University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

An Investigation Of Attitude Differences In Parents Of Stutterers And Parents Of Non-Stutterers

(USC Thesis Other)

An Investigation Of Attitude Differences In Parents Of Stutterers And Parents Of Non-Stutterers

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content This dissertation has been microfilmed exactly aB received 6 7 - 1 3 ,7 6 3 THILE, Edmund L lew ellyn, 1 9 3 2 - AN INVESTIGATION OF ATTITUDE DIFFERENCES IN PARENTS OF STUTTERERS AND PARENTS OF NON STUTTERERS. U niversity of Southern C alifornia, Ph.D ., 1 9 6 7 Speech Pathology U niversity M icrofilms, Inc., A nn Arbor, M ichigan Edmund L le w e lly n T h ile All Rights Reserved 1967 INVESTIGATION O F ATTITUDE DIFFERENCES IN PA REN TS O F STU TTERERS A N D PA REN TS O F NON-STUTTERERS by , - u : '' I */ ' ■ Edmund' Thile A Dissertation Presented to the FA C U LTY O F TH E G R A D U A T E SC H O O L UNIVERSITY O F SO U TH ER N CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree D O C T O R O F PHILOSOPHY (Speech) June 1967 UNIVERSITY O F S O U T H E R N CALIFORNIA T H E G R A D U A T E S C H O O L U N IV E R S IT Y P A R K L O S A N G E L E S . C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 0 0 7 This dissertation, written by ..................................E d m u n jd .^ h ile................................. under the direction of his.....Dissertation Com mittee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by the Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y ....... Dean Date June*.. 1.967 DI SSERTATK m -CO MM M ITTEF TA BLE O F C O N TEN TS Page LIST O F TABLES................................................................................................................. iv Chapter I. STA TEM EN T O F TH E PROBLEM............................................................. 1 Introduction Statement of the Problem Preview of Remaining Chapters II. R EV IEW O F TH E LITERATURE............................................................. 6 Methods of Measuring Parental Attitude Literature on Parental Attitude and Its Relationship to Stuttering III. M ETH O D S, PROCEDURES, A N D DESCRIPTION O F G R O U PS 24 The Subjects Development of the Inventory Hypotheses to be Tested Statistical Method Administration of the Inventory IV. PRESENTATION O F TH E DATA.............................................................. 46 The Internal Consistency of the RIF Scales The Scale Scores: Tests of Research Hypotheses The Factor Analyses The Item Scores Analysis of Individual Items V . INTERPRETATION O F TH E DATA....................................................... 71 The Scales The Items Chapter Page VI. SU M M A R Y , CONCLUSIONS, A N D R E C O M M E N D A T IO N S FO R FU R TH ER R ESE A R C H ............................................................................ 7 7 Summary Conclusions Recommendations for Further Research BIBLIO G RAPH Y ..................................................................................................................... 8 3 A PPEND IXES Appendix A. Diagnostic Inquiry Form ........................................ 90 Appendix B. Listings of Research Inquiry Form by Scale ........................................ 99 Appendix C. Instructions to the Judges.................................. 110 Appendix D . Research Inquiry Form .............................................. 112 Appendix E. Preliminary Instructions to Subjects . . 122 Appendix F. Items Included in the RIF Inventory Which Did Not Differentiate Significantly Between Roles Played by Expert Judges...............................................................................................124 Appendix G . Comparisons of Scale Means of the Experimental and Control Groups . . . 128 Appendix H. Analyses of Variance of the Thirteen RIF S cales....................................................................................130 Appendix I. Indices of Intrafamilial Consistency for the Thirteen Scales of the Research Inquiry F o rm .................................................136 Appendix J. Responses of Control and Experimental Groups to Individual Items by Scale . 138 Appendix K. Experimental Results from Items on Which the Judges Did Not Differ Signifi cantly ...............................................................................................15 3 LIST O F TA B LES Table Page 1. Age of Children................................................................................................ 2 7 2. Sex of Children . ........................................................................................... 28 3. Age of Parents * . . ............................................................................... 29 4. Education of P a r e n t s ............................................................................. 29 5. Family Income...................................................................................................... 31 6. Number of C h ild re n ..................................................................................... 32 7. Examples of Discriminating and Non-discriminating Items, Based on Responses of Judges .............................. 39 8. Internal Consistency of the Scales of the Research Inquiry F o rm ................................................................................................... 4 8 9. M ean Scores of Fathers and Mothers on Scales 3 and 1 3 .............................................. 51 10. Matrix of Interscale Correlations ............................................ 52 11* Results of Factor Analysis, Interscale Correlations . . . . . . . . ............................................... 53 12. Second-Factor Residuals ........................................................................ 54 13. Rotated Factors, Correlations among Scales and Control Variables (Varimax Solution) ............................. 5 7 CHAPTER' I STA TEM EN T O F T H E PR O B L E M Introduction Investigators of parental attitude and its relation ship to stuttering have presented varied and inconsistent results. Johnson (1942) has reported that attitude differ ences between parents of stutterers and parents of non- stutterers are limited to concerns about the adequacy of their child's speech. Darley (1955), however, disagreed with Johnson's findings in reporting no significant differ ences between parents of stutterers and parents of non- stutterers in their responses to the Iowa Scale of Attitudes Toward Stuttering. From two separate M M P I studies Goodstein (19 56) con cluded that stuttering is not related to severe psychopath ology on the part of the stutterer's parents. Wiley (1950) found that parents of stutterers actually received better scores on attitude tests than did some groups of teachers, school administrators, and college students. Other studies reported significant differences in attitude and personality between parents of stutterers and 1 2 parents of non-stutters. La Follette (1956) found fathers of stutterers to be more submissive than fathers of non stutterers. Mothers of stutterers have been found to be more dominant (Moncur, 1952) and overprotective (Abbott, 1957) than mothers of non-stutterers. Kinstler (1959) con cluded that mothers of stutterers are superficially non rejecting in their relationships with their children, demon strating covert rather than overt rejection to a significant degree. According to Goldman and Shames (1964a) mothers of stutterers set higher goals for their children and after failure in an experimental situation predict a significantly lower level of achievement than do mothers of non-stutter ers . While strong relationships between parent-child dy namics and stuttering, and parental attitudes and stuttering have been suggested by some theorists and researchers, others have attached little etiological significance to this relationship. A study of parent attitude from a psychody namic frame of reference seemed necessary to ascertain the possible role of these factors in the etiology of stuttering. The present study was conducted in an effort to in vestigate several unexplored, potentially relevant areas of parental attitude and parent-child interaction. In an ef fort to make this investigation as broadly applicable yet thorough as possible, the study: (1) included both fathers and mothersi (2) sampled a large population; and (3) tested the experimental population as soon after the onset of stuttering as possible. Statement of the Problem This study was to compare the expressed attitudes of parents of children who stutter and the expressed attitudes of parents of non-stuttering children. A n inventory was constructed to assess what was con sidered to be relevant attitudes. Each item of the invento ry was assigned to one or more homogeneous-seeming scales which were thought to be representative of parental attitude constructs operant in stuttering etiology according to psy chodynamic theories. The following general questions were investigated: 1, Would the inventory scale scores show differ ences between the expressed attitudes of the two groups of parents? Specifically: a. Would the mean scale scores show significant differences between the two groups? b. Would there be differences between the two groups of parents with regard to "intrafam- ilia l consistency" on these scales--that is, would one group show more agreement than the other between married couples? c. Would there be interaction between the sex of the responding parent and group member- ship; e.g., would the mothers of stutterers resemble the fathers of non-stutterers in their responses? d. Would the interscale correlations show a meaningful patterning among the attitudes measured—that i s , would they demonstrate the existence of any independent "factors" which would group the thirteen scales into distinctive clusters? 2. Would the item scores show differences between the expressed attitudes of the two groups of parents ? a. Would there be significant differences be tween groups at the item level? b. Would an analysis of the significant items by scale reveal group differences and inter item relationships which were not apparent at the scale level? Preview of Remaining Chapters This dissertation has been organized into six chap ters. Chapter I has included an introduction to the problem of the relationship of parental attitudes and parent-child dynamics to the etiology of stuttering. The specific prob lem and two general questions have been stated. Chapter II presents a review of the literature 5 pertaining to: (1) methods of parental attitude measurement and scale construction, and (2) the relationship between parental attitude and stuttering. Chapter III describes the selection of subjects, development, and evaluation of the inventory, the hypothesis to be tested, statistical methods, and procedural details. Chapter IV is a presentation of the data which are interpreted in Chapter V . Chapter VI includes a summary, conclusions, and recommendations for further research. A bibliography and the appendix conclude the dis sertat ion. CHAPTER I I R EV IEW O F TH E LITERA TU RE The review of the literature is presented as it ap plies to the two specific areas germane to the present topic under investigation: (1) methods of parental attitude measurement and scale construction, and (2) the relationship between parental attitudes and stuttering. Methods of Measuring Parental Attitude According to Thurstone (1946), an attitude m ay be defined as the degree of positive or negative affect associ ated with some psychological object. B y a psychological object, Thurstone means any symbol, phrase, person, institu tion, ideal, or idea toward which parents can differ with respect to positive or negative affect or feeling. Several devices have been employed in order to measure parental at titudes. They will be presented and evaluated as to their appropriateness for the present investigation. Direct Questioning Perhaps the simplest way to determine how parents feel about a psychological object is to ask them directly. 7 This approach is appropriate only when the object or content of items is not likely to be controversial. M any parents would be reluctant to express feelings or attitudes directly and honestly because of fear of disapproval. Read (1945) compared the responses of thirty-two parents to direct ques tioning with observed behavior of twenty children of these parents and found low interrelationships. Discussions by Cantril (1944), Remmers (1954), and Maccoby and Maccoby (1954) strongly contra-indicate direct questioning as a method for the present study. Direct Observation of Behavior Another method of investigating attitudes has been to observe the behavior of parents with respect to a psy chological object (Thurstone, 1946). Severe limitations were also seen in this approach. In separate studies Becky (1942), Brody (1956), Baldwin (1948), and Merrill (1946) assessed parental attitudes by clinical judgment of overt parent behavior and reported differences within the popula tion studied. In addition to the fact that relationships between overt behavior and attitude are highly suspect, some behavioral responses may well have been designed to conceal rather than to reveal feelings and attitudes. Rating Scales A more systematic assessment of parental attitude has been through rating scales. Instruments of this type, while necessarily subjective, supply specificity to the at titudes under study. Lewis (1945) used this method to ob tain teacher ratings of parental attitude. Perhaps Champ- ney's (1941) development of the Fels Parent Behavior Rating Scales best illustrates the implementation of this tech nique. The Fels Scales were used by such investigators as Baldwin, Kalhoun, and Breese (1945) and Lorr and Jenkins (1953) in studies relating parental attitude to various as pects of child personality development. Peckarsky (1953) also employed Fels rating scales and reported that parents of speech-retarded children "were more intense and perva sive" than parents in a matched control group. Application of this method to the present study was precluded by the length of time involved in using rating scale methods for a population of 180 subjects. Attitude Scales The most appropriate method of attitude measurement for the present investigation was found to be the develop ment of an attitude scale inventory. This method provides a means of assessment of the degree of affect that many par ents associate with a wide variety of psychological objects. A well-constructed attitude scale consists of a num ber of items that have been carefully edited and selected in accordance with certain criteria. W ang (1932), Thurstone and Chave (1929), Bird (1940), and others have suggested 9 various informal criteria for editing items under considera tion. Items are selected which are representative of the universe of content (Guttman, 1944) for the psychological object * Once a set of items has been collected, there are two general methods that have been used in the development of attitude scales. One of these methods involves the use of a judging group. Torgerson (1958) refers to this method as a "stimulus-centered approach." The judges' evaluations are used as a basis for determining scale values for the items. Subjects can then be asked to express their agree ment or disagreement with the individual items and receive scale scores. The judgment methods for constructing attitude scales differ in the manner in which the judgments and scale values of the items are obtained. The method of paired com parisons was developed from Thurstone' s "Law of comparative judgment" (1927a, 1927b) and is useful in scaling items when the number of items is small. As Remmers (1954) points out --"this method becomes somewhat cumbersome if w e are inter ested in measurements to several items" (Remmers, 1954, p. 225). For example, if an attitude scale consists of only twenty items, and if comparative judgments are to be ob tained for each pair of items, then each subject will have to make 190 comparative judgments. The method of paired comparisons would be impractical for the present study which 10 calls for the inspection of a great number of items. Som e scaling methods require each subject to make only one comparative judgment for each item. The method of equal-appearing intervals, developed by Thurstone and Chave (1929), has been widely used in obtaining scale values for a large number of items. Judges are asked to evaluate the items on a continuum of favorability. Scale values are then determined for each item by locating the point on the con tinuum below which and above which 50 per cent of the judges place the item. Originally, an excess of thirty judges was deemed necessary to establish scale values. Seashore and Hevner (1933), however, have reported more than adequate reliability measurements using a smaller number of judges. Several aspects of the method of equal-appearing intervals seem advantageous for the present investigation: a relatively small group of judges can evaluate a large num ber of items and determine a point of dichotomy and direc tion of favorability for each of the items. A second method of developing attitude scales is based upon direct responses of agreement or disagreement with individual items. A judging group is not necessary, since the response methods do not require prior knowledge of the scale values of the items. Likert (19 32) developed a technique in which a large set of items is presented to a group of subjects with instructions to mark the extent of their own agreement or disagreement. Five alternatives are provided and weights are assigned to the categories. The direction of weighting depends on whether "strongly agree" or "strongly disagree" represents the favorable attitude. A total score is obtained for each subject by summating his scores for the individual items. Bird (1940) called Likert's method the method of summated ratings because each response to an item may be considered a rating and these ratings are summated over all statements. Tw o facets of Likert's method may be appropriate to the present study of parental attitudes: (1) degrees of agreement or favorability are provided for in the alterna tives presented to the subjects, and (2) summation of item scores provides scale scores for sub-scales within an in strument measuring several attitudinal constructs. Guttman's (1944) method of scale analysis is similar to that of Likert's in that they are both response methods which do not require the use of judges. Guttman's method differs sharply, however, from Likert's response method, as well as from all other methods reported, in its item selec tion procedures. Instead of starting with a large sample of items from a universe of content and then, in terms of sta tistic al criteria, reducing the number to a smaller set con stituting a scale, the method of scale analysis selects ten to twelve items from the universe of content and subjects these as a group to a test of scalability. Several authors have questioned Guttman's basis for item selection 12 (Stouffer in Riley, 1954, Edward, 1957, and Torgerson, 1958). The present investigation of parental attitudes was thought to call for a wider sampling of items from the uni verse of content. One aspect of the method of scale analysis which was considered useful to the present study was the use of the "Cornell technique" CGuttman, 1947). By this technique the response on a five-point continuum of "always" to "never" can be converted to a two-point score of "agree" or "disa gree," according to the judges’ predictions of response. Literature on Parental Attitude and Its ^elations'bii'p to Stuttering A review of the literature concerned with the par ents' role in stuttering etiology revealed a wealth of eso teric theory and a paucity of scientific research. The experimental investigations studied well exemplified the complexities and difficulties involved in identification of significant variables in the dynamic relationship between stutterer and parent. The literature illustrates even more clearly the difficulties of finding valid measures or defin itive techniques that would differentiate these variables. Several investigators have been interested in assessment of the personality and adjustment of parents of stutterers* Goodstein and Dahlstrom (1956) found no signif icant differences in their comparative analysis of the re sponses of one hundred parents of stutterers and a matched 13 control group to the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality In ventory (M M PI). Goodstein (1956) presented remarkably simi lar results in a cross-validation study testing both parents of fifty clinic stutterers. H e concludes that: These results were interpreted as indicating that the responses of the follow-up group were not signifi cantly different from those of the two earlier groups, and as confirming the conclusions of the prior study that the etiology of stuttering is not related to severe psychopathology on the part of the stutterers' parents. (Goodstein, 1956) Extensive projective testing of thirty stutterers, their parents and siblings was conducted by Wilson (1950). The Thematic Apperception Test, the Travis-Johnston Test, and the Rorschach Test were administered to these three groups in an effort to explore possible differences between stutterer-parent and sibling-parent relationships. Ho sig nificant differences were found. A strong trend worth of mention was that the stutterers were more strongly identi fied with their mothers than with their fathers. This inference merits consideration when it is re called that the stuttering group comprised 86 per cent boys, whereas the sibling group had an equal number of boys and girls. With the recognition that children tend to identify with the same sex, a negative finding for stutterers would indicate their difficulty in effecting behavioral adjustment. (Wilson, 1950) In a more detailed empirical study, Broida (1962) investigated sex-role preference as well as sex-role identi fication in forty-five male stutterers evenly distributed in age from five through ten years. Four tests were adminis tered for measurements of sex-role preference, parental 14 preference, and sex-role identification. Questionnaires were also given to parents and classroom teachers to obtain their ratings of the subjects' sex-typed behavior. Four general conclusions were noted from the responses of the subjects: 1. Boys who stutter seem to express their prefer ence for the masculine role more often, at an earlier age, and with less variance than masculine preference is found in a normal population of boys. 2. Boys who stutter seem more ambivalent in sex- role identification than do normal boys. 3* The developmental course of parental preference among boys who stutter seems to differ from that of normal boys, 4. Boys who stutter perceive their fathers as more punishing than nurturing. This perception differs from the accepted theory that well-adjusted boys perceive their fathers as equally nurturing and punishing. Broida's conclusions regarding psychodynamic theo ries of stuttering etiology were: The findings of this study lend some support to the theory that the neurotic conflict resulting in stutter ing develops from disturbances in the identification process in early childhood. The conflict appears to be due to ambivalent identification with both sex roles in contrast to an unusually strong preference for the mas culine role. (Broida, 1962, p. 100) Of special significance to the present investigation were the parents' ratings of their own attitudes toward 15 their sons' masculine behavior as measured by four items in the questionnaire. O n a forced-choice five-point continuum (from always to never) the parents most often rated them selves as follows: (1) they frequently felt that boys should act masculine; (2) they sometimes felt that children should never talk back to adults; (3) they seldom felt that boys are "sissy" to cry; and (4) mothers sometimes , while fathers frequently felt that boys should be brave. In an attempt to explore certain aspects of the par ental environment of stuttering children, La Follette (1956) used five paper-and-pencil personality tests self-adminis tered by the parents of eighty-five stutterers and fifty non-stutterers. Significant differences were found on two of the five tests. O n the Allport Ascendance-Submission Test the fathers of stutterers were significantly more sub missive than the fathers of the control group, and, of greater possible importance, were more submissive than their wives. Significant differences were also found on the Psy cho-Somatic Inventory and interpreted by La Follette as meaning that "the fathers of the experimental group as a whole seemed less well adjusted in terms of mental health, than did the fathers of the control group" (La Follette, 1956) . As a part of a series of studies at the University of Iowa, Darley (1955) compared the responses of parents of fifty stutterers with a control group of fifty parents of 16 non-stutterers. Information was provided by a face-to-face interview using an eight hundred forty-six item question naire, the Iowa Scale of Attitude toward Stuttering, and Guilford’s Inventory of Factors, STDCR. Darley found only minute differences in the attitudes of the two groups: Perhaps the most striking general finding of the study is the similarity of the two groups of parents . . . the groups of parents are found to be essentially alike on 6 8 per cent of the items analyzed in intra family or inter-group comparisons. (Johnson [ed.] , 1955 ) The face-to-face encounter may have engendered de fensiveness which predisposed conformity responses that might not have been elicited by a less threatening interview technique. Darley*s results tended to confirm those of Johnson (1942). In this earlier study, Johnson tested two groups of parents with forty-six subjects in each group. Only minor differences were found and these centered mainly around the stu tterer’s parents' concern about the adequacy of the child's speech. In a book published later, however, Johnson, Boehm- ler, Dahlstrom, et a l. (1959) reported much greater differ ences. In reporting twenty-three years of research at the State University of Iowa involving approximately 500 chil dren, of which half were classified as stutterers, they found parental attitudes to be of profound etiological significance. 17 The important differences observed between the groups of stutterers and non-stutterers were in the par ental attitudes and practices by which the children, as speakers, were affected. Thus it was found that the parents of stutterers were more demanding regarding the fluency of the children's speech, that they were more dissatisfied with their children and with each other, had higher standards of child development and seemed to think, feel, and behave in ways calculated to make for tension in the home. (Johnson, et a l. , 1959) Som e interesting differences in the goal-setting be havior of parents of stutterers were reported by Goldman and Shames in two separate studies of the same two groups. In the first study (Goldman and Shames, 1964a), when mothers and fathers were asked to assess and predict their ow n achievement in an application of the Rotter Board Test, par ents of stutterers and parents of non-stutterers did not differ significantly in goal-setting behavior. The second study (Goldman and Shames, 1964) was con cerned with measuring differences in goal-setting behavior by parents of their children* s responses, and yielded some thought-provoking differences: (1) the fathers of stutter ers set lower goals for their children than did their wives. (2) The fathers of stutterers did not lower their estimates of performance following failure as frequently as did the fathers of non-stutterers. (3) Initial estimates of the mothers of stutterers were higher than those of the mothers of non-stutterers (.06 probability value) as well as those of the fathers of stutterers. (4) The average scores under conditions of failure for the mothers of stutterers were 18 significantly lower (.05 probability value). In other words, a gross disparity was seen to exist between the unrealistically high predictive judgments of mothers of stutterers as to how well their children might perform a task and their even stronger devaluation of per formance subsequent to a disappointing response. Wiley (1950), while in the process of establishing validity and reliability measures for his A T B C Scales, tested three small groups of parents of stutterers. Al though his purpose was not to test differences between par ents of stutterers and parents of non-stutterers, certain inferences can be drawn from his results. The stutterers' parents ranked eighth in most desirable attitude (see Table 11, p. 53) when the three groups of parents of stutterers (total N of 32) were combined and their total-scale mean score compared with those of the other eighteen groups stud ied. This was interpreted to mean that parents of stutter ers displayed more favorable parental attitudes as measured by Wiley's seven sub-scales than such other tested groups as teachers, school administrators, and college students. Since only experts in speech pathology, students of psychol ogy and speech pathology, and well-counseled parents achieved lower mean scores, th£ test results may have re flected the testee's level of "psychological sophistica tion ." A study of the role of parental domination in 19 stuttering was conducted by Moncur (1952). A n experimental group consisting of the mothers of forty-two boys and six girls ranging in age from sixty-two to ninety-eight months, and a matched control group of mothers of non-stuttering children were asked to respond to a specially designed interview form comprised of 3 30 items. The items were di vided into four categories for analysis of dominating char acteristics as revealed by: (1) disciplinary action; (2) holding the child to excessively high standards; (3) over-supervision and over-protection of the child; and (*+ ) undue parental criticism. Moncur obtained statistically significant results on 47 per cent of all questions asked regarding parental domination with 32 per cent significant at the 1 per cent level of confidence. In his conclusion, Moncur states: If there exists one causal factor which may account for the manifold differences discovered between the ex perimental and the control group with regard to adverse environmental influences and to which all other unfavor able factors are subordinate, it may be that the parents of the stuttering children are (as a group) dominant parents. (Moncur, 1952) It is interesting to note that under the fourth category (domination as revealed by parental criticism), no significant differences were apparent on the questions per taining to shaming the child for specific acts. O n the contrary, the more general the item, the more significant were the differences. This pattern suggests an inconsist ency in the responses of the experimental group. Moncur?s 20 reference to specific child behavior may have been more threatening to the mothers of the stuttering children, thus eliciting negation responses to these items. Travis (1957), in his report of a prolonged analysis of the psychodynamics of thirty adult stutterers, strongly corroborated Moncur's findings. His conclusions also sup ported Wilson's finding that stutterers tend to be more strongly identified with their mothers. Travis states that: It is possible that this relatively greater strength of the mother operated adversely in the sex typing of the child. A n ambivalence of the sexual role was a con stant worry at the unconscious levels of our stutterers. (Travis, 1957) Abbott (195 7) concurred with the overprotection the ories of Glasner (1949) and Despert (1946) in his investiga tion of mother-child relationships in stuttering. Abbott administered the Parent Attitude Research Instrument (PARI) to thirty mothers of stutterers and thirty mothers of non stutterers and reported significant differences on two scales relating to overprotection with three other scales approaching significance levels. The difference in maternal attitudes on the scale entitled "fear of harming baby" was significant at the 5 per cent level of confidence. This scale was seen to reflect overprotective attitudes of mothers possessing unconscious hostile feelings toward their children. The study included direct observations of mother and child in a free-play situation. With regard to this phase of his investigation Abbott concludes that: 21 The most striking tendency between the two groups of mothers was that of overt affection. The mothers of the experimental group displayed more affection and empathy [sic] for their children's play activities, than did tKose of the control group. It is important to note in the data that, though there were few differences of sta tistic al significance, there were noticeable and con sistent trends concerning that of overprotection. (Abbott , 195 7) Bullen (1945), Duncan (1949), and McCarthy (1954) concluded separately that a rejecting parental attitude was a causative factor in the development of stuttering. Ac cording to Wyatt (1958), "the stuttering child has experi enced distance anxiety [italics mine] as a result of a dis turbance in the mother-child relationship occurring at the time when the child is in the practicing stage of early grammatical speech.” She reported significant differences at the .01 level of confidence when measuring distance anxi ety in twenty stuttering and twenty non-stuttering children. The most recent study concerning the role of rejec tion in stuttering etiology was conducted by Kinstler (1959). A n important feature of the study was his treatment of rejection at two response levels: (1) covert or hidden rejection, and (2) overt or manifest rejection. Thirty mothers of young male stutterers (mean age, 7.46) and a matched control group were given the University of Southern California Maternal Attitude Scale consisting of ninety-two items judged to measure covert and overt acceptance and re jection. Kinstler reported that: Perhaps the most dramatic difference occurred in the 22 pairing of covert rejection with overt rejection. The experimental mothers chose covert rejection in all twelve items while the control mothers chose overt re jection for all twelve. This finding seemed to substan tiate clinical observation that the mothers of stutter ers were, at least superficially, non-rejecting in their relationships with their children. Straight-forward and undisguised rejective acts may not be performed by the mothers of the experimental group, although they tend to reject their children in subtle hidden ways of which they themselves may not be aware. (Kinstler, 195 9) Kinstler derived two other major conclusions from his study: (1) mothers of stutterers accept their children covertly less and overtly only slightly less than do the mothers of normal speakers; and (2) mothers of stutterers reject their children more than they accept them while mothers of normal speakers accept their children more than they reject them. This review of the literature has presented several studies with incompatible findings, from which no clear pic ture emerges as to the relation of parental attitudes to stuttering. A major problem in the construction of an attitude inventory is the establishment of its validity: 1. D o the items actually assess the attitudes being investigated? 2. Does the subject’s response reflect a true attitude or an idealized image? 3. Are there differences between the subject’s ex pressed attitude and his actual behavior? 23 The contradictions between the studies presented m ay be a function of the measurements used rather than a reflec tion of the actual significance of the attitudes investi gated. CHAPTER I I I M ETH O D S, PRO CED U RES, A N D DESCRIPTION O F G R O U PS The purpose of this study was to make a descriptive and comparative analysis of selected attitudes of parents of stutterers and parents of non-stutterers. To assess what were considered to be relevant attitudes, a 173-item inven tory was constructed and each item was assigned to one or more of thirteen homogeneous-seeming scales, i.e ., the items within each scale were thought to tap similar attitudinal constructs. This classification of items by scale also pro vided a means of systematic description. The evaluative judgments of two groups of authorities were used to provide a system of scoring the items. The 173 items were random ized and presented to an experimental group (mothers and fathers of stutterers) and to a control group (mothers and fathers of stutterers) as the Research Inquiry Form. Sta tistic al comparisons of responses were made at both the scale level and at the item level for the two groups tested. The Subjects One hundred eighty parents, of whom ninety were the 24 25 parents of young stutterers, were the subjects of this study. A review of the literature strongly indicated that fathers as well as mothers should be included in such an exploration of parental attitudes. The fact that several studies excluded paternal attitudes seemed to be based on the administrative complexities growing out of testing both parents, rather than on hypotheses minimizing paternal re sponses and paternal-maternal comparisons. In fact, Acker man, in discussing his "principle of shared responsibility" concluded that: "Emotional disturbances in children cannot be blamed exclusively on one parent but rather both, in their relationship to each other and to their children" (Ackerman, 1957). Experimental Group Ninety parents (mother-father pairs) of forty-five young stutterers comprised the experimental group. The term "stuttering child" in this study meant that the child had been diagnosed as a stutterer by a qualified speech patholo gist or public school speech specialist. Criteria for the experimental subjects were that: (1) they had a stuttering child under eight years, zero months; (2) they were the natural parents of this child; or if not, that the parent-child relationship began before the child was one year of age; (3) they had not participated in either psychotherapy or parent counseling; and (4) they had had no professional or educational exposure to speech path- 26 ology or psychology. Experimental subjects were obtained from the Speech- Hearing Clinic of the University of Southern California, the Speech Clinic of Whittier College, the Speech and Hearing Clinic of San Diego State College, and from referrals by public school speech specialists in Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego counties. Control Group The criteria for the ninety parents (forty-five mother-father pairs) making up the control group were that: (1) they had at least one child between the ages of three years zero months and eight years zero months; (2) their children were free from speech difficulties; (3) they had not participated in either psychotherapy or parent counsel ing, and (4) they had had no professional or educational exposure to speech pathology or psychology. Control subjects were obtained from nursery school groups and Parent-Teacher Associations in Los Angeles and San Diego, Age of Children The age of the children in both groups was thought to be a critical factor. Although there is some disagree ment as to when stuttering usually develops, most authori ties place the mean age of onset between three and four years of age. It was considered desirable to measure 27 parental responses in the experimental group as soon after onset of stuttering as possible. In addition, the selection of younger children was indicated in order to facilitate the parent's ability to recall attitudes relative to their child's early stages of development. A n upper age limit of eight years zero months was therefore established for the children of both parent groups. Table 1 presents the age range and mean age of the children included in this study. The mean age of the chil dren of the experimental group was 6.02 years and of the children of the control group was 5,11 years. The range for the experimental group was four years to eight years, and the range for the control group was 3.5 years to eight years. TA BLE 1 A G E O F CH ILD REN Experimental Group Control Group N M R N M R 4 5 6.02 3.5-8 45 5 .11 4-8 Sex of Children Table 2 presents the sex of the children included in this study. There were thirty-eight boys and seven girls in the experimental group, and twenty-eight boys and seventeen 28 girls in the control group. The greater number of boys in the experimental group was thought to be attributable to the established fact that stuttering is a symptom more common to males in this culture. TA B LE 2 SEX O F CH ILD REN Experimental Group Control Group N Boys Girls M * N Boys Girls M * 45 38 7 .845 45 28 17 .621 *Note: boys = 1 girls = 0 Age of Parents Table 3 presents the age, range, and mean age of the parents included in this study. The mean age of the fathers of the experimental group was 35.6 years and the mean age of the control group fathers was 3 4.5 years. The range of fathers' ages was thirty years to forty-two years for the experimental group and thirty years to forty-one years for the control group. The mean age of the mothers of the experimental group was 32.7 years and of the mothers of the control group was 32.2. The range for the experimental mothers was twenty-five years to thirty-nine years with a range of twenty-four years to thirty-seven years for the mothers of 29 the control group. T A B LE 3 A G E O F PA R EN TS Experimental Group Control Group N M R N M R Fathers 45 35.692 30-42 45 34.530 30-41 Mothers 45 32 . 779 25-39 45 32.221 24-37 Education of Parents Table 4 presents the education of the parents in cluded in this study. The fathers of the experimental group TA B LE 4 ED U CA TIO N * O F PA R EN TS Experimental Group Control Group N M R N M R Fathers, 45 2 . 752 0-5 45 4.136 0-7 Mothers 45 2 .041 0 1 c n 45 3.047 0-6 *0 ~ did not graduate from high school 1 = high school graduate 2 = 1 year of college 3 = 2 years of college 4 = 3 years of college 5 = college graduate 6 = attended graduate school 7 = holds graduate degree 30 had a mean educational level of 2.7—equivalent to approxi mately one and seven-tenths years of college. The fathers of the control group had a mean educational level of 4.1— equivalent to approximately three and one-tenth years of college. The range for the fathers of the experimental group was from 0—equivalent to not graduating from high school to 5--equivalent to a college degree, while 0 to 7— equivalent to a graduate degree was the range for the fathers of the control group. The mothers of the experimental group had a mean educational level of 2.0--equivalent to one year of college. The mothers of the control group had a mean educational level of 3.0—equivalent to two years of college. The range of the experimental mothers was 0 to 5, or the same as for the fathers of the experimental group, while the range for the mothers of the control group was 0 to 6—equivalent to attending graduate school. A s would be expected, the fathers had slightly more education than did the mothers within each of the two groups. W hen the means of the experimental and control groups were compared, it was found that the parents of the control group were of a significantly higher educational level. This difference might possibly be explained as a function of the sampling procedure. Members of the experi mental group became subjects solely because they had a child who stuttered, while the control group consisted of parents 31 who volunteered to participate in a study of parental a tti tudes. It is logical to assume that the higher educational level of the control group may be positively correlated with greater motivation and negatively correlated with the amount of threat engendered by an experimental investigation of this type. Family Income Table 5 presents the incomes of the families in cluded in this study. The mean yearly income for the fami- TA B LE 5 FA M ILY IN C O M E Experimental Control Croup Group N M R ( $ ) N M R ($) 45 7,417 3,500-11,000 45 9,205 5,250-14,000+ in the experimental group was $7,417.00, and was $9,205.00 for families in the control group. The range of family income was $5,250 to "over $14,000" for the control group, and from $3,500 to $11,000 for the experimental group. A close relationship was found to exist when the means for family income and father's educational level were compared for the two groups. Number of Children Table 6 presents the range and mean number of chil dren in the families included in this study. The mean num- TA B LE 6 N U M B E R O F CH ILD R EN Experimental Group Control Group N M R N M R 45 2.5 1-6 45 2.4 1-5 ber of children of families in the experimental group was 2.5, and was 2.4 for the control group. The experimental group had a range of one to six children in each family, while the range for the control group was one to five chil dren . Conclusions with Respect to the Groups W hen the forty-five mother-father pairs in the ex perimental group and forty-five mother-father pairs of the control group were compared for age, age of children, and size of family, the three groups showed no appreciable dif ferences. The chi square values of the differences in thre categories were significant at the .05 level of confidence: (1) there were more male children in the experimental group (2) educational levels for mothers and especially for fathers were higher in the control group; and (3) family 33 incomes were greater for the control group as compared to those of the experimental group. Development of the Inventory The inventory used in this study was part of a more extensive questionnaire devised as a staff project of the University of Southern California Speech-Hearing Clinic. The original purpose of the project was to develop a diag nostic form to be completed by parents prior to admission of their children into the clinic. The form was to yield in formation regarding their child’s behavior and personality as well as to assess parental attitudes and parent-child relationships. Several broad categories were established and many questions relevant to these areas were compiled. The original diagnostic inventory contained twenty scales and was composed of 2 39 items. Scales 1 and 2 of this inventory had been devoted to attitudes centering around deviant speech. Scales 11 through 15 were composed of items dealing with the child* s feelings, attitudes, and behavior. Although potentially useful for diagnostic pur poses, these seven scales were beyond the scope of the pres ent investigation and therefore were omitted from the inventory. The original inventory was called the U SC Diag nostic Inquiry Form (DIF). It is included in Appendix A. The remaining thirteen scales, containing 173 items became known as the U SC Research Inquiry Form (RIF) . It is 34 included in Appendix D « In compiling the RIF, effort was first directed to ward setting up general constructs representing problem areas thought to be related to stuttering. Literature on psychodynamic theories of stuttering and various therapists' clinical observations were used as a basis for their formu lation. Thirteen applicable constructs were selected on the basis of face validity and became scale title s for the in ventory, i .e ., Overprotection, Condemnation, Parental Ag gression Inhibition, et cetera. The next task was to compile a number of items for each scale, selected on the basis of content validity inso far as they measured or "tapped" the scale construct. Items were included that had reference to behavior, events, and feelings common to the home environment. Edwards suggests that : As a first step in developing an attitude scale, w e eliminate from consideration all statements about the psychological object that are factual or that might be interpreted as factual. (1957) He further recommends that the items be geared to how the individual feels about the object. Items were therefore worded so as to be as "personalized" as possible and to be reflective of intrafamilial relationships. Whenever possi ble, the second person, "you," was used, rather than "par ents" or "Mothers and Fathers." "Your child" took prefer ence over "children;" the verb "do" was used rather than 35 "should." Items were emotionally directed by using "feel" as opposed to the more intellectual "think." With regard to the general formulation of items, Wang's criteria for word ing statements were followed (Wang, 1932). For sta tistic a l purposes the experimental design re quired a forced choice response to each item. After consid ering several possibilities, a modification of Likert's method of summated ratings was selected (Likert, 1932). H e established five categories of response in order to get es timates of variance for each item. In the RIF form the pro cedure was to select points of dichotomy along a five-point continuum to meet two criteria: (1) to maximize the dis criminatory power of each item, and (2) to make the item difficulty levels as nearly equal as possible. These c rite ria were to be met by selecting a point of dichotomy as near as possible to the median for each item. The five-point scale would yield a greater range and provide a maximum of four possible points of dichotomy. For each item, then, the subject was required to make a forced choice of "1. Al ways," "2. Frequently," "3. Sometimes," "4. Seldom," or "5. Neve r ." The largest number of items in any scale was 20 (Scale 4, Condemnation), and the smallest number of items was 12 (Scale 1, Lie Scale). The mean number of items per scale was 15.3. Twenty-six items were scored for more than one scale; e.g ., the item, "Is it important to you that your 36 child be well-behaved when friends call?" was included in Scale 4, Condemnation, as well as in Scale 5, Level of As piration and Ego Involvement. A listing of items by scales is included in Appendix B. All of the items were randomized using Edwards' "Table of Random Numbers" (Edwards, 1946) so as not to re veal their scale origin. To guard against the possibility of a threatening or loaded item appearing early in the in ventory and distorting the subject's response pattern, the experimenter categorized all items in terms of threat poten tia l prior to randomization. Each item was judged as having either low threat potential (T-l), medium threat potential (T-2), or high threat potential (T-3). Examples of these judgmental differences in item threat potential in Scale 6, Parental Sex Inhibition, were: "Do you feel that romantic movies are a bad influence on your child?" (T-l, appearing as number 4) and, "Are you disturbed when your child sees you or your spouse undressed?" (T-3, appearing as number 160) . Evaluation of the Inventory Before the instrument could have application to a parent population it was necessary to validate the scales. Points of dichotomy were needed for each item within a scale. Further, direction had to be predicted for each item: that is, whether the favorable response was to be to 37 the left or right of the point of dichotomy. One method of validation is to correlate the item with observed overt be havior. However, the number as well as the nature of the items made this approach highly impractical. The method of equal-appearing intervals, developed by Thurstone and Chave (1929), has been widely used in ob taining scale values and Green (1954) also suggests a method for determining the intrinsic validity of scales. These methods call for the judgments of a group of experts. The experimenter found this approach to be well-suited to the inventory and the experimental design. Expert judgments would yield a key for scoring responses as well as a basis for the predictions of direction. Thirty-four "experts" were selected to judge the in dividual items. The criteria used for their selection were: (1) a psychodynamic orientation to stuttering theory, and (2) clinical experience with children who stutter and their parents. The judges included fourteen professors of speech pathology, fourteen advanced graduate students in speech pathology, and six speech clinicians operating as either private practitioners or public school speech specialists. The judges were divided randomly into two groups. Seventeen judges were instructed to respond as "ideal" par ents while seventeen were asked to respond as "unfavorable" parents. A n "ideal" parent was defined as one whose feel ings , attitudes, and parent-child relationships were such 38 that his child would not be expected to have any speech problems. The "unfavorable" parent was defined as one whose feelings, attitudes, and parent-child relationships would be highly conducive to the development of stuttering behavior ♦ in his child. The experts, then, assumed the roles of ei ther "ideal" parents or "unfavorable" parents and responded to each item from that projected frame of reference. The instructions to the judges are included in Appendix C. Statistical Treatment of Expert Judgments Frequencies of responses at five levels (Always, Frequently, Sometimes, Seldom, Never) from the two groups of judges were compared. A n item was judged discriminating if .05 or less was the probability of its chi-square value, which was computed from a fourfold contingency table. The point of dichotomy was placed as near the judges' median as possible. Scale scores were not obtained because the major interest was at the item level and because the number of judges was too small to support a definitive analysis of inter-scale relationships. The items were keyed 1 or 0 so that a high score would indicate a high probability that the responder was the parent of a stuttering child. Responses keyed in this manner were those preferred by judges taking the role of such a parent. 39 Of the 173 RIF items, 150 were discriminating at the .05 per cent level of confidence. Table 7 contrasts a dis criminating with a non-discriminating item. The items on which the experts did not discriminate are listed in Appen dix F. TA B LE 7 EX A M PLES O F DISCRIM INATING A N D NON-DISCRIM INATING ITEMS, B A SED O N RESPO N SES O F JU D G ES DIF Item No. 70 (RIF‘ Item M o. 9) : D o you think that it is always 1- 5 never your responsibility to approve what your child reads? Always Never Dichotomized at 1.5 Response* 1 2 3 4 5 Yes N o 1 1 C " judges 0 3 1 5 8 0 17 1 1 E” judges 14 3 0 0 0 14 3 ' — 1U " ' 6 1 5 8 14 20 Chi-square (dichotomy) = 20.521 (p beyond .C01) DIF Item No. 218 (RIF Item N o. 172) : D o you always 1-5 never unconsciously assume the role of your chTT3 fn his activities? Always Never Dichotomized at 3.5 Response* 1 2 3 4 5 Yes N o "C" judges 3 1 5 4 4 9 8 M E” judges 6 2 0 1 8 8 9 9 3 5 5 12 11 17 Chi-square (dichotomy) = 0.000 (Not significant). *M E" judges played the role of parents of stutter ers, "CM judges that of parents of non-stutterers. 40 Hypotheses to be Tested The hypotheses tested in this study were formulated from the predictive judgments of experts whose evaluative responses determined both the direction of favorableness and the point of dichotomy for every item. The hypotheses to be tested were: H (la): The mean scale score of the experimental group will be greater than the mean scale score of the control group for each of the thirteen scales * H (lb): The index of intrafamilial consistency from the experimental group will be the same as that from the control group for each of the thirteen scales. H (Ic) : There will be no interaction between the sex of the parent responding to the inventory and m em bership in the experimental or control groups. H (Id): The interscale correlation coefficients will not demonstrate the existence of any independ ent "factors'* which would group the thirteen scales into two or more distinctive clusters. H (II): The mean item scores of the experimental group will be greater than the mean item scores of the control group. The two fundamental hypotheses concerned with scale score differences, H (la), and item score differences, H 41 (II), were directional since the frequency of the experi mental group*s responses was expected to exceed that of the control group. The three other secondary hypotheses inves tigating various scale score relationships, H (lb), H (Ic), and H (Id), were non-directional in that predictive judg ments by the experts were not involved. Statistical Method The questions, although presented on a forced-choice five-point continuum from "always" to "never," were scored 1 or 0 using the direction indicated by the judges. The points of dichotomy had been selected as near as possible to the median of the responses of a panel of expert judges. For each item the frequencies of the experimental and con trol groups were recorded. The scale score was defined as the sum of the item scores. A high score indicated, in the ory, the parent of a stuttering child. The responses of the parents of stutterers (experimental group) were compared with those of the parents of non-stutterers (control group) and subjected to statistical tests of significance. Reliabilities for scale scores were computed sepa rately for each group, using the ratio of item covariance to total scale variance as formulated by Kuder and Richardson (Guilford, 1950). The procedure yields an internal consist ency index which is the type considered most appropriate to multi-scale inventories such as the one developed for this study. Hypothesis (la) was tested by analysis of variance using a two-factor design with forty-five individuals in each cell. Hypothesis (lb) was tested by comparing the correla tions of scale scores based on forty-five mother-father pairs, for each scale. The frequency distributions sup ported the appropriateness of the Pearson r as a suitable index of intra-familial consistency. Hypothesis (Ic) was tested by using a 2 x 2 analysis of variance design with forty-five total scale scores in each of the four cells. A large interaction effect would indicate that mother-father differences were in opposite di rections in the two groups; e.g., in the experimental group, mothers might have a higher score on overprotection than fathers, while in the control group the fathers would have higher scores. In the development of an instrument designed to yield several different scale scores, it is necessary to in vestigate the inter-scale relationships. Hypothesis (Id) was tested by inter-scale correlations, which were computed using ninety family totals from both groups. In addition to scale values, measures of parent age, education and income, number of children in family, and age and sex of stuttering child or his counterpart, were included in the correlational analysis. Finally, a variable for group was added: experi 4 3 mental group families received a "score" of ]l, control group families received a "score" of 0 _ , A positive correlation with "group" indicated that experimental families received higher scores on the scale in question. In accordance with the directional hypothesis, all such scores were expected to be positive. To bring some order to the task of interpreting the 231 correlation coefficients in the total matrix, a factor analysis was performed, incorporating standard procedures of extraction and a varimax rotation to the usual criterion of simple structure. Factors obtained in this way may be in terpreted as groupings of measures that are closely related to each other; if two scales have strong relationships to the same factor, and only weak indications for other fac tors, they are said to be measuring the same construct, or that their scores manifest similar underlying personality tra its . Measures appearing on the same factor as group would be considered predictive of group differences. Chi-square tests of probability for each item were used in testing Hypothesis (II). All were one-tailed values since in every case the experimental group was "expected" to exceed the control group. Since this was an exploratory study the minimum level of significance was a probability value of less than .10, as suggested by Guilford (1950). 4 4 Administration of the Inventory The inventory was administered by the experimenter to all 180 subjects. The ninety experimental subjects were given the inventory first in groups of four to sixteen par ents in either a clinic conference room or a school class room in their school district or general area. The inven tory was then administered to several larger groups composed of volunteers from nursery school and Parent-Teacher Associ ation organizations. These groups were given the invento ries in their usual meeting places. The first forty-five mother-father pairs who satisfied the criteria comprised the control group. The procedure for administering the inventory was the same for all groups. To insure consistent reporting of children's ages and family income, mother-father pairs were instructed to collaborate on the completion of the biograph ical data sheets. After this information had been obtained for all subjects and checked by the experimenter, the pre liminary instructions (see Appendix E) were read aloud. The subjects were told that "... this experiment concerns i t self with parents, their attitudes, and their feelings." Further, it was explained that ". . . the success of the ex periment depends on how honest you can be in answering the questions." With respect to anonymity, the subjects were informed that since "... many of the questions are of a personal nature, neither your name nor any other means of 45 identification will be used." O n both the preliminary in structions and those printed on the face of the inventory, every effort was made to stress the fact that ”. . . the items have no correct answer; the right answers will be those which best apply to you.” The experimenter remained in the room to limit verbal interaction among subjects. Most of the parents completed the inventory (Appendix D ) within a forty-five minute period. CHAPTER IV PRESEN TA TIO N O F T H E D A T A The Internal Consistency of the TIF'Scales' The assignment of the individual items of the inven tory to the thirteen scales of the Research Inquiry Form (RIF) was done on the basis of their face validity. There fore, before investigating the interscale correlations and comparing the scale means of the experimental and control groups, it was necessary to study the reliability of these scales. Scales such as these were not expected to be mutu ally orthogonal—considerable overlap and substantial inter scale correlations were expected—but each scale ought to demonstrate its right to be considered as a distinct entity by exhibiting a relatively high level of internal item in tercorrelation. While individual items composing the entire inventory were expected to be generally positively corre lated, those forming any given scale should have a somewhat higher average intercorrelation. To determine whether this was so, the Kuder-Richardson (19 39) concept of internal con sistency was used. Since the "threat potential" of an item was analogous to its "difficulty" in aptitude or achievement 47 tests, Kuder-Richardson formula 21 was chosen to estimate the internal consistency of each scale. This also indicates the degree of homogeneity, or extent to which the items com posing any given scale measure the same trait or attitude. Viewed as a type of reliability coefficient, these indices should in general exceed .90 for the making of deci sions concerning individuals, and should exceed .80 for pre diction in the case of small groups (Guilford, 1950). Because of possible differences between the experi mental and control groups (possible differences in "intra- familial consistency," etc.), coefficients were calculated separately for the two groups of subjects used in the exper iment. The resulting twenty-six coefficients are reported in Table 8. As Table 8 shows, the internal consistencies of the RIF scales fell short of the value commonly required for a reliability coefficient; this means that intergroup compari sons should not be made on the basis of the scale scores as at present constituted. Considering the RIF as an exploratory instrument a value of .60 would indicate a potentially promising scale. Even so, only five scales (numbers 5, 6, 8, 9, and 11) at tained this level of homogeneity in both groups. The Scale Scores: Tests " "of1 feesearch hypotheses The reliability coefficients of the thirteen scales 48 IN TERN A L O F TH E TA B LE 8 CO N SISTEN CY O F TH E R ESEA R C H INQUIRY SC A LES F O R M Scale Experimental Group Control Group 1 .47 .65 2 .52 .47 3 .58 .65 4 .43 . 52 5 .60 .61 6 .71 . 75 7 .59 .66 8 .73 .73 9 .61 .64 10 .55 .58 11 .69 .77 12 .42 .05 13 .62 .56 49 of the Research Inquiry Form, as measured by Kuder-Richard son tests of internal consistency, fall short of the values commonly required for prediction with small groups (Guil ford, 1950). Since the individual scales did not possess sufficient internal consistency, practically no significance can be attached to the scale scores of the two groups and, therefore, to their interaction as seen in the tests of the research hypotheses. Because of the low internal consis tency of the scales, results of statistical tests of Hypoth eses (la), (lb), and (Ic) have been placed in the Appendix. H (la): The mean scale score of the experimental group will be greater than the mean scale score of the control group for each of the thirteen scales» Analyses of variance were performed on each of the scales, and in no instance was there a significant differ ence between the means of the two groups. Because of the low internal consistency of the scales, the results of this statistical test were placed in the Appendix. Appendix G contains the scale means of the experimental and control group and the analyses of variance of the thirteen scales can be found in Appendix H. H (lb): The index of intrafamilial consistency from the experimental group will be the same as that from the control group for each of the thirteen scales * so This null hypothesis was not rejected at a signifi cant level, as indicated by the results shown in Appendix I: "Indices of Intrafamilial Consistency on the Thirteen Scales of the Research Inquiry Form. ” The observed mother-father correlations did not differ significantly between the two groups on any scale. H (Ic): There will be no interaction between the sex of the parent responding to the inventory and membership in the experimental or control groups. The thirteen analyses of variance revealed no sig nificant interaction between sex and group membership in any of the scales, therefore H (Ic) could not be rejected. Sex differences at the .05 level of significance were observed in only two of the scales. These were: Scale 3 (Rejection) and Scale 13 (Honesty-Pain), as presented in Table IX. O n both these scales the fathers made significantly higher scores than the mothers; these F-ratios not only attained the .05 level, but fell only a little short of the .01 lev el, and may indicate tendencies of considerable interest. When, however, the experimental and control group parents were studied separately on these two scales, the tendency of fathers to make higher scores than mothers did not appear highly significant. Moreover, the direction of the differ ence was the same in the case of the parents of non-stutter ers as in the experimental group. 51 TA B LE 9 M E A N SC O R ES O F FA TH ER S A N D M O T H E R S O N SCA LES 3 A N D 13 Experimental Group Control Group Scale No. Fathers Mothers p (t) Fathers Mothers p (t) 3 8. 42 7.81 N S 8.88 7.68 N S 13 7. 24 5.95 .05 7. 39 6.64 N S H (Id): The interscale correlation coefficients will not demonstrate the existence of any independ ent "factors" which would group the thirteen scales into two or more distinctive clusters. The Factor Analyses Factor Analysis I The interscale correlation matrix is presented in Table 10. It will be noted that, with few exceptions, the correlations among the scales are positive. This suggested that a general factor, measured by most or all of the scales, might be present. A factor analysis was performed in order to identify this general factor and any other fac tors which might be present. The correlation matrix was therefore factored by the "grouping" method (Cattell, 1952). This yielded two fac tors , which were rotated orthogonally to the position shown in Table 11. The magnitude of the second-factor residuals, TABLE 10 M A T R IX O F IN TER SC A LE C O R R E L A T IO N S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 .150 3 -.305 .185 4 .091 .567 .440 5 -.177 .407 .478 .484 6 .088 .468 .380 .641 .390 7 .261 .484 .310 .592 .383 .463 8 .100 .568 .411 .661 .478 .592 .526 9 .160 .231 -.006 .136 .229 -.005 .209 .231 10 .093 .318 .367 .481 .376 .346 .470 .524 .171 11 -.421 .16 3 .520 .317 ,514 .345 .112 .320 -.035 .179 12 .160 .137 -.140 .078 -.058 .040 .066 .096 .222 .050 -.206 13 .128 .509 .371 .622 .471 .546 .567 .574 .132 .465 .254 .090 53 TABLE 11 RESU LTS O F FA C TO R ANALYSIS, INTERSCALE CO RRELA TIO N S SC A LE FA C TO R I LO A D IN G S II C O M M U N A L - ITIES 1. Lie-Social Acceptability .18 -.70 .52 2. Overprotection .68 -.12 .48 3. Rejection .i+7 .+ 48 .45 4. Condemnation . 85 .04 .72 5. Level of Aspiration .58 .42 .52 6. Parental Sex Inhibition .72 .07 .52 7. Par. Aggression Inhib. .69 -.10 .49 8. Par. Messing Inhibition .79 .07 .63 9. Par. Social Responsibil. .21 -.06 . 05 10. Par. Respect-Child Disres. .58 . 07 . 34 11. Par. Security (Anxiety) .34 . 75 .67 12. Mother-Father Dominance .10 -.32 . 11 13. Honesty-Pain .76 .03 .57 presented in Table 12, shows that these two factors account for most of the interscale correlations. There was some suggestion of a possible third factor involving Scales 9 and 12, but it was so slight that its extraction was not justified. T A B L E 12 SE C O N D -FA C T O R R ESID U A LS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 -.054 3 -.053 -.077 4 -.035 -.006 .025 5 .013 .059 .000 -.026 6 .006 -.014 .010 .027 -.058 7 .069 .000 .032 .008 .019 -.029 8 .003 .037 .009 -.011 -.011 .019 -.016 9 .079 .082 -.073 -.038 .133 .151 .058 .071 10 .036 .070 .062 .013 .008 -.076 .074 .061 .054 11 .039 .019 .000 .001 .000 .050 -.051 .002 -.059 -.069 12 -.082 .035 -.028 .011 .024 -.085 -.031 .043 .182 .018 -.260 13 .012 .003 .003 -.018 .019 .001 .046 -.024 -.02 3 .025 -.022 .02 8 cn ■ P 55 Parental domination factor.—The first factor proved to be not quite a general factor, since three scales (Nos. 1, 9, and 12) had relatively small loadings. The high load ings, which may be used to identify the nature of the fac tor, were those of Scales 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 13 (Overprotec tion, Condemnation, Parental Inhibitions, and the "Honesty- Pain" scale, which relates to scolding and punishment). It was also related, to a lesser extent, to Scales 3, 5, 10, and 11 (Rejection, Level of Aspiration, and Parental Re- spect-Child Disrespect, and Parental Security-Anxiety). As such, it would appear to provide the basis for a First Fac tor Score based on these ten scales, especially if they were purged of contrary items and augmented by additional posi tively-correlated items. To a great extent this First Fac tor Score would measure what the inventory measured as a whole, especially the three types of parental inhibition, scolding and punishment, and excessive interference with the child, therefore this First Factor was termed Parental Domi nation . Parental Adjustment Factor.—The second factor was bipolar, with Scale 1 (Lie-Social Acceptability) at the neg ative pole and Scale 11 (Parental Security/Anxiety) at the positive pole. Three other scales had secondary loadings on this factor: Scales 3 and 5 (Rejection and Level of Aspira tion) were positive, while Scale 12 (Mother-Father Domi 56 nance) was negatively loaded. This factor seems to refer less to the parent-child relationship and more to the par ents' adjustment to themselves, to each other, and to soci ety. It was therefore named Parental Adjustment. Factor Analysis II A second factor analysis was performed on the aug mented matrix formed by the thirteen scales and the nine bi ographical variables (age, sex, education, income, et cet era). From these twenty-two variables twelve factors were extracted by the principal-components method, and rotated by the computer to a Varimax solution (Harman, 1960). This solution is presented in Table 12. A major first factor ("A") was identified, and the same ten scales again were found to be those most highly loaded. Am ong the biographical variables only numbers 19 and 20 (Father's and Mother's Education) were positively loaded on this factor. Factors J, K, and L had no loadings of .30 or more, and were judged to be error factors. Factors E through I had only an occasional loading for one variable or another. Such results are not, as a rule, taken as conclusive. They may be artifacts of the factoring and rotational procedures, or may result from sampling bias due to the small size of the sample. Of the remaining factors, "D" has four large loadings among the scale variables (Scales 1, 3, 5, and 11). This appears to be the same bipolar "Parental Adjustment" 57 TA B LE 13 R O TA TED FACTORS, CO RRELA TIO N S A M O N G SCA LES A N D C O N T R O L V A RIA BLES (V A R IM A X SOLUTION) Variable N o A B C D E F G Lie-Social Acceptability 1 -.22 -.27 + .12 + .67 -.13 -.04 .06 Overprotection 2 -.65 .07 .02 .01 -.18 -.23 - .12 Rejection 3 -.47 .14 -.02 -.53 . 05 . 18 .02 Condemnat ion 4 -.82 . 05 -.09 -.11 .00 -.05 — .13 Level of Aspiration 5 -.53 -.03 .01 -.51 -.30 -.04 .06 Par. Sex Inhib. 6 -.71 -.10 -.05 -.14 . 19 -.06 — . 34 Par. Aggr. Inhib. 7 -.77 -.03 . 00 .11 -.11 -.07 .15 Par. Mess. Inhib. 8 -.74 .05 .06 -.14 0 0 1 — 1 • 1 .04 0 0 C M • Par. Soc. Resp. 9 -.17 -.08 -.08 .05 -.61 -.02 .01 Par. Respect 10 -.61 .17 .20 -.02 -.19 .23 .01 Par. Security 11 -.27 .07 .00 -.71 .01 -.02 - .10 M ot he r- Fat he r D om . 12 -.06 -.08 -.08 . 19 -.18 .10 .04 Honesty-Pain 13 -.77 -.12 .09 -.11 .02 .08 .06 Father*s Age 14 -.02 -.87 .07 .12 -.07 -.06 - .05 Mother's Age 15 -.01 -.82 .03 . 11 -.03 -.04 — . 01 Number of Children 16 . 05 .06 .07 -.05 -.01 .63 .02 Sex of Child 17 .13 . 00 .44 . 03 -.24 .10 . 03 Age of Child 18 -.18 -.34 . 34 . 12 .20 . 34 — .03 Father's Educ. 19 .42 -.03 -.32 -.07 .04 -.12 .49 Mother's Educ. 20 . 30 -.26 -.29 .06 -.17 -.01 . 11 Income 21 .14 -.53 -.40 . 10 .00 .03 .26 Group (Exp = 1) 22 -.03 -.03 .64 . 06 .14 . 05 — . 05 58 TA B LE 13—Continued Variable N o H I J K L Lie-Social Acceptability 1 .04 -.03 -.05 -.02 -.02 Overprotection 2 -.35 .18 .03 .11 -.03 Rejection 3 .11 -.14 .15 -.10 .06 Condemnation 4 -.04 .00 -.04 -.03 .10 Level of Aspiration 5 -.05 -.09 -.07 . 13 .01 Par. Sex Inhib. 6 -.03 -.09 -.07 . 01 -.07 Par. Aggr. Inhib. 7 .08 -.02 .08 -.05 o . 1 Par. Hess. Inhib. 8 i . o 0 0 . 08 -.02 -.14 i — I o * 1 Par. Soc. Resp • 9 . 06 .18 .02 .00 .00 Par. Respect 10 -.22 -.03 .25 .01 .02 Par. Security 11 -.03 -.18 -.06 -.02 -.04 M ot he r-Fat he r D om . 12 -.02 .46 .00 -.01 .00 Honesty-Pain 13 -.05 .13 -.11 .07 .00 Fathers Age 14 . 06 .05 .00 -.02 .02 Mother’s Age 15 .12 .08 . 01 . 01 -.03 Number of Children 16 .00 .08 .01 . 00 .00 Sex of Child 17 -.17 -.14 . 02 .18 .00 Age of Child 18 -.07 -.10 -.26 -.02 .02 Father's Educ. 19 .25 -.15 .00 -.01 -.02 Mother’s Educ. 20 . 55 -.01 .01 .01 .00 Income 21 -.09 -.06 -.11 . 05 .01 Group (Exp = 1) 22 -.04 -.01 -.02 -.06 .00 59 factor identified in the first factor analysis. None of the biographical variables had a meaningful loading on this fac tor. Factors B and C are evidently biographical factors; B relates primarily to the ages of the parents, with lower loadings for the parents' income and the age of the child. Factor C is bipolar; at one pole are the parents' levels of education and income, while at the other are the child's sex and age, and whether he is a stutterer or not. The socio economic differences between the experimental and control parents should be remembered in this connection: the nega tive relationship between socio-economic level and stu tter ing may be to some extent an artifact brought about by the selection methods (Chapter III). Discrimination between Groups on the Basis of the Factor Scores The responses of the experimental and control groups on the ten scales most highly loaded on Factor A (Parental Domination) and the five scales most highly loaded on Factor B (Parental Adjustment) were compared to determine the dis criminating power of the two factors. Factor A was composed of Scales 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 13, making a total of 16 2 items. The mean for the experimental group was 81.84, and the mean for the con trol group was 80.96. The difference between means of 0.88 60 did not approach significance at the .05 level of confidence. Factor B included Scales 1, 3, 5, 11, and 12, making a total of 76 items. Scales 1 and 12 were reversed, since they were negatively loaded on this bipolar factor. The mean for the experimental group was 14.19, and the mean for the control group was 14.12. The difference between means of 0.07 also did not approach significance at the *05 level of confidence. The Item Scores The items composing the Research Inquiry Form were first given to a panel of thirty-four expert judges, who responded on a five-point scale ranging from "always" to "never." Half of these judges played the role of a parent of a stuttering child, while the other half played that of a parent of non-stutterers. The two sets of responses were combined and then dichotomized as near to their median as the integral frequencies would permit. This yielded a four fold frequency table, from which it was possible to deter mine whether the item, so dichotomized, discriminated sig nificantly between parents of stuttering children and par ents of non-stuttering children, as role-played by the judges. This procedure is described in more detail in Chap ter III. 61 Scoring of the Responses Every item on the questionnaire was so scored that the response which was judged to be more characteristic of the parent of a stuttering child received a value of 1, This response was called the ’ ’expected" response. The five possible replies to each question ranged from "always" through "never," but were dichotomized so as to yield either "yes" or "no" as the keyed answer. The point of dichotomy varied from item to item, but the "yes" answer referred to the "always" end of this response range, while "no" denoted the "never" end. For some items, the expected response was "yes," for others, "no." That is, the value of 1 was some times assigned to the "yes" and sometimes to the "no" response. H (II): The mean item scores of the experimental group will be greater than the mean item scores of the control group. The experimental group obtained a significantly higher score than did the control group on twenty-nine of the 17 3 items contained in the inventory. In other words, on those twenty-nine items, the experimental group's re sponses were in the direction predicted by the judges and fell beyond the established point of dichotomy significantly more often than did those of the control group (See Appendix J ) . A significant reversal of predicted response 62 occurred on thirty items in the inventory. If the response expected from the experimental group is called the "E" re sponse, then a reversal occurs when more of the control group than the experimental group give the "E" response. These thirty items discriminated significantly between the experimental and control groups, but in the direction oppo site of that predicted by the judges. The expected answer, and the point of dichotomy, for each item of the scale are given in Appendix J, which also presents the frequency in each group which gave the expected response, and information regarding the significance and di rectionality of the difference between the groups. Analysis of Individual Items The organization of the items into thirteen scales is here retained in presenting those items which discrimi nated significantly between the experimental and control groups. This is for convenience only, and should not be taken to imply validity or reliability for the scales. The minimum level of significance used for item selection was a probability value less than .10 since this was an exploratory study and it seemed desirable to uncover any trends which might lead to the formulation of further hypotheses. The probability values were obtained by use of the chi-square test and are all one-tailed values since the experimental group was "expected" to exceed the control group in every case. Where the difference is significant, 63 but in the direction opposite to that expected, the result is called a reversal. The item content is accompanied by the level of significance in parentheses. The point of dichotomy is indicated by a diagonal line separating two adjacent response points on the continuum of 1 (always), 2 (frequently), 3 (sometimes), 4 (seldom), and 5 (never). The "expected1 1 response of the experimental group as predicted by the judges is underlined for each item. Scale 1; Lie-Social Acceptability (5 significant items) Item 13: D o you A (1/2 3 4 5) N read all about current events? (.07) 61: Are your manners A (1/2 3 4 5) N as good at home as they are out in company? (.08) 69: D o you A (1 2/3 4 5) N get angry at your child? (.02) 75: D o you A (1 2/3 4 5) N become irritable when you are not feeling well? (.06) Reversal 12 6: D o you A (1 2/3 4 5) N refrain from talking about people behind their back? (R, .03) Scale 2: Overprotection (5 significant items) Item 9: D o you think that it is A (1/2 3 4 5) N your responsibility to approve what your child reads ? (.005 ) 28: D o you A (1/2 3 4 5) N kiss or hug your child Scale 3: Item 64 when you part for short periods of time? (.05) Reversals 21: D o you feel that your child will A (1 2 3/4 5) N need your help in choosing proper com panions? (R, .02) 38: D o you feel that you should A (1 2/3 4 5) N direct your child so that he will make some thing of himself? (R, .05) 76: D o you A (1 2 3 4/5) N feel that your baby "grew up" too rapidly? (R, .02) Rejection (9 significant items) 26: During your child's first three years were you A(12 3 4/5) N away from him for more than a day at a time? (.0002) 45: D o you feel that a child will A (1 2/3 4 5) N be spoiled if he gets his way when he's small? (.002) 90: D o you A (1 2 3/4 5) N find it difficult to express your feelings to people you love? (.04) Reversals 62: D o physical expressions of affection A (1 2 3 4/5) N disturb you? (R, .05) 64: D o you A (1 2 3/4 5) N punish your child by confining him to his room? (R, .002) Scale 4: Item 65 65: D o you A (1 2 3/4 5) N have the feeling that your child pesters you when he knows you're busy? (R, .005) 74: During your child's first three years did you A (1 2 3/4 5) N think it difficult to meet his demands for attention? (R, .09) 86: Did you A (1 2 3 4/5) N resent the responsi bility of feeding your baby? (R, .05) 157: D o you A (1 2 3 4/5) N feel that your spouse loves your children more than you? (R, .04) Condemnation (5 significant items) 9: D o you think that it is A (1/2 3 4 5) N your responsibility to approve what your child reads? (.00 5) 40: D o you feel that a good scolding A (1 2/3 4 5) N works better than other means of disci pline with your child? (.03) 14 3: D o you feel that you should A (1 2 3/4 5) N te ll your child he is bad as a disciplinary m e as ure ? (.02) Reversals 15: D o you feel that your child should A (1 2/3 4 5)N be permitted to talk whenever he wishes? (R, .01) 15 8: D o you A (1 2 3/4 5) N worry about what other Scale 5: Item Scale 6: I te m 66 people are thinking of you? (R, .0001) Level of Aspiration and Ego Involvement (5 signif- icant items; 24: D o you feel that your child should A (1 2/3 4 5) N follow your advice as to the really im portant things in life? (.07) 131: D o you feel that your child should A (1 2 3/4 5) N be especially nice to people who can im prove his position? (.09) Reversals 18: D o you A (1 2 3 4/5) N punish your child more when he misbehaves in public than when he misbehaves at home? (R, .002) 38: D o you feel that you should A (1 2/3 4 5) N direct your child so that he will make some thing of himself? (R, .05) 138: D o you A (1 2 3/4 5) N feel that your child should learn to act like an adult as soon as possible? (R, .02) Parental Sex Inhibition (2 significant items) 9: D o you think it is A (1/2 3 4 5) N your re sponsibility to approve what your child reads? (.0 05) Reversal 12 0: D o sexual matters A (1 2 3 4/5) N disgust you? (R, .03) 67 Scale 7; Parental Aggression Inhibition (5 significant items)- Item 55: D o you A C l 2/3 4 5) feel guilty about get ting angry with your child? (.005) 114: D o you A (1 2/3 4 5) N hold back your angry feelings? (.05) Reversals 6: D o you A (1 2/3 4 5) N teach your child that it isn't nice to get angry at people? (R, .03) 44: D o you A (1/2 3 4 5) N feel that it is normal for a child to get angry? (R, .04) 73: D o you A (1 2 3/4 5) N punish your child when he interrupts you? (R, .06) Scale 8: Parental Messing Inhibition (one significant item) Reversal Item 164: Does the sight of a bowel movement A (12 3 4/5) N bother you? (R, .02) Scale 9: Parental Social Responsibility (6 significant items) Item 29: D o you A (1 2/3 4 5) N socialize with your neighbors? (.04) Reversals 3: Are you A (1 2/3 4 5) N willing to help or assist needy groups or causes? (R, .07) 18 : Do you A (1 2 3 4/5) N p u n is h y o u r c h i l d more Scale 10: Item Item Scale 11 I te m 68 when he misbehaves in public than when he misbehaves at home? (R, .002) 30: D o you A (1 2/3 4 5) N entertain socially in your home? (R, .09) 37: Are you A (1 2 3/4 5) N active in P.T.A. or other community or civil organizations? (R, . 0 2 ) Parental Respect-Child Disrespect (4 significant items) 78: D o you feel that your child should A (1 2 3/4 5) N be consulted regarding family decisions? (.05) 151: D o you feel that your child A (1 2 3/4 5) N has the right to criticize you? (.0 3) Reversals 33: D o you A (1/2 3 4 5) N insist that your child say "please” and "thank you" to grown-ups? (R, .09) 73: Do you A (123/4 5) N punish your child when he interrupts you? (R, ,06) Parental Security (Anxiety) (6 significant items) 81: D o you A (1 2 3/4 5) N have difficulty get ting started when you have a lot to do? (.05) 1 4 9 : Do y o u A ( 1 2 3 / 4 5) N f e e l t h a t y o u r s p o u s e Scale 12 Item Scale 13 I te m 69 neglects you? (.10) 15 0: D o you A (1 2/3 4 5) N feel that you have more problems than other people? (.10) 154: D o you A (1 2J 3 4 5 ) N feel hurt when others criticize you? (.06) 166: Is it A (1 2 3/4 5) N difficult for you to express such emotions as affection, sorrow, or anger? (.07) 168: D o you A (1 2 3/4 5) N feel nervous or frus trated? (.05) Mother-Father Dominance (4 significant items) 130: Are you A (l_/2 3 4 5 ) N consulted before your spouse arranges to go out alone? (.005) Reversals 16: D o you A (1 2 3/4 5) N turn over the disci plining problems to your spouse? (R, .09) 98: D o you A (1 2 3/4 5) N buy things without first consulting your spouse? (R, .02) 104: Are you A (1 2/3 4 5) N a leader rather than a follower? (R, .05) ; Honesty-Pain (2 significant items) 27: Would you A (1 2/3 4 5) N scold or punish your child for telling you that he has taken money from your wallet? (.03) 5 6 : Would y o u A ( 1 2 / 3 4 5) N s c o l d y o u r c h i l d 70 for telling you that he has taken someone else's toy? (.05) CHAPTER V INTERPRETATION O F TH E D A T A The Scales As a classificatory devise, the 17 3 items were as signed to one or more of thirteen scales, each of which was thought to be representative of a parental attitude con struct. W hen the data gathered from the experimental and control parents were treated statistically, the scales were found to (1) possess low intra-scale homogeneity, and (2) demonstrate poor discrimination between groups. The re liability coefficients of all thirteen scales, as measured by Kuder-Richardson tests of internal consistency, fell short of the required value. N o significant differences were found relative to H (la) mean scale scores, H (lb) in- trafamilial consistency, or H (Ic) sex and group membership when the experimental and control groups were compared. Since this was an exploratory study, and both the item analysis and the factor analysis yielded results some what in support of further development of the inventory, it seemed worthwhile to investigate the structure of the scales more closely. Several possible explanations for low scale 71 72 homogeneity and discrimination were seen. The scales were composed of a mixture of positively and negatively related items which were not consistent in their measurement of the same attitudinal universe of con tent. As the interscale correlation coefficients indicated, the items were assigned to an excessive number of attitudin al constructs. A somewhat related problem was the assign ment of items to more than one scale; of the 17 3 items in the inventory, twenty-seven were scored for more than one scale. In Scale 9 (Parental Social Responsibility), for example, three of the thirteen itepis scored for this scale were duplications from other scales. Internal consistency is in essence a matter of repeated measurement of the same tra it or of a closely-knit complex of tra its. With a larger number of positively correlated items than were found in these scales, a higher level of homogeneity might have been achieved. The results of the Factor Analyses isolated two di mensions explored by the RIF Inventory. The substantial correlations among many of the scales; particularly those comprising Factor A, in which none of the r's fell below .5, and the communalities calculated from these correlational clusters, strongly suggest that the two factors represent genuine sources of variance between the experimental and control groups. The failure of these factors to discrimi nate between the two groups may be a function of the low 73 internal consistency of the scales from which they were derived. The Items Of the 17 3 items composing the inventory, 5 9 dis criminated between the experimental and control groups at or beyond the .10 level of significance. O n 29 items, the experimental group's responses were in the direction pre dicted by the judges significantly more often than those of the control group. To the extent that these items were valid, the following interpretations of the data can be made : W hen compared with parents of non-stutterers, the parents of stutterers significantly: 1. Express anger toward their children less often and when they do, they feel more guilty. 2. Feel more often that a good scolding works better than other means of discipline; and that parents should tell their children they are bad as a disciplinary measure. 3. Become less irritable when not feeling well but feel more nervous and frustrated in general. 4. Feel more responsible for choosing what their children read. 5. Spend less time away from their children wben t h e y a re s m a l l , k i s s o r hug t h e i r c h i l d r e n when t h e y p a r t 74 for short periods more often, yet experience more difficulty in expressing affection. 6. Feel significantly more often that small chil dren will be spoiled i f they get th eir way. 7. Less often feel that children should be con sulted regarding family decisions and less often feel that children have the right to criticize their parents. Thirty of the 59 discriminating items were rever sals; that is , significantly more of the control group gave the predicted response than did the experimental group. W hen these reversals were scattered among items which yielded results in the expected direction they brought the scale means of the two groups closer together, thus reducing the discriminating power of the scale scores. Reversals may have reflected judgmental errors or may have indicated denial responses from the parents due to de fensiveness. Limitations of the Investigation Of the 17 3 items of the RIF Inventory, 114 failed to discriminate between the experimental and control groups. The following factors related to item and scale construc tion, the use and scoring of expert judgments and sampling procedures may have limited the assessment of differences in attitude between parents of stutterers and parents of non stutterers : 75 1. Some of the items were awkwardly or ambiguously phrased, especially when the "always 1-5 never" indication had been inserted. 2. The inventory items were originally written as statements. In several of the items the change to question form and/or the insertion of the phrase "always 1-5 never" gave rise to a double negative at one end of the response scale which might have been confusing. 3. To avert the possibility of formation of a re sponse set, the expected response should have been "yes" on half of the items and "no" on the other half in random order. This was not the case in the present study, in which "yes" responses were expected for the majority of the items. 4. The mean responses of the two groups may have been similar because some of the items dealt with specific parental practices rather than assessing feelings. 5. Because of the predictive responses of the expert judges, the point of dichotomy selected for keying the item responses was too often placed toward the extremes of the continuum (1.5 if keyed toward "yes," or 4.5 if keyed toward "no"). Items scored in this way may have masked existing differences between experimental and control group responses. 6. Greater care should have been taken to match the experimental and control groups as to educational level and socio-economic status. Perhaps the fact that the control 76 parents in this study were drawn from Parent-Teacher Associ ation and nursery school groups and did differ from the experimental group in education and yearly income may have affected the test results. CHAPTER VI SU M M A R Y , CONCLUSIONS, A N D R E C O M M E N D A T IO N S FO R FU R TH ER R ESEA R C H Summary The present study was undertaken in an effort to explore several potentially relevant areas of parental atti' tude and parent-child interaction as they related to the problem of stuttering in children. The purpose of the investigation was to perform a comparative and descriptive analysis of selected attitudes of parents of stutterers and parents of non-stutterers based on the assumption that dif ferences of expressed attitude would be found between the two groups studied. A 17 3-item attitude inventory was constructed using selected psychodynamic theories as criteria for item selec tion. Each item was assigned to one or more of thirteen homogeneous-seeming scales. A panel of thirty-four psycho logically sophisticated judges evaluated the items, providing a system of scoring and a predicted direction of response for the experimental and control groups. Hypoth eses were formulated from the predictive judgments of the 77 78 experts for both the scale scores and the individual item scores. The 17 3 items were randomized and presented to forty-five pairs of parents of stutterers (experimental group) and to forty-five pairs of parents of children with normal speech (control group) as the Research Inquiry Form. The upper age limit for the children of both groups was eight years, 0 months. None of the parents had participated in either psychotherapy or parent counseling, nor had they been professionally or educationally exposed to speech pathology or psychology. The control group proved to be somewhat superior in level of parental education and in family income. The reliability coefficients for the thirteen scales of the inventory indicated that the individual scales did not possess sufficient internal consistency to justify the use of thirteen subscores. Accordingly, no significance could be attached to the scale scores of the two groups and, therefore to their interaction as seen in the tests of the research hypotheses. Factor analysis revealed the presence of two dimen sions which were tentatively named Parental Dominance and Parental Adjustment. The responses of the experimental and control groups to the scales most highly loaded on these two factors were compared and no significant differences were found. 79 Of the 17 3 individual items in the inventory, fifty- nine, or over one-third, discriminated significantly between the experimental and control groups. O n twenty-nine items the parents of stutterers responded significantly as pre dicted by the judges. There were thirty items yielding sig nificant response differences in the unexpected direction. These reversals of expectation occurred when significantly more of the control group than the experimental group re sponded to items in the direction predicted by the judges. A n item analysis was conducted to study group re sponses to significant individual items. Tentative explana tions which may have accounted for group response differ ences and similarities were presented. Conclusions The predictions around which this investigation was designed could not be substantiated since the instrument used to measure attitudes was found to have insufficient reliability and questionable validity. All 13 scales were found to possess low intrascale homogeneity and to demonstrate poor discrimination between groups. The investigator was unable to demonstrate satisfac torily that the individual items actually assessed the par ental attitude constructs which they were assigned. While two dimensions were isolated by factor analy- 80 sis, comparison of responses to scales highly loaded on these factors failed to reveal significant differences be tween groups. However, the substantial correlations among many of the scales and the communalities calculated from these correlational clusters strongly suggest that the two factors represent genuine sources of variance in parental attitudes. Further development of the inventory might well be based on these factors rather than upon the original scale constructs. A by-product of this investigation which cannot be overlooked is that the predictions of the thirty-four psy chologically sophisticated judges were wrong l*+4 times and correct only twenty-nine times. Whether the judges' opini ons regarding the correlates of stuttering were accurate, but not likely to be confirmed when presented to parents of stutterers; or, whether the judges were in fact inaccurate in many instances, must remain unanswered on the basis of the obtained data. Recommendations for Further Research Considerably more research is necessary before the relation of parental attitudes to stuttering behavior can be determined definitively. Recommendations for Further Development o£ the Research Inquiry Form 1. The two factor scores revealed in the factor 81 analysis could be used as a basis for the deletion and addi tion of potentially significant items to increase the dis crimination and homogeneity of the inventory. The revised inventory could be administered to a new parent population to establish reliability and validity of responses for the purpose of developing a discriminative predictive instrument. 2. Improvement of the overt Lie Scale and develop ment of a Defensiveness Scale seem indicated to define the dissimulation factor implied by the large number of reversal items found in the present study. 3. A revised system of scoring the responses of subjects should be established which eliminates predictive judgments and predetermined points of dichotomy. Recommendations for Further Investigation of Parental' Attitude Related to Stuttering 1. A study should be designed to assess defensive ness in parents of stutterers in which two groups of parents of stutterers would be exposed to test situations of varying threat potential. 2. A n intensive investigation should be conducted of the inter-relationship between parental attitude and the expression of hostility by members of families in which there is a stuttering child. 3. The question whether parents of stutterers 82 actually feel more uncomfortable when punishing their chil dren than when scolding them; or are simply less inclined to admit to punishing their children in a testing situation should be explored further. This might be accomplished by the construction of an extensive inventory in which only those items germane to the question would be scored. These items could be offered in different forms with the only actual variables being the concepts of scolding or punish ing. B I B L I O G R A P H Y 83 BIBLIOGRAPHY Abbott, Thomas B. A study of observable mother-child rela tionships in stuttering and non-stuttering groups. Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 1957. Ackerman, Nathan W . The principle of shared responsibility of child-rearing. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 195 7 , 280-291. Baldwin, Alfred L. Socialization and the parent-child rela tionship. Child Development, 1948, JL9, 127-136 . Baldwin, A. L., J. Kalhoun, and F. H. Breese. Patterns of parent behavior. Psychological Monographs, 1945, 5 _ 8 _ » 1-75. Becky, R. E. A study of certain factors related to retard ation of speech. Journal of Speech Disorders, 1942, 2, 223-249. Bird, C. Social psychology. N ew York: Appleton-Century- ird, C. Social psychology. Crofts, 1940. Brody, S y lv ia . P a tte r n s o f m o th er in g . New York: Interna t i o n a l U n i v e r s it i e s P r e s s , 3 j?56. Broida, Helen. A n empirical study of sex-role identifica tion and sex-role preference in a selected group of stuttering male children. Unpublished Doctoral dis sertation, University of Southern California, 1962. Bullen, A. A. A crosscultural approach to the problems of stammering. Child Development, 1945 , 16.» 1-88. Cantril, H. Gauging public opinion. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1944. Cattell, Raymond B. Factor analysis. New York: Harper and Bros., 1952. Champney, Horace. The variables of parent behavior. Jour nal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1941, 36 , 84 85 5 2 5 - 5 4 2 . Darley, F. L. The relationship of parental attitudes and adjustments to the development of stuttering, in Stuttering in children and adults. Wendell Johnson (Ed.). Minneapolis: university of Minnesota Press, 1955, pp. 74-153. Despert, J. L. Psychosomatic study of fifty stuttering children. Round Table I: Social, physical and psy chiatric findings. American Journal of Orthopsychi atry, 1946, 16_, 10 0-113. — Duncan, Melba H. H om e adjustment of stutterers versus non- stutterers. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disor- ders, 1949, lT^ 255-259. Edwards, Allen L. Statistical analysis. N ew York: Rine hart and Company, Inc., 191+6, pp. 34 0-341. Edwards, Allen L. Techniques of attitude scale construc tion . N ew York: Appleton-Century-Crofts Inc., T557. Glasner, P. J. Personality characteristics and emotional problems in stutterers under the age of five. Jour nal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 1949, 14, 135- TW. Goldman, Ronald, and George Shames. A study of goal-setting behavior of parents of stutterers and parents of non-stutterers. Journal of Speech and Hearing Dis orders , 1964a, 29, 192-194. Goldman, Ronald, and George Shames. Comparisons of the goals that parents of stutterers and parents of non- stutterers set for their children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 19 64b, TiT, 3 81-3 89. Goodstein, L. D. M M PI profiles of stutterers' parents: a follow-up study. Journal of Speech and Hearing Dis orders , 1956, 2_1, 4 30-4 35. Goodstein, L. D., and W . G . Dahlstrom. M M PI differences be tween parents of stuttering and non-stuttering chil- dren. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1956, 2 0_ Green, Burt. Attitude measurement in Handbook of social psychology. G . Lindzey (Ed.). Cambridge: Addxson- Wecley fuolications, 1954, pp. 335-369. 86 Guilford, J. P. Fundamental statistics in Dsychology and education" N ew York: Mcdraw, 195 0. Guttman, L. A basis for scaling qualitative data. American Social Review, 1944, 139-150. Guttman, L. The Cornell technique for scale and intensity analysis. Educational Psychology Measurement, 1947, 7 _ , 247-280. Harman, Harry H. Modem factor analysis. Chicago: Univer sity of Chicago ^ress, 1960. Johnson, Wendell. A study of the onset and development of stuttering. Journal of Speech Disorders, 1942, 7, 251-257. Johnson, W., R, M . Boehmler, W . G . Dahlstrom, et a l. The onset of stuttering: research findings and implica tions . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1959. Kinstler, Donald B. A n experimental study of the role of covert and overt maternal rejection and acceptance in the etiology of stuttering. Doctoral disserta tion, University of Southern California, 1959. La Follette, A. C. Parental environment of stuttering chil dren. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 1956, 21, 202-7U7. Lewis, W . D. Influence of parental attitudes on children’s personal inventory scores. Journal of Genetic Psy chology, 1945 , 67_, 193-201. Likert, R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 1932, No. 140, 55 pp. Lorr, M., and R. L. Jenkins. Patterns of maladjustment in children. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 195 3, 9, 16-19. Maccoby, Eleanor E., and N. Maccoby. The interview: a tool of social science. In Handbook of social psychol ogy . G . Lindzey (Ed.). Cambridge: Addison-Wesley, 1954, pp. 449-487. McCarthy, Dorothea. Language disorder and parent-child re lationships. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disor ders, 1954 , 19 ,'"5IV^523.----- ------- ------------------------ ------------- 87 Merrill, B. A measurement of mother-child interaction. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1946, 41, 31- 1 +5 . Moncur, John. Parental domination in stuttering. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 1952 , 17_, lfes-lfes. Peckarsky, A. K. Maternal attitudes towards children with psychogenically delayed speech. Unpublished doc toral dissertation, N ew York University, 195 3. Read, K . H. Parents1 expressed attitudes and children's behavior. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1945, 2, 95-100. Remmers, H. H. An introduction to opinion and attitude measurement. N ew York: Harper, 1954. Richardson, M . W., and G. F. Kuder. The calculation of test reliability coefficients based upon the method of rational equivalence. Journal of Educational Psy chology , 1939, 3 j0 , 681-687. Seashore, R. H., and Kate Hevner. A time-saving device for the construction of attitude scales. Journal of Social Psychology, 1933 , 4 _ , 366-372. Stouffer, S. A. In Riley, M., etal. Sociological studies in scale analysis. N ew Brunswick, N.^7: Rutgers University Press, 1954. Thurstone, L. L. A law of comparative judgment. Psycholog ical Review, 1927a, _ 3 4 ^ , 273-286. Thurstone, L. L. Psychophysical analysis. American Journal of Psychology, 1927b, 3 jJ_ , 368-389. Thurstone, L. L. Comment. American Journal of Sociology, 1946 , 52_, 39-50. Thurstone, L. L., and E. J. Chave. The measurement of a tti tudes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1929. Torgerson, Warren S. Theory and methods of scaling. N ew York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 19i>3. Travis, Lee Edward. Handbook of speech pathology. N ew York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1957. Wang, K. A. Suggested criteria for writing attitude state ments. Journal of Social Psychology, 1932, 3, 367- 373. 88 Wiley, John H. A scale to measure parental attitudes toward certain aspects of children's behavior. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1950. Wilson, Donald M . A study of the personalities of stutter ing children and their parents as revealed through projective tests. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1950. Wyatt, Gertrude L. Mother-child relationships and stutter ing in children. Doctoral dissertation, Boston University Graduate School, 195 8. APPENDIXES 89 APPENDIX A DIAGNOSTIC INQUIRY F O R M 90 FORM IX d i a g n o s t i c i n q u i r y f o r m Speoch-Hoaring Clinlo University of Southern California This f o m consists of numbered, questions, There are five (5) possible choices for each question ranging from alm nm - b o never ( I. always, 2. frequently, 3. sometimes, seldom, 5- never). Read each question and decide which word best ap applies to you. You are to mark your answers on the answer sheet provided; not on the form. On the answer sheet there are five columns headed 1 _ , 2, ^ which correspond to the words always, frequently, sometimes. seldom, never in that order. If, for a given question., always best applies to you, blacken between the lines in the column headed 1_ (see A below) • If frequently best applies to you, blacken between the lines in the column headed 2 (see B below), etc. Section of answer sheet correctly marked Remember to give YOUR CWN opinion and be as honest with yourself as you can. Try to answer every question. Use the elect re graphic pencil provided only; do not use your own pencil. In marking your answers on the answer sheet, be sure that the number on the question agrees with the number on the answer sheet. Make your marks heavy and black. Erase completely any answer you wish to change. Do not make any marks on this form. NOW TURN THE PAGE AND BEGIN. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. a. 9. 19. 1 1. 1 2. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17- 18. 19. 2 0. 2 1. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39- Do you always 1—5 never donate to charity? Is your child always 1-5 never fearful of situations in which he might be hurt? Does your child*s speech problem, always 1—5 never become more severe when he is frustrated in his speech attempts? Do you always 1—5 never keep your house neat and clean? Does your child 1—5 never have temper tantrums? Do you, rather than your husband, always 1— 5 never handle the money matters in the family? If your child seriously misbehaved, would you always 1—5 never leave the dis ciplining to your husband? Do you feel that you can always 1—5 never tell when your child is thinking of doing something wrong?. During jcttf child's first three years did you alwavs 1— 5 never scold him for hitting otner children? Is it always 1—5 never important to you that your child be neat and clean? Do you always 1—5 never tell your child his speech is different? Are you always 1—5 never willing to help or assist needy groups and causes? Is your child always 1-5 never afraid to try new activities or skills? Does your child always 1—5 neve it fight with other children? Do you always 1—5 never feel that your child could speak plainly if he wanted to ? Do you always 1—5 never treat your child severely when he doesn't tell the truth? Do you feel that a child should always 1—5 never be kept from pilaying in mud and water? Do you feel that a child will always 1—5 never be spoiled if he gets his way when he is small? Do you always 1—5 never socialize with your neighbors? Do you always 1—5 never insist that your child wash his hands and face before eating? Does your child always 1—5 never stand up for his rights? <_o Do you always 1—5 never scold your child for having p o o r manners? r '° Do you always 1—5 never insist that your child eat what you think best for him? Do you always 1—5 never read about current events? Do you feel that a child should always 1—5 never control his anger? Does your child always 1—5 never seem to 3peak more freely and clearly to you than to your spouse ? Do you always 1—5 never feel that the father, rather than the mother should be the one who helps a child decide what he wants to be in life? Do you al ways 1—5 never feel that children would lie unless they were taught honesty by their parents? Do you feel that romantic movies are always 1—5 never a bad influence on your child? Do you always 1—5 never clean—up the kitchen after each meal? Does your child's speech problem always 1—5 never make you uneasy? Does your child always 1—5 never keep himself neat and clean? Are you always 1—5 never impatient if you have difficulty understanding what your child is trying to say? Do you feel that your child is always 1—5 never too immature to make decisions f or himself ? Do you feel that your child should always 1—5 never follow your advice as to the really important things in life? Does your child aluayg 1—5 never want you to help him complete tasks? Do you 1 — 5 never insist that your child say "please" and "thank you" to grown-up 3? Is your child ahjajrs^ 1—5 never afraid of new situations? Does your child always 1—5 never obey you willingly? 4 0 41. 42. 43. 44 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 53. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. Do you feel that a child will always 1—5 never be spoiled if he is picked up whenever he cries? Do you always 1—5 never turn over the disciplining problems to your spouse? Do you alvav 1— 5 never go to church? Do you aiwave 1 —5 never play an active role in social functions? Is your child always 1—5 never the dominant member of a group of children his own age? Does your child always 1—5 never have difficulty in finding things to do? Does your child always 1—5 never avoid 3peaIcLng situations? Do you Always 1—5 never scold your child when he fails to wash his hands after using the toilet? Does your child always 1—5 never show his affection in a physical way? Does your child always 1—5 never get angry when he doesn't get his way? Do you always 1—5 never hug or kiss your child when you part for short periods of time? Do you always 1—5 never entertain socially in your home? Do you feel that your child should always 1—5 never be permitted to -talk whenever he wishes? Does your child always 1—5 never avoid playing with clay, mud or paints? Do ‘ you, rather than your husbaM, always 1—5 never make decisions with regard to your child? Does your child always 1—5 never wash his hands after using the toilet? Does your child always 1—5 never feel ashamed of his speech problem? Does your child always 1—5 never want you to hug or kiss him? Do you always 1—5 never punish your child more when he misbehaves in public than when he misbehaves at home? When your child makes speech mistakes do you always 1—5 never correct him? Do you always 1—5 never teach your child that it isn't nice to get angry at people? Does your child always 1—5 never make decisions easily? During your child's first three years were you always 1—5 never away from him for more than a day at a time? Are you always 1—5 never interested and active in P.T.A. or other school functions? Do you feel that your child will always 1—5 never need your help in choosing proper companions? Do you always 1—5 npryrvr- feel that success in the eyes of others is vital to one's personal happiness? Is it always 1—5 never important to your child that his r-oom and possessions be neat and orderly? Do you feel that a good scolding always 1—5 never works better than other means of discipline with your child? Do you always 1—5 never feel that your child's speech problem is hereditary? Do you always 1—5 never feel that it is normal for a child to get angry? Do you think that it is always 1—5 never your responsibility to approve what your child reads? Do you always 1—5 never caution your child about the dangers of playing out side? Did you always 1—5 never attempt to have your child toilet trained at an early age? Do you always 1—5 never vote in aid. elections? When your child is dirty do you always 1—5 never have a desire to clean him up right away? Is your child always 1—5 never aware of his speech problem? Do you feel that you should always 1—5 never direct your child so that he will make something af himself? Does your child always 1— 5 never have difficulty talking with your acquain tances whom he doesn't know? 78. 79. 30. 81. 32. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 83. 89. 90. 91. 93. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 1 0 0 . 1 0 1 . 102. 103. 104. 105- 106. 197. 108. 109. H O . 1 1 1. 1 1 2. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. Does your child, aiwaya 1—5 never seem upset when you are unable to un derstand what he says? When other children comment or maice .fun of your child's speech, does he always 1— 5 never seem disturbed? Do you alny 1—5 never feel guilty about getting angry at your child? Do you always 1—5 never feel that you are dependent on your husband? Do you 1—5 never try to avoid argumento? After your child was weaned, did you always 1—5 never hold or cuddle him? Do you always 1—5 never fear that your child will not amount to anything in life? Do you always 1—5 never laugh at a dirty joke? Does it always 1—5 never bother your child to wear soiled clothes? Are your manners always 1—5 never as good at home as they are out in company? Do sexual matters always 1—5 never disgust you? 'When someone wrongs you do you feel you should always 1—5 never let it go? Xf your child told you that he had hurt another child would you always 1— 5 never scold him? Do you feel that your child should always 1—5 never be especially nice to people who can improve his position? Is it always 1—5 never against your religion to think about seac? Do you always 1—5 never consider yourself as being a happy and contented person? Did you always 1—5 never resent the responsibility of feeding your baby? Is your child always 1—5 never free of nervous mannerisms? Do you always 1—5 never feel like you need a vacation from your children? Do you always 1—5 never have difficulty in getting to sleep at night? Do you always 1—5 never punish your child for not being honest with you? Do you feel that, as a disciplinary measure, you should always 1—5 never tell a child he is bad for getting angry? Is your child always 1— 5 never afraid to be left alone? Do you always 1—5 never worry that you have mdde a’ poor impression with what you have said? Do you always 1—5 never punish your child when he becomes angry or fights back? Do you always 1—5 never feel guilty about what you are thinking? Is your child always 1— 5 never especially nice to you after he has dis played anger or had an outburst? Do you feel that sex should always 1—5 never be a forbidden subject in your home ? Do you always 1—5 never punish your child when he interrupts you? Xf you sew your child and another child of the opposite sex: undressing together, would you always 1— 5 never be disturbed? Do you always 1—5 never pretend that your child has no spieech problem? ’ lould you always 1—5 neveit be embarrassed if someone saw your child naked? Are you always 1—5 never a leader rather than a follower? Does your child always 1—5 never want to go into the bathroom when someone else is using it? Does your child always 1—5 never need a light burning before he can go to sleep? Do you always 1—5 never becomes upset when £rour child messes—up his room? Do you always 1—5 never find out about the bad things your child does by his telling them to you? Did you always 1—5 never scold your child for whining and cryihg about things which you couldn't understand? Do you always 1—5 never feel ashamed of your child' s spieech problem? During your child's earlier years were you always 1—5 never disturbed when he soiled or wet himself? 3,13. Do you. always 1—5 never- entertaifa acquaintances even If you don't especially care for- them? 119. When your child is disobedient, are you always 1—5 never disturbed? 120. Do you always 1—5 never feel 11 Ice swearing? 121. When you started toilet training your child, did you alwavn 1—5 never punish him when he soiled his pants? 122. Does your child always 1—5 never wet the bed? 123. Do you always 1—5 never require your child to have bowel movements regularly? 124 . Do you always 1—5 never hold in your anger when upset by your child's conduct? 125. Does your husband always 1—5 never consult you before he air ranges to go out by himself? 126. Do you atlways 1—5 never feel very uneasy in social situations? 127. Do you always 1—5 never punish your child by confining him to his room? 128. Do you always 1—5 never have the fear that your child might hurt himself? 129. Would you always 1—5 never scold your child for telling you that he has taken someone else 1 s toy? 130. When your child falls short of standards set for him are you always 1—5 never undi sturbod ? 131. Do you »1 ways 1— 5 never get angry at your child? 132. Would you ”7w”iY"‘ 1—5 never scold or punish your child for telling you that he has taken money from your purse? 133. Has your child always 1—5 never used words concerned with sex in your presence? 134. Do physical expressions of affection always 1—5 never disturb you? 135. Are you, rather than your husband, alwaTs 1—5 never responsible for suggesting and planning activities? 136. Do you feel that your child should always 1—5 never be punished for saying," I hate you" to his parents? 137. Do you always 1—5 neveg believe that God punishes us for cur sins? 13S. Do you always 1—5 never have the feeling that your child pesters you when he knows you're busy? 139. When your child is using the toilet and someone comes in, does he always 1— 5 never object? 140. Do you always 1—5 never feel that your child should learn to act like an adult as soon as possible? 141. Is your child always 1—5 never awakened by nightmares? 142. Does your child always 1—5 never need assurance of your love for him? 143. Did you always 1—5 never permit your baby to "cry it out" if there seemed to be nothing wrong with him? 144. Do you feel that children should always 1—5 never be punished for talking back to their parents? 145. Do you always 1—5 never feel that it is your right as a parent to interrupt your child? 146. Do you always 1—5 never try to impress people with your importance? 147. Is your child always 1—5 never afraid of people he doesn't know? 148. Do you always 1—5 never have quarrels with members of your family? 149. Do you fee It that children should always 1—5 never be ashamed of themselves for thinking about sex? 150. Do you feel that children should a 1 ways 1— 5 never control the expression of thoughts about their parents which may be offensive? 151. Do you feel that you should always 1—5 never help your child even if he does not request help? 152. Does your child always 1— 5 never get embarrassed when he sees others displaying physical affection? 153. Do you always 1—5 never stand your ground when you think you are right? 154. Do you feel that your child should always 1— 5 never be consulted regarding family decisions? 155* Do you always 1—5 never have periods of" restlessness where you can’t sit still? 156. Do you always 1—5 never tell your child that you don't like him when he misbehaves? 157. Do you always 1—5 never become irritable when you are not feeling well? 153. Do you always 1—5 never introduce your child to your acquaintances? 159* Do you feel that your child should always 1—5 never be permitted to choose the clothes you buy for him? 160* Are you always 1—5 never nice to everyone with whom you come into contact? 161. Do you always 1—5 never feel that if you spend too much time with your child you will spoil him? 162. Do you feel that your child should always 1—5 never be allowed to tell a few "white lies"? 163* Do you feel that parents should always 1—5 never come out on top in an argu ment with their children? 164. Do you always 1—5 never refrain from talking about people behind their back? 165. Do you always 1—5 never hold back your angry feelings? 166. Are you always 1—5 never concerned with how your house looks when friends drop in? 167. Do you always 1—5 never like all of the people you know? 163. Does it always 1—5 never disturb you when your child isn't superior to other children? 1 69. Would you always 1—5 never scold your child if, in a store, he said that he had to go to the bathroom so loud that strangers heard him? 170. Do you always 1— 5 never find it difficult to express your feelings to people you love 171. Does your child always 1—5 never "talk back" to you ? 172. Do you always 1—5 never feel that children should be respected as much as adults? 173. I/hen you started toilet training your child, did you always 1— 5 never punish him when he soiled his pants? 174. Do you always 1—5 never express love for your child in a physical way? cr> 175. Do you always 1—5 never ask your child if he loves you? 176. Do you feel that you should always 1—5 never do what's best for your child’s sake whether he likes it or not? 177. Has your child always 1—5 never displayed sexual curiosity? 1 78. Is it always 1—5 never important to you that your child treat you with respect? 179. Do you always 1—5 never become disturbed when you fall short of your personal goals ? ISO. Jloes your child always 1—5 never handle his sex organs? 131. Does your child always 1—5 never feel guilty about getting angry? 132. When your child is undressed does he always 1—5 never ouject to being seen? 133* Do you always 1—5 never feel it is necessary for your child to have your religious training? 134. During your child's first three years was he always 1—5 never constipated? 135. Does your child always 1—5 never have to have a special toy or object in bed with Him at' night? 136. Do you always 1—5 never attempt to help others overcome thexir faults? 187. Do you always 1—5 never prefer to stay at home rather than attend a social gathering? 133. Do you always 1—5 never feel that your baby "grew—up" to rapidly? 139. Do you always 1—5 never avoid talking about sex to, or in front of, your child? 190 During your child’s first three years did you always 1— 5 never find it difficult to meet his demands for attention? 191. Do you always 1—5 never feel that children should be taught to say only nice things to their parents ? 192. 13 it always 1—5 never important to you that your child be well-behaved when friends call? 193. Do you always 1—5 never have the last word in discussions with your husband 194. Do you always 1—5 never have difficulty getting started when you have a lot to do? 195. Do you feel that you should always 1—5 never tell your child he is bad as a disciplinary measure? 196. Do you always 1—5 never feel personally criticized when your child does poorly or is subjected to criticism? 197. Do you always 1—5 never feel that your husband is dependent on you? 198. Do you sense that people always 1—5 never think that your child is mentally retarded? 199. In order to teach your child the difference between good and bad, he should always 1—5 never be scolded or punished after admitting a wrongful act? 200. During your child's earlier years were you always 1—5 never, disturbed when your child put dirty things in his mouth? 201. Do you always 1—5 never like to be seen or in some way associated with popular or successful people? 202. Do you always 1—5 never buy thibgs for the house without consulting your husband? 203. Do you always 1—5 --vet feel hurt when others critized you? 204. Are you always 1—5 never disturbed when your child sees you or your spouse undressed? 205. Do you always 1—5 never scold your child for not obeying you immediately? 206. Do you always 1—5 never feel that women ought to have as much 3exual freedom as men? 207. Is your child always 1—5 never kept out of the bathroom when you or your spouse is using the toilet ? 208. Do you a1“ay<i 1—5 never feel like swearing? 209. Do you always 1—5 never worry about what other people are thinking of you? 210. Do you feel that a child should always 1—5 never be scolded for handling his sex organ? 211. Do you always 1—5 never worry about catching diseases from doorknobs or drinking glasses ? 212. Does the sight of bowel movements always 1—5 never bother you? 213. Is it always 1—5 never difficult for you to express such emotions as affection, sorrow, or anger? 214. Do you always 1—5 never feel like people are picking on you? 215. Before your child was b o m did you always 1—5 never have periods when you wished there would be no baby? 216. Do you always 1—5 never feel nervous and frustrated? 217. Would you always 1—5 never scold your child for telling you that he had looked at a child of the opposite sex go to the toilet? 218. Do you alaaya 1—5 never unconsciously assume the role of your child in his activitie s ? 219. Do you always 1—5 never feel that your spouse loves your children more than you? 220. Do you always 1—5 never worry about what other people are thinking of you? 221. Do you always 1—5 never feel that you have more problems than other people? 222. Would it alwavij 1—5 never be disrespectful for your child to question your decisions ? 223. During your child's earlier years did you always 1—5 never scold him for touching his bowel movements? 224. Do you 1—5 never feel that your spouse neglects you? 225. Do you feel that you should always 1—5 never stop your child's curiosity about sex if he is to grow into a satisfactory adult? 226. Do you always 1—5 never have dreams which frighten you? 227. D o you feel that children should always 1-5 never be stopped from picking their noses? 228. D o you always 1-5 never feel unloved? 229. D o you always 1-5 never feel that you are living with your spouse only because of the children? 230. D o you feel that your child always 1-5 never has the right to critirdze you? Note: Complete the following items only i f you have m ore than one child. 231. Is your child always 1-5 never inclined to be jealous or envious of his brothers or sisters? 232. Does your child always 1-5 never "give in" to his brothers or sisters? 233. Does your child always 1-5 never complain that you favor another child? 234. Doe8 your child always 1-5 never quarrel with his brothers or sisters? 235* Does your child always 1-5 never play happily with his brothers or sisters? 236. Does your child always 1-5 never feel inferior to his brothers or sisters'* 237. Does your child always 1-5 never tease his brothers or sisters? 253. Does your child m I hay* 1-5 never display love for his brothers or sisters? 239. Does your child always 1-5 never display hate toward his brothers or sisters? 227. D o you fe e l that children should always 1-5 never be stopped from picking their noses? 228. D o you always 1-5 never fe e l unloved? 229. D o you always 1-5 never fe e l that you are living with your spouse only because of the children? 230. Do you fe e l that your child always 1-5 never has the right to cr iticiz e you? Note: Complete the following items only i f you have more than one child. 231. Is your child always 1-5 never inclined to be jealous or envious of his brothers or sisters? 232. Does your child always 1-5 never "give in" to his brothers or sisters? 233. Does your child always 1-5 never complain that you favor another child? 234. Does your child always 1-5 never quarrel with his brothers or sisters? 235. Does your child always 1-5 never play happily with his brothers or sisters? 236. Does your child always 1-5 never fe e l inferior to his brothers or sisters? 237. Does your child always 1-5 never tease his brothers or sisters? 238. Does your child always 1-5 never display love for his brothers or sisters? 239. Does your child always 1-5 never display hate toward his brothers or sisters? LO 0 0 APPENDIX B LISTINGS O F R ESEA R C H INQUIRY F O R M B Y SC A LE 99 100 LISTINGS O F R ESEA R C H IN QUIRY F O R M B Y SC A LE Scale 1: Lie Scale 13. D o you always 1-5 never read all about current events? 58. D o you always 1-5 never try to impress people with your importance? 60. Are you always 1-5 never nice to everyone with whom you come into contact ? 61. Are your manners always 1-5 never as good at home as they are out in company? 69. D o you always 1-5 never get angry at your child? 75. D o you always 1-5 never become irritable when you are not feeling well? 100. D o you always 1-5 never feel like you need a vaca tion from your children? 107. D o you always 1-5 never like all of the people you know? 109. D o you always 1-5 never feel like swearing? 119. D o you always 1-5 never laugh at a dirty joke? 126. D o you always 1-5 never refrain from talking about people behind their back? 128. D o you always 1-5 never feel guilty about what you are thinking? Scale 2: Overprotection 9. D o you think that it is always 1-5 never your re sponsibility to approve what your child reads? 10. D o you always 1-5 never i n s i s t th a t your c h ild eat what you think b est For him? 12. D o you f e e l th a t your c h ild i s always 1-5 never too immature to make d e c is io n s For himself?' 28. D o you always 1-5 never kiss or hug your child when you part for short periods of time? 32. D o you always 1-5 never caution your child about the dangers of playing- outside? 38. D o you feel that you should always 1-5 never 101 57. 76. 80. 99. 101. 113. 144. Scale 3: 16. 26. 42 . 45. 62. 64. 65 . 74. 86 . 90 . 93 . 112. 124. 1 3 6 . direct your child so that he will make something of himself? D o you always 1-5 never feel it is necessary for your child to have your religious training? D o you always 1-5 never feel that your baby "grew- up" too 'rapidly? D o you feel that you should always 1-5 never do what’s best for your child’s sake whether he likes it or not? D o you feel that you should always 1-5 never help your child even if he doesn't request help t W hen your child falls short of standards set for him are you always 1-5 never undisturbed? D o you always 1-5 never "ask'your child if he loves you? D o you always 1-5 never have the fear that your child might hurt himself? Rejection D o you always 1-5 never turn over the disciplining problems io your spouse? During your child's first three years were you always 1-5 never away from him for more than a day at a time? D o you feel that a child will always 1-5 never be spoiled if he is picked up whenever he cries1 ? D o you feel that a child will always 1-5 never be spoiled if he gets his way when Vie' s smalTT D o physical expressions of affection always 1-5 never disturb you? D o you always 1-5 never punish your child by con fining fixm to his room? D o you always 1-5 never have the feeling that your child pesters you when he knows you're busy? During your child's first three years did you al ways 1-5 never find it difficult to meet his de mands for attention? Did you always 1-5 never resent the responsibility of feeding your baby"? D o you always 1-5 never find it difficult to ex press your feelings to people you love? D o you always 1-5 never express love for your child in a physical way? Did you always 1-5 never permit your baby to "cry it out" lF tnere seemed to be nothing wrong with him? After your child was weaned did you always 1-5 never hold and cuddle him? you always 1-5 never te ll your child that you 102 1 4 7 . 157. 159. 167. Scale 4: 1. 9. 14. 15. 17. 39. 40. 41. 63. 74. 87. 89. 101. 111. 115. 125 . don't like him when he misbehaves? D o you always 1-5 never feel that if you spend too much time with your child you will spoil him? D o you always 1-5 never feel that your spouse loves your children more than you? Before your child was born did you always 1-5 nev er have periods when you wished there would be no baby? D o you always 1-5 never feel that you are living with your spouse only because of the children? Condemnation D o you always 1-5 never scold your child for hav ing poor manners? D o you think that it is always 1-5 never your re sponsibility to approve what your child reads? D o you feel that you can always 1-5 never te ll when your child is thinking of doing something wrong? D o you feel that your child should always 1-5 nev er be permitted to talk whenever he wishes? you always 1-5 never go to church? D o you always 1-5 never treat your child severely when he doesn't te ll the truth? D o you feel that a good scolding always 1-5 never works better than other means of discipline with your child? Are you always 1-5 never patient if you have dif ficulty un derst an ding"what your child is trying to say? D o you always 1-5 never punish your child when he becomes angry or fights back? During your child's first three years did you al ways 1-5 never find it easy to meet his demands Tor attention? D o you feel that your child should always 1-5 nev er be punished for saying "I hate you*' to his parents ? Did you always 1-5 never scold your child for whining and crying about things which you couldn't understand? W hen your child falls short of standards set for him are you always 1-5 never undisturbed? W hen you started to ilet training your child, did you always 1-5 never punish him when he soiled his pants? D o you always 1-5 never believe that God punishes us for our sms? Is it always 1-5 never important to you that your 103 129. 143. 156. 158. Scale 5: 1. 18. 2 1. 23. 24. 38. 49. 71. 88 . 101. 116. 1 2 2. 125. 131. 134 . 138. child be well-behaved when friends call? D o you always 1-5 never attempt to help others overcome -their faults? D o you feel that you should always 1-5 never te ll your child he is bad as a disciplinary measure? D o you feel that you should always 1-5 never stop your child's curiosity about sex if he is to grow into a satisfactory adult? D o you always 1-5 never worry about what other people are thinking ofyou? Level of Aspiration D o you always 1-5 never scold your child for hav ing poor manners? D o you always 1-5 never punish your child more when he misbehaves in public than when he misbe haves at home? D o you feel that your child will always 1-5 never need your help in choosing proper companions? D o you always 1-5 never feel that success in the eyes of others is vital to one's personal happi ness ? D o you feel that your child should always 1-5 nev er follow your advice as to the really important tFings in life? D o you feel that you should always 1-5 never di rect your child so that he will make something of himself? D o you always 1-5 never like to be seen or in some way associated with popular or successful people? D o you always 1-5 never feel personally criticized when your child does poorly or is subjected to criticism? D o you always 1-5 never fear that your child will not amount to anything in life? W hen your child falls short of standards set for him are you always 1-5 never undisturbed? D o you always 1-5 never become disturbed when you f a l l short o7 your person al goals? Does it always 1-5 never disturb you when your child isn 't superior to other children? Is it always 1-5 never important to you that your child is well-behaved when friends call? D o you feel that your child should always 1-5 nev- er be especially nice to people who can improve T T T s position? D o you always 1-5 never feel very uneasy in social s it uat ions? D o you always 1-5 never feel that your child 104 should learn to act like an adult as soon as pos sible? 172. D o you always 1-5 never unconsciously assume the role of your child in his activities? Scale 6: Parental Sex Inhibition 4. D o you feel that romantic movies are always 1-5 never a bad influence on your child? 9. D o you think that it is always 1-5 never your re sponsibility to approve what your cKTTcF”reads? 52. Would you always 1-5 never be embarrassed if some one saw your child naked? 66. D o you always 1-5 never avoid ta lk in g about sex t o , or in Front o f , your ch ild ? 72. Is it always 1-5 never against your religion to think about sex? 83. D o you feel that children should always 1-5 never be ashamed of themselves for thinking about sex? 105. If you saw your child and another child of the opposite sex undressing together would you always 1-5 never be disturbed? 119. D o you always 1-5 never laugh at a "dirty joke?" 120, D o se x u a l matters always 1-5 never d isg u st you? 146. D o you feel that sex'"snould always 1-5 never be a forbidden subject in your home? 156. D o you feel that you should always 1-5 never stop your child's curiosity about sex if he is to grow into a satisfactory adult? 160. Are you always 1-5 never disturbed when your child sees you or your spouse undressed? 161. D o you feel that a child should always 1-5 never be scolded for handling his sex organ? 162. Is your child always 1-5 never kept out of the bathroom when you or your spouse is using the toilet ? 16 3. D o you always 1-5 never f e e l that women ought to have as mucn sexu al Freedom as men? Scale 7: Parental Aggression Inhibition 25 D o you always 1-5 never teach your child that it isn't nice to get angry at people? D o you feel that a child should always 1-5 never control his anger? 35. During your child's first three years did you al- ways 1-5 never scold him for hitting other chiT^ Bren? 44. D o you always 1-5 never feel that it is normal for a child bo get angry? 105 55. 63. 6 8 . 73. 84. 87. 92. 96. 103. 108 . 114. 123. 140. Scale 8: 2 . 7. 2 0 . 31. 34. 36. 46. 48. 53. 1 1 1 . D o you always 1-5 never feel guilty about getting angry at your child? D o you always 1-5 never punish your child when he becomes angry or fights back? D o you feel that children should always 1-5 never be punished for talking back to their parents'?" D o you always 1-5 never punish your child when he interrupts you? D o you always 1-5 never try to avoid arguments? D o you feel that your child should always 1-5 nev er be punished for saying "I hate you" to his par ents? W hen your child is disobedient are you always 1-5 never disturbed? £>0 you feel that, as a disciplinary measure, you should always 1-5 never te ll a child he is bad for getting angry? D o you always 1-5 never have quarrels with members of your family? D o you feel that parents should always 1-5 never come out on top in an argument with their chi1- dren? D o you always 1-5 never hold back your angry feel ings? W hen someone wrongs you do you feel you should al ways 1-5 never let it go? D o you always 1-5 never hold in your anger when upset by your child * s conduct? Parental Messing Inhibition D o you always 1-5 never scold your child when he fails to wash his hands after using the toilet? D o you always 1-5 never insist that your child wash his hands and face before eating? D o you feel that the kitchen should always 1-5 never be cleaned up after each meal? fio you feel that your house should always 1-5 nev- er be kept neat and clean? ETd you always 1-5 never attempt to have your child toilet trained at- an early age? W hen your child is dirty do you always 1-5 never have a desire to clean him up right away? Is it always 1-5 never important to you that your child be neat and clean? D o you feel that a child should always 1-5 never be kept from playing in m ud and water? During your child's earlier years were you always 1-5 never disturbed when your child put dirty things in his mouth? W hen you started toilet training your child, did 106 121. 135. 137. 148. 162. 164. 169. 170. Scale 9: 3. 5. 11. 18. 23. 29. 30 . 37. 43. 125. 132 . 133. 141. you always 1-5 never punish him when he soiled his pants? During your child’s earlier years were you always 1-5 never disturbed when he soiled or wet himselT? D o you always 1-5 never become upset when your child messes-up his room? D o you always 1-5 never require your child to have bowel movements regularly? D o you always 1-5 never worry about catching dis eases from door knobs or drinking glasses? Is your child always 1-5 never kept out of the bathroom when you or your spouse is using the toilet? Does the sight of a bowel movement always 1-5 nev er bother you? T 5 o you feel that children should always 1-5 never be stopped from picking their noses? During your child's earlier years did you always 1-5 never scold him for touching his bowel move ment sT"“” Parental Social Responsibility Are you always 1-5 never willing to help or assist needy groups and causes? D o you always 1-5 never play an active role in social functions? D o you always 1-5 never donate to charity? D o you always 1-5 never punish your child more when he misbehaves in public than when he misbe haves at home? D o you always 1-5 never feel that success in the eyes of others is vital to one's personal happi ness? D o you always 1-5 never socialize with your neigh bors ? D o you always 1-5 never entertain socially in your home ? Are you always 1-5 never active in P.T.A. or other community or civic organizations? D o you always 1-5 never vote in all elections? Is it always 1-5 never important to you that your child be well-behaved when friends call? D o you always 1-5 never entertain acquaintances even if you don't especially care for them? D o you always 1-5 never prefer to stay at home rather than attend a social gathering? Are you always 1-5 never concerned with how your house looks when friends drop in? 107 Scale 10: Parental Respect-Child Disrespect 33. D o you always 1-5 never insist that your child say "please" and "thank you" to grown-ups? 51. D o you feel that your child should always 1-5 nev er be permitted to choose the clothes you buy for E T m ? 59. D o you always 1-5 never introduce your child to your acq'uain't ances ? 68. D o you feel that children should always 1-5 never be punished for talking back to their parents'? 73. D o you always 1-5 never punish your child when he interrupts you? 78. D o you feel that your child should always 1-5 nev- er be consulted regarding family decisions? 85. T 5 o you always 1-5 never feel that it is your right as a parent to interrupt your child? 87. D o you feel that your child should always 1-5 nev er be punished for saying "I hate you" to his par ents? 110. Is it always 1-5 never important to you that your child treat you with respect? 117. D o you always 1-5 never feel that children should be respected as much as adults? 151. D o you feel that your child always 1-5 never has the right to criticize you? 15 3. D o you always 1-5 never scold your child for not obeying you immediately? 171, Would it always 1-5 never be disrespectful for your child to question your decisions? Scale 11: Parental Security (Anxiety) 77. D o you always 1-5 never have difficulty in getting to sleep at night? 81. D o you always 1-5 never have difficulty getting started w hien you have a lot to do? 102. D o you always 1-5 never worry that you have made a poor impression with what you have said? 106. D o you always 1-5 never consider yourself as being a happy and contented person? 134. D o you always 1-5 never feel very uneasy in social situations? 145. D o you always 1-5 never have periods of restless ness where you can't sit still? 14 8. D o you always 1-5 never worry about catching dis eases from doorknobs or drinking glasses? 149. D o you always 1-5 never feel that your spouse neg lects you? 15 0. D o you always 1-5 never feel that you have more I 108 152. 154. 155. 158. 165. 166. 168. Scale 12: 8 . 16. 19. 2 2. 47. 67. 95. 98. 104. 118. 127. 130. 142. problems than other people? D o you always 1-5 never feel unloved? D o you always 1-5 never feel hurt when others criticize you? D o you always 1-5 never feel like people are pick ing on you? D o you always 1-5 never worry about what other people are thinking ofyou? D o you always 1-5 never have dreams which frighten you? always 1-5 never difficult for you to ex press such emotions as affection, sorrow, or anger? D o you always 1-5 never feel nervous or frus trated? Mother-Father Dominance D o you, rather than your spouse, always 1-5 never handle the money matters in the family"? D o you always 1-5 never turn over the disciplining problems to your spouse? D o you, rather than your spouse, filwa^s 1-5 never make decisions with regard to your child? If your child seriously misbehaved would you al- ways 1-5 never leave the disciplining to your spouse? D o you always 1-5 never feel that the father, rather than the mother, should be the one who helps a child decide what he wants to be in life? ~ " ’ > v e the last word in dis- D o you always 1-5 ne ver feel that your spouse is dependent on you? D o you always 1-5 never buy things without first consulting your spouse? Are you always 1-5 never a leader rather than a f o 1 lowe r? D o you always 1-5 never feel that you are depend ent on your spousef D o you always 1-5 never stand your ground when you think you are right? Are you always 1-5 never consulted before your spouse arranges to go out alone? Are you, rather than your spouse, always 1-5 never responsible for suggesting and planning activi- ties ? 109 Scale 13: 27. 39. 50. 54. 56. 70. 79. 82. 87. 91. * 94. 97. 139. 1 73. Honesty-Pain Would you always 1-5 never scold or punish your child for telling you that he has taken money from your purse or wallet? D o you always 1-5 never treat your child severely when he doesn't tell the truth? Would you always 1-5 never scold your child, if, in a store, he said that he had to go to the bath room so loud that strangers heard him? D o you always 1-5 never feel that children would lie unless they were taught honesty by their par ents? Would you always 1-5 never scold your child for telling you that he has taken someone else's toy? D o you feel that your child should always 1-5 nev- er be allowed to te ll a few "white Tie s ?" Eo you always 1-5 never find out about the bad things your child does by his telling them to you? D o you always 1-5 never punish your child for not being honest with you? D o you feel that your child should always 1-5 nev er be punished for saying "I hate you" to his par ents? D o you always 1-5 never feel that children should be taugtit "to" " say only nice things to their par ents ? D o you feel that children should always 1-5 never control the expression of thoughts about their parents which may be offensive? If your child told you that he had hurt another child would you always 1-5 never scold him? In order to teach your child the difference be tween good and bad, he should always 1-5 never be scolded or punished after admitting a wrongful act. Would you always 1-5 never scold your child for telling you that he had looked at a child of the opposite sex go to the toilet? APPENDIX C INSTRUCTIONS T O T H E JU D G ES 110 S P E E C H -H E A R IN G C L I N I C University of Southern California 930 West 37th St. Los Mgeles 7, California Phone: RI 8—2311, Extension 339 We have asked your help as an "Expert" to assist us in developing a diagnostic inquiry form. The enclosed inventory has been designed for parents of functionally speech handicapped children. Ne are, in effect, asking you to "play parent". Some of you are being called upon to play the role of a good or "ideal" parent; while, others are being asked to respond as a bad or "unfavorable" pa rent. The "ideal" parent, for our present purposes, may be defined as one whose feelings, attitudes, personality, and parent—child relationships are such that their child would not be expected to have any problems in interpersonal commu nication (speech). On the other hand, the "unfavorable parent" may be defined as one whose personality, parent—child relationships, etc., would be highly conducive to problems in interpersonal communication (such as stuttering, delayed speech, and multiple articulatory problems). Of course, because of the nature of the inventory, the usefulness of your responses depends upon the degree to which you can project yourselves into the role of either the ideal or the unfavorable parent. Ne are asking, then, for extreme responses as opposed to normal or medium responses. You are to be an _______________________ parent. Assume the role through out the test reacting to each item in the extreme. Complete the form at your earliest convenience and return all materials in the enclosed stamped self-addressed envelope. We deeply appreciate your taking time out from a busy schedule in older to assist us. Yours sincerely, Edmund L. Thile Research Assistant Las Floristas Pre—school Clinic University of Southern California ELT:ms A PPEN D IX D R ESEA R C H IN Q U IRY F O R M 112 113 in (D O M I > T J 0 0 - H M U < M 0 M a > o v now "5* 0 ) w M 0 L < s o B 3 . 0 1 0 >i~ # 4 ) t! 0 H | « U * M~* „ U < ■ * a is 1 0 > HrtO n , 0 0 M | 5 h < a ft 0 ) c f t - a • H A 0 ) V I V I a il¥ w 0 ( S f t t o u f l ) < 0 50 t o f t s n £ 3 0 > , r l c w 0y * 40 w n 0 n 0 0 w 0 in N I < a w ( 0 « c 0 x < o f 0 1 • o 5 §1 • H C G 1 0 • r f ft 0 0 W ! 1 3 o | o fil8 ■ H 3 .r s o i o c O CD S M ft ft Me o t o o n - h o w H c o T J I D V • H > 0 n ft 3 ft ft o p ■ H > 1 • * q o tn o c c • o -h n w ft A ! 5 o n ft < s u n f t G 0 t o ft 0 n w ft t o io n - H s i * 2 . o 0 * > i 3 0 o a ) > , I Always Frequently Some time s Seldom Never 1 2 3 4 5 ; ; : - - : : : Do you a 1 wav a 1—5 never- scold your- child for- having poor manners? Do you always 1—5 never scold your child when he fails to wash his hands after using the toilet? Are you always 1—5 never willing to help or assist needy groups or causes? Do you feel that romantic movies are always 1—5 never a had influence on your child? Do you always 1—5 never play an active role in social functions? Do you always 1—5 never teach your child that it isn't nice to get angry at people? Do you always 1—5 never insist that your child wash his hands and face hefore eating? Do you, rather than your spouse, always 1—5 never handle the money matters in the family? Do you think that it is always 1—5 never your responsi bility to approve what your child reads? Do you always 1—5 never insist that your child eat what you think best for him? Do you always 1—5 never donate to charity? Do you feel that your child is always 1—5 never too immature to make decisions for himself? Do you always 1—5 never read all about current events? Do you feel that you can always 1—5 never tell when your child is thinking of doing something wrong? Do you feel that your child should always 1—5 never he permitted to talk whenever he wishes? Do you always 1—5 never turn over the disciplining problems to your spouse? Do you always 1—5 never go to church? Do you always 1—5 never punish your child more when he misbehaves in public than when he misbehaves at hose? Do you, rather than your spouse, always 1—5 never make decisions with regard to your child? Do you feel that the kitchen should always 1—5 never be cleaned—up after each meal? Do you feel that your child will always 1—5 never need your help in choosing proper companions? Xf your child seriously misbehaved would you always 1—5 never leave the disciplining to your spouse? Do you always 1—5 never feel that success in the eyes of others is vital to one‘s personal happiness? Do you feel that your child should always 1—5 never follow your advice as to the really important things in life? Always Frequently Sometimes Seldom Never X 2 3 4 5 25. Do you feeX that a child should always X—5 never control his anger? 26. During your chiXd's first three years were you always X—5 never away from him for more than a day at a time? 27. Would you always 1—5 never scold or punish your child for telling you that he has taken money from your purse or wallet? 28. Do you always 1—5 never hiss or hug your child when you part for short periods of time? 29. Do you always 1—5 never socialize with your neighbors? 30. Do you always 1—5 never entertain socially in your home? 31. Do you feel that your house should always 1—5 never be kept neat and clean? 32. Do you always 1—5 never caution your child about the dangers of playing outside? 33. Do you always 1—5 never insist that your child say "please" and " thank: you” to grown-ups? 34. Did you always 1—5 never attempt to have your child toilet trained at an early age? 35. During your child's first three years did you always 1—5 never scold him for hitting other children? 36. When your child is dirty do you always 1—5 never have a desire to clean him up right away? 37. Are you always 1—5 never active in P.T.A. or other community or civil organizations? 38. Do you feel that you should always 1—5 never direct your child so that he will make something of himself? 39. I5 o you always 1—5 never treat your child severely when he doesn't tell the truth? 40. Do you feel that a good scolding always 1—5 never works better than other means of discipline with your child? 41. Are you always 1—5 never patient if you have difficulty understanding what your child is trying to say? 42. Do you feel that a child will always 1—5 never be spoiled if he is picked up whenever he cries? 43. Do you always 1—5 never vote in all elections? 44. Do you always 1—5 never feel that it is normal for a child to get angry? 45. Do you feel that a child will always 1—5 never be spoiled if he gets his way when he's small? 46. Is it always 1—5 never important to you that your child be neat and clean? 47. Do you always 1—5 never feel that the father, rather than the mother, should be the one who helps a child decide what he wants to be in life? 48. Do you feel that a child should always 1—5 never be kept from playing in mud and water? Always Frequently Some time s Seldom Never 1 2 3 4 5 : ; : : - : : ; - : 49- Do you always 1—5 never like to be seen or in some way associated with popular or successful people? 50. Would you always 1—5 never scold your child, if, in a store, be said that be bad to go to the bathroom so loud that strangers beard bim? 51. Do you feel that your cbild sbould always 1—5 never be permitted to choose the clotbes you buy for bim? 52. Would you always 1—5 never be embarassed if someone saw your chiId naked? 53. During your child's earlier years were you always 1—5 never disturbed when your cbild put dirty things in his mouth? 54. Do you always 1—5 never feel that children would lie unless they were taught honesty by their parents? 55. Do you always 1—5 never feel guilty about getting angry at your child? 56. Would you always 1—5 never scold your child for telling you that he has taken someone else1s toy? 57. Do you always 1—5 never feel that it is necessary for your child to have your religious training? 58. Do you always 1—5 never try to impress people with your importance? 59. Do you always 1—5 never introduce your child to your acquaintances? 60. Are you always 1—5 never nice to everyone with whom you come into contact? 61. Are your manners always 1—5 never as good at home as they are out in company? 62. Do physical expressions of affection always 1—5 never disturb you? 63. jD o you always 1—5 never punish your child when he becomes angry or fights back? 64. Do you always 1—5 never punish your child by confining him to his room? 65. Do you always 1—5 never have the feeling that your child pesters you when he knows you're busy? 66. Do you always 1—5 never avoid talking about sex to, or in front of, your child? 67. Do you always 1—5 never have the last word in discussions with your spouse? 68. Do you feel that children should always 1—5 never be punished for talking back to their parents? 69. Do you always 1—5 never get angry at your child? 70. Do you feel that your child should always 1—5 never be allowed to tell a few "white lies"? 71. Do you always 1—5 never feel personally criticized when your child does poorly or is subjected to criticism? ' S S ' S S S f J ' S J S S 6 ? S 8 i t g Sh : Zg „2 2-g S « 0 H P H i 0 £ © © if Q H ft C K uHoSj., a a ? jt * < u fi af o H P 3 Q > fi i I a it < o in in to p o H ftff 3 * © < if l S' F & ft U lv Q a s P P a o 0 <D w ft H i * < a ! r o o P P © c © 3 H 3 iQ h ft a ft o s * < ft a © 0 ft * o H i H i © P 31 M M ft < m m m a c a S^ r t ^ HKo K©^ 0 0 OgOUQH _ © » £ H i ft H P© i ft © 3 © © H P < ft iA O ' p in p S’ X'C P •< P P P P „ . ft P 3 P ft P ft P © 3 * < PiQ 0 V i . c o. o jt ft © c V O P a | © p ft c V p ? p P © I ft c 0 ft 0 1 0 ft 3 ft H i P < Q tt © © ft a it p p 3 ft ft tQ 0 0 „ a h t © < 5 $ a I? p 1 & 3 © . 0 ft ft ft - It MR ft c © • o I ft ? P 3 ( Q a © 0 1 If ft OiH ft t ® S X P *0 p 0 1 * 0 0 1 * « • s p< • * » © * < a J © • •• ip K J C «•! © 3 ft P * < • M l W ft III £ © a • • 1 f ■ © p Ml ft S 8 Ml © in < « »• © M A l w a y s F r e q u e n t l y S o m e t i m e s S e l d o m N e v e r 1 2 3 4 5 : ; ; j - : • ’ : • • 95. Do you always 1— 5 never feel that your spouse is de pendent; on you? 96. Do you feel that, as a disciplinary measure, you should always 1—5 never tell a child he is had for getting angry? 97. If your child told you that he had hurt another child would you always 1—5 never scold him? 98. Do you always 1—5 never buy things without first consult ing your spouse? 99. Do you feel that you should always 1—5 never help your child even if he doesn't reguest help? 100. Do you always 1—5 never feel like you need a vacation from your children? 101. When your child falls short of standards set for him are you always 1—5 never undisturbed? 102. Do you always 1—5 never worry that you have made a poor impression with what you have said? 103. Do you always 1—5 never have guarrels with members of your family? 104. Are you always 1—5 never a leader rather than a follower? 105. If you saw your child and another child of the opposite sex undressing together would you always 1—5 never he disturbed? 106. Do you always 1—5 never consider yourself as being a happy and contented person? 107. Do you always 1—5 never like all of the people you know? 108. Do you feel that parents should always 1—5 never come out on top in am argument with their children? 109. Do you always 1—5 never feel like swearing? HO. Is it always 1—5 never important to you that your child treat you with respect? 111. When you started toilet training your child, did you always 1—5 never punish him when he soiled his pants? 112. Did you always 1—5 never permit your bahy to "cry it out" If there seemed to he nothing wrong with him? 113. Do you always 1—5 never ash your child if he loves you? 114. Do you always 1—5 never hold bach your angry feelings? 115. Do you always 1—5 never believe that God punishes us for our sins? 116. Do you always 1—5 never become disturbed when you fall short of your personal goals? 117. Do you always 1—5 never feel that children should be respected as much as adults? 118. Do you always 1—5 never feel that you are dependent on your spouse? 119. Do you always 1—5 never laugh at a dirty johe? 120. Do sexual matters always 1—5 never disgust you? Always Frequently Sometimes Seldom Never 1 2 3 4 5 * ; - • ; - • - - - 121. During your- child's earlier year's were you always 1—5 never- disturbed when lie soiled or wet himself? 122. Does it always 1—5 never disturb you when your child isn’t superior to other children? 123. When someone wrongs you do you feel you should always 1—5 never let it go? 124. After your child was weaned did you always 1—5 never hold or cuddle him? 125. Is it always 1—5 never important to you that your child be well-behaved when friends call? 126. Do you always 1—5 never refrain from talking about people behind their bach? 127. Do you always 1—5 never stand your ground when you think you are right? 128. Do you always 1—5 never feel guilty about what you are thinking? 129. Do you always 1—5 never attempt to help others overcome their faults? 130. Are you always 1—5 never consulted before your spouse arranges to go out alone? 131. Do you feel that your child should always 1—5 never be especially nice to people who can improve his position? 132. Do you always 1—5 never entertain acquaintances even:'if you don’t especially care for them? 133. Do you always 1—5 never prefer to stay at home rather than attend a social gathering? 134. Do you always 1—5 never feel very uneasy in social situa tions? 135. Do you always 1—5 never become upset when your child messes—up his room? 136. Do you always 1—5 never tell your child that you don’t like him when he misbehaves? 137. Do you always 1—5 never require your child to have bowel movements regularly? 138. Do you always 1—5 never feel that your child should learn to act liXe an adult as soon as possible? 139. In order to teach your child the difference between g o o d and bad, he should always 1—5 never be scolded or punished after admitting a wrongful act? 140. Do you always 1—5 never hold in your anger when upset by your child’s conduct? 141. Are you always 1—5 never concerned with how your house looXs when friends drop in? 142. Are you, rather than your spouse, always 1—5 never responsible for suggesting and planning activities? 143. Do you feel that you should always 1—5 never tell your child he is bad as a disciplinary measure? 144. 145. 146 . 147. 148 . 149. 150. 151. 152. 153 . 154. 155. 156 . 157 . 158. 159. 160. 161 . 162 . 163 . 164. 165 . 166. Always frequently Some time s Se ldom Never 1 2 3 4 5 : ; - - * - : - ; ; Do you always 1—5 never have the fear- that your- child might hurt himself? Do you always 1—5 never- have periods of restlessness where you can't sit still? Do you feel - that: sex should always 1—5 never he a forbidden subject In your home? Do you always 1—5 never feel that if you spend too much time with your child you will spoil him? Do you always 1—5 never worry about catching diseases from doorknobs or drinking glasses? Do you always 1—5 never feel that your spouse neglects you? Do you always 1—5 never feel that you have more problems than other people? Do you feel that your child always 1—5 never has the right to criticize you? Do you always 1—5 never feel unloved? Do you always 1—5 never scold your child for not obeying you immediately? Do you always 1—5 never feel hurt when others criticize you? Do you always 1—5 never feel like people are picking on you? Do you feel that you should always 1—5 never stop your child's curiosity about sex if he is to grow into a satisfactory adult? Do you always 1—5 never feel that your spouse loves your children more than you? Do you always 1—5 never worry about what other people are thinking of you? Before your child was born did you always 1—5 never have periods when you wished there would be no baby? Are you always 1—5 never disturbed when your child sees you or your spouse undressed? Do you feel that a child should always 1—5 never be scolded for handling his sex organ? Is your child always 1—5 never Xept out of the bathroom when you or your spouse is using the toilet? Do you always 1—5 never feel that women ought to have as much sexual freedom as men? Does the sight of a bowel movement always 1—5 never bother you? Do you always 1—5 never have dreams which frighten you? Is it always 1—5 never difficult for you to express such emotions as affection, sorrow, or anger? Always Frequently Sometimes Seldom Never 1 2 3 4 5 ; ; : : • • • M l • # : - 167. Do you always 1—5 never- feel that you are living with your spouse only because of the children? 168. Do you always 1—5 never feel nervous or frustrated? 169. Do you feel that children should always 1—5 never he stopped from picking their noses? 170. During- your child's earlier years did you always 1—5 never scold him for touching his bowel movements? 171. Would it always 1—5 never he disrespectful for your child to guestion your decisions? 172. Do you always 1—5 never assume the role of your child in his activities? 173. Would you always 1—5 never scold your child for telling you that he had looked at a child of the opposite sex go to the toilet? fO A PPENDIX E PRELIM IN ARY INSTRUCTIONS T O SUBJECTS 122 123 You have been asked to participate in an experiment. This experiment concerns itself with parents, their atti tudes, and their feelings. The success of the experiment depends upon how honest you cam be in answering the ques tions. In that many of the questions are of a personal nature, neither your name nor any other means of identifi cation will be used. The items have no "correct answers"; the right ans wers will be those which best apply to you. Remember that you will remain anonymous throughout the investigation. Thank you for your cooperation. Now read the instruction sheet carefully. APPENDIX F ITEM S IN CLU D ED IN TH E RIF IN V EN TO R Y W H IC H D ID N O T DIFFERENTIATE SIGNIFICANTLY B E T W E E N R O LES PLA Y ED B Y EX PERT JU D G ES 1 2U 125 ITEM S IN CLU D ED IN TH E RIF IN V EN TO R Y W H IC H DID N O T DIFFERENTIATE SIGNIFICANTLY B E T W E E N R O LES PLA Y ED B Y EX PERT JU D G E S3 , RIFb Scale Item Number Content^ Lie-Social Acceptability 1 13 60 107 D o you A ... N read all about current events? Are you A ... N nice to every one with whom you com e into contact ? D o you A .. . N like all of the people you know? Overprotection 2 101 W hen your child falls short of standards set for him are you A ... N undisturbed? Rejection 3 16 26 D o you A .. . N turn over the disciplining problems to your spouse? During your child's first three years were you A .. . N away from him for more than a day at a time? Condemnation 4 17 D o you A ... N go to church? Level of Aspiration 5 172 D o you A ..* N unconsciously assume the role of your child in his activities? Parental Aggression Inhibition 7 55 140 D o you A ... N feel guilty about getting angry at your child? D o you A ... N hold in your anger when upset by your child's conduct? Parental Social Responsibility 9 3 Are you A ... N willing to help or assist needy groups RIFb Item Scale Number Content^ 5 11 43 132 133 Parental Security Anxiety 11 106 Mother-Father Dominance 12 2 2 4 7 104 118 127 130 and causes? D o you A ... N play an active role in social functions D o you A ... N donate to charity? D o you A ... N vote in all elections ? D o you A ... N entertain ac quaintances even if you don't especially care for them? D o you A *.. N prefer to stay at hom e rather than attend a social gathering? D o you A ... N consider your self as being a happy and con tented person? If your child seriously misbe haved would you A ... N leave the disciplining to your spouse? D o you A ... N feel that the father, rather than the moth er, should be the one who helps a child decide what he wants to be in life? Are you A ... N a leader rath er than a follower? D o you A ... N feel that you are dependent on your spouse? D o you A ... N stand your ground when you think you are right ? Are you A ... N consulted be fore your spouse arranges to go out alone? aThese items were retained because believed to be potentially useful, even if only to contribute to the Lie scale. 127 bSom e of the items were also scored for other scales. This table lists the scale in which they were pri marily grouped. APPENDIX G CO M PA RISO N S O F SCA LE M E A N S O F T H F . EXPFRIM ENTAL A N D C O N TR O L G R O U PS 128 129 C O M PA R ISO N S O F SCA LE M E A N S O F TH E EX PERIM EN TA L A N D C O N TR O L G RO U PS* Scale Control Experimental 1 5.29 5.68 2 7. 71 7.70 3 8.42 8.29 i+ 9.79 9.62 5 9.64 9 .19 6 7.13 7.18 7 8.53 8.66 8 9.17 9.41 9 6.44 5.80 10 6.21 6.20 11 7. 71 8.54 12 6.37 6.16 13 6.63 7.07 *None of the above differences at tained the .05 level of significance, nor did the number of times the control group mean exceeded that of the experimental group. APPENDIX H A N A LY SES O F V A RIA N CE O F TH E THIRTEEN RIF SCA LES 130 131 A N A LY SES O F V A R IA N C E O F TH E THIRTEEN RIF SC A LES Scale 1: Lie-Social Acceptability Source SS D F M S F P Total 964.98 179 Between 9.51 3 Within 955 .47 176 5.43 Sex 2 . 22 1 2.22 Groups 7.20 1 7.20 1. 33 - Interaction 0.09 1 0.09 * • * Scale 2: < Overprotection Source SS D F M S F P Total 1011.40 179 Between 2.19 3 Within 1009.21 176 5, 73 Sex 0.94 1 0 . 94 Groups 0.01 1 0.01 - - Interaction 1.25 1 1.25 Scale 3 Rejection Source SS D F M S F P Total 1732.00 179 Between 60.53 3 Within 1671.47 176 9.50 Sex 60.09 1 60.09 6.33 .05 Groups 0. 36 1 0. 36 - - Interaction 0.08 1 0 .08 — — 132 Scale 4: Condemnation Source SS D F M S F P Total 1546.58 179 Between 7.38 3 Within 3539.20 176 8. 75 Sex 0.80 1 0.80 Groups 2.22 1 2 .22 - - Interaction 4.36 1 4. 36 Scale 5: Level of Aspiration Source SS D F M S F P Total 1638.78 179 Between 26.24 3 Within 1612.54 176 9 .16 Sex 0 . 80 1 9.80 1.07 Groups 10 . 76 1 10.76 1. 17 - Interaction 5.69 1 5.69 Scale 6: Parental Sex Inhibition Source SS D F M S F P Total 2076.42 179 Between 7.53 3 Within 2068.89 176 11.76 Sex 3. 76 1 3.76 — Groups 0.02 1 0.02 - - Interaction 3.76 1 3.76 ** * * 133 Scale 7: Parental Aggression Inhibition Source SS D F M S F P Total 17m. 53 179 Between 25.66 3 Within 1715.87 176 9.75 Sex 23.47 1 23.47 2.41 Groups 1.25 1 1.25 - - Interaction 0. 94 1 0.94 Scale 8: Parental Messing Inhibition Source SS D F M S F P Total 2511.39 179 Between 55.79 3 Within 2455.60 176 13. 95 Sex 52.27 1 52 . 27 3.75 Groups 3.47 1 3.47 - - Interaction 0 .05 1 0.05 Scale 9: Parental Social Responsibility Source SS D F M S F P Total 1307.98 179 Between 25.98 3 Within 1282.00 176 7.28 Sex 8. 89 1 8.89 1.22 * * Groups 13.89 1 13. 89 1.91 - Interaction 3.20 1 3.20 134 Scale 10: Parental Respect - Child Disrespect Source SS D F M S F P Total 1116.55 179 Between 17.53 3 Within 1099.02 176 6.24 Sex 16 . 81 1 16 .81 2.69 Groups 0.05 1 0.05 - - Interaction 0.67 1 0.67 Scale 11: Parental Security (Anxiety) Source SS D F M S F P Total 2054.06 179 Between 19.93 3 Within 2034.13 176 11.56 Sex 18. 05 1 18. 05 1.56 Groups 0.27 1 0.27 - Interaction 1.61 1 1.61 Scale 12: Mother - Father Dominance Source SS D F M S F P Total 704.73 179 Between 13. 39 3 Within 691.33 176 3.93 Sex 6.05 1 6.05 1.54 — Groups 2.01 1 2.01 - Interaction 5 . 34 1 5. 34 1.36 • • 135 Scale 13: Honesty - Pain Source SS D F M S F P Total 1345.5 8 179 Between 58.24 3 Within 1287.34 176 7.31 Sex 47.02 1 47.02 6.43 Groups 8.02 1 8. 02 1.10 Interaction 3. 20 1 3.20 - A PPENDIX I INDICES O F INTRAFAHILIAL CO N SISTEN CY FO R TH E TH IRTEEN SCA LES O F TH E R E SE A R C H INQ UIRY F O R M 136 137 INDICES O F INTRAFAM ILIAL CO N SISTEN CY FO R TH E THIRTEEN SCA LES O F T H E R ESEA R C H INQUIRY FO R M * Scale Control Group Experimental Group 1 .275 .466 2 . 302 .559 3 . 323 . 425 4 . 45 6 . 385 5 . 449 .377 6 .438 . 305 7 .455 .231 8 .567 .586 9 .451 .257 10 .253 .128 11 .210 .190 12 .118 -.162 13 . 369 . 324 *None of the above pairs of corre lations exhibited a significant difference. Fisher’s z-transforms were used in testing the differences. APPENDIX J RESPO N SES O F C O N T R O L A N D EX PERIM EN TA L G R O U PS T O INDIVIDUAL ITEM S B Y SC A LE 138 139 Notes on the Interpretation °f T'ables J1 to '1 / I 3 The "response" column indicates the response ex pected from the experimental group (parents of stutterers), after the original five possible replies to each item had been combined to form .ajj^l&hotomy. "Yes" refers to the "al ways" end of the five-point scale, while "No" refers to the "never" end. The column headed "Dichotomy" shows where the origi nal five-point scale was divided so that the replies at one end were combined and scored as "yes," while those at the other end were scored as "no." For example, 2.5 means that "always" and "frequently" were scored as "yes," while the other three were scored as "no." The C and E columns give the scores (number who gave the expected response) of the control and experimental groups respectively. There were ninety subjects in each group. The E score is expected to be the greater on every item. The level of significance is indicated only if it equaled or was less than .10. Items discriminating between the 10 per cent and 5 per cent levels are potentially use ful, or may suggest rephrasing the question so as to obtain more definite responses* The notation R E V in the "Direction" column means that the C group exceeded the E group—a reversal of expec tation . 140 TABLE J l * RESPO N SES O F C O N T R O L A N D EX PERIM EN TA L G R O U PS TO INDIVIDUAL ITEM S O F SC A LE 1: LIE-SOCIAL ACCEPTABILITY Item No. Expected Response Dichot om y C E Chi- square Signif icance Direc tion 13 Yes 1.5 20 29 2.271 .07 58 N o 3.5 64 62 - - R E V 60 Yes 1.5 29 37 - - 61 Yes 1.5 7 13 2.025 ,08 69 N o 2.5 63 75 4.472 .02 75 N o 2.5 37 48 2 .697 .06 100 N o 3.5 27 31 - - 107 Yes 2.5 60 58 - - R E V 109 N o 3.5 21 26 - - 119 N o 2.5 39 43 - - 126 Yes 2.5 53 40 3. 760 .03 R E V 128 N o 3.5 56 49 - - R E V Total Scale S cores: 476 511 *F or n o t e s on i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s e e p age 1 3 9 . 141 TABLE J 2 * RESPO N SES O F C O N T R O L A N D EX PERIM EN TA L G R O U PS T O INDIVIDUAL ITEM S O F SC A LE 2: O V ERPRO TECTIO N Item No. Expected Response Dichot om y C E Chi- square Signif icance Direc tion 9 Yes 1.5 25 43 7. 657 .005 10 Yes 2.5 55 50 - - R E V 12 Yes 3.5 72 75 - - 21 Yes 3.5 71 64 5.007 . 02 R E V 28 Yes 1.5 33 44 2 . 746 .05 32 Yes 2.5 50 47 - - R E V 38 Yes 2.5 58 47 2 . 766 .05 R E V 57 Yes 2.5 55 51 - - R E V 76 Yes 4.5 66 52 4. 822 . 02 R E V 80 Yes 2.5 54 62 - - 99 Yes 3.5 65 66 - - 101 N o 3.5 22 23 - - 113 Yes 3.5 40 45 - - 144 Yes 2.5 28 23 - - R E V Total Scale Scores: 694 692 *For notes on interpretation see page 139. 142 TABLE J3* RESPO N SES O F C O N T R O L A N D EX PERIM EN TA L G R O U PS T O INDIVIDUAL ITEM S O F SC A LE 3: REJECTION Item No. Expected Response Dichot om y C E Chi- square Signif icance Direc tion 16 Yes 3.5 42 50 _ 26 N o 4.5 13 35 13.750 . 0002 42 Yes 3.5 55 61 — — 45 Yes 2.5 36 56 8. 893 .002 62 Yes 4.5 59 48 2.785 .05 R E V 64 Yes 3.5 65 45 9. 351 .002 R E V 65 Yes 3.5 64 56 8.100 .005 R E V 74 Yes 3.5 49 40 1. 800 .09 R E V 86 Yes 4.5 44 33 2 .746 .05 R E V 90 Yes 3.5 28 40 3.403 .04 93 N o 1.5 65 67 — - 112 Yes 2.5 30 34 — — 124 N o 2.5 22 18 — — R E V 136 Yes 4.5 42 34 - — R E V 147 Yes 4.5 48 43 — — R E V 157 Yes 4.5 38 26 3.491 .04 R E V 15 9 Yes 4.5 27 27 — — 167 Yes 4.5 31 33 - - Total Scale Scores: 758 746 *For notes on interpretation see page 139. 1*43 TABLE J4* RESPO N SES O F C O N T R O L A N D EX PERIM EN TA L G R O U PS T O INDIVIDUAL ITEM S O F SC A LE 4: C O N D E M N A T IO N Item No. Expected Response Dichot om y C E Chi- square Signif icance Direc tion 1 Yes 2.5 43 37 R E V 9 Yes 1.5 25 42 6.871 . 005 1 * 4 Yes 2.5 27 28 — — 15 N o 2.5 51 35 5.700 • 01 R E V 17 Yes 3.5 53 51 - — R E V 39 Yes 2.5 37 38 — — * 4 0 Yes 2.5 26 39 4.070 .03 41 Yes 1.5 60 53 — — R E V 63 Yes 3.5 58 55 — — R E V 74 N o 3.5 41 49 — - 87 Yes 4.5 55 55 — — 89 Yes 3.5 54 49 - — R E V 101 N o 3.5 24 23 — — R E V 111 Yes 4.5 54 53 - — R E V 115 Yes 3.5 51 54 — — 125 Yes 1.5 26 27 — — 129 Yes 3.5 61 62 — — 14 3 Yes 3.5 32 47 5 .076 .02 156 Yes 4.5 48 41 — — R E V 158 Yes 3.5 55 28 16.300 . 0001 R E V Total Scale Scores: 881 866 *For n o t e s on i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s e e p a g e 1 3 9 . 1 4 4 TABLE J5 * RESPONSES O F C O N TR O L A N D EXPERIM ENTAL G R O U PS T O INDIVIDUAL ITEM S O F SCA LE 5: LEVEL O F ASPIRATION Item No. Expected Response Dichot omy C E Chi- square Signif icance Direc tion 1 Yes 2.5 42 36 - - R E V 18 Yes 4.5 66 47 8.583 .002 R E V 21 Yes 3. 5 72 65 - - R E V 23 Yes 3.5 59 51 - - R E V 24 Yes 2.5 50 60 2.338 .07 38 Yes 2 . 5 58 47 2.766 .05 R E V 49 Yes 3.5 65 63 - - R E V 71 Yes 3.5 57 50 - - R E V 88 Yes 4.5 41 38 - - R E V 101 Yes 3 . 5 67 66 - - R E V 116 Yes 2 . 5 39 47 - - 122 Yes 3.5 34 40 - - 125 Yes 1.5 27 27 - - 131 Yes 3.5 44 53 1. 811 .09 134 Yes 3 . 5 42 43 - - 138 Yes 3.5 46 32 4.434 . 02 R E V 172 Yes 3.5 59 62 - - Total Scale Scores: 868 827 * F o r n o t e s on i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s e e p a g e 1 3 9 . 145 TABLE J6* RESPONSES OF CONTROL AND EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS TO INDIVIDUAL ITEMS OF SCALE 6: PARENTAL SEX INHIBITION Item No. Expected Response Dichot om y C E Chi- square Signif icance Direc tion 4 Yes 3.5 46 43 - - R E V 9 Yes 1.5 25 42 6.871 .005 52 Yes 4.5 46 43 - - R E V 66 Yes 3.5 51 52 - - 72 Yes 4 . 5 11 15 - - 83 Yes 4.5 34 36 - - 105 Yes 3.5 51 50 - - R E V 119 N o 2.5 39 42 - - 120 Yes 4.5 66 54 3.600 .03 R E V 146 Yes 4.5 45 40 - - R E V 156 Yes 4.5 48 41 - - R E V 160 Yes 4.5 53 49 - - R E V 161 Yes 3.5 31 34 - - 162 Yes 3.5 47 48 - - 163 N o 2.5 49 57 - - Total Scale Socres: 642 646 * F o r n o t e s on i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s e e p a g e 1 3 9 . 146 TABLE J 7 * RESPONSES OF CONTROL AND EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS TO INDIVIDUAL ITEMS OF SCALE 7: PARENTAL AGGRESSION INHIBITION Item No. Expected Response Dichot om y C E Chi- square Signif icance Direc tion 6 Yes 2.5 41 29 3.366 .03 R E V 25 Yes 2.5 40 44 - - 35 Yes 2.5 39 31 - - R E V 44 N o 1.5 49 37 3 .206 . 04 R E V 55 Yes 2.5 26 42 7.273 . 005 63 Yes 3.5 58 55 - - R E V 68 Yes 2.5 48 56 - - 73 Yes 3.5 54 43 2.705 . 06 R E V 84 Yes 2.5 48 51 - - 87 Yes 4 . 5 55 55 - - 92 Yes 2.5 42 47 - - 96 Yes 4.5 59 59 - - 103 N o 3.5 43 48 - - 108 Yes 2.5 46 45 - - R E V 114 Yes 2.5 20 30 2 . 769 . 05 123 Yes 2.5 33 37 - - 140 Yes 3.5 67 70 - - Total Scale Scores: 768 779 *For n o t e s on i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s e e page 1 3 9 . 147 TABLE J 8 * RESPONSES OF CONTROL AND EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS TO INDIVIDUAL ITEMS OF SCALE 8 : PARENTAL MESSING INHIBITION Item No. Expected Response Dichot om y C E Chi- square Signif icance Direc tion 2 Yes 3.5 44 47 - - 7 Yes 1.5 33 41 - - 20 Yes 1.5 50 49 - - R E V 31 Yes 1.5 33 38 - - 34 Yes 2.5 35 42 - - 36 Yes 2.5 36 33 - - R E V 46 Yes 2.5 50 48 - - R E V 48 Yes 3.5 51 55 - - 53 Yes 2.5 64 71 - - 111 Yes 4.5 53 52 - - R E V 121 Yes 3.5 30 25 - - R E V 135 Yes 3.5 47 55 - - 137 Yes 3.5 33 40 - - 148 Yes 4.5 54 51 - - R E V 162 Yes 3.5 47 48 - - 164 Yes 4.5 56 42 4 . 390 .02 R E V 169 Yes 2 . 5 64 57 - - R E V 170 Yes 3.5 45 53 - - Total Scale S cores: 825 847 *F or n o t e s on i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s e e p a g e 1 3 9 . 148 TABLE J 9 * RESPONSES OF CONTROL AND EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS TO INDIVIDUAL ITEMS OF SCALE 9: PARENTAL SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY Item No. Expected Response Dichot omy C E Chi- square « Signif icance Direc tion 3 Yes 2 . 5 42 32 2.295 .07 R E V 5 Yes 2.5 33 30 - - R E V 11 Yes 2.5 54 57 - - 18 Yes 4.5 66 47 8.853 .002 R E V 23 Yes 3.5 40 46 - - 29 Yes 2.5 30 42 3.333 .04 30 Yes 2.5 47 38 1. 806 .09 R E V 37 Yes 3.5 59 43 5.792 .01 R E V 43 Yes 1.5 54 40 4 . 364 .02 R E V 125 Yes 1.5 27 26 - - R E V 132 Yes 3.5 41 44 - - 133 N o 3.5 28 24 - - R E V 141 Yes 2 . 5 59 53 - - R E V Total Scale Scores: 580 522 * F o r n o t e s on i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s e e p a g e 139. 149 TABLE J10* RESPONSES OF CONTROL AND EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS TO INDIVIDUAL ITEMS OF SCALE 10: PARENTAL RESPECT-CHILD DISRESPECT Item No. Expected Response Dichot om y C E Chi- square Signif icance Direc tion 33 Yes 1.5 42 33 1. 851 .09 R E V 51 N o 2.5 61 64 - - 59 N o 1.5 47 42 - - R E V 68 Yes 2.5 48 54 - - 73 Yes 3.5 54 43 2.705 .06 R E V 78 N o 3.5 18 28 2.920 . 05 85 Yes 3.5 54 51 - - R E V 87 Yes 4.5 55 55 - - 110 Yes 1.5 33 38 - - 117 N o 1,5 54 47 - - R E V 151 N o 3.5 18 30 4.091 .03 15 3 Yes 2.5 25 24 - - R E V 171 Yes 3.5 50 49 - - R E V Total Scale Scores : 559 558 *For notes on interpretation see page 139. 150 TABLE J l l * RESPONSES OF CONTROL AND EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS TO INDIVIDUAL ITEMS OF SCALE 11: PARENTAL SECURITY (ANXIETY) Item No. Expected Response Dichot omy C E Chi- square Signif- Direc- icance tion 77 Yes 3 . 5 21 25 - - 81 Yes 3.5 45 56 2 . 730 . 05 102 Yes 3.5 64 66 - - 106 N o 2.5 30 38 - - 134 Yes 3.5 42 44 - - 145 Yes 3.5 47 52 - - 148 Yes 4.5 54 51 - R E V 149 Yes 3.5 24 32 1.658 . 10 150 Yes 3.5 24 32 1.658 . 10 152 Yes 4.5 57 55 - R E V 154 Yes 2 . 5 26 36 2 .460 . 06 155 Yes 4 . 5 63 66 - - 158 Yes 3.5 56 50 - R E V 165 Yes 4.5 64 69 - - 166 Yes 3 . 5 25 34 2.042 .07 168 Yes 3.5 52 63 2 .914 .05 Total Scale Scores: 694 769 * F o r n o t e s on i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s e e p a g e 139. 151 TABLE J 1 2 * RESPONSES OF CONTROL AND EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS TO INDIVIDUAL ITEMS OF SCALE 12: MOTHER-FATHER DOMINANCE Item Expected No. Response Dichot omy C E Chi- square Signif icance Direc tion 8 Yes 2.5 43 46 - - 16 N o 3.5 48 39 1.802 .09 R E V 19 Yes 2.5 31 27 - - R E V 22 No 3.5 65 57 - - R E V 47 Yes 3.5 53 52 - - R E V 67 Yes 3 . 5 67 71 - - 95 Yes 2.5 34 36 - - 98 Yes 3.5 66 52 4 . 822 .02 R E V 104 Yes 2 . 5 35 24 3.051 .05 R E V 118 N o 2.5 49 45 - - R E V 127 Yes 1.5 25 27 - - 130 Yes 1.5 34 52 7.214 . 005 142 Yes 2.5 23 26 - - Total Scale Scores: 573 554 *For notes on interpretation see page 139. 152 TABLE J13* RESPO N SES O F C O N T R O L A N D EX PERIM EN TA L G R O U PS T O INDIVIDUAL ITEM S O F SC A LE 13: HONESTY-PAIN Item No. Expected Response Dichot om y C E Chi- square Signif- Direc- icance tion 27 Yes 2.5 34 47 3. 793 .03 39 Yes 2.5 37 37 - - 50 Yes 4.5 35 38 - - 54 Yes 2.5 34 38 - - 56 Yes 2.5 26 37 2.955 .05 70 N o 3.5 46 43 - R E V 79 N o 2.5 47 54 - - 82 Yes 2.5 36 29 - R E V 87 Yes 4.5 54 55 - - 91 Yes 3.5 39 46 - - 94 Yes 3.5 54 54 - - 97 Yes 2.5 44 42 - R E V 139 Yes 3.5 65 62 - R E V 173 Yes 4.5 46 54 - - Total Scale Scores: 597 636 *For n o t e s on i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s e e p a g e 139. APPENDIX K EXPERIM ENTAL RESULTS FR O M ITEM S O N W H IC H TH E JUDGES DID N O T DIFFER SIGNIFICANTLY 15 3 15 4 EX PERIM EN TA L RESU LTS F R O M ITEM S O N W H IC H T H E JU D G ES DID N O T DIFFER SIGNIFICANTLY Scale Item Resulta 1 13 60 .07 107 R E V (NS) 2 101 3 16 26 . 0002 4 17 5 172 7 55 140 .005 9 3 5 11 R E V (.07) 43 132 133 R E V (.02) 11 106 12 22 47 104 118 127 R E V (.05) 130 .005 aDecimal numbers indicate level of significance. "M S" indicates that the discrimination did not attain the 10 per cent level. "REV" indicates a rever sal of expectancy—the control sample scored higher.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

An Experimental Study Of The Effect Of Punishment Of The Expectancy To Stutter On The Frequency Of Subsequent Expectancies And Stuttering

PDF

An Investigation Of Physiological Measures In Relation To The Moment Of Stuttering In A Group Of Adult Males

PDF

An Experimental Investigation Of The Relationship Between Frequency Of Stuttering And Open Expression Of Aggression

PDF

An Experimental Study Of The Effect On Babbling Of Visual Interaction Between Mother And Infant

PDF

Listener Identification Of 'Stuttering' And 'Stutterer' As A Function Of Variation In Speech Patterns

PDF

An Experimental Study Of Auditory Thresholds Of Adults For Warble Tone, Pure Tone, And Recorded Speech

PDF

Changes In The Intensity Of An Overt Response Before, During, And After Instances Of Stuttering

PDF

An Empirical Study Of Sex-Role Identification And Sex-Role Preference In A Selected Group Of Stuttering Male Children

PDF

Frequency Of Stuttering As A Function Of Connotative Word Meaning

PDF

An Investigation Of Pupillary Response Preceding Expectancy And Stuttering

PDF

Autonomic correlates of stuttering, fluency, and threat-of-shock

PDF

An investigation of attitude differences in parents of stutterers and parents of non-stutterers

PDF

An Experimental Investigation Of Repression Of The Auditory Perception Ofdisturbing Words As Indicated By Verbal And Electrodermal Responses

PDF

Effect Of Types Of Rehearsal On Frequency Of Stuttering

PDF

An Investigation Of The Incidence Of Stuttering Among Elementary School Children In The Los Angeles City Schools

PDF

A Factor Analysis Of The Responses Of Brain-Damaged Adults To The Sklar Aphasia Evaluation Summary

PDF

Word Familiarity And Frequency Of Stuttering

PDF

An Experimental Investigation Of The Dichotic Application Of Delayed Sidetone And Masking Noise

PDF

Stuttering and time perspective

PDF

An Experimental Study Of The Effects Of Interaural Temporal Delays And Intensity Differences On Intracranial Localization Of Spondee Words

Asset Metadata

Creator Thile, Edmund Llewellyn (author)

Core Title An Investigation Of Attitude Differences In Parents Of Stutterers And Parents Of Non-Stutterers

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Speech

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag health sciences, speech pathology,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Perkins, William H. (committee chair), Haney, Russell (committee member), Seward, Georgene H. (committee member), Travis, Lee Edward (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-149511

Unique identifier UC11360068

Identifier 6713763.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-149511 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 6713763.pdf

Dmrecord 149511

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Thile, Edmund Llewellyn

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA