University of Groningen Teacher-Child Relationships and ...€¦ · School Psychology Review, 2008, Volume 37, No. 2, pp. 244-260 Teacher-Child Relationships and Pedagogical Practices:

University of Groningen

Teacher-Child Relationships and Pedagogical PracticesThijs, Jochem T.; Koomen, Helma M.Y.; Leij, Aryan van der

Published in:School Psychology Review

IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite fromit. Please check the document version below.

Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Publication date:2008

Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database

Citation for published version (APA):Thijs, J. T., Koomen, H. M. Y., & Leij, A. V. D. (2008). Teacher-Child Relationships and PedagogicalPractices: Considering the Teacher's Perspective. School Psychology Review, 37(2), 244.

CopyrightOther than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of theauthor(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

Take-down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.

Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons thenumber of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.

Download date: 17-05-2020

https://www.rug.nl/research/portal/en/publications/teacherchild-relationships-and-pedagogical-practices(6ad7ce5d-582e-436a-beaf-52f7b664c4d8).html



https://www.rug.nl/research/portal/en/journals/school-psychology-review(7c9e6339-a13a-41ca-81ea-643a5684928f).html

School Psychology Review,2008, Volume 37, No. 2, pp. 244-260

Teacher-Child Relationships and Pedagogical Practices:Considering the Teacher's Perspective

Jochem T. ThijsUtrecht University

Helma M. Y. Koomen and Aryan van der LeijUniversity of Amsterdam

Abstract. This study explored the link between teachers' reports of their relation-ships with individual kindergartners and their self-reported pedagogical practicestoward these children. Two samples of kindergarten teachers were examined.They were questioned about, respectively, 117 and 167 children selected associally inhibited, hyperactive, or average relative to their classmates. Multilevelregression analyses revealed significant associations between relationship char-acteristics and teachers' practices independent of children's behaviors. Teachersreported more socioemotional support and more behavior regulation for childrenwith whom they reportedly had unfavorable (dependent, conflicted, or distant)relationships. Teachers' appraisals of children's behaviors partly mediated thelinks between their ratings of the teacher-child relationship and their practicereports. Results qualify the idea that supportive teacher behaviors are a definingcharacteristic of positive teacher-child relationships, and further underline theneed to include teachers' relationship perceptions in practical assessments ofchildren referred for emotional or behavioral problems.

The past decade has witnessed consid- positive or warm relationships are consideredérable research attention for children's rela- to have a protective function. These effects oftionships with their teachers. As a result, there relationship quality pertain to a wide range ofis increasing evidence that early teacher-child school adjustment outcomes, including school

relationships function as dyadic systems that liking, work habits, academic performance,have unique influences on children's develop- social competence, adaptive behavior, andment (Pianta, Hamre, & Stuhlman, 2003). peer-rated liking (e.g.. Birch & Ladd, 1997;

Negative (conflicted or dependent) relation- Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Howes, 2000; Hughes,ships appear to operate as risk factors, whereas Cavell, & Willson, 2001 ; Pianta & Stuhlman,

This research was supported by Grant 41121203 from the Netherlands Organization for ScientificResearch.

Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Jochem T. Thijs, Department of Interdisci-plinary Social Sciences, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, 3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands; E-mail:[email protected]

Copyright 2008 by the National Association of School Psychologists, ISSN 0279-6015

244

Teacher-Child Relationships and Pedagogical Practices

2004). Despite all the evidence for the impor-tance of the teacher-child relationship, theprocesses by which these effects occur are notfully understood. More specifically, little isknown about how teacher-child relationshipsare manifested in teachers' behaviors. Suchknowledge is not only theoretically important,but seems to be crucial in attempts to helpteachers improve relationships with particularchildren. The present study addressed this is-sue from the teacher's perspective. It exploredthe links between teachers' self-reports oftheir relationships with individual kindergart-ners and their self-reported pedagogical prac-tices toward these children.

Relationships between teachers andchildren have been studied from various re-search perspectives (Koomen, Verschueren, &Thijs, 2006). Prominent among these is theextended attachment perspective. Early teacher-child relationships can be conceptualized as"secondary attachment bonds" (Ainsworth,1991). Unlike primary attachment relation-ships, these bonds are not exclusive, longterm, or predominantly affective. However,they can fulfill the important attachment func-tions of providing children with a secure baseto explore their surroundings (Attili, 1985)and of supporting them in times of stress (Pi-anta, 1992; van IJzendoom, Sagi, & Lamber-mon, 1992).

Many studies have relied on teachers'perceptions to assess the relationships withtheir pupils. Often these perceptions are as-sessed along the dimensions of closeness, con-flict, and dependency. These dimensions aremostly examined as separate relationship char-acteristics, but in some studies they are used toevaluate overall relationship quality (Howes,Matheson, & Hamilton, 1994; Pianta, Nimetz,& Bennett, 1997). Closeness refers to theamount of warmth and open communication inthe relationship and can be considered a pos-itive indicator of relationship quality. Conflictand dependency reflect, respectively, mutualanger and negativity, and children's overde-pendence on the teacher. Both are viewed asnegative indicators of relationship quality(Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Pianta, 2001). In the

present study, conflict, dependency, and theabsence of closeness (henceforth labeled "dis-tance") were examined as separate unfavor-able relationship characteristics.

Despite the fact that many researchershave assessed teachers' perceptions of teacher-child relationships, little theoretical attentionhas been paid to how these relationships arerelated to teachers' behaviors toward their pu-pils. Consistent with the extended attachmentperspective, it has been assumed that favor-able teacher-child relationships are character-ized by warm and supportive teacher behav-iors. For instance, it has been suggested thatteachers' ability to provide assistance andwarmth is a key aspect of teacher-child rela-tionship quality (Pianta et al., 2003); that closerelationships motivate teachers to invest inchildren's school success whereas dependentand conflicted relationships hinder efforts topromote a positive school environment forchildren (Hamre & Pianta, 2001); and thatclose relationships enable children to elicitsupport from their teachers (Birch & Ladd,1997). Moreover, some researchers have op-erationalized children's perceptions of theteacher-child relationship in terms of per-ceived support from teachers (Mantzicopoulos& Neuharth Pritchett, 2003; Murray & Green-berg, 2000).

There is some indirect empirical supportfor a correspondence between the quality ofteachers' relationships with individual stu-dents and the quality of their behaviors towardthem. The authors know of three studies thatexamined teachers' observed behaviors as pre-dictors of individual teacher-child relation-ships. Their findings indicated that relation-ship quality is positively associated with emo-tional support (Hamre & Pianta, 2005),positive interaction behaviors (Henricsson &Rydell, 2004), and appropriate instructionalpractices, including positive emotional climate(Mantzicopoulos, 2005). In addition, Stuhl-man and Pianta (2002) examined observedteacher behaviors as outcomes of teachers'narratives about teacher-child relationships.These researchers used a semistructured inter-view to elicit teachers' representations of re-

245

School Psychology Review, 2008, Volume 37, No. 2

lationships with their students, and relatedthese to observations of teachers' behaviors.Teachers who expressed more negative affectduring the interview displayed more instancesof negative affect toward the children. Like-wise, teachers who often referred to issues ofcompliance during the interview (i.e., whetherthe child followed classroom rules) showedless positive affect (Stuhlman & Pianta, 2002).Together these studies suggest that there is apositive link between the quality of teachers'relationships with individual students and thequality of their behaviors toward them. How-ever, each of these studies relied on observa-tions of teachers' practices. The question re-mains whether this association is consistentwith teachers' perceptions of the interactionswith their students.

To understand the effect of relationshipson teacher behaviors or practices from theteacher's perspective, the notion of interper-sonal scripts may be taken into account. Inter-personal scripts reflect the typical patterns ofrelating between self and others and guidehow actions and events in relationships pro-ceed (Baldwin, 1992; Berscheid, 1994; Chen,Boucher, & Tapias, 2006). It can be assumedthat teachers possess professional scripts ofinteractions with their students, which influ-ence how they interpret and handle unfavor-able relationships with them. Unfavorable re-lationship characteristics may indicate specificproblematic aspects of children's interpersonalbehaviors to teachers, and their evaluations ofsuch difficulties may affect their behaviorstoward their pupils (e.g., Kokkinos, Pan-ayiotou, & Davazoglou, 2005; Lovejoy,1996). When children share distant, depen-dent, or conflicted relationships with theirteachers, their behaviors may be perceived asannoying. These children may hinder teachersin doing their jobs, leading to frequent at-tempts to control children's behaviors (cf.Hamre & Pianta, 2001). However, this is notto say that unfavorable relationships are asso-ciated with less support. Distance, depen-dency, or conflict may also signify deficits thatimpede children in their social functioning. Asprofessional educators trained to attend to

children's needs (Chazan, Laing, & Harper,1987), teachers can be expected to respond tothese problems by being extra rather than lesssupportive to children.

In the present study, teachers' self-re-ports of their pedagogical practices towardindividual kindergartners were assessed.Teachers' pedagogical practices denote theiractive attempts to influence children's socialbehaviors. Self-report studies have indicatedthat these attempts can be characterized interms of support and control. Whereas supportrefers to teachers' helping behaviors and at-tempts to promote the child's well-being, con-trol denotes teachers' efforts of directing andmonitoring the child's behavior (Cunningham& Sugawara, 1989; Thijs, Koomen, & van derLeij, 2006). Like other self-reports, teachers'descriptions of their own practices may besensitive to biases and reflect what is sociallydesirable. However, there are reasons to as-sume that these biases are limited. Little isknown about the accuracy of teachers' reportsconcerning their practices toward individualchildren, but there are indications that teach-ers' reports of their general classroom prac-tices reflect their actual behaviors or students'experiences of these. Moderate to large corre-lations have been reported between kindergar-ten teachers' beliefs about appropriate educa-tion and observations of their classroom prac-tices (Stipek & Byler, 1997). Likewise,teachers and students in secondary school ap-pear to agree considerably on their perceptionsof teachers' interpersonal behaviors (Wubbels,Brekelmans, & Hooymayers, 1992). More-over, apart from the issue of bias, askingteachers about their own behaviors can beconsidered relevant for the assessment of themore deliberate and professional aspects oftheir actions (Koomen et al., 2006; Thijs et al.,2006). Therefore, these self-reports can beconsidered useful for a first evaluation of therelational script perspective.

The goal of the present study was toinvestigate the unique links between teachers'reports of their relationships with individualkindergarten children and their self-reportedpedagogical practices toward them. Not only

246


was this investigation deemed theoreticallyimportant, its outcomes were assumed to havepractical importance as well. If systematic re-lations between teachers' relationship andpractice reports were to be revealed, this couldimply that teachers take account of their rela-tionship perceptions in their professional con-siderations. To help teachers devise appropri-ate practices, practitioners should includethese relationship perceptions in assessmentsof referred children. Data were used from twosamples of teachers who were examined inrelation to children selected as socially inhib-ited, hyperactive, and average (neither inhib-ited nor hyperactive) relative to their class-mates. Social inhibition and hyperactivity de-note fairly different types of (problem)behaviors. Whereas socially inhibited childrenshow quiet, wary, and reticent behaviors andtend to go unnoticed in social situations(Asendorpf, 1993; Rubin & Burgess, 2001),hyperactive children show motor restlessness,are frequently off task, and pose serious chal-lenges to classroom education (Hinshaw,1987; Wenar & Kerig, 2000). Thijs et al.(2006) have previously described how teach-ers in both samples reported different peda-gogical practices for the different types ofchildren. These samples were also adequatefor the present research purposes as they al-lowed the examination of the effects of rela-tionship qualities on teachers' self-reportedpractices, independent of large differences inchildren's general behaviors. In addition, themediating roles of two types of behavior ap-praisals were considered: disturbance, the ex-tent to which children's behaviors were per-ceived as disturbing to the teacher, and hin-drance, the extent to which these behaviorswere seen as impeding to the child. Threehypotheses were tested. First, it was expectedthat unfavorable relationship characteristics(distance, dependency, and conflict) would beassociated with relatively high levels of con-trol from teachers. Next, consistent with therelational script perspective, it was hypothe-sized that teachers would report more supportfor children with whom they shared unfavor-able relationships. Finally, it was expected that

relationship effects on control would be me-diated by perceptions of disturbance, and thateffects on support would be mediated byhindrance.

Method

Participants and Procedure

Eighty-one teachers and 284 childrenfrom regular Dutch kindergarten classes wereinvolved. Teachers varied with respect to age(M = 41.51 years, SD = 10.24; available forn = 11) and teaching experience (M = 15.12years; SD = 10.98, available for n = 67). Bothvariables were strongly related (r = .83, p <.01). The mean age of the children was 5.84years (^SD = 0.58). In the Dutch school sys-tem, kindergarten starts at the age of 4 andlasts 2 years. As 26 children were under 5years old, the large majority of the childrenhad at least 1 year of experience inkindergarten.

Teachers and children belonged to twoindependent samples (A and B) from citiesand villages in different parts of the Nether-lands. Sample A consisted of 39 teachers (37women and 2 men) who were examined inrelation to three children each: one child se-lected as socially inhibited (24 girls and 15boys), one as hyperactive (12 girls and 27boys), and one as average (27 girls and 12boys) relative to his or her classmates. SampleB consisted of 42 teachers (40 women and 2men) who were examined in relation to 76children selected as inhibited (35 girls and 41boys), 43 selected as hyperactive (15 girlsand 28 boys), and 48 as average (27 girlsand 21 boys) relative to their classmates.Whereas the three types of children differedwith respect to gender in Sample A (but not inSample B), x^(2, 117) = 13.00, p < .01, therewere no significant age differences betweenthem. In addition, teachers in both sampleswere similar with regard to age andexperience.

To select the children, teachers completedthe modified version of the Behavior Question-naire for 2- to 6-Year-Olds (BQTSYO-M) forall children over 5 years old and if possible for

247


all children in their classes. This instrument isdescribed in the next section. Teachers werenot informed about the selection guidehnes,which were as follows: Children were selectedas inhibited if they scored highest on SocialInhibition but not above the class mean onHyperactivity and Externalizing Behavior; ashyperactive if they scored highest on Hyper-activity but not above the class mean of SocialInhibition and Internalizing Behavior; and asaverage if they scored close to and slightlybelow the class mean of all scales. Approxi-mately 1 week after their completion of theBQTSYO-M, teachers filled out additionalquestionnaires for the selected children.

Measures

Teachers completed screening measuresfor 1,512 children—that is to say, the totalgroup of pupils from which the children wereselected. By contrast, appraisal, relationship,and practice scales were filled out for theselected children only (n = 284). These mea-sures were includeá in a single booklet foreach child in the following order: (a) Hin-drance (the first appraisal scale), (b) the rela-tionship scales, (c) Disruptiveness (the secondappraisal scale), and (d) the practice scales.For all scales, alpha coefficients pertaining tothe appropriate number of participants will bereported.

Screening measures. Children wereselected with the BQTSYO-M (Thijs, Koo-men, de Jong, va|ii der Leij, & van Leeuwen,2004). The BQTSYO-M is a short screeninginstrument containing subscales for social in-hibition and hyperactivity, and broadbandscales for internalizing and externalizing be-haviors. Its items are scored on a 4-point Lik-ert scale ranging from 1 {absolutely not char-acteristic) to 4 {very characteristic).

Social Inhibition consists of 5 items, in-cluding "Tries to avoid attention," "Ratherquiet, does not say anything spontaneously,"and "Easily withdraws." Children in Sample Awere selected with a preliminary version ofthis subscale, which contained 3 extra items:"Little active," "Somewhat on his/her own,"

and "Does not initiate any contact with otherchildren." To select children in Sample B, andin all other analyses, the 5-item subscale wasused. Hyperactivity was measured with 4items, including "Has poor concentration" and"Restless." Cronbach's alpha was .85 for So-cial Inhibition (.87 for its extended version inSample A), and .83 for Hyperactivity. Thebroadband scale for internalizing behaviorconsists of the items of social inhibition and 9other items, including "Cries easily" and "Eas-ily worries." Externalizing Behavior containsthe 4 items pertaining to hyperactivity, and 9additional items, including "Hits or kicksother children" and "Disobedient." The alphawas .90 for Internalizing and .92 for External-izing Behavior.

Behavior appraisals. Teachers' ap-praisals of each child's behavior were assessedwith two 5-point scales, with items rangingfrom 1 {no, certainly not!) to 5 {yes, cer-tainly!). These scales were developed for thisstudy and based on Rutter's main criteria forimpairment, which include suffering, socialrestriction, interference with development, andnegative effects on others (Rutter, 1975). Thefirst scale. Hindrance, pertained to the firstthree criteria (i.e., the effects on the child). Itconsisted of 4 items: "The child suffers be-cause of his/her social behavior," "The child ishappy with the way he/she is behaving" (re-verse coded), "The behavior hinders the childin his/her social functioning," and "The childis restrained in his/her normal social-emo-tional development." Cronbach's alpha was.91 in both samples. Disruptiveness measuredthe extent to which the social behavior wasdisturbing to the teacher. Teachers completedthis second scale after filling out the relation-ship measures (see next section). They had torate the extent to which they thought thechild's behavior was "disturbing," "inconve-nient," and "irritating." The 3 items yieldedalphas of .93 in both samples. To examinewhether both appraisal scales corresponded torelated but separate dimensions, a two-factormodel was tested in Mplus Version 3.13 (Mu-thén & Muthén, 2004). Eit indices for this

248


model were as follows: x^(13, n = 284) =30.403, p > .001; CFI = .989; RMSEA =.069; SRMR = .027. Except for the RMSEA,index values met criteria for good fit (i.e.,CFI > .95 and SRMR < .08; Hu & Bentler,1999). However, as RMSEA values between.05 and .08 indicate fair fit (Browne & Cud-eck, 1993), the two-factor model was consid-ered appropriate.

Teacher-child relationship. Teach-ers' representations of their relationships witheach of the children were measured with apreliminary version of a Dutch adaptation ofthe Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS;Pianta & Steinberg, 1992). The STRS can beused to assess closeness, dependency, andconfiict in teachers' relationships with individ-ual children. These three aspects refer to, re-spectively, the amount of warmth and opencommunication in the relationship, children'soverdependence on the teacher, and the extentto which the relationship is characterized byanger and negativity. The STRS is a widelyused research instrument for which sufficientto good psychometric properties have beenreported. For instance, the three scales Close-ness, Dependency, and Conflict correspond toa three-factor structure, they have acceptabletest-retest reliabilities, and they show signifi-cant relations with measures of behavior prob-lems, competence, and school outcomes(Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Pianta, 2001).

The instrument used in the present studywas a preliminary version of the Dutch adap-tation of the STRS (Koomen, Verschueren, &Pianta, 2007). Like the STRS, it contains sub-scales for closeness, dependency, and confiict.Each scale was measured with 6 items, includ-ing STRS items with clear and unambiguousfactor loadings in previous unreported analy-ses. All teachers completed the scales forcloseness and dependency, but only teachersin Sample B filled out the Confiict scale.Teachers in Sample A did not complete theConflict measure as they were also involved ininterviews, and it was desirable to minimizethe burden of data collection for them. There-fore, they were presented with only one neg-

ative indicator of relationship quality (depen-dency instead of both dependency andconfiict).

As the focus was on unfavorable rela-tionship characteristics. Closeness was re-coded into a scale for Distance (its exact op-posite). This scale included items such as"This child appears to feel safe with me" and"I share a warm relationship with this child."Cronbach's alpha was .82 in both samples.Sample items of Dependency are "This childconstantly needs reassurance" and "This childasks me for help in situations in which this isnot really necessary." The alpha was .87 inSample A and .79 in Sample B. For Confiict,the alpha was .84 (in Sample B). Items in-cluded "This pupil easily becomes angry withme" and "Dealing with this pupil drains myenergy." All items were scored on a 5-pointLikert scale ranging from 1 (no, certainly not!)to 5 (yes, certainly!). To examine the factorstructure of teachers' relationship representa-tions, analyses were conducted for each dataset. Given the size of each sample, principalcomponents analyses instead of confirmatoryfactor analyses were used (see Bentler, 1989).In Sample A, two components were yieldedthat corresponded to Distance and Depen-dency. They explained 59.9% of the varianceand had main loadings over 1.611 and cross-loadings below 1.281. In Sample B, three com-ponents were obtained accounting for 56.1%of the variance. These components corre-sponded to the three relationship scales. OneDependency item ("This child reacts stronglyto separation from me") had a similar loadingon both the Dependency and the Confiict com-ponents (.41). However, all other items hadmain loadings over 1.581 and cross-loadingsbelow 1.321. Thus, overall the principal com-ponents analyses showed that the different re-lationship dimensions could be reasonablywell distinguished in both samples.

Pedagogical practices. After fillingout the relationship questionnaire, teacherscompleted the Teacher Pedagogical PracticeQuestionnaire (Thijs et al., 2006) to rate theirown pedagogical practices toward each of the

249


selected children. The Teacher PedagogicalPractice Questionnaire contains scales for be-havior regulation and socioemotional support.Both subscales consist of 5 items, which arerated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1{absolutely not characteristic) to 5 {very char-acteristic). Behavior Regulation denotes theextent to which the teacher controls and reg-ulates the child's behavior through limit set-ting, behavior reinforcement, and teaching so-cial skills. Two sample items are "I speakindividually to this child about his/her socialbehavior" and "I set clear limits to this child'sbehavior." Socioemotional Support refers toteachers' actions aimed at promoting the so-cioemotional well-being of the child, provid-ing safety and opportunities for social interac-tion. Sample items are "More than other chil-dren I try to make this child feel safe" and "Iintervene if this child feels ill at ease." Bothscales had sufficient internal consistency. ForBehavior Regulation, Cronbach's alpha was.83 in Sample A and .85 in Sample B. ForSocioemotional Support, the alpha was .76 inSample A and .77 in Sample B.

In a previous study involving three sam-ples (including the present), preliminary sup-port for the psychometric properties of theTeacher Pedagogical Practice Questionnairewas obtained. Both the Behavior Regulationand Socioemotional Support subscales corre-sponded to two exploratively derived factorsin different data sets including one child perteacher. In addition, rudimentary support forthe subscales' convergent and divergent valid-ity was provided as both measures showedconsiderable and unique relations to teachers'descriptions of their own practices in a free-interview situation (Thijs et al., 2006). Toexamine the factor structure of the TeacherPedagogical Practice Questionnaire in thepresent data sets, confirmatory factor analyseswere conducted in Mplus Version 3.13 (Mu-thén & Muthén, 1998-2004). In this model,cross-loadings were allowed for two BehaviorRegulation items. For these items, (standard-ized) cross-loadings were substantially lowerthan hypothesized loadings (.35 and .33 ascompared, respectively, to .67 and .63). The

analysis yielded the following fit indices:X^(32, n = 284) = 92.146, p < .001; CFl =0.941; RMSEA = 0.081; SRMR = 0.057.Given the criteria by Hu and Bentler (1999)and Brown and Cudeck (1993), the two-factorstructure could be considered an acceptabledescription of teachers' self-reported practicestoward all selected children.

Analyses

The analyses pertained to teachers inrelation to individual children (i.e., teacher-child dyads). Because each teacher was ex-amined with respect to more than one child,data for single dyads were clearly not inde-pendent. Analyzing dependent data withconventional statistical tests could lead to anunderestimation of standard errors andhence to spuriously significant results (Sni-jders & Bosker, 1999). To prevent this, mul-tilevel analyses were conducted. Multilevelanalysis corrects for dependencies betweenobservations nested within the same units,including measurements within persons (cf.Jenkins, Rasbash, & O'Connor, 2003; Snijders& Bosker, 1999). Moreover, it can handlevariable numbers of observations per unit(Snijders & Bosker, 1999). Multilevel regres-sion models were tested with MLwiN ver-sion 2.0 (Rasbash, Browne, Healy, Cameron,& Charlton, 2004). Two levels were specified:the dyadic level (Level 1) and the teacher level(Level 2).

In the analyses, the effects of behaviorwere partialled out in two manners. First, thedifferences between the three types of childrenwere represented by two contrasts. Contrast 1denoted the difference between inhibited andhyperactive versus average children, and Con-trast 2 denoted the difference between inhib-ited and hyperactive children. In addition,within-group differences in Social Inhibitionand Hyperactivity were included as covariates.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Before the unique effects of relationshipvariables on teachers' self-reported practices

250


Table 1Screening, Relationship, and Appraisal Measures for Inhibited, Hyperactive,

and Average Children in Samples A and B

Measure

Screening measuresSocial InhibitionHyperactivity

Relationship measuresDistanceDependencyConflict

Appraisal measuresHindranceDisruptiveness

InhibitedMiSD)

2.41 (0.62),1.21 (0.30),

2.09 (0.55),2.88 (0.93),

—

3.10(0.73),1.86 (0.81),

Sample A

HyperactiveMiSD)

1.16(0.24X,3.03 (0.60)b

1.94 (0.51),2.93 (0.86),

—

2.99 (0.95),3.61 (0.82)b

AverageM{SD)

1.19(0.20)b1.22(0.23),

1.69(0.48)1,2.26(0.60)b

—

1.67 (0.55)b1.71 (0.70),

InhibitedMiSD)

2.35 (0.71),1.23 (0.28),

2.11(0.60),2.61 (0.75),1.73(0.50),

2.81 (0.73),1.75(0.69),

Sample B

HyperactiveMiSD)

1.09 (0.22)b2.91 (0.73)b

1.94(0.42),^2.88 (0.66)b2.59(0.61)^

2.95 (1.05),3.43 (0.92)b

AverageMiSD)

1.28(0.31)^141 (0.42)^

1.74(0.57),2.38 (0.64)^1.82 (0.55),

2.04(0.85)b1.86(0.83),

Note. Means with the same subscripts in the same sample can be considered equal (p > .05). The screening measuresrange from 1 to 4, with higher scores indicating more problem behaviors. The relationship and appraisal measures rangefrom 1 to 5. Higher scores on Distance, Dependency, and Conflict indicate less favorable relationship characteristics.Higher scores on the appraisal measures indicate more negative appraisals.

were investigated, group differences on theindependent variables, and correlations be-tween relationship characteristics, behaviorappraisals and teachers' practice reports wereexamined. Because there were no significantgender differences once children's behaviorswere controlled for, gender was not includedin the analyses.

Group differences. Table 1 displaysmean scores for the independent variables sep-arately for the three types of children in eachsample. To test the group differences, multi-level models were run in which each variablewas regressed on both contrasts. Examinationsof the screening variables revealed that theselection procedure had been successful. Theinhibited children scored higher on Social In-hibition than the other children, and the hy-peractive children had higher scores on Hy-peractivity. In addition to this, there were sig-nificant differences on the relationship andappraisal variables. It appeared that teachersperceived more distance and dependency in

their relationships with inhibited and hyperac-tive children as compared to average childrenin both samples. Next, teachers in Sample Breported more conflict in their relationshipswith the hyperactive versus the average chil-dren, and more conflict and dependency forthe hyperactive versus the inhibited children.Finally, teachers reported more hindrance forthe inhibited and hyperactive versus the aver-age children, and higher rates of disturbancefor the hyperactive versus the inhibited andaverage children.

Intercorrelations. In Table 2, the cor-relations between relationship characteristics,behavior appraisals, and teachers' practice re-ports are given for all children in each sample.In both samples, correlation patterns werelargely similar. First, Distance, Dependency,and Conflict (in Sample B) were positivelyrelated to Hindrance and Disruptiveness. Thisindicated that teachers negatively appraisedthe behavior of those children with whom theyshared unfavorable relationships. Next, Dis-

251


Table 2Intercorrelatíons, Means, and Standard Deviations for Relationship,

Appraisal, and Practices Measures

Measure

Relationship measures1. Distance2. Dependency3. Conflict

Appraisal measures4. Hindrance5. Disrupdveness

Practice measures6. Socioemodonal Support7. Behavior Regulation

1

.04—

.45**

.29**

.26**

.16

2

- .06

—

.52**33**

.42**

.38**

3 4

.32** .45**

.38** .32**.43**

— .48**

— .62**— .46**

5

.21*

.37**

.77**

.45**

.00

.75**

6

.20*

.32**

.05

.47**

.08

.17

7

.19*

.35**

.65**

42**

.79**

.29**

Sample AM(SD)

1.91 (.54)2.68 (.86)

—

2.59 (1.00)2.39(1.16)

2.96 (.82)2.98 (1.00)

Sample BM(SD)

1.96 (.57)2.61 (.72)1.97 (.65)

2.62 (.93)2.22(1.07)

2.91 (.81)2.74 (.93)

Note. Correlation coefficients below the diagonal are from Sample A, and coefficiente above the diagonal are fromSample B.*p < .05.**p < .01.

tance was positively related to SocioemotionalSupport in both samples and to Behavior Reg-ulation in Sample B. Dependency showed pos-itive relations to both pedagogical practices inboth samples. Apparently, teachers reportedmore support and behavior regulation forthose children with whom they shared moredistant and more dependent relationships.Conflict was positively related to BehaviorRegulation but unrelated to Support. Finally,Hindrance was positively related to Support,and both Hindrance and Disruptiveness werepositively associated with Behavior Regtilaüon.

Multilevel Regressions

Next, regression models were tested toexamine the unique effects of the relationshipvariables on Socioemotional Support and Be-havior Regulation. These analyses were con-ducted separately for each sample. Analysesproceeded in two steps. First, each practicevariable was regressed on the two contrastsrepresenting the different types of children andon the within-group scores for social inhibi-tion and hyperactivity. Next, the available re-lationship characteristics were added to the

equation. Model improvement was evaluatedby comparing deviance statistics. Differencesbetween these statistics follow a x^ distribu-tion, and degrees of freedom are given by thedifferences in numbers of parameters (Snijders& Bosker, 1999). For ease of interpretation,the continuous measures were standardized.Results are given in Table 3.

Socioemotíonal support Model 1 dis-plays the results of the first step for Socioemo-tional Support. In both samples, there weresignificant effects of both contrasts, revealingdifferent rates of support for the three types ofchildren. As previously reported (Thijs et al.,2006), teachers indicated higher rates for theinhibited and hyperactive versus the averagechildren, and for the inhibited versus the hy-peractive children. In addition, there were pos-itive effects of within-group social inhibitionin both samples, and within-group hyperactiv-ity in Sample B. Adding the relationship vari-ables in Model 2 led to significant model im-provement both in Sample A, x^(2) = 14.329,p < .01, and in Sample B, x^(3) = 25.008,p < .01. It appeared that Dependency had a

252


Io.

Iio

es

O

03

I2

I

o.

ÜO

oa.a

pa

'S,

# # » » » »M • * 00 CO -H rt 00—< in p es es -^ es

' r I

Tf os o r-< «st s \ o •-< -H -H

' \' \' ' '

es 00es rt

00es

mr-ese'Seses

»eses

es*

^ en enO>n

O

I I

» » »* * *es 00 c- 00en vq p '^

* os vo^ O

00 osO es

Os00en

o oo mo -H t-in p 00

mes

» » » »•* m O O-H es es es

•rj- TÍ- en enen •^ e s O

O\ eses vo

if•M

-S-O H | 3

a l

8 -s t3 .. - ^ i

X Q

ï\ PTH Î^ "TÍ T Í . 2

Q U

aI3

1

o

I

253


positive effect on support, which was compa-rable in both samples. Distance had a uniquepositive effect but only in Sample B. Conflictwas unrelated to support.

Behavior regulation. Model 1 for eachsample revealed that there were significantdifferences in Behavior Regulation reportedfor the three groups of children. In both sam-ples, teachers reported less control for the av-erage and inhibited than for the hyperactivechildren. Next, hyperactivity within eachgroup had positive effects in both samples,and social inhibition within each group had apositive effect in Sample B. Adding the rela-tionship characteristics to the model led tobetter fit in Sample A, x^(2) = 12.067, p <.01, and Sample B, x^(3) = 52.439, p < .01.In Sample A, only Dependency had a uniquepositive effect. In Sample B there were signif-icant effects of all relationship variables.Teachers reported more behavior regulationfor those children with whom they sharedmore distant, more dependent, and more con-flicted relationships.

Mediation Effects

Next, the potential mediating roles ofteachers' appraisals were examined. For me-diation to occur, two conditions should bepresent in addition to significant relations be-tween predictors and dependent variables (seeBaron & Kenny, 1986). First, the mediators(in this case appraisals) should be related tothe independent variables (relationship qual-ity), and second, they should be related to thedependent variables (pedagogical practices).For Hindrance, both conditions were present,as this variable was significantly related to therelationship and practice variables in eachsample (see Table 2). For Disruptiveness,these conditions were partly present. In bothsamples, this appraisal was related to eachrelationship characteristic and to BehaviorRegulation. However, it was unrelated to Sup-port and could not therefore mediate the ef-fects of relationship quality on this practicevariable.

The critical test for mediation is that theinfluence of the predictor on the dependentvariable is substantially reduced when the me-diator is added as another predictor (Baron &Kenny, 1986). Table 4 displays the results ofthis test. When Hindrance was added to themodel for Socioemotional Support, the effectof Dependency was no longer significant inSample A and reduced in Sample B. In addi-tion, the effect of Distance was no longersignificant in Sample B. When both appraisalvariables were added to the prediction of Be-havior Regulation in Sample A, the effect ofDependency was diminished. In Sample B, theeffects of Conflict and Dependency were nolonger significant, and the effect of Distancewas reduced. Note that this could not be at-tributed to the inclusion of Hindrance, as itseffects on Behavior Regulation were nonsig-nificant in both samples.

To examine whether the aforementionedreductions were substantial, Sobel tests wereconducted for the indirect effects of the threerelationship characteristics on teachers' prac-tices (MacKinnon, Warsi, & Dwyer, 1995).These tests revealed that Hindrance carried asignificant portion (p < .05) of the relation-ship effects on Socioemotional Support: forDependency, z = 3.48 in Sample A, and 2.30in Sample B, and for Distance, z = 3.52 inSample B. Likewise, the relationship charac-teristics had significant effects on BehaviorRegulation (p < .05) through Disturbance: inSample A, z = 2.18 for Dependency, and inSample B, z = 2.37 for Distance, 2.15 forDependency, and 4.23 for Conflict. These re-sults indicate that teachers' appraisals of chil-dren's behaviors mediated, in part, the linkbetween their relationship perceptions andtheir self-reported pedagogical practices.

Discussion

The present study examined the linksbetween teachers' perceptions of their rela-tionships with individual kindergartners andtheir self-reported pedagogical practices to-ward these children. Results were generally inagreement with the hypotheses. Both teachers'

254


Table 4Multilevel Regression Models with Appraisals Included

PredictorsContrast 1Contrast 2Social InhibitionHyperactivityDistanceDependencyConflictHindranceDisturbance

VarianceLevel 1 (Dyad)Level 2 (Teacher)Deviance

Socioemotional

Sample A

.09

.43**

.17**- .11- .08

.13—.50**

—

.377

.058232.867

Support

Sample B

-.04.32**.10

- .02.04.19**.00.47**

—

.323

.353356.216

Behavior

Sample A

.15**- . 4 1 * *- .07

.03

.01

.14*—.05.37**

.351

.000209.556

Regulation

Sample B

.06*-.34**- .08

.13**

.11*

.03

.08

.10

.43**

.169

.155242.026

Note. Contrast 1 denotes the difference between inhibited and hyperactive versus average children, and Contrast 2denotes the difference between inhibited and hyperactive children.*p < .05.**p < .01.

perceptions of conflict and their perceptions ofdependency were positively associated withthe level of behavior regulation and the levelof socioemotional support they reported foreach of the children. In addition, teachers inSample B reported more support and behaviorregulation for children with whom they re-ported to share distant relationships. It is im-portant to note that these effects were uniqueand held independent of children's general(problem) behaviors (Pianta et al., 2003). Al-though these flndings are limited to teachers'perceptions of their own behaviors, they indi-cate that unfavorable relationship perceptionsare associated not only with teachers' attemptsto control children's behaviors (cf. Hamre &Pianta, 2001), but also with their self-per-ceived endeavors to foster children's socialand emotional well-being.

As expected, the mediation analysesprovided a plausible explanation for these re-sults. It appeared that the links between teach-

ers' relationship and practice reports could beattributed, in part, to teachers' appraisals ofchildren's behaviors. Teachers gave higherdisruptiveness ratings to children with whomthey reported to share unfavorable relation-ships, in particular, relationships characterizedby conflict. Likewise, teachers' hindrance rat-ings were associated with unfavorable rela-tionship reports, which supported the idea thatunfavorable relationship characteristics indi-cate speciflc interpersonal difflculties withnegative consequences for children. Consis-tent with the hypotheses, teachers' ratings ofdisturbance mediated the effects of their rela-tionship perceptions on behavior regulation.Similarly, teachers' hindrance ratings medi-ated the relationship effects on socioemotionalsupport. These mediation effects were notcomplete in all instances. Still, they suggestthat unfavorable relationship perceptions arerelated to teacher behavior, or at least to teach-ers' behavior intentions, through their partic-

255


ular connotations. Thus, it appears not onlythat perceived unfavorable relationship char-acteristics are a nuisance to teachers, but alsothat they reflect specific difficulties for chil-dren. The findings from this study are clearlyconsistent with the idea that teachers aretrained and expected to attend to children'sneeds (Chazan et al., 1987), and that this af-fects their interpersonal scripts for relating totheir students. It seems that teachers do nottake unfavorable relationship characteristicsfor granted, but respond, or try to respond, tothe difficulties associated with them. The find-ing that complete mediation was absent insome instances does not limit this conclusion.In fact, it is compatible with the notion thatscripts can operate outside of consciousawareness (Baldwin, 1992).

The analyses yielded three different re-sults for the two samples. First, whereas dis-tance was a significant predictor of teachers'practices in Sample B, it had no unique effectson them in Sample A. Next, hindrance ap-peared to fully mediate the link betweendependency and socioemotional support inSample A, but partially in Sample B. Third,disturbance fully mediated the effect of depen-dency on behavior regulation in Sample B, butpartially in Sample A. It is difficult to explainthe first difference, but a tentative speculationcan be made with respect to the second and thethird outcome. Further analyses, not reportedhere, indicated that none of these differencescould be attributed to the inclusion of conflictas an additional predictor in Sample B. How-ever, questioning teachers about this third re-lationship characteristic might have influencedtheir evaluation of children's dependent be-haviors, and hence the extent to which teach-ers' appraisals mediated the influence of per-ceived dependency on teachers' practices. Per-haps teachers perceived dependency as lessdebilitating to the child and more disturbing,the more focused they were on the plainlydisruptive and troublesome aspects of chil-dren's interactions with them. The correlationpatterns in the different samples (Table 2)were consistent with this line of reasoning. Inaddition to this, the different outcomes might

be attributed to sample characteristics not as-sessed in the present study. As reported, bothsamples came from regular Dutch schools, andteachers were similar with respect to age andyears of teaching experience. Still, both sam-ples might have differed with respect to othercharacteristics, such as additional teachertraining and the presence of specific instruc-tional or socioemotional programs.

The findings from this study have im-portant consequences for research and prac-tice. First, they seem to question the idea thatteacher support is a key characteristic of thequality of the teacher-child relationship, atleast with regard to teachers' perceptions ofsupport (see Pianta et al., 2003). This does notimply that support does not contribute to fa-vorable relationships. In fact, it is likely thatthese relationships, as secondary attachmentbonds, reflect a history of positive interactionbehaviors from both relationship partners, in-cluding sensitive behaviors from teachers (Pi-anta, 1992; van IJzendoom et al., 1992). How-ever, the present results suggest that teachersdo not intend to continue unfavorable interac-tion cycles. As far as teachers' own percep-tions are concerned, support is compatiblewith conflicted, and even positively associatedwith dependent and distant relationships. Thisconclusion has implications for attempts tocompare and integrate research findings fromdifferent relationship perspectives. Studies re-lying on children's perceptions have opera-tionalized relationship qualities in terms ofperceived support from teachers (Mantzico-poulos & Neuharth Pritchett, 2003; Murray &Greenberg, 2000). When different relationshipperceptions do not refer to the same con-structs, comparisons between them and theircorrelates should be made with caution.

In addition, the conclusions from thisstudy have practical relevance. It is increas-ingly acknowledged that teachers' relationshipperceptions can be valuable tools for assessingand changing teachers' interactions with chil-dren who face socioemotional difficulties(Koomen et al., 2006; Pianta, 2001; Pianta etal., 2003). The current findings further under-line this importance. They seem to suggest

256


that teachers are generally aware of the liabil-ities of unfavorable relationships, apart fromchildren's internalizing or externalizing diffi-culties, and not reluctant to counteract them.School psychologists and school-based mentalhealth professionals could examine, use, andfoster this awareness in the case of individualchildren referred for emotional or behavioralproblems. To this aim, they should assessteachers' relationship perceptions and their in-tended pedagogical practices, and encourageteachers to scrutinize the links between them.If teachers do base their pedagogical practiceson their relationship perceptions, they shouldbe encouraged and helped to further reflectupon individual relationships, gear their prac-tice intentions to specifics of these relation-ships, and translate their intentions into appro-priate actions. For instance, if a teacher at-tempts to be supportive because she perceivesher relationship with a child as overly depen-dent, careful considerations of when and howthis dependency manifests itself could help herfind and carry out effective forms of support.If teachers do not consider unfavorable rela-tionships as grounds for pedagogical interven-tions, they could be made aware of the liabil-ities of such relationships and the need fordeliberate pedagogical action. Thus, in bothinstances, teachers could be helped in improv-ing their relationships with individual children.

An important question is how thepresent findings relate to the documented ef-fects of early teacher-child relationships onchildren's development. As noted, unfavor-able relationships have been identified as de-velopmental risk factors. That teachers indi-cated more support for children with whomthey reported to share distant and dependentrelationships may appear at odds with thisnotion. However, there are two reasons whythis needs not be the case. First, unfavorablerelationships may have negative effects inspite of teachers' attempts to be supportive tochildren. As noted, these relationships mayindicate specific problems, some of whichmay extend to interactions with others as well.For instance, unfavorable relationships withteachers appear to affect children's peer repu-

tations and hence the extent to which they areaccepted by their classmates (Hughes et al.,2001). These problems might be difficult toovercome by teacher support alone. Second,unfavorable relationship perceptions were notonly associated with socioemotional supportbut also with behavior regulation. Little isknown about the effects of controlling anddirecting teacher behaviors. However, basedon the parenting literature it can be hypothe-sized that high levels of teacher control,whether combined with support or not, areassociated with low academic achievementand behavior problems (Gadeyne, Ghesquiere,& Onghena, 2004; Rothbaum & Weisz, 1994).To resolve these issues and to properly recon-cile the current results with previous researchfindings, it is necessary to examine the effectsof teachers' self-reported practices on childoutcomes. This was clearly beyond the scopeof this study, but seems to be an importanttopic for future research.

Finally, it also seems important to relatethe present findings to what is known aboutteachers' interactions with children with emo-tional and behavioral difficulties. The emo-tional and behavioral difficulties literature in-dicates that teachers provide relatively littleand inadequate instruction to children whoexhibit problem behaviors (e.g., Sutherland &Oswald, 2005; Wehby, Symons, Canale, &Go, 1998), which could also hold for childrenwith whom they have problematic interac-tions. This seems to contradict the present ideathat teachers are motivated to actively changethe social behaviors of such children. How-ever, both notions can be reconciled, as unfa-vorable relationship characteristics were alsoperceived to be disruptive. Thus, the difficul-ties for which teachers have pedagogical at-tention could be the very same problems thathinder teachers in doing their instructionaljobs. Future comparative studies are needed toconfirm this impression, and examine howteachers can attend to both the academic andsocioemotional needs of children with whomthey have problematic interactions.

To evaluate the present research, fourqualifications should be considered. First, all

257


data, including information about children'sproblem behaviors, originated from teachers.Thus, the obtained relations may reflect bothsocial desirability biases and shared methodvariance. Despite these limitations, the self-report measure was appropriate for the aim ofthe study, which was to explore the correlatesof teacher-child relationships from teachers'own perspective. Of course, different methodswould be required if the goal were to obtain amore objective picture of the link betweenstudent-teacher relationships and teacher be-haviors. Second, the design was cross-sec-tional and no claims can be made regardingthe causality of the obtained effects. Teachers'relationship perceptions were analyzed as ifthey preceded their behaviors, but these per-ceptions may be influenced by their behaviorsas well. Future studies should disentanglethese effects by using longitudinal designs.Third, the children were selected based on thepresence (or absence) of social inhibition andhyperactivity (according to their teachers).The selection was adequate for a first evalua-tion of the hypotheses, because it allowed theexamination of the effects of perceived rela-tionship characteristics independent of consid-erable differences in perceived problem be-havior. However, it might also have directedteachers' attention to the problematic aspectsof their relationships with some of these chil-dren. Thus, future research is needed to repli-cate the present findings in samples of ran-domly selected children, where the liabilitiesof unfavorable relationship characteristics arepossibly less salient to teachers. Still, it shouldbe noted that the saliency of behavior differ-ences in the present samples might be con-strained by the fact that teachers were notinformed about the selection guidelines.

Finally, two aspects of the study mightlimit the generalizability of its results. First,the numbers of teachers involved in both sam-ples were relatively small (A^ = 39 and N =42), and second, all teachers and children werefrom Dutch kindergarten classes only. Repli-cation of the current findings in other, largersamples is warranted, and these samplesshould include kindergarten and primary

school teachers from different countries. Still,while acknowledging the importance of futureconfirmatory research, it seems that similarfindings can be expected in other western sam-ples. It should be noted that the results werecomparable across Samples A and B. More-over, to the authors' knowledge, the educa-tional system in the Netherlands is comparableto systems in other western countries as far asteacher-child interactions are concerned. Forinstance, the central constructs in the presentstudy—teachers' relationship perceptions andpedagogical practices—appear to have similarstructures as those reported in U.S.-basedstudies (cf. Brophy & McCaslin, 1992; Cun-ningham & Sugawara, 1989; Pianta, 2001).Thus, it does not seem that the present resultsare confined to the Dutch school situation.

Despite its qualifications and limita-tions, this explorative study has important im-plications for research and practice in the do-main of early teacher-child relationships. Itsresults qualify the idea that supportive teacherbehaviors are a defining characteristic of fa-vorable teacher-child relationships (see Pi-anta et al., 2003). In fact, perceptions of de-pendent and distant relationships were associ-ated with self-reported attempts to help andencourage children. Although the conse-quences of these attempts require further in-vestigation, the present findings further em-phasize the need to include teachers' relation-ship perceptions in practical assessments ofchildren referred for emotional or behavioralproblems.

References

Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1991). Attachments and other af-fectional bonds across the life cycle. In C. M. Parkes,J. Stevenson ffinde. & P. Marris (Eds.), Attachmentacross the life cycle, (pp. 33-51). New York: Tavis-tock/Routledge.

Asendorpf, J. B. (1993). Beyond temperament: A two-factorial coping model of the development of inhibi-tion during childhood. In K. H. Rubin & J. B. Asen-dorpf (Eds.). Social withdrawal, inhibition, and shy-ness in childhood (pp. 265-289). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Eribaum Associates.

Attili. G. (1985). The extent to which children's earlyrelationships are adapted to promote their social andcognitive development. In R. A. Hinde, A. N. Perret-

258


Clermont, & J. Stevenson Hinde (Eds.), Social rela-tionships and cognitive development (A Fyssen Foun-dation symposium; pp. 55-65). Oxford: ClarendonPress.

Baldwin, M. W. (1992). Relational schémas and the pro-cessing of social information. Psychological Bulletin,112, 461-484.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychologicalresearch: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical consid-erations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 51, 1173-1182.

Bentler, P. M. (1989). EQS Structural Equations Manual.Los Angeles: BMDP Statistical Software.

Berscheid, E. (1994). Interpersonal relationships. AnnualReview of Psychology, 45, 79-129.

Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1997). The teacher-childrelationship and children's early school adjustment.Journal of School Psychology, 35, 61-79.

Brophy, J., & McCaslin, M. (1992). Teachers' reports ofhow they perceive and cope with problem students.Elementary School Journal, 93, 3-68.

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative waysof assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long(Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Chazan, M., Laing, A., & Harper, G. (1987). Teaching fiveto eight year-olds. Oxford: Blackwell.

Chen, S., Boucher, H. C , & Tapias, M. P. (2006). Therelational self revealed: Integrative conceptualizationand implications for interpersonal life. PsychologicalBulletin, 132, 151-179.

Cunningham, B., & Sugawara, A. (1989). Factors contrib-uting to preservice teachers' management of children'sproblem behaviors. Psychology in the Schools, 26,370-379.

Gadeyne, E., Ghesquiere, P., & Onghena, P. (2004). Lon-gitudinal relations between parenting and child adjust-ment in young children. Journal of Clinical Child andAdolescent Psychology, 33, 347-358.

Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher-childrelationships and the trajectory of children's schooloutcomes through eighth grade. Child Develop-ment, 72, 625-638.

Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2005). Can instructionaland emotional support in the first-grade classroommake a difference for children at risk of school failure?Child Development, 76, 949-967.

Henricsson, L., & Rydell, A. M. (2004). Elementaryschool children with behavior problems: Teacher-childrelations and self-perception. A prospective study.Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 50, 111-138.

Hinshaw, S. P. (1987). On the distinction between atten-tional deficits/hyperactivity and conduct problems/ag-gression in child psychopathology. Psychological Bul-letin, 101, 443-463.

Howes, C. (2000). Social-emotional classroom climate inchild care, child-teacher relationships and children'ssecond grade peer relations. Social Development, 9,191-204.

Howes, C , Matheson, C. C , & Hamilton, C. E. (1994).Maternal, teacher, and child-care history correlates ofchildren's relationships with peers. Child Develop-ment, 65, 264-273.

Hu, L., & Benüer, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fitindexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventionalcriteria versus new alternatives. Structural EquationModeling, 6, 1-55.

Hughes, J. N., Cavell, T. A., & WiUson, V. (2001).Further support for the developmental significance ofthe quality of the teacher-student relationship. Journalof School Psychology, 39, 289-301.

Jenkins, J. M., Rasbash, J., & O'Connor, T. G. (2003).The role of the shared family context in differentialparenting. Developmental Psychology, 39, 99-113.

Kokkinos, C. M., Panayiotou, G., & Davazoglou, A. M.(2005). Correlates of teacher appraisals of student be-haviors. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 79-89.

Koomen, H. M. Y., Verschueren, K., & Pianta, R. C.(2007). Leerling-Leraar Relatie Vragenlijst. Handlei-ding [Student-Teacher Relationship Questionnaire.Manual]. Houten: Bohn Stafieu Van Loghum.

Koomen, H. M. Y., Verschueren, K., & Thijs, J. T. (2006).Assessing aspects of the teacher-child relationship: Acritical ingredient of a practice-oriented psycho-diag-nostic approach. Educational and Child Psychol-ogy, 23, 50-60.

Lovejoy, M. C. (1996). Social inferences regarding inat-tentive-overactive and aggressive child behavior andtheir effects on teacher reports of discipline. Journal ofClinical Child Psychology, 25, 33-42.

MacKinnon, D. P., Warsi, G., & Dwyer, J. H. (1995). Asimulation study of mediated effect measures. Multi-variate Behavioral Research, 30, 41—62.

Mantzicopoulos, P. (2005). Confiictual relationships be-tween kindergarten children and their teachers: Asso-ciations with child and classroom context variables.Journal of School Psychology, 43, 425-442.

Mantzicopoulos, P., & Neuharth Pritchett, S. (2003). De-velopment and validation of a measure to assess HeadStart children's appraisals of teacher support. Journalof School Psychology, 41, 431-451.

Murray, C , & Greenberg, M. T. (2000). Children's rela-tionship with teachers and bonds with school. An in-vestigation of patterns and correlates in middle child-hood. Journal of School Psychology, 38, 423-445.

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2004). Mplus user'sguide (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

Pianta, R. C. (1992). Conceptual and methodological is-sues in research on relationships between children andnonparental adults. New Directions for Child Develop-ment, 57, 121-129.

Pianta, R. C. (2001). STRS: Student-Teacher RelationshipScale: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychologi-cal Assessment Resources.

Pianta, R. C , Hamre, B., & Stuhlman, M. (2003). Rela-tionships between teachers and children. In W. M.Reynolds & G. E. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of psychol-ogy: Educational psychology. Vol. 7 pp. 199-234).Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Pianta, R. C, Nimetz, S. L., & Bennett, E. (1997). Mother-child relationships, teacher-child relationships, and ad-justment in preschool and kindergarten. Early Child-hood Research Quarterly, 12, 263-280.

Pianta, R. C , & Steinberg, M. (1992). Teacher-childrelationships and the process of adjusting to school.New Directions for Child Development, 57, 61-80.

259


Pianta, R. C , & Stuhlman, M. W. (2004). Teacher-childrelationships and children's success in the first years ofschool. School Psychology Review, 33, 444-458.

Rashash, J., Browne, W., Healy, M., Cameron, B., &Charlton, C. (2004). MLwiN Version 2.0. New York:Multilevel Models Project Institute of Education.

Rothbaum, F., & Weisz, J. R. (1994). Parental caregivingand child externalizing behavior in nonclinical sam-ples: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116,55-74.

Rubin, K. H., & Burgess, K. B. (2001). Social withdrawaland anxiety. In M. W. Vasey & M. R. Dadds (Eds.),The developmental psychopathology of anxiety (pp.407-434). London: Oxford University Press.

Rutter, M. (1975). Helping troubled children. Haimond-sworth: Penguin Books.

Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevelanalysis. An introduction to basic and advanced mul-tilevel modeling. London: Sage.

Stipek, D. J., & Byler, P. (1997). Early childhood educa-tion teachers: Do they practice what they preach? EarlyChildhood Research Quarterly, 12, 305-325.

Stuhlman, M. W., & Pianta, R. C. (2002). Teachers'narratives about their relationships with children: As-sociations with behavior in classrooms. School Psy-chology Review, 31, 148-163.

Sutherland, K. S., & Oswald, D. P. (2005). The relation-ship between teacher and student behavior in class-rooms for students with emotional and behavioral dis-orders: Transactional processes. Journal of Child andFamily Studies, 14, 1-14.

Thijs, J. T., Koomen, H. M. Y., de Jong, P. F., van derLeij, A., & van Leeuwen, M. G. P. (2004). Internaliz-ing behaviors among kindergarten children: Measuringdimensions of social withdrawal with a checklist. Jour-nal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33,802-812.

Thijs, J. T., Koomen, H. M. Y., & van der Leij, A. (2006).Teachers' self-reported pedagogical practices towardsocially inhibited, hyperactive, and average children.Psychology in the Schools, 43, 635-651.

van Uzendoom, M. H., Sagi, A., & Lambermon, M. W. E.(1992). The multiple caretaker paradox: Data fromHolland and Israel. New Directions for Child Devel-opment, 57, 5-24.

Wehby, J. H., Symons, F. J., Canale, J. A., & Go, F. J.(1998). Teaching practices in classrooms for studentswith emotional and behavioral disorders: Discrepan-cies between recommendations and observations. Be-havior Disorders, 24, 51-56.

Wenar, C , & Kerig, P. (2000). Developmental psychopa-thology: From infancy through adolescence (4th ed.).New York: McGraw-Hill.

Wubbels, T., Brekelmans, M., & Hooymayers, H. P.(1992). Do teacher ideals distort the self-reports oftiieir interpersonal behavior? Teaching and TeacherEducation, 8, 47-58.

Date Received: October 10, 2006

Date Accepted: November 5, 2007

Actioti Editor: Shane Jimerson

Jochem T. Thijs, PhD, is an assistant professor at the Department of InterdisciplinarySocial Sciences and researcher at the European Research Center on Migration and EthnicRelations at Utrecht University. His research interests include ethnic relations andinteractions within the classroom.

Helma M. Y. Koomen, PhD, is an assistant professor in special education in the Facultyof Social and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Amsterdam. Her research interestsaddress student-teacher interaction and teachers' pedagogical practices in relation toemotional viiell-being, social adjustment, and task behaviors of young children.

Aryan van der Leij, PhD, is a professor in special education in the Faculty of Social andBehavioral Sciences at the University of Amsterdam. His research interests includeinstructional practices and treatments for students with reading problems and disabilities.

260

Documents

University of Groningen Teacher-Child Relationships and ...€¦ · School Psychology Review, 2008, Volume 37, No. 2, pp. 244-260 Teacher-Child Relationships and Pedagogical Practices: