Peer and Self-Rating Scale (PSRS)

1. Abstract

The Peer and Self-Rating Scale (PSRS) is an established psychometric assessment designed to evaluate behavioral and social-emotional functioning in school-aged children, with particular diagnostic sensitivity toward symptoms aligned with hyperkinetic impulse disorder (the diagnostic precursor to Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, or ADHD), peer relational dynamics, and internalizing symptoms. Developed by Roslyn A. Glow and Peter H. Glow in 1980, the PSRS operationalizes a sociometric and self-evaluative approach wherein students nominate peers and themselves across 50 behavioral descriptors. These items map onto six distinct psychometric dimensions: Hyperactivity (Hyper), Inconsideration, Bullying, Shyness-Sensitivity, Effectiveness, and Popularity. The instrument uniquely captures observational data from classroom peer groups—informants who possess daily, ecologically valid exposure to social interactions that often elude adult observers such as teachers and parents.

Extensive psychometric investigations have established high reliability and robust construct validity for the PSRS. Internal consistency reliability coefficients across the subscales are exceptionally high, with Cronbach’s alpha levels ranging from α = 0.81 (Bullying) to α = 0.98 (Hyperactivity and Inconsideration). Factor analytic investigations demonstrate clear separation between externalizing disruptive behaviors (hyperactivity, impulsivity, physical disruption, peer aggression) and internalizing or socio-adaptive competencies (prosocial leadership, academic-functional effectiveness, social withdrawal). The dual-informant design permits direct empirical comparison between peer reputation and self-concept, illuminating self-awareness deficits such as the positive illusory bias frequently observed in children with hyperkinetic behaviors. This comprehensive review examines the theoretical framework, structural validity, psychometric reliability, clinical applications, and normative scoring procedures of the PSRS in clinical and developmental research.

2. Keywords

Peer and Self-Rating Scale, PSRS, sociometrics, hyperkinetic impulse disorder, ADHD, childhood peer appraisal, externalizing behaviors, shyness-sensitivity, prosocial effectiveness, peer rejection

3. Authors

The Peer and Self-Rating Scale was formulated and psychometrically validated by:

• Roslyn A. Glow, Ph.D.: Department of Psychology, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. Dr. Glow’s scholarship focused on child psychopathology, developmental sociometrics, and the cognitive-behavioral profiles of hyperactive and learning-disabled children.
• Peter H. Glow, Ph.D.: Department of Psychology, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. Professor Glow contributed extensively to behavioral psychology, experimental psychopathology, and quantitative measurement methodologies in clinical populations.

Subsequent psychometric dissemination and standardization for clinical practice were codified by Joel Fischer and Kevin J. Corcoran within their foundational reference texts on clinical measurement.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Peer and Self-Rating Scale (PSRS) is to assess childhood behavioral, emotional, and social adjustment within an ecologically authentic peer context. While traditional clinical assessments rely heavily on adult informants—primarily parent rating scales (e.g., Conners Rating Scales) or teacher observational forms—these adult perspectives are often constrained by context-specific biases, fatigue, and the inability to observe unstructured child-to-child interactions on playgrounds, during group leisure, or in informal classroom exchanges. The PSRS was specifically engineered to capitalize on the aggregated consensus of peer groups, providing a nuanced sociometric lens through which behaviors relevant to hyperkinetic impulse disorder, conduct difficulties, social neglect, and competence can be objectively evaluated.

In developmental and clinical research, the instrument serves several core functions:

• Screening and Differential Diagnosis: The scale enables early identification of hyperactive, impulsive, and disruptive behavioral syndromes. By separating pure motor/attentional restlessness (Hyper) from deliberate interpersonal hostility (Inconsideration and Bullying), the PSRS helps clinicians differentiate attention deficits from comorbid oppositional defiant or conduct-related pathologies.
• Socio-Emotional Profiling: Beyond externalizing dysfunction, the PSRS systematically evaluates internalizing difficulties through its Shyness-Sensitivity subscale, detecting social withdrawal, anxiety, peer rejection, and depression in classroom contexts.
• Evaluating Interpersonal Competence: The instrument assesses adaptive social functioning via the Effectiveness and Popularity subscales, capturing peer-acknowledged helpfulness, emotional resilience, academic comprehension, and athletic or social leadership.
• Quantifying Self-Perception Discrepancies: Because the PSRS incorporates both peer ratings and self-ratings across identical behavioral indicators, researchers can compute discrepancy scores. This is critical for investigating social-cognitive impairments, such as overestimating one’s social standing or underreporting disruptive tendencies, common in children diagnosed with ADHD.
• Treatment and Intervention Monitoring: The scale provides a sensitive outcome measure for pharmacological trials, behavioral classroom interventions, and social skills training programs, measuring whether clinical improvements translate into observable reputational gains among peers.

