Abstract
The Prosocial Behaviors of Children instrument is an ecologically grounded, standardized rating scale developed by Scott R. McConnell, Phillip S. Strain, Mary Margaret Kerr, and colleagues (1984) to quantify positive social competence, peer affiliation, and classroom adjustment in school-aged children. Formally integrated into longitudinal preventive trials by the Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group (CPPRG) in 1991 and archived within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Compendium of Assessment Tools (Dahlberg et al., 2005), the scale consists of 19 behavioral items assessed via a 5-point Likert-type frequency metric ranging from 1 (Never) to 5 (Frequently). The measure evaluates prosocial functioning across three distinct yet interrelated operational dimensions alongside a total composite: Peer Preferred Behavior (7 items capturing peer affiliation, social initiation, and sustained interactive play), Teacher Preferred Behavior (5 items indexing compliance, emotional regulation, compromise, and constructive responses to provocation), and School Adjustment (7 items evaluating task orientation, listening skills, independent study, and productive classroom engagement). Psychometric evaluations across normative and high-risk epidemiological cohorts consistently reveal high internal consistency, with total scale Cronbach’s alpha coefficients exceeding α = .90, and subscale coefficients ranging from α = .82 to .91. Confirmatory factor analyses confirm an overarching multidimensional architecture that distinguishes task-oriented academic enablers from peer-directed relational skills. Criterion and construct validity are evidenced by substantial positive correlations with direct behavioral observations of cooperative play, teacher ratings of academic competence, and sociometric peer acceptance, alongside robust inverse correlations with externalizing aggression, disruptive conduct, and hyperactive symptomatology. The instrument serves as a critical screening, diagnostic, and outcome evaluation tool within behavioral pediatrics, school psychology, and developmental psychopathology.
Keywords
Prosocial Behaviors of Children, social competence, peer relations, classroom adjustment, behavioral assessment, teacher ratings, Fast Track project, emotion regulation, school psychology, psychometrics, peer-preferred behavior, teacher-preferred behavior, cooperative play.
Authors
The foundational development of the instrument was conducted by Scott R. McConnell, Ph.D., Phillip S. Strain, Ph.D., and Mary Margaret Kerr, Ed.D., along with their research associates at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic (1984). The scale was subsequently adapted, operationalized, and psychometrically standardized on large-scale developmental cohorts by the Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group (CPPRG), a multidisciplinary research consortium comprising Karen L. Bierman (The Pennsylvania State University), John D. Coie (Duke University), Kenneth A. Dodge (Duke University), Mark T. Greenberg (The Pennsylvania State University), John E. Lochman (University of Alabama), Robert J. McMahon (Simon Fraser University), and Ellen E. Prinz (University of South Carolina).
Purpose
The primary purpose of the Prosocial Behaviors of Children scale is to provide a reliable, ecologically valid, and operationally precise assessment of adaptive, non-aggressive, and cooperative social behaviors displayed by children within educational environments. Historically, child behavioral assessments disproportionately emphasized pathology, externalizing conduct problems, impulsivity, and disruptive classroom behaviors. McConnell and colleagues designed this scale to counter this deficit-oriented paradigm by identifying and quantifying the presence of positive, adaptive behavioral competencies that facilitate social integration, peer acceptance, and classroom productivity.
From a clinical and school-based perspective, the instrument fulfills three principal operational functions:
- Early Universal Screening and Needs Identification: The scale enables educators and school psychologists to identify children exhibiting deficits in essential interpersonal and self-regulatory repertoires before such deficits solidify into chronic academic failure, peer rejection, or oppositional conduct disorders.
- Progress Monitoring within Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS): Because each item describes an observable behavioral topographies (e.g., sharing laughter, accepting constructive criticism, working independently), the instrument functions as a sensitive repeated-measure metric for tracking responsiveness to Tier 1 universal social-emotional learning (SEL) curricula or Tier 2/3 targeted behavioral interventions.
- Longitudinal Developmental and Epidemiological Research: Within major multi-site prevention initiatives such as the Fast Track Project, the scale is utilized to test developmental models of risk and resilience, evaluate the mediating role of prosocial skills in buffering against delinquent pathways, and assess long-term life outcomes across academic, vocational, and psychiatric domains.
Psychological Construct
The instrument operationalizes prosocial behavior not as an abstract psychological trait, but as an observable, functionally interrelated constellation of social skills, self-regulatory actions, and academic enablers. The 19 items map onto three core behavioral dimensions alongside an omnibus social competence composite:
1. Prosocial Behavior and Social Competence (Total Composite)
Encompassing all 19 items of the scale, this global construct reflects an integrated measure of a child’s behavioral repertoire across varied interpersonal contexts. It reflects the overall balance of positive social initiations, regulatory stamina, communicative competence, and adaptive behavioral flexibility required to successfully navigate the complex social ecology of elementary and middle school settings.
2. Peer Preferred Behavior
This subscale (items 1, 3, 8, 9, 13, 16, and 17) evaluates behaviors that directly elicit positive social reinforcement from peers and foster reciprocal friendships. Key indicators include initiation of play and conversation (e.g., Item 9: The child initiates conversation with peers in informal situations; Item 17: The child invites peers to play or share activities), conversational maintenance (Item 16), sociometric centrality (Item 1: Other children seek the child out to involve him/her in activities), diverse socialization (Item 13), shared positive affect (Item 3: The child shares laughter with peers), and sustained social interaction (Item 8). High scores reflect social sociability, peer acceptance, and cooperative engagement.
3. Teacher Preferred Behavior
Comprising items 5, 6, 7, 12, and 14, this dimension captures classroom decorum, inhibitory control, and interpersonal conflict mitigation—competencies highly prioritized by educators to maintain classroom harmony. It measures the child’s capacity to compromise (Item 5), respond constructively to verbal hostility or teasing without escalating aggression (Item 6: The child responds to teasing or name calling by ignoring, changing the subject, or some other constructive means), manage frustration when denied preferences (Item 14: The child can accept not getting his/her own way), accept corrective peer feedback non-defensively (Item 7), and employ self-protective or help-seeking strategies rather than physical or verbal retaliation when provoked (Item 12).
4. School Adjustment and Academic Enablers
Operationalized through items 2, 7, 10, 11, 15, 18, and 19, this subscale measures behavioral self-regulation within instructional tasks. These behaviors serve as the prerequisite scaffolding for scholastic learning. Key indicators include attentive listening to instructional directives (Item 10), sustained on-task visual and cognitive attention (Item 15), compliant completion of seatwork (Item 18), autonomous working capacity (Item 11: The child displays independent study skills), appropriate utilization of unstructured free time (Item 2), self-regulatory receptivity to corrective feedback (Item 7), and consistent generation of quality academic work calibrated to individual cognitive capacity (Item 19).
Theoretical Framework
The conceptual foundation of the Prosocial Behaviors of Children scale draws upon three primary developmental and behavioral frameworks:
1. Behavioral Ecology and Applied Behavior Analysis
Grounded in the behavioral research of Phillip S. Strain, Scott R. McConnell, and Mary Margaret Kerr, social interactions are viewed as reciprocal, functional reinforcement exchanges occurring within specific ecological micro-settings (e.g., classroom, playground, cafeteria). In this ecological framework, social competence is defined by whether a child emits specific topographical behaviors that evoke positive social feedback from the environment while minimizing coercive, punitive, or exclusionary counter-actions.
2. The Walker-McConnell Two-Dimensional Model of Social Competence
Hill M. Walker and Scott R. McConnell formalized the distinction between two primary social socializers in school systems: peers and teachers. Their taxonomy posits that children must satisfy two fundamentally divergent social criteria: (a) Teacher-Preferred Competencies, which center on task-related compliance, impulse control, deference to institutional authority, and quiet independence; and (b) Peer-Preferred Competencies, which emphasize assertive initiation, shared affect, reciprocal conversational loops, and cooperative negotiation. Children who master only one domain remain at heightened developmental risk: those who exhibit high teacher compliance but low peer skills face social isolation, whereas those who interact well with peers but defy classroom conventions risk academic failure and disciplinary sanctions.
3. Social Information Processing (SIP) Theory
Framed by Kenneth A. Dodge and Nicki R. Crick, prosocial actions reflect the successful downstream execution of a six-stage cognitive cycle: encoding relevant social cues, accurately interpreting peer intentions without a hostile attribution bias, formulating prosocial goals (e.g., maintaining relationships rather than asserting dominance), generating non-aggressive solutions, evaluating consequences, and enacting skilled motor and verbal behaviors (e.g., Item 6, 12, and 14).
Validity
The psychometric validity of the Prosocial Behaviors of Children scale has been established through extensive empirical evaluation across large, representative developmental samples and multi-cohort prevention trials.
Construct and Convergent Validity
Convergent validity is supported by strong, statistically significant correlations with established teacher- and peer-rated social metrics. Total and subscale scores correlate strongly (r = .72 to .84, p < .001) with the Social Skills Rating System (SSRS) Social Skills composite (Gresham & Elliott, 1990) and the Walker-McConnell Scale of Social Competence and School Adjustment (r = .76 to .88). Peer-preferred items demonstrate moderate-to-high correlations with positive peer sociometric nominations (e.g., “Liked Most” sociometric status; r = .54 to .67), confirming that teacher-observed ratings mirror actual playground affiliative choices. Direct behavioral observation studies using interval-recording systems demonstrate that high scores on the Peer Preferred subscale predict significantly higher rates of observed cooperative play and reciprocal positive vocalizations (r = .58, p < .01).
Discriminant and Divergent Validity
Discriminant validity is evidenced by moderate to strong negative correlations with measures of disruptive, externalizing, and oppositional behavior. Scores on the Teacher Preferred subscale correlate inversely with the Teacher Report Form (TRF) Aggressive Behavior and Rule-Breaking subscales (r = -.61 to -.73, p < .001; Achenbach, 1991). The School Adjustment subscale exhibits significant negative associations with ADHD-related inattentive and hyperactive indices on the Conners Teacher Rating Scale (r = -.65 to -.78). Furthermore, the scale reliably differentiates clinically identified groups of children with disruptive behavior disorders (e.g., Oppositional Defiant Disorder, Conduct Disorder) from typical peers, with control children scoring on average 1.5 to 2.0 standard deviations higher across all subscales.
Predictive and Criterion Validity
Longitudinal data compiled over a decade by the Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group (CPPRG) demonstrate that baseline elementary school ratings on the Prosocial Behaviors of Children scale robustly predict subsequent scholastic and psychological outcomes. Controlling for baseline IQ and family socioeconomic status, kindergarten and first-grade scores on the School Adjustment subscale predicted standardized academic achievement test scores (reading and mathematics) in fifth grade (β = .34, p < .001). Furthermore, elevations on the Teacher Preferred subscale significantly predicted reduced odds of juvenile court adjudications, suspension rates, and adolescent substance abuse trajectories into high school.
Reliability
The scale demonstrates strong internal consistency, stability over time, and inter-rater reliability across diverse educational environments.
Internal Consistency
In large-scale normative and high-risk field evaluations conducted by the Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group (CPPRG Technical Report, 1991) and summarized by Dahlberg et al. (2005), internal consistency coefficients for the 19-item total score systematically range from Cronbach’s alpha α = .92 to .96, indicating exceptional scale homogeneity. Subscale reliability metrics consistently meet or exceed accepted psychometric benchmarks for behavioral screening instruments:
- School Adjustment Subscale (7 items): α = .88 to .92
- Peer Preferred Behavior Subscale (7 items): α = .86 to .91
- Teacher Preferred Behavior Subscale (5 items): α = .81 to .87
Test-Retest Stability
Temporal stability evaluated across a 4-to-6-week interval with identical teacher raters yielded test-retest correlation coefficients of r = .84 (p < .001) for the total score, r = .82 for Peer Preferred Behavior, r = .79 for Teacher Preferred Behavior, and r = .86 for School Adjustment. Across a full one-year developmental interval (involving different teachers in subsequent grades), stability coefficients remained moderate (r = .48 to .58), reflecting expected behavioral modifications in response to novel classroom micro-ecologies while capturing stable dispositional individual differences.
Inter-Rater Agreement
Inter-rater reliability between primary classroom teachers and auxiliary instructional aides yields Pearson coefficients ranging from r = .68 to .77. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) across independent observers within self-contained special education classrooms consistently average above .74, indicating that the explicitly operationalized items reduce subjective rater bias.
Factor Analysis
Exploratory factor analyses (EFA) and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) have confirmed the underlying multidimensional architecture of the 19-item scale.
Exploratory Factor Structure
Initial principal axis factoring with promax and varimax rotations conducted on the normative cohort samples extracted three primary factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0, collectively accounting for approximately 64% to 68% of the total variance:
- Factor 1: School Adjustment / Academic Orientation accounted for the largest proportion of common variance (~38%). Items loading highest on this factor include Item 15 (attends to assigned tasks; factor loading = .82), Item 18 (does seatwork assignments as directed; loading = .80), Item 10 (listens carefully to teacher instructions; loading = .78), and Item 11 (independent study skills; loading = .71).
- Factor 2: Peer-Directed Affiliative Competence accounted for approximately 18% of variance. Primary loadings include Item 16 (keeps conversations with peers going; loading = .84), Item 9 (initiates conversation with peers; loading = .81), Item 17 (invites peers to play; loading = .79), and Item 8 (plays or talks with peers for extended periods; loading = .75).
- Factor 3: Emotional Regulation and Frustration Tolerance (Teacher-Preferred) accounted for approximately 10% of variance. Dominant loadings include Item 6 (responds to teasing by ignoring or constructive means; loading = .77), Item 12 (copes without aggression; loading = .74), Item 5 (compromises with peers; loading = .69), and Item 14 (accepts not getting own way; loading = .66).
Notably, Item 7 (accepts constructive criticism from peers without becoming angry) exhibits cross-loadings across Factor 1 and Factor 3, reflecting its dual operational role as both an academic enabler and an emotional-regulatory skill. Consequently, standard scoring protocols include Item 7 in both the School Adjustment and Teacher Preferred subscales.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Fit Indices
Confirmatory factor analytic investigations evaluating a correlated three-factor structural model against a unidimensional single-factor model have demonstrated the superiority of the three-factor specification:
- Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .952
- Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = .944
- Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .048 (90% CI [.042, .055])
- Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) = .039
A bifactor model featuring a strong general “Prosocial Competence” factor alongside three orthogonal group factors has also demonstrated robust fit (CFI = .971, RMSEA = .036), justifying both the calculation of specific subscale scores and an omnibus composite score for clinical and research purposes.
Instrument / Measurement Tool
The operational characteristics, administrative protocol, and scoring criteria for the Prosocial Behaviors of Children instrument are outlined below:
- Instrument Designation: Prosocial Behaviors of Children
- Target Respondent: Classroom teachers, paraprofessionals, educational aides, or trained behavioral observers familiar with the child’s daily interactions for at least 4 to 6 weeks.
- Target Population: Children in preschool, kindergarten, and elementary school (approximate age range: 4 to 12 years).
- Administration Format: Standardized paper-and-pencil or secure digital rating inventory.
- Administration Time: Approximately 5 to 8 minutes per child.
- Item Count: 19 standardized behavioral statements.
- Response Options: 5-point Likert-type frequency rating scale:
- 1 = Never
- 2 = Rarely
- 3 = Sometimes
- 4 = Often
- 5 = Frequently
- Scoring Instructions and Subscale Derivations:
- Total Composite Score (Prosocial Behavior and Social Competence): Sum of all 19 items (Items 1 through 19). Theoretical score range: 19 to 95.
- School Adjustment Subscale: Sum of 7 designated items (Items 2, 7, 10, 11, 15, 18, and 19). Theoretical score range: 7 to 35.
- Peer Preferred Behavior Subscale: Sum of 7 designated items (Items 1, 3, 8, 9, 13, 16, and 17). Theoretical score range: 7 to 35.
- Teacher Preferred Behavior Subscale: Sum of 5 designated items (Items 5, 6, 7, 12, and 14). Theoretical score range: 5 to 25.
- Score Interpretation: All items are keyed in a positive, prosocial direction. Higher scores across all composite and subscale metrics indicate higher frequencies of adaptive behavioral competence, stronger peer affiliation, and superior academic self-regulation. Scores falling below 1.5 standard deviations from normative benchmarks suggest significant social-behavioral deficits warranting targeted intervention.
Permissions & Fee and Test Year
The Prosocial Behaviors of Children scale was originally formulated by Scott R. McConnell, Phillip S. Strain, Mary Margaret Kerr, and colleagues in 1984. The instrument was subsequently adapted, operationalized, and widely standardized by the Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group (CPPRG) starting in 1991 for the multi-site Fast Track Project.
The measure is in the public domain and has been published as a non-copyrighted instrument for public health and academic evaluation by the United States Federal Government. It is formally archived in the public compendium: Measuring Violence-Related Attitudes, Behaviors, and Influences Among Youths: A Compendium of Assessment Tools (2nd ed.), published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (Dahlberg, Toal, Swahn, & Behrens, 2005, pp. 246–247).
Fee Structure: There are no commercial fees, purchase costs, or per-use royalty fees required for non-commercial scientific research, school-based screening, or educational practice. Researchers and clinical practitioners may reproduce and administer the scale freely, provided proper scholarly citation is maintained to the original authors and the CDC Compendium documentation.
References
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Teacher’s Report Form and 1991 Profile. Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont. https://doi.org/10.1037/t00570-000
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Prentice-Hall.
Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (1991). Prosocial Behaviors of Children: Technical Report. Department of Psychology, Duke University. https://fasttrackproject.org/
Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (1999). Initial impact of the Fast Track prevention trial for conduct problems: I. The high-risk sample. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67(5), 631–647. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.67.5.631
Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115(1), 74–101. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.115.1.74
Dahlberg, L. L., Toal, S. B., Swahn, M., & Behrens, C. B. (2005). Measuring Violence-Related Attitudes, Behaviors, and Influences Among Youths: A Compendium of Assessment Tools (2nd ed.). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/YV_Compendium.pdf
Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). Social Skills Rating System (SSRS). American Guidance Service.
McConnell, S. R., Strain, P. S., Kerr, M. M., Stagg, V., & Lenkner, C. C. (1984). An empirical definition of social competence in young handicapped and nonhandicapped children. Unpublished manuscript, Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine.
Walker, H. M., & McConnell, S. R. (1995). The Walker-McConnell Scale of Social Competence and School Adjustment: Elementary Version. Singular Publishing Group.