View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Student-Teacher Relationship Quality in Children with Selective Mutism

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Student-Teacher Relationship Quality in Children with Selective Mutism
Language: English
Authors: Longobardi, Claudio (ORCID 0000-0002-8457-6554), Badenes-Ribera, Laura, Gastaldi, Francesca Giovanna Maria, Prino, Laura Elvira
Source: Psychology in the Schools. Jan 2019 56(1):32-41.
Availability: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 10
Publication Date: 2019
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Teacher Student Relationship, Communication Disorders, Anxiety Disorders, Interpersonal Competence, Children, Affective Behavior, Inclusion
DOI: 10.1002/pits.22175
ISSN: 0033-3085
Abstract: Selective mutism (SM) is a rare anxiety disorder that compromises children's daily life during critical periods of early development. Because school is a prime context for the manifestation of the disorder, the aim of this study was to investigate the quality of the student-teacher relationship and its effects on behavior and work, and on social and relational skills. The sample consisted of 75 children--15 were affected by SM, with 60 in the control group--and 15 teachers. The results showed greater difficulty on the teacher's part to establish a relationship based on affective closeness with a child affected by SM, compared to that with unaffected children. Nevertheless, an encouraging picture emerges of the inclusion and integration of the child with SM among peers and therefore in the class group.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2018
Accession Number: EJ1198620
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFFKMkfOdNyHqWgM5nb0Zc1AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDIqWaJR8e_NffRikKgIBEICBm2zgLkH3aCGNYI2uzfF7zsqvgNbHNo4vSBfeuDPZSNbLPDOe_F3VZcX5Rmqm_zoyivrLISgi5wyO_rMpL3GJr5ZMAwvxZRPoj6Jwn1555a3NsfY0y67QiPbczljC7l8Whpprq6PcxzdbSUbgvxvDqow4XtS6o92rPNu4y6aL9Y83C7zeEqG918kKnrQEnj065tbJB2Ph6pwiKwZx
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0133390153;pis01jan.19;2018Dec06.03:54;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0133390153-1">The student–teacher relationship quality in children with selective mutism </title> <p>Selective mutism (SM) is a rare anxiety disorder that compromises children's daily life during critical periods of early development. Because school is a prime context for the manifestation of the disorder, the aim of this study was to investigate the quality of the student–teacher relationship and its effects on behavior and work, and on social and relational skills. The sample consisted of 75 children—15 were affected by SM, with 60 in the control group—and 15 teachers. The results showed greater difficulty on the teacher's part to establish a relationship based on affective closeness with a child affected by SM, compared to that with unaffected children. Nevertheless, an encouraging picture emerges of the inclusion and integration of the child with SM among peers and therefore in the class group.</p> <p>Keywords: behavioral problem; peer nomination; selective mutism; social status; student–teacher relationship</p> <p>Selective mutism (SM) is a rare anxiety disorder that compromises children's daily lives during critical periods of early development. School is therefore an extremely important setting for the child with SM and often where the impairment is most severe (Steinhausen, Wachter, Laimbock, & Metzke, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref1">45</reflink>]). Whereas children with SM speak with members of the family and some friends, not all of them talk to their teachers (Viana, Beidel, & Rabian, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref2">48</reflink>]). In fact, the school context causes these children very high anxiety levels as a result of constant performance demands, most of which are related to verbal communication. The impact of the student–teacher relationship on children's development is particularly important during the first years of school, when children consolidate relevant competences on how to be successful at school and how to develop accurate cognitive representations of themselves as learners (Entwisle & Hayduk, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref3">17</reflink>]; Pianta & Walsh, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref4">35</reflink>]). Such impact is even higher in students with atypical development (Robertson, Chamberlain, & Kasari, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref5">38</reflink>]). For this reason, the aim of this study is to investigate the quality of the student–teacher relationship and its effects on behavior and work, and on social and relational skills.</p> <p>The latest edition of the <emph>Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition</emph> ([DSM‐V], American Psychiatric Association, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref6">3</reflink>]) reclassifies SM as an anxiety disorder (Muris & Ollendick, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref7">31</reflink>]). According to the DSM‐V, children affected by SM are characterized by the "consistent failure to speak in specific social situations in which there is an expectation for speaking (e.g., at school) despite speaking in other situations" (American Psychiatric Association, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref8">3</reflink>], p. 195). Other DSM‐V diagnostic criteria specify that the disorder should (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref9">1</reflink>) interfere with education or occupational achievements or with social communication; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref10">2</reflink>) last at least 1 month, not limited to the first month of school; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref11">3</reflink>) not be attributable to a lack of knowledge of, or comfort with, the spoken language required in the social situation; (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref12">4</reflink>) not be better accounted for by a communication disorder (e.g., childhood onset fluency disorder); and (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref13">5</reflink>) not occur exclusively during the course of autism spectrum disorder, schizophrenia, or another psychotic disorder.</p> <p>The prevalence of SM ranges from.03% to 1%, depending on the sampling setting (e.g., clinic vs. school vs. general population) and the ages of the individuals in the sample (American Psychiatric Association, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref14">3</reflink>]). The prevalence estimates obtained in the school setting are higher than those estimated in clinical samples (Muris & Ollendick [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref15">31</reflink>]) and are higher among children than adults (American Psychiatric Association, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref16">3</reflink>]; Kumpulainen, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref17">25</reflink>]). In addition, it seems that SM is more frequent among girls than boys (Hua & Major, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref18">21</reflink>]; Kumpulainen, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref19">25</reflink>]; Muris & Ollendick, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref20">31</reflink>]). The onset of SM usually occurs before the age of 5 years (American Psychiatric Association, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref21">3</reflink>]) and is manifested when the child begins to feel anxious in social interactions, especially when entering nursery school. Thus, the disorder may not come to clinical attention until the age at which the child enters school (American Psychiatric Association, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref22">3</reflink>]; Muris & Ollendick, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref23">31</reflink>]), because the disorder is often mistaken for excessive shyness, or not identified at all. Consequently, one cannot ignore the role of the school and its dynamics in this disorder.</p> <p>The literature reports many studies carried out on children affected by SM. Some of these have focused on the behavioral, emotional, and cognitive characteristics of students with SM (Busse & Downey, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref24">7</reflink>]; Kristensen, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref25">24</reflink>]; Schwartz & Shipon‐Blum, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref26">40</reflink>]; Shipon‐Blum, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref27">43</reflink>]). For instance, studies that compared the rates of internalizing and externalizing problems in children with SM to those of matched controls found that children with SM experience significantly higher levels of internalizing problems (e.g., shyness, inhibition) and symptoms of anxiety, social anxiety disorder, and other anxiety disorders when compared to controls (e.g., Alyanaka et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref28">1</reflink>]; Kristensen, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref29">24</reflink>]; Vecchio & Kearney, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref30">47</reflink>]). However, regarding externalizing behaviors, the results are not consistent. Some studies pointed out that parent‐reported aggressive and externalizing behavior problems were higher among children with SM than among the control children (e.g., Alyanaka et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref31">1</reflink>]; Kristensen, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref32">24</reflink>]), but other studies found that children with SM did not demonstrate higher rates of oppositional behavior (e.g., hyperactivity, negativism, defiance, and opposition) in either the home or school setting compared to the controls (Cunningham, McHolm, & Boyle, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref33">14</reflink>]; Cunningham, McHolm, Boyle, & Patel, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref34">13</reflink>]; Vecchio & Kearney, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref35">47</reflink>]). In other studies, teachers rated children with SM significantly lower on subscales of attention‐deficit hyperactivity disorder and oppositional defiant disorder compared to the controls (Cunningham et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref36">13</reflink>]).</p> <p>Other studies focused on the social relationships of students with SM (e.g., Cunningham et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref37">14</reflink>]; Diliberto & Kearney [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref38">15</reflink>]; Sharkey & McNicholas, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref39">42</reflink>]). Some of these studies pointed out that children with SM may show less social competence in both nonverbal and verbal social situations because of their withdrawal from social interactions (Carbone et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref40">8</reflink>]), may have difficulty making friends (e.g., Diliberto & Kearney, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref41">15</reflink>]; Sharkey & McNicholas, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref42">42</reflink>]), and may be rejected by peers or bullied (e.g., Sharkey & McNicholas, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref43">42</reflink>]). However, other studies found that children with SM were not victimized by peers any more than the control children (e.g., Cunningham et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref44">13</reflink>]). Finally, studies that examined social problems using self‐report found that children with SM believed they were accepted and well‐liked by peers despite parent‐reported deficits of social skills (Cunningham et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref45">14</reflink>]).</p> <p>On the other hand, few studies have considered the difficulties that the child with SM encounters at school. Some of these studies found that the academic performance of children with SM was significantly lower than that of their peers (e.g., Bergman, Piacentini, & McCracken, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref46">4</reflink>]; Nowakowski et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref47">32</reflink>]). Other studies found that children with SM did well academically or that there were no differences in academic achievement between children with SM and the control group (e.g., Cunningham et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref48">13</reflink>]). At the same time, there are no studies examining the relationship between the teacher and classmates and these affected children. In primary school, the interference of SM in learning and socialization becomes more evident (Sloan, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref49">44</reflink>]). School is therefore an extremely important setting for the child affected by this disorder, being the context for the majority of children with SM (Kehle & Bray, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref50">22</reflink>]) and often where the impairment is most severe (Steinhausen et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref51">45</reflink>]). Whereas children with SM speak with members of the family and some friends, not all of them talk to their teachers (Viana et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref52">48</reflink>]).</p> <p>For the infant schoolteacher, paying attention to the problem is therefore fundamental, given the importance that early diagnosis and intervention can have in bringing about a favorable outcome (Schwartz & Shipon‐Blum, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref53">40</reflink>]) and in the process of inclusion and integration in class. In fact, the school context causes these children very high anxiety levels as a result of constant performance demands, most of which are related to verbal communication. For an anxious child, being at school and communicating with classmates and teachers can be an impossible enterprise, or at least be perceived as such, and those who do not interact verbally in the school environment often exhibit greater difficulty engaging in learning and social relationships with peers and teachers (Busse & Downey, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref54">7</reflink>]; Crundwell, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref55">12</reflink>]).</p> <p>The literature shows that the quality of the student–teacher relationship is a crucial factor in preschool and school‐age children's development of socioemotional skills (Collins, O'Connor, Supplee, & Shaw, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref56">11</reflink>]; Longobardi, Pasta, Gastaldi, & Prino, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref57">27</reflink>]), effort and scholastic achievement (Quaglia, Gastaldi, Prino, Pasta, & Longobardi, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref58">37</reflink>]; Ruzek et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref59">39</reflink>]), adaptation to the class, and the integration of foreign students and students with disabilities (Downer, Goble, Myers, & Pianta, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref60">16</reflink>]; Pasta, Mendola, Longobardi, Prino, & Gastaldi, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref61">33</reflink>]; Prino, Pasta, Gastaldi, & Longobardi, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref62">36</reflink>]). The aim of this study is to consider the effects of the quality of the student–teacher relationship in the presence of a child with SM in the classroom. To minimize the potential detrimental effects of SM on children's social relationships, behavior, and academic achievement, it is essential that school‐based practitioners and teachers consider the importance of relational aspects as a protective factor in the development of these children (Longobardi, Gastaldi, Prino, Pasta, & Settanni, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref63">26</reflink>]; Longobardi, Iotti, Jungert, & Settanni, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref64">28</reflink>]).</p> <p>The following research questions were addressed in this study:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Research question one: What are the differences in perceptions of student–teacher relationships between children with SM and students without SM?</item> <p></p> <item> Research question two: What is the relationship between the presence of SM in children and their social status in their peer groups?</item> <p></p> <item> Research question three: What is the relationship between the presence of SM in children and their teachers' perceptions of their relationships with these students?</item> <p></p> <item> Research question four: What are the relationships between the presence of SM in children and their behavioral problems?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0133390153-2">2 METHOD</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0133390153-3">2.1 Participants</hd> <p>The study analyzed the data of 75 children between the ages of 4 and 10 (<emph>M</emph> = 7.67; <emph>SD</emph> = 1.88), 48% of whom were male. The average mean for children with SM was 7.64 (<emph>SD</emph> = 1.88) and for students without SM was 7.68 (<emph>SD</emph> = 1.88). There were no differences in age between children with SM and students without SM (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref65">1</reflink>, 68) = .004, <emph>p</emph> = .950, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups><emph> </emph>= 0). In addition, it analyzed the data of 15 teachers with a mean age of 50.57 (<emph>SD</emph> = 10.60, min = 30, max = 62), 35% of whom were female.</p> <hd id="AN0133390153-4">2.2 Procedures</hd> <p>The data were collected from 15 nursery and primary schools in Northwest Italy. The school principals gave permission for their teachers to participate in the study, and consent was obtained from each teacher who participated. Prior to data collection, phase 1 included obtaining parental consent to participate and describing the nature and objective of the study in compliance with the ethical code of the Italian Association for Psychology. The consent forms stated that data confidentiality would be assured and that participation in the study was voluntary. The study was approved by the institutional review board of the University of Turin.</p> <p>Phase 2 involved the prevalent teacher for each classroom, which included children with SM, meaning the teacher who spent at least 18 hours per week in that classroom. Each teacher completed a questionnaire about five students from his or her class: one with a clinical diagnosis of SM and four with typical development. The five students in each classroom were randomly selected from those who were participating in the research and represented about 20% of the students in the classroom. The teachers completed the questionnaires during free time during the school day, and the average time to complete all five questionnaires was 50 minutes.</p> <p>In phase 3, the children completed anonymous questionnaires during class time. For children older than 7 years, the data were collected in a paper/pencil format in which a researcher visited each classroom, distributed questionnaires to the five students selected, and remained in the classroom until the students had completed the questionnaires. The researcher answered any questions regarding questionnaire items. The average time to complete the questionnaire was 15 minutes. For younger children, the instruments were administered orally by the researcher.</p> <hd id="AN0133390153-5">2.3 Instruments</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0133390153-6">2.3.1 Young children's appraisals of teacher support (Y‐CATS)</hd> <p>Y‐CATS (Mantzicopoulos & Neuharth‐Pritchett, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref66">29</reflink>]) is a recently developed tool that aims to assess the child's perception of his/her relationship with the teacher with reference to the dimensions typically used in the literature in investigating this construct. These are warmth, autonomy support, and conflict. Following numerous revisions, the current version of the tool consists of 31 items, of which 14 items assess the way in which the relationship with the teacher represents a supporting function for the students (e.g., "My teacher listens to me"); nine items concern the teacher's ability to stimulate the students' autonomy in class (e.g., "My teacher lets me do the activities I want to do"); and eight items consider the perceived conflict in the relationship (e.g., "My teacher gets angry with me"). Children are presented with the questions orally and give a yes/no answer. The reliability for this study was adequate, with <emph>KR</emph><subs>20</subs> values equal to.77 and.73, respectively, for conflict and autonomy support.</p> <hd id="AN0133390153-7">2.3.2 Peer nomination technique (Italian version)</hd> <p>This is a peer nomination questionnaire that allows researchers to plot a graphic representation of the interpersonal relationships present in a class group. It was inspired by Moreno's ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref67">30</reflink>]) sociogram techniques and the Coie, Dodge, and Coppotelli ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref68">10</reflink>]) sociometric strategy for assessing peer statuses in the classroom. It consists of six questions (three positive and three negative) in which children have to nominate three of their peers. The questions are: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref69">1</reflink>) "Who would you want as a table partner?"; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref70">2</reflink>) "Who would you want as a schoolwork partner?"; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref71">3</reflink>) "Who would you want as a field trip buddy?"; (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref72">4</reflink>) "Who would you NOT want as a table partner?"; (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref73">5</reflink>) "Who would you NOT want as a schoolwork partner?"; and (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref74">6</reflink>) "Who would you NOT want as a field trip buddy?" For each child, the sum of the positive nominations received from all peers represented their liking (L) scores. In the same way, the sum of negative nominations received by each child represented their disliking (D) scores. The L and D scores were standardized within each class (Lz and Dz) and used to compute a social preference (SP) score (Lz − Dz) and a social impact (SI) score (Lz + Dz) for each child. Thereafter, following the formula developed by Coie et al. ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref75">10</reflink>]), children were categorized into one of five peer status groups as follows: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref76">1</reflink>) popular (SP > 1.0; Dz < 0; Lz > 0); (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref77">2</reflink>) neglected (SI < −1.0: Lz < 0; Dz < 0); (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref78">3</reflink>) rejected (SP < −1.0; Dz > 0; Lz < 0); and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref79">4</reflink>) controversial (SI > 1.0; Lz > 0; Dz > 0), where Lz and Dz stand for standardized liking scores and standardized disliking scores, respectively. Children who did not fit into any of the previous categories were considered average.</p> <hd id="AN0133390153-8">2.3.3 Strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ)</hd> <p>The SDQ (Goodman, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref80">19</reflink>]; Tobia, Gabriele, & Marzocchi, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref81">46</reflink>]) is a well‐validated behavioral screening questionnaire developed using factor analyses and the nosological concepts that underpin the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric Association, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref82">2</reflink>]) and the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (World Health Organization, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref83">50</reflink>]) classifications of childhood psychopathology. It consists of 25 items and five subscales, which are Conduct Problems, Hyperactivity, Emotional Symptoms, Peer Problems, and Prosocial Behavior. The items are evaluated on a 3‐point Likert scale (0 = <emph>not true</emph>, 1 = <emph>partially true</emph>, 2 = <emph>absolutely true</emph>). The score for each of the five subscales was generated by summing the scores for the five items that made up that scale. Reliability for this study was adequate, with Cronbach's alpha values equal to.73,.85,.61,.64, and.82, respectively for the Conduct Problems, Hyperactivity, Emotional Symptoms, Peer Problems, and Prosocial Behavior subscales.</p> <hd id="AN0133390153-9">2.3.4 Student–Teacher relationship scale (STRS)</hd> <p>The STRS (Fraire, Longobardi, Prino, Sclavo, & Settanni, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref84">18</reflink>]; Pianta, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref85">34</reflink>]; Settanni, Longobardi, Sclavo, Fraire, & Prino, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref86">41</reflink>]) assesses "a teacher's feelings about his or her relationship with a student, the student's interactive behavior with the teacher, and a teacher's beliefs about the student's feelings toward the teacher" (Pianta, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref87">34</reflink>], p. 1). This scale is a self‐report instrument consisting of 28 items developed with reference to attachment theory, especially the attachment Q‐set (Waters & Deane, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref88">49</reflink>]). It is designed to be used with children aged between three and eight (preschool through third grade; e.g., Howes & Ritchie, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref89">20</reflink>]). Items are evaluated on a 5‐point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = <emph>definitely does not apply</emph> to 5 = <emph>definitely applies</emph>. The scale presents three factors, identified as the Conflict, Closeness, and Dependency subscales. The original instrument by Pianta has been adapted and validated for the Italian context (Fraire et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref90">18</reflink>]). This study used the STRS Short Form validated for the Italian context (Settanni et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref91">41</reflink>]). The Short Form consists of 14 items and two dimensions: closeness (six items) and conflict (eight items). The conflict dimension measures the negative aspects of the relationship (e.g., discordant interactions and the absence of a satisfying teacher–pupil relationship). The closeness dimension measures the existence of a warm, affective relationship with a teacher, capable of promoting positive attitudes toward school, open communication, involvement, and engagement. Reliability for this study was adequate, with Cronbach's alpha values equal to.83 for conflict and.89 for closeness.</p> <hd id="AN0133390153-10">2.4 Data analysis</hd> <p>The data were double entered and checked for accuracy and analyzed using SPSS (Version 22.0) for Windows. All of the values for univariate skewness and kurtosis for all the variables analyzed were satisfactorily within conventional criteria for normality (−3 to 3 for skewness and −10 to 10 for kurtosis), according to the guideline suggested by Kline ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref92">23</reflink>]). Therefore, no adjustments were made to the scores for the variables measured in our study.</p> <p>Univariate and bivariate analyses were conducted to address the research questions. To address research question one, several one‐way ANOVAs were performed on the three dimensions of the Y‐CATS, and the partial eta‐squared was estimated as a measure of effect size. To address research question two, the Pearson chi‐squared and Cramer's <emph>V</emph> tests were performed. To address research question three, point‐biserial correlation tests for the presence of SM in children and of the conflict and closeness dimensions of the STRS were performed. Finally, to address research question four, point‐biserial correlation tests for the presence of SM in children and of the emotional symptom, hyperactivity, and behavioral problem dimensions of the SDQ were performed.</p> <hd id="AN0133390153-11">3 RESULTS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0133390153-12">3.1 Research question one</hd> <p>The results of a one‐way ANOVAs test yielded no statistically significant differences between children with SM and children without SM on the children's perceptions of their relationships with their teachers with reference to the warmth, autonomy support, and conflict dimensions of the Y‐CATS (see Table 1).</p> <p>Mean (SD) scores of children with selective mutism (SM) and children without SM for the warmth, autonomy support, and conflict dimensions of Young Children's Appraisals of Teacher Support</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th /><th>Children with SM</th><th>Children without SM</th><th align="left" /></tr><tr><th /><th><italic>M</italic></th><th><italic>SD</italic></th><th><italic>M</italic></th><th><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>F</italic></th><th><italic>p</italic></th><th><italic>η<sup>2</sup></italic></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Warmth</td><td>.83</td><td>.14</td><td>.87</td><td>.11</td><td>1.48</td><td>.228</td><td>.03</td></tr><tr><td>Autonomy support</td><td>.53</td><td>.25</td><td>.52</td><td>.23</td><td>.01</td><td>.958</td><td>.00</td></tr><tr><td>Conflict</td><td>.27</td><td>.28</td><td>.31</td><td>.27</td><td>.18</td><td>.677</td><td>.00</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0133390153-13">3.2 Research question two</hd> <p>The Pearson chi‐squared and Cramer's <emph>V</emph> tests yielded no statistically significant association between the presence of SM in children and their social status in their peer groups (<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref93">4</reflink>) = 4.61, <emph>V</emph> = .25, <emph>p</emph> = .5230). Therefore, there were no differences between children with SM and children without SM in terms of their social status in the peer group, which means there is no link between being popular and/or rejected children and SM.</p> <hd id="AN0133390153-14">3.3 Research question three</hd> <p>The correlation tests identified a negative and statistically significant relationship between the closeness dimension and the presence of SM in children (<emph>r<subs>pb</subs> </emph>= −.41). Following Cohen's ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref94">9</reflink>]) criteria, a correlation coefficient of <emph>r<subs>pb</subs></emph> = −.41 can be interpreted as reflecting a moderate relationship, indicating that the teachers perceived more closeness in their relationships with children without SM than children with SM. Nevertheless, there was no statistically significant link between the teacher's perception of his/her relationship with the student in terms of the conflict dimension of STR‐S and the presence of SM in children (see Table 2).</p> <p>Intercorrelations matrix: Correlation coefficients (and 95% confidence intervals)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th>Behavior Problems (SDQ)</th><th>Emotional Symptoms (SDQ)</th><th>Hyperactivity (SDQ)</th><th>Peer Problems (SDQ)</th><th>Prosocial Behavior (SDQ)</th><th>Closeness (STRS)</th><th>Conflict (STRS)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>−.290001 (−.52, −.02)</td><td>310001 (.04,.53)</td><td>−.12 (.13, 15)</td><td>24 (−.03,.47)</td><td>−.05 (−.31,.22)</td><td>−.410001 (−.22,.42)</td><td>.12 (−.22,.42)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2217520001 <emph>Note</emph>. <sups>*</sups><emph>p</emph> < .05. <sups>**</sups><emph>p</emph> < .01. Selective mutism (SM): 0 = <emph>children without SM</emph>, 1 = <emph>children with SM</emph>. SDQ = Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire; STRS = Student–Teacher Relationship Scale.</p> <hd id="AN0133390153-15">3.4 Research question four</hd> <p>The correlation tests found statistically significant relationships for the behavior problem (<emph>r<subs>pb</subs> </emph>= −.29) and emotional symptom dimensions (<emph>r<subs>pb</subs></emph> = .31). Following Cohen's ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref95">9</reflink>]) criteria, correlation coefficients of <emph>r<subs>pb</subs></emph> = −29 and <emph>r<subs>pb</subs></emph> = .31 can be interpreted as reflecting a moderate relationship, indicating that higher levels of behavior problems were associated with children without SM and that higher levels of emotional symptoms were related to children with SM (see Table 2).</p> <hd id="AN0133390153-16">4 DISCUSSION</hd> <p>From the child's point of view, the findings indicated that there was no difference between children with SM and those without SM regarding the perception of conflict in the relationship between student and teacher. The children with SM did not perceive the teacher as a persecutor or as aloof; rather, they perceived him or her as a source of stress and anxiety, as a nonfamiliar subject, and as belonging to a performance context both in terms of the tasks assigned and the requests to manage relationships (Kehle & Bray, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref96">22</reflink>]; Longobardi et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref97">26</reflink>]). Even the child's perception of a stimulating teacher who is respectful of his or her inclinations and interests did not differ significantly on average in the group of children with SM compared to children who are not affected by this disorder. These findings suggest that the silence of children with SM is not related to the ability of and the propensity for the teacher to spur pupils on to achieve their school goals, which potentially passes for having respect for everyone's interests and attitudes. This provides a supportive dimension to self‐sufficiency both for children with SM and those who do not suffer (Busse & Downey, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref98">7</reflink>]).</p> <p>From the teacher's point of view, the results identified an association between emotional symptoms and the presence of SM in children. This relationship was expected and already evidenced by Bissoli ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref99">5</reflink>]) in the dysfunctional core of inadequacy, fear of others' judgment, shame, and meta‐shame. The anxiety and social phobia associated with SM make the subject more vulnerable and sensitive to the stimuli that reach him, especially within a relationship and, even more so, in a relationship played out in the school context.</p> <p>The relationship with the peer group was not affected by suffering from SM. That is, children with SM were not unpopular, even though they were perceived as having more emotional difficulties. Children with SM were not excluded from the group, from play activities, or from classwork; they can therefore be part of the group and gain a social status by not being seen as rejected. This finding is consistent with those of Cunningham et al. ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref100">14</reflink>]), which found that children with SM believed they were accepted and well‐liked by their peers despite parent‐reported deficits in social skills. It is also consistent with evidence that children with SM were not victimized by peers more frequently than the control students (Cunningham et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref101">13</reflink>]). Children with SM manage to find communication channels that enable them to fit in and to be accepted by classmates in spite of their silence (Crundwell, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref102">12</reflink>]). This result is very encouraging.</p> <p>Regarding the hyperactivity, peer problems, and prosocial behavior dimensions of SDQ, no association was found between these dimensions and the presence of SM in children. These findings are consistent with those of prior studies that compared the rates of externalizing problems (e.g., oppositionality) in children with SM to those of matched controls and found that children with SM showed equal or even lower levels of such problems than the control children (Cunningham et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref103">13</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref104">14</reflink>]; Vecchio & Kearney, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref105">47</reflink>]). However, the available evidence is mixed. For instance, one study found that 10% of children with SM met the full criteria for oppositional defiant disorder (Black & Uhde, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref106">6</reflink>]), and other studies found heightened scores for externalizing problem in children with SM (e.g., Yeganeh, Beidel, & Turner, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref107">51</reflink>]).</p> <p>Apart from the encouraging aspects of peer group inclusion and good relations with the teacher, it is worth noting the perception of the teacher's relationship with children with SM, especially in terms of closeness. Teachers find it easier to interact and establish a close relationship with children without SM than with children affected by SM, perhaps because the silence and lack of eye contact or smiles typical of children with SM do not facilitate the creation and maintenance of a successful relationship with the teacher who, while not perceiving conflict, will not find closeness either. Other studies have already established some of the difficulties teachers face in establishing close relationships with children affected by autism spectrum disorder, hyperactivity, and learning disabilities (Pasta et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref108">33</reflink>]; Prino et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref109">36</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0133390153-17">4.1 Study limitations</hd> <p>Some limitations of the present work should be discussed. The data are cross‐sectional, and therefore it is not possible to draw inferences about cause‐and‐effect relationships. Thus, future researchers could use a longitudinal design to test the causal relations among variables, which might help us understand how relationships between them unfold over time. In addition, social desirability may have biased the results and our findings. Measurement of this variable through the appropriate questionnaire would make it possible to introduce it into the analyses as a control variable, for example, as a covariate.</p> <p>Another limitation of this study relates to the Cronbach's alpha value of the emotional symptom (<emph>α</emph> = .61) and peer problem (<emph>α</emph> = .64) dimensions of the SDQ. Thus, the findings must be verified in other samples in which the quality of their measurement is improved.</p> <p>Finally, it is not possible generalize the findings to children and teachers located in cities or who are from different cultural backgrounds. Consequently, diverse samples should be used to test the generalizability of our findings in the future.</p> <ref id="AN0133390153-18"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref9" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Alyanaka, B., Kılınçaslana, B., Harmancıa, H. S., Demirkayab, S. K., Yurtbaya, T., & Vehidc, H. E. (2013). Parental adjustment, parenting attitudes and emotional and behavioral problems in children with selective mutism. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 28, 9 – 15.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref10" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC : Author.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref6" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC : Author.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref12" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bergman, R. L., Piacentini, J., & McCracken, J. T. (2002). Prevalence and description of selective mutism in a school‐base sample. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 41, 938 – 946.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref13" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bissoli, C. (2007). Il mutismo selettivo. In L. Isola & F. Mancini (Eds.), Psicoterapia cognitiva dell'infanzia dell'adolescenza. Milano, Italy : FrancoAngeli.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref74" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Black, B., & Uhde, T. W. (1995). Psychiatric characteristics of children with selective mutism: A pilot study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 34, 847 – 856.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref24" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Busse, R. T., & Downey, J. (2011). Selective mutism: A three‐tiered approach to prevention and intervention. Contemporary School Psychology, 15, 53 – 63.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref40" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Carbone, D., Schmidt, L. A., Cunningham, C. E., McHolm, A. E., Edison, S., St. Pierre, J., & Boyle, M. H. (2010). Behavioral and socioemotional functioning in children with selective mutism: A comparison with anxious and typically developing children across multiple informants. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38, 1057 – 1067.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref94" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Coppotelli, H. A. (1982). Dimensions and types of social status: A cross‐age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18, 557 – 569.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Collins, B. A., O'Connor, E. E., Supplee, L., & Shaw, D. S. (2017). Behavior problems in elementary school among low‐income boys: The role of teacher–child relationships. The Journal of Educational Research, 110, 72 – 84.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crundwell, R. M. A. (2006). Identifying and teaching children with selective mutism. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38, 48 – 54.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cunningham, C. E., McHolm, A., Boyle, M. H., & Patel, S. (2004). Behavioral and emotional adjustment, family functioning, academic performance, and social relationships in 204 children with selective mutism. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Applied Disciplines, 45, 1363 – 1372.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cunningham, C. E., McHolm, A. E., & Boyle, M. H. (2006). Social phobia, anxiety, oppositional behavior, social skills, and self‐concept in children with specific selective mutism, generalized selective mutism, and community controls. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 15, 245 – 255.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Diliberto, R. A., & Kearney, C. A. (2016). Anxiety and oppositional behavior profiles among youth with selective mutism. Journal of Communication Disorders, 59, 16 – 23.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Downer, J. T., Goble, P., Myers, S. S., & Pianta, R. C. (2016). Teacher–child racial/ethnic match within pre‐kindergarten classrooms and children's early school adjustment. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 37, 26 – 38.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Entwisle, D. R., & Hayduk, L. A. (1988). Lasting effect of elementary school. Sociology of Education, 61, 147 – 159.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fraire, M., Longobardi, C., Prino, L. E., Sclavo, E., & Settanni, M. (2013). Examining the Student–Teacher Relationship Scale in the Italian context: A factorial validity study. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 11, 851 – 882.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goodman, R. (1997). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 581 – 586.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Howes, C., & Ritchie, S. H. (1999). Attachment organizations in children with difficult life circumstances. Development and Psychopathology, 11, 251 – 268.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hua, A., & Major, N. (2016). Selective mutism. Current Opinion in Pediatrics, 28, 114 – 120.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kehle, T. J., & Bray, M. A. (2009). Self‐modeling. In A. Akin‐Little, S. Little, M. A. Bray, & T. J. Kehle (Eds.), Behavioral intervention in schools: Evidence‐based positive strategies (pp. 231 – 244). Washington, DC : National Association of School Psychologists.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY : Guilford.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kristensen, H. (2001). Multiple informants' report of emotional and behavioral problems in a nation‐wide sample of selective mute children and controls. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 10, 135 – 142.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kumpulainen, K. (2002). Phenomenology and treatment of selective mutism. CNS Drugs, 16, 175 – 180.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Longobardi, C., Gastaldi, F. G. M., Prino, L. E., Pasta, T., & Settanni, M. (2016). Examining student–teacher relationship from students' point of view: Italian adaptation and validation of the Young Children's Appraisal of Teacher Support Questionnaire. The Open Psychology Journal, 9, 176 – 187.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Longobardi, C., Pasta, T., Gastaldi, F. G. M., & Prino, L. E. (2017). Measuring the teacher–student relationship using children's drawings in an Italian elementary school. Journal of Psychological and Educational Research, 25, 115 – 129.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Longobardi, C., Iotti, N. O., Jungert, T., & Settanni, M. (2018). Student–teacher relationships and bullying: The role of student social status. Journal of Adolescence, 63, 1 – 10.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mantzicopoulos, P., & Neuharth‐Pritchett, S. (2003). Development and validation of a measure to assess head start children's appraisals of teacher support. Journal of School Psychology, 41, 431 – 451.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moreno, J. L. (1934). Who shall survive? Washington, DC : Nervous and Mental Disease.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muris, P., & Ollendick, T. H. (2015). Children who are anxious in silence: A review on selective mutism, the new anxiety disorder in the DSM‐5. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 18, 151 – 169.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nowakowski, M. E., Cunningham, C. C., McHolm, A. E., Evans, M. A., Edison, S., St. Pierre, J., ... Schmidta, L. A. (2009). Language and academic abilities in children with selective mutism. Infant and Child Development, 18, 271 – 290.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pasta, T., Mendola, M., Longobardi, C., Prino, L. E., & Gastaldi, F. G. M. (2013). Attributional style of children with and without specific learning disability. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 11, 649 – 664.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pianta, R. C. (2001). Student–Teacher Relationship Scale: Professional manual. Odessa, FL : Psychological Assessment Resources.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pianta, R. C., & Walsh, D. J. (1996). High‐risk children in schools: Constructing sustaining relationships. New York, NY : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prino, L. E., Pasta, T., Gastaldi, F. G. M., & Longobardi, C. (2016). The effect of autism spectrum disorders, down syndrome, specific learning disorders and hyperactivity and attention deficits on the student–teacher relationship. Electronic Journal of Research of Educational Psychology, 14, 89 – 106.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quaglia, R., Gastaldi, F. G. M., Prino, L. E., Pasta, T., & Longobardi, C. (2013). The pupil–teacher relationship and gender differences in primary school. The Open Psychology Journal, 6, 69 – 75.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robertson, K., Chamberlain, B., & Kasari, C. (2003). General education teachers' relationship with included students with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 33, 123 – 130.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ruzek, E. A., Hafen, C. A., Allen, J. P., Gregory, A., Mikami, A. Y., & Pianta, R. C. (2016). How teacher emotional support motivates students: The mediating roles of perceived peer relatedness, autonomy support, and competence. Learning and Instruction, 42, 95 – 103.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schwartz, R. H., & Shipon‐Blum, E. (2005). "Shy" child? Don't overlook selective mutism. Contemporary Pediatrics, 22, 30 – 36.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Settanni, M., Longobardi, C., Sclavo, E., Fraire, M., & Prino, L. E. (2015). Development and psychometric analysis of the Student–Teacher Relationship Scale short form. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 898. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00898</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sharkey, L., & McNicholas, F. (2008). "More than 100 years of silence." Elective mutism: A review of the literature. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 1, 255 – 263.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shipon‐Blum, E. (2002). When silence isn't golden: Understanding and treating selective mutism. New York, NY : Global Alliance of Mental Illness Advocacy Network.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sloan, T. L. (2007). Family therapy with selectively mute children: A case study. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 33, 94 – 105.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Steinhausen, H. C., Wachter, M., Laimbock, K., & Metzke, C. W. (2006). A long‐term outcome study of selective mutism in childhood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 751 – 756.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tobia, V., Gabriele, M. A., & Marzocchi, G. M. (2011). Norme italiane dello Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ): Il comportamento dei bambini italiani valutato dai loro insegnanti. Disturbi di Attenzione e Iperattività, 6, 167 – 174.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vecchio, J. L., & Kearney, C. A. (2005). Selective mutism in children: Comparison to youths with and without anxiety disorders. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 27, 31 – 37.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Viana, A. G., Beidel, D. C., & Rabian, B. (2009). Selective mutism: A review and integration of the last 15 years. Clinical Psychology Review, 29, 57 – 67.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Waters, E., & Deane, K. E. (1985). Defining and assessing individual differences in attachment relationships: Q‐methodology and the organization of behavior in infancy and early childhood. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50, 41 – 65.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> World Health Organization. (1993). The ICD‐10 classification of mental and behavioral disorders: Diagnostic criteria for research. Geneva, Switzerland : Author.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yeganeh, R., Beidel, D. C., & Turner, S. M. (2006). Selective mutism: More than social anxiety ? Depression and Anxiety, 23, 117 – 123.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Claudio Longobardi; Laura Badenes‐Ribera; Francesca Giovanna Maria Gastaldi and Laura Elvira Prino</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref107"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1198620
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Student-Teacher Relationship Quality in Children with Selective Mutism
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Longobardi%2C+Claudio%22">Longobardi, Claudio</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8457-6554">0000-0002-8457-6554</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Badenes-Ribera%2C+Laura%22">Badenes-Ribera, Laura</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gastaldi%2C+Francesca+Giovanna+Maria%22">Gastaldi, Francesca Giovanna Maria</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Prino%2C+Laura+Elvira%22">Prino, Laura Elvira</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Psychology+in+the+Schools%22"><i>Psychology in the Schools</i></searchLink>. Jan 2019 56(1):32-41.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 10
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2019
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Student+Relationship%22">Teacher Student Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Communication+Disorders%22">Communication Disorders</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Anxiety+Disorders%22">Anxiety Disorders</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interpersonal+Competence%22">Interpersonal Competence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Children%22">Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Affective+Behavior%22">Affective Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Inclusion%22">Inclusion</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/pits.22175
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0033-3085
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Selective mutism (SM) is a rare anxiety disorder that compromises children's daily life during critical periods of early development. Because school is a prime context for the manifestation of the disorder, the aim of this study was to investigate the quality of the student-teacher relationship and its effects on behavior and work, and on social and relational skills. The sample consisted of 75 children--15 were affected by SM, with 60 in the control group--and 15 teachers. The results showed greater difficulty on the teacher's part to establish a relationship based on affective closeness with a child affected by SM, compared to that with unaffected children. Nevertheless, an encouraging picture emerges of the inclusion and integration of the child with SM among peers and therefore in the class group.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2018
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1198620
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1198620
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/pits.22175
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 10
        StartPage: 32
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Student Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Communication Disorders
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Anxiety Disorders
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interpersonal Competence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Affective Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Inclusion
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Student-Teacher Relationship Quality in Children with Selective Mutism
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Longobardi, Claudio
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Badenes-Ribera, Laura
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Gastaldi, Francesca Giovanna Maria
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Prino, Laura Elvira
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2019
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0033-3085
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 56
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Psychology in the Schools
              Type: main
ResultId 1