Gresham1997 PDF

Review of Educational
Research http://rer.aera.net
Social Competence and Affective Characteristics of Students With Mild

Disabilities
Frank M. Gresham and Donald L. MacMillan
REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 1997 67: 377
DOI: 10.3102/00346543067004377
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://rer.sagepub.com/content/67/4/377
Published on behalf of
American Educational Research Association
and
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Review of Educational Research can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://rer.aera.net/alerts
Subscriptions: http://rer.aera.net/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.aera.net/reprints
Permissions: http://www.aera.net/permissions
Citations: http://rer.sagepub.com/content/67/4/377.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Jan 1, 1997
What is This?
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at UNIV TORONTO on November 11, 2014
Review of Educational Research
Winter 1997, Vol. 67, No. 4, pp. 377-415
Social Competence and Affective

Characteristics of Students With Mild Disabilities
Frank M. Gresham and Donald L. MacMillan

University of California, Riverside
Empirical research examining the social competence and affective functioning

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

over how special education practices influence the social and affective states of
children with disabilities. Hendrick and MacMillan (1987, 1988) observed that
efforts to establish ungraded classes for slow learners in the early part of the 20th
century were prompted in part by the desire to counter the persistent experiences
of failure encountered by these students in regular classes. According to one
official school publication, "the first concern of a development teacher is to help
the child gain confidence in himself and his own ability to do something well"
("Development Schools and Classes," 1926, p. 14). In fact, throughout the early
years of this century the literature contained numerous references "to the desir-
The present work was supported in part by Grants Nos. HC023C20002 and
HC023C30103 from the Office of Special Education Research in the U.S. Department
of Education. We appreciate reactions to an earlier draft of this manuscript provided
by Steven R. Forness, Barbara K. Keogh, Gary N. Siperstein, and Hill M. Walker.
Opinions expressed herein are those of the authors alone and should not be inteφreted
as having agency endorsement. Requests for reprints may be sent to the first author.
377

Gresham and MacMillan
ability of making it possible for children with special needs to experience success
in the special classes, as opposed to failure in the regular classes" (Hendrick &
MacMillan, 1987, p. 13). The academic and social failures characterizing the
regular class careers of these children were believed to adversely impact how
children felt about themselves as well as their attitudes about school and learning,
how they approached subsequent learning, and how other children in school
reacted to them. Early efforts in special education were prompted by the desire to
(a) remove such children from an environment in which they experienced
academic and social failure (i.e., the regular class) and (b) place them in a more
protective environment adapted to their academic weaknesses (i.e., special classes
or special schools) in which they could experience success, albeit in a protective
setting.
During the middle years of this century one finds continued interest in the social
and affective status of these students. The so-called efficacy studies conducted in
the 1950s and early 1960s employed two major sets of outcome variables against
which to test the relative benefits of regular versus special class placement: (a)
academic achievement and (b) social and personal adjustment (Guskin & Spicker,
1968). Various self-report measures were employed in these studies to measure
personal adjustment (e.g., self-concept scales, personality inventories), while
sociometric techniques and various teacher and peer ratings were utilized in an
attempt to measure the social adjustment of these children. It is noteworthy that
one of the two outcomes of importance was social and personal adjustment.
Among the consistent findings was that children with low IQs in regular classes
were seldom selected as friends and were more commonly neglected or actively
rejected (Johnson, 1950; Johnson & Kirk, 1950). Such findings led most profes-
sionals to argue for placement in more protective environments.
After the 1950s sentiment turned against special classes, partially fueled by
concern over the possible negative impact of labeling and segregation on the
social and personal adjustment of children with mild mental retardation placed in
separate classes. For example, Dunn (1974) wrote,
Certainly none of these labels are badges of distinction. Separating a child from
other children in his neighborhood—or removing him from the regular class-
room for therapy or special education placement—probably has a serious
debilitating effect upon his self image, (p. 9)
Despite a shift in support away from special day classes and the press for
"mainstreaming" that would develop, the importance placed on personal and
social adjustment never wavered. The situation may be simply stated as follows.
In the early 1900s we worried about the effects of failure and ridicule encountered
by children with mild disabilities in regular classes. By the end of the 1960s we
worried about the consequences of attaching the label mentally retarded to these
children and segregating them from the mainstream of the regular classroom.
As the press for mainstreaming mounted, one of the anticipated benefits was
captured by the phrase "the contact hypothesis" (Gottlieb, 1981). The contact
hypothesis states that with increased contact between disabled and nondisabled
children, the nondisabled children would realize that there is nothing to fear from
social interactions with their disabled classmates and that these interactions will
be rewarding, or at least not aversive. Consequently, with increased contact would
378

Social and Affective Functioning
come increased acceptance and a corresponding decrease in neglecting and reject-

ing of disabled classmates by their nondisabled peers. Contrary to these predic-
tions, Gottlieb's (1981) review concluded that the more nondisabled students
came to know their peers with disabilities, the less accepting they were of them.
That is, familiarity bred contempt.
Proponents of mainstreaming had argued that at least three beneficial social
outcomes would result from educating disabled students in regular classrooms: (a)
increased peer acceptance and decreased peer rejection, (b) mutually beneficial
and positive social interactions between disabled and nondisabled children, and
(c) the modeling of appropriate social behavior by nondisabled children. Gresham's
(1982) review of the mainstreaming literature at that time demonstrated that these
alleged benefits of mainstreaming had little, if any, empirical support.
A more recent review by Hallenback and Kauffman (1995) offered almost no
support for the notion that placement in regular classes somehow guarantees or
even facilitates the modeling of appropriate social behavior by nondisabled
children for the benefit of children with disabilities. Although observational
learning or modeling is an effective teaching strategy, particularly for teaching
social behavior, Hallenback and Kauffman noted, "If desirable models are both
readily available and a pervasive influence on behavior in neighborhood schools
and regular classes, then one might ask why these models do not prevent students
from acquiring maladaptive patterns of behavior" (p. 47).
In recent years we have seen other models for delivering needed services to
students with mild disabilities under the banners of the Regular Education Initia-
tive (REI; Will, 1986) and inclusion or full inclusion for severely disabled
students (Stainback & Stainback, 1984). Full inclusion urges placement of stu-
dents with severe disabilities in neighborhood schools in age-appropriate classes
(Gartner & Lipsky, 1987). While the REI was advanced in the belief that the
academic achievement of children with mild mental retardation and learning
disabilities would be enhanced, inclusion advocates have focused almost exclu-
sively on anticipated benefits in the areas of peer acceptance, self-concept, and
social skills (see Fuchs & Fuchs, 1994; MacMillan, Gresham, & Forness, 1996).
To date, there is little solid empirical research supporting these presumed benefits
of inclusion in social and affective domains for student with mild disabilities.
While the preferred service delivery model has changed repeatedly over the
century, there has been a persistent concern over the plight of students with
disabilities in the domains of personal and social adjustment. However, the
apparent degree of concern over these outcomes has not been matched by efforts
to develop and refine instruments and procedures for measuring these outcomes.
Perhaps more importantly, intervention techniques designed to facilitate positive
social and affective outcomes have been largely ignored. Until quite recently,
those conducting this type of research frequently used existing scales standardized
on students without disabilities or intervention procedures appropriate for stu-
dents without disabilities. Findings were frequently interpreted with little regard
for the unique features of students with disabilities. Within the last two decades,
however, interest in noncognitive variables in general education has increased,
and with the increased interest has come the development of new and more
psychometrically adequate instruments and procedures for measuring these vari-
ables.
379

The importance of social and affective characteristics of children with mild
disabilities goes beyond the fact that these have constituted some of the important
outcomes against which program evaluators establish the utility of individual
service delivery models. We have long recognized that children's personal behav-
ior, inattentiveness in school, and social behaviors are implicated in teacher
decisions to refer a child for prereferral interventions and for evaluation for
special education eligibility (Gerber & Semmel, 1984; Hersh & Walker, 1983).
Children exhibiting the same degree of academic underachievement are differen-
tially at risk for referral if they differ on their deportment in class and interpersonal
skills. Two major classroom behaviors that teachers often view as problems are
inattentiveness and disruptive behavior (disruption of the classroom and other
school activities). These two broad behavioral categories distinguish referred
from nonreferred pupils and predict the need for special education services in later
school years (Forness, Kavale, King, & Kasari, 1994; Walker & Severson, 1992).
Moreover, these are among the behaviors that define groups of children with other
disabilities, such as behavior disorders and attention deficit disorders.
The present article reviews empirical research focusing on the social and
affective functioning of children and youth having mild or high-incidence dis-
abilities. By mild disabilities, we mean children who experience a variety of
difficulties in cognitive, academic, social, and personal functioning. These mild-
disability groups include individuals currently classified by professionals as hav-
ing specific learning disabilities, mild mental retardation, behavior disorders, and
attention deficit and hyperactivity disorders. In the area of social and affective
functioning, we focus on the domains of peer acceptance and rejection, social
skills, problem behaviors (internalizing and externalizing), self-concept, and lone-
liness. We selected these domains of functioning because they have been consis-
tently implicated in research as being problematic for students within these mild-
disability groups (Barkely, 1990; Gresham, 1981b; Kauffman, 1993; MacMillan
& Morrison, 1984; Swanson & Malone, 1992). We begin our review with a
conceptualization of social competence and how it relates to the characteristics of
children and youth in mild-disability groups. We then discuss what we consider
to be important components within the domains of social and affective function-
ing. This is followed by a review of the empirical literature. Our review suggests
a series of independent and moderating variables that should be considered in the
design of research on social competence and affective characteristics. We also
propose more complex models for the study of these domains in order to capture
the multivariate nature of the interplay among affective characteristics and be-
tween affective and cognitive variables.
Conceptualization of Social Competence

Definition of Social Competence
Various approaches to measuring and defining social competence have been
proposed in the available literature. Greenspan (1981) described the construct of
personal competence as being divided into three domains: (a) academic compe-
tence, (b) social competence, and (c) physical competence. Academic and social
competence have the most relevance for children with mild disabilities, whereas
children with more severe cognitive disabilities (e.g., severe and profound mental
380

retardation) or health-related impairments (e.g., cerebral palsy, traumatic brain

injury) generally have deficits in physical competence as well. Social competence
characteristics of students with mild disabilities are emphasized in this article.
Gresham and Reschly (1988) conceptualized social competence as a multidi
mensional construct that included adaptive behavior, social skills, and peer rela
tionship variables (e.g., peer acceptance, friendship, and peer rejection). McFalΓs
(1982) conceptualization of social competence articulated a distinction between
social competence and social skills. In this approach, social skills are the specific
behaviors that a person uses to perform competently on social tasks. In contrast,
social competence is an evaluative term based on social agents' judgments (given
certain criteria) of whether a person has performed social tasks adequately. These
judgments may be based on opinions of significant others (e.g., teacher, parents,
and peers), comparisons to explicit criteria (e.g., number of social tasks performed
correctly in relation to some criterion), or comparisons to a normative sample.
McFalΓs notion of social competence views social skills as specific behaviors
which result in judgments of social competence. Thus social skills are behaviors,
and social competence represents a judgment about those behaviors.
This conceptualization is similar to Gresham's (1983) social validity definition
of social skills. According to this definition, social skills are those behaviors
which, within certain situations, predict important social outcomes for children
and youth. In school settings, important social outcomes might include (a) peer
acceptance, (b) significant others' positive judgments of social competence, (c)
academic achievement, (d) adequate self-concept, (e) positive attitudes toward
school, and (f) freedom from loneliness. This definition has the advantage of
specifying behaviors in which children and youth may be deficient and relating
these deficiencies to socially important outcomes in school settings.
Social Competence and Mild-Disability Groups
Social competence has been a fundamental notion associated with the criteria
by which exceptional individuals are defined and classified.. This is apparent in
the modern criteria used in classifying mental retardation, which have consistently
emphasized and weighted equally the importance of cognitive and social compe
tence (Gresham, MacMillan, & Siperstein, 1995; MacMillan, Gresham, &
Siperstein, 1993).
Social competence deficits are used as criteria in identifying and classifying
children as seriously emotionally disturbed (SED; Forness & Knitzer, 1992; Skiba
& Grizzle, 1991). Arguably, the two most crucial criteria specified in the Indi
viduals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for the classification of students
with SED are (a) an inability to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal
relationships with peers and teachers and (b) inappropriate types of behavior or
feelings under normal circumstances. We will use the term behavior disorder
(BD) to refer to students who might be classified as SED under the IDEA for the
remainder of this review.
Children are identified as having specific learning disabilities on the basis of a
significant discrepancy between ability and achievement in one or more of seven
areas of academic functioning (e.g., reading, mathematics, oral expression). Re
cently, however, a number of professionals have focused on the social compe
tence deficits of children with learning disabilities (Gresham, 1992; Gresham &
381

