1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Review of the Literature
Research has long identified the significant role that social competence and the
social interactions of children play in social adjustment. As children enter increasingly
socially enriched environments, there is a remarkable difference in the extent to which
children are liked by their peers. Some children are well-liked and maintain many
friendships, while others are almost universally disliked and have few or no friends
(Parker & Asher, 1987). This implication is important, because children who are actively
disliked by their peers are consistently found to be at risk for later life difficulties. These
include poor academic achievement (Newcomb, Bukowski, & Pattee, 1993; Ollendick,
Greene, Weist, & Oswald 1990; Wentzel & Asher, 1995), school dropout (Kochenderfer
& Ladd, 1996; Ollendick et al., 1990), aggressive behavior (Coie, Dodge, & Kupersmidt,
1990; Coie, Dodge, & Coppotelli, 1982; Dodge et al., 2003; Newcomb et al., 1993),
social isolation (Asher, Hymel, & Renshaw, 1984; Asher & Wheeler, 1985; Mayeux,
Bellmore, & Cillessen, 2007), and adult criminality (Mayeux et al., 2007; Ollendick et
al., 1990) and psychopathology (French & Wass, 1985; Newcomb et al., 1993).
Sociometric ratings and nominations have validity evidence supporting their use
in identifying this group of at-risk children. Typically, sociometric strategies employ the
use of peer ratings or nominations in identifying students who are socially rejected,
neglected, popular, controversial, and average. Despite the accuracy and usefulness of
this strategy, many districts and administrators hesitate to allow children to make
2
sociometric classifications, especially when negative nominations are involved.
Therefore, it is important to utilize another method of identifying socially at-risk children.
While research has indicated the reliability and accuracy of teachers in identifying
this group of students, very few studies have measured the relationship of teacher
sociometric nominations to rejected status characteristics. The purpose of this study is to
evaluate the relationship between teacher sociometric nominations and characteristics
that are typically of sociometrically rejected children. If successful, teacher sociometric
nominations that result in the classification of socially rejected children will relate to poor
academic achievement, increased absences and tardiness, increased office referrals for
undesirable behavior, and the presence of social and/or behavioral goals on the student‟s
Individualized Education Plan (IEP). If these relationships exist, it will provide evidence
supporting the validity of teacher sociometric nominations as an effective screening tool
for identifying children, so that early interventions services can reduce the incidence of
social, academic, and/or behavioral problems.
Sociometrics
Bronfenbrenner (1943) defined sociometry as, “…a method for discovering,
describing, and evaluating social status, structure, and development through measuring
the extent of acceptance or rejection between individuals in a group” (p. 364). The
sociometric test can tentatively be traced to J.L. Moreno as a measurement of social
structure. The test provided an analysis of an individual‟s place within a social group and
of group organization, specifically patterns of social attraction and repulsion
(Bronfenbrenner). Within the context of mutual activities (i.e. school), the test was
designed to expose information about individuals and their group interactions. Put
3
another way, it was formulated to measure individual acceptance in a group context.
Moreno‟s sociometric test involved asking individuals to identify those to who they were
connected or those to who they wished to be connected to. Moreno‟s research was based
on the assumption that there was conflict in groups, and by identifying individuals that
wished to be connected, this conflict could be reduced (Cadwallader, 2000).
Other researchers expanded on early sociometric procedures through the addition
of another dimension of measurement. Whereas early researchers elicited only positive
nominations which indicated social acceptance, later studies solicited both positive and
negative nominations. The use of negative nominations allowed researchers to distinguish
between children who were disliked and children who were ignored by their peers
(Gronlund & Anderson, 1957; Lemann & Solomon, 1952; Peery, 1979; Thompson &
Powell, 1951). Specifically, Gronlund and Anderson were the first to identify rejected
children as those who were actively disliked by their peers, which serves as the current
definition of sociometric rejection. The present-day sociometric test identifies five groups
of children. Cadwallader (2000) identified these classifications as popular (children who
are well liked and not disliked), neglected (children who are not nominated),
controversial (children who are well liked by some and strongly disliked by others),
average (children who are generally liked and rarely disliked), and rejected (children who
are disliked). Currently two methods of peer sociometric status identification are utilized.
The peer nomination method requires children to nominate both liked and disliked peers
and the peer rating method requires children to rate their degree of liking for each peer
(Jiang & Cillessen, 2005). Regardless of the method, sociometric scores indicate a child‟s
social status among peers and his or her social competence.
4
Rejected Status
Children begin forming relationships which contribute to their social development
at an early age. One type of social relationship is vertical, typically involving the child
and the caretaker and characterized by protection and security. Horizontal social
relationships are formed later in life with individuals similar to themselves (Hartup,
1989). While the latter may not be necessary for development, peer rejection is
consistently found to be a risk factor for problems later in life. In addition, research
consistently indicates that peer rejection is stable over time, especially when compared to
other status classifications (Mayeux et al., 2007). For example, DeRosier, Kupersmidt,
and Patterson (1994) found that over time chronic rejection was associated with both
increased externalizing behaviors such as acting out and aggression, as well as
internalizing behaviors such as shy-anxious behavior. Mayeux et al. also support the
stability of chronic peer rejection. Their study found that upwards of 60% of children
identified as rejected at the beginning of the school year were also classified as rejected at
the end of the school year. Therefore, it stands to reason that rejected children are more at
risk for academic, behavioral, and maladjustment problems and their status tends to
remain unchanged without intervention.
Academic performance. There is significant reason to expect a relationship
between sociometric status and academic achievement. Whether a child is accepted or
rejected may determine the level of desire the child has to excel academically and to
participate in academic activities. For example, children who exhibit characteristics such
as independence, maturity, and self-confidence are more likely to be accepted by their
peers than those who do not. Children exhibiting those same self-regulatory skills
5
typically demonstrate impulse control in the classroom and master subject matter
independently, thereby displaying higher levels of academic achievement (Coie et al.,
1990; Wentzel, 1991). In general, studies indicate that rejected children exhibit
significantly lower cognitive abilities than children in any of the other four sociometric
groups (Newcomb et al., 1993). A 1995 study found that aggressive-rejected children
(children who are actively disliked by their peers and who are highly aggressive) were
less independent learners, less interested in schoolwork, and more disruptive in the
classroom (Wentzel & Asher). Other research indicated that aggressive-rejected children
were four times as likely to fail a grade (Ollendick et al., 1990). One reason for the lack
of academic achievement in socially rejected children may be related to lower levels of
prosocialness exhibited in this status group. Caprara, Barbaranelli, Pastorelli, Bandura,
and Zimbardo (2000) found that prosocial children exhibiting characteristics such as
cooperativeness, helpfulness, sharing, and empathy were more socially preferred and
performed better academically than their peers lower in prosocial behavior. This
conclusion built upon previous research which indicated that intellectual development
was influenced by social relationships. Specifically, prosocial peers made connections to
one another through academic and social activities (Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, &
Pastorelli, 1996). In addition, prosocial children were more likely to elicit academic
guidance from adults and classmates, thereby fostering their own cognitive development
(Bandura, 1997; Newman, 1991). Therefore, children lacking positive relational skills
appear to be at risk for poor academic achievement.
