THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERCEIVED SOCIAL SUPPORT ANDMALADJUSTMENT FOR STUDENTS AT RISK

MICHELLE KILPATRICK DEMARAY AND CHRISTINE KERRES MALECKI

Northern Illinois University

This study examines the relationship between adolescents’ (N � 125) perceived social supportand self-reported (mal)adjustment indicators in a sample of predominantly at risk: Hispanicstudents in an urban middle school. The instruments used to collect data were the Child andAdolescent Social Support Scale (Malecki, Demaray, & Elliott, 2000) and the Behavior Assess-ment System for Children, Self Report of Personality (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 1998). Resultsindicated significant relationships in the expected direction between overall social support andclinical and school (mal)adjustment indicators. Parent and classmate support were most stronglyrelated to clinical and interpersonal indicators whereas parent, teacher, and school support wererelated to school-related indicators. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Introduction

This study examined the relationship between adolescents’ perceived social support and self-reported (mal)adjustment indicators in a sample of predominantly at-risk Hispanic students in anurban middle school. It is critical to gain a better understanding of the variables (e.g., socialsupport) related to students’ maladjustment, especially in school, as current statistics provideevidence that many of the country’s adolescents are at risk for school failure (Educational ResourceInformation Center, 1999). Estimates of school-age students at risk for school failure range from20 to 40%, and the number and proportion of students at risk is increasing (Natriello, McDill, &Pallas, 1990). Moreover, poverty and minority status, both of which are indicators for at-riskstatus, are increasing (Clearinghouse on Urban Education, 2001; Natriello et al., 1990). Natrielloand colleagues predict that, in the United States by the year 2020, approximately 25% of studentswill be living in conditions of poverty and approximately 50% of students will be of minorityracial backgrounds. The number of Hispanic students is rapidly increasing in U.S. schools. Datafrom the 2000 Census indicates that the Hispanic population has increased by 57.9% since 1990(the total population increased 13.2%) (United States Census Bureau, 2001). Outcomes for minor-ity students are often worse than for nonminority students. For example, in 1998, 8% of White,non-Hispanic students, 14% of African American students, and 30% of Hispanic students droppedout of school (National Center for Education Statistics, 1999). Thus it is crucial to further inves-tigate the role of social support in the lives of at-risk populations so that preventative efforts canfocus on intervening before these maladaptive outcomes occur for our nation’s adolescent stu-dents. As part of that investigation, the current study involved a group of 125 adolescents from anat-risk urban middle school. The study was conducted with a large, primarily Hispanic, at-riskadolescent sample to investigate students’ perceived social support and their self-reported adjust-ment and maladjustment.

Social Support and (Mal)adjustment

Research suggests that there are significant relationships between positive and negative adjust-ment variables and students’perceptions of social support. Thus social support may help provide pro-tective or buffering factors against personal and school maladjustment. Specifically, social support

This work is co-authored; order of authorship is random. Correspondence to: Michelle K. Demaray, Northern IllinoisUniversity, Department of Psychology, DeKalb, IL 60115; e-mail: mkdemaray@niu.edu.

Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 39(3), 2002 © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/pits.10018

305

has been investigated in children and adolescents both as a buffer against negative physical andpsychological outcomes (Bender & Losel, 1997; Compas, Slavin, Wagner, & Vannatta, 1986;Dubow, Edwards, & Ippolito, 1997; Jackson & Warren, 2000; Ostrander, Weinfurt, & Nay, 1998)and as a key construct in increasing positive physical and psychological outcomes (Forman,1988; Levitt, Guacci-Franco, & Levitt, 1994; Pryor-Brown & Cowen, 1989; Rothman & Cosden,1995). Recently, Demaray and Malecki (in press) examined the relationship between social sup-port and a variety of positive and negative outcomes simultaneously. Significant positive rela-tionships were found between social support and a variety of positive indicators including socialskills, academic competence, leadership, and adaptive skills. In addition, significant negativerelationships were found between social support and a variety of negative indicators such asconduct problems, aggression, hyperactivity, anxiety, depression, and withdrawal (Demaray &Malecki, in press).

The literature in this area also indicates that there are patterns in how the source of support(e.g., parent vs. friends) affects the relationship between support and (mal)adjustment indicators.For example, throughout the literature both high peer support and family support are associatedwith many positive indicators for students. Thus low peer and family support are associated withnegative indicators. Specifically, low levels of both peer and family support are associated withadjustment and behavioral problems (Dunn, Putallaz, Sheppard, & Lindstrom, 1987; East, Hess,& Lerner, 1987; Kashani, Canfield, Borduin, Soltys, & Reid, 1994), delinquency (Licitra-Kleckler& Waas, 1993), withdrawn behavior and hopelessness (Kashani et al., 1994), emotional problems(Garnefski & Diekstra, 1996), depression (Cheng, 1997; Licitra-Kleckler & Waas, 1993), andlower self-concept (Forman, 1988; Wenz-Gross, Siperstein, Untch, & Widaman, 1997). A higherlevel of family support is more often associated with better school adjustment and higher aca-demic self-concept (Dunn et al., 1987; Wenz-Gross et al., 1997). Fewer studies have examinedsupport from other sources such as teacher support; however, research indicates that higher levelsof teacher support or better social support networks with teachers and peers are associated withbetter school-related outcomes such as not being a victim of school violence (Furlong, Chung,Bates, & Morrison, 1995).

Malecki and Demaray (2001) further investigated these patterns, examining multiple sourcesof support, and found that there were moderate, significant relationships between students’ per-ceptions of social support from parents, teachers, classmates, and close friends and their social,emotional, and behavioral indicators (adaptive skills, externalizing behavior, internalizing behav-ior, and problem behavior symptoms). Specifically, the relationships between parent and class-mate support and the behavioral indicators were statistically stronger than the relationships betweenindicators and close friend and teacher support.

Researchers have also focused on specific groups, including at-risk students, to investigatesocial support. For example, perceived social support has been found to be related to more posi-tive outcomes for children (a) of divorce, (b) with learning disabilities, (c) identified as gifted, and(d) classified as at risk (Cauce, Felner, & Primavera, 1982; Cowen, Pedro-Carroll, & Alpert-Gillis,1990; Dunn et al., 1987; Forman, 1988; Kloomok & Cosden, 1994; Rothman & Cosden, 1995;VanTassel-Baska, Olszewski-Kubilius, & Kulieke, 1994; Wenz-Gross & Siperstein, 1997). Last,researchers have reported that children and adolescents with high perceived levels of social sup-port often have been found to have fewer adjustment problems (Compas et al., 1986; East et al.,1987; Hirsch, 1985; Hoffman, Ushpiz, & Levy-Shift, 1988).

The present study intends to extend the previous research in several ways. First, a morecomprehensive definition of social support was used. Social support has been conceptualized andassessed in a variety of methods in the presented literature. In the present study, social support isdefined as an individual’s perceptions of general support or specific supportive behaviors (avail-

306 Demaray and Malecki

able or acted on) from people in their social network, which enhances their functioning and/ormay buffer them from adverse outcomes. General support or supportive behaviors include emo-tional, instrumental, informational, and appraisal support. The source of support (social network)is conceptualized as support from sources such as parents or friends. The current study used ameasure of social support that assessed students’ perceptions of social support from many sources:parents, teachers, classmates, close friends, and the school. This will further the previous research,which has predominantly investigated social support primarily from parents and peers. The cur-rent study allows for a comparison between peer and close friend support on students’ indicatorsand adds the teacher and the school as a source of support.

Second, the present study involved a large sample of adolescents considered at risk using avariety of widely accepted criteria such as a sample from a predominantly low-income, minority,and non-English speaking area of a large city. Third, this study gathered data on the relationship ofstudents’ perceptions of social support to their self-perceptions of (mal)adjustment. This methodallowed the study to investigate the relationship among social support and some interesting vari-ables pertaining to students’ attitudes, such as students’ attitudes toward teachers and school.

Research Questions

The primary goals of this study were (a) to investigate the relationships among perceivedsocial support and (mal)adjustment indicators; and (b) to investigate how students’ perceptions ofsocial support from different sources (e.g., parents, teachers, classmates, close friends, and school)might relate to (mal)adjustment indicators differently. It was predicted that there would be signif-icant positive relationships among social support and positive adjustment indicators and signifi-cant negative relationships among social support and maladjustment indicators. Furthermore, basedon previous research it was predicted that parent and classmate support would be most stronglyrelated to more general (mal)adjustment indicators (e.g., clinical maladjustment, personal adjust-ment, emotional symptoms), and that teacher and classmate support would be most strongly relatedto (mal)adjustment indicators relating primarily to students’ functioning in school (e.g., schoolmaladjustment).

Method

Participants

This study used data from a total of 125 students in Grades 6 through 8 from an urban middleschool in Illinois. The participating middle school has a large number of students who could beclassified as at risk. For example, they have a large number of students classified as low income(64%; e.g., receive free or reduced lunch, public aid, etc.) and minority (88.8%; predominantlyHispanic). Furthermore, the percentage of students that performed “Below Standards” on theIllinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT) was 81% in math, 56% in reading, 54% in writing,47% in science, and 60% in social sciences. The percentage of students that scored “Below Stan-dards” in each academic area at this school is higher than the state average for each area—36%across academic areas.

The distribution of students across grades was 44 sixth graders (35.2%), 61 seventh graders(48.8%), and 20 eighth graders (16%). Sixty (48%) of the participants were male and 65 (52%)were female. With respect to race or ethnicity, 89 (71.2%) of the participants were Hispanic, 20(16%) were African American, 11 (8.8%) were White, 3 (2.4%) were Asian, 1 (.8%) was NativeAmerican, and 1 (.8%) listed his or her ethnicity as “other.”

