Denham - 2006 - Social Relationships and School Readiness

See
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225280377
Social–Emotional Competence
as Support for School
Readiness: What Is It and How
Do We Assess It?
Article in Early Education and Development · January 2006

DOI: 10.1207/s15566935eed1701_4
CITATIONS READS
193 3,272
1 author:
Susanne Ayers Denham

George Mason University
138 PUBLICATIONS 6,629 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Susanne Ayers Denham on 21 March 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

EARLY EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT, 17(1), 57–89
Copyright © 2006, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Social–Emotional Competence
as Support for School Readiness:
What Is It and How Do We Assess It?
Susanne A. Denham
Department of Psychology
George Mason University
The overall issue of assessment during early childhood, and its relation to school
readiness and other decisions, is currently widely debated. Expanding early child-
hood education and child care enrollments, better scientific knowledge about early
childhood development, and decisions about public spending, necessitate careful
consideration of which assessment tools to use, as well as why and when to use them.
More specifically, the disconnection between the importance of social and emotional
domains of development, and their status within educational programming and as-
sessment, has long been lamented. The last several years have, however, witnessed a
blossoming of attention to these areas during early childhood, as crucial for both con-
current and later well-being and mental health, as well as learning and academic suc-
cess. Teachers view children’s “readiness to learn” and “teachability” as marked by
positive emotional expressiveness, enthusiasm, and ability to regulate emotions and
behaviors. Based on these assertions, I suggest a battery of preschool social–emo-
tional outcome measures, tapping several constructs central to emotional and social
competence theory, specifically emotional expression, emotion regulation, emotion
knowledge, social problem solving, and positive and negative social behavior.
The topic of assessment during early childhood, its relation to school readiness,
and its use in intervention and policy is currently hotly debated at the local, state,
and federal levels (Horton & Bowman, 2002; Meisels, 2003). Expanding early
childhood education and child care enrollments, better scientific knowledge about
early childhood development, and decisions about public spending, all oblige per-
sons working with young children, and their parents, to carefully consider which
Correspondence should be addressed to Susanne A. Denham, Department of Psychology, George

Mason University, 4400 University Drive, MS 3F 5, Fairfax, VA 22030. E-mail: sdenham@gmu.edu
58 DENHAM
assessment tools to use, as well as why and when to use them. Assessments of
young children’s social–emotional status, if administered economically and ethi-
cally in terms of teacher, parent, and child time, effort, and attention (Raver, 2004;
Raver & Zigler, 1997, 2004), could be particularly useful in tracking the success of
preventive programming and marking the status of specific children on this vital
aspect of development.
Thus, in concert with NAEYC developmentally appropriate practice (Brede-
kamp & Copple, 1997), assessment for school readiness, especially that focused
on social–emotional development, should be integrated with curricula, beneficial
to all parties, often based on ongoing teacher observation, primarily reliant on the
child’s everyday activities, and pertinent to all learning and developmental do-
mains. Data emanating from such assessment should, however, not be used for
high stakes decisions, such as retention in kindergarten. Instead, assessment is per-
formed to understand individual children’s strengths and weaknesses, to promote
improved, individualized instruction, and to evaluate programming. Furthermore,
no assessment tool can meet all of these needs; several tools in each domain are
likely to be needed.
In particular, better social and emotional assessment tools are sorely needed to
fit both the mandates put forward and the guidelines suggested in Horton and Bow-
man’s (2002) report for the Erikson Institute, Child Assessment at the Preprimary
Level: Expert Opinion and State Trends. The disconnection between the impor-
tance of the social and emotional domains of development and their status within
educational programming and assessment has long been lamented (Denham,
Lydick, Mitchell-Copeland, & Sawyer, 1996). In what appears to be ever-broaden-
ing recognition, however, the last several years have witnessed a blossoming of at-
tention to these areas during early childhood as crucial for both concurrent and
later well-being and mental health, as well as learning and academic success
(Huffman, Mehlinger, & Kerivan, 2000; Peth-Pierce, 2000; Shonkoff & Phillips,
2000). Buscemi, Bennett, Thomas, and Deluca (1995) have specifically reported
that Head Start programs cite emotional–behavioral issues among their top needs
for training and technical assistance. Similarly, teachers view children’s “readiness
to learn” and “teachability” as marked by positive emotional expressiveness, en-
thusiasm, and ability to regulate emotions and behaviors (Rimm-Kaufman, Pianta,
& Cox, 2000).
Thus, in this article, I present for consideration a battery of preschool so-
cial–emotional outcome measures, which meet as many of the aforementioned
“assessment best practice” criteria as possible. These measures will tap several
constructs central to emotional and social competence theory, specifically emo-
tional expression, emotion regulation, emotion knowledge, social problem solv-
ing, and positive and negative social behavior. My goal is to spur further study of
these measures, including piloting current versions of selected assessment tools,
SOCIAL–EMOTIONAL COMPETENCE 59
large-scale administration and revision of each, psychometric evaluation, initial

norming, and examination of the measures’ abilities to demonstrate program
effectiveness.
SIGNIFICANCE OF SOCIAL–EMOTIONAL
COMPETENCE
New empirical research buttresses our view of the importance of social–emotional

competence to school readiness (Carlton & Winsler, 1999). A number of research-
ers have shown that children who enter kindergarten with more positive profiles of
social–emotional competence have not only more success in developing positive
attitudes about school and successful early adjustment to school, but also improved
grades and achievement (Birch, Ladd, & Blecher-Sass, 1997; Ladd, Birch, &
Buhs, 1999; Ladd, Kochenderfer, & Coleman, 1996). In particular, when children
enter school with friends, are well liked, able to make and sustain new friendships,
and able to initiate positive relationships with their teachers, they also feel more
positive about school, participate in school more, and achieve more than children
who are not described this way. Social and emotional factors, including positive in-
teractions with teachers, positive representations of self derived from attachment
relationships, emotion knowledge, emotion regulatory abilities, social skills, and
nonrejected peer status, often uniquely predict academic success, even when other
pertinent variables, such as earlier academic success, are already taken into ac-
count (Carlton, 2000; Howes & Smith, 1995; Izard et al., 2001; Jacobsen &
Hofmann, 1997; O’Neil, Welsh, Parke, Wang, & Strand, 1997; Pianta, 1997;
Pianta, Steinberg, & Rollins, 1995; Shields et al., 2001).
Conversely, deficits in the social–emotional domains are problematic. For ex-
ample, children who are victimized by peers or are aggressive, in contrast, have
more difficulty adjusting to school routines and milieu, and are at risk for a poten-
tial cascade of problems, including academic difficulties, delinquency, and drug
abuse (Gagnon, Craig, Tremblay, Zhou, & Vitaro, 1995; Haapasalo & Tremblay,
1994; Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996). When developmental milestones of social and
emotional competence (e.g., regulation of negative emotion) are not negotiated
successfully, preschoolers are at risk for psychopathology and academic failure,
both then and later in life (Cytryn, McKnew, Zahn-Waxler, & Gershon, 1986; Den-
ham, Zahn-Waxler, Cummings, & Iannotti, 1991; Kohlberg, LaCrosse, & Ricks,
1972; Robins & Rutter, 1990; Roff & Ricks, 1970; Rubin & Clark, 1983; Sroufe,
Schork, Motti, Lawroski, & LaFreniere, 1984).
From these lines of research, Raver and Knitzer (2002) have integrated impor-
tant evidenced-based corollaries of social–emotional competence during the pre-
60 DENHAM
school years, which bear on the need for social–emotional assessment. These can
be summarized as follows:
1. Young children without developmentally appropriate emotional and social

competencies participate less in the classroom, and are less accepted by
classmates and teachers. Teachers provide them with less instruction and
positive feedback. They like school less and learn less.
2. Such social–emotional competence of young children predicts their aca-
demic performance in first grade, even when controlling for their actual
cognitive skills and family backgrounds.
3. This situation persists into the later elementary years. Young children who
behave aggressively or antisocially are more likely to perform poorly on
early academic tasks, and to be held back. Later on, they are more likely to
drop out and persist in their antisocial behavior.
Given these circumstances, it is imperative for children’s long-term well-being

and academic success to have assessment tools that help pinpoint strengths and
weaknesses in social–emotional competencies, as well as programs’ abilities to
foster such competencies.
THEORETICAL–DEFINITIONAL ISSUES
To create solid foundations for assessing these aspects of social–emotional devel-

opment, however, all definitions of social–emotional competence must be clear
and couched within developmental theory. First, the developmental task view can
aid in discerning young children’s most important accomplishments in this do-
main. In general, the young child who successfully negotiates the developmental
task of sustained positive engagement with peers is in a good position to continue
thriving in a social world. In fact, successful, independent interaction with age-
mates is a crucial predictor of later mental health and well-being, beginning during
preschool, continuing during the grade school years when peer reputations solid-
ify, and thereafter (Denham & Holt, 1993; Parker & Asher, 1987; Robins & Rutter,
1990). A second central developmental task of this period is regulating emotional
experience and expressiveness (Parker & Gottman, 1989). Socially competent be-
haviors during this developmental period would be organized around succeeding
at these all important developmental tasks—sustained positive engagement with
peers, marked by positive, regulated emotions (Howes, 1987; Waters & Sroufe,
1983).
An adaptation of Rose-Krasnor’s (1997) recent theorizing is useful in elaborat-
ing on the crucial definitional issues in this area, and in helping to resolve them in a
working definition of social–emotional competence. Rose-Krasnor put forward a
prism model that defines the construct, at its topmost level, as effectiveness in in-
teraction, the result of organized behaviors that meet short- and long-term develop-
mental needs. In this view, the elements of social–emotional competence are im-
portant contributors to a child’s ultimate successful, effective interaction—the
child’s sustained positive engagement with peers, marked by positive, regulated
emotions. This definition is a good beginning point for delineating aspects of so-
cial–emotional development that would benefit from careful assessment.
Within this theoretical view, it also is necessary to decide whether to focus on
the self-domain or the other domain. Are we interested in accessing the child’s suc-
cess in meeting personal goals, or the child’s interpersonal connectedness? Differ-
entiating the evaluators of a child’s social–emotional competence is important. For
example, depending on the goal that the child holds, his or her view of the effec-
tiveness of interaction could be quite different from those of other peers or adults in
the environment. For example, one child may be quite satisfied when he gets his
way through exercise of his bullying power. He may consider that he is effective in
his social interactions. In contrast, this bully’s status in his peer group probably is
not as high as his own view of his social efficacy, and his teacher probably views
his social–emotional competence as lacking. When social–emotional competence
is described and measured, then, both the child’s and others’ views of social effec-
tiveness can be useful. Further, because of the different perspectives of the partici-
pants in any interactions, Rose-Krasnor’s prism model also refers, in this middle
level, to success in both intrapersonal and interpersonal goals (e.g., qualities of re-
lationships, group status, and social self-efficacy).
Finally, at the bottom, most concrete level of the prism model reside very spe-
cific social, emotional, and social cognitive abilities, behaviors, and motivations,
all of which are primarily individual. Actual “social–emotional content” resides at
this level of analysis. At this bottom level of the prism, specific behaviors, social
cognitive abilities, and motivations that form part of the evaluations of self and oth-
ers regarding one’s social effectiveness can be incorporated. But how should these
discrete behaviors be organized?
This effort can be guided by some of the published theorizing about emotional
competence (Bridges, Denham, & Ganiban, 2004; Halberstadt, Denham, & Duns-
more, 2001; Raver, 2004). Halberstadt, Denham, and Dunsmore (2001) have cre-
ated a model for affective social competence (ASC) that describes abilities that fit
well this lowest level of Rose-Krasnor’s prism. That is, this model viewed ASC as
involving three integrated and dynamic components—sending emotional mes-
sages, receiving emotional messages, and experiencing emotion. Central and inter-
connected abilities within each component include (a) awareness and identifica-
tion of affect of self, peers, and adults (e.g., using prosocial display rules of
emotion to be kind to others); (b) working within a complex and constantly chang-
ing social environment; and (c) management and regulation. This model highlights
the processes inherent in emotional competencies; it also emphasizes moment-
62 DENHAM
to-moment changes in social partners, as well as allowing for the differing cultural
meanings inherent in social interaction, which impact emotional competencies.
Further, Raver, as well as Bridges, Denham, and Ganiban, have expanded defini-
tional, methodological, and analytical clarity for the construct of emotion regula-
tion, as well as paying special attention to issues of income and ethnicity as they in-
tersect with emotional competencies (Raver, 2004).
As well, responsible decision making and relationship and social skills should
be included at this level (Payton et al., 2000). Responsible decision making
would incorporate understanding the emotions inherent in the current interac-
tion, and their consequences, as well as the ability to come up with satisfactory
solutions to interpersonal conflict. Regulation of one’s own emotions and
prosocial reactions to others’ emotions also would be necessary for effective
goal setting and enactment of problem-solving behaviors. Finally, relationship
and social skills, such as listening, taking turns, seeking help, and friendship
skills (e.g., joining another child or small group, expressing appreciation, negoti-
ating, giving feedback, etc.), are crucial skills at this lowest level of the prism. In
general, then, we endorse an adapted version of Rose-Krasnor’s social–emo-
tional competence theory.
Suggestions for social–emotional measurement to follow in this article are
based on these conceptualizations of social–emotional competence, the clear evi-
dence already elaborated of its importance, and the following research-based rec-
ommendations made recently by Raver and colleagues (Raver, 2002, 2004; Raver
& Knitzer, 2002; Raver & Zigler, 1997, 2004):
1. Pursue the social–emotional domain rather than relying solely on children’

cognitive abilities, to benchmark individual children’s and programs’ prog-
ress; such inclusion of social–emotional competence fits with many defini-
tions of being ready for success in the primary grades.
2. Expand social–emotional assessment beyond the measures included in ex-
tant large-scale studies of preschool development. Heretofore there has
been a dearth of appropriate measures in this domain, and theoretical bases
have been weak for those that do exist.
3. Highlight especially direct assessments, both structured and unstructured,
of children’s social–emotional competence, to be used in concert with
adult-rated assessments. Such measures should be theoretically based to
ensure the following: (a) construct validity, and (b) creation of a relatively
small set of dependent variables to yield meaningful, easily analyzed and
interpreted data.
4. Social–emotional competence also must be observed in multiple contexts
because context dictates both the meaning of observed behaviors (e.g.,
aggressiveness), and children’s opportunities to display particular compe-
tencies.
Thus, we emphasize measuring observationally and directly with the child the
following aspects of social–emotional competence, which correspond to elements
on the lowest level of the prism model of social–emotional competence:
• Emotional expressiveness
• Understanding of emotion
• Regulation of emotion and behavior
• Social problem solving
• Social and relationship skills
PRESCHOOLERS’ EMOTIONAL EXPRESSIVENESS—

SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH
AND MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS
Specifically, regarding emotional expressiveness, positive affect is important in the

initiation and regulation of social exchanges; sharing positive affect may facilitate
the formation of friendships, and render one more likable (Denham, McKinley,
Couchoud, & Holt, 1990; Park, Lay, & Ramsay, 1993; Sroufe et al., 1984). Con-
versely, negative affect, especially anger, can be quite problematic in social inter-
action (Denham et al., 2003; Denham et al., 1990; Lemerise & Dodge, 2000; Ru-
bin & Clark, 1983; Rubin & Daniels-Beirness, 1983). Children who express
relatively more positive than negative emotions (as measured by parent–teacher re-
port or observation) (a) are rated higher by teachers on friendliness and assertive-
ness, and lower on aggressiveness and sadness; (b) respond more prosocially to
peers’ emotions; and (c) are seen as more likable by their peers (Denham, 1986;
Denham et al., 1990; Denham, Renwick, & Holt, 1991; Eisenberg et al., 1996;
Eisenberg et al., 1995; Sroufe et al., 1984; Strayer, 1980).
A number of research studies in the last two decades have examined young chil-
dren’s expressed emotions. These range from microanalytic studies based on facial
muscle movement (Cole, Zahn-Waxler, Fox, Usher, & Welsh, 1996; Lewis, Sul-
livan, & Vasen, 1987; Unzner & Schneider, 1990), to those approaching the coding
of children’s emotional expressiveness from a more molar, “emotion-in-action”
perspective that considers facial expressiveness, vocalic tone, and body posture or
behavior (Arsenio, Cooperman, & Lover, 2000; Denham, 1986; Sroufe et al.,
1984; Strayer, 1980). For example, some years ago I devised a system for coding
preschoolers’ emotions and reactions to peers’ emotions (e.g., Denham, 1986;
Denham et al., 2003; Denham, Blair, Schmidt, & DeMulder, 2002; Denham,
Caverly, et al., 2002; Denham et al., 2001). This “live” coding system tracks both
focal participants’ emotions and target interactors’ reactions; training has been
standardized. Other distinctions among developmental scientists’ approaches to
coding preschoolers’ emotions include their adherence to a discrete emotion per-
64 DENHAM
spective (e.g., Sroufe et al., 1984, only examined positive, negative, and contextu-
ally “inappropriate” emotional expression). Even when observational systems in-
clude several discrete emotions, specific emotions chosen and inclusion of other
developmentally appropriate markers of social–emotional development may differ
(cf. Miller & Olson, 2000; Sroufe et al., 1984).
In reviewing these systems when considering how to best capture the most im-
portant features of emotional expressiveness, several practical considerations
come to the fore. First, although microanalytic approaches are theoretically well
grounded and have demonstrated their usefulness empirically, there is no way that
the intense time requirements for training and coding could be met—the systems
conform to neither the “practical” nor the “short” qualities that would render so-
cial–emotional assessment easier to be included in current preschool assessment
plans.
Second, even Denham’s coding system requires too much training and probably
too much time to be efficiently used by front-line personnel, such as Head Start
teachers. What is needed is a simpler system that retains the “emotion-in-action”
quality of some of the reviewed systems; probably, distinguishing positive and
negative emotions is sufficient. An adapted version of the Sroufe et al. (1984) sys-
tem (Denham & Burton, 1996; Denham, Zahn-Waxler, et al., 1991), which in-
cludes standardized training, could be further simplified for broader use in the
early childhood education community.
Minnesota Preschool Affect Checklist (MPAC)

Observation Schedule
Sroufe et al’s system was adapted by Denham and colleagues (Denham & Burton,
1996; Denham, Zahn-Waxler, et al., 1991), and includes 53 items organized into
“megascales” for positive and negative affect, inappropriate affect, positive and
negative involvement (e.g., impulsivity, aggression, wandering, social isolation),
peer skills, and empathy and prosocial behavior (see Table 1).
Thus, the MPAC taps the emotional expressiveness construct (e.g., positive,
negative, and contextually inappropriate affect) that is the focus of this section, but
also includes items on other aspects of social–emotional competences as concep-
tualized here: emotion regulation, some elements of social problem solving (e.g.,
deals with frustration by verbalizing the problem), and numerous relationship and
social skills (e.g., prosocial response to needs of others, skills in peer leading and
joining, versus aggression, isolation, and hostility).
In Denham’s previous work, the emotional expressiveness items of the MPAC
were aggregated across positive and negative affect factors. For interobserver reli-
ability, median correlations were in the .80s (ps < .001). Evidence of validity of
the measure includes preintervention to postintervention findings in expected
directions.
TABLE 1
Items From the Minnesota Preschool Affect Checklist (MPAC)
MPAC Scales Exemplars of Behaviors Observed
Expression and regulation of Displays positive affect in any manner—facial, vocal, bodily; shows
positive affect ongoing high enjoyment (30 sec or more)
Expression and regulation of Uses negative affect to initiate contact, to begin a social interaction
negative affect with someone; uses face or voice very expressively to show
negative affect
Inappropriate affect Expresses negative affect to another child in response to the other’s
neutral or positive overture; takes pleasure in another’s distress
Productive involvement in Engrossed, absorbed, intensely involved in activity; independent—
purposeful activity involved in an activity that the child organizes for himself or
herself
Unproductive, unfocused Wandering, listless, tension bursts
use of personal energy
Lapses in impulse control Context-related, physical, interpersonal aggression; inability to stop
ongoing behavior; becomes withdrawn
Positive management of Promptly expresses, in words, feelings arising from problem
frustration situation, then moves on; shows ability to tolerate frustration well
even if does not verbalize
Skills in peer leading and Successful leadership, inept attempts at leadership, smoothly
joining approaches an already ongoing activity
Isolation No social interaction continuously for 3 min or more
Hostility Unprovoked, physical, interpersonal aggression; hazing, teasing, or
other provocation or threat
Prosocial response to needs Interpersonal awareness—behavior reflecting knowledge or
of others awareness about another person; helping behavior
Note. General item content adapted from Denham, Zahn-Waxler, Cummings, and Iannotti (1991),
and Sroufe, Schork, Motti, Lawroski, and LaFreniere (1984).
PRESCHOOLERS’ EMOTION KNOWLEDGE—

SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH
With respect to emotion knowledge, we know that young children are interested in
emotions. Most preschoolers can infer basic emotions from expressions or situa-
tions (Denham, 1986). They tend to have a better understanding of happy situa-
tions compared to those that evoke negative emotions (Denham & Couchoud,
1990; Fabes, Eisenberg, Nyman, & Michealieu, 1991). Throughout the rest of the
preschool period, children come to understand many aspects of the expression and
situational elicitation of basic emotions. They gradually come to differentiate
among the negative emotions of self and other—for example, realizing that one
feels more sad than angry when receiving “time out” from one’s preschool teacher.
They also become increasingly capable of using emotion language (Denham,
66 DENHAM
Cook, & Zoller, 1992; Fabes, Eisenberg, McCormick, & Wilson, 1988)—for ex-
ample, reminiscing about family sadness when a pet died. Furthermore, young
children begin to identify other peoples’ emotions even when they may differ from
their own—for example, knowing that father’s smile as he comes into the house
means his workday was satisfactory, and he probably won’t yell tonight. Toward
the end of this developmental period, they begin to comprehend complex dimen-
sions of emotional experiences, such as the possibility of simultaneous emotions
(Denham, 1998).
Although there are developmental progressions in the various aspects of emo-
tion knowledge, there also are marked individual differences in these develop-
ments (Dunn, 1994). Children who apply their more substantial emotion knowl-
edge in emotionally charged situations have an advantage in peer interaction; they
are more prosocially responsive to their peers, and rated as more socially skilled by
teachers, and more likable by their peers (Denham, 1986; Denham et al., 2003;
Denham & Couchoud, 1991; Denham et al., 1990). For example, if a preschooler
sees one peer bickering with another, and correctly deduces that the peer suddenly
experiences sadness or fear rather than intensified anger, she may comfort her
friend rather than retreat or enter the fray. Emotion knowledge thus allows a pre-
schooler to react appropriately to others, and bolsters social relationships. Interac-
tions with such an emotionally knowledgeable agemate would likely be viewed as
satisfying, rendering one more likable. Similarly, teachers are likely attuned to the
behavioral evidence of such emotion knowledge—the use of emotion language,
the sympathetic reaction—and to evaluate it positively. Lack of emotion knowl-
edge puts the preschooler at risk for aggression (Denham, Blair, et al., 2002; Den-
ham, Caverly, et al., 2002).
Recent research by Izard and colleagues (e.g., Izard et al., 2001; Schultz, Izard,
Ackerman, & Youngstrom, 2001) corroborates these assertions. In their study of
Head Start children, lack of emotion knowledge predicted both contemporaneous
and later teacher reports of overall social functioning (see also Smith, 2001, for
similar results predicting peer acceptance). In particular, misattributing anger
when other emotions were more correct was related to peer rejection and boys’ ag-
gression(Schultz, Izard, & Ackerman, 2000). As well, Izard and colleagues have
found evidence of a link between emotion knowledge and academic success in ele-
mentary school (Izard, 2002; Izard et al., 2001). Their findings suggest that the
ability to detect and label emotion cues facilitates positive social interactions and
that a deficit in this ability contributes to behavioral and learning problems.
Psychologists have been interested in young children’s emotion knowledge for
some time, but early measures were sometimes confusingly portrayed as measures
of empathy (Borke, 1971; Iannotti, 1985); others seemed to risk underestimation
of preschoolers’ and kindergartners’ substantial abilities in this area because of
confusing methodology or overreliance on verbal ability (Cassidy, 1992; Gove &
Keating, 1979; Reichenbach & Masters, 1983). More recent methodologies have
been streamlined (e.g., Garner, 1996, 1999; Schultz et al., 2001), and more atten-
tion has been paid to important issues of ecological validity, minimizing verbal re-
quirements, and embedding assessments within play (Denham, 1986; Denham &
Couchoud, 1990; Denham & Kochanoff, 2003; Denham, Zoller, & Couchoud,
1994).
Emotion Knowledge: Denham’s Affective Knowledge Test

In particular, Denham’s Affective Knowledge Test (AKT; 1986) is useful in this re-
gard. The AKT utilizes puppets in measuring preschoolers’ developmentally ap-
propriate understanding of emotional expressions and situations. Children’s un-
derstanding of emotion is assessed using puppets with detachable faces that depict
happy, sad, angry, and afraid expressions. First, children are asked to both verbally
name the emotions depicted on these faces, and then to nonverbally identify them
by pointing. This procedure taps into their ability to recognize expressions of
emotion.
Then, in two subtests of emotion situation knowledge, the puppeteer makes
standard facial and vocal expressions of emotions while enacting emotion-laden
stories, such as fear during a nightmare, happiness at getting some ice cream,
and anger at having a block tower destroyed. Children place on the puppet the
face that depicts the puppet’s feeling in each situation (Denham, 1986; Denham
& Couchoud, 1990; Denham et al., 1994). In eight situations, the puppet feels
emotions that would be common to most people such as those mentioned earlier.
Finally, children are asked to make inferences of emotions in nonsterotypical,
equivocal situations. This subtest measures how well children identify others’
feelings in situations where the “other” feels differently than the child. All the
situations that the puppeteer depicts during this section of the measure could
easily elicit one of two different emotions in different people, as in feeling happy
or afraid to get into a swimming pool. Before the assessment, children’s parents
report, via forced-choice questionnaire, how their children would feel; these re-
sponses determine the emotions expressed by the puppet. For example, if the
parent reports that the child would be happy to come to preschool, the puppet is
depicted feeling sad.
Internal consistency and test–retest reliabilities are good for both expression
identification and situation knowledge (Denham, Caverly, et al., 2002; Denham &
Couchoud, 1990). For example, in previous studies, Cronbach’s alpha for these
scores was in the .80s. Further, the AKT appears to be especially ecologically
valid, as it requires little verbalization and is performed during play. It is easy to
learn and to administer, children enjoy it, and it takes only about 20 min to
perform.
Evidence of concurrent and predictive validity includes relations of AKT ex-
pression identification and situation knowledge scores with overall social compe-
68 DENHAM
tence as assessed by peers and teachers (e.g., Denham, 1986; Denham et al., 2003;
Denham, Caverly, et al, 2002; Denham et al., 1990). Substantial empirical work
from others’ laboratories also has shown the AKT’s usefulness in predicting later
emotion knowledge and social competence (Brown & Dunn, 1996; Cutting &
Dunn, 2002; Dunn & Brown, 1994; Dunn, Brown, & Maguire, 1995; Dunn & Cut-
ting, 1999; Dunn & Herrera, 1997; Kuersten-Hogan, 1998; Miller, Gouley, Seifer,
Dickstein, & Shields, 2004; Smith, 2001).
In short, knowing a child’s status on this measure can help teachers not only in
knowing about his or her emotion knowledge, but also to prognosticate about skills
to which the AKT is related. Thus, the AKT appears to be a useful assessment tool
to document status and change in emotion knowledge as a key aspect of SEL; it has
already demonstrated its usefulness in this role (Domitrovich et al., 2002; Shields
et al., 2001).
In using this measure with fairly advantaged populations of preschoolers, how-
ever, there is something of a ceiling effect around age 54 months. Thus, it is wise to
pinpoint measures of slightly later-developing aspects of emotion knowledge,
such as verbalizing the causes of emotions, and understanding of simultaneous
emotions (as opposed to expressive and receptive labeling of emotional expres-
sions, and understanding of unequivocal and equivocal emotion situations in the
AKT).
Because of these age-related issues, developmentally appropriate means of as-
sessing emotion knowledge are needed as children reach the end of preschool and
transition in to school. For these purposes, two measures are recommended: (a) an-
other puppet measure, the “Puppet Causes Task” (Denham & Zoller, 1991; an ad-
aptation of others’ measures, e.g., Fabes et al., 1991; Strayer, 1986), in which older
children are required to talk about the causes of puppets’ emotions; and (b) the
Gordis, Rosen, and Grand (1989) Conflicting Emotions measure, in which chil-
dren hear stories about feeling two emotions at the same time.
Emotion Knowledge: Denham’s Puppet Causes Task

In an open-ended, seminaturalistic, audiotaped interview embedded within play,
participants view and discuss four puppets with happy, sad, angry, and fearful ex-
pressions. The tester first asks the child to identify the emotion displayed by each
puppet. If the child’s answer is incorrect, he or she is told the correct emotion be-
fore continuing. Then the tester asks, “What made the puppet feel this way?”
pointing at each puppet in random order. To encourage the generation of elabo-
rated causes for each emotion by increasing the reality of the play, testers suggest
that children put the puppet on their own hand and give the choice to call it by their
own or their best friend’s name (Denham, Zoller, & Couchoud, 1994).
Testers use standard probes to encourage children to give multiple causes for
each emotion, and to ensure that children’s meanings can be understood (e.g., “I
bet you can tell me some more reasons why _____ is feeling _____” or “Can you
tell me more about ____?”). Scores reflect the number of accurate, independent
reasons given (i.e., “I get angry when my buddies fight” and “I get angry when
Shawn hits me” are counted as one response). Interrater reliability, as well as valid-
ity, has been good in previous work, and the measure varies from 5 to 20 min, but
on averages takes 10 min. Intercoder reliability is excellent (κ = .94 in recent work)
and validity has been demonstrated via relations, in expected directions, with ma-
ternal socialization of emotion techniques (Denham, Zoller, & Couchoud, 1994).
Emotion Knowledge: Gordis et al.’s (XXXX)

Ambivalent Emotions Task
This ambivalent emotions measure consists of a storytelling interview, used to
measure the children’s understanding of situations that provoke ambivalent emo-
tional responses. Events in the stories were chosen to illustrate situations in which
one could feel two emotions of opposite valence. They include, for example, hav-
ing a birthday party to which one’s best friend cannot come, anticipating the last
day of school, and riding a two-wheel bicycle for the first time.
In our use of these stories for kindergartners (Denham & Kochanoff, 2003), we
added laminated illustrations to make the stories more evocative. The child is told
explicitly that the protagonist felt two conflicting emotions (e.g., happy and sad at
the birthday party), and is asked to explain why (Explain Condition). There is an-
other condition, the Detect and Explain Condition, in which the story is told, but
the two emotions are not—requiring the child to be able to name the two likely
emotions felt by the protagonist. We will add this condition if necessary to increase
variance. Children receive one point for each emotion explained correctly. We
found a Cronbach’s alpha of .84 in our earlier study, as well as evidence for concur-
rent validity. The measure takes about 10 min in the Explain Condition. Again, we
found evidence of validity. First, researchers have found that earlier emotion
knowledge as measured by the AK predicts later emotion knowledge assessed with
Gordis et al.’s (XXXX) measure (Brown & Dunn, 1996; Denham & Kochanoff,
2003). Second, there are also relations, albeit modest, with maternal socialization
of emotions during the preschool years.
PRESCHOOLERS’ EMOTIONAL AND BEHAVIORAL

REGULATION—SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH
Beginning to attend preschool or childcare is a particularly important transition

that taxes young children’s emotion regulatory skills. Preschoolers’ attention is
riveted on success with their friends in this context. Unlike adults, however, these
70 DENHAM
newly important peers are neither skilled at negotiation, nor able to offer assistance
in emotion regulation. At the same time, the social cost of emotional dysregulation
is high with both teachers and peers. Because play with peers is replete with con-
flict, this developmental focus demands emotion regulation; initiating, maintain-
ing, and negotiating play, and earning acceptance, all require preschoolers to “keep
the lid on” (Raver, Blackburn, Bancroft, & Torp, 1999). Because of the increasing
complexity of young children’s emotionality and the demands of their social
world—with “so much going on” emotionally, some organized emotional gate-
keeper must be cultivated.
Thus, emotion and behavior regulation also is a central aspect of social–emo-
tional competence. Negative or positive emotions can need regulating when they
threaten to overwhelm or need to be amplified. With much adult support, children
gradually learn to retain or enhance those emotions that are relevant and helpful, to
attenuate those that are relevant but not helpful, and to dampen those that are irrele-
vant; these skills help them to experience more well-being and maintain satisfying
relationships with others. Preschoolers slowly begin to use specific, independent,
and sometimes cognitive, coping strategies for self-regulation—problem solving,
support seeking, distancing, internalizing, externalizing, distraction, reframing or
redefining the problem, “blunting,” and denial. Maternal and teacher reports of
constructive modes of emotion regulatory coping are associated with social effec-
tiveness during the preschool years (Blair, Denham, Kochanoff, & Whipple, in
press; Denham, 1998; Eisenberg et al., 1995).
Raver and colleagues (Raver, 2004; Raver & Knitzer, 2002; Raver & Zigler,
1997) also pointed out, importantly, that behavioral and emotion regulation are
central to school learning. As they noted, children have to regulate emotion while
sharing materials, taking turns, getting in line, or concentrating on preliteracy
tasks; thus emotion regulation is likely to be a very crucial element in any so-
cial–emotional assessment battery. Despite this intuitively and empirically clear
linkage between emotion regulation and both social and academic success, mea-
suring emotion regulation has a history of difficulty, partly due to both definitional
and methodological confusion (Bridges et al., 2004; Cole, Martin, & Dennis,
2004). In our work, we consider that emotion regulation is “the dynamic interac-
tion of multiple behavioral, psychophysiological, attentional, and affective sys-
tems that allow young children to participate effectively in their social world”
(Cole et al., XXXX, p. 320). Emotion regulation includes managing, modulating,
inhibiting, and enhancing emotions. However, the picture is even more complex:
emotions both regulate arousal, thinking, and behavior and are regulated by
arousal, thinking, and behavior, so that any measurement of emotion regulation
should include, at the very least, some certainty that emotions are in fact elicited,
and how they are affected by, and affect, thinking and behavior.
In practice, however, emotion regulation has been conceptualized and mea-
sured in an array of methods, including psychophysiological (Gottman, Katz, &
Hooven, 1996), parent or teacher report, especially of temperament dimensions

(Blair et al., in press; Eisenberg et al., 1993; Eisenberg, Fabes, Guthrie, & Reiser,
2000; Eisenberg, Fabes, Nyman, Bernzweig, & Pinuelas, 1994; Gottman et al.,
1996; Shields et al., 2001), observations (Miller et al., 2004), and experimental
methods (Grolnick, Bridges, & Connell, 1996; Kochanska, Coy, & Murray, 2001).
Some measures from this dizzying assortment, it seems to me, would be less useful
than others in depicting and predicting aspects of school readiness. A further com-
plication is how the constructs of emotional regulation, behavioral regulation, and
“self regulation” intersect conceptually—do all measures of self-regulation imply
emotion regulation at work?
From these concerns—to predict school readiness and to devise measures that
allow for direct behavioral assessments—Raver has developed two new assess-
ments that tap preschoolers’ expressed affect, executive functioning, compliance,
and effortful control (Blair, 2002; Hughes, White, Sharpen, & Dunn, 2000; Murray
& Kochanska, 2002; Raver, 2004). These direct assessments include specifically
emotion-eliciting experiences and regulatory challenges with high ecological va-
lidity (e.g., waiting to eat a piece of candy, cleaning up toys, returning a gift, taking
turns).
Emotion and Behavior Regulation Battery

The Emotion Matters II Direct Assessment (EMII-DA) was modeled after
Kochanska and colleagues (Kochanska et al., 2001; Kochanska, Murray, & Harlan,
2000; Murray & Kochanska, 2002) and Mischel, Shoda, and Rodriguez (1989).
Raver and Smith-Donald (XXXX) are creating their final battery to be imple-
mented with little training after Head Start’s XXXXX (NRS) assessment. All
submeasures involve maintaining attention, affect, and behavior in developmen-
tally somewhat taxing contexts; experimenters’ ratings have excellent definitions
to increase interrater reliability (see Table 2 for a fuller description of sections of
the battery).
The objective of these measures, then, is to give a clear, detailed “snapshot” of
children’s attentional, emotional, and behavioral skills. Such an assessment will
aid in understanding the many more-or-less automatic factors that influence chil-
dren’s performance on tests of intellectual and linguistic ability, achievement, and
performance—including attentional skills, impulsivity, and emotional state at the
time of the assessment. It may also assist in developing more effective tools for
benchmarking children’s emotional and behavioral progress over time both during
programming and for preprogramming and postprogramming evaluation.
For the battery, the adult assessor suggests to the child the following: “let’s
stretch, take a little break, and play some extra games” before returning to class.
The child and assessor complete three rounds of pretending to walk on the “bal-
ance beam” (duct tape placed on the carpet) and then return to the table to complete
72 DENHAM
TABLE 2
Emotion Matters II Direct Assessment Tasks (Smith-Donald, 2004; 20 min total)
Task Title Construct Assessor Directions or Procedure
1. Balance beam Executive Ask child to walk on a short length of tape for three
(3 trials) function rounds, reduce speed for second trial and slower for
third trial
2. Pencil tap Executive Ask child to tap unsharpened pencil after assessor,
(16 trials) function assessor taps one time child should tap two times;
assessor taps two times child should tap one time
3. Tower task Affect Ask child to build a very high tower with blocks
(12 blocks) taking turns with assessor
4. Latency to tower Compliance– Ask child to put blocks back into container from tower
cleanup affect task, give child 2 mins to complete
5. Latency to sort Compliance– Ask child to sort a set of intricate small objects (cars,
jumbled toys affect beads, dinosaurs, and bugs) into different containers
6. Gift wrap (peek) Effortful control Ask child not to peek while assessor wraps a toy in
tissue paper and bag for 1 min
7. Gift wrap (wait) Effortful control Ask child to wait 1 min before opening wrapped toy
8. Toy return Compliance– Ask child to return toy back to assessor after playing
affect with it for 1 min (after opening)
9. Snack delay Effortful control Ask child to wait before getting a piece of candy from
(3 trials) under a cup for three rounds (10 sec, 20 sec, and 30
sec)
10. Tongue task Effortful control– Ask child to hold a piece of candy on his or her tongue
(1 trial) affect for 40 sec before eating it
Note. Tasks adapted from Murray and Kochanska (2002), Hughes, White, Sharpen, and Dunn,
2000, and Raver, Blackburn, Bancroft, and Torp (1999). All assessors complete 15-hr training, certifi-
cation, and reliability check.
several other “games.” These include a “tapping” game with unsharpened pencils
and a “gift wrap” task where the child is asked not to peek while the assessor wraps
a toy in tissue paper for 2 min. Both tasks help us to understand ways that children
can inhibit their impulses, using self-control to listen carefully and to follow direc-
tions. The child is then given the chance to open the wrapped toy, and to play with
it before going on to the next game. Next, the child is given blocks with which to
build a very high tower, and a set of intricate small objects (e.g., bracelets, dino-
saurs, cars) that the child is asked to sort into different containers. These tasks
show the ways that children comply with instructions such as cleaning up interest-
ing things, putting them away, and giving them back.
Finally, the child and the assessor play several “waiting” games with candy (or
another food such as fruit-juice-sweetened “puff” cereal if the child is allergic to
chocolate) to see how well children can handle their emotions and behaviors dur-
ing brief delays (10 sec to 40 sec of delay). The assessor completes the Emotion
Matters II Assessor’s Report (EMII-AR) after returning the child to the classroom
(this task requires10 min). This checklist describes the child’s attention, impulse
control, confidence and mastery, compliance, and emotion regulation in more
detail.
The ease of administration and coding of this assessment tool, its ecological va-
lidity, and its apparent power in describing emotion regulation make it a viable
candidate to include in any social–emotional armamentarium. Preliminary results
suggest that subtests are modestly related to teachers’ ratings of children’s ex-
ternalizing problems, as well as children’s NRS-assessed letter-naming and PPVT
scores.
The EMII-DA can also be accompanied by information on regulation obtained
from the MPAC, including lapses of impulse control and positive reactions to
frustration.
SOCIAL PROBLEM SOLVING—SUMMARY

OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH
Because thinking and emotion work together in our lives, it is important to address
each child’s skills in thinking about interpersonal interactions, going beyond his or
her emotional experience, knowledge, regulation, and expression. Responsible de-
cision making assumes importance as the everyday social interactions of pre-
schoolers increase in frequency and complexity. Young children must learn to pro-
cess social information—to encode and analyze social situations, set social goals,
and determine effective ways to solve differences that arise between them and their
peers, and actually perform these behaviors (Crick & Dodge, 1994). In a meta-
analysis of interventions focusing on such social problem solving, we found that
children’s use of such decision-making skills is in fact related to their improved so-
cial behavior (Denham & Almeida, 1987). More recent reports (e.g., Greenberg,
Kusché, & Riggs, 2001; Youngstrom et al., 2000) have shown comparable results,
with added specifications of a link between social problem solving and academic
success, and the advantage of learning specifically prosocial problem solutions.
Each aspect of social information processing, the backbone of responsible deci-
sion making, may be related to preschoolers’ social success. Encoding of social in-
formation is differentially related to social functioning; Coy, Speltz, DeKlyen, and
Jones (2001) found that preschool boys diagnosed with oppositional defiant disor-
der generated more aggressive problem solutions. In tracing the reason for these
aggressive solutions cited, Coy et al. found that diagnosed boys demonstrated less
accurate encoding of social information; they did not differ from nondiagnosed
boys in interpreting encoded information. Similarly, diagnosed and nondiagnosed
boys did not differ on response evaluation (see also Gouze, 1987).
74 DENHAM
This pattern of findings is not, however, universal. Webster-Stratton and Lind-

say (1999) reported that conduct problems in young children are indeed associated
with deficits in awareness of social cues (encoding), but that these problems co-
exist with problematic interpretations (e.g., overestimating their own ability to
perform socially competently, and more often misattributing others’ actions as
hostile).
Regarding other aspects of social problem solving, Neel, Jenkins, and Meadows
(1990) showed that aggressive and nonaggressive preschoolers differed not so
much in the number or overall repertoire of their alternative problem-solving strat-
egies, but that they did differ in terms of (a) their favored type of strategy, with ag-
gressive children preferring intrusive strategies; and (b) their goals in interaction—
aggressive children’s goals tended to be to stop or prevent others’ behaviors,
whereas nonaggressive children more often cited information-gathering and rela-
tionship enhancement as social goals. Capage and Watson (2001) have also found
important individual differences in aggressive and nonaggressive preschoolers’
goals for social problem solving. With respect to response access or construction,
and response decision processes, Musun-Miller (1993) has shown that preschool-
ers who could predict positive outcomes for social situations were more well liked
by same-sex peers.
Thus, somewhat more evidence exists for a focus on encoding during the pre-
school period—it may be most important to make sure that young children take in
social information, especially regarding others’ emotions, accurately in the first
place! Also, however, some investigators have found important needs in the inter-
preting, goal, and response aspects of social problem solving, as well, suggesting
that the whole range of social problem-solving skills should be addressed as early
as preschool.
In another new development, this social information processing theory that
forms a foundation for training in responsible decision making has been expanded
to include emotional information and content at every step (Lemerise & Arsenio,
2000). This union of social information processing and emotions illustrates well
the thinking about social–emotional competence during the preschool period:
Children are constantly attempting to understand their own and others’ behavior,
and emotions play a role in this understanding, conveying crucial interpersonal in-
formation that can guide interaction (Dodge, Laird, Lochman, Zelli, & Conduct
Problems Prevention Research Group, 2002). For example, to decide what to do
when trying to join a group of other preschoolers working on a puzzle, a young
child would need to encode information from the setting, which would include the
context, others’ behavior, and the others’ affect, as well as one’s own. Next, this in-
formation would need to be interpreted; these interpretations could differ depend-
ing on one’s own emotional arousal, for example, a child already quaking in fear
born of shyness might perceive facial expressions of peers as less than friendly. Af-
ter interpretation, the child needs to consider various alternative means of joining
the group, based on his or her goals—and here again, the very shy, fearful child
might have very different goals in this situation than a bolder one. Any measure of
social problem solving should include assessment of emotions at each important
juncture.
Social problem-solving measures for preschoolers were developed several de-
cades ago (Shure & Spivack, 1980, 1981). The most prevalent measures for this
age range include the Preschool Interpersonal Problem-Solving measure, which
asks children to generate as many alternative solutions as possible to specific prob-
lems, and the What Happens Next Game, which asks children to consider the con-
sequences of various solutions. Since these original measures, some new subscales
and different means of coding answers (e.g., classifying alternatives as prosocial or
aggressive), and even observational means of indexing children’s social prob-
lem-solving strategies, have been developed (Dodge, Pettit, McClaskey, & Brown,
1986; Krasnor & Rubin, 1983; Sharp, 1981). However, to my knowledge, little has
been done to capture not only the cognitive-behavioral, but also the affective na-
ture of social problem solving (but see Dodge et al., 2002, for the finding that emo-
tion knowledge predicts social information processing). Denham, Bouril, and
Belouad (1994) did create such a measure, the Challenging Situations Task (CST).
Social Problem-Solving Skills: Challenging Situations Task

This social problem-solving measure was designed to assess children’s social cog-
nitive perceptions of the affective and behavioral responses they would give in hy-
pothetical peer situations. A challenging situation was defined as one that would
elicit affect and test the limits of the child’s decision making within the crucial peer
relationship. Categories of peer provocation and entry into a peer group are diffi-
cult encounters that differentiate preschoolers and school-aged children who differ
in social competence (Dodge, McClaskey, & Feldman, 1985). The three peer situa-
tions chosen for the original CST were (a) a peer knocking down a tower of blocks
that the child was building, (b) being hit by a peer on the playground, and (c) enter-
ing a group of peers playing a game.
Four categories of affective responses (i.e., happy, sad, angry, and “just okay”),
and four categories of behavioral responses (i.e., prosocial, aggressive, manipula-
tive, and avoidant), were identified for each situation. Prosocial responses included
engaging the other person in constructive play, not becoming upset, and discussing
the problem. Aggressive responses included yelling, hitting the other person, or
destroying the peers’ game. Crying and pouting were manipulative responses.
Avoidance responses were ignoring the other person, withdrawing from the inter-
action, or waiting on the sidelines.
The child is instructed to pretend that he or she is in the situation and to respond
to the question as if it were a real situation for him or her. The tester first presents a
3 × 4 in. picture and verbal description of each challenging situation. Next, four
76 DENHAM
pictures of happy, sad, angry, and “just okay” affects are presented in random order
and labeled for the child. Then the child is asked to point to the picture that best de-
scribes the answer to “How do you feel when [this situation] happens to you?”
Next, four pictures of behavioral responses (prosocial, aggressive, manipulation of
others’ feelings, and avoidant) are presented in random order. The child is asked,
“What do you do when you feel that way [in this situation]?” Similarly, the child
answers the following questions by pointing to a picture: “What happens next?”
“How do you feel then?”
Scores for affective and behavioral responses used are number of times each af-
fect and each behavioral response is chosen across the three situations. In earlier
research, behavioral and affective choices showed relations with emotion knowl-
edge (as measured by Denham’s AKT) and with teacher ratings of classroom
social behavior. Zahn-Waxler and colleagues (Zahn-Waxler, Cole, Richardson,
Friedman, & XXXX, 1994), using the CST, found that preschool children at risk
for behavioral problems were less likely to give prosocial behavioral responses
(see also Coy et al., 2001). A larger sample of low-income minority children is
necessary to extend the psychometric evaluation of the CST.
SOCIAL RELATIONSHIP SKILLS—SUMMARY

OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH
There has been some divergence between educational and psychological disci-
plines in the attention given the relation of positive social behavior and school
readiness and success. The clearest picture from recent developmental psychologi-
cal literature is that children with poorer social skills are more likely to have diffi-
culties with peer relationships, and thus, indirectly, with school adjustment (Buhs
& Ladd, 2001; Dekovic & Gerris, 1994; Hernandez, 2003; Keane & Calkins, 2004;
Kupersmidt, Coie, & Dodge, 1990; Newcomb, Bukowski, & Pattee, 1993; Vitaro,
Gagnon, & Tremblay, 1990; Warden & Mackinnon, 2003). In fact, children with
poor social skills and peer relationships are at increased risk of eventually drop-
ping out of school (Kupersmidt et al., 1990; Masten & Coatsworth, 1998).
Normandeau and Guay (1998) also found that kindergartners’ prosocial behavior
predicts their first-grade cognitive self-control (defined as the ability to plan, eval-
uate, and self-regulate one’s problem-solving activities and attention), which then
predicts first-grade achievement. Prevention and intervention programming re-
sults also have shown improvements in such skills to be associated with school ad-
justment (Bierman & Greenberg, 1996).
Educational researchers have focused more directly on the skills of attending,
listening, working cooperatively with others, and following directions (Brigman,
Lane, Switzer, Lane, & Lawrence, 1999; Brigman & Webb, 2003). Wooster and
Carson (1982) have correlated these skills specifically with later school achieve-
ment. Further, kindergarten screening of cooperation and self-control figured
prominently in predicting first-grade academic success. Social skill subscales play
significant roles in predicting promotion and retention after first grade (Agostin &
Bain, 1997). As well, educational researchers have discovered parents’ and teach-
ers’ beliefs about the indirect advantages of social skills
… that if children can interact meaningfully with each other and adults, follow sim-
ple rules and directions, and demonstrate some degree of independence in the class-
room … teachers could teach them the other academic skills and knowledge they
would need to be successful in school. (Wesley & Buysse, 2003, p. 357)
Although we describe a seeming divergence between developmental psycho-

logical and educational research on positive social behavior’s role in school suc-
cess, there can be no doubt that developmental scientists have created numerous
means of measuring positive social behaviors, both in depth and breadth; represen-
tative examples are listed here. There are means of gathering parent or teacher re-
port of such behaviors (e.g., Coolahan, Fantuzzo, Mendez, & McDermott, 2000;
Elliott, Gresham, Freeman, & McCloskey, 1988; LaFreniere & Dumas, 1996; Weir
& Duveen, 1981). Some investigators have created experimental, direct assess-
ments of prosocial behavior (Iannotti, 1985). Finally, others have elected to ob-
serve these behaviors within preschoolers’ social interaction, such as Miller and
colleagues’ (2004) continuous coding of conflict, solitary construct play, social at-
tention, social interaction, and collaborative play, and event coding of aggression,
mild antagonism, and prosocial behavior. Rydell, Hagekull, and Bohlin (1997)
also created an observation system that included the following categories: positive
affect to peer (smiles, touches, friendly), prosocial behaviors (helps, comforts,
shares), initiative with peer (addresses, shows something, suggests activity), posi-
tive interaction with peer (engaged in play, conversation, or work), responds to
peer (answers, listens, joins), solitary activity (reversed), evidence of leadership
(peer accepts suggestion, follows, listens, asks for direction). Finally, Howes and
Matheson (1992), in studying the development of social relationships throughout
the preschool period, created observational categories of social initiations, cooper-
ation, various forms of aggression, and withdrawal. Although these measures each
have strengths, the MPAC system already noted under measurement of emotions
(discussed earlier) also has these strengths in a relatively easily trained observa-
tional system that is already part of the proposed battery. As already noted, the
MPAC includes observational items on skills of leading and joining the activities
of peers, social isolation, hostility, and prosocial behaviors. To even more com-
pletely assess relationship skills, I suggest expanding its prosocial category to in-
clude the following: (a) sharing, (b) listening; (c) taking turns, (d) cooperating in
play or to complete a task, and (e) using polite words.
78 DENHAM
DISCUSSION
In summary, I have tried to elucidate the importance of social–emotional compe-

tence for school readiness, and to suggest profitable ways in which to assess as-
pects of such competence. Several other specific points are, however, crucial to in-
clude. First, we must note that all the aspects of social–emotional competence in
the lowest level of the prism model of social–emotional competence—self-aware-
ness, self-management, social awareness, and responsible decision making—work
together: A preschooler who can remain emotionally regulated after being pushed,
for example, feels better but still might not be able to choose how to act, without re-
sponsible decision-making skills; if the child is mired in underregulated anger and
hurt, preemptive cognitive processing may take place, rather than the effortful pro-
cessing needed to choose a more responsible behavioral response. Conversely, a
preschooler who usually has good ideas to solve problems may not have them
available while extremely emotionally aroused. Thus, the constructs to be mea-
sured in this project do not stand alone, and should be evaluated in concert.
Second, cultural sensitivity also must be considered when selecting constructs
and instruments. Differences in cultural norms and values (e.g., Asian and U.S.
White values regarding emotion regulation and child competence) have implica-
tions for using information gleaned from assessment measures selected here.
Many behaviors (e.g., self-regulatory behaviors) are important for human func-
tioning in a variety of cultures, but the contexts for displaying these behaviors, and
the conditions that elicit them (or not) may differ. A desirable approach would be
to operationally define a set of core expected outcomes, assess whether cultural
differences moderate their effect size, and if so, determine how and why. Thus, it
also behooves us to move beyond currently studied populations to reveal any
boundary conditions with regard to culture and ethnicity.
Finally, I hope to stimulate interest and research partnerships to attain the fol-
lowing goals pertinent to the overall approach outlined here, which include the
following:
1. Initial validation and norming of a battery of direct child assessments of so-

cial–emotional competence.
2. Determination of validity of these measures across groups of children so that
the appropriateness of these measures for low-income, ethnic minority children, as
well as more advantaged White children is established. Although some measures
discussed earlier have already been validated with diverse samples of participants,
others have not, and it is critical to turn a large portion of attention to establishing
the validity of measures across diverse groups of children.
3. Using data with these assessment tools to demonstrate (a) improvement in
social–emotional development across 3- to 4-year-old classes, and kindergarten;
(b) improvement in empirical prediction of concurrent and kindergarten academic
functioning. Such empirical models will be useful both to research scientists and
policy practitioners, where frontline early childhood education and child care ad-
ministrators and staff have a pressing need for reliable tools with which to monitor
children’s progress and program improvement.
The next set of issues to consider in advancing hands-on measurement of so-

cial–emotional competence in field settings involves criteria for usage, costs, and
appropriateness for various subgroups. Table 3 summarizes evaluations of the
measures recommended here. First, there would be a need to examine whether
measures of each dimension of interest are equally appropriate across the pre-
school period. Problems with existing instruments, such as floor and ceiling ef-
fects, also need to be eliminated to make them sensitive measures for diverse
groups of children across a larger developmental range. Also, when analyzing
large data sets containing many measures, stringent controls for Type I and Type II
error must be applied. For example, most measures suffer from learning effects,
and therefore, research designs should protect against obtaining higher scores in
the absence of real change, when measures are used repeatedly with the same in-
formant. One option would be to generate alternate assessments using internally
consistent scales selected from a larger pool. This procedure would provide a
low-cost, science-based method of developing parallel forms for assessments.
Further, when choosing assessment measures in any domain, meeting psy-
chometric criteria is of paramount importance. All measures should meet high
standards for reliability and validity. Predictive, construct, content, and concurrent
validity are all important and should not be compromised. The criteria used to es-
tablish predictive validity should be made explicit and built on sound theory and
previous research. Test–retest, interrater, internal consistency reliabilities are also
crucial. Any inequalities in psychometric soundness, both across measures and
within measures, and across norming groups, must be considered when interpret-
ing results. For example, unless all measures selected meet similar high standards,
results showing that some measures have greater predictive power than others may
reveal more about uneven measurement development than about development and
its influences. Appropriateness of measures to varying subpopulations is vital to
all assessment development. Norms and psychometric data for measures ulti-
mately must be obtained for diverse samples that reflect the sociocultural diversity
among children served by systems of early education and care.
Finally, educational background, type and intensity of training for obtaining re-
liable and valid data should be determined. Costs of the set of measures in terms of
time, skill, and equipment must be attended to. The child’s native language and di-
alect also must be considered when selecting, using, or developing new measures.
This can be a very difficult issue. For example, simple translations often do not
make equivalent measures. The choice of strategies for developing composite
scores from bilingual assessment depends on the goal of assessment and the type
TABLE 3
Evaluation of Measures According to NICHD/ACF/ASPE Criteria
Examiner Cost in Time

Measure Cross-Age Usage Validity Reliability Characteristics and Materials Cultural Sensitivity
Emotional
expressiveness
Sroufe et al.’s OK Good with low Good interrater Observers should 20 min; materials Observer training should include
(XXXX) MPAC and middle be of diverse already exist for sensitivity to cultural aspects
income children ethnicities and training, but new of social-emotional
should spend time training videos functioning. Observers of
in the classroom should be created varying ethnicities, who
before observing, if the system is become familiar to children,
to become familiar revised.Training should be employed
for original version
lasts > 6 hr
Emotion knowledge
Denham’s OK. Possibly use Good with low and Good internal Where possible, a Revised version 10 Has been used with children
(XXXX) AKT more advanced middle income consistency and tester of the same min; materials from a variety of income
measures in children; see 1-year test– ethnicity as the only—four puppets levels and ethnicities. Results
kindergarten Smith et al., retest; see text child should and several small generally comparable,
(discussed later) 2001 administer this task, props. Training although ceiling effects for 5
and similar ethnicity lasts 2 hr year-olds may not be attained
puppets should also with low income children.
be used. An attempt Tester training should include
should be made to sensitivity to cultural aspects
match examiner and of social–emotional
child sex functioning
Denham’s Most appropriate Good with middle Good internal Where possible, a 10 min; materials Tester training should include
(XXXX) causes for children 4 income children consistency and tester of the same only—four sensitivity to cultural aspects
of emotion years of age and test–retest ethnicity as the puppets. Training of social–emotional
older child should is incorporated into functioning, and the measure
administer this task, training for should be administered in the
and similar ethnicity Denham’s child’s language wherever
puppets should be (XXXX) AKT possible
used. An attempt
should be made to
match examiner
and child sex
Gordis et al’s Most appropriate Good with low- Good internal Where possible, a 10 min; materials Tester training should include
(XXXX) for children 4 to and middle- consistency tester of the same only—laminated sensitivity to cultural aspects
ambivalent 5 years of age income children ethnicity as the illustrations. of social–emotional
emotional and older child should Training is functioning, and the measure
administer this task, incorporated into should be administered in the
and an attempt training for child’s language wherever
should be made to Denham’s (XXXX) possible
match examiner AKT
and child sex
Emotion–Behavioral
regulation
EMII-DA battery OK; possibly use Good with low and Good interrater Where possible, a 20 min total for child, This measure should be
differing gifts middle income reliability tester of the same 10 more min for administered in the child’s
across time children; see text ethnicity as the assessor. Materials language whenever possible.
child should are to be bought It is largely nonverbal after
administer this task from grant budget. initial instructions from the
Current training tester, especially in terms of
takes 15 hr required responses from the
child
Social problem-
solving
Challenging OK Good with middle Good Where possible, a Approximately 10 This measure should be
situation task income children tester of the same min. Training for administered in the child’s
ethnicity and sex administration language whenever possible.
as the child should takes It is largely nonverbal after
administer this task approximately 2 hr initial instructions from the
tester
Note. NICHD = XXXX; ACF = XXXX; ASPE = XXXX; MPAC = Minnesota Preschool Affect Checklist; AKT = Affective Knowledge Test; EMII-DA = Emotion Matters
II Direct Assessment.
82 DENHAM
of information sought. One decision is whether to allow language switching within

a test.
In sum, then, we have found one or more assessment measures for each aspect
of social–emotional competence considered so important for school readiness. I
encourage teachers, parents, and others to view these measures together and decide
what combination can best be tailored for the needs of the children in their care and
the programs they are implementing. Thus, with some effort, we can learn much
about young children and move toward maximizing their emotional and social
competence.
REFERENCES
Agostin, T. M., & Bain, S. K. (1997). Predicting early school success with developmental and social
skills screeners. Psychology in the Schools, 34, 219–228.
Arsenio, W., Cooperman, S., & Lover, A. (2000). Affective predictors of preschoolers’ aggression and
peer acceptance: Direct and indirect effects. Developmental Psychology, 36, 438–448.
Bierman, K. L., & Greenberg, M. T. (1996). Social skills training in the Fast Track Program. In R. D.
Peters & R. J. McMahon (Eds.), Preventing childhood disorders, substance abuse, and delinquency
(pp. 65–89). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Birch, S. H., Ladd, G. W., & Blecher-Sass, H. (1997). The teacher-child relationship and children’s
early school adjustment: Good-byes can build trust. Journal of School Psychology, 35, 61–79.
Blair, C. (2002). School readiness: Integrating cognition and emotion in a neurobiological conceptual-
ization of children’s functioning at school entry. American Psychologist, 57, 111–127.
Blair, K. A., Denham, S. A., Kochanoff, A., & Whipple, B. (in press). Playing it cool: Temperament,
emotion regulation, and social behavior in preschoolers. Journal of School Psychology.
Borke, H. (1971). Interpersonal perception of young children: Egocentrism or empathy? Developmen-
tal Psychology, 5, 263–269.
Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood pro-
grams (revised edition). Washington, DC: NAEYC.
Bridges, L., Denham, S. A., & Ganiban, J. (2004). Definitional issues in emotion regulation research.
Child Development, 75, 340–345.
Brigman, G., Lane, D., Switzer, D., Lane, D., & Lawrence, R. (1999). Teaching children school success
skills. Journal of Educational Research, 92, 323–329.
Brigman, G. A., & Webb, L. D. (2003). Ready to learn: Teaching kindergarten students school success
skills. Journal of Educational Research, 06, 286–292.
Brown, J. R., & Dunn, J. (1996). Continuities in emotion understanding from three to six years. Child
Development, 67, 789–802.
Buhs, E. S., & Ladd, G. W. (2001). Peer rejection as an antecedent of young children’s school adjust-
ment: An examination of mediating processes. Developmental Psychology, 37, 550–560.
Buscemi, L., Bennett, T., Thomas, D., & Deluca, X. (1995). Head Start: Challenges and training needs.
Journal of Early Intervention, 20, 1–33.
Capage, L., & Watson, C. (2001). Individual differences in theory of mind, aggressive behavior, and so-
cial skills in young children. Early Education and Development, 12, 613–628.
Carlton, M. P. (2000). Motivation and school readiness in kindergarten children. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 60(11-A), 3899A.
Carlton, M. P., & Winsler, A. (1999). School readiness: The need for a paradigm shift. School Psychol-
ogy Review, 28, 338–352.
Cassidy, J. (1992). Family-Peer connections: The roles of emotional expressiveness within the family
and children’s understanding of emotions. Child Development, 63, 603–618.
Cole, P. M., Martin, S. E., & Dennis, T. A. (2004). Emotion regulation as a scientific construct: Method-
ological challenges and directions for child development research. Child Development, 75, 317–333.
Cole, P. M., Zahn-Waxler, C., Fox, N. A., Usher, B. A., & Welsh, J. D. (1996). Individual differences in
emotion regulation and behavior problems in preschool children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
105, 518–529.
Coolahan, K., Fantuzzo, J., Mendez, J., & McDermott, P. (2000). Preschool peer interactions and readi-
ness to learn: Relationships between classroom peer play and learning behaviors and conduct. Jour-
nal of Educational Psychology, 92, 458–465.
Coy, K., Speltz, M. L., DeKlyen, M., & Jones, K. (2001). Social-cognitive processes in preschool boys
with and without oppositional defiant disorder. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 29, 107–119.
Crick, N., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social-information-processing mech-
anisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74–101.
Cutting, A. L., & Dunn, J. (2002). The cost of understanding other people: Social cognition predicts
young children’s sensitivity to criticism. Journal of Child Psychiatry and Psychology and Allied Dis-
ciplines, 849–860.
Cytryn, L., McKnew, D. H., Zahn-Waxler, C., & Gershon, E. S. (1986). Developmental issues in risk re-
search: The offspring of affectively ill parents. In M. Rutter, C. E. Izard, & P. B. Read (Eds.), Depres-
sion in young people: Developmental and clinical perspectives (pp. 163–188). New York: Guilford.
Dekovic, M., & Gerris, J. R. M. (1994). Developmental analysis of social cognitive and behavioral dif-
ferences between popular and rejected children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 15,
367–386.
Denham, S. A. (1986). Social cognition, social behavior, and emotion in preschoolers: Contextual vali-
dation. Child Development, 57, 194–201.
Denham, S. A. (1998). Emotional development in young children. New York: Guilford.
Denham, S. A., & Almeida, M. C. (1987). Children’s social problem-solving skills, behavioral adjust-
ment, and interventions: A meta-analysis evaluating theory and practice. Journal of Applied Devel-
opmental Psychology, 8, 391–409.
Denham, S. A., Blair, K. A., DeMulder, E., Levitas, J., Sawyer, K. S., Auerbach-Major, S. T., et al. (2003).
Preschoolers’ emotional competence: Pathway to mental health? Child Development, 74, 238–256.
Denham, S. A., Blair, K. A., Schmidt, M. S., & DeMulder, E. (2002). Compromised emotional compe-
tence: Seeds of violence sown early? American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 72, 70–82.
Denham, S. A., Bouril, B., & Belouad, F. (1994). Preschoolers’ affect and cognition about challenging
peer situations. Child Study Journal, 24, 1–21.
Denham, S. A., & Burton, R. (1996). A social-emotional intervention for at-risk 4-year-olds. Journal of
School Psychology, 34, 225–245.
Denham, S. A., Caverly, S., Schmidt, M., Blair, K., DeMulder, E., Caal, S., et al. (2002). Preschool un-
derstanding of emotions: Contributions to classroom anger and aggression. Journal of Child Psy-
chology and Psychiatry, 43, 901–916.
Denham, S. A., Cook, M. C., & Zoller, D. (1992). Baby looks very sad: Discussions about emotions be-
tween mother and preschooler. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 10, 301–315.
Denham, S. A., & Couchoud, E. A. (1990). Young preschoolers’ understanding of emotion. Child Study
Journal, 20, 171–192.
Denham, S. A., & Couchoud, E. A. (1991). Social-emotional predictors of preschoolers’ responses to
an adult’s negative emotions. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 32, 595–608.
Denham, S. A., & Holt, R. W. (1993). Preschoolers’ likability as cause or consequence of their social
behavior. Developmental Psychology, 29, 271–275.
Denham, S. A., & Kochanoff, A. T. (2003). Parental contributions to preschoolers’ understanding of
emotion. Marriage & Family Review, 34, 311–345.
84 DENHAM
Denham, S. A., Lydick, S., Mitchell-Copeland, J., & Sawyer, K. (1996). Social-emotional assessment
for atypical infants and preschoolers. In M. Lewis & M. E. Sullivan (Eds.), Emotional development
in atypical children (pp. 227–271). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Denham, S. A., Mason, T., Caverly, S., Schmidt, M., Hackney, R., Caswell, C., et al. (2001). Pre-
schoolers at play: Co-socializers of emotional and social competence. International Journal of Be-
havioral Development, 25, 290–301.
Denham, S. A., McKinley, M., Couchoud, E. A., & Holt, R. (1990). Emotional and behavioral predic-
tors of peer status in young preschoolers. Child Development, 61, 1145–1152.
Denham, S. A., Renwick, S., & Holt, R. (1991). Working and playing together: Prediction of preschool
social-emotional competence from mother–child interaction. Child Development, 62, 242–249.
Denham, S. A., Zahn-Waxler, C., Cummings, E. M., & Iannotti, R. J. (1991). Social competence in
young children’s peer relationships: Patterns of development and change. Child Psychiatry and Hu-
man Development, 22, 29–43.
Denham, S. A., & Zoller, D. (1991). “When my hamster died, I cried”: Preschoolers’ attributions of the
causes of emotions. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 152, 371–373.
Denham, S. A., Zoller, D., & Couchoud, E. A. (1994). Socialization of preschoolers’ emotion under-
standing. Developmental Psychology, 30, 928–936.
Dodge, K. A., Laird, R., Lochman, J. E., Zelli, A., & Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group.
(2002). Multidimensional latent-construct analysis of children’s social information processing pat-
ters: Correlations with aggressive behavior problems. Psychological Assessment, 14, 60–73.
Dodge, K. A., McClaskey, C. L., & Feldman, E. (1985). Situational approach to the assessment of so-
cial competence in children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 344–353.
Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G., McClaskey, C. L., & Brown, M. M. (1986). Social competence in children.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 51(b, Serial No. XXX).
Dunn, J. (1994). Understanding others and the social world: Current issues in developmental research
and their relation to preschool experiences and practice. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychol-
ogy, 15, 571–583.
Dunn, J., & Brown, J. R. (1994). Affect expression in the family, children’s understanding of emotions,
and their interactions with others. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 40, 120–137.
Dunn, J., Brown, J. R., & Maguire, M. (1995). The development of children’s moral sensibility: Indi-
vidual differences and emotion understanding. Developmental Psychology, 31, 649–659.
Dunn, J., & Cutting, A. L. (1999). Understanding others, and individual differences in friendship inter-
actions in young children. Social Development, 8, 201–219.
Dunn, J., & Herrera, C. (1997). Conflict resolution with friends, siblings, and mothers: A developmen-
tal perspective. Aggressive Behavior, 23, 343–357.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Bernzweig, J., Karbon, M., Poulin, R., & Hanish, L. (1993). The relations
of emotionality and regulation to preschoolers’ social skills and sociometric status. Child Develop-
ment, 64, 1418–1438.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Guthrie, I. K., & Reiser, M. (2000). Dispositional emotionality and regula-
tion: Their role in predicting quality of social functioning. Journal of Personality & Social Psychol-
ogy, 78, 136–157.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Murphy, B., Karbon, M., Smith, M., & Maszk, P. (1996). The relations of
children’s dispositional empathy-related responding to their emotionality, regulation, and social
functioning. Developmental Psychology, 32, 195–209.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Murphy, B., Maszk, P., Smith, M., & Karbon, M. (1995). The role of emo-
tionality and regulation in children’s social functioning: A longitudinal study. Child Development,
66, 1360–1384.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Nyman, M., Bernzweig, J., & Pinuelas, A. (1994). The relation of
emotionality and regulation to preschoolers’ anger-related reactions. Child Development, 65,
1352–1366.
Elliott, S. N., Gresham, F. M., Freeman, T., & McCloskey, G. (1988). Teacher and observer ratings of
children’s social skills: Validation of the Social Skills Rating Scales. Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment, 6, 152–161.
Fabes, R. A., Eisenberg, N., McCormick, S. E., & Wilson, M. S. (1988). Preschoolers’ attributions of
the situational determinants of others’ naturally occurring emotions. Developmental Psychology, 24,
376–385.
Fabes, R. A., Eisenberg, N., Nyman, M., & Michealieu, Q. (1991). Young children’s appraisal of others
spontaneous emotional reactions. Developmental Psychology, 27, 858–866.
Gagnon, C., Craig, W. M., Tremblay, R. E., Zhou, R. M., & Vitaro, F. A. (1995). Kindergarten predic-
tors of boys’ stable behavior problems at the end of elementary school. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 23, 751–766.
Garner, P. W. (1996). The relations of emotional role taking, affective/moral attributions, and emotional
display rule knowledge to low-income school-age children’s social competence. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 17, 19–36.
Garner, P. W. (1999). Continuity in emotion knowledge from preschool to middle-childhood and rela-
tion to emotion socialization. Motivation & Emotion, 23, 247–266.
Gordis, F., Rosen, A. B., & Grand, S. (1989, April). Young children’s understanding of simultaneous
conflicting emotions. Paper presented at the biennial meetings of the Society for Research in Child
Development, Kansas City, MO.
Gottman, J. M., Katz, L. F., & Hooven, C. (1996). Parental meta-emotion philosophy and the emotional
life of families: Theoretical models and preliminary data. Journal of Family Psychology, 10,
243–268.
Gouze, K. R. (1987). Attention and social problem-solving as correlates of aggression in preschool
males. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 15, 181–197.
Gove, F. L., & Keating, D. P. (1979). Empathic role-taking precursors. Developmental Psychology, 15,
594–600.
Greenberg, M. T., Kusché, C. A., & Riggs, N. (2001). The P(romoting) A(lternative) TH(inking)
S(trategies) Curriculum: Theory and research on neurocognitive and academic development. The
CEIC Review, 10, 22–23, 26.
Grolnick, W. S., Bridges, L. J., & Connell, J. P. (1996). Emotion regulation in two-year-olds: Strategies
and emotional expression in four contexts. Child Development, 67, 928–941.
Haapasalo, J., & Tremblay, R. E. (1994). Physically aggressive boys from ages 6 to 12: Family back-
ground, parenting behavior, and prediction of delinquency. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy-
chology, 62, 1044–1052.
Halberstadt, A. G., Denham, S. A., & Dunsmore, J. (2001). Affective social competence. Social Devel-
opment, 10, 79–119.
Hernandez, M. J. (2003). Caracteristicas emocionales y comportamentales de los grupos sociometricos
desde una perspectiva multiple. [A multiperspective of emotional and behavioral correlates of
sociometric groups.]. Psicologia Conductual, 11, 41–60.
Horton, C., & Bowman, B. T. (2002). Child assessment at the preprimary level: Expert opinion and
state trends. Chicago: Erikson Institute.
Howes, C. (1987). Social competence with peers in young children: Developmental sequences. Devel-
opmental Review, 2, 252–272.
Howes, C., & Matheson, C. C. (1992). Sequences in the development of competent play with peers: So-
cial and social pretend play. Developmental Psychology, 28, 961–974.
Howes, C., & Smith, E. W. (1995). Relations among child care quality, teacher behavior, children’s play
activities, emotional security, and cognitive activity in child care. Early Childhood Research Quar-
terly, 10, 381–404.
Huffman, L. C., Mehlinger, S. L., & Kerivan, A. S. (2000). Risk factors for academic and behavioral
problems at the beginning of school. In off to a good start: Research on the risk factors for early
86 DENHAM
school problems and selected federal policies affecting children’s social and emotional development
and their readiness for school. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina FPG Child Development
Center.
Hughes, C., White, A., Sharpen, J., & Dunn, J. (2000). Antisocial, angry, and unsympathetic: “Hard-
to-manage” preschoolers’ peer problems and possible cognitive influences. Journal of Child Psy-
chology & Psychiatry, 41, 169–179.
Iannotti, R. J. (1985). Naturalistic and structured assessments of prosocial behavior in preschool chil-
dren: The influence of empathy and perspective taking. Developmental Psychology, 21, 46–55.
Izard, C. E. (2002). Emotion knowledge and emotion utilization facilitate school readiness. SRCD So-
cial Policy Report, XVI, 8.
Izard, C. E., Fine, S., Schultz, D., Mostow, A., Ackerman, B., & Youngstrom, E. (2001). Emotions
knowledge as a predictor of social behavior and academic competence in children at risk. Psycholog-
ical Science, 12, 18–23.
Jacobsen, T., & Hofmann, V. (1997). Children’s attachment representations: Longitudinal relations to
school behavior and academic competency in middle childhood and adolescence. Developmental
Keane, S. P., & Calkins, S. D. (2004). Predicting kindergarten peer social status from toddler and pre-
school problem behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32, 409–423.
Kochanska, G., Coy, K. C., & Murray, K. T. (2001). The development of self-regulation in the first four
years of life. Child Development, 72, 1091–1111.
Kochanska, G., Murray, K. T., & Harlan, E. T. (2000). Effortful control in early childhood: Continuity
and change, antecedents, and implications for social development. Developmental Psychology, 36,
220–232.
Kochenderfer, B. J., & Ladd, G. W. (1996). Peer victimization: Cause or consequence of school malad-
justment? Child Development, 67, 1305–1317.
Kohlberg, L., LaCrosse, J., & Ricks, D. (1972). The predictability of adult mental health from child-
hood behavior. In B. Wolman (Ed.), Manual of child psychopathology (pp. XXX–XXX). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Krasnor, L. R., & Rubin, K. H. (1983). Preschool social problem-solving: Attempts and outcomes in
naturalistic interaction. Child Development, 54, 1545–1558.
Kuersten-Hogan, R. (1998). The role of emotion conversations in families and children’s developing
understanding of emotions. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(4-B), 1885B.
Kupersmidt, J. B., Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. (1990). The role of poor peer relations in the development
of disorder. In S. R. Asher & J. D. Cole (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 274–305). Cam-
bridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Ladd, G. W., Birch, S. H., & Buhs, E. S. (1999). Children’s social and scholastic lives in kindergarten:
Related spheres of influence? Child Development, 70, 1373–1400.
Ladd, G. W., Kochenderfer, B. J., & Coleman, C. C. (1996). Friendship quality as a predictor of young
children’s early school adjustment. Child Development, 67, 1103–1118.
LaFreniere, P. J., & Dumas, J. A. (1996). Social competence and behavior evaluation in children aged
three to six: The Short Form (SCBE-30). Psychological Assessment, 8, 369–377.
Lemerise, E. A., & Arsenio, W. F. (2000). An integrated model of emotion processes and cognition in
social information processing. Child Development, 71, 107–118.
Lemerise, E. A., & Dodge, K. A. (2000). The development of anger and hostile interactions. In M. L. J.
M. Haviland-Jones (Ed.), Handbook of emotions (2nd ed., pp. 594–606). New York: Guilford.
Lewis, M., Sullivan, M. E., & Vasen, A. (1987). Making faces: Age and emotion differences in the pos-
ing of emotional expression. Developmental Psychology, 23, 690–697.
Masten, A., & Coatsworth, J. (1998). The development of competence in favorable and unfavorable en-
vironments: Lessons from research on successful children. American Psychologist, 53, 205–220.
Meisels, S. (2003). Can Head Start pass the test? Education Week, 22, X.
Miller, A. L., Gouley, K. K., Seifer, R., Dickstein, S., & Shields, A. (2004). Emotions and behaviors in
the head start classroom: Associations among observed dysregulation, social competence, and pre-
school adjustment. Early Education & Development, 15, 147–165.
Miller, A. L., & Olson, S. L. (2000). Emotional expressiveness during peer conflicts: A predictor of so-
cial maladjustment among high-risk preschoolers. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 28,
339–352.
Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguez, M. L. (1989). Delay of gratification in children. Science, 244,
933–938.
Murray, K. T., & Kochanska, G. (2002). Effortful control: Factor structure and relation to externalizing
and internalizing behaviors. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 503–514.
Musun-Miller, L. (1993). Social acceptance and social problem-solving in preschool children. Journal
of Applied Developmental Psychology, 14, 59–70.
Neel, R. S., Jenkins, Z. N., & Meadows, N. (1990). Social problem-solving behaviors and aggression in
young children: A descriptive observational study. Behavioral Disorders, 16, 39–51.
Newcomb, A., Bukowski, W., & Pattee, L. (1993). Children’s peer relations: A meta-analytic review of
popular, rejected, neglected, controversial, and average sociometric status. Psychological Bulletin,
113, 99–128.
Normandeau, S., & Guay, F. (1998). Preschool behavior and first-grade school achievement: The
mediational role of cognitive self-control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 111–121.
O’Neil, R., Welsh, M., Parke, R. D., Wang, S., & Strand, C. (1997). A longitudinal assessment of the ac-
ademic correlates of early peer acceptance and rejection. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 26,
290–303.
Park, K. A., Lay, K., & Ramsay, L. (1993). Individual differences and developmental changes in pre-
schoolers’ friendships. Developmental Psychology, 29, 264–270.
Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are low-accepted
children at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102, X.
Parker, J. G., & Gottman, J. M. (1989). Social and emotional development in a relational context:
Friendship interaction from early childhood to adolescence. In T. J. Berndt & G. W. Ladd (Eds.),
Peer relationships in child development (pp. 95–131). New York: Wiley.
Payton, J. W., Wardlaw, D. M., Graczyk, P. A., Bloodworth, M. R., Tompsett, C. J., & Weissberg, R. P.
(2000). Social and emotional learning: A framework for promoting mental health and reducing risk
behaviors in children and youth. Journal of School Health, 70, 179–185.
Peth-Pierce, R. (2000). A good beginning: Sending America’s children to school with the social and
emotional competence they need to succeed. Chapel Hill, NC: The Child Mental Health Foundations
and Agencies Network.
Pianta, R. C. (1997). Adult–child relationship processes and early schooling. Early Education and De-
velopment, 8, 11–26.
Pianta, R. C., Steinberg, M., & Rollins, K. (1995). The first two years of school: Teacher-child relation-
ships and deflections in children’s classroom adjustment. Development & Psychopathology, 7,
295–312.
Raver, C. (2004). Placing emotional self-regulation in sociocultural and socioeconomic contexts. Child
Development, 75, 346–353.
Raver, C. C. (2002). Emotions matter: Making the case for the role of young children’s emotional de-
velopment for early school readiness. SRCD Social Policy Report, XVI, 3–18.
Raver, C. C., Blackburn, E. K., Bancroft, M., & Torp, M. (1999). Relations between effective emotional
self-regulation, attentional control, and low-income preschoolers’ social competence with peers.
Early Education and Development, 10, 333–350.
Raver, C. C., & Knitzer, J. (2002). Ready to enter: What research tells policymakers about strategies to
promote social and emotional school readiness among three- and four-year-olds. New York: Na-
tional Center for Children in Poverty.
88 DENHAM
Raver, C. C., & Zigler, E. F. (1997). Social competence: An untapped dimension of Head Start’s suc-
cess. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12, 363–385.
Raver, C. C., & Zigler, E. F. (2004). Another step back? Assessing readiness in Head Start. Young
Children, 59(58–63), X.
Reichenbach, L., & Masters, J. C. (1983). Children’s use of expressive and contextual cues in judg-
ments of emotion. Child Development, 54, 993–1004.
Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Pianta, R. C., & Cox, M. J. (2000). Teachers’ judgements of problems in the
transition to kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15, 147–166.
Robins, L. N., & Rutter, M. (1990). Straight and devious pathways from childhood to adulthood. Cam-
bridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Roff, M., & Ricks, D. (1970). Life history research in psychopathology (Vol. 1). Minneapolis: Univer-
sity of Minnesota Press.
Rose-Krasnor, L. (1997). The nature of social competence: A theoretical review. Social Development,
6, 111–135.
Rubin, K. H., & Clark, M. L. (1983). Preschool teachers’ ratings of behavioral problems: Observa-
tional, sociometric, and social-cognitive correlates. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 11,
273–286.
Rubin, K. H., & Daniels-Beirness, T. (1983). Concurrent and predictive correlates of sociometric status
in kindergarten and grade 1 children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 337–352.
Rydell, A.-M., Hagekull, B., & Bohlin, G. (1997). Measurement of two social competence aspects in
middle childhood. Developmental Psychology, 33, 824–833.
Schultz, D., Izard, C. E., & Ackerman, B. P. (2000). Children’s anger attribution bias: Relations to fam-
ily environment and social adjustment. Social Development, 9, 284–301.
Schultz, D., Izard, C. E., Ackerman, B. P., & Youngstrom, E. A. (2001). Emotion knowledge in eco-
nomically disadvantaged children: Self-regulatory antecedents and relations to social difficulties and
withdrawal. Development & Psychopathology, 13, 53–67.
Sharp, K. C. (1981). Impact of interpersonal problem-solving training on preschoolers’ social compe-
tency. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 2, 129–143.
Shields, A., Dickstein, S., Seifer, R., Giusti, L., Magee, K. D., & Spritz, B. (2001). Emotional compe-
tence and early school adjustment: A study of preschoolers at risk. Early Education & Development,
12, 73–96.
Shonkoff, J. P., & Phillips, D. A. (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early child-
hood development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Shure, M. B., & Spivack, G. (1980). Interpersonal problem solving as a mediator of behavioral adjust-
ment in preschool and kindergarten children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 1,
29–44.
Shure, M. B., & Spivack, G. (1981). The problem-solving approach to adjustment: A competency-
building model of primary prevention. Prevention in Human Services, 1(X), 87–103.
Smith, M. (2001). Social and emotional competencies: Contributions to young African–American chil-
dren’s peer acceptance. Early Education and Development, 12, 49–72.
Sroufe, L. A., Schork, E., Motti, F., Lawroski, N., & LaFreniere, P. (1984). The role of affect in social
competence. In C. E. Izard, J. Kagan, & R. B. Zajonc (Eds.), Emotions, cognition, & behavior (pp.
289–319). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Strayer, J. (1980). A naturalistic study of empathic behaviors and their relation to affective states and
perspective-taking skills in preschool children. Child Development, 51, 815–822.
Strayer, J. (1986). Children’s attributions regarding the situational determinants of emotion in self and
others. Developmental Psychology, 22, 649–654.
Unzner, L., & Schneider, K. (1990). Facial reactions in preschoolers: A descriptive study. Journal of
Nonverbal Behavior, 14, 19–33.
Vitaro, F., Gagnon, C., & Tremblay, R. E. (1990). Predicting stable peer rejection from kindergarten to
Grade one. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 19, 257–264.
Warden, D., & Mackinnon, S. (2003). Prosocial children, bullies and victims: An investigation of their
sociometric status, empathy and social problem-solving strategies. British Journal of Developmental
Waters, E., & Sroufe, L. A. (1983). Social competence as a developmental construct. Developmental
Review, 3, 79–97.
Webster-Stratton, C., & Lindsay, D. W. (1999). Social competence and conduct problems in young chil-
dren: Issues in assessment. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 28, 25–43.
Weir, K., & Duveen, G. (1981). Further development and validation of the Prosocial Behaviour Ques-
tionnaire for use by teachers. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 22, 357–374.
Wesley, P. W., & Buysse, V. (2003). Making meaning of school readiness in schools and communities.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18, 351–375.
Wooster, A. D., & Carson, A. (1982). Improved reading and self-concept through communication and
social skills training. British Journal of Guidance and Counseling, 10, 83–87.
Youngstrom, E., Wolpaw, J. M., Kogos, J. L., Schoff, K., Ackerman, B., & Izard, C. (2000). Interper-
sonal problem solving in preschool and first grade: Developmental change and ecological validity.
Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29, 589–602.
Zahn-Waxler, C., Cole, P. M., Richardson, D. T., Friedman, R. J., & XXXX, X. (1994). Social problem
solving in disruptive preschool children: Reactions to hypothetical situations of conflict and distress.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 40, 98–119.
View publication stats

Denham - 2006 - Social Relationships and School Readiness

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

Denham - 2006 - Social Relationships and School Readiness

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

Article in Early Education and Development · January 2006

Susanne Ayers Denham

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Correspondence should be addressed to Susanne A. Denham, Department of Psychology, George

large-scale administration and revision of each, psychometric evaluation, initial

New empirical research buttresses our view of the importance of social–emotional

1. Young children without developmentally appropriate emotional and social

Given these circumstances, it is imperative for children’s long-term well-being

To create solid foundations for assessing these aspects of social–emotional devel-

1. Pursue the social–emotional domain rather than relying solely on children’

PRESCHOOLERS’ EMOTIONAL EXPRESSIVENESS—

Specifically, regarding emotional expressiveness, positive affect is important in the

Minnesota Preschool Affect Checklist (MPAC)

MPAC Scales Exemplars of Behaviors Observed

PRESCHOOLERS’ EMOTION KNOWLEDGE—

Emotion Knowledge: Denham’s Affective Knowledge Test

Emotion Knowledge: Denham’s Puppet Causes Task

Emotion Knowledge: Gordis et al.’s (XXXX)

PRESCHOOLERS’ EMOTIONAL AND BEHAVIORAL

Beginning to attend preschool or childcare is a particularly important transition

Hooven, 1996), parent or teacher report, especially of temperament dimensions

Emotion and Behavior Regulation Battery

Task Title Construct Assessor Directions or Procedure

SOCIAL PROBLEM SOLVING—SUMMARY

This pattern of findings is not, however, universal. Webster-Stratton and Lind-

Social Problem-Solving Skills: Challenging Situations Task

SOCIAL RELATIONSHIP SKILLS—SUMMARY

Although we describe a seeming divergence between developmental psycho-

In summary, I have tried to elucidate the importance of social–emotional compe-

1. Initial validation and norming of a battery of direct child assessments of so-

The next set of issues to consider in advancing hands-on measurement of so-

Examiner Cost in Time

of information sought. One decision is whether to allow language switching within

View publication stats

You might also like