Data from individual interviews, four questionnaires, and two analogue situations for 12 married couples were examined by six clinical judges and evaluated with regard to various aspects of interpersonal functioning. Orders of presentation were counterbalanced in a Latin square design. Ratings were made after each kind of data had been reviewed, after a case conference, and following discussion leading to consensus. Reliabilities were computed for the sets of variables and for each data mode. The convergent and discriminant validities of judgments based on the three data modes were examined by means of a multitrait-multimethod matrix. The utilities of the data modes and of increasing amounts of information were gauged by correlating partial estimates with average judgments of all judges based on all data following case conference. Among the findings were reasonably high levels of reliability for some aspects of interpersonal functioning but very low agreement regarding recommended treatment, quite high convergent validity across the three data modes, and modest but significantly superiority of the interview over the other procedures for assessing marital relationships.

Teacher social emotional competence has been connected to literacy development as well as broader academic outcomes through the domains of Emotional Support and Classroom Organization of the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS). Despite these findings, teacher development has yet to place an emphasis on social emotional skill development in line with such research. Drawing on diffusion of innovations literature, the authors offer a conceptual model that ties teacher social emotional skill development directly to the instructional support domain of the CLASS, thereby increasing the compatibility of social emotional learning to teaching and learning outcomes, including literacy. The analysis identified perspective-taking and social cue recognition as key opportunities for instructionally-aligned teacher social emotional skill development. The authors make recommendations for methods to increase these skills for teachers.

To the Editor.\p=m-\It may be that brain specialization for language does not depend on literacy as Damasio and co-workers contend (Arch Neurol 33:300, 1976), but we do not believe it has been proved in their study any more than the converse was proved by ours.1 They note that, of their 38 illiterate patients, 24 had focal lesions of the left hemisphere and 14 of the right. Twenty of the 24 were aphasic. These numbers raise the suspicion that the illiterate patients may have been preselected, possibly by avenue of referral for left hemisphere lesions and, conceivably, aphasia. Also, one cannot tell from their study how many of the 209 literate patients had left or right hemispheric lesions; therefore, the comparison of literate and illiterate patients for aphasia is not possible.