Social Support and Maladjustment 307

Materials

The primary instruments used to collect data were two student-completed ratings scales, theChild and Adolescent Social Support Scale (CASSS; Malecki et al., 2000) and the BehaviorAssessment System for Children, Self Report of Personality (BASC SRP; Reynolds & Kamphaus,1998).

Child and Adolescent Social Support Scale. The CASSS (2000) is a 60-item rating scalemeasuring perceived social support from five sources: parents, teachers, classmates, close friends,and school. Items on the CASSS (2000) consist of statements such as, “My parent(s) help memake decisions.” Students respond by rating each item on two aspects: frequency and importance.Frequency ratings consist of a 6-point Likert scale from 1 (Never) to 6 (Always). Importanceratings consist of a 3-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Not Important) to 3 (Very Important). Theimportance ratings assess the social validity of the supportive behaviors as investigated by Dema-ray and Malecki (2001). Each subscale corresponds to one of the five sources of support (e.g.,parent, teacher, classmate, close friend, and school) and consists of 12 items. Subscale scores arecalculated by summing the frequency ratings on the 12 items on each subscale (Parent, Teacher,Classmate, Close Friend, and School). In addition, a total frequency score can be calculated bysumming all five frequency subscale scores. Subscale and total importance scale scores can becomputed using the importance ratings but are intended only for use in clinical interpretation.Importance subscale and total scores were not examined in this study.

The version of the CASSS (2000) used in the current study is a revision of a previous versionby Malecki, Demaray, Elliott, and Nolten (1999). Several changes were made to the previousversion of the CASSS (1999). First, the CASSS (2000) is intended for use with children Grades 3through 12, whereas the CASSS (1999) included two versions: Level 1 (appropriate for thirdthrough sixth graders) and Level 2 (appropriate for sixth through twelfth graders). Second, newsubscale items have been added, and some of the original items have been reworded and/orredistributed to create an equal number of items pertaining to four types of support (emotional,appraisal, informational, and instrumental). There are 12 items pertaining to each of the originalfour subscales (parent, teacher, classmate, and close friend) in the CASSS (2000), which is anincrease from the ten items per subscale in the CASSS (1999). Finally, a fifth subscale has beenadded to the CASSS (2000) that measures overall school support.

Support for the earlier version of the CASSS (1999) came from data on over 1,000 students(Malecki & Demaray, in press). Factor analytic results that indicated a hierarchical model with anoverall total factor and four factors corresponding to the source of support (i.e., parent, teacher,classmate, and close friend). Reliability analysis of the CASSS (1999) indicated coefficient alphasof .94 and .94 for the Total scales for Level 1 and Level 2, respectively. Alphas for the subscalesranged from .87 to .93 and from .89 to .94 for Level 1 and Level 2, respectively. Test-retestreliability analyses for Level 2 (N � 85, eight weeks) indicated a correlation coefficient of .70 forthe Total scale and ranged from .60 to .94 on the subscales. Evidence for convergent validity of theCASSS was demonstrated through a .70 correlation with the Social Support Scale for Children(SSSC; Harter, 1985). Furthermore, significant correlations between the CASSS scores and scoreson the Social Skills Rating System (SSRS; Gresham & Elliott, 1990), the Student Self-ConceptScale (SSCS; Gresham, Elliott, & Evans-Fernandez, 1993), and the Behavior Assessment Systemfor Children (BASC; Reynolds & Kamphaus, 1998) provided evidence of validity.

Data on a sample of 183 middle school students with the new CASSS (2000) indicate evi-dence of similar psychometric qualities to the CASSS (1999). The factor analytic results indicateda clear five-factor structure corresponding to the parent, teacher, classmate, close friend, andschool subscales. Factor loadings ranged from .52 to .81 within each factor. The eigenvalues for

308 Demaray and Malecki

the five factors ranged from 19.07 to 2.67. Reliability analyses revealed evidence that scores onthe CASSS (2000) demonstrate strong internal consistency (r � .96 for Total score) and 8–10-week test-retest reliability (r � .78). Regarding validity evidence, the CASSS (2000) Total scorewas significantly correlated ( p � .001) with the SSSC at .55. In addition, data indicate that theCASSS continues to covary as predicted with the clinically important behavioral indicators.

Behavior Assessment System for Children, Self-Report of Personality. The BASC Self-Report of Personality (SRP) is designed to assess the personality and self-perceptions of children(Reynolds & Kamphaus, 1998). The BASC SRP consists of statements that students respond to aseither “true” or “false.” There are two forms for the SRP: the child form (ages 8–11) and theadolescent form (ages 12–18). The same four composite scales are produced for both the child andadolescent forms: Clinical Maladjustment, School Maladjustment, Personal Maladjustment, andthe Emotional Symptoms Index. These composite scores from the child and adolescent forms wereanalyzed simultaneously as there is considerable overlap in the structure of the scales and theitems. The present study involved 112 students (89.6%) completing the adolescent form and 13students (10.4%) completing the child form. See Table 1 for a description of each of the BASCscales and Composites scales.

