Affective Teacher—Student Relationships and Students' Externalizing Behavior Problems: A Meta-Analysis

Abstract

This meta-analysis of 57 primary studies with 73,933 students shows strong links between affective teacher—student relationships (TSRs) and students' externalizing behavior problems (EBPs). Moreover, students' culture, age, gender, and the report types of EBPs moderated these effects. The negative correlation between positive indicators of affective TSRs and students' EBPs was stronger (a) among Western students than Eastern ones, (b) for students in the lower grades of primary school than for other students, (c) when rated by teachers or parents than by students or peers, and (d) among females than among males. In contrast, the positive correlation between negative indicators of affective TSRs and students' EBPs was stronger (a) among Eastern students than Western ones, (b) for students in the higher grades of primary school than for other students, and (c) when rated by students or peers than by teachers or parents.

Introduction

Behavior problems occur when an individual violates social norms or rules of behavior (social maladjustment), leading to adverse effects and possibly behaviors that are harmful to himself or herself, others or even society (Zhang, 1999).

Over the past decade, researched on behavior problems have attracted the attention of an increasing number of psychology, education, sociology, and even psychopathology experts. Many researchers have explored the influence of school climate, parenting style, child–parent relationships, and family function on students' behavior problems (Haynes et al., 1997; Aunola and Nurmi, 2005; Pettit and Arsiwalla, 2008; Thornton et al., 2008). In particular, researchers have examined the links between teacher–student relationships (TSRs) and students' behavior problems (Vick, 2008; Ewing, 2009; Leflot et al., 2011; Spilt et al., 2012c; De Laet et al., 2014). Many theoretical and empirical studies have yield varied conclusions (Gest et al., 2005; Palermo et al., 2007; Doumen et al., 2009a). Nevertheless, the scope of problem behaviors includes many factors with different orientations and natures. This has led researchers to neglect communication with each other and avoid comparisons of their results.

Some researchers maintain that behavior problems should be classified as externalizing behavior problems (EBPs) vs. internalizing behavior problems (IBPs; Achenbach and Dumenci, 2001). EBPs are individual reflections regarding an external environment with negative external behaviors (Liu, 2004). Researchers have adopted different standards for classifying EBPs. For example, consider two dimensions: openness–concealment and destructive–non-destructive. Loeber et al. (2000) believe that EBPs should be divided into aggression, agonistic behavior, property damage, and reputation infringement. Based on individual behaviors, Cai and Zhou (2006) argued that EBPs should be divided into hyperactivity, aggression, and conduct problems. In contrast, IBPs are negative moods and emotions that lead to emotional disorder, including depression, anxiety, withdrawal, and guilt (Zanh–Waxler et al., 2000).

Highlighting these definitions of behavior problems clarifies various concepts' theoretical boundaries that determine the nature, direction, and veracity of research inquiries. According to these definitions, EBPs tend to be explicit and more destructive than IBPs. More importantly, several studies found that the correlation between affective TSRs and EBPs was stronger than that the correlation between affective TSRs and IBPs (Zhang and Sun, 2011; Gyllborg, 2013). Therefore, this study used a meta-analysis to explore the link between affective TSRs and students' EBPs, and excluded IBPs.

Researchers used different indicators of EBPs. For example, Achenbach (1991) developed the Achenbach child-behavior checklist (CBCL), according to which EBPs included delinquent behavior and aggressive behavior; Reynolds (2004) developed the Behavior Assessment System for Children–Teacher Rating Scales for Children (BASC–TRS), in which EBPs include hyperactivity, aggression, and conduct problems. Thus, in accordance with these previous studies, this study will consider delinquency, aggression, hyperactivity, and conduct problems as indicators of EBPs.

TSRs are an important component of interpersonal communication ability and social adaptability. This study focuses on a specific subset of TSRs, namely affective TSRs; this choice was inspired by Cornelius-White's findings that the affective variables “empathy” and “warmth” are strongly associated with student outcomes (Cornelius-White, 2007). Roorda et al. (2011) considered both positive and negative indicators of affective TSRs. Specifically, positive indicators of affective TSRs comprise closeness, support, liking, warmth, and trust. In contrast, negative indicators comprise conflict, anger, and dislike. Although some argue that dependency is a component of affective TSRs (Pianta, 2001; Fraire et al., 2013; Settanni et al., 2015), other studies using multiple methods to examine relationship quality questioned the validity of dependency as a measure of dyadic relationship quality (Doumen et al., 2009b; Roorda et al., 2011); thus, dependency was excluded from this study.

According to stage—environment fit theory, individual development requires an interpersonal relationship that has trust, support, caring, self-expression, self-choice, and self-determination; in cases where. A teacher who did not provide these interpersonal relationships and opportunities created an environmental mismatch with individual development, thus leading to students showing EBPs (Wang, 2009; van Lier et al., 2012; Loukas et al., 2013). Moreover, many empirical studies have found that positive indicators of TSRs were negatively correlated with students' EBPs (Gest et al., 2005; Koomen et al., 2012; Spilt et al., 2012a; Thijs et al., 2012) while negative indicators of affective TSRs were positively correlated with students' EBPs (Doumen et al., 2009a; Spilt et al., 2012a). However, correlations varied across studies. To resolve this issue, several researchers have summarized research results with reviews (Baker et al., 2008; Nurmi, 2012), but these studies only partly verified the phenomena. Their limitations include convenience samples, various sample sizes, or ignoring moderators, which led to inconsistencies and low reliability. Therefore, a meta-analysis is needed to determine the link between affective TSRs and students' EBPs.

Our review of past empirical studies showed that many effect sizes were heterogeneous, suggesting that moderating factors might account for different links between affective TSRs and students' EBPs. Thus, we hypothesized that one or more variables may moderate the effect sizes of the correlation between affective TSRs and students' EBPs, such as differences in students' cultures, ages, genders, and the report types of EBPs.

First, we examine whether students' culture (as a latent variable) moderates the link between affective TSRs and students' EBPs (Chang et al., 2007; Roorda et al., 2014). Several studies suggest that culture influences the link between affective TSRs and students' EBPs (e.g., closeness and EBP, and conflict and EBPs). Baker (2006) found a moderate correlation between closeness and students' EBPs among Western students; however, Ly (2013), whose sample included Eastern students, found a weak correlation between the two factors. Many studies found a strong correlation between conflict and students' EBPs among Western students (Doumen et al., 2008, 2009a; Ly, 2013); however, Fu (2014), whose sample included Eastern students, found moderate correlation between the two factors. Thus, in accordance with these findings, this study tests whether the correlation between positive indicators of affective TSRs and students' EBPs for Western students is stronger than that for Eastern students, and whether the correlation between positive indicators of affective TSRs and students' EBPs for Western students is weaker than for Eastern students.