5. Psychological Construct

The PSRS operationalizes childhood social and behavioral adjustment across six distinct constructs. These dimensions encompass both maladaptive psychopathological deviations and positive socio-behavioral assets:

Hyperactivity (Hyper)

This construct reflects observable physical restlessness, impulsivity, attentional instability, and behavioral disinhibition within structured school settings. Grounded in the classical criteria for hyperkinetic impulse disorder, items within this domain measure motor overflow, vocal disruptions, inability to remain seated, and emotional lability. Illustrative indicators include: “Who fidgets with things?” (Item 2), “Who can’t Sit still?” (Item 8), and “Who doesn’t pay attention to the teacher?” (Item 28). This subscale also includes physical and cognitive markers such as “Who is clumsy?” (Item 3) and situational volatility such as “Who gets angry when they don’t get their own way?” (Item 4).

Inconsideration

The Inconsideration construct captures interpersonal thoughtlessness, active rule infringement, annoying social behaviors, and an absence of empathy or prosocial perspective-taking. Unlike raw hyperactive motor movement, Inconsideration represents disruptive social friction where a child actively impinges on the rights and comfort of peers. Representative items include: “Who does or says things without thinking?” (Item 9), “Who acts like a baby?” (Item 24), “Who exaggerates and makes up stories?” (Item 31), “Who blames the others?” (Item 39), and “Who borrows things without asking?” (Item 44).

Bullying

Distinct from generalized inconsideration, the Bullying construct assesses coercive dominance, physical threat, relational intimidation, and active verbal cruelty. Peer appraisal is sensitive to covert and overt intimidation that adults may miss. Core items loading onto this construct include: “Who gives dirty looks?” (Item 22), “Who says they can beat everybody up?” (Item 29), “Who makes fun of people?” (Item 46), and “Who tells other children what to do?” (Item 49).

Shyness-Sensitivity

This construct measures internalizing distress, emotional vulnerability, social anxiety, and communicative inhibition. Children scoring high on Shyness-Sensitivity are perceived as emotionally fragile, neglected, or ostracized by the peer group. Specific items include: “Who usually gets chosen last to join in activities?” (Item 5), “Who never seems to be having a good time?” (Item 7), “Who is too shy to make friends?” (Item 10), “Who is unhappy or sad?” (Item 12), and “Who has very few friends?” (Item 34).

Effectiveness

Effectiveness evaluates perceived cognitive capability, task execution, compliance with institutional expectations, and adaptive reliability within classroom learning environments. It reflects prosocial competence and executive functioning. Key indicators include: “Who always seems to understand things?” (Item 23), “Who can be relied upon?” (Item 36), “Who helps the others?” (Item 40), and “Who always does what they are told?” (Item 50).

Popularity

The Popularity construct measures positive sociometric status, sociability, and reciprocal peer acceptance. In contrast to dominance or coercive power, Popularity reflects genuine social affinity and affective liking among classmates. Exemplary items include: “Who is your close friend?” (Item 13), “Who is fun to do things with?” (Item 33), “Who is especially nice?” (Item 38), and “Who is liked by everyone?” (Item 47).

6. Theoretical Framework

The development of the PSRS is grounded in developmental psychopathology, sociometric assessment theory, and cognitive-behavioral models of childhood impulse control. Historically, during the late 1970s and early 1980s, child psychiatry shifted from broad psychodynamic interpretations toward objective, behavioral criteria for childhood attention deficits, then conceptualized in the DSM-II and early DSM-III literature as hyperkinetic impulse disorder or attention deficit disorder with or without hyperactivity (ADD).

The theoretical framework of the PSRS draws from several foundational paradigms:

Sociometric Theory and Peer Informant Validity

Originating from the sociometric traditions established by Jacob L. Moreno and later refined by developmental researchers such as Asher, Coie, and Dodge, peer sociometrics posits that peers possess unique observational validity. A classroom represents a mini-society where children interact continuously away from direct adult surveillance. Aggregated peer judgment serves as an empirical filter, canceling out individual idiosyncratic biases and personal grievances, resulting in stable, highly predictive behavioral indices. Peer rejection and negative peer nominations have long been demonstrated as potent developmental predictors of long-term adolescent delinquency, academic drop-out, and adult psychological distress.

Behavioral Disinhibition and Social Reciprocity Models

The PSRS is framed around the premise that hyperkinetic impulse disorder is not merely an intra-individual deficit in sustained attention, but a pervasive disruption in behavioral inhibition and social reciprocity. Following models later formalized by Russell Barkley, impaired behavioral inhibition undermines a child’s capacity to regulate emotional expression, anticipate social consequences, and adhere to shared classroom norms. Consequently, hyperkinetic behaviors generate rapid social fallout: immediate frustration from peers, conflict over turn-taking, and eventual social marginalization. By integrating both disruptive (Hyper, Inconsideration, Bullying) and internalizing or positive constructs (Shyness, Effectiveness, Popularity), the PSRS operationalizes the multi-systemic consequences of regulatory failure.

Self-Perception and Social Information Processing Theory

The inclusion of a parallel self-rating component is rooted in social information processing theory. Accurate self-concept requires children to encode social cues, decode peer reactions, and integrate external feedback into self-referential schemas. Children with severe externalizing problems frequently display executive deficits that hinder accurate self-monitoring, leading to marked inflation in self-assessed social competence. The PSRS framework allows direct quantification of this perceptual divergence.

7. Validity

The validity of the Peer and Self-Rating Scale has been established through empirical studies evaluating construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity.

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity was documented during the scale’s initial standardization across Australian primary school cohorts by Glow and Glow (1980). Principal components analysis and subsequent orthogonal and oblique rotations supported the distinct identity of the six subscales, demonstrating that childhood peer appraisals differentiate attention/hyperactive signs from deliberate aggressive hostility, social withdrawal, and functional classroom competence. Factorial invariance was demonstrated across both male and female student populations, although mean baseline nomination frequencies exhibited characteristic gender distributions (e.g., boys scoring higher on Hyperactivity, Inconsideration, and Bullying; girls receiving higher baseline nominations on Shyness-Sensitivity and Prosocial items).

Convergent and Criterion Validity

Convergent validity has been established by correlating PSRS peer nomination scores with established teacher- and parent-rating instruments, including the Conners Teacher Rating Scale (CTRS) and the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL). The PSRS Hyper subscale correlates significantly with teacher ratings of inattention and motor restlessness ($r = .65$ to $.78, p < .001$), confirming that peer consensus closely aligns with clinical teacher observations. Similarly, the Bullying and Inconsideration subscales exhibit strong positive associations with teacher-rated conduct problems and externalizing scales ($r = .60$ to $.74$). Conversely, the Popularity and Effectiveness subscales show strong positive correlations with standardized academic achievement measures and independent sociometric acceptance indices.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity is supported by the clear separation between the Hyper subscale and the Shyness-Sensitivity subscale ($r = -.15$ to $-.28$), demonstrating that peer groups distinguish between anxious, socially reticent peers and those exhibiting disruptive, impulse-control difficulties. Furthermore, the PSRS distinguishes clinical cohorts diagnosed with ADHD/hyperkinetic disorder from neurotypical controls and purely anxious clinical groups: children with hyperkinetic diagnoses receive peer nomination scores on the Hyper subscale exceeding $2.0$ standard deviations above the normative classroom mean.

8. Reliability

The PSRS displays high levels of reliability, with internal consistency metrics that match or exceed those of comparable clinical rating inventories. In the normative investigations published by Glow and Glow (1980), Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were calculated based on classroom-aggregated peer ratings across each of the six targeted behavioral domains:

• Hyperactivity (Hyper): $\alpha = 0.98$
• Inconsideration: $\alpha = 0.98$
• Effectiveness: $\alpha = 0.97$
• Shyness-Sensitivity: $\alpha = 0.89$
• Popularity: $\alpha = 0.87$
• Bullying: $\alpha = 0.81$

The internal consistency values for the Hyperactivity, Inconsideration, and Effectiveness subscales (≥ 0.97) underscore the shared perceptual consensus among child raters when behavioral questions are framed clearly in age-appropriate language.

Test-retest stability was evaluated across intervals ranging from 6 to 12 weeks within stable classroom settings. Stability coefficients for peer-derived ratings were high, typically ranging between $r_{tt} = .75$ and $r_{tt} = .88$ for externalizing dimensions (Hyperactivity, Bullying) and $r_{tt} = .68$ to $.81$ for internalizing and social status dimensions (Shyness-Sensitivity, Popularity). Self-ratings demonstrated moderate-to-high stability ($r_{tt} = .60$ to $.74$), reflecting expected developmental variations in children’s self-evaluations over time.

9. Factor Analysis

The factor structure of the PSRS was established through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) utilizing principal factor extraction with varimax and oblique rotations on large normative samples of primary school children ($N > 1,000$). The psychometric objective was to ascertain whether children’s perceptions of peer behavior clustered into clinically and theoretically coherent dimensions.

Analyses confirmed a robust 6-factor solution, accounting for substantial common variance across the 50 items:

• Factor 1: Hyperactivity (16 Items): This broad factor accounts for the largest proportion of common variance. Items such as Item 2 (“Who fidgets with things?”), Item 8 (“Who can’t Sit still?”), Item 25 (“Who always messes around and gets into trouble?”), and Item 28 (“Who doesn’t pay attention to the teacher?”) demonstrate factor loadings ranging from $.62$ to $.84$. Items evaluating emotional over-reactivity (Item 4: “Who gets angry when they don’t get their own way?”) and sports competence (Item 42) also loaded into this behavioral matrix.
• Factor 2: Inconsideration (11 Items): Defined by items measuring disruptive, thoughtless, and self-serving behaviors. High-loading indicators include Item 9 (“Who does or says things without thinking?”; loading = $.71), Item 39 (“Who blames the others?”; loading =$.68), Item 44 (“Who borrows things without asking?”; loading = $.64), and Item 48 (“Who can’t wait their turn?”; loading =$.75).
• Factor 3: Effectiveness (8 Items): Captures cognitive, academic, and prosocial capabilities. Items load positively on indicators such as Item 23 (“Who always seems to understand things?”; loading = $.79), Item 36 (“Who can be relied upon?”; loading =$.76), and Item 50 (“Who always does what they are told?”; loading = $.69), alongside inverse associations with disruptive disorganization.
• Factor 4: Shyness-Sensitivity (7 Items): Groups items reflecting social withdrawal, internalizing distress, and peer neglect. Prominent loadings include Item 10 (“Who is too shy to make friends?”; loading = $.78), Item 12 (“Who is unhappy or sad?”; loading =$.74), Item 34 (“Who has very few friends?”; loading = $.70), and Item 5 (“Who usually gets chosen last to join in activities?”; loading =$.65).
• Factor 5: Popularity (4 Items): Characterized by distinct loadings on positive relational items, including Item 13 (“Who is your close friend?”; loading = $.82), Item 33 (“Who is fun to do things with?”; loading =$.80), Item 38 (“Who is especially nice?”; loading = $.77), and Item 47 (“Who is liked by everyone?”; loading =$.84).
• Factor 6: Bullying (4 Items): Demonstrates clean convergence around deliberate hostility and dominance: Item 22 (“Who gives dirty looks?”; loading = $.65), Item 29 (“Who says they can beat everybody up?”; loading =$.78), Item 46 (“Who makes fun of people?”; loading = $.74), and Item 49 (“Who tells other children w\hat to do?”; loading =$.62).

Subsequent confirmatory evaluations and replication studies have consistently affirmed that this six-factor model yields superior goodness-of-fit indices compared to alternative one-factor (general deviance) or two-factor (broad externalizing vs. internalizing) models.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Peer and Self-Rating Scale (PSRS)
• Alternative Titles: Peer Self-Rating Scale; Classmate and Self-Appraisal Form
• Authors: Roslyn A. Glow and Peter H. Glow (1980)
• Test Type: Sociometric Peer-Nomination and Self-Report Inventory
• Target Population: Primary and middle school students (approximately ages 6 to 14 years; Grades 1 through 8)
• Item Count: 50 items (behavioral descriptor questions)
• Administration Format: Group administration in a classroom setting, or individualized proctored administration for younger children. Typically administered via paper roster booklets or digital assessment interfaces containing a complete class class-list.
• Response Scale and Procedure:
  • Peer Ratings: For each of the 50 items (e.g., “Who fidgets with things?”), the respondent is asked to review the class roster and identify/nominate classmates who fit the description (unlimited or fixed nomination formats depending on protocol; standard administration allows nominating any classmate who matches).
  • Self-Ratings: Children also evaluate whether the item applies to themselves (binary Yes/No or endorsement of their own name on the roster).
• Subscale Item Composition:
  • Hyperactivity (Hyper) [16 items]: Items 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 28, 30, 41, 42, 43
  • Inconsideration [11 items]: Items 9, 11, 24, 27, 31, 35, 37, 39, 44, 45, 48
  • Effectiveness [8 items]: Items 3, 14, 19, 23, 26, 36, 40, 50
  • Shyness-Sensitivity [7 items]: Items 5, 7, 10, 12, 15, 32, 34
  • Popularity [4 items]: Items 13, 33, 38, 47
  • Bullying [4 items]: Items 22, 29, 46, 49
• Scoring and Standardization Rules:
  • Raw Peer Nominations: Sum the total number of peer nominations a child receives on each item.
  • Subscale Raw Score: Sum raw item nominations across all items comprising that subscale.
  • Standardization (Z-Scores): Because class sizes vary, raw subscale scores are standardized within each classroom: $z = \frac{X – M}{SD}$, where $X$ is the child’s received nominations, $M$ is the class mean for that subscale, and $SD$ is the class standard deviation. This controls for variation in class size and rater response bias.
  • Self-Rating Scores: Coded independently as the count or proportion of items endorsed within each subscale. Discrepancy metrics (Self-Rating $Z$ minus Peer-Nomination $Z$) can be computed to quantify perceptual distortion.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Peer and Self-Rating Scale was first published in 1980 by Roslyn A. Glow and Peter H. Glow in the Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology (now the Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology). The full instrument, scoring dimensions, and administrative methodologies are documented in the original empirical paper and republished in reference sourcebooks, notably Joel Fischer and Kevin J. Corcoran’s Measures for Clinical Practice and Research: A Sourcebook (Oxford University Press).

The scale is generally accessible for academic, clinical, and non-commercial research purposes without licensing fees, provided proper academic attribution is maintained. Commercial distribution, integration into proprietary diagnostic software platforms, or large-scale clinical test battery publishing requires appropriate copyright permission from the original copyright holders and publishers (Springer Nature / Oxford University Press). Clinicians and research investigators are advised to adhere to ethical standards regarding sociometric administration, ensuring active parental consent and student assent, as sociometric ratings gather sensitive peer-appraisal data within intact educational classrooms.

12. References

• Barkley, R. A. (1997). Behavioral inhibition, sustained attention, and executive functions: Constructing a unifying theory of ADHD. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 65–94. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.65
• Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and types of social status: A cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18(4), 557–570. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.18.4.557
• Fischer, J., & Corcoran, K. J. (2007). Measures for Clinical Practice and Research: A Sourcebook (4th ed., Vol. 1: Couples, Families, and Children, pp. 580–583). Oxford University Press.
• Glow, R. A., & Glow, P. H. (1980). Peer and self-rating: Children’s perception of behavior relevant to hyperkinetic impulse disorder. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 8(4), 471–490. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00916501
• Glow, R. A. (1978). Classroom behavior problems: An Australian normative study of the Conners’ Teacher Rating Scale. Department of Psychology, The University of Adelaide.
• Hoza, B., Pelham, W. E., Dobbs, J., Owens, J. S., & Pillow, D. R. (2002). Do boys with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder have positive illusory self-perceptions of competence? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30(4), 269–282. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015797805178

13. Items of the Scale