University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Some Aspects Of The Dimensionality Of School Adjustment Of Fifth Grade Boys

(USC Thesis Other)

Some Aspects Of The Dimensionality Of School Adjustment Of Fifth Grade Boys

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content C opyright by
Nadine M urphy L am bert
1966
SOME ASPECTS OF THE DIMENSIONALITY OF
SCHOOL ADJUSTMENT OF FIFTH GRADE BOYS
by
Nadine Murphy Lambert
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Psychology)
September 1965
UNIVERSITY O F SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 9 0 0 0 7
This dissertation, written by
........JSfa.dme..Murplxy.X(aaniiftj:t.........
under the direction of h$X....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 OF P H IL O S O P H Y
Dean
Date.. J S e p . t e n i b . e j r j . . 1.96 5 . .
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
..
PLEASE NOTE:
Table pages are not original
copy. They tend to "curl",
and some have very fine print.
Filmed in the best possible way.
University Microfilms, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES................................... vi
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION............................. 1
II. BACKGROUND AND THEORETICAL FRAME
OF REFERENCE............... 4
An Administrative or Executive Aspect
of Personality Necessary for Adjust
ment
Basic Psychological Supplies Necessary
for Adjustment
Coping: the Ego of the Child in Opera
tion
Defining the Continua of the Dimensions
of Psychological Supplies and School
Coping Efforts
Operational Definitions of School Adjust
ment as Used in This Report
III. OBJECTIVES............................... 24
IV. PROCEDURE............................. 27
Selecting the Schools for the Study
Selecting the Sample of Pupils for the
Project
Gaining Parent Approval for a Child's
Participation in the Project
Selecting the Clinical Teams
Procedures for Making the Social Worker
Evaluations
ii
Chapter
Page
Procedures for the Psychiatric
Evaluation
Procedures for Psychological Exami
nations
Procedures Used in Collecting Factual,
Observational, Qualitative Data and
Inferences
Selecting and Gathering the School-
Collected Data to Be Included in
the Analyses
Analyzing the Data
V. ANALYSIS OF DATA FROM THE SOCIAL WORKER
HOME INTERVIEW......................... 130
The Variables Included in the Analysis
Hypotheses Related to the Social Worker
Data
Results of the Analysis of the Data
Summary of the Results of the Analysis
of Social Workers' Data
VI. ANALYSIS OF DATA COLLECTED FROM THE
PSYCHIATRIC INTERVIEW................... 156
The Variables Included in the Analysis
Hypotheses Related to the Psychiatric
Data
Results of the Analysis of the Data
from Psychiatric Interviews
Discussion of the Results of the Factor
Analysis of Psychiatrists' Observa
tions and Inferential Judgments
VII. ANALYSIS OF DATA COLLECTED FROM THE
PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION . ............. 181
Variables included in the Analysis of
Psychological Test Data
iii
Chapter
Page
VIII.
I
i
IX.
Hypotheses Related to Psychologists'
Data
Results of the Analysis of Psychological
Test Data
Variables Included in the Analysis of
Incidental Observations during the
Psychological Examination and the
Psychologists1 Inferences
Hypotheses Related to Variables Contained
in the Factor Analysis of Psycholo
gists 1 Incidental Observations and
Inferential Judgments
Results of the Factor Analysis of Psychol
ogists' Observational and Inferential
Judgments
Summary of the Results of the Factor
Analyses of Data Produced from the
Psychological Examinations
RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS OF SCHOOL DATA ... 240
Descriptions of Specific School-
collected Data
Hypotheses Related to the Analysis of
School-collected Data
Results of the Analysis of Data
Summary of the Analysis of School-
collected Data
RESULTS OF THE SUMMARY FACTOR ANALYSIS ... 269
Factor Variables Used in the Summary
Analysis
Results of the Summary Factor Analysis
Discussion
X. CONCLUSION 289
Page
[ appendixes
Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Appendix C:
i
Appendix D:
Procedures for Obtaining Teacher 1s
Rating of School Adjustment . . .
Criteria for Social Worker
Judgments .............
Criteria for Psychiatrists' Obser
vations and Inferential Judgments
Criteria for Psychologists' Obser
vations during Test Administration
and Inferential Judgments ....
298
303
325
360
[BIBLIOGRAPHY
409
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Distribution of Frequency and Percentage
of Teacher Rating of School Adjustment
by Sex on Sample Which Replied "Yes" to
Research Invitation and Sample Which
Did Not Participate...................... 47
Means and Standard Deviations for Variables
Used in the Factor Analysis of Social
Workers’ Summary and Inferential Judgments . 135
Correlation Matrix for Social Worker Summary
and Inferential Judgments............... 147
Factor Coefficients for Social Worker
Summary and Inferential Judgments on
Each Factor Dimension................... 148
Means and Standard Deviations for Variables
Used in the Factor Analysis of Psychiatric
Observations and Inferential Judgments . . . 168
Correlation Matrix for Psychiatrists1 Obser
vational Data and Inferential Judgments . . 170
Factor Coefficients for Psychiatrists'
Observations and Inferential Judgments ... 171
Means and Standard Deviations for Variables
Used in the Factor Analysis of Psycho
logical Test D a t a ....................... 207
Correlation Matrix for Psychologists' Test
Scores................................... 209
Table Page
10. Factor Coefficients for Psychological Test
Data on Each Factor Dimension............ 210
11. Means and Standard Deviations for Variables
Used in the Factor Analysis of Psycho
logical Observations and Inferential
Judgments................. 224
12. Correlation Matrix for Psychologists' Obser
vational Data and Inferential Judgments . . 226
13. Factor Coefficients for Psychologists'
Observations and Inferential Judgments
on Each Factor Dimension.............. 227
14. Means and Standard Deviations for Selected
School Data, Teacher Ratings, Peer
Ratings, and Self Ratings............ 255
15. Correlation Matrix of Selected School Data,
Teacher Ratings, Peer Ratings and Self
Ratings............................. 258
16. Factor Coefficients for Selected School
Data, Teacher Ratings, Peer Ratings and
Self Ratings on Each Factor Dimension . . . 259
17. Intercorrelations of First Order Factors
from Factor Analysis of School-collected
and Clinician-collected Data.......... 272
18. Rotated Factor Loadings of Key Clinical
Variables on Summary Factors ............. 274
vii
CHAPTER I
I !
i !
! INTRODUCTION
I
' "School adjustment problem" is a general term used
I !
i ;
|in the description of children who have difficulties in
j ;
applying their resources to the task of school, as well as |
(children who are potential school drop outs or delinquents. !
i
jlhe archives of research contain studies which identify the :
characteristics of the gifted underachiever, the neurologi- ;
cally handicapped, the emotionally disturbed, the slow
i
learner, the culturally disadvantaged, the autistic child,
I
the delinquent and the school drop out. The label which is j
j
applied may indicate the etiology such as in the case of j
the "emotionally disturbed," the "neurologically handi- i
I |
capped," or the "culturally deprived." Other labels empha- j
! !
size the effects of the disability such as the "drop out," J
the "delinquent," or the "school learning problem." In any i
This project was supported in part by Cooperative
Research Project No. 1186 of the U. S. Office of Education,
Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Washington,
D. C.
1
case, whether the emphasis is on cause or effect, the label [
which is applied often indicates the specific variables
which are being studied in each group. Consequently, one
finds sociological causation the independent variable in
iresearch for the culturally disadvantaged, interpersonal
| '
jvariables the focus of research investigations concerned
iwith the emotionally disturbed, or neuro-physiological
i i
| !
varxatxon, the emphasxs xn the study of the neurologically j
jhandicapped. Nevertheless, all of these groups of pupils
have in common some type of individual handicap in coping
with the school situation. All of these children can be
included under the general heading "school adjustment prob- j
j l e m . " ;
’ The challenge for research specialists is to define j
| I
(the variables which relate to this general vulnerability and
ithen to determine how these interact to produce their ef
fects. It is more desirable, though perhaps a good deal
! !
more difficult, to commit one's research energies to the !
I
study of vulnerability in the general school population tharj
i
to focus on an easily identified group of pupils such as
those referred to the school guidance office or the child
I
jguidance clinic. Even though "school adjustment problems"
lor "general vulnerability to problems" are fairly nebulous j
iterms, their ambiguities are consistent with the fact that
most child problems are expressed in diffuse rather than
specific types of maladjustment. For example, a follow-up
|
study by Lambert (1964) demonstrated that pupils identified j
t '
jby teachers as maladjusted, with learning problems, and
behavioral problems at the elementary level, later become
delinquent, drop out of school, or make poor adaptations to
I
the high school setting. A second study (Lambert, 1964)
illustrated that it was difficult for neurologists, pedia
tricians and psychologists to agree on whether a pupil who
was selected from the school population on the basis of
school adjustment difficulties was neurologically handi-
j j
jcapped or emotionally disturbed.
| i
Often such school adjustment difficulties as those j
i
described above are designated "mental health problems," or j
I ;
"school mental health problems." These designations and I
the term "school adjustment problems" are used to describe !
| I
l
those members of the population who, due to a variety of !
I
I
poor adaptive mechanisms, have reduced ability to manage the!
developmental demands of growth, family, school and social
environment.
CHAPTER II
BACKGROUND AND THEORETICAL
.
| FRAME OF REFERENCE
I
I
l
The term "school adjustment" is frequently used but
i
infrequently defined. School adjustment naturally calls to
mind the extremes of the concept— poor school adjustment or
good school adjustment, school maladjustment or school
i
adjustment. In spite of a lack of definition and a paucity
of techniques for measuring the relevant variables, the
effects of poor school adjustment comprise some of the
nation's more serious social problems,
! School adjustment problems, like other human diffi-
i
culties which are characterized by failure to meet effec
tively the demands of living, are often lumped into the
category "mental health." This term conveniently includes
almost all of the definable human problems with which the
behavioral scientist must deal. "School mental health"
povers all types of pupils' problems: difficulties in
interpersonal behavior, school learning, problems with
i
authority, autism, vandalism, neurotic behavior, school
| i
phobia, inadequate motivation, poor nutrition, cultural
deprivation and the like. When a research investigator
i
|begins his investigations of a problem related to school
i I
mental health, he is confronted with an immense task of
jdefining terms, measuring the variables which are the focus
I
i
of the research and subsequently describing his work in a
I ;
frame of reference which has meaning for the users of the
results. Often he cannot manage such a task and seeks a
solution by side-stepping a research definition of mental
jhealth and turns to an easily defined population with a !
ready-made operational definition. Thus as Scott (1958) has;
pointed out in his survey of the field of mental health
research, definitions of mental health such as the following
I 1
are commonly used in research investigations:
' 1. Maladjustment determined statistically by reference
to norms of the society for rates of alcoholism,
suicide, addiction, criminality, etc.
2. Mental illness defined as exposure to psychiatric
treatment. ;
3. Mental illness defined by psychiatric diagnosis.
4. Mental illness defined by objective psychological
symptoms, either in terms of self ratings or by
j other tests and rating procedures.
! 5. Mental health defined as the report of subjective |
! well being.
| 6. Mental health defined as a positive striving.
Thomas Szasz's article in a recent issue of Harpers I
(1964) points out that the person whom society defines as
imentally ill is usually so defined by those around him. He
i :
is committed to a mental hospital, not because the treatment;
jprovided there will cure his ills, but because commitment is
i
the most convenient way to rid the group of the nuisance or j
|menace of his abnormal behavior. Few people in mental
hospitals, as Szasz points out, commit themselves. Though j
the source of referral to the private practitioner may fre
quently be a self-referral, it is reasonable to assume that
the subjects of much of mental health research are those
who have been brought by someone, or sent by someone for a
confirming diagnosis of abnormality or need of care. Such
subjects make a convenient sample for research. Once the
obvious nature of their difficulties is known, it is a
fairly easy task to define the most probable etiology of
the problem, and to fit symptoms into one or more classifi- I
i
cations of abnormal behavior. j
Thus we know most about people who have caused
others difficulty or discomfort. The research in the field
of "school mental health" has been concerned largely with j
i ;
jdescriptions of referral problems of child guidance clinics,
the outcomes of therapy and re-education for those
' " ■ " " " I
7 j
identified and assigned for help, and the classifications
of symptoms into nosological groups. Our understanding of ,
jthe causal factors related to school mental health problems I
| j
jhas come from a study of the variables related to such !
jrather easily defined categories. Consequently, we know
I
I
I
jvery little about the rest of the school population.
| It would be quite unfair to criticize investigators :
i !
!
jin this field for their failure to define better the vari-
I ;
ables affecting "good mental health" at different points on
j
a continuum from good to poor, or for their failure to study
children in groups other than the "referred for help" cate- :
gory. Concepts and terminology in the field of school men-
i
tal health, which are the subject of the research investi- ;
gations, have developed along with the field of personality |
jtheory and the behavioral sciences as a whole. ;
During the first third of the twentieth century,
! i
jthe field of abnormal psychology and personality theory were
concerned with the dynamics of behavior, descriptions of |
I
individual differences and the subsequent development of i
methods for testing some of the more obvious behavior di
chotomies such as introversion-extroversion, aggressive-
1
withdrawn, ascendant-submissive. Theories and schools of
personality developed such as the phenomenology of Snygg
and Combs (1949) and the psychodynamics of Freud. j
j In all of these theoretical inquiries and the in
vestigations designed to study them, the emphasis was on
jcause and effect and not on describing a continuum of be-
i
jhavior from good to poor mental health, from healthy to
[unhealthy personality, and from adjusted to maladjusted,
t
j ;
With the emphasis on unconscious motivation and the instinct
tual drives as proposed by Freud, a popular approach was to ■
view everyone as a "little bit sick" at some time or other.
The pathological focus of psychiatry and psychology rein-
i '
I
forced such observations. Meanwhile, the need to find out !
more about the population as a whole has continued until
I |
the present time when the problems of mental health are a j
primary concern of educators, and are second to the national
defense efforts in terms of costs to the taxpayer in main- i
'taining custodial institutions, relief, and social welfare
I i
programs, and unemployment payrolls, not to mention absen- j
teeism, employee failure, accidents and other social prob- I
i
lems.
An Administrative or Executive Aspect of j
Personality Necessary for Adjustment j
i ;
| Two people with similar good or poor economic re-
t
sources, attributes and experiences may use these raw
' ' " ■ " ' " ' ' "■ 1
9 i
!
I
materials in quite different ways to adjust to the demands j
i :
of their environment. A constitutional handicap may be an
i
i
emotionally crippling factor to one person and a motivation-
i
al boost to another. The difference between two people in
i :
Ithe use of comparable resources must be related to differ-
j
i
jences in individual abilities to organize and utilize these i
i '
resources, attributes, and experiences to meet the life
i
situation. The construct of an administrative or executive -
jaspect of personality may be helpful in defining a school
adjustment or school mental health continuum. First it is
necessary to specify and measure the psychological resources*
and attributes necessary for development. Next, one needs
i i
I
!to study the ability of the child to use these supplies to
! *
i ;
(meet a specific developmental crisis or environmental de- !
! I
i . i
jmand. Such an ability may be analogous to an energy or j
idrive variable in learning theory which provides for the
I
initiation and organization of responses to solve problems I
j
and establishes a hierarchy of choices to explore by trial j
j
and error.
In the history of psychology terms such as "self,"
"soul," and "ego" have been used to describe such an admin
istrative or executive aspect-of personality. James, Royce
i
land Dewey spoke freely of the ego, the self or even the
10 j
I
i
jsoul. However, the experimental psychology movement foundecj
j
jby Wundt ignored the introspective procedures involved in
! i
the investigation of the soul in favor of objective data
j
and operationally defined terms. Wundt did, nevertheless,
I
(account for integration of experience by a process of ap-
i
(perception in which experience is identified, appropriated
i ■ ;
(and synthesized. The concept of the soul, the self or the
I ;
ego continued to exist in psychology because associationism ;
|did not recognize or explain satisfactorily the "coherence,
"unity," and "purposiveness" that seemed to be present in (
mental life. Even though Freud introduced the term "ego"
(about 1900, it was not until close to the middle of the
i (
twentieth century that a reintroduction of the functions of ;
the eighteeenth and nineteenth century soul, or the self,
|
reappeared in psychological literature. The "ego" is the '
bontemporary term most commonly used to refer to this aspect
I ;
bf the individual human being. Although it is presently a.
commonly accepted concept or term in psychology, there are
i
several definitions of the ego in current usage.
One large body of theoretical writing which focuses
an this executive or administrative aspect of the person-
I
ality belongs to the contemporary school of "ego psycholo-
I
i
jgy," a branch of Freudian psychodynamic psychology. In this
school of personality theory, the term "ego" is used to
refer to the ability of a person to organize and integrate
! • I
jhis experiences. The individual with considerable ability
j ;
|in this dimension would be referred to as having "good ego
jstrength" and the person with minimal ability described as
!
lhaving "poor ego strength." Some of the concepts from this
I
jschool of personality theory are useful in describing the
characteristics of an administrative or executive aspect of ■
the personality.
Freud is commonly considered to be the father of
ego psychology. However, Freud's initial work was concerned
primarily with the more primitive aspects of personality,
i
i ■ i
jsuch as the instinctual drives and unconscious motivation.
Freud's early concept of the ego was an organization of
neurones charged with "a constant reserve of 'Quantity,1
jwith fairly free communication between themselves . . . with
the essential capacity of inhibiting incoming stimulation"
i
(Jones, 1953, p. 389). Brill (1938) summarizes Freud's
later concepts of the ego as an awareness of the environ
ment, which strives
I
I to curb the lawless id (the instinctual part of the |
| personality aimed at gratification of all needs, self ;
J preservation, love and the preservation of the species)
I tendencies whenever they attempt to assert themselves
j incompatibly with the environment. (p. 12) j
1 2 1
Even though concepts of the ego as an executive
iaspect of .personality entered Freud's work, Hartmann (1964,
j?. 113-114) suggests that it was not until the decade of
jthe 1920's that Freud explicitly postulated ego psychology
i
!
(as a chapter of analysis. Rapaport (1951, p. 364) points
i
jout that until the development of ego psychology, psycho-
i
i
(analysis considered the "details of the psychological
i
superficies with which the various branches of psychology
i !
concerned themselves were to be reduced to the unconscious
drives and the defenses underlying them." This was parti-
i
! :
ally related to the fact that the entire field of psycho- |
analysis has developed directly from Freud's writing. Thus
the development of ego psychology per se occurred after the !
introduction of Freud's basic concepts. In Hartmann's dis- j
cussion of ego psychology as a branch of psychoanalysis and 1
personality theory, he defines "ego" in terms of how it
functions for the development and maintenance of personality
integrity: ;
|
I
The ego organizes and controls motility and perception— i
perception of the outer world, but probably also of the |
self; ... it also serves as a protective barrier j
against excessive external, and in a somewhat different >
sense, internal stimuli. The ego tests reality. Ac- I
: tion, too, in contradistinction to mere motor dis-
I • • ’
charge, and thinking . . . are functions of the ego. j
! In both is implied an element of inhibition, of delay |
and discharge. In this sense many aspects of the ego 1
j can be described as detour activities; they promote a
J more specific and safer form of adjustment by intro-
j ducing a factor of growing independence from the im-
! mediate impact of present stimuli ... it appears
j that a large sector of the ego's functions can also
j be described from the angle of its inhibiting nature
j ... The function most extensively studied in analy-
j sis, namely defense, is a specific expression of its
j inhibiting nature. Another set of functions which we
| attribute to the ego is what we call a person's char-
j acter. And still another one that we can conceptually
| distinguish from those mentioned so far is the coor-
| dinating or integrating tendencies known as the syn-
| thetic function. These together with the differenti-
! ating factors . . . represent one level (not the only
| or the earliest one) of mental self regulation in man.
| (Hartmann, p. 114-115)
Caplan (1961, p. 34-36) further describes the ego
and its functions. He divides ego functions into 6 main
categories. They are summarized as follows:
I
1. Cognition— "hearing, seeing, knowing, receiving
stimuli from the outside world as well as from
the inside world of the rest of the personality."
2. Selection and Integration— "selecting, and in
tegrating stimuli once they have been recorded.
New stimuli are integrated with the record of
past stimuli, with memory, and thus they are in
vested with meaning."
3. Planning for Problem Solving— "The whole compli
cated set of operations involving planning and
deciding what one ought to do about the problem
forms an important part of ego functioning."
4. Control— "implementing a plan by control of mo
tility and control of impulse."
5. Synthesis— "synthesizing experience in order to
produce an equilibrium not only with the forces
inside, but with the forces outside oneself.
Synthesis is one of the most interesting aspects
of the ego, because what you see in a personality
is a certain identity, a certain cohesiveness,
and a certain predictability. This consistency
J
; is a very special part of ego functioning. It is
j the aspect of the synthesizing function which
| produces the identity of the person. Identity is
| something that can be perceived by others and
j ... also by oneself."
6. Object Relations— "establishing relationships with
: other people and things."
j :
Allport's (1960) review of the historical develop-
i i
pnent of the ego in psychology provides contemporary defini
tions of the ego other than those put forth by Hartmann and
i
Jcaplan as cited above. Some present-day psychologists per- ■
i 1
iceive the ego as a "knower" and a vehicle of self knowledge.'
i
i
jThe ego is considered to be in different states of awareness)
|at different times and one's experiences may require more
or less attention to certain aspects of self knowledge as
i ;
(the occasion dictates. The ego has also been defined as an '
!
i ;
jorganizer of mental processes. Freud defined the ego at
i - i
! j
pne point in the development of psychoanalysis as a "coher- j
ent organizer of mental processes." This focus magnifies
the fact that for most writers all of cognitive experience j
! !
lies within the domain of ego functioning. Freud's defini- j
tion of the ego was primarily a cognitive one. Hilgard
. . |
(1962) believes that because Freud left all instinctual j
experience to the id and social awareness to the super-ego
is has been principally a cognitive psychology, j
The review of definitions of the ego as provided
Allport indicates that the ego is thought of in much broader]
terms today than in the psychology of Freud's time. The ego
j j
I
has been defined by social psychologists as a subjective
organization of culture. Their concept includes the notion
that how a person regards himself, and how he uses his ex-
i
i
jperience to master reality, has a lot to do with what his
i
jsocial and cultural experiences have been. According to
Allport, no scientific verification can support any of these*
single definitions of the ego. The different definitions
seem to shade into one another. Most experiments result in
one common finding— namely, that ego involvement or its
absence makes a critical difference in human behavior.
j
Whether one accepts the above definitions of the
"ego" or prefers some other construct such as the positive J
jand negative reinforcement history of the individual, a
t
basic assumption in personality theory is that there is an
i j
jaspect to personality which directs, selects, integrates j
i !
and manages the internal and external forces of living. i
l
I
Ideally, one is continually moving to new levels of devel
opment and higher degrees of personal management. When this
does not happen and breakdown occurs, it is necessary to
llook for the cause of the difficulty in terms of the indi-
i
i
jvidual's ability to mediate his experiences as well as in
the existence of the internal and external supplies to solve;
the problem.
Basic Psychological Supplies Necessary
for Adjustment
Spitz (1951) postulates that the principal variables
(supplies) in the development of the child are the relation-;
ship between the infant and his mother and the relationship
between the child and his larger environment. Even though ’
Spitz does not deal directly with the organic components of
childhood mental illnesses, he indicates their importance.
i
The child's psychic system is not differentiated from his
somatic system during the first months of life. His mother ;
must administer his daily schedule in order to ensure his
survival and to provide an environment from which he can j
I
i
gradually establish himself as a separate person. In the <
course of the first six months, a psychological steering
organization will be separated from his experience. The !
I |
differentiation of this steering mechanism is a function of |
i
the cognitive-affective transaction between the mother and
the child. When there is insufficient or inadequate trans
action, diffusion rather than differentiation results.
I
Spitz suggests that this can come about when there is a i
I
!
wrong kind of mothering. Either the mother herself, becausej
of her own personality makeup, acts as a negative agent in
the child's development or there is a deficiency of mother
ing (maternal deprivation).
I
j The other principal supply postulated by Spitz, the
-environment, has to do with the economic resources of the
i
l
[family, the influence of the neighborhood, the interaction
jof the family with its immediate social group and the larger
society, and the transmission of language, values, attitudes1
ithrough consistent or inconsistent sets of reinforcement
procedures.
|
| While adequate mothering and the larger social
environment of the child can be considered to be externally |
produced supplies, the constitutional makeup of the child
|
land his basic intellectual resources can be considered to
I |
j i
jbe two internally produced supplies which are necessary for !
jadequate management of experience. The physical status of
l
Ithe child, his sensory acuity, and intact neurological sys- j
1
tem, and an optimum endocrine balance are but a few of the |
constitutional factors which relate to development. In-
!
i
I
telligence, whether thought to be best defined as Spearman's;
i
j
!"g" or by a multiple factor theory of mental ability, cer- |
i i
tainly constitutes a major psychological supply which is
jcritical in meeting the demands of life adjustment and I
! 18 !
I !
i ,
school learning situations.
When the adjustment of the child fails in a school
j
i j
situation, one can infer that some deficiency exists in the j
jmothering, environmental, constitutional or intellectual
isupplies which are available for a solution. In addition,
|
pne must also infer some reduced capacity for mediating or
Managing the situation with the existing supplies.
| Conversely, the capacity for adjustment is related
jto the efficacy of both the psychological supplies and the
executive of personality management (the ego). The assump-
! I
! i
tion follows that the child with more adequate psychological
supplies, and the child with greater ego capacity, or more
adequate functioning abilities, has a greater potential for
adjustment than a child with less capacity. Obviously thesej
j !
[two continua are dynamically inter-related and weaknesses |
and strengths in either continuum can balance out one
I
another. Implied in such a frame of reference is the popu- |
lar concept of coping ability. j
I
l
Coping: The Ego of the Child in Operation |
*
One way to study the effects of the interaction of
jsupplies and ego is to evaluate the effectiveness of the j
Child's coping efforts. The idea of coping was originally
bound up with the psychoanalytic concept of defenses against
attack on the personality structure, but as psychoanalysis
i
progressed, the concept of coping crept more and more into j
the literature as a mechanism of the ego and thus as a con- j
cept of ego psychology. Murphy (1962) points out that when
jthe terms "coping" or "coping efforts" are used, one is not j
i ' !
■dealing with a concept which has an established theoretical
j - i
lineage. Many psychologists have used the term in the con- j
i
text of an individual's failure to cope with certain exter
nal difficulties or with his problem. The psychological
i
defenses are coping mechanisms. However, defenses which
are too rigid and those which are too weak indicate diffi- ,
! i
culties in coping. The concept of coping as used in the
literature does not include universal patterns such as
I
!
sucking reflexes, or general capacities of the human being
Isuch as those called for in vocalization or locomotion.
j :
'Coping devices as described by Murphy involve individual !
i
l
choices in ways of using the basic resources to develop new
structures and integrations to master personal problems with
i
the environment.
! With a concept of coping has come a de-emphasis of
i
I !
f
defense mechanisms such as regression, rationalization,
projection, intellectualization, etc., as essentially "bad"
for the individual. On the other hand, insufficient defen
ses have become more malignant signs, and defenses, of what
ever type, are evaluated in terms of their effectiveness in j
j
serving the individual.
The postulate of coping ability and the related
jefforts of Murphy to describe not only strategies of coping j
j
but the effectiveness of such strategies in the solution of ,
the child's immediate problem provides an available focus I
|
for studying the ego of the child in operation. One way to i
study school adjustment is to evaluate the status of the
; |
psychological supplies and to determine whether these sup
plies are related to indices of a child's coping ability in j
!
school. At this point it serves the purposes of this theor-
i
I
etical frame of reference to suggest that good ego strength j
I
iis synonymous with adequate coping ability and poor ego i
i
Istrength is synonymous with inadequate coping ability,
i |
School adjustment is considered to be basically two-i
dimensional. One dimension with sub-dimensions would be
the psychological supplies necessary for adjustment. The
other dimension with sub-dimensions would be the effects of
the ego in utilizing these supplies in meeting the demands
of the school situation or school coping efforts.
Defining the Continua of the Dimensions !
of Psychological Supplies and !
Schag.l_gj2p il?.q_E f f or t ?
A concept of degrees of freedom in choosing from
i
j
j
alternative coping solutions and of degrees of freedom pro- i
duced by the adequacy of the psychological supplies will be ;
I introduced here to define the continua of these 2 dimensions
i 1
j
jof school adjustment. Inadequate psychological supplies at
one end of the continuum restrict and limit the child's
j ;
jbehavioral options. Such limitations or restrictions serve
I ' :
to reduce his relative freedom of choice in social and
i !
I i
educational endeavors. This reduction of personal maneuver-
. i
S
ability and flexibility in a constantly changing environment;
I i
[increases the child's difficulties in adapting to the pres- 1
j i
jsures and changes of school. The child who cannot cope weli
| i
jwith the school situation and who adjusts poorly suggests a !
I
[reduction in the degrees of freedom to select from alterna- [
| i
. - j
jtive solutions to the demands of school. On the other hand,j
the child who can adjust well to a constantly changing en-
j
vironment as presented in the school situation manifests a j
larger number of degrees of freedom to select alternative
solutions.
I
The concept of degrees of freedom will be used in
this report to define the continuum of adequacy of the
22 |
i
psychological supplies from inadequate to adequate as well !
as the continuum of the ability of the child to use these
i
{supplies effectively from ineffective to effective. For |
i !
{example, a continuum of judgments of the adequacy of the
i ;
Schild's neighborhood environment can range from zero or few
i ;
degrees of freedom (as in the limited opportunity of a child
{from a culturally disadvantaged environment) to many degrees;
| |
jof freedom (as in the greater opportunity of a child in a !
i '
{culturally advantaged neighborhood). A second example il
lustrates how the concept of degrees of freedom can be ap
plied to a continuum of effects of a child's coping in |
school. A distribution of scores from intelligence tests
{represents a continuum of the capacity of the child to {
succeed in school subjects. This continuum can range from
izero or few degrees of freedom (low intelligence, which !
suggests an inability to learn skills needed at next grade
{ 1
levels) to many degrees of freedom (excellent intelligence, j
I
which is evidence of probable success as well as the entre !
j
to a more rich and varied curriculum at the next grade).
It is postulated here that school adjustment can be
inferred from the degrees of freedom available to the child
I
from the adequacy of his psychological supplies and from the
effectiveness of his coping efforts.
23
Operational Definitions of School
Adiustment_as_.-Us ed in This Report
School adjustment is hypothesized to be effective
t
jcoping ability in school. School adjustment is a function
|
jof adequacy of the psychological supplies which, at this
i
jtime, are considered to be constitutional disposition,
i
i
jquality of mothering or family relationships, social and
i
|cultural factors and cognitive resources. Coping skills
{will be measured by teacher ratings of behavior, grades,
achievement in basic subject areas, peer ratings of be
havior, etc.
I CHAPTER III !
i j
i '
i ' j
| OBJECTIVES
| The primary objective of this project is to analyze
I |
j !
a comprehensive set of variables which are thought to be i
j
predictive of general mental health problems in order to !
determine some aspects of the dimensionality which underlies
them and then to relate these dimensions to school problems.
The data to be analyzed represent contemporary efforts to
measure or evaluate the psychological supplies which are
considered essential to adjustment and aspects of general j
coping ability in specific school and life situations. The |
observations, ratings and tests administered by the tradi- !
jtional clinical team of psychiatrist, social worker and
I
j
Iclinical psychologist represent 3 sources of information j
about the children in question. Information obtained from j
i
i
!
the school, from teachers and peers, grades as well as test
scores, and attendance records, etc., represent data which
may be utilized to determine the present status of the
25 i
children as they function in the school setting.
i
j The general experimental hypothesis to be tested in
jthis project is that the dimensions of school adjustment of
school children can be measured in those life areas which
are the causes or the effects of reduced behavioral freedom.
[Previously these dimensions have been classified into
psychological supplies (both external and internal), and
I ■
|ego capacity as inferred from ability to cope in a given
i
i
jsituation. More traditionally, these variables have been
[classified as physical, social, and psychological dimensions)
iof mental health.
I
i The data will be arranged in sets according to the
Isource of information and a factoring procedure will be
i !
i i
[used m order to determine the principal sources of varia-
i
jbility in each set of data. The factors or dimensions de
fined by each analysis will then be compared to the hypo-
i
Ithetical frame of reference in order to determine which
I j
jdimensions can be supported as being a cause (in the supply j
j ' i
dimension) or an effect (in the coping dimension) of reduced
behavioral freedom. Factor scores will be computed and
I
j :
'correlated in order to determine which of the dimensions '
! ■ !
[representing basic psychological supplies are related to
those dimensions representing aspects of the child's coping j
■ability or school adjustment.
| In addition to the analyses described in general
I
terms above, each of the variables and the procedures for
measuring them will be described in full so that those
Variables which relate to these 2 general dimensions of
j
jschool adjustment can be used by other investigators to
I
i
jdetermine how well they predict other mental health cri
teria .
| CHAPTER IV ;
I !
I PROCEDURE
I
| Selecting the Schools for the Study
i
| In this project, schools in the Greater Los Angeles
i
Metropolitan Area where clinical personnel are relatively
plentiful were the locale for the study. The time any
clinician has available for such a project can be consid
ered limited; therefore extensive travel to schools far
from his office would be impossible. School districts were
jfirst reviewed and ranked on the basis of their previously
i
indicated interest in the object of the research program and
i
then compared with the potential supply of clinical person-i
!nel within a half hour's driving time from office to school.;
i :
School superintendents were then contacted by letter
j
with a brief statement of the project outline, the expec- j
I
tancies for teacher and staff involvement, and the advantage
accruing to the school and district for the time of related j
i
school personnel. Those districts which replied to the
| 28
letter were then contacted in person by the project direc- j
tor.
I
i
j The school superintendent or his delegate is in a j
I . i
jgood position to compare a given school within his district ;
jwith the project objectives and to determine which teachers,
i
j
jprincipals and staff members are likely candidates for
| i
iproject participation. During the conference with the
i
superintendent, the schools were selected for the study
i
subject to the approval of the principals. Appointments
were then made with the principals of schools nominated by
the superintendent in order to discuss the goals of the
project and the role of the principal and teachers in the
I ;
! i
Scollection of the data. No principal who was contacted !
i
refused to participate in the project. |
| Seven schools were selected within the Los Angeles I
1
City School District, 2 in the Claremont School District,
I i
and 2 schools within the La Vista School District in Hay- j
ward. The latter schools, lying south of Oakland, were j
selected because the superintendent had made a personal j
inquiry about the possibility of being involved in the pro
ject and clinical personnel were available who could sched-
jule time for the evaluations. The 11 schools which parti- i
I
I
i
Icipated in the project were selected by subjective rather
than random sample procedures; however, every effort was j
!
made to pick schools not characterized by special socio-
I
i
economic or environmental factors which would have biased [
t
the results.
i In order to deal with community or school district
jvariables which could be later found to be related to the
j • :
[research findings, all available information on socio-
|
economic, intellectual and health factors were recorded.
The classrooms and teachers are considered to be typical of i
those found in California in suburban or urban communities. j
The schools were distinguished by the fact that the princi- !
pals were specially interested in the problems of pupils
j |
who were vulnerable to school difficulty, but this factor j
is considered to be an advantage to the project rather than j
i I
j a biasing factor . j
[ Selecting the Sample of Pupils j
for the Project
No ready-made list of pupils with or without school
difficulties is available in schools. This fact makes
selecting a sample of pupils from a continuum of school
[adjustment problems extremely difficult. Even though a
i
list of referrals to the school guidance office is avail
able, it has limited use. This is principally because many
selective factors cause a teacher to refer a pupil and these!
factors vary from teacher to teacher. Asking teachers to
|
i
nominate those pupils with and without distinct adjustment
difficulties in school is a somewhat better method of ob-
I
Staining a sample; nevertheless in this regard also, teacherd
!
i .
jvary in the degree to which they take note of certain pupil
behaviors so that little consistency can be expected in the I
I
types of pupil problems which are recognized from teacher !
i
i
to teacher, even though a single teacher's nominations may
be quite stable over a period of time. !
j
Scores from personality tests also have limited use j
as criterion measures for the purposes of this project sinc^
i I
jthey most typically provide scores on scales describing j
jbehavior dynamics or areas of personality motivation, but j
iare of limited value in providing a meaningful over-all j
(score of pupil adjustment. Smith (1958) studied the valid- i
iity of 6 group personality tests for children. She conclud-}
i
1
ed that none of the tests discriminated well enough to be '
i
i
I
i
used singly. However, she noted that several of the tests !
i
i
(indicated group differences large enough to allow for a
ilimited degree of applicability when combined with other
i
i
(measures. In Ullman's study of teacher, peer and self
i
I
(ratings (1957) he showed that the personality inventory had
the lowest predictive value when compared to teacher and
i
peer ratings, but that it did add a significant dimension :
i '
to the total appraisal process. Jackson's correlations of !
teacher observation, group personality tests and sociometriq
iratios (1961) indicate that each of these types of scores
i i
|
[measures different aspects of pupil behavior. j
;
! In selecting a pupil sample in each school the prob-l
: i
lem for this research project was (1) to find some means of |
I ;
tapping the day-to-day observation of teachers so that a
teacher rating of school adjustment could be made of each j
member of the class, and still not contaminate the data j
|
requested of the pupil's current teachers which were to be
| ]
Evaluated as school adjustment criteria; and then (2) to
take a small sample at random from the population after the
school adjustment ratings were made.
The teachers who had the pupils during the previous j
I
school year participated in the initial phase of the pro
ject. Their job was to attend sessions after school where j
they were trained to observe and rate children's behavior !
on a continuum from good to poor school adjustment. By
involving these teachers instead of the current teachers
i
who would be participating in the project in the next school
year, the contamination of previous training sessions on the
32 1
I
Behavior Rating of Pupils (Bower and Lambert, 1961) which
was the teacher rating used in this project could be avoid
ed. The teachers who would administer the teacher, peer and
I 1
|self ratings were not involved in the training sessions or
j
jthe rating process prior to the selection of the project
sample. The lag between the initial teacher rating of
jschool adjustment and the later teacher ratings for the
i
project was no less than 8 months. Whatever communication |
might have taken place between the teachers who had the
pupils in classes in successive years was thus minimized. j
i !
One weak point in this procedure is that the school j
adjustment of pupils is not a static affair. Some pupils ,
i
jidentified as having difficulties at the end of one school
year might not manifest equally serious problems in the
i
jnext grade. Nevertheless, since the purpose of the original!
i
Iteacher rating was to get a score from which a sample could I
i i
i i
|be drawn for the clinical teams to evaluate, such changes
in pupil status would be independent of the judgments of
the clinician or teacher which were made during the next
i
school year. A pupil with temporary severe problems given
a high rating by his teacher of the Spring of one year would
not necessarily receive a high problem rating by the clini-
i
cal team in the Winter and Spring of the following year.
1
33 |
i
The stability of school adjustment status is in need of
careful evaluation; however, since this study is directed
toward an evaluation of the variables which are predictive
j
of present adjustment rather than previous or future ad
justment, this factor of stability of adjustment is not
i
i . :
jconsidered to be a problem needing further consideration at j
i
this point.
|
Training teachers to make
iratinas and nominations of
school adjustment status
i
The teacher training sessions held in each school ;
1
l
provided a common frame of reference for the initial teacher;
|
bating. At these sessions the goals of the project were j
i j
jreviewed, the problems of children with poor school adjust- j
ment were described and specific types of children were i
[
I
piscussed as examples of those with school adjustment prob- j
llems. Teachers were free to ask any pertinent questions j
| !
they wished and spent some time discussing general problems |
!
of pupils who they thought might fit the classification. j
i
The procedure for rating the class members on a scale of
school adjustment was then explained and materials summar-
j
izing the training sessions and the rating form were left
with the teachers at the end of the meeting. A general
summary of these criteria is as follows:
Most children who go to school are able to get
along fairly well in learning tasks and are able to
have rewarding experiences with peers and adults.
The child who is adjusted well to school is one who !
learns from his experiences; one who is able to spend
his time on a variety of activities; one who has the
I ability to undergo stressful experiences without col-
| lapsing emotionally; one who is physically healthy; j
I and one who is enthusiastic about life in general. !
! The child who adjusts well is one of the majority of
j children in school and while he may or may not be the
i best student in class, he can be described as one who
i 7 j
| can exercise a variety of choices in his behavior and
| who is comfortable with such freedom.
One can judge the degree to which a child can
adjust to life and school from the degrees of freedom
he has in choosing from among alternatives of behav- j
ior. Often one can infer a rigidity in a child's per
sonality which causes him to have learning or behavior
j problems not amenable to ordinary corrective measures, i
| Such limitations also serve to reduce the child's
relative freedom of choice in other social and educa- i
tional endeavors. The reduction of personal maneuver- '
ability and flexibility increases the child's diffi
culties in adapting to the pressures and changes in !
life. As a result, the child with emotional handicaps j
| shows increasing susceptibility to behavioral diffi- i
I culties and interpersonal friction. / ,
\ Specifically, the child with poor schooT^-adrjustment !
is defined as having moderate to marked reduction in j
behavioral freedom, which in turn reduces this ability
to function effectively in learning or working with j
others.
Obtaining initial teacher
ratings and principal*, teacher
and nurse nominations of pupils
with adjustment problems
The model for teacher ratings which was developed
by the author in previous research (Lambert, 1961) and used
35 :
in the Behavior Rating of Pupils was applied to the solution
of this rating problem. This model is based on the assump
tion that the extent of school adjustment can be rated on a
continuum and that the characteristics of the behavior of a
specific problem student are not in a discrete class of
jevents. Each teacher was.asked to sort out her entire class
!
|on a 7-point scale of school adjustment using the definition
: !
jand description provided in the training session material i
I i
land reproduced above. A rating of the entire class was then
jprovided with the pupils grouped in 7 continuous categories,;
roughly in a normal distribution. Samples of material which
I i
was used for teacher ratings are included in the Appendix.
In addition to this rating, each teacher was asked j
to review the class roster and to nominate any pupils with
i :
I
jconsistently poor adjustment. The school nurse and princi
pal were also asked to review the rosters and make similar
! i
nominations independent of one another. Those who were
; 1
nominated by the teacher, school nurse or principal were
classed under 1 or more of the 5 following behavior de
scriptions of pupils with school adjustment problems (Lam
bert and Bower, 1961): |
j
1. An inability to learn which cannot be adequately
explained by intellectual, sensory, neurophysiological
or general health factors. I
An inability to learn, is, perhaps the single most j
significant characteristic of children with school
adjustment problems. Non-learning of this kind may be ,
manifested as an inability to profit from any school ,
learning experiences as well as an inability to master J
skill subjects . The non-learner may irall behind al- i
most imperceptibly in the first few grades but find !
himself in deep water by the time he reaches fourth
grade. There are some students, too, who seem to be !
keeping pace until they reach junior high school when
they begin to flounder badly. By whatever symptoms
the inability manifests itself, we will, as educators,
seek the cause or causes. And once we have ruled out '
intellectual, sensory, neurophysiological, and general
health factors, there remain emotional conflicts and i
resistances to be investigated as major causes of !
learning disabilities.
!
2. An inability to build or maintain satisfactory
interpersonal relationships with peers and teachers.
It is not just "getting along" with others that i
is significant here. The term "satisfactory interper
sonal relationships" refers to the ability to demon
strate sympathy and warmth toward others, the ability 1
to stand alone when necessary, the ability to have
close friends, the ability to be aggressively con- j
structive and the ability to enjoy working and playing I
with others as well as to enjoy working and playing j
by oneself. In most instances, children who are un
able to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal
relationships are noticed by their peers, or are most
clearly visible to their peers. Teachers, however,
are also able to identify many such children after a j
period of observation.
3. Inappropriate or immature types of behavior or i
feelings under normal conditions.
Inappropriateness of behavior or feeling can often
be sensed by the teacher and peer groups. "He acts
like a baby most of time," or "He acts funny lots of
times," are judgments often heard to describe such
behavior. The teacher may find some children reacting
to a simple command, like "Please take your seat" in
37
wildly disparate or incongruous ways. What is appro
priate or inappropriate, mature or immature, is best
judged by the teacher using his professional training,
i his daily and long-term observation of the child, and
his experience working and interacting with the behav
ior of large numbers of children.
! 4. A general pervasive mood of unhappiness or depres
sion.
Children who are unhappy most of the time may
demonstrate such feelings in expressive play, art
i work, written composition, or in discussion periods.
| They seldom smile and usually lack a "joy of living"
I in their school work or social relationships. In the
! middle or upper grades a self inventory is usually
| helpful in confirming suspicions about such feelings.
5. A tendency to develop physical symptoms, such as
speech problems, pains, or fears, associated with
| personal or school problems.
j
Often this tendency is first noted by the child
himself. Illness may be linked to regular school
pressures or develop when a child's confidence in
j himself is under stress. Speech difficulties result-
! ing from emotional distress are usually painfully
| audible to the teacher and parent.
It is important to note that the 5 patterns of be
havior described above can be observed to some degree in
all children at different times. The critical question in
reference to each of them is, "How much is too much?"
School adjustment problems, like all handicaps, exist in
degrees. To clarify the definition of school adjustment
[provided above and the behavior descriptions of pupils with
i
specific adjustment problems quoted previously, it is
| 38 |
- !
necessary to define some of the points along the continuum j
of school adjustment.
I |
| 1. Best adjusted— children who experience and
! I
j
demonstrate the normal problems of everyday living, growing,
exploring and reality testing.
I I
2. Well adjusted, but not the best adjusted—
Children who develop a greater number of symptoms of emo-
i
tional problems as a result of normal crises or stressful '
experiences such as the death of father, birth of sibling,
I
I ;
jfriction between parents, physical injury, school entrance, i
uberty, and so forth.
3. Moderately well adjusted— children in whom
symptoms of moderate emotional and school maladjustment
ersist to some extent beyond normal expectations but who
r I
are able to manage an adequate school adjustment under op
timal conditions.
i . i
4. Poorly adjusted, but not the poorest— children
| !
with fixed and recurring symptoms of school maladjustment, J
i
who can, with help, profit by school attendance and maintain!
{some positive relationships in the school setting.
| 5. Poorest adjusted— children with fixed and re-
j i
jcurring symptoms of emotional and school adjustment diffi- I
j j
i
Iculties who are perhaps best educated in special school
39 !
I
jsituations or at times in a home setting.
j i
j These divisions are arbitrary and children may be
highly mobile within the above classifications. We do not j
I
i
know what percentage of the school population falls within
|any of these categories. We can propose, however, on the
I :
jbasis of empirical evidence, that a great majority of chil-
i ,
<3ren probably fall within categories 1, 2, and 3, while a
smaller group will be found in categories 4 and 5. The
teacher who rated her class from the poorest to best ad
justed, first located the pupil or pupils on her roster whomi
i i
I
| j
she considered to be the best and the poorest adjusted.
Then by using these pupils as anchors, she placed the re-
I !
mainder of the class on the rating grid according to her j
perceptions of the distance between them and the anchor j
i
i
pupils who had been placed at the extremes of the continuum.;
In all of the classes which were rated in this phase of the j
I |
[project, the grouping of students was made by the school i
! • I
principal on a random or heterogeneous basis. Well and !
I
poorly adjusted students were found in every class. Any i
|
differences which may have occurred between one teacher's
class and another's could be accounted for on the rating
grid by placing more students at one or the other end of
i
i
[the continuum.
I 40 !
1 ]
j I
At the end of the training sessions, the following j
data were available: (1) rating of each pupil on a scale
j
from 1 to 7 (good to poor adjustment), and (2) nominations
►
j
from the teacher, principal or school nurse of specific
! :
jpupils in the same classrooms with outstanding problem be-
|
jhavior. These data were used next to stratify the popula-
j :
tion before selecting the sample of pupils who would be
I
scheduled for individual evaluations.
Dividing school population into
2 groups— above and below average j
school adjustment
The grids on which the teachers had made their
ratings provided the names of all of the pupils in the class
j
ordered into an approximately normal distribution. Devia- !
tions from normality came about because once a teacher se- j
i
|lected a single pupil for a particular place on the grid,
I ■ ;
he was to place all other pupils with similar adjustment
status in the same column. Peculiarities in class structurJ
I
1
would then show up in the skewing of the teacher's ratings |
to either side of the rating grid. Extreme examples of sue
skewing were not found. Most teachers found it quite pos-
jsible to order their class in the model provided in the
i
Jrating form since the classes in this project were fairly
jheterogeneous in regard to school behavior .
I
j Each class was then divided into 2 groups. One
| j
jgroup contained the names of those pupils rated as being in ;
| I
I
|the third of the class with the poorest adjustment. The
i ' !
!
bther group of pupils contained the remainder of the pupils
jon the class roster . Most pupils in the poorest adjustment ;
group had ratings of 5, 6, or 7, while ratings of 1 to 4 ,
were assigned to the group which was rated as better ad-
I !
justed. Deviations from these rating distributions occurred
jonly when a pupil was nominated by a teacher, principal or
nurse and received a teacher rating of school adjustment
lower than 5. These pupils were placed in the group of more;
poorly adjusted students when they received a nomination of j
specific school adjustment problems by the teacher, princi- ;
pal or nurse even though their teacher rating was 4. Nine j
jhundred and five pupils were in the original sample. Of
i i
these only 37 were nominated as having specific problem
behavior. All but 6 of these pupils who were nominated j
i
i
received a teacher rating of school adjustment of 5 or high-;
er . All of the 6 remaining received a rating of 4.
42
Raaflpmiai B g , - ,
sampling and arranging the
population in a random
distribution
I
Two lists were made of the names of pupils in the
I :
jclasses divided into these adjustment categories from the lli
i
jschools. The next step was to number the pupils as their
names appeared on each of the lists, and then with a table
of random numbers to randomize both lists of names. Follow^
i
ing this randomizing, the numbers of boys and girls were
tallied in the group designated as being composed of poorly
adjusted pupils. From the randomized list of the better •
adjusted pupils the number of boys and girls equal to the
number of boys and girls in the poorer adjusted population
was selected according to their random order. Two lists \
were finally available, each with the same number of pupils !
I
land balanced with equal numbers of boys and girls. All
|
jpupils who remained were eliminated at this point. The
! I
final step in the preparation of this list was to place the j
I
names of both groups, the ones judged to be above and below j
i
average in school adjustment, on a single list in random
order. This final ordering was accomplished according to j
i
coin tosses. From an original population of 905, a total j
of 182 boys and 129 girls remained on the project rosters.
I
!
i ----------------------------- 1
Establishing the project list
The project list, therefore, was composed of a
i
(random list of names of pupils sampled from the total pop-
|
[ulation in terms of teachers' ratings and nominations of
jschool adjustment with equal numbers of "better" and "poor-
I
jer" adjusted pupils and the same number of boys and girls
1 :
I i
jin each category. In such a procedure the most poorly ad-
1 i
! justed pupil may not turn up in the randomizing process
i
j
close enough to the top of the list so he will be selected
for clinical evaluation; however, such a disadvantage is
I |
off-set, since the sample comes from a continuous distribu-j
tion and is composed of students typical of those in all
■ I
parts of the school populations at that particular grade
j i
|level, but stratified to contain equal numbers of boys and
i ;
i i
jgirls on each side of the distribution. !
I
l
Arbitrarily, 20 per cent of the pupils in any grade ;
iwas the original limit on the number of pupils from a school
jwho would be evaluated by the clinical teams. This means |
|
that on the average 5 or 6 pupils from any teacher's class
would be in the study sample. In order to anticipate the
| attrition resulting from a parent declining the opportunity
|for his child to participate in the project, randomized
!project lists contained more than 20 per cent of the pupil
population. The number of names on the project list was j
determined by the school principal who provided an- estimate
I
of the degree of cooperation from parents. j
Gaining Parent Approval for a Child's
! Participation in the Project
|
| One cannot expect that the parent of every pupil
i
(sampled for a project like this will be interested in par-
j :
i
ticipating in the project. A rejection factor of 10 per j
cent is expected in research which requires door-to-door
sampling. One can expect a much larger rejection figure in |
j a research project which requires parent participation to |
I
I
(the extent of providing the social worker with a complete
i :
developmental history of the child as well as permission !
j
i
for psychiatric interviewing and psychological testing.
I
!
A number of possible approaches to the parents were !
(discussed with the school principals. On the basis of these!
j |
discussions the project director allowed the principal to j
i
determine which method would be most appropriate for his j
l
particular school. Regardless of the method used, the
children were contacted in the order indicated on the ran
domized project list. If a rejection occurred, the next
name on the list was used. I
45 I
rypes of parent contact
selected by the principals
The types of parent contact which the principals
l
I
[selected were either one of the following:
I 1. Principals sent letters home to parents of all
[fifth graders to inform them of the project and to let them
i
i
know that their child might he picked at random to partici
pate. School secretaries then called parents and scheduled
social worker home visits.
2. Principals sent letters home to parents of pu
pils on project list, adding enough names from the project
list to anticipate a given amount of rejection. Letters
contained a tear-off sheet which the parents could return
I
(
hither with his child or by mail indicating that he was
i
i
jvilling to participate. The tear-off sheet which was re-
| ;
turned to school indicated days and hours when parents would
i
be home. The social worker then made an appointment direct-
i
fLy with the parents. In the second method it was necessary
I
to anticipate that the tear-off sheets would not be returned
by a number of parents either because they did not want to
participate, because they forgot, or because it was too much
extra trouble for them at that time. Tear-off sheets were
returned to school for about half of the pupils for whom
jthey were originally sent home.
Principals did not pursue a parent who neglected to
respond to the letter. If they did not return the tear-off
J ;
jslips, no further contacts were made. Obviously, the re
search sample could be seriously biased by this procedure,
since the samples of pupils for whom the tear-off slips were
^returned might be significantly different in terms of the
Iteacher rating of school adjustment from which the sample
|was made. A careful check was made of the teacher ratings
i
l ;
jof those who participated against those who did not parti
cipate. The comparison of the frequency distributions for
I
the total sample of participants versus non-participants
Ishows no significant difference in the distributions when
j ;
i j
the chi square test was applied. These findings are accept-i
ed as evidence that the sample which did not reply to the
contact by the school principal or the school was not signi
ficantly different in terms of initial teacher ratings of j
;adjustment from the sample which did reply (Table 1). More j
boys than girls were in the project sample since boys had a ;
i
greater number of initial teacher ratings of poorer school j
i •
! adjustment.
TABLE 1
DISTRIBUTION OF FREQUENCY AND PERCENTAGE OF TEACHER RATING OF SCHOOL ADJUSTMENT BY SEX
ON FIFTH GRADE SAMPLE WHICH REPLIED "YES" TO RESEARCH INVITATION
AND SAMPLE WHICH DID NOT PARTICIPATE
Reply to
Research
Invitation
Original Teacher Rating of School Adjustment
Significant
Level of
Difference
in Distribution
1
f % f
2
%
3
f % f
4
%
5
f %
6
f % f
7
%
Total
f %
Boys
Reply "Yes" 4 4.1 10 10.2 11 11.2 22 22.4 21 21.4 23 23.5 7 7.2 98 100 NS
Did Not
Participate 3 3.6 10 11.9 5 6.0 16 19.0 16 19.0 20 23.8 14 16.7 84 100 NS
Girls
Reply "Yes" 2 3.9 9 16.1 4 7.1 19 34.0 10 17.9 7 12.5 5 8.8 56 100 NS
Did Not
Participate 5 6.8 8 11.0 8 11.0 20 27.4 12 16.4 17 23.3 3 4.1 73 100 NS
Contact of the parents by
f r h < ? social. worker
The social worker who was assigned to a school ; •
i
visited the homes of each of the pupils whose parents in- !
dicated an interest in the project. In a few cases it was 1
not possible to contact some parents, even on second and
j
third trials, even when calls were made directly at the
i
home. In a couple of other cases, children moved between j
the time their parents replied to the contact by the prin-
I ;
i 1
cipal and the time that the social worker could schedule an
appointment. A few other problems were encountered also. j
I !
jit is important to note, however, that of all of the parents;
i ;
who indicated an interest in the project only 6 parents
I ‘
| i
refused consent for interviewing and testing following the j
social worker home visit. This is less than 2 per cent of
all the families contacted. One specific goal to be accom- j
jplished by the social worker at the conclusion of the home i
visit, in addition to the collection of data on the inter- 1
i
view schedule, was to obtain written consent from the par-
i
ents for psychiatric interviewing and psychological testing
of the child at school. The forms were provided by the
project office. Only after they were signed by the parents
! I
Was a child seen at the school by a psychiatrist or a
psychologist.
i
Selecting the Clinical Teams |
| Obtaining clinical personnel for a research study j
i ' '
irequires careful consideration of the personal and profes-
Isional qualities which will ensure optimal results. Members
(of the clinical professions who are interested in the task j
i .
involved in a research project such as this must be willing j
I
ito undergo professional self-scrutiny. Each clinician must ;
be willing to subject his regular working hypotheses and
i
assumptions to evaluation and he must acknowledge the fact 1
in advance that his contributions may be rejected by the
^parents, the child or the school. :
Besides these general personal qualities, the pro-
i
fessional standards of clinicians solicited to participate j
I
1 . i
iin the project were also maintained at a common standard of
training and experience. The psychiatrists had completed j
j i
| f
residency in the profession and were attached to clinics or 1
worked in private practice with children. The psychologists!
i
i
had the Ph.D. in clinical psychology and also had consider
able experience with children. The social workers', training
included the M.S.W. degree or its equivalent and a number
i
of years in child guidance clinics interviewing parents or |
jchildren.
i
I
! Procedures for Making
I the Social Worker Evaluations !
! |
i !
Background
|
| Social workers are interested in helping clients
I
'find relief from environmental and/or emotional pressures,
i I
i • i
Selby (1958) comments on the fact that the field of social |
I |
work needs to describe more fully how the social worker
helps clients to make use of their own adaptive capacities
|in the resolution of their problems and utilize their own j
| !
resources for problem solving.
Social case work training provides a good background
j . j
for understanding child development and making a clinical |
!
j
appraisal of the individual. In both academic and field |
Iwork experiences, however, the emphasis in training is fre-
' i
i
iquently greater in the understanding of deviant behavior, I
| I
just as in the case of the psychiatrist and psychologist,
j
than in the understanding of characteristic patterns of
child development at different age levels. Even though
Grill (1959) makes note of the fact that knowledge of child
development at different age levels is very important for
the school social worker, the focus of social work is on a
description of behavior, and deviations from expected pat- j
|
terns are often interpreted in terms of their appropriate-
I ;
jness for the child or family. 1
! !
| Some work toward developing typologies for case- i
i :
I ;
[workers has been accomplished by Selby. She reviews the
needs for typologies, the resistances to developing them, j
but sums up the problems by challenging the profession of i
j
social work to come to some agreement about what they need !
! I
to know in order to ensure limits, relevance and direction
i
to their helping efforts.
| The focus of the social worker, therefore, is on [
i
j I
evaluating the state of mental health of the child in his
i
; i
environment. Her basic equipment is an awareness of the
i
cultural and social components in the organization and con- j
i
trol of human behavior. She becomes sensitized to the so- !
i
[cial milieu by systematic training and experiences in dif-
: l
ferent cultural environments which make her aware of moti
vations from a cultural point of view. This aspect of her
training is analogous to the sensitizing of the psychoana
lyst to unconscious motivations through a training analysis.
Hollingshead (1958) states that the evaluation of an indi
vidual situation is based on at least 3 basic operating
assumptions:
I 1. Social behavior is learned by individuals
i [
[through their interaction or association with other members ;
jof their society. |
| 2. The content of what individuals learn is pro
vided by their society's culture.
3. What individuals learn is determined by parti-
’ i
jcipation in society's culture.
i
j
The social workers' home
interview schedule
i ■ :
| Most of the data about genetic, physical, familial i
I !
i ;
|and environmental factors which could be predictive of
I :
I |
'school adjustment are collected by the social worker in the |
routine gathering of developmental history information. In ;
this project social workers made a home visit which enabled i
i
them to gather a number of important facts about the neigh- i
i
!borhood in which the family lived, the condition of the home!
; i
jand other important environmental variables. The difficulty
in developing the interview schedule for the social workers |
came about in reducing the schedule to a sequence of data !
(which could be gathered in one hour's time. In addition,
I 1
Ithe social workers knew that in the simple reporting of
i
jfacts about the child's life, little opportunity for observ
ing the affective response of the mother to the child would
53
j
be available? therefore some technique of eliciting respon- ;
ses which would give clues to the fami^ly-child or mother-
i ,
jchild relationship had to be developed. j
The most obvious area for gathering data was the
i
^developmental history of the child. Here, pre-natal and
|birth conditions were important to record. Facts about the
j \
i '
jbirth of the child and his early health, in addition to any i
jspecific eating or sleeping problems were needed. Toilet '
i ;
braining, childhood illnesses, both chronic and temporary,
| :
jand hospitalizations could also be noted. The child's re-
i • !
|lationship to the family, other adults and to siblings and
peers were additional sources of queries. The method of
[discipline employed, evidence of consistency, and the par- ;
I
]
jent's perception of the child's progress in school were alscj
! !
Included. Other areas for information gathering listed
were religious activities, marital status and leisure time j
I !
[activities. In addition to these objective facts a list of:
stimulus questions was developed which was to be used by
the social worker to elicit responses with affective content
which might give more information about the relationship of
i
Ithe parent to the child or the relationship of the parent
!
jto her larger social environment.
I
| The important area of socio-economic factors was
54 |
j
jrecorded by direct observation and questioning. A review |
i
j i
Jof some of the objective procedures for arriving at indices |
i 1
, I
lof socio-economic status was made. Warner's (1960) proced- !
! j
| i
|ure for using housing, occupation, source of income, and !
neighborhood was selected since a weighting of ratings on
I ;
i ;
leach of these factors was suggested and a distribution of
| . i
jscores related to socio-economic status was available. The •
1 i
! . .... I
jcritena for housing, neighborhood and occupation level were
I I
|used as suggested by Warner, and provided for ready refer
ence for the social worker along with the other interview
materials.
I
1
iSchedulinq the home visit
| |
j All parents in the study received a letter from the j
i
(school informing them that they would be contacted by a re-
isearch worker. With this as a background, the initial con- :
: f
tact with the home was through a telephone call, used to
{arrange for the home visit. In the usual case that the
j
j
parents could not be reached by phone, a brief call at the
home was made in order to arrange for a later appointment.
On the phone the social worker asked for the person who
I
i
Isigned the notice agreeing to participate in the project
i
jwhich had been sent from the school. Since this was usually
55 |
the mother, most calls were made in the morning. However, j
when mothers indicated that they worked, or if fathers '
jsigned the permit slip, the social worker called on Satur- j
(day, Sunday, or in the evening. !
i !
When the parent was reached, the social worker i
i
j
iidentified herself, confirmed the fact that she was talking
| i
to the person who had signed the permit and reminded the j
parents of its details if they had forgotten the contents
i |
of the school's notice. In general, the following informa-;
tion was used by the social worker to explain the nature of '
j ,
the project. This material was on hand and used to answer
questions about the purposes of the research in the hopes
! i
that general explanations would insure cooperation and not ;
I
I
arouse any unrealistic fears about the outcome of the inter
view.
I |
J I
The purpose of this research project is to survey I
a random sample of fifth grade pupils in order to de- i
i termine some of the non-intellectual factors which make
children successful as well as unsuccessful in school.
The school and the State Department of Education
j are working on ways of helping children in school learn
j more effectively. Part of the study will focus on
finding new ways of working with parents which can best
help them help their child in school. It is hoped that
as a result of the study, factors which are important
in helping a child learn more effectively in school can
be isolated, and a child who is beginning to have prob
lems and needs special assistance can be identified and
helped.
I During the progress of the study, information which
! 56
i
i the school has which is useful in planning more effec
tive school programs for children, especially for those ;
who may have some difficulty learning, will be ap
praised. |
| Parents, teachers, businesses, labor unions, and ;
universities are becoming increasingly alarmed by the j
fact that 30 per cent of the children who start school I
i do not finish, even though many of these children have
| the ability to succeed in school learning tasks. With-
j out a high school education a person has a markedly re- |
! duced chance of succeeding as an adult. Many become j
! dependent on society for help, either through unemploy- j
| ment benefits, public assistance, or institutionaliza
tion, A large segment of the welfare costs resulting j
from dependent individuals and families in our State
can be reduced only by measures intended to prevent or
reduce this problem. This study is based on the as
sumption that if schools can be helped to be more !
effective with a larger number of children, we can re- j
duce the educational casualties and increase the number j
of adults in our population who can function as workers,!
parents, and citizens. •
I
■ j
The social worker used only that part of the above i
material which seemed appropriate for assisting the parents j
i
with their understanding of their role in the project. I
[Nevertheless, with a standardized explanation of the nature I
! ;
• I
of the research, confidence could be insured regarding the J
uniformity of presentation of the project goals to parents.
An appointment was arranged during the phone call.
If any confusion, ambivalence, or resistance was expressed
at this point, the social worker provided the necessary
answers, pointed out that no more than an hour would be
required, and that the appointment would be made at the
r .... ■ ..~ ' i
57
convenience of the parent. If suspicion or hesitance con- j
tinued, the social worker suggested that the school be con-
I
i
tacted. Pointing out the research basis of this study and
t
its possible contribution to such areas as preventing juve-
|nile delinquency and school drop-outs proved helpful.
When the appointment was scheduled, the social i
worker attempted to indicate suitable conditions for the
i
j
interview, for example, at a time when the children would j
i ;
be at school and the mother free to respond. Directions for
finding the home were requested. j
!
At the end of the introductory phone call, the |
i
social worker had collected some valuable information which :
i
would be reflected later in her inferential ratings. Speci-j
fically, the parent's comprehension and recall of the pro- i
ject, the willingness to respond, the specific objections
t i
j l
lor questions raised, the coherence of the conversation, the j
I i
ability to give directions, all could be assessed. These j
i
I
behaviors allowed for clinical impressions of intelligence,
resistance, defensiveness, and the like.
Gathering information to com
plete the interview schedule
The home visit began with the social worker intro
ducing herself, accepting a chair, and readily displaying
F 58 ]
I
the interview schedule. This directed the interview into a j
"getting down to work" setting. The parent was told to feel[
[free not to deal with any questions as she wished, and to
| l
j j
jgive a general reaction, rather than to worry about details.;
I
The information collection process began with facts about
I '
ithe child's school life in order to set the tone of the
! i
{ ;
[interview and to minimize the implications or threat of the [
parent's feeling that she was being "analyzed."
] . I
[ Some of the more talkative parents were reminded of !
the amount of material to be covered and the promised time j
! ' j
limit. Criticisms of the type of questions or their rele- j
vance were answered by noting that research required infor- i
I |
mation not always immediately meaningful. The problem of !
i
privacy, when other adults or the children were in the home,!
!
!
[could be handled by offering to move to another room so i
i |
bthers would not be "inconvenienced." On an occasion or twoi
I - j
the parent attempted to involve the social worker in a j
"counseling" relationship. It is important to note that at
I
]
no time did the social workers exceed the sanction which
had been given at the start of the project— that of gather
ing information about children which might be meaningful in
understanding the relationship of certain factors to school
i
59
i
jsuccess or failure. The social worker was able to avoid j
jsuch ploys by the parent by reminding her of the research
! j
jnature of the project and by continuing to focus on the j
i ' !
facts to be gathered on the interview schedule. Nodding,
reflecting the statement made, or other non-value judgment
f ;
responses by the social worker, including taking time to
i
hear the parent out when she gave personal, private infor-
j
mation about herself were used in order to maintain cooper- j
i
ation. However, the social worker made it clear, by non- 1
j
verbal cues primarily, that the focus of the. interview was j
! '
on the completion of the interview schedule, not on the
|
problems of the parent. j
j
! At the end of the interview, the parent's consent
i
for psychiatric interviewing of the child and a psychologi- >
I
cal examination could be readily obtained. Written consent
I
was required before any interview or testing sessions were
scheduled with the child at his school.
i
j
The interview schedule had been designed to collect
a developmental history of the child as well as to observe
affective responses of the parents in response to certain
queries. In general, the schedule covered the following
points. (All responses were recorded and specific facts
were coded for convenience in subsequent analysis of the
material.)
Interview setting;
1. Persons present during interview
2. Person reporting
j 3. Length of interview
i 4. Noticeable racial or national factors
j School information:
i
! 1. What more can the school do to help the child?
! 2. Achievement
3. Can the child do better in school?
4. Reading materials at home
i 5. Family educational goals
| 6. Use of library
i 7. School contacts by means of PTA meetings
I 8. School contacts by means of parent conferences
i 9. School contacts by means of Open House
i
Developmental history;
1. Pregnancy
2. Pre-natal medical care
3. Mother's health during pregnancy
4. Length of pregnancy
5. Labor
6. Delivery
7. Birth weight in pounds
8. Health at birth
9. Feeding
10. Type of feeding
11. Feeding problems
12. Weaned at age (in months)
13. Age at which bowel trained
14. Age at which bladder trained
15. Age at which dry at night
Health factors:
1. Eating habits
2. Sleeping pattern
3. Sleeping difficulties
a. Nightmares
b. Insomnia
c. SleepwaIking
Childhood illnesses
a. Chronic
b. Duration of chronic illness
c. Acute illnesses
d. Accidents
e. Surgery
f. Duration of hospitalization
g.
Number of hospitalizations
Socio-economic factors:
1. Description of house
2. Rating of neighborhood
3. Source of income
4. Occupation of father
Peer relationships:
1. Amount of participation with peers
2. Types of activities
3. Number of younger friends
4. Number of older friends
5. Total number of friends same age
6. Total number of friends
7. Sex of friends
8. Type of relationships with friends
Family relationship?:
1. Mother and child discipline
2. Father and child discipline
3. Evidence of consistency in discipline
4. Type of discipline involved
5. Sibling and child relationships
6. Child's relationship to household
Marital status;
1. Years married, present marriage
2. Number of divorces
3. Number of separations
4. Number of deaths
Religion: ;
I ;
| 1. Church membership
I 2. Frequency of attendance ;
| Relationship of family to neighborhood I
i
\ :
Composition of household
| Leisure time activities— child
; Leisure time activities— parent
| In addition to the above objective data, the social
jworker obtained some indications of the parent's affective |
(relationship to the child by using a number of questions
! !
(designed to elicit information about the child at greater
1 j
I
depth. These questions were necessary to clarify the early j
^mother-chi Id relationship, attitudes of the parents toward
; I
i i
(education, and toward their immediate and larger social (
j t
milieu. The following questions were used at the end of
;the interview. !
1. Is there a baby book with the child's pictures?
The baby book was reviewed and comments were
{ made and noted.
2. Did the mother purchase or use any books on
child care?
3. Are there photographs of the child?
4. What is the routine at bedtime?
5. Does the mother read to the child? How often?
| 6. What did the mother do when the child cried?
63
7. How many children come into the home to play? j
1
8. How do the parents feel about sex education in
the school? !
i
9. Do the parents think the schools should teach
about religion?
10. Do the parents think the schools should teach
about communism?
11. Do the parents think that all children should j
go to school, including retarded, physically
handicapped, and trouble makers? j
12. What should schools do about the trouble makers?!
13. Do the parents feel that they have any direct j
or indirect control over the school's activi- j
ties? j
14. What sort of programs do the parents think that j
the school should have that it does not have j
now?
15. Do the parents think physical education should
be included in school programs? j
16. What do the parents think are the characteris- !
tics of a good teacher?
Procedures for the Psychiatric
Evaluations
Background
As he gathered data on the project sample, the focus
i
jof the psychiatrist was primarily in the direction of his
!
traditional clinical role in conducting a psychiatric
evaluation. The psychiatrist utilizes a very small fraction
of a transaction between 2 people, himself and the child.
The child and the child's responses are evaluated in com-
i |
parison to the responses of other children in similar situ- j
I
ations. These responses are expressed in behavior, some- I
I :
times motor, sometimes verbal and sometimes indirectly ver
bal as in the nature of a dream verbally communicated. The |
I
psychiatrist must draw certain conclusions about the rela
tionship between the stimuli he perceives and the responses j
of the child. Contrary to the psychological testing inter- !
view, replication of the psychiatric interview situation is I
s
difficult to achieve because the same subject will respond i
i
I
differently on another occasion or with another psychia- |
i
trist. Nevertheless if these interview procedures were |
i
formalized and applied often to large groups of similar
Isubjects, enough data could be derived to make possible
jsome experimental or statistical manipulations which could
j
bring meaning to the transaction between the psychiatrist
and the child, or to make judgments about the probability
of certain behavior occurring during this particular type
of situation. For the purpose of observing children under
this specific condition even though the child may behave
!
differently in the psychiatric interview setting than under
jother environmental conditions, the psychiatric interview
offers an experimental situation which has the potential of j
acquiring predictive data from children's behavior.
The goal of traditional psychiatric diagnosis (Groupj
for Advancement of Psychiatry, 1957) is to understand the j
(history of the presenting complaint and its etiology, and
|to develop a plan of treatment designed to eliminate, con-
!
|trol or ameliorate the negative forces, while making the
fullest possible use of the positive forces in the child j
and his situation. Typical psychiatric evaluation includes i
jthe collection, integration and evaluation of pertinent
i |
! i
data, the identification of etiological factors, specific !
or multiple, and the formulation of a working diagnosis, !
! |
prognosis and treatment plan. The first approach to the
child psychiatrist is usually made by the parents or by a !
jreferring source, such as the school, on behalf of the par- j
ients. Diagnosis in child psychiatry is directed at an
j |
understanding of past and present interactions and at the
strengths and weaknesses of the major persons in the child'4
constellation— the child, the parents or parent substitutes,
siblings, other key relatives, and the personnel of schools
and other social institutions who may influence his maturing
!
personality. Clearly delineated and universally accepted
diagnostic classifications for children have not been
66 I
j
established. The child psychiatrist sees an immature indi- j
vidual who is in a fluid state of incomplete personality
j
development, characterized by normally rapid physical and
psychological changes.
i
This somewhat lengthy description of the child
j |
psychiatrist's usual method of functioning is necessary
since, in this project, his role was more markedly different
from his usual one than was true of the other workers. In j
this study the psychiatrist had the child as his only source
of information. No case history data from the social worker]
[
were made available to him, no information from personnel irj
the schools, and no psychological test data. His job was to
spend time with the child, deciding beforehand in conjunc- j
i
tion with his colleagues what types of stimulus questions
and procedures would be used and what observations would be j
j
Imade on a standard interview schedule. The limitation of ]
i i
!the setting also had to be observed. Since the children j
who were to be evaluated represented a broad continuum of
behavior and permission had been given by the parents for
an evaluation of the child's attitudes toward school and
education, the psychiatrist could not exceed the limitations
of this sanction.
Ernst Kris (1950) was one of the first
67
psychoanalysts to emphasize the importance of predicting j
from observational data that pathology exists in a given ,
i
child. He was primarily concerned with recognizing sympto- j
matology before it became manifest, and to spot danger to
the child before it appears. Anna Freud (1958), in review- :
ing Kris's work, cites the difficulty in such clinical fore-j
sight. She points out that (1) there is no guarantee that
the rate of the maturational process on the positive side j
of ego development and drive development will be constant;
(2) there is no way to approach quantitative factors in i
drive development, nor to foresee it; and (3) the environ- j
i
mental factors in a child's life will always remain unpre
dictable since they are not governed by any known laws.
Nevertheless, she feels that there is a place for prediction!
j
in child psychiatry in (1) observing anxiety and symptoms i
even though it is difficult to draw the line between pre-
i
diction of pathology based on authentic danger signals, and !
a diffuse and indiscriminate overanxiousness; (2) gathering
information about the early mother-child relationship; (3)
noting the presence of powerful interests, curiosity, fixa
tion, sublimations and so forth; (4) making some assessment
of traumatic events. However, Anna Freud makes a special
f
{point of the fact that it is difficult to know which aspect
or element of a given experience will be selected by the j
child for reaction and emotional involvement.
j
The psychiatrists who participated in this project j
I
were well aware of such admonitions against making predic
tions about behavior from a single observation. Neverthe-
|
jless, they were willing to develop interview procedures
i :
which they felt could be used to assess children in a school
j
setting. A beginning was made by making large lists of 1
!
behaviors on a continuum from what could be inferred as in-
i
dicative of poor adjustment to which could be inferred as
j
jindicative of good adjustment. Next a list of symptoms was j
i
developed which could be expected in a sample of 10-year- j
i I
I !
olds with possible school difficulties. Observations of
|
the child, such as his posture, size, physical appearance, |
i
health, speech, indicated interest in school and others were
j
'reviewed by checking forms used in clinics for making such I
• • !
child observations. Finally a number of useful observations!
which could be recorded easily in a few minutes after the
child was interviewed were selected and placed on an inter
view schedule.
In addition to observational data, the psychiatrists
had to decide on the qualitative or inferential judgments
(which they would make about the child. These had to be
69 ;
based on material which could be gathered in the time spent
with the child in school, as well as on aspects of person
ality or genetic variables which could be inferred from the
child's behavior during the interview period. The qualita
tive judgments had to be kept to a minimum, since each child
had to be rated with respect to every other one the psychia
trist saw. A point of diminishing perception of differences
[between children is soon reached when too many qualitative |
judgments are required. After much negotiating and pro
fessional soul-searching, the psychiatrists suggested qual- !
itative judgments which rated the child's relationship to
others, his satisfaction with himself, his need for outside
]
I
help and support, and the possibility of school learning
and adjustment problems. '
Psychiatric interviewing
in the school
J
The psychiatric interview began with the child's j
introduction to the doctor, either in the school office,
from which the 2 would walk to the examining room, or when
the child was brought to the room where the psychiatrist
waited. The examining room was furnished with a table upon j
I
i
which a play kit could be displayed, with a few toys ex- I
j
posed, and the rest readily available. Both child size and |
adult size chairs were available. j
j The initial contact began with the psychiatrist's
i !
asking the child what he knew of the role of the psychia
trist and why he was being seen. Parental interviews with
the social worker preceded all contacts with the child, and j
I '
j ;
perhaps half of the children had been examined by the I
psychologist before the psychiatric interview. Therefore
]
most children had some information as to the study in pro- *
I
cess. This was explored by the psychiatrist asking "What
kind of a doctor am I?" The child was encouraged to guess j
I i
at this point, and the answers gave some clue as to the I
child's comprehension, curiosity, and background, as well as
j ■ j
[to his readiness to verbalize his speculations, and his j
! ‘ '
l |
(reality ties. !
! !
i When the children did not know why they were being
j ,
seen, the explanation then went something like this: "You '
! i
I |
i
know that I am a doctor. Well, I'll tell you first the kind
of doctor I'm NOT. I'm not the kind of doctor who gives
shots or examines teeth or eyes or takes out tonsils. I'm
a psychiatrist. Do you know what a psychiatrist is? He is
the kind of doctor who is interested in how boys and girls
feel— not how their bodies feel but how they feel inside.
I
I
jwhether they are mostly happy or sad or angry or frightened
or worried or troubled. How they feel about themselves and j
about other people, their teachers and families and friends
!
and so on. How do you feel? Do you have any troubles or
I
worries or problems?" The child was often offered "help" i
j
within the interview. For example, a child who complained
of shyness might be told "Let's try together to understand
jabout shyness, and why you're shy." This might involve
being realistically supportive and helpful. If such an j
approach were not indicated, the child was asked to help
i
the psychiatrist understand more about children of his age. j
i
They were often asked to tell "what you think would be im
portant for me to know, so that I will understand you and j
i
i !
other boys and girls your age." There was not any attempt j
to "make problems" for the child. His integrity was re- i
i
j
spected, and while he was invited to explore various areas !
! i
! ■ ;
jof his life, including those in which he had difficulty,
the psychiatrist was typically content with the material
which the child produced spontaneously. Direct questions
such as "Do you like your mother?" were avoided, as well as j
all leading questions where the child would feel pressured
jto answer in a socially acceptable way.
From this standard beginning, the rest of the inter
view tended to differ according to the child's initial
72 i
responses. Extremely inhibited or anxious children would
be assured that there was no need to talk, and they could
work or play with the "things" in the play kit. These
children were urged to find something to do while "getting
acquainted." This might have included drawing or playing a
jgame together.
| (
Leads were taken from the child, if he talked free
ly, as most did. His family constellation, the personali- !
ties of his parents, his brothers and sisters, and his likes!
and dislikes in the home were explored. Frequently the
child was asked what, at home, he would most like to change.;
School adjustment, and his relationship to teacher
I
and peers were also explored in some depth. From this, a j
j
discussion of his ambitions, and what he would like to do
when he grew up, could be introduced. This area served as
i :
!
jan excellent lead for evaluating the child's identification ;
! j
with his parents and with the expected male role. j
! Children were asked about any fears, disappoint
ments, troubles, or worries. Those who felt at ease in
discussing these areas readily continued the examination in ,
this vein. Some of the more sophisticated children, in
fact, performed with obvious relish, presenting their ver- !
sion of "psychiatric problems" to a sympathetic if
I 73
junimpressed ear. However, more resistant children were not
pushed to respond, and instead less disturbing material was
requested, such as a dream they could remember or possible
nightmares. Other specific questions frequently used were
requests for the earliest, the happiest and unhappiest
memory. Often children were asked for their "3 wishes."
Children who drew pictures were asked about their produc
tions, and these served as a focus for conversation. '
I Besides the more general items noted above, the
child was always approached personally, the obvious men- j
tioned: "How did you get your scar?"; "What a beautiful
dress!"; "What's it like to wear braces?"
All of this not only provided specific information, j
but allowed interaction with the psychiatrist, who placed i
as much significance on non-verbal as on verbal communica- !
i
jtion, particularly when the 2 did not jibe. Thus, bland
comments or massive denials of difficulty were noted in
conjunction with symptoms such as tics, hyperactivity, or
I
nervous gestures. Or the role-playing older children who |
recounted their worries fancifully were noted to be ro
guishly imaginative and free of symptoms. Sudden changes J
in behavior, following the introduction of new subjects,
could be used as a guide to possible difficulties.
j In the interviewing room the psychiatrist could
sense in relationship to himself whether the child was com-
j
fortable or threatened, forthright or defensive, unre-
strained or repressed. In the interpersonal relations ob
served in this setting, as much as in the verbal content
j
[elicited during the interview, the psychiatrist could eval- j
i i
i - (
uate the child's ability to adjust to his world. As a
t
friendly, understanding, and non-censorious adult who did
i ■
not become disturbed or retaliatory in the face of any
oddities of emotions, speech or behavior he served 2 func- |
tions. He could not only gain an understanding of the j
l
child's level of adjustment, but could offer the interview
j
as an, at least, mildly therapeutic milieu, leaving the j
I
child more comfortable than he was before the psychiatric j
I
(examination. j
Psychiatric interviews typically ran for about half ;
an hour. On the whole, this appeared to be adequate for j
appraisal, and the psychiatrist tended to feel that little
l
i
more could be accomplished by extending the time to less !
than a series of interviews.
I
I
I
Psychiatric interview schedule
In order to quantify the results of the psychiatric I
j f
75 i
interview as well as to provide a format or framework for
their observations, the psychiatrists were asked to rate
each child on 24 items making up the psychiatric interview
schedule. Enough space was left following each item for
identifying descriptive material to be entered. Material
i
[entered on this schedule consisted of the working notes from
i ;
[which the qualitative judgments would be made.
! The first item covered the extent of the child's
! I
understanding of the interview. Responses were coded ac-
!
cording to the child's understanding and ability to tell
i
ithe purpose of the psychiatric examination, and were entered
j
jon a 4-point scale of no knowledge, partially correct but
i
[limited or distorted knowledge, totally erroneous know-
I ■
i i
Hedge, and reasonably correct knowledge. Two other respon-
|
jses, covering "other" (to be filled in) or "insufficient
l
data," allowed for adequate classification of all material
gathered. j
j The next 4 items allowed for a classification of
I
general health, size or body build, appropriateness of
t ,
grooming and dress, and unusual physical characteristics,
such as deformities (acne, dental deformities, amputations).
These items, and the notes made by the examiner, would serve
i
I
to recall the child in terms of his appearance. !
76 I
i
!
From this point on, items called for some evaluation
of the child's behavior within the interview. These ranged ;
i
i
from items calling for simple checking, such as hyperactivi-j
|
ty versus passivity, to items calling for inferences to be
j
drawn from behavior, for example, estimates of chronic anger
or resentment, or sexual identification.
j Three items attempted to rate speech in terms of
maturity, specific difficulties, and skill in verbalizing.
I
These items allowed the psychiatrist to check the level of
vocabulary, specific problems such as stuttering or articu- i
i
i
lation difficulties, and ability to talk freely. j
i
The items which followed covered an over-all rating !
j |
of behavior, including gross or seriously deviant behavior j
i
(severe regression or developmental failure, for example),
I
dominant affect or mood, appropriate maturity, and rebelli- j
bus versus obedient behavior. These items attempt to cap- j
ture a measure of general adjustment, covering extreme j
symptomatology, specific feelings, over-control in the |
direction of maturity, versus excessively childish behavior,
and the extent to which the child could express his own
needs within the limits of obedience.
Two more items focused on the relationship within
the interview, covering the child's reaction to the
77
psychiatrist, and the psychiatrist's reaction to the child,
judged on a continuum from positive to negative. These
interacting items attempted to capture something of the
child's ability to respond to others, and the kind of reac
tion which the child would elicit from others. Thus, the
psychiatrist was able to note whether the child is comfort
able or threatened, forthright or defensive, unrestrained
lor repressed when around others. He could also judge how ;
Ithese reactions influence others. For example, an immature
| ;
but sweet and trusting pretty little girl might be much more
jwarmly accepted by the teacher and her peers than an imma-
i
iture, hostile, dirty little boy.
The next 2 items called for an estimate of the
| I
|child's intelligence and of correct scholastic achievement
jin basic subjects. Both these ratings were made on a con-
Itinuum from low to high, and the latter also allowed for
erratic and inconsistent achievement in some children. !
i
i
jRatings of school achievement were somewhat dependent on
i
i
[the child's report of his grades and mastery of school con-
jcepts, and the examiner's estimate of the accuracy of this
| |
report and its consistency with the estimated intelligence j
I
i
of the child. I
i !
; i
Several studies of predictive ratings have indicated
that the accuracy of predictions can be directly related to
the examiner's estimate of confidence in his ratings.
Therefore, 1 item called for an estimate of confidence in
jth^ data obtained.
Another item called for an estimate of the child's
capacity for psychological improvement. Those children who
jappeared to be disturbed could be rated here according to
their ability to profit from help. Naturally, such an item
proved to be rather equivocal when rating children consid
ered fairly well adjusted.
A final item called for the checking or listing of
i
all observable symptoms, such as tics, nail biting, hyper-
!
iactivity, fearfulness, and others. The total number of
jsuch symptoms could then be obtained to indicate the number
I
i
i
ias well as the kind of symptoms characterizing each child.
Procedures for the Psychological
. Ey.fllU3tj.Qps.
Background
I The clinical psychologist's role in this project,
junlike the psychiatrist, was more typical of his usual man-
jner of functioning. The psychologist uses standard tools
of measurement for which he has established norms. In a
battery of tests selected for administration, he will in- j
I
i '
jclude tests of cognition and perception and attempt to get
some measure of the affective behavior of the child from a j
I
variety of projective devices. For each of these tests
jsome standard method of transferring a response into an
i ■
I ;
jobjective scoring scheme is available and there are, for i
i I
jthe most part, standardizations of these scoring categories :
i j
1
Iso some inferences about differences from population para- 1
I 1
meters can be made about a particular child's performance
or about the performance of a group of children. Utilizing j
standard testing conditions, the psychologist observes the
child's responses to the situation and records significant j
; i
jbehavior. He also notes how the child responds to the test j
I
materials, and takes special care to record an incidental
'response which would later possibly provide a clue to an
jarea of particular difficulty for the child, and finally I
| i
i i
prepares a report of his observation, test scores, and pre- I
dictions about how a child differs from the norm. j
i
i
Even though the psychologist has the benefit of !
!
i
standard scales with which to interpret a child's test j
i
jscores, he has some of the same problems as the psychia-
!
i
trist, since information about a referring problem or case
data from the family-child relationship are extremely useful
80 |
in making sense out of particular test behavior. In addi
tion, in situations where the psychologist is called upon
to make predictions about the degree of severity of a school
|adjustment problem from the data he collects, few validity
i
|data are available which make possible a statement about
!
I
jthe importance of a particular finding in predicting a
i
'behavior syndrome.
Selecting the battery
of tests
Measures of intelligence, perceptual abilities and j
affective behavior were selected by the psychologists as |
the minimum number of tests in a battery which would yield i
i
i
the maximum amount of information in the suggested 1 hour i
time limit for testing each child. Psychologists have a
j
great number of measurement tools from which to select; !
i
jthe problem is selecting those which will provide the best j
i . I
I I
opportunity for observing the response of the child as well j
f
as selecting those with the greatest amount of previous !
research demonstrating the validity of the test for pre
dicting some aspect of vulnerability, degrees of freedom in
intellectual endeavors, or adjustment status.
For a measure of intellectual status and its rela-
tionship to personality style the Wechsler Intelligence
8 1 !
Scale for Children (WISC) was selected since it provides a j
good sample of mental tasks. The entire WISC battery of 12 j
j
sub-tests was considered too lengthy if other tests were to
be included in the 1 hour testing time. A short form of i
the WISC was used which included those sub-tests which (1)
i ■ i
jgave most personally meaningful material, (2) correlated
i |
well with the Full Scale IQ, (3) required a minimum amount
i
of time to administer, and (4) were convenient and easy to j
use. In addition, no less than 2 sub-tests on each scale,
i
Verbal and Performance, were to be included. The rank order]
i
i
of correlations with the Full Scale IQ as listed in the WISC
Manual is as follows:
]
Vocabulary .87
♦Information .82 !
i
I , !
Comprehension .76
i ;
Arithmetic .76
I
| *Similarities .72
'
I
♦Block Design .72 |
|
Picture Arrangement .70
♦Picture Completion .61
i
i
! -------- : — ; ---------------: -----------------------------------
i
! ♦Sub-tests marked (*) are those included in the
jshort Form of the WISC administered to the project sample.
i
1 . ._______
| 82
I Object Assembly .58
Coding . 54
i
i
i |
Littell (1960) reviewed all of the research on the j
WISC for a period of 10 years and concluded that there were j
few, if any, adequate investigations of the predictive valud
of the WISC. He commented on the value of the WISC as an
i
instrument for making hypotheses about personality styles
from test responses by noting that nowhere in the litera- i
i
ture covered was there more than the barest beginning of |
I
!
the investigation of the validity of various interpretive
hypotheses. He made further note of the fact that since i
[most inferences are based on an intuitive appraisal of the '
i !
l
content of the sub-test and the informal observations of
I
test administrators, there is a need to study variables in j
jthe relationship between examiner and examinee, to evaluate i
I 1
; i
the cirexamstances of the examination and the effect of re- |
I
i
peated administrations. j
I
Glasser and Zimmerman (1961) have attempted to
quantify some of the incidental observational data which
can be obtained from the WISC and they list a number of
I
behaviors which are frequently noted in response to test
items as well as some suggestions for their interpretation.
j 83
i
The Bender Visual Motor Gestalt Test (1938), a test j
of perception, requires the child to reproduce designs ap-
i j
pearing on 9 separate cards. These 9 designs were selected j
!
from Werthheimer' s original 21 designed to investigate j
gestalt theory. The time to administer the Bender test is
pinimal. It has been used to assess the development of
i |
perception in children, to note the effects of brain injury,;
and in gathering data to be used in studying neuroses and '
i ;
psychoses. The most useful predictive research on the
i
Bender has been done by Byrd (1956), Clawson (1959), and i
j
Koppitz (1958) (1960) (1961). These workers have shown
that rotations of designs, distortions, problems with angu- j
lation and closure and arrangement of materials on the page \
are patterns of response which have potential for signifi- j
i
Icantly predicting those pupils who will have difficulty in j
I i
jschool and reading achievement. The Bender test was used !
| j
i |
by 80 per cent of clinicians surveyed by Schulberg (1961). i
|
These clinicians indicated that it had "some or great"
diagnostic value.
One of the most common projective tests used in
Iclinical diagnosis is the Rorschach. Ames (1952) (1959),
Beck (1945) (1952) (1960), Ford (1946), Halpern (1953),
frlopfer (1954) (1959), Ledwith (1959)(1960), and Rabin
84 |
I
! (1960) provide materials on the use of the Rorschach with i
! t
j i
jchildren, scoring procedures and normative data. In sum
mary, these authors contend that the Rorschach appears to
!
have considerable value as an instrument for drawing infer- ■
iences about personality, reactions to environmental set- ;
i ,
I '
jtings, affect, and content of cognitive experiences in a
jhighly emotional setting. While the above work is con
cerned primarily with scoring procedures and the use of the
i
Rorschach record in making a diagnostic summary about chil
dren, little other research has been done with the predic- j
i
i
tive validity of certain Rorschach signs. The normative
data provided by Ledwith and Ford offer at least one depar- I
!
ture toward prediction from Rorschach responses, but we can:
determine from their work only the probability of a parti- i
i
cular finding. Siegal (1954) found a relationship between j
j ' ;
I certain Rorschach signs and positive or negative response
| i
to psychotherapy, and Robbertse (1955) and Meyer (1953), |
found certain responses more frequently in the records of
children with delinquency or reading problems respectively.
The battery of tests finally selected by the
psychologists was the short form of the WISC. the Bender
and the Rorschach. In addition the categories for observa
tion of the child's reaction to the test materials and the
child's reaction to the examiner as developed by Glasser j
I !
jand Zimmerman (1961) were included in the testing schedule
| !
jon which all scores and all observations were recorded. !
i -
j i
[ The psychologist, like the psychiatrist and social i
iworker, was responsible for making inferences from the
| ;
j"hard" test data to more "soft" statements about the child's
I ;
[adjustment status. The psychologists selected a number of
i
qualitative judgments, or inferences, which could be made j
on the basis of their psychological examination and inci
dental observations. These judgments included a rating of j
I i
the child's intellectual functioning, perceptual problems, !
school learning, school adjustment, relationship to teach- j
iers and creative potential. j
I !
i
I
i
Test procedures j
i i
The first test period began shortly after the start [
of school so that attendance records could be compiled by j
i
the teachers. A free room was assigned, the examiner put j
!
up his "Testing in Progress" signs, often on 2 doors, and
arranged his test tables and chairs. When both older and
younger children were to be seen, 2 sizes of tables were
helpful. Most examiners relinquished the use of the small
.matching chair and an assumed "equalitarian" level with the
jchild, finding the adult size chair much less fatiguing by |
i I
I i
the end of the day.
I
i
The child to be tested was summoned by the secretary
who sent a notice to the classroom reminding the teacher of I
I ;
jthe purpose of testing and an estimate of the time involved:
j ;
i ,
At this point, the teacher could notify the examiner, who
waited in the school office for the first child to arrive,
i
i
of any difficulties such as a special program or group i
i
testing, so that another youngster could be seen instead.
I
From the office, the examiner and child went to the j
i
examining room. In the process, the examiner asked the
child if he knew why the examiner was there and clarified j
i I
! i
jmisunderstandings with some variation of the following: j
"We are seeing a number of children in your school and us- j
ing some tests to find some things about you, like what you I
I . !
|know and think about. Some of the questions are very easy,
and they get harder, so no one could know them all. But
you do the best you can."
Upon being seated in the examining room the test
proper began, with a clarification of the child's name and
age. (It was not unusual for the teacher to send the wrong
child to the office, and only at this point for the child
i
[to inform the examiner that the expected youngster was not
87
in school that day.) Running notes were taken continuously
from the moment the examiner and child were seated at the j
|
test table. These notes added color to the test findings j
i
!
and were an essential part of the final interpretative j
j i
Iprocess. The child's name and his reported birthday were
i i
recorded. At this grade level it was unusual and signifi
cant for a child not to know his birthdate, usually relating
i
to low mental age or outstanding disruption of general j
functioning. However, a gratuitous flow of information as i
I
to birthdays and celebrations was also unusual, and all of j
this was recorded. (This seemed to relate to poorly inte- j
I
grated control, and the examiner speculated that such ini- j
i
tial outbursts of unrequested information would be paral- :
i
j
leled in the classroom where the child would not answer the '
i
!
presented questions without excess chatter.) A later j
jverification of birthdates allowed the examiner to clarify I
i
i
jthe meaningfulness of the child's response. For example,
I
i
if the birthday was in the immediate vicinity of the test
date, a certain preoccupation was much more likely and
lacking in significance.
! At this same initial point, the examiner tried to
I
record a note as to the child's initial appearance and de-
meanor. Such points as physical build and size,
I 88 |
i :
j !
attractiveness, grooming, initial mood and warmth, were j
!
[ ;
jinformative here. A comparison of these initial notes with j
i
later impressions gave valuable information. For example,
initial shyness and silence could be contrasted with grow
ling freedom of expression, a combination which was generally!
i j
ja sign of good adjustment. On the other hand, some ini- I
I I
I !
Itially well controlled children became progressively less
l
l
oriented toward the task at hand, standing up or even leav- j
ing the table, suggesting a serious loss of control. The
point at which this occurred could be a significant clue
I
i
as to problem areas. j
! i
WISC.— Testing began with a brief measure of in- j
i
telligence, consisting of 3 verbal sub-tests (Information,
I
Comprehension and Similarities) and 2 performance sub-tests j
|(Picture Completion, Block Design) of the WISC. The first
! i
jquestions were the Information (I) items. Information is
an excellent sub-test with which to begin on several
counts. For one, it is the first administered on the WISC
sub-tests and the standardization is based on its use as
the first section of the test. Second, there is an unusu
ally good spread of items, so that at any age level, a
school child will have some successes behind him before he
meets the more difficult items. From the examiner's know- j
i
ledge of the number of items typically known at each age ;
level (13 at age 10 1/2), a quick impression of intellectuajj
functioning is gained within minutes. Also, this sub-test
gives rise to a flood of associations in the less controlled
child, especially the younger one. Recording the associa-
i
Itions on the side of the test blank left the examiner with i
1 v i
> !
rich information about the child's world: from what store j
i
do we get sugar? "I don't know. My mother never lets me
i
go anywhere. My brother gets to go, but I have to stay j
|
home with the baby." (The same flood of information is j
i
I
likely to be given in the classroom.) Another initial im-
i
pression was from the questioning necessary to obtain a
response from the child. Some children found the initial
questions somewhat threatening, and fell back on a flat "I
! I
jdon't know." The degree of encouragement necessary to J
elicit a response could be noted by adding a "Q" for each
question repetition or coaxing by the examiner. Later ex
amination of certain children's records revealed strings of
4 or 5 questions at a time needed to elicit initial re
sponses. (Such children may be inferred to be equally re
sistant to a teacher's entreaties and require undue person
al attention in a classroom.) Another implication of this
90
kind of response was a need for obsessive accuracy. Chil- j
I
dren were urged to guess, if they could not respond to ini- j
I
tial questions. The degree of flexibility could be esti- I
I
mated by their freedom to speculate. It was also worth
I
asking for a second guess when a child gave an unusual re
sponse, in order to see the availability of commonly ac
cessible information to the child. Asking the child why he !
i
i
responded as he did could provide a great deal of informa- !
I
t
tion about his thinking processes. !
i
On the basis of the first sub-test of the WISC, j
I
then, the examiner had a number of hypotheses established j
within the initial few minutes of testing. First was the |
I
initial impression of the child: slovenly; well groomed; j
fussily dressed; unusually short or tall or fat or thin for j
his age; some special facial features; a handsome boy; a j
! :
[charming approach to adults; shyness or boldness; undue j
i j
apprehension; socio-economic factors immediately noticeable j
and their relationship to the school which the child at
tends (the only Japanese child in school). These factors
had to be recorded at once; they easily slipped from memory
after a day of testing. The child's response to the simple
question as to his birthday, and to the WISC Information
questions, immediately set the testing stage as harmonious
with the school setting and established the examiner as a j
"school-type” person. Inferences from the child's behavior |
I
at this point were likely to parallel those recorded by his
teachers: school-oriented or school-resistant? a thinker j
t
or a doer? an achiever or a non-achiever? a mature, inde
pendent little student, or an infantile, teacher-dependent !
child.
The WISC continued with the second sub-test, Com-
9 I
I
prehension (C). This sub-test is not as adequate a measure !
|
of general intelligence as are the other verbal sub-tests j
i
used in this study. Factor-analytic studies indicate Com-
I
prehension has the largest proportion of error variance of |
j i
all the sub-tests. It appears to be measuring "the appli- j
I
cation of judgment to situations following some implicit j
verbal manipulation," at the earlier ages, or "verbally
jretained knowledge impressed by formal education," more
apparent at the later age. Comprehension is a measure of
judgment only when the child has not yet been taught "what
to do" in most situations, and must reason out a response.
Thus, an older child readily parrots that he must not hit
anyone smaller than himself, but a younger child reveals
his orientation toward life ("beat them up," "let them hit
you, they're the baby"). Moreover, this sub-test is
92
j
composed of a variety of emotionally loaded questions, j
|
I
especially for the younger child. From the initial "What j
I
do you do when you cut your finger?" which elicits preoccu- j
pation with injury or not obeying (playing with forbidden
isharp objects), the themes of aggression and guilt can be
! ;
overwhelming. The second item regarding the loss of a
i
!
friend's toy is another guilt-producing item. Others are j
I !
i
being sent to the store, with the possibility of losing or I
i
pocketing change, or going out of bounds to go to another
store, fighting with younger children or seeing a train j
approaching a broken track where some children insist they
i
j
would not have caused this. A passive response is often
j ;
adopted by younger children (asking mother to handle each j
situation). This behavior is a standard reason for low !
!
scores at the younger ages. Thus, while Comprehension j
i j
|proves to be a poor estimate of intelligence when the de- j
pendency role predominates, the information gained as to
the child's typical behavior can be valuable. Also, a ten
dency toward aggressive behavior or guilt-ridden behavior
can be seen. The ability of the child to stick to the
question and avoid being distracted by aggressive, guilty,
or dependent preoccupations is presumed by many psycholo
gists to be a good measure of his ability to cope with
everyday experiences .
i
The third measure of verbal intelligence used was
| ;
the fourth sub-test of the WISC, or Similarities (S) . This i
i
i
sub-test has a rather poor range of successes and failures j
j
at an earlier age, and reflects actual learning. Only at a
later age does the true measure of abstraction take pre-
I
( cedence. (Cohen, 1959). This sub-test gave a good estimat^
of the ability to adopt a set. For example, determining |
]
how 2 things are like when the differences are more obvious 1
than the similarities (plum-peach, beer-wine, wood-coal) j
1
!
is difficult to comprehend for some children. Urging the !
i
child to answer even if only a guess, and if necessary giv- i
ing the proper response, as required by the Manual, allows
the examiner to see how readily the child can change to a
new set when a former one is ineffective.
I . :
I
Two performance sub-tests were used in the brief
i :
test battery. The first, Picture Completion (PC) has a
wide range and allows a child the experience of success
before reaching the more difficult items. It gives an
estimate of attention and of perceptual acuity. The second
performance sub-test was Block Design (BD) . This sub-test
jpaired fairly well with Picture Completion, in that per-
I
|ceptual difficulties on one test could be compared with
94 |
those on the other. Work style could be assessed on this
task: perseverance and endurance, planning and foresight, j
j
efficiency and the like. j
The meaningful personal information noted by the
I
psychologist as he observed the child's approach to WISC
tasks was useful in predicting school problems. A very
important variable was the over-all score: the higher the i
I
intellectual level, the more likely the child was to be j
| ;
among the better adjusted children in the sample.
i
i Rorschach.— After the WISC, which typically took 15 j
!
minutes to administer, the Rorschach was given, following
[the standard Klopfer (1954) instructions.
"Did you ever make pictures by dropping paint on to !
!
paper and then folding it over to make a design? I will
jshow you some pictures made like that, and I want you to
tell me what it looks like to you, what it makes you think !
|
of. They aren't anything really, but they should make you j
think of something." An inquiry followed the initial pre- j
sentation of the cards to clarify problems of scoring. The
questions suggested by Baughman (1958) were frequently used
to simplify the inquiry.
The Rorschach was a change for the child. From the
right-and-wrong requirements of the WISC, there were sudden^
l
ly no leads or rules to go by. Some children rose to this ;
jas a challenge, others found it a relief, while still others!
j I
(were upset not to have rules to utilize. The different j
jreactions were noted, and further impressions listed. These
l
i
[were compared to the initial notes, thus serving as a check i
I !
jon the child's adjustment as he became acquainted with the
test situation.
j
! The Rorschach took about 20 minutes, depending upon;
i
I
the productivity of the child, and more important, his i
ability to verbalize the basis for his responses.
Bender.— The test battery ended with the adminis
tration of the Bender. The child was given 1 sheet of pa- !
jper and a pencil with an eraser. He was told: "Here are
j
[some designs I want you to copy. I'll show them to you one’
I :
i ;
jat a time. Copy them as well as you can." The examiner j
made notes as each design was copied. In this way, paper j
and card notations could be recorded. Also, a final im-
i
pression of general test behavior could be noted as the
i
child drew the designs. After the last drawing, the child
was asked to write his name on the paper, and informed that
the examination was completed, so that he could return to
class. j
i
i
I
Procedures Used in Collecting Factual, j
Observational, Qualitative Data j
and Inferences j
| Prior to the initial interview with the parent or
i !
I ;
the child the clinical teams met in concert and in individ- j
ual groups according to the particular clinical discipline |
to discuss the final versions of the interview schedules, j
!
to review pertinent research related to the. predictive as- j
pects of tests and interview behavior, and to develop the
i
standard interview procedures which were to be used in the j
i
project. Additional meetings were scheduled regularly j
during the period in which the interviews were being con- i
i
ducted in order to provide an opportunity for the team mem-j
bers to discuss with other members of the same clinical j
discipline the problems they encountered and to share any
J ’ i
difficulties which they had in using the schedules. It was
unfortunate that neither time nor money was available for
an extensive shakedown of each interview and test' procedure
before the first project pupil was seen. Because of this
time restriction it was necessary to rely on the experience
of the team members and their ability to judge the appro
priateness of each of the interview items as the schedules
|
97
were developed. j
j
Collection of facts, observa- j
tions and qualitative data on !
interview schedules j
i
The interview schedule for social worker, psycholo
gist and psychiatrist comprised a model for the conduct of !
!
the interview and contained the facts about the family and |
child which were to be routinely recorded. Codes for each
I
of these data were decided upon in advance. If codes did |
not fit the obtained information, the clinician recorded
i
i
what information he was given and additional coded classi- I
i
fications were added later by the project office.
For the social worker, facts about birth, early lifej
i
history, relationship with peers and adults and data about j
i
the social environment comprised the type of information j
t
collected on the schedule. These are facts or observations j
I
which can be considered to have relatively high reliability !
!
since another worker using the same schedule presumably
would get similar answers. The embellishments provided by
the mother in answer to the question were used by the social
worker later when they made summary and inferential judg
ments to amplify the parent-child relationship patterns, to
get some clues as to the place for the child in the family,
98 j
I
and to obtain some idea as to his relationship to other |
i
members of the household. J
The psychologists, in giving the prescribed psycho- j
i
!
logical examination, recorded scores on WISC sub-tests, j
Bender design deviations following an objective scoring
i
procedure (Lambert, 196 3) and the scores on the Rorschach
performance according to the Klopfer (1954) procedure. In
addition to these objective facts, they made note of behav- j
ior characteristics of the child during the testing situa
tion, noting only whether the behavior was absent (or not j
i
manifest during the test interview), present, or present to
a marked degree. These data were utilized subsequently
when the psychologists made a judgment of the child’s prob- ;
able behavior in the regular classroom situation or his
likely attitude to school learning materials. The comments;
jmade by the child during the interview were recorded on the I
protocols, and used in verifying the importance of particu
lar test findings when the qualitative or inferential rat- !
ings were made at the conclusion of the psychological exam
ination .
The psychiatrists, with a much less structured
interview procedure than either social worker or psycholo
gist, made routine observations of the child's appearance,
physical condition, general behavior, symptoms, reaction to j
the interview situation and so forth. These were recorded I
I
on the interview schedule immediately after the psychiatrist]
i
saw the child. In addition to himself, the psychiatrist
used a play kit which was a large,' inexpensive suitcase
containing puppets, pop guns, play doctor kit, balloons,
i
i
crayons, paper, gum, candy and a few other articles designed
i j
i
to make the child at ease during the interview and to give
him something to do if he felt uncomfortable in spending
the time talking.
I
As the child responded to the situation presented
in this interview setting, the psychiatrist mentally re- !
j
corded behavior and attitudes which were pertinent to that j
child's development and made notes on the interview schedule
I
after the termination of the period. All of these observa- |
j
jtions and responses were used at the conclusion of the
! i
| i
interviewing in order to make the inferential or qualita- j
tive judgments.
Each clinician has his own "radar" by which to
direct the course of his observations. Sarbin (1960) pro
vides a philosophical point of view in understanding the
clinical process. He states that "no single process or
event can be isolated as the important locus for the study
100 i
I
I
of inference as an aspect of the clinical process. We can j
!
!
irecognize 5 outstanding features:
i '
The observer is engaged in the transformation of know
ledge. He brings into the enterprise various kinds of j
dispositions, skills, beliefs, attitudes, assumptions !
and so" forth, which limit the nature, direction and
scope of the inferential product.
I ;
j
j The direction, purpose, aim, or objective of the cog-
! nitive work of the clinician must be taken into con
sideration.
The input of raw material out of which inferences are *
i made must be defined. They are aspects and properties
of the objects of judgments.
The modus operandi of the inferring person accounts |
for the implicit and explicit manipulation and the
i transmutation of raw sensory events into knowledge |
j about people.
i :
j The product of the inferential enterprise, the outcome
of the process, is a diagnostic statement, a classifi- j
cation, a thumbnail description, a prediction and so
forth. I
j
i
i
It is important, therefore, to recognize and account^
|for the particular skills and background of each of the
; i
I i
[professions constituting the clinical teams who were select
ed to evaluate the school adjustment of fifth grade pupils. !
The interview schedules which they used to gather data
about children had to present, realistically, a task which
they could accomplish with their particular modus operandi.
The project required that the input of data from which
inferences and ratings were made were to be recorded and
! ioi
I
i
that the criteria which were used for each rating were to
be standardized as much as possible. Standard procedures
had to be followed so that reasonable assurance could be
had that procedures used in this project were the same for
all pupils and would have meaning and applicability for
jother workers. The inferential product of the individual
i
evaluations was a number of ratings of pupils or families
based on the factual, observational and qualitative data
recorded on the interview schedules.
Procedures for making inferen
tial ratings
The instructions to clinicians for making the in
ferential ratings were the same for all clinical groups.
|rhe task was to use a grid with 5 columns and as many rows
ias needed (10 rows were on the original form) to distribute
the pupils for each inferential judgment on a scale from 1
to 5. A judgment of "1" was made when the clinician be
lieved a particular child to be the most free from the trait
listed. A judgment of "5" was made when the clinician be
lieved the child to be least free from that trait and one
with serious difficulties in the area being judged. All
upils whom each clinician saw were compared and rated with
espect to one another for each inferential judgment.
102
Contrary to the instructions to teachers for making the j
original teacher ratings, no pre-established form of the i
i i
distribution of ratings was given. The task was to select j
from a sample of a minimum of 20 pupils at least 1 who was
i ;
to be placed in column 1 and at least 1 to be placed in
[column 5. Once these 2 anchor pupils were located from the j
j ;
sample on a particular inferential judgment, the process
was to list any others who were similar in that particular |
trait to the anchor pupils in columns 1 and 5, and then to
find those from the interview list who were more or less
similar to the anchors and place their names in squares in j
i
columns 2, 3, or 4. The same procedure was repeated for ,
| j
each inferential judgment. A new grid with 50 squares (5
columns and 10 rows) was used and new anchor cases were j
I
found. It was possible that the same pupil was an anchor !
Ipupil for more than 1 inferential judgment, but this was
I i
I \
not usually the case. Only when a clinician saw fewer thanj
i
20 pupils was the distribution sometimes narrower than the
required 5 ratings.
This procedure for making inferential judgments
resulted in each pupil receiving 25 ratings, 7 from the
social worker, 11 from the psychologist and 7 from the
psychiatrist, on a scale of from 1 to 5. The clinicians
103
did not collaborate with one another or with the school in
making these judgments. Following this rating procedure,
jthe clinician was required to review the pupils who were
I
iplaced as anchors in the 1, 3, and 5 columns, and list a
number of descriptive adjectives from his case material
Which could be compared to the criteria established at the
;start of the project. The input of raw material was thus
jdefined. While the procedures of this project made it im-
i
ipossible for 2 clinicians to interview a common sample of
jparents or pupils, the distributions of their ratings, their
!
average ratings for each judgment and their lists of rating
'criteria were compared in order to detect any important
biases which might have crept into the judgments. Where
any notable differences did occur, differences in the loca-
jtion of the school or possible differences in population
i
variables seemed better able to account for the discrepancy
I
jthan actual bias in the clinical judgment.
!
j Selecting and Gathering the School-Collected
Data to Be Included in the Analyses
I In addition to the data to be collected by the
iclinical teams, some school information is valuable in
i
shading in the picture of the child. The data which were
collected from the school had to.be those which were
104 j
j
readily available from school records. In addition teacher,!
peer and self ratings were to be administered by the class- ;
jroom teacher during the Spring of the school year at the |
time that the clinical teams were conducting their evalua
tions .
i - ;
i
j A variety of information is recorded on the pupil's i
cumulative record folder at his school. Courses of study,
books read, father's occupation, teacher's comments about ;
school progress and dates of parent conferences are typical
i
of what is found. School grades, ability and achievement
test scores, number of unsatisfactory marks on the report
card, number of excused and unexcused absences, and number
i
i ;
of times tardy to school are also common to many pupils'
i
i
school records. Whatever data were selected had to meet
|
the requirement of being typical of all of the records which
Were available in each school. Therefore, the lowest common!
! ' I
|
denominator of data was used. In each case, the information!
which was recorded for this project must have shown an ac- ;
i
i
tual or potential relationship to school adjustment status.
In a study of grades assigned to high school boys
Hansen (1950) demonstrated that promptness, classroom decor
um and a compliant attitude were some of the critical vari-
ables predicting grades. Another study (Lambert, 1964)
105 |
|
showed that there was a significant difference between
grades assigned to high school pupils who were judged to be
poorly adjusted by their teachers and grades assigned to !
i
pupils judged to have no or few adjustment problems.
I ■ ’
I :
School achievement has been shown frequently to be
i
|an important dependent variable in studies of school ad-
j
jjustment. Bower (1958) provides data to compare the
achievement of pupils diagnosed as emotionally disturbed '
with those judged to have no school problems at the ele
mentary grades. A later study by Bower (1961) further
I ■ |
amplifies these differences when comparisons were made be- j
tween children selected at random from the general school !
i ;
i
population as having school adjustment problems and those
having no evidence of school difficulty. j
!
Scores from tests of intelligence have also been
jshown to be generally lower for pupils with school adjust-
i
i * ;
ment difficulties when they are compared to their peers j
' . i
without problems. Research studies which compare specifi- !
cally cognitive abilities for pupils with adjustment prob
lems to cognitive abilities of peers without problems are
difficult to find. This is principally because children
with lower intellectual potential have traditionally been
thought to belong to the group of "slow learners" or
106 j
j
"minimally mentally retarded" and not to a population of
i
pupils with mental health difficulties. The Los Angeles
I i
County Mental Health Survey (Welfare Planning Council of
I
Los Angeles County, 1960) showed that the incidence of be
havior problems of pupils in classes for the mentally re
tarded was about 3 times higher than that for regular clas-
’ 1
! ;
jses. Bower (1958) (1960) provides evidence to show that
pupils diagnosed as emotionally disturbed or selected from j
the general population with school difficulties have, as a
group, significantly lower scores on both group administered
|
and individually administered tests of intelligence. Though}
i
cause-effect relationship between cognitive abilities and
i ;
mental health or school adjustment status has not been de- |
fined at length, one can infer from the data that are
|
available that intellectual potential is a necessary psycho-
jlogical resource for the resolution of the learning and
i - j
(interpersonal demands of the school environment, as well as j
j
for mediating the environment outside of the school situa- !
I
i
tion.
Recently a good deal of interest has been aroused
I
I
I
lin attempting to relate scores on creative thinking tests
!
to indices of school achievement, teacher's ratings of cre
ativity, and to certain behavioral characteristics.
107 I
Torrance (1962) is chief among those investigators who have j
studied the elementary school population. He argues that
i
the pupil with creative thinking abilities feels alienated
!
I
from his peers and misunderstood by them. These attitudes
jcause a derogation of self concept which has been thought
j
to inhibit school adjustment. Torrance's development of
creative thinking tests for the elementary school population
has been derived principally from Guilford's work (1958) on !
the structure of intellect. Guilford's division of intel- 1
j
lectual activity into 3 primary dimensions, the content, j
i
operations and products of intellectual activity provided
a valuable research tool for those who were interested in
studying the capacity of individuals to produce not a singlq
i
correct answer (as in the case of traditional tests of in- j
telligence and school achievement), but a variety of appro- !
| !
priate solutions to a single problem. In the structure of !
!
i
intellect, the operations involved in the ubiquitous tests j
of intelligence which demand a single best answer to a !
i
j
stimulus question are called convergent production. Those
operations which require the production of a variety of
responses are called divergent production tasks. Other
joperations in this dimension of the structure of intellect
i
|are cognition, memory and evaluation.
108 |
E
The possibility of developing tests of divergent ;
production led to the possibility of using such tests as 1 |
Jtool in the identification of creative potential in school
I i
age pupils. Their value as a tool for the evaluation of
creative potential lies in the fact that it is the amount,
variety and originality of responses which are evaluated
rather than the singling out of a response from among many
i
possible solutions. Children who receive high scores on
l
convergent production tasks do not necessarily receive high j
scores on tests of divergent production. Thus such measure-;
j
ment tools are a useful inclusion in this project. The !
child with more freedom of expression, thus higher scores ,
on divergent production tests can be inferred to have a ■
|
higher degree of freedom in intellectual endeavors, thus !
not as vulnerable to school adjustment difficulties. Tor
rance 's assumptions about the alienation of children with
high divergent production abilities is in direct contra- !
|
diction to this assumption that high scores on divergent !
production tests should predict good school adjustment. He
arrives at his conclusion from interviews and story material
produced by pupils with high scores on his test. The as
sumption presented by this author is based on the theory
that intellectual potential of whatever type is a boon to
school adjustment, not a handicap. j
I
At least minimal writing and spelling ability is
j !
necessary for group administration of divergent production
i
\ i
tasks such as those represented in Torrance's Verbal and
Non-Verbal Creative Thinking Tests (1960). In order to
guarantee comparability of results, 2 research assistants
who had both been teachers of elementary school age children!
j
for a number of years administered all of the Creative
t '
I
j Thinking Tests following standardized administration in-
jstructions. j
! The Creative Thinking Tests are scored by evaluating
I
each series of responses to a single question in terms of
I J
ithe number of responses (fluency), the number of times the ;
| :
set or content of the responses is changed (flexibility), j
j
ithe uniqueness of the response (originality) and the com- j
plexity of the response (elaboration). The appropriateness i
i i
i !
of each response is determined and results in scores on
adequacy. For the non-verbal tests, the amount of movement I
I
in the response (activity) and the uniqueness of the titles !
given to the pictures which are drawn are 2 additional
iscores. Scoring methods for the tests used in this project
were devised by revising procedures supplied by Torrance.
i
jThese procedures were modified to fit the age sample to
which the tests were given and are described elsewhere.
i
Even though the number of unsatisfactory marks a
pupil receives on his report card has not been subjected to
j
critical research evaluation, these marks appear to reflect
jnon-intellectual factors in the pupil's school performance.
j , j
jThe traits which are typically rated are cooperation, obed- J
I !
Jience, promptness, thrift, health habits, effort, enthus-
I
i
iasm and so forth. Since the particular items which are
i
rated may vary from school to school in minor changes in
wording, no attempt was made to evaluate a particular trait^
j
Instead, the number of unsatisfactory marks listed on the
i
report card was the information which was recorded. The
prediction to be made about number of unsatisfactory marks |
is that the greater the number of unsatisfactory marks, the I
i
poorer the pupil's behavioral adjustment in the school set-!
ting.
j
School retardation is another variable which re- |
I
I
fleets either poor school adjustment status or is causally |
i
related to it. This can be measured by determining the
difference between a pupil's age and the average age for
other pupils in the same grade. When the difference is !
j
! ■ ■
greater than 1 year the pupil has been either retained or
accelerated in his school program. The number of days
I 111
absent from school also gives a picture of possible health J
factors which might reflect adjustment status. }
i (
The father's occupation listed on most cumulative
I
i
record cards is another piece of information which certainly!
has value in predicting school adjustment status. Even
] !
though occupation is only 1 facet of the structure of socio-,
|
economic status, it is a simple and easily available method
I
for gaining some indication of the social status of the j
i |
jfamily. Numerous studies have shown socio-economic status !
{to be related to mental health problems or school adjustment}
i
I
as shown by Andrew and Lockwood (1954), Gough (1946), j
Kuhlen (1952) and Neugarten (1945). i
j ;
The teacher, peer and self ratings which were used
t
i
in the analysis of school-collected information related to I
school adjustment status have been the subject of extensive j
developmental and validation study. Bower (1958) demon
strated initially that pupils who had been diagnosed as j
I
i
emotionally disturbed were significantly different from j
I
their peers without serious school problems in terms of
their teacher's perception of problems, peer ratings of
behavior and self report of personal difficulty. These
ratings were later used in a large state-wide survey (Bower,
1961) containing 50,000 pupils and the earlier results were
112 j
i
j
verified with 1 important exception. This exception was thej
change in relationship of the father's occupational level tcj
school adjustment status. In the earlier study, there were !
no differences in fathers' occupations for the sample which!
was diagnosed as emotionally disturbed from the California
occupational distribution. In the later study, which
sampled an entire school population, occupational status
j
was very significantly lower for parents of those children
i
with school problems than for parents of those who were not 1
identified. These findings suggest that clinic populations ;
may represent, in general, a proportionate distribution of j
I
occupational status (or socio-economic status) but that j
1
when surveys of populations are conducted, occupational i
1
I
status is probably an important independent variable.
Other studies of the rating scales have been made.
Lambert (1961) presents preliminary validity evidence for
3 batteries of ratings, 1 for primary grades, 1 for ele
mentary grades and 1 for high school students. When the
ratings are studied separately, both individual items, and
total scores differentiate between populations judged to
have school adjustment problems and those considered to be
free from such difficulty. In addition, selection proced
ures which have been suggested for the use of the
113
i
instruments in a program of early identification of problem j
prone pupils have been shown to identify a variety of pupil f
l
problems as determined by later diagnostic study, and to
identify pupils who are judged to have from moderate to
iserious school and personal difficulties.
!
i i
! An extensive study was conducted to determine the
j j
[individual and collective validity of the teacher, peer and j
|
self ratings (Lambert, 1962). This study showed that inde- j
ipendent clinical evaluations and ones made collaboratively
were generally significantly higher ratings (indicating
evidence of school adjustment difficulties) for pupils with I
i
high (negative) teacher, peer and self ratings taken inde- i
[ j
pendently and collectively. When individual intelligence ;
test score and an index of social status characteristics
- I
were added to the multiple prediction battery the multiple j
jR's ranged from .60 for fifth grade boys to .89 for fifth
grade girls. A multiple cut-off procedure showed compar
able validity for the collective use of the ratings. A
i
i
recent study by Zax et al. (1964) verifies the use of this !
I
I
peer rating, the Class Play and this self rating, Thinking
About Yourself, in differentiating children with and with
out school problems. The specific ratings (Bower and Lam
bert, 1961) which were used in this project are as follows:
I
Self ratings Thinking About Yourself |
Part II Class Plav
Peer ratings Class Play j
j i
Teacher ratings Behavior Rating of Pupils1
! i
i ' ;
i All of the ratings were administered by the class-
I !
jroom teacher, and scored by her unless she wished help from ;
| |
the project office with the scoring process. Instructions
I
i
i
for administration and scoring were provided in the Manual
I j
for Teachers and Administrators (Bower and Lambert, 1961)
i
and were followed in each case. In order to ensure maximum;
i
comparability of data, teacher meetings were scheduled in j
each school to discuss the procedures and to review the i
problems which might be encountered in the administration !
i
i
of the ratings. When a teacher found that it would be im-
|
[possible to administer the tests herself, assistance was !
provided with this task by graduate student research assis- i
i
tants who worked out of the project office. In 1 or 2
!
cases they assisted the teacher in the peer and self rating
administration. i
All of the data which were to be taken from the
cumulative folders were coded on project forms from the
[folders directly at the school. Every effort was made in
|the collection of these data from the school setting to
! 115 !
to ensure comparability of ratings and reliability of test
administration and scoring. All findings were coded and
made available for the analyses of the school data listed
i
jabove as predictors of school adjustment status.
Analyzing:, the Data
j g ener.al-CQjn? ifler ations
i The number of boys who were seen by the clinicians
was 95; the number of girls was 55. Only the sample of
ififth grade boys will be used in the study. ■
In order to determine the underlying dimensions in
I
the data which were collected for this project, a factor
i :
i
janalytic procedure was used. Altogether approximately 150
'variables were collected and analyzed in 5 separate analy
ses . The data can be combined in a variety of ways, but
the research objectives can be met best by keeping the
number of variables in each analysis at a reasonable level I
; , i
(N = 95 and number of variables =25), by analyzing the
data collected in each separate clinical setting and then
by comparing the results of each analysis. Thus the data
jcollected by the social worker were combined in 1 factor
(analysis. The material collected by the psychologist pro-
i I
I 1
vided for 2 additional analyses. The psychological test
jdata were grouped together for a second analysis and the
i
observations and qualitative judgments were combined for the!
i
; i
third analysis. The psychiatrist's observations and quali- j
tative judgments made up the fourth factor analysis of !
clinical data. The school-collected information which was
i !
I ■
available on all members of the school group from which
! i
jthose youngsters on whom clinical evaluations were made were;
i
sampled made up the final or fifth analysis. Since the data!
i I
in this latter analysis were from over 300 fifth grade boys,1
it is possible to tolerate a larger number of variables in I
i
i
i
the analysis of the school-collected information.
i
I The results of the analyses should make it possible j
! ' I
to determine the principal sources of variance operating in |
I
clinical judgments of individual differences, and the types ;
of variability present in a variety of school-collected
information which have been shown to have a relationship to I
I |
school adjustment problems. |
| By evaluating the types of variables which make up
the factored dimensions, it should be possible to determine
hich of them can be taken as evidence of cause or effect of
feduced behavioral freedom or which of them appear to repre-
I
^ent types of coping powers which are necessary for adequate
I
kdjustment to the school situation.
■Method j
!
[
The method selected to factor analyze the above dataj
I :
i
lis a type of multiple group solution (Harman, 1960, p. 216- |
j I
|230) which Tryon (1956, 1957) calls Cumulative Communality j
Cluster Analysis. This method calls for locating groups of i
j |
|variables which have in common some general property or I
! i
|some underlying psychological theory.
| The first independent dimension is determined by a i
selected group of variables which meet several criteria.
These criteria must be met in the first dimension as well
jas in all subsequent dimensions which are factored. The j
i
variables which are to be selected are characterized by j
i. |
imaximal congruence of correlation profiles, maximal inde-
i
i
pendence from the remaining variables and a number of vari-j
lables which does not exceed an optimal number in each clus
ter, i.e. =4. The procedure begins with determining the
i I
|variable which has maximal independence. This variable is
I
-
termed the pivotal variable. It is found by determining
which variable has maximal variance of squared r's. Next
those variables which are maximally congruent with the
ipivotal variable are located. By having all of the squared
variances of the r's, the task is to rank order those with
the largest squared variances, and then to compute an index
118
of proportionality for each pair of variables where 1 member
of the pair is always the pivotal variable. For 2 variables
X^ and Xg:
j v
rlir2i
index of proportionality = - (i = 3, 4 . . . n)
/2rii22r2i2 ;
The optimal number of variables which are maximally inde-
endent and maximally congruent are then selected. The I
factor loadings of each variable with the first axis are
then found and residuals computed. Next a new cluster is
llocated by the same procedure, a second axis is passed
!
jthrough this group of variables, the factor loadings are
computed and then the residuals. The process is continued
to a final dimension after which all residuals are reduced
to a specified criterion. This criterion is met when no
jvariable has a partial communality in the next independent
dimension greater than a specified low value. Tryon sug
gests that this low value occurs when the maximal partial
communality of any variable in the next dimension is equal
to or less than .025. When this criterion is applied, it
means that no variable can contribute more than 2.5% of its
i
I
jvariance to the next factored dimension (k + 1), and dimen-
I
jsion k is the last one which is retained. According to
Tryon, this factoring process itself yields orthogonal axes j
I
i
jWhich are close to those factorists would say define 1 1 simple!
I I
(structure"; thus rotation of the axes to simple structure
I
j
[following the factoring is often not necessary. j
i Each of the 5 sets of data were analyzed by the
i :
jTryon procedure. Following these analyses the next objec- j
tive of the project was effected, the determination of the
I
relationship among the factors. [
t
| Two methodological problems are confronted in the 1
i
interpretation of the factors which are found from the above)
i
i
analyses. The first has to do with the quality of the I
j
measurement of each of the variables and their experimental j
| i
I j
[independence from one another. The second problem has to dci
with the need to determine whether the common factor vari- j
i
lance in each of the dimensions is a result of situational I
jor method variance or whether it can be inferred to be a
I
result of real psychological differences between individu
als .
The methodological issue of independence of the i
measures in the factor analyses will be discussed first.
If one were to ask a group of psychologists to suggest
j
[sources of information which could be arranged so as to
j
jevaluate the mental health or adjustment status of a group
120 j
i I
of children, he would most probably be confronted with sug- i
)
gestions to get psychiatric, psychological or social case |
work evaluations. These professional clinical disciplines
are often in the limelight in discussions of mental health
lor adjustment. Even though the training of each of these
[ 3 disciplines is aimed at the evaluation of the adequacy of ;
Jpsychological resources, the appropriateness of the social
I
and economic environment, and the degree of personal dis- j
| I
tress and anxiety, there are few, if any, guidelines for
i
organizing the perceptions of these clinical disciplines
I
j i
into psychological measurement. The tests of the psycholo- i
I
gists come closest to meeting the usual requirements of i
jpsychological data for experimental purposes. Types of ;
'presenting symptoms are the most frequent type of data re-
icorded by psychiatrists. Social workers usually list dates
' j
jof significant developmental occurrences and gather data 1
'about the family and child which may have importance in
shedding light on some aspect of his behavior. While one
can assume that it is possible to develop procedures to
organize the perceptions of clinicians into useful experi
mental measurement, the development of such measures is in
i
■its infancy.
I
In the development of the data collection procedures
| 121
used in this project, the members of the clinical team had
to develop a set of observations which they could gather and
which would yield data for inferences about a child's ad
justment status. The observations or factual data were
selected to be related to the general hypothesis of the
project in being assumed to be a cause or an effect of re-
j
iduced behavioral freedom. Second, all of the observations
Were selected to be appropriate to the training of each
(worker. Social workers and psychologists were not asked to
!
j
jmake psychiatric judgments, nor were psychiatrists required
[to predict information from social case work interviews or
l
(psychological testing. However, each clinical discipline
i
I
did develop its own approach to gathering data and the as-
!
jsumptions that they made that it was possible to evaluate
|
leach of the variables which they selected were accepted.
(In general, 2 types of information were considered to be
I ■ j
^ssential to each clinical discipline. The first type of j
(information was that of non-judgmental observation, a col- j
i \
\ '
lection of facts and observations, but no decisions as to j
whether any of these facts were related to the adjustment j
of the child. The only criterion that these observations j
I i
had to meet was that they had been shown in the past by some!
!
i
(research worker, or by some theoretical position to be j
122
significant in the adjustment of children. The second type j
I
Of data was that of inferential judgments. These judgments '
!
i
were selected as being presumably independent of one anoth
er, but all related to the judgment of adjustment status.
While this second type of data is obviously related to the ;
i
information or facts which were collected, no a priori |
i
assumptions were made about what relationship might exist, i
The reason for this is that in the course of clinical obser-j
] i
i
vation and appraisal, a great variety of information is
gathered on each individual. All of this information is
supposed to relate to some aspect of the child's mental
i
health; however, little is known about what relationship
! . !
does exist between an observation, a fact of development,
or a psychological test score, and the subsequent inference
Ithat a child has personality problems, or behavioral diffi
culties, or problems in adult relationships.
i
| Two levels of judgment are included in the analysis
of the psychological, the psychiatric and social work inter
views with the child or parents. The first level represents
rather "hard" observational data; the second the "soft"
findings of psychological inference and judgment. Each of
jthese 2 levels of judgment are assumed to represent unique
Isources of appraisal and assumed to be independent of one
janother in the appraisal process. The results of the analy-!
ses may show that this assumption cannot be supported.
i
Whatever the finding, the results will serve to improve the j
t
process of collecting clinical judgment of individuals in j
subsequent investigations by reducing the number of obser-
i j
vations which should be made and clarifying the relation- |
I
ship between an observation and an inference about mental
health status. An example may serve to clarify this point.
Psychologists who use individual psychological examinations !
i
to appraise the personality and intellectual status of j
j ' I
children often use 2 judgments of intellectual status. ;
i
Though they appear to be identical to the critic of such
; i
psychological appraisal, psychologists continue to feel thatj
!
they are both important in the appraisal process. These j
i
I
judgments are of the test performance on the Wechsler In- !
I i
jtelligence Scale for Children and of the child's intellec
tual functioning as rated by the psychologist on the basis
of the child's over-all performance in the examination.
The first simply rates whether the child did well or poorly
on the intelligence test; the second rates the degree to
i
Iwhich the child is able to use his intelligence effectively
jin the solution of other test problems, such as met in the
i
Rorschach test, or in the production of a clear, accurate
| 124
I
I
Bender protocol. One could make the a priori judgment that i
the first rating is no different from the second. On the
other hand, one could include both ratings and determine to
what extent the common factor variance was identical. Psy- j
chologically, the ratings may be dependent on one another; j
however, experimentally they may not be entirely dependent j
i
in that the second rating does not depend wholly on the
first. The reader will recall that the rating procedure fori
all of the qualitative or inferential ratings required the I
i
clinical psychologist to rate all of the children he saw on J
i
i
a particular trait before proceeding to the next rating. j
The procedure was employed to make the inferential ratings j
as experimentally independent from one another as possible.
i
If the ratings are shown to be psychologically dependent in I
|
that the clinician uses the same information to make 1 rat- !
' i
jing as the next, the recommendation follows that only 1,
; J
and not 2 ratings of intellectual status of children is !
I
i
needed to fully evaluate this trait. j
The purpose of a factor analytic procedure is to
determine the underlying order of a domain represented by a
i
Inumber of measurements.
i
!
| Factor analysis assumes that a variety of phenomena
j within a domain are related and that they are determined,
i at least in part, by a relatively small number of
I 125 |
i
i j
functional unities or factors.
Factor analysis has its principal usefulness at ;
the border line of science. It is naturally superseded ;
by rational formulations in terms of the science in- j
volved. Factor analysis is useful, especially in those
domains where basic and fruitful concepts are essen
tially lacking and where crucial experiments have been
difficult to conceive. The new methods have a humble
l
! role. They enable us to make only the crudest map of
a new domain. But if we have scientific intuition and
sufficient ingenuity, the rough factorial map of a new
domain will enable us to proceed beyond the exploratory i
stage to the more direct forms of psychological experi- I
mentation in the laboratory. (Thurstone, 1947, p. 56) |
t The second methodological problem inherent in this j
project is confronted at the point where the dimensions 1
I
found in the factor analysis are interpreted in the light oi
j
the project hypothesis. If each of the dimensions derived j
Ifrom the analyses of clinician-collected and school- j
i 1
(collected data is considered to be a unique source of var- !
j . ;
jiance within that set of data, some procedure must be used j
! i
! ■
to determine whether such variance is a result of situa-
I !
; . |
tional or method variance or whether it can be inferred to !
i
be a result of real psychological differences between chil- !
dren. This problem in interpreting results such as these
has been developed at length by Campbell and Fiske (1959).
They point out that in research which uses a variety of
method and trait variables, the differences which frequent
ly appear among the factors are a result of method,
! 126 |
i
i
apparatus or instrument factors and not a result of true i
underlying psychological variables. They propose correla-
I
i
tion matrices in validity studies which utilize intercorre- |
I
!
lations among tests representing at least 2 traits, each j
i i
measured by at least 2 methods. However, procedures for
multiple measures of traits and methods are not readily
j
available for an investigation such as this. There are, i
J
however, a variety of types of observation of the pupil
sample, and multiple judgments of some traits by different
observers. It is highly possible, nevertheless, that the |
i
i
dimensions found in the analysis of data in this project
are just such method or situational variables as Campbell j
I i
and Fiske describe, and not factors which have real psycho- I
• ■ I
logical significance. !
j
I In order to evaluate this question further a pro-
I
|cedure was employed to determine to what extent the extract-*
| j
led factors were truly independent of one another. This
method allows, in addition, the comparison of all of the
i
I
1
extracted factors from the 5 analyses. Thus it was possiblq
to investigate the hypothesis that the data collected by
the clinical disciplines and those collected from the school
I
jyield types of variation which can be inferred to be
127 I
measures of psychological resources necessary for school
adjustment, or coping abilities suggesting the degree to
which a child can utilize his resources to meet a problem.
jThe procedure used is one of computing factor scores for
i "
each of the dimensions by the Lederman method (Harman, 1960,
p. 349). The Lederman method is a complete regression
I
method applied to the reproduced correlations rather than
|the observed correlations. The advantage of this is that
jthe smaller reproduced correlation matrix reduces the labor
|
of computing the factor scores. If the factor solutions
i
jare adequate and the residuals approach zero, the results
|
iof the Lederman short method approach those of the complete ;
l
.
estimation method. j
|
Factor scores were computed for each pupil for each '
jof the factors. These factor scores were then correlated
Ito determine the degree of relationship among the factors.
| i
When there is agreement across factor analyses, or between i
ifactors extracted from different sets of data one may infer i
i ■ :
I
ithat real, underlying psychological variation accounts for
i ;
\
I the relationship rather than attributing factors to method
I
ior situational variance. In order to confirm the hypothesis
of this project, correlations between factors should be of
the magnitude of .200 or higher (5 per cent level of
128 j
I
significance with df 94) and in order to rule out the possi-j
bility that the factors are method, test, or situation var- :
j
iance, they should be related to some outside criterion of
school adjustment, or have considerable common factor vari- ;
ance and be correlated with factors from other methods of
jappraisal.
I
j i
The correlation between factors in a single set of
data may be lower than correlation between factors in 2
I
different sets of data. This results from the fact that
the dimensions in each cluster analysis are orthogonal to |
i
one another while those between analyses do not necessarily |
t
have an orthogonal relationship. I
i j
A final procedural step was taken. From the corre-j
i
lation matrix of the factor scores a summary factor analysis
|
was conducted. This analysis is analogous to a second or- i
i ;
Ider factor analysis, but it is different from it in that a
second order analysis is ordinarily conducted from the first
i
order factors from a single set of data. In order to dis-
!
I
tinguish the analysis in this project from second order !
factor analysis, the term "summary analysis" was used since
the factor analysis was made on the basis of factors ex
tracted from 5 analyses rather than from the factors found
in a single analysis. A principal factor method (Harman,
p. 154) was applied, and rotation was accomplished by the
Kaiser varimax method (1958).
| CHAPTER V j
i ;
! |
: ANALYSIS OP DATA FROM THE
I
SOCIAL WORKER HOME INTERVIEW
j
The Variables Included in the Analysis
I
!
Summary judgment
i
i
The great variety of factual data included in the
social worker interview schedule had to be translated into
i
a number of general observations about^8|[£ physical, psychos
logical and social development of the child. Psychologists ,
have test scores, the psychiatrists a number of interview
[observations, but the social worker has a large collection I
j
jof facts which have to be woven into a picture of the life
Jfabric of the child. Thus prior to making the inferential j
j j
judgments which were required for each child, the social |
j
i
worker summarized the interview on a form which required a |
review of any information provided by the parent which might
have significance for the child's school adjustment. These
130
summary judgments involved noting the presence or absence
of physical, psychological or social variables which might j
i
i
have had a relationship to the child's performance in j
j
school. Specifically, the social worker was asked to note j
whether any behavior which was noted or any information
(which was collected during the interview could have affected
! *
jthe child's development. j
I j
j The principal justification for the summary judgment}
i
procedure is that the specific pieces of information which
!
are collected as part of the developmental history probably J
1
have little or no predictive value in themselves. For ex- ;
ample, the type of infant feeding, or method of discipline, |
i
jor procedure for bowel training which occur in a given case :
is no longer felt to be, in itself, the principal variable j
i
causing a particular problem for a child. It is the inter- i
relationship between the particular occurrence and other
j |
occurrences and the parent's management or perception of j
l
j
the situation which makes the condition a critical incident j
i
I
in the development of one child and an uneventful occurrence;
in the life of another.
The following summary judgments were used. The
ratings of each judgment ranged from "yes positive" (indi-
jcating better than the mode of what could be expected in a
particular area); "maybe positive," "no," "maybe negative," j
to "yes negative," (indicating problems noted during the
I
interview). The number in parentheses in front of each j
variable refers to the number of the variable in the corre- j
lation matrix in Table 3 and in the list of factor loadings ;
of each variable in Table 4.
i
A. Physical variables:
I
(1) 1'. Evidence for genetic variables in a ;
physical problem.
(2) 2'. Specific physical defect such as sense
J
organ impairment, allergies, results !
of accidents.
(3) 3'. Evidence of permanent or semi-perma-
j
nent physical condition such as enur- ;
I
j
esis, sleeping difficulties, eating !
problems, etc. !
j
B. Psychological variables: j
1
I
(4) 1'. Evidence of past and present diffi- ;
culties in parent-child relationships.;
(5) 2'. Evidence of past and present diffi
culties in other adult-child rela
tionships .
(6) 3'. Problems in sibling relationships.
(7) 4'. Problems in peer relationships. j
C. Social variables: j
(8) 1'. Evidence of economic deprivation such j
i
as relief status, inadequate housing, j
food, or clothing.
(9) 2’ . Evidence of cultural conflict includ- j
ing possible racial, national, reli
gious, class or urban-rural conflict
between family and neighborhood.
(10) 3'. Evidence of social disorganization in!
the community or neighborhood. j
(11) 4'. Evidence of geographic mobility, in-
i
i
eluding frequent moving locally or
from city to city.
(12) D. Evidence for school problems of any type as
noted in interview.
The criteria for each of the above judgments are
listed in the Appendix. In practice the social workers
found few cases in which they considered the evidence from
the interview to be certainly on the positive side of the
continuum. They gave most frequently ratings of "no," in
dicating a rather uneventful developmental history or one
in which no particular negative findings were noted.
However, ratings of "maybe negative," "maybe positive" and j
"yes positive" were given to some of the cases for each of
i
the above summary judgments. The means and standard devia
tions for each distribution are presented in Table 2.
iVariables describing the social
status characteristics of the !
family
An objective procedure was needed in order to get j
I
an appraisal of those factors contributing to the socio- j
economic status of the family. Warner and Eells (1960, p. |
138-154) have provided criteria for 4 social status charac-j
i
teristics which they feel best indicate the socio-economic
i
!level of the family. The 4 indices are occupation of prin-j
| i
cipal wage earner, source of income, neighborhood and hous- j
: ]
I
ing. They provide criteria for ratings in each category j
and suggestions for weighting each of the ratings in order
I j
ito get a total score which is most related to validity
i i
l
criteria of social status. Each characteristic is rated on1
i
i
a 7-point scale from 1 (highest level or best of the class) j
i
to 7 (lowest level or poorest of the class). In order to
get the total index of status characteristics, the authors
suggest weights of 4 to occupation, 3 to source of income,
3 to house type and 2 to dwelling area. Even though the
TABLE 2
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR VARIABLES
USED IN THE FACTOR ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL
WORKERS' SUMMARY AND INFERENTIAL JUDGMENTS
(N = 95)
No. Variable M. S.D.
1.
Summarv Judaments: Presence of
family, social or personal situ
ations related to adjustment
Genetic 1.56 0.90
2. Physical defects 2.01 0.76
3. Physical conditions 0.27 0.76
4. Parent-child relationships 1.97 0.71
5 . Other adult-child relationships 1.09 0.41
6 . Sibling relationships 3.11 0.38
7 . Peer relationships 3.69 1.07
8. Economic deprivation 3.77 1.07
9. Norm conflict 3.90 1.24
10. Social disorganization 3.10 0.57
11. Social mobility 3.44 0.98
12. Over-all evaluation of the pres
ence of adjustment problems 3.96 1.22
13.
'
Index of Social Status Charac
teristics3
Description of house 3.71 1.08
aWarner, W. L., Meeker, M. and Eells, K.. Social
Class in America: A Manual of Procedures for Measurina So-
ciai
Status (Chicacro: Science Research Associates, 1960).
TABLE 2— Continued
i
No. Variable M. S.D. !
14. Rating of neighborhood dwelling
area 3.84
j
0.85
15. Source of income of principal
wage earner 4.02 0.71
16. Occupation code of principal
wage earner 3.54
j
1.78 |
17.
Qualitative Judcrments
Serious physical problems 2.79
1
1.10
i
18. Deviant psychological devel
opment 3.00 1.12
19. Poor social environment 2.70 1.09
20. The family would produce
problems 3.01
1
1.14 j
21. Serious personality problems 2.95 1.17 1
1
22. School adjustment problems 2.79 1.08 j
23. School learning problems 2.95 1.17
! 137
I
total index of status characteristics was computed for each ;
i :
child, only the 4 individual ratings were included in this
l
jfactor analysis. The 4 variables used to evaluate socio-
! !
ieconomic status and their number in the analysis is as fol-
I ;
i
I
ilows:
j
j (13) Description of house
I (14) Rating of neighborhood dwelling area
I !
j (15) Source of income of principal wage earner ;
j (16) Occupation code of principal wage earner
i
I
|
Social workers1 qualitative or
inferential judgments
i
i
! The next list describes the inferential judgments
j i
made by the social workers at the completion of all of theirj
interviews. Each of these judgments was considered by the :
social workers to be an independent judgment which had po
tential value for predicting a child's school adjustment
I !
status. The number in parentheses refers to the number of j
each variable in the factor analysis of social worker data. |
(17) This child has serious physical problems
(18) This child's history has shown deviant
i psychological development
i
I (19) The social environment in which the child
I
! lives has been conducive to poor development
(20) This is a family which would produce a child j
with problems
j (21) This child has serious personality problems
!
i
j (22) This child has school adjustment problems
(23) The child has school learning problems
j ;
| :
| The rating job was to find a child who was most
adequate in the dimension being rated (a rating of 1) and (
write his name in the rating form. (The rating form has
i !
i !
been described previously as a grid.of 5 columns and 10 j
i
rows in which each child's name was to be written as he was j
rated.) Next a child who was least adequate in the dimen- |
I
Ision being rated was located from the social worker inter- i
I !
i !
(view list and his name was written in the rating form at
!
the other end of the distribution (a rating of 5). Next
i i
! ' i
jother children who were comparable to the child given a
jrating of 1, or a rating of 5, were located and listed j
! i
I i
accordingly. Then the social worker ordered the remainder
!
of the list in terms of whether the child was closer to one |
end or the other of the distribution. After all of the
(children on the interview list were rated on the first
I
(trait, the social worker began a new grid and rated all of
the children on the list with respect to that trait. This
139 j
process was completed for each of the inferential judgments.!
At the completion of the ratings, the interview
i
schedules were reviewed and adjectives describing children j
j
who were given ratings of 1, 3, and 5 were listed for each
jtrait. Prom these adjectives a comparison was made between
I
jthe operational criteria for the ratings developed at the
^beginning of the project and the criteria employed in mak
ing the ratings. The ratings and criteria for ranks of 1 '
Ithrough 5 are detailed in the Appendix.
! !
; Hypotheses Related to the '
| Social Worker Data
i j
! A rather wide range of research studies are avail-
i
! I
able which relate social variables to personality malad
justment and psychological disorganization. Only a few willj
i
be mentioned here. A study by Sewell and Haller (1959) i
; - i
jshows that lower class children tend to be more concerned j
| j
over class status and exhibit more symptomatic behavior !
I
than do those of middle class. Educational attainment of j
I
i
the father and his occupational status have also been shown
to be related to personality maladjustment in children
(Burchinal, et al.. 1958). The anti-social behavior of the
parents has been found to be related to anti-social charac-
I
teristics in children and is inferred to be a result of the
father's low occupational status (Robins, et al. , 1962). ;
Even when attempts have been made to control variables of
j
size of family, intelligence and age of children in a cul
turally homogeneous group, social status appears to have a
! i
flow, but significant relationship to the child's personality
! ■ :
i
[adjustment (Sewell, et al., 1956). The long-range develop-
i !
mental studies of Nancy Bayley and her staff have made more
specific the relation between social class variables and |
i
the behavior of mothers toward young children (1960). In
her study of 56 normal children mothers of higher socio-
j !
(economic status tended to be more warm, understanding, and i
accepting while those of lower class status were more con- [
trolling, irritable and punitive.
t
The special relationship of housing environment and'
! I
imental health has been studied by Wilner (1956, 1959). j
i '
Variables such as the quality of the housing and density ofj
j . j
| I
'Occupants have a positive relationship to the mental health!
status. Even though it is possible to get fairly objective
I
measures of social class and socio-economic status as well !
as housing quality, it is the interaction of parent and
child which has a more direct relationship to the child's
i
adjustment outcome. Becker (1959) showed that the mothers
of conduct problem children tended to be arbitrary,
! 141
i
[thwarting, and give vent to unbridled emotions while the j
l j
i
fathers tended to be inconsistent in enforcing regulations, j
When families are studied in terms of ability to function j
iin individual relationships, relationships in the family,
I I
[child care, social activities, economic activities, house-
j ;
jhold practices, health practices, and use of community re
sources (Geismar, 1962), family disorganization appears to
I !
jbe most related to inadequacies in interpersonal relation- J
| J
ships, child care, and family relationships. The inference!
from this study is that as incompetence in managing the re- j
i j
jlationships in the family increases, it affects the family'd
i j
I I
[ability to provide for adequate health, food and shelter.
i !
Two studies are of interest in relating physical j
[features to adjustment status. Though both these studies j
i
jwere conducted with adult populations, some generalizations
can be made to a childhood group. Laird (1957) shows a j
[ i
I • i
[relationship between physical handicaps and emotional dis- j
! I
! I
Iturbances. Hinkle, et al. (1959), in a large study of al- i
i
most 3000 subjects, conclude that man's relationship to his
social environment as perceived by him has a profound effect,
upon his health, influencing the development and progression
jof all forms of illness regardless of their etiologies. As
j
i
ja group, persons who experience "difficulty" in adapting to
| 142
i
i
jtheir social environments have a disproportionate amount of j
i |
;all the illness which occurs among the adult population. j
I ' !
i ■ i
; Generalizations from the above studies to the cur- j
! j
jrent project are somewhat limited since they use a variety
j
jof definitions of "adjustment," "disorganization" and "dis- ;
j :
jturbance." In addition, the samples may differ in terms of ■
i ;
jage, sex and representativeness. The generalizations which I
i !
I
can be made, however, are that physical, psychological and '
I
jsocial variables such as the ones collected for this study
j
I
have a potential relationship to the adjustment of 11-year- j
i I
olds. |
i
i Hypotheses about the factors which should emerge ;
from an analysis of these data are difficult to state since '
i ;
I ;
’ no comparable studies have been made. Three related factor !
I !
[studies of the Pels Parent Behavior Scales utilize a number j
of variables quite different from those contained in the j
’ proposed social worker factor analysis; however, they are j
jof interest in that the factors extracted may be found later
to be similar to ones which might evolve from this proposal.
Roff's (1949) factorial study of the Fels Parent Behavior
Scales was published in 1949. Subsequently Becker, et al.
i
j(l959) replicated his procedure with problem families and
f .
jnon-problem families. They found substantial agreement
I 143
i
with Roff's original factors when variables relating to j
j
mother and children and those relating to father and chil- I
j
dren were analyzed. In problem families the mother and j
i i
jchild factors were parent-child harmony, protectiveness,
\ !
i ;
[democracy, permissiveness and sociability. The father-child
factors were parent-child harmony, protectiveness and demo- ;
]
jcracy, but a factor called general activity and warm extro- .
jversion versus hostile withdrawal in place of sociability
! i
and permissiveness emerged. i
Lorr and Jenkins (1953) took the factors derived by |
Roff and subjected them to a second order factor analysis. |
! i
frhree factors were found and described by the following j
(questions: (1) how far does this home sustain and encouragej
| |
'dependence? (2) how far do the methods of child training j
i
l
[reflect democratic practices or values? (3) to what extent
iis there strict orderliness in the home or to what extent isl
; 1
I ’ !
the home relaxed and unorganized? These second order fac- j
i
tors are more in line with the qualitative judgments made by!
I
i
the social workers in this project which describe the psy-
' hological environment in which the child has been reared.
A socio-economic factor should emerge from the fac
tor analysis of these data. A health factor may be extract
ed, but its appearance would be inhibited by the fact that
jonly 4 variables define this possible dimension, and the j
j i
jfact that the social workers found it difficult to distri- !
I i
| l
jbute ratings of health factors in more than an "either-or" j
j |
jfashion. Certainly a main factor to be found in the analy- I
j
jsis would be a psychological supply factor related to the
i
I family environment, and the child's developmental history.
i !
I ]
|ln addition, we would expect that if social, familial, or j
physical factors do emerge, they should be positively re- j
i i
I
lated to the adjustment status of the child. In order for !
jthe factors to support the general research hypothesis of ;
! I
this project, that school adjustment status is directly !
related to the adequacy of the psychological supplies and ;
1 I
! i
the coping skills of the child, each of the factors should j
|be shown to belong to either the supply or the coping di- i
! !
jmension. Second, the factors must be inferred to be con- j
gruent to aspects of family-child relationships such as
I . i
i i
^adequacy of mothering (adequacy of family life), or ade-
j
quacy of the larger social environment.
i
Results of the Analysis of the Data
The factor analysis was based on 12 summary judg
ments, 4 ratings of socio-economic status, and 7 inferen-
i
!tial judgments, 23 variables in all. The first 16
variables were ratings made at the time of the interview or j
shortly thereafter; the final 7 variables were ratings made \
\ ' i
at the end of all of the interviews by comparing and ranking
all of the families and children on each characteristic. i
I The means and standard deviations for each of these
I , . i
23 variables are presented in Table 2. The mean rating ;
[listed for each of the summary judgment provides an indica- j
i
tion of the degree to which any of these variables were |
present. The low mean ratings for variables of physical
factors related to adjustment indicate either an absence of I
|
physical problems in the population studied or a lack of
emphasis in the social workers' procedures for interviewing [
i i
t ]
which would have uncovered enough differences among the
t
j
families' reports of their children's physical condition to i
make for broader distributions. The mean ratings for psy-
jchological variables suggest that these variables are ones j
: ’ I
which the social worker can more readily evaluate and dis-
' j
tribute along a continuum. Social factors were also diffi- !
cult to rate on a 5-point continuum as implied by the mean
[ratings of these variables. If summary judgments such as
i
i
these are to be included in subsequent investigations, a
thorough review of the criteria for each rating and the
jdevelopment of interview procedures which would be designed
! 146
*
jto elicit information relative to such ratings would be
Jnecessary.
i
| Mean ratings for the 4 variables constituting the !
I I
jindex of social status characteristics fall into the middle j
of the rating distribution. The rather extensive criteria i
I i
i 1
jwhich were provided for making these ratings may have made
it easier for social workers to evaluate income, occupation,
housing and neighborhood. The means and standard deviations:
|for the inferential judgments suggest also that distribu-
i
|tions of ratings for these behavior characteristics over a
i
5-point continuum are feasible when procedures for ratings !
and appropriate criteria are applied. ;
The correlations of these variables can be found in j
i
Table 3. The cluster scores or factor scores for the 4
dimensions which were defined in the cluster analysis are
reproduced in Table 4. Since the criterion of simple
structure is met fairly well by the cluster analysis pro
cedure as indicated by the pattern of loadings of each var
iable on the dimensions, no rotations of axes were made.
If these procedures were to be replicated in another pro
ject, and if the results were comparable to those presented
[here, one could generalize that the types of variation in
F
I
jthe social worker procedures are representative of the modus
TABLE 3
CORRELATION MATRIX FOR SOCIAL WORKER STMtARY AHD INFERENTIAL JUDCWEETS
RO. variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23
1. Genetic factors related to
idjllttMDt
2. Physical defects r«lattd to
idJUttMBt .28
3. Fhyaical conditions rolatad
to adjustment -.07 -.11
4. Parant-child relations re
lated to adjustment -.12 -.08 .04
S. Other edult-child relations
related to adjustment -.03 -.00 - .08 .12
-
6. Problems in sibling relations -.04 -.04 -.11 .09 -.07
7. Peer relationships -.03 ,23 .09 -.01 -.00 -.01
8. Economic deprivation -.01 .24 .06 -.01 -.02 .17 .97
9. ■ora conflict .08 .07 -.03 .13 .04 .03 .47 .46
10. Social disorganisation .01 .09 .06 -.15 .14 -.10 .12 .07 .18
u. Social mobility -.01 .12 .04 .05 .11 -.02 .25 .24 .58 .12
12. Deviations in physical, psycho
logical or social factors -.02 .05 .06 .05 .19 .05 .50 .50 .77 .16 .43
13. Description of house -.01 -.25 .21 -.09 .16 .03 -.22 -.23 - .08 .13 -.05 .01
14. Rating of neighborhood .05 -.34 .20 -.09 .07 -.01 -.19 -.20 -.23 -.05 -.14 -.11 .6S
IS. Source of inccaw -.08 -.39 .13 -.06 .03 .11 -.25 -.22 -.10 -.14 -.21 -.06 .34 .30
18. Occupation code
Social Qnelifcstlem
-.16 -.34 .21 -.02 .16 .05 -.07 -.09 -.08 -.09 .03 .06 .56 .50 .57
17. Serious physical problems? -.06 .14 .02 -.05 -.21 .13 .26 .26 -.00 .03 .01 -.05 -.05 .01 -.01 -.04
16. Development shows deviant
psychological patterns? -.05 .16 -.10 .12 .22 .24 .28 .44 -.02 .32 .39 .10 -.08 -.16 .01 .36
19. Social environment conducive
to poor develofSMnt? -.04 -.15 .16 -.11 .04 .13 -.05 -.03 .14 .05 .14 .18 .53 .41 .20 .43 .25 .49
20. A family which would produce
a child with problems? -.04 .12 .01 .12 .11 .12 .12 .11 .33 .14 .39 27 .26 .04 -.16 .11 .32 .70 .51
21. Serious' personality problems? .03 .06 -.04 .07 .01 .13 .18 .21 .38 .06 .21 .34 .17 .03 -.07 .04 .42 .81 .45 .73
22. School adjustment problems? .05 .23 -.05 -.04 .02 .14 .07 .07 .14 .05 .13 .15 .23 .06 -.05 -.04 .50 .66 .42 .64 .66
23. School learning problems? -.12 -.03 .12 .07 .03 .20 .02 .07 .17 -.04 .13 .25 .16 -.05 .22 .21 .28 .48 .31 .24 .41 .29
TABLE 4
FACTOR COEFFICIENTS FOR SOCIAL WORKER SUMMARY AND
INFERENTIAL JUDGMENTS ON EACH FACTOR DIMENSION
(N = 95)
No. Variables
i
1 2
Factors
3 4 hs
1.
Summary Judcrments: Presence of
family, social or personal situ
ations related to adjustment
Genetic .008 -.007 -.059 -.078 .009
2. Physical defects .187 .119 -.420 .189 .262
3. Physical conditions .060 -.079 .327 .088 .225
4. Parent-child relationships .048 .068 -.135 -.125 .041
5. Other adult-child relationships .066 .019 .160 -.148 .052
6. Sibling relationships .075 .165 .023 .086 .041
7. Peer relationships .824 -.117 -.039 .419 .870
8. Economic deprivation .825 -.099 -.052 .421 .869
9. Norm conflict .725 .136 -.045 -.382 .692
10. Social disorganization .169 .010 .037 -.099 .040
11. Social mobility .479 .153 .001 -.343 .371
12. Over-all evaluation of the presence
of adjustment problems .754 .081 .136 -.361 .724
TABLE 4— Continued
Factors
No. Variables
r \
1 2 3 4 h2
Index of Social Status Character
istics3
13. Description of house -.165 .305 .727 -.061 .653
14. Rating of neighborhood dwelling
area -.235 .107 .706 .104 .576
15. Source of income of principal
wage earner -.225 -.062 .513 -.080 .324
16. Occupation code of principal
wage earner -.056 .058 .702 .000 .409
Qualitative Judcrments
17. Serious physical problems .153 .450 -.087 .457 .433
18. Deviant psychological development .433 .783 -.049 -.034 .805
19, Poor social environment .073 .567 .562 -.043 .645
20. The family would produce problems .265 .777 .085 -.033 .682
21. Serious personality problems .354 .810 -.003 -.028 .782
22. School adjustment problems .137 .772 - .032 .095 .624
23. School learning problems .163 .391 .105 -.102 .201
Proportion of common factor variance
exhausted by each dimension .325 .327 .241 .107
Earner, W. L., Meeker, M. and Eells, K. Social Class in America: A Manual for
Procedures for Measuring Social Status (Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1960).
150 I
operandi of this clinical discipline in making appraisals of
i
parents' relationships to children. In the absence of such ,
replication the communalities of the variables, and the
i
i
interpretability of the factored dimensions must be used to i
i
{support the reliability of the procedures and the psycho
logical significance of the findings. j
I I
! The factors -which were extracted and their inter-
i • i
j
pretations are presented as follows.
!
I .
i 1. Factor 1— Poor social and cultural environment. !
i
This factor cluster contains judgments of poor peer rela- {
tionships, evidence of economic deprivation in the home, |
presence of norm conflict of the family with the neighbor- !
i . i
hood and community, and a judgment that information uncov-
i I
| i
pred during the interview was thought to be related to some j
! |
jschool problem. In addition to these cluster variables, !
! ;
[the presence of social mobility, deviations in psychological
j i
development, and evidence of serious personality problems j
were also loaded moderately on this dimension. The inter- !
pretation of this factor is poor social and cultural en
vironment which is related to school and behavioral prob-
I
lems and one which belongs in the supply dimension.
2. Factor 2— Poor family environment. The quali-
!
i
tative judgments of deviations in the child's psychological
development, a family which could produce a child with j
problems, serious personality problems, and social worker
[predictions of school adjustment difficulties are the prin- ;
i
jcipal variables in the second cluster. In addition, the
[rating of the house, physical problems, either present or
i i
past, judgments of a poor social environment, and school
j !
{learning difficulties are also found with moderate loadings i
\ \
on this dimension. The interpretation of this factor is |
i {
poor family environment with related school and behavioral
problems. While the etiology of the school problems in j
1 appears to lie in the socio-cultural domain, the J
j
letiology of the problems related to this pattern of vari- ;
I ;
lables appears to rest primarily on the mothering and family j
environment. Factor 2 also appears to lie in the supply
i
{dimension. j
i
3. Factor 3— Socio-economic status. Factor 3 is
: ' I
clearly a socio-economic factor and also in the supply di- ;
I i
i
pension of school adjustment. The description of the house,
I
[occupation of the father and the rating of the neighborhood,
in addition to a judgment of a poor social environment make
.
(up the cluster variables. Also found in this are the source
i •
t
jof income for the family and the presence of some physical
i j
[problems in the child's developmental history.
152
Factor 4— Social problems. This factor is quite j
i
interesting since it contains most of the variables which j
i
j
are in Factor 1 above, but in a different relationship. |
!
|
Evidence of peer problems and economic deprivation are in
versely related to presence of norm conflict and the evi- j
jdence of school problems. This pattern suggests social and j
i #
economic difficulties which are not related to school ad- |
justment difficulties. The interpretation of this factor j
is social problems without school adjustment difficulties. !
|
i
Summary of the Results of the Analysis
of Social Worker Data j
Four factors emerged from the factor analysis of !
i ;
I i
Ithe social worker judgments. One factor seems to be related
|
to the quality of family-child relationships, a second to
the social-cultural environment in which the child partici
pates, a third to socio-economic status, and the fourth and
i
! final factor one of social or economic problems without the
social worker perceiving any adjustment implications. j
Although the selection of terms to describe the !
factors above is highly arbitrary, the variables in 2 of
the dimensions suggest that where school adjustment prob
lems are judged by the social worker to be present, they
inay be related to psychological problems within the family
153
in one case and economic and social problems in another.
"Emotionally disturbed" is a term commonly used to refer to
jchildren with the former type of etiological explanation for
j
their problems while "culturally deprived" is often employed
J
jto designate problem-prone children whose background is of
the latter type. For the purposes of this project, the
first 2 factors appear to relate rather well to Spitz's
j ;
postulates of the adequacy of mothering (inferred from the
| - !
quality of family life at a later year in the child's life) ;
sand the adequacy of the larger social environment as being
i i
jessential in the wholesome development of the child.
| Factors 2 and 3 might be interpreted as method di
mensions. The "method" implied in the variables represented
; I
by Factor 2 is related to rating by social workers, while I
the "method" implied in Factor 3 is related to observations ;
I :
in terms of judgments of accuracy. These suggest a differ-
ence in the psychological process of recording an observa
tion and subsequently ordering observations in terms of
j
jjudgments of adequacy. However, in the case of these fac-
j j
jtors some loading of both ratings or observations is pres
ent. This and the fact that the dimensions parallel those |
{that were hypothesized reduces the importance of a "method" j
| |
^interpretation of the dimensions.
I
The communalities of the variables support the
154 j
earlier suggestion of the difficulties the social workers j
experienced in making ratings of the physical status of the i
i
i
child and other aspects of the child's environment. The
common factor variance for variables 1 through 3 ranges from
0 to .25. Even though one can assume that a physical condi-i
jtion noted from a parent interview by one social worker |
would be noted by another worker in another interview (sincO
j
little interpretation of such facts is needed, and only I
answers to direct questioning), the communality of these i
variables certainly cannot be used to support the reliabil
ity of these ratings. The restricted range of the distri-
i
bution of observations over the 5-point continuum which was j
i
noted earlier, the specificity of these variables, as well |
j
as a possible lack of reliability are explanations of the j
I
low common factor variance. t
Low communalities were also found in summary inter- j
j
view judgments of parent-child and adult-child relation- j
ships, as well as the inferential judgment of school learn
ing problems, sibling relationships and social disorganiza
tion. In general, the ratings of the social environment
made during the interviewing had the highest common factor
variance.
f
The remaining variables have communalities which
155
range from .324 (source of income of principal wage earner)
to .870 (summary judgment of problems in peer relationships);
|
The generalization to be made from these ratings in rela- !
i
tionship to the reliability of the procedure is that 8 of |
i
I !
the 23 variables included in the analysis may not have a
high enough reliability to be used in subsequent investi-
j
gations. If the low common factor variance is a function
of the unreliability of the measures, more specific criteria
t
and suggestions for interview techniques which will elicit
j
such information should be developed. !
I
! CHAPTER VI
ANALYSIS OP DATA COLLECTED FROM
THE PSYCHIATRIC INTERVIEW
! The Variables Included in the Analysis
I . |
lobservational or factual !
variables
The following observations were made by the psychi- i
atrists during their interviews with the children. These j
i
are the major portion of the observational data suggested
I (
by the Department of Psychiatry of the University of Cali
fornia at Los Angeles in their child psychiatry project. !
These observational variables were developed from interview j
schedules which had been shown to be of value in collecting I
j
observational data from interviews which were later related j
I
to specific medical and neurological findings. The list j
includes samples of behavior which can be readily evaluated
during the interview or immediately afterwards. The list of
i
specific observations and their criteria can be found in
156
the Appendix. Each variable is listed below. The number j
in parentheses preceding the listing of each variable re-
I
i
fers to the number of the variable in the correlation matri^
I
]
in Table 6 and the number of the variable listed in the re- !
suits of the factor analysis in Table 7.
(1) A. Healthy vs. unhealthy (0 = healthy, 1 =
l
imperfect health)
(2) B. Unusual physical characteristics (0 = ab- j
sent, 1 = present) j
(3) C. Physically active vs. physically passive
(0 = physically hyperactive, 1 = not unusu-j
ally hyperactive or physically passive, j
2 = physically passive)
(4) D. Chronic anger and resentment (0 = much j
i
anger and resentment demonstrated, 1 =
little to moderate amount demonstrated, j
1
I
2 = none observable)
(5) E. Sexual identification (0 = behavior and
attitudes suggesting appropriate sexual
identification, 1 = behavior and attitudes
suggesting both appropriate and inappro
priate sexual identification, 2 = behavior
and attitudes suggesting inappropriate
sexual identification) j
(6) F. Speech maturity (0 = advanced for age, 1 = '
I
I
not unusually advanced or retarded for age,j
2 = retarded for age)
(7) G. Child's skill at verbalizing (0 = not at
all, 1 = talks about things in an indirect ;
or restricted way, 2 = talks freely) i
(8) H. "Grown-up" vs. childish behavior (0 = ex
cessively grown-up for age, 1 = neither I
unusually grown-up nor childish, 2 = exces-j
sively childish for age) i
(9) I. Obedience vs. rebelliousness (0 = overly
obedient, 1 = not unusually obedient or ;
[
rebellious, 2 = moderate rebellion, 3 = j
extremely rebellious) !
(10) J. Child's reaction to interviewer (0 =
strongly positive, 1 = slightly positive,
2 = neutral reaction, 3 = slightly negative
4 = strongly negative)
(11) K. Interviewer's personal reaction to child
(0 = strongly positive, 1 = slightly posi
tive, 2 = neutral reaction, 3 = slightly
negative, 4 = strongly negative)
Clinical estimate of child's intelligence |
(0 = above average, 1 = within average j
I
l
range, 2 = below average) j
|
Estimate of current scholastic achievement i
in basic subjects (1 = outstanding, 2 = j
i
very good, 3 = average, 4 = poor, 5 = fail-;
i
ing) j
i
j
Over-all confidence in data obtained (0 =
very accurate, 2 = probably accurate in 1
many instances, 3 = grossly inaccurate)
Estimate of child's capacity for psycho- j
|
logical improvement (0 = very great, 1 =
moderate, 2 = minimal) !
t
i
Number of observable symptoms = the sum of j
i
J
items checked from the following list: !
i
nail biting, tics, speech disorders, pos
turing, mannerisms, compulsivity, fearful
ness, awkwardness, hyperactivity, restless
ness, distractibility, impaired attention,
accident proneness, thumb sucking)
160 i
I
Variables from inferential or
qualitative ratings
At the completion of all of the interviews the
psychiatrists were required to make 7 inferential judgments
l
I
about the children whom they saw. The rating job was to
locate each boy on a grid which contained 5 columns and 10
rows for each behavior trait from a rating of 1, indicative j
of best adjusted in the group, to a rating of 5, indicative |
of poorest adjusted. The procedure was identical to that
I
which the social workers used. The inferential judgments j
were as follows. Again the number in parentheses refers to :
the number of each variable in the correlation matrix and
i
in the factor summary.
i
(17) A. This child is comfortable with himself i
t
i
(18) B. This child is comfortable with others |
|
(19) C. This child has serious learning diffi- j
culties |
i
(20) D. This child has serious behavior problems
(21) E. This child needs help
(22) F. This child has appropriate contact with
and relationship to reality
(23) G. This is a child with generally poor school
adjustment
161 |
; ' j
jThe criteria for each of these ratings are included in the j
jAppendix.
| I
Hypotheses Related to the |
Psychiatric Data
j The individual-focused judgments of psychiatry
result in few generalizations which can be made about the j
behavior of children judged to be well adjusted and those
i
i
judged to be poorly adjusted. However, some research data j
j
are available which assist in hypothesizing about the pos
sible sources of variation in psychiatric judgments. An
i
interesting series of studies about changing feminine roles I
sheds some light on what can be expected to be considered
appropriate vs. inappropriate sexual identification in the j
children whom the psychiatrist sees. In Rabban's (1950) j
r
evaluation of the development of masculine and feminine
[roles, he suggests that girls are slower to accept a femi- j
i
i
i
nine role than boys are a masculine one in the middle class i
]
I
groups.
Tuddenham (1959) comments on the fact that typical
i
masculine traits seem to be increasingly approved with in
creasing age, while typical feminine traits of docility,
i
neatness, quietness, which are valued in the early elemen-
I
jtary grades, become progressively less valued as the child
« I
approaches adolescence. Subsequently, Ullman (1952) argues |
t
that the docility, neatness and quietness which characterize
jthe feminine girl of Tuddenham's findings at this age may
I
be expressions of anxiety and insecurity. Ullman*s research
isuggests that maladjustment in girls is related to such
i • . :
jtraits. In turn, these behavior characteristics lead to j
t ;
jrejection by the peer group so that the child's anxiety
I !
jmight be expected to increase. However, Tuddenham (1952)
found that there was a regular shift in the traits most
valued in girls from a pattern of lady-like submission at j
an earlier age toward a pattern characterized by daring, j
leadership, activity and extroversion. The anxiety increas^
I j
Isuspected to be a result of peer rejection in Ullman*s work j
jwould therefore be expected to occur in an older childhood j
I !
I |
Igroup than in these children at the beginning years of ele- ;
jmentary school. i
i ;
The typical feminine patterns of submissiveness,
neatness, and quietness are no doubt observable aspects of
behavior in the psychiatric interview just as are the mascu
line traits of aggressiveness, extroversion, daring and
leadership qualities. The question at this point appears
Ito be whether the accepted qualities of more masculine type
j
broles for girls will be perceived by the psychiatrists as
being appropriate or inappropriate sexual identification.
I
One would have to predict from the studies cited above that j
j
effeminate, immature behavior in boys would be judged as |
l
j
inappropriate sexual identification and have a potential
relationship to the judgment of school problems. On the
1
other hand, it is difficult to predict whether aggressive
I i
behavior in girls, even though it may be judged as inappro- j
priate sexual identification, will be related to school j
I
problems or a lack of school problems. !
Since play materials were available to all children
I
who were interviewed, the choice of toys or activities might
presumably be an additional source of observation on the j
i
i
appropriateness of sexual identification. Here, again, !
there is little confusion for what is appropriate for boys.
Masculine activities are well identified. But with girls !
| ' '
{Rosenberg (1960) demonstrated that when comparisons were
i
I
made between the play activities of boys and girls, there
j
was an increasing tendency for girls to choose the more
masculine types of games. A companion study by Sutton-Smith
and Rosenberg (1960) compared game preference to scores on
a manifest anxiety scale. They found that the game choices
jof highly anxious boys were not only feminine, they were
t
i
[also immature. Game choices of highly anxious girls were
164 j
both masculine and above average in maturity. Identifies- |
tion with the traditional activities of the opposite sex is j
i
|
therefore related to anxiety, and this study would suggest !
I
that a relationship might exist between inappropriate sexual
identification and school problems for both boys and girls.
Gray (1957), on the other hand, suggests just the opposite.
Her research showed that children high in anxiety (Chil
dren's Manifest Anxiety Scale) showed more sex appropriate
behavior than children low in anxiety. However, her work
does agree with Tuddenham's comparison between behavior and
peer acceptance in the fact that peer acceptance of girls
was found to be related to a low level of sexually appro
priate behavior while in boys it was related to a high de
gree of sexually appropriate behavior. The differences
among these findings are no doubt related to differences in i
j • j
ithe methods used in the study or on the basis of differences;
in the dependent variables. For example, scores on a mani
fest anxiety scale might select a different group of chil
dren as highly anxious than observations during a psychia
tric interview where evidence of anxiety such as nervous-
iness, impulsiveness, hyperactivity, fear and other types of
i
I
^ehavior are observed.
|
j Two related reports are available on the
significance of the number of observable symptoms and their I
I
relations to school adjustment (Glidewell, 1957; Mensh,
i
1959) . Both reports support the use of observed symptoms in
the psychiatric interview since their results showed that
there was a significant relationship between the number,
frequency, duration and severity of symptoms- and children
|
judged to have school adjustment problems.
]
Only a hint at possible relationships between phys- i
I ;
ical health and other indices of adjustment is available.
i
Clarke et al. (1961) compared the school achievement tests |
scores of 9, 12, and 15 year old boys. He found that there j
was a significant tendency for groups with high scores on j
| I
a physical fitness index to have higher school achievement j
test scores.
Reports of previous factor analyses of psychiatric !
i ;
data on children are not available. Only a few attempts
i
have been made to study the perceptions of the psychiatrist
in a uniform way. Collins et al. (1962) analyzed child
psychiatric clinic data containing 60 items of clinical
information. Little common variance was found. The factors
were interpreted as rebelliousness and rootlessness in boys
j
and timidity and school failure in girls,
j The question of the relationship between school
| 166
I
i
achievement and personality and pediatric variables was
studied by Michael and Tobias (1962). Their analysis indi- ;
|
cated 15 factors with little or no overlap between psycho
logical and biological functions, though some type of method
i
variance may be postulated as accounting for the lack of
congruence. |
A general factor is predicted from the analysis of !
i
i
psychiatric data. This is hypothesized as a result of the j
reports of the doctors which emphasized the importance of 1
the over-all impression of the child in the interview in j
!
i
accounting for their ratings. This factor, if it appears, J
would be interpreted as an evaluation of the ability of the !
I i
child to talk about himself, his problems and his ambitions j
f
!
to an adult who is a doctor, who is in a school, and who is
there to do no more than talk with the child for 1 hour.
i
iTo the degree that children are able to respond to this j
J ;
situation and to communicate with the psychiatrist, ratings!
of good school adjustment would be indicated. Children who
cannot verbalize, who balk at questions, who cannot talk
about themselves would be found at the other extreme.
i
j In addition to this general factor, 1 other factor
from the observational data can be hypothesized. This fac-
|tor may combine ratings of appropriate vs. inappropriate
sexual identification with other observations of behavior, j
The direction of the relationship between the variables and j
i
the rating of sexual identification would be reversed for j
i
t
l
boys and girls. For boys inappropriate sexual identifica
tion should be related to judgments of maladjustment; for
girls inappropriate sexual identification has a potential !
!
relationship to ratings of good school adjustment.
i
| Results of the Analysis of the Data
from Psychiatric Interviews j
The means and standard deviations for each of the j
I
i
psychiatric observations and qualitative judgments can be I
found in Table 5. Note that after the description of each
observational variable the range of the distribution is
indicated. This is information which is necessary for in- i
j
terpretation of the means. When the range is 3 points, thei
jfirst point of the distribution would receive a 0 rating. ;
The ratings vary from 2 to 5 points, depending on the num- j
ber of categories which could be rated.
Correlations between all of the variables are pre
sented in Table 6. Finally the factor coefficients for
each of the factored dimensions can be found in Table 7.
The 23 variables in this factor analysis contain 16
jobservations and judgments made during and following the
TABLE 5
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR VARIABLES USED
IN THE FACTOR ANALYSIS OF PSYCHIATRIC
OBSERVATIONS AND INFERENTIAL JUDGMENTS
(N = 95)
No. Variable M. S.D.
i.
Observations
Healthy vs. imperfect health (2)a 0.16
i
!
0.36 I
2. Unusual physical character
istics (2) 0.29 0.48 j
3. Hyperactive vs. passive (3) 1.10 0.61
4. No anger or resentment
observed (3) 1.66
1
0.61 i
5 . Inappropriate or appropriate
sexual identification (3) 1.69
1
0.68
6 . Advanced vs. retarded speech (3) 0.86 0.49 j
7. Verbalizes freely (3) 1.61 0.75 ;
8. Grown-up vs. childish (3) 0.89 0.50 ;
9 . Obedient vs. rebellious (4) 1.01 0.58
10. Positive vs. negative reaction
of child to psychiatrist (5) 1.48 1.02
11. Positive vs. negative reaction
of psychiatrist to child (5) 1.20 0.73
12. Above average to below average
intelligence (3) 0.71 0.56
13. Outstanding to failing school
achievement (5) 2.86 1.26
a( ) range of rating scale, "0" at one extreme .
169
I
TABLE 5— Continued
I
No. Variable M. S.D. !
i
14. Psychiatrist's confidence that
judgments are accurate vs. in
accurate (4) 1.29
I
0.77
15. Great to poor capacity for
psychological improvement (4) 1.28 0.73 !
i
16. Total number of observed
symptoms (0-16)
Qualitative Judcrments: each of
the following is on a 5-point
scale (from 1-5)
1.39
I
1.44
i
i
l
j
I
f
I
j
17 . Child comfortable with self 3.26
[
1.27
18. Comfortable with others 3.24 1.24
19. Serious learning difficulties 3.03 1.20
20. Serious behavior problems 2.84 1.09
21*
Child needs help 3.37 1.27
22. Inappropriate reality contact 2.78 1.27
23. Generally poor school adjustment 2.91 1.21
TABLE 6
CORRELATION MATRIX TOR PSYCHIATRISTS’ OBSERVATIONAL DATA AND INFERENTIAL JUDGMENTS
No. Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
1. Physical health
2. Unusual physical character
istics .28
3. Active vs. passive .05 .05
4. Anger vs. resentment .01 -.00 .09
S. Sexual identification -.15 -.25 -.14 .14
6. Speech Maturity .09 -.24 .04 .22 .29
7. Skill at verbalizing .06 -.08 -.23 .07 .06 -.17
8. Grown-up vs. childish
behavior .04 -.17 .02 .24 .20 .52 -.16
9. ObedLence vs. rebelliousness -.10 .00 -.12 .12 .03 .00 -.02 .18
10. Child's reaction to inter
viewer -.09 -.17 .17 .10 .04 .16 -.25 .11 .07
11. Interviewer's personal
reaction to child -.07 -.19 .16 .20 .14 .26 -.25 .29 .12 .56
12. Child's intelligence .08 .10 .09 -.01 .12 .35 -.31 .06 .06 .07 .22
13. Estimate of current
scholastic achievement .08 -.06 ,19 .10 .00 .29 -.13 .17 .20 .09 .28 .34
14. Confidence in data -.01 .09 .03 .06 ,06 .23 -.25 .35 .00 .27 .35 .17 .03
IS. Estimate of child's capacity
for psychological improvement -.06 -.07 .14 .07 .09 .23 .04 .05 .05 .40 .27 .07 .14 .13
16. Humber of observed symptoms
P«vrhiitri»t«l Quailtativ
.29 .22 .13 -.07 -.36 .00 -.16 -.17 -.02 .11 .07 .10 .25 -.13 .12
17. Comfortable with himself? .14 .05 .18 .02 -.07 .17 -.35 .16 .06 .30 .46 .26 .45 .36 .16 .31
18. Comfortable with others? .17 .09 .24 .00 -.15 .15 -.39 .06 .09 .43 .36 .35 .35 .32 .11 .34 .81
19. Serious learning difficulties? .27 .02 .09 .17 .03 .45 -.27 .34 .15 .20 .33 .46 .61 .27 .11 .14 .65 .65
20. Serious behavior problems? .03 .00 -.04 -.07 .01 .17 -.18 .07 .13 .17 .18 .42 .49 .25 .03 .11 .54 .60 .68
21. Does child need help? .15 -.02 .14 -.04 -.09 .23 -.27 .14 .06 .26 .33 .30 .44 .33 .15 .22 .86 .76 .66 .61
22. Appropriate contact with and
relationship to reality? .01 .10 .17 .06 -.07 .06 -.25 .13 .06 .25 .37 .20 .40 .33 .14 .09 .65 .59 .59 .62 .65
23. Generally poor school
adjustment? .23 -.14 .05 .04 .05 .41 -.22 .33 .09 .19 .34 .31 .60 .26 .07 .13 .65 .64 .85 .71 .68 .65
170
TABLE 7
FACTOR COEFFICIENTS FOR PSYCHIATRIST OBSERVATIONS AND
INFERENTIAL JUDGMENTS ON EACH FACTOR DIMENSION
No. Variables
1
Factors
2 3 h2
1.
Observations
Healthy vs. imperfect health .136 -.028 -.211 .064
2. Unusual physical characteristics .063 -.368 -.171 .169
3. Hyperactive vs. passive .214 - .011 .194 .194
4. No anger or resentment observed .014 .333 .092 .119
5. Inappropriate vs. appropriate sexual
identification -.112 .501 .042 .265
6. Advanced vs. retarded speech .186 .660 .033 .472
7. Verbalizes freely -.369 -.088 -.029 .145
8. Grown-up vs. childish .158 .649 -.075 .452
9. Obedient vs. rebellious .077 .106 .067 .022
10. Positive vs. negative reaction of child
to psychiatrist .368 .118 .646 .566
11.
Positive vs. negative reaction of psychia
trist to child .450 .325 .474 .532
12. Above average to below average intelligence .327 .251 -.082 .176
13. Outstanding to failing school achievement .482 .194 -.051 .273
TABLE 7— Continued
No. Variable
1
Factors
2 3 h2
14. Psychiatrist's confidence that judgments
are accurate vs. inaccurate .397 .306 .108 .262
15. Great to poor capacity for psychological
improvement .166 .178 .443 .255
16 •
Total number of observed symptoms (0 to 16) .282 -.330 .143 .209
17.
Qualitative Judoments
Child comfortable with self .913 .037 .001 .834
18. Comfortable with others .849 -.063 .066 .729
19. Serious learning difficulties .753 .356 -.209 .737
20. Serious behavior problems .700 .046 -.216 .538
21. Child needs help .890 .043 -.097 .804
22. Inappropriate reality contact .743 -.018 .031 .553
23. Generally poor school adjustment .771 .339 -.232 .762
Proportion of common factor variance
exhausted by each dimension . .639 .231 .129
| 173
interview with the child. Following these are 7 inferentialj
i
judgments of behavior traits made by the psychiatrists, and
(appropriate to their discipline, which were related to !
i |
jchildren's adjustment and school problems. In order to j
I !
(make the ratings for the last 7 variables, the psychiatrist
i ‘ ;
|compared and ranked all of the children whom he saw, taking j
|1 judgment at a time. This procedure was designed to reduce!
jhalo effect and to increase, the possibility of separating |
i ;
each of the 7 inferential judgments into distinct, experi-
j
mentally independent dimensions.
|
i 1. Factor 1— Openness to observation. Four of the
I i
h qualitative judgments made by the psychiatrist are the j
[ i
! i
duster of variables in Factor 1. In addition, the 3 other j
I j
{qualitative judgments are also loaded moderately (higher i
j |
|than any loading on the other dimensions) on the factor, as j
i j
well as some other observations which assist in the inter- |
j
pretation. Inability to express oneself during the inter- I
view, negative interaction between psychiatrist and child,
estimated low intelligence and achievement, and lack of
psychiatrist's confidence in the judgments were the other
ratings.
j
| Openness to observation appears to be an appropriate*
i
jinterpretation of this factor. This dimension may represent:
! 174
I ^
poor coping in adult-child relationships or low social in- j
I
I
telligence in that the boy was not able to perceive what
i
behavior was being required of him in the interview. An
other possibility is that behavior related to low general
intelligence is what the psychiatrists are reacting to so
! !
jthat this factor could be called psychiatric judgment of
jintellectual performance. In either interpretation the
j |
[variables in this factor depict the child who cannot de- 1
I ' '
iscribe himself, who is not able to use an hour's time with
jan adult to talk about his goals, his school problems, his
ambitions, his relationship to others, etc. This set of i
characteristics describes an "unknowable" kind of child, a j
I i
l
ichild who may be unknown to himself as well as to others.
|
| 2. Factor 2— Immaturity and related school prob-
i
llems. Appropriate sexual identification, retarded speech !
i
[development, and childish behavior are the 3 cluster vari- j
■ I
!
ables on Factor 2. A positive reaction of psychiatrist to
child, absence of symptoms, estimated serious learning
problems, estimated school adjustment difficulties, unusual
physical characteristics and no observable anger and resent
ment are the other significant variables. From the work of
Tuddenham and others one would suspect that inappropriate
jsexual identification would appear to be related to evidence
jof adjustment problems. However, in the case of the fifth
jgrade boys in this project, speech problems, immature be- j
havior and "boyishness" go together, while advanced speech j
!
development, maturity and "prissiness" as well as observable!
i !
i I
jsymptoms and anger appear to be related to one another, ;
This factor seems best interpreted as immaturity with re
lated school problems. j
i
3 . Factor 3 — Negative reciprocal relationship be- i
i
tween psychiatrist and child. This cluster dimension has
only 3 variables with moderate loadings. Negative recipro- |
|
cal relationship between psychiatrist and child and the i
!
j
psychiatrist's judgment that the boy's capacity for psycho- j
I ;
jlogical improvement was minimal. The interpretation of j
poor interview management might also be given to these
variables since one could infer that little important data i
I '
Iwere uncovered and both the psychiatrist and child were j
; !
juncomfortable with the setting. However, rather than go ;
j
beyond the data, the interpretation of a negative recipro
cal relationship between the interviewer and interviewee |
s eems appr opr i ate.
Discussion of the Results of the Factor
Analysis of Psychiatrists' Observations
and Inferential Judgments
i
The principal factor which emerged in the analysis j
of psychiatric data was one which reflected the child's j
general adjustment to the interview setting. This was in- |
f ;
terpreted as an inability to be an observed person. Some
clues about the type of child who falls into this descrip-
# I
tive category come from the loading on the factor or other
! ' i
variables. A low estimated intelligence and achievement
i
level, inability to verbalize, and a negative interaction j
I
between psychiatrist and child are examples of some of the !
j
behavior observations which correlated with psychiatric
i
I !
I !
! judgments of school problems. Freedom from school problems j
|is related to freedom to verbalize, freedom to achieve, j
freedom to respond to the interview process and freedom !
i ;
ifrom negative behavioral traits. It is difficult to say j
! . I
j I
whether this factor belongs in the supply or the coping |
I
I
dimension. It may be a result of the interaction between I
the two. t
Psychiatrist's rating of immaturity, retarded
speech, inability to communicate during the interview,
appropriate sexual identification and potential school
problems are the variables in the second factor for fifth
grade boys. Poor interview management manifest in a nega- j
tive reciprocal relationship between psychiatrist and child j
I
jis the best interpretation which could be provided for the
third factor.
I
The psychiatrist's rating of inappropriate sexual
identification is loaded on at least 1 factor. Since chil- I
[
j
dren at this age are in such a fluid state of development, i
i I
the psychiatrist would find it difficult to make any hard i
i
and fast predictions about appropriate sexual identifica- !
i
tion. What is usually observed under the limitations of |
j
the interview setting are aspects of immature behavior such j
i
as an "overly-girlish" girl or a "girlish boy." A review j
1 i
of some of the variables which receive loadings on this J
factor indicate that rating of aggressive verbal behavior,
observed symptoms and good school adjustment are correlated
i
i I
jwith inappropriate sexual identification for boys. |
I
Communalities of .54 to .83 were derived for the
inferential judgments, variables 17 through 23. The low
common factor variance of the observational judgments re
quires some justification for these data in the analysis.
An interesting factor analysis of the symptoms of psychia
tric patients was conducted by Degan (1952). The purpose of
i
^lis study was to determine whether the nosology of current
| 178 j
!
psychiatric practice could be supported by the observable j
j
psychiatric symptoms of patients. Thirty-two symptoms were j
I
rated as being present or absent. They varied from traits
jsuch as retardation, depression, irritability, negativism, j
i
! to behavior such as delusions, tantrums, destructiveness,
\
|etc. The common factor variance of the variables in his
I !
istudy ranged from .35 to 1.00. One could infer from these
i
communalities that lower bound estimates of the reliability j
i
of the ratings of such symptoms in this project might be in j
i
the same range. The common factor variance for the number i
j
of symptoms (variable 16) in this project was only .21. If j
one used this as a lower bound estimate of the reliability |
of such observations, there would be little support for the |
j
reliability of this type of observation. If psychiatrists
jean make such observations reliably in one setting (Degan's j
j ;
istudy) one could assume that psychiatrists could observe j
I
with a considerable degree of reliability in another setting
such as the observations in this study.
The problem of estimates of the reliability of the
psychiatric observations of this project lie in the choice
of the traits to be rated, and in the specificity of the
j
variables (assuming now a moderate degree of reliability).
For example, the almost zero common factor variance of the
179 j
i
rating of hyperactivity vs. passivity suggests that this I
may not be a reliable type of psychiatric observation. One i
could certainly support the fact that a pupil could be
readily observed as being active during the interview or j
quiet and inactive, and also support the fact that such
observations could be made with consistency by other obser- j
vers. Little interpretation is needed, simply a notation
of the behavior. Why, then, the low common factor vari- !
]
ance? Does this suggest a lack of reliability or the fact
that such an observation is not a critical one to a psychi- j
atric judgment of school or related problems? The latter
i
I
explanation seems more appropriate. Active or passive be- ;
i
havior may be a style of life for one child or another and j
may not be particularly related to school adjustment. Thus
the variance accounted for by this variable may be specific
I I
bnd possibly reliable, but not related to other indices of j
j
school adjustment status.
While one cannot ignore the fact that some of the
observational variables used in this analysis may be quite
unreliable measures, the fact that they may not be useful
types of psychiatric observation may be a more important
interpretation of the low common factor variance.
The variables included in the factor analysis of
180 |
psychiatric data suggest that those ratings which have a i
significant relationship to the underlying dimensions in thej
psychiatric interview need to be reviewed. It should be j
possible to develop a set of observations and judgments for
!
psychiatrists which would summarize the most salient, in
dependent sources of individual differences in children j
which would relate to school adjustment status. Some ex- '
amples of these important sources of individual differences |
I !
are physical status, types of symptoms, developmental age
I
(speech maturity, verbal skill, manifest intelligence), i
i
i
effective or ineffective use of aggressiveness, presence of j
I
conflict, and the child's ability to make a j
i
I
positive impression on the psychiatrist. A clearer evalua- j
I
tion of the meaning of freedom to verbalize during the
interview is also needed. The child who is unable to commu-
! !
j
jnicate during the interview may be reacting appropriately i
i ' i
i
to a new and different situation. On the contrary, similar !
t
i
behavior may indicate intense'anxiety and fear of judgmental
I
action. The child who verbalizes readily may, on the one i
hand, be mature, relaxed and confident, but on the other
hand may be one with excellent verbal skills who finds it
easy to "con" adults.
CHAPTER VII ]
~ \ j
| ANALYSIS OF DATA COLLECTED FROM THE
PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION
I
j
Variables Included in the Analysis of j
Psychological Test Data j
j
Upon completion of the examination, each psycholo-
j
gist recorded his test findings and specific impressions on j
i
I
the testing schedule. Objective scoring procedures were j
I
followed for the WISC, the Rorschach and the Bender. i
1. The first measures recorded were from the WISC. j
The results of the 5 sub-tests were entered, both raw scores
|
and scaled scores following the procedures in the Manual. !
jThe Performance IQ estimated from the 2 sub-tests, Picture
jCompletion and Block Design was computed, and the Verbal IQ
and Full Scale IQ were also computed on the basis of pro
rated scores. Only the scaled scores from the 5 WISC sub
tests were included in the factor analysis. This eliminates
any part-whole correlations from the WISC in the matrix of
I 182 |
| i
inter-correlations of test results. The specific variables j
l
are as follows. The numbers in parentheses indicate the j
!
number of the variable in the correlation matrix and the '
of the factor analysis.
(1)
A. Information scaled score (I)
(2) B. Comprehension scaled score (C)
(3) C. Similarities scaled score (S)
(4) D. Picture Completion scaled score (PC)
(5) E. Block Design scaled score (BD)
2. The Rorschach was scored according to the Klop- j
j
fer scoring procedures (1954) . In general the location, j
the determinant and the content were initially scored for
i i
each response. Additional responses were noted, but not j
included in the final list of variables which were used in
the factor analyses. The time for the first response to
^ach card was noted, the total time for the Rorschach ad- j
ministration, the total number of responses and the number
i
i
of cards which were rejected were also noted. Popular i
|
responses were listed. Any unusual behavior toward the !
i
Rorschach administration was described on the protocol, and
used in making later inferential ratings. Following a re
view of the scoring categories, the comparison of the dis
tributions of each score led to omitting certain determinant
183 |
i
and content categories from the factor analysis of the I
psychological test data because of their infrequency in the j
records and because of certain multiple scores for the same ■
scoring category. Finally, only a single location and a I
single determinant were retained for each response. In
I :
jorder to accomplish this a certain hierarchy of determinant I
i
t ;
Scategories was established principally according to the in- ;
I
structions for Klopfer procedure. The movement responses
I
were first in the scoring hierarchy. If this was the deter-i
I
minant which was used, only it was recorded for the re-
!
sponse, and additional determinants which came out during I
the inquiry were recorded as additionals. Second in order j
! |
iwere the form and color determinants. If no human or anima]}
j
movement determinants were used in the responses, they were :
! . i
inext scored according to the form and color determinants I
iwhich were used. Since the movement responses imply good
! !
form level, there is some empirical justification for this |
i
!
procedure. The specific Rorschach scoring categories used I
I
I
in the analysis were as follows. Here, aiso, the number in!
parentheses refers to the number of the variables in the
correlation matrix and in the table of factor loadings on
the extracted dimensions.
184
(6) A. Number of rejections
B. Location
(7) 1'. Number of whole card responses (W)
(8) 2' . Number of large detail responses (D)
(9) 3' . Number of small detail responses (d)
(10) 4' . Number of responses which use unusua
detail (Dd) and use of white space
(S)
C. Determinants
(ID l1 . Human movement (M)
(12) 2‘ . Animal movement (FM)
(13) 3 ' . Form— color (FC)
(14) 4' . Color— form (CF)
(15) 5’ . Form only (F)
(16) 6' . Form only, but poor or vague quality
(F-)
! (17) D. Number of popular responses (P)
3. The Bender test was evaluated for the following
design errors. Each reproduction was scored in terms of
the presence or absence of the error, and the total number
i
|of errors of each type was noted. Each of the Bender
|
jscoring categories are scored independently of one another.
One type of error does not presuppose another. For example,
a drawing can be placed in the same spatial frame of refer-
i
ence as it appears on the stimulus card in the child's
protocol, or it can be rotated with respect to the horizon
tal at an angle which can be measured. This type of error
i
(rotation) is scored independently from another error on '
! ;
the same card such as size of the figure, or perseveration
(increased units). This scoring procedure as well as the j
j
one used for the Rorschach was selected to maximize the in- j
i
dependence of the variables used in the factor analysis. j
The scoring categories and their criteria are as
follows. ( |
i
I
I
I
Design Errors Criteria
i
|A. Modification of Figure This deviation includes the
I Size
! increase or decrease in lin- |
]
ear size of the figures com
pared with that of standard
stimuli. Size of figure in
j
normal records may be expect
ed to fluctuate within the
limits of an increase or de
crease of 1/4 of the.length
(17) 1'. Decreased figure
size
I
(18) 2'. Increased figure
size
B. Modification of Gestalt
(19) 1'. Deviations in
closure
or width of the standard j
stimuli. !
!
i
Number of drawings with ei
ther vertical or horizontal
axes decreased 1/4 in size
(total possible score 9). |
Number of drawings with ei- j
j
ther vertical or horizontal '
j
axes increased 1/4 in size
|
(total possible score 9). j
The drawing in which the de- |
l
j
viation occurred is noted and!
1
then the total number of de- |
i
j
viations in each of the fol- i
i
!
lowing scoring categories is i
recorded (total of all scores!
I
in the section 51).
Closure refers to the repro
duction without overlap of j
the connected contour of the
whole figure or any subpart.
Included also is the joining
of subparts.
187
Difficulty in closure may re-j
i
suit in the following devia- j
I
tions: break in contour;
runover at the point of junc-i
ture; separation of subparts;;
penetration of one subpart byj
!
another; displacement of one |
l
subpart; and absorption by
one subpart of the apex of
i
another (total possible score
9). |
j
(20) 2'. Regression Regression or lack of matura-j
i
tion is the use of less ma- |
i
ture concepts in figure re- i
j
productions. The following i
deviations must be present irj
!
i
I
3 or more units of the figur^
i
to be so classified: (1)
Circles, dashes, commas or i
scribble for dots or loops
(Figs. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6).
(2) Dots for loops (Fig. 2).
(3) Arcs instead of clear-cut
Changes in cur
vature
(21) a1
(22) b'
Rotation
Change in angu
lation
angles (Fig. 3) . (Total pos-j
I
sible score 5).
S
|
Possible modifications in
clude:
Pointing curved subparts
(Figs. A, 4, 5, 6) (total
possible score 4)
I
Flattening curved subparts '
(Figs. A, 4, 5, 6) (total i
i
possible score 4) j
[
Revolving of the total figurej
on its axis in either clock- j
i
wise or counter-clockwise
direction such that the angle
subtended between the fig- I
ure1s horizontal axis and the
horizontal edge of the paper
I
l
is more than 15° greater thanj
!
that in the standard stimulus!
figures (total possible score
9) .
Involves a change of greater
than 15° in the size of any
I 189
•6'. Incorrect number
of units
(25) a' Persevera
tion
angle in the subparts of the j
i
figure or the angle of inter-
l
section (total possible scorej
9) . |
Refers to perseveration or
truncation of Figs. 1, 2, 3,
5, 6 by increase or decrease
in the number of units as
compared to the stimulus.
The general Gestalt may be
accurately reproduced, but i
the number of units compris- j
I
ing the whole is incorrect, J
I
An error of 2 or more units j
is necessary in order to con-1
i
sider the figure deviant in |
j
this respect. j
Increase of 2 or more units. j
(26) b1 Truncation Decrease of 2 or more units
(Total possible score 5).
Bender drawings were also scored for organization,
including orderly, random or rigid placement of the
190
i
drawings; page arrangement, whether close to side, top or i
t
i
bottom, and work methods. These latter scoring categories j
I
were omitted from the factor analysis either because earlier
j i
(research (Lambert, 1963). had shown them to be of little
jpredictive value, or because their infrequent occurrence
made their use in correlational studies unfeasible.
|
|
HyP-Qtheses Related to |
Psychologists' Data |
Even though the selection of tests for the battery
which is used in a psychological evaluation is rarely ques- j
j
tioned, and inferences made from this testing are considered
fairly valid for the individual case, little is known about
the validity of certain psychological signs for the general I
|
population. For example, Fromm et al. (1957) suggest that I
j
intelligence test responses have great value in the study I
!
pf personality, since the test items can be viewed from a
dynamic point of view as "personality" variables. Certainly
Glasser and Zimmerman's work as previously cited suggests
some very specific types of test response which have meaning
for individual assessment. Nevertheless, there is a paucity
of validity studies which relate specific test behavior, or
specific types of test response to other indices of individ
ual functioning. As Littell (1960) suggests in his review
191
|of the research conducted on the WISC in the 10 years since
its introduction, there are practically no validity studies j
on the WISC as a measure of differential intellectual func- j
!
tioning, not to mention the lack of validity data on the use
i 1
of the WISC as a personality instrument.
i
I
While comparisons of WISC scores to achievement test
data have been made, the research on specific types of WISC i
i
I
response for groups such as delinquent, emotionally dis
turbed, and neurotic have led to inconclusive findings. |
Lessing (1963) compared the WISC scores of children seen in |
a child guidance clinic and found that when WISC IQ's were |
held constant and compared to group intelligence test J
scores, wide scatter on the WISC sub-tests appeared to be j
related to underestimated intelligence. However, extreme
sub-test deviations on the WISC were compared to diagnostic !
i
I
categories; Frost (1960) suggests certain patterns which !
f
i j
i !
were common to cases judged to be obsessional, psychopathic,
immature, repressed and severely disturbed. The patterns
are not of particular interest here since none of the ex
treme deviations were associated with any one diagnostic
category, nor discriminated between categories. The pat
terns which did occur could have been due to chance, or due
to other factors. When the WISC's were compared of children
192
i
diagnosed as either "adjustment reaction of childhood with j
t
I
neurotic traits" or as "conduct disturbances," the former
i
I
group had higher verbal and lower performance IQ's, but
both groups had similar sub-test profiles (McHugh, 1963).
j Maxwell (1961) evaluated the WISC scores for 205
i ;
jboys and 87 girls referred to an English child guidance
l
j i
clinic. The referring problems were behavior disorders, j
stealing, temper tantrums, etc. There was consistently j
i
more sub-test dispersion than what was suggested by the test
I
author. Most of the mean sub-test scores for girls were j
j
below 10 except for Similarities. The average sub-test j
scores for boys were below 10 also except for Similarities,|
l . :
Vocabulary, Picture Completion and Block Design. When |
i
specific sub-test scores were compared, the author suggests j
|
that maternal solicitude is related to lower Picture Com- !
I ;
i ;
1 1
pletion scores, disturbed family and social relationships
are related to higher Block Design and Object Assembly, and
a lack of a father in the home is related to performance on
Comprehension, Picture Completion and Coding. Such find
ings provide interesting hypotheses, but they need cross
validation and can be affirmed only by application to a
general childhood population and not to a clinic sample.
Mathews (1958) studied non-achieving children as a
group. When etiological classifications were compared,
those children who were classified as emotionally disturbed i
j
i
had most sub-test scatter and least perseveration. The j
average IQ scores for the whole non-achieving group was j
somewhat below 100.
In addition to studies of WISC sub-test patterns as ;
l
i
jthey relate to diagnostic classifications and to develop-
)
mental history data, the WISC has been used to assess pro- |
gress in treatment. Hiller and Nesvig (1961) administered !
the WISC and the Bender to children in a psychiatric hospi- |
tal 3 times over a period of 1 to 2 years. The WISC Verbal j
IQ and the Bender Gestalt improved; however, the children's i
I j
i I
jscores on the verbal sub-test were originally low. Petriel j
(1962), on the other hand, found no differences in chil- j
I
dren's WISC scores after a 1-year period in a residential i
I !
i
treatment center.
! j
What all of these findings do show, however, is
that the WISC scores of children seen in child guidance
clinics, or classified as emotionally ill or as having
other adjustment problems of childhood are nearly always
below average or lower than groups with no adjustment diffi
culties. Even in cases of non-achieving pupils, the emo-
Itionally disturbed non-achieving group had even lower IQ's
than the below average IQ's of their non-achieving peers.
Apparently it is the deficit in intellectual potential which
I
i
is the principal predictive datum to be derived from the J
j
jWISC in comparison of children with and without adjustment
' i
(problems. !
I
i !
j About the same situation exists with the Rorschach. ;
! I
i :
jMost of the studies have been conducted on child guidance
jclinic populations or on children otherwise identified as
having achievement or adjustment problems. Within the last!
decade norms for children have been provided. Ames (1952)
compared Rorschach findings with the Gesell Developmental j
Schedules for children ages 2 through 10. However, the j
! !
children on whom the norms were based came from families
i
with parents at the managerial and professional level. The |
bias of socio-economic level on Ames's Rorschach norms was
i
istudied specifically by Fiedler and Stone (1956) and they !
j i
i 1
found some important differences in higher and lower socio
economic groups. Ledwith (1959) also provides some norma
tive data for children ages 6 through 11. Ledwith's and
Ames's work along with Klopfer's standard interpretative
guide to the Rorschach (1954 and 1959) are the principal
references for the use of this test with a childhood popu
lation.
Robbertse (1955) compared children who were judged
to be pre-delinquent and to.have behavior problems with a
matched control group of 100 cases. He found significantly
more card rejections in the maladjusted group and the mal
adjusted group had a lower reaction time to the cards. In
a study of the relationship between Rorschach scores in
kindergarten and reading achievement in the primary grades,
i
!Meyer (1953) found significant differences in the use of
[color, number of whole responses, and the number of card
!
rejections when children with above average and below aver- j
!age reading achievement were compared. However, the IQ
scores of the retarded reading group were also significantly
1 :
below those found for the achieving reading group. This
i f
I |
[latter finding suggests that intelligence test scores are aq
jimportant part of the study of Rorschach patterns. Socio
economic status, which was mentioned as a probable source
i '
iof the differences between the norms of Ames and other
i |
|workers, has also been studied directly as a variable in
j . !
[Rorschach performance. Northway (1947) found a curvilinear
; ' i
relationship between certain Rorschach scores and socio-
i
metric status, and Rychlak and Guenonard (1950) found socio-j
[economic status related to specific content on the Rorschach}
! i
! [
protocols of sixth grade pupils.
I 196 j
!
!
The Rorschach has also been used in studies of the j
i
progress of children's psychological treatment. Siegal j
1(1948) studied 26 children over a 1-year period. The Ror- j
i
! I
schach signs which were associated with a favorable response
to psychotherapy were the number of form-color (PC) re
sponses, number of whole card responses, good form level,
human content and originality. In a later study (Lessing, j
1960) none of the tests of significance proved to be above !
i
j j
a chance level in studying the prognostic value of the Ror- ‘
schach in a child guidance clinic. !
i i
Several factor analyses of the Rorschach provide i
I
some idea of what accounts for differences in patterns of I
j j
iscores. Some of these studies use the location and deter
minant scores, but omit the content categories. In a study
of 92 Yale students (Coan, 1956) 5 factors were extracted.
I
The first was called intelligence or originality with FC |
!
I
appearing with the highest loading; the second was called
low perceptual control with the texture and shading deter-
i
t
I
minants (which are rarely used in children's Rorschachs) j
with highest loading; the third was determined by the move
ment responses and called intratensive or general sensi
tivity to inner stimuli; the fourth an inner control factor
composed of loadings on human movement, form or form-
197
achromatic color and labeled creativity; and the fifth fac- j
tor contained high loadings on the color determinants and !
was called "outer control,” or controlled emotional re- j
! j
sponsiveness. j
!
| The labels given to Rorschach factors can be under-
jstood when one refers to traditional Rorschach interpreta- j
i J
jtion. In general, response patterns which use the obvious |
! ' '
card characteristics such as form and color are considered !
I
jto correspond to other variables relating to extroverted !
personality types. The use of human movement and other
types of movement responses in which something has to be
"added" to the response is usually considered to represent j
i 1
|
jan introverted personality pattern or a sensitivity to inper
stimuli. When the texture and shading determinants are used,
and they are rarely found in children's records, the inter- i
1 i
! ;
jpretation of personal anxiety is common. Pietrowski (1957)
and Klopfer (1954) as well as other psychologists are in
agreement that Rorschach responses which use the form-color
aspects of the card indicate at least a capacity for in
volvement with the environment, and a willingness to respond
i
to the task. With animal and human movement responses the
card has to be enlivened by the projection of concepts which
jare more profound than the obvious card characteristics.
Animal movement responses are much more common in children'sj
records than are the human movement concepts.
i
The most obvious locations used in Rorschach re- i
I
i
sponses are the large detail areas of the card. Whole re- j
i I
jsponses, on the other hand, require minimal differentiation j
j i
jof the blot. When a whole response involves the integration!
j i
jof several large and small details into a well-organized
I I
response, this pattern is thought to correspond to a high j
intellectual level with abstract conceptualizing abilities. 1
The small detail responses involve the least integrative |
i ;
!
iability. A large number of small detail responses indi-
I j
Icates an effort toward a large number of responses at the !
jexpense of other possibilities.
Popular responses which have been well-defined by
the authors of most of the literature on the Rorschach can i
! I
jbe considered modal responses to particular cards. Thus a j
bat on Card I, people on Card III, a bat for Card V and so
forth are typical of the types of responses which- occur in
enough records to be considered "populars." !
At least 3 scores are given to each response: loca
tion (W, D, d, Dd and S), determinant (M, FM, m, FC, CF, F,
i
ietc.), and content.
'
! The most meaningful Rorschach interpretations are
199
given in individual cases, not on the basis of normative
i
j
data such as the differences from the mean in number of t
I
|
jhuman movement responses, the number of whole card responses!
i
I
and so forth. A response which uses the whole card and j
[which involves an unusual use of the card material in a [
j ,
l
highly original concept is still scored according to the
!
Klopfer scoring method as a "W." If human movement is con- )
I
tained in the response, it is scored M also. However, a j
i I
score of W and M could be earned by a far less creative, j
l
well-integrated response. . Some effort at noting these dif- I
s
ferences in responses have been made by adding a minus or j
plus to the response, but the criteria for these modifiers
t :
i |
are not well established and the interpretation may vary ;
i
from psychologist to psychologist. In Bendig's study (1955)
he confirms this by stating that the scoring categories do
! t
i ■ !
not have diagnostic validity while the "clinical" interpre- !
i
tation may have greater significance. Nevertheless the [
Rorschach scoring procedure can be taught and learned, and
may provide valuable predictive data if its weaknesses for
personality interpretation are considered and if some method
for evaluating the more subtle quality aspects of the Ror
schach responses can be established.
|
j Factor analyses of the Rorschach scoring categories
200
might be more meaningful if the specific scoring procedure j
were defined and the resulting factors were labeled accord- ;
ing to the scoring categories with highest loadings on each ;
I
i
factor and not by extrapolating to interpretations which j
may be valid in individual cases, but not when applied to
i
jgroups. Thus in Wysocki's work (1960) the factors which
! ■ !
[were derived were called intelligence levels, intelligence
i
control vs. emotional impulsiveness, reality vs. schizo- !
i
phrenic orientation and restricted affectivity vs. emotion-;
al volatility. If this author were to attempt to cross j
validate these factor categories, he would have a difficult
time finding external criteria for these factor descrip- j
j j
tions. |
I
Lotsof, Comrey et al. (1958) factor analyzed the j
WISC with the Rorschach using the protocols of 72 cases
; !
jages 7 through 15 seen in a remedial reading clinic. The j
■ !
content categories were used in the analysis along with all
of the WISC sub-test scores.- The WISC verbal sub-tests
i
received high loadings on the first factor which was ex
tracted. Factor II contained the Rorschach large detail
responses, small detail, some content categories and in-
janimate movement. The second factor was labeled produc
tivity by the authors. The use of the white space areas of
201
I
r
the card, animal mqvement responses, and inanimate movement j
along with human and human detail as content categories
i
characterized the third factor. An age factor appeared as
Factor IV, the only other factor which was worthy of their I
interpretation was a WISC performance test factor with those
sub-tests which required speed of performance for high
scores. In this work the factor interpretations, are much
closer to operational descriptions of these variables with |
I
moderate to high loadings on the factors rather than to morel
i
intuitive interpretations.
j
The Bender has been available as a psychological j
test for over 25 years; however, its use in research studies!
I ■ '
jhas been limited by difficulty in scoring the protocols. |
Pascal and Suttell (1951) provided a comprehensive scoring !
i
i
scheme in which every design was evaluated according to at [
jleast 8 criteria. These criteria were rotations, curvature J
i ■ |
deviations, angulations, closure difficulties, persevera- !
tion, truncation, size deviations and so forth. Their !
scoring scheme was time-consuming and demanding. In the
Pascal and Suttell volume some norms were provided for an
adult sample and the remainder of their work was devoted to
I
a study of how the Bender differentiated between normals,
neurotics and psychotics. A small amount of data for
202 j
children was presented, but the sample was biased not only j
in terms of intellectual level, but also in terms of socio- ;
i ' i
economic status.
i
1
Even though objective scoring procedures for the
iBender have inhibited research study of this instrument, 80 j
| !
[per cent of the clinical psychologists surveyed by Schulberg
i ' !
j(1961) regarded the Bender as having "some" or "great" diag-;
|
nostic value. The test has been used most commonly in cases:
j
iwhere a question of organicity is raised and is least used |
for uncovering personality characteristics. Hutt (1960) j
suggests, however, a variety of personality interpretations
j
which can be made from the protocols and the placement of ;
i j
Ithe figures on the page. His work, possibly meaningful with;
i
an individual case, has questionable validity when applied j
j
to groups of subjects on whom blind analyses of the Bender j
1 i
protocols would be compared to other validity criteria.
Tamkin (1957) makes a special case of the need to know the
i
frequency of occurrence of certain deviations in the repro
duction of the Bender design before one can know whether he
is predicting better than chance.
I In 1956 Byrd compared 200 cases of children judged
to be well adjusted with an equal number of records of
'
(children considered to be emotionally disturbed. Out of a
203
great number of statistical comparisons several scoring j
categories were found to differentiate between the 2 groups.!
I
The arrangement of the drawings on the page, changes in
jcurvature, closure difficulties and rotations are examples
i 1
jof those scoring deviations which differentiated between thd
jgroups at the 5 per cent level or better. Clawson, in a
! I
j I
jfairly complete review of the Benders of children seen at a i
I
child guidance clinic compared with a classroom sample of
i !
i
pupils of the same age found also that page arrangement,
|
closure and curvature deviations and rotations differenti- !
j
ated between the samples. Workover on drawings and erasures!
j
which had been thought by Pascal and Suttell to be a signi- j
i !
! i
ficant finding m their neurotic cases were more frequently j
i
i
found in samples of well adjusted pupils by Clawson. Size j
[
!
and angulation deviations were also found significantly more
j j
;in Clawson's clinic sample. Her work has recently been j
|
published as a clinical manual for the use of the Bender j
i
(1962). |
Koppitz has used the Bender extensively with young
school age children. Her scoring system is much less com
prehensive than that proposed by Pascal and Suttell and was
established by a review of those deviations which differen
tiated between above and below average students in the
204
first grade. Only 30 items are checked and scored as to
i
!
whether present or absent and the type of pattern or gestalt
I
i
I
deviation which is scored varies with the design (1960).
i
!
|
However, Koppitz provides a good bit of data on this scoring]
'system in differentiating between good and poor school
I i
jachievers. Even though Koppitz provides fairly impressive j
j j
jevidence for the use of the Bender in differentiating be- j
i
tween good and poor achievers at the first grade level, '
Lambert (1963) used the Bender, the scoring system described
j
previously, and found that only size deviations differenti-
I
i
ated between good and poor male readers at the third grade
level and that work habits including erasures and workovers j
|
differentiated between good and poor female readers with a
greater degree of poor work habits found in the sample of
girls with low reading achievement scores. However, when
! the groups were divided on the basis of group intelligence !
; ' i
test IQ, significant differences were found for both boys
and girls in the number of gestalt deviations with the
pupils with the lower IQ's making the poorer performance.
Koppitz's work remains as the only effort at norma
tive information. Her work is limited in the fact that the
more comprehensive scoring systems have been ignored in
*
favor of her simplified version based on those categories
205 !
(which differentiated between good and poor first grade stu-
I
dents. In this project the Bender test was scored by a
modification of a procedure developed by Clawson and cited
Jpreviously. The criteria for each of the scoring categories
j •
were described in another section. In order to keep the
Inumber of variables in the factor analysis to a minimum,
i
jonly the major gestalt and size deviations were included as
I
ithe Bender variables; however, all of the protocols were
Iscored by a single scorer according to page arrangement,
I ;
| 1
jgestalt deviations, size deviations and work methods.
No factor analysis of the Bender has ever been
attempted. It is difficult, therefore, to develop an hypo
thesis about how this instrument is related to the other j
I
! '
(psychological examination procedures. i
Altogether 26 variables are involved in the factor
analyses of the psychological test data. The analysis
| i
jshould yield 1 or more intelligence factors from the WISC !
j
jscores. Even though the Rorschach has been suggested as a
1 ;
measure of intelligence, the mental tasks involved in these j
; j
2 tests are sufficiently different that they will no doubt j
be independent of one another. Deviations in reproductions
l
bf the Bender designs have been shown to be related to gen-
< . |
eral intelligence in the work of Lambert cited above; some j
206 j
i
loading of specific Bender scores on the hypothesized in- j
telligence factor might occur as a result. A perceptual or I
j
i
visual motor factor should occur with loadings of Bender
scores and the score from the Block Design sub-test of the
! j
|WISC may be found in such a factor. The Rorschach should
j
produce at the least 1 productivity factor. Some type of j
i
i
productivity factor is predicted because all response cate- !
j
gories are related to the total number of responses to the I
i
l
)
test. The total number of responses was omitted from the |
i
factor analyses so no part-whole correlations were included.
Unless a pupil's responses belong to only 1 or 2 types of
* l
scoring patterns, the more responses he makes, the higher |
i i
!
the score in each category. j
i
| Results of the Analysis of Psychological
j Test Data
I Means and standard deviations for each of the vari- '
ables can be found in Table 8. The correlation matrix fol
lows in Table 9. Finally the factor coefficients for the
factor dimensions can be found in Table 10.
The interpretation of the factors which were ex
tracted is as follows.
1. Factor 1— Intelligence and verbal ability. The
cluster variables in this factor are the WISC sub-tests:
207
I
TABLE 8
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR
USED IN THE FACTOR ANALYSES
PSYCHOLOGICAL TEST DATA
(N = 95)
VARIABLES
OF
1
NO. Variable M. S.D., !
'
1
WISC Scaled Score
j
1.
Information 10.75 2.87
2. Comprehension 10.26 2.46
3. Similarities 11.54 2.70
4. Picture Completion 11.47 3.47
j
5. Block Design 10.89 2.62 I
i
Rorschach
|
i
" “ * !
6 . Number of rejections 0.35 0.97 |
1
7 . Number of W 9 .34 4.66 j
8. Number of D 8.99 5.90
9. Number of d 2.79 2.37
1
10. Number of Dd and S 2.34 2.39
11. Number of M 3.08 2.34
12. Number of FM 3.72 2.36
13. Number of F- 2.69 1.82
14. Number of FC 1.37 0.58
15. Number of CF 2.02 1.23
16. Number of populars 3.53 1.49
208
i
j
! TABLE 8— Continued
No. Variable M. S.D.
Bender— total of the following
deviations:
17. Figures decreased 1.91 1.72
18. Figures increased 0.72 1.07
19. Closure deviations 2.67 1.35
20. Immature response 3.24 1.31
21. Pointing curved parts 0.30 0.54
22. Flattening curved parts Q. 88 0.81
23. Rotations 1.52 1.78
24. Deviations in angulation 1.82 1.07
25. Increased units 0.32 0.55
26. Decreased units 0.54 0.72
TABU 9
CORULATIOV MATRIX BOR PSVCHOIOGISTS' TEST SCORES
Vo. Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 21 24 21 21
HXfiC
1. Information
2. Coapcehension .46
3. Siailaritias .67 .47
4. Picture coaplation .31 .30 .49
5. Block design
2aEiGhR6H
.37 .13 .36 .42
»
6. Vo. rejections -.26 -.15 -.30 -.29 -.09
7. Vuabar of w .30 .31 .39 .20 .22 -.32
8. Busbar of D .12 .01 .06 .16 -.03 -.27 .07
9. Vuabar of d .04 -.06 -.05 -.03 -.09 .01 -.11 .36
10. Vuabar of Og t S .05 .05 .20 .15 .00 -.09 .11 .32 .38
11. Vuabar of M .83 .21 .15 .18 .20 - .22 .38 .28 .15 .14
12. Ruabar of m .21 .22 .24 .23 .18 -.29 .S3 .34 .10 .13 .S3
13. Vuabar of T- -.07 .04 -.03 .02 -.10 -.01 .19 .07 .32 .43 .10 .22
14. Vuabar of PC .07 .09 .18 .01 -.02 -.04 .26 .26 .59 .56 .35 .28 .42
IS. Vuabar of cf .13 .14 .21 .11 .08 -.04 .42 .13 .36 .27 .29 .26 .34 .53
16. Vuabar of popular*
AROdRE
.02 .19 .07 .15 .08 -.18 .09 .41 .02 .27 .26 .35 .01 .17 .05
17. Vo. figures dacraasad .08 .14 -.05 -.03 -.18 -.15 -.12 .05 .07 -.05 -.07 .02 .01 -.02 -.04 -.00
18. Vo. figure# incraaaad .OS -.02 .00 .07 -.02 -.06 .12 .03 -.05 -.02 -.14 .07 .20 .05 -.02 -.07 -.30
19. Daviations in closure -.02 -.16 -.04 -.20 -.17 -.03 .17 .14 .00 .16 .04 .11 .19 .08 .03 -.06 -.04 .22
20. laaatura raapona* *.01 .14 .04 .09 -.09 -.13 -.06 -.02 .04 .12 -.03 -.10 .06 .07 -.07 .15 .09 .03 .16
21. Pointing curved parts -.03 .11 -.13 -.02 -.11 -.12 .03 .13 .15 .01 -.05 .00 .10 -.06 .03 -.02 .00 .13 .16 .13
22. Flattening curved parta -.04 -.01 -.17 -.07 -.15 .01 -.20 .03 .08 .05 -.15 -.05 .14 -.10 -.09 -.16 .07 .19 .13 .07 .SI
23. Deviation in rotation .07 .23 .00 -.06 -.06 -.07 .20 -.03 -.03 - .16 .12 .24 .19 .00 .12 -.12 .03 .13 .04 .12 .02 .15
24. Deviations in angulation .09 .23 .02 -.06 -.08 -.13 .00 -.06 .01 -.02 .00 .06 .01 -.09 .03 -.13 .14 .05 .04 .07 .25 .35 .32
25. Figures with incraaaad nuabar
of units -.07 .08 -.01 .06 -.07 -.02 .06 .01 -.04 .02 -.09 .13 .04 .02 .15 .22 .09 .14 -.04 .06 .02 .02 -.14 .03
26.
Figures with dacraasad nuabar
of units -.12 .00 -.03 .04 .03 .11 .07 -.17 -.14 .02 -.07 -.02 .14 -.02 .21 -.06 -.02 .02 .03 .03 .14 .06 .05 -.09 .35
209
TABLE 10
FACTOR COEFFICIENTS FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL TEST
(N = 95)
DATA ON EACH FACTOR DIMENSION
Factors
No. Variable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 h2
WISC Scaled Score
1. Information .683 .002 .119 -.065 .094 .061 -.103 .509
2. Comprehension .512 .012 .265 .121 .178 -.182 -.037 .414
3. Similarities .766 .077 -.042 -.059 .029 -.063 -.038 .604
4. Picture Completion .617 .027 .013 .044 -.029 .138 .243 .463
5. Block Design .581 -.106 -.090 .081 -.094 -.136 -.102 .402
Rorschach
6. Number of rejections -.355 -.034 -.187 -.247 -.105 -.286 -.138 .335
7. Number of W .419 .144 -.036 .479 -.187 -.517 -.242 .788
8. Number of D .123 .367 .050 .290 .027 .364 .105 .380
9. Number of d -.048 .645 .088 -.044 .130 .149 -.092 .475
10. Number of Dd and S .151 .681 .002 -.138 .027 .291 .263 .660
11. Number of M .233 .260 -.090 .628 .035 -.064 -.180 .562
12. Number of FM .326 .254 .044 .628 -.035 .064 .180 .605
ro
H
O
TABLE 10— Continued
No. Variable
1 2 3
Factors
4 5 6 7
-----
h2 :
i
13. Number of F- -.068 .583 .094 .046 -.123 -.253 -.045 .436
14. Number of FC .094 .779 -.183 .135 -.034 -.187 -.125 .719
15. Number of CF .201 .545 -.015 .120 .019 -.363 .105 .496
16. Number of populars .120 .170 -.159 .374 .029 .474 .541 .727
Bender— Total of the
following deviations:
17. Figures decreased -.068 .004 .105 -.008 .634 .097 .173 .458
18. Figures increased .042 .065 .204 -.097 -.634 .097 .173 .499
19. Closure deviations -.162 .176 .158 .130 -.205 .133 .045 .161
20. Immature response .015 .106 .147 -.152 .072 .128 .197 .117
21. Pointing curved parts -.108 .072 .618 .003 -.062 .079 .153 .432
22. Flattening curved parts .165 .071 .696 -.087 -.041 .121 .110 .522
23. Rotations -.017 .002 .271 .297 -.079 -.312 -.364 .399
24. Deviations in angulation -.009 -.032 .500 .084 .102 -.201 -.263 .378
25. Increased units -.033 .013 .032 .047 -.042 -.208 .485 .286
26. Decreased units -.032 .002 .067 -.051 -.025 -.527 .485 .523
Proportion of the commun
ity exhausted by each di
mension .216 .203 .122 .125 .072 .134 .117
212
Similarities, Information, Picture Completion and Block De-
!
sign. Also loaded moderately on this factor are WISC Com- I
I
prehension, the number of whole card responses on the Ror
schach (W), and the number of animal movement responses
(FM). The number of Rorschach card rejections has a nega-
i
tive loading on this factor. j
1
i :
j This factor is easily interpreted as intelligence
jand verbal ability, one of the principal supplies postulated
I ' *
jas necessary for school adjustment. The fact that the use J
j
of the whole card and animal movement responses on the Ror- j
j
schach are also loaded on this factor suggests (according j
i
to Klopfer Rorschach interpretation) that the intelligence |
i 1
I i
ireflected in this factor is integrative and readily applied j
i
to problem solving.
2. Factor 2— Rorschach productivity with the use
j i
iof details. In Factor 2 the variables with notable load- !
j I
i
ings suggest the interpretation of a Rorschach response
style pertaining to the use of details, both large, small
and unusual. Movement responses (M or FM) have very low
loadings on this factor. The main determinants for the
Rorschach responses is form with the use of color (FC and
CF) and also poor form level (F-) . Such a pattern implies
[Rorschach productivity which for a 10 and 11 year old boy
is sterile and compulsive— the giving of responses only for j
i
i
the sake of responding and occasionally without attention
i
i
to the appropriateness or accuracy of the response. Accord
ing to standard Rorschach interpretation, such a pattern
belongs to extroverted behavior since only the obvious as
pects of the Rorschach cards are being responded to. In !
[ j
jcontrast, an introverted Rorschach pattern would be one in
which a boy would have to add something to the stimulus j
j
which cannot be directly observed, such as human or animal
movement. j
3. Factor 3— Perceptual difficulties with lack of i
visual motor control. Factor 3 is a cluster of variables
reflecting design errors on the Bender test. Here pointed j
or curved sub-part deviations and deviations in angulation j
appear together. Since there are no WISC sub-tests loaded j
1 !
jon this factor, this factor does not appear to reflect in
telligence as measured by the WISC sub-tests. It is prob
ably best interpreted as motor control. However, the in
terpretation of perceptual difficulties may be applied since:
the development of motor control should be fairly well
established at the 10 and 11 year old level.
4. Factor 4— Rorschach productivity with the use
of whole card, human and animal movement. The number of
214
human movement responses (M), animal movement responses !
I
(FM), and use of the whole Rorschach card (W) are the vari- j
i
ables describing this factor. Here again productivity is
implied though a different type than in Factor 2. These j
boys add something to the card by attaching movement to
their responses. Since only the main Rorschach determin- !
I
ants were used in this factor analysis, additional use of
color may have also been involved in the response, but woulc.
not have appeared among the main variables. Good form I
level is implied in the M or FM score also. This pattern i
!
!
is interpreted usually as introverted or creative produc- j
i
tivity, and given a more positive value than the productiv-j
! I
I
ity demonstrated by the pattern occurring in Factor 2. |
Since a typical Rorschach protocol is expected to produce 1!
or more popular responses, some aspect of awareness of the
! environment can be inferred in this dimension from the i
I i
i i
i
^moderate loading of Rorschach popular responses.
5. Factor 5— Bender size deviations. Size devia
tions in the Bender test appear on this factor. The number
of figures increased in size and the number of figures de
creased in size appear with opposite signs. Thus a boy who
makes his designs larger than the stimulus rarely makes
them smaller and vice versa. Drawings that are too small
I 2 1 5 !
have been interpreted by Clawson (1962), Koppitz (1959) and |
i
Hutt (1960) as a sign of anxiety; too large drawings are
I
j
usually given the interpretation of expansive and acting-out.
behavior.
| 6. Factor 6— Rorschach popular responses. This
i ' ;
jfactor is defined primarily by 2 variables, the use of larg^
details (D) and the absence of responses with color-form
I
(CF). In addition, moderately high loadings of Rorschach !
populars (P) and a negative loading of whole card responses !
(W) also appear. Bender design with decreased number of I
units and designs with rotations also appears here with j
negative loadings. What these variables suggest is a boy j
who gives the popular responses which use the large details j
and none of those which require the use of the whole card, j
Such a child produces only what he is sure of by locating !
i !
jand responding to the most obvious aspects of the cards. j
In addition, a boy whose Rorschach is produced in
this way does not rotate any of the Bender designs, nor
does he make any errors in the number of units in the draw
ings . This along with the Rorschach popular responses re
sults in the interpretation of compliance, conformity, and
a minimum of originality (rather than reject the cards, he
gives only obvious responses) as well as some desire for
216
accuracy (uses large detail areas on card which allow more
accurate popular responses and makes no rotation or unit
jerrors on Bender).
i
j 7. Factor 7— Careless Bender reproductions with
| '
jdrawings both too large and too small. In this factor in
accuracies in the Bender designs are the primary variables.
j
Drawings with both increased number of units and decreased
i ,
number of units appear. In addition, there are no drawing
I |
rotations since this variable has a negative loading on the ;
1 i
[factor. The number of Rorschach populars is also loaded
positively on this dimension. This is a careless pattern
on the Bender test and reflects a lack of concern about the
task and poor work habits.
The reliabilities of the WISC sub-tests as reported
[in the Manual are Information, .82? Comprehension, .73;
|Similarities, .81; Block Design, .71; and Picture Comple
tion, .66. All of these reliabilities were computed by the
i i
[split-half technique. i
Intra-scorer reliability for the Bender was care- j
[fully analyzed for each of the sections of the Bender scor- !
jing procedure and found to be .90 or better for each part j
j
of the scoring system. This finding is consistent with
!
another study which found an inter-rater reliability of .86
i
'for different types of Bender test administrations (Keogh
r 2 1 7 1
*
and Smith). |
The reliability of Rorschach has been studied by
j
|
attempts at developing parallel sets of cards, the split-
half technique and test-retest coefficients. Freeman (1962)
I !
jsummarizes these studies and indicates that the reliabili-
f ;
ties vary from .60 to .95 for split-half methods, and from j
.38 to .86 for test-retest methods. When efforts to devel-i
i j
op a parallel set of cards were studied the correlations !
i
I
between responses on the 2 card sets varied from .56 to .65.'
Age of the subject as well as the type of reliability co- j
t ;
efficient which is used is related to the size of the re
liability coefficient; nevertheless the scores from Ror- J
| . :
ischach responses appear to be reliable enough to be used in j
1
i
a project such as the one reported here. j
i
j The communalities on the WISC sub-tests vary from !
|.40 to .60; the proportions of common factor variance on
the Rorschach variables ranges from .33 to .79; and the
communalities on the Bender from .12 to .55. The low com
munalities on the Bender test may reflect specificity of
the variables rather than low reliability. For example,
the lowest communalities are found on closure deviations,
immature responses, and increased number of units. All 3
of these types of error on the Bender are usually
I 2 1 8 1
I associated with age, becoming less common in records of j
children over the age of 9. Since the boys in this sample
I
were 10 and 11 years old, the low common factor variance j
i
I
may indicate the lack of appearance of these variables in !
j i
Ithe samples or their being unrelated to the factored dimen- j
i !
sions. The size of the communalities of a majority of the |
variables along with reported reliabilities for each of j
the tests which were used suggests moderate reliabilities |
I !
of the measures used in this analysis.
i
t
In the case of at least 3 of the factors (factors j
2, 3, and 4) there is a definite tendency for only variable^
from a single test to show in a single dimension. Such a (
I
finding indicates method or test variance accounting for j
j
the variability rather than real psychological deviation. i
j
However, since the factors are comparable to those hypo- !
jthesized, some psychological interpretation of the factors I
i
should be allowed.
i
I
Variables Included in the Analysis of
Incidental Observations during the i
Psychological Examination and the I
Psychologists 1 Inferences
The psychological examination procedure required
the psychologist to code a number of clinical observations
I
jas absent, present or present to a marked degree.
219
1. General clinical impression. The first 5 vari- i
|
ables described the general psychological impression of the j
i
child as he responded to the test setting. The specific
I
categories which were rated were as follows.
(1)
A. Good concentration
(2) B. Good control
(3) C. Good frustration tolerance
(4) D. Conforming behavior
(5) E. Relaxed
2. Attitudes toward examiner. The next set of 1
variables described the behavior of the child toward the i
!
psychologist. These data were included to determine whether}
i I
|the relationship of the boy toward the examiner might be j
! I
(comparable to the child's relationship to the teacher as
I
(perceived by the teacher in separate ratings. The criteria:
;for these ratings can be found in the Appendix. !
(6) A. Shyness
(7) B. Brashness
(8) C. Dependency
(9) D. Defensiveness
3. Attitudes toward tests. The final group of
incidental observations rated aspects of the child's atti
tude toward the test materials. The criteria for these
220
ratings can also be found in the Appendix.
(10) A. Over-impulsivity
(11) B. Giving up
j (12) C. Persistence
j
(13) D. Over-reaction to success and failure
I (14) E. Attention and concentration diffi-
| culties
(15) F. Personal reference
(16) G. Blocking
4. Psychologists' inferential and qualitative
judgments. The psychologists made their inferential judg-
i
I
ments at the end of all of the psychological examinations. ■
jThey rated all of the boys whom they tested with respect to
i I
a single trait on a grid with 5 columns and 10 rows. The
!
procedure they used was identical to the procedure for in
ferential judgments of the social workers and psychiatrists.
i :
|The 11 inferential judgments were the psychologists' choice^
jof those rating items which were most appropriate to their
j 1
discipline and most predictive of their judgments of the
problems of school adjustment.
The specific criteria for each of these inferentiali
ratings can be found in the Appendix. The ratings are as
follows.
221 !
(17) A. This pupil has poor intellectual
functioning
(18) B. There is evidence of severe perceptual
difficulties
(19) C. This pupil has severe personality dis
turbances
(20) D. This child has problems relating to
his classroom teacher j
i
(21) E. This child does not meet learning
I
tasks effectively '
(22) F. This child does not have creative
potential
(23) G. This child has poor school adjustment;
(24) H. This child has poor school achievement
(25) I. Poor over-all rating on WISC
(26) J. Poor over-all rating on Bender
(27) K. Poor over-all rating on Rorschach {
Hypotheses Related to Variables Contained
ih-th.e. FactQg .Analysis of
Psychologists' Incidental Observations
and Inferential Judgments
i
The second set of data from work of the psycholo- j
i
gists is composed of the psychologists' ratings of the
| ;
^clinical impression of the pupil during testing, attitudes j
222 j
toward the examiner and test materials, and the inferential
judgments made at the end of the testing period where every
pupil the psychologist saw was evaluated with respect to
every other one to arrive at a distribution of pupils over
each of the inferential judgment variables.
| Hypotheses about the way the variables should ar
range themselves in factored dimensions are difficult to
I
make. Nevertheless, one can predict that the psychologists !
: i
j I
Jwill be appraising intellectual abilities (in the supply
jdimension of school adjustment), personality and visual
|motor or perceptual skills (possibly related to the supply
dimension also), as well as rating appropriateness of test
i .
behavior (in the coping dimension). Each of these dimen-
I .
|sions should be found in the factors which are extracted
|
Ifrom the analysis.
| Results of the Factor Analysis of
j Psychologists 1 Observational and j
Inferential Judgments
i
I :
I Twenty-seven variables were included in this analy-
jsis. The first 5 are the psychologists' judgments of the
child's general attitude toward the examination session.
Four additional variables describe the child's reaction to
the examiner. Hopefully such attitudes should relate to
223
the pupil's response to the teacher and be reflected in
teacher ratings of behavior. Seven other variables describe
the child's reaction to the tests specifically. The final
11 variables are the inferential judgments made by the
psychologist following the completion of all of the psycho-
i
(logical examinations. The means and standard deviations
| for all of these observational judgments can be found in
Table 11. The correlations between all of these variables
are presented in Table 12. Finally the factored dimensions
are presented in Table 13. Since there are no previous
factor studies of test behavior, the descriptions of the
j
factors which were extracted and the labels which are ap-
jplied to them are presented, generally, as operational
! definitions.
|
As one reviews the factor loadings on each of the
(factors in this set of data, it is imperative to keep in
mind the direction of the distribution for each of the
i
variables. For example, variables 1 through 5 under the
i
i
(heading "Clinical Impression," were rated in the direction
i
| :
of favorable response during the interview, zero being
assigned when the child manifested no evidence of coopera- j
tion, good control, frustration tolerance and so forth. A I
| :
rating of "2" was assigned to those pupils who manifested
224
TABLE 11
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR EACH VARIABLE USED
IN THE FACTOR ANALYSIS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL
OBSERVATIONS AND INFERENTIAL JUDGMENTS
(N = 95)
No. Variable M. S.D.
i
I
Clinical Impression
1.