Second, as the level of affective TSRs and students' EBPs might differ as a function of students' age (Zhang et al., 2008), we test whether students' age moderates the link between affective TSRs and students' EBPs. Differences in age have been found in the correlations between affective TSRs and students' EBPs. For example, previous studies indicated that positive indicators for affective TSRs and students' EBPs varied among students in kindergarten lower primary grades (LPG), and higher primary grades (Silver et al., 2005; HPG, Kuhns, 2008; Stewart and Suldo, 2011). In contrast negative indicators of affective TSRs and students' EBPs among kindergarten, LPG, and HPG students all showed similar phenomenon (Ezzell et al., 2000; Pianta and Stuhlman, 2004; Vick, 2008; Troop-Gordon and Kopp, 2011; Rudasill et al., 2013). Based on these findings, we expect age to moderate the link between affective TSRs and students' EBPs.

Third, we examine whether the report type of EBPs (as a latent variable) moderates the link between affective TSRs and students' EBPs. Raters with different ages, standpoints, values, and degrees of understanding a student might rate his or her EBPs inconsistently (Van Lier et al., 2005; Ladd, 2006). Moreover, several studies have found that different raters might account for the lack of coherence in research on the link between affective TSRs and students' EBPs. For example, some previous studies have relied on EBPs rated by students, which were only weakly related to positive indicators of affective TSRs (Troop-Gordon and Kopp, 2011; Li et al., 2012) while other studies found that student EBPs rated by teachers were moderately related to both positive indicators of affective TSRs (Colwell and Lindsey, 2003; Shin and Kim, 2008) and negative indicators of affective TSRs (White and Renk, 2012; Ly, 2013; Skalická et al., 2015). In contrast, other researchers found that student EBPs rated by teachers were strongly related to negative indicators of affective TSRs (Palermo et al., 2007; Fowler et al., 2008; Stipek and Miles, 2008). Thus, in accordance with these findings, we test whether Report type of EBPs moderate the link between affective TSRs and students' EBPs.

Fourth, we test whether gender (as a latent variable) moderates the link between affective TSRs and students' EBPs. Female students tend to have more affective TSRs than male students do (Spilt et al., 2012b), and male students tend to develop more EBPs than female students do (Hill et al., 2006). As a result, gender might influence the correlation between positive or negative indicators of affective TSRs and students' EBPs. Several empirical studies have showed gender differences in the link between indicators of affective TSRs and students' EBPs, such as closeness, support, and warmth (Ostrov and Crick, 2007; Spilt et al., 2012a; Thijs et al., 2012). Hence, these findings suggest that gender moderates the link between affective TSRs and students' EBPs.

Study purpose

The current study models the link between affective TSRs and students' EBPs using meta-analysis. Specifically, this study (a) estimates the effect sizes of correlations between affective TSRs and students' EBPs and (b) tests whether the links between affective TSRs and students' EBPs are moderated by culture, age, report type of EBP, or gender.

Methods

Literature search

To identify studies on affective TSRs and students' EBPs, we systematically searched the literature from January 2000 to March 2016 in electronic databases, including ProQuest Dissertations, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Springer, Taylor & Francis, EBSCO, PsycINFO, and Elsevier SDOL. Indexed keywords primarily included terms reflecting affective TSRs (relationship(s), closeness, warmth, support, empathy, trust, sensitivity, conflict, negativity, and anger) and students' EBPs (behavior problems, externalizing, aggression, conduct problem, hyperactivity, and oppositional). When articles could not be found online, we obtained full-text versions of articles from libraries. All articles obtained were written in English. We used inclusion and exclusion criteria to analyze and filter the collected studies.

Literature exclusion criteria

We included articles based on the following criteria: (a) tested the relation between affective TSRs and students' EBPs; (b) measured affective TSRs, including closeness, warmth, support, empathy, trust, sensitivity, conflict, negativity, or anger; (c) measured EBPs, including behavior problems, externalizing, aggression, conduct problem, hyperactivity, oppositional, or other indicators, (d) included an explicit sample size, and (e) explicitly reported the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (or a t or F-value that could be transformed into r). Table 1 summarizes the studies included in the Meta-Analysis.

Coding study

To facilitate meta-analysis, feature coding was conducted on 57 articles. We considered the following variables: author(s) and publication year, proportion of male students, age, indicators of affective TSRs, indicators of EBPs, number of students, and r. The following criteria guided the coding procedure: (a) effect sizes of each independent sample were encoded based on an independent sample, and effect sizes were separately encoded if a study had several independent samples; (b) if a study reported a correlation between affective TSRs and EBPs many times, the mean value was instead of effect sizes; (c) if an independent sample provided effect sizes (expressed as r) for sample characteristics such as gender, the results for the two genders were coded separately; (d) if a study reported not only a correlation between a total of EBPs and affective TSRs but also a correlation between the dimensions of EBPs and affective TSRs, we only coded the former; (e) if a study reported a correlation between different indicators of affective TSRs and EBPs, we coded these separately; and (f) if a study reported a correlation between indicators of affective TSRs and different indicators of EBPs, we coded these separately.

When coding was complete, based on principles of meta-analysis (Lipsey and Wilson, 2001), effect sizes between affective TSRs and students' EBPs were calculated for each sample. Then, we test whether the links between affective TSRs and students' EBPs were moderated by (a) culture; (b) age; (d) report types of EBPs; or (e) gender.

Culture was coded as “Eastern,” “Western,” and “other”; “Eastern” referred to students from Asian countries such as China (mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan), South Korea, Philippines, Singapore, and so on. “Western” referred to students from European and North American countries such as Germany, the United States of America, and so on. Age was coded as “Kindergarten (3–6 years),” “lower grades of primary school (6–9 years),” “higher grades of primary school (9–12 years),” “Middle school (12–15 years),” “High school (15–18 years),” and “Mixed.” “Mixed” indicated that students included at least two of the above categories. Report type of EBP was coded as “students rated,” “teacher rated,” “peer rated,” “parent rated.” Gender was coded as the proportion of male students.

Data analysis

All data were analyzed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software (CMA Version 2.0). A fixed effects model calculated the homogeneity test and mean effect. Averaged weighted (within- and between-inverse variance weights) correlation coefficients of independent samples were used to compute mean effect sizes. Moderators were decided by the homogeneity test, which revealed variance in effect sizes between different samples' characteristics. When the homogeneity test was significant (Q_Bet > 0.05), post-hoc contrasts were implemented to test whether the groups were statistically different. This study used meta-analysis to test whether each moderator accounted for the variation in the effect sizes.

Results

Correlation between affective TSRs and students' EBPs

After filtering the literature, we used 57 independent samples and calculated 149 effect sizes (78 effect sizes between positive indicators of affective TSRs and EBPs and 71 effect sizes between negative indicators of affective TSRs and EBPs). In these reviewed studies, 73,933 students participated, and the sample sizes ranged from 20 to 2335.

We calculated sample sizes (k), weighted effect sizes (r), and 95% confidence intervals (see Table 2). Furthermore, a fixed effects model was used to homogenize the analysis. The results showed significant negative correlations between positive indicators of affective TSRs and EBPs (r = −0.263 [z = −52.031, p < 0.001, k = 78, 95% CI = −0.272, −0.253]) and significant positive correlations between negative indicators of affective TSRs and EBPs (r = 0.554 [z = 118.588, p < 0.001, k = 71, 95% CI = 0.547, 0.561]). These effect sizes were suitable for moderator analysis.

Moderator analysis

We conducted two total homogeneity tests across 78 (PI) and 71 (NI) independent samples. The results showed a significant homogeneity coefficient between affective TSRs and students' EBPs [Q_T(77)PAE = 879.022, p < 0.001; Q_T(70)NAE = 2431.398, p < 0.001]. These results indicate that culture, age, report types of EBPs and gender might moderate the links between affective TSRs and students' EBPs. Therefore, we used meta-analysis of variance to examine whether culture, age, and report types of EBPs moderated the correlations between affective TSRs and students' EBPs, and we used meta-regression analyses to examine whether gender influenced the relation between affective TSRs and students' EBPs.

Culture

As indicated in Table 3, a homogeneity test showed a significant homogeneity coefficient between positive indicators of affective TSRs and EBPs across Eastern culture students and across Western culture students (Q_BET = 8.816, df = 1, p < 0.001). In particular, Table 3 shows that the Western students (r = −0.267, 95% CI = −0.277, −0.258) indicated a stronger correlation between positive indicators of affective TSRs and EBPs than the Eastern students (r = −0.207, 95% CI = −0.246, −0.167). Likewise, the homogeneity test found significant differences in the correlation between negative indicators of affective TSRs and EBPs across the two cultures (Q_BET = 25.307, df = 1, p < 0.001). Table 3 also shows a stronger correlation between negative indicators of affective TSRs and EBPs among Eastern students (r = 0.675, 95% CI = 0.631, 0.714) than Western students (r = 0.551, 95% CI = 0.544, 0.558).

Age

The results of the homogeneity test (Q_BET = 134.316, df = 5, p < 0.001) suggested that the link between affective TSRs and EBPs was influenced by age. Positive indicators of affective TSRs were negatively related to EBPs for kindergarteners (r = −0.191, 95% CI = −0.211, −0.171), LPG students (r = −0.285, 95% CI = −0.305, −0.263), HPG students (r = −0.227, 95% CI = −0.247, −0.206), middle school students (r = −0.247, 95% CI = −0.303, −0.189), high school students (r = −0.280, 95% CI = −0.366, −0.189), and mixed students (r = −0.333, 95% CI = −0.350, −0.317). Results indicate that the correlation between positive indicators of affective TSRs and EBPs was stronger among LPG students than other students (except mixed group) and weaker among kindergarten students than other students. As shown in Table 3, the homogeneity test (Q_BET = 178.539, df = 3, p < 0.001) suggested that age moderated the link between negative indicators of affective TSRs and EBPs. Negative indicators of affective TSRs were positively linked to EBPs for kindergarteners (r = 0.484, 95% CI = 0.470, 0.498), LPG students (r = 0.557, 95% CI = 0.543, 0.571), HPG students (r = 0.619, 95% CI = 0.600, 0.637), and mixed (r = 0.591, 95% CI = 0.579, 0.603) groups. These results suggest that the correlation between negative indicators of affective TSRs and EBPs increases with age.

Report type of EBPs

The results of the homogeneity test (Q_BET = 101.736, df = 3, p < 0.001) suggested that age influenced the link between affective TSRs and EBPs. Positive indicators of affective TSRs were negatively correlated with EBPs when rated by teachers (r = −0.284, 95% CI = −0.296, −0.272), students (r = −0.172, 95% CI = −0.199, −0.145), peers (r = −0.172, 95% CI = −0.204, −0.139), or parents (r = −0.307, 95% CI = −0.329, −0.285). The correlation between positive indicators of affective TSRs and EBPs were stronger when rated by teachers or parents than by others. As shown in Table 3, the homogeneity test (Q_BET = 349.373, df = 4, p < 0.001) suggested that age moderated the link between negative indicators of affective TSRs and EBPs. Negative indicators of affective TSRs were positively correlated to EBPs when rated by teachers (r = 0.602, 95% CI = 0.594, 0.610), students (r = 0.314, 95% CI = 0.262, 0.364), peers (r = 0.404, 95% CI = 0.351, 0.455), or parents (r = 0.429, 95% CI = 0.410, 0.448). These results indicate that the correlation between negative indicators of affective TSRs and EBPs were lower when student rated than when rated by others.

Gender

To examine whether gender moderated the links between affective TSRs and students' EBPs, r was meta-regressed onto the percentage of male students in each sample. In Table 4, meta-regression analysis (Q _Model [1, k = 74]_NI = 4.106, p < 0.05) showed that gender moderated the link between positive indicators of affective TSRs and students' EBPs; as the proportion of female students increased, the link was stronger. The correlations between positive indicators of affective TSRs and EBPs for an all-female sample (r = −0.315) were stronger than those for an all-male sample (r = −0.249). In contrast, meta-regression analysis (Q _Model[1, k = 66] _PAE = 1.666, p > 0.05) showed that gender did not moderate the link between negative indicators of affective TSRs and students' EBPs.

Publication bias

To examine whether the results were biased due to effect sizes from various sources, we drew a funnel plot (see Figure 1). It showed that the 149 effect sizes were symmetrically distributed on both sides of the average effect size, and an Egger's regression (Egger et al., 1997) revealed no significant bias [t₍₁₄₇₎ = 0.010, p = 0.991 > 0.05]. Egger's regression is an effective method for examining publication bias (Teng et al., 2015). In addition, we conducted Egger's regression analysis on both positive and negative indicators of affective TSRs and EBPs. The results also showed no publication bias [t_PI(76) = 0.767, p = 0.445 > 0.05; t_NI(69) = 0.568, p = 0.572 > 0.05]. Together, these results indicated stability in the overall correlation between affective TSRs and students' EBPs in this study.

Figure 1

Discussion

In the current meta-analysis 57 recent studies, with 149 effect sizes and 73,933 students are reviewed. We examined the effect sizes of correlations between affective TSRs and students' EBPs, revealing culture, age, report type of EBPs and gender as moderators influencing the links. The results showed that negative affective TSRs was negatively correlated with students' EBPs and negative affective TSRs was positively correlated with students' EBPs. The correlation coefficients for these results were both medium. In addition, these results showed that students' cultures, ages, genders, and report type of EBPs moderated the link between affective TSRs and students' EBPs.

The significant correlation between affective TSRs and students' EBPs

The meta-analysis results indicated a significant negative correlation between positive indicators of affective TSRs and EBPs and a significant positive correlation between negative indicators of affective TSRs and EBPs. These results suggested that affective TSRs help students reduce EBPs. As indicated by Masten and Garmezy (1985), TSRs are an important support system for students' behavioral development and many studies focusing on improving students' behavior problems with TSRs. Moreover, students with closer TSRs had fewer antisocial behaviors (Birch and Ladd, 1998), and high levels of TSR closeness outperformed students' early problem behaviors when predicting their later behavior problems (Pianta and Nimetz, 1991). In addition, this study found that, compared with the positive indicators of affective TSRs, negative indicators of affective TSRs showed more strong correlation with students' EBPs, suggesting that negative affect TSRs are more influential than positive affect TSRs on students' EBPs. These results suggest that reducing negative affective TSRs or increasing positive affective TSRs might reduce individuals' EBPs. Therefore, teachers might explore using diverse communication strategies to help students build positive affective TSRs and reduce negative affective TSRs. In addition, results suggest that targeted interventions might help students develop affective TSRs when they show EBPs.

This study's results support the direct effect model but did not test the indirect effect model. Future studies can test the indirect effect model of affective TSRs and students' EBPs.

Moderating effects

Moderation analysis showed that students' cultures, ages, genders, and the report type of EBPs moderated many of the links between affective TSRs and students' EBPs. Gender did not moderate the link between the negative indicators of affective TSRs and EBPs.

Moderating role of culture

We hypothesized that students' culture might moderate the link between affective TSRs and students' EBPs. The results of this meta-analysis support this hypothesis. In particular, the correlation between positive indicators of affective TSRs and students' EBPs was stronger among Western students than Eastern ones. In contrast, the correlation between negative indicators of affective TSRs and students' EBPs was stronger among Eastern students than Western ones. These results suggest that positive affective TSRs might reduce EBPs more for Western students than for Eastern ones. In contrast, negative affective TSRs might increase EBPs more for Eastern students than Western ones. These results are consistent with previous studies (Fowler et al., 2008; Solheim et al., 2011; Zhang and Sun, 2011). The higher expectations and stricter TSRs in collectivist Eastern cultures compared to the lower expectations of relaxed TSRs in individualistic Western cultures might account for these differences; positive, relaxed TSRs might cultivate good behaviors and limit behavior problems while negative, strict TSRs might yield behavior problems more easily. These results suggest that differences in students' cultures must be considered when developing affective TSRs to reduce students' EBPs. Together, they suggest that training and interventions based on the specific culture of the student might be beneficial.

Moderating role of age

This meta-analysis found that age moderates the link between affective TSRs and students' EBP, consistent with past studies (Hughes and Cavell, 1999; Denham et al., 2000). Furthermore, additional analysis found that LPG students showed a stronger correlation between positive indicators of affective TSRs and EBPs than those in kindergarten and HPG students. Students' developing emotions at these ages and their interest in talking and building relationships with their teachers might explain these differences. LPG students might be exploring emotional relationships with their teacher and hence might be more willing to listen to their teachers' suggestions about correcting their EBPs. Additional analysis showed that the correlation between negative indicators of affective TSRs and EBPs are stronger among HPG students than kindergarteners or LPG students, possibly because as students get older, the proportion of positive affective TSRs decreases while that of negative affective TSRs increases (Wang and Wang, 2002). LPG students might be more likely than younger students to use disruptive behaviors to attract teacher attention; these behaviors can reduce the positive affect and increase the negative affect of their TSR, fostering a vicious cycle between affective TSRs and students' EBPs. These results suggest that we pay closer attention to the age and development of students when developing affective TSRs to reduce students' EBPs.

Moderating role of report type of EBPs

This study showed that the report type of EBPs moderates the link between affective TSRs and students' EBPs. Specifically, the correlation between positive indicators of affective TSRs and EBPs were stronger when rated by teachers or parents than by others. Also, the correlation between negative indicators of affective TSRs and EBPs was lower when rated by students or peers than otherwise. These results are supported by many other studies (Loeber et al., 1990; Deater-Deckard et al., 1998) and suggest that a link between affective TSRs and students' EBPs is more visible when rated by teachers or parents than otherwise. Teachers and parents might exaggerate the degree of the link between affective TSRs and students' EBPs, if students and peers understand their own EBPs better than their teachers and parents do (Achenbach, 1991). A possible alternate explanation is that students and peers downplay this link, as they pay less attention than teachers or parents to the teacher's role in students' behavior development.

Moderating role of gender

This study showed that gender moderates the links between positive affective TSRs and students' EBPs. As predicted, the all-female group showed a stronger correlation between positive indicators of affective TSRs and students' EBPs than the all-male group. However, gender did not moderate the links between negative indicators of affective TSRs and students' EBPs. These results suggest that positive affective TSRs reduce female students' EBPs more easily than they do those of male students, possibly because female students care more about their relationships with their teachers, seek more positive emotions from them (Hu et al., 2015), and are more easily influenced by them, resulting in fewer EBPs compared to male students (Deater-Deckard and Dodge, 1997). In addition, this result suggest that we might need to attend more to developing TSRs with male students than with female students to reduce their EBPs.

Limitations and implications

This meta-analysis has several limitations. First, only closeness, warmth, support, empathy, trust, sensitivity, conflict, negativity, and anger were selected as indicators of affective TSRs; other indicators, such as concern, caring, were not found. Furthermore, the selected indicators may overlap. Second, this study selected several familiar indicators of EBPs; others indicators, such destructive behavior, were excluded. Third, all the studies reviewed examined only direct effects; however, other studies have found that affective TSRs affects students' EBPs across other variables as well (Stanger and Lewis, 1993; Yoon, 2002). Therefore, future studies should test the indirect effects of affective TSRs on students' EBPs. Fourth, this study only considers whether students' culture, age, gender, and report type of EBPs moderated the link between affective TSRs and students' EBPs. Other variables, notably other indicators of affective TSRs and students' EBPs, should be examined in future studies as they may influence the links between affective TSRs and students' EBPs. Fifth, this study included only English articles, which may have narrowed its scope and neglected some cultures. Sixth, this meta-analysis was based on cross-sectional studies and correlational data; hence a causal relationship cannot be inferred.

Conclusion

Through reviewing 57 studies, 149 effect sizes, and 73,933 student participants, meta-analysis results revealed that positive and negative affective TSRs were significant correlated with students' EBPs. Furthermore, these correlations were moderated by students' culture, age, report type of EBPs, and gender. In particular, negative affective TSRs were more strongly linked than positive affective TSRs to students' EBPs. Also, the negative correlation between positive indicators of affective TSRs and EBPs was stronger among Western students than Eastern students. In contrast, the positive correlation between negative indicators of affective TSRs and EBPs was stronger among Eastern students than Western students. The negative correlation between positive indicators of affective TSRs and EBPs was stronger among LPG students than among other students (except the mixed group). Also, the positive correlation between negative indicators of affective TSRs and students' EBPs was stronger among HPG students than other students. The negative correlation between positive indicators of affective TSRs and EBPs was stronger when rated by teachers or parents than by students or peers. However, the positive correlation between negative indicators of affective TSRs and EBPs was stronger when rated by students or peers. The negative correlation between positive indicators of affective TSRs and students' EBPs was stronger among girls than among boys. However, gender did not moderate the link between negative indicators of affective TSRs and students' EBPs. This meta-analysis estimated effect sizes for students' EBPs during the past 17 years and suggests that differences in students' cultures, age, and gender can inform future research and practices.

Funding

This research was supported by the 2015 Excellent Doctoral Training Program of East China Normal University (PY2015003), and the Humanities and Social Sciences Key Project of the Ministry of Education in China (11JJD880003).

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

• 1

  Achenbach T. M. (1991). Integrative Guide for the 1991 Cbcl/4-18, Ysr, and Trf Profiles. Burlington: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.

  • Google Scholar

• 2

  Achenbach T. M. Dumenci L. (2001). Advances in empirically based assessment: revised cross-informant syndromes and new DSM-oriented scales for the CBCL, YSR, and TRF: Comment on Lengua, Sadowksi, Friedrich, and Fisher (2001). J. Consult. Clin. Psychol.69, 699–702. 10.1037/0022-006X.69.4.699

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  Aunola K. Nurmi J. E. (2005). The role of parenting styles in children's problem behavior. Child Dev.76, 1144–1159. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00840.x-i1

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  ^* Baker J. A. (2006). Contributions of teacher–child relationships to positive school adjustment during elementary school. J. Sch. Psychol.44, 211–229. 10.1016/j.jsp.2006.02.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5

  Baker J. A. Grant S. Morlock L. (2008). The teacher-student relationship as a developmental context for children with internalizing or externalizing behavior problems. Sch. Psychol. Q.23, 3–15. 10.1371/journal.pone.0160473

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  Birch S. H. Ladd G. W. (1998). Children's interpersonal behaviors and the teacher–child relationship. Dev. Psychol.34, 934. 10.1037/0012-1649.34.5.934

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  Cai C. Zhou Z. (2006). Stability of childhood externalizing problem behaviors. Adv. Psychol Sci.14, 66–72.

  • Google Scholar

• 8

  Chang L. Liu H. Fung K. Y. Wang Y. Wen Z. Li H. et al . (2007). The mediating and moderating effects of teacher preference on the relations between students' social behaviors and peer acceptance. Merrill. Palmer Q.53, 603–630. 10.1353/mpq.2008.0006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  ^* Colwell M. Lindsey E. (2003). Teacher-child interactions and preschool children's perceptions of self and peers. Early Child Dev. Care173, 249–258. 10.1080/03004430303096

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  Cornelius-White J. (2007). Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective: a meta-analysis. Rev. Educ. Res.77, 113–143. 10.3102/003465430298563

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  Deater-Deckard K. Dodge K. A. (1997). Externalizing behavior problems and discipline revisited: nonlinear effects and variation by culture, context, and gender. Psychol. Inq.8, 161–175. 10.1207/s15327965pli0803_1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  Deater-Deckard K. Dodge K. A. Bates J. E. Pettit G. S. (1998). Multiple risk factors in the development of externalizing behavior problems: group and individual differences. Dev. Psychopathol.10, 469–493. 10.1017/S0954579498001709

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  ^* De Laet S. Doumen S. Vervoort E. Colpin H. Van Leeuwen K. Goossens L. et al . (2014). Transactional links between teacher–child relationship quality and perceived versus sociometric popularity: a three-wave longitudinal study. Child Dev.85, 1647–1662. 10.1111/cdev.12216

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  Denham S. A. Workman E. Cole P. M. Weissbrod C. Kendziora K. T. Zahn–Waxler C. (2000). Prediction of externalizing behavior problems from early to middle childhood: the role of parental socialization and emotion expression. Dev. Psychopathol.12, 23–45. 10.1017/S0954579400001024

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  ^* Doumen S. Verschueren K. Buyse E. (2009a). Children's aggressive behaviour and teacher–child conflict in kindergarten: is teacher perceived control over child behaviour a mediating variable. Br. J. Educ. Psychol.79, 663–675. 10.1348/000709909X453149

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  Doumen S. Verschueren K. Buyse E. De Munter S. Max K. Moens L. (2009b). Further examination of the convergent and discriminant validity of the student–teacher relationship scale. Infant Child Dev.18, 502–520. 10.1002/icd.635

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  ^* Doumen S. Verschueren K. Buyse E. Germeijs V. Luyckx K. Soenens B. (2008). Reciprocal relations between teacher–child conflict and aggressive behavior in kindergarten: a three-wave longitudinal study. J. Clin. Child Adolesc. Psychol.37, 588–599. 10.1080/15374410802148079

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  Egger M. Davey Smith G. Schneider M. Minder C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Br. Med. J.315, 629–634. 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  ^* Ewing A. (2009). Teacher-Child Relationship Quality and Children's School Outcomes: Exploring Gender Differences Across Elementary School Grades. The University of Arizona.

  • Google Scholar

• 20

  ^* Ewing A. R. Taylor A. R. (2009). The role of child gender and ethnicity in teacher–child relationship quality and children's behavioral adjustment in preschool. Early Child. Res. Q.24, 92–105. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2008.09.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  ^* Ezzell C. E. Swenson C. C. Brondino M. J. (2000). The relationship of social support to physically abused children's adjustment. Child Abuse Negl.24, 641–651. 10.1016/S0145-2134(00)00123-X

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  ^* Fowler L. T. S. Banks T. I. Anhalt K. Der H. H. Kalis T. (2008). The association between externalizing behavior problems, teacher-student relationship quality, and academic performance in young urban learners. Behav. Disord.33, 167–183. Available online at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/43153450

  • Google Scholar

• 23

  Fraire M. Longobardi C. Prino L. E. Sclavo E. Settanni M. (2013). Examining the Student-Teacher Relationship Scale in the Italian context: a factorial validity study. Electron. J. Res. Educ. Psychol.11, 649–664. 10.14204/ejrep.31.13068

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  ^* Fu Y. (2014). The Role of Teacher-Child Relationships in Characterizing Early Mother-Child Attachment Influences on Behavior Problems in Preschool. Stockton, CA: University of the Pacific Stockton, School of Education.

  • Google Scholar

• 25

  ^* Gest S. D. Welsh J. A. Domitrovich C. E. (2005). Behavioral predictors of changes in social relatedness and liking school in elementary school. J. Sch. Psychol.43, 281–301. 10.1016/j.jsp.2005.06.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  ^* Gyllborg A. B. (2013). The Role of Teacher-Student Relationships as a Moderator for the Associations between Relational Aggression and Victimization and Internalizing and Externalizing Problems. Northern Illionis University.

  • Google Scholar

• 27

  Haynes N. M. Emmons C. Ben-Avie M. (1997). School climate as a factor in student adjustment and achievement. J. Educ. Psychol. Consult.8, 321–329. 10.1207/s1532768xjepc0803_4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  ^* Henricsson L. Rydell A.-M. (2004). Elementary school children with behavior problems: teacher-child relations and self-perception. A prospective study. Merrill. Palmer Q.50, 111–138. 10.1353/mpq.2004.0012

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  Hill A. L. Degnan K. A. Calkins S. D. Keane S. P. (2006). Profiles of externalizing behavior problems for boys and girls across preschool: the roles of emotion regulation and inattention. Dev. Psychol.42, 913–928. 10.1037/0012-1649.42.5.913

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  ^* Howes C. (2000). Social-emotional classroom climate in child care, child-teacher relationships and children's second grade peer relations. Soc. Dev.9, 191–204. 10.1111/1467-9507.00119

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  ^* Howes C. Phillipsen L. C. Peisner-Feinberg E. (2000). The consistency of perceived teacher–child relationships between preschool and kindergarten. J. Sch. Psychol.38, 113–132. 10.1016/S0022-4405(99)00044-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  Hu T. Zhang D. Wang J. (2015). A meta-analysis of the trait resilience and mental health. Pers. Individ. Dif.76, 18–27. 10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.039

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  Hughes J. N. Cavell T. A. (1999). Influence of the teacher-student relationship in childhood conduct problems: a prospective study. J. Clin. Child Psychol.28, 173–184. 10.1207/s15374424jccp2802_5

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  ^* Hughes J. N. Cavell T. A. Willson V. (2001). Further support for the developmental significance of the quality of the teacher–student relationship. J. Sch. Psychol.39, 289–301. 10.1016/S0022-4405(01)00074-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  ^* Hughes J. N. Kwok O.-M. (2006). Classroom engagement mediates the effect of teacher–student support on elementary students' peer acceptance: a prospective analysis. J. Sch. Psychol.43, 465–480. 10.1016/j.jsp.2005.10.001

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  ^* Koomen H. M. Verschueren K. van Schooten E. Jak S. Pianta R. C. (2012). Validating the Student-Teacher Relationship Scale: testing factor structure and measurement invariance across child gender and age in a Dutch sample. J. Sch. Psychol.50, 215–234. 10.1016/j.jsp.2011.09.001

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  Kuhns C. I. (2008). The Effects of Normative Classroom Aggression and Teacher Support on Changes in Ethnically Diverse Elementary Students' Aggression. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University.

  • Google Scholar

• 38

  Ladd G. W. (2006). Peer rejection, aggressive or withdrawn behavior, and psychological maladjustment from ages 5 to 12: an examination of four predictive models. Child Dev.77, 822–846. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00905.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  ^* Ladd G. W. Burgess K. B. (2001). Do relational risks and protective factors moderate the linkages between childhood aggression and early psychological and school adjustment?Child Dev.72, 1579–1601. 10.1111/1467-8624.00366

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  ^* Lee P. Bierman K. L. (2015). Classroom and teacher support in kindergarten: associations with the behavioral and academic adjustment of low-income students. Merrill. Palmer Q.61, 383–411. 10.13110/merrpalmquar1982.61.3.0383

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  ^* Leflot G. van Lier P. A. Verschueren K. Onghena P. Colpin H. (2011). Transactional associations among teacher support, peer social preference, and child externalizing behavior: a four-wave longitudinal study. J. Clin. Child Adolesc. Psychol.40, 87–99. 10.1080/15374416.2011.533409

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  ^* Li Y. Hughes J. N. Kwok O.-M. Hsu H.-Y. (2012). Evidence of convergent and discriminant validity of child, teacher, and peer reports of teacher–student support. Psychol. Assess.24, 54–65. 10.1037/a0024481

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  Lipsey M. W. Wilson D. B. (2001). Practical Meta-Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  • Google Scholar

• 44

  Liu J. (2004). Childhood externalizing behavior: theory and implications. J. child Adolesc. Psychiatry. Nurs.17, 93–103. 10.1111/j.1744-6171.2004.tb00003.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  Loeber R. Burke J. D. Lahey B. B. Winters A. Zera M. (2000). Oppositional defiant and conduct disorder: a review of the past 10 years, part I. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry39, 1468–1484. 10.1097/00004583-200012000-00007

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  Loeber R. Green S. M. Lahey B. B. (1990). Mental health professionals' perception of the utility of children, mothers, and teachers as informants on childhood psychopathology. J. Clin. Child Psychol.19, 136–143. 10.1207/s15374424jccp1902_5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  Loukas A. Cance J. D. Batanova M. (2013). Trajectories of school connectedness across the middle school years: examining the Roles of adolescents' internalizing and externalizing problems. Youth Soc.48, 557–576. 10.1177/0044118X13504419

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  ^* Luckner A. E. Pianta R. C. (2011). Teacher–student interactions in fifth grade classrooms: relations with children's peer behavior. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol.32, 257–266. 10.1016/j.appdev.2011.02.010

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  ^* Ly J. (2013). Bidirectional Associations between Behavior Problems and Teacher-Child Relationship Quality in Chinese American Immigrant Children. University of California, Berkeley.

  • Google Scholar

• 50

  Masten A. S. Garmezy N. (1985). Risk, vulnerability, and protective factors in developmental psychopathology, in Advances in Clinical Child Psychology, Vol. 8, eds LaheyB. B.KazdinA. E. (New York, NY: Plenum), 1–52.

  • Google Scholar

• 51

  ^* Murray C. Murray K. M. (2004). Child level correlates of teacher–student relationships: an examination of demographic characteristics, academic orientations, and behavioral orientations. Psychol. Sch.41, 751–762. 10.1002/pits.20015

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  ^* Murray C. Zvoch K. (2010). The inventory of teacher-student relationships: factor structure, reliability, and validity among African American youth in low-income urban schools. J. Early Adolesc.31, 493–525. 10.1177/0272431610366250

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  ^* Murray C. Zvoch K. (2011). Teacher—student relationships among behaviorally at-risk African American youth from low-income backgrounds: student perceptions, teacher perceptions, and socioemotional adjustment correlates. J. Emot. Behav. Disord.19, 41–54. 10.1177/1063426609353607

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  Nurmi J.-E. (2012). Students' characteristics and teacher–child relationships in instruction: a meta-analysis. Educ. Res. Rev.7, 177–197. 10.1016/j.edurev.2012.03.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  ^* Ostrov J. M. Crick N. R. (2007). Forms and functions of aggression during early childhood: a short-term longitudinal study. Sch. Psychol. Rev.36, 22–43. Available online at: http://www.nasponline.org/publications/periodicals/spr/volume-36/volume-36-issue-1/forms-and-functions-of-aggression-during-early-childhood-a-short-term-longitudinal-study

  • Google Scholar

• 56

  ^* Palermo F. Hanish L. D. Martin C. L. Fabes R. A. Reiser M. (2007). Preschoolers' academic readiness: What role does the teacher–child relationship play?Early Child. Res. Q.22, 407–422. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2007.04.002

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  Pettit G. S. Arsiwalla D. D. (2008). Commentary on special section on “bidirectional parent–child relationships”: the continuing evolution of dynamic, transactional models of parenting and youth behavior problems. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol.36, 711–718. 10.1007/s10802-008-9242-8

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  Pianta R. C. (2001). Student-Teacher Relationship Scale. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources Inc.

  • Google Scholar

• 59

  Pianta R. C. Nimetz S. L. (1991). Relationships between children and teachers: associations with classroom and home behavior. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol.12, 379–393. 10.1016/0193-3973(91)90007-Q

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60

  ^* Pianta R. C. Stuhlman M. W. (2004). Teacher-child relationships and children's success in the first years of school. Sch. Psychol. Rev.33, 444–457. Available online at: http://www.nasponline.org/publications/periodicals/spr/volume-33/volume-33-issue-3/teacher-child-relationships-and-childrens-success-in-the-first-years-of-school

  • Google Scholar

• 61

  Reynolds C. R. (2004). Behavior Assessment System for Children. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services.

  • Google Scholar

• 62

  Roorda D. L. Koomen H. M. Spilt J. L. Oort F. J. (2011). The influence of affective teacher–student relationships on students' school engagement and achievement a meta-analytic approach. Rev. Educ. Res.81, 493–529. 10.3102/0034654311421793

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  ^* Roorda D. L. Verschueren K. Vancraeyveldt C. Van Craeyevelt S. Colpin H. (2014). Teacher–child relationships and behavioral adjustment: transactional links for preschool boys at risk. J. Sch. Psychol.52, 495–510. 10.1016/j.jsp.2014.06.004

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  ^* Rucinski C. L. (2015). Teacher-Child Relationships, Classroom Emotional Climate, and Elementary Students' Social-Emotional and Academic Development. Fordham University.

  • Google Scholar

• 65

  ^* Rudasill K. M. Niehaus K. Buhs E. White J. M. (2013). Temperament in early childhood and peer interactions in third grade: the role of teacher–child relationships in early elementary grades. J. Sch. Psychol.51, 701–716. 10.1016/j.jsp.2013.08.002

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  ^* Rueger S. Y. Malecki C. K. Demaray M. K. (2008). Gender differences in the relationship between perceived social support and student adjustment during early adolescence. Sch. Psychol. Q.23, 496–514. 10.1037/1045-3830.23.4.496

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  ^* Runions K. C. (2014). Reactive aggression and peer victimization from pre-kindergarten to first grade: accounting for hyperactivity and teacher–child conflict. Br. J. Educ. Psychol.84, 537–555. 10.1111/bjep.12037

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  ^* Runions K. C. Shaw T. (2013). Teacher–child relationship, child withdrawal and aggression in the development of peer victimization. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol.34, 319–327. 10.1016/j.appdev.2013.09.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  ^* Runions K. C. Vitaro F. Cross D. Shaw T. Hall M. Boivin M. (2014). Teacher–child relationship, parenting, and growth in likelihood and severity of physical aggression in the early school years. Merrill. Palmer Q.60, 274–301. 10.13110/merrpalmquar1982.60.3.0274

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  Settanni M. Longobardi C. Sclavo E. Fraire M. Prino L. E. (2015). Development and psychometric analysis of the student–teacher relationship scale–short form. Front. Psychol.6:898. 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00898

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  ^* Sette S. Spinrad T. L. Baumgartner E. (2013). Links among Italian preschoolers' socioemotional competence, teacher–child relationship quality, and peer acceptance. Early Educ. Dev.24, 851–864. 10.1080/10409289.2013.744684

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  ^* Shin Y. Kim H. Y. (2008). Peer Victimization in korean preschool children The effects of child characteristics, parenting behaviours and teacher-child relationships. Sch. Psychol. Int.29, 590–605. 10.1177/0143034308099203

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73

  ^* Silver R. B. Measelle J. R. Armstrong J. M. Essex M. J. (2005). Trajectories of classroom externalizing behavior: contributions of child characteristics, family characteristics, and the teacher–child relationship during the school transition. J. Sch. Psychol.43, 39–60. 10.1016/j.jsp.2004.11.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  ^* Silver R. B. Measelle J. R. Armstrong J. M. Essex M. J. (2010). The impact of parents, child care providers, teachers, and peers on early externalizing trajectories. J. Sch. Psychol.48, 555–583. 10.1016/j.jsp.2010.08.003

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  ^* Skalická V. Stenseng F. Wichstrøm L. (2015). Reciprocal relations between student–teacher conflict, children's social skills and externalizing behavior. A three-wave longitudinal study from preschool to third grade. Int. J. Behav. Dev.39, 413–425. 10.1177/0165025415584187

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  ^* Solheim E. Berg-Nielsen T. S. Wichstrøm L. (2011). The three dimensions of the Student–Teacher Relationship Scale: CFA validation in a preschool sample. J. Psychoeduc. Assess.30, 250–263. 10.1177/0734282911423356

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 77

  Spilt J. L. Hughes J. N. Wu J. Y. Kwok O. M. (2012a). Dynamics of teacher–student relationships: stability and change across elementary school and the influence on children's academic success. Child Dev.83, 1180–1195. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01761.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78

  ^* Spilt J. L. Koomen H. M. Jak S. (2012b). Are boys better off with male and girls with female teachers? A multilevel investigation of measurement invariance and gender match in teacher–student relationship quality. J. Sch. Psychol.50, 363–378. 10.1016/j.jsp.2011.12.002

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 79

  ^* Spilt J. L. Koomen H. M. Mantzicopoulos P. Y. (2010). Young children's perceptions of teacher–child relationships: an evaluation of two instruments and the role of child gender in kindergarten. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol.31, 428–438. 10.1016/j.appdev.2010.07.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 80

  ^* Spilt J. L. Koomen H. M. Thijs J. T. van der Leij A. (2012c). Supporting teachers' relationships with disruptive children: the potential of relationship-focused reflection. Attach. Hum. Dev.14, 305–318. 10.1080/14616734.2012.672286

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 81

  Stanger C. Lewis M. (1993). Agreement among parents, teachers, and children on internalizing and externalizing behavior problems. J. Clin. Child Psychol.22, 107–116. 10.1207/s15374424jccp2201_11

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82

  ^* Stewart T. Suldo S. (2011). Relationships between social support sources and early adolescents' mental health: the moderating effect of student achievement level. Psychol. Sch.48, 1016–1033. 10.1002/pits.20607

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 83

  ^* Stipek D. Miles S. (2008). Effects of aggression on achievement: does conflict with the teacher make it worse?Child Dev.79, 1721–1735. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01221.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 84

  ^* Suldo S. M. McMahan M. M. Chappel A. M. Loker T. (2012). Relationships between perceived school climate and adolescent mental health across genders. Sch. Ment. Health4, 69–80. 10.1007/s12310-012-9073-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 85

  Teng Z. Liu Y. Guo C. (2015). A meta-analysis of the relationship between self-esteem and aggression among Chinese students. Aggress. Violent Behav.21, 45–54. 10.1016/j.avb.2015.01.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 86

  ^* Thijs J. Westhof S. Koomen H. (2012). Ethnic incongruence and the student–teacher relationship: the perspective of ethnic majority teachers. J. Sch. Psychol.50, 257–273. 10.1016/j.jsp.2011.09.004

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87

  Thornton N. Hamiwka L. Sherman E. Tse E. Blackman M. Wirrell E. (2008). Family function in cognitively normal children with epilepsy: impact on competence and problem behaviors. Epilepsy Behav.12, 90–95. 10.1016/j.yebeh.2007.07.008

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 88

  ^* Troop-Gordon W. Kopp J. (2011). Teacher–child relationship quality and children's peer victimization and aggressive behavior in late childhood. Soc. Dev.20, 536–561. 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2011.00604.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 89

  van Lier P. A. Vitaro F. Barker E. D. Brendgen M. Tremblay R. E. Boivin M. (2012). Peer victimization, poor academic achievement, and the link between childhood externalizing and internalizing problems. Child Dev.83, 1775–1788. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01802.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 90

  Van Lier P. A. Vitaro F. Wanner B. Vuijk P. Crijnen A. A. (2005). Gender differences in developmental links among antisocial behavior, friends' antisocial behavior, and peer rejection in childhood: results from two cultures. Child Dev.76, 841–855. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00881.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 91

  ^* Vick J. E. (2008). Teacher-Child Relationships: Examining the Relations Among Children's Risks, Relationships, and Externalizing Behaviors in Head Start. University of Maryland.

  • Google Scholar

• 92

  ^* Wang C. Swearer S. M. Lembeck P. Collins A. Berry B. (2015). Teachers matter: an examination of student-teacher relationships, attitudes toward bullying, and bullying behavior. J. Appl. Sch. Psychol.31, 219–238. 10.1080/15377903.2015.1056923

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 93

  Wang M.-T. (2009). School climate support for behavioral and psychological adjustment: testing the mediating effect of social competence. Sch. Psychol. Q.24, 240–251. 10.1037/a0017999

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 94

  Wang Y. Wang X. (2002). Development of teacher-student relationships and its relation to factors in primary school. Psychol. Dev. Edu.10, 18–23. 10.3969/j.issn.1001-4918.2002.03.004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 95

  ^* White R. Renk K. (2012). Externalizing behavior problems during adolescence: an ecological perspective. J. Child Fam. Stud.21, 158–171. 10.1007/s10826-011-9459-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 96

  ^* Wolfson M. M. (2009). Correlates of Closeness and Conflict in Early Elementary Teacher-Student Relationships. University of Pittsburgh.

  • Google Scholar

• 97

  Yoon J. (2002). Teacher characteristics as predictors of teacher-student relationships: stress, negative affect, and self-efficacy. Soc. Behav. Pers.30, 485–493. 10.2224/sbp.2002.30.5.485

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 98

  Zanh–Waxler C. Klimes–Dougan B. Slattery M. J. (2000). Internalizing problems of childhood and adolescence: prospects, pitfalls, and progress in understanding the development of anxiety and depression. Dev. Psychopathol.12, 443–466. 10.1017/S0954579400003102

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 99

  Zhang G. Liang Z. Chen H. Zhang P. (2008). The stability of children's behavior problem from 2 to 11 years old. Psychol. Dev. Edu.16, 1–5. 10.1080/01443410701366092

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 100

  Zhang W. (1999). Children's Socially Development. Beijing: Beijing normal university publishing group.

  • Google Scholar

• 101

  ^* Zhang X. Sun J. (2011). The reciprocal relations between teachers' perceptions of children's behavior problems and teacher–child relationships in the first preschool year. J. Genet. Psychol.172, 176–198. 10.1080/00221325.2010.528077

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar