Analysis shows the Social Skills Rating System effectively evaluates social competence and behaviors in Serbian preschoolers, indicating its reliability for diverse developmental statuses.
Social competence is a key aspect of early development, with long-term implications for children’s functioning in educational and social environments. Given its importance, it is essential to have reliable and valid instruments for assessing both social skills and challenging behaviors in early childhood. This study aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties, factorial structure, and measurement invariance across developmental status and age groups of the preschool teacher version of the Social Skills Rating System, which includes the Social Skills Scale and the Problem Behaviors Scale, within the Serbian preschool population. A total of 309 teachers provided evaluations for 450 children aged 3 to 7, including both typically developing children and those with developmental challenges. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the original structure of the Social Skills Rating Scale, with good overall model fit. While the Problem Behaviors Scale was retained in its original form, three items were removed from the Social Skills Scale due to low factor loadings or validity concerns, resulting in a refined 27-item version. Both scales demonstrated high internal consistency, convergent and discriminant validity. The present findings suggests that the instrument holds potential for assessing social skills and behavioral challenges in Serbian preschool children aged 3 to 7 years, including those with and without developmental disabilities, thereby extending its applicability beyond the originally intended age range of 3 to 5 years. Although preliminary psychometric results are promising, further research is needed to more robustly confirm its validity and reliability across broader populations and contexts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Buha et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: