|dc.description.abstract||Elementary school children engage in multiple social interactions each day. These frequent interactions are a positive experience for most children; however, a minority of children experience peer rejection (Coie, Dodge, & Coppotelli, 1982). Multiple methods exist to assess for peer rejection, but none that include assessment of plausible etiological factors. Understanding the etiology of peer rejection may be the first step in developing effective intervention and preventative strategies and may lead to a more targeted approach (Coie, Miller-Johnson, & Bagwell, 2000; Mrazek & Haggerty, 1994).
The current study aimed to address this gap through a new parent assessment tool, the Causes of Peer Rejection Scale (CPRS). The measure examines etiological factors that may be contributing to peer rejection with the aim of identifying areas of intervention. This study aimed to extend the literature by focusing on etiology instead of topography on a group of children who are at a higher risk for peer rejection – those with developmental disabilities. The study was a two-phase process. The first phase was the development and refinement of the CPRS through a focus group. Four parents completed an early version of the measure and provided researchers with feedback regarding items and readability. The second phase examined the psychometric properties of the measure including concurrent validity with the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Goodman, 1997) and test-retest reliability. One hundred and fifty-five parents completed the measures for phase II. A confirmatory factor analysis was used to evaluate the proposed structure. The hypothesized model did not fit the data so an exploratory factor analysis was utilized after items were discarded. The scale fit a six-factor solution but was forced into a five-factor solution based on item loadings and theory. The five latent factors were Appearance, Speech, Problem Behaviors, Academics, and Social Skills. The measure demonstrated adequate convergent validity, Cronbach Alpha reliability, and test-retest reliability. Other research questions were answered including determining which underlying factors were related to the most negative outcomes for children. Potential contributions to the literature in addition to limitations are discussed.||