| Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools. |
DOI: 10.1177/002221949502800403 Parent, Teacher, Peer, and Self-Reports of the Social Competence of Students with Learning DisabilitiesDiane Haager received her PhD from the University of Miami. She is an assistant professor in the Division of Special Education at California State University, Los Angeles, where she co-directs the teacher education program in mild to moderate disabilities. Dr. Haager's primary research interests are the social competence of students with learning and behavior disorders, as well as the classroom conditions that facilitate their learning.
Catherine Watson works in the Reading Clinic, Toronto Board of Education. This article is based on her doctoral research.
Dale M. Willows is a professor in the departments of applied psychology and curriculum at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. She is involved in both research and practical work in the area of written language (reading, spelling, and writing). Address: Dale M. Willows, OISE, University of Toronto, 252 Bloor St. W, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1V6. The social competence of students with learning disabilities (LD), low achievement (LA), and average to high achievement (AHA) was examined from the perspectives of parents, teachers, peers, and self, guided by a theoretical model of social competence (Vaughn & Hogan, 1990) that includes social skills, behavior problems, peer relations, and self-perceptions. Parent ratings of social skills did not differ significantly among achievement groups; however, for two factors of behavior problems (internalizing and hyperactivity), students with LD and LA were rated as having more problems than AHA students. Teachers perceived students with LD and LA as demonstrating poorer social skills and more behavior problems than AHA students. Peer ratings indicated that students with LD and LA were less liked by peers than were AHA students, yet only LA students received significantly higher peer rejection. Self-reports differentiated the groups on one factor: cooperation. Discussion focuses on the complexity of social competence as a construct, and explanations of the results are offered.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||


