www.ijcrsee.com
349
Buha, N. & Jelić, M. (2025). Validation of the Social Skills Rating System: The Serbian Preschool Teacher Version, International
Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 349-363.
Original scientific paper
Received: April 16, 2025.
Revised: June 17, 2025.
Accepted: August 03, 2025.
UDC:
373.23(497.11)
159.923.5-053.4(497.11)
10.23947/2334-8496-2025-13-2-349-363
© 2025 by the authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
*
Corresponding author:
natasabuha@fasper.bg.ac.rs
Abstract: Social competence is a key aspect of early development, with long-term implications for children’s func-
tioning 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 origi-
nal 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 valid-
ity. 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 promis-
ing, further research is needed to more robustly confirm its validity and reliability across broader populations and contexts.
Keywords: social skills, problem behaviors, social skills rating system, validation, teacher rating, preschool.
Nataša Buha
1*
, Marija Jelić
1
1
University of Belgrade – Faculty of Special Education and Rehabilitation, Belgrade, Serbia,
e-mail:
natasabuha@fasper.bg.ac.rs, marijajelic@fasper.bg.ac.rs
Validation of the Social Skills Rating System: The Serbian Preschool
Teacher Version
Introduction
Social skills are learned, socially acceptable behaviors that facilitate positive interactions with oth-
ers. They involve both initiating and responding to social cues, reinforced by appropriate social feedback
and shaped by context. Essentially, social skills enable individuals to engage effectively in various social
settings (
Little et al., 2017), and they are crucial for success in academic environments (e.g. Quílez-
Robres et al., 2021). According to teachers, key social skills for thriving in school include active listening,
following classroom rules and teacher instructions, seeking help when needed, collaborating with peers,
and managing emotions in conflict situations (Gresham et al., 2011).
Social skills form the foundation of socially competent behavior and are essential for assessing
social competence, which involves evaluating the quality of an individual’s interactions (Dryburgh et al.,
2020; Little et al., 2017). Deficits in social competence are a core feature of various disabilities. Children
with emotional disabilities often struggle to establish and maintain meaningful relationships with peers
and teachers, frequently exhibiting inappropriate behavior in everyday situations (Polloway et al., 2017).
These interpersonal challenges are not limited to emotional disabilities but are also evident in other child-
hood disorders. For instance, diagnoses of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, conduct disorder, and
oppositional defiant disorder require clear evidence of clinically significant impairments in social function-
www.ijcrsee.com
350
Buha, N. & Jelić, M. (2025). Validation of the Social Skills Rating System: The Serbian Preschool Teacher Version, International
Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 349-363.
ing (
American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013; World Health Organization [WHO], 2018). Similarly,
autism spectrum disorder is characterized by severe and persistent deficits in reciprocal social interaction,
often accompained by difficulties in forming, sustaining, and understanding relationships (APA, 2013;
WHO, 2018). In defining intellectual disability, social skills are recognized as a key component within the
broader concept of adaptive behavior (APA, 2013; WHO, 2018). As Brojčin et al. (2011) note, cognitive
deficits in children with intellectual disability, reflected in lower IQ scores, delay the development of social
skills. This delay often leads to social withdrawal and less favorable peer relationships.
A variety of methods are available for evaluating social skills, including observational assessments,
projective techniques, self-report instruments, sociometric evaluations, and behavior rating scales. Among
these, behavior rating scales—often used alongside direct behavioral observations—are widely regarded
as the most reliable and practical approach for assessing children’s social skills (Merrell, 2001).
The Social Skills Rating System (SSRS, Gresham and Elliott, 1990) is considered the gold stand-
ard for evaluating social skills in children aged 3–18 due to its comprehensive design. It is designed for
screening and identifying children’s social strengths and potential challenges, as well as supporting spe-
cialists in developing targeted interventions to enhance social behavior.
Recognizing that children’s social behavior varies across different settings, the SSRS incorporates
input from multiple evaluators (teachers, parents, and children) across diverse environments (preschool,
school, home) and developmental stages. Since each group of respondents offers a unique perspec-
tive, Gresham and Elliot conducted separate analyses for the parent, teacher, and child versions of the
instrument, revealing distinct factor structures. All versions of the SSRS Social Skills Scale assess three
core factors: Cooperation, Assertion, and Self-Control. Additionally, the parent version includes an extra
factor, Responsibility, while the child version incorporates Empathy. Beyond measuring social skills, the
SSRS also evaluates problem behavior and academic performance, recognizing that problem behaviors
often interfere with the development and application of social skills. The inclusion of an academic compe-
tence measure reflects the frequent co-occurence of poor social skills, competing problem behaviors, and
below-average academic achievement (Gresham et al., 2011).
The SSRS has been widely used in research, both as a whole and through its individual scales,
across diverse child populations, including low-income groups (Fantuzzo et al., 1998), post-institutional-
ized children (Julian and McCall, 2016), and various clinical groups. These clinical groups include indi-
viduals with intellectual disabilities (Brojčin and Glumbić, 2012; Jelić and Stojković, 2020; Memisevic and
Biscevic, 2020), autism (Rankin et al., 2016), visual impairments (Bilić Prcić et al., 2015; Runjić et al.,
2015), language impairments (Pentimonti et al., 2016), and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (Van
der Oord et al., 2005). Beyond research, the SSRS is frequently used in applied settings and in evaluat-
ing the effectiveness of social skills interventions (e.g., Goh et al., 2020). Additionally, it has served as a
benchmark for the development and validation of new assessment tools (e.g. Arnesen et al., 2018; Fink
et al., 2013; Gresham and Elliott, 2008; Gresham et al., 2010).
The SSRS demonstrates strong psychometric properties, with numerous studies confirming its
validity and reliability. Research has examined various aspects of validity, with some studies focusing on
reliability measures, such as internal consistency and test-retest reliability (e.g., Rich et al., 2008; Wang
et al., 2011). Others have explored predictive, convergent, and discriminant validity, assessing its relation-
ship with different constructs, criteria, or alternative social skills measures (e.g., Rich et al., 2008; Van der
Oord et al., 2005; Wang et al., 2011).
Recognizing the influence of situational and cultural factors on social skills is essential for the
development, validation, and meaningful interpretation of psychological measures in this domain. The
assessment of social skills and related constructs is deeply shaped by the socio-cultural context in which
social behaviors occur. Since assessment instruments reflects the values, beliefs, and communication
norms of the culture in which they were developed, their applicability must be carefully considered when
used in different cultural settings. Cultural norms—particularly in emotional expression, behavior regula-
tion, and parental beliefs about child socialization—vary across societies (e.g.
Cordaro et al., 2018; Deng
et al., 2019
; Minkov et al., 2018). As a result, behaviors deemed adaptive and appropriate in one culture
may not be perceived the same way in another. Thus, an instrument’s effectiveness in its original cultural
context does not necessarily guarantee its reliability and validity in a different setting (
Jurado et al., 2006).
The SSRS was developed for English-speaking informants and standardized on children and adolescents
in the United States. However, its psychometric properties have not yet been examined within the Serbian
www.ijcrsee.com
351
Buha, N. & Jelić, M. (2025). Validation of the Social Skills Rating System: The Serbian Preschool Teacher Version, International
Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 349-363.
socio-cultural context. To our knowledge, the only validation study conducted in Serbia involved an older
population of children (12–18 years) and yielded a different factor structure from the original version, as
determined through exploratory factor analysis (Jelić, 2015).
Considering the potential influence of the educational context on the implementation of assessment
tools is also essential. In the United States, preschool includes children aged 3 to 5, whereas in Serbia,
this stage extends from ages 3 to 6, covering both preschool and kindergarten years. Additionally, some
preschool settings in Serbia accommodate 7-year-olds who begin first-grade within that calendar year.
While having a single tool applicable to all children within a given educational framework would be practi-
cal, the SSRS preschool version, designed for 3 to 5-year-olds, may not fully capture the diverse age
range of children attending Serbian kindergartens.
Given these considerations, the present study aims to evaluate the reliability and factorial structure
of the preschool teacher version of the SSRS, which includes the Social Skills Scale and the Problem
Behaviors Scale (Gresham and Elliott, 1990), within the Serbian preschool population. To address this
aim, the main research questions are as follows:
1. Does the factor structure of the original SSRS Social Skills Scale, confirmed in a U.S. teacher sam-
ple, demonstrate good model fit when applied to a Serbian sample of preschool teachers? If so, does
it show adequate internal consistency, convergent validity, and discriminant validity?
2. Does the factor structure of the original SSRS Problem Behaviors Scale, confirmed in the U.S.
teacher sample, demonstrate good model fit in a Serbian sample of preschool teachers? If so, does
it show adequate internal consistency, convergent validity, and discriminant validity?
3. Does the factor structure of both scales demonstrate measurement invariance across developmen-
tal status and age groups?
We hypothesize that the factors derived from the original Social Skills Scale—Cooperation, Asser-
tion, and Self-Control—will be replicated in our sample of preschool teachers, along with the Internalizing
and Externalizing problem behaviors factors from the Problem Behaviors Scale. If this structure is not
confirmed, exploratory factor analysis will be conducted to identify the latent factor structure and reliability
within the Serbian sample. Additionally, we hypothesize that the factor structure of the instrument will
demonstrate measurement invariance across age groups (3–5 years vs. 6–7 years) and developmental
status groups (children with developmental disabilities vs. typically developing children), thereby support-
ing its validity for diverse preschool populations. Our goal is to propose a version suitable for children
aged 3 to 7 in Serbia, ensuring that a single instrument can effectively cover the entire preschool period.
Materials and Method
Participants and procedure
Participants were selected based on predefined criteria to ensure that the sample included a suf-
ficient number of teachers working with children with developmental difficulties and those at risks, as well as
a balanced representation of children across age and gender. Based on these criteria, the sample consisted
of 309 preschool teachers reporting on 450 children, including 235 boys (52.2%) and 215 girls (47.8%),
aged between 3 and 7 years (M = 5.73, SD = 1.05). Of these, 140 children (31.1%) were in the younger age
group (3–5 years), and 310 children (68.9%) were in the older age group (6–7 years). Of the total sample,
61.3% were children with typical development, while 38.7% faced various developmental difficulties or risks,
as outlined in Table 1. Identification of children with developmental difficulties and those at risk was based
on the presence of an Individualized Education Plan and supporting documentation available for each child
within the preschool institution.The two groups were similar in age, t(448) = -1.37, p = .172, and gender
distribution, χ² = 2.484, p = .115. All children attended inclusive preschool institutions spread across 14 dif-
ferent sites, encompassing both rural (fewer than 5000 inhabitants) and urban areas in Serbia.
The vast majority of participating preschool teachers were female (96.8%), with a mean age of
41.04 years (SD = 9.83). Most teachers had between 5 and 20 years of professional experience (41.1%),
followed by those with over 20 years (32.4%), while 26.5% had less than 5 years of experience. Addition-
ally, 10.03% of the teachers were employed in rural settings.
www.ijcrsee.com
352
Buha, N. & Jelić, M. (2025). Validation of the Social Skills Rating System: The Serbian Preschool Teacher Version, International
Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 349-363.
Table 1. Sample characteristics
Gender Age
N %
Boys
N (%)
Girls
N (%)
Years
M (SD)
Typical development 276 61.3 136 (49.3) 140 (50.7) 5.68 (1.06)
Children with developmental
difficulties/risks
174 38.7 99 (56.9) 75 (43.1) 5.82 (1.01)
Health problems 5 1.1
Multiple disabilities 52 11.6
Speech and language disorders 36 8.0
Learning difficulties 17 3.8
Motor difficulties 25 5.6
Visual/ Hearing difficulties 23 5.1
Emotional/behavioral problems 16 3.6
Prior to data collection, the study was approved by the Ethics Committee for Research of the Fac-
ulty of Special Education and Rehabilitation, University of Belgrade. In addition, consent was obtained
from the participating preschool and from the parents of the children whose social competencies were
assessed by the teachers. Both parents and teachers received detailed information about the purpose of
the research and were informed of their right to withdraw at any time without consequences.
Teachers completed the instrument within their preschool settings, under standardized conditions.
Special attention was given to establishing good communication with the participants and addressing any
initial questions or uncertainties about the process. In cases where participants encountered difficulties,
researchers provided individual assistance, ensuring the accuracy and comprehension of the responses
throughout the data collection process.
Instrument
The teacher version of the SSRS is a 40-item measure for assessing preschool children’s social
competence (
Gresham and Elliott, 1990). According to the manual, the standardization was conducted
on a heterogeneous sample, encompassing a wide range of educational classifications, such as children
with learning disabilities, behavioral disorders, and intellectual disabilities. The SSRS consists of two core
components: the Social Skills Scale (30 items) and the Problem Behaviors Scale (10 items), which assess
the frequency of children’s social skills and challenging behaviors. Each item is rated on a 3-point Likert
scale (0 = never, 1 = sometimes, and 2 = very often).
The Social Skills Scale consists of three statistically derived domains: Self-Control, Assertion, and
Cooperation. As outlined by Gresham and Elliott (1990), the Cooperation domain primarily evaluates skills
related to a child’s ability to collaborate with the teacher and follow classroom rules. This includes be-
haviors such as paying attention to the teacher’s instructions, complying with directives, and maintaining
focus despite peer distractions. In contrast, the Assertion domain focuses on the child’s assertive behavior
during interactions with both peers and adults. It includes behaviors such as initiating conversations, invit-
ing peers to join group activities, offering compliments, and helping others. Furthermore, this domain also
assesses the child’s ability to assert themselves appropriately when facing unfair treatment or demands
from the teacher. Finally, the Self-Control domain evaluates the child’s ability to manage their emotions
and respond effectively to conflicts with peers and teachers. It also examines the child’s capacity to bal-
ance their own needs with those of others in social interactions, including behaviors like controlling emo-
tions, responding appropriately to teasing, and taking turns during play.
The Problem Behaviors Scale includes two domains: Externalizing and Internalizing subscales. The
Externalising subscale includes behaviors like temper tantrums, fidgeting, arguing, and fighting, while the
Internalising domain focuses on behaviors and emotions such as anxiety, sadness, and social withdrawal.
www.ijcrsee.com
353
Buha, N. & Jelić, M. (2025). Validation of the Social Skills Rating System: The Serbian Preschool Teacher Version, International
Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 349-363.