Aggression. Research also supports the relationship between sociometrically
rejected youth and aggressive behavior. In general, rejected children have been identified
6
as more aggressive, disruptive, and more likely to violate rules than their non-rejected
peers (Coie et al., 1990). More specifically, Newcomb et al. (1993) indicated that rejected
children demonstrated higher levels of disruptive aggression such as hyperactivity,
delinquency, physically inappropriate behavior, and physical aggression such as pushing,
fighting, mock fighting, and wrestling. Additionally, negative aggression such as
unhappy/hostile perceptions and verbal threats was demonstrated. In another study, Coie
et al. (1982) found that sociometrically rejected children displayed more disruptive
behavior in the classroom, participated in more fighting behaviors, and were less likely to
play cooperatively with peers. Social rejection has also been linked to explicit forms of
relational aggression, typically in response to stress or provocation and proactive or
unprovoked aggression. Dodge et al. (2003) found early peer rejection to be a strong
predictor of relational aggression and a weak predictor of proactive aggression, as well as
a predictor of chronic aggressive patterns later in life.
Social isolation. Research indicates that sociometrically rejected or unpopular
children report significantly more feelings of loneliness than their popular peers.
However, correlations between sociometric ratings and loneliness scores are relatively
low which may indicate that certain subgroups of rejected children are lonely, whereas
other rejected children are not (Asher et al., 1984). Differences in perceptions of
loneliness may also be a result of the distinction of the two groups of unpopular children:
rejected and neglected. Asher and Wheeler (1985) found that rejected children reported
significantly more feelings of loneliness than all other status groups. In addition, their
study reported that 23% of rejected children reported extreme feelings of either loneliness
7
or social dissatisfaction. Chronically rejected children are also consistently reported as
less socially competent, sociable, and more socially isolated (Mayeux et al. 2007).
School dropout rates. Although there are many factors which contribute to school
dropout rates in the United States, research indicates that peer rejection plays a significant
role. Beginning in early childhood, peer rejection has been associated with school
avoidance (Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996). For example, Ollendick et al. (1990) indicated
an increase in school absences over time for sociometrically rejected children. This study
also demonstrated a higher rate of school dropout for peer rejected youth than for the
other status groups.
Adolescent/adult psychopathology. Many characteristics of sociometrically
rejected children certainly represent potential antecedents for adolescent and adult
psychopathology (Newcomb et al., 1993). However, whether peer rejection creates
negative behaviors or negative behaviors lead to peer rejection remains to be seen. In
1990, Coie suggested that negative peer group interactions, which create the experience
of loneliness and anxiety and an aggressive and deviant reputation, cause much stress for
the child. Combined with limited social support, negative adult interactions, and few
opportunities to improve social skills and competencies, the rejected child‟s stress levels
are likely to become exacerbated. Other studies maintain that pathology is already
apparent in the rejected child. French and Wass (1985) found that rejected children
differed significantly in social withdrawal, delinquency, obsessive-compulsiveness, and
internalizing and externalizing behaviors than their popular, neglected, and average peers.
Furthermore, social rejection in elementary school children was found to be associated
with antisocial behavior later in life (Dodge et al., 2003).
8
Criminality. Research has found that peer rejected children, particularly those
whose behavior is characterized by aggression, are at risk for delinquency and adult
criminal behavior (Mayeux et al., 2007). Ollendick et al. (1990) revealed that aggressiverejected youth committed four times as many legal offenses as their well-adjusted peers
and twice as many offenses as their withdrawn counterparts. Self-reports also indicated
that aggressive-rejected children engaged in more instances of substance abuse and drug
usage than non-rejected children.
Friendships. Although rejected status children have been consistently found to
exhibit negative peer interactions, most still report existing friendships. However, these
friendships typically differ significantly from those of popular or average status peers.
One study found that friendships between sociometrically rejected girls were
characterized by negative affect, deviance, poor conflict resolution skills, and less social
competence than friendships between their non-rejected peers (Lansford et al., 2006).
Friendships among rejected children have also been found to occur between children of
the same status and have been reported as less stable (George & Hartmann, 1996) and
more conflictual (Parker & Asher, 1993; Patterson, Kupersmidt, & Griesler, 1990) than
other children.
Research provides significant evidence that sociometrically rejected children are
at risk for academic, behavioral, and maladjustment problems later in life. Identification
of such children is a necessary tool for early intervention aimed at preventing these
social, academic, and behavioral risk factors.
9
Teacher nominations
Although sociometric ratings are typically accomplished in the form of peer
nominations or rating scales, an alternate method of identifying children based on
sociometric status is necessary. Research indicates that there is little to no risk for
children participating in sociometric assessment (Hayvren & Hymel, 1984). However,
many parents and school administrators may hesitate to allow such procedures, especially
when negative nominations are involved (Wu, Hart, Draper, & Olson, 2001). Moreover,
teacher sociometric ratings are less costly and more time efficient and practical to
administer (Henry, 2006; Ollendick et al., 1989). Although a disappointing number of
studies provide support for the sole use of teacher sociometric ratings in identifying
rejected children, there is a significant amount of research which indicates the
effectiveness of other methods of teacher identification of children at-risk for academic,
behavioral, and social problems.
Accuracy. One of the few studies which measured teacher sociometric ratings
found “meaningful overlap” between peer perceived and teacher perceived popularity
(Wu et al., 2001). Based on their results, the authors indicated teacher sociometric ratings
to be a reliable method to identify status when peer sociometric ratings cannot be used.
Lane and Menzies (2005) suggested that teachers were highly accurate in categorizing
children at risk for academic and/or behavioral problems even when differences in
performance were relatively subtle. It stands to reason that teachers would be effective
measures of social status, as children spend the greatest part of their day in the classroom,
giving teachers the opportunity to observe children and their peer relationships more
frequently than most other adults (Ollendick et al., 1990).
10
There are several studies that have evaluated the effectiveness of teacher
perceptions and descriptions of behavior and the students‟ actual classroom behavior.
Bolstad and Johnson (1977) revealed a significant positive relationship between teacher
perceptions and actual student behavior in the classroom. Another study found high
levels of accuracy in teacher identification of students with and without academic and
behavioral concerns (Lane & Menzies, 2005).
Reliability and validity. In addition to measuring the accuracy of teacher ratings
in identifying academic performance and behavioral concerns, other studies have
evaluated the reliability and validity of teacher nominations. One study provided
significant support for the validity of teacher nominations in identifying children with
“conduct problems”. Students nominated in this category were found to have academic,
behavioral, and peer acceptance troubles (Green, Beck, Forehand, & Vosk, 1980). In a
1989 study, Ollendick et al. provided support for the use of teacher nominations in
classifying aggressive, withdrawn, and popular children. In addition, the authors stated
that teachers were not only able to identify problem behaviors but were able to
distinguish the type of problem behavior. In another study, researchers followed up on
teacher identified aggressive-rejected children 5 years later. The identified students
earned lower grades, abused substances, engaged in delinquent acts, and were rated by
peers as “rejected” (Ollendick et al. 1990). In discussing teacher nominations, it is
important to point out that the accuracy of these ratings in identifying “middle” status
children (average, controversial, neglected) is less reliable. Teacher judgments are, in
fact, best for deviant and aggressive (rejected) children. Of all of the status groups,
11
sociometrically rejected children are at greater risk for developing later life difficulties
(Parker & Asher, 1987).
Sociometric procedures are consistently successful in determining a child‟s social
status and social competence. Many children identified by peers as socially rejected
present with a variety of later life difficulties, including poor academic performance,
aggression, social isolation, and adult psychopathology. Currently, sociometric
procedures utilize peer nominations to determine social status; however, many
administrators hesitate to use peers to make sociometric nominations, especially when
negative nominations are used. Fortunately, research indicates that teachers are a reliable
source to identify behaviors indicative of at-risk rejected children. If successful,
characteristics of sociometric procedures engrained in teacher nominations will be
extremely advantageous compared to other, more complicated and time consuming
methods of identification.
Research question
The sociometric test is simple, reliable, and easy to administer. However, there
are limitations to the extent in which sociometric strategies are able to be used with
children, specifically when negative peer nominations are used. For the purpose of this
research study, I will evaluate the following research question: what is the relationship
between teacher sociometric nominations and characteristics of socially rejected
children?
Hypothesis. The use of teacher nominations and ratings to predict social status
among students in the classroom will indicate a positive relationship with research-based
characteristics of sociometrically rejected children. Based on this hypothesized
12
relationship, the use of teacher sociometric nominations will be an effective screening
tool for identifying children, so that early intervention services can reduce the incidence
of social, academic, and/or behavior problems.
CHAPTER 2
METHOD
Although the sociometric test is reliable and quick and easy to administer, there
are limitations to the extent to which it can be used with children. The purpose of this
study was to evaluate the relationship between teacher sociometric nominations and
characteristics typical of sociometrically rejected children. I answered this question by
collecting sociometric nominations from general education teachers, identifying students
determined to be sociometrically rejected, and evaluating the relationship between that
variable and academic and attendance records, classroom discipline slips, and behavioral
and/or social goals in the students‟ individualized education plans (IEPs).
Participants
A total of 6 school personnel were selected to participate in the study. A
kindergarten, 2 first grade, and 2 second grade general education teachers in a large,
urban school district in Kansas were selected to participate in the study. Each teacher had
14 to 16 students in her classroom. In addition, and 1 school psychologist was selected to
aid in data collection for the study. The size and diversity of the school district suggests
generalization to similar districts in the Midwest.
Instrument
To obtain teacher sociometric nominations, demographic information, and gather
data regarding academic and attendance records, and IEP goals, school personnel were
13
given a spreadsheet or questionnaire pertaining to relevant data. After teacher sociometric
nominations were collected, they were imputed into Walsh‟s Classroom Sociometrics
computer program that categorically sorts the nominations into popular, rejected,
neglected, and controversial groups.
Sociometric nominations. Teachers were asked to provide sociometric
nominations for each of their students. Each teacher was given instructions and a
corresponding spreadsheet (see Appendix A) that included an identification number for
each student and space to make up to six nominations, three positive and three negative,
for each child. Specifically, each teacher was asked, “Who does this student most like to
play with”, and “Who does this student least like to play with”. These questions are
adopted from a Wu et al. (2001) study, one of the few studies that have measured teacher
sociometric nominations. Following completion of the teacher sociometric nominations
teachers were instructed to return the spreadsheet directly to the researcher in order to
maintain confidentiality.
Academic achievement. Two weeks after providing sociometric nominations,
teachers completed an academic achievement profile for each student. The time gap
between making sociometric nominations and providing information about student
academic achievement was intended to help eliminate some bias effects. Each general
education teacher received instructions and a corresponding spreadsheet (see Appendix
B) that included an identification number and requests numerical ratings for each student
classified as sociometrically rejected in addition to eight non-rejected students chosen at
random. Academic ratings were made in seven different areas pertaining to academic
achievement. The teachers evaluated students by providing a rating according to a Likert
14
scale ranging from 1 (very strongly disagree) to 6 (very strongly agree). Examples of
academic achievement statements include, “This student is very strong academically”,
and “This student consistently completes his or her schoolwork”. Additionally, each
teacher was asked to provide the number of classroom disciplinary slips that each student
had received during the current school year. Following completion of student academic
achievement ratings teachers were instructed to return the spreadsheet directly to the
researcher in order to maintain confidentiality.
Demographic information, attendance, and tardiness records. A school
psychologist for the selected school received instructions and a corresponding
spreadsheet (see Appendix C) for students classified as sociometrically rejected in
addition to eight non-rejected students chosen at random for each participating classroom.
The spreadsheet requested both demographic information and data pertaining to student
absences and tardiness. Examples of statements included on the spreadsheet include
“Indicate „Y‟ for yes if the student receives free and reduced lunch and „N‟ for no if the
student does not receive free and reduced lunch”, and “Indicate the number of days the
student has been absent this school year”. Following completion of the demographic and
attendance information, the school psychologist was instructed to return the spreadsheet
directly to the researcher in order to maintain confidentiality.
IEP’s. A school psychologist received instructions and a corresponding
spreadsheet (see Appendix D) requesting information about IEP and IEP goals for
students classified as sociometrically rejected in addition to eight non-rejected students
chosen at random. For each student, the school psychologist indicated whether or not the
student had an IEP in place and if so, whether or not it contained behavioral and/or social
15
goals. Examples of statements include “Indicate “Y” for yes the student is on an IEP or
“N” for no the student is not on an IEP”, and “For each student, indicate „Y” if the
student has social/behavioral goals on their IEP or „N” if the student does not have
social/behavioral goals on their IEP”. Following completion of the IEP spreadsheet the
school psychologist was instructed to return the spreadsheet before directly to the
researcher in order to maintain confidentiality.
Procedure
Following approval from the thesis committee, the Institutional Review Board
(see Appendix E), and the Topeka Research Board (see Appendix F), the researcher
selected 5 general education teachers and 1 school psychologist to participate in the
study. School personnel were selected from a school that I had access to through
completion of a practicum experience. Each individual received an informed consent
form (see Appendix G) that outlines the purpose and characteristics of the study as well
as assures that all information will be kept confidential. After signing the consent form,
school personnel received a master list of all students and a corresponding identification
number. Each teacher also received the instructions and spreadsheet on which to provide
sociometric nominations. Next, I collected the spreadsheets containing sociometric
nominations from the teachers and determine which students are characterized as
sociometrically rejected. For the spreadsheets that pertain to academic achievement,
demographic and attendance information, and IEPs, school personnel provided
information for the students classified as sociometrically rejected as well as eight
additional, non-rejected students that will be chosen at random. When each teacher
completed and returned the sociometric nominations and the student academic
16
achievement profile to the researcher, they received a $40 gift certificate to a local
restaurant to thank them for their help and participation in the study. After the school
psychologist completed and returned the demographic and IEP spreadsheets to the
researcher, she received a $40 gift certificate to a local restaurant to thank her for her help
and participation in the study. The gift certificates were provided as part of a research
grant awarded by the Kansas Association of School Psychologists in October of 2008.
