Consulting and Clinical _Psychology, 41,438-446.

Strain, P. _{S., Guralnick,} M._J., &_Walker,H.M._(Eds.)(1986). Children's social

behavior: _{Development, assessment,} and modification. Orlando: Academic

Press.

Tur-Kaspa,H., &_Bryan, T. (1995). Teacher's ratings of the social competence

and school adjustment of students with _learning disabilities in _elementary and

junior high school. Journal _{of Learning Disabilities, 28,}44-52.

Vance, H. _{B., Fuller,} G. _B.,& _Ellis,R. (1983). Discriminant function analysis of

LD/BD children scores on the WISC-R. Journal _of CLinical _{Psychology, 39,} 749-_753.

Vaughn, S., & _Haager,D. (1991). Social competence as a multifaceted construct:

How do students with _learning disabilities fare? _Learning Disabilities Quarterly,

17,253-266.

Vaughn, S.,Hogan, A.,Lancelotta, G., Shapiro, S.,& _Walker,J. (1992).

Subgroups of children with severe and mild behavior problems: Social competence

and _reading achievement. Journal _of Clinical Child Psychology, 21,98-106.

Wentzel, K. (1991). Relations between social competence and academic

achievement in _early adolescence. Child _{Development, 62,}1066-1078.

Wickers,F. _C,&O'Sheel,M. R. (1983). Behavioral problems and differential

WISC-R characteristics _{of learning} disabled children. (ERIC Document

Reproduction No. ED 249 720).

Wirt, R. _D.,Lachar,D., Klinedinst,J. K,&_Seat,P. D.(1984). Multidimensional

description _of child personality: A manual for the _{Personality Inventory} for

Wodrich,D. _L.,&_Kush, S. A. (1990). Children's psychological testing: A guide

for nonpsychologists (2nd edition). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

Zigler, E.,&_Trickett,P. K. (1978). _IQ,social _competence, and evaluationof