Procedures for adapting the SSRS
Adaptations to the original SSRS (
Gresham and Elliott, 1990) were made to account for sociocul-
tural differences between the U.S. and Serbian contexts during the development of the Serbian version of
the scale. The scale was initially translated from English into Serbian by two independent bilingual experts
proficient in both languages, and then back-translated by a translator who was unaware of the original in-
strument. Discrepancies between the original and back-translated versions were resolved by the team of
translators to ensure the translation was accurate and clear. Additionally, a panel of experts reviewed the
translation to ensure linguistic and contextual appropriateness, aiming to achieve clarity and conceptual
equivalence with the original version.
A university-based panel of experts in the fields of early childhood education, children’s social
competence, and special education, reviewed the translated instrument and discussed the content of
each item to evaluate its validity, as well as its linguistic and cultural appropriateness. The panel reached
a consensus, without major disagreements, that all items were clear, relevant, and appropriate within
the context of preschool education in Serbia. They also concluded that the constructs and behaviors as-
sessed by the scale (e.g., giving compliments to peers, appropriately expressing disagreement, respond-
ing to teasing) were easily understandable and culturally appropriate. Given the consistency of expert
evaluations, a formal Content Validity Index (CVI) was not applied.
Additionally, cognitive interviews with end users were not conducted at this stage, as the consen-
sus of experts provided a relevant and qualitatively grounded assessment of the cultural adequacy of the
instrument’s content. Instead, a focus group with 15 preschool teachers was organized to further examine
the face validity of the instrument in terms of relevance, clarity, and appropriateness of item content (Olu-
watayo, 2012), from the perspective of practitioners in preschool settings. Feedback from the focus group
led to minor linguistic adjustments—such as expanding the phrase “Invites others to join in activities” into
a more explicit expression (“Demonstrates initiative to socialize and invites peers to participate in shared
activities”) and clarifying items like “Puts work materials or school property away” by adding context
emphasizing independence (“Regularly puts personal belongings and work materials in their designated
place without needing reminders”). These minor modifications, along with expert evaluations, contributed
to the assessment of the instrument’s initial validity. Conceptual equivalence and construct validity were
further evaluated through confirmatory factor analysis.
Statistical analysis
To assess the factor structure of the original SSRS, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was con-
ducted to evaluate the model fit for the current dataset. Given the ordinal nature of the items and sig-
nificant deviations from normality, the analysis used the Diagonally Weighted Least Squares (DWLS)
estimator (
Li, 2016), implemented in JASP 19.3 via the lavaan package.
Model fit was assessed using several common fit indices: Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Tucker-
Lewis Index (TLI), where values above 0.95 indicate a good fit, and values above .90 represent adequate fit
(Bentler, 1990; Hu and Bentler, 1999); Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), with values be-
low 0.06 indicating good fit and below .08 representing a reasonable fit (Browne and Cudeck, 1993; Steiger,
1990); and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR), with values under .05 denoting a good fit and
under .08 signifying an adequate fit (Hu and Bentler, 1999). According to the non-invariance criteria for une-
qual group sizes (Chen, 2007), invariance was supported when ΔCFI ≤ .005, combined with ΔRMSEA ≤ .010
or ΔSRMR ≤ .025 for testing metric invariance, and ΔSRMR ≤ .005 for testing scalar or residual invariance.
The reliability of the scales was assessed by examining the internal consistency of the factors, as
indicated by both Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega coefficients. Convergent validity was consid-
ered satisfactory when the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for each construct reached or exceeded .50
(Hair et al., 2019). To evaluate discriminant validity, the heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT) was applied;
values below .90 were interpreted as evidence that the constructs represent distinct dimensions (Hense-
ler et al., 2015).
www.ijcrsee.com
354
Buha, N. & Jelić, M. (2025). Validation of the Social Skills Rating System: The Serbian Preschool Teacher Version, International
Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 349-363.
Results
To evaluate the suitability of the data for factor analysis, preliminary tests of sampling adequacy
were conducted. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure yielded an excellent value of .94, suggesting suf-
ficient intercorrelations among items. Additionally, Bartlett’s test of sphericity was statistically significant,
χ²(435) = 10624.328, p < .001, supporting the factorability of the correlation matrix. Descriptive statistics
revealed that most items deviated from normality (Table 2). Z-scores for skewness and kurtosis exceeded
the ±1.96 threshold for most items, indicating significant departures from normality. Most Social Skills
Scale items showed negative skewness, suggesting responses were skewed toward higher ratings, while
negative kurtosis values indicated a flatter distribution. For Problem Behaviors Scale items, skewness Z-
scores ranged from 3.46 to 6.26, and kurtosis Z-scores ranged from 0.63 to 16.09, indicating significant
positive skewness and heavy-tailed distributions.
Table 2. Descriptive parameters of the SSRS
Item Min Max M SD Z Skew Z Kurt
Social Skills Scale
1 0 2 1.49 0.59 -5.79 -2.24
2 0 2 1.34 0.70 -5.09 -3.47
3 0 2 1.49 0.67 -8.18 -1.25
4 0 2 1.26 0.63 -2.32 -2.85
5 0 2 1.22 0.70 -2.79 -4.02
6 0 2 1.27 0.72 -4.01 -4.29
7 0 2 1.23 0.68 -2.77 -3.63
8 0 2 0.92 0.72 1.09 -4.66
9 0 2 1.54 0.64 -9.17 -0.01
10 0 2 1.57 0.58 -8.30 -0.37
11 0 2 1.12 0.72 -1.58 -4.56
12 0 2 0.66 0.68 4.66 -3.33
13 0 2 1.18 0.63 -1.45 -2.60
14 0 2 1.37 0.68 -5.37 -3.08
15 0 2 1.30 0.66 -3.62 -3.25
16 0 2 1.30 0.65 -3.35 -3.13
17 0 2 1.27 0.73 -4.03 -4.39
18 0 2 1.51 0.60 -6.78 -1.60
19 0 2 1.63 0.56 -10.40 1.96
20 0 2 1.19 0.65 -1.88 -3.05
21 0 2 1.36 0.64 -4.23 -2.90
22 0 2 1.44 0.61 -5.14 -2.50
23 0 2 1.14 0.63 -1.04 -2.33
24 0 2 1.33 0.66 -4.18 -3.21
25 0 2 1.33 0.70 -4.86 -3.60
26 0 2 1.02 0.64 -0.14 -2.49
27 0 2 1.36 0.66 -4.64 -3.05
28 0 2 1.05 0.61 -0.23 -1.54
29 0 2 1.39 0.70 -6.17 -2.97
30 0 2 1.21 0.74 -3.02 -4.77
Problem Behaviors Scale
1 0 2 0.67 0.73 5.23 4.03
2 0 2 0.75 0.75 3.46 4.86
3 0 2 0.55 0.63 6.26 2.06
4 0 2 0.62 0.69 5.83 3.01
5 0 2 0.28 0.56 16.09 10.52
6 0 2 0.46 0.59 7.98 0.66
7 0 2 0.41 0.60 10.12 1.39
8 0 2 0.64 0.63 4.08 1.59
9 0 2 0.43 0.64 10.57 1.41
10 0 2 0.46 0.60 8.03 0.63
www.ijcrsee.com
355
Buha, N. & Jelić, M. (2025). Validation of the Social Skills Rating System: The Serbian Preschool Teacher Version, International
Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 349-363.
Social Skill Scale Analysis
Following the descriptive analysis, a CFA was performed to assess the factorial validity of the So-
cial Skills Scale. The chi-square test was statistically significant (χ² = 1026.083, df = 402, p < .001), indi-
cating some discrepancy between the observed and model-implied covariance matrices. However, when
using DWLS estimation, the chi-square statistic is not considered the most reliable indicator of model fit
as its distribution is adjusted due to partial information in the weight matrix, which can affect its accuracy
(
Kyriazos and Poga-Kyriazou, 2023; Li, 2016). Instead, the chi-square to degrees of freedom ratio (χ²/df)
is commonly used, with values below 3.00 indicating good fit and values under 5.00 considered accept-
able. To provide a more comprehensive assessment of model adequacy, we also reported main fit indices,
including CFI, TLI, RMSEA, and SRMR.
The model demonstrated good overall fit, with χ²/df = 2.55, CFI = 0.983 and TLI = 0.982 both ex-
ceeding the recommended 0.95 threshold, indicating excellent comparative fit. RMSEA (0.059; 90% CI
[0.054, 0.063]) was below the 0.06 cutoff, suggesting acceptable approximation error. Additionally, SRMR
(0.073) fell within the acceptable range (< 0.08), further supporting the adequacy of the model fit. While in-
ternal consistency, as indicated by Cronbach’s Alpha and McDonald’s Omega coefficients, demonstrated
excellent reliability, the convergent and discriminant validity values did not fully meet the threshold criteria.
The AVE for Factor 1 (Cooperation) and Factor 2 (Assertion) was above the recommended .50
threshold (.52 and .51, respectively), indicating good convergent validity. However, Factor 3 (Self-Control)
had an AVE of .48, slightly below the threshold, suggesting weaker convergent validity. Given that HTMT
values above .90 may indicate poor discriminant validity due to conceptual overlap between factors,
the results suggest that Factor 1 and Factor 2 (HTMT = .98) may not be sufficiently distinct constructs,
potentially requiring further refinement of the model. To address these concerns, we conducted a more
detailed analysis of all obtained parameters, with a particular focus on examining the indicator loadings
and modification indices.
All standardized factor loadings were statistically significant (p < .001), indicating that each ob-
served variable significantly contributed to its respective latent construct. However, for Factor 1 (Coopera-
tion), standardized loadings ranged from .348 (CO12) to .840 (CO6), with CO12 exhibiting the weakest
loading, indicating that the variance it shared with the latent factor was relatively low compared to other
items. For Factor 2 (Assertion), all items showed substantial contributions to the factor, with standard-
ized loadings ranging from .591 (AS3) to .778 (AS19). For Factor 3 (Self-Control), standardized loadings
ranged from .384 (SC26) to .785 (SC21), with SC26 exhibiting the weakest loading. Similar to item CO12,
item SC26 had a loading below the recommended threshold of .40 for acceptable item reliability, suggest-
ing that both items should be removed from the model (Hamid et al., 2017). Accordingly, items CO12 and
SC26 were excluded, and the CFA was rerun.
Comparative fit indices improved relative to the initial model, with χ²/df = 2.11, CFI increasing
to 0.989 and TLI to 0.988. RMSEA decreased to 0.050 (90% CI [0.045, 0.055]), and SRMR dropped to
0.067, indicating a more refined and better-fitting model. All AVE values exceeded .50, indicating ade-
quate convergent validity, while HTMT values (.89, .90, and .82) supported discriminant validity. However,
the borderline HTMT value of .90 between Factors 1 and 3 warranted further consideration of construct
overlap. Examination of modification indices revealed substantial cross-loadings for item SC14, with a
modification index of 15.56 on Factor 1 and 22.12 on Factor 2. Consequently, this item was removed, and
the CFA was rerun again.
The exclusion of SC14 reduced the HTMT value between Factors 1 and 3 to .88, and between Fac-
tor 2 and 3 to .79 indicating reduced factor overlap and improved discriminant validity. AVE values for all
three factors were as follows: Factor 1 (.58), Factor 2 (.51), and Factor 3 (.52), satisfying the threshold for
convergent validity.The 27-item model demonstrated good fit, with χ²/df = 2.04, CFI = 0.990, TLI = 0.989,
RMSEA = 0.048 (90% CI [0.043, 0.053]), and SRMR = 0.066, not statistically significant, but showing a
better fit than the initial model. Factor loadings and additional parameters of the final model are presented
in Table 3. Standardized factor loadings ranged from .554 to .853 confirming that all retained items load
meaningfully on their respective factors. These findings support both the construct validity and conceptual
equivalence of the adapted instrument.
www.ijcrsee.com
356
Buha, N. & Jelić, M. (2025). Validation of the Social Skills Rating System: The Serbian Preschool Teacher Version, International
Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 349-363.
Table 3. Factor loadings – Social Skills Scale
95% Confidence Interval
Factor Item Estimate Std. Error z-value p Lower Upper Std. Est. (all)
Factor 1
CO1 0.417 0.020 20.348 < .001 0.377 0.457 0.706
CO6 0.617 0.022 28.523 < .001 0.575 0.660 0.853
CO9 0.508 0.025 20.045 < .001 0.459 0.558 0.794
CO10 0.464 0.019 24.376 < .001 0.427 0.502 0.802
CO16 0.485 0.025 19.292 < .001 0.436 0.535 0.749
CO18 0.441 0.026 16.865 < .001 0.390 0.492 0.738
CO22 0.467 0.022 21.422 < .001 0.424 0.510 0.767
CO27 0.443 0.029 15.160 < .001 0.386 0.500 0.672
CO29 0.523 0.027 19.574 < .001 0.471 0.575 0.752
Factor 2
AS2 0.484 0.030 16.353 < .001 0.426 0.542 0.696
AS3 0.392 0.035 11.311 < .001 0.324 0.460 0.587
AS5 0.522 0.026 19.991 < .001 0.471 0.573 0.749
AS8 0.527 0.023 22.964 < .001 0.482 0.572 0.730
AS11 0.536 0.025 21.860 < .001 0.488 0.584 0.747
AS17 0.546 0.026 20.920 < .001 0.495 0.597 0.749
AS19 0.439 0.025 17.384 < .001 0.389 0.488 0.782
AS24 0.436 0.026 16.790 < .001 0.385 0.487 0.658
AS25 0.464 0.027 17.170 < .001 0.411 0.516 0.663
AS30 0.560 0.026 21.641 < .001 0.509 0.611 0.760
Factor 3
SC4 0.351 0.033 10.615 < .001 0.286 0.415 0.554
SC7 0.429 0.033 13.190 < .001 0.365 0.492 0.633
SC13 0.496 0.025 19.483 < .001 0.443 0.542 0.777
SC15 0.488 0.024 20.558 < .001 0.441 0.534 0.740
SC20 0.467 0.026 18.293 < .001 0.417 0.517 0.718
SC21 0.510 0.026 19.870 < .001 0.460 0.561 0.802
SC23 0.496 0.025 19.632 < .001 0.446 0.545 0.788
SC28 0.440 0.024 17.993 < .001 0.392 0.488 0.715
Legend: F1 = Cooperation; CO = Cooperation items; F2 = Assertion; AS = Assertion items; F3 = Self-Control; SC = Self-
Control items; Std.all = Standardized Estimate on all variables
All three factors of the Social Skills Scale showed excellent internal consistency (Factor 1: ω = .92,
α = .92; Factor 2: ω = .90, α = .91; Factor 3: ω = .89, α = .89). The overall scale also demonstrated high
reliability (ω = .96, α = .96), indicating strong internal consistency across all items.
Problem Behaviors Scale Analysis
In the analysis of the second part of the SSRS scale related to problem behaviors, which originally
consists of two factors, CFA was conducted to assess the distribution of items into factors. The results
indicated good fit indices, with all relevant values meeting the recommended thresholds. The chi-square
test for the factor model was significant (χ² = 53.479, df = 34, p = .018), but other fit indices were excel-
lent: χ²/df = 1.57, CFI = 0.995, TLI = 0.993, RMSEA = 0.036 (90% CI [0.015, 0.054]), and SRMR = 0.054.
AVE values for Factors 1 (.54) and 2 (.59) exceeded .50, indicating adequate convergent validity, and the
HTMT ratio (.82) supported discriminant validity (sufficient distinction between factors). Factor loadings
and additional parameters of the model are presented in Table 4.
www.ijcrsee.com
357
Buha, N. & Jelić, M. (2025). Validation of the Social Skills Rating System: The Serbian Preschool Teacher Version, International
Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 349-363.
Table 4. Factor loadings – Problem Behaviors Scale
95% Confidence Interval
Factor Item Estimate Std. Error z-value p Lower Upper Std. Est. (all)
Factor 1
EPB31 0.439 0.017 25.838 < .001 0.406 0.473 0.599
EPB32 0.552 0.019 29.314 < .001 0.515 0.589 0.731
EPB33 0.462 0.017 26.829 < .001 0.428 0.496 0.734
EPB34 0.601 0.019 32.127 < .001 0.565 0.638 0.874
EPB37 0.430 0.017 25.217 < .001 0.397 0.464 0.713
EPB38 0.459 0.017 26.406 < .001 0.425 0.493 0.729
Factor 2
IPB35 0.405 0.020 20.139 < .001 0.365 0.444 0.725
IPB36 0.481 0.020 24.112 < .001 0.442 0.520 0.811
IPB39 0.506 0.021 23.688 < .001 0.464 0.548 0.793
IPB40 0.437 0.019 22.610 < .001 0.399 0.475 0.732
Legend: F1 = Externalized Problem Behaviors; EPB = Externalized Problem Behaviors items; F2 = Internalized Problem
Behaviors; IPB = Internalized Problem Behaviors items; Std.all = Standardized Estimate on all variables.
All standardized factor loadings were statistically significant (p < .001), supporting the hypothesized
two-factor structure of the Problem Behaviors Scale (Table 4). For Factor 1 (Externalizing Problem Be-
haviors), standardized loadings ranged from .599 (EPB31) to .874 (EPB34), indicating moderate to strong
relationships between the items and the latent construct. Similarly, Factor 2 (Internalizing Problem Be-
haviors) showed standardized loadings ranging from .725 (IPB35) to .811 (IPB36), also reflecting strong
item-factor associations. These results suggest that all items are good indicators of their respective latent
factors and support both the construct validity and conceptual equivalence of the adapted instrument.
The analysis of convergent and discriminant validity revealed that the AVE values for each factor
exceed .50, indicating adequate convergent validity. Moreover, the HTMT ratios for all factor pairs were
below the .90 threshold, confirming adequate discriminant validity and clear differentiation between the
constructs. These findings suggest that the factors are well represented by their indicators and sufficiently
distinct from each another.
The Problem Behaviors Scale demonstrated good internal consistency for both factors (Factor 1: ω =
.87, α = .87; Factor 2: ω = .85, α = .85), while the overall scale showed excellent reliability (ω = .91, α = .91).
The results confirmed our hypothesis that the factors derived from the original Social Skills Scale—
Cooperation, Assertion, and Self-Control—were replicated in our sample of preschool teachers, along
with the Internalized and Externalized problem behavior factors from the Problem Behaviors Scale.
Measurement invariance across development status and age groups
Addressing the third research question, the invariance of the SSRS scales (Social Skills and Prob-
lem Behaviors) across developmental status (Table 5) and age groups (Table 6) was tested following the
criteria defined by
Chen (2007) for unequal group sizes.
Table 5. Measurement invariance across developmental status on SSRS scales
SSRS scales Invariance level CFI ΔCFI RMSEA ΔRMSEA SRMR ΔSRMR
Social skills Configural .989 .050 .079
Metric .990 .001 .047 -.003 .078 -.001
Scalar .991 .001 .045 -.002 .078 .000
Problem behaviors Configural .992 .042 .074
Metric .994 .002 .039 -.003 .071 -.003
Scalar .996 .002 .030 -.009 .071 .000
www.ijcrsee.com
358
Buha, N. & Jelić, M. (2025). Validation of the Social Skills Rating System: The Serbian Preschool Teacher Version, International
Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 349-363.
The observed changes in CFI, RMSEA, and SRMR values across different levels of invariance
testing (metric vs. configural, scalar vs. metric) for developmental status ranged from 0 to .003, with the
exception of a scalar invariance difference of .009 in RMSEA on the Problem Behaviors Scale, which
remains within acceptable limits. Similarly, invariance testing across age groups showed changes in fit
indices ranging from 0 to .004, with RMSEA differences of .008 for scalar invariance on the Problem Be-
haviors Scale and .009 for metric invariance on the Social Skills Scale, both within acceptable thresholds.
Table 6. Measurement invariance across age on SSRS scales
SRSS scales Invariance level CFI ΔCFI RMSEA ΔRMSEA SRMR ΔSRMR
Social skills
Configural .984 .061 .086
Metric .988 .004 .052 -.009 .082 -.004
Scalar .989 .001 .050 -.002 .082 .000
Problem behaviors
Configural .994 .036 .071
Metric .994 .000 .037 .001 .070 -.001
Scalar .996 .002 .029 -.008 .070 .000
These results confirm that the structure of both the Social Skills and Problem Behaviors Scales
remains invariant across developmental status and age groups (3–5 and 6–7 years). However, as pre-
sented in Table 6, the SRMR for the Social Skills Scale across age groups is slightly elevated at .086. This
minor increase can be attributed to the unequal group sizes (310 vs. 140). As noted by
Chen (2007), slight
deviations above .08 in SRMR values are not uncommon under such conditions.
Considering the observed fit indices and invariance test results, we confirm that the SSRS instru-
ment, validated within a sample of preschool teachers in our context, demonstrates measurement invari-
ance across both developmental status and age groups within the preschool population.
Discussion
The aim of this study was to validate the factor structure of the original teacher version of the SSRS
(Gresham and Elliott, 1990) in a sample of preschool teachers in Serbia. The SSRS was originally de-
signed to assess the social competence of children aged 3 to 5 years based on evaluations by U.S. teach-
ers. The instrument consists of two main scales: the Social Skills Scale and the Problem Behaviors Scale.
The original Social Skills Scale comprises three subscales-Cooperation, Assertion, and Self-Con-
trol—each containing 10 items each. Our first research question addressed whether the factor structure
of the original Social Skills Scale would demonstrate a good model fit in a sample of preschool teachers
in Serbia. The original three-factor model, consisting of 30 items corresponding to the Cooperation, As-
sertion, and Self-Control subscales, demonstrated good fit indices and high reliability, as indicated by
Cronbach’s Alpha and McDonald’s Omega coefficients. However, convergent and discriminant validity fell
below the recommended thresholds in our sample. Specifically, the AVE for the Self-Control factor was
below .50 (Hair et al., 2019), and HTMT analysis revealed correlations between Cooperation and Asser-
tion subscales that exceeded the .90 threshold (Henseler et al., 2015).
To address these issues, several modifications were made. Based on a detailed analysis of the
data and guided by both theoretical and empirical criteria outlined by Hamid et al. (2017) and Hair et al.
(2019), two items with low factor loadings (< .40) were removed: one from the Self-Control factor (Re-
ceives criticism well) and one from the Cooperation factor (Introduces himself or herself to new people
without being told). In addition, the removed Cooperation item exhibited high cross-loadings with the As-
sertion factor. This overlap is theoretically justified, as assertion encompasses traits such as taking initia-
tive, confident behavior, and self-presentation, which can also contribute to cooperative behavior (e.g.,
Vagos and Pereira, 2019). Furthermore, one additional item was removed due to a lack of discriminant
validity between Cooperation and Self-Control, as indicated by an HTMT value above .90 (Henseler et al.,
2015), suggesting considerable factor overlap. Although originally assigned to the Self-Control factor, this
item (Cooperates with peers without prompting), is conceptually more aligned with the Cooperation factor.
These slight modifications, guided by both statistical criteria and theoretical considerations, im-
proved the model’s validity and fit indices while maintaining high internal consistency. Cronbach’s Alpha
www.ijcrsee.com
359
Buha, N. & Jelić, M. (2025). Validation of the Social Skills Rating System: The Serbian Preschool Teacher Version, International
Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 349-363.
and McDonald’s Omega coefficients ranged from .89 to .93 for each factor, and .96 for the overall scale.
The revised model includes 27 out of the 30 original items: 9 items in the Cooperation subscale, 8 items
in the Self-Control subscale, and all 10 items in the Assertion subscale. Consistent with psychometric lit-
erature on latent structure analysis (e.g., Brown, 2015; Kline, 2016), such modifications do not undermine
the theoretical integrity of the model as long as the latent factor structure remains intact. In other words,
aside from the three removed items, all other items were consistently aligned with the original version,
indicating that preschool teachers in both Serbia and the United States similarly perceive and differentiate
cooperation, assertion, and self-control in children.
Correlations among the factors confirmed that these social skills represent distinct yet interrelated
dimensions, collectively forming a unified construct of social skills. Furthermore, the high internal consist-
ency coefficients indicate that the factors consistently reflect the underlying social competence construct.
However, reliability values exceeding .90 may not necessarily represent “excellent” internal consistency,
as they can suggest item redundancy (Hamid et al., 2017). This raises the possibility that some items
within each factor may overlap in content or fail to provide distinct information about the construct be-
ing measured. Similarly, the initial HTMT values exceeding the recommended threshold of .90 indicate
substantial overlap between Cooperation and Assertion, as well as Cooperation and Self-Control. These
findings are consistent with previous results reported by Gresham and Elliott (1990), as well as with
studies conducted across different educational levels, age groups, and informant types (e.g., Jelić, 2015;
Whiteside et al., 2007; Van der Oord et al., 2005), which also reported moderate to strong correlations
between these factors. This pattern reflects the complex nature of social skills, in which various compo-
nents are inherently interconnected. Although constructs such as cooperation, assertion, and self-control
are theoretically distinct, they are often closely related in practice.
Our second research question investigated whether the factor structure of the original Problem
Behaviors Scale, confirmed in the U.S. sample of teacher, would demonstrate good model fit in a Ser-
bian sample of preschool teachers. The Problem Behaviors Scale includes two subscales: Externalizing
Behaviors (6 items) and Internalizing Behaviors (4 items). The two-factor structure replicated well, with
very good model fit indices. Reliability analysis, including Cronbach’s Alpha and McDonald’s Omega co-
efficients, revealed significant values above .80 for both subscales. HTMT correlations and AVE metrics
further confirmed the psychometric quality of the Problem Behaviors Scale in the Serbian sample.
Our final research question examined measurement invariance across developmental status and age
groups. Multigroup analyses confirmed that both the Social Skills Scale and the Problem Behaviors Scale
demonstrate measurement invariance across these groups, indicating that the instrument reliably assesses
social competence among Serbian preschool children regardless of developmental differences or age.
Although the original SSRS was designed for children aged 3 to 5 years, our results confirm its
applicability and reliability for assessing social skills and problem behaviors in Serbian preschool children
aged 3 to 7 years. For the Social Skills Scale, three items were removed, resulting in a revised version of
the scale with 27 items, compared to the original 30. The Problem Behaviors Scale was fully replicated
as it appeared in the original version. The modified version of the SSRS, reflecting these changes, is
provided in the appendix.
Based on the present findings, the instrument shows promise for evaluating both typically devel-
oping children and those with developmental disabilities (e.g., autism, intellectual disability, and other
challenges). While this suggests potential suitability for inclusive preschool settings, clinical contexts,
and group-based research, further evidence, particulary external validity, is needed to fully confirm its
appropriateness across diverse populations. Nonetheless, the instrument may support the development
of individualized programs to enhance children’s social competence and provide useful information for
group-based assessments in research.
Limitations and Future Directions
Despite its contributions, this study has some limitations that warrant further investigation. The
sample included only preschool teachers. Although measurement invariance was confirmed across
groups defined by developmental status and age, future studies should examine whether these results
generalize across different informant types (e.g., special education teachers) and across SSRS versions
(e.g., the parent form). In addition, while the sample encompassed participants from both urban and rural
www.ijcrsee.com
360
Buha, N. & Jelić, M. (2025). Validation of the Social Skills Rating System: The Serbian Preschool Teacher Version, International
Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 349-363.
environments, the proportion of respondents from rural areas was limited to approximately 10%. Due
to this imbalance, the sample cannot be considered fully representative of the rural preschool teacher
population in Serbia. Future research should aim to recruit a more balanced sample to better reflect the
diversity of educational contexts across urban and rural areas.
Although confirmatory factor analysis supported the conceptual equivalence and factorial validity of
the adapted instrument, this study did not include formal quantitative assessments of content validity (e.g.,
Content Validity Index) or cognitive interviews due to reasons detailed in the methodology section. Future
studies could further strengthen the adaptation process by incorporating additional qualitative methods
and formal content validity indices.
Establishing inter-rater reliability between teacher and parent reports would provide a more com-
prehensive view of children’s social behavior and further support the broader applicability of the scale.
Additionally, this study did not include a comparison with other similar instruments, which limits the
ability to evaluate the SSRS’s external discriminant validity. Future research could address this gap by com-
paring the SSRS with other well-established measures of social skills, thereby providing further support for
its psychometric properties. Such comparisons would offer a more comprehensive understanding of how the
SSRS differs from other tools in assessing social competence and its applicability across diverse settings.
Finally, the high inter- and intra-factor correlations—reflected in both Omega/Alpha coefficients
and HTMT values—underscore the nuanced and interconnected nature of social skills. While this shared
variance aligns with the theoretical expectations for closely related competencies, it also complicates the
interpretation of the factors as entirely distinct. These results suggest a need for careful item selection
to balance reliability and construct validity. Future research could refine the instrument by reducing item
redundancy or applying alternative modeling approaches, such as bifactor or second-order models, to
better distinguish shared from unique variance across dimensions.
Conclusion and implications
Social skills are critical for positive outcomes in various social settings. A validated tool for assess-
ing these skills and challenging behaviors is a crucial step in supporting early childhood development and
fostering children’s social competencies. This study represents the first empirical construct validation of
the SSRS teacher form (Gresham and Elliott, 1990) in Serbia. By confirming the original three-dimen-
sional structure with slight modifications, this research provides a reliable instrument for evaluating and
monitoring the development of social skills and problem behaviors in children aged 3 to 7 years. Validating
the modified model with a new sample is essential to ensure its stability and robustness. Additionally, the
study offers an opportunity for researchers from other countries to compare their findings with ours.
Although this study did not examine the relationship between social skill deficits and challenging
behaviors, the validated SSRS provides a reliable foundation for future research on these connections.
Identifying social skill deficits in both typically and atypically developing children supports early interven-
tions to enhance social competencies and prevent problem behaviors.
Future research should focus on validating the SSRS parent form, as differences in how parents and
teachers assess social skills and behaviors, especially for children with developmental disabilities, could
offer valuable insights for tailored interventions. Additionally, exploring the SSRS constructs across different
educational levels (from preschool to high school) and from various sources (e.g. parents, teachers, and
special educators) would broaden its applicability and deepen our understanding of social skill development,
contributing to a more holistic approach to promoting social competence in diverse educational settings.
Conflict of interests
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the Ministry of Science, Technological Development and Innova-
tion [No 451-03-137/2025-03/200096], Republic of Serbia.
www.ijcrsee.com
361
Buha, N. & Jelić, M. (2025). Validation of the Social Skills Rating System: The Serbian Preschool Teacher Version, International
Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 349-363.
Appendix A: Serbian Version of the Modified SSRS - Item Content and Reliability by Factor
Skala socijalnih veština (Social Skills Scale)
F1: Kooperativnost (α = .92; ω = .92)
1. Pridržava se vaših uputstava.
6. Završava svoje obaveze i zadatke bez vašeg podsticanja na to.
9. Rado učestvuje u zajedničkim i grupnim aktivnostima.
10. Izvršava zadatke u skladu sa vašim instrukcijama.
16. Vreme koristi na prikladan način dok čeka pomoć vaspitača.
18. Vreme predviđeno za aktivnosti po izboru dete koristi na prihvatljiv način.
22. Završava zadatke u predviđenim rokovima.
27. Bez opominjanja na to, uredno odlaže svoje stvari i radni material na predviđeno mesto.
29. Pridružuje se aktivnosti ili grupi, bez da mu se to kaže.
F2: Asertivnost (α = .91; ω = .90)
2. Lako sklapa prijateljstva.
3. Na prikladan način saopštava kada smatra da ste bili nepravedni prema njemu/njoj.
5. Na odgovarajući način izražava sumnju u pravila koja smatra nepravednim.
8. U primerenim situacijama daje komplimente vršnjacima.
11. Pomaže Vam i kada to izričito ne zatražite od njega.
17. Govori lepe stvari o sebi u skladu sa situacijom.
19. Reaguje na pravi način kada mu se uputi kompliment i pohvala.
24. Inicira komunikaciju sa vršnjacima.
25. Inicira druženje i poziva vršnjake da mu se pridruže u nekoj aktivnosti.
30. Dobrovoljno pomaže vršnjacima u rešavanju zadataka.
F3: Samokontrola (α = .89; ω = .89)
4. Prikladno reaguje na zadirkivanja vršnjaka.
7. Kontroliše gnev u konfliktnim situacijama sa odraslima.
13. Prihvata ideje i predloge vršnjaka u vezi grupnih aktivnosti
15. Strpljivo čeka svoj red u igri ili drugim grupnim aktivnostima.
20. Dobro kontroliše emocije u konfliktima sa vršnjacima.
21. Pridržava se i sledi pravila u igrama i aktivnostima sa drugim vršnjacima.
23. Prihvata kompromis u konfliktnim situacijama izmenom sopstvenih ideja. u cilju postizanja
dogovora.
28. Na adekvatan način reaguje na pritisak vršnjaka.
Skala problematičnog ponašanja (Problem Behaviors Scale)
F1: Eksternalizovani problemi (α = .87; ω = .87)
31. Ima napade besa.
32. Stalno se vrpolji, ne može da sedi na jednom mestu.
33. Bez realnog povoda, raspravlja se sa drugima.
34. Ometa rad.
37. Tuče se sa drugima.
38. Ne poštuje pravila.
F2: Internalizovani problemi (α = .85; ω = .85)
35. Kaže da njega (nju) niko ne voli.
36. Čini se da je usamljen (usamljena).
39. Ispoljava anksioznost u grupi druge dece.
40. Deluje kao da je tužan (tužna) ili depresivan (depresivna).
www.ijcrsee.com
362
Buha, N. & Jelić, M. (2025). Validation of the Social Skills Rating System: The Serbian Preschool Teacher Version, International
Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 349-363.
References
American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. American Psy-
chiatric Publishing.
Arnesen, A., Smolkowski, K., Ogden, T., & Melby-Lervåg, M. (2018). Validation of the elementary social behaviour assessment:
teacher ratings of students’ social skills adapted to Norwegian, grades 1–6. Emotional and Behavioural Difculties,
23(1), 39-54.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632752.2017.1316473
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative t indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
Bilić Prcić, A., Runjić, T., & Žolgar Jerković, I. (2015). Razlike u socijalnim vještinama između učenika i učenica oštećena vida
prema procjeni njihovih roditelja [Differences in parental assessment of social skills between adolescent boys and girls
with visual impairment]. Hrvatska revija za rehabilitacijska istraživanja, 51(2), 77-86.
Brojčin, B., Banković, S. i Japundža-Milisavljević, M. (2011). Socijalne veštine dece i mladih sa intelektualnom ometenošću.
[Social skills of children and the young with intellectual impairment]. Nastava i vaspitanje, 60(3), 419-429.
Brojčin, B., & Glumbić, N. (2012). Internalizovani oblici problematičnog ponašanja kod dece sa lakom intelektualnom
ometenošću školskog uzrasta. [Internalizing forms of problem behavior in school-age children with mild intellectual
disability]. Specijalna edukacija i rehabilitacija, 11(1), 3-20.
Brown, T. A. (2015). Conrmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model t. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. (Eds.), Long testing struc-
tural equation models, 136–162. Sage Publishing.
