Abstract
Peer report of aggression has typically been obtained through peer nominations. The purpose of this study was to identify the extent to which peer nominations and peer ratings identified the same children as aggressive and to explore whether the two methods were equally accurate in identifying children at risk for poor social adjustment. Participants were 1051 students in third, fourth, or fifth grade and were predominantly African American (76.6%). Participants provided self-report of sympathy and peer nominations and ratings of overt and relational aggression, prosocial behavior, and leadership. Teachers reported on participants' school adjustment. Peer nominations and peer ratings of aggressive behavior were closely related. Peer ratings of overt and relational aggression emerged as a unique predictor of all indicators of adjustment, whereas peer nominations were uniquely associated with three of six outcomes of interest. Peer ratings are a promising approach to assessing aggression and may address problems of consumer acceptance.