Elliott, 1989, 1990; LaGreca & Stone, 1990; Vaughn & Hogan, 1990). The
Interagency Committee on Learning Disabilities (1987) stated that consensus had
developed that social skills deficits represent a specific learning disability. This
proposal, however, has not been widely adopted or endorsed by professional
organizations or the U.S. Department of Education (Conte & Andrews, 1993;
Gresham, 1992, 1993; Swanson & Malone, 1992). Forness and Kavale (1991)
argued that the consideration of social skills deficits as a specific learning disabil-
ity would make this type of learning disability virtually indistinguishable from
SED (behavior disorders).
Although they are not considered an eligible disability group under the IDEA,
it is well-known that many children with attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD) experience substantial deficits in social competence and peer relation-
ships (Barkely, 1990; Guevremont, 1990; Landau & Moore, 1991). Pelham and
Bender (1982) suggested that over half of children having ADHD experience
substantial difficulties in interpersonal relationships with other children, parents,
and teachers. Much of their difficulty in social competence functioning can be
attributed to their behavioral characteristics of inattention, impulsivity, and
overactivity (see Whalen & Henker, 1985, for a detailed review). The study of
ADHD, as currently conceptualized, requires consideration of its comorbidity and
trimorbidity with other categories of mild disabilities. A Venn diagram of ADHD
and BD, learning disability (LD), and even mild mental retardation (MMR) would
indicate considerable overlap of these groups indicative of this comorbidity. It
should also be noted that ADHD children can be considered eligible for special
education and related services under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973.
Domains of Social Competence
Teachability and the model behavioral profile. One reason that children with
mild disabilities are referred and considered for special education is that they in
some ways do not meet teachers' social behavior standards. The standards,
expectations, and tolerance levels teachers hold for children's social behavior
influence teaching behaviors as well as peer interactions in classrooms (Hersh &
Walker, 1983). For example, students perceived as being brighter or more com-
petent receive more teacher attention, greater opportunities to respond, more
praise, and more verbal cues during teaching interactions than students perceived
by their teachers as less competent (Brophy & Good, 1986).
In addition to academic expectations, teachers also hold certain expectations,
standards, and tolerance levels for children's social behavior in the classroom.
Most teachers would consider a behavioral repertoire to be indicative of success-
ful adjustment if it (a) facilitated academic performance (e.g., listening to teacher,
completing tasks, complying with teacher instructions) and (b) were marked by
the absence of disruptive or unusual behaviors that challenge the teacher's author-
ity and disturb the classroom ecology (e.g., cheating, stealing, defying the teacher)
(Gresham & Reschly, 1988; Hersh & Walker, 1983). In short, most students with
mild disabilities are considered problematic based on difficulties in their
teachability. Teachability represents a pattern of social behavior that Hersh and
Walker term a model behavioral profile expected by most teachers. Many, if not
most, students with mild disabilities were initially referred for assessment and
382

placement in special education based on substantial deviations from this model

behavioral profile which created difficulties in their teachability.
Crucial social behavior demands. Upon school entry, children have to negoti-
ate two important kinds of adjustment in social behavior: teacher related and peer
related (Walker, McConnell, & Clark, 1985). Teacher-related adjustment reflects
the extent to which children meet the demands of the model behavioral profile
described earlier. Peer-related adjustment, on the other hand, reflects children's
abilities to establish and maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships that
result in peer acceptance and the formation of friendships (Asher, 1990; Walker,
Colvin, & Ramsey, 1995). Teacher-related adjustment is indexed by teacher
acceptance, whereas peer-related adjustment is reflected in peer acceptance and
friendships.
Walker and colleagues (see Walker, Irvin, Noell, & Singer, 1992) have pre-
sented an extremely useful model of interpersonal social-behavioral competence
for school settings. Table 1 presents the Walker et al. model, which describes both
adaptive and maladaptive teacher and peer social-behavioral domains and out-
comes. Note that the adaptive teacher-related adjustment behaviors operationalize
the model behavioral profile (described earlier) that results in teacher acceptance
and school success. The maladaptive domain is characteristic of behaviors that
disrupt the classroom ecology and result in teacher rejection, school failure, and
referral to special education.
The social behaviors in the adaptive peer-related adjustment domain are sub-
stantially different from those in the teacher-related adjustment domain. These
behaviors are essential for the formation of friendships and peer acceptance, but
have little to do with classroom success and teacher acceptance. The maladaptive
behaviors in this domain are likely to result in peer rejection or neglect, but share
many similarities with the maladaptive behaviors in the teacher-related maladjust-
ment domain.
Students with mild disabilities are likely to have difficulties in both teacher-
related and peer-related adjustment and maladjustment domains. The literature
describing these difficulties will be reviewed later in this article. This model of
social-behavioral functioning is essential for understanding the referral process,
as well as predicting the outcomes of attempts to include all children with
disabilities in general education classrooms.
Acquisition versus performance deficits. Another distinction useful in consid-
ering children's social-behavioral difficulties is that between acquisition and
performance deficits (Gresham, 1981a, 1981b). This distinction is important
because it suggests different intervention approaches in remediating social com-
petence deficits and may suggest different venues for carrying out these interven-
tions (classroom based versus pull-out groups). Social skills acquisition deficits
refer to the absence of knowledge required for executing particular social skills
even under optimal conditions. Social performance or production deficits repre-
sent the presence of social skills in a behavioral repertoire but the failure to
perform these skills at acceptable levels in given situations. In short, acquisition
deficits explain "can't do" failures, whereas performance deficits explain "won't
do" failures.
Gresham and Elliott (1990) extended this two-way classification into a four-
category classification scheme which is particularly relevant to children with mild
383

TABLE 1
Model of interpersonal social-behavioral competence within school settings
Teacher-related adjustment Peer-related adjustment
Adaptive Maladaptive Adaptive Maladaptive
Behavioral correlates Complies promptly Steals Cooperates with peers Disrupts group
Follows rules Defies teacher Supports peers Acts snobbish
Works independently Tantrums Defends self in arguments Agresses indirectly
Follows directions Disturbs others Remains calm Starts fights
Listens to teacher Cheats Leads peers Short temper
Finishes classwork Swears Compliments peers Brags
Aggressive Affiliates with peers Gets in trouble with teacher
Ignores teacher Seeks help constantly
Outcomes Teacher acceptance Teacher rejection Peer acceptance Social rejection

School achievement and Referral to special education Positive peer reactions Loneliness
success School failure and dropout Friendships Weak social involvement
Low performance expectations
Note. Adapted from ' A Construct Score Approach of Social Competence: Rationale, Technological Considerations, and Anticipated Outcomes," by H. M.
Walker, L. Irvin, J. Noell, and G. Singer, 1992, Behavior Modification, 16, pp. 448^‡74.

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

Assessment of Sociometric Status
A reading of the special education literature reveals that the term sociometric
encompasses a variety of techniques which have been used to index the internal
structure of a peer group. Peers are in a unique position to judge a child's social
behavior and represent a critical source of information. Given that numerous
methods are used to index peer acceptance or rejection, we provide a brief
description of these various assessment strategies here and also refer the reader to
other sources for more comprehensive treatments of this literature.
The broader term peer-referenced assessment includes both sociometric assess-
ment and peer assessment and refers to a collection of techniques designed to
measure either the attraction among members of a specific group or the specific
behaviors, traits, or roles of persons in a specific social group (Gresham & Little,
1993). Asher and Hymel (1981) distinguished sociometric assessment from peer
assessment by defining the former as describing the degree to which children like
or dislike each other and the latter as indicating specific behaviors or character-
istics of children in social groups. Distinctions between sociometric and peer
assessment are important: Research findings can be misinterpreted if these sepa-
rate methodologies are not distinguished (Asher & Hymel, 1981; Gresham &
Little, 1993).
Sociometric assessments have involved a variety of methods—for example,
peer nominations, peer ratings, and paired comparison methods. Peer nominations
ask children to nominate peers according to certain criteria such as "liked most,"
"liked least," or "best friends." Peer nominations are typically used to tap two
separate dimensions of sociometric status: social preference, which indicates the
degree to which children are liked or disliked by peers, and social impact, which
refers to social salience or noticeability of children (see Coie, Dodge, & Coppotelli,
1982; Newcomb, Bukowski, & Pattee, 1993). This combination of social prefer-
ence and social impact has been used by researchers to form five separate
sociometric status groups—popular, rejected, neglected, controversial, and aver-
age—each of which has different behavioral correlates (see Newcomb et al.,
1993, for a meta-analytic review). Peer ratings, on the other hand, require children
to rate peers on 3-point or 5-point scales according to preferences for engaging
them in some activity (preferred play or work partners). Paired comparison
methods involve presenting all possible pairs of peers and having children choose
among the pairs according to some relevant dimension (e.g., playmate or friend).
Like sociometric assessments, peer assessments have also involved various
methods, including the Guess Who? technique, in which children nominate peers
for various roles (positive and negative) in a class play or nominate peers for
385

fitting certain behavioral descriptions or traits (e.g., argues, cooperates, leader,
lonely). There are also a class of peer-referenced assessment strategies known as
mixed assessments, which represent a combination of sociometric and peer assess-
ment. For example, the Pupil Evaluation Inventory (Pekarik, Prinz, Leibert,
Weintraub, & Neale, 1976) uses peer nominations to tap the factors of likability,
aggression, and withdrawal (where the first is a sociometric factor and the last two
are both peer assessment factors). Another measure, known as the Peer Perception
Inventory, measures the sociometric factors of popularity and rejection and the
peer assessment factors of aggression, hyperactivity, and sociability (Milich,
Landau, Kilby, & Whitten, 1982).
A number of studies in the special education literature, conducted primarily
with elementary-age samples, have demonstrated that students with mild disabili-
ties are often poorly accepted or rejected by peers without disabilities. These
studies consistently show that children with mild disabilities (LD, MMR, BD,
ADHD) are less well accepted and more often rejected than their peers in general
education classrooms. We offer a sample of these findings for each of the mild-
disability groups to provide readers with an indication of the magnitude of these
differences in peer acceptance and rejection.
Two meta-analytic reviews have focused on the sociometric status of children
with LD (Ochoa & Olivarez, 1995; Swanson & Malone, 1992). Swanson and
Malone's meta-analysis of 39 studies indicated that children with LD, on average,
scored at the 18th percentile in peer acceptance using peer ratings (based on 37
effect sizes), the 30th percentile using peer nominations (based on 16 effect sizes),
and the 78th percentile in peer rejection (based on 14 effect sizes). Whereas these
data indicate that children with LD are more poorly accepted and more socially
rejected than peers without LD, they also suggest that between 16% and 22% of
children with LD are at least as well accepted as their peers without LD. These
findings support the hypothesis that difficulties in peer relationships may coexist
with learning disabilities, but are not necessarily defining characteristics or inevi-
table consequences of learning disabilities. It should also be noted that there are
substantial gender and race differences in peer acceptance status of children with
LD; White females classified as LD are least accepted, and African American
males are as well accepted as White and African American children without LD
(Gresham & Reschly, 1987; Swanson & Malone, 1992).
Ochoa and Olivarez (1995) conducted a meta-analysis of 17 sociometric status
studies of children with LD that used peer rating sociometric procedures. Using
various effect size estimates, Ochoa and Olivarez found slightly lower peer rating
effect size estimates than did Swanson and Malone (1992) (Mdn = -.66 versus -
.90, respectively). The Ochoa and Olivarez meta-analysis, however, supports the
well established conclusion that children with LD are less well accepted than their
peers without LD. These authors also suggested that the effect size estimates were
not moderated by the gender or grade level of the rated students, by the research
design, or by the sociometric scale type. The gender of the rater, however, was a
significant moderator of sociometric status, with same-gender ratings producing
lower sociometric ratings than opposite-gender and combined-gender ratings.
These authors did not include the gender of either the raters or the rated students
as a moderator variable in their meta-analysis, nor did they assess peer rejection
of children with LD.
386

Kavale and Forness (1996) conducted a more comprehensive meta-analytic

investigation of the degree and nature of social skills deficits of students with
learning disabilities. Based on a quantitative synthesis of 152 studies, Kavale and
Forness found that approximately 75% of students with LD were less socially
competent than their non-LD peers. These differences were consistent across
peer-, teacher-, and self-informant conditions and across different dimensions of
social skill.
Compared to children with LD, children with MMR have been the subject of
fewer recent sociometric studies—and no meta-analytic studies. This is most
likely due to the progressive decline in the identification of children as MMR over
the past several years and the corresponding increase in the number of children
labeled as LD (MacMillan & Reschly, in press; MacMillan, Siperstein, & Gresham,
1996).
Despite wide variations in sociometric techniques and criteria for sociometric
choice, the sociometric literature on children with MMR consistently reveals that
these children are less accepted and more frequently rejected than their peers
without MMR (MacMillan & Morrison, 1984). Likewise, major reviews of the
mainstreaming literature have indicated that children with MMR in general edu-
cation classrooms are more poorly accepted and more often rejected than their
peers without MMR (Gottlieb, 1981; Gresham, 1981b, 1982; Madden & Slavin,
1983; Semmel, Gottlieb, & Robinson, 1979). There is some evidence, admittedly
dated, to suggest that children with MMR are better accepted by peers when they
are taught in special education classrooms than when they are integrated in
general education classrooms (Goodman, Gottlieb, & Harrison, 1972; Gottlieb &
Budoff, 1973). However, conclusions based on populations of students with
MMR in the 1960s and 1970s must be generalized with caution to current groups
of children identified as MMR (MacMillan, 1989), since those identified as MMR
in that earlier era included children with IQ scores into the mid-80s. Many of those
old MMRs would today be classified as LD (Gottlieb, Alter, Gottlieb, & Wishner,
1994) or even as low-achieving nondisabled students (Forness, 1985).
Two studies illustrate the behavioral and nonbehavioral correlates of sociomet-
ric status in children with MMR (Gottlieb, Semmel, & Veldman, 1978; Morrison,
Forness, & MacMillan, 1983). Using a path analytic model, Morrison et al. found
that peer and teacher perceptions of cognitive competencies act as mediating
variables between (a) observed social behavior in the classroom and (b) academic
achievement and sociometric status. Using a multiple regression model, Gottlieb
et al. found that acceptance and rejection scores of children with MMR were
associated with different predictor variables. Acceptance was associated with
perceptions of academic performance, while rejection was related to disruptive
behavior. Moreover, there was no relationship between the degree of integration
and sociometric status; contrary to the expectations of mainstreaming advocates.
In contrast to the large base of research on children with LD and MMR, there
is a paucity of research on the sociometric status of children identified by schools
as having BD. The little research that does exist suggests that these children are
much more likely to be rejected by their peers without disabilities (Sabornie &
Kauffman, 1985; Sabornie, Kauffman, Ellis, Marshall, & Elksnin, 1988; Walker
& Bullis, 1991). There is, however, a great deal of research concerning the
behavioral correlates of various sociometric groups (e.g., rejected, neglected,
387

Gresham and MacMìllan
controversial). Most children identified by schools as having BD are identified as
such on the basis of an externalizing behavior pattern (aggressive, disruptive, and
noncompliant behavior) (Kauffman, 1993; Walker et al, 1995). This externaliz-
ing behavior pattern shows a high correlation with the sociometric status rejected
(Newcomb et al., 1993), and it is therefore likely that many, if not most, children
classified by schools as having BD would be assigned the sociometric status
rejected.
According to the two-dimensional sociometric classification model of Coie et
al. (1982), rejected children have a low social preference and a high social impact.
Newcomb et al.'s (1993) meta-analytic findings suggested that rejected children
were more aggressive, less sociable, and less cognitively skilled than children
with average sociometric status. These findings are consistent with the very
criteria used when children are identified by schools as BD (see Kauffman, 1993;
Walker et al, 1995) and when children are identified clinically as having conduct
disorders (Hinshaw, 1992; Reid, 1993; Short & Shapiro, 1993). In addition,
rejection in childhood is predictive of more serious adjustment difficulties in
adolescence and into the adult years (Kupersmidt, Coie, & Dodge, 1990; Parker
& Asher, 1987).
Somewhat more sociometric research has been conducted with children having
attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Landau and Moore (1991) sug-
gested that children with ADHD evoke negative responses from their peers and
are therefore often rejected by peers based on an externalizing behavior pattern
(e.g., impulsivity, disruption, aggression). Whalen and Henker's (1985) review
indicated that children with ADHD are described by peers as annoying, boister-
ous, irritating, and intrusive. Some research suggests that children with ADHD
might be considered more unpopular than are aggressive children when they are
referred by teachers for interpersonal problems (Milich et al., 1982). Pelham and
Bender (1982) investigated the behavioral correlates of negative peer status in a
group of ADHD and non-ADHD children, all of whom were initially unfamiliar
with each other. These authors reported that children with ADHD quickly achieved
a peer status of rejected and this status was related to high rates of aggressive,
destructive, and noncompliant behaviors in group play situations.
An intriguing study by Erhardt and Hinshaw (1994) investigated both the
behavioral and the nonbehavioral correlates of sociometric status in a sample of
6- to 12-year-old boys with ADHD (n = 25) and a comparison group of boys
without ADHD (n = 24). All 49 boys were attending a 5-week summer camp and
did not know each other prior to attending the camp. These authors found that the
externalizing behaviors of aggression and noncompliance were the best predictors
of peer rejection and that the prosocial behaviors (e.g., leadership, conflict reso-
lution, norm setting) best predicted friendship ratings. Nonbehavioral variables
such as intelligence, academic achievement, physical attractiveness, and motor
competence (e.g., running, jumping, throwing a football, shooting a basketball)
did not predict sociometric status.
The findings in the ADHD literature validate the long-held assumption—and
the empirical evidence based on research with nondisabled groups—that social
behavior is primarily responsible for either positive or negative sociometric status
(see Coie, 1990; Dodge, 1983; Newcomb et al., 1993). Thus, the weight of the
evidence to date suggests that negative sociometric status or peer rejection is
388

caused by high rates of externalizing behavior (e.g., aggression, disruption,
noncompliance) rather than a "reputational bias" (e.g., being labeled as ADHD)
or nonbehavioral factors (e.g., intelligence, achievement, physical attractiveness,
physical prowess). Whether these findings extend to other mild-disability groups
is open to question and awaits empirical investigation. Children with ADHD have
been described as negative social catalysts and elicit negative behaviors from
peers and teachers (Whalen & Henker, 1985; Wheeler & Carlson, 1994). To date,
there have been no meta-analytic syntheses focusing on the sociometric status of
children with ADHD. Given that many children classified as ADHD can also be
classified as LD and vice versa (comorbidity), one might be able to cautiously
generalize from the meta-analytic findings of Swanson and Malone (1992) and
Ochoa and Olivarez (1995) concerning the sociometric status of children with LD.
It is clear that much more research concerning the sociometric status of children
with ADHD is needed.
Social Skills and Interfering Problem Behaviors
There is a substantial body of literature suggesting that children in all mild-
disability groups exhibit deficient social skills and excesses in interfering problem
behaviors (Gresham, 1992; Gresham & Elliott, 1990; Landau & Moore, 1991;
Merrell, Johnson, Merz, & Ring, 1992; Swanson & Malone, 1992; Walker &
McConnell, 1988). This holds true for students with learning disabilities, mild
mental retardation, emotional and behavioral disorders, and attention deficit
disorders, as well as for children who are low in academic achievement but not
classified as mildly disabled. As mentioned earlier, we conceptualize social skills
deficits as being either acquisition or performance deficits which may or may not
be accompanied by internalizing and/or externalizing interfering problem behav-
iors. Using this conceptualization, we now turn to a review of exemplary studies
and findings in this literature conducted with mild-disability groups.
Several studies have shown students with mild disabilities to exhibit deficient
social skills and excesses in interfering problem behaviors relative to nondisabled
controls. Almost all of these studies, however, have detected few differences
among mild-disability groups. Gresham, Elliott, and Black (1987) contrasted
three groups in Grades 1-8 defined as LD, MMR, and BD with nondisabled
controls using teacher ratings of social skills. No differences were found among
the mild-disability groups, but large differences were found between these groups
and the nondisabled group. On average, the mild-disability groups scored 1.15
standard deviations below the nondisabled group, or, alternatively, at the 12th
percentile of the nondisability group. A cross-validated discriminant function
analysis correctly classified 71% of the mild-disability groups and 78% of the
nondisabled group using a total social skills score. Studies contrasting students
with learning disabilities and nondisabled students have reported similar effect
sizes (Gresham & Reschly, 1986; Kistner & Gatlin, 1989).
A comprehensive investigation by Merrell et al. (1992) contrasted four groups
of students—classified as LD, MMR, BD, and low achieving (LA)—in Grades K-
6 with nondisabled controls using teacher ratings of social skills. Consistent with
Gresham et al.'s (1987) findings, no differences were found between LD or MMR
groups using teacher ratings of social skills, nor were there any differences
between these groups and the LA group. Overall, LD, MMR, and LA groups
389

scored approximately 1.2 standard deviations below the nondisabled group, which
suggests that these groups' social skills functioning is exceeded by 88% of the
nondisabled group.
There were, however, significant differences between the BD groups and the
other mild-disability groups (.58 standard deviations) and the nondisabled group
(1.81 standard deviations). Merrell et al. (1992) concluded that social skills is a
weak discriminating variable in differentiating LD, MMR, and LA groups, but is
a strong predictor of membership in the BD group. Similar findings were reported
by Gresham, MacMillan, and Bocian (1996), who also contrasted LD, MMR, and
LA groups.
Several studies have focused on contrasting students classified as LD with LA
groups to determine if low academic achievement is the so-called common
denominator of social competence difficulties (Coleman, McHam, & Minnett,
1992; Gresham et al., 1996; LaGreca & Stone, 1990; Merrell et al., 1992; Sater &
French, 1989). The Coleman et al., Gresham et al., and Merrell et al. studies
suggest that there are few differences between students classified as LD and low
academic achievers in social skills functioning. The study by LaGreca and Stone
yielded group differences in social competence, but interpretation of these find-
ings is limited by a large attrition rate and some difficulties in matching LD and
LA students. Overall, there is little evidence to suggest that the social skills
functioning of students with LD is any different from that of students classified as
LA.
Swanson and Malone's (1992) meta-analytic synthesis of the literature regard-
ing the social competence of students with LD showed that these students had
poorer social problem-solving skills than 79% of nondisabled students, spent less
than 80% less time on task than nondisabled students, and had more interfering
problem behaviors (internalizing and externalizing) than 78% of nondisabled
students.
An earlier meta-analysis by Kavale and Nye (1986) showed that the largest
difference between students with LD and their non-LD peers was in the area of
interpersonal behavior (effect size = .653). This quantitative synthesis showed
that about 3 out of 4 students with LD had interpersonal deficits characterized by
peer rejection, poor peer acceptance, and interactional difficulties with teachers,
peers, and parents.
The literature regarding mild-disability groups clearly demonstrates that these
students experience deficits in their social skills functioning relative to nondisabled
peers. There is little evidence to suggest that these groups differ among them-
selves in social competence functioning. The notable exception is the social
functioning of students classified as BD, who seem to demonstrate substantially
greater social skills deficits than other mild-disability groups (Merrell et al., 1992;
Rhode, Jenson, & Reavis, 1992; Walker et al., 1995). In fact, difficulties in
establishing and maintaining satisfactory interpersonal relationships with peers
and teachers is the central, defining characteristic of children with BD (Forness &
Knitzer, 1992; Kauffman, 1993).
An investigation by McConaughy and colleagues (McConaughy, Mattison, &
Peterson, 1994) used both teacher (Teacher Rating Form) and parent (Child
Behavior Checklist) ratings of 366 pairs of children with BD and LD matched for
age, gender, socioeconomic status, and geographical region to normal controls.
390

This investigation offered further support for the premise that children with BD
differ substantially from other mild-disability groups in terms of internalizing and
externalizing problem behaviors. Children with BD could be reliably differenti-
ated from children with LD on all teacher and parent subscales with the exception
of Somatic Complaints. A discriminant function analysis found that the most
accurate group separation could be obtained using a weighted combination of
teacher and parent subscales. This analysis indicated that 73% of the BD cases and
almost 79% of the LD cases could be accurately classified.
Children with ADHD are also deficient in social skills functioning relative to
their nondisabled peers (Whalen & Henker, 1985). Loney and Milich (1982)
suggested that the social skills difficulties of these children may be performance
deficits rather than acquisition deficits. Carrying this logic further, Wheeler and
Carlson (1994) argued that externalizing interfering problem behaviors (e.g.,
impulsivity, inattention, noncompliance) prevent the performance of social skills
in children classified as having ADD with hyperactivity and that internalizing
interfering problem behaviors (e.g., anxiety, shyness, social withdrawal) prevent
the acquisition of social skills in children classified as having ADD without
hyperactivity. This is an interesting hypothesis that may explain the social com-
petence deficits of children with ADD; however, this hypothesis awaits empirical
testing.
We could locate no studies contrasting ADHD children with students classified
as LD, MMR, BD, or LA on measures of social skills functioning. Given the high
comorbidity and sometimes trimorbidity between and among the groups with
mild disabilities, as well as the vagaries in the classification of these groups, we
doubt that substantial differences would be found; if such differences were found,
we would not be sure how to interpret them. Overall, we can safely conclude (a)
that the social functioning of students with mild disabilities is between 1 to 1.5
standard deviations below that of their peers without disabilities and (b) that of the
students with mild disabilities, those with BD are the most deficient in social
skills. It is reasonable to conclude that social skills deficits and interfering behav-
ior excesses of BD students represent part of the diagnostic criteria for defining
this group. Social skills deficits appear to characterize all mild-disability groups;
however, it is unclear whether this represents a cause, an effect, or a concomitant
of a mild disability. Interpretations of these possibilities are discussed later in this
review.
Domains of Affective Functioning
A number of affective characteristics have been investigated in samples of
children having mild disabilities. These affective characteristics have included,
but are not limited to, self-concept, locus of control, achievement motivation,
learned helplessness, effectance motivation, attributional style, school attitudes,
loneliness, and self-efficacy. Two of these affective characteristics, self-concept
and loneliness, seem most relevant to the current presentation and perhaps are the
most salient affective variables to be considered in administrative placement
options for students with mild disabilities. We will address other affective vari-
ables (e.g., attributions, learned helplessness, self-efficacy, school attitudes) in the
concluding discussion as they interrelate with the constructs emphasized in this
review. We will provide theoretical explanations of variables that may, in some
391

instances, serve a moderating role in the complex multivariate nature of affective
characteristics of children with mild disabilities.
Self-Concept
Definitional issues. Self-concept is considered a critical variable in both general
and special education, as evidenced by the large number of studies conducted
using self-concept as an outcome variable (Byrne, 1984; Harter, 1985; Wylie,
1974, 1979). As noted in the introduction of this article, the field of special
education has been continuously concerned in the broadest sense with children's
self-attitudes. Distinctions are made in more recent writings between self-concept,
self-esteem, and other concepts that differ slightly, yet significantly, from one
another. Shavelson, Hubner, and Stanton (1976) compiled and distinguished 17
definitions of self-concept that have been used in the research literature. These
various definitions of self-concept share six features (see Byrne, 1984; Marsh &
Shavelson, 1985): (a) organized, (b) hierarchical, (c) stable, (d) evaluative, (e)
differentiable, and (f) multifaceted.
The extent to which these six features are exhibited by students with mild
disabilities has not been established. For example, self-concept seems to become
more differentiated as children mature (Byrne, 1984); however, there are rela-
tively few data to inform us regarding the extent to which children with MMR,
BD, and other mild disabilities are differentiated by self-concept. Moreover, self-
concept may be correlated with different variables at different ages or grades (e.g.,
with social behavior in Grade 2 and physical competence and attractiveness in
Grade 7). Additionally, we do not know if self-concept is stable for one group and
unstable for another. For instance, it may be that self-concept fluctuates for
children with emotional and behavioral disorders but is relatively stable for
children with MMR. Most of the systematic research in self-concept among mild-
disability groups has focused on students with MMR and/or students with LD.
Little systematic research in self-concept has involved students with BD and
ADHD.
Mild mental retardation. A review of the research on self-concept in children
with MMR up to the mid-1960s (Gardner, 1966) concluded that efforts in this vein
were hampered by the fact that most scales were verbal in nature and required
verbal skills (e.g., vocabulary) beyond those of most persons with MMR. More-
over, Sternlicht and Deutsch (1972) suggested that MMR individuals' conception
of their own retardation is so emotionally laden that they are incapable of
accepting, and admitting to, their limitations. Sternlicht and Deutsch went on to
note that because persons with MMR may feel a need to protect themselves from
negative evaluations, self-report measures must be interpreted with extreme cau-
tion. In fact, several authors (Edgerton, 1967; Gutherie, Butler, & Gorlow, 1964;
Gutherie, Butler, Gorlow, & White, 1964) concluded that in a majority of in-
stances attributions of inferiority or incompetence were rejected because a denial
mechanism. Hence, this early research (up until 1970) on self-concept in individu-
als with MMR alerted us to the fact that individuals who are unsuccessful at many
life tasks may become defensive and deny negative statements about themselves,
which is cause to be concerned about the possibility of invalid data and unrealis-
tically favorable self-concepts being reported (Bialer, 1970).
Does one interpret high or favorable scores found for children with MMR as
392

reflecting the effectiveness of treatments in protecting children from undue failure
and their relative incompetence, or should these scores be interpreted as reflecting
a refusal to admit to negative self-descriptions? One interesting investigation by
Cleland, Patton, and Seitz (1967) suggested the vulnerability of individuals with
MMR to their low intellectual status. A group of persons with mental retardation
and another group without mental retardation attending business school were
instructed to pretend to insult someone with whom they were angry. Persons with
mental retardation generated insults that were related to the intelligence of the
person they were insulting, while the group without mental retardation provided
insults directed at the character of the person they wished to insult. The authors
interpreted these findings as evidence of the vulnerability that persons with mental
retardation feel toward their low intellectual functioning.
A differing interpretation for the "higher" self-concepts revealed by persons
with mental retardation comes from the work of Edgerton and Sabagh (1962).
These investigators used ethnographic methods, and "self was not measured with
one of the existing self-concept scales. Nevertheless, in their study of residents in
a state institution for persons with mental retardation, they provided evidence that
bears on the later speculation of Dunn (1968) that labeling children as mentally
retarded may lead to "mortifications of the self." Edgerton and Sabagh reported
that labeling and placement in the institution resulted in certain "aggrandizements
of the self for higher-ability individuals with mental retardation, since it permit-
ted comparisons with a peer group of lower ability. For children from minority
and/or low-socioeconomic-status backgrounds, labeling did not lead to mortifica-
tions of the self, because these children's families frequently denied the validity
of the diagnosis. Edgerton and Sabagh explained,
This nonacceptance may have been facilitated by several circumstances. For

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

Marsh and Shavelson (1985) have utilized self-concept scales and described a
similar phenomenon. Marsh (1988) has described this as a "self-serving bias."
The research conducted during the 1960s on self-concept in persons with MMR
yielded a mixed pattern of findings. Some of the studies reported lower self-
concepts for groups of individuals with MMR (Borg, 1966; Mann, 1960;
Meyerowitz, 1962), while others found just the opposite (Drews, 1962; Goldberg,
Passow, & Justman, 1961). One study (Bacher, 1965) reported no differences
between groups with and without MMR.
One series of studies is of particular interest because it addressed the conse-
quences of placement and the experiences of the child prior to placement in
special education (Schurr, Towne, & Joiner, 1972; Towne, Joiner, & Schurr,
393

1967). Posttest-only findings of lower self-concepts expressed by children with

MMR could reflect the effects of special class placement and labeling, the effects
of experiences in regular education prior to placement in special education, or
some combination of the two. Towne et al. administered a measure of self-concept
of ability to 62 children prior to the notification of the children and their parents
that they had been selected for placement in special education. This first admin-
istration was in the month of June. The scale was then administered again in
September, December, March, and June of the following academic year, while the
children were enrolled in special education. Contrary to the hypothesized decline
in self-concept scores, self-concept of ability progressively increased from June
through March and declined slightly in June of the following year. This pattern of
findings is consistent with Edgerton and Sabagh's (1962) "aggrandizement of the
self and Marsh's (1988) "big fish, small pond effect," experienced when the
immediate social comparison group, by virtue of being less capable, permits
favorable comparisons. These findings are also consistent with Silon and Harter's
(1985) results concerning mainstreamed and segregated groups of children with
MMR. However, in Silon and Harter's study placement (e.g., special day class
versus general education) was taken as a proxy for the social comparison group,
and, as will be discussed later, it may be necessary to examine more closely
exactly how children select and define their social comparison groups.
Learning disabilities. One encounters mixed findings when reading the litera-
ture regarding the self-concepts of students with LD. The literature is quite clear
that students with LD have lower academic self-concepts than non-LD students
(Bear & Minke, 1996; Chapman, 1988; Chapman & Boersma, 1979; Clever, Bear,
& Juvonen, 1992; Cooley & Ayers, 1988; Hagborg, 1996; Kistner, Haskett,
White, & Robbins, 1987; Kistner & Osborne, 1987; Renick & Harter, 1989).
Chapman's meta-analytic review showed an average effect size of -.88 between
students with LD and non-LD students in academic self-concept. Our review of
additional studies (Bear & Minke, 1996; Clever et al., 1992; Hagborg, 1996;
Kistner et al., 1987; Kistner & Osborne, 1987) showed a similar effect size of
-.79.
However, research contrasting students with and without LD reveals a conflict-
ing picture when looking at global self-concept or self-esteem. Chapman (1988)
reviewed 21 studies in which students with LD and non-LD students were
contrasted on general self-concept and found an effect size of -.50, with students
with LD having lower general self-concepts than their non-LD peers. Similarly,
Kavale and Nye (1986) showed an effect size of-.535 between students with LD
and their non-LD peers. This suggests that approximately 70% of students with
LD experience lower self-esteem than non-LD students. More recent studies,
however, have found no differences between students with LD and their non-LD
counterparts on global self-concept (Bear et al., 1991; Bear & Minke, 1996;
Clever et al., 1992; Hagborg, 1996; Kistner et al., 1987; Kistner & Osborne,
1987).
As was found for children with mental retardation, placement has been the
independent variable of greatest interest to investigators studying children with
LD, and special class placement has frequently been contrasted with regular class
placement. Advocates of the REI have reasoned that placing LD students in
regular classes without labeling them should result in more favorable self-con-
394

cepts than would result if these children were served in special day classes and
labeled (Wang & Birch, 1984).
There is far less available literature comparing the self-concepts of students
with ADHD and BD. An intriguing investigation by Hoza and colleagues (Hoza,
Pelham, Milich, Pillow, & McBride, 1993) showed that boys with ADHD were
equivalent to controls in self-concepts of scholastic competence, social accep-
tance, physical appearance, and athletic competence. Interestingly, the global
self-worth of boys with ADHD was almost identical to that of controls (3.30
versus 3.33, respectively). This positive self-image of boys with ADHD persisted
in spite of clear academic failure and social rejection by peers. Hoza et al.
interpreted their findings as an example of a positive illusory bias, which some
authors have argued is related to positive mental health and adjustment (see
Taylor & Brown, 1988). This positive illusory bias, sometimes called a self-
serving bias, characterizes some students with BD, in that they take responsibility
for positive social events and deny responsibility for negative social events.
Similar findings have been reported for students with externalizing behavior
disorders (Gresham, MacMillan, Bocian, & Ward, 1997; Schneider & Leitenberg,
1989).
Theoretical explanations. Evidenced published to date, however, fails to sup-
port the hypothesized benefits of regular class placement on the self-concept of
students with LD and MMR. Social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954) has
provided a theoretical framework in which to consider such findings. Coleman
(1983) and Renick and Harter (1989) invoked social comparison theory to explain
the negative self-concepts found for mainstreamed students with LD. They rea-
soned that children with LD compare their level of achievement to that of non-LD
classmates—a comparison that leads to negative academic self-concept. Chapman's
(1988) meta-analysis compared the magnitudes of the differences in academic
self-concept scores of children with and without LD in different placements
across studies. Chapman reported effect size statistics of -.59 for segregated
placement, -.68 for mainstream settings, and -1.31 for unplaced students with LD
when compared to children without LD. The unplaced students with LD had lower
academic self-concept scores than approximately 90% of students without LD.
Silon and Harter (1985) also used social comparison theory to explain their
pattern of findings on self-concepts of children with MMR placed in special day
classes and mainstream settings. They found no differences as a function of
placement, and they explained this finding by claiming that mainstreamed chil-
dren with MMR compared themselves to other mainstreamed children with MMR
rather than to their non-MMR peers. Further, it was argued that the social
comparison group for the students with MMR in special day classes were their
special class peers. Coleman et al. (1992) found no differences in general or social
self-concept between students with LD and students who were LA but had
comparable academic skill levels in regular classrooms. These authors also inter-
preted their findings as being consistent with social comparison theory.
Widaman, MacMillan, Hemsley, Little, and Balow (1992) argued that their
findings suggested greater complexity in defining the social comparison group
than had been proposed in previous research. In their study, three groups of eighth
graders were studied: (a) regular class students scoring above the 25th percentile
on achievement tests, (b) educationally marginal students who were enrolled in
395

regular classes but achieved in the bottom quartile on standardized tests of

achievement, and (c) students with mild disabilities served in special education.
The regular class students were significantly higher in academic self-concept than
were the educationally marginal students and the students with mild disabilities,
while the latter two groups did not differ. Although this pattern of findings could
be consistent with social comparison theory, the study also revealed ethnic group
differences. Despite the fact that all three ethnic groups (African American,
Hispanic, and Caucasian) did not differ on measured achievement, African Ameri-
can students had significantly higher academic self-concept scores than did
Hispanic and Caucasian students. The authors interpreted these findings as sug-
gesting the salience of ethnicity for children in defining their social comparison
groups. Furthermore, the authors suggested the importance of more closely exam-
ining the roles of disability group, educational placement, gender, and ethnicity in
determining how children define their social comparison groups.
The development and refinement of new and more psychometrically adequate
scales for measuring self-concept (Bracken, 1992; Gresham, Elliott, & Evans-
Fernandez, 1993; Harter, 1985; Marsh, 1988) has provided those conducting
research on students with and without disabilities with better methods of indexing
self-concept. Strein (1993) has described the most commonly posited structural
models of self-concept: nomothetic, hierarchical, taxonomic, and compensatory
models. He went on to present the theoretical research on the respective models
and drew implications of these models for intervention. The newer instruments
permit examination of the hierarchical and taxonomic models, and a new genera-
tion of research on self-concept—research that moves beyond whether a group's
global self-concept is higher or lower than that of a comparison group—is at hand.
As noted in the introduction, the origins of special education for students with
mild disabilities are intimately linked to considerations of the self-concept of
these children. The development of hierarchical models (Shavelson et al., 1976)
and scales that capture the multidimensionality of self-concept opens the door to
asking more sophisticated questions and examining developmental aspects of
self-concept. For example, it is posited that the self becomes more differentiated
with age. Silon and Harter (1985) identified a two-factor solution for their group
with MMR in elementary school, whereas four factors emerged for the group
without MMR. Yet Widaman et al. (1992), studying eighth graders, found that the
factor structure of the Self-Description Questionnaire II (Marsh, 1988) was the
same for adequately achieving regular class students, low-achieving regular class
students, and students with mild disabilities receiving special education. This
raises some interesting questions about whether differentiation is more related to
stage of cognitive development (e.g., mental age) than to chronological age. If so,
does differentiation proceed more slowly but in the same manner for children with
MMR (i.e., the similar sequence hypothesis)?
Scales tapping multiple dimensions of self-concept permit testing of some very
interesting and potentially important questions about the consequences of failure.
For example, do children whose failure in school occurs primarily in the academic
domain evidence lower self-concept scores in the academic domain and academic
subdomains (e.g., math self-concept, reading self-concept) than in nonacademic
domains (e.g., physical self-concept, social self-concept)? Such a pattern in the
case of students with LD and MMR might be just what is sought when special
396

education services are successful. That is, we might be able to preclude

overgeneralization of the effects of academic failure into nonacademic domains,
despite being unable to prevent children who are inefficient learners from evalu-
ating themselves negatively in the academic domain.
Linking dimensions of self-concept to achievement (e.g., reading, mathemat-
ics), social competence (e.g., peer acceptance, social skills), and other affective
factors (e.g., loneliness, school attitudes) is now feasible. Moreover, findings
from this line of research can assist in evaluating the outcomes of intervention
efforts and placement options and may also serve to inform policymakers regard-
ing the education of children with mild disabilities.
Loneliness
Definitional issues. An emerging literature regarding children's experiences of
loneliness suggests that these experiences may have detrimental effects on peer
relationships and self-concept (Asher, Parkhurst, Hymel, & Williams, 1990).
Recent work by Asher and colleagues suggests that children's experience of
loneliness consists of three interrelated dimensions: (a) an affective or emotional
dimension, (b) a social dimension, and (c) a situational or context dimension.
Affective loneliness is described by references to unpleasant emotions (e.g.,
sadness or boredom) and references to feelings (e.g., feeling left out, feeling like
an outsider, or feeling that no one likes you). It may stem from a lack of close
friendships (Asher et al., 1990) and may be independent of overall acceptance by
the peer group. For example, it is possible for children to be accepted by the peer
group and yet have no close friends. It is also possible to be poorly accepted by
peers and have one or more close friendships. Bukowski and Newcomb (1987)
demonstrated that having at least one good friend in a classroom predicted
children's feelings of self-worth even after the effects of peer group acceptance
were statistically removed. As such, it may be that lack of friendship and lack of
peer acceptance make independent contributions to children's feelings of affec-
tive or emotional loneliness.
Social loneliness refers to an absence of a network of social relationships,
which results in children's feeling isolated from the peer group. As might be
expected, social loneliness is negatively correlated with peer acceptance. These
correlations, however, are only moderate (-.30), which suggests that not all
unpopular children are lonely and that some well accepted children do feel lonely
(Asher et al., 1990; Newcomb et al., 1993).
Situational or contextual loneliness refers to experiences of loneliness in spe-
cific or circumscribed contexts. That is, children may associate feelings of lone-
liness with events such as moving to an unfamiliar setting, temporary absence of
a significant other, or being excluded in certain situations. Clearly, the move
toward full inclusion for many children with disabilities may have its most
profound effects on children's perceptions of situational loneliness.
Peer relationship variables are predictive of the levels of loneliness expressed
by children, and, in turn, loneliness is related to self-concept and social anxiety
(Crick & Ladd, 1993). Low sociometric status, having no friends in class, and
having relationships that are low in supportiveness and other important features
of friendship are indicative of situations in which children are dissatisfied. These
findings are based on a growing empirical literature of the study of general
397

education students; however, they are extremely relevant to students with mild
disabilities, given the social skills deficits and peer acceptance difficulties (docu-
mented previously in this article) for this group relative to their nondisabled peers.
Review of the literature. Several studies have appeared recently in which the
construct of loneliness has been investigated with mild-disability groups. Luftig
(1988) reported that high school students with mental retardation experienced
greater loneliness and dissatisfaction with peer relationships than did nondisabled
students. At the elementary level, mainstreamed children with MMR were found
to be more dissatisfied with their peer relationships than were general education
students in a matched sample (Taylor, Asher, & Williams, 1987).
Children with MMR enrolled in special day classes at the elementary level and
a matched sample of nondisabled students were studied by Williams and Asher
(1992). Students were administered the Loneliness Questionnaire (Asher &
Wheeler, 1985), and responses were probed in an effort to examine whether the
concept of loneliness was meaningful to children with MMR. A high proportion
of children with MMR understood the concept of loneliness and how to alleviate
its feelings. Boys with MMR were significantly more lonely than girls with MMR
and nonretarded children of either gender. The authors concluded "that many
children with mild mental retardation may be experiencing relatively high levels
of loneliness and distress in their social lives at school" (Williams & Asher, 1992,
p. 382).
In a comparison of LD and LA students, Coleman et al. (1992) found that
children with LD were less lonely than LA students. One explanation for these
findings can be couched in social comparison theory: Children with LD placed in
resource classrooms are provided with a second reference group against which to
judge the quality of their interpersonal relationships and feelings of self-worth,
whereas LA children are indexing their self-judgments relative to the general
education classroom (Coleman et al., 1992).
While research on loneliness as an outcome in investigations of students with
mild disabilities is extremely limited at this time, it would seem to be most salient
for study in light of the current press for the inclusion of students with disabilities
in regular classes (see The Journal of Special Education, 1995, No. 2, special
issue). To what extent are these children satisfied with the peer relationships they
encounter in regular classes, or, conversely, to what extent do they experience
loneliness? It is important to recognize that Williams and Asher (1992) and
Coleman et al. (1992) found variability among children with MMR, LD, and LA
in the extent to which they experienced loneliness and dissatisfaction with their
peer relationships. Williams and Asher emphasized the need for further work to
assess the potential differences as a function of setting. They wrote,
Certainly, the mainstream environment poses a host of special challenges for
students with mild mental retardation, such as a larger class size, relatively few
hours of contact with peers, and a more demanding academic environment, as
well as peers with greater social, academic, and athletic ability who tend to
reject them. (p. 383)
A recent investigation by Gresham et al. (1997) sheds some light on the
perceptions of self-concept and loneliness in students at risk for BD. Students who
were comorbid for ADHD and conduct problems (HIA+CP) were contrasted with
398

students who were comorbid for externalizing and internalizing problems (I+E)
and controls on measures of loneliness and self-concept. Surprisingly, the HIA+CP,
I+E, and control groups reported equal levels of academic, social, and general
self-concept. The HIA+CP group, however, reported more loneliness than the
other two groups. The HIA+CP group has been referred to as "fledgling psycho-
paths" in the literature, based on their being at great risk for juvenile delinquency,
adult criminal behavior, and antisocial behavior patterns in adulthood (see Lynam,
1996).
The concept of loneliness has been examined as it relates to the work situation
for workers with mental retardation ranging in age from 19 to 38 years (Chadsey-
Rusch, DeStefano, O'Reilly, & Gonzalez, 1992). An adaptation of Asher's Lone-
liness Questionnaire revealed that some workers with mental retardation did
indeed experience loneliness on the job; however, it was not a pervasive feeling
that characterized adults with mental retardation. No differences were found
between groups having mild and moderate mental retardation, nor did groups
working in integrated and segregated settings differ. Nevertheless, an individual's
feelings concerning his or her social relationships on the job are an important
dimension in assessing job satisfaction, and we hope that additional work explor-
ing this dimension will be forthcoming.
In addition to using loneliness as an outcome variable, we suggest that research
efforts relating loneliness to other personal and social outcomes (e.g., social
status, social skills, self-concept) would be informative. For example,
sociometrically rejected children tend to experience greater loneliness than chil-
dren of other sociometric statuses (e.g., neglected, controversial). Interestingly,
sociometrically controversial students (i.e., those who are highly liked by some
peers and highly disliked by other peers) and popular students experience signifi-
cantly less loneliness that do rejected children (Crick & Ladd, 1993). Many
students with BD (e.g., conduct disorders and ADHD) resemble the sociometrically
rejected group and are likely to feel more lonely than students with MMR or LD,
whose sociometric status tends to fit the criteria for neglected or poorly accepted.
This hypothesis received some empirical verification from the Gresham et al.
(1997) investigation but requires further study.
Paths to loneliness. Recent research with typical students distinguishes two
paths by which children become rejected. The first is an externalizing path and is
characterized by aggressive behavior, disruption, bullying, and fighting. The
second is an internalizing path and is characterized by children's being timid, shy,
socially withdrawn, and submissive. In studies to date (Asher et al., 1990), the
externalizing group and those who are most likely to be sociometrically rejected
have substantially higher loneliness scores than do children who exhibit an
internalizing behavior pattern and who are more likely to be neglected by peers.
In their meta-analysis, Newcomb et al. (1993) found that rejected children had
substantially higher scores on loneliness, depression, social anxiety, and sociabil-
ity than other sociometric status groups (i.e., neglected, controversial, popular,
and average). Research exploring this distinction between externalizing and inter-
nalizing behavior patterns promises to be informative in describing the social
plight of children with BD in educational settings.
There is the risk that placing children with disabilities into classes having few
or no other children with disabilities will isolate these children socially. As a
399

consequence of such social isolation, the child with disabilities could interpret or
perceive many social situations in which he or she feels lonely. An evaluation of
such placement should probably include an assessment of loneliness, which is
clearly related to peer acceptance, peer rejection, social skills, and feelings of self-
worth. To date, we find no empirical work on loneliness in children with LD or
BD.
Discussion
General Findings
Children in all mild-disability groups experience a number of difficulties in
social competence and affective domains. The pattern of social behavior for most
students with mild disabilities is problematic for teachers because it deviates
substantially from a model behavioral profile, which is characterized by behaviors
facilitating academic performance (i.e., academic survival skills) and distin-
guished by the absence of disruptive, noncompliant behaviors that disturb class-
room ecology. We argue in this article that the degree to which students deviate
from this model behavioral profile largely accounts for their referral to school
study teams and subsequent placement in special education. Moreover, these
same behavioral deviations complicate efforts to include these students in general
education classrooms after they have been classified as having a mild disability.
In addition to deficits in the cognitive domain such as general intelligence and
academic achievement, these students are at risk for repeated episodes of school
failure. These experiences, in turn, often have unfortunate effects on self-concept,
teacher-student interactions, perceptions of loneliness, and peer relationships.
The literature is quite clear about the social competence functioning of children
with mild disabilities. These children are more poorly accepted and more often
rejected and have lower levels of social skills and higher levels of externalizing
and internalizing problem behaviors than their nondisabled peers. The available
research to date suggests that children with LD and MMR, as well as LA children
(not a disability category), cannot be distinguished from each other on most
measures of social competence. Children classified as SED or BD, however, can
clearly be differentiated from the other mild-disability and LA groups on mea-
sures of social skills and interfering problem behaviors. This is not unexpected,
given that the criteria for classifying children as SED and BD are based primarily
on social competence deficits and problem behavior excesses.
Research in the affective domain has yielded mixed results to date, particularly
in the area of self-concept. Some research shows lower self-concepts for children
with mild disabilities, other research shows higher self-concepts, and still other
research reveals no differences between students with mild disabilities and
nondisabled students. Much of the research in this area has been interpreted in
light of social comparison theory. That is, self-concept is largely dependent upon
the characteristics of a given comparison group. Thus, self-concept for a person
in a special education classroom should be higher than self-concept for the same
person in a general education classroom because of the differing characteristics of
the groups against which the person is referencing his or her comparisons.
A similar interpretation might be made when considering the research on
children's perceptions of loneliness. Although this construct is not as well re-
400

searched as self-concept, an increasingly large base of literature suggests that
students with mild disabilities may experience loneliness in their lives. Also, there
are potentially strong relationships among the constructs of loneliness, self-
concept, and sociometric status. These relationships will be addressed later in this
section.
Methodological Issues
A number of methodological issues arise as one analyzes the literature base on
social competence and affective characteristics of students with mild disabilities.
The sampling designs employed in the reported studies have consisted primarily
of between-group comparisons. Students identified as LD or MMR are compared
with nondisabled classmates on some social competence or affective characteris-
tic as the dependent variable. Or, students with MMR in regular classes are
contrasted with students with MMR in special day classes on self-concept, peer
acceptance, or some other dependent variable. The overwhelming majority of
these investigations have used disability category membership (LD, MMR, SED)
or educational placement (e.g., special day classes, resource room, mainstreamed)
as the independent variable and have compared one group to another on the
dependent variable(s) (between-groups design). Such designs have served to
demonstrate that students with LD generally have lower academic self-concepts
than do non-LD students and that students with MMR in regular grades experi-
ence less peer acceptance than do their classmates who are not MMR; however,
assumptions made by investigators employing this type of between-groups design
regarding between-group and within-group variances present certain problems.
Typically, the within-group variances on any number of salient individual
differences related to the specific dependent variable are uncontrolled. For ex-
ample, we know that physical attractiveness is related to peer acceptance, and yet
there is no control for this when LD and non-LD children are compared. About
the only way in which the sample of students with LD or MMR is homogenous
is with reference to the behavioral characteristics defining the condition. That is,
LD groups are somewhat homogeneous with regard to discrepancy between
aptitude and achievement, and MMR samples are homogeneous with regard to IQ
being below 70 or 75. On any other dimension, however, the assumption of
homogeneity within groups is frequently invalid. These variations in attributes are
thus unaccounted for in the design approaches typically used in these studies.
An examination of the studies summarized in this review also reveals the need
to provide better descriptions of, and control for, any number of demographic
variables that could influence the dependent measure of interest. For instance,
fundamental demographic characteristics such as gender, social class, age, and
ethnicity are known to influence many social competence and affective character-
istics of interest. Cross-gender choices in sociometrics during primary grades in
school have different meanings than do cross-gender choices in high school.
Social class differences in the importance of education could certainly influence
academic self-concept measures, while ethnic differences in performance of
certain social skills have been shown to exist. Yet, in the research base examined
in this article we find few efforts to control for such variables, and until rather
recently few studies have employed regression models that might examine the
influence of such factors as they interact with the independent variables of
401

primary interest (e.g., group membership or placement).

The heavy reliance on between-group designs essentially provides a weak test
of the no-differences hypothesis on the dependent variable, and even when one is
able to reject the null hypothesis the explanation of why differences exist often
eludes the investigator. To illustrate, consider the studies comparing the peer
acceptance of students with MMR in regular classes. Typically, sociometric
scores of students with and without MMR are compared, and the mean scores for
students without MMR are found to differ reliably from the mean scores for
students with MMR. For more than a decade we have speculated as to why these
differences were found because the designs used did not permit isolating the
reason(s). Some have attributed the differences to negative effects of labeling,
others to the observation that students with MMR typically exhibit more inappro-
priate social behaviors (aggression, disruption) that are associated with rejection.
The point to be made here, however, is that the failure to differentiate within the
group of students with MMR and the classmates who are not MMR on dimensions
beyond group membership precludes examination of the relative importance of
factors such as attractiveness, ethnicity, gender, social cognitive skills, and degree
of familiarity to the social status of these children.
Presently, there are insufficient data to explain the causes of the social compe-
tence and affective difficulties that children with mild disabilities so often expe-
rience. A major issue involving the study of social competence and affective
functioning in mild-disability groups is the validity of the current classification
system used in differentiating these groups. Garber and Hollon (1991) indicated
that specificity research design logic rests on the tenuous assumption that specific
disorders are truly distinct in terms of either etiology or observable features. In
short, there is an unacceptable degree of nosological error in our current classifi-
cation system for mild-disability groups (see Gottlieb et al, 1994; Gresham &
Gansle, 1992; Gresham et al., 1996; MacMillan, Gresham, Siperstein, & Bocian,
1996).
For example, the classification system for mental retardation (published by the
American Association on Mental Deficiency) has undergone five revisions be-
tween 1959 and 1992. The largest changes occurred between the 1961 and 1973
definitions and between the 1973 and 1992 definitions. In 1973 the intellectual
functioning criterion was reduced from IQ < 85 to IQ < 70, thereby effectively
eliminating approximately 14% of all cases of mental retardation (see Grossman,
1973). In the 1992 definition, all levels of mental retardation (mild, moderate,
severe, and profound) were eliminated, and the IQ cutoff was shifted upward from
70 to 75, thereby potentially more than doubling the number of cases eligible for
classification based on the intellectual functioning criterion (from 2.28% to
4.75%).
Another example of nosological or classification error can be found in a study
by Gottlieb et al. (1994). This investigation showed that many students with MMR
are being classified and served as students with specific learning disabilities
(SLD). Thus, the mean IQ of the SLD population has steadily declined, accom-
panied by a general obscuring of differences between low-functioning students
with SLD and high-functioning students with MMR. This nosological blurring of
these formerly distinct groups makes much of the research on social competence
and affective characteristics uninterpretable.
402

A similar problem is encountered in comparing students with SLD and LA

students. At the heart of this problem is the degree to which SLD can be
differentiated from LA and the extent to which these groups' cognitive, academic,
and social competence functioning overlap (see Kavale, Fuchs, & Scruggs, 1994;
Ysseldyke, Algozzine, Shinn, & McGue, 1982). Gresham et al. (1996) contrasted
children classified as SLD, LA, and MMR on cognitive, achievement, school
history, perceptual-motor, and social competence measures. Whereas these groups
differed on cognitive and achievement measures, no differences among these
three groups were found on most measures of social competence (e.g., social
skills, externalizing behaviors, hyperactivity, conduct problems, inattention). These
data suggest that there are more similarities than differences in the social compe-
tence realm for students classified as SLD, MMR, and LA. Similar findings were
reported by Merrell et al. (1992).
Differentiation among mild-disability groups is a tenuous process, given the
amount of nosological error in classification, the large degree of overlap among
categories, and the similarities of social competence and affective difficulties
among these groups. Using specificity research design logic, there is little evi-
dence to support even a weak causal model of social competence and affective
characteristics being specific to and/or causal of each of the mild-disability groups
discussed in this article. At best, social competence and affective difficulties exist
concurrently in a sizable portion for each of the mild-disability groups, with the
group of students classified as BD having the most difficulties in the social
competence domain. These difficulties essentially define this group.
A major impediment to any applied research on groups of students with mild
disabilities, regardless of whether that research focuses on achievement/cognitive
or social and affective characteristics, derives from the use of system-identified
students. By system-identified we refer to the practice of taking children identified
by the public schools as LD, MMR, BD, or ADHD and assuming (a) that the
children in each category meet appropriate definitions and diagnostic criteria and
(b) that children not so identified by the school system fail to meet these defini-
tions and diagnostic criteria. Despite repeated discussions of the threats posed by
the use of system-identification to the internal and external validity of this form
of research (Keogh & MacMillan, 1983; MacMillan, Meyers, & Morrison, 1980;
Morrison, MacMillan, & Kavale, 1985), it continues as a common practice in the
investigation of cognitive and affective characteristics of students having mild
disabilities.
An ongoing project directed by the authors (MacMillan & Gresham, 1995) has
examined the congruence of children referred to school study teams and the
resulting classification decisions made based on behavioral profiles developed by
the project to conform to definitions of the various categories. In Grades 2-4 we
found that the overwhelming majority of children who met the criteria for MMR
and BD were erroneously classified by the schools as LD or speech and language
impaired, or were deemed ineligible for any special education. The false negative
classifications of children qualifying as MMR and SED/BD (92% and 100%,
respectively) and the resultant false positive cases of LD illustrate the magnitude
of the risk involved in using such system-identified samples. It highlights the
point raised previously about the assumptions of within-group and between-group
variance and the resulting invalidity of conclusions made.
403

Another methodological issue that arises out of the research base concerning
the social and affective characteristics of this population derives from the heavy,
if not exclusive, reliance on cross-sectional research. The reasons that cross-
sectional research predominates are fairly obvious: It is less expensive to do, it
does not present problems of subject attrition, it is consistent with the pressure to
publish, and it minimizes problems in maintaining working relationships with
schools. Nevertheless, certain confounds can distort conclusions drawn from
cross-sectional research, and they warrant our attention. For example, suppose
that investigator employs a cross-sectional sampling design to study differences
in peer acceptance of students with LD in primary elementary school (CA = 7-8
years), upper elementary school (CA = 9-10 years), middle school (CA = 11-12
years), and high school (CA = 13-14 years) and finds that there is a progressive
decline in peer acceptance for LD students. The investigator wants to interpret this
decline as reflecting age differences; however, there is a possible confound in this
interpretation. As students with LD move into middle school and high school,
there are greater opportunities for tracking (due to the structure of secondary
schools), and this allows the more capable (or less disabled) students with LD to
succeed in lower-track classes of English and math. As a consequence, the
population of students with LD at the secondary level is perceived as more
disabled than the elementary population of students with LD, which could explain
the lower peer acceptance independent of age factors.
Longitudinal research would permit the examination of age effects, while cross-
sectional research, at best, can only examine age differences. Moreover, longitu-
dinal research permits us to examine the stability of constructs over time and to
establish developmental trajectories for those affective and social competence
characteristics of interest. At present, the evidence for temporal stability of many
of these social and affective characteristics is somewhat limited. Longitudinal
research on the same subjects would enlighten us regarding both the stability and
the developmental trajectories for each of these constructs. Does a child's social
status correlate with different variables at different ages? Does differentiation of
self-concept proceed in the same manner for children with mental retardation, but
simply at a lower pace? That is, does it conform to the similar-sequence hypoth-
esis postulated for cognitive development?
Methodological Advances and Refinements
Throughout this review we have noted the development of new scales and more
sophisticated procedures for measuring the constructs involved in social compe-
tence and affective functioning of children with mild disabilities. However, our
improved understanding hinges not only on measuring these constructs more
reliably but also, as discussed in a previous section, in achieving greater precision
in identifying the population of children to be classified as LD, MMR, and BD.
In this section, we attempt to highlight these advances and to suggest directions
for future research.
On balance, the amount of published research on the cognitive/achievement
domain far outweighs that conducted on the social and affective domains of
students having mild disabilities. In part, this may be a consequence of the belief
that two of the high-incidence conditions (LD and MMR) primarily involve
learning and cognition. (After all, they are called learning disabilities and mental
404

retardation.) However, the consequences of learning and cognitive problems are

not restricted to the cognitive domain. In fact, the definition of SED adopted and
articulated in the IDEA (dating from its initial adoption in 1975) requires that
emotional problems be demonstrated to adversely impact the child's educational
performance in recognition of the reciprocal influence of cognitive and social/
affective functioning. Children with mild disabilities are neither exclusively
cognitive nor exclusively social and affective entities, but rather are children with
physical, cognitive, motivational, social, and affective dimensions that influence
one another in a reciprocal fashion. An influence on one of these dimensions
potentially impacts others in a transactional manner. Consequently, our research
models have to capture the complexities of these transactional effects, and the
study of exclusively cognitive or social and affective variables will not capture
this complexity.
To illustrate, consider the link between academic achievement and academic
self-concept. The validation work by Marsh (Marsh, Parker, & Barnes, 1985)
included the testing of structural models relating academic self-concept to achieve-
ment. What is the direction of the causal effect? One model predicts that improve-
ment in reading skills, for example, will cause a child to evaluate his or her
academic competence more favorably. A competing model, however, predicts
that making a child evaluate himself or herself more positively as a student will
yield improvements in academic achievement. An example of a program based on
this second model is Project Self-Esteem, which attempts to directly influence
children's self-esteem in the belief that this will, in turn, result in improved
achievement.
A meta-analysis by Hattie (1992), however, brings this reasoning into question.
A meta-analysis of 128 studies investigating the relationship between self-concept
and academic achievement in primary and secondary grade students showed a
median effect size of .23 (SD = .23) between self-concept and achievement. Given
the minuscule relationship between self-concept and achievement, the develop-
ment and testing of causal models between the two variables (cf. Byrne, 1986)
may be practically insignificant. Perhaps the greater importance of standardized
achievement test scores relative to grades received from teachers needs to be
explored, as they explain variance on academic self-concept and predict future
performance. It stands to reason that elementary grade children are more cogni-
zant of their classroom performance (i.e., as indicated by grades) than they are of
their reading stanine or percentile rank on a nationally standardized test of
achievement.
We have discussed the need for better descriptions of, and control for, demo-
graphic variables on which children vary, as well as better descriptions of how
such variables relate to affective outcomes. We have noted the refinements in
assessment scales that permit more refined dimensions of self-concept and
children's social competence functioning. One recent refinement found in the
literature is the examination of attribution of causality as a moderating or interven-
ing variable, although Marsh (1986) has characterized the "self-serving effect" as
an individual difference characteristic. This self-serving effect refers to the obser-
vation that people are more likely to attribute their successes to internal causes
(e.g., ability, effort) and to attribute their failures to external causes (e.g., task
difficulty, luck). The particular attribution made in the self-serving effect consists
405

of taking credit for success and denying responsibility for failure in order to
protect or enhance self-esteem. From an enhancement perspective, this is a helpful
effect. Marsh reported that the size of the self-serving effect is large among more
able students and among students with higher academic self-concepts. While no
specific studies have employed the self-serving effect with students having mild
disabilities, Marsh's findings lead to predictions about those students who are less
able and lower in academic self-concept—namely, that such students are less
prone to the self-serving effect and are therefore less proficient in enhancing their
own self-esteem.
Attributions have also been invoked as moderating variables in research ad-
dressing loneliness (Crick & Ladd, 1993). These investigations related children's
sociometric status (e.g., popular, controversial, rejected) to the attributions they
make about social outcomes (i.e., successful or unsuccessful). They found that
children's feelings were related to their attributions about social outcomes. For
popular children, feeling lonely was negatively related to taking credit for rela-
tionship success; however, for rejected children, the avoidance of peers was
positively related to blaming others for failed relationships. For neglected chil-
dren, feelings of loneliness were negatively related to taking credit for successful
relationships. These findings were secured on students without disabilities, and
research invoking attributions as moderating feelings of loneliness for children
with mild disabilities has not been conducted to date. Whether sociometric status
or child disability status (or the interaction of the two) is related to the attributional
pattern employed to explain successful and failed relationships remains to be
established. It would be interesting to know, for example, whether children with
mild disabilities attribute their academic successes and their social successes in
the same manner. That is, do they take credit for successes in both academic and
social endeavors, or do they differentially attribute successes in these two domains
given their histories of academic failure? Do these attributional differences ex-
plain why some children with LD have lower academic self-concepts than others?
Environmental factors might also be examined in more complex research
models. The work on academic self-concept has been interpreted as a self-
assessment of relative rather than absolute competence (Strein, 1993). For ex-
ample, Marsh and Parker (1984) invoked the term big fish, little pond effect to
describe the mechanism whereby a child's academic self-concept is formed by
comparing his or her academic performance to that of other students in the same
classroom or school building, rather than against the broader reference group
comprised of community or national standards. Strein stressed the importance of
understanding that the big fish, little pond effect does not contradict the notion
that higher-achieving students will have higher academic self-concepts, but rather
predicts that for a given student (i.e., holding skill level constant) placement in
environments where the average skill level is greater should result in lower
academic self-concepts. As such, the big fish, little pond notion relates directly to
current discussions of inclusion, but would not predict outcomes on self-concept
supporting recommendation of placement of children with disabilities into envi-
ronments with higher skill levels.
With the development of more sophisticated statistical procedures for fitting
models, coupled with more psychometrically adequate scales for measuring social
and affective constructs, it is now possible to examine the complexities of the
406

reciprocal and interactive effects of various social and affective characteristics

and how they relate to cognitive and achievement characteristics. We are now in
a position to move beyond simple group differences and into causal models that
help explain the bases for these differences.
References
Asher, S. (1990). Recent advances in the study of peer rejection. In S. Asher & J. Coie
(Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 3-16). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Asher, S., & Hymel, S. (1981). Children's social competence in peer relations:
Sociometric and behavioral assessment. In J. Wine & M. Smye (Eds.), Social
competence (pp. 125-157). New York: Guilford Press.
Asher, S., Parkhurst, J. T., Hymel, S., & Williams, G. A. (1990). Peer rejection and
loneliness in childhood. In S. R. Asher & J. D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood
(pp. 253-273). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Asher, S., & Wheeler, V. (1985). Children's loneliness: A comparison of rejected and
neglected peer status. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 500-505.
Bacher, J. H. (1965). The effect of special class placement on the self-concept of the
adolescent mentally retarded in relation to certain groups of adolescents. Dissertation
Abstracts, 25, 2846-2847.
Barkely, R. (1990). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: A handbook for diagnosis
and treatment. New York: Guilford Press.
Bear, G., &Minke, K. (1996). Positive bias in maintenance of self-worth among children
with LD. Learning Disability Quarterly, 19, 23-32.
Bialer, I. (1970). Relationship of mental retardation to emotional disturbance and
physical disability. In H. C. Hay wood (Ed.), Socio-cultural aspects of mental
retardation (pp. 607-660). New York: Appleton-Century Crofts.
Borg, W. R. (1966). Ability grouping in the schools. Madison, WI: Dembar Educational
Research Services.
Bracken, B. (1992). The multidimensional self-concept scale. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Brophy, J., & Good, T. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M.
Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 328-375). New York:
Macmillan.
Bukowski, W., & Newcomb, A. (1987, April). Friendship quality and the "self during
early adolescence. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research
in Child Development, Baltimore.
Byrne, B. (1984). The general/academic self-concept nomological network: A review
of construct validation research. Review of Educational Research, 54, 427-^456.
Byrne, B. (1986). Self-concept/academic achievement relations: An investigation of
dimensionality, stability, and causality. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 18,
173-186.
Chadsey-Rusch, J., DeStefano, L., O'Reilly, M., & Gonzalez, P. (1992). Assessing the
loneliness of workers with mental retardation. Mental Retardation, 30, 85-92.
Chapman, J. W. (1988). Learning disabled children's self-concepts. Review of Educa-
tional Research, 58, 347-371.
Chapman, J. W., & Boersma, F. J. (1979). Academic self-concept in learning disabled
children: A study with the "Student's Perception of Ability Scale." Psychology in
the Schools, 16, 291-301.
Cleland, C, Patton, W., & Seitz, S. (1967). The use of insult as an index of negative
reference groups. American Journal on Mental Deficiency, 72, 30-33.
Clever, A., Bear, G., & Juvonen, J. (1992). Discrepancies between competence and
importance in self-perceptions of children in integrated classes. The Journal of
407

Special Education, 26, 125-138.
Coie, J. (1990). Toward a theory of peer rejection. In S. Asher & J. Coie (Eds.), Peer
rejection in childhood (pp. 365^K)2). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Coie, J., Dodge, K., & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and types of social status:
A cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18, 557-570.
Coleman, J. M. (1983). Self-concept and the mildly handicapped: The role of social
comparisons. The Journal of Special Education, 17, 37-45.
Coleman, J. M., McHam, L. A., & Minnett, A. M. (1992). Similarities in the social
competencies of learning disabled and low achieving elementary school children.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 671-677.
Conte, R., & Andrews, J. (1993). Social skills in the context of learning disability
definitions: A reply to Gresham and Elliott and directions for the future. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 26, 146-153.
Cooley, E., & Ayers, R. (1988). Self-concept and success-failure attributions of
nonhandicapped students and students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 21, 174-178.
Crick, N., & Ladd, G. (1993). Children's perceptions of their peer experiences:
Attributions, loneliness, social anxiety, and social avoidance. Developmental Psy-
chology, 29, 244-254.
Development schools and classes. (1926). Educational Research Bulletin (Los Angeles
City School District), 5(9), 13-14.
Dodge, K. (1983). Behavioral antecedents of peer social status. Child Development, 54,
1386-1399.
Drews, E. M. (1962). The effectiveness of homogeneous and heterogeneous ability
grouping in ninth grade English classes with slow, average, and superior students.
Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State University.
Dunn, L. (1968). Special education for the mildly retarded: Is much of it justifiable?
Exceptional Children, 34, 5-22.
Dunn, L. M. (1974). Special education for the mildly retarded—Is much of it justifiable?
In R. L. Jones & D. L. MacMillan (Eds.), Special education in transition (pp. 5-20).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Edgerton, R. B. (1967). The cloak of competence: Stigma in the lives of the mentally
retarded. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Edgerton, R. B., & Sabagh, G. (1962). From mortification to aggrandizement: Changing
self conceptions in the careers of the mentally retarded. Psychiatry, 25, 263-272.
Erhardt, D., & Hinshaw, S. (1994). Initial sociometric impressions of attention-deficit
hyperactivity disorder and comparison boys: Predictions from social behaviors and
from nonbehavioral variables. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62,
833-842.
Festinger,L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 2,117-
140.
Forness, S. (1985). Effects of public policy at the state level: California's impact on MR,
LD, and ED categories. Remedial and Special Education, 6, 3 6 ^ 3 .
Forness, S., & Kavale, K. (1991). Social skill deficits as a primary learning disability:
A note on problems with the ICLD diagnostic criteria. Learning Disabilities Research
and Practice, 6, 4 4 ^ 9 .
Forness, S., Kavale, K., King, B., & Kasari, C. (1994). Simple versus complex conduct
disorders: Identification and phenomenology. Behavioral Disorders, 19, 306-312.
Forness, S., & Knitzer, J. (1992). A new proposed definition and terminology to replace
"serious emotional disturbance" in Individuals With Disabilities Education Act.
School Psychology Review, 21, 12-20.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (1994). Inclusive schools movement and the radicalization of
408

special education reform. Exceptional Children, 60, 294-309.

Garber, J., & Hollon, S. (1991). What can specificity designs say about causality in
psychopathology research? Psychological Bulletin, 110, 129-136.
Gardner, W. I. (1966). Social and emotional adjustment of mildly retarded children and
adolescents: Critical review. Exceptional Children, 33, 97-105.
Gartner, A., & Lipsky, D. K. (1987). Beyond special education: Toward a quality system
for all students. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 367-395.
Gerber, M., & Semmel, M. (1984). Teacher as imperfect test: Reconceptualizing the
referral process. Educational Psychologist, 19, 137-148.
Goldberg, M. L., Passow, A. H., & Justman, J. (1961). The effects of ability grouping.
Unpublished manuscript, Teachers College, Columbia University.
Goodman, H., Gottlieb, J., & Harrison, R. (1972). Social acceptance of EMRs integrated
into a nongraded elementary school. American Journal on Mental Deficiency, 76,
A\2-Λ\l.
Gottlieb, J. (1981). Mainstreaming: Fulfilling the promise? American Journal on Mental
Deficiency, 86, 115-126.
Gottlieb, J., Alter, M., Gottlieb, B. W., & Wishner, J. (1994). Special education in urban
America: It's not justifiable for many. The Journal of Special Education, 27, 453-
465.
Gottlieb, J., & Budoff, M. (1973). Social acceptability of retarded children in nongraded
schools differing in architecture. American Journal on Mental Deficiency, 78, 15-
19.
Gottlieb, J., Semmel, M., & Veldman, D. (1978). Correlates of social status among
mainstreamed mentally retarded children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70,
396-405.
Greenspan, S. (1981). Social competence and handicapped individuals: Practical
implications and a proposed model. Advances in Special Education, 3, 41-82.
Gresham, F. M. (1981a). Assessment of children's social skills. Journal of School
Psychology, 19, 120-134.
Gresham, F. M. (1981b). Social skills training with handicapped children: A review.
Review of Educational Research, 51, 139-176.
Gresham, F. M. (1982). Misguided mainstreaming: The case for social skills training
with handicapped children. Exceptional Children, 48, 422^-33.
Gresham, F. M. (1983). Social validity in the assessment of children's social skills:
Establishing standards for social competency. Journal of Psychoeducational Assess
ment, 1, 299-307.
Gresham, F. M. (1992). Social skills and learning disabilities: Causal, concomitant, or
correlational? School Psychology Review, 21, 348-360.
Gresham, F. M. (1993). Social skills and learning disabilities as a Type III error:
Rejoinder to Conte and Andrews. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 154-158.
Gresham, F. M., & Elliott S. N. (1989). Social skills deficits as a primary learning
disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 120-124.
Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). Social skills rating system. Circle Pines, MN:
American Guidance Service.
Gresham, F. M., Elliott, S. N., & Black, F. L. (1987). Teacher-rated social skills of
mainstreamed mildly handicapped and nonhandicapped children. School Psychology
Review, 16, 78-88.
Gresham, F. M., Elliott, S. N., & Evans-Fernandez, S. (1993). Student self-concept scale.
Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Gresham, F. M., & Gansle, K. (1992). Misguided assumptions of DSM-III-R: Impli
cations for school psychological practice. School Psychology Quarterly, 7, 79-95.
Gresham, F. M., & Little, S. G. (1993). Peer-referenced assessment strategies. In T.
409

Ollendick & M. Hersen (Eds.), Handbook of child and adolescent assessment (pp.
165-179). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Gresham, F. M., MacMillan, D. L., & Bocian, K. (1996). Learning disabilities, low
achievement, and mild mental retardation: More alike than different? Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 29, 570-581.
Gresham, F. M., MacMillan, D. L., Bocian, K. M., & Ward, S. L. (1997). Precursors
of emotional and behavioral disorders: Continuum of risk factors in academic, social,
and affective domains. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Gresham, F. M., MacMillan, D. L., & Siperstein, G. N. (1995). Critical analysis of the
1992 A AMR definition: Implications for school psychology. School Psychology
Quarterly, 10, 1-19.
Gresham, F. M., & Reschly, D. J. (1986). Social skills deficits and peer acceptance of
mainstreamed learning disabled children. Learning Disability Quarterly, 9, 23-32.
Gresham, F. M., & Reschly, D. J. (1987). Sociometric differences between mildly
handicapped and nonhandicapped Black and White students. Journal of Educational
Gresham, F. M., & Reschly, D. J. (1988). Issues in the conceptualization, classification,
and assessment of social skills in the mildly handicapped. In T. Kratochwill (Ed.),
Advances in school psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 203-247). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Grossman, H. (Ed.). (1973). Manual on terminology and classification in mental
retardation. Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Deficiency.
Guevremont, D. (1990). Social skills and peer relationship training. In R. Barkley (Ed.),
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: A handbook for diagnosis and treatment (pp.
540-572). New York: Guilford Press.
Guskin, S., & Spicker, H. (1968). Educational research in mental retardation. In N. R.
Ellis (Ed.), International review of research in mental retardation (Vol. 3, pp. 217—
278). New York: Academic Press.
Gutherie, G., Butler, A., & Gorlow, L. (1964). Patterns of self-attitudes of retardates.
American Journal on Mental Deficiency, 66, 222-229.
Gutherie, G., Butler, A., Gorlow, L., & White, G. (1964). Non-verbal expression of self-
attitudes in retardates. American Journal on Mental Deficiency, 69, 4 2 ^ 9 .
Hagborg, W. J. (1996). Self-concept and middle school students with learning disabili-
ties: A comparison of scholastic competence subgroups. Learning Disability Quar-
terly, 19, 117-126.
Hallenback, B., & Kauffman, J. (1995). How does observational learning affect the
behavior of students with emotional or behavioral disorders? A review of research.
The Journal of Special Education, 29, 45-71.
Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the Self-Perception Profile for Children. Denver, CO:
University of Denver.
Hattie, J. (1992). Self-concept. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hendrick, I. G., & MacMillan, D. L. (1987). Coping with diversity in city school
systems: The role of mental testing in shaping special classes for mentally retarded
children in Los Angeles, 1900-1930. Education and Training in Mental Retardation,
22, 10-17.
Hendrick, I. G., & MacMillan, D. L. (1988). Expanding the public school's mission:
William Maxwell, Elizabeth Farrell, and the development of ungraded classes in New
York City, 1900-1920. The Journal of Special Education, 22, 3 9 5 ^ 1 7 .
Hersh, R., & Walker, H. M. (1983). Great expectations: Making schools effective for
all students. Policy Studies Review, 2, 147-188.
Hinshaw, S. (1992). Externalizing behavior problems and academic underachievement
in childhood and adolescence: Causal relationships and underlying mechanisms.
Psychological Bulletin, 111, 127-155.
410

Hoza, B., Pelham, W., Milich, R., Pillow, D., & McBride, K. (1993). The self-
perceptions and attributions of attention deficit hyperactivity disordered and nonref erred
boys. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 21, 271-286.
Interagency Committee on Learning Disabilities. (1987). Learning disabilities: A report
to the U.S. Congress. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health.
Johnson, G. O. (1950). A study of the social position of mentally handicapped children
in regular grades. American Journal on Mental Deficiency, 55, 60-89.
Johnson, G. O., & Kirk, S. A. (1950). Are mentally handicapped children segregated
in regular grades? Exceptional Children, 17, 65-68.
Kauffman, J. (1993). Characteristics of emotional and behavioral disorders of children
and youth (5th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill/Macmillan.
Kavale, K., & Forness, S. (1996). Social skill deficits and learning disabilities: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 226-237.
Kavale, K., Fuchs, D., & Scruggs, T. (1994). Setting the record straight on learning
disability and low achievement: Implications for policy making. Learning Disabilities
Research and Practice, 9, 10-11.
Kavale, K., & Nye, C. (1986). Parameters of learning disabilities in achievement,
linguistic, neuropsychological, and social/behavioral domains. The Journal of Spe-
cial Education, 19, 443-458.
Keogh, B., & MacMillan, D. L. (1983). The logic of sample selection: Who represents
what? Exceptional Education Quarterly, 4, 84-96.
Kistner, J., & Gatlin, D. (1989). Sociometric differences between learning disabled and
nonhandicapped students: Effects of sex and race. Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 81, 118-120.
Kistner, J., Haskett, M., White, K., & Robbins, F. (1987). Perceived competence and
self-worth of LD and normally achieving students. Learning Disability Quarterly,
10, 37-44.
Kistner, J., & Osborne, M. (1987). A longitudinal study of LD children's self-
evaluations. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 258-266.
Kupersmidt, J., Coie, J., & Dodge, K. (1990). The role of peer relationships in the
development of disorder. In S. Asher & J. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood
(pp. 274-308). New York: Cambridge University Press.
LaGreca, A., & Stone, W. (1990). Children with learning disabilities: The role of
achievement in their social, personal, and behavioral functioning. In H. L. Swanson
& B. Keogh (Eds.), Learning disabilities: Theoretical and research issues (pp. 333-
352). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Landau, S., & Moore, L. (1991). Social skill deficits with attention-deficit hyperactivity
disorder. School Psychology Review, 20, 235-251.
Loney, J., & Milich, R. (1982). Hyperactivity, inattention, and aggression in clinical
practice. In M. Wolraich & D. Routh (Eds.), Advances in behavioral pediatrics (Vol.
2, pp. 113-147). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Luftig, R. L. (1988). Assessment of the perceived school loneliness and isolation of
mentally retarded and nonretarded students. American Journal on Mental Retarda-
tion, 92, 472-475.
Lynam, D. R. (1996). Early identification of chronic offenders: Who is the fledgling
psychopath? Psychological Bulletin, 120, 209-234.
MacMillan, D. L. (1989). Equality, excellence, and the mentally retarded populations:
1970-1989. Psychology in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 15,
3-10.
MacMillan, D. L., & Gresham, F. M. (1995). Utility of alternative assessment models
for identification of mildly handicapped children. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Education, Office of Special Education Programs.
411

MacMillan, D. L., Gresham, F. M., & Forness, S. R. (1996). Full inclusion: An empirical
perspective. Behavioral Disorders, 21, 145-159.
MacMillan, D. L., Gresham, F. M., & Siperstein, G. N. (1993). Conceptual and
psychometric concerns about the 1992 AAMR definition of mental retardation.
American Journal on Mental Retardation, 98, 325-335.
MacMillan, D. L., Gresham, F. M., Siperstein, G., & Bocian, K. (1996). The labyrinth
of IDEA: School decisions on referred students with subaverage intellectual func-
tioning. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 101, 161-174.
MacMillan, D. L., Meyers, C. E., & Morrison, G. M. (1980). System-identification of
mildly mentally retarded children: Implications for interpreting and conducting
research. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 85, 108-115.
MacMillan, D. L., & Morrison, G. (1984). Sociometric research in special education.
In R. Jones (Ed.), Attitude and attitude change in special education (pp. 93-117).
Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
MacMillan, D. L., & Reschly, D. J. (in press). Issues of definition and classification.
In W. E. MacLean, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of mental deficiency: Psychological theory
and research (3rd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
MacMillan, D. L., Siperstein, G. N., & Gresham, F. M. (1996). Mild mental retardation:
A challenge to its viability as a diagnostic category. Exceptional Children, 62, 356-
371.
Madden, N., & Slavin, R. (1983). Mainstreaming students with mild handicaps:
Academic and social outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 58, 519-569.
Mann, M. (1960). What does ability grouping do to the self-concept? Childhood
Education, 26, 357-360.
Marsh, H. (1986). Self-serving effect (bias?) in academic attributions: Its relation to
academic achievement and self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78,
190-200.
Marsh, H. (1988). Self-Description Questionnaire I: Manual. San Antonio, TX: The
Psychological Corporation.
Marsh, H., & Parker, J. (1984). Determinants of student self-concept: Is it better to be
a relatively large fish in a small pond even if you don't learn to swim as well? Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 173-187.
Marsh, H. W., Parker, J., & Barnes, J. (1985). Multidimensional adolescent self-
concepts: Their relationship to age, sex, and academic measures. American Educa-
tional Research Journal, 22, 4 2 2 ^ 4 4 .
Marsh, H., & Shavelson, R. (1985). Self-concept: Its multifaceted, hierarchical struc-
ture. Educational Psychologist, 20, 107-125.
McConaughy, S., Mattison, R., & Peterson, R. (1994). Behavioral/emotional problems
of children with serious emotional disturbances and learning disabilities. School
Psychology Review, 23, 81-98.
McFall, R. M. (1982). A review and reformulation of the concept of social skills.
Behavioral Assessment, 4, 1-33.
Merrell, K., Johnson, E., Merz, J., & Ring, E. (1992). Social competence of students
with mild handicaps and low achievement: A comparative study. School Psychology
Review, 21, 125-137.
Meyerowitz, J. H. (1962). Self-derogations in young retardates and special class
placement. Child Development, 33, 443-451.
Milich, R., Landau, S., Kilby, G., & Whitten, P. (1982). Preschool peer perceptions of
the behavior of hyperactive and aggressive children. Journal of Abnormal Child
Morrison, G., Forness, S., & MacMillan, D. L. (1983). Influences on sociometric ratings
of mildly handicapped children: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology,
412

75, 63-74.
Morrison, G., MacMillan, D. L., & Kavale, K. (1985). System identification of learning
disabled children: Implications for research sampling. Learning Disability Quarterly,
8, 2-10.
Newcomb, A., Bukowski, W., & Pattee, L. (1993). Children's peer relations: A meta-
analytic review of popular, rejected, neglected, controversial, and average sociomet-
ric status. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 99-128.
Ochoa, S., & Olivarez, A. (1995). A meta-analysis of peer rating sociometric studies
of pupils with learning disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 29, 1-19.
Parker, J., & Asher, S. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are low-
accepted children at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102, 357-389.
Pekarik, E., Prinz, R., Leibert, D., Weintraub, S., & Neale, J. (1976). The Pupil
Evaluation Inventory: A sociometric technique for assessing children's social behav-
ior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 4, 83-97.
Pelham, W., & Bender, M. (1982). Peer relationships in hyperactive children: Descrip-
tion and treatment. In K. Gadow & I. Bialer (Eds.), Advances in learning and
behavioral disabilities: A research annual (Vol. 5, pp. 365-^436). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
Reid, J. (1993). Prevention of conduct disorder before and after school entry: Relating
interventions to developmental findings. Development andPsychopathology, 5,243-
262.
Renick, J., & Harter, S. (1989). Impact of social comparisons on the developing self-
perceptions of learning disabled students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81,
631-638.
Rhode, G., Jenson, W., & Reavis, H. (1992). The tough kid book. Longmont, CO: Sopris
West.
Sabornie, E., & Kauffman, J. (1985). Regular classroom sociometric status of behav-
iorally disordered adolescents. Behavioral Disorders, 10, 268-274.
Sabornie, E., Kauffman, J., Ellis, E., Marshall, K., & Elksnin, L. (1988). Bi-directional
and cross-categorical social status of learning disabled, behaviorally disordered, and
nonhandicapped adolescents. The Journal of Special Education, 21, 39-56.
Sater, G., & French, D. (1989). A comparison of the social competencies of learning
disabled and low achieving elementary aged children. The Journal of Special
Education, 25, 671-677.
Schneider, M., & Leitenberg, H. (1989). A comparison of aggressive and withdrawn
children's self-esteem, optimism and pessimism, and causal attributions for success
and failure. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 17, 133-144.
Schurr, K. T., Towne, R. C, & Joiner, L. M. (1972). Trends in self-concept of ability
over 2 years of special class placement. Journal of Special Education, 6, 161-166.
Semmel, M., Gottlieb, J., & Robinson, N. (1979). Mainstreaming: Perspectives on
educating handicapped children in the public school. Review of Research in Educa-
tion, 7, 223-279.
Shavelson, R., Hubner, J., & Stanton, G. (1976). Self-concept: Validation of construct
interpretations. Review of Educational Research, 46, 407-^441.
Short, R., & Shapiro, S. (1993). Conduct disorders: A framework for understanding and
intervention in schools and communities. School Psychology Review, 22, 362-375.
Silon, E. L., & Harter, S. (1985). Assessment of perceived competence, motivational
orientation, and anxiety in segregated and mainstreamed educable mentally retarded
children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 217-230.
Skiba, R., & Grizzle, K. (1991). The social maladjustment exclusion: Issues of definition
and assessment. School Psychology Review, 20, 577-595.
Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. (1984). A rationale for the merger of special and regular
413

education. Exceptional Children, 51, 102-111.
Sternlicht, M., & Deutsch, M. (1972). Personality development and social behavior in
the mentally retarded. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Strein, W. (1993). Advances in research on academic self-concept: Implications for
school psychology. School Psychology Review, 22, 273-284.
Swanson, H. L., & Malone, S. (1992). Social skills and learning disabilities: A meta-
analysis of the literature. School Psychology Review, 21, 427^143.
Taylor, S., & Brown, J. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological
perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193-210.
Towne, R. C, Joiner, L. M., & Schurr, T. (1967). The effects of special classes on the
self-concepts of academic ability of the educable mentally retarded: A time series
experiment. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Council for Exceptional
Children, St. Louis, MO.
Vaughn, S., & Hogan, A. (1990). Social competence and learning disabilities: A
prospective study. In H. L. Swanson & B. Keogh (Eds.), Learning disabilities:
Theoretical and research issues (pp. 175-194). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Walker, H., & Bullis, M. (1991). Behavior disorders and the social context of regular
class integration: A conceptual dilemma? In J. Lloyd, N. Singh, & A. Repp (Eds.),
The Regular Education Initiative: Alternative perspectives on concepts, issues, and
models (pp. 73-93). Sycamore, IL: Sycamore.
Walker, H., Colvin, G., & Ramsey, E. (1995). Antisocial behavior in school: Strategies
and best practices. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Walker, H., Irvin, L., Noell, J., & Singer, G. (1992). A construct score approach to the
assessment of social competence: Rationale, technological considerations, and an-
ticipated outcomes. Behavior Modification, 16, 448^-74.
Walker, H., & McConnell, S. (1988). Walker-McConnell scale of social competence
and school adjustment. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Walker, H., McConnell, S., & Clark, J. (1985). Social skills training in school settings:
A model for the social integration of handicapped children into less restrictive
settings. In R. McMahon & R. Peters (Eds.), Childhood disorders: Behavioral
developmental approaches (pp. 140-168). New York: Brunner-Mazel.
Walker, H. M., & Severson, H. (1992). Systematic screening for behavior disorders.
Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
Wang, M., &Birch, J. (1984). Effective special education in regular classes. Exceptional
Children, 52, 411-416.
Whalen, C, & Henker, B. (1985). The social worlds of hyperactive (ADHD) children.
Clinical Psychology Review, 5, 4 4 7 ^ 7 8 .
Wheeler, J., & Carlson, C. (1994). The social functioning of children with ADD with
hyperactivity and ADD without hyperactivity: A comparison of their peer relations
and social deficits. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 2, 2-12.
Widaman, K. F., MacMillan, D. L., Hemsley, R. E., Little, T. D., & Balow, I. H. (1992).
Differences in adolescents' self-concept as a function of academic level, ethnicity,
and gender. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 96, 387-^í-04.
Will, M. (1986). Educating children with learning problems: A shared responsibility.
Exceptional Children, 52, 411—416.
Williams, G., & Asher, S. (1992). Assessment of loneliness at school among children
with mild mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 96,373-385.
Wylie, R. (1974). The self-concept: Vol. J. A review of methodological considerations
and measuring instruments. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Wylie, R. (1979). The self-concept: Vol. 2. Theory and research on selected topics.
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Ysseldyke, J., Algozzine, B., Shinn, M., & McGue, M. (1982). Similarities and
414

differences between low achievers and students classified as learning disabled. The
Journal of Special Education, 16, 73-85.
Authors
FRANK M. GRESHAM is Professor, School of Education, University of California,
Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521; edfmg@ucracl.ucr.edu. He specializes in social
skills, learning disabilities, and behavior disorders.
DONALD L. MACMILLAN is Distinguished Professor of Education, School of
Education, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521;
macm@ucracl.ucr.edu. He specializes in mild mental retardation, special educa-
tion, and classification of high-incidence disabilities.
Received February 18, 1997

Revision received July 7, 1997
Accepted July 11, 1997
415

Gresham1997 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gresham1997 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Review of Educational

Social Competence and Affective Characteristics of Students With Mild

The online version of this article can be found at:

American Educational Research Association

Email Alerts: http://rer.aera.net/alerts

>> Version of Record - Jan 1, 1997

Social Competence and Affective

Frank M. Gresham and Donald L. MacMillan

Empirical research examining the social competence and affective functioning

A persistent theme throughout the history of special education is the concern

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

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

come increased acceptance and a corresponding decrease in neglecting and reject-

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

Conceptualization of Social Competence

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

retardation) or health-related impairments (e.g., cerebral palsy, traumatic brain

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

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

placement in special education based on substantial deviations from this model

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

Outcomes Teacher acceptance Teacher rejection Peer acceptance Social rejection

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

Review of Social Competence Characteristics

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

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

Kavale and Forness (1996) conducted a more comprehensive meta-analytic

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

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

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

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

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

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

This nonacceptance may have been facilitated by several circumstances. For

Although Edgerton and Sabagh employed ethnographic methods in their work,

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

1967). Posttest-only findings of lower self-concepts expressed by children with

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

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

regular classes but achieved in the bottom quartile on standardized tests of

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

education services are successful. That is, we might be able to preclude

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

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

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

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

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

primary interest (e.g., group membership or placement).

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

A similar problem is encountered in comparing students with SLD and LA

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

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

retardation.) However, the consequences of learning and cognitive problems are

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

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

reciprocal and interactive effects of various social and affective characteristics

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

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

special education reform. Exceptional Children, 60, 294-309.

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

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

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

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