Internal consistencies of the BASC SRP are high with composite scales ranging from .87 to.95 for the child version and from .88 to .99 for the adolescent version and subscales ranging from.71 to .88 for the child version and from .58 to .89 for the adolescent version. Test-retest reliability(0–1 month) was evidenced by a median correlation of .76 for both the child and adolescentversion for the scales. Test-retest correlations for the composite scales ranged from .78 to .84 forthe child version and from .81 to .86 for the adolescent version. Validity evidence was provided bythe factor structure of the scales and correlations with other measures, such as the MinnesotaMultiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI; Hathaway & McKinley, 1970) the Youth Self-Report(YSR; Achenbach, 1985), the Behavior Rating Profile (BRP; Brown & Hamill, 1983), and theChildren’s Personality Questionnaire (CPQ; Porter & Cattell, 1975). For more detailed informa-tion on the standardization sample and the psychometric qualities of the BASC SRP, see the BASCmanual (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 1998).

Procedure

Parental consent for their child’s participation in this study was collected at parent confer-ences for the middle school in the fall of the academic year. Additionally, parent consent letterswere sent home to those students whose parents did not attend the parent conferences. Parentalconsent letters were provided in Spanish when appropriate. Approximately 550 students attendedthis school, and positive consent was received for 205 students (37%). Eighty cases were droppedfrom analyses due to incomplete data (students absent during data collection, incomplete proto-cols, or students unable to participate due to severe cognitive disabilities, etc.).

Written student assent to participate was also collected for all participants. All students par-ticipating reported English as their first language and none of the students were part of a bilingualeducation program; thus all measures given to the students were administered in English. Partici-pants were divided into large groups (approximately 10–12 students) and completed the ratingscales with a research assistant reading each item out loud while the students followed along andindependently completed the measures.

Results

To investigate the relationship between students’ perceptions of social support from a varietyof sources and students’ perceptions of (mal)adjustment, correlational analyses were conducted.

Social Support and Maladjustment 309

The correlations between social support (CASSS scores) and (mal)adjustment (BASC SRP scores)are presented in Table 2. Means and standard deviations for the CASSS and BASC SRP are alsopresented in Table 2.

Prediction One

The prediction that there would be significant positive relationships among social supportand positive adjustment indicators and significant negative relationships among social support andmaladjustment indicators was supported. Total social support correlated significantly with all ofthe BASC SRP Composites ranging from r � �.20, p � .05 for the Clinical MaladjustmentComposite to r � �.41, p � .01 for the School Maladjustment Composite. Furthermore, 10 of the14 scales correlated significantly with Total social support. Only the Anxiety, Atypicality, Soma-

Table 1BASC SRP Scale and Composite Definitions

Scale Definition

Clinical Maladjustment A broad index of distress that reflects the clinical, internalizing problems achild may be experiencing

Anxiety Feelings of nervousness, worry, and fear; the tendency to be overwhelmed byproblems

Atypicality The tendency toward gross mood swings, bizarre thoughts, subjective experi-ences, or obsessive-compulsive thoughts and behaviors often considered “odd”

Locus of Control The belief that rewards and punishments are controlled by external events or otherpeople

Social Stress Feelings of stress and tension in personal relationships; a feeling of being ex-cluded from social activities

Somatization The tendency to be overly sensitive to, experience, or complain about relativelyminor physical problems and discomforts

School Maladjustment A broad measure of adaptation to schoolAttitude to School Feelings of alienation, hostility, and dissatisfaction regarding schoolAttitude to Teachers Feelings of resentment and dislike of teachers; beliefs that teachers are unfair,

uncaring, or overly demandingSensation Seeking The tendency to take risks, to like noise, and seek excitementPersonal Adjustment High scores on this composite indicate positive levels of adjustmentRelations with Parents A positive regard toward parents and a feeling of being esteemed by themInterpersonal Relations The perception of having good social relationships and friendships with peersScale DefinitionSelf-Reliance Confidence in one’s ability to solve problems; a belief in one’s personal depend-

ability and decisivenessSelf-Esteem Feelings of self-esteem, self-respect, and self-acceptanceEmotional Symptoms Index (ESI)a The most global indicator of serious emotional disturbance, particularly inter-

nalizing disordersDepression Feelings of unhappiness, sadness, and dejection; a belief that nothing goes rightSense of Inadequacy Perceptions of being unsuccessful in school, unable to achieve one’s goals, and

generally inadequate

Note. Definitions were taken from the BASC manual (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 1998, p. 58).aThe ESI also includes subscales from other composites (Social Stress, Anxiety, Interpersonal Relations, Self-

Esteem).

310 Demaray and Malecki

Tabl

e2

Cor

rela

tion

sB

etw

een

Per

ceiv

edSo

cial

Supp

ort

and

Adj

ustm

ent/

Mal

adju

stm

ent

BA

SC

Par

ent

Teac

her

Cla

ssm

ate

Clo

seF

rien

dS

choo

lTo

tal

MS

D

Clin

ical

Mal

adju

stm

ent

�.3

8**

�.0

5�

.25*

*�

.03

�.0

4�

.20*

49.2

19.

52A

nxie

tya

�.1

7.0

5�

.20*

*.0

2.0

7�

.04

47.1

89.

06A

typi

cali

ty�

.32*

*�

.04

�.2

0**

�.0

5�

.05

�.1

849

.57

9.81

Loc

usof

Con

trol

�.4

4**

�.1

0�

.21*

*�

.06

�.1

3�

.25*

*50

.54

9.38

Soc

ial

Str

essa

�.3

3**

�.0

3�

.34*

*�

.13

�.0

5�

.25*

*48

.01

9.32

Som

atiz

atio

n�

.25*

*�

.03

�.1

1.0

5.0

0�

.07

51.6

010

.57

Em

otio

nalS

ympt

oms

Inde

x(E

SI)a

�.3

9**

�.0

7�

.34*

*�

.16

�.0

6�

.28*

*49

.11

9.42

Dep

ress

ion

�.4

8**

�.0

8�

.27*

*�

.15

�.0

5�

.29*

*50

.65

9.47

Sen

seof

Inad

equa

cy�

.24*

*�

.15

�.2

8**

�.0

6�

.14

�.2

6**

50.2

47.

86P

erso

nalA

djus

tmen

t.4

3**

.16

.30*

*.2

6**

.16

.36*

*48

.94

10.1

2R

elat

ions

wit

hP

aren

ts.5

2**

.19*

.15

.08

.15

.35*

*47

.82

11.2

8In

terp

erso

nal

Rel

atio

nsa

.25*

*.0

9.4

1**

.33*

*.1

5.3

4**

49.6

89.

88S

elf-

Rel

ianc

e.1

0.1

3.1

8*.2

0*.1

7.2

3*49

.27

10.2

6S

elf-

Est

eem

a.4

0**

.06

.15

.15

�.0

0.2

0*50

.27

9.13

Scho

olM

alad

just

men

t�

.35*

*�

.50*

*�

.10

�.1

4�

.30*

*�

.41*

*54

.45

10.7

5A

ttit

ude

toS

choo

l�

.34*

*�

.43*

*�

.09

�.1

4�

.29*

*�

.38*

*52

.31

10.6

5A

ttit

ude

toTe

ache

rs�

.26*

*�

.59*

*�

.15

�.1

4�

.39*

*�

.45*

*55

.12

10.5

2S

ensa

tion

See

king

�.2

8**

�.2

4**

�.0

0�

.05

�.0

7�

.18

53.6

310

.09

M56

.83

48.4

746

.82

54.1

141

.22

247.

47SD

13.1

715

.43

14.4

414

.10

16.2

951

.41

Not

e.a T

heE

SI

also

incl

udes

subs

cale

sfr

omot

her

com

posi

tes

(Soc

ial

Str

ess,

Anx

iety

,Int

erpe

rson

alR

elat

ions

,Sel

f-E

stee

m).

*p�

.05

**p

�.0

1.

Social Support and Maladjustment 311

tization, and Sensation Seeking scales did not correlate significantly with Total support. Signifi-cant correlations between Total support and SRP scales ranged from r � .20, p � .05 for theSelf-Esteem Scale to r � �.45, p � .01 for the Attitude to Teachers Scale.

Correlations between Parent support and the SRP Clinical Maladjustment Composite andincluded scales (i.e., Anxiety, Atypicality, Locus of Control, Social Stress, and Somatization)were all negative and significant ( p � .01), with the exception of the Anxiety Scale. Similarly,all of the correlations between Classmate support and the Clinical Maladjustment Compositeand included scales were negative, moderate, and significant ( p � .01), with the exception of theSomatization Scale. Teacher, Close Friend, and School support were not significantly related tothe Clinical Maladjustment Composite or included scales. The Emotional Symptoms Index (ESI)and remaining scales not included in other composites (i.e., Depression and Sense of Inade-quacy) correlated negatively, moderately, and significantly ( p � .01) with Parent and Classmatesupport. Teacher, Close Friend, or School support was not significantly related to the ESI andremaining scales.

Correlations between the SRP Personal Adjustment Composite and included scales (i.e., Rela-tions with Parents, Interpersonal Relations, Self-Reliance, and Self-Esteem) with Parent supportwere all positive, moderate, and significant ( p � .01) (except for the Self-Reliance Scale). Onlythe Relations with Parents Scale was correlated ( p � .05) with Teacher support. Close Friend andClassmate support were positively, moderately, and significantly correlated with the PersonalAdjustment Composite ( p � .01), Interpersonal Relations ( p � .01), and Self-Reliance ( p � .05).

Lastly, only Parent, Teacher, and School support correlated negatively, moderately, and sig-nificantly ( p � .01) with the SRP School Maladjustment Composite and included scales (i.e.,Attitude to School, Attitude to Teachers, and Sensation Seeking), with the exception of Schoolsupport and Sensation Seeking. Classmate and Close Friend support was not significantly relatedto the School Maladjustment Composite or included scales.

