@misc{KulawiakWilbert2019,
  author    = {Kulawiak, Pawel R. and Wilbert, J{\"u}rgen},
  title     = {Introduction of a new method for representing the sociometric status within the peer group},
  series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {570},
  issn      = {1866-8364},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-43413},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-434137},
  pages     = {20},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Sociometrically neglected children are not often liked and not often disliked by their peers. This kind of social information is known as social status. Evidence concerning internalizing behaviour of neglected children is as yet equivocal. Contradictory research results could possibly be attributed to methodological issues of social status classification methods. Therefore, we will paradigmatically emphasize insufficiencies of one social status classification method. Since arbitrary cutoffs (sociometric data) provide the basis for the categorical classification of social status groups, the classification approach lacks precision and consistency. Furthermore, social status classification discounts the multidimensional nature of a child's social status (social status group affiliation is mutually exclusive), disregards between-peer-group differences in the sociometric data, and offers a peer-group-norm-referenced interpretation. By contrast, we will highlight some advantages of the newly introduced social status extreme points procedure, which describes a child's social status in terms of the child's adaptation to sociometric extreme points. The continuous social status extreme points variables offer a criterion-referenced interpretation (multidimensionality: degree of adaptation to each and every sociometric extreme point). The performance and agreement of both methods will be demonstrated using empirical data (N = 316 children within 22 school classes).},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{KulawiakUrtonKrulletal.2020,
  author    = {Kulawiak, Pawel R. and Urton, Karolina and Krull, Johanna and Hennemann, Thomas and Wilbert, J{\"u}rgen},
  title     = {Internalizing Behavior of Sociometrically Neglected Students in Inclusive Primary Classrooms},
  series = {frontiers in Education},
  volume    = {5},
  journal   = {frontiers in Education},
  publisher = {Frontiers Media},
  address   = {Lausanne},
  issn      = {2504-284X},
  doi       = {10.3389/feduc.2020.00032},
  pages     = {12},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Internalizing problems in children belong to the category of special educational needs called emotional and behavioral difficulties. Recent decades have witnessed a critical discussion about whether children and adolescents experiencing internalizing problems are at risk of being sociometrically neglected (neither liked nor disliked by their peers). Previous studies have shown evidence both for and against the association between internalizing problems and neglected sociometric status. These contradictory results may be due to the following methodological aspects: (1) shortcomings of sociometric status classification methods (arbitrariness of the sociometric classification rules) and (2) different operationalizations of internalizing problems (broadband and narrowband dimensions of behavior). The aim of the present study is to investigate empirically whether and to what extent these methodological aspects lead to contradictory results on the internalizing behavior of neglected students. This question is investigated using a sample of students (N = 2334) in German inclusive primary schools. The systematic investigation presented here provides initial indications that the various methodological approaches can lead to conflicting results. The contradictory results are not only due to the application of different sociometric classification methods, but also to different operationalizations of internalizing behavior (narrowband and broadband scales). Earlier contradictory evidence on the internalizing behavior of neglected students must therefore be seen in a different light: the reasons for previously conflicting results may actually be methodological. Based on the results, conclusions are drawn as to how methodological aspects can be given more consideration in sociometric research on internalizing behavior.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{KulawiakUrtonKrulletal.2020,
  author    = {Kulawiak, Pawel R. and Urton, Karolina and Krull, Johanna and Hennemann, Thomas and Wilbert, J{\"u}rgen},
  title     = {Internalizing Behavior of Sociometrically Neglected Students in Inclusive Primary Classrooms},
  series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {652},
  issn      = {1866-8364},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-47452},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-474525},
  pages     = {14},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Internalizing problems in children belong to the category of special educational needs called emotional and behavioral difficulties. Recent decades have witnessed a critical discussion about whether children and adolescents experiencing internalizing problems are at risk of being sociometrically neglected (neither liked nor disliked by their peers). Previous studies have shown evidence both for and against the association between internalizing problems and neglected sociometric status. These contradictory results may be due to the following methodological aspects: (1) shortcomings of sociometric status classification methods (arbitrariness of the sociometric classification rules) and (2) different operationalizations of internalizing problems (broadband and narrowband dimensions of behavior). The aim of the present study is to investigate empirically whether and to what extent these methodological aspects lead to contradictory results on the internalizing behavior of neglected students. This question is investigated using a sample of students (N = 2334) in German inclusive primary schools. The systematic investigation presented here provides initial indications that the various methodological approaches can lead to conflicting results. The contradictory results are not only due to the application of different sociometric classification methods, but also to different operationalizations of internalizing behavior (narrowband and broadband scales). Earlier contradictory evidence on the internalizing behavior of neglected students must therefore be seen in a different light: the reasons for previously conflicting results may actually be methodological. Based on the results, conclusions are drawn as to how methodological aspects can be given more consideration in sociometric research on internalizing behavior.},
  language  = {en}
}