The Social Competence of Students with Learning Disabilities Over Time

Abstract

O ver the past 6 years, we have investigated the social competence of a cohort of students whom we have followed longitudinally from kindergarten. Our primary research questions addressed the extent to which students from this cohort identified as learning disabled (LD) differed from other achievement subgroups (e.g., low achievement, average achievement) on aspects of social competence over time (Vaughn & Haager, in press; Vaughn, Hogan, Kouzekanani, & Shapiro, 1990; Vaughn, Zaragoza, Hogan, Walker, 1993). We were also interested in the extent to which the social competence of youngsters with LD differed significantly from that of other achievement groups prior to and following identification (Vaughn, Haager, Hogan, & Kouzekanani, 1992). When we addressed these questions, we compared the findings regarding students with LD with those of other achievement groups so that we could better understand the extent to which results were characteristic of the LD subgroup or were developmental and descriptive of all subgroups. Thus, if the social competence of students with LD decreased after identification, we could assess the extent to which this decrease was reflected in the performance of other achievement subgroups as well. To guide this investigation, we utilized a model of social competence that was analogous to that of intelligence in several ways (Vaughn & Hogan, 1990). First, we view social competence as a higher order construct that, like intelligence, is difficult to define and consists of several related constructs. Second, although the constructs are separated for the purpose of description, it is really the interaction of these constructs that yields the fullest understanding of social competence. Thus, we interpret the components as a part rather than the whole of our notion of social competence. Third, and perhaps most important to the purpose of this article, we are interested in the study of social competence from an individual-difference perspective as well as a developmental one. We are interested in how social competence varies over time and how the components of social competence, for example, self-concept and peer acceptance, mutually relate at one time and contribute to the development of the other components across time. As described in our previous research, we consider social competence to include the following four components: positive relations with others, accurate/age-appropriate social cognition, absence of maladaptive behaviors, and effective social skills. For the purposes of our research, these components have been isolated; however, we recognize that it is their interrelationship that is likely to yield the truest understanding of social competence. Finally, we recognize that, as with most constructs, the measures we select merely assess elements of the components of interest. Because the results of our studies based on the previously described model of social competence have been summarized elsewhere (Vaughn & Haager, in press), only a brief review will be provided here. The most frequently investigated construct of social competence is peer relations—the extent to which same-age peers accept or reject target students. Peer relations is a frequently investigated construct because of the persuasive evidence linking low social status with negative outcomes, such as emotional maladjustment (Cowen, Pederson, Babigian, Izzo, & Trost, 1973; Roff, 1963); criminality (Roff, 1975; Roff, Sells, & Golden, 1972); and school dropout (Lambert, 1972; Parker & Asher, 1987). An overwhelming number of studies investigating the peer acceptance of students with LD contrast this subgroup with non-LD students as a whole, rather than with achievement subgroups (e.g., other low-achieving students). The most consistent finding, at least with elementary school children, is that students with LD are less well accepted and more frequently rejected by their classmates than are students in the non-LD group. The non-LD compari-

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 38 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.