Prediction Two

The prediction that parent and classmate support would be most strongly related to moregeneral (mal)adjustment indicators (e.g., clinical maladjustment, personal adjustment, emotionalsymptoms) and that teacher and classmate support would be most strongly related to (mal)adjust-ment indicators relating primarily to students’ functioning in school (e.g., school maladjustment)was partially supported. This prediction was supported by the pattern that appeared in the corre-lational table and by regression analyses.

A series of regression analyses were conducted with the BASC SRP Composites (i.e., Clin-ical Maladjustment, ESI, Personal Adjustment, and School Maladjustment) as the dependent vari-ables and the five CASSS subscales entered as predictors (i.e., Parent, Teacher, Classmate, CloseFriend, School). For the Clinical Maladjustment Composite, the five predictor variables collec-tively accounted for 20% of the variance ( p � .001), and the Parent (� � �37, p � .001).andClassmate (� � �.25, p � .05) subscales were significant individual predictors of Clinical Mal-adjustment. Similarly, for the ESI Composite, the five predictor variables collectively accountedfor 22% of the variance ( p � .001), and the Parent (� � �34, p � .001) and Classmate (� ��.30, p � .01) subscales were significant individual predictors of Emotional Symptoms. For thePersonal Adjustment Composite, the five predictor variables accounted for 22% of the varianceand the Parent subscale (� � .38, p � .001) was the only significant individual predictor. Lastly,on the School Maladjustment Composite, the five predictor variables accounted for 30% of thevariance and the Parent (� � �.26, p � .01) and Teacher (�� �.41, p � .001) subscales weresignificant individual predictors.

312 Demaray and Malecki

Discussion

The present study investigated the relationship between five broad sources of perceived socialsupport (parent, teacher, classmate, close friend, and school) and (mal)adjustment indicators in alarge sample of at-risk students in sixth through eighth grade. Results indicate that there aresignificant relationships in the expected direction between overall social support and clinical andschool (mal)adjustment. Parent and classmate support seem to be most strongly related to clinicaland interpersonal indicators whereas parent, teacher, and school support are related to school-related indicators. Furthermore, regression analyses revealed that of the five sources of support,only parent and classmate support are significant individual predictors of clinical maladjustmentand emotional symptoms. Only parent support significantly predicts personal adjustment. Finally,parent and teacher support significantly predict school maladjustment.

The first prediction was supported with results indicating that there are moderate significantrelationships in the expected direction between overall social support and adjustment and malad-justment indicators including clinical and school maladjustment, personal adjustment, and emo-tional symptoms. These findings are also supported by previous literature (Bender & Losel, 1997;Compas et al., 1986; Demaray & Malecki, in press; Dubow et al., 1997; Forman, 1988; Jackson &Warren, 2000; Levitt et al., 1994; Ostrander et al., 1998; Pryor-Brown & Cowen, 1989; Rothman& Cosden, 1995). Regarding the relationships between varying sources of support and the(mal)adjustment indicators, a pattern emerged revealing significant relationships only betweenparent and classmate support with more clinical maladjustment indicators (i.e., the more parentand classmate support, the better the indicator). Additionally, parent, classmate, and close friendsupport were significantly related to personal adjustment indicators (e.g., interpersonal relations)with no significant relationships found with teacher and school support (with one exception).These results are supported by previous research findings (Dunn et al., 1987; East et al., 1987;Garnefski & Diekstra, 1996; Kashani et al., 1994; Malecki & Demaray, 2002). Finally, schoolmaladjustment indicators were significantly related to parent, teacher, and school support and notrelated to classmate and close friend support. This was partially supported by research by Furlonget al. (1995) that found a significant relationship between negative indicators and teacher and peersocial network. Thus, parent and classmate support seem to be most strongly related to clinical andinterpersonal indicators whereas parent, teacher, and school support are related to school-relatedindicators.

The second prediction was partially supported. Parent and classmate support were significantpredictors of clinical maladjustment and emotional symptoms. Only parent support significantlypredicted personal adjustment. Therefore, as expected and as previous research suggests, parentand classmate support seem to play an important role in the clinical and personal outcomes expe-rienced by adolescents (Dunn et al., 1987; East et al., 1987; Garnefski & Diekstra, 1996; Malecki& Demaray, 2001; Kashani et al., 1994). Regarding school maladjustment indicators, it was pre-dicted that teacher and school support would be most predictive. Results indicate, however, thatclassmate support does not but teacher support does indeed predict school maladjustment alongwith parent support. Thus, the level of parent support adolescents perceive is a significant predic-tor of all indicators assessed in the present study.

A unique feature of the current study is the sample. The participants are primarily minority(Hispanic) and from a low-income urban middle school. This is a strength in that we have exam-ined the relationship between social support and (mal)adjustment indicators for a highly at-riskpopulation; however, results should not be generalized to other populations. In addition, onlyself-report data were gathered from these adolescents. This allowed the study to focus on theperceptions and attitudes of the students themselves without relying on others’ reports of their

Social Support and Maladjustment 313

psychological and emotional indicators. Although we maintain that this is a positive and uniqueperspective, it would have been beneficial to have other informant data to investigate.

