Journal of Child and Family Studies

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 503–510 | Cite as

Measuring Competence and Dysfunction in Preschool Children: Source Agreement and Component Structure

  • Daniel Klyce
  • Anthony J. Conger
  • Judith Cohen Conger
  • Jean E. Dumas
Original Paper


Agreement between parents and teachers on ratings of three domains of behaviors exhibited by preschool children and the structural relations between these domains were measured. Parents and teachers rated the behaviors of a socioeconomically diverse sample of 610 children; ratings were obtained from parents at three time points and from teachers at two time points. The results indicated little agreement between sources on the ratings of individual child behaviors; however, ratings within a source were stable over time. Principal components analyses of source ratings combined and separately indicated virtually identical and independent three-component solutions comprised of a coping competence, externalizing behavior, and internalizing behavior component. These data suggest that competence and dysfunction develop in response to different contextual demands and underscore the importance of measuring each domain of behavior in clinical and research settings.


Source agreement Coping competence Competence and dysfunction Measuring preschool behavior 


  1. Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. S. (1981). Behavioral problems and competencies reported by parents of normal and disturbed children aged 4 through 16. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 46(1), Serial No. 188.Google Scholar
  2. Blechman, E. A., Prinz, R. J., & Dumas, J. E. (1995). Coping, competence, and aggression prevention. Applied & Preventive Psychology, 4, 211–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Compas, B. E., Connor-Smith, J. K., Saltzman, H., Thomsen, A. H., & Wadsworth, M. E. (2001). Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence: Problems, progress, and potential in theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 127(1), 87–127.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. De Los Reyes, A., & Kazdin, A. (2004). Measuring informant discrepancies in clinical child research. Psychological Assessment, 16(3), 330–334.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. De Los Reyes, A., & Kazdin, A. (2005). Informant discrepancies in the assessment of childhood psychopathology: A critical review, theoretical framework, and recommendations for further study. Psychological Bulletin, 131(4), 483–509.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dodge, K. A., Coie, J. D., & Lynam, D. (2006). Aggression and antisocial behavior in youth. In W. Damon, R. M. Lerner, & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 719–788). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Dumas, J. E. (1997). Home and school correlates of early at-risk status: A transactional perspective. In R. F. Kronick (Ed.), At-risk youth: Theory, practice, reform (pp. 97–117). New York: Garland.Google Scholar
  8. Dumas, J. E. (2005). The dynamics of positive parenting: Psychological, social and cultural contexts. In H. Grietens, W. Lahaye, W. Hellinckx, & L. Vandemeulebroecke (Eds.), In the best interests of children and youth. International perspectives (pp. 27–46). Leuven, Belgium: Leuven University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Dumas, J. E., & Moreland, A. D. (2007). Let’s talk about competent children for a change. In H. Grietens, E. J. Knorth, P. Durning, & J. E. Dumas (Eds.), Promoting competence in children and families. Scientific perspectives on resilience and vulnerability (pp. 35–53). Leuven: EUSARF.Google Scholar
  10. Dumas, J. E., Nissley-Tsiopinis, J., & Moreland, A. D. (2007). From intent to enrollment, attendance, and participation in preventive parenting groups. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 16(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dumas, J. E., Prinz, R. J., Smith, E. P., & Laughlin, J. (1999). The EARLY ALLIANCE prevention trial: An integrated set of interventions to promote competence and reduce risk for conduct disorder, substance abuse, and school failure. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 2, 37–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Guthrie, I. (1997). Coping with stress: The roles and regulations of development. In J. N. Sandler & S. A. Wolchik (Eds.), Handbook of children's coping with common stressors: Linking theory, research, and intervention (pp. 41–70). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  13. Frick, P. J., Bodin, S. D., & Barry, C. T. (2000). Psychopathic traits and conduct problems in community and clinic-referred samples of children: further development of the Psychopathy Screening Device. Psychological Assessment, 12(4), 382–393.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frick, P. J., & Hare, R. D. (2001). The antisocial process screening device. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.Google Scholar
  15. LaFreniere, P. J., & Dumas, J. E. (1996). Social competence and behavior evaluation in children ages 3 to 6 years: The Short Form (SCBE-30). Psychological Assessment, 8(4), 377–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer Publishing Company, Inc.Google Scholar
  17. Moreland, A. D., & Dumas, J. E. (2008). Evaluating child coping competence: Theory and measurement. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 17(3), 437–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Tucker, L. R. (1951). A method for synthesis of factor analysis studies (Personnel Research Section Report No. 984). Washington, DC: Department of the Army.Google Scholar
  19. Wine, J. D. (1981). From defect models to competence. In J. D. Wine & M. D. Smye (Eds.), Social competence (pp. 3–35). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Klyce
    • 1
  • Anthony J. Conger
    • 1
  • Judith Cohen Conger
    • 1
  • Jean E. Dumas
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Psychological SciencesPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  2. 2.FPSE-PsychologyUniversity of GenevaGenevaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations