Research Project
VS29
Brownetal1996-1.pdf
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 11, 19-40 (1996)
Observational Assessment of Young Children’s Social Behavior with Peers
William H. Brown
University of South Carolina
Samuel L. Odom A riane Holcombe
Peabody College of Vanderbilt University
Understanding the social goals of young children during interaction with peers and the behavioral strategies they select to achieve those goals has both theoretical and practical implications. A convergence across theo- retical and conceptual frameworks supports the development of a new gen- eration of observational methodology designed to assess social goals and behavioral strategies of young children. The purposes of this article are to describe the role of observational research in the assessment of children’s peer-related social competence; examine the conceptual frameworks that serve as a foundation for observational assessment of young children’s social goals and behavioral strategies; describe the technological advances that allow more descriptive, precise, and complex behavioral codes for observational assessment and data analysis; provide an example of an observational system that assesses children’s social goals and behavioral strategies; and identify the practical implications of studying young chil- dren’s social goals and behavioral strategies.
Children begin to interact with their peers early in life and these child-child
interactions increase in frequency and complexity as children mature (e.g., Hartup, 1983; Howes, 1988; Parten, 1932). Educators and psychologists have proposed that the acquisition of appropriate and effective social behavior with peers is a central feature of early social development (e.g., Guralnick, 1992; Hart, McGee, & Hernandez, 1993; Hartup, 1983, 1992; Ladd &
Preparation of this manuscript was supported by Grant No. HD15052 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and Grant Nos. H023A3003 and H024K4OOtM from the U.S. Department of Education.
Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to William H. Brown, Department of Educational Psychology, Wardlaw College of Education, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208.
19
20 Brown, Odom, and Holcombe
Coleman, 1993; Odom, McConnell, & McEvoy, 1992; Wright, 1980). Indeed, theorists with diverse perspectives about child development have agreed that successful adult-child and child-child social interactions provide both a context and a mechanism for acquiring critical social, language, and cog- nitive competencies (see Bijou, 1976; Piaget, 1926; Vygotsky, 1978). More- over, Guralnick (1992) emphasized that social, language, and cognitive abilities are closely related and argued that social competence is influenced by and influences the elaboration of those critical developmental abilities throughout childhood.
In contrast, young children’s failure to develop appropriate peer inter- actions and positive peer relationships during childhood has been a primary predictor of behavioral difficulties and social maladjustment during adole- sence and adulthood (see Parker & Asher, 1987). Many young children with developmental delays (e.g., Guralnick & Groom, 1987), behavioral disorders (e.g., McMahon & Forehand, 1988; Quay, 1993), and learning disabilities (e.g., Gresham, 1988) have lacked the skills necessary for participating with peers in positive and ongoing social interactions. Asher (1990) has estimated that at least 10% of all children may have peer-related social competence problems. Hence, the initial acquisition and subsequent elaboration of children’s social behavior and the development and refinement of their peer-related social competence have been of critical importance for young children at risk for or with disabilities (see Guralnick, 1992; Ladd & Coleman, 1993; Odom et al., 1992).
Because children’s peer interactions and positive peer relations have been viewed as critical for development, educators have argued for prevention and intervention efforts to promote young children’s peer-related social competence, particularly with those children who are at risk for continued problems with their social development (e.g., Guralnick, 1990; Mize & Ladd, 1990; Odom & Brown, 1993; Shores, 1987; Strain & Kohler, 1988). Mize, Ladd, and Price (1985) proposed that high quality preschool pro- grams should include a fourth “R” in their curricula (i.e., establishing Relationships with peers), and, more recently, the memberships of two prominent professional organizations, the National Association for the Education of Young Children (Bredekamp, 1987) and the Division of Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children (DEC Task Force on Recommended Practice, 1993) have incorporated peer interaction and peer- related social competence activities into their recommendations for develop-
ing preschool curricula. A firm understanding of the nature and content of children’s social
interaction with peers has been one foundation for preschool curricula and intervention technology. A range of assessment approaches has been used to study peer interactions, with one of the most frequent approaches employ- ing direct observational methodology. From several relatively independent conceptual frameworks, convergent trends support the investigation of
Observational Assessment of Social Behavior 21
children’s social goals, behavioral strategies for addressing those goals, and potential goal-related outcomes as the next step in the research on children’s peer-related social interaction. The purposes of this article are to describe a direct observational approach for assessing social goals and strategies used by preschool children. We begin by reviewing techniques used to assess social interactions of young children, placing in context the role of direct observation in the multimethod assessment of social competence. Next, we describe a new conceptual focus that has emerged from three relatively separate conceptual and theoretical frameworks, provide an example of an observational coding system that reflects this new focus, and describe the contemporary technology that supports observational assessment. Last, we examine the implications for researchers and practitioners.
ASSESSMENT OF YOUNG CHILDREN’S SOCIAL BEHA VIOR WITH PEERS
Assessment of young children’s social interactions with peers has provided important information and has been necessary for developing a better under- standing of early childhood development in general and social development in particular. For children who experience difficulties with peer-related social competence, reliable and valid assessment has been critical for both initial identification (i.e., screening, classification) and development of effec- tive intervention strategies to attenuate their social development problems (see Odom et al., 1992; Gresham & Elliott, 1990; Merrell, 1994). Researchers interested in children’s peer-related social competence have used various methods to assess young children’s social behavior. These assessment pro- cedures have included behavioral rating scales completed by teachers and parents (e.g., Child Behavior Checklist, Achenbach, 1992; The Social Skills Rating System, Gresham & Elliott, 1990), self-report measures completed by children (e.g., The Social Skills Rating System, Gresham & Elliott, 1990), sociometric procedures using peer ratings (e.g., Asher, Singleton, Tinsley, & Hymel, 1979; McConnell & Odom, 1991), clique analysis of peer groups’ social structure (e.g., Storey, Smith, Wolper, & Strain, 1990), participant observation methods that follow a qualitative or ethnographic tradition (e.g., Corsaro, 1985; Salisbury, Britzman, & Kang, 1989), and systematic direct observation of children in both analog (e.g., Guralnick & Groom, 1987) and naturalistic settings with peers (e.g., Tremblay, Strain, Hendrickson, & Shores, 1981; Asher & Gabriel, 1993). All of these assessment techniques generate useful but somewhat different information about young children’s social development.
Rather than relying on a single assessment approach, many researchers have recommended using multimethod, multisource, and multisetting infor- mation to obtain comprehensive assessments of young children’s peer-related social competence (e.g., Achenbach, McConaughty, & Howell, 1987;
22 Brown, Odom, and Holcombe
Neisworth & Bagnato, in press; Gresham, 1986; Merrell, 1994; Odom & McConnell, 1985). The primary advantage of multilmethod assessments of young children’s social behavior has been the breadth of information and multiple perspectives obtained and available for analysis. From a psycho- metric perspective, agreement across sources has been seen as shared variance (Odom & McConnell, in press); from an ethnographic perspective, multi- source agreement has been seen as triangulation of data sources to confirm a finding (see Fetterman, 1989). Moreover, information that has been unique to a particular type or source of assessment can supplement and enrich other sources of data. Detailed examination of social behavior has allowed investigators to better understand the variables that explain any obtained similarities and differences in children’s social responding (e.g., behavioral differences exhibited in various settings or with different people, discrepant
reports, different standards for judging the quality of children’s behavior), as well as provide an empirically based standard to evaluate both interven- tion strategies and outcomes (see Odom et al., 1992).
The primary drawback of conducting multimethod assessments has been its labor intensiveness. Indeed, except for well-specified research and clinical purposes, comprehensive multimethod assessments have been unnecessary. However, multimethod assessment approaches have allowed investigators to examine the degree to which less labor-intensive measures (e.g., parent rating scales, teachers’ anecdotal records, or sociometrics) generate infor- mation that is common to (i.e., correlated with) more comprehensive assess- ments (e.g., Achenbach et al., 1987).
Direct observation methodology has played a key role in research on chil- dren’s social interaction with peers (see Odom & Ogawa, 1992; Renshaw, 1981 for reviews), and direct observation measures have been a primary component of multimethod assessments. Using operationally defined cate- gories to observe and record the behavior of children in naturalistic or experimental settings can provide information that is standard across chil- dren and settings (Hartmann & Wood, 1990). For example, Odom and McConnell (in press) used observational measures of the social interactions of preschool children with and without disabilities as one measure of a multimethod assessment of social competence. They found that the observa- tional measures correlated significantly with a central social competence factor.
For nearly 70 years researchers from different theoretical perspectives have developed taxonomies of young children’s social behavior, and these mea- surement systems have informed research on children’s social development. Much of the existing information, however, has been collected with global interaction codes such as social participation (e.g., Guralnick & Groom, 1987) or social initiations, responses, and interactions (e.g., Greenwood e.g., 1981). Although some investigators have asserted that using global
Observational Assessment of Social Behavior 23
measures of social interactions, particularly for screening and intervention research, may be cost-effective and pragmatic (see Greenwood, Todd, Hops, & Walker, 1982; Shores, 1987), other researchers have proposed that such measures provide only a limited understanding of children’s social development and any specific abilities related to children’s social compe- tence (Asher, Markell, & Hymel, 1981; Odom & Ogawa, 1992). Recently, McEvoy, Odom, and McConnell (1992) argued for additional research on the identification and verification of effective social behaviors to enhance generalization and maintenance outcomes in future social competence inter- ventions. The process of identification and verification of effective social behavior will require a new generation of direct observational assessments that consist of more descriptive, precise, and complex behavioral codes (Odom & Brown, 1992).
CONCEPTUAL FOCUS FOR A NEW GENERA TION OF OBSERVATIONAL ASSESSMENT
A conceptual focus that extends our current understanding of young chil- dren’s peer interactions will require that researchers move beyond the tradi- tional observational and methodological systems used in the past. Three relatively independent research literatures may inform this new conceptuali- zation of observational assessment of social interaction. Each contributes substantially to this conceptual focus.
Applied Behavior Analysis Applied behavior analysts have identified effective social behavior of socially competent children that might serve as the focus of interventions for chil- dren who are withdrawn or who do not engage in successful interactions with peers (i.e., “target behaviors”). To identify effective intervention target behaviors, applied behavior analysts have examined the topographi- cal quality of social responses embedded within social interactions (e.g., Strain & Timm, 1974), the probability that a behavior will be followed by a positive social response from a peer (e.g., Tremblay et al., 198 l), the associ- ation of specific social behaviors and peer sociometric ratings (e.g., Strain, 1983), and the normative rates of certain social behaviors (e.g., Greenwood et al., 1981). In addition, in numerous studies to improve young children’s social interactions with peers, applied behavior analysts have developed, refined, and validated behavioral assessment systems that have documented the effectiveness of various interventions for promoting young children’s social behavior with peers (see Brown & Odom, 1994; Chandler Lubeck, & Fowler, 1992; Marchetti & Campbell, 1990; McEvoy et al., 1992; Odom & Brown, 1993 for reviews).
24 Brown, Odom, and Holcombe
The applied behavior analysis tradition has contributed three strengths to a new conceptualization of social interaction assessment. First, most applied behavior analysis researchers have emphasized direct observation of chil- dren’s peer interactions as a primary dependent measure and have stressed pre- cision in the observational methodology employed (see Odom & McConnell, 1992). The second strength has been the identification, as noted previously, of behaviors that appear to be effective for children in social interactions with peers. As we will discuss, these behavioral forms or strategies are essen- tial elements in a descriptive and dynamic assessment of children’s social behavior. The third strength has been a tradition of establishing the func- tional relationship of behaviors and outcomes through experimental analyses of social interaction interventions.
Pragmatics Researchers who have focused on language acquisition and intervention
have also contributed significantly to a new conceptualization of observa- tional assessment of young children’s social interactions. Language investi- gators interested in the social uses of language (i.e., pragmatics) have developed taxonomies for observing and recording communicative behavior (e.g., Dore, 1979; McLean & Snyder-McLean, 1978; Prutting & Kirschner, 1987), and the different syntactic or semantic forms used to accomplish the purposes of communicative acts (e.g., Gerber, 1991). In contrast to many applied behavior analytic researchers, pragmatics investigators have ex- amined the social context of communicative acts to determine pragmatic functions of interactions (Duchan, 1984). With few notable exceptions (e.g., Dore, 1979; Guralnick & Paul-Brown, 1980; Mueller, 1972), most pragmatic analyses of children’s language have involved descriptions of parent-child or adult-child language exchanges rather than child-child social interactions. Recently, however, the primary assumptions of the “prag- matics revolution” (i.e., critical importance of contextual factors, commu- nicative forms, and communicative functions) have been incorporated into prelinguistic interventions with very young children with developmental delays (e.g., Warren, Yoder, Gazdag, Kim, & Jones, 1993), naturalistic lan- guage interventions with parents of young children with language difficul- ties (e.g., Alpert & Kaiser, 1992), and functional communication training to prevent maladaptive behavior with children and adults with severe disabili- ties (e.g., Durand & Carr, 1991).
The primary contribution of the pragmatics tradition to the assessment of children’s social behavior with peers has been a focus on both the form and function of communication. The form of communicative acts has been similar to the types of behavior or behavioral strategies assessed by applied behavior analyst researchers. The function of communication has been the intended outcome or purpose of the communicative act. Communicative function has been similar to the concept of social goals described in the next section. The examination of function within a social context has provided
Observational Assessment of Social Behavior 25
an important conceptual extension of the understanding of communication and can be applied to the understanding of peer interactions among preschool children.
Developmental Psychology Developmental psychologists have contributed substantially to the under- standing of children’s social interaction with peers. As described earlier, Parten and her contemporaries established a long tradition of observational assessment of children’s peer interactions that has extended into the current decade (e.g., Marshall & McCandless, 1957; Hartup, Glazer, & Charlesworth, 1967; Mounts & Roopnarine, 1987; Quay, 1993; Rubin, Maioni, & Hornung, 1976). In most cases, researchers have examined the nature of behaviors occurring among children and its relationship with factors such as socio- metric, socioeconomic, or developmental status (see Odom & Ogawa, 1992).
During the 1980s Krasnor and Rubin developed an observational assess- ment of preschool children’s social problem solving, and they analyzed the differential success of specific behavioral strategies used in resolving prob- lems during social interactions (e.g., Krasnor, 1983; Krasnor & Rubin, 1981, 1983; Rose-Krasnor, 1985; see Rubin & Krasnor, 1987; Rubin & Rose-Krasnor, 1992 for reviews). They articulated several important assumptions including young children have social goals for the interactions in which they are engaged, different behavioral strategies (i.e., social behaviors) may be used to achieve the same goal, and the same behavioral strategy may be used to accomplish different goals in different contexts. Recently, Rubin and Rose-Krasnor (1992) proposed a social information-processing model of social competence that includes children’s social goals and behavioral strategies to achieve those goals. Moreover, in recent years, many social competence researchers in developmental psychology have asserted that examining children’s social goals will be critical to improving our understanding of young children’s social interactions with peers and their peer-related social competence (see Dodge, Pettit, McClaskey, & Brown, 1986; Guralnick, 1992; Hart et al., 1993; Mize & Ladd, 1990; Rubin & Krasnor, 1987; Rubin & Rose-Krasnor, 1992). Unfortunately, to date, investigations of the precise nature of children’s purposeful behavior with peers in naturalistic settings have been limited in number (see Hart, 1993; Odom & Brown, 1992; Rubin & Rose- Krasnor , 1992).
The contribution of developmental psychology and the social problem- solving literature, which emerged quite separately from the applied behavior analysis and pragmatics literatures, has been the focus on assessment of both behavioral strategies and social goals of young children’s peer interactions. Although the researchers from this tradition specifically addressed conflict resolution, it is possible to extend their asumptions and conceptualization to more broadly assess social goals that children have during nonconflictual interaction with their peers.
26 Brown, Odom, and Holcombe
CONCEPTUAL CONVERGENCE FOR A NEW GENERATION OF DIRECT OBSERVATION MEASURES
Research traditions and methodologies from applied behavior analysis, pragmatics, and developmental psychology may provide a critical conceptual foundation for a new generation of observational investigations of young children’s social behavior. This convergence suggests following a contex- tualist perspective that focuses on the purposeful nature of children’s peer interactions within social contexts.
Relationship of Children’s Social Goals and Behavioral Strategies to Child Development Researchers’ long-standing interest in young children’s peer interactions has been based on the putative relationship of children’s social behavior to peer relationships (e.g., peer acceptance, friendship formation) and ultimately child development. Indeed, Hartup (1983) argued that the primary charge of contemporary psychology was to understand “the role of peer relations in the socialization of the individual child” (p. 172). Moreover, he noted that researchers needed to investigate peer interactions during childhood to better understand children’s peer relations and child development.
Although a complete understanding of the nature and function of young children’s peer interactions and peer relations has yet to emerge, researchers have determined significant relationships between some aspects of children’s social interactions and their peer relationships. For example, researchers have long noted that young children who have frequent and varied positive peer interactions during early and middle childhood have greater peer acceptance and more extensive networks of friends (see Hartup, 1992; Ladd & Coleman, 1993, for contemporary reviews). In contrast, investigators have found that children who have been withdrawn or who have had numerous negative peer interactions have lower peer acceptance ratings and fewer friends. Moreover, low peer acceptance or aggressiveness and concomitant peer rejection have been highly predictive of later adolescent and adult adjustment problems (see Hartup, 1992; Parker & Asher, 1987). Researchers have asserted that peer acceptance and friendship formation are multiply determined (e.g., Hartup, 1992; Ladd & Coleman, 1993). Nevertheless, many investigators have acknowledged that peer interactions, particularly a rich and varied history of positive social interactions with peers, have been an important precursor to peer acceptance and developing friendships, and that positive peer relations during childhood may contri- bute significantly to children’s socialization, development, and well-being (see Hartup, 1992; Ladd & Coleman, 1993; Parker & Asher, 1987). Indeed, recently, Newcomb and Bagwell (1995) analyzed the literature on children’s friendships and reported that social contact and social interaction were criti- cal factors in determining friendships.
Observational Assessment of Social Behavior 27
Given the importance of peer interactions for peer relationships and the
association of peer relationships to later adjustment, young children’s social interactions with peers, particularly their purposeful social behavior war- rants additional study. Specifically, more precise and comprehensive assess- ment of young children’s peer interactions needs to be forthcoming to determine which social goals and behavioral strategies to accomplish those goals are related to positive peer interactions and development of positive peer relations such as peer acceptance and friendships (see Mize & Ladd, 1990).
We believe that observational assessment of young children’s social goals and behavioral strategies to achieve those goals will provide a richer under- standing of young children’s peer interactions and their emerging peer relations. We would predict that young children who have multiple social goals for peer interaction and who use a variety of behavioral interaction strategies to accomplish those goals will be more socially competent than same-aged peers who have restricted repertoires of either behavioral strategies or social goals. In addition, for young children who have maladaptive or restricted repertoires of social goals and behavioral strategies to achieve those goals, peer interactions may not provide a rich avenue for further development, particularly social development. For example, we know from the extant literature that aggressive children are at high risk for later adjust- ment problems in adolescence and adulthood (see Parker & Asher, 1987). Moreover, Rubin and his colleagues have found that aggressive children beginning in early childhood are more likely to employ aggressive or abnor- mal behavioral strategies to accomplish their social goals (see Rubin & Rose-Krasnor, 1992, for review). Across time, frequent episodes of negative peer interactions may affect children’s peer acceptance, social reputations, and development of positive social relationships. Indeed, children with chronic patterns of maladaptive behavioral strategies and social goals may experience peer rejection and be at high risk for future developmental prob- lems (see Parker & Asher, 1987).
Social competence interventions that concentrate on teaching less hostile and more adaptive social goals and behavioral strategies to accomplish those goals might improve aggressive children’s purposeful peer interactions and promote better peer acceptance and friendships in the short term. Moreover, with continued developmental monitoring and, when indicated, appropriate support, those short-term improvements in peer-related social competence might enhance children’s long-term developmental outcomes. Precise assess- ment of young children’s social goals and behavioral strategies to achieve those goals and the relationship of purposeful peer interaction with social competence is in “its infancy” (Rubin & Rose-Krasnor, 1992, p. 317) and discussion of behavioral patterns of young children with other developmen- tal difficulties (e.g., developmental delays, mental retardation) is noticeably absent from the literature. Nevertheless, given its importance, the develop- ment and elaboration of young children’s purposeful peer interactions and
28 Brown, Odom, and Holcombe
the emergence of peer relations should be examined longitudinally to deter- mine exactly how they affect important developmental outcomes (see Hartup, 1992; Ladd & Coleman, 1993).
Terminology and Assessment of Social Goals and Behavioral Strategies Terminology in the literature on children’s social behavior and social com- petence has varied greatly across researchers, disciplines, and theoretical orientations (see Dodge et al., 1986; Odom et al., 1992). An observational approach that pushes in new directions requires a set or working definitions. For our purpose, social behavior refers to the individual action of one child that is directed at another child (e.g., talking to another child, responding to a question, gesturing). Social interacfion refers to the reciprocal exchange of social behavior between or among two or more children. Social goals are the intended outcomes or purposes of children’s social interactions (i.e., outcomes if the interaction had been successful). Behavioral strategies are the social behaviors that children use in attempts to achieve their social goals.
Children’s social goals and the behavioral strategies they use to achieve their goals take many different forms. For example, a child attempting to play with peers in a housekeeping area may use either simple gestural com- munication (e.g., pointing to a pot on the stove) or a verbal statement (e.g., “Let’s have lunch now”) as a possible behavioral strategy for initiating a dramatic play sequence (e.g., serving food to another child with accom- panying verbal and nonverbal social exchanges about cooking and eating). Well-trained observers can infer the social goal or purpose of the above interaction (i.e., pretend play) from both the child’s andpeers’social behavior and the piay context. A specific social goal may be achieved by using any number of behavioral strategies; similarly, a specific behavioral strategy may achieve any number of social goals (see Rubin & Krasnor, 1987; Moerk, 1977; Skinner, 1957).
Behavioral strategies and resulting social interactions may be successful or unsuccessful. During a successful interaction, the behavioral strategy a child employs achieves a social goal. For example, a child requests and receives assistance from another child in building a tower with wooden blocks. The goal is getting help, the behavioral strategy is requesting, and the outcome is successful because the peer provided help. During an unsuc- cessful social interaction, the child’s behavioral strategy does not achieve the intended social goal. For example, a child says, “Let’s play hide and seek” (i.e., the behavioral strategy of suggesting and a goal of play), and his social partner ignores him and walks away (i.e., the social goal of play was not achieved).
Observational Assessment of Social Behavior 29
Example of an Observational Assessment of Social Goals and Behavioral Strategies An observational assessment of young children’s social interactions with peers should generate information about social goals occurring in inter- actions, behavioral strategies that children use when addressing those goals, and the success of children in achieving their goals. We are currently con-
ducting research using an observational system that embodies this concep- tualization. A brief description of this system, called the System for Obser- vation of Children’s Social Interactions (SOCSI), provides an example of one approach to measuring social goals and behavioral strategies (Brown, Odom, Holcombe, Mortimore, & Sullins, 1995; Odom, Brown, Holcome, & Mortimore, 1994).
Behavioral Strategies. Initial identification of behavioral strategies that children use in social interaction with peers was generated by reviews of pre- vious research (Odom & Ogawa, 1992) and refined by pilot work. Listed in Table 1 are the behavioral strategies initally identified. Each strategy is is referenced to the studies in which it has appeared. These strategies are drawn from the three research literatures discussed earlier. These behavioral strategies range from simple gestural communication and play noises to more complex verbal requests, role assignments, and suggestions. With the SOCSI system, observers first code the behavioral strategy used by the focal child (i.e., the child being observed) or a peer during a social interaction.
Social Goals. A second dimension of this observational system is the assessment of children’s social goals. A list of social goals, initially identi- fied from literature and pilot work, appears in Table 2. These goals, rang- ing from aggression to pretend play, again have been drawn from the three literatures already mentioned, and at times the same goals appeared in studies across those literatures. With the SOCSI system observers code a social goal that is associated with each coded behavioral strategy. For example, an observer identifies a wave to a peer as a gestural communication with the goal attention. Again, the observers use information from the social context to determine the goal to be coded.
Outcomes of the Interactions. Once observers determine the behavioral strategy and social goal, they identify the logical outcome associated with the goal. If the outcome occurs, the observer judges the interaction success- ful; if it does not occur, the interaction is coded as unsuccessful. From the example above, if the peer looks at or talks with the child who was waving, the interaction was successful; if the peer ignores the child, the interaction would be coded as unsuccessful.
g T
ab le
1.
S
ys te
m
fo r
O b
se rv
at io
n
of
C h
il d
re n
’s
S oc
ia l
In te
ra ct
io n
s (S
O C
S I)
15 B
eh av
io ra
l S
tr at
ee ie
s
I. A
ff il
at iv
es /a
ff ec
ti on
(A
F )
2.
C al
li ng
(C
A )
3.
C om
m en
ts
(C O
)
4.
C om
pl im
en ta
ry
st at
em en
t (C
S )
5.
G es
tu ra
l co
m m
un ic
at io
n (G
C )
6.
N ee
d st
at em
en ts
(N
S )
7.
O bj
ec t
ag gr
es si
on
(A G
O )
8.
P er
so na
l ag
gr es
si on
(A
G P
) 9.
P
hy si
ca l
as si
st an
ce
(P A
) 1
0 .
P la
y no
is es
(P
N )
1 1
. Q
ue st
io ns
(Q
) 1
2 .
R eq
ue st
s/ co
m m
an d
(R Q
) 1
3 .
R ol
e as
si gn
m en
t (R
A )
1 4
. S
ha re
/t ra
de
(S T
) 1
5 .
S ug
ge st
io ns
(S
G )
M ak
es p
ro so
ci al
ph
ys ic
al
co nt
ac t
w it
h pe
er
(e .g
., hu
gs ,
ki ss
es ,
ho ld
ha
nd s)
(K
& R
, H
G &
C ,
T ,
S ,
B ,
0 )
V er
ba ll
y ad
dr es
si ng
a
pe er
b y
na m
e or
r ol
e w
it h
no o
th er
m
es sa
ge
in cl
ud ed
(e
.g .,
“B ob
by !“
).
T hi
s m
ay a
ls o
be a
si
ng le
w or
d ex
cl am
at or
y st
at em
en t
(“ H
ey !“
).
W he
n th
is b
eh av
io r
is p
ai re
d w
it h
an ot
he r
m es
sa ge
i n
th e
st at
em en
t,
th e
ot he
r m
es sa
ge
sh ou
ld
be c
od ed
. (K
& R
) D
ir ec
ti ng
a
de cl
ar at
iv e
st at
em en
t to
a p
ee r
ab ou
t pe
er ’s
or
s el
f ac
ti vi
ty ,
be ha
vi or
, or
o th
er
co nd
it io
n.
(C &
P .B
, H
, K
& R
, P
& K
) C
on ve
yi ng
a
pr os
oc ia
l ve
rb al
m
es sa
ge
to a
p ee
r (e
.g .,
“Y o
u
ar c
ni ce
,”
“I
li ke
y ou
”)
(B ,
0 .
S ,
T )
D ir
ec ti
ng
a ge
st ur
e to
a p
ee r
to c
on ve
y a
m es
sa ge
(O
M O
& B
) S
ta ti
ng
to a
p ee
r th
at
th e
sp ea
ke r
w an
ts
or n
ee ds
an
o bj
ec t
or n
ee ds
he
lp
w it
h an
a ct
iv it
y T
ak in
g
an o
bj ec
t aw
ay
fr om
a
pe er
, or
d es
tr oy
in g
an o
bj ec
t of
an
ot he
r pe
er
(K &
R ,
0 ,
S &
T ,
T )
H it
ti ng
, pu
sh in
g,
pi nc
hi ng
, a
pe er
( H
G &
C ,
K &
R ,
0 ,
S &
T ,
T )
T hr
ou gh
a
no nv
er ba
l,
ph ys
ic al
ac
ti on
, th
e ch
il d
he lp
s a
pe er
w it
h an
a ct
iv it
y,
ta sk
, or
o th
er
ac ti
on
(0 ,
T )
D ir
ec ti
ng
no is
es t
o a
pe er
t ha
t ar
e as
so ci
at ed
w
it h
th e
pl ay
t he
m e
in w
hi ch
t he
s pe
ak er
o r
pe er
i s/
ar e
en ga
ge d
(K &
R )
D ir
ec ti
ng
an i
nt er
ro ga
ti ve
st
at em
en t
to a
p ee
r (“
W il
l yo
u he
lp m
e? “)
(G
& P
-B ,
P &
K )
Im pe
ra ti
ve
st at
em en
t to
a p
ee r
to p
er fo
rm
or n
ot
to p
er fo
rm
an a
ct io
n (“
S to
p th
at !“
) (G
& P
.B ,
P &
K )
D ir
ec ti
ng
a pe
er o
r se
lf t
o pe
rf or
m
or n
ot
to p
er fo
rm
an a
ct io
n (“
Y o
u
be t
he
da d!
“)
(K &
R ,
0 ,
S ,
T )
G iv
es a
n ob
je ct
to
a p
ee r
(0 ,
S ,
T )
P ro
po se
s an
a ct
iv e
fo r
a pe
er
in a
c on
di ti
on al
m
an ne
r (e
.g .,
“Y o
u
co ul
d.
“) (
K &
R )
O u
tc om
es
of
In te
ra ct
io n
s
1 .
S uc
ce ss
fu l
( c)
2
. U
ns uc
ce ss
fu l
(- )
C hi
ld
ac co
m pl
is he
s th
e ap
pa re
nt
fu nc
ti on
of
th
e in
te ra
ct io
n (K
& R
) C
hi ld
do
es
no t
ac co
m pl
is h
th e
ap pa
re nt
fu
nc ti
on
of t
he i
nt er
ac ti
on
(K &
R )
In ve
st ig
at or
s U
si n
g B
eh av
io ra
l C
n d
es
In cl
u d
ed
in S
O C
S I
D =
D or
e (1
9 7
9 )
G &
P -B
= G
ur al
ni ck
&
P au
l B
ro w
n (1
9 8
0 )
H G
& C
= H
ar tu
p,
G la
ze r,
&
C ha
rl es
w or
th
(1 9
6 7
) H
W =
H ow
es
(1 9
8 8
) K
& R
= K
ra sn
or
& R
ub in
(1
9 8
3 )
B =
B ro
w n,
R
ag la
nd ,
& F
ox (
1 9
8 8
) 0
= O
do m
, H
oy so
n,
Ja m
ie so
n,
& S
tr ai
n (1
9 8
5 )
O M
O &
B =
Q do
m ,
M cE
vo y,
O
st ro
sk y,
&
B is
ho p
(1 9
8 7
) P
& G
= P
ut al
la z
& G
ot m
an
(1 9
8 1
) P
& K
= P
ru tt
in g
& K
ir sc
hn er
(1
9 8
7 )
R &
K =
R ub
in &
K ra
sn or
(1
9 8
7 )
S =
S tr
ai n
(1 9
8 3
) S
& T
= S
tr ai
n &
T im
m
(1 9
7 4
) T
= T
re m
bl ay
, S
tr ai
n,
H en
dr ic
ks on
, &
S ho
re s
(1 9
8 1
)
T ab
le
2.
S ys
te m
fo
r O
b se
rv at
io n
of
C
h il
d re
n ’s
S
oc ia
l In
te ra
ct io
n s
(S O
C S
I)
12 S
oc ia
l G
oa ls
1 .
A gg
re ss
io n
(A G
)
2 .
A ss
is ta
nc e
(A S
) 3
. A
tt en
ti on
(A
T )
4 .
C om
fo rt
-s up
po rt
(C
S )
5 .
In fo
rm at
io n
se ek
in g
(I S
) 6
. In
fo rm
at io
n pr
ov id
in g
(P )
7 .
8 .
9 .
IO .
O bj
ec t-
re la
te d
(O R
)
O th
er
ac ti
on
(O A
)
P re
te nd
pl
ay (
P P
) S
el f-
ac ti
on
(S A
)
1 1
. 1
2 .
S to
p- ac
ti on
(S
T )
P re
ve nt
s or
s to
ps
an ot
he r’
s ac
ti on
s or
p er
ce iv
ed
fu tu
re
ac ti
on .
(K &
R )
C an
no t
se e
or h
ea r
(X )
C od
e w
he n
th e
ob se
rv er
ca
nn ot
se
e th
e ac
ti on
s or
h ea
r th
e st
at em
en ts
of
t he
c hi
ld
be in
g ob
se rv
ed .
1 .
S uc
ce ss
fu l
(+ )
2 .
U ns
uc ce
ss fu
l (-
) C
hi ld
ac
co m
pl is
he s
th e
ap pa
re nt
fu
nc ti
on
of t
he
in te
ra ct
io n
(K &
R )
C hi
ld
do es
no
t ac
co m
pl is
h th
e ap
pa re
nt
fu nc
ti on
of
th
e in
te ra
ct io
n (K
& R
)
In ve
st ig
at or
s U
si n
g B
eh av
io ra
l C
od es
In
cl u
d ed
in
S O
C S
I
N eg
at iv
e ph
ys ic
al
be ha
vi or
s di
re ct
ed
to a
p ee
r or
o bj
ec t
in p
os se
ss io
n of
o th
er
pe er
th
at
ha ve
n o
ot he
r fu
nc ti
on
th an
to
a gg
re ss
(i
.e .,
no t
de si
gn ed
to
a cq
ui re
an
o bj
ec t)
. W
he n
ag gr
es si
on
oc cu
rs
in a
p re
te nd
co
nt ex
t,
th e
P P
co
de s
ho ul
d be
c ir
cl ed
. (0
, T
) H
el ps
a no
th er
ch
il d
co m
pl et
e a
ta sk
or
o th
er
ac ti
on .
(0 ,
S ,
T )
D ra
w p
ee r’
s at
te nt
io n
to s
el f,
ob
je ct
, or
e ve
nt .
T o
b e
co de
d as
a s
in gl
e fu
nc ti
on ,
th er
e sh
ou ld
be
e no
ug h
ti m
e af
te r
th e
at te
nt io
n st
at em
en t
to a
ll ow
t he
s tu
de nt
to
r es
po nd
. If
b eh
av io
r is
p ai
re d
w it
h ot
he r
m es
sa ge
, ot
he r
m es
sa ge
sh
ou ld
al
so b
e co
de d.
(W
C &
C ,
K &
R )
P ro
vi de
s pr
os oc
ia l
ov er
tu re
s to
p ee
r.
(R -K
, R
& K
) O
bt ai
ns
in fo
rm at
io n
fr om
pe
er a
bo ut
an
e ve
nt ,
se lf
, ob
je ct
, or
p ee
r.
(D ,
G &
P -B
, P
& K
, K
& R
) P
ro vi
de s
in fo
rm at
io n
ab ou
t a
pe er
, ac
ti vi
ty ,
ev en
t, or
s el
f.
C od
e w
he n
th is
be
ha vi
or
is n
ot c
od ea
bl e
un de
r ot
he r
ca te
go ri
es .
(O M
O &
E )
O bt
ai ns
so
le u
se o
f ob
je ct
(a
) th
at
w as
p re
vi ou
sl y
in p
os se
ss io
n of
pe
er ,
(b )
th at
w
as i
n jo
in t
po ss
es si
on ,
(c )
th at
a
pe er
g et
s fo
r th
e sp
ea ke
r,
or t
he s
pe ak
er
gi ve
s an
o bj
ec t
to a
p ee
r.
(K &
R ,
O M
O &
B ).
E
li ci
ts a
n ac
ti on
by
a p
ee r
th at
w
as n
ot
co de
d in
a ny
o f
th e
pr ev
io us
ca
te go
ri es
(D
o no
t co
de
O R
or
O A
).
A n
el ic
it ed
ac
ti on
ca
n be
a p
re te
nd
be ha
vi or
. (D
, G
& P
-B ,
K &
R ,
P &
K )
E ng
ag es
in
p la
y w
it h
pe er
s th
at
ha s
sy m
bo li
c us
e of
o bj
ec t
or s
ym bo
li c
ro le
s.
(H W
) G
ai ns
p er
m is
si on
fr
om
pe er
(s )
to p
ar ti
ci pa
te
in a
ct iv
it y.
T
o b
e co
de d
th e
ch il
d m
us t
in di
ca te
, th
ro ug
h a
pa us
e of
g az
e,
th at
th
ey w
an t
a re
sp on
se
fr om
th
e pe
er .
A ls
o co
de
if c
hi ld
v er
ba ll
y as
si gn
s se
lf a
s pe
ci fi
c ro
le i
n an
ac
ti vi
ty .
(D ,
K &
R )
O u
tc om
es
of
In te
~c ti
on s
D =
D or
e (1
9 7
9 )
O M
O &
B =
O do
m ,
M cE
vo y,
O
st ro
sk y,
&
B is
ho p
(1 9
8 7
) G
& P
-B =
G ur
al ni
ck
& P
au l
B ro
w n
(1 9
8 0
) P
& G
=
P ut
al la
z &
G ot
m an
(1
9 8
1 )
H G
& C
= H
ar tu
p,
G la
ze r,
&
C ha
rl es
w or
th
(1 9
6 7
) P
& K
= P
ru tt
in g
& K
ir sc
hn er
(1
9 8
7 )
H W
= H
ow es
(1
9 8
8 )
R &
K =
R ub
in
& K
ra sn
or
(1 9
8 7
) K
& R
= K
ra sn
or
& R
ub in
(1
9 8
3 )
S =
S tr
ai n
(1 9
8 3
) B
= B
ro w
n,
R ag
la nd
, &
F ox
( 1
9 8
8 )
S &
T =
S tr
ai n
& T
im m
(1
9 7
4 )
0 =
O do
m ,
H oy
so n,
Ja
m ie
so n,
&
S tr
ai n
(1 9
8 5
) T
= T
re m
bl ay
, S
tr ai
n,
H en
dr ic
ks on
, &
S ho
re s
(1 9
8 1
)
32 Brown, Odom, and Holcombe
Data Generated by SOSCI. An observational system such as the SOCSI can generate several different types of information. It can provide descrip- tive information about the types of social goals and behavioral strategies in which young children engage. For example, an investigator might find that children pursue the goal of information sharing in 40% of their peer inter- actions and employ aggression as a goal in 2% of social interactions. In addition, a researcher might determine that children typically use comments as a behavioral strategy during 1OVo of their peer interactions. The SOCSI can also provide descriptive information about how successful or unsuccess- ful children are in reaching their goals. For example, a group of typically developing children may be successful 79% of the time, whereas a compar- able group of children with behavior disorders may be successful 25% of the time. This general information may be helpful in establishing normative standards.
The strength of an assessment of social goals and strategies is the analysis of the relationship between the behavioral strategy used, the social goal embedded in the interaction, and the outcome. In theory, any of the behav- ioral strategies identified in Table 1 could be used to achieve any of the social goals identified in Table 2. Whether this actually happens is an empi- rical issue that the authors are currently investigating. For each pairing of a
social goal and a behavioral strategy, a conditional probability of success can be calculated by dividing the number of interactions in which the strategy was used successfully to reach the goal by the total number (i.e., successful plus unsuccessful) of interactions in which the strategy was used to reach the goal. For example, for the social goal of attention, the calling behavioral strategy might have a .69 conditional probability of success, and the condi- tional probability for gestural communication might be .34.
TECHNOLOGY FOR A NEW GENERATION OF DIRECT OBSERVATION MEASURES
Although the examination of children’s social goals and behavioral strat- egies is an important direction for future research, the difficulty of collect- ing and analyzing complex behavioral information in naturalistic settings has limited the development of this line of inquiry. Recent improvements in computer-assisted recording of behavioral events in real time and advances in videotape technology make it feasible to code and analyze behavioral strategies and social goals of young children interacting with peers in nat- uralistic settings. Indeed, complex, descriptive observational systems with multiple behavioral categories (e.g., the SOSCI’s 15 behavioral strategies and 12 social goals) have made contemporary technology a necessity for systematically coding children’s social behavior (see Hartmann & Wood, 1990; and for a review of contemporary technology, see Asher & Gabriel, 1993).
Observational Assessment of Social Behavior 33
Contemporary Computer Technology Researchers have begun to use hand-held computers to record behavioral data. The availability of personal computers has allowed researchers to develop software programs that add both coding precision and analytic power to their data collection systems (e.g., Gunter, Jack, Shores, Carrell, & Flowers, 1993; Repp, Karsh, Van Acker, Felce, & Harman, 1989). Emerg- ing hardware and software computer technologies have been well suited for coding the occurrence of multiple, reciprocal social responses across time (i.e., continuous event recording). For example, Tapp, Wehby, and Ellis (1995) developed and refined a flexible observational software system, called MOOSES (Multi-Option Observation System for Experimental Studies). Using this generic software system researchers and clinicians can design cus- tomized coding schemes for collecting and analyzing observational data. Researchers interested in assessing children’s behavioral strategies and social goals can enter codes into the MOOSES system and record, in real time, the occurrence of these codes. The advantage of using such a system is in both the efficiency of data entry and, more importantly, the efficiency with which computerized systems organize complex data sets for analysis.
Contemporary Videotape Technology Odom and Ogawa (1992) reported that in only 7 of the 51 observational studies of young children’s social behavior they reviewed did investigators use videotape technology. In the 1990s videotape equipment generates better quality for viewing and listening, is less expensive, and is more port- able than equipment used in former years. In particular, small microphones and lightweight transmitters (i.e., wireless transmission systems) have pro- vided rich verbal records of young children’s play and peer interaction (e.g., Pepler & Craig, 1995). When lightweight wireless transmission systems have been used they minimally constrain participants and reduce observer reactivity. These technological advances have made the use of videotaping to obtain behavioral samples easier, especially in naturalistic settings such as classrooms and playgrounds (Asher & Gabriel, 1993). Moreover, video- taped samples have provided permanent products that can be viewed multiple times to obtain independent interobserver agreement measures, reevaluate conceptualizations of children’s behavior, and ask new questions about children’s behavior.
Analysis of videotape samples of children’s interactions requires sophis- ticated audio-visual equipment and systems to ensure that coding occurs accurately and reliably. One example of such an audio-visual management procedure is the “Professional Tape Control, Coding, and Analysis System for Behavioral Research Using Videotape,” also known as PROCODER (Tapp & Walden, 1993). The hardware and software adaptations of PRO- CODER allows observers to perform frame-accurate (l/30 s) coding of
34 Brown, Odom, and Holcombe
behavioral events from videotapes. Similar to MOOSE& a notable strength of PROCODER has been its flexibility, which allows investigators to ex- amine videotaped data sets multiple times to address new questions and conduct different data analyses. With the SOCSI code, observers use the PROCODER to first record the behavioral strategy; this automatically marks the time on the tape when the behavior occurred. The observer is then able to move back to those points on the tape and code the social goal associated with the behavioral strategy and the nature of the outcome (suc- cessful or unsuccessful). For complex interactions, the observer can view the child’s behavior multiple times and also slow down the tape if necessary (Holcombe, Odom, & Brown, 1995).
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
Because information concerning young children’s social goals and behav- ioral strategies will provide data about successful and unsuccessful social behavior, the resultant information should have direct clinical implications. For example, along with other types and sources of information on young children’s social competence (e.g., behavioral rating scales of social skills and problem behaviors, peer nominations), descriptive data on young chil- dren’s social goals and goal-directed behavioral strategies would permit re- searchers to predict accurately (i.e., screen and classify) which children are at high risk for social development problems (see Gresham, 1986; Kazdin, 1989). This information will allow professionals to monitor children who are at-risk for social competence problems, particularly peer rejection, and to select children who need to participate in social competence intervention programs.
A second practical implication relates to the development of assessment instruments that are useful for practitioners. A direct observational system such as the SOCSI is too complex and time consuming for teachers to use in the classroom. However, information about important social goals and behavioral strategies, generated by research employing such an observa- tional system, could be used as the basis for developing a teacher rating assessment or for analyzing teachers’ anecdotal notes. The development of such user-friendly assessments of children’s social goals and behavioral strategies represents an important future step in social competence research.
For children with problems in social development, behavioral strategies that have a high probability of success for children without developmental problems might serve as the focus of interventions that facilitate children’s peer interactions (see Tremblay et al., 1981). For example, if a child is fre- quently excluded from group play (e.g., Guralnick & Groom, 1987) or if a child is disruptive upon entering play groups (e.g., Kopp, Baker, & Brown,
Observational Assessment of Social Behavior 35
i992), descriptive information about effective behavioral strategies children use for entering play groups has significant clinical relevance (see Putallaz & Wasserman, 1990). Furthermore, knowledge of effective behavioral strat- egies and common social goals may improve a teacher’s ability to support children’s social interactions and to promote a particular child’s acquisition of socially competent behavior in common social contexts during normal preschool routines (see File & Kontos, 1993). This type of fine-grained analysis of a child’s peer interaction difficulties could assist interventionists in developing and implementing highly individualized intervention plans that are linked directly to well-specified problems (see Kazdin, 1985, 1989). Also, because interventions are based on a precise assessment of a child’s behavioral strategies and social goals, they may prove to be more effective than generic intervention programs that focus on increasing the overall fre- quency of positive social interactions. Children’s facile selection and flex- ible use of effective social goals and behavioral strategies during social interactions with peers might well be a critical indicator for judging both specific intervention success (see Kazdin, 1985, 1989; Walker & Hops, 1976) and improvements in peer-related social competence and peer relations (see Guralnick, 1992; Mize & Ladd, 1990). Moreover, improvements in peer in- teractions and peer reIationships may be associated with long-term benefits in children’s development. The establishment of the practical and clinical importance of any taxonomy of social goals and behavioral strategies, how- ever, awaits both descriptive validation and empirical verification of well- specified socia1 behavior as effective intervention targets (see McEvoy et al., 1992).
A new generation of descriptive, observational methodology based on an expanded conceptual framework (e.g., assessment of children’s purposeful social behavior) and contemporary technology (e.g., videotape and com- puter-assisted coding) is emerging. In particular, by expanding the concep- tual framework and refining behavioral measures to include social goals and the behavioral strategies used to achieve those goals, a richer under- standing of young children’s social interactions with peers in naturalistic contexts and their peer-related social competence will be forthcoming. For young children with social competence difficulties (e.g., social withdrawal, developmental delays, aggressiveness), researchers will be better informed and prepared to refine and implement effective and efficient interventions that support the acquisition, generalization, and maintenance of peer inter- actions, the further development of peer-related social competence, and, ultimately, the formation of friendships (see Newcomb & Bagwell, 1995).
36 Brown, Odom, and Holcombe
REFERENCES
Achenbach, T.M. (1992). Child Behavior Checklist and 1992 profile for ages 2-3. Burling-
ton, VT: University Associates in Child Psychiatry.
Achenbach, T.M., McConaughy, S.H., & Howell, C.T. (1987). Child/adolescent behavioral and emotional problems: Implications of cross-informant correlations for situational
specificity. Psychological Bulletin, IOI, 213-232.
Alpert, C.L. & Kaiser, A.P. (1992). Training parents as milieu language teachers. Journal of
Early Intervention, 16, 3 l-52. Asher, S.R. (1990). Recent advances in the study of peer rejection. In S.R. Asher & J.D. Coie
!Eds), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 3-14). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Asher, S.R., & Gabriel, S. W. (1993). Using a wireless transmission system to observe con.
versation and social interaction on the playground. In C.H. Hart (Ed.), Children on
playgrounds: Research perspectives and applications pp. 184-209). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Asher. S.R., Markell, R.A., & Hymel, S. (1981). Identifying children at risk in peer relations:
A critique of the rate-of-interaction approach to assessment. Child Deve/opment, 52, 1239-1245.
Asher, S.R., Singleton, L.C., Tinsley, B.R., & Hymel, S. (1979). A reliable sociometric measure for preschool children. Developmental Psychology, 15, 443-444.
Bijou, S.W. (1976). Child development: The basicstage of early childhood. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bredekamp, S. (Ed.). (1987) Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood pro-
grams serving children from birth through age 8. Washington, DC: National Associa-
tion for the Education of Young Children.
Brown, W.H., & Odom, S.L. (1994). Strategies and tactics for promoting generalization
and maintenance of young children’s social behavior. Research in Developmental Disabilities, IS, 99- 1 18.
Brown, W.H., Odom, S.L., Holcombe, A., Mortimore, D., & Sullins, E. (1995, March).
Observational assessment of young children’s social goals and behavioral strategies
used to achieve those goals. In S.L. Odom (Chair), Understanding social competence of
young children with and without developmental disabilities. Symposium conducted at
the Proceedings of the 28th Annual Gatlinburg Conference on Research and Theory in
Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, Gatlinburg, Tennessee.
Brown, W.H., Ragland, E.U., & Fox, J.J. (1988). Effects of group socialization procedures
on the social interactions of preschool children. Research in Developmental Disabilities,
9, 359-376. Chandler, L.K., Lubeck, R.C., & Fowler, S.A. (1992). The generalization and maintenance
of young children’s social skills: A retrospective review and analysis. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 25, 415-428. Corsaro, w.A. (1985). Friendship and peer culture in the early years. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. DEC Task Force on Recommended Practices. (1993). DEC recommendedpractices: Indicators
of quality in programs for infants and young children with special needs and their
families. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. Dodge, K.A., Pettit, G.S., McClaskey, C.L., & Brown, M.M. (1986). Social competence in
children. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 51 (2, Serial
No. 213). Dore, J. (1979). Conversational acts and the acquisition of language. In E. Ochs & B.
Schieffelin (Eds.), Developmental pragmatics (pp. 337-361). New York: Academic.
Duchan, J.F. (1984). Language assessment: The pragmatic revolution. In R. Naremore (Ed.), Language science: Recent advances (pp. 147-180). San Diego: College Hill Press.
Durand, V.M., & Carr, E.G. (1991). Functional communication training to reduce challenging behavior: Maintenance and application in new settings. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 24, 25 l-256
Observational Assessment of Social Behavior 37
Fetterman, D.M. (1989). Ethnogruphy: Step by step. Beverly Hills: Sage. File, N., & Kontos, S. (1993). The relationship of program quality to children’s play in inte-
grated early intervention programs. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 13,
I-18.
Gallagher, T., & Prutting, C. (1983). Pragmatic assessmenf and infervenfion issues in lan-
guage. San Diego: College Hill Press.
Gerber, S. (1991). Pragmatics in the 1990’s: Perspective, retrospective, prospective. Journal of
Childhood Communication Disorders, 14, 1-21.
Greenwood, C.R. Todd, N.M., Hops, H., & Walker, H.M. (1982). Behavior change targets
in the assessment and treatment of socially withdrawn preschool children. Behavioral
Assessment, 4, 213-291.
Greenwood, C.R., Walker, H.M., Todd, N.M., & Hops, H. (1981). Normative and descrip-
tive analysis of preschool free play social interaction rates. Journal of Pediatric Psycho-
logy, 6, 343-366. Gresham, F.M. (1986). Conceptual issues in the assessment of social competence in children.
In P.S. Strain, M.J. Guralnick, & H.M. Walker (Eds.), Children’s social behavior: Development, assessment, and modification (pp. 143-180). Orlando: Academic.
Gresham, F.M. (1988). Social competence and motivational characteristics of learning dis-
abled students. In M.C. Wang, M.C. Reynolds, & H.J. Walberg (Eds.), Handbook of
special education: Research and pracfice (Vol. 2, pp. 283-302). Oxford: Pergamon. Gresham, F.M., & Elliott, S.N. (1990). The Social Ski//s Rating System. Circle Pines, MN:
American Guidance.
Gunter, P.L., Jack, S.L., Shores, R.E., Carrell, D.E., & Flowers, J. (1993). Lag sequential
analysis as a tool for functional analysis of student disruptive behavior in classrooms.
Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, I, 138-148.
Guralnick, M.J. (1990). Social competence and early intervention. Journal of Ear/y Inter-
vention, 14, 3-14.
Guralnick, M.J. (1992). A hierarchical model for understanding children’s peer-related social
competence. In S.L. Odom, S.R. McConnell, & M.A. McEvoy (Eds.), Social com-
petence of young children with disabilities: Issues and strategies for intervention
(pp. 37-64). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Guralnick, M.J., & Groom, J.M. (1987). The peer relations of mildly delayed and nonhandi-
capped preschool children in mainstreamed playgroups. Child Development, 58, 1556-1572.
Guralnick, M.J., & Paul-Brown, D. (1980). Functional and discourse analysis of nonhandi- capped children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 84, 444-454.
Hart, C.H. (1993). Children on playgrounds: Applying current knowledge to future practice
and inquiry. In C.H. Hart (Ed.), Children on playgrounds: Research perspectives and applications (pp. 418-431). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Hart, C.H., McGee, L., & Hernandez, S. (1993). Themes in the peer relations literature: Cor-
respondence to playground interactions portrayed in children’s literature. In C.H. Hart (Ed.), Children on playgrounds: Research perspectives and applications (pp. 371-416).
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Hartmann, D.P., &Wood, D.D. (1990). Observational methods. In A.S. Bellack, M. Hersen, & A.E. Kazdin (Eds.), International handbood of behavior modification and therapy. New York: Plenum.
Hartup, W.W. (1992). Peer relations in early and middle childhood. In V.B. Van Hasselt & M. Hersen (Eds.), Handbook of social development: A lz&panperspective
(pp. 257-281). New York: Plenum. Hartup, W.W. (1993). Peer relations. In M. Heatherington (Eds.), Handbook of childpsy-
chology (Vol. 4, pp. 103-196). New York: Wiley.
Hartup, W.W., Glazer, J., & Charlesworth, R. (1967). Peer reinforcement and sociometric status. Chi/d Developmenf, 38, 1017-1024.
Holcombe, A., Odom, S.L., & Brown, W.H. (1995). System for observation of children’s
38 Brown, Odom, and Holcombe
interaction (SOCSI): Observer training manual. Unpublished manuscript. John F.
Kennedy Center, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee. Howes, C. (1988). Peer interaction of young children. Monographsof /he Societyfor Research
in Child Development, 53 (Serial No. 217).
Kazdin, A.E. (1985). Selection of target behaviors: The relationship of the treatment focus to clinical dysfunction. Behavioral Assessmen/, 7, 33-47.
Kazdin, A.E. (1989). Behavior modification in applied se/rings (4th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA:
Brooks/Cole. Kopp, C. B., Baker, B.L., & Brown, K.W. (1992). Social skills and their correlates: Pre-
schoolers with developmental delays. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 96,
357-366.
Krasnor, L. R. (1983). An observational case study of failure in social problem-solving.
Journul of Applied Developmental Psychology, 4, 8 I-89.
Krasnor, L.R., & Rubin, K.H. (1981). The assessment of social problem solving skill in young
children. In T. Merluzzi, C. Glass, & M. Genest (Eds.), Cognitive assessment
(pp. 452-476). New York: Guilford Press.
Krasnor, L.R., & Rubin, K.H. (1983). Preschool social problem solving: Attempts and out- comes in naturalistic interaction. Child Developmen/, 54, 1545-1558.
Ladd, G.W., & Coleman, C.C. (1993). Young children’s peer relationships: Forms, features,
and functions. In B. Spodek (Eds.), Handbook of research on the education of young
children (pp. 57-76). New York: Macmillan.
Marchetti, A.G., & Campbell, V.A. (1990). Social skills. In J.L. Matson (Ed.), Handbook
of behavior modification with the mentally retarded (2nd ed., pp. 333-355). New York:
Plenum.
Marshall, H.R., & McCandless, B.R. (1957). Relationships between dependence on adults
and social acceptance by peers. Child Development, 28, 413-419.
McConnell, S. R., & Odom, S.L. (1991, April). Assessment of peer social competence for
young children with disabilities. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society
for Research on Child Development, Seattle, Washington. McEvoy, M.A., Odom, S.L., & McConnell, S.R. (1992). Peer social competence intervention
for young children with disabilities. In S.L. Odom, S.R. McConnell, & M.A. McEvoy
(Eds.), Social competence of young children with disabilities: Issues and strategies for intervention (pp. 113-133). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
McLean, J.E., & Snyder-McLean, L.K. (1978). A transuctional approach to language truin- ing. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
McMahon, R.J., & Forehand, R. (1988). Conduct disorders. In E.J. Mash & L.C. Terdal
(Eds.), Behavioral assessment of childhood disorders (2nd ed., pp. 1055153). New
York: Guilford Press.
Merrcll, K.W. (1994). Assessment of behavioral, social, and emotional problems: Direct and indirect methods for use with children and adolescents. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Mire, J., & Ladd, G. (1990). Toward the development of successful social skills training for preschool children. In S.R. Asher & J.D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood
(pp. 338-361). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mize, J., Ladd, G.W., & Price, J.M. (1985). Promoting positive peer relationships with young children: Rationales and strategies. Child Care Quarter/y, 14, 221-237.
Moerk, E.L. (1977). Pragmatic and semantic uspects of early language development. Balt- imore: University Park Press.
Mounts, N.S., & Roopnarine, J.L. (1987). Social-cognitive play patterns in same age and
mixed-age preschool classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 24, 463-476
Mueller, E. (1972). The maintenance of verbal exchanges between young children. Child
Development, 43, 930-938.
Neisworth, J.T., & Bagnato, S.J. (in press). Assessment for early intervention: Emerging themes and practices. In S. Odom & M. McLean (Eds.), Ear/y intervention/ear/& child- hood special education: Recommended practices. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Observational Assessment of Social Behavior 39
Newcomb, A.F., & Bagwell, C.L. (1995). Children’s friendship relations: A meta-analytic
review. Psychological Bulletin, I 17, 306-347.
Odom, S.L., & Brown, W.H. (1992). Observational assessment ofsocialgoals and strategies
of young children with disabilities and their peers. Grant proposal, Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.
Odom, S.L., & Brown, W.H. (1993). Social interaction skills interventions for young chil-
dren with disabilities in integrated settings. In C.A. Peck, S.L. Odom, & D. Bricker (Eds.), Integrating young children with disabilities into community programs: Eco-
logical perspectives on research and implementation (pp. 39-64). Baltimore: Paul H.
Brookes.
Odom, S.L., Brown, W.H., Holcombe, A., & Mortimore, D. (1994, October). Sysrejn for
observation of children’s social interactions (SOCSI). Poster session conducted at the
International Early Childhood Conference on Children with Special Needs of the
Council for Exceptional Children’s Division of Early Childhood (DEC), St. Louis,
Missouri. Odom, S.L., Hoyson, M., Jamieson, B., & Strain, P.S. (1985). Increasing handicapped pre-
schoolers’ peer social interactions: Cross setting and component analysis. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 3-16.
Odom, S.L., & McConnell, S.R. (1985). A performance-based conceptualization of social
competence of handicapped preschool children: Implications for assessment. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 4, I-19.
Odom, S.L., & McConnell, S.R. (1992). Improving social competence: An applied behavior analysis perspective. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 239-244
Odom, S.L., & McConnell, S.R. (in press). Promoting peer-related social competence of young children with disabilities. In M. Bambring, H. Rauh, &A. Beelman (Eds.), Early childhood intervention: Theory, evaluation, and practice. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.
Odom, S.L., McConnell, S.R., & McEvoy, M.A. (1992). Peer-related social competence and
its significance for young children with disabilities. In S.L. Odom, S.R. McConnell, & M.A. McEvoy (Eds.), Social competence ofyoung children with disabilities: Issues and
strategies for intervention (pp. 3-36). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Odom, S.L., McEvoy, M.A., Ostrosky, M. & Bishop, L. (1987, May). Observing the Junc- tional classes ofsocial interactions ofpreschool children. Paper presented at the annual
convention of the Association for Behavior Analysis, Nashville, Tennessee.
Odom, S.L., & Ogawa, I. (1992). Direct observation of young children’s social interaction
with peers: A review of methodology. Behavioral Assessment, 14, 407-441.
Parker, J.G., & Asher, S.R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment. Psycho- logical Bulletin, 102, 357-389.
Parten, M.B. (1932). Social participation among preschool children. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 27, 243-269.
Pepler, D.J., & Craig, W.M. (1995). A peek behind the fence: Naturalistic observations of
aggressive children with remote audiovisual recording. Developmental Psychology, 31, 548-553.
Piaget, J. (1926). Language and thought of the child. London: Kegan & Paul.
Prutting, C., & Kirschner, D. (1987). A clinical appraisal of pragmatic aspects of language. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 52, 105-l 19.
Putallaz, M., & Gottman, J. (1981). Social skills and group acceptance. In S. Asher & J. Gottman (Eds.), The development of children’s friendships (pp. 116-149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Putallaz, M., & Wasserman, A. (1990). Children’s entry behavior. In S.R. Asher & J.D. Coie
(Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 60-89). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Quay, L. (1993). Social competence in nonhandicapped, low interacting, and five handicapped groups of preschoolers. Early Education and Development, 4, 89-98.
Reichle, J., Halle, J., & Johnston, S. (1993). Developing an initial communicative reper- toire: Applications and issues for persons with severe disabilities. In A.P. Kaiser &
40 Brown, Odom, and Holcombe
D.B. Gray (Eds.), Enhancing children’s communication: Research foundations for intervention (pp. 105-138). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Renshaw, P.D. (1981). The roots of peer interaction research: A historical analysis of the
1930s. In S.R. Asher & J.M. Gottman (Eds.), The development of children’s friend-
ships (pp. 29-52). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Repp, A.C., Karsh, K.G., Van Acker, R., Felce, D., & Harman, M. (1989). A computer- based system for collecting and analyzing observational data. Journal of Special Educa- tion Technology, 9, 207-217.
Rose-Krasnor, L. (1985). Observational assessment of social problem solving. In B. Schneider, K. Rubin, & J. Ledingham (Eds.), Children’s peer relations: Issues in assessment and
intervention (pp. 57-74). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Rubin, K.H., & Krasnor, L.R. (1987). Social-cognitive and social behavioral perspectives on
problem solving. In M. Perlmutter (Ed.), The Minnesora Symposia on Child fsychol-
ogy, Vol. 18. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rubin, K.H., Maioni, T.L., & Hornung, M. (1976). Free play behavior in middle- and lower- class preschoolers: Parten and Piaget revisited. Child Development, 47, 414-419.
Rubin, K.H., & Rose-Krasnor, L. (1992). Interpersonal problem solving and social compe-
tence in children. In V.B. Van Hasselt & M. Hersen (Eds.), Handbook of social devel- opmenf: A lifespan perspective (pp. 283-323). New York: Plenum.
Salisbury, C., Britzman, D., & Kang, J. (1989). Using qualitative methods to assess the social- communication competence of young handicapped children. Journal of Ear/y Znferven-
lion, 13, 153-164.
Shores, R.E. (1987). Overview of research on social interaction: A historical and personal perspective. Behavior Disorders, 12, 233-241.
Skinner, B.F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Storey, K., Smith, D., Wolper, N., & Strain, P.S. (1990, May). The additive effects of treaf-
ment components in increasing integration in preschoolsettings. Paper presented at the
Annual Conference of the Association for Behavior Analysis, Nashville, Tennessee. Strain, P.S. (1983). Generalization of autistic children’s social behavior change: Effects of
developmentally integrated and segregated settings. Analysis and Intervenfion in Devel- opmenral Disabilifies, 3, 23-34.
Strain, P.S., & Kohler, F.W. (1988). Social skill intervention with young children with handi-
caps. In S.L. Odom & M.B. Karnes (Eds.), Early infervention for infants and young children with handicaps: An empirical base (pp. 129-143). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Strain, P.S., & Timm, M.A. (1974). An experimental analysis of social interaction between a behaviorally disordered preschool child and her classroom peers. Journa/ of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 7, 583-590.
Tapp, J., & Walden, T. (1993). PROCODER: A professional tape control, coding, and anal- ysis system for behavioral research using videotape. Behavior Research Methods,
Insfruments, & Computers, 25, 53-56. Tapp, J., Wehby, J., &Ellis, D. (1995). A multiple option observation system for experimental
studies (M.O.O.S.E.S.). Behavior Research Mefhods, Instruments, & Computers, 27,
25-3 1. Tremblay, A.S., Strain, P.S., Hendrickson, J.M., & Shores, R.E. (1981). Social interaction
of normal preschool children. Behavior Modificafion, 5, 237-253. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Walker, H.M., & Hops, H. (1976). Use of normative peer data as a standard for evaluating
classroom treatment effects. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 9, 159-168.
Warren, S.F., Yoder, P.J., Gazdag, G., Kim, K., & Jones, H. (1993). Facilitating prelin- guistic communication skills in young children with developmental delays. Journal of
Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 83-97.
Wright, M.J. (1980). Measuring the social competence of preschool children. Canadian Journal
of Behavioural Science, 12, 17-32.