Future research should continue to examine these relationships with a more representativesample of children and adolescents. For example, research shows that levels of perceived socialsupport from different sources changes over time with development (Levitt et al., 1994; Weigel,Devereux, Leigh, & Ballard-Reisch, 1998) and that children and adolescents sometimes seek outa particular source for a certain type of support (Furman & Buhrmester, 1985; Morrison, Laugh-lin, Miguel, Smith, & Widaman, 1997). With this in mind, it would be important to gather datafrom elementary through high school students to be able to examine developmental trends inresults.

Conclusions

The present study documents significant relationships between overall social support andclinical and school maladjustment, personal adjustment, and emotional symptoms for a sample ofprimarily Hispanic students with at-risk characteristics. Among five sources of support (parent,teacher, classmate, close friend, and school), only parent and classmate support are significantindividual predictors of clinical maladjustment and emotional symptoms, only parent supportsignificantly predicts personal adjustment, and parent and teacher support significantly predictschool maladjustment. These results suggest that, for this particular sample of middle schoolstudents, parent support is strongly related to most all of the positive and negative outcomes theyexperience. Furthermore, classmate support—that is, the support perceived by general peers (notnecessarily friends)—is related to clinical outcomes. Perhaps, by nature, a close friend providessupport, and since most adolescents can identify at least one close friend, this support is morereliable than the support from classmates or more general “peers.” Finally, teacher support alongwith parent support is important in predicting school maladjustment. This result suggests that thesupport from adults in these adolescents’ lives is more related to their school outcomes thensupport from their peers.

These results should heighten school psychologists’ awareness of how social support func-tions in providing our students with needed resources that may play a significant role in theiradjustment. Based on results from this study, school psychologists should understand that thesupport perceived from parents by this at-risk population of adolescents plays a crucial role intheir overall and school adjustment. School psychologists should reinforce positive, supportiveparental relationships and help provide resources to facilitate increased parental support and involve-ment for the students in their schools. Additionally, teaching staff should understand that theirsupportive role appears to play a significant part in students’ attitudes about teachers and theirschool experience in general. Finally, classmate support, or the support students perceive notnecessarily from their friends but from their general peer group, appears to be very important inmany adjustment outcomes for adolescents. School psychologists should continue to identify waysof enhancing positive, respectful, and supportive peer relationships in their schools. Overall, research-ers and practitioners should not underestimate the importance of the support our at-risk adoles-cents perceive from the adults and classmates in their lives.

References

Achenbach, T.M. (1985). Youth Self Report. Burlington, VT: Author.

Bender, D., & Losel, F. (1997). Protective and risk effects of peer relations and social support on antisocial behavior inadolescents from multi-problem milieus. Journal of Adolescence, 20, 661– 678.

Brown, L.L., & Hamill, D.D. (1983). Behavior Rating Profile. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

314 Demaray and Malecki

Cauce, A., Felner, R., & Primavera, J. (1982). Social support in high-risk adolescents: Structural components and adaptiveimpact. American Journal of Community Psychology, 10 (4), 417– 428.

Cheng, C. (1997). Role of perceived social support on depression in Chinese adolescents: A prospective study examiningthe buffering model. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 800–820.

Clearinghouse on Urban Education. (2001). Latinos in school: Some facts and findings. ERIC Digest, 162, 1–5.Compas, B.E., Slavin, L.A., Wagner, B.A., & Vannatta, K. (1986). Relationship of life events and social support with

psychological dysfunction among adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 15, 205–221.Cowen, E.L., Pedro-Carroll, J.L., & Alpert-Gillis, L.J. (1990). Relationships between support and adjustment among

children of divorce. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 31 (5), 727–735.Demaray, M.K., & Malecki, C.K. (in press). Importance ratings of socially supportive behaviors by children and adolescents.Demaray, M.K., & Malecki, C.K. (in press). Critical levels of perceived social support associated with student adjustment.

School Psychology Quarterly.Dubow, E.F., Edwards, S., & Ippolito, M.F. (1997). Life stressors, neighborhood disadvantage, and resources: A focus on

inner-city children’s adjustment. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 26, 130–144.Dunn, S.E., Putallaz, M., Sheppard, B.H., & Lindstrom, R. (1987). Social support and adjustment in gifted adolescents.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 467– 473.East, P.L., Hess, L.E., & Lerner, R.M. (1987). Peer social support and adjustment of early adolescent peer groups. Journal

of Early Adolescence, 7, 153–163.Educational Resources Information Center. (1999). A nation still at risk (ERIC Digest). Clearinghouse on Assessment and

Evaluation, College Park, MD. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 429 998).Forman, E.A. (1988). The effects of social support and school placement on the self-concept of LD students. Learning

Disability Quarterly, 11, 115–124.Furlong, M.J., Chung, A., Bates, M., & Morrison, R.L. (1995). Who are the victims of school violence? A comparison of

student non-victims and multi-victims. Education and Treatment of Children, 18, 282–298.Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1985). Children’s perceptions of the personal relationships in their social networks.

