Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 43(1), 2006 © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/pits.20125

ACADEMIC ENABLERS AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT:

IMPLICATIONS FOR ASSESSMENT AND
INTERVENTION SERVICES IN THE SCHOOLS
JAMES CLYDE DIPERNA
The Pennsylvania State University

Academic enablers have been defined as attitudes and behaviors that facilitate students’ partici-
pation in, and benefit from, academic instruction in the classroom (J.C. DiPerna & S.N. Elliott,
2000). The purpose of this article is to provide practitioners with an overview of specific aca-
demic enablers (motivation, study skills, engagement, and social skills) and their relationships
with academic achievement. In addition, a practical framework is provided for considering aca-
demic enablers within assessment and intervention practices in the schools. © 2006 Wiley Period-
icals, Inc.

During the past two decades, researchers (e.g., Greenwood, 1991; Wentzel, 1993) have doc-
umented positive relationships between students’ behaviors and attitudes and their academic achieve-
ment. As a result, researchers have begun to characterize such behaviors as “academic enablers”
(DiPerna & Elliott, 2002) and hypothesized that these enablers play a meaningful role in facili-
tating students’ academic success in the classroom. The purpose of this article is to provide an
overview of what currently is known about academic enablers, highlight the implications of enablers
for assessment and intervention practices in the schools, and identify directions for future research
to advance understanding of enablers and student learning.

Academic Competence, Enablers, and Achievement

DiPerna and Elliott (1999) hypothesized that a student’s academic competence in the class-
room includes attitudes and behaviors beyond academic skills. The results of their research (DiPerna
& Elliott, 1999, 2000) to develop a measure of academic competence have indicated that the skills,
attitudes, and behaviors contributing to this construct fall into one of two domains: academic skills
or academic enablers. Academic skills are the basic and complex cognitive skills (e.g., mathemat-
ics, reading, critical thinking) that are the primary educational outcome (and focus of instruction)
of elementary and secondary schooling. Academic enablers are student attitudes and behaviors
that facilitate a student’s participation in, and benefit from, academic instruction in the classroom
(DiPerna & Elliott, 2000).
Based on their research as well as the research of others (e.g., Greenwood, 1991; Wentzel,
1993; Wigfield & Karpathian, 1991), DiPerna and Elliott (2000) identified four specific academic
enablers: interpersonal skills, study skills, motivation, and engagement. One limitation of prior
research regarding these four academic enablers was that their respective contributions to aca-
demic achievement often had been explored in isolation. DiPerna, Volpe, and Elliott (2002) attempted
to address this limitation by proposing a model of student achievement featuring multiple aca-
demic enablers. Application of this model to the early reading skills of an elementary student
sample provided initial support for the model (DiPerna et al., 2002).
Although the DiPerna et al. (2002) model specified pathways among enablers and achieve-
ment, it did not account for the relationship between enablers and classroom instruction. Figure 1
presents a model of hypothesized relationships between academic enablers, academic skills, and
classroom instruction that builds upon the prior models of DiPerna et al. (2002) and Greenwood

Correspondence to: James Clyde DiPerna, The Pennsylvania State University, 105 CEDAR Building, University
Park, PA 16802. E-mail: jcd12@psu.edu

7
8 DiPerna

Figure 1. Hypothesized model of the relationships between classroom instruction, academic enablers, and academic
skills.

(1996). As displayed in the figure, the model specifies that quality of classroom instruction directly
influences the development of students’ academic skills. The model also specifies that the impact
of instruction is enhanced (or inhibited) by students’ other skills, attitudes, and behaviors (aca-
demic enablers). In addition, the effectiveness of instruction influences students’ development and
use of academic enablers in the classroom.
This relatively simple model has potentially significant implications for the provision of
assessment and intervention services in the schools. Specifically, it suggests that academic enablers
play a meaningful role in facilitating classroom learning and should be considered as part of a
comprehensive assessment and intervention plan for a student experiencing academic difficulty.
This model also suggests that improving content/skill focused instruction alone may not be suf-
ficient for bringing about desired positive change in academic outcomes. To capitalize on these
implications in practice, school psychologists must develop an understanding of specific enablers,
their contributions to academic skill development, and strategies for their assessment and inter-
vention. In the following sections, I briefly review what is known about four hypothesized enablers:
motivation, engagement, study skills, and social skills.

Motivation
The current prevailing theories of motivation are social cognitive in orientation and include
such theories as self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation, and goal orientation (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002).
Bandura (1997) defined self-efficacy as an individual’s belief about his/her ability to perform in a
specific context, task, or domain. This construct differs from self-esteem or self-concept in that it
focuses less on self-perceptions of global ability and more on ability within a specific context. For
example, a student may have high self-efficacy regarding their performance ability in mathemat-
ics, but lower self-efficacy regarding their written language skills. Self-efficacy is informed by
prior success (or lack thereof ) in similar contexts and has been shown to be related to a variety of
academic outcomes including higher levels of effort, persistence, and achievement (Bandura,
1997; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002).
Intrinsic motivation reflects an individual’s willingness to engage in an activity for its own
sake whereas extrinsic motivation refers to willingness to engage in an activity because the activ-
ity is a means to an end (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Although researchers have hypothesized there
are many distinct types of intrinsic motivation, two of the more salient for academic contexts are
personal and situational interest (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002). Personal interest reflects an
individual’s level of interest regarding a specific topic or domain (e.g., interest in mathematics as

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 Academic Enablers and Achievement 9

an area of study) and is believed to be somewhat stable over time (Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000).
Situational interest, however, is based on the specific learning context (e.g., writing a paper about
the U.S. Civil Rights movement) and tends to last for shorter periods of time (Hidi & Harackie-
wicz, 2000). Both types of intrinsic motivation have been shown to be related to increased per-
sistence, engagement, and academic achievement (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002).
Achievement goal theory is considered to be one of the most central theories in current
motivation research (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002). Goal theory posits that there are two types of
learning goals: performance and mastery. Performance goals cause a learner to appraise personal
ability and self-worth based on the quality of one’s own performance relative to the quality of
performance by others (Ames, 1992). Mastery goals cause a learner to appraise ability based on
increased understanding, mastery of concepts, and/or improved performance relative to prior
performance (Ames, 1992). Empirical studies to date suggest that mastery goals relate positively
with engagement, study skills, and achievement. Evidence also suggests that performance-
oriented goals relate positively with achievement; however, such goals do not appear to lead to
increased engagement or study skills (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002).
Engagement
Engagement reflects students’ active participation in classroom instruction and includes such
behaviors as writing, task participation, reading aloud, asking questions, and providing answers to
others’ questions (Greenwood, Horton, & Utley, 2002). The construct of engagement has evolved
from research on academic survival skills (Hoge, 1983), academic learning time (Berliner, 1988),
and/or academic responding (Greenwood, Delquadri, & Hall, 1984). Cobb (1972) was one of the
first researchers to examine specific classroom behaviors and their relationship with specific achieve-
ment domains. Cobb found that volunteering and attending demonstrated significant relationships
with reading achievement whereas compliance and attending demonstrated significant relation-
ships with mathematics achievement.
Greenwood et al. (1984) extended this line of research and identified three classes of behav-
iors (academic responding, task management responding, and inappropriate behaviors) based on
the direction of their relationships with achievement. Academic responding behaviors are posi-
tively associated with achievement and include active behaviors such as reading and writing.
Conversely, inappropriate behaviors demonstrate negative relationships with achievement and
reflect off-task behaviors (e.g., looking around). Finally, task management responding behaviors
are neutral and demonstrate no significant relationship with achievement (e.g., looking at the
teacher). In subsequent research, Greenwood (1991) demonstrated that both academic responding
behaviors and academic achievement could be increased through changing instruction.
Despite demonstrating positive relationships between academic engagement and achieve-
ment, causal relationships were not explicitly tested until the past decade. Greenwood and col-
leagues (e.g., Greenwood, 1996; Greenwood, Terry, Marquis, & Walker, 1994) proposed and tested
alternative causal models of the relationship between instruction, engagement, and achievement.
Based on these studies, the researchers concluded that a mediated model (i.e., instruction influ-
ences engagement, which in turn influences achievement) best represented the relationships among
these three variables. Greenwood’s (1996) mediated or performance-based model has provided a
foundation for other models of academic enablers such as the model displayed in Figure 1.
Study Skills
Study skills include a variety of cognitive skills and processes that help students acquire new
information efficiently and effectively (Devine, 1987). Specifically, researchers have suggested
that study skills include competencies such as recording, organizing, synthesizing, remembering,

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

10 DiPerna

and applying information (Hoover & Patton, 1995). The act of studying can be differentiated from
other forms of learning, such as teacher-directed instruction, in three ways (Gettinger & Seibert,
2002). First, effective studying is a skillful activity, and mastery of this skill requires explicit
training and practice for most learners. Second, studying is an intentional rather than incidental
learning activity. As such, effective studying requires that the learner have the motivation to study
(Gettinger & Seibert, 2002). Third, self-regulation is necessary to facilitate both the acquisition
and application of specific study skills outside of formal learning environments (Zimmerman,
Bonner, & Kovach, 1996).
Several lines of research provide insight into the relationship between study skills and aca-
demic achievement. For example, the use of “think-aloud” protocols, where individuals verbally
describe their thought processes as they engage in a specific activity, has provided insight into
strategies of effective studiers. Pressley and Afflerbach (1995) reviewed more than 40 such studies
and identified multiple strategies employed by effective learners. These strategies included pre-
viewing before reading, making connections between key concepts, activating prior knowledge,
monitoring understanding, and changing strategies when understanding is lacking.
Insight regarding the importance of study skills also has been gained through analysis of
strategies employed by lower achieving students. Wong (1994) concluded that children with mild
disabilities fail to actively plan and evaluate their own studying behaviors. Similarly, Decker,
Spector, and Shaw (1992) found that students with lower academic achievement have a restricted
range of study skills and tend to employ these skills to all learning contexts regardless of content
and level of difficulty. In addition, researchers have shown that low-achieving students use study
strategies less frequently than their higher achieving counterparts, and frequency of strategy use
demonstrates positive relationships with performance on standardized achievement tests and com-
pletion of homework (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986). In sum, students with better study
skills are “active” learners and demonstrate initiative and responsibility in facilitating their own
acquisition of knowledge and skills (Gettinger & Seibert, 2002).

Social Skills
Social skills have been defined as learned behaviors that enable a person to interact with
others in ways that elicit positive responses and assist in avoiding negative responses (Gresham &
Elliott, 1984). Examples of such skills include sharing, helping, initiating communications, request-
ing help from another person, and giving compliments. Several researchers have established that
a relationship exists between social skills and academic functioning (e.g., Bursuch & Asher, 1986;
DiPerna & Elliott, 2000). Differences in social functioning have been documented between stu-
dents with learning disabilities and normally achieving students (Gresham & Elliott, 1990). Social
skill differences also have been documented between students with mild disabilities and students
without disabilities (Gresham & Reschly, 1987). Additional investigators have reported signifi-
cant relationships between teacher-rated social skills and direct observations of academic-engaged
time and responding (Eisert, Walker, Severson, Black, & Todis, 1987).
There has been less published evidence exploring potential causal relationships between
social skills and academic functioning. Wentzel (1993) examined the predictive relationship between
measures of academic outcomes and students’ social and academic behavior with a sample of 423
sixth and seventh graders. Results indicated that teacher ratings of students’ prosocial, antisocial,
and academic behavior were significant, independent predictors of students’ grade point average.
Only prosocial behavior, though, was a significant, independent predictor of standardized achieve-
ment test scores. Malecki and Elliott (2002) extended the work of Wentzel through the use of
standardized measures completed by multiple informants (parent, teacher, student) at two points
in time. Using regression analyses, they found that social skills were a significant predictor of

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 Academic Enablers and Achievement 11

academic competence, and academic competence was in turn a significant predictor of achieve-
ment as measured by a standardized test of achievement. The results of these studies suggest that
prosocial behaviors are potential academic enablers and should be considered in the provision of
services to students experiencing academic difficulty.
Practical Framework for Integrating Enablers into Professional Practices
Collectively, the aforementioned studies provide evidence that the academic enablers of moti-
vation, engagement, study skills, and social skills demonstrate positive relationships with stu-
dents’ academic achievement. Although additional research is necessary, the expanding evidence
base suggests that these enablers may exert causal influence in promoting higher levels of aca-
demic achievement. Provided these causal relationships are substantiated in future research, the
challenge for practitioners is integrating the empirical understanding of these relationships with
the practical realities of providing assessment, intervention, and consultation services to children
in schools. Elsewhere, other researchers (e.g., DiPerna et al., 2002; Keith, 2002) have written
about potential implications of models of academic enablers for conceptualizing assessment, inter-
vention, and prevention-oriented services for students experiencing academic difficulty in school.
In the following paragraphs, I attempt to extend these ideas by offering a framework for priori-
tizing target enabler domains within the assessment and intervention process.
As noted at the outset of this article, the construct of academic competence has been defined
to include both academic skills as well as academic enablers. Models of achievement (e.g., DiPerna
et al., 2002; Reynolds, & Walberg, 1991) have demonstrated that prior academic skills are the
largest single predictor of current achievement regardless of the other predictors incorporated into
the model. As such, the first step in any decision-making framework must be to determine a
student’s current proficiency in core academic skills (e.g., reading, writing, mathematics) and how
the student’s proficiency compares to the skill expectations in the classroom. A variety of methods
can be used to assess academic proficiency (curriculum-based measurement, review of permanent
products, teacher judgments, etc.), and there are some excellent resources available (e.g., Howell
& Nolet, 2000; Rathvon, 1999; Shapiro, 2004) for learning more about assessment and interven-
tion issues related to academic skill problems.
After determining level of academic skill proficiency, other academic enablers should be
assessed to determine if they might be contributing to the current “problem.” Based on initial
modeling research as well as the observed magnitude of correlational evidence across studies,
motivation is the first enabler to consider with regard to its impact on current academic perfor-
mance. After motivation, the next skill domain for consideration appears to vary depending on the
age/grade of the student experiencing difficulty. For children of elementary age, engagement in
classroom instruction appears to be a good predictor of early academic skill development. Con-
versely, study skills appear to assume a greater role (e.g., DiPerna et al., 2002) as students advance
through the elementary level and continue into their middle and secondary years. This shift in
influence is not surprising given the increased emphasis on independent learning as students advance
through the educational system. The final enabler for consideration is social skills. Based on the
model of DiPerna et al. (2002), the contributions of interpersonal skills to academic outcomes
primarily are indirect and assume slightly lower priority when developing interventions for stu-
dents experiencing academic difficulty.
This progression of assessment and intervention decision making, along with examples of
key questions to consider related to each skill/enabler domain, is displayed in Figure 2. Answering
these questions provides insight into (a) target skills for intervention and (b) potential instructional
and/or environmental variables to change in developing an initial intervention. To answer these
questions, one must accurately assess individual academic enablers.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

12 DiPerna

Figure 2. Decision-making framework for incorporating academic enablers into the assessment and intervention
process.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 Academic Enablers and Achievement 13

Assessment Considerations
Although there are a variety of measures available to directly assess academic skills (e.g.,
curriculum-based assessment, standardized tests), there are two primary methods that can be used
to assess academic enablers: rating scales and direct observation. Currently, there are a number of
behavior rating scales that primarily focus on pathology and/or negative behaviors; however,
there are fewer published measures available to assess the positive skills, attitudes, and behaviors
associated with academic enablers. Of the four enablers identified in this article, the social skills
domain has the largest number of rating scales currently available (e.g., Social Skills Rating
System: Gresham & Elliott, 1990; School Social Behavior Scales–2nd ed.: Merrell, 2002). Beyond
social skills, a limited number of self-report rating scales are available to assess motivation (e.g.,
Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire: Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1993)
and study skills (e.g., Learning and Study Strategies Inventory: Weinstein & Palmer, 2002) with
the adolescent student population. One rating scale that assesses all four enabler domains is the
Academic Competence Evaluation Scales (ACES; DiPerna & Elliott, 2000). The ACES includes
both a teacher (Grades K–12) and a student self-report (Grades 6–12) and has evidence to support
its use as a measure of academic enablers as well as academic skills.
In addition to rating scales, direct observations can be used to assess specific academic enabler
domains. Although practitioners typically individualize observations to assess specific target behav-
iors, there are standardized observation codes available to assess specific enabler domains, par-
ticularly engagement in instruction. Examples include the Behavioral Observation of Students in
Schools (BOSS; Shapiro, 2004) and the three codes included in the Ecobehavioral Assessment
System Software (EBASS; Greenwood, Carta, Kamps, & Delquadri, 1995). Although an advan-
tage of observation is that it is a direct form of assessment, recent research has raised questions
about the generalizability of data yielded from a small number of observations (Hintze & Mat-
thews, 2004), so it is important to consider observation data in the context of other assessment
data (e.g., rating scales, teacher report).
Despite the variety of measures and methods available to assess the four academic enablers
reviewed in this article, conducting exhaustive assessments of all academic enablers at the outset of
the intervention planning process is not possible given the number of children requiring intervention
services in schools. As such, assessment of academic enablers must be efficient to be feasible in prac-
tice. Practitioners are encouraged to conduct initial assessments using complementary methods, such
as brief rating scales and direct observation, to identify a student’s strengths and weaknesses. The
results of these brief assessments then can be used to select specific skills for initial intervention.

Intervention and Prevention Considerations

There are multiple intervention strategies that can be employed to promote the development
of academic enablers. Four such strategies include modeling, coaching, behavioral rehearsal, and
reinforcement (Elliott & DiPerna, 2001). Two of these strategies (modeling and coaching) are
used if a student has not demonstrated the target skill and does not understand the steps involved
to demonstrate the skill. The remaining two strategies (behavioral rehearsal and reinforcement)
are used if a student has demonstrated the target skill, but is not doing so with necessary frequency
or proficiency. Thus, after identifying a target enabler for intervention, the next step in developing
a specific intervention plan is to determine if the child has (a) failed to demonstrate the target skill
and needs to learn the actual skill or (b) demonstrated the target skill, but needs to increase/
improve its use. Space precludes detailed discussion of these four broad strategies, but practition-
ers interested in more detailed discussions are encouraged to refer to Elliott and DiPerna (2001) or
Elliott and Gresham (1991) for additional information.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

14 DiPerna

Modeling. Modeling is the process of one person (typically a teacher, parent, or peer) dem-
onstrating a behavior so a student can observe and learn how to perform the same behavior.
Bandura (1977) and Gresham (1985) provided insight regarding strategies for maximizing effec-
tiveness of modeling interventions. For example, their work has suggested that the greater the
similarity between the learner and the model (e.g., age, sex), the more likely the modeling will be
effective. Modeling also tends to be more effective when the steps involved in executing the
desired skill are described to the learner. In addition, providing reinforcement (e.g., positive praise)
to the model after demonstration of the desired behavior is more effective than when the model
demonstrates the desired behavior without receiving positive reinforcement.
Coaching. Coaching refers to the use of verbal instructions to teach a skill. Coaching pri-
marily involves three steps. First, the interventionist or “coach” and the student engage in a dia-
logue that starts with the detailed description of a skill, including examples and nonexamples, and
the identification of situations when the skill should be used. Next, the description phase is fol-
lowed by a behavioral rehearsal step. Then, the student receives detailed verbal feedback from the
coach. Finally, the coach has the student apply (practice) the skill in other related situations or
settings to facilitate generalization. This process may need to be repeated several times depending
on the student’s rate of learning and the complexity of the skill to be learned.
Behavioral rehearsal. Behavioral rehearsal involves practicing a new skill or behavior in a
role-play situation under the supervision of an individual who has mastered the skill (e.g., teacher,
psychologist). By practicing a new behavior under these conditions, students are more likely to
rapidly develop skill proficiency and less likely to experience negative consequences (Bandura,
1977). Behavioral rehearsal typically takes three forms: covert, verbal, and overt. In covert rehearsal,
the student envisions the performance of a given skill in a specific situation through mental imag-
ery. In verbal rehearsal, the student recites key steps involved in performing a skill, and in overt
rehearsal, the student actually performs the desired skill. All three forms of rehearsal facilitate the
acquisition of a new skill and can be combined with other intervention strategies.
Reinforcement. Reinforcement strategies refer to introducing positive consequences or remov-
ing negative consequences in response to a given behavior. Specifically, positive reinforcement
involves the presentation of an outcome desired by the target student (e.g., praise, preferred activ-
ities, tangible rewards), and negative reinforcement involves the removal of aversive outcomes
(e.g., poor grades, verbal reprimands). Use of a reinforcement strategy requires that a student
knows how to perform a specific enabling behavior, and typically is used if the student is not using
the behavior when required or with desired proficiency. If the student does not know how to
perform the behavior, the student must first be taught the behavior through the use of strategies
such as modeling or coaching. Many interventions often combine feedback and reinforcement to
increase the likelihood of the student mastering the target skill or behavior.
In concluding this section on intervention, it is important to briefly note the potential impli-
cations of academic enablers for prevention services in schools. The rationale is that if academic
enablers meaningfully contribute to important school outcomes (academic achievement), then
educators and support personnel should consider what is being done to promote the development
of academic enablers for all students. Researchers have documented that academic enablers rarely
are taught explicitly in the classroom (e.g., Stephens, 1978; Zimmerman, 1998) and that students
academically at risk demonstrate lower enablers than students with average or above-average
achievement (Elliott, DiPerna, Mroch, & Lang, 2004). Academic skills certainly should remain
the primary focus of instruction in schools; however, if academic enablers promote academic
achievement, then there are additional skills and attitudes that should be taught explicitly to increase
the likelihood that all students will learn to the best of their abilities. Facilitating the introduction

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 Academic Enablers and Achievement 15

of explicit instruction of academic enablers within elementary and secondary curricula is an excel-
lent opportunity for school psychologists to move toward preventive-oriented service delivery.

Conclusions
The purpose of this article was to define the construct of academic enablers, identify initial
skill domains that may function as academic enablers, and highlight potential implications of
enablers for professional practice. Review of previous literature has resulted in the identification
of four academic enablers (motivation, engagement, study skills, and social skills). Studies of
individual enablers (e.g., engagement) have suggested that enablers may mediate the effects of
classroom instruction. Though more research is needed to elucidate the nature of the relationships
between individual enablers, instruction, and achievement, the evidence is sufficient to warrant
consideration of enablers early in the identification phase of a problem-solving process (e.g.,
Kratochwill & Bergan, 1990) for students experiencing academic difficulty. Modeling research is
providing insight regarding the prioritization of enablers and has implications for assessment,
intervention, and prevention practices in the schools. Future research is necessary to substantiate
the specific achievement contributions of the enablers reviewed in this article as well as other
student skills and attitudes that may function as enablers. Such research also will provide insight
regarding effective intervention strategies for students experiencing academic difficulty and direc-
tions for the development of prevention-oriented services in the schools.

References
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261–271.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Berliner, D.C. (1988). Effective classroom management and instruction: A knowledge base for consultation. In J.L. Graden,
J.E. Zins, & M.J. Curtis (Eds.), Alternative educational service delivery systems: Enhancing instructional options for
all students (pp. 309–326). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
Bursuch, W.D., & Asher, S.R. (1986). The relationship between social competence and achievement in elementary school
children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 15, 41– 49.
Cobb, J.A. (1972). Relationship of discrete classroom behaviors to fourth-grade academic achievement. Journal of Edu-
cational Psychology, 63, 74–80.
Decker, K., Spector, S., & Shaw, S. (1992). Teaching study skills to students with mild handicaps: The role of the class-
room teacher. The Clearing House, 65, 280–284.
Devine, T.G. (1987). Teaching study skills: A guide for teachers. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
DiPerna, J.C., & Elliott, S.N. (1999). The development and validation of the Academic Competence Evaluation Scales.
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 17, 207–225.
DiPerna, J.C., & Elliott, S.N. (2000). Academic Competence Evaluation Scales. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
DiPerna, J.C., & Elliott, S.N. (2002). Promoting academic enablers to improve student achievement: An introduction to the
miniseries. School Psychology Review, 31, 293–297.
DiPerna, J.C., Volpe, R.J., & Elliott, S.N. (2002). A model of academic enablers and elementary reading/language arts
achievement. School Psychology Review, 31, 298–312.
Eisert, O., Walker, H., Severson, H., Black, A., & Todis, B. (1987). Adjustment status of kindergarten at risk ratings—
Rankings, sociometric measure, and direct observations in classroom and free play settings. Center on Human Devel-
opment, University of Oregon, Eugene.
Elliott, S.N., & DiPerna, J.C. (with Shapiro, E.S.). (2001). Academic intervention monitoring system. San Antonio, TX:
Psychological Corporation.
Elliott, S.N., DiPerna, J.C., Mroch, A.A., & Lang, S.C. (2004). Prevalence and patterns of academic enabling behaviors:
An analysis of teachers’ and students’ ratings for a national sample of learners. School Psychology Review, 33,
297–304.
Elliott, S.N., & Gresham, F.M. (1991). Social skills intervention guide. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance
Service.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

16 DiPerna

Gettinger, M., & Seibert, J.K. (2002). Contributions of study skills to academic success. School Psychology Review, 31,
350–365.
Greenwood, C.R. (1991). Longitudinal analysis of time engagement and academic achievement in at-risk and non-risk
students. Exceptional Children, 57, 521–535.
Greenwood, C.R. (1996). The case for performance-based models of instruction. School Psychology Quarterly, 11, 283–296.
Greenwood, C.R., Carta, J.J., Kamps, D., & Delquadri, J. (with Terry, B., Finney, R., Hou, S., Lowe, A., Montagna, D.,
Peterson, P., Dawson, H., & Schick, C.). (1995). Ecobehavioral Assessment Systems Software (EBASS) (Version
3.0). Kansas City: University of Kansas, Juniper Gardens Children’s Project.
Greenwood, C.R., Delquadri, J., & Hall, R.V. (1984). Opportunity to respond and student academic performance. In W.
Heward, T. Heron, D. Hill, & J. Trap-Porter (Eds.), Behavior Analysis in Education (pp. 58–88). Columbus, OH:
Merrill.
Greenwood, C.R., Horton, B.T., & Utley, C.A. (2002). Academic engagement: Current perspectives on research and
practice. School Psychology Review, 31, 328–349.
Greenwood, C.R., Terry, B., Marquis, J., & Walker, D. (1994). Confirming a performance-based instructional model.
School Psychology Review, 23, 625– 668.
Gresham, F.M. (1985). Utility of cognitive-behavioral procedures for social skills training with children: A critical review.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 13, 411– 423.
Gresham, F.M., & Elliott, S.N. (1984). Assessment and classification of children’s social skills: A review of methods and
issues. School Psychology Review, 13, 292–301.
Gresham, F.M., & Elliott, S.N. (1990). Social skills rating system. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Gresham, F.M., & Reschly, D.J. (1987). Dimensions of social competence: Method factors in the assessment of adaptive
behaviors, social skills, and peer acceptance. Journal of School Psychology, 25, 367–387.
Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J.M. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for the 21st century.
Review of Educational Research, 70, 151–179.
Hintze, J.M., & Matthews, W.J. (2004). The generalizability of systematic direct observations across time and setting: A
preliminary investigation of the psychometrics of behavioral observation. School Psychology Review, 33, 258–270.
Hoge, R.D. (1983). Psychometric properties of teacher judgment measures of pupil aptitudes, classroom behaviors, and
achievement levels. Journal of Special Education, 17, 401– 429.
Hoover, J.J., & Patton, P.R. (1995). Teaching students with learning problems to use study skills: A teacher’s guide. Austin,
TX: Pro-Ed.
Howell, K.W., & Nolet, V. (2000). Curriculum-based evaluation (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Keith, T.Z. (2002). Academic enablers and school learning. School Psychology Review, 31, 394– 402.
Kratochwill, T.R., & Bergan, J.R. (1990). Behavioral consultation in applied settings. An individual guide. New York:
Plenum Press.
Linnenbrink, E.A., & Pintrich, P.R. (2002). Motivation as an enabler for academic success. School Psychology Review, 31,
313–327.
Malecki, C.M., & Elliott, S.N. (2002). Children’s social behaviors as predictors of academic achievement. A longitudinal
analysis. School Psychology Quarterly, 17, 1–23.
Merrell, K.W. (2002). School Social Behavior Scales (2nd ed.). Eugene, OR: Assessment-intervention resources.
Pintrich, P.R., & Schunk, D. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Pintrich, P.R., Smith, D., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. (1993). Predictive validity and reliability of the Motivated Strat-
egies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801–813.
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal reports of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Rathvon, N. (1999). Effective school interventions. New York: Guilford Press.
Reynolds, A.R., & Walberg, H.J. (1991). A structural model of science achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology,
83, 97–107.
Shapiro, E.S. (2004). Academic skills problems: Direct assessment and intervention (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Stephens, T. (1978). Social Skills in the Classroom. Columbus, OH: Cedars Press.
Weinstein, C.E., & Palmer, D.R. (2002). Learning and study strategies inventory (2nd ed.). Clearwater, FL: H&H.
Wentzel, K.R. (1993). Does being good make the grade? Social behavior and academic competence in middle school.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 357–364.
Wigfield, A., & Karpathian, M. (1991). Who am I and what can I do? Children’s self-concepts and motivation in achieve-
ment situations. Educational Psychologist, 26, 233–261.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 Academic Enablers and Achievement 17

Wong, B.Y.L. (1994). Instructional parameters promoting transfer of learning strategies in students with LD. Learning
Disabilities Quarterly, 7, 110–120.
Zimmerman, B.J. (1998). Academic studying and the development of personal skill: A self-regulatory perspective. Edu-
cational Psychologist, 33, 73–86.
Zimmerman, B.J., Bonner, S., & Kovach, R. (1996). Developing self-regulated learners: Beyond achievement to self-
efficacy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Zimmerman, B.J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for assessing student use of self-
regulated learning strategies. American Education Research Journal, 23, 614– 628.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits