Predicting changes in adjustment using repeated measures of sociometric status

Journal of Genetic Psychology

Volumn 168, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 401-424

  Mayeux, Lara ^a   Bellmore, Amy D ^b   Cillessen, Antonius H N ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT   (United States)

Author keywords

Peer rejection; Peer status; Social adjustment; Sociometric methods

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; CHILD; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PEER GROUP; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; SOCIAL ADAPTATION; SOCIOMETRIC STATUS;

CHILD; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PEER GROUP; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REJECTION (PSYCHOLOGY); SOCIAL ADJUSTMENT; SOCIOMETRIC TECHNIQUES;

EID: 38849200425     PISSN: 00221325     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3200/GNTP.168.4.401-424     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Boivin, M., Hymel, S., & Bukowski, W. M. (1995). The roles of social withdrawal, peer rejection, and victimization by peers in predicting loneliness and depressed mood in childhood. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 765-785.
2. Cillessen, A. H. N., Bukowski, W. M., & Haselager, G. J. T. (2000). Stability of sociometric categories. In A. H. N. Cillessen & W. M. Bukowski (Eds.), Recent advances in the measurement of acceptance and rejection in the peer system (pp. 75-93). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
3. Cillessen, A. H. N., van IJzendoorn, H. W., & Ferguson, T. J. (1991, July). Social behavioral and social adjustment differences between stable and unstable sociometric groups. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development, Minneapolis, MN.
4. Cillessen, A. H. N., van IJzendoorn, H. W., van Lieshout, C. F. M., & Hartup, W. W. (1992). Heterogeneity among peer-rejected boys: Subtypes and stabilities. Child Development, 63, 893-905.
5. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6. Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1983). Continuities and changes in children's social status: A five-year longitudinal study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 261-282.
7. Crick, N. R., & Ladd, G. W. (1989). Nominator attrition: Does it affect the accuracy of children's sociometric classifications? Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 35, 197-207.
8. DeRosier, M. E., Cillessen, A. H. N., & Coie, J. D. (1994). Group social context and children's aggressive behavior. Child Development, 65, 1068-1079.
9. DeRosier, M. E., Kupersmidt, J. B., & Patterson, C. J. (1994). Children's academic and behavioral adjustment as a function of the chronicity and proximity of peer rejection. Child Development, 65, 1799-1813.
10. DeRosier, M. E., & Thomas, J. M. (2003). Strengthening of sociometric prediction: Scientific advances in the assessment of children's peer relations. Child Development, 74, 1379-1392.
11. Dodge, K. A., Lansford, J. E., Burks, V. S., Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S., Fontaine, R., et al. (2003). Peer rejection and social information-processing factors in the development of aggressive behavior problems in children. Child Development, 74, 374-393.
12. Haselager, G. J. T., Cillessen, A. H. N., van Lieshout, C. F. M., Riksen-Walraven, J. M. A., & Hartup, W. W. (2002). Heterogeneity among peer-rejected boys across middle childhood: Developmental pathways of social behavior. Developmental Psychology, 38, 446-456.
13. Hightower, A. D., Cowen, E. L., & Spinell, A. P. (1987). The Child Rating Scale: The development of a socioemotional self-rating scale for elementary school children. School Psychology Review, 16, 239-255.
14. Jiang, X. L., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2005). Stability of continuous measures of sociometric status: A meta-analysis. Developmental Review, 25, 1-25.
15. Kupersmidt, J. B., Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1990). The role of poor peer relationships in the development of disorder. In S. R. Asher & J. D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 274-305). New York: Cambridge University Press.
16. Kupersmidt, J. B., & Dodge, K. A. (Eds.). (2004). Children 'speer relations: From development to intervention. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
17. Maassen, G. H., van der Linden, J. L., Goossens, F. A., & Bokhorst, J. (2000). A ratings-based approach to two-dimensional sociometric status determination. In A. H. N. Cillessen & W. M. Bukowski (Eds.), Recent advances in the measurement of acceptance and rejection in the peer system (pp. 55-74). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
18. McDougall, P., Hymel, S., & Vaillancourt, T. (2001). The consequences of childhood peer rejection. In M. R. Leary (Ed.), Interpersonal rejection (pp. 213-247). London: Oxford University Press.
19. Moreno, J. L. (1934). Who shall survive? A new approach to the problem of human interrelations. Washington, DC: Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing.
20. Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are lowaccepted children "at risk"? Psychological Bulletin, 102, 357-389.
21. Pettit, G., Clawson, M. A., Dodge, K. A., & Bates, J. E. (1996). Stability and change in peer-rejected status: The role of child behavior, parenting, and family ecology. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 42, 267-294.
22. Terry, R. (2000). Recent advances in measurement theory and the use of sociometric techniques. In A. H. N. Cillessen & W. M. Bukowski (Eds.), Recent advances in the measurement of acceptance and rejection in the peer system (pp. 27-53). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
23. Underwood, M. K., Mayeux, L., Risser, S., & Harper, B. (2006). The ecstasy and the agony of collecting sociometric data in public school classrooms: Ethical challenges, community concerns, and pragmatic solutions. In B. Leadbeater, E. Banister, C. Benoit, M. Jansson, A. Marshall, & T. Riecken (Eds.), Ethical issues in community-bused research with children and youth (pp. 93-110). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: York University Press.