@phdthesis{Urton2016,
  author    = {Urton, Karolina},
  title     = {Inklusion als Schulentwicklungsaufgabe},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {115},
  year      = {2016},
  language  = {de}
}
@article{UrtonBoernetRinglebWilbert2018,
  author    = {Urton, Karolina and B{\"o}rnet-Ringleb, Moritz and Wilbert, J{\"u}rgen},
  title     = {Gestaltung eines inklusiven Schulklimas als Schulentwicklungsaufgabe},
  series = {Inklusive Schul- und Unterrichtsentwicklung : vom Anspruch zur erfolgreichen Umsetzung},
  journal   = {Inklusive Schul- und Unterrichtsentwicklung : vom Anspruch zur erfolgreichen Umsetzung},
  publisher = {Kohlhammer},
  address   = {Stuttgart},
  isbn      = {978-3-17-032719-1},
  pages     = {60 -- 75},
  year      = {2018},
  language  = {de}
}
@article{UrtonWilbertHennemann2015,
  author    = {Urton, Karolina and Wilbert, J{\"u}rgen and Hennemann, Thomas},
  title     = {Die Einstellung zur Integration und die Selbstwirksamkeit von Lehrkr{\"a}ften},
  series = {Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht : Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Forschung und Praxis},
  volume    = {62},
  journal   = {Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht : Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Forschung und Praxis},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {Reinhardt},
  address   = {M{\"u}nchen},
  issn      = {0342-183X},
  doi       = {10.2378/peu2015.art09d},
  pages     = {147 -- 157},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {Die vorliegende Studie untersucht an einer Stichprobe integrativ t{\"a}tiger Grundschullehrkr{\"a}fte (N = 618) den Zusammenhang zwischen der individuellen und kollektiven Selbstwirksamkeit sowie den beruflichen Erfahrungen einerseits und der Einstellung zur Integration andererseits. Die Ergebnisse der Untersuchung zeigen, dass sich die Lehrerkollegien (N = 67) hinsichtlich der Einstellung zur Integration, der individuellen und kollektiven Selbstwirksamkeit sowie der beruflichen Erfahrung im Unterrichten von Kindern mit sonderp{\"a}dagogischem F{\"o}rderbedarf unterscheiden. Entsprechend unserer Annahmen zeigt sich in einer Mehrebenenanalyse eine bedeutsame Aufkl{\"a}rung der Varianz der Einstellung zur Integration durch die individuelle und kollektive Selbstwirksamkeit sowie die berufliche Erfahrung.},
  language  = {de}
}
@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}
}
@article{WilbertUrtonKrulletal.2020,
  author    = {Wilbert, J{\"u}rgen and Urton, Karolina and Krull, Johanna and Kulawiak, Pawel R. and Schwalbe, Anja and Hennemann, Thomas},
  title     = {Teachers' accuracy in estimating social inclusion of students with and without special educational needs},
  series = {Frontiers in education},
  volume    = {5},
  journal   = {Frontiers in education},
  publisher = {Frontiers Media},
  address   = {Lausanne},
  issn      = {2504-284X},
  doi       = {10.3389/feduc.2020.598330},
  pages     = {11},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {It is unclear to what extent teachers can accurately assess the social inclusion of their students with and without SEN. The study aims to shed light on these desiderata. Students (N = 1.644) with SEN (learning, behavior, and language problems) and without SEN and their teachers (N = 79) participated in the study. Sociometric peer nominations, students' self-perceived social inclusion, and teachers' assessments regarding students' social inclusion and self-perceived social inclusion were administered. The results suggest that teachers are moderately accurate in identifying social acceptance and social rejection, while accuracy is low when assessing students' self-perceived social inclusion. That said, rating accuracy varied strongly between teachers, ranging from no agreement to a perfect concordance. Teachers seem to be more accurate in estimating the social acceptance of students with learning problems. The results emphasize the importance of differentiating between various social inclusion criteria (i.e., students' self-report vs. peer nominations) and accounting for inter-individual differences in teachers' rating accuracy.},
  language  = {en}
}