View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Transition to School: Adaptation in Young Children with and without Intellectual Disability

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Transition to School: Adaptation in Young Children with and without Intellectual Disability
Language: English
Authors: McIntyre, L. L., Blacher, J., Baker, B. L.
Source: Journal of Intellectual Disability Research. May 2006 50(5):349-361.
Availability: Blackwell Publishing. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8599; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: customerservices@blackwellpublishing.com; Web site: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/jnl_default.asp.
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 13
Publication Date: 2006
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Grade 1
Kindergarten
Descriptors: Student Adjustment, Behavior Problems, Adjustment (to Environment), Teacher Student Relationship, Kindergarten, Grade 1, Individual Differences, Young Children, Mental Retardation, Child Behavior, Interpersonal Competence, Self Control
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2006.00783.x
ISSN: 0964-2633
Abstract: Background: Previous research has highlighted the importance of the transition to school for young children and their families. A child's successful adaptation to school is likely influenced by a number of factors, including academic, social, emotional, behavioural and cognitive competencies. Children with intellectual disability (ID) may be at heightened risk for early school difficulties, in part due to their deficits in cognitive and adaptive behaviours. Methods: Factors associated with the adaptive transition to school in young children with (n=24) and without (n=43) ID were examined. Adaptive transitions were defined as having few teacher-reported problem behaviours and positive student-teacher relationships. Child self-regulatory skills and both parent- and teacher-reported social skills were evaluated to determine if they predicted positive adaptation in school for 5- to 6-year-old children. Data were gathered from child assessments, parent reports on standardized measures, direct observations of delay of gratification tasks and teacher reports on standardized measures. Results: Children with ID had significantly more teacher-reported problem behaviour, poorer overall student-teacher relationships, fewer parent- and teacher-reported social skills and fewer self-regulation skills than typically developing children. Self-regulation at child age 36months (latency to touch a desired toy) was significantly related to adaptation to school, as were parent and teacher reports of social skills. Social skills significantly predicted adaptation to school, even after accounting for the effects of child IQ and adaptive behaviour. Conclusions: Children with ID had less positive early school experiences, as indicated by multiple indices of adaptation to school. Fostering early social skills may be an important target for increasing the positive adaptation to school for young children, especially those with ID.
Abstractor: Author
Number of References: 56
Entry Date: 2006
Accession Number: EJ732957
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEA-NU3-r4GN9jj80428Z7jAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDPshcLKoEXtZHOpmMAIBEICBmqTWKL9sgi-QY2eIjwgCgaGo2DkTs10esczuanYsXzj6zk23u4nxxDPtqrP18jAqcfcTVEZOoV5xHAda8OkS7G6-jmxYEEfd0flAQQbaUA0DrbWmapHNvgq94BdUPSMBbR7CmychpmujkDWjTyN033gu_LAHCu378t--HoE6mKCah6dgyaG2S0dc5_wdlC_MchjGes6xupodm5s=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0020340336;eul01may.06;2019Jun04.10:27;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0020340336-1">The transition to school: adaptation in young children with and without intellectual disability. </title> <p>Background  Previous research has highlighted the importance of the transition to school for young children and their families. A child's successful adaptation to school is likely influenced by a number of factors, including academic, social, emotional, behavioural and cognitive competencies. Children with intellectual disability (ID) may be at heightened risk for early school difficulties, in part due to their deficits in cognitive and adaptive behaviours. Methods  Factors associated with the adaptive transition to school in young children with (n = 24) and without (n = 43) ID were examined. Adaptive transitions were defined as having few teacher‐reported problem behaviours and positive student–teacher relationships. Child self‐regulatory skills and both parent‐ and teacher‐reported social skills were evaluated to determine if they predicted positive adaptation in school for 5‐ to 6‐year‐old children. Data were gathered from child assessments, parent reports on standardized measures, direct observations of delay of gratification tasks and teacher reports on standardized measures. Results  Children with ID had significantly more teacher‐reported problem behaviour, poorer overall student–teacher relationships, fewer parent‐ and teacher‐reported social skills and fewer self‐regulation skills than typically developing children. Self‐regulation at child age 36 months (latency to touch a desired toy) was significantly related to adaptation to school, as were parent and teacher reports of social skills. Social skills significantly predicted adaptation to school, even after accounting for the effects of child IQ and adaptive behaviour. Conclusions  Children with ID had less positive early school experiences, as indicated by multiple indices of adaptation to school. Fostering early social skills may be an important target for increasing the positive adaptation to school for young children, especially those with ID.</p> <p>Keywords: kindergarten; self regulation; social skills; transition; developmental disabilities</p> <p>One of the first rights of passage children experience in their formative years is the transition to school. With this shift brings increased responsibility, expectations and opportunities for success and failure for children and their families. Successful adaptation to school is likely influenced by a number of factors, including academic, social, emotional, behavioural and cognitive competencies ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref1">41</reflink>]), as well as family factors, such as stress and coping mechanisms ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref2">7</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref3">25</reflink>]). As children enter school, they are expected to adapt to teacher and classroom demands, navigate through a barrage of peer interactions, and develop autonomy and identities of their own. Children's positive, communicative relationships with teachers ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref4">45</reflink>]) and their friendships and social status with their peers ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref5">24</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref6">11</reflink>]) are important factors in children's early school and classroom adjustment. With the developmental flux that children of this age are experiencing, it is important that the transition to school be as smooth as possible.</p> <p>The present paper examines transition to school in a sample of 5‐ and 6‐year‐old children with and without intellectual disability (ID). Children with ID, by nature of their cognitive impairments and deficits in adaptive behaviour, are at risk for a number of negative outcomes, including academic difficulties, social‐emotional problems, and behavioural and/or mental health problems ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref7">42</reflink>]), all likely detrimental to children's school experiences. The last of these concerns, behavioural and/or mental health challenges, may be particularly detrimental to positive school experiences, and unfortunately can loom as a problem later on.</p> <p>Epidemiological studies suggest that individuals with intellectual/developmental disabilities are three–five times more likely to have a severe behaviour disorder or mental health problem than their typically developing (TD) counterparts ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref8">20</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref9">48</reflink>]) placing a great deal of stress on caregivers ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref10">34</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref11">5</reflink>]). This stress that caregivers experience at home likely generalizes to other settings, namely, the classroom environment, introducing a new challenge to teachers and fellow students alike. Thus, the transition to school is an important step for children and their families ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref12">41</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref13">9</reflink>]).</p> <p>This age period encompassing the transition to school is also an important developmental period, as it is a time that children begin to acquire and practise new skills, and use language to mediate social relationships ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref14">8</reflink>]). The developmental context of the transition to school also includes emerging self‐regulatory behaviours and social skills, both of which may explain why some children experience more adaptive transitions to school than others. It is therefore important to understand the relationships between child developmental functioning, self‐regulation and social skills as they relate to this critical transition period for children and their families.</p> <hd id="AN0020340336-2">Self‐regulation</hd> <p>One developmental factor, often discussed as a variable related to the emergence of maladaptive behaviour, is the ability to regulate one's behaviours and emotions ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref15">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref16">17</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref17">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref18">8</reflink>]). While there is no single definition of self‐regulation, many include both behavioural and emotional aspects in the construct. Behavioural regulation typically reflects external behaviours (e.g. compliance with adult directives, use of management strategies), while emotional regulation often encompasses both the internal and external control of affective responses and arousal ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref19">15</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref20">8</reflink>]). Like most developmental processes, the expression of self‐regulatory behaviour changes over time across the developmental periods ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref21">28</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref22">29</reflink>]).</p> <p>Adaptive self‐regulation involves controlling one's emotions and behaviours in potentially stressful situations. Thus, the result of dysregulation may be the development of emotional and/or behavioural disorders in children ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref23">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref24">16</reflink>]). Self‐regulation has been implicated in the development of a number of adaptive behaviours, including joint attention, prosocial behaviour, behaviour control and problem solving (all skills necessary in the school environment). Although there is evidence to suggest that very young children (infants and toddlers) learn to regulate their behaviours based on internal drives and adjusting sensory input, true voluntary control does not begin until toddlerhood and becomes even more critical and developed in the pre‐school years ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref25">28</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref26">30</reflink>]), providing a rationale, and sense of urgency, to the study of self‐regulatory behaviour in the pre‐school years (child age 3–5 years). Self‐regulation skills likely impact the expression of problem behaviours ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref27">15</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref28">56</reflink>]). Furthermore, self‐regulation may be closely related to social skills, which are necessary to negotiate demands from family, other adults in caregiving or instructional roles (e.g. teachers) and peers ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref29">26</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref30">21</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0020340336-3">Social skills</hd> <p>Social skills are the specific behaviours that one uses to perform social tasks competently ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref31">33</reflink>]). It has been well established that children are at risk for emotional or behavioural problems when they lack social competence, and may develop a number of negative academic and/or socio‐behavioural outcomes ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref32">36</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref33">46</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref34">56</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref35">21</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref36">22</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref37">31</reflink>]). Patterson and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref38">37</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref39">38</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref40">39</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref41">47</reflink>]) argue that school‐aged children at risk for emotional or behavioural problems utilize a coercive interaction pattern, placing them at greater risk for teacher and peer rejection. Such coercive, negative behaviour patterns are diametrically opposed to teacher and peer expectations for adaptive behaviour ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref42">26</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref43">56</reflink>]). Because many of these students use coercive negotiation patterns and instrumental aggression as efficient means of receiving desired outcomes ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref44">56</reflink>]), prosocial behaviour does not have the opportunity to develop. Furthermore, many parents of at‐risk children do not adequately teach prosocial behaviours at home, nor do they reinforce those behaviours in their children ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref45">56</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref46">13</reflink>]). In young children, particularly those who have ID, appropriate communicative social responses may not be fluent, or even available in their behavioural repertoires, making maladaptive behaviour more effective in communicating their needs at home or school.</p> <p>Because self‐regulation and prosocial behaviour are likely important to positive school adjustment ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref47">56</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref48">17</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref49">50</reflink>]), it is probable that children with ID will lag far behind their peers in this domain ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref50">14</reflink>]). Not only are children with ID at risk for negative <emph>academic</emph> outcomes, but may also be predisposed to developing behavioural or mental health problems that further impede the development of positive schooling experiences. It is important to understand the relationships between self‐regulatory processes and prosocial behaviour that may serve to buffer the development of behaviour problems ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref51">56</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref52">14</reflink>]) in children with and without ID. As children transition to school, their individual strengths and weaknesses will become more salient, in part, due to the demands and expectations placed on them. How children, parents and teachers adapt to this transition is crucial ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref53">44</reflink>]).</p> <p>The overarching goal of this study was to identify child characteristics that are predictive of early adaptation to school. The first research question asked whether intellectually delayed and TD children differed on adaptation to school and on two possible predictors: self‐regulation and social skills. Three specific research questions then asked: Do child characteristics of IQ, adaptive behaviour and/or gender predict adaptation to school; Does child self‐regulation predict adaptation to school; and Do child parent‐ and teacher‐reported social skills predict adaptation to school?</p> <hd id="AN0020340336-4">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0020340336-5">Participants</hd> <p>Participants were 67 children, their mothers and their teachers, who were recruited as part of a larger longitudinal multi‐site study in the United States investigating parent, family and child contributions to the emergence of behaviour disorders in young children with ID. Participants with developmental delay/ID were recruited for the larger study from State Regional Centers, diagnostic centres and early childhood centres. TD children were recruited from pre‐schools, campus day care centres and other community programmes. Children meeting inclusion criteria for the developmental delay/ID group had <emph>Bayley Scales of Infant Development‐II</emph> (<emph>BSID‐II</emph>; [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref54">6</reflink>]) Mental Development Inventory (MDI) standard scores of 40–75. The <emph>BSID‐II</emph>, an established measure of cognitive ability, was administered to each child at about age 3 years by trained research assistants. Children who were non‐ambulatory and/or had severe, documented neurological impairment were excluded. Children with diagnoses of autism were also excluded. The typical comparison group was comprised of children scoring 85+ on the <emph>BSID‐II</emph> MDI and not born prematurely (≥36 weeks at birth). The present sample was a subsample of the larger study, drawing participants from southern California counties only (e.g. Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino).</p> <p>Family assessments were completed at child age 36, 48 and 60 months. The present paper uses data from the 60‐month assessment, with one exception – a measure of early self‐regulation at 36 months. Table 1 displays demographic information by disability status groups (ID vs. TD) at child age 60 months. The determination of whether the child had an ID at age 5 was based on cut‐scores on the <emph>Stanford‐Binet Intelligence Scale‐4th Edition</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref55">53</reflink>]) 5‐year‐old administration. Children scoring at or above 84 on the Composite Standard Age Score (SAS) were classified as TD. Children with scores of 75 or below were considered to have an ID resulting in 24 children with ID and 43 TD children. Children with scores of 76–83 were not included in the current investigation. As demonstrated in Table 1, the ID and TD groups were similar in terms of the number of siblings in the families, gender of participants and race/ethnic background. Differences between the two disability status groups were evident in school‐related services.