Design
The proposed study utilized a survey research design using a mixed methods
approach that contained both quantitative and qualitative data.
Data Analysis
All data was analyzed using SPSS version 14.0.
Academic achievement, attendance and tardiness, and discipline. In order to
determine significant differences between students classified as rejected and those
classified as non-rejected, a t-test was conducted for each variable. Academic
achievement items were measured on a Likert scale with scores ranging from 1 (very
strongly disagree) to 6 (very strongly agree). Columns 4, 6, and 8 were reverse scored.
Therefore, a student could attain a score ranging from 7, indicating very poor academic
performance, to 42, indicating very strong academic performance. Attendance and
tardiness were calculated separately in the form of the percentage of days the student has
been absent or has been tardy. Additionally, disciplinary slips were counted and totaled
for each student.
Socioeconomic status, physical maturity, IEPs, and IEP goals. In order to
determine significant differences between students classified as sociometrically rejected
17
and those classified as non-rejected, a nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test was
conducted for each variable. Socioeconomic status was characterized as low for students
receiving a free or reduced lunch and high for students not receiving a free or reduced
lunch. Physical maturity was determined by the age of the child relative to his or her
classmates. Those students with birthdays in March, April, May, June, July, and August
were considered younger and those with birthdays in September, October, November,
December, January, and February were considered older. Finally, I determined whether
or not each student had an IEP in place and if so, whether or not social/behavioral goals
were established.
Limitations
A major limitation in the study is that, because peer nominations are not able to be
collected, it is difficult to ascertain the relative accuracy of teacher sociometric
nominations in comparison to the peers. Peers are integrated into one another‟s social
network and are most likely the most accurate predictors of social status and competency,
whereas teachers may simply perceive and make inferences about students‟ social
interactions.
Assumptions
This study assumes that teachers will not be biased toward students with fewer
friends as identified by sociometric nominations when providing academic achievement
information. To minimize the effect of this limitation, a time period of one week will be
inserted between the provision of the sociometric nominations and academic achievement
profiles. This study also assumes that students in the participating school district will be
representative of other schools in the Midwest.
18
Summary
The above methodology details the process for conducting this mixed methods
study. An elementary school in a large, urban school district in Kansas was selected to
participate in the study. Six school personnel; a kindergarten teacher, 2 first grade
teachers, 2 second grade teachers, and 1 school psychologist, aided in data collection.
Each teacher provided sociometric nominations for the students in their classroom. After
sociometric nominations were provided, I determined students that were sociometrically
rejected and those who were not sociometrically rejected. School personnel next received
instructions and spreadsheets that contained the identification numbers of the
sociometrically rejected students as well as eight non-rejected, randomly chosen students.
Information was collected regarding academic achievement, classroom discipline forms,
demographics, attendance and tardiness, and IEPs and IEP goals. I analyzed the
information using t-tests and Mann-Whitney U analysis to compare information
pertaining to sociometrically rejected students to information pertaining to students who
were not sociometrically rejected. Following the completion of data analysis all
spreadsheets and forms containing student names and identification numbers were
destroyed.
CHAPTER 3
RESULTS
Data was collected from an elementary school in a large, urban school district in
Kansas. A total of six participants; including a kindergarten teacher, two first grade
teachers, two second grade teachers, and a school psychologist provided information.
19
Data was analyzed on a total of 55 students. Table 1 provides a description of the
population.
Category
Gender
Maturity
SES
Sociometric status
IEP
N
Percent of N
Male
33
60
Female
22
40
Young
26
47.3
Old
29
52.7
Low
47
85.5
High
8
14.5
Rejected
16
29.1
Not rejected
39
70.9
Yes
9
16.4
No
46
83.6
Data was analyzed using a Mann-Whitney U non-parametric test. There was no
significant effect found for maturity or socioeconomic status. However, gender was
significant at the .041 level, indicating that males were more likely to be identified as
sociometrically rejected than their female counterparts. There was also a significant effect
for the IEP variable (.001), indicating that students with an IEP in place were more likely
to be identified as rejected than students without an IEP. Additionally, students identified
as sociometrically rejected were significantly (.002) more likely to have social and/or
behavior goals written on their IEP than non-rejected students with an IEP.
20
Information regarding students‟ academic achievement, attendance and tardiness,
and special education services was also collected. Table 2 provides descriptive statistics
for this data.
Category
“This student is
very strong
academically”
“This student
consistently
completes
his/her
schoolwork”
“This student
requires a lot of
one-on-one
attention during
independent
seatwork”
“This student
often asks for
help from
adults when
he/she doesn‟t
understand
content”
“This student
does not ask for
help from
classmates
when he/she
does not
understand
content”
“This student
consistently
appears to be
interested in
his/her
schoolwork”
“This student
struggles
N
Mean
Rejected
16
3.44
Standard
Deviation
1.50
Not rejected
Rejected
39
16
3.74
3.88
1.67
1.86
Not rejected
39
4.90
1.47
Rejected
16
3.56
1.86
Not rejected
39
2.77
1.65
Rejected
16
3.94
2.02
Not rejected
39
4.67
1.24
Rejected
16
3.31
1.78
Not rejected
39
2.87
1.45
Rejected
16
3.50
1.26
Not rejected
39
4.62
1.31
Rejected
16
3.25
1.81
21
academically”
Not rejected
39
2.77
1.68
Attendance
Rejected
16
7.63
7.48
Not rejected
39
7.85
9.44
Rejected
16
4.31
4.51
Not rejected
39
9.18
12.76
Rejected
16
11.94
9.69
Not rejected
39
17.03
17.70
Tardiness
Participation
All questions involving academic achievement were answered via a six point Likert
scale, with one being very strongly disagree and six being very strongly agree. Questions
three, five, and seven were reverse scored. Significant effects were found for question
two and question six, meaning that students identified as rejected were more likely to
have not consistently completed schoolwork and less likely to be interested in
schoolwork. Overall academic achievement was found to be significant at the .010 level,
indicating that sociometrically rejected students were rated significantly lower in
academic achievement. No significant effect was found for the participation variable.
CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION
Appropriate social adjustment in children has consistently been shown to be a
significant factor that affects multiple aspects of a child‟s development. Socially
underdeveloped children who are actively disliked by their peers are at risk for a
multitude of later life difficulties. These include poor academic achievement (Newcomb,
Bukowski, & Pattee, 1993; Ollendick, Greene, Weist, & Oswald 1990; Wentzel & Asher,
22
1995), school dropout (Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996; Ollendick et al., 1990), aggressive
behavior (Coie, Dodge, & Kupersmidt, 1990; Coie, Dodge, & Coppotelli, 1982; Dodge et
al., 2003; Newcomb et al., 1993), social isolation (Asher, Hymel, & Renshaw, 1984;
Asher & Wheeler, 1985; Mayeux, Bellmore, & Cillessen, 2007), and adult criminality
(Mayeux et al., 2007; Ollendick et al., 1990) and psychopathology (French & Wass,
1985; Newcomb et al., 1993).
The implications of social maladjustment in children indicate a need for a method
of identification so that educators can discover and intervene before social, academic, and
behavior problems become severe. Sociometric nominations and ratings have growing
validity evidence that supports their use in identifying socially rejected, or actively
disliked, children. Most research utilizes peer sociometric nominations to identify
students who are socially rejected, popular, neglected, popular, and average. However,
many school districts and administrators hesitate to allow peer sociometric nominations,
even more so when negative nominations are involved. It is important to develop another
method of identification for socially at risk children.
Results of this study partially support this researcher‟s hypothesis. Students
identified as sociometrically rejected had significantly lower academic achievement
scores, which is a primary indicator of sociometrically rejected status. Specifically,
students in this category were rated as significantly less likely to complete schoolwork
and as significantly less interested in their schoolwork. This aligns with current research,
which indicates that sociometrically rejected students are less independent learners and
less interested in schoolwork (Wentzel & Asher, 1995). Sociometrically rejected students
were also significantly more likely to have an IEP in place. None of the students included
23
in the study had an IEP for gifted services, possibly a result of the grades that were
analyzed. Another important indicator of the sociometrically rejected status is the
existence of aggressive behavior. Much research supports the relationship between
sociometric rejection and aggressive behavior. While this study attempted to measure this
variable, there appeared to be a great amount of variation in the teachers‟ responses to the
corresponding question. A different and more specific measure of aggressive behavior is
warranted, perhaps a count of only the behaviors that resulted in an office referral. A
significant effect was also found for gender, with males being significantly more likely to
be identified as sociometrically rejected than females. This could be due in part to the
variables measured. Males are more likely to show outward signs of aggression,
achievement, and behavior. Females, on the other hand, are more likely to internalize
their feelings and be identified in the neglected category. In addition, there were more
males than females in the study, making it more likely for an increased number of males
identified as sociometrically rejected. Although research indicates that children from a
lower socioeconomic background are more likely to be identified as sociometrically
rejected, this study did not find a significant effect. This is likely due to the population
that was studied, as 85.5% of the participants involved were categorized as having low
socioeconomic status.
Implications for school psychologists. Results of this study indicate that teacher
sociometric nominations appear to have some relationship to research-based
characteristics of sociometrically rejected children. It would be beneficial for such a
procedure to be implemented in schools early in the elementary years, primarily in first
and second grade. School districts might consider creating a policy in which all teachers
24
make sociometric nominations approximately three to four months into the school year,
which should give teachers time to get to know their students. School psychologists could
collect the sociometric information to identify the various sociometric categories of
children, focusing specifically on those that fall into the rejected category. This group of
students would be identified as most in need of social skill and friendship skill building
groups, which could be lead by the buildings‟ school psychologist or counselor.
With the recent paradigm shift to a Response to Intervention (RTI)/Multi-Tiered
System of Support (MTSS) model, early identification strategies such as this are
necessary and appropriate. The traditional duties of a school psychologist are changing,
with the primary focus no longer being on assessment and placement. As an increasing
number of school psychologists‟ adopt the role of interventionist, responsibilities such as
facilitating student academic, behavior, and social groups will become the norm. Since
poor social adjustment affects so many areas of a child‟s life, it is imperative for school
psychologists to view social skills development as a critical tool and intervention
strategy.
Other implications. Subsequent studies might utilize a larger sample size and a
different population. Specifically, it would be interesting to compare an urban district
similar to the one used in this student and a district with a higher socioeconomic
population. Future studies might also consider alternate wording for the teacher
sociometric nominations.
25
References
Asher, S. R., Hymel, S., & Renshaw, P. D. (1984). Loneliness in children. Child
Development, 55, 1457-1464.
Asher, S. R., & Wheeler, V. A. (1985). Children‟s loneliness: A comparison of rejected
and neglected peer status. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53,
500-505.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Multifaceted
impact of self-efficacy beliefs on academic functioning. Child Development, 67,
1206-1222.
Boldstad, O. D., & Johnson, S. M. (1977). The relationship between teacher‟s
assessment of students and students‟ actual behavior in the classroom. Child
Development, 48, 570-578.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1943). A constant frame of reference for sociometric research. Part
1: Theory and technique. Sociometry, 6, 363-408.
Cadwallader, T. W. (2000). Sociometry reconsidered: The social context of peer rejection
in childhood. International Journal of Action Methods: Psychodrama, SkillTraining, and Role-Playing, 99-119.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., Bandura, A., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2000).
Prosocial foundations of children‟s academic achievement. Psychological
Science, 11, 302-306.
Coie, J. D. (1990). Toward a theory of peer rejection. In S. R. Asher & J. D. Coie (Eds.),
Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 365-401). New York: Cambridge University
26
Press.
Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and types of social
status: A cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology,18, 557-570.
Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Kupersmidt, J. B. (1990). Peer group behavior and social
status. In S. R. Asher & J. D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 107123). New York: Cambridge University Press.
DeRosier, M. E., Kupersmidt, J. B., & Patterson, C. J. (1994). Children‟s academic and
behavioral adjustment as a function of the chronicity and proximity of peer
rejection. Child Development, 65, 1799-1813.
Dodge, K. A., Lansfor, J. E., Burks, V. S., Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S., Fontaine, R., & Price,
J. M. (2003). Peer rejection and social information processing factors in the
development of aggressive behavior problems in children. Child Development,
74, 374-393.
French, D. C., & Wass, G. A. (1985). Behavior problems of peer-neglected and peerrejected elementary-aged children: Parent and teacher perspectives. Child
Development, 56, 246-252.
George, T. P., & Hartmann, D. P. (1996). Friendship networks of unpopular, average, and
popular children. Child Development, 67, 2301-2316.
Green, K. D., Beck, S. J., Forehand, R., & Vosk, B. (1980). Validity of teacher
Nominations of child behavior problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
8, 397-404.
Gronlund, N. E., & Anderson, L. (1957). Personality characteristics of socially accepted,
Socially neglected, and socially rejected junior high school pupils. Educational
27
Administration and Supervision, 43, 329-338.
Hartup, W. W. (1989). Social relationships and their developmental significance.
American Psychologist, 44, 120-126.
Hayvren, M., & Hymel, S. (1984). Ethical issues in sociometric testing: Impact of
sociometric measures on interaction behavior. Developmental Psychology, 20,
844-849.
Henry, D. B. (2006). Associations between peer nominations, teacher ratings,
self-reports, and observations of malicious and disruptive behavior. Assessment,
13, 241-252.
Jiang, X. L., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2005). Stability of continuous measures of
sociometric status: A meta-analysis. Developmental Review, 25, 1-25.
Kochenderfer, B. J. & Ladd, G. W. (1996). Peer victimization: Cause or consequence of
school maladjustment? Child Development, 67, 1305-1317.
Lansford, J. E., Putallaz, M., Grimes, Cl. L., Schiro-Osman, K. A., Kupersmidt, J. B., &
Coie, J. D. (2006). Perceptions of friendship quality and observed behaviors with
friends: How do sociometrically rejected, average, and popular girls differ?
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 52, 694-721.
Lane, K. L., & Menzies, H. M. (2005). Teacher-identified students with and without
academic and behavioral concerns: Characteristics and responsiveness.
Behavioral Disorders, 31, 65-83.
Lemann, T. B., & Solomon, R. L. (1952). Group characteristics as revealed in
sociometric patterns and personality ratings. Sociometry, 15, 7-90.
Mayeux, L., Bellmore, A. D., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2007). Predicting changes in
28
adjustment using repeated measures of sociometric status. The Journal of Genetic
Psychology, 168, 401-424.
Newman, R. S. (1991). Goals and self-regulated learning: What motivates children to
seek academic help? In M.L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in
motivation and achievement: A research annual (Vol. 7, pp. 151-183).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Newcomb, A. F., Bukowski, W. M., & Pattee, L. (1993). Children‟s peer relations: A
meta-analytic review of popular, rejected, neglected, controversial, and average
sociometric status. Psychological Bulletin, 13, 99-128.
Ollendick, T. H., Greene, R. W., Weist, M. D., & Oswald, D. P. (1990). The predictive
validity of teacher nominations: A five-year followup of at-risk youth. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 18, 699-713.
Ollendick, T. H., Oswald, D. P., & Francis, G. (1989). Validity of teacher nominations in
Identifying aggressive, withdrawn, and popular children. Journal of Clinical
Child Psychology, 18, 221-229.
Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are
low-accepted children at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102, 357-389.
Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1993). Friendship and friendship quality in middle
childhood: Links with group acceptance and feelings of loneliness and social
dissatisfaction. Developmental Psychology, 29, 611-621.
Patterson, C. J., Kupersmidt, J. B., & Griesler, P. C. (1990). Children‟s perceptions of
self and of relationships with others as a function of sociometric status. Child
Development, 61, 1335-1349.
29
Peery, J.C. (1979). Popular, amiable, isolated, rejected: A reconceptualization of
sociometric status in preschool children. Child Development, 50, 1231-1234.
Thompson, G., & Powell, M. (1951). An investigation of the rating scale approach to the
measurement of social status. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 11,
440-455.
Wentzel, K. R. (1991). Social competence at school: Relations between social
responsibility and academic achievement. Review of Educational Research,
61, 1-24.
Wentzel, K. R., & Asher, S. R. (1995). The academic lives of neglected, rejected,
popular, and controversial children. Child Development, 66, 754-763.
Wu, X., Hart, C. H., Draer, T. W., & Olsen, J. A. (2001). Peer and teacher sociometrics
for preschool children: Cross-informant concordance, temporal stability, and
reliability. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 47, 416-443.
30
Appendix A
Sociometric nominations
31
Instructions
Please complete the following information for each student. Identification numbers will
correspond to the master list that you received after signing the informed consent form.
After completion please return the spreadsheet to the researcher only.
For each student answer the questions, “Who does this student most like to play with?”,
and “Who does this student least like to play with?” You may choose up to three peers
for each student in each category. This means that you may choose zero to three peers
for each student. Please identify the students by their ID numbers. For example, if
student A3 most likes to play with student A9, indicate A9 rather than that student‟s
name.
32
ID #
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
A9
A10
A11
A12
A13
A14
A15
A16
A17
A18
A19
A20
A21
A22
A23
A24
A25
Most Like to Play With
Student
Student
Student
#1
#2
#3
Least Like to Play With
Student
Student
Student
#1
#2
#3
33
Appendix B
Academic achievement
34
Instructions
Please complete the following information for each student. Identification numbers will
correspond to the master list that you received after signing the consent form. After
completion, please return the spreadsheet to the researcher only.
Please indicate the total number of disciplinary slips that each student has received this
school year (August 2008 to present) in the first column. Reason for discipline does not
need to be specified.
The spreadsheet also asks for a rating for each student in seven different areas pertaining
to academic achievement. The scale ranges from 1 (Very Strongly Disagree) to 6 (Very
Strongly Agree) and is displayed at the top of your spreadsheet. Please provide a number
to which you think best describes each student.
35
1 = Very Strongly Disagree
4 = Agree
Number of
disciplinary slips this
student has received
ID #
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
A9
A10
A11
A12
A13
A14
A15
A16
A17
A18
A19
A20
A21
A22
A23
A24
A25
2 = Strongly Disagree
5 = Strongly Agree
This student
is very strong
academically
3 = Disagree
6 = Very Strongly Agree
This student
consistently
completes
his/her
schoolwork
This student requires
a lot of one-on-one
attention during
independent seatwork
36
1 = Very Strongly Disagree
4 = Agree
This student often
asks for help from
adults when he/she
doesn't understand
content
ID #
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
A9
A10
A11
A12
A13
A14
A15
A16
A17
A18
A19
A20
A21
A22
A23
A24
A25
2 = Strongly Disagree
5 = Strongly Agree
This student does
not ask for help
from classmates
when he/she does
not understand
content
3 = Disagree
6 = Very Strongly Agree
This student
consistently
appears to be
interested in
his/her
schoolwork
This student
struggles
academically
37
Appendix C
Demographic information and attendance and tardiness records
38
Instructions
Please complete the following information for each student. Identification numbers will
correspond to the master list that you received after signing the consent form. After
completion, please return the spreadsheet to the researcher only.
Be sure to include today’s date at the top of the spreadsheet!
Birthday: Need only to include the birthday month and year.
Gender: Indicate “M” for male and “F” for female.
Ethnicity:
1 = Caucasian
2 = African American
3 = Native American
4 = Asian
5 = Hispanic/Latino
6 = Other (please specify)
Free and reduced lunch: Indicate “Y” for yes the student receives free and reduced
lunch and “N” for no the student does not receive free and reduced lunch.
Attendance: Indicate the number of days the student has been absent this school year
(August 2008 to present), regardless of the reason for the absence.
Tardiness: Indicate the number of days the student has been tardy this school year
(August 2008 to present), regardless of the reason for the tardy.
39
Date __________________
ID
#
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
A9
A10
A11
A12
A13
A14
A15
A16
A17
A18
A19
A20
A21
A22
A23
A24
A25
Birthday (Month,
Year)
Gender
(M/F)
Ethnicity
Free and Reduced
Lunch
Attendance Tardies
40
Appendix D
IEPs
41
Instructions
Please complete the following information for each student. Identification numbers will
correspond to the master list that your received after signing the consent form. After
completion, please return the spreadsheet to the researcher only.
Is the student on an IEP?: Indicate “Y” for yes the student is on an IEP or “N” for no
the student is not on an IEP.
Gifted/Other: For each student, indicate “G” if the student has an IEP because he/she is
gifted or “O” if the student has an IEP for any other reason. If the student does not have
an IEP, leave this space blank.
Behavioral/Social Goals and/or a Behavior Plan?: For each student who has an IEP in
the “other” category, indicate “Y” for yes the student has a behavioral goal(s), a social
goal (s), and/or a behavior plan written into their IEP or “N” for no the student does not
have a behavioral goal(s), social goal (s), and/or a behavior plan written into their IEP.
Goals or specific plans do not need to be specified.
42
Is this student on an IEP?
ID #
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
A9
A10
A11
A12
A13
A14
A15
A16
A17
A18
A19
A20
A21
A22
A23
A24
A25
Gifted/Other
Behavior/Social Goals/BIP
43
Appendix E
Institutional Review Board Form
44
APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL TO USE HUMAN SUBJECTS
This application should be submitted, along with the Informed Consent Document and
supplemental material, to the Institutional Review Board for Treatment of Human
Subjects, Research and Grants Center, Plumb Hall 313F, Campus Box 4003.
This form must be typed. This form is available online at
www.emporia.edu/research/docs/irbapp.doc.
1. Name of Principal Investigator(s) (Individual(s) administering the procedures):
Chelsea Patton
2. Departmental Affiliation: Department of Psychology, Art Therapy, Rehabilitation,
and Mental Health Counseling
3. Person to whom notification should be sent: Dr. James Persinger
Mailing Address: Campus Box 4031
Telephone: (620) 341-5428
Email address: [email protected]
4. Title of Project: Using Teacher Nominations to Predict Sociometrically Rejected
Youth
5. Funding Agency (if applicable): $250 Research Grant from KASP
6. This is a:
dissertation X thesis
class project
other research
7. Time period for which you are requesting approval (maximum one year): from
12/2008 to 05/2009. If the research project extends past the end date requested, you
will need to submit a request for a time extension or an annual update. This form is
available at www.emporia.edu/research/docs/irbmod.doc.
8. Project Purpose (please be specific): I will evaluate the relationship between
teacher sociometric nominations and characteristics typical of sociometrically
rejected children.
9. Describe the proposed subjects: (age, sex, race, expected number of participants, or
other special characteristics, such as students in a specific class, etc.): I will select
five general education teachers (1 kindergarten, 2 first grade, and 2 second
grade), an office staff member, and a school psychologist. Each will provide
different data sets that specify various characteristics of students in five
classrooms (1 kindergarten, 2 first grade, and 2 second grade).
10. Describe how the subjects are to be selected. If you are using archival information,
you must submit documentation of authorization from applicable organization or
entity.: Individuals will be selected from the school in which I will be completing
my practicum requirements. Prior to beginning my study permission will be
obtained from the Topeka Research Board.
45
11. Describe in detail the proposed procedures and benefit(s) of the project. This must be clear and detailed
enough so that the IRB can assure that the University policy relative to research with human subjects is
appropriately implemented. Any proposed experimental activities that are included in evaluation, research,
development, demonstration, instruction, study, treatments, debriefing, questionnaires, and similar projects
must be described here. Copies of questionnaires, survey instruments, or tests should be attached.
(Use additional page if necessary.)
Following approval from the thesis committee, the Institutional Review Board, and
the Topeka Research Board, the researcher will select 5 general education teachers,
1 office staff member, and 1 school psychologist to participate in the study. School
personnel will be selected from a school that I have access to through completion of
a practicum experience. Each individual will receive an informed consent form that
will outline the purpose and characteristics of the study as well as assure that all
information will be kept confidential. After signing the consent form, school
personnel will receive a master list of all students and a corresponding identification
number. Each teacher will also receive the instructions and spreadsheet on which to
provide sociometric nominations. Next, I will collect the spreadsheets containing
sociometric nominations from the teachers and determine which students are
characterized as sociometrically rejected. For the spreadsheets that pertain to
academic achievement, demographic and attendance information, and IEPs, school
personnel will provide information for the students classified as sociometrically
rejected as well as eight additional, non-rejected students that will be chosen at
random. When each teacher completes and returns the sociometric nominations and
the student academic achievement profile to the researcher, they will receive a $40
gift certificate to a local restaurant to thank them for their help and participation in
the study. After the office staff member and the school psychologist complete and
return their respective spreadsheets to the researcher, each will receive a $30 gift
certificate to a local restaurant to thank them for their help and participation in the
study. The gift certificates will be provided as part of a research grant awarded by
the Kansas Association of School Psychologists in October of 2008.
I predict that students identified by their teachers as actively disliked
(sociometrically rejected) will have poorer academic records, more absences and
tardiness, and the presence of social and/or behavioral goals in an IEP. If these
relationships exist, it will provide evidence supporting the validity of teacher
sociometric nominations as an effective screening tool for identifying children, so
that early interventions services can reduce the incidence of social, academic, and/or
behavioral problems.
12. Will questionnaires, tests, or related research instruments not explained in question
#11 be used?
X
Yes
No (If yes, attach a copy to this application.)
46
13. Will electrical or mechanical devices be applied to the subjects?
Yes
X
No (If yes, attach a detailed description of the device(s) used and precautions and
safeguards that will be taken.)
14. Do the benefits of the research outweigh the risks to human subjects?
No (If no, this information should be outlined here.)
X
Yes
15. Are there any possible emergencies which might arise in utilization of human
subjects in this project?
Yes
X No (If yes, details of these emergencies should be provided
here.)
16. What provisions will you take for keeping research data private/secure? (Be specific
– refer to p. 3 of Guidelines.)
School personnel will provide information for students using an identification
number only. After data collection is completed, all paperwork which contains
individual student information will be destroyed.
17. Attach a copy of the informed consent document, as it will be used for your
subjects.
INVESTIGATOR’S ASSURANCE: I certify that the information provided in this
request is complete and accurate. I understand that as Principal Investigator I have
ultimate responsibility for the protection of the rights and welfare of human subjects and
the ethical conduct of this research protocol. I agree to comply with all of ESU‟s policies
and procedures, as well as with all applicable federal, state, and local laws regarding the
protection of human subjects in research, including, but not limited to, the following:




The project will be performed by qualified personnel according to the research
protocol,
I will maintain a copy of all questionnaires, survey instruments, interview
questions, data collection instruments, and information sheets for human subjects,
I will promptly request approval from ESU‟s IRB if any changes are made to the
research protocol,
I will report any adverse events that occur during the course of conducting the
research to the IRB within 10 working days of the date of occurrence.
Signature of Principal Investigator
Date
FACULTY ADVISOR’S/INSTRUCTOR’S ASSURANCE: By my signature on this
research application, I certify that the student investigator is knowledgeable about the
regulations and policies governing research with human subjects and has sufficient
training and experience to conduct this particular study in accord with the approved
protocol. In addition,
47



I agree to meet with the student investigator on a regular basis to monitor study
progress,
Should problems arise during the course of this study, I agree to be available,
personally, to supervise the principal investigator in solving them,
I understand that as the faculty advisor/instructor on this project, I will be
responsible for the performance of this research project.
Faculty advisor/instructor on project (if applicable)
Date
48
Appendix F
Topeka Research Board
49
Application to Conduct Research in Topeka Public Schools
COMPLETE THIS FORM AND FORWARD THE ORIGINAL AND SIX (6) PHOTOCOPIES TO:
Office of Research, Evaluation, and Assessment
Topeka Unified School District No. 501
624 SW 24th Street
Topeka, KS 66611
(785) 295-3084
Name of individual proposing study: Chelsea Patton
Professional Title: Practicum Student
Telephone No.: 316-706-8921
th
Home Address: 2632 W. 18 Ave. #812 Emporia, KS 66801
Institution, Organization, or Agency with which individual is associated:
Name of Institution: Emporia State University
Address: 1200 Commercial St. Emporia, KS 66801
Reason for study (please check)
________College or University course requirement
________ Master‟s degree
________Doctor‟s degree
Other (please state): Ed.S. Thesis
If study is being conducted for course requirement or for a degree, please provide the
name of course instructor, major advisor, or committee chairperson and secure his/her
signature of approval and support below.
Name: Dr. James Persinger Full title: Associate Professor
College/University: Emporia State University
Telephone No.: 620-341-5428
Address: 1200 Commercial St. Emporia, KS 66801
I have reviewed the proposed research study and consider the project to be
educationally worthwhile and the research technique to be satisfactory. I also agree to
provide assurance that the submitter will comply with the established regulations and
procedures for conducting research studies in Unified School District No. 501.
Signed ___________________________________
Title of Study:
Youth
Using Teacher Nominations to Predict Sociometrically Rejected
Statement of hypothesis and/or objective(s) of study: The purpose of the study
is to evaluate the relationship between teacher sociometric nominations and
characteristics typical of sociometrically rejected children. If these relationships
exist, it will provide evidence supporting the validity of teacher sociometric
nominations as an effective screening tool for identifying children, so that early
50
interventions services can reduce the incidence of social, academic, and/or
behavioral problems.
Procedure of Study:
Starting date January 2009 Period required January 2009-May 2009
Procedure:
Following approval from the thesis committee, the Institutional Review Board, and
the Topeka Research Board, the researcher will select 5 general education teachers,
1 office staff member, and 1 school psychologist to participate in the study. School
personnel will be selected from a school that I have access to through completion of
a practicum experience. Each individual will receive an informed consent form that
will outline the purpose and characteristics of the study as well as assure that all
information will be kept confidential. After signing the consent form, school
personnel will receive a master list of all students and a corresponding identification
number. Each teacher will also receive the instructions and spreadsheet on which to
provide sociometric nominations. Next, I will collect the spreadsheets containing
sociometric nominations from the teachers and determine which students are
characterized as sociometrically rejected. For the spreadsheets that pertain to
academic achievement, demographic and attendance information, and IEPs, school
personnel will provide information for the students classified as sociometrically
rejected as well as eight additional, non-rejected students that will be chosen at
random. When each teacher completes and returns the sociometric nominations and
the student academic achievement profile to the researcher, they will receive a $40
gift certificate to a local restaurant to thank them for their help and participation in
the study. After the office staff member and the school psychologist complete and
return their respective spreadsheets to the researcher, each will receive a $30 gift
certificate to a local restaurant to thank them for their help and participation in the
study. The gift certificates will be provided as part of a research grant awarded by
the Kansas Association of School Psychologists in October of 2008.
Will students be used as subjects? NO
How many? N/A
What grade (s)? N/A
Required student characteristics: N/A
Is a specific school or geographic area required? NO
If so, explain ________________
Will teachers or other USD 501 personnel be required to assist in the study? YES
In what way?
Five general education teachers, one office staff member, and one school
psychologist will be asked to participate in the study. Each general education
teacher will provide academic information and sociometric nominations on a
provided spreadsheet for each of their students. The office staff member will
provide demographic information and information about attendance, tardiness, and
51
office referrals on a provided spreadsheet for each student. The school psychologist
will provide information about student IEPs and the presence of behavioral and/or
social goals on a provided spreadsheet for each student.
How much individual time will be required? Up to two hours per individual
Will school records be required? YES If so, to what extent? (Please specify): Staff
members will provide information to the researcher based on student records. Each
participant will provide information to the researcher using a student identification
number. This will ensure that the researcher cannot link information to an
individual student. After data collection is completed, all paperwork which contains
individual student information will be destroyed.
How will students and or staff of Topeka Public Schools benefit from participation in this
study?
I predict that students identified by their teachers as actively disliked
(sociometrically rejected) will have poorer academic records, more office referrals,
more absences and tardiness, and the presence of social and/or behavioral goals in
an IEP. If my hypothesis is correct, using teachers to predict social status among
students in the classroom will be an effective screening tool for identifying children
so that early intervention services can reduce the incidence of social, academic,
and/or behavior problems.
Provide a critical date by which you need approval to be able to proceed.
February 1, 2009
NOTE: A COMPLETE COPY OF TESTS, QUESTIONAIRES, RATING SCALES, OR
OTHER DATA-GATHERING INSTRUMENTS YOU PLAN TO USE MUST
ACCOMPANY THIS APPLICATION.
I agree to comply with the established regulations and procedures for conducting research
studies in Unified School District No. 501 and to submit a complete copy of the final
report of this study to the chairperson of the Research Committee of Unified School
District No. 501 no later than six (6) months from the date the study is completed.
Date ___________________
Signed ________________________________________
52
Appendix G
Informed Consent
53
Informed Consent
Study: Using Teacher Nominations to Predict Sociometrically Rejected Youth
Faculty researcher: Dr. James Persinger
Student researcher: Chelsea Patton
Telephone number: 316-706-8921
E-mail address: [email protected]
The Department of Psychology, Art Therapy, Rehabilitation, and Mental Health Counseling at Emporia
State University supports the practice of protection for human subjects participating in research and related
activities. The following information is provided so that you can decide whether you wish to participate in
the present study. You should be aware that even if you agree to participate, you are free to withdraw at any
time, and that if you do withdraw from the study, you will not be subjected to reprimand or any other form
of reproach.
I will ask you to provide information about students’ academic achievement, discipline slips,
demographics, attendance or IEP’s. In addition, I will ask teachers to provide sociometric nominations for
each student in his or her classroom.
This study has been reviewed to determine that it poses little to no risk of harm to school professionals or
students. Any information obtained over the course of the study will be kept completely confidential. In no
way will the name of any school professionals participating in the study be associated with data collection
or any reportable results. Additionally, students will be assigned an identification number so that the
researcher will not be able to associate student names with individual data.
This study will benefit your school because it will provide information about a possible effective screening
tool for students who may be at-risk for later life difficulties such as academic failure, aggressive behavior,
and social isolation due to poor social skills and limited social interactions. Additionally, you will receive a
gift certificate to a local restaurant as a thank you for your time and participation in the study.
All individuals who take part in this study must sign this consent form. Your signature indicates that you
have been informed of your rights as a participant, and you have agreed to volunteer on that basis. If you
would like a written summary of the results please provide your name and address in the space provided
and the researcher will send you a copy when available.
“I have read the above statement and have been fully advised of the procedures to be used in this project. I
have been given sufficient opportunity to ask any questions I had concerning the procedures and possible
risks involved. I understand the potential risks involved and I assume them voluntarily. I likewise
understand that I can withdraw from the study at any time without being subjected to reproach.”
___________________________________________
Participant
__________________________
Date
For written summary of results:
Printed Name
Street
City ________________________ State _________________ ____
Zip Code ____________________