Good concentration 1.09 0.33
2. Good control 0.82 0.38
■ 3
.
Good frustration tolerance 0.81 0.39
4. Conforming behavior 0.98 0.29
5 . Relaxed
Attitudes Toward Examiner
0.67 0.53
.
6 . Shyness 0.19 0.46
7. Brashness 0.19 0.51
8. Dependency 0.25 0.50
9. Defensiveness
Attitudes Toward Tests
0.32 0.51
10. Over-impulsivity 0.21 0.48
11.
Giving up 0.14 0.40
12. Persistence 0.31 0.55
13. Over-reaction to success and/or
failure 0.36 0.58
14. Attention and concentration
difficulties 0.26 0.58
15. Personal reference 0.22 0.50
225
1
1 TABLE 11— Continued
i
l
1 ■ ■ ■ ■ . - - - . . . . . . . . . . . ■ — . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - ■
1
No.
1
Variable M. S.D.
Blocking
Qualitative Judgments
0.30 0.54
17
•
Poor intellectual functioning 2.82 1.15
18. Severe perceptual problems 3.06 1.12 !
19. Severe personality disturbance 3.25 1.15 ;
20. Problems relating to teacher 3.16 1.13 !
1
21. Cannot meet learning tasks
effectively 2.94
1
i
i
1.15 1
22. Poor creative potential 2.76 1.21
23. Poor school adjustment 3.20 1.14 j
24. Poor school achievement 2.96 1.23 |
25. Rating on WISC 2.83 1.21 |
26. Rating on Bender 3.15 1.20
27. Rating on Rorschach 3.11 1.22
t
226
Ov«r-all rating of ftocachadi
TABLE 13
FACTOR COEFFICIENTS FOR PSYCHOLOGISTS' OBSERVATIONS AND INFERENTIAL
JUDGMENTS ON EACH FACTOR DIMENSION |
(N = 95)
I
I
No. Variables
1 2
Factors
3 4 h2
1.
Clinical Impression
Good concentration -.168 -.051 -.121 -.247 .107
2. Good control -.192 -.228 -.623 -.244 .537
3. Good frustration tolerance -.178 -.250 -.561 -.404 .573
4. Conforming behavior -.165 -.009 -.348 -.028 .149
5. Relaxed -.073 -.065 -.015 -.415 .182
6.
Attitudes Toward Examiner
Shyness .103 -.011 -.235 .043 .068
7. Brashness . 199 .294 .762 -.083 .114
8. Dependency .205 .107 -.046 .119 .070
9. Defensiveness .229 -.012 .339 .164 .194
10.
Attitudes Toward Tests
Over-impulsivity .271 .243 .630 -.047 .531
11. Giving up .263 .038 -.048 .687 .545
12. Persistence -.085 .236 .043 -.165 .092
13. Over-reaction to success and/or
failure .065 .117 .071 .103
ro
.034 ro
-sj
TABLE 13— Continued
No. Variables
1 2
Factors
3 4 h2
14. Attention and concentration
difficulties .227 .228 .279 .586 .524
15. Personal reference .159 -.057 .610 -.113 .413
16. Blocking .291 .078 -.048 .603 .456
17.
Qualitative Judcrments
Poor intellectual functioning .923 -.096 -.056 -.029 .864
18. Severe perceptual problems .535 .630 .007 -.044 .685
19. Severe personality disturbance .387 .692 -.058 .009 .632
20. Problems relating to teacher .637 .248 .173 .033 .499
21. Cannot meet learning tasks
effectively .894 .098 .062 .047 .816
22. Poor creative potential .537 .307 -.087 -.123 .406
23. Poor school adjustment .604 .256 .149 .130 .470
24. Poor school achievement .910 .065 -.058 .103 .847
25. Rating of WISC .937 -.069 .052 -.121 .899
26. Rating of Bender .364 .527 .085 .105 .428
27. Rating of Rorschach .414 .738 -.034 -.070 .721
Proportion of the communality
exhausted by each dimension .461 .189 .203 .146
fO
ro
00
229
such behavior to a noticeable degree. High scores on these
variables are in a positive direction while low scores are
in a negative direction. These variables are expected to
correlate negatively with other indices of poor school ad
justment. The remainder of the variables requires rating
jin the opposite direction to the first 5. The higher the
i
[score of variables 6 through 26, the more negative the be-
j
jhavior. The inferential ratings (variables 17 through 27)
made by the psychologists after completion of all of the
i
[examinations were designed so that a rating of 1 was given
i
I to those pupils with the most adequate behavior in the di-
I
intension being rated and a rating of 5 was assigned to the
i
children with the least adequate behavior. Ratings of 2,
3 and 4 were given to all children who fell between the
|
[extremes according to psychologist-judged differences in
i
[the adequacy of their behavior. The interpretation of the
factors extracted from this analysis was as follows.
i -
1. Factor 1— Poor intellectual functioning and
application. The cluster of variables defining this factor
are psychologists' ratings of intellectual functioning,
performance on the WISC, estimated school achievement and
ability to meet learning tasks effectively. In addition,
[ observations during the testing situation of "giving up"
are also negatively loaded on this factor. The remainder of
the psychologists1 qualitative judgments have a moderate
[loading on this factor, suggesting that the major variables I
! • i
underlying psychological judgment are intellectual function-!
ing and its application. Another interpretation of this
jdimension is that a good performance on the WISC generates
j a halo effect which operates in the remainder of the rat-
j |
lings. I
i :
j 2. Factor 2— Immaturity, personality constriction
jand visual-motor difficulty. The ratings of the Rorschach
land Bender performance are the principal variables in this
i :
Ifactor cluster. Over-all Rorschach and Bender performance,
I ;
evidence of perceptual difficulties and predicted personal
ity problems are the cluster variables. One other variable
i
loaded on this factor is the psychologists' ratings of
i ' ;
jcreative potential, an estimated lack of creative potential j
i
jbeing correlated with perceptual difficulties and personal-
I .
ity problems. A good label is difficult to find for these I
variables. On the one hand, the interpretation could be of
j
perceptual difficulties when the Bender performance and j
lack of good performance on the Rorschach are considered.
On the other hand, these variables may refer to those as-
!
pects of personality functioning or adjustment which remain j
231 j
after the measures of intellectual functioning are extract
ed. Still another interpretation may be one of general
immaturity, a lag in perceptual or visual motor development ;
t
as indicated in the Bender and a slower rate of learning
iwhich might be reflected in an inability to provide good
i
Iresponses from the Rorschach stimuli. All of these inter
pretations suggest that this is an adjustment dimension
! '
(which is measured by the over-all performance on the Ror- j
J
schach and Bender tests. Since both of these tests are !
unstructured as contrasted to the structured WISC sub-test, ;
7 I
this dimension may reflect the inability to produce good
performance when no right or wrong procedures are indicated.
It is difficult to say whether this factor belongs to a |
i
coping or supply dimension. It may represent an interaction
of both.
i
3. Factor 3— Distractibility and a lack of self j
control. Brashness, personal reference, impulsiveness and
a lack of.good control are the variables defining this fac- J
tor. Psychologists' observations of a lack of frustration
tolerance, non-conforming behavior and defensiveness are j
also loaded on this factor. When all the variables are
i
(considered, poor control is coupled with brashness, impul-
‘
siveness, and personal reference. Defensiveness, failure I
232 !
to conform, and an absence of frustration tolerance are not
present in this pattern.
| Apparently fifth grade boys were rated by the
psychologists on a continuum of ability to tolerate re
strictions inherent in testing to a self-centered, acting
out, avoidance of the task. This represents a continuum of
jability to cope in a psychological examination.
I |
I 4. Factor 4— Inappropriate behavior during psycho- i
ilogical examination. The fourth factor was another aspect
i ' |
jof behavior during testing labeled "inappropriate behav
ior." Ten and 11 year old boys showed giving-up, blocking,
land poor frustration tolerance with less evidence of mini
mal relaxation and attention and concentration difficulties.!
The third and fourth factors which were extracted are very
i
i
jcomparable and reflect different reaction patterns to the
psychological examination and different types of problems in
coping with the test setting.. i
| Eight of the 27 variables had communalities ranging |
! • i
from .034 to .194. The remainder of the variables had a
jrange of communalities from .413 to .899. In the latter j
i
case the communalities can be accepted on a tentative basis
of a lower bound reliability for the observational and in
ferential judgments of the psychologists. Poor concentra- |
jtion, non-conforming behavior, not relaxed, shy, dependent,
and defensiveness as well as persistence and over-reaction
to success and failure were the 8 variables with low com-
; i
jmunalities. The interpretation of unreliability of these
i
■measures has to be accepted unless some support can be
given for these variables representing specific aspects of
■test behavior. Even then, the case for the reliability of
i ;
Ithese measures has not been made. No defense for the spe- j
cificity of the variables seems very strong. The best in
terpretation of the low communalities appears to be a lack
of application of these ratings by the different psycholo
gists in a uniform manner. The problem may be one of apply-
i
ing the criteria, or it may lie in making better criteria |
jand making more specific the types of behavior which should ■
!
!
jbe rated under these labels. In any case, subsequent in
vestigations of psychologists' incidental test observations
should review such findings and test out the reliability of
I |
the observations cited above before proceeding with their • ;
i :
use.
| Summary of the Results of the Factor
| Analyses of Data Produced from the j
Psychological Examination j
When the variables produced from the scores of the
234
1 3 psychological tests which were administered are consid
ered, an ability factor is the first one to be extracted.
The variables with high loadings on this dimension are the
jWISC variables primarily with some loading of Rorschach
variables, and an absence of card rejections during the
!Rorschach administration.
Three Rorschach factors appeared also. Without a
I
jvery careful review of case data in the light of the results
i
jof the factor analysis, only the most obvious interprets-
j
!
itions of these factors is attempted here. Two types of
Rorschach productivity were evident. The first was Ror
schach productivity with the use of large, small and unusual
I :
|details. The determinants which were loaded on this factor!
i !
| I
jwere in general the form-color (FC) and color-form (CF)
group. Human or animal movement responses did not occur in
Rorschach productivity of this type. The second type of
Rorschach productivity was one characterized by the use of j
the whole card and human and animal movement responses. In!
the latter type of record the child must "put something" of
himself into the response. Such responses are usually in-
j i
Iterpreted as mature, empathic, and introverted. Frequently
i
jthis type of record in children is said to indicate above
1 i
f :
average intellectual development, and this was supported by;
low loadings of W, FM and M on the factored dimension with
WISC sub-tests. The third Rorschach factor was one which
|involved the use of the large detail areas of the card,
[popular responses and fairly accurate Bender reproductions.
I
I
If a Rorschach record contained only the use of the large
i
[detail populars and only a few other additional responses,
j
jthe psychologist would interpret such a record as belonging
i :
|to a child who gave only what he was very sure of, who was
not likely to venture forth into the unknown or who "es
caped" from the testing situation with only a minimal per
formance .
! Two Bender factors also appeared. The first con-
t
I
jtained the variables of angulation and curvature deviations J
[where no variables of intelligence appeared. At the fifth
i
!
[grade level difficulties in visual motor control are usually
considered to represent perceptual difficulties. Develop-
; j
; i
|mental lag is ruled out because motor control should be j
! I
i I
jpretty well developed by the age of 10 or 11. <
j :
' The second type of Bender factor contained the
variables reflecting Bender size deviations— either too
large or too small reproductions. This Bender pattern has
typically been interpreted as expansive, uncontrolled be-
|
havior (too large drawings) or the obverse, withdrawn,
236 !
constricted (too small drawings). In either case it re
flects an inability to attend to the testing task or perform
jaccurately. The remaining factor contained Bender scoring
errors which suggest a protocol with both too large and too
i
'small drawings. This was interpreted simply as careless
work and a lack of effort to perform well.
i
i
j Four factors were derived from the factor analysis
i
I
|of the psychologists' observations and qualitative judg-
i ,
ments. A majority of the qualitative judgments made by the
jpsychologist had high loadings on this factor with highest
!
.loadings on intellectual functioning and inferred achieve
ment. This factor certainly suggests that one important
i
(observation that psychologists are making about the children
I j
(whom they see has to do with the quality of the child's in-
i
telligence and his ability to use his intellectual re
sources . The fact that the psychologists' interpretation of
the child's intellectual ability colored the remainder of
(the qualitative judgments indicates that intellectual abili-j
ty and its application is considered by psychologists to be
a much needed resource. The high loadings of all of the
j i
psychologists' inferences on this factor also suggest con
siderable experimental dependence in psychologists' judg- I
| :
(ments. !
237
The second factor in this set of data was described
by variables which rated the pupil's performance on the
|Rorschach and the psychologist's judgment that the child
! '
was likely to have personality difficulties. In addition
to these variables, this factor included the psychologists'
jratings of the child's performance on the Bender test. One
jinterpretation is that of immature behavior. Another infer-
i ' I
!ence from these variables is the presence of personality
i ;
i !
constriction, fear of new adjustments and an inability to
[function in situations where the standards are not clearly
i
|set. The observation of perceptual difficulties manifest
'in visual motor control on the Bender test is also a major
variable in this factor dimension. The behavior suggested j
i
by these additional variables with moderate loadings on this
i
[dimension is described by immaturity, personality constric-
jtion, visual motor difficulties, all of which lead toward
;an interpretation of general adjustment reflected in an in- j
j j
lability to perform in unstructured situations with no speci-l
|fic guidelines.
Two other factors, each measuring some aspect of
I !
the child's behavior during testing, were the remaining di- j
mensions to be extracted in this analysis. Variables re-
iflecting poor self control in the testing situation belonged
238 |
to the first of these factors and the second was interpreted
as inappropriate behavior during testing. This latter was
jprimarily defined by attention and concentration difficul-
j
jties and poor frustration tolerance.
j
Evaluations of intellectual functioning, achievement
l
consistent with age and sex peers as noted during the
psychological examination, visual motor ability, poor self
I !
jcontrol and inappropriate behavior during testing are the
i !
(principal dimensions accounting for variability in psycho-
i
jlogists1 incidental testing observations and inferential
judgments utilizing their discipline of test administration.
j :
i ;
(From the test material specifically, verbal ability, 3 types
of Rorschach response style and 2 or 3 factors reflecting j
Iscoreable deviations on the Bender test comprise the prin
cipal sources of variation in performance of psychological
tests of fifth grade boys.
When comparisons of the results of these 2 analyses
i
(of psychological testing are made with the initial hypothe- :
l
I
;ses of this project, the major variables represented by the
factored dimensions which agree with those postulated as
being important resources for school adjustment are the 2
measures of intellectual capacity, the WISC factor and the
inferential judgment factor of intelligence and its j
239 j
application. The Rorschach factor which appears to be most
related to intellectual supplies and thus to school adjust
ment as predicted from psychologists' data would be the di
mension with whole card responses and animal or human move-
i
ment. Other Rorschach dimensions cannot be rejected as in-
I
jdicating a lack of freedom in response or in intellectual
I
lendeavors since a response of any type might be accepted as
I :
jan indication of freedom. The number of card rejections j
which appears with these Rorschach factors is the most sali-
j
ent variable indicative of a lack of response freedom. The |
i
second variable indicating a lack of response freedom would
jbe the one where only popular responses are produced, sug
gesting a child who can give only the obvious, and who can-
jnot venture forth with ideas of his own.
| Without some correlation of these factor dimensions j
|with an outside criterion of adjustment, it is difficult to
reject any of those which were defined -by these 2 analyses
i i
jas not fitting into the general assumptions of a lack of
: j
t :
■freedom in cognitive endeavors as being related to school
adjustment problems. Immaturity, personality constriction,
jperceptua1-motor problems and visual-motor inaccuracies cer
tainly must be given some weight on an assumption of re
strictions on degrees of response freedom as a result of
inadequate supplies or coping ability. !
CHAPTER VIII
RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS OF
j SCHOOL DATA
!
i
i
Descriptions of Specific School-
Collected Data
Data from school records
I The material included in this section contained the
]
jfacts from the child's cumulative record folder which had
jpotential value for predicting school adjustment status.
|A11 of the data included in this section was recorded
I
I
!
[directly from the record and coded systematically in order
i
i
[to eliminate differences in the record-keeping systems of
i
[the schools. The data which were used and the system for
i
I
Icoding the information are as follows.
|
I (1) A. Original teacher rating of school adjust-
|
iment. This was recorded directly from the rating which was
i
assigned to the. pupils by their prior teacher in terms of
criteria for school adjustment which were supplied by the
I
L 240
241 I
project office. The range of the ratings varied from 1
(good adjustment) to 7 (poor adjustment).
(2) B. Difference between grade age and chrono-
I :
I j
logical age. In order to get some idea of the possibility !
i
iof grade retention or grade acceleration the age of the
i
ichild during May of the school year was compared to the
javerage age of children of his grade in that school district
! i
! during the same month. If the difference was positive, the !
|child was younger than the average pupil in the district at
! ■
jhis grade level. If the sign of the difference was nega
tive, he was older than the average. Differences greater
i !
!
than 1 year indicate either an acceleration or retention,
i
I (
or under-age or over-age status. j
i
(3) C. Most recent ability test score. Since !
most ability tests commonly use the IQ score rather than
i ' ;
percentiles or standard scores, it is difficult to find a
i
common standard for coding scores from group-administered !
|
ability tests. In order to avoid the problem of using !
jscores from a variety of types of intelligence tests, the
i
most ubiquitous test was selected and scores from that test j
were the only ones which were used in this analysis. The
most commonly used test of ability in the school districts
i
j
■which participated in the study was the California Test of
242 |
j
Mental Maturity. IQ scores from this test are those used
here. All cases without a CTMM score or other basic data
i
needed for this analysis were eliminated, reducing the total
j
original sample from over 550 to 386. j
(4) D. Difference between reading test grade and
actual grade placement. A variety of achievement tests are
j |
jalso used in schools. The problem of using scores from j
j !
jthese tests in a statistical analysis is that the tests are j
: j
Jgiven at different times during the school year so that the !
i
jgrade placement score requires the date of the test adminis-
i '
J I
jtration in order to be interpreted appropriately. The
isystem used here was to determine the actual grade placement
i i
i
of the pupils at the time the test was administered. This
is figured on the basis of a 10-schoo1-month calendar.
I
Tests given in the first month would be listed with an
;actual grade placement of 5.1, for example. Tests given in :
i
i
the eighth month of the school year would be listed as 5.8.
Next the actual grade placement at the time the test was
!
administered was subtracted from the achieved grade place
ment on the test. Differences in the positive direction
indicate better than grade level achievement. Differences
in the negative direction indicate poorer than grade level
jachievement. Differences greater than 1 year in either
243 i
direction can be taken as evidence that the pupil is working
considerably below or above grade in the skill area being
tested.
(5) E. Difference between arithmetic test grade
and actual grade placement. The procedures for coding these
jachievement test results were identical to those used for
!
jthe reading achievement tests.
| (6) (7) (8) (9) F, Grades in reading, arithmetic,
jlanguage and social studies. These 4 variables were coded
jin comparable fashion. More and more school districts have
i
! returned to the letter grade system of reporting school
j :
I
I
'progress. For these variables the grade on the report card
j ;
iat the middle of the school year (the data collection pro-
! !
i I
cess had to be completed prior to the end of the school
j
j ;
iyear) were recorded by assigning a numerical score to each
grade. An "F" received a 0 score, "D," 1 and so forth,
! :
jwith an "A" being awarded 4 points.
I j
| (10) G. The actual number of unsatisfactory citi-;
! ' i
zenship marks was tallied from the report card. The total
jnumber of marks given for these citizenship categories such ;
|as health, thrift, obedience, effort, cooperation, prompt-
■
ness, respect for others, study and work habits and attitud^
|in class varied from 0 to 9.
i __________________ _ . . ■ i
244 j
(11) H. Number of days absent. This information
was also recorded from the child's fall semester record of
attendance. The actual number of days absent from school
I
jduring the first 5 school months was listed. This varied
from 0 to as many as 35 absences in a rare case.
; (12) I. Occupation of father. This category re-
jquired careful evaluation. Very incomplete information is
itypical of the occupations which parents list for them-
Jselves on school records. In order to have a systematic
|method for classifying the occupations which were listed,
j
jthe Dictionary of Occupational Titles (1949) was used to
! classify each occupation. The first number of the occupa
tional code which indicates the level of the occupation was j
i
the one which was used. In general, this system lists as
j"0" members of professional occupations and "9" members of
jthe unskilled laboring force. Though there are weaknesses
j j
in this approach, the use of the volume cited here made
possible the objective classification of each listed occu- ;
pation. Since the classification number suggests a ranking;
|
of the occupations with respect to education and income, j
this classification number was the one which was used in
the analysis.
245 |
Tests of divergent production-
verbal and non-verbal creative
thinking tests
The Minnesota. Tests of Creative Thinking have been
mentioned previously. These were administered by 2 research
assistants and scored in the project office. The adminis
tration instructions and the scoring system were standard
ized for the project and are available (Lambert and Fultz,
il964). Essentially each test is scored according to 4
different categories. Fluency is indicated by the number
of responses given in a set period of time. Flexibility
is indicated by the number of changes in set in the produc
tion for 1 testing task. Originality refers to the fre
quency with which a particular type of response is found
lamong the school population at a given age level. For this
project a random sample of 100 of the more than 800 Crea
tive Thinking Tests which were administered was selected
j(using random numbers), and the types of response for this
sample was analyzed in order to arrive at the originality
iscores. Elaboration is a score given to those responses
L
[which are more complex, or which contain more than a sim
ple listing of the idea. The additional scoring categor- |
i
!
ies are "adequacy," which refers to the appropriateness of i
I i
|the response for the question which is asked; "activity," !
246
the indication of movement in the non-verbal tests; and
"title adequacy," the appropriateness of the labels given
to the productions in the non-verbal section of the test.
The specific variables used in the analysis were as
follows.
A. Verbal Creative Thinking Tests
(14) 1'. Fluency
(15) 2’ . Adequacy
(16) 3' . Flexibility
(17) 4'. Originality
(18) 5'. Elaboration
Non-Verbal Creative Thinkihg Tests
(19) 1’. Fluency
(20) 2'. Activity
(21) 3'. Flexibility
(22) 4'. Originality
(23) Elaboration
(24) Title Adequacy
Teacher rating
The Behavior Rating of Pupils (Bower and Lambert,
1961) was the rating used by the teacher to evaluate her
entire class. It contains 8 items, each of which is to be
!
1 __________ 5____________________________________________
247
rated separately by arranging the names of the pupils from
the entire class on a grid representing an approximate nor- :
mal distribution. Each rating is done separately in order j
i
I
i
to safeguard the independence of the ratings. The range of
ratings goes from 1, indicating least typical of the child, ;
1
to 7, indicating most typical of the child. Ratings of 7
i
are in the direction of school adjustment problems while
ratings of 1 are assumed to represent freedom from problems,
j The specific items on the teacher rating scale are
as follows.
(25)
(26)
(27)
(28)
(29)
A. This pupil gets into fights or quarrels
with other pupils.
B. This pupil has to be coaxed or forced to
work or play with other pupils. He or she
will actively avoid having any contact
with classmates.
C. This pupil has difficulty in learning
school subjects.
D. This pupil makes unusual or inappropriate
responses during normal school activities.
His behavior is unpredictable.
E. This pupil works extremely hard in learn
ing school subjects to the exclusion of
248
any other interests or activities. This
pupil pours all of his energies into
school work,^
I
j (30) F. This pupil behaves in ways which are dan
gerous to self or others. This pupil will
get into situations in which he or she may
be hurt or frightened.
(31) G. This pupil is unhappy or depressed. He or
j she may cry easily, be inattentive, or
daydream.
(32) H. This pupil becomes upset or sick often,
especially when faced with a difficult
i
school problem or situation.
j
|
peer rating
The peer ratings require nominations by class raem-
jbers of members of the class on 20 items of behavior. Ten
i
behavior items represent positive behaviors and the 10 re
maining items are selected to represent behaviors which are
typical of children with school problems. At the fifth
^This item is the only one which teachers rate in an
opposite direction to the others. The correlation of this
rating with other indices of school adjustment status is
nearly always found to be negative.
249
grade level the pupils write the names of children in the
class for each of 20 "roles" in a fictitious play that the
class might sponsor. The tests are scored by noting the
total number of nominations for each child, then the number
of nominations for the negative behavior items and finally
by finding the percentage of negative nominations. For this
analysis, however, the number of times the pupil was select
ed for each item was the information recorded. Since the
distributions of peer nominations is definitely curvilinear,
an attempt was made to make the distribution less skewed by
recording only 3 scores: "0" for no nominations for that
item, "1" for a single nomination and "2" for 2 or more
nominations. The positive behavior traits are expected to
correlate negatively with criteria of adjustment, while the
negative traits should be correlated positively. Specifi
cally, the items used in the analyses are as follows.
(33) A. A true friend.
(34) B. Somebody who is often afraid and who acts
like a little boy or girl.
(35) C. A class president.
(36) D. Somebody who is stuck-up and thinks he's
better than everyone else.
(37) E. A mean, cruel boss.
(38) F.
(39) G.
(40) H.
(41) I.
(42) J.
(43) K.
(44) L.
(45) M.
(46) N.
(47) 0.
(48) P.
(49) Q.
(50) R.
The peer
250
A boy to act the part of a team captain,
someone good in sports and liked by all.
Someone who is smart and usually knows the
answer.
A person who often gets angry over nothing
and gets into lots of arguments.
Someone who is jolly and doesn't cause any
trouble.
A bully who picks on smaller boys and
girls.
Someone who is liked by everybody and who
tries to help everybody.
A very lazy person.
A very fair person who plays games fairly.
A nice pest— someone who often gets into
trouble, but is really nice.
Someone else, besides yourself, who could
direct the play.
Someone who is always getting hurt.
A school nurse or doctor.
Somebody who seems always to be late for
school.
rating for fifth grade pupils does not
251
require the identification of the sex of the role except in
a couple of cases. Where "girl" appeared specifically in 2
rating items, they were omitted from this analysis. The
deletion accounts for the appearance of only 18 of the 20
Class Play items.
i
ISelf rating
t
(13) A. Two types of self ratings are used for
fifth grade. The first is a rating scale called Thinking
About Yourself (Bower and Lambert, 1961). This requires the
student to select items that are true of him at the present
;and then to determine which of these items he would like to
be true of him in the present or future. It is an attempt
to get a measure of his state of self dissatisfaction. The
test is scored by determining the degree to which the pupil
wishes to be more like or less like the item in question.
iEach item can receive a score of from 0 to 3. The sum of
the item scores is the datum which is used in this analysis.
i
jHigh scores indicate a great degree of self dissatisfaction.
Low scores suggest satisfaction with the present state of
jaffairs or, in some cases, a denial of problems.
(51) B. The second self rating device is the num- !
ber of negative self selections of Part II of the Class
252
Play. This section of the test requires the child to deter
mine which parts the teacher, others in the room, or he him-
jself would like to play. The 20 items of the Class Play are
jarranged in 30 quartets by randomly picking 2 positive and
2 negative items for each set of 4 in the self selection
iitem. If he picks himself, or thinks others will pick him
|for negative items or not for positive items, a score of 1
iis recorded. The score of the number of negative selections
thus ranges from 0 to about 20 with an average somewhat
!
below 10 for fifth grade boys.
Hypotheses Related to the Analysis of
School-Collected Data
Two intellectual factors should appear in the factor
analysis of the fifth grade data. One represents cognitive
operations and the other divergent production based on
scores from the Creative Thinking Tests. Cognitive opera
tions as represented by group administered ability and
achievement tests have been shown repeatedly to be related
to poor school adjustment with various adjustment criteria
jdirectly related to low scores on such tests. Torrance
!
| (1962), however, has suggested that pupils with high diver
gent thinking scores tend to be more alienated from their
t
;peers. Conversely, one could argue that divergent
253
production tests should provide direct measurements of
degrees of freedom in intellectual endeavors? therefore,
ipupils with poor school adjustment, reduced behavioral free-
|
jdom, should be more impoverished in their response reper-
j
toires and thus produce low scoring records.
A socio-economic factor should be available from
[these data, but since only 1 variable defines this possible
!
dimension, the socio-economic level as measured by father's
[occupation will probably be most related to intelligence
factors.
Ideally, teacher, peer and self ratings should
reveal factors which define behavior syndromes, or charac
teristics of particular types of pupil problems and effects
[of coping ability. These syndromes, if they were to be de
fined by factors, should fall into the areas of acting-out
or aggressive behavior, withdrawn or seclusive behavior and
[learning problems in general. The particular structure of
the ratings, and the moderately high intra-correlations
i
[among the teacher ratings and the peer ratings suggest that
[a teacher interaction factor and a peer interaction factor
would evolve rather than specific descriptive behavior fac- i
| ' I
[tors.
j |
The self rating measure should appear in a single
254
factor, except for the fact that only 1 variable defines
this dimension in the fifth grade samples. Therefore, no
jgeneral hypothesis about a self rating factor will be made.
i
j
Results of the Analysis of the Data
Means and standard deviations for each of the vari
ables are shown in Table 14. The correlation matrix follows
an Table 15. Finally the factor coefficients for the factor
dimensions can be found in Table 16.
The factor analyses presented in this section rep
resent data on the total school population from which the
project pupils were sampled. Therefore, the N is larger
than 300 pupils. Even though approximately 550 fifth grade
pDoys were in the original sample, the reduction in the
jsample size for this analysis comes about because of incom
plete data in some categories. No biasing of the results is
expected since the incomplete data were in categories such
jas ability test scores or achievement test results and not
related to any of the adjustment or teacher rating cate
gories .
i :
The 5 factors which appeared are interpreted as
follows.
i !
i ;
' 1. Factor 1— Verbal divergent production. The
TABLE 14
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR SELECTED SCHOOL DATA,
TEACHER RATINGS, PEER RATINGS, AND SELF RATINGS
(N = 386)
No. Variable M. S.D.
Data from School Records
1. Original teacher rating 2.71 2.37
2. Grade age— chronological age -0.60 4.37
3. Group ability test 106.37 13.88
4. Reading test grade placement
minus actual grade placement .34 1.19
5. Arithmetic test grade placement
minus actual grade placement .32 .78
6. Grade in reading 2.66 1.23
7. Grade in arithmetic 2.62 1.23
8. Grade in language 2.56 1.14
9. Grade in social studies 2.68 1.17
10. Number of unsatisfactory marks 0.57 1.13
11. Number of days absent 4.48 4.88
12. Occupation of father 2.51 2.69
Self Rating
13. Total score— Thinking About
Yourself 28.25 11.46
Creative Thinking Tests
(Verbal Divergent Production)
14. Fluency 38.46 23.30
15. Adequacy 15.01 21.08
16. Flexibility 24.71 22.44
17. Originality 60.09 52.38
18. Elaboration 22.83 31.87
TABLE 14— Continued
No. Variable M. S.D.
Creative Thinking Tests
(Non-verbal Divergent Production)
19. Fluency 21.10 8.13
20. Activity 4.36 4.09
21. Flexibility 11.15 3.95
22. Originality 47.74 16.74
23. Elaboration 34.20 10.34
24. Title adequacy 8.58 3.96
Behavior Rating of Pupils
(Teacher Rating)
25. Gets into fights or quarrels 4.23 1.58
26. Has to be coaxed or forced to
work or play 3.86 1.59
27. Has difficulty learning 3.99 1.68
28. Makes unusual or inappropriate
responses 4.40 1.60
29. Works extremely hard in learning 3.62 1.58
30. Behaves in ways which are
dangerous 4.39 1.54
31. Unhappy or depressed 4.03 1.51
32. Becomes upset or sick often 4.05 1.54
Class Plav (Peer Rating)
33. A true friend 0.96 0.78
34. Afraid— acts like small child 0.60 0.79
35. A class president 0.63 0.82
36. Stuck-up— thinks he's better 0.75 0.87
TABLE 14— Continued
No. Variable M. S.D.
37. A mean, cruel boss 0.96 0.85
38. Team captain— well liked 0.84 0.88
39. Someone who is smart 0.55 0.79
40. Often gets angry— argues 0.76 0.83
41. Jolly— doesn1t cause trouble 0.71 0.83
42. A bully 0.87 0.87
43. A helper— well liked 0.65 0.80
44. A very lazy person 0.86 0.87
45. Plays games fairly 0.89 0.83
46. A nice pest 0.89 0.86
47. Someone to direct the play 0.82 0.82
48. Always getting hurt 0.60 0.78
49. A school nurse or doctor 0.57 0.75
50. Always late for school 0.51 0.76
51.
Self Ratina
Number of negative self selections
on class play 8.93 6.75
" 3
!!!
? * *
!5 f ? |
i i
!!
s 3
> s
i a
3 j
f c 8
b f c
s b
a i
b b
* s
8 3
t b
8 S
t ' 8
3 i
i b
b s
i b
* s
* 8
* «
8 8
i 8
b s
s s
*
3 S 8 3 8
i k i i
i s s
3 5 f c
! i
8SS
259
TABLE 16
FACTOR COEFFICIENTS FOR SELECTED SCHOOL DATA,
TEACHER RATING, PEER RATING AND SELF RATING
OF EACH FACTOR DIMENSION
Variable
Factor
1
Factor
2
Factor
3
Factor
4
Factor
5
h2
1 .089 -.103 -.036 .234 .158 .099
2 -.074 -.105 .120 .136 -.382 .195
3 .119 .309 -.145 -.265 .555 .508
4 .094 .315 -.119 -.167 .658 .583
5 .078 .260 -.182 -.160 .572 .459
6 .098 .909 -.016 -.003 .079 .843
7 .031 .883 .010 -.032 -.082 .788
8 .073 .923 -.016 .016 -.007 .858
9 .121 .908 .021 .018 .010 .839
10 -.092 -.246 -.072 .408 .022 .241
11 .009 -.105 .052 -.057 -.005 .017
12 -.031 -.078 .005 -. 014 -.323 .112
13 -.072 -.091 -.066 .288 -.059 .104
14 .850 .084 .148 -.024 .160 .777
15 .963 -.038 -.018 -.010 -.055 .933
16 .973 .021 -.012 -.005 .015 .948
17
.965 .032 .043 .013 .056 .938
18 .976 -.015 -.013 .002 -.016 .954
19 .104 .014 .816 .062 -.045 .683
20 -.061 -.003 .043 .108 .089 .025
21 .171 -.077 .615 -.147 .001 .435
22 .127 - .021 .815 .004 .026 .682
23 .089 .053 .733 .082 .019 .554
24 .033 .134 .173 -.138 .147 .089
25 -.018 -.242 .047 .715 .028 .573
26 -.082 -.139 .030 .116 .027 .041
27 -.093 -.340 .036 .471 -.460 .559
28 .043 -.212 -.009 .723 -.017 .570
29 .064 .229 .034 -.617 .145 .460
30 -.021 - .225 .007 .736 .005 .592
TABLE 16— Continued
1 ■ ■ - - - - - - - - - -
! Variable
i
i
Factor
1
Factor
2
Factor
3
Factor
4
Factor
5
h2
31 -.051 -.227 -.077 .518 -.128 .344
I 32 -.072 -.173 -.038 .448 -.105 .248 |
33 -.062 .118 .070 -.439 -.097 .224 !
34 -.017 .016 -.007 .264 .059 .074 |
! 35 .024 .128 .085 -.530 .048 .308
! 36
.112 -.021 .032 .373 .086 .160
37 .107 .034 .022 .324 .018 .118
| 38 .074 .115 .086 -.430 -.037 .213
! 39 .045 .234 -.016 -.412 .115 .240
40 .031 -.113 -.062 .458 -.072 .233
41 -.010 .144 .048 -.525 .020 .299
42 -.059 -.040 .015 .512 -.053 .270 |
! 43 .059 .079 -.002 -.571 -.057 .339 ;
! 44 -.058 -.102 -.037 .436 .023 .206 i
45 .078 .113 .045 -.465 -.092 .245
46 -.059 -.089 -.064 .351 -.014 . 139
47 .048 .052 .016 -.467 .038 .225
48 - .051 -.078 .038 .092 .068 .023
49 -.032 .111 .052 -.238 -.038 .075
50 -.029 -.082 -.005 .277 .114 .097 j
51
f
-.063 -.105 -.142 .436 -.051 .228 I
Proportion of common factor variance
exhausted by each dimension
| 261
variables defining this factor dimension are the 6 scores
from the verbal Creative Thinking Tests. This factor is
(apparently verbal divergent production and can be inferred
jto belong to the supply dimension of intellectual abilities.
i
2. Factor 2— School grades. Even though the group
i
administered ability and reading achievement test scores
receive moderate loadings on this dimension, the higher
iloadings of school grades suggests that this factor reflects!
jtraits which are not being measured by the traditional cog- ;
jnitive operation types of tests nor the recently developed
divergent production measurement tools. School grades is
1 ;
Ithe title given to this factor in the absence of information
jabout what additional psychological variables are included I
in the grade reporting system. Compliance, work habits and
classroom decorum must be playing a role in grading prac
tices; however, these traits in themselves may reflect types
i ' i
of behavioral or social intelligence. Nevertheless this j
I ' j
factor is inferred to belong to the coping dimension of i
: I
school adjustment.
3. Factor 3— Non-verbal divergent production. Only
|scores from the non-verbal Creative Thinking Tests are foundj
1 • i
i • 1
jin this dimension. Non-verbal divergent production is
iclearly represented by this set of data. According to the
262 I
basic assumptions of this project, it belongs to the supply
dimension of school adjustment.
j 4. Factor 4— Teacher and peer ratings of school
maladjustment. Nearly all of the negative teacher ratings
and the peer ratings with signs as predicted (negative co
efficients for the positive ratings and vice versa) are
ifound in this factor. The variables with the highest load-
i t
lings are those of acting-out behavior, not liked by others, j
land not being fair in games; however, other teacher and peer!
ratings of school problems are also found with moderate
loadings. This factor appears to be congruent teacher and
| :
£>eer perceptions of school maladjustment and a manifestation
of coping ability. The self rating from Part II of the I
|
Class Play also appears with a moderate loading.
5. Factor 5— School ability or scores on tests of
cognitive operations. Ability and achievement test scores, ,
; i
jage and father's occupation are the variables in this fac-
jtor. This factor is quite easily defined as school ability !
since no other variables of note are to be found with better
than chance loadings. It represents another measure of in- j
tellectual abilities in the supply dimension.
263 I
Summary of the Analysis of
School-collected Data
The school data which were used in these analyses
jincluded behavior ratings of pupils by teachers and peers, i
school grades, test scores and so forth. Grades emerged as
;the principal variables in a single factor with ability and
achievement test scores receiving secondary weights. This
i ;
I :
is especially interesting since educators often expect that ■
i
i
jgrades, achievement test scores and ability test data should)
I
be essentially homogeneous. Such was not the case, indicat-!
, 7 i
j :
jing that school grades reflect non-intellectual (not cog-
i
jnitive operations or divergent production abilities) traits
i i
to a considerable extent, probably much more than mental
I
health specialists or school workers would have heretofore
t
expected. Grades, therefore, appear to be one type of sub
dimension in the coping domain of school adjustment. Abil-
I !
ity and achievement test scores emerge as another factor.
Verbal and non-verbal Creative Thinking Tests provide 2
j
jadditional factors. Both of these factors belong to the
jsupply dimension. j
j In the sample of fifth grade boys, the factor teach
er and peer ratings of school problems is defined by the
inoderate loadings of variables which describe boys who are
being seen most often by teachers as immature, unpredict
able, fighting and avoiding school work, and by peers as
fighting, not being helpful, and not playing games fairly.
; i
j A single factor combines teacher and peer ratings which
suggests considerable congruence of teacher and peer per
ception of pupils in a single coping sub-dimension.
; For fifth graders the second section of the Class
Play in which the pupils select themselves for the roles i
| I
which they would like to play and the ones which they think i
the teachers and other members of the class would pick them j
!
jfor is found with a moderate loading in the factor with
I
t
teacher and peer ratings of school problems. Thinking About
Yourself. the self report device which attempts to measure
self satisfaction, has a borderline coefficient for boys in I
t ;
ithe factor of negative teacher and peer ratings. In order
to get a clearer picture of the relationship of self ratings;
of these other data, other variables measuring different !
i
jaspects of self reporting whould be included in subsequent j
i
j
investigations.
i
| The test-retest reliabilities of the Class Play and
Thinking About Yourself are better than .90 and .80 respec-
i
I
itively. Group administered ability and achievement tests
jcommonly have internal consistency estimates of reliability
265
|
over .90 also. Estimates of the stability coefficient of
teacher ratings is in the neighborhood of .85 based on a
^comparison of 2 different modes of rating procedures,
j Those variables without reliability estimates which
; i
were used in this analysis and which have low communalities
|(thus no experimental support for their reliability) are
(age, number of unsatisfactory marks, occupation of father
i
and number of days absent. Since the age range of boys in j
i
i
this project was not more than 2 years, the homogeneity of
jthe population in terms of age accounts for the fact that
L
jthis variable contributed a negligible amount of common fac-
I '
tor variance. The actual count of the number of days a
child is absent during a semester can hardly be unreliable j
I
so that in this case also, the lack of common factor vari- j
I ‘ :
jance xs probably due to the fact that the number of absences
j :
;is not related to any of the variables in this analysis and j
represents a specific source of differences among pupils.
Occupation of father and number of unsatisfactory marks are I
I ' 1
1 • i
2 of the variables with potentially low reliability. In the|
■ : i
I j
case of unsatisfactory marks, the criteria which a teacher
!
uses are not provided by district offices so that they may
vary from teacher to teacher. Also the occupation the j
i i
parent lists on the child's enrollment form may not clearly |
266 ;
reflect his position on a socio-economic scale. In both the
cases cited here, there are enough possible sources of error
that the low communalities may be representative of unrelia-
! ' I
i
jbility in the measures. However, the case of course grades
(a teacher judgment of school behavior) and socio-economic
status (social worker ratings of occupation, income, housing
and neighborhood) previous factor analyses presented here
jhave provided support for the reliability of these types of |
i
data. Nevertheless, in subsequent investigations, proced
ures for evaluating unsatisfactory citizenship in the class^
room and for collecting parent occupation information could ;
'be made more explicit in order to improve the reliability
of the procedures.
i i
There is some tendency for the factored dimensions
!to correspond with the tests or sources of data for the
ivariables which have principal loadings on each dimension.
i
However, method variance does not seem to be the best ex-
! |
planation here. Divergent production and cognition have
i ;
been verified as lying in different domains of intellectual
;activity. Teacher and peer ratings, on the other hand,
; I
appear to be evaluating common aspects of the coping behav
ior of pupils. Grades and ability and achievement test
; |
scores have an uneasy relationship. The explanation that j
267 |
I
non-intellectual variables account for grades in addition to
the dimension of measured ability and achievement seems
i
suitable. Also grades possibly belong to a coping dimension
(while ability and achievement test scores may reflect ade-
I ;
quacy of psychological supplies.
| The factor analysis of school data produced 5 di-
i . .
mensions. Verbal and non-verbal divergent production,
school grades, group administered ability and achievement
| ■ ' :
jtest scores and teacher and peer ratings of behavior prob-
! ’ i
[lems in school. Four of these ratings can be considered to !
i ;
fee estimates of cognitive ability, a lack of which should
[seriously reduce a pupil's effectiveness in school work. ;
I
One can infer that degrees of freedom of individual behav
ior are lost with a marginal ability to cope not only with
I S
jthe academic demands of the classroom but also with inter
personal relationships between pupil and teacher and pupil
\ i
jand peers. The factored dimensions represent measures of
^intellectual abilities (internally produced supplies for |
adequate adjustment) as well as measures of coping capacity j
; i
|(teacher and peer ratings of school behavior and school
grades). Data which are readily available from the school
[setting, then, can provide useful sources of data to use in
268
evaluating these dimensions. Further comparison of these
dimensions with criteria of adjustment is needed to verify
them as basic dimensions in the school adjustment of fifth
grade boys.
CHAPTER -IX
RESULTS OF THE SUMMARY FACTOR ANALYSIS
| Altogether 23 factors were extracted in the 5 factor
I !
analyses for the sample of fifth grade boys. Very careful
i
interpretations must be made of these factors. Though namesj
are suggested for the groups of variables which emerge in j
each dimension, these titles are subject to change and re- j
vision as more data and further research modify the meaning j
which can be attached to the results. Before proceeding j
1 i
further with interpretations of the factors, it is necessary
to determine whether or not these factors represent poten-
i
tially true underlying psychological variables or whether !
|the differences are results of methods, personnel or situa- i
i
tional variation.
By measuring the extent to which these observations
or factors are related to one another, one can suggest
whether the behavior represents a consistent characteristic
of the child, a result of the person making the observation,
j
270
or a result of the situation in which the observation was
made.
If the findings from these factor analyses are to i
have psychological meaning, the presence of method or situa-j
I
jtional variance has to be ruled out as much as possible.
i i
Method or situational variance can be suspected to be oper-
i
ating when the variables in the factor come from a single |
{
set of observations. An example of this would be a factor J
I
which is specific to psychiatric observations and not re- j
lated to any other criterion variables or factored dimen
sions . In this case the factor represents the psychiatrist'!
I
perceptions of the child's response to being interviewed in
school, and not underlying behavior differences to which
psychological meaning can be attached. Another example
would be the case of the Bender scoring deviations which
were found on one factor without the presence of other test j
scores. In this case one would have to interpret the find
ings as being related to the particular test requirements
jand not to visual-motor or perceptual variables. In either
of these cases, the psychiatric observations or the Bender
scores, if these variables can be shown to be related to
variables measuring traits outside of the situation in
which the measures were made, and one can infer that some
271 j
underlying psychological process is common to these traits,
there is some support for interpreting them as psychological
rather than method variance. j
|
The summary factor analysis employed in this study j
served 2 purposes. The first purpose was to determine
[whether the factors which were presumed to be either sup-
I
plies or coping abilities were related to one another in
' i
i
order to support the assumption about school adjustment madej
in this project. The second purpose was to determine wheth-j
jer or not the factors extracted in each of the analyses were
i
jthe result of method variance or significant psychological
j
variation.
)
The first step in conducting the summary analysis j
i
was to determine a score by means of the Ledermann method !
(Harman, 1962, p. 349) for each pupil on each of the fac
tors . Next the factor scores were correlated and a summary i
. |
factor analysis was conducted. The correlations of the !
!
first order factors can be found in Table 17. Since high |
scores on the clinicians' inferential ratings indicate
greater evidence of problems, correlations of these ratings
with various measures of intelligence and achievement will
be negative. In order to present a consistent set of data,
scores on ability and achievement variables were reversed
TAMX 17
im a c o o u u trio a i or r t ts r o * n r ic r o u no n rtcnt u a l t h i or scNooi-couacrc d data
Hyekaltfltu' loclil riyclilitritt*'
. . , t , _ observation* » < j — try and Observations
^ “ ~ l “ “ .* g u l t u t M .nd o».l,......
«. TMcMt and m r rat lava of
actlav oat, nos-lUsd aad aot
. fair .04 .12 .10
5. lav ability aa« acbla laint
taat eoorea an4 oya -.3* •.10 -.04
-.)) -.01 .20 -.40
-.0] .1) .1* -.22 -.24 -,0O
-.09 .09 -.04 . 07 -.12 . 01 -.17
Uaiaal aarschach prodsetlvlty
iltk aaa of «kal* reepoeeaa,
I B y| itloil a i — m -.10 . 09 -.10 -.1* -.2 7 -.29 -.12 -.04
Ito Ur?* «o. too Mali
tender flfsre .17 -.04 -.10 . 02 -.09 -.09 .12 -.OS .00
lorscfcecb popular rssponasa -.02 . 04 -.09 . 01 -.20 . 01 -.20 -.04 -.02 . 04
: scalar* Iw4ar vlth both too
|V|i avi tao M i l reftoaw ^ -00 u . 0J _>(B _ 2(J .oo -.01 -.0 4 -.10
I
.2) .14 .10 .11 .1* .45 -.10 .07 .02 -.17 -.17 .04
2. laaser update bahavier telaf
toot lay -oi .04 .11 .oo .07 ,i? -,oi .» .»• -.i« -.oa -.20 .17
S. taatsrlty, personality con-
atilcttaa and visas! notar
dlfficaltlM -.01 .09 -.01 -.02 -.01 -.19 -.12 .11 -.24 . 22 -.09 -.04 .14
«. QOSd ball control .17 . 00 . 04 -.02 . 04 .19 . 09 -.11 -.09 . 04 .11 -.14 .20
-.09 . 09 -.1 3 ' .24 -.it -.19 -.27 . 01 -.29 -.04 .11 .21 .00 -.10 -.00 -.22
.08 .24 -.09 .14 . 09 .21 .09 -.10 -.09 -.11 .12 . 00 .29 -.01 -.12 . 24 . 27
.14 .14 . 01 .10 . 29 .49 . 24 -.11 .10 . 04 .10 . 04 . 21 -.01 -.07 .21 -.1* .12
-.01 -.09 . 04 -.04 -.01 -.10 . 07 -.07 -.02 .09 .01 - -It -.09 .19 -.04 . 01 -.14 . 09 -.11
' .abamLifltt-jad
.21 .12 .1) .24 .04 .20 -.04 -.0 4 -.10 .04 -.0 2 .01 .11 -.1 2 -.2 1 .04 .12 -.0 1 .14 .00
2. 4atar4a4 ayaaeb, lattvrlty,
iMbillty ta etMilcita n.
verbal, aatare, bad ssslfaat
, - , l - M d .00 . 01 - .0 4 .04 . 04 .19 . 04 -.1 1 .29 -.1 1 .11 -.01 .19 .20 -.2 9 .12 -.0 9 .10 . 21 .04 .11
*.0 9 -.1 9 -.1 9 -.29 -.1 0 .14 .14 -.1 0 .11 .01 .19 . « -.1 0 -.2 0 -.14 -.OS -.11 -.2 4 -.1 1 .00 . 02
272
273
|in the correlation matrix in Table 17 and the name of the
factor variable was modified to note the change. Those
variables which were reversed are noted in the listing be
low. While the Tryon method, cumulative communality cluster
analysis, was employed for the first 5 analyses, a principal
component method was employed for the summary analysis since
no cluster groupings were located in the correlation matrix
i !
[in order to meet the criterion for Tryon's method of factor-j
iing. The factors which were extracted in this analysis were
j '
|then subjected arbitrarily to a varimax rotation. The ro
tated factor loadings of each of the first order factors on
I
ithe summary factors are presented in Table 18.
I ,
i j
| Factor Variables Used in the
Summary Analysis
! 1. School data
a. Verbal divergent production (reversed)
j 1
| b. Grades (reversed)
j
c. Non-verbal divergent production (reversed)
d. Teacher and peer ratings of school malad
justment
f
i e. Ability and achievement test scores and age j
; I
(reversed)
TABLE 18
FACTOR LOADINGS OF KEY CLINICAL VARIABLES ON SUMMARY FACTORS
No. First Order Factors
I
Summary Factors
II III IV h2
1.
School Data
Low scores on verbal divergent produc
tion tests .455 .136 -.263 -.266 .365
2. Low grades .499 -.270 -.149 -.045 .346
3. Low scores on non-verbal divergent
production tests .162 .022 -.176 .024 .058
4. Teacher and peer ratings of acting-
out, not liked and not fair .326 -.489 -.039 -.035 .348
5. Low ability and achievement test
scores and age .428 .375 -.102 -.098 .345
1.
Psycholocrists ' Test Results
Low intelligence and verbal ability .831 .109 .198 .038 .744
2. Minimal Rorschach productivity with
use of details - .055 .540 .121 -.109 .321
3. Perceptual difficulties with lack of
visual motor control -.015 -.192 -.179 .381 .214
ro
. ...... .. ....
TABLE 18— Continued
j No. First Order Factors
I
Summary Factors
II III IV h2
i 4. Minimal Rorschach productivity with use
of whole responses, human and animal
movement .146 .469 .260 .090 .317
5. Too large vs. too small Bender figure -.065 .120 -.266 -.209 .113
6. Rorschach popular responses -.051 -.136 .220 -.132 .087
7. Careless Bender with both too large
and too small reproductions .019 -.216 .001 -.176 .078
Psychologists1 Observations and
Qualitative Judgments
1. Intellectual functioning and appli-
cation .712 -.159 -.075 .322 .641
2. Immaturity, personality constriction
and visual motor difficulties .220 .089 .002 .705 .553
3. Distractibility and lack of self control -.086 -.021 -.530 .192 .326
4. Inappropriate behavior during testing .265 .127 -.036 -.039 .089
1.
Social Workers' Summary and
Qualitative Judgments
Poor economic environment -.081 -.607 .104 -.120 .400
TABLE 18— Continued
No. First Order Factors
I
Summary
II
Factors
III IV h2
2. Poor family environment .288 -.240 .143 -.011 .161
3. Socio-economic status .484 .165 .094 -.181 .304
4. Social problems without adjustment
difficulties -.066 .119 .035 .139 .039
Psychiatrists' Observations and
Qualitative Judcrments
1. Openness to observation .303 -.171 .043 -.290 .207
2. Immaturity with related school problems .302 .086 .556 .084 .415
3. Negative reciprocal relationship
between psychiatrist and child -.316 .277 .293 -.266 .333
Proportion of common factor variance
exhausted by each dimension .403 .257 .164 .178
ro
- j
! T >
Psychologists' test results
a. Intelligence and verbal ability (reversed)
b. Rorschach productivity with the use of
details (reversed)
c. Perceptual difficulties with lack of visual
motor control
d. Rorschach productivity with the use of
whole responses, human and animal movement
(reversed)
e. Bender size deviations
f. Rorschach popular responses
g. Careless Bender with both too large and too
small drawings
Psychologists' observations and inferential
judgments
a. Intellectual functioning and its application
b. Inappropriate behavior during testing I
c. Immaturity, personality constriction, and j
visual motor difficulties
d. Good self control
Social workers1 summary and inferential judg
ments
a. Poor social and cultural environment j
278
b. Poor family environment
c. Socio-economic status
d. Social problems
5. Psychiatrists' observations and inferential
judgments
a. Openness to observation
b. Immaturity and related school problems
! c. Negative reciprocal relationship between
I psychiatrist and child
i
i
Four factors were extracted in the analysis. The
jinterpretation of each of these summary factors is as fol-
ilows .
I
Results of the Summary Factor Analysis
1. Summary factor 1— School maladjustment with
ability deficits. Low intelligence and achievement, low
grades, teacher and peer ratings of school maladjustment,
low Verbal Creative Thinking Test scores, immaturity, open
ness to observation in the psychiatric interview, low
socio-economic status, and a borderline loading for poor
jfamily environment are the first order factors in this sum-
i
mary factor. This factor is school maladjustment and vul
nerability with poor intellectual, social and familial
279
resources. Factors representing both supply and coping
dimensions appear together supporting this as a school ad
justment dimension.
i
| 2. Summary factor 2— School maladjustment with
Isocial and interpersonal difficulties without ability defi
cits . The first order factors in this group suggest evi-
dence of economic deprivation with related school problems
where intelligence is not a primary variable. School grades
in this dimension are inversely related to intelligence
jtest scores. This appears to be a case of adjustment
l
i
difficulties which are primarily a result of cultural fac
tors, not of a specific ability deficit. The lower grades
in school may come about because of the contribution of non
intellectual variables or variables measuring types of
ability other than cognitive operations of divergent pro-
i
duction with figural, symbolic or semantic material. The
j j
jmoderate loadings of Rorschach response categories which j
j I
are inversely related to negative teacher ratings and to
poor grades indicate a verbally productive child with a host
jof ideas, which may be applied poorly in the school setting.
Since different weights are applied to the factors which
appear in this dimension as compared to the weights for
| |
these supply and coping dimensions in summary factor 1, the
280
jschool adjustment defined by these variables reflects a
I
jdifferent type of interaction of supply and coping variables.
I
| 3. Summary factor 3— Poor coping in interview sit
uations. Only 2 first order factors receive loadings of
j ;
over .300 in this summary factor. These suggest a boy who
has difficulties with some aspects of the interview situa
tion. He has poor self control during testing and is seen
by psychiatrists as immature, with related school problems.
There is a borderline loading of the negative reciprocal
i
i
relationship between the boy and the psychiatrist. By re
ferring to the criteria of ratings for the first order di
mension of negative reciprocal relationships, one finds that
isuch a boy is generally seen as uninvolved and indifferent
by the psychiatrist, and that the psychiatrist is unsure of
I
|his over-all evaluation of the child. This summary dimen
sion appears to be poor coping in the interview situation.
! i
Since neither teacher and peer ratings of problems nor
i
school grades appear in this dimension, it is difficult to
i
interpret this summary factor as a school adjustment dimen-
i
ision. !
i
j i
j 4. Summary factor 4— Poor performance on Bender
jand Rorschach psychological examinations with no specific
I I
ability deficits. The first order factors which are grouped
I 281
j
here lead toward the interpretation of no deficiencies in
intellectual potential per se. but a poor application of
jintellectual resources to the testing situation. An inter-
jpretation of visual motor or perceptual difficulties may be
offered also. The fact that boys with this pattern do bet-
Iter in the psychiatric interview indicates that their dis
ability shows up only on the Bender or Rorschach examina
tions . Here an interpretation of poor coping in psycho
logical examinations may also be offered. Disagreement be-
i
jtween the psychologist and psychiatrist about the severity
of the problem would certainly be expected in cases where
this pattern occurs. The low, but notable divergent produc
tion loadings suggest that this dimension reflects "off
beat" or unusual behavior which is hard for the clinician
to classify. The interpretation of method of situational
variance should also be offered since this is the only sum
mary factor with first order factors from a single set of
data— the psychological examination.
Discussion
Twenty-three first order factors were used to make
I
I
i a summary factor analysis. Five of these first order fac-
I
i
tors did not appear on any of the final factored dimensions.
jThese are non-verbal divergent production, Bender size de-
i
Jviations, Rorschach popular responses, careless Benders with
too large and too small reproductions, and the social worker
i
judgments of social problems without adjustment difficul
ties .
The remaining dimensions were arranged on the 4
summary factors. Two of these first order factors had load
ings of less than .300 on the summary factor dimensions.
They were inappropriate behavior during tests (.265 on sum
mary factor 1) and poor family environment (.288 on summary
factor 1). All the rest of the first order dimensions had
loadings of .300 or more on at least 1 of the summary dimen
sions.
Sixty-six per cent of the common factor variance of
the first order factors is accounted for by the first 2
summary dimensions. The remaining 2 were interpreted as
poor coping in interview settings and poor performance on
the Bender and Rorschach psychological examinations. Each
of these may be considered as accounting for a portion of
the variability among the fifth grade boys, but not speci
fically related to school adjustment as hypothesized in j
[this project since no first order factors which could be
i
interpreted as school adjustment criteria (coping ability
283
as measured by teacher and peer ratings of problems or
school grades) appeared in these dimensions. The discussion
|then rests on the meaning of the first 2 summary dimensions
I
1
jfor general hypothesis of this project— that school adjust
ment can be inferred from the adequacy of the supplies and
coping abilities and their related degrees of freedom in a
[Child's choices of behavioral alternatives.
i
Summary factor 1 represents a pattern of psychologic
ical supplies and coping behavior which is consistent with
ithe etiology of school adjustment problems and childhood
mental illness described by other investigators. The defi
nite relationship between measures of intellectual abili
ties, both in terms of school tests and those administered
individually, poor family resources (only a borderline load
ing, however), a poor economic environment and difficulties
in coping with the school situation as measured by poor
jgrades, and teacher and peer ratings of school maladjustment
^supports the contention that the occurrence of these vari
ables in a particular child’s case is descriptive of school
!
adjustment problems of some magnitude. A poor family en-
|
jvironment and limited economic resources are comparable to j
i |
I
i - : )
j 2 of the psychological supplies postulated by Spitz as etio-
I '
logical factors in cases of psychogenic illnesses of
284
childhood. To these have been added measures of intellec
tual potential as additional resources for adjustment. Even
i
jthough the physical status of the child or his constitution
al makeup has been indicated as another supply needed for
adjustment, the measures used in this project did not fall
into any pattern which could be interpreted as health or
indications of physical resources. Summary factor 1, then,
i :
represents the hypothesized domain of school maladjustment-
j
adjustment which is measured by a relationship between the
supplies provided by family environment, the social environ
ment, intellectual potential, and the indications of de
creased coping power in the school situation reflected in
grades, and teacher and peer ratings of problems. Decreased
I
coping ability in the clinical setting also appears in this
dimension by first order factors which describe the child
who cannot communicate well enough to be seen as one who is
| comfortable with himself and with others, and who cannot
apply what resources he has to the tasks of the psychologi
cal examination. The freedom of behavior which is lost in
Ithe case of the child with school adjustment difficulties
I
icomes about from inadequacies in the home environment, the
j ;
| , |
[social environment and a lack of intellectual power. A
[
combination of these forces results in further restrictions I
285 !
on the child's ability to deal with his daily reality of
school as reflected in poor achievement and inadequate
interpersonal relationships.
Summary factor 2 represents 26 per cent of the
common factor variability in the final analysis. This fac
tor describes an intellectually adequate child whose social
lenvironment itself appears to be the principal source of
the difficulty. This factor provides some support for the
current emphasis on the educational needs of the culturally
deprived child. The contradiction to the application of the
contemporary term "culturally deprived" to this set of vari
ables comes about through the lack of cognitive measures on
the domain since the use of "culturally deprived" implies
'impoverished intellectual development. At any rate these
variables do suggest that some pupils with school adjustment
problems may have a specific etiological pattern found pri
marily in inadequate social supplies of the child's environ-
! - I
ment which are reflected in poor school performance. This
is a second school adjustment dimension represented by a
'different interaction between supply and coping variables
jthan the interaction represented by the dimensions on sum- !
I ' ■ I
jmary factor 1.
! i
The interrelationships of the data collected in this:
! 286
project support the conclusion that, in general, the results
are due primarily to real differences in children to which
I t
jsome theoretical significance can be attached rather than
: i
|to an interpretation due to method, personnel or situation
factors. Those findings which do not fit this generaliza
tion have been discussed previously. Each summary factor
can be taken to represent a type of school and clinical
pattern of observations and responses which will be charac
teristic of some boys at this age level.
The data included in this report are evidence that
the social worker, the psychologist, the psychiatrist and
the school are all able to contribute evidence from their
specific disciplines which are measures of the 2 hypothe
sized dimensions of school adjustment. What is needed now
i
is a refinement of their procedures for more accurate, re
liable and experimentally independent procedures to produce
data which have greater reliability and validity. There is
a need to develop and refine procedures for rating the
health and robustness of the child. While these variables
j
do not turn up specifically as a factor in these analyses,
ithe fact remains that the physiological and physical char- i
i I
lacteristics of the child can play roles in school adjust- j
I i
ment. Evidently, they are typically ignored in clinical
j 287
i
!
jratings so long as the child appears "normal," in the effort
jto gauge the adequacy of his personality adjustment versus
jthe presence of psychopathology.
The psychologists have the greatest variety of well-
validated, reliable tools at their disposal. However, it
is obvious from the results of the factor analysis of
psychologists' observations and inferential judgments that
ratings of tests can be reduced in number. For example,
the WISC score would be one source of information about the
child. Another source might be his ability to handle other
testing tasks. An over-all rating of the adequacy of the
WISC performance is not needed. Psychologists can pick the
ratings which are more useful from the results presented
here and simplify their clinical evaluations. Psychiatrists
and social workers also can revise their interview proced
ures on the basis of the results presented here. Observa
tions and ratings can be reduced in number to provide the
most efficient use of the interview time when data related
I !
I
to school adjustment are needed.
The results of the summary factor analysis are gen-
i
jerally in support of the research hypothesis of this pro- j
! i
i i
iject that the dimensions of school adjustment of school j
children can be measured in those life areas which are the
causes or the effects of reduced behavioral freedom. Pre-
i
Jviously these dimensions have been classified into psycho
logical supplies (both internal and external) and ego capa
city as inferred from ability to cope in a given situation.
CHAPTER X
; '
CONCLUSION
!
This project has analyzed 150 variables from school
data, and clinical observations of social workers, psycholo
gists and psychiatrists, which were selected as having a
; i
potential relationship to school adjustment or general men-
i :
ital health problems of children. These data were organ- j
I J
jized into 5 sets according to the source of information—
|1 for school data, 1 for social worker observations, 1 for
i
psychological test scores, 1 for psychologists' observa-
l ;
jtions, and a final 1 for psychiatrists' observations.
i
A factoring procedure was applied to each of the 5 sets
of data in order to determine some aspects of the dimen
sionality underlying the variables. From the 5 analyses j
|
|23 dimensions were derived. In order to determine which j
!
jof the dimensions were related to one another, and which
of these first order dimensions might be attributed to
j
jmethod or situation variance, the 23 first order factors
jwere subjected to a summary factor analysis. Four summary
Idimensions were extracted.
| From the results of the summary factor analysis, 5
of the original 23 dimensions were rejected as being related
to school adjustment status as defined in this project be
cause of low communalities. However, these 5 dimensions
(non-verbal divergent production, Rorschach popular re
sponses, inconsistent Bender test size deviations, either
'too large or too small Bender test drawings, and social
problems without adjustment difficulties) should be retained
for subsequent evaluation by other investigators with types
of school adjustment criteria in addition to those used in
this project. Another 3 dimensions were rejected because
they could be interpreted to be a result of method or situ-
j ;
jation variance since they appeared in summary dimensions
i
with first order factors from either interview or test situ
ations. Fifteen dimensions remained which had low to mod
erately high loadings on 2 of the 4 summary factors. These j
i I
dimensions were interpreted as being either related to
psychological supplies necessary for adjustment and mental
■health or aspects of coping ability. Those which were con- |
! i
! J
sidered to be related to psychological supplies which are
Inecessary for adjustment were (1) verbal divergent produc
tion, (2) school ability and achievement test scores, (3)
! 291
i
I
I
'intelligence and verbal ability, as measured by the WISC,
!
j(4) Rorschach productivity with the use of card details,
(5) Rorschach productivity with the use of whole card and
human and animal movement, (6) psychologists' appraisal of
general intellectual functioning and its application, (7)
poor family environment, (8) poor economic environment, (9)
low socio-economic status and (10) psychiatrists' judgment
I ■
jof immaturity. Those dimensions which were considered to be
jaspects of ego capacity as inferred from coping ability were
!(1) grades, (2) teacher and peer ratings of school problems,
(3) inappropriate behavior during the psychological examina-
!
tion (with only a borderline loading on the first summary
dimension and low communality), (4) openness to observation
in the psychiatric interview, and (5) negative reciprocal
relationship between child and psychiatrist.
Twelve of the acceptable 15 dimensions had low to
moderate loadings on the first summary factor which ac
counted for 40 per cent of the common factor variance in
the summary analysis. This summary dimension was called
school adjustment-maladjustment or good-poor mental health, i
Such an interpretation of the first summary dimension was
^supported by the fact that the dimensions interpreted as
being indicative of basic psychological supplies necessary
I 292
for adjustment, family environment, economic environment
!
jand intelligence had notable loadings. In addition dimen
sions reflecting coping ability of the child were also load
ed on this dimension. These were grades, teacher and peer
ratings of school problems, inappropriate behavior during
psychological testing, openness to observation in the
psychiatric interview and negative reciprocal relationship
(between psychiatrist and child. The appearance of these
Ifirst order factors on this first summary dimension supports
i
;the general hypothesis of this project that the dimensions
of school adjustment of school children can be measured in
those life areas which are causes or the effects of reduced
behavioral freedom. These dimensions have been classified
into psychological supplies (both internal and external)
and ego capacity as inferred from ability to cope in a given
situation.
Summary factor 2 accounted for 26 per cent of the !
common factor variance among the first order factors and
also was interpreted as a school adjustment factor. This
summary factor dimension was defined by 5 of the 15 accept- I
able first order factor dimensions. This dimension was
interpreted as school adjustment problems without ability |
deficits. The school adjustment dimension defined by
i 293
I
summary factor 2 is different from that in summary factor 1
|in that it represents another type of interaction of sup
plies and coping abilities. High loadings on the 2 Ror
schach productivity factors and indications of a poor eco
nomic environment indicate a child from a home in social
conflict, who is reasonably intelligent and verbal, but who
is judged to be one with school problems by teachers and
jpeers. Such a pattern suggests a pupil with inappropriate
behavior in school (or poor coping ability in school) possi
bly because of conflict in value standards. Good Rorschach
l
productivity and indications of moderate intelligence sug
gest also that children with this pattern have less malig-
jnant problems than those with etiologies suggested by sum-
1 :
mary dimension 1. One might infer that the prognosis in
the case of children with the pattern of summary dimension
2 would be better than in the case of other school adjust
ment problems, but the findings from this project cannot |
i
support such inferences as the severity of the problems or
the prognosis for children with such difficulties.
Summary factor 3 was described as adjustment to
interviews, while summary factor 4 was described as adjust- j
; !
;ment to psychological testing. However, in both these di- I
\
mensions the interpretation of a type of school adjustment
i 294 I
j
[was not offered since there were no notable loadings of
jfirst order factors measuring effects of coping in school.
It is conceivable that the degree to which intellec
tual or social deficits affect the adjustment of a particu
lar child is equated to the degree to which those deficits
Restrict the child in his ability to cope or restrict his
jalternatives in school. Little argument is necessary to
jsupport the inference that socio-economic status, familial
jproblems, low intelligence, inappropriate behavior during
jtesting, immaturity and inability to be perceived as a per
son in the psychiatric interview, teacher and peer ratings
i
or problems and school grades are either the causes or the
effects of reduced behavioral freedom. While the correla
tions between the first order factors are low, the summary ■
analysis places the above dimensions into 2 summary dimen
sions which can be called school adjustment. The difference;
in the 2 adjustment dimensions is interpreted as a differ- !
I
ence in the type of interaction between psychological sup- !
plies and coping ability.
The results of this project also support the pre
mise that it may be possible to define school adjustment on j
! i
; a continuum from good to poor and that it also may be pos- i
sible to define some of the dimensions which predict the
j 295
position of a given child on such a continuum,
j The dimensions of school adjustment which were de
fined by this project by no means exhaust the possibilities
of critical behavioral dimensions which have validity in
early identification of mental health problems so that in
terventions can be found and applied hopefully to reduce
;the incidence of adjustment problems in a childhood popula
tion. Hartmann's concept of freedom as a criterion of men-
j
|tal health is central to the conclusions of this study.
i
i
School mental health is freedom from anxiety and affects,
freedom to perform a task, freedom to control one's environ
ment by conscious acts of the ego. In this report degrees
of freedom in basic psychological supplies or coping ability
i i
i '
has been used as a concept by which school adjustment could !
be studied. Some of the dimensions of school adjustment
uncovered in this report suggest that school adjustment is
freedom from an inadequate family environment, freedom from!
j
a poor social milieu, and freedom from handicapping cogni- !
tive functioning. In addition to these, there must be ex
periences which free the child's intelligence and personal
ity to develop as rapidly and optimally as necessary in j
order to cope with the complex demands of home, friends,
and school.
i :
\
APPENDIXES
I
A P P E N D I X A
PROCEDURES FOR OBTAINING TEACHER'S
RATING OF SCHOOL ADJUSTMENT
!
S
i
| APPENDIX A
!
PROCEDURES FOR OBTAINING TEACHER'S
RATING OF SCHOOL ADJUSTMENT
Part I: Completing the Rating Grid
! Obtain a roster of the class which you are rating.
‘ Next, with the roster of names and the form "Teacher's
i
Rating of School Adjustment," follow the instructions below
and complete the rating grid.
Your rating job is to locate every pupil in the
class on a scale that runs from "best adjusted" to "poorest
adjusted" and place the names on the pyramid.
1. Look at your list of pupils and identify those who
you think are typical of a well adjusted student
according to the criteria which were provided. You
will note that there are only 2 boxes at the ex
treme left of the pyramid (Column 1). Choose the
pupils who were the best adjusted in your class and
write their names in the boxes in Column 1 in the
pyramid, 1 name to a box.
2. Next look at your list of students and identify
those who were in the poorest adjusted in your
class and write their names in the boxes in Column
7 of the pyramid, 1 name to a box.
298
299 I
3. Now return to your list and again identify from the
remaining students those who were well adjusted,
but not as well adjusted as the 2 in Column 1.
Write their names in Column 2.
4. Again return to your list of pupils and identify
other students in the class who were poorly adjust
ed, but with less handicaps than those in Column 7.
Write their names in Column 6. Continue in this
way until all names have been used.
5. When you have completed the ratings, you should have
on the right, pupils who were most poorly adjusted,
and on the left, those who were the best adjusted
in your class.
6. Use the boxes shown with the dotted lines only if
you have a large class and find you do not have
enough spaces for all your students. Be sure that
each pupil's name is placed in only 1 box. Some
teachers check off names on the class list with
light pencil marks to keep track of names used.
7. Try your best to complete the boxes in Column 1 and j
7 first, Columns 2 and 6 second, and in Columns 3,
4, and 5 last. If you cannot completely fill all
of the columns use dashes to indicate that the boxes!
have not been completely overlooked or omitted. |
Some teachers who have small classes or insufficient
contact with some children may find it necessary to
omit names in several of the boxes. When you have
completed the ratings, the name of every child in j
your class should be found in 1 of the 7 columns of j
the pyramid. Unused boxes should have dashes in |
them.
Part II: Nominations of Children with
Learning and Behavior Problems
At the bottom of the sheet with the pyramid are
|
I
jplaces for you to list the names of pupils in your class
who are best described as having 1 of the difficulties
300 |
listed to a marked extent over a period of time. The be
havior you note should have been typical of the child
through this school year and not a problem which was transi-;
i i
j ;
jtory. Some children can be typified by more than 1 of the
j ;
[statements; in that case write their names opposite the
I
problem which was the most serious for them. Try to think
jof children in each of the categories, but do not worry
i |
'about where they are placed on the pyramid above. Part II j
! ;
j I
of your rating is for comparison with other information
j j
about the children in the class.
301
Teacher*s Rating of School
Adjustment Name of Teacher.
| Grade of Pupils
i
I
k>art I: " |
! [ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J
l I
I I
I l
i
1
1
1
' - ■
' H
r _ - .
1
'
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
part II: In the spaces below list the names of any childrenj
j i . n this class who had any of the following problems to a j
iuarked extent over a period of time:
i 1. Inability to learn________________________________j
j 2. Unsatisfactory interpersonal relationships_________ j
| 3. Unhappiness^____________________^ __________________
i
j 4. Inappropriate behavior____________________________
l
! 5. Repetitive symptoms of illness after stress________
APPENDIX B
CRITERIA FOR SOCIAL WORKER JUDGMENTS
| APPENDIX B
CRITERIA FOR SOCIAL WORKER JUDGMENTS
Criteria for Summary Judgments
The 11 judgments made by the social workers follow
ing their interview with the parent of the project pupil
are arranged in groups according to whether they are rating
physical, psychological or social development. Each child
was rated on each of these variables on a 5-point continuum ;
which ranged from "Yes, positive development," to "Yes,
negative development." The criteria for "Maybe, negative j
jdevelopment" and "Yes, negative development" are as follows.
i
j
Type of Judgment Criteria
p h y s i c a l f a c t o r s |
| I
! Genetic Congenital defects and hereditary fac-j
tors such as mental retardation, epi- j
j lepsy, diabetes, etc. For example:
"Yes": hemophilia, heart condition
"Maybe": allergy during infancy, 1
I month premature
i
[ :
j Defects Sensory organ defects, accidents,
I later developing allergies, or
! Type of Judgment
Conditions
Psychological
factors
Parent-child
' relationships,
past and present
Other adult-chiId
relationships
accidents. For example:
"Yes": trouble with hearing in 1 ear;
many food allergies; asthmat
ic, migraines, earaches, con- '
vulsions at 3 years.
"Maybe": eczema when a small child,
has a slight limp, bronchial
asthma when small.
Enuresis, sleeping difficulties, eat
ing problems. For example:
"Yes": evidence of fear of dark;
chronic sore throat; appendi
citis; nightmares; occasional
ear infections.
Rejection, inconsistency, over-protec
tion, etc. For example:
"Yes": evidence from interview that
child feels rejected by moth- j
er; child thinks mother "did !
away" with father, father left
home; father has little or no
relationship to children;
over-protective mother; par
ents very strict.
"Maybe" : mother seems to be indiffer-j
ent about the children; rela- j
tionship with father "getting j
closer"; mother says child is j
more secure around father.
I
For example: j
"Yes": domineering grandmother who
gave all of the information
during the interview; resents
older step-brother who still
lives at home.
"Maybe": grandparents live in home, |
but do not seem welcome; j
Sibling
relationships
! Peer relation-
i
ships
ISocial Factors
I
| Economic depri-
: vation
Norm conflict
305 !
I
repressive grandparents;
grandmother disapproves of
mother's handling of child.
For example:
"Yes": clashes with older sister,
jealous and competitive; re
sentful of siblings; cerebral ;
palsied child in home and some
resultant confusions about
role.
"Maybe": surrounded by all sisters; a
great many siblings; highly
neurotic and demanding older
sister who is adopted.
For example:
"Yes": competitive with peers; never
can share; cannot get along
with age or sex group.
"Maybe": has few friends; seeks lead-!
ership, afraid of aggressive
children; not sure of himself t
around others; very shy.
Family's past or present economic sit-|
uation including relief status, inade
quate housing, food or clothing. For
example: ,
"Yes": relief status; father's income
level low.
"Maybe": limited income; poor hous
ing; mother has been ill and |
family's economic situation j
has suffered; living standard !
of family is low; catch-as-
catch-can existence.
Presence of cultural conflict (includ
ing possible racial, national, reli
gious, class, or urban-rural factors
between family and neighborhood). For
example:
306
"Yes": terrible-looking house in a
nice neighborhood; parents
leave children to themselves
and let them find their own
values.
"Maybe": parents accept no responsi
bility for setting standards
for children; possibility of
pre-delinquent home culture;
"nice" house in a very bad
neighborhood.
Social disorgani
zation
Community or neighborhood character
ized by social disorganization or
anti-social patterns. For example:
"Yes": extremely poor and run-down
neighborhood.
"Maybe": family lives in a trailer
park.
Social mobility Family's geographic mobility, includ
ing frequent moving locally or city
to city.
Global judgment
If any of the above factors were
marked "yes negative" or "maybe nega
tive," the social worker indicated
whether such factors were possibly
related to the child's school perform
ance. In addition, the way in which
such factors were expressed in the J
child's school performance were also ;
to be noted.
Criteria for Qualitative or
Inferential Ratings
A rating booklet was provided for each worker in '
; ' i
Which there was a page for each qualitative rating. The I
; I
rating job was to find a child who was most adequate in the ;
307 |
'dimension being rated (a rating of 1) and write his name in
l
I
[the rating form. Next a child who was least adequate in the
dimension being rated was located from the social worker's
interviews and his name was written in the rating form at
the other end of the distribution (a rating of 5). Next
other children who were comparable to the child given a
rating of 1 or a rating of 5 were located and they were
(listed accordingly. Then the social worker ordered the
remainder of the list in terms of whether the child was
|
closer to one end or the other of the distribution. After
the ratings were completed, the interview schedules were
reviewed and adjectives describing children who were given
ratings of 1, 3, and 5 were listed. From these adjectives
and the criteria developed at the beginning of the project,
the statements regarding criteria for each rating were com
pared and summarized. The ratings and their criteria fol-
low. |
1. Inferential judgment 1— Does this child have
serious physical problems? At this age level, the range of
ratings covered children with no history of serious illness S
' i
or accidents, plus an uneventful prenatal and developmental !
f
I
history, to a child with either or both a serious somatic i
history and present emotional disturbance. j
308
Rating (1) Best . oil most adequate in this dimension of
children seen.
i
I
Absences of somatic disturbance, past or pre
sent; healthy, eats and sleeps well. No ill
ness or accidents; never sick, never a cold;
no childhood diseases; plenty of energy.
I Rating (2): Past incidence of somatic disturbances but not
bothering the child at present.
Once lingering or chronic maladies such as
I ;
j bronchitis, ear trouble, sore throats, anemia, |
i
accidents possibly requiring a frustrating con-r
j :
valescence, or 1 accident perhaps requiring a
frustrating and prolonged treatment or bed
state clearly result of impetuousness or hyper--
: i
i I
activity. Possibly no after-effects, but these
I
could not be ruled out.
Rating (3); Averager typical, at median level or in be
tween best and poorest in this dimension.
Mild psychosomatic complaints or a history of
various disorders possibly not operative at
present. Allergies, asthma, bed wetting, ec
zema, sleepwalking, repeated eye operations,
removal of blemishes with protracted care;
usually a combination of minor disorders, or
Rating (4
j
Rating (5
1 highly active one, but fairly peripheral to
child's personality; early allergies; sleep
disturbance; early asthma; over-eating or fussy
about meals; fainting; accident prone; nail
biting; under- or overweight; visual difficul
ties; speech difficulties; chronic cold;
thumbsucking; psychosomatic; difficult preg
nancy .
: Children with 1 fairly prominent physical
symptom.
]
Accident prone; serious history of malnutri
tion or neglect, perhaps not present now.
: Poorest of cases seen, indicative of least
adequacy in this behavioral dimension. J
i
Grave physical disorder with concomitant emo
tional features. Tuberculosis with hospitali- :
zation, recent malnutrition, high anxiety,
i
weeping, fears, enuresis; speech defect; asth
ma; chronic tonsillitis; chronic ear trouble;
allergies, sleep problems; eating problems;
headaches; constipation; tics; numerous somaticl
• • \
symptoms, frequently ill; numerous severe con- j
tinuing congenital and physical problems. j
310
In summary, a (1) rating indicated general good
health and energy; a (2) suggested previous illnesses no
jlonger a problem. An average rating (3) indicated mild
present psychosomatic complaints, or serious health problems
in the past with some residuals. A (4) rating was limited
i
|to a present physical problem or a serious past problem such
|
las malnutrition, while a (5) suggested grave physical dis
orders with present disabilities or complications.
2. Inferential judgment 2— Does this child's de
velopment show deviant psychological patterns? This item 1
icovered a range from no evidence of adjustment problem to
clear evidence of such related factors as fighting, timid-
' i
ity, and immaturity. i
Rating (1): Best or most adequate in this dimension of |
children seen.
No problems; happy child, many interests, fam
ily close and proud of child; well adjusted '
child with accepting, interested parents; well
accepted by family, school and neighborhood;
a much wanted child; positive developmental j
i
history; absence of anything negative; compo-
I
i sure, self confidence.
i
Rating (2): Mild problems, well compensated for, or less
Rating (3
1
I
Rating (4
Rating (5
311 j
strength than child rated as optimal.
: Average, typical, at median level or in between
- best and poorest in this dimension.
Average in not being outstandingly free to
express hostility, but not being overwhelmed
by the need; some lack of healthy aggression;
some lack of confidence; over-protected; a
little too aggressive for consistent social j
|
approval, without being serious; parental as- j
pirations making for some present difficulty;
I
rigid mother, strict parents, high expecta- j
i
tions; divorce; family sex identification;
psychosomatic; lacks ability to compete.
!
; Less stability in the home, rejection and dis- j
cord reflected in child's behavior; dependent; i
some behavior problems; neurotic trends.
; Poorest of cases seen, indicative of least
adequacy in this behavioral dimension. j
Clear evidence of rejection by parents, hostil-i
I
ity, deprivation, or over-protection; withdrawn
and rejecting father, marital discord or di- j
I
vorce; mother alcoholic; sibling rivalry; er- j
ratic behavior, withdrawal, intropunitive;
j
overly aggressive; behavior problems; neurotic j
j 312 I
i
tendencies, excessive "hurt feelings"; jealousy;
attention seeking, dependent; clung to bottle
j
every night until 10 years old.
| i
In summary, a child rated (1) was happy, composed,
and confident; a rating of (2) covered the child with mild
problems which were not debilitating. An average rating
(3) suggested some chronic problem such as a lack of confi- ,
idence. The (4) rating indicated some neurotic trends, while!
I i
a (5) revealed severe behavior problems or neurotic tenden
cies . ' i
3. Inferential judgment 3— The social environment
is conducive to poor development. The home, the neighbor
hood, and the cultural values of the family were rated here.!
|
i
Standards of housekeeping, even though not extreme in either
direction, would be evaluated in terms of the total rating.
The parents' ability to adjust to the neighborhood with
their acceptance of it, or their ability to protect the j
!
child from its negative aspects were also important. Dif- |
ferences between the parents' values and those of the neigh
borhood, plus their perception of such values, were rated.
i |
(Cultural values were evaluated in.terms of the degree of
Intellectual ability or inclination of the parents, and the ;
' ' j
i
objectivity of their attitudes generally. !
Rating
Rating
Rating
Rating
Rating
313
(1): Best or most adequate in this dimension of
ciuiflreD seen.
Many activities; community interests; cultural
interests; adequate friends; happy in neighbor
hood; parents warm, average home; friends with
neighborhood; expectation within ability.
Above average housing and neighborhood; whole
some activities and associations.
(2): Minor problems in the home, insufficient number
of children for companions; neighborhood out of
phase with parental standards; parental stan
dards not quite being met by child.
(3): Average, typical, at median level or in between
best and poorest in this dimension.
Disinterest in cultural and intellectual val
ues; a disturbed child in the family; lack of
peers; isolated environment; some family acti
vities; small group of friends.
(4): Considerable conflict between parental stan
dards and environment; home not in keeping with
neighborhood; parents not acceptable to others.
(5): Poorest of cases seenP indicative of least
adequacy in this behavioral dimension.
Poor housing; no friends, no outside partici-
j 314
I
!
pation, isolation; alcoholism in home; lack of
I
| values; mother controls home; no outside asso-
j
ciation except with religious group; boy
i
doesn't like father; spotless home, no mess
allowed.
In summary, a rating of (1) indicated a wholesome
home environment, while (2) suggested no more than minor
i i
problems such as a neighborhood differing from parental
standards. An average rating (3) pointed to more serious
limitations in the environment, such as the absence of ;
friends. A (4) rating suggested environmental conflict,
for example, parents versus neighbors. A (5) rating indi
cated a disturbed home with such factors as alcoholism.
4. Inferential judgment 4— This is a family which
would produce a child with problems. This covered the de
gree to which a parent revealed composure, objectivity,
ability to set limits and give emotional support, general !
intelligence, and sufficient but not overpowering warmth. j
The above features were considered to lead to a balance be-
i !
tween conformity and independence, self reliance and accep-
tance of authority, individuality and sociability. Both j
; . i
iparents were rated either from direct observation or from i
! j
inferences made from 1 parent's interview responses, but the
315
presence of 1 very bad parent, particularly the principal
identification figure, would limit the rating.
Rating (1): Best or most adequate in this dimension of
children seen.
Close family, happy family, proud of child,
unity of goals; good marriage, family a unit,
easy give and take, understanding; child learns
well, gets along well with friends.
Rating (2): Mild disruption of family, such as occasional
absence of father; family expectations a bit
of a strain on the child.
Rating (3): Average, typical, at median level or in between
best and poorest in this dimension.
Expectations too high, mother rigid, rejects 1 !
s
child, parents strict; sibling problems, dis
organized home, divorce; low economic factors,
disinterest in school; repressive home; aver
age .
Rating (4): Family demands are excessive and limiting to
child; conflict in home; some illness which
Rating (5):
affects child.
Poorest of cases seen, indicative of least ade
quacy in this behavioral dimension.
Twin in special school, father a perfectionist;
pressure on child; inconsistent handling, mari-
I
tal discord? rejecting parent; extreme parental
conflict; illness, alcoholism; low cultural !
i
interest; child reveals paranoid attitudes like
father.
In summary, a (1) rating suggested a close, happy
family unit; a (2) rating indicated no more than mild family!
I
disruption, such as father's absence on his job. An average;
rating (3) suggested a more general family problem such as
i
emphasis on repression or over-strictness. A (4) rating
indicated family problems more directly limiting the child,
such as parental illness, while a (5) rating suggested a
combination of family problems which reflected on the child.;
5. Inferential judgment 5— This child has serious
personality problems. At the positive pole of this rating
were evidences of the child's ability in social adjustment,
the presence of specific talents or resourcefulness, and j
■ j
the absence of signs of pathology. j
Rating (1): Best or most adequate in this dimension of
children seen.
*
Self sufficiency, creative play, leadership,
i
good grades; happy, creative, many interests,
well liked, good self concept; friendly, warm;
Rating
Rating
Rating
Rating
317
working up to capacity; reasonable; expresses
feelings without guilt; extroverted without
being aggressive; good school achievement; ;
j
wholesome family and peer relationships.
(2): Inhibition or repression mildly blocking free
dom or self assurance. Excellent school suc
cess but some peer problems; not working up to
ability; over-values school success, straining
!
in this area.
(3): Average, typicalr at median level or in betweeq
best and poorest in this dimension.
Well rounded even with mild acting-out, or mild
nervousness. Personal discomfort but not par
ticularly disabling; self centered; does not
take enough responsibility; problem in sharing;
compulsive traits.
(4): Evidence of some maladjustment at home or at
school. Presence of psychosomatic symptoms;
|
destructive fantasies, fearfulness; acting-out i
behavior— chronic quick temper, poor sports-
i
manship, hypersensitivity; conflicts in some j
but not all areas of present existence.
(5): Poorest of cases seen, indicative of least j
adequacy in this behavioral dimension. j
! 318 ;
|
Extremes of acting-out or neurotic behavior.
[
J Chronic school adjustment problem; very frus
trating home situation, behind in school, no
friends; poor self concept, few friends, self
punitive, dreamer, belligerent; acting-out,
impulsive, uncontrolled, withdrawn, guilt-
ridden; many conflicts, paranoid tendencies;
psychosomatic ailments; either no areas without
conflicts, or such severe limitations in 1 or
! more areas that the child's strengths are of
little value.
In summary, a child rated (1) appeared to be friend
ly, interested, and well liked. A (2) rating suggested a
i :
i j
child mildly inhibited or repressed and otherwise adjusting
well. An average rating (3) indicates a child with some
personal discomfort or difficulty. A (4) rating suggested
| a child with more serious difficulties such as hypersensi
tivity or a number of conflicts. A (5) rating indicated a I
child showing extremes of neurotic behavior or a conduct
1 ■ ' |
disorder. j
i _ i
6. Inferential judgment 6— This child has school j
i
I
!
adjustment difficulties. This item called for a judgment j
on the part of the rater of the extent to which personality
! 319 !
I
jproblems such as noted above were invading school areas.
This involved some estimate of the interaction between
abilities (intelligence, work habits) and emotional prob-
]
;lems. One might well offset the other.
Rating (1): Best or most adequate in this dimension of
children seen.
Good achievement, friends, many interests, well
disciplined, outgoing. Polite, well behaved; 1
gets along with teacher, gets along with peers;:
bright, achieving; cooperative, friendly; can
j '
balance achievement and social life.
SRating (2): Some lopsidedness, such as minimizing school
achievement for friendships, or the reverse,
without serious limitations. Mild emotional |
problems balanced by school success, which
presumably minimizes noted problems; not work
ing up to full ability; slightly immature;
i
could improve in school adjustment, even though
i
better than most.
j
Rating (3): Average, typical, at median level or in between
best and poorest in this dimension. j
; ' 1
Mild, slightly limiting problems. Somewhat
shy, immature, restless, doesn't concentrate;
i
can be easily upset; competitive; lacks self
| discipline; withdrawn; average, in spite of
t such minor difficulties as noted above.
Rating (4): Problems noted above are more pervasive and j
j
limiting. More invasion of the above in school;
achievement.
Rating (5): Poorest of cases seenr indicative of least
adequacy in this behavioral dimension.
Unable to fit into school program. Unhappy,
i i
doesn't like school, no peer group; behavior
j
problems, teacher complaints; irrational; hits
I
i
I .
| other children without reason; not accepted by
■ i
peers, teased unmercifully; defenseless; a boy !
i who plays with girls; excels in studies at
I I
! great cost to other areas. I
i ~ !
I !
j
In summary, a (1) rating indicated good achievement ;
combined with social ("polite") behavior; a (2) rating sug
gested some slight lag, such as emphasis on 1 area of
! i
achievement at the expense of the other. An average rating 1
i |
;(3) indicated more mild, slightly limiting problems such as
| ’ i
inability to concentrate. A (4) rating suggested more ser-
1 !
jious problems, or a combination of problems. A (5) rating j
j
indicated a child obviously not accepted in school, such as
j
la bully or "teacher's pet."
321
: 7. Inferential judgment 7— This child has school
learning problems. This item could be based on reported
grades, but at this age level it also represented the summa
tion of 5 years' school experience. Gradations were based
on the social worker's estimated ability of the child and
how this compared to grades and to parents' expectations.
Rating (1): Best or most adequate in this dimension of
children seen.
Bright child doing well in school. Above aver
age? A's, double promoted; excellent grades,
parents pleased, working at capacity, above
grade; excels in learning, although lacking in
peer relationships; orientation is scholastic.
Rating (2): Average but working at capacity. Slightly lop
sided in school achievement; good reader but
slightly lagging elsewhere; constructive in
terests but not now doing as well as he might
in grade— may be a current minor -setback.
Rating (3); Average, typical, at median level or in between
best and poorest in this dimension.
No school problems. Average grades, parents
satisfied; somewhat disinterested; doing all
right but could do better; improving, slight
reading problem? children with this rating of
322 I
school learning problems ran a range from
i
| bright but not achieving, to above average, to
I average ability, average achievement, to slow,
but doing quite well.
Rating (4): School difficulties in certain areas. Distinct
l
trouble in reading, yet average grades; behind
grade but progressing; poor participation;
! can't focus on subject; could use help but I
manages to scrape along.
I
’ Rating (5): Poorest of cases seenP indicative of least
i adequacy in this behavioral dimension.
j Serious school problems. Not achieving in
spelling, reading, or arithmetic; achievement
j far below potential; below grade level, poor j
i !
grades; dull, little ability; grade retention
without any improvement; getting remedial help
i
but no notable effect; very poor cooperation |
| . |
and achievement in school.
: ■ j
In summary, a child rated (1) was doing well in
school and pleasing his parents; a rating of (2) indicated
1 i
[a child with a slightly uneven school achievement; an aver-
I .
age rating (3) suggested an average child with nothing
i
ispecial in his achievement. A rating of (4) indicated j
clear school difficulties, such as inadequate participation
and poor achievement, while a (5) rating indicated a child
with serious school problems such as achievement far below
I
potential.
APPENDIX C
CRITERIA FOR PSYCHIATRISTS' OBSERVATIONS
AND INFERENTIAL JUDGMENTS
APPENDIX C
CRITERIA FOR PSYCHIATRISTS' OBSERVATIONS
AND INFERENTIAL JUDGMENTS
Psychiatric Observational Judgments
and Their Criteria
The following observations were made by the psychia
trists during their interviews with the children. These
are the major portion of the observational data suggested
by the Department of Psychiatry of the University of Cali
fornia at Los Angeles in their child psychiatry project.
iThe list includes samples of behavior which can readily be
evaluated during the interview or immediately afterwards.
The list of specific observations and their criteria fol
lows. The reader will note that many of these behavior
characteristics may overlap and possibly cannot be consid
ered discrete aspects of observation.
A. Healthy versus unhealthy
Healthy: peppy, active, energetic, strong, good
color, full of verve.
325
j 326 '
!
| Unhealthy: weak, pale, fatigued, sluggish; clumsy,
j
j strabismus, hearing problems; asthma, ec
zema; stuttering; poor coordination.
A child would be rated as unhealthy when his functioning
is definitely affected by such factors.
jB. Unusual physical characteristics (present or absent)
In general terms, blemishes, birthmarks, stage of sexual
development; unusual build (fat vs. thin, tall vs.
I short); teeth deformities; unusual hair or coloring.
The presence of unusual physical characteristics would
be noted for a child who markedly differs from his peers
i
through 1 of the above factors to a point that his
; functioning is likely to be affected. j
C. Hyperactive versus passive
Hyperactive: restless, short attention span, hyper
kinesis, agitation, gesticulation, im
pulsiveness, shifting ideas, rapid speech.!
: i
Passive: reticence, lacking spontaneity, overcon-
trolled, sluggish, docile, amenable,
pliant, inhibited.
i • :
JD. Anaer and resentment (much demonstrated, some evident, j
| none evident) j
j i
; When this behavior was rated, the psychiatrist noted i
327
critical, jealous, complaining, bitter behavior, long
standing grudges, tantrums, lying and deception and de
structive characteristics. The absence of this trait
would be noted in cases of understanding, insightful,
empathic, transient complaining, good natured, cheerful,
perhaps even repressed behavior.
Inappropriate versus appropriate sexual identification.
Inappropriate: wants to be someone else, plays with
cosmetics in toy kit (boy), effeminate,
passive.
Appropriate: boys talk of male role and goals; warm
attachment to parent of same sex; iden
tification with positive admiration of
parent.
Advanced versus retarded speech.
Advanced: clear, well enunciated speech; highly verbal,
large vocabulary.
Retarded: lisp, slurred enunciation, omissions and sub
stitutions, baby talk, infantile speech,
primitive levels of speech.
Child's skill at verbalizing.
i
]
This trait was rated by the psychiatrists from (a) talks!
not at all, to (b) talks about things in an indirect or ;
328
restricted way, to (c) talks freely.
Grown-up versus childish behavior.
Grown-up: secure, self confident, age-appropriate be
havior and thoughtful.
Childish: immature, demanding, low frustration toler
ance, much self reference, sucks thumb,
weepy.
Obedient versus rebellious.
Obedient: conforming, responsible, conscientious,
controlled, quick to follow implied in
structions; respectful, grateful, admiring.
Clinging vine, trusting, docile, shy,
spineless, meek.
Rebellious: disguised aggressiveness, doesn't like
school or rules, stubborn, rages, antagon
istic, hostile, independent, selfish,
boastful.
Child's reaction to psychiatrist (on a 5-point scale
from strongly positive to strongly negative).
Strongly positive: friendly, at ease, warm, reserved,
empathic.
Strongly negative: anaclitic, parasitic, possessive,
exploitive, agape.
329
Psychiatrist's reaction to child (on a 5-point scale
from strongly positive to strongly negative).
Strongly positive: a charmer, little princess, senses
adult needs, smoothly verbalizes
middle class standards, balance be
tween self interest and interest in
others, not a prig, able to stand up
for self, yet thoughtful, tries to
please, sunny, cheerful, bright,
alert, independent, friendly.
Strongly negative: provocative, demanding, exploitive,
possessive, parasitic, intrusive,
infantile, hostile.
Above average to below average intelligence.
Above average: bright, verbal, curious, insightful,
well-rounded, range of ideas, logical,
impersonal, practical, precocious, wide
interests, rich fantasies, well-rounded I
vocabulary
Below average: dull, immature, concrete, distractible,
impoverished, limited.
Outstanding to failing school achievement. i
Outstanding: bright, curious, ambitious, loves to read,;
330
motivated, wide interests, high grades,
loves school.
Failing: reading disability, has failed, preoccu
pied with worries, restless, distractible,
acts out, negative, infantile, poor
grades.
Psychiatrists1 confidence that judgments are accurate
versus inaccurate.
Accurate judgments: sharp, clear pattern of behavior;
child verbalizes readily, does
not withhold, shows clear diag
nostic signs or an absence of any
diagnostic sign; an example of
clearly anxious, fearful or hos
tile behavior versus an example
of clearly bright, achieving and
without problems.
|
Inaccurate judgments: vague, withholding, non-confid
ing, mildly suspicious or appre
hensive, seems brighter than
gives out, seems preoccupied but
i
doesn't tell about himself, mixed
i
symptoms, not too bright or too
331
achieving, confused picture from
available information.
0. Great to poor capacity for psychological improvement.
Great capacity: parental attitudes most crucial, anx
ious, dissatisfied with self and ready
for change, intelligent, reasonable,
relates well and would be a good pros
pect for therapy if problems develop.
Poor capacity: developmental lag, organic deficiency,
psychological rigidity, low socio
economic status, too narcissistic to
attach to others, indirect satisfaction
from symptoms, frustrating home en
vironment, irreparable loss, character
problems not easily molded.
P. Number of symptoms observed.
In this rating the psychiatrist simply noted any symp
toms which appeared during the interview. The check
list included the following items: nail biting, tics,
speech disorders, posture, mannerisms, compulsivity,
fearfulness, awkwardness, hyperactivity, restlessness, j
i
distractibility, impaired attention, accident proneness,i
others.
332
Psychiatrists' Inferential or Qualitative
Judgments and Their Criteria
Following the 16 items summarized above, the
i
psychiatrist rated each child on a 5-point scale from pre
diction of good adjustment to poor adjustment (1 to 5) on 7
different items requiring a more qualitative or inferential
(rather than a quantitative, factual or objective) rating.
The psychiatrist was requested to place at least 1 name in
each of the 5 steps from excellent to very poor adjustment.
iBeyond this degree of forcing, which appeared defensible
since the pupils were sampled from all levels of school
jadjustment, there was no requirement for distributing the
children seen in a normal or any other a priori distribu-
i
j
jtion.
; The interview was initially summarized and coded on
j
the Interview Schedule where specific physical character
istics such as height, weight, and grooming, and behavioral
aspects such as quality of verbalization or expression of
' '
jhostility, could be rated as indicated previously. These
t
jratings plus additional notes about the child proved help
ful to the psychiatrist when the qualitative judgments were |
jto be made . |
i j
The initial step in making the qualitative judgments!
333
involved an over-all or implicit "averaging" of the children
seen, and a search for a key "best" and "worst" child who
jcould serve as prototypes for extreme ratings. With these
I :
las base lines, a ranking of all the children could be made.
The following lists the qualitative judgments made
by psychiatrists and the criteria for each rating. These
Icriteria statements were developed by summarizing the cri
teria each psychiatrist used in making each rating. The
criteria used in rating the project pupils were remarkably
comparable from clinician to clinician; thus the clinical
process can be replicated by the use of the study procedures
as well as the following criteria for psychiatric qualita-
I
tive judgments of the fifth grade pupils who were seen.
1. Inferential rating 1— This child is comfortable
i :
j
iwith himself. To be comfortable with himself a child is
expected to be at ease with his own impulses, so that he can
| :
jrelease them appropriately in acceptable channels, and con- i
jtrol them as necessary. He accepts his own abilities, and
j
j
at this age would have a record of some accomplishment upon
jwhich he can base an evaluation of himself. He has a sense |
> i
[of self as an individual, and is aware of his own distin- j
j |
jguishing characteristics. About these he does not feel in
ferior, depressed, or resentful. He can draw from the above!
334
characteristics a sense of strength so that he is able to
face reality situations, both internal and external, without
being overwhelmed.
Rating (1): Best or most adequate in this dimension of
children seen.
Sure, confident, secure; inquisitive, respon
sive, ambitious, resourceful; polite, thought
ful, pleasant, sense of humor, confiding, re-
| ;
lates warmly, well-rounded, mature; objective
i
| about life experiences; weighs how to present
J herself; admits he is teased, and "teases
! back."
[Rating (2): Cooperative, polite, but some reserve; happy,
! .
| hard working, strains to do something well;
i outgoing and creative, energetic, slowly ac-
i
cepting family's move in the case of 1 child;
I relaxed, curious, tells of father's war record ;
; i - i
with some slight discomfort which seems in con-!
! trast to other behavior; some tension, but
i 3
j
gradually overcome.
gating (3): Average, typical, at median level or in between!
j best and poorest of cases seen. i
l f
i '
i i
! Conventional aims; superficial; controls others’
’ i
by charm; self-conscious and tense, emulating
335
I an older sibling, has not set own goals; fears
j
| and complains but faced open and honestly;
strains to make a good impression, needs re
assurance; nostalgia for past, not happy at
present in spite of some achievement; feels
inferior and insecure, but can point to real
! accomplishment in class; a little depressed
| but could smile and reflect on what to talk
i about; pleasant, tended to evade questions;
j
| bland, didn't know what was going on, holding
I
| out.
Rating (4): Pleasant but slow, had given up in school;
I
I
! § f
j constrictions, worries, sets very high stan-
I
! dards and resents his failure to meet them;
! claims he had to improve in all subjects, but
didn't like to study; life dull, nothing to do
i
I
jRating (5): Poorest of cases seen, indicative of least
adequacy in this behavioral dimension.
! Depressed, sad, feels deprived; lonely, feels
; unlovable, a "nobody"; poor self image, deep
concern regarding self; hypochondriacal, feels
!
I
damaged; turns hostility inward, worrisome,
tense, threatened, uneasy, overwhelmed; hos-
336
| tile, greedy, deep guilt, acute discomfort,
inhibited, ashamed of background? failing in
school, problems with parents.
To summarize, a child who showed little difficulty
in coping with external and internal reality, who had ac-
icomplished something he was proud of, and was secure about
j
jhimself would be rated a (1). Where there were minor diffi-
i
jculties but the child still managed fairly well in spite of
|occasional anxiety or other such factors, a rating of (2)
Iwould be given. Children who had no special sense of self
or of attainment, yet no real decompensation, or who were
i
J
not handling some aspect as well as they might, would be
irated (3). Children showing signs of being unable to moder-i
I |
late the demands of external and internal reality, with pro- !
|
inounced difficulty in 1 or more areas, but still managing
others, who revealed neurotic symptoms regarding their self
i ;
jconcept, would be rated (4). A rating of (5) suggested
[ |
gross decompensation in many areas, or overwhelming symp-
i ;
toms such as depression or hostility, with limited ability
to cope with his own feelings, and with a very negative selfj
jconcept.
! ■'
j 2. Inferential rating 2— This child is comfortable 1
with others. To be comfortable with others, a child should!
337
be able to relate readily in the interview situation and to
the psychiatrist. Further, there should be evidence of good
jrelationships with friends, teachers, and family. The
jquality of reactions to authority figures as compared to
peers is important to assess. The child who is comfortable
with others is fairly comfortable with himself. He needs
others, but is not excessively dependent upon them. He has
(some awareness of himself in comparison with his peers, so
that he can realistically assess his relationships, and his
successes, as he competes and works with others. He is not
overwhelmed by others nor intolerant of them. Authority is
|accepted and identified with, and the child of this age
I ;
reveals a growing awareness of his ability to meet standard^
set for him.
Rating (1): Best or most adequate in this dimension of
children seen.
Spontaneous, expressive, loquacious, outgoing,
' I
friendly, relates, trusting, confident? commu-
; nicative, assertive, poised, secure, perfec-
tionistic, considerate, loves to do things for
i •
people? at ease with authority and peers, turns
aggressive feelings inward? has many friends, i
i ;
Rating (2): Many friends, even likes siblings, friendly
338
and competitive; initial tension gradually
relaxed; almost too comfortable in interview;
' relaxed with others, has given up striving;
I
j accomplished, cooperative but feels a little
i
guilty; outgoing, comfortably polite, intelli
gent, free to complain about authority; much
i ability but standards and aspirations may be
i
| overly high, blocking effective relationships
! and attainments.
Hating (3): Average, typical, at median level, or in be
tween best and poorest of cases seen.
j !
j Charming but excessively polite; superficially
friendly; tense striving for friends; many
! ■
l friends but refuses to complete work for teach-
i ;
| er; initially uncomfortable, but slowly gaining;
in ease; quiet, a bit suspicious, and self con
tained; mild fears not incapacitating, tends toj
: i
overcompensate in sports; fairly realistic but |
n6t secure, needs encouragement; a prima donna,
wants to be superior to others; breezy; relates
i
pleasantly, puts most effort into winning i
j j
| friends, accommodating. j
i ;
Hating (4): Adjusts only to peers, lacks discipline,
339
pleasure oriented; feels inferior and unaccept
ed by others; strains to make an impression;
can't recognize successes.
jRating (5): Poorest of cases seen, indicative of least
| adequacy in this behavioral dimension.
Too obsequious, only superficially friendly;
i
fears criticism from others; seclusive, with-
j
I
t drawn, different; uncooperative, stubborn, in
| trouble, tight lipped; acutely uncomfortable,
| anxious, defeated; hard to know; inscrutable;
I ;
confused, unable to relate; physically handi
capped, resented it and felt inferior; asso
ciated only with much younger children, un-
i |
| successful with authority; hostile, paranoid;
effeminately flirtatious; erotic; stuffed
shirt; pressured; unattractive, unpleasant;
whispering; excessive giggling; overly compli-
I 4
1 ant; excessive shyness; counter aggression;
| enigmatic; utterly defeated.
To summarize, a child who related readily to adults
and peers, had friends, was able to do things for people
freely and with pleasure, was trusting, yet poised and se
cure, was considerate, but reasonably assertive would be
340
rated a (1). Where relationships were favorable, but at
some cost to the child, such as giving up striving, or some
guilt; where the child related with 1 group at the expense
of the other, such as stressing friendships over meeting
the demands of authority; or stressing friendships much less
f
Ithan achievements and in other ways showing a lack of bal
ance, a rating of (2) would be given. Middle (3) ratings
I |
{suggested the presence of some difficulties in relationships
i :
jwhich could be compensated for, such as a tense striving for
I
jfriends, or inability to trust people, but no great diffi-.
i
jculty within interpersonal relationships or an excessive
i
need for encouragement. Children rated at (4) were those
i !
I ;
|who were showing a decided asymmetrical development in this I
i !
i !
larea, such as adjusting only to peers and in conflict with
t ;
I
authority; feeling generally inferior and unaccepted; con
stantly straining to make an impression. Ratings of (5)
suggested severe problems in all areas involving relation- j
I
ships— children who were seclusive, acutely uncomfortable,
j :
able to relate only to much younger children, or utterly
defeated.
3. Inferential rating 3— This is a child with ser-j
I
ious learning difficulties. The child without serious
I ’ J
I ‘ i
ilearning difficulties is the child who is endowed with goodj
341
intelligence, had profited from his earlier education, is
free from the incapacitating efforts of emotional problems,
and is oriented toward achievement in scholastic areas.
i !
jDif ficulties in any of the above would limit a child's
j
learning. At this age level, children are able to describe
itheir school successes and failures, and have some concept
|
!of their school role.
Rating (1): Best or most adequate in this dimension of
children seen.
Bright, superior, got all A's, liked school,
in top 10 of class; plans to go to college,
wants to be a scientist, ambitious, well moti
vated; wide reader, goal directed, identifies
with parents, perfectionistic, curious, spon
taneous, vital; verbal; family backs his ambi
tions .
i
SRating (2): Mother's standards high, but child is objective
! about them; proud of school work, wins approval
| through it; very imaginative, needs to improve;
very cooperative, a few troubles; school and
| sports equally stressed.
! . i
jRating (3); Average, typical, at median levelP or in be- I
j tween best and poorest in this dimension. j
Conscientious, polite and cooperative, lacks
342
ambition; not too interested in school; worried
about tests and marks through fear of punish-
! ment; family bribes him for good grades; mental
i
| energy being drained during family crises;
bland and guarded, no particular output; good
i school citizen, doing his job; defensive smart
ness; struggling to succeed; well defended;
effective controls.
Rating (4): Not performing well in school, undisciplined,
\
hates to study. Slow in school, not ambitious;
too anxious to be liked to concentrate well;
dull; upsets teachers by not working, unrealis
tic rebellion; held back for speech defect, not
bright and also feels realistically deprived;
decompensating, poor reader, restricted by
family for poor grades; doesn't know how she is
| doing in school, evasive, energy drained in I
other areas; very anxious; needs excessive at-
i
' tention and reassurance to perform; cannot con-
I centrate.
|
Rating (5); Poorest of cases seen, indicative of least |
adequacy in this behavioral dimension.
Performance far less than estimated
| intelligence; too concrete, sluggish, distract-
| able; inhibited, withdrawn, unlike others; out
cast; dazed and confused, had to be led to the
office; a sitdown striker, refusing to perform;
in need of mothering; psychosexual confusion,
troubled identification; severe reading dis
ability; history of failure, average, dull;
severely neurotic; preoccupied, attention di
verted by mother's divorce.
In summary, to be without serious learning diffi
culties, a child should be intelligent, oriented toward
achievement, verbal and energetic (1). When behavior was
less goal oriented, for example, a child working for grades
1
br approval primarily, or when he had not internalized such
achievement needs, or when minor troubles did intrude some
what, a rating of (2) was given. A child not too interested
jin school, or working mainly through fear of punishment, or
lacking much ambition, doing no more than necessary of aver-
i
hge ability, or held to average because of a.current emo
tional problem was rated (3). A dull child, slow in school,
junambitious, or a child whose achievement was oriented to-
i
yard winning attention and reassurance only, with no intern
alized goals, or a child with considerable anxiety limiting
I 344
i
!
iconcentration, or a child with a decided learning block such
|as a poor reader, was rated (4). A rating of (5) was re
served for children who appeared dull, who were concrete in
attitude, sluggish and distractible, seriously inhibited and
withdrawn, dazed and confused, in serious rebellion against
school, or with a history of pronounced school failure.
4. Inferential rating 4— This is a child with ser
ious behavior problems. A child without serious behavior
problems is a child whose behavior is acceptable in the
school, on the playground, and at home. Consequently, be
havior which would have neurotic overtones might not be
judged negatively in this setting. Withdrawn or immature
behavior per se might not be considered terribly serious.
The absence of behavior problems would suggest a
child who is friendly and accepting of others and of their
demands. Such a child stands up for his own needs without
coming into serious conflict with his environment and he is
able to balance his needs against those of others. A child
who is achieving success in his activities both at school
and at home, a child who has a spread of interests and hob
bies, a child who identifies with and respects his parents
probably has a few behavior problems.
Rating (1
Rating (2
Rating (3
i
345 i
): Best or most adequate in this dimension of
children seen.
Quiet, controlled, studious; nice, polite, lov
ing disposition; highly motivated, successful,
goal oriented; inhibited, colorless; stuffed
shirt; tries to impress; hobbies, close to
parents; well sublimated, good parental models;
no outlet for aggression; covers naughtiness.
): Sublimates into music as an outlet at the ex
pense of sports; prankish, amusing, controlled;;
is able to verbalize frustrations; sublimates
rebellion and dissatisfactions in art; shy,
modest child, almost neurotic in her over
conforming behavior; active, hard working,
pleasant; inventive, cooperative, accepts limi
tations; likes to help.
I: Average, typical, at median level or in between
best and poorest in this dimension. j
I
Tractable; conventional, liked by peers; in
hibited; over-conforming and over-polite; ex
presses frustration openly, not a problem child
but one with limited assets; depressed and con
stricted; wants to be accepted, worries a lot; i
neurotic fear about expressing aggression; j
Rating
Rating
J
346
adjusts quite well, but under strain; concern
about others; expresses self through passive-
aggressive outlets (e.g. fails to finish work);
i
lacks drive, prefers to stay at home; can be
exasperating and provocative; fears rejection
from misbehavior, pays a price for friends;
nice, much denial; controlling, compensating.
(4): Competitive hostility; distrustful, angry,
would fight to be first; neurotic fear of ex
ploding, struggles to stay calm; pre-conscious
resentment; depressed with no sources of
gratification; hostility and desire to rebel
plus unrealistically pleasure oriented; tense,
prima donna.
(5): Poorest of cases seen, indicative of least
adequacy in this behavioral dimension.
Identifies with aggression; angry, resentful,
fights; asocial; weak, unstructured anger; !
seductive, sexually stimulated; stubborn; a
boy with no masculine models, suggestible, a
"weak sister," resentment due to frustration |
i
and neglect; no school successes. j
In summary, the absence of behavior problems implied
347
a child who had many gratifications, little frustration, and
|
(good controls? who liked people and knew how to get along
f -
With them, and was rated (1).
A child with fewer gratifications or more frustra
tions or less adequate controls; one who sublimated diffi
culties into a single area rather than having free access to
several areas, one whose frustrations were at least readily
verbalized, one who avoided behavior problems by control to i
(the point of excess, was rated (2) .
I
j Children at the midpoint (3) were tractable, lik
able, and conventional. One might get the impression that
there was a feeling of strain to conform in some children.
I
(Others limited their behavior to being covert or passive-
j
aggressive, such as foot-dragging or dawdling in doing
i
chores. Others tended to withdraw and thus avoid problems.
A rating of (4) indicated behavior problems in some
preas; inability to establish adequate outlets for feelings,;
so that explosions were always being warded off? constant i
idepression? hostility which was not controlled; or a striv
ing to be first by fair means or foul.
The (5) rating suggested an angry, resentful, ag
gressive, fighting youngster? a weak, suggestible youngster '
i
who could not avoid trouble? a chronically unsuccessful
I 348
ichiId who would be driven to find success in unacceptable
i
l
jways; or a seductive, sexually stimulated youngster sure to
act out in this area.
5. Inferential rating 5— This child needs help.
A child who does not need help is comfortable with himself
and with others, has no learning problems nor behavioral
problems. Therefore, a balancing of the judgments made for
the first 4 ratings was employed here in judging the need
ifor intervention. The psychiatrist rates children in cate-
jgory 1 and 2 as needing no help, thus capable of solving
their own problems. Children in category 3 have minor prob
lems which should yield readily to intervention, while
jchildren in category 4 and 5 reveal problems calling for
I
j :
'immediate help of some intensity. Category 4 suggests a
relatively limited problem with some areas of adequate func
tioning, while category 5 suggests fairly pervasive problems
i
Iwhich are generally limiting. ;
Rating (1): Best or most adequate in this dimension of
i children seen.
Good self concept, sure of self, many friends, j
j
j gratifications, accomplished, bright, mature; j
realistic, balanced, secure; defenses working
i i
i
well; brave, aggressive; happy; successful at
Rating
1
Rating
349 i
school, in sports, with family; not offensive
in striving.
(2): Likable; successful and ambitious, accepts
parents' problems looking forward to future,
has resolved some problems; relatively success
ful, a bit concerned at others' attitudes;
actively living the life of a fifth grader;
skillful in communicating and listening; diffi
culty in figuring out parents, but likes them;
relaxed, curious, involved in interview; ambi
tious, tense, fair marks in school, gradually
relaxed.
(3): Average, typical, at median level or in between
best and poorest in this dimension.
Expects relatively little; contented; color
less, inhibited, protected; average; good re
bellion; covering up, struggling neurotic be
havior; specific help needed; slight reading
block, perhaps family goals too high; needs
assistance to express resentment more realistic
cally; nice, striving for adequacy, but a few
specific fears to be resolved; shy, longs for
closer contact with mother; relaxed but too
350
pleasure-oriented, needs more frustration tol
erance; school problem but has mastered some
difficulties.
Rating (4): Serious problems, concerned over place in
family, insecure passive-aggressive conflict
with parents, openly aggressive with peers;
fears can be reinforced and leave child with
considerable guilt; emotionally deprived and
limited energy, anxious about displeasing and
wants help; insecure because mother is ill, and
may not get good grades in school; extremely
dependent; examination anxiety;- has given up
hope and is fixating at an immature level;
bitter, limited endowment; lack of trust, sus- 1
picious, resentful, internalized difficulties;
seeks proper identifications; reading problem. |
SRating (5): Poorest of cases seenf indicative of least
adequacy in this behavioral dimension. j
Child must have help in order to function
properly; severe neurotic reactions, family
not a source of help; confused, weak, excessive
I
j
denial; sad, depressed, lonely, a nobody; al- j
i
most psychotic; acute discomfort, withdrawn,
depressed, resentful; deprived background,
insecure; incapacitating perfectionism; too
obedient, lacking any spontaneity; preoccupied
i
j by own fantasy; overwhelming conscience (super
ego); inadequately developed conscience (leni
ent superego); poor sexual identity, effemi-
i
nate, homosexual tendencies; homicidal; dis-
! turbed affect; love greedy; severe neurotic
conflicts; severe tics and mannerisms; tension
j with outlets.
In summary, children rated at (1) were accomplished,
j • :
confident, and secure. Children at level (2) had no more
i
|than minor problems which they could solve themselves.
I !
I
Children rated as average (3) would profit from short term
help. Children at level (4) had serious problems which
limited their adjustment. This might be a chronic immatur
ity, a severe learning problem, specific fears or anxieties:
! * i
jsuch as examination anxiety. A (5) fating was reserved for !
i ;
severe problems either widespread and generalized or of in
capacitating intensity.
j 6. Inferential rating 6 — This child has appropri- j
i |
jate contact with and relationship to reality. To have
appropriate contact with and relationship to reality, a
352
child by grade five should have the ability to judge appro
priately, to think through problems, to anticipate the fu-
Iture, and to postpone gratifications. One learns this from
j
parents who approach reality realistically.
Rating (1): Best or most adequate in this dimension of
children seen,
i ' ■
Ability to appraise and discuss problems; ori
ented to achievement; enjoys mastery of self
I
J
I and environment in school, sports, etc.; seri
ously sets goals for athletic excellence with--
i
i
j out neglecting school or social areas; social
j
| poise; masterful; perceptive; ambitious; de
fenses working smoothly and flexibly.
i
Rating (2): Accomplishes a lot, aware of problems but care-i
, ful as a result; stresses mastery of reality
i
in school play, future; ambitious to be an
engineer, wonders about possibilities of suc
cess, but trying; secure, presents self well, 1
stresses reality, for example, getting home
work completed; almost too ambitious, but care^
ful in evaluating own productions; challenged; |
! . i
I stresses mastery, evolving an "intellectual" j
I j
I ;
I ,
I image.
Rating
t
i
i
jRating
353
(3): Average, typicalP at median level or in between
best and poorest in this dimension.
Knows his limitations; some over-striving; at
times regressive, escapist; honest, active,
trying, focused; has to adjust to mother work
ing and to school problem, can handle feelings
without decompensating; wants a career but not
too realistic about it; doesn't care for
school, merely follows orders; pleasure orient-i
ed but parents help with school work; realistic
but participates no more than necessary; compe
tition with excessive underlying anger; focuses
on problems, has school problems but realistic
about the future; too comfortable, not ques-
i
i
tioning, or striving enough; upset about real
ity.
(4): Gifted but too intense, can't focus on master- |
ing reality comfortably; fearful, anxious aboutj
external world, projection of internal con
flict; immature, a weak ego; has given up in
school because of neurotic conflict; constrict-;
|
ed relationships because of anxiety and lack !
of structuring; failure in school exaggerates
354
I poor socialization; sees environment as bleak
and withdraws, fails to strive in own behalf.
Rating (5): Poorest of cases seen, indicative of least ade
quacy in this behavioral dimension.
1 Preoccupied, poor attention, odd, out of con
tact; confusion; so withdrawn from reality that
I
nothing reaches him; distorts popularity with
! peers; daydreams excessively; chaotic, dis-
i ;
turbed; breaking down; school unrewarding,
j
I family no help, defenses failing; bitter, de
pressed, withdrawn investment in world; hos-
| tile.
In summary, a child in good contact with reality
i
I could cope with and enjoy mastering problems in his environ-
j :
iment, and was rated (1). Children rated (2) were a bit less
successful in mastery but still oriented purposefully.
jChildren rated (3) tended to know their abilities and limi-
i ;
I i
Stations, but were not always realistic in their approach to
problems. Lower ratings were given to children who were not
jfree to master problems comfortably. Thus, children who
suffered from neurotic conflict, were unrealistic in evalu-
|
i !
jating themselves and their problems, or were not free to
iachieve were rated (4). Children who were withdrawn from
355 i
the world, or who seriously distorted their view of it were
rated (5).
]
7. Inferential rating 7— This is a child with a
generally poor school adjustment. Generally good school
adjustment implies a child who is academically successful
and whose behavior is acceptable to those around him. Dif
ficulties in either of the above areas— or both— would limit
i !
.school adjustment. Behavior problems might reflect a cur
rent reality crisis, such as an illness or divorce within
|
the family, or a long-standing problem, such as intense
sibling rivalry. Learning, by the same token, might be
limited by poor endowment, neurotic adjustment, or a family
Iwhich did not offer adequate models for the child. i
| ' I
jRating (1): Best or most adequate in this dimension of
children seen.
i
I
Bright, curious, creative, ambitious, motivat-
i i
; ed, interested; perfectionistic, precocious, !
! 1
I
a reader, a thinker, pseudo-mature; controlled,!
| i
well balanced, socially aware, attractive to
teachers and peers; identifies well; subli-
J mates successfully; scholar, athlete, family
support.
Rating (2): Outgoing, friendly, desperate to make something
bating (3
i
i
356 ;
of herself; bright, confident, mischievous but
repents; channels energy into worthwhile acti
vities; sports emphasized over school, but a B
student; likeable, some conflict over aggres
sion; motivated to make a good impression.
: Average, typical, at median level or in between
poorest and best in this dimension.
Not too good in school but parents are con
cerned; minor school trouble but improving and
still likes school; needs to be jacked up aca- j
i
demically only; not outgoing or a joiner but
no real problems; competitiveness under con
trol; motivated in school by external threats;
|
polite, not drifting, but poor in reading; no
drive toward school, but urged on by family;
anxiety about school but good school achieve
ment; uncomfortable socially, but gifted and
trying in school; not ambitious, takes life as j
it comes; participates but not emotionally
free; likeable, trying; well behaved, some
covering up; defensive denial; sublimating;
self contained; superficially friendly, de
fended.
357 |
Rating (4): Passive-aggressive in class, frustrates the
teacher; pleasant, tries to be agreeable, but
far behind in school work; deprived background,
failing, has almost given up; frustration tol-
i j
I erance much too low for age.
jRating (5): Poorest of cases seen, indicative of least
| adequacy in this behavioral dimension.
|
j Hostile, depressed, confused; reading disabili-;
I !
ty, needs attention and affection, acting out;
! dull, fears criticism; has failed in school anc}
athletics, parents won't help; anxious, un-
I attractive to peers; rivalrous, paranoid,
obese; pleasure oriented, asocial, resentful;
i !
i . j
j passive-aggressive, stubborn, no friends; de- j
J |
| pendent, frightened, not free to achieve in
j
school.
| :
i
| A child without a problem in school adjustment was
|an achieving, successful, popular child and was rated (1).
;
|A child with somewhat less success in either the learning,
I ;
athletic or social areas, but with no real problem, was
rated (2). A child rated at level (3) was less popular,
only average in school achievement, and had fewer successes
I
iin sports or school. Ratings of (4) and (5) were reserved
for actual problems such as severe learning disability,
serious neurotic behavior problems, and a history of fail-
|
ures in school. Thus, a (4) rating suggested a child unable;
i
to tolerate frustration sufficiently to do well in school or
socially. A rating of (5) suggested pervasive problems both
J
jin school and social relationships, so that the child had
I
almost no successes to count upon.
APPENDIX D
CRITERIA FOR PSYCHOLOGISTS' OBSERVATIONS
DURING TEST ADMINISTRATION
AND INFERENTIAL JUDGMENTS
APPENDIX D
I
i
i
I CRITERIA FOR PSYCHOLOGISTS' OBSERVATIONS
DURING TEST ADMINISTRATION
j
AND INFERENTIAL JUDGMENTS
|
j
| Psychologists 1 Incidental Test
Observations and Criteria
The interview procedure used in this project re
quired the psychologist to code a number of clinical obser
vations as absent, present, or present to a marked degree.
These clinical impressions were based on a check list de
veloped by Glasser and Zimmerman (1961) and used the follow
ing criteria:
A. Attitude toward the examiner
1'. Shyness. Shyness can be observed in the
child's holding back from responding to the examiner, even
i ' ■
jafter a period of getting acquainted. A certain degree of
i
jreserve, especially in the initial period of contact, is a
normal sign in school-age children, and, in fact, should be
361 ;
expected as an indication of good adjustment. However, when
this persists to the point of limiting response, problems
jare indicated. Is the examiner seen as a threatening adult?;
j '
[By analogy, does this suggest a tendency to see adults
i
j
(parent, teacher) as frightening or demanding? In the
classroom such a child will presumably need constant atten-
i
jtion and urging to respond. In rare cases extreme shyness
I
[represents a severe withdrawal, indicating that the child is
no longer in contact with those around him; in these in
stances other behavioral signs of disturbance are prominent.;
2'. Brashness. The child's approach to the exam
ining situation and the examiner may be brash or even ag-
i
gressive, with behavior directed against the material, the
i
i
examiner, or both. Grabbing material, bending or drawing
on the cards, tossing things roughly on the table, all sug-
j
gest notable uncontrolled behavior which can be expected to j
i j
carry over into other settings as well. Impertinent ques- |
I
tioning of the examiner ("You tell me. the answer 1"), refusal;
tto remain seated during the test, answering back, and other
I :
such inappropriate reactions indicate an inability to re
strain behavior, and a tendency to act out negative feel- !
ings. This sort of behavior in the classroom can lead to i
I . :
^ejection of the child by others, which in turn serves as a !
362 I
further impetus to retaliatory acting out on his part.
Differentiating between reactions directed toward examiner
i i
|Or material can be helpful in determining the way in which
1 i
j • :
the child directs his aggressive feelings. Aggression
directed against the self may also be noted.
3'. Dependency. A role often reflecting simple
j
'immaturity or retardation, but often indicating emotional
| :
jproblems as well, is that of great dependency on the exami-
i
jner. The child calls out for constant reassurance, or pre-
I ;
sents each response hesitantly or interrogatively, waiting
Ifor approval before daring to continue. This presents a
sharp contrast to the self-reliant and independent behavior
expected at different age levels. An important clue to
dependency is the degree of active participation in the
iexamination, such as returning material to the box inde
pendently, or at the examiner's suggestion or example. A
lack of initiative in this direction, after the examination i
j
is under way, suggests passivity, immaturity, and possible
I !
i :
janxiety relating to authority figures (doing nothing to
I I
lavoid doing something wrong). Dependency can be a factor tq
!
consider in selecting the best teacher for a specific child.
4'. Defensiveness. Another valuable clue in atti- |
j j
jtudes toward learning is a characteristic attitude of |
363 '
defensiveness elicited by the test situation. That is, the
child may reveal an on-guard, apprehensive, expecting-the-
I
iworst pattern of behavior ("You didn't give me enough piec-
i
|es"), as compared to an attitude of relaxation and sponta-
i
ineity. Such a reaction is antagonistic to ready acceptance
iof instruction, and can be an important clue to classroom
reaction.
I i
B. Attitudes toward the test and test materials
! 1'. Impulsivity. An overly impulsive approach to
material may be revealed by the child's blurting out re
sponses without due consideration, or manipulating objects
I
iwith no prior consideration of their meaning. This is
^characteristic of the very young child; in children 7 years !
jold and older, it may indicate immaturity or regression.
|Impulsivity may also indicate a deliberate avoidance of
i
preliminary reflection, perhaps because such delay would
jallow the child to become aware of feelings which are highly
! I
anxiety-arousing. Impulsive behavior is often interpreted
i
as revealing emotional attitudes which ideally should be
j
|suppressed? for example, on WISC Comprehension Item 4:
("Beat up on ’ernl" or "Run home to Mommy," are inappropriate!
I
responses for school age children. Another very significant
feature is the child's inability to remain seated during
364
testing.
2'. Giving up. When the child gives up the strug-
j
jgle to succeed, using a flat "I don't know" and rejecting
i
even easy problems as "too hard," significant problems in
learning are indicated. It may mean the low level of as-
i
jpiration so typical of the non-achiever, or it may reveal
i
the child's real uncertainty and doubt of his own abilities.
Specific neurological difficulties sometimes make it diffi-
i
cult for a child to judge his own skills accurately, espec
ially when his abilities tend to be erratic. A child with
I
isuch a problem often simply gives up rather than risk fail-
i
ure in areas he has never explored. Somewhat the same de-
I
!fensive behavior is seen in a child who tends toward a
i
l
ipassive-aggressive role. (Incidentally, the acceptance of
i
the "giving up" by examiner or teacher confirms to such a
child the environment's acknowledgment of his supposed in-
iability.) A background of impatient parents and teachers
I
I
!
I who expect the right answer at once may have led the child
i
!
to develop a "give up" philosophy in order to escape un-
!
realistic pressure. Another aspect of this is seen in a
ichild's tendency to blame others for his difficulties. !
; J
("You didn't give me enough pieces, it can't be done.")
[Further, this may reflect a more basic passivity which makes
365
learning difficult; here the child is not impelled to take
in or grasp knowledge.
3'. Persistence. The reverse of the above behavior
can be found in the child's persisting attempts to solve
problems. The persistence may be organized and realistic,
or blind and perseverative. For instance, several thought-
!
iful alternatives might be explored on Block Design. By
i
i
contrast, on Object Assembly, a child may persist in un-
i ,
adaptive attempts to fit parts where they do not belong.
Some children insist on attempting problems beyond
their ability in a somewhat driven manner. The willingness
i
to acknowledge one's limitations can be of great importance ;
i ;
!in the classroom, which requires the acceptance of a state
jof ignorance in order to acquire learning. When a child is
I
tunable to admit that he does not know how to do something
and needs help in acquiring the proper skills, he is unable
| j
|to learn. Persistence can also be a clue to the ability of i
i !
I I
a youngster to organize activities within the time limits
which are culturally imposed. The significance of such be-
i
E :
havior in the classroom is readily evident.
4'. Reactions to success and failure. It is im- j
I
j
portant to observe the child's reaction to his work, or to
j j
jsuccess and failure. Some children cannot accept the exami-i
366 j
ner’s praise or approval, becoming uncomfortable, and driv
ing themselves to further effort. Thus, success is dis
counted as unimportant, the items are "too easy." The
child,'s inability to accept his own skills suggests a driv
ing conscience (or parent), taking the enjoyment out of
I learning by constantly raising the level of aspiration,
i
giving the child no chance to rest on his laurels. An over-^
zealous drive for achievement often arises from this set-
jting, reflecting itself in chronic dissatisfaction with per-
formance.
I . 1
j The child's reaction to failures can give important
clues to his self-concept. Thus, do his failures on one
jsub-test transfer to his performance on other sub-tests;
j ;
jwill one failure precipitate another? If so, an extremely
i
(insecure child is suggested; any difficulty is used by the
child to prove how inadequate he is. The effectiveness of
(praise and support for such an individual, and the point at j
| l
which they are needed and are successful, allows important !
inferences as to the role of the teacher in encouraging the
child's success. This area also gives a lead as to the
child's frustration tolerance. Proper evaluation and ac
ceptance of failures by the child should allow him to resume!
directed effort on the next sub-test, thus not penalizing
367
himself unduly through guilt.
5*. Attention and concentration. Attention is an
jimportant variable measured by the WISC, both in its formal
i ;
i
jaspects by the sub-tests (see Digit Span), and in general
i
test behavior. Is attention adequate, or does it wander
readily? Irrelevant material introjected into the examina
tion may indicate the child's vulnerability to any stimuli
and inability to screen out unrelated material. Giving up
J
lean indicate the inability to sustain attention until sue-
i
icess is reached. Not only the extent of attention span, but
ialso its timing and the areas where it is most vulnerable
should be noted. Presumably such areas are those which are
jthe most anxiety provoking.
Mind wandering can, of course, highlight an organic
I
las well as a neurotic problem. Does attention flag as test-
i
ling continues? This is often a subtle sign of a neurologi-
jcal deficit; it may also measure low frustration tolerance
I ;
[triggered for other reasons. Specific areas which disrupt
i ;
i ;
the attention span may be those calling for abstract think-
|
jing, for perception, or for manipulation of objects. Parti-
i ;
l [
Icular questions or tasks, perhaps involving guilt, aggres- I
| |
i
Ision, or other affective stimuli (particularly in Compre-
I j
hension and Picture Arrangement) also often create problems j
in attention.
In order to achieve results, concentration is neces-
isary once the child is able to attend to material. Differ
entiating between the 2 factors is of importance, since
problems in attention are of less significance when concen
tration is not disturbed.
6'. Personal reference. When test material per
sistently elicits some reference to the child's own life and
lactivities, pressing problems are implied. (Comprehension
i
jl: Cut your finger. "Go to the hospital. I went to the
i
j
jhospital for my tonsils.") This suggests an inappropriate
I
!
degree of self-centeredness typically seen in an immature
personality or a child who is unable to act in an age-
!
jadequate manner. Personal reference can be brought out in
i
|2 ways: first, a pervasive flooding of personal material
throughout the test; second, an unwarranted insertion of
jpersonal material in a specific area, suggesting that dis-
i ' I
iturbances are limited to this aspect alone. Comprehension
i '
items may trigger such responses by their hostile or guilt-
i . i
arousing nature. An entire sub-test which is handled with j
i
great difficulty may also illustrate the same problem. The
pre-examination period of establishing rapport is important !
j I
in ascertaining the child's present realistic concerns.
369
For example, just before being examined, a child has seen a
youngster badly cut in a fall on the playground. He showed
i
|his immediate preoccupation with this incident in the ini
tial conversation, and again on the Comprehension I item.
i
No other references of a personal nature occurred, and the
child was correctly classified as well adjusted.
7'. Blocking. When the child blocks in his re
sponses, with "I don't know" a frequent answer even at the
simplest level, the unwillingness to hazard an answer may
indicate such alternatives as i t perfectionistic self stand
ard, little interest, or lack of emotional energy for use
in intellectual tasks. In the latter case, repression has
played too great a part in personality development. To
Iclarify which personality variable is affected here, praise
and encouragement are of importance. An answer which is
readily elicited after encouragement has not apparently been
adversely affected by the repressive process.
i ;
Criteria for Psychologists1 Inferential
or Qualitative Judgments
!
; After the observational data were recorded, 7 quali-?
itative judgments were made on a 5-point scale. While the j
i i
iratings were spread over a somewhat normal distribution
from 1 (indicative of best school adjustment) to 5
(indicative of poorest school adjustment), the initial basis
for each rating and the criteria used for making each rating
iare listed below.
I
j 1 . Inferential judgment 1 — This pupil has poor
intellectual functioning. Intellectual functioning was seen
as a measure of the child's ability to apply intellectual
endowment to school work. Inference about this was made
from WISC scores, with particular emphasis on measures of
information, judgment, reasoning (I, C, S, BD) and atten-
I
ition (PC). High scores on the WISC would be considered
limited by the presence of erratic skills, or inability to
|
ikeep from being flooded with inappropriate extrania. They
could also be balanced by obsessive preoccupation with
i .
[ .
"facts" which might presumably limit school performance.
I
iBrashness, particularly on the WISC, would suggest a nega-
i
tive aspect of intellectual functioning, again limiting
l
l
jschool achievement. A child whose contact with reality was1
I I
poor might be unable to recognize or utilize his skills
|
;(failing to "guess" when there was considerable evidence
I that he knew the answer). Another point which lowered rat-i
I I
!ings even when test scores were high was when it was neces-|
i I
;sary to pull from the subject each response, indicating an !
unwillingness to produce without constant urging. Such a j
371
jchild would presumably also fail to produce in the class
room.
Rating (1): Best or most adequate in this dimension of
ghjLidE . e n _ - a g . e p.
High IQ, usually 110 or better; fairly even
functioning, little scatter, or "reasonable"
scatter; especially high verbal scores, good
reasoning; assured, quick, speedy, accurate;
ability to follow directions; "catches on"
readily. Specific characteristics: a scholas
tically oriented youngster who thinks in terms
of intellectual achievement and college; live
ly, hard working, quick to grasp the point;
! assured, bright, excellent work habits; high
verbal IQ, vigorous guessing at answers he does
not know. Bright, well read, even functioning,
capacity for sudden insight and "catching on";
unusual verbal skills, lots of random informa- i
tion; bright, reflective.
Rating (2): Good ability but rattles on occasion, or ex-
i ’ cessively good in 1 area only; good, even func-r
I
I
j
tioning, not as high as optimal for this sam- ]
pie. Somewhat brash, but brashness is coupled;
j
Rating (3
372 !
with very good verbal skills. Specific char
acteristics: very bright but impulsive and
inclined to take over, is not learning as many
"facts" as high ability would indicate; IQ
high, quiet, but tends to question his own re
sponses, not sure of self, and thinking can be
vague (Rorschach); unusual skills in some areas,
is not learning effectively in view of this;
lacks control, and is defensive— this cuts down
on his intellectual efficiency; obsessively
learning "everything" yet fails on Comprehen
sion; loss of control, although recovered;
bright, uneven, a bit compulsive, good perfor
mance partially a result of urging; a moralis
tic little girl perhaps a bit repressive,
fairly bright; performance scores far above
verbal.
: Average, typical, at median level or in between!
best and poorest in this dimension.
IQ's about 90 to 110; performance scores might ;
j
surpass (average) verbal scores; 1 distinctly
out-of-phase area of functioning; does not
I
I
verbalize smoothly, struggles to answer;
373
answers the questions with obvious answers;
follows directions well. Specific character
istics; average, even IQ, nothing notable;
low average, cooperative; average, speedy re
sponses, but typical; average, quite passive;
erratic functioning, average to above, overtone
of brashness and not in full control of func
tioning; average, rushed the examiner to get
through; average, assured, but quick to pick
up face-saving ploys ("we didn't have that
yet"); average, just not very verbal, strains
to put it in words.
Rating (4); Minimal ability; or good ability, frequently
impaired by emotional problems . Specific char-^
acteristics; excellent performance score but
1 of the lowest verbal scores; average IQ but
a pervasive bizarre quality is present, with
i
over-reaction; fairly bright, over-reacts, ob- ;
sessive details, confusion; low verbal IQ,
sighs, she makes a tremendous job of testing; :
a low IQ (91), not impressive intellectual ap
proach; quite low IQ (87), doesn't expect to j
374
do well.
Rating (5): Poorest of cases seenr indicative of least
adequacy in this behavioral dimension.
IQ's below 100, spotty, erratic, won't respond;
j
over-reacts, wildly erratic, good responses
buried in bad; "deaf," needs constant repeti
tion; bizarre elements; "not there," plays with
i
j test material, talks to self; wide scatter,
barren responses, Rorschach peculiar content;
I
i ;
j poor verbal, poor quality and quantity on Ror-
I
! schach, difficulty in following simple direc-
i
! tions; slow responses; confusion in carrying
I
out assigned tasks. Specific characteristics: j
| zombie-like, unpredictable, bizarre reactions
j
(does Block Design vertically), doesn't know
basic information; low IQ, erratic, talks to
self, scratches himself, whistles, plays with j
j
the paper; very bright on verbal, unusually low
i I
j Performance, over-reacts, floods with personal -
reference, some weird reactions; dull, unre
sponsive.
|
2. Inferential rating 2— There is evidence of
;severe perceptual difficulties. The rating of perceptual
375
problems was based on the Bender performance primarily but
with some weight given to the Rorschach. The examiner
looked for such negative signs in the child's work as in-
I
jfantile perceptions and executions, overly speedy or care
less productions, bizarre qualities, and a lack of foresight
lor ability to correct as he went on. The difference between
the Bender and the Rorschach was checked to see the differ-
i
ence between hand-eye coordination problems and actual per-
i
|ceptual problems. The first influenced the Bender alone,
|
i :
jthe second was seen in both tests.
j ;
iRatihg (1): Best or most adequate in this dimension of
! children seen.
Good, even Bender; few and mild errors; orderly
! or irregular, but evidence of planning; works j
I i
quickly and accurately; high Block Design; good
form level on the Rorschach; Rorschach F+, M+,
0+; good performance on WISC; orderly, neat
angles, no negative signs, tidy Bender; Block
Designs and/or Bender good; Rorschach was good
with popular responses of good quality. Speci-
; fic characteristics: top rated Bender and Ror-
i j
I , j
schach, orderly drawing, sharp, clear percep- |
! tions; sharp, clear Rorschach and Bender; very
376 !
good Bender, neat and orderly although Ror
schach perceptions slip occasionally; excellent
Bender, careful, orderly.
Rating (2): Bender, Rorschach, or WISC Performance Scale
may be impaired by relatively slight errors.
Specific characteristics: Bender irregular,
neat, Rorschach conventional but with an occa
sional bad sign; Bender: uses all circles, !
some overlap, but orderly; Rorschach: all pop-
j
ulars; Bender fair, Rorschach not so good;
Bender: orderly but scallops design 6; Ror
schach: good perception; Bender weak but or
derly, Rorschach responses clearly seen; Bender;
j
performance good but with much frustration;
Bender shows reasonable changes short of being
confused, Rorschach very conventional percepts.!
jRating (3): Aver acre r typical, at median level, or in be
tween best and pQQjes.t in this dimension.
Performance somewhat spotty but reasonable;
irregular to confused Bender sequence; stiff;
a bad start improved; not much effort; some
overlap; average WISC performance, good Ror
schach; neat, random, only 1 poor sign on
377 j
Bender; Rorschach form level adequate. Speci
fic characteristics: Bender