Developmental Psychology, 21, 1016–1024.Garnefski, N., & Diekstra, R. (1996). Perceived social support from family, school, and peers: Relationship with emotional

and behavioral problems among adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,35, 1657–1664.

Gresham, F., & Elliott, S. (1990). The Social Skills Rating System. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Gresham, F., Elliott, S., & Evans-Fernandez, S. (1993). Student Self-Concept Scale. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance

Service.Hathaway, S.R., & McKinley, J.C. (1970). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Minneapolis: University of Min-

nesota Press.Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the Social Support Scale for Children. Denver, CO: University of Denver.Hirsch, B. (1985). Adolescent coping and support across multiple social environments. American Journal of Community

Psychology, 13 (4), 381–392.Hoffman, M.A., Ushpiz, V., & Levy-Shift, R. (1988). Social support and self-esteem in adolescence. Journal of Youth and

Adolescence, 17 (4), 307–316.Jackson, Y., & Warren, J.S. (2000). Appraisal, social support, and life events: Predicting outcome behavior in school-age

children. Child Development, 71, 1441–1457.Kashani, J.H., Canfield, L.A., Borduin, C.M., Soltys, S.M., & Reid, J.C. (1994). Perceived family and social support:

Impact on children. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 33, 819–823.Kloomok, S., & Cosden, M. (1994). Self-concept in children with learning disabilities: The relationship between global

self-concept, academic “discounting,” nonacademic self-concept, and perceived social support. Learning DisabilityQuarterly, 17, 140–153.

Levitt, M.J., Guacci-Franco, N., & Levitt, J.L. (1994). Social support achievement in childhood and early adolescence: Amulticultural study. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 15, 207–222.

Licitra-Kleckler, D.M., & Waas, G.A. (1993). Perceived social support among high-stress adolescents: The role of peersand family. Journal of Adolescent Research, 8, 381– 402.

Malecki, C.K., & Demaray, M.K. (2002). Measuring perceived social support: Development of the Child and AdolescentSocial Support Scale. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 1–18.

Malecki C.K., & Demaray, M.K. (in press). Investigating the relations between social support source and student adjustment.Malecki, C.K., Demaray, M.K., & Elliott, S.N. (2000). The Child and Adolescent Social Support Scale. DeKalb, IL:

Northern Illinois University.Malecki, C.K., Demaray, M.K., Elliott, S.N., & Nolten, P.W. (1999). The Child and Adolescent Social Support Scale.

DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University.

Social Support and Maladjustment 315

Morrison, G.M., Laughlin, J., Miguel, S.S., Smith, D.C., & Widaman, K. (1997). Sources of support for school-relatedissues: Choices of Hispanic adolescents varying in migrant status. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26, 233–252.

National Center for Educational Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. (1999). Digest of Educational Statistics, 127–130.Natriello, G., McDill, E.L., & Pallas, A.M. (1990). Schooling disadvantaged children: Racing against catastrophe. New

York: Teachers College Press (Columbia University).Ostrander, R., Weinfurt, K.P., & Nay, W.R. (1998). The role of age, family support, and negative cognitions in the predic-

tion of depressive symptoms. School Psychology Review, 27, 121–137.Porter, R.B., & Cattell, R.B. (1975). Children’s Personality Questionnaire. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and

Ability Testing.Pryor-Brown, L., & Cowen, E.L. (1989). Stressful life events, support, and children’s school adjustment. Journal of

Clinical Child Psychology, 18, 214–220.Reynolds, C.R., & Kamphaus, R.W. (1998). The Behavior Assessment System for Children. Circle Pines, MN: American

Guidance Service, Inc.Rothman, H.R., & Cosden, M. (1995). The relationship between self-perception of a learning disability and achievement,

self-concept and social support. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 203–212.United States Census Bureau. (2001). The Hispanic population: Census 2000 brief. U.S. Department of Commerce, Eco-

nomics and Statistical Administration.VanTassel-Baska, J., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Kulieke, M. (1994). A study of self-concept and social support in advan-

taged and disadvantaged seventh and eighth grade gifted students. Roeper Review, 16, 186–191.Weigel, D. J., Devereux, P., Leigh, G.K., & Ballard-Reisch, D. (1998). A longitudinal study of adolescents’ perceptions of

support and stress: Stability and change. Journal of Adolescent Research, 13, 158–177.Wenz-Gross, M., & Siperstein, G.N. (1997). Importance of social support in the adjustment of children with learning

problems. Exceptional Children, 63 (2), 183–193.Wenz-Gross, M., Siperstein, G.N., Untch, A.S., & Widaman, K.F. (1997). Stress, social support, and adjustment of ado-

lescents in middle schools. Journal of Early Adolescence, 17, 129–151.

316 Demaray and Malecki