</p> <p>1 Demographics by disability status (ID vs. TD) (n = 67)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th /><th><bold>Disability status</bold></th><th><bold><italic>t</italic> or χ<sup>2</sup></bold></th></tr><tr><th><bold>ID (<italic>n</italic> = 24)</bold></th><th><bold>TD (<italic>n</italic> = 43)</bold></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Child variables</td></tr><tr><td>Gender (% male)</td><td>62.5</td><td>60.5</td><td>χ<sup>2</sup> = 0.03</td></tr><tr><td>Race (% Caucasian/white)</td><td>66.7</td><td>55.8</td><td>χ<sup>2</sup> = 0.75</td></tr><tr><td>Siblings (% only child)</td><td>33.3</td><td>34.9</td><td>χ<sup>2</sup> = 0.02</td></tr><tr><td>School attendance (% public)</td><td>87.5</td><td>60.5</td><td>χ<sup>2</sup> = 5.38*</td></tr><tr><td>Grade (% kindergarten)</td><td>4.2</td><td>58.1</td><td>χ<sup>2</sup> = 18.89***</td></tr><tr><td>Special education (% spec. ed.)</td><td>83.3</td><td>2.3</td><td>χ<sup>2</sup> = 46.97***</td></tr><tr><td>Mean age in years (SD)</td><td>5.3 (0.36)</td><td>5.6 (0.47)</td><td><italic> t</italic> = 2.97**</td></tr><tr><td>Mean Stanford‐Binet IQ (SD)</td><td>54.1 (12.1)</td><td>105.9 (12.1)</td><td><italic> t</italic> = 16.76***</td></tr><tr><td>Mean Vineland Adap. Bx (SD)</td><td>59.0 (9.9)</td><td>104.7 (17.5)</td><td><italic> t</italic> = 11.76***</td></tr><tr><td>Parent and family variables</td></tr><tr><td>Marital status (% married)</td><td>83.3</td><td>86.0</td><td>χ<sup>2</sup> = 0.09</td></tr><tr><td>Mom education (% BA/BS)</td><td>33.3</td><td>60.5</td><td>χ<sup>2</sup> = 4.54*</td></tr><tr><td>Mom employment (% employed)</td><td>54.2</td><td>67.4</td><td>χ<sup>2</sup> = 1.16</td></tr><tr><td>Family income (%$50k+/year)</td><td>54.2</td><td>72.1</td><td>χ<sup>2</sup> = 2.20</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 * <emph>P</emph> < 0.05;</p> <ulist> <item>2 ** <emph>P</emph> < 0.01;</item> <item>3 *** <emph>P</emph> < 0.001.</item> <item>4 ID, intellectual disability; TD, typically developing; Adap. adaptive; Bx, behaviour.</item> </ulist> <p>Most parent and family demographics did not differ by disability status group. The majority of the families had two‐parent, married caregivers. More than half of all mothers worked outside the home and had gross annual family incomes of $50 000 or more. As Table 1 indicates, the only family variable that differed across disability status groups was maternal education, with a larger percentage of mothers of typical children obtaining bachelor's degrees. Maternal education did not significantly relate to parent‐ or teacher‐reported social skills, child self‐regulation behaviour or school outcome measures, and therefore was not covaried in subsequent analyses.</p> <hd id="AN0020340336-6">Procedures</hd> <p>When the child was 60 months, mothers completed several parent‐report measures of their child's maladaptive and adaptive behavioural functioning. Also at that time, the child's cognitive abilities and self‐regulatory skills were measured in a series of structured laboratory activities. During the spring of the child's school year (child age 60–72 months), the student's teacher was contacted by the parent to complete a general school demographic form, a structured behaviour rating scale, a social skills assessment and a measurement of teacher–student relationship for that individual child. At the time of the school assessment, the child's mother also completed a social skills questionnaire. Parents were paid $40 for their participation and teachers were paid $25 for their participation.</p> <hd id="AN0020340336-7">Instruments</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0020340336-8">Child developmental functioning</hd> <p> <bold>Intelligence. </bold> The <emph>Stanford‐Binet</emph> is a standardized test of intelligence routinely used with children within this age range and is appropriate for TD children and children with ID. Eight subtests most appropriate for 5‐year‐old children were used in the present study (Vocabulary, Comprehension, Absurdities, Pattern Analysis, Copying, Quantitative, Bead Memory and Memory for Sentences). The Composite SAS was used in all analyses. The Composite SAS (M = 100; SD = 16) has extremely high internal consistency, with KR‐20 reliability coefficients ranging from 0.95–0.99 across age groups. Sufficient evidence for validity is presented in the technical manual ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref56">53</reflink>]).</p> <p> <bold>Adaptive functioning. </bold> Adaptive functioning at child age 60 months was measured using the <emph>Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref57">51</reflink>]). The Vineland is a structured interview pertaining to individuals with or without disabilities to assess adaptive behaviour. Mothers served as the primary respondent on this instrument. The subscales are: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref58">1</reflink>) Communication; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref59">2</reflink>) Daily Living Skills; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref60">3</reflink>) Socialization; and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref61">4</reflink>) Motor Skills. These subscales were combined to make up the Adaptive Behavior Composite standard score (M = 100; SD = 15), with a reported alpha coefficient of 0.92.</p> <hd id="AN0020340336-9">Child self‐regulatory and social skills</hd> <p> <bold>Self‐regulation. </bold> At child age 36 months and 60 months, the mother–child dyad was videotaped (from an adjacent observation room) while interacting for approximately 40 min in a laboratory playroom during a series of structured and unstructured activities. For the purposes of this investigation, only the 3‐min <emph>delay of gratification</emph> task was coded and used for data analyses. In the <emph>delay of gratification task</emph> (developed by [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref62">55</reflink>]), the child was presented with an interesting‐looking toy (a different toy at each age) covered up by a blanket. The child was seated directly in front of the covered toy within arms reach. The child was told that he/she would be able to play with the toy, but that he/she would need to wait until the experimenter and child's mother returned. The child was asked not to touch or peek under the blanket until the experimenter and child's mother returned to the room. After this task, the child was allowed to play with the toy for 5 min. This laboratory task was designed to induce minor levels of frustration because the child was directed to delay gratification when introduced to a tempting toy. Latency to touch the desired toy was recorded in seconds (e.g. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref63">40</reflink>]).</p> <p> <bold>Social skills. </bold> Child social skills were evaluated using the parent and teacher forms of the <emph>Social Skills Rating System</emph>, Social Skills Scale (<emph>SSRS‐P</emph> and <emph>SSRS‐T</emph>; [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref64">23</reflink>]). The child's mother completed the <emph>SSRS‐P</emph> Social Skills Scale, which includes 38 items. This scale yields scores that can be converted to standard scores (M = 100; SD = 15). The parent form measures items in four domains: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref65">1</reflink>) Cooperation (10 items; e.g. helps you with household tasks without being asked); (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref66">2</reflink>) Assertion (10 items; e.g. appropriately expresses feelings when wronged); (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref67">3</reflink>) Self‐Control (10 items; e.g. responds appropriately when hit or pushed by other children); and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref68">4</reflink>) Responsibility (eight items; e.g. asks permission before using another family member's property). The alpha coefficient for the Social Skills Scale total score was 0.92 in the current sample. The child's classroom teacher completed the teacher form of the <emph>SSRS</emph> Social Skills Scale (<emph>SSRS‐T</emph>). Similar to the parent form, the teacher form yields scores that can be converted to standard scores. The teacher form measures items in three domains: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref69">1</reflink>) Cooperation (10 items; e.g. attempts classroom tasks before asking for your help); (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref70">2</reflink>) Assertion (10 items; e.g. appropriately expresses feelings); and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref71">3</reflink>) Self‐Control (10 items; e.g. controls temper) with an alpha coefficient of 0.95 for the Social Skills Scale total score in the present sample. Standardized total scores and raw subscale scores for mothers and teachers were used in analyses.</p> <hd id="AN0020340336-10">School outcome measures</hd> <p> <bold>Teacher's Report Form (TRF; </bold>[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref72">1</reflink>]<bold>)<emph>. </emph></bold> The child's mother requested that her son/daughter's teacher fill out a standardized measurement of student problem behaviour, the teacher version of the commonly used <emph>Child Behavior Checklist</emph> (<emph>CBC</emph>L; [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref73">1</reflink>]). The <emph>TRF</emph> contains 112 items covering a range of behaviour problems (from 'acts too young for his/her age' to 'worries'). For each item, the classroom teacher indicated whether it is 'not true' (0), 'somewhat or sometimes true' (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref74">1</reflink>) or 'very true or often true' (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref75">2</reflink>), now or within the past two months. The <emph>TRF</emph> yields a total problem score, broadband externalizing and internalizing scores, and narrowband scales. The current analyses used <emph>t</emph>‐scores (M = 50; SD = 10) for the broadband scales and the raw score for the Attention narrowband scale.</p> <p> <bold>The Student–Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS; </bold>[<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref76">43</reflink>]). The <emph>STRS</emph> is a 28‐item self‐report instrument that uses a five‐point scale to assess a teacher's perception of a target student, the student's interactive behaviour with the teacher, and the teacher's beliefs about the student's feelings toward the teacher. The <emph>STRS</emph> is designed to be used for children aged 3–8 years (pre‐K through third grade) and contains three subscales: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref77">1</reflink>) Conflict (12 items) measures the teacher's feelings of negativity and conflict with the student; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref78">2</reflink>) Closeness (11 items) measures the teacher's feelings of affection and open communication with the student; and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref79">3</reflink>) Dependency (five items) measures the teacher's perception of the student as overly dependent. Subscale scores and the total score can be interpreted as raw scores or converted to percentiles ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref80">43</reflink>]). This study utilized the total score only. The total index raw score can range from 28 to 140 and is computed using the following formula:</p> <p>Total Raw Score = (72 − Conflict) + Closeness         + (30 − Dependency)</p> <p>The reported coefficient alpha for the total score is 0.89. Sufficient evidence for validity of the <emph>STRS</emph> is reported in the <emph>Professional Manual</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref81">43</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0020340336-11">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0020340336-12">Adaptation to school composite</hd> <p>Adaptation to school was assessed using two school outcome measures, with the child's classroom teacher serving as informant on both measures. School outcome measures were the <emph>Teacher's Report Form</emph> (<emph>TRF</emph> Total Problem Behaviours, Externalizing Broadband, Internalizing Broadband and Attention Problems Narrowband) and the <emph>Student–Teacher Relationship Scale</emph> (<emph>STRS</emph> Total Score). The intercorrelations of the school outcome measures are displayed in Table 2. The <emph>TRF</emph> Total and <emph>STRS</emph> Total scores significantly correlated at <emph>r</emph> = −0.75 (<emph>P</emph> < 0.001). An Adaptation to School Composite <emph>z</emph> score was developed by transforming the total scores of the <emph>TRF</emph> and the <emph>STRS</emph> to <emph>z</emph> scores and combining. The sign was reversed on the <emph>TRF</emph> Total to reflect the direction of the <emph>STRS</emph>. Higher scores on the Adaptation to School Composite <emph>z</emph> score reflected a more positive adaptation to school.</p> <p>2 Intercorrelations of school outcome measures [Teacher's Report Form (TRF) problem behaviours and Student–Teacher Relationship Scale] (n = 67)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th><bold>Variable</bold></th><th><bold>1</bold></th><th><bold>2</bold></th><th><bold>3</bold></th><th><bold>4</bold></th><th><bold>5</bold></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>1. TRF Attention Problems</td><td>–</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>2. TRF Externalizing</td><td> 0.68</td><td>–</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>3. TRF Internalizing</td><td> 0.46</td><td> 0.52</td><td>–</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>4. TRF Total Problems</td><td> 0.84</td><td> 0.87</td><td> 0.68</td><td>–</td><td /></tr><tr><td>5. Student–Teacher Relationship</td><td>−0.64</td><td>−0.72</td><td>−0.62</td><td>−0.75</td><td>–</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>5 All correlations were significant at <emph>P</emph> < 0.001.</p> <hd id="AN0020340336-13">Intellectual disability (ID) versus typical developing (TD) group comparisons</hd> <p>The two disability status groups were compared on measures of adaptation to school. Table 3a displays the means, standard deviations and <emph>t</emph>‐statistics for the ID and TD groups on teacher‐reported problem behaviour. Children with ID had significantly more teacher‐reported problem behaviour (<emph>TRF</emph> Total, Externalizing and Attention Problems) than TD children. A cut‐off score of 60+ on the <emph>TRF</emph> Total <emph>T</emph>‐score (one standard deviation above the mean) was used to classify children as clinically at‐risk. Half (<emph>n</emph> = 12) of children with ID met this criterion, while only 16.3% (<emph>n</emph> = 7) of TD children were classified as clinically at‐risk, χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref82">1</reflink>, _I_n_i_ = 67) = 8.62, <emph>P</emph> < 0.01.</p> <p>3 Problem behaviour, student–teacher relationship, self‐regulation and social skills by status (n = 67)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th><bold>Variables</bold></th><th><bold>Disability status</bold></th><th><bold>t or χ<sup>2</sup></bold></th></tr><tr><th><bold>ID (<italic>n</italic> = 24)</bold></th><th><bold>TD (<italic>n</italic> = 43)</bold></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>(a) Problem behaviour</td></tr><tr><td><italic>TRF</italic> Attention Problems (M, SD)</td><td>15.7 (8.4)</td><td>4.6 (6.3)</td><td><italic> t</italic> = −6.08***</td></tr><tr><td><italic>TRF</italic> Externalizing (M, SD)</td><td>57.2 (13.3)</td><td>46.9 (13.7)</td><td><italic>t</italic> = −3.00**</td></tr><tr><td><italic>TRF</italic> Internalizing (M, SD)</td><td>52.0 (11.3)</td><td>47.9 (10.8)</td><td><italic>t</italic> = −1.41</td></tr><tr><td><italic>TRF</italic> Total Problems (M, SD)</td><td>59.5 (9.4)</td><td>44.8 (12.9)</td><td><italic>t</italic> = −5.32***</td></tr><tr><td>(b) Student–teacher relationship</td></tr><tr><td><italic>STRS</italic> Total (M, SD)</td><td>107.7 (10.5)</td><td>114.5 (12.1)</td><td><italic>t</italic> = 2.62*</td></tr><tr><td>Adaptation to School <italic>z</italic> (M, SD)</td><td>−0.74 (1.3)</td><td>0.51 (1.3)</td><td><italic>t</italic> = 3.80***</td></tr><tr><td>(c) Self‐regulation</td></tr><tr><td>Latency in seconds at age 36 months (M, SD)</td><td>46.1 (69.2)</td><td>114.9 (73.4)</td><td><italic>t</italic> = 3.84***</td></tr><tr><td>Latency in seconds at age 60 months (M, SD)</td><td>80.6 (80.6)</td><td>163.5 (47.2)</td><td><italic>t</italic> = 5.32***</td></tr><tr><td>Delay task 36 months (% waited)</td><td>16.0</td><td>47.6</td><td>χ<sup>2</sup> = 6.81**</td></tr><tr><td>Delay task 60 months (% waited)</td><td>36.0</td><td>88.1</td><td>χ<sup>2</sup> = 19.76***</td></tr><tr><td>(d) Social skills (parent‐reported)</td></tr><tr><td><italic>SSRS‐P</italic> Cooperation (M, SD)</td><td>10.4 (4.2)</td><td>12.2 (2.9)</td><td><italic>t</italic> = 2.14*</td></tr><tr><td><italic>SSRS‐P</italic> Assertion (M, SD)</td><td>12.7 (4.5)</td><td>16.6 (2.2)</td><td><italic>t</italic> = 4.89***</td></tr><tr><td><italic>SSRS‐P</italic> Self‐Control (M, SD)</td><td>10.1 (3.9)</td><td>13.1 (3.2)</td><td><italic>t</italic> = 3.50**</td></tr><tr><td><italic>SSRS‐P</italic> Responsibility (M, SD)</td><td>7.5 (3.4)</td><td>12.5 (2.9)</td><td><italic>t</italic> = 6.32***</td></tr><tr><td><italic>SSRS‐P</italic> Total (M, SD)</td><td>83.0 16.9</td><td>103.4 (13.9)</td><td><italic>t</italic> = 5.26***</td></tr><tr><td>(e) Social skills (teacher‐reported)</td></tr><tr><td><italic>SSRS‐T</italic> Cooperation (M, SD)</td><td>11.3 (4.0)</td><td>16.1 (3.6)</td><td><italic>t</italic> = 4.86***</td></tr><tr><td><italic>SSRS‐T</italic> Assertion (M, SD)</td><td>9.3 (4.0)</td><td>14.3 (3.9)</td><td><italic>t</italic> = 4.84***</td></tr><tr><td><italic>SSRS‐T</italic> Self‐Control (M, SD)</td><td>11.8 (3.8)</td><td>16.0 (3.1)</td><td><italic>t</italic> = 4.48***</td></tr><tr><td><italic>SSRS‐T</italic> Total (M, SD)</td><td>95.9 11.8</td><td>107.5 (11.6)</td><td><italic>t</italic> = 3.77***</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>6 * <emph>P</emph> < 0.05;</item> <item>7 ** <emph>P</emph> < 0.01;</item> <item>8 *** <emph>P</emph> < 0.001.</item> <item>9 ID, intellectual disability; TD, typically developing; TRF, Teacher Report Form; STRS, Student–Teacher Relationship Scale; SSRS‐P, Social Skills Rating System – Parent; SSRS‐T, Social Skills Rating System – Teacher.</item> </ulist> <p>Table 3b depicts the disability status group comparisons on the <emph>Student–Teacher Relationship Scale</emph>. Teachers rated their relationships with children with ID as less positive overall (<emph>STRS</emph> Total) than their relationships with TD children. The disability status differences in teacher‐reported problem behaviour and student–teacher relationships are reflected in the Adaptation to School Composite <emph>z</emph> score. Table 3c displays the two‐group comparisons for the delay of gratification waiting tasks at child age 36 and 60 months. At both ages, typical children performed better than children with ID on this task.</p> <p>Children in the disability status groups were compared on parent‐reported social skills (<emph>SSRS‐P</emph>) (see Table 3d) and teacher‐reported social skills (<emph>SSRS‐T</emph>) (see Table 3e). Parents of children with ID rated their child as having significantly fewer total social skills (<emph>SSRS‐P</emph> Total), cooperation‐related skills (<emph>SSRS‐P</emph> Cooperation subscale), assertion‐related skills (<emph>SSRS‐P</emph> Assertion subscale), self‐control skills (<emph>SSRS‐P</emph> Self‐Control subscale) and responsibility‐related skills (<emph>SSRS‐P</emph> Responsibility subscale) than parents of typical children. Teachers, similar to parents, also rated children with ID as having significantly fewer social skills (<emph>SSRS‐T</emph> Total, Cooperation subscale, Assertion subscale and Self‐Control subscale) than typical children (see Table 3e). Standard scores are displayed for the total scores in Table 3d and Table 3e, and raw scores are displayed for the subscales.</p> <hd id="AN0020340336-14">Child IQ, adaptive behaviour, gender and adaptation to school</hd> <p>Children's IQ and adaptive behaviour scores were highly correlated (full sample <emph>r</emph> = 0.89, <emph>P</emph> < 0.001; ID group <emph>r</emph> = 0.72, <emph>P</emph> < 0.001; TD group <emph>r</emph> = 0.60, <emph>P</emph> < 0.001). The relationships between IQ (<emph>Stanford‐Binet</emph>), adaptive behaviour (<emph>Vineland</emph>) and gender with school outcome measures are depicted in Table 4a. Children with higher IQ and adaptive behaviour scores tended to have fewer reported behaviour problems, more positive relationships with their teachers than children with lower IQ and adaptive behaviour scores. There were significant positive correlations for IQ and adaptive behaviour with the Adaptation to School Composite (IQ <emph>r</emph> = 0.50, <emph>P</emph> < 0.001; adaptive behaviour <emph>r</emph> = 0.53, <emph>P</emph> < 0.001). Higher cognitive and adaptive functioning was related to increased adaptation to school.</p> <p>4 Correlations of child demographics, self‐regulation and social skills with school outcome measures [TRF Attention (attn.) Problems, Externalizing (ext.), Internalizing (int.), Total Problems, Student–Teacher Relationships and Adaptation to School Composite) (n = 67)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th><bold>Variable</bold></th><th><bold>Attn.</bold></th><th><bold>Ext.</bold></th><th><bold>Int.</bold></th><th><bold>TRF total</bold></th><th><bold>STRS</bold></th><th><bold>Composite</bold></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>(a) Child demographics</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td>  0.05</td><td>−0.07</td><td>  0.00</td><td>−0.02</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.05</td></tr><tr><td>IQ</td><td>−0.67***</td><td>−0.38***</td><td>−0.19</td><td>−0.54***</td><td>0.35**</td><td>0.50***</td></tr><tr><td>Adaptive behaviour</td><td>−0.68***</td><td>−0.39***</td><td>−0.22</td><td>−0.57***</td><td>0.41***</td><td>0.53***</td></tr><tr><td>(b) Self‐regulation</td></tr><tr><td>Latency to touch (36 months)</td><td>−0.52***</td><td>−0.30*</td><td>−0.14</td><td>−0.41***</td><td>0.29*</td><td>0.40***</td></tr><tr><td>Latency to touch (60 months)</td><td>−0.42***</td><td>−0.30*</td><td>−0.03</td><td>−0.31**</td><td>0.18</td><td>0.29**</td></tr><tr><td>(c) Social skills (parent‐reported)</td></tr><tr><td><italic>SSRS‐P</italic> Cooperation</td><td>−0.26*</td><td>−0.15</td><td>−0.14</td><td>−0.16</td><td>0.15</td><td>0.23</td></tr><tr><td><italic>SSRS‐P</italic> Assertion</td><td>−0.39***</td><td>−0.24*</td><td>−0.16</td><td>−0.29*</td><td>0.29*</td><td>0.33**</td></tr><tr><td><italic>SSRS‐P</italic> Self‐Control</td><td>−0.18</td><td>−0.15</td><td>  0.04</td><td>−0.14</td><td>0.18</td><td>0.22</td></tr><tr><td><italic>SSRS‐P</italic> Responsibility</td><td>−0.34**</td><td>−0.13</td><td>−0.11</td><td>  0.20</td><td>0.21</td><td>0.24</td></tr><tr><td><italic>SSRS‐P</italic> Total</td><td>−0.34**</td><td>−0.16</td><td>−0.04</td><td>−0.20</td><td>0.22</td><td>0.26*</td></tr><tr><td>(d) Social skills (teacher‐reported)</td></tr><tr><td><italic>SSRS‐T</italic> Cooperation</td><td>−0.81***</td><td>−0.57***</td><td>−0.29*</td><td>−0.68***</td><td>0.59***</td><td>0.69***</td></tr><tr><td><italic>SSRS‐T</italic> Assertion</td><td>−0.35**</td><td>−0.09</td><td>  0.02</td><td>−0.23</td><td>0.13</td><td>0.19</td></tr><tr><td><italic>SSRS‐T</italic> Self‐Control</td><td>−0.72***</td><td>−0.62***</td><td>−0.38**</td><td>−0.70***</td><td>0.67***</td><td>0.75***</td></tr><tr><td><italic>SSRS‐T</italic> Total</td><td>−0.66***</td><td>−0.44***</td><td>−0.20</td><td>−0.55***</td><td>0.43***</td><td>0.55***</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>10 * <emph>P</emph> < 0.05;</item> <item>11 ** <emph>P</emph> < 0.01;</item> <item>12 *** <emph>P</emph> < 0.001.</item> <item>13 Latency correlations use Spearman Rho (all others use Pearson <emph>r</emph>).</item> <item>14 TRF, Teacher Report Form; STRS, Student–Teacher Relationship Scale; SSRS‐P, Social Skills Rating System – Parent; SSRS‐T, Social Skills Rating System – Teacher.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0020340336-15">Self‐regulation and adaptation to school</hd> <p>Self‐regulation was measured using a delay of gratification latency to touch task at child age 36 months and child age 60 months. Latency to touch scores at child age 36 months were significantly correlated with latency scores at child age 60 months (<emph>Rho</emph> = 0.42, <emph>P</emph> < 0.001). At child age 36 months, 36% of all children (<emph>n</emph> = 24) waited the full 3 min and did not touch the desired toy. At child age 60 months, 67% of children (<emph>n</emph> = 45) waited the full 3 min during the delay task.</p> <p>Spearman <emph>Rho</emph> correlations between self‐regulation and indices of adaptation to school are displayed in Table 4b. Latency to touch a desired toy (in seconds) at child age 36 months was significantly related to subsequent teacher‐reported problem behaviour (<emph>TRF</emph> Attention, Externalizing and Total Problems) and overall student–teacher relationships (<emph>STRS</emph> Total). Latency to touch at age 60 months was significantly related to teacher reports of problem behaviour (<emph>TRF</emph> Attention, Externalizing and Total Problems). Furthermore, latency to touch scores were significantly related to the Adaptation to School Composite score (36 months: <emph>Rho</emph> = 0.40, <emph>P</emph> < 0.001; 60 months: <emph>Rho</emph> = 0.29, <emph>P</emph> < 0.05). All relationships were in the expected direction.</p> <hd id="AN0020340336-16">Social skills and adaptation to school</hd> <p>Table 4c indicates that parent‐reported social skills were related to problem behaviour (Attention Problems) and student–teacher relationships (<emph>STRS</emph> Total), as well as to the Adaptation to School Composite (<emph>SSRS‐P</emph> Total <emph>r</emph> = 0.26, <emph>P</emph> < 0.05). Similar relationships existed for teacher‐reported social skills (see Table 4d) with teachers' total social skills scores significantly correlating with the Adaptation to School Composite (<emph>r</emph> = 0.55, <emph>P</emph> < 0.001). Although similar relationships existed between social skills (parent‐ and teacher‐reported) and indices of adaptation to school, parent and teacher reports of social skills (<emph>SSRS‐P</emph> Total and <emph>SSRS‐T</emph> Total) were not significantly correlated (<emph>r</emph> = 0.11, ns).</p> <hd id="AN0020340336-17">Predicting adaptation to school</hd> <p>To examine the relative explanatory power of the variables that were assessed in predicting adaptation to school, a hierarchical linear regression analysis was conducted with child's developmental functioning (IQ and adaptive behaviour) entered first (Step 1), followed by self‐regulation (latency to touch at 36 months) (Step 2), and social skills (<emph>SSRS‐P</emph> and <emph>SSRS‐T</emph> Total scores) (Step 3) on the Adaptation to School Composite. This order of entry allowed assessment of the significance of each effect over and above the combined effects of the previously entered predictors. Table 5 displays the results of the regression analysis. The whole model accounted for 39% of the variance. Child developmental functioning (IQ and adaptive behaviour) accounted for 27% of the variance on the Adaptation to School Composite score. Self‐regulation did not significantly add to the model; however, social skills significantly predicted adaptation to school, above and beyond the combined effects of child IQ and adaptive behaviour (Δ<emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.39, <emph>P</emph> < 0.05). As Table 5 indicates, the variables explaining the most variance on the Adaptation to School Composite were adaptive behaviour (<emph>Vineland</emph> Adaptive Behavior Composite score) and teacher‐reported social skills (<emph>SSRS‐T</emph> Total score). The most parsimonious model, containing only two predictor variables, explained 40% of the variance in Adaptation to School. Adaptive behaviour was entered in Step 1 (<emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.28, <emph>P</emph> < 0.001) and teacher‐reported social skills were entered in Step 2 (Δ<emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.40, <emph>P</emph> < 0.01).</p> <p>5 Summary of hierarchical regression analysis for variables predicting adaptation to school composite (n = 65)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th><bold>Variable</bold></th><th><bold><italic>B</italic></bold></th><th><bold><italic>SE B</italic></bold></th><th><bold>β</bold></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Step 1: developmental functioning (60 months)</td></tr><tr><td>IQ (<italic>Stanford‐Binet</italic>)</td><td>−0.01</td><td>0.01</td><td>−0.15</td></tr><tr><td>Adaptive behaviour (<italic>Vineland</italic>)</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.37</td></tr><tr><td>Step 2: self‐regulation (36 months)</td></tr><tr><td>Latency to touch (36 months)</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.10</td></tr><tr><td>Step 3: social skills (60 months)</td></tr><tr><td>Parent‐reported (<italic>SSRS‐P</italic>)</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.10</td></tr><tr><td>Teacher‐reported (<italic>SSRS‐T</italic>)</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.39</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>15 <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.27 (P < 0.001) for Step 1; Δ<emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.29 (P = ns) for Step 2; Δ<emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.39 (P < 0.05) for Step 3.</item> <item>16 SSRS‐P, Social Skills Rating System – Parent; SSRS‐T, Social Skills Rating System – Teacher.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0020340336-18">Discussion</hd> <p>The first research question, concerning differences between ID and TD groups, was answered in the affirmative for all variables of interest. TD children were scored higher on self‐regulation in a delay task, at both 3 and 5 years of age, on total and subscale social skills reported by mothers and teachers, and on two measures of teacher‐reported school adaptation: problem behaviour and student–teacher relationship. Three times as many children with ID exceeded our clinical risk criteria on teacher‐reported problem behaviours than typical children. While the data reported here are a subset of our larger sample, this result is consistent with earlier studies involving our complete sample of children at age 3 ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref83">4</reflink>]) and age 4 ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref84">5</reflink>]) in which <emph>parents</emph> reported more than three times the number of problem behaviour for children developmental delay/ID than typical children on the CBCL. Results from the present study, taken in combination with the aforementioned results from Baker and colleagues, suggest that the disability status differences in the frequency of problem behaviour in the pre‐school years persist over time (across child age 3–5 years) and generalize across informants (mother, father, teacher).</p> <p>Further analyses explored the relationship of child characteristics to adaptation to school. The first analyses examined whether child IQ, adaptive behaviour and/or gender predicted adaptation to school. Higher IQ and adaptive behaviour were both predictive of more positive adaptation to school.</p> <p>The next analyses examined whether child early self‐regulation predicted adaptation to school. Latency to touch a desired toy at child age 36 months was significantly related to subsequent reports of adaptation to school at child age 5–6 years. Children who waited longer before touching a desired toy that they were <emph>explicitly</emph> told not to touch, fared better on school outcome measures. Early self‐regulatory behaviours, including delay of gratification and joint‐attention, have been predictive of cognitive and social competence in adolescence ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref85">35</reflink>]) and adulthood ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref86">3</reflink>]). These seminal longitudinal studies have focused, however, on <emph>typically developing</emph> individuals. Little to no attention has been given to the importance of self‐regulation in children with ID. The present study extended the work on self‐regulation to a sample of children with and without ID.</p> <p>The next analyses examined whether child social skills predicted adaptation to school. Both teacher‐ and parent‐reported social skills scores were significantly related to adaptation to school, even though teacher and parent reports were not significantly correlated with one another (<emph>r</emph> = 0.11). Low parent–teacher agreement is also reported in [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref87">23</reflink>]) <emph>SSRS</emph> standardization sample of pre‐schoolers (<emph>n</emph> = 193). Although the correlation between the total scores on the parent and teacher versions of the Social Skills Scale in the standardization sample is significant (<emph>r</emph> = 0.25, <emph>P</emph> < 0.001), it is a small relationship. Other studies reporting cross‐informant agreement of behaviour ratings typically report moderate correlations at best (e.g. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref88">32</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref89">52</reflink>]). The lack of agreement across informants may be explained by different contexts, behavioural specificity, varying expectations and different comparisons (e.g. comparing target child to siblings vs. classroom peers).</p> <p>As children transition into more formal academic settings, those who present with dual cognitive and behavioural risk factors likely will have difficulties adjusting to new academic and socio‐behavioural demands placed on them at school. Successful adaptation to school for very young children, particularly those with ID, primarily involves appropriate emotional and behavioural control, along with basic social and functional skills. Indeed, behavioural, emotional and social competencies have been suggested to be just as important, if not more than, intellectual or academic skills in <emph>early</emph> educational settings ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref90">19</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref91">54</reflink>]). Child self‐regulatory, and particularly social skills, therefore play important roles in early educational experiences.</p> <p>The extant literature on social skills is similar to the literature on self‐regulation, in that the existence of these skills in early childhood (i.e. appropriate peer prosocial behaviour) is predictive of positive academic, socio‐behavioural outcomes in older childhood and adolescence (e.g. [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref92">36</reflink>]). While the importance of early social skills has been demonstrated, there is a paucity of research on the social skills in children with ID. The present study examined the impact of social skills in children with <emph>and</emph> without ID in the adaptation to school. The present data suggest that social skills are predictive of positive school outcomes, even after controlling for the child's developmental or adaptive functioning. This finding has promising implications for intervention. Increasing social skills and decreasing problem behaviour may be important targets of early interventions (at home and school) for children with ID, as it is likely the <emph>deficits</emph> in adaptive behaviour and <emph>excesses</emph> in maladaptive behaviour that threaten positive school adaptation, not the ID <emph>per se</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0020340336-19">Practice implications</hd> <p>Based on the results of this study, early intervention efforts should necessarily focus on decreasing children's maladaptive behaviour and increasing their social skills. A combination of child‐focused therapies and family training could be used to address children's early socio‐emotional–behavioural needs at home. As children transition to formal school settings, caregivers can work with school staff as partners in the education of their children. Parents can assist with the transition process by becoming equal partners in decision making and establishing open communication systems across settings ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref93">2</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref94">44</reflink>]). Establishing early family–school partnerships have been described in the literature as an important component to positive child outcomes ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref95">10</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref96">49</reflink>]) and should not be overlooked during the important transition period.</p> <p>A delicate balance between cognitive, social, emotional and behavioural regulatory skills is essential for successful adaptation to school. Children with ID typically do not achieve this balance, creating a population of students in need of special consideration. In light of these children's special needs, US federal law ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref97">27</reflink>]; P.L. 105–17) mandates transition to kindergarten programming (similar, but less specific than the transition to adulthood stipulations) for children identified with developmental concerns. Unfortunately, the supports and services are not clearly delineated nor is the programming uniformly provided ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref98">54</reflink>]). Without the supports in place for 'seamless services' and developmentally appropriate school activities, children with developmental concerns are likely not in a position to be successful in more formalized educational settings (e.g. structured pre‐schools, kindergarten). The challenge, then, is acknowledging the special needs of this population while fostering skills (e.g. social skills) that influence the adaptation to school.</p> <hd id="AN0020340336-20">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>The present work was supported, in part, by grant No. HD21324‐13 from the National Institute of Child Health & Human Development (PI: K. Crnic Co‐Is: B. L. Baker, J. Blacher & C. Edelbrock).</p> <ref id="AN0020340336-21"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref58" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Achenbach T. M. (1991) Manual for the Teacher's Report Form and Teacher Version of the Child Behavior Profile. Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref59" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Adams K. S. & Christenson S. L. (2000) Trust and the family–school relationship examination of parent–teacher differences in elementary and secondary grades. Journal of School Psychology 38, 477 – 97.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref60" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Ayduk O., Mendoza‐Denton R., Mischel W., Downey G., Peake P. K. & Rodriguez M. (2000) Regulating the interpersonal self: strategic self‐regulation for coping with rejection sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79, 776 – 92.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref61" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Baker B. L., Blacher J., Crnic K. & Edelbrock C. (2002) Behavior problems and parenting stress in families of three‐year‐old children with and without developmental delays. American Journal on Mental Retardation 107, 433 – 44.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref11" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Baker B. L., McIntyre L. L., Blacher J., Crnic K., Edelbrock C. & Low C. (2003) Preschool children with and without developmental delay: behaviour problems and parenting stress over time. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 47, 217 – 30.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref54" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bayley N. (1993) Bayley Scales of Infant Development: Manual, 2nd edn. The Psychological Corporation, San Antonio, TX.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref2" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Blacher J. & Hatton C. (2001) Current perspectives on family research in mental retardation. Current Opinion in Psychiatry 14, 477 – 82.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref14" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bronson M. B. (2000) Self‐Regulation in Early Childhood: Nature and Nurture. The Guilford Press, New York.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref13" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Campbell S. B., Shaw D. S. & Gilliom M. (2000) Early externalizing behavior problems: toddlers and preschoolers at risk for later maladjustment. Development and Psychopathology 12, 467 – 88.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Christenson S. L. & Carroll E. B. (1999) Strengthening the family–school partnership through 'Check and Connect'. In: Learning to Cope: Developing as a Person in Complex Societies (ed. E. Frydenberg), pp. 248 – 73. University Press, London.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cillessen A. H. N. & Mayeux L. (2004) Sociometric status and peer group behavior: previous findings and current directions. In: Children's Peer Relations: From Development to Intervention (eds J. B. Kupersmidt & K. A. Dodge), pp. 3 – 20. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cole P. M., Michel M. K. & Teti L. O. (1994) The development of emotion regulation and dysregulation: a clinical perspective. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 59, 73 – 100.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cowan P. A. & Cowan C. P. (2004) From family relationships to peer rejection to antisocial behavior in middle childhood. In: Children's Peer Relations: From Development to Intervention (eds J. B. Kupersmidt & K. A. Dodge), pp. 159 – 77. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crnic K. A., Baker B. L., Blacher J. & Edelbrock C. (1998) Children with Mental Retardation: Family Processes and Dual Diagnosis. NICHD Grant, Four Year Award (R01 HD34871459), Keith A. Crnic, P.I.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eisenberg N. & Fabes R. (1992) Emotion, regulation, and the development of social competence. In: Emotion Social Behavior: Review of Personality Social Psychology, 14 (ed. M. S. Clark), pp. 119 – 50. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eisenberg N., Fabes R., Guthrie I. K., Murphy B. C., Poulin R. & Shepard S. (1996) The relations of regulation and emotionality to problem behavior in elementary school children. Development and Psychopathology 8, 141 – 62.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eisenberg N., Fabes R. A., Shepard S. A., Murphy B. C., Guthrie I. K., Jones S., Friedman J., Poulin R. & Maszk P. (1997) Contemporaneous and longitudinal prediction of children's social functioning from regulation and emotionality. Child Development 68, 642 – 64.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eisenberg N., Gershoff E. T., Fabes R. A., Shepard S. A., Cumberland A. J., Losoya S. H., Guthrie I. K. & Murphy B. C. (2001) Mothers' emotional expressivity and children's behavior problems and social competence: mediation through children's regulation. Developmental Psychology 37, 475 – 90.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fowler S. A., Schwartz I. & Atwater J. (1991) Perspectives on the transition from preschool to kindergarten for children with disabilities and their families. Exceptional Children 58, 136 – 45.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fraser W. & Nolan M. (1994) Psychiatric disorders in mental retardation. In: Mental Health in Mental Retardation: Recent Advances and Practices (ed. N. Bouras), pp. 79 – 92. Cambridge University Press, New York.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gresham F. M. (1998) Social skills training with children: social learning and applied behavioral analytic approaches. In: Handbook of Child Behavior Therapy (eds T. S. Watson & F. M. Gresham), pp. 475 – 97. Plenum Press, New York.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gresham F. M. (1999) Noncategorical approaches to K‐12 emotional and behavioral difficulties. In: Special Education in Transition: Functional Assessment and Noncategorical Programming (eds D. J. Reschly, W. D. Tilly & J. P. Grimes), pp. 107 – 37. Sopris West, Longmont, CO.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gresham F. M. & Elliott S. (1990) Social Skills Rating System. American Guidance Service, Circle Pines, MN.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guralnick M. J. (1999) Family and child influences on the peer‐related social competence of young children with developmental delays. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews 5, 21 – 9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hatton C. & Emerson E. (2003) Families with a person with intellectual disabilities. Stress and impact. Current Opinion in Psychiatry 16, 497 – 501.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hersh B. & Walker H. M. (1982) Great Expectations: Making Schools Effective for All Students. University of Oregon, Department of Special Education, Eugene, OR.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> IDEA (1997) Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Amendments of 1997, PL 95–107, 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kopp C. B. (1982) Antecedents of self‐regulation: a developmental perspective. Developmental Psychology 18, 1199 – 214.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kopp C. B. (1989) Regulation of distress and negative emotions: a developmental view. Developmental Psychology 25, 343 – 54.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kopp C. B. (1992) Emotional distress and control in young children. In: Emotion and its Regulation in Early Development: New Directions for Child Development, no. 55 (eds N. Eisenberg & R. Fabes), pp. 41 – 56. Jossey‐Bass, San Francisco.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kupersmidt J. B. & DeRosier M. E. (2004) How peer problems lead to negative outcomes: an integrative mediational model. In: Children's Peer Relations: From Development to Intervention (eds J. B. Kupersmidt & K. A. Dodge), pp. 119 – 38. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McConaughy S. H., Stanger C. & Achenbabch T. M. (1992) Three‐year course of behavioral/emotional problems in a national sample of 4‐ to 16‐year‐olds: I. Agreement among informants. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 31, 932 – 40.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McFall R. (1982) A review and reformulation of the concept of social skills. Behavioral Assessment 4, 1 – 35.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McIntyre L. L., Blacher J. & Baker B. L. (2002) Behaviour/mental health problems in young adults with intellectual disability: the impact on families. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 46, 239 – 49.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mischel W., Shoda Y. & Rodriguez M. L. (1989) Delay of gratification in children. Science 244, 933 – 777.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parker J. & Asher S. (1987) Peer relations and later personal adjustment: are low accepted children at risk? Psychological Bulletin 102, 357 – 89.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patterson G. R. (1982) Coercive Family Process:: A Social Learning Approach, Vol. 3. Castalia Press, Eugene, OR.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patterson G. R., DeBaryshe B. D. & Ramsey E. (1989) A developmental perspective on antisocial behavior. American Psychologist 44, 329 – 35.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patterson G. R., Reid J. B. & Dishion T. J. (1992) Antisocial Boys:: A Social Interactional Approach, Vol. 4. Castalia Press, Eugene, OR.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peake P. K., Hebl M. & Mischel W. (2002) Strategic attention deployment for delay of gratification in working and waiting situations. Developmental Psychology 38, 313 – 26.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perry K. E. & Weinstein R. S. (1998) The social context of early schooling and children's school adjustment. Educational Psychology 33, 177 – 94.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pfeiffer S. I. & Baker B. L. (1994) Residential treatment for children with dual diagnoses of mental retardation and mental disorder. In: When There's No Place Like Home (ed. J. Blacher), pp. 273 – 98. Paul H. Brookes, Baltimore, MD.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pianta R. C. (2001) Student–Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS): Professional Manual. Psychological Assessment Resources, Lutz, FL.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pianta R. C., Kraft‐Sayre M., Rimm‐Kaufman S., Gercke N. & Higgins T. (2001) Collaboration in building partnerships between families and schools: the national center for early development and learning's transition intervention. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 16, 117 – 32.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pianta R. C., Steinberg M. S. & Rollins K. B. (1995) The first two years of school: teacher–child relationships and deflections in children's classroom adjustment. Development and Psychopathology 7, 295 – 312.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reid J. (1993) Prevention of conduct disorder before and after school entry: relating interventions to developmental findings. Development and Psychopathology 5, 243 – 62.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reid J. & Patterson G. R. (1991) Early prevention and intervention with conduct problems: a social interactional model for the integration of research and practice. In: Interventions for Achievement and Behavior Problems (eds G. Stoner, M. Shinn & H. M. Walker), pp. 715 – 40. National Association of School Psychologists, Silver Spring, MD.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reiss S. (2001) People with a dual diagnosis: America's powerless population. In: The Forgotten Generation: The Status and Challenges of Individuals with Mild Cognitive Limitations (eds A. Tymchuk, C. Lakin & R. Luckasson), pp. 275 – 98. Paul H. Brookes, Baltimore, MD.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rimm‐Kaufman S. E. & Pianta R. C. (1999) Patterns of family–school contact in preschool and kindergarten. School Psychology Review 28, 426 – 38.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shields A., Dickstein S., Seifer R., Giusti L., Magee K. D. & Spritz B. (2001) Emotional competence and early school adjustment: a study of preschoolers at risk. Early Education and Development 12, 73 – 96.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sparrow S. S., Balla D. A. & Cicchetti D. V. (1984) Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales. American Guidance Service, Circle Pines, MN.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stanger C., McConaughy S. H. & Achenbach T. M. (1992) Three‐year course of behavioral/emotional problems in a national sample of 4‐ to 16‐year‐olds: II. Predictors of syndromes. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 31, 941 – 50.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thorndike R. L., Hagen E. P. & Sattler J. M. (1986) Stanford‐Binet Intelligence Scale: Technical Manual, 4th edn. Riverside Publishing, Itasca, IL.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Troup K. S. & Malone D. M. (2002) Transitioning preschool children with developmental concerns into kindergarten: ecological characteristics of inclusive kindergarten programs. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities 14, 339 – 52.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vaughn B. E., Kopp C. B. & Krakow J. B. (1984) The emergence and consolidation of self‐control from eighteen to thirty months of age: normative trends and individual differences. Child Development 55, 990 – 1004.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walker H. M., Colvin G. & Ramsey E. (1995) Antisocial Behavior in School: Strategies and Best Practices. Brookes/Cole Publishing, Pacific Grove, CA.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By L. L. McIntyre; J. Blacher and B. L. Baker</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref97"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ732957
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Transition to School: Adaptation in Young Children with and without Intellectual Disability
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22McIntyre%2C+L%2E+L%2E%22">McIntyre, L. L.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Blacher%2C+J%2E%22">Blacher, J.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Baker%2C+B%2E+L%2E%22">Baker, B. L.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Intellectual+Disability+Research%22"><i>Journal of Intellectual Disability Research</i></searchLink>. May 2006 50(5):349-361.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Blackwell Publishing. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8599; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: customerservices@blackwellpublishing.com; Web site: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/jnl_default.asp.
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 13
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2006
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+1%22">Grade 1</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Kindergarten%22">Kindergarten</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Adjustment%22">Student Adjustment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Behavior+Problems%22">Behavior Problems</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adjustment+%28to+Environment%29%22">Adjustment (to Environment)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Student+Relationship%22">Teacher Student Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Kindergarten%22">Kindergarten</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+1%22">Grade 1</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Individual+Differences%22">Individual Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Young+Children%22">Young Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mental+Retardation%22">Mental Retardation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Child+Behavior%22">Child Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interpersonal+Competence%22">Interpersonal Competence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Control%22">Self Control</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2006.00783.x
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0964-2633
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Background: Previous research has highlighted the importance of the transition to school for young children and their families. A child's successful adaptation to school is likely influenced by a number of factors, including academic, social, emotional, behavioural and cognitive competencies. Children with intellectual disability (ID) may be at heightened risk for early school difficulties, in part due to their deficits in cognitive and adaptive behaviours. Methods: Factors associated with the adaptive transition to school in young children with (n=24) and without (n=43) ID were examined. Adaptive transitions were defined as having few teacher-reported problem behaviours and positive student-teacher relationships. Child self-regulatory skills and both parent- and teacher-reported social skills were evaluated to determine if they predicted positive adaptation in school for 5- to 6-year-old children. Data were gathered from child assessments, parent reports on standardized measures, direct observations of delay of gratification tasks and teacher reports on standardized measures. Results: Children with ID had significantly more teacher-reported problem behaviour, poorer overall student-teacher relationships, fewer parent- and teacher-reported social skills and fewer self-regulation skills than typically developing children. Self-regulation at child age 36months (latency to touch a desired toy) was significantly related to adaptation to school, as were parent and teacher reports of social skills. Social skills significantly predicted adaptation to school, even after accounting for the effects of child IQ and adaptive behaviour. Conclusions: Children with ID had less positive early school experiences, as indicated by multiple indices of adaptation to school. Fostering early social skills may be an important target for increasing the positive adaptation to school for young children, especially those with ID.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: Author
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 56
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2006
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ732957
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ732957
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2006.00783.x
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 13
        StartPage: 349
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Student Adjustment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Behavior Problems
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adjustment (to Environment)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Student Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Kindergarten
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 1
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Individual Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Young Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mental Retardation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Child Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interpersonal Competence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Control
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Transition to School: Adaptation in Young Children with and without Intellectual Disability
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: McIntyre, L. L.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Blacher, J.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Baker, B. L.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 05
              Type: published
              Y: 2006
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0964-2633
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 50
            – Type: issue
              Value: 5
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
              Type: main
ResultId 1