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of t indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling,
14(3), 464–504.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
Cordaro, D. T., Sun, R., Keltner, D., Kamble, S., Huddar, N., & McNeil, G. (2018). Universals and cultural variations in 22 emo-
tional expressions across ve cultures. Emotion, 18(1), 75-93.
https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000302
Deng, X., An, S., & Cheng, C. (2019). Cultural differences in the implicit and explicit attitudes toward emotion regulation. Per-
sonality and Individual Differences, 149, 220-222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.05.057
Dryburgh, N. S., Khullar, T. H., Sandre, A., Persram, R. J., Bukowski, W. M., & Dirks, M. A. (2020). Evidence base update for
measures of social skills and social competence in clinical samples of youth. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent
Psychology, 49(5), 573-594. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2020.1790381
Fantuzzo, J., Manz, P. H., & McDermott, P. (1998). Preschool version of the social skills rating system: An empirical analysis of its use
with low-income children. Journal of School Psychology, 36(2), 199-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(98)00005-3
Fink, E., de Rosnay, M., Peterson, C., & Slaughter, V. (2013). Validation of the Peer Social Maturity Scale for assessing chil-
dren’s social skills. Infant and Child Development, 22(5), 539-552. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.1809
Goh, H. S. E., Roslan, S., Baguri, E. M., Ong, S. Y., & Li, S. Y. (2020). The effects of children’s friendship training on social
skills and quality of play among children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. International Journal of Learning, Teaching
and Educational Research, 19(7), 225-245. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.19.7.13
Gresham, F. M., Cook, C. R., Collins, T., Dart, E., Rasetshwane, K., Truelson, E., & Grant, S. (2010). Developing a change-sensi-
tive brief behavior rating scale as a progress monitoring tool for social behavior: An example using the Social Skills Rating
System—Teacher Form. School Psychology Review, 39(3), 364-379. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2010.12087758
Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (2008). Social Skills Improvement System (SSIS) Rating Scales. Pearson Assessments.
Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). Social Skills Rating System: Manual. American Guidance Service.
Gresham, F. M., Elliott, S. N., Vance, M. J., & Cook, C. R. (2011). Comparability of the Social Skills Rating System to the Social
Skills Improvement System: Content and psychometric comparisons across elementary and secondary age levels.
School Psychology Quarterly, 26(1), 27-44.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0022662
Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European
Business Review, 31(1), 2-24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
Hamid, M. R. A., Sami, W., & Sidek, M. H. M. (2017). Discriminant validity assessment: use of Fornell & Larcker criterion versus HTMT
criterion. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 890(1), Article 012163. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/890/1/012163
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural
equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43, 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for t indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new
alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Jelić, M. (2015). Pedagoške implikacije razvijanja socijalne kompetentnosti dece i mladih bez roditeljskog staranja. [Pedagogi-
cal implications of social competency development of children and young people without parental care] [Doctoral dis-
sertation, University of Novi Sad]. NaRDuS.
https://nardus.mpn.gov.rs/
www.ijcrsee.com
363
Buha, N. & Jelić, M. (2025). Validation of the Social Skills Rating System: The Serbian Preschool Teacher Version, International
Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 349-363.
Jelić, M., & Stojković, I. (2020). Uticaj roditeljstva na socijalnu kompetentnost adolescenata sa intelektualnom ometenošću i
adolescenata tipičnog razvoja. [Parenting inuence on social competence in adolescents with and without intellectual
disability]. Zbornik Instituta za pedagoska istraživanja, 52(2), 331-378. https://doi.org/10.2298/ZIPI2002331J
Julian, M. M., & McCall, R. B. (2016). Social skills in children adopted from socially-emotionally depriving institutions. Adoption
Quarterly, 19(1), 44-62. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926755.2015.1088106
Jurado, M., Cumba-Avilés, E., Collazo, L. C., & Matos, M. (2006). Reliability and validity of a spanish version of the So-
cial Skills Rating System–Teacher form. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 24(3), 195-209. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0734282906288961
Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Press.
Kyriazos, T., & Poga-Kyriazou, M. (2023). Applied psychometrics: Estimator considerations in commonly encountered condi-
tions in CFA, SEM, and EFA practice. Psychology, 14(5), 799-828.
https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2023.145043
Li, C. H. (2016). The performance of ML, DWLS, and ULS estimation with robust corrections in structural equation models with
ordinal variables. Psychological Methods, 21(3), 369–387. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000093
Little, S.G., Swangler, J., Akin-Little, A. (2017). Dening social skills. In J. Matson (Ed.), Handbook of social behavior and skills
in children, 9–17. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64592-6_2
Memisevic, H., & Biscevic, I. (2020). The relationship of executive functions with academic competency and social skills in ado-
lescents with intellectual disability. Journal for ReAttach Therapy and Developmental Diversities, 3(2), 12-21. https://
pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9de8/2168ecb0f0a9225644052accacb5a7eaf5e9.pdf
Merrell, K. W. (2001). Assessment of children’s social skills: Recent developments, best practices, and new directions. Excep-
tionality, 9(1-2), 3-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2001.9666988
Minkov, M., Dutt, P., Schachner, M., Jandosova, J., Khassenbekov, Y., Morales, O., Sanchez, C. J., & Mudd, B. (2018). What val-
ues and traits do parents teach to their children? New data from 54 countries. Comparative Sociology, 17(2), 221-252.
Oluwatayo, J. A. (2012). Validity and reliability issues in educational research. Journal of Educational and
Social Research, 2(2), 391-400.
https://doi.org/10.5901/jesr.2012.v2n2.391
Pentimonti, J. M., Murphy, K. A., Justice, L. M., Logan, J. A., & Kaderavek, J. N. (2016). School readiness of children with lan-
guage impairment: predicting literacy skills from pre-literacy and social–behavioural dimensions. International Journal
of Language & Communication Disorders, 51(2), 148-161. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12193
Polloway, E. A., Schewel, R. H., Kauffman, J. M., Charles, A., Smith, T. E., Patton, J. R., & Yang, L. (2017). Emotional and
behavioral disorders: Current denitions, terminology, and prevalence. LC Journal of Special Education, 13, Article 2.
Rankin, J. A., Weber, R. J., Kang, E., & Lerner, M. D. (2016). Parent-and self-reported social skills importance in autism spec-
trum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46, 273-286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-015-2574-7
Rich, E. C., Shepherd, E. J., & Nangle, D. W. (2008). Validation of the SSRS-T, preschool level as a measure of positive social
behavior and conduct problems. Education and Treatment of Children, 31(2), 183-202. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.0.0026
Runjić, T., Prcić, A. B., & Alimović, S. (2015). The relationship between social skills and behavioral problems in children with
visual impairment. Hrvatska Revija za Rehabilitacijska Istraživanja, 51(2), 64-76.
Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modication: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 25(2), 173–180.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2502_4
Vagos, P., & Pereira, A. (2019). Towards a cognitive-behavioral understanding of assertiveness: effects of cognition and dis-
tress on different expressions of assertive behavior. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 37(2),
133-148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10942-018-0296-4
Van der Oord, S., Van der Meulen, E. M., Prins, P. J., Oosterlaan, J., Buitelaar, J. K., & Emmelkamp, P. M. (2005). A psycho-
metric evaluation of the social skills rating system in children with attention decit hyperactivity disorder. Behaviour
Research and Therapy, 43(6), 733-746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2004.06.004
Wang, H. T., Sandall, S. R., Davis, C. A., & Thomas, C. J. (2011). Social skills assessment in young children with autism:
A comparison evaluation of the SSRS and PKBS. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 41, 1487-1495.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-010-1175-8
Whiteside, S. P., McCarthy, D. M., & Miller, J. D. (2007). An examination of the factor structure of the social skills rating system
parent elementary form. Assessment, 14(3), 246-254. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191107302062
World Health Organization. (2018). International classication of diseases (11th ed.). https://icd.who.int/
Quílez-Robres, A., Moyano, N., & Cortés-Pascual, A. (2021). Motivational, emotional, and social factors explain academ-
ic achievement in children aged 6–12 years: A meta-analysis. Education Sciences, 11(9), Article 513. https://doi.
org/10.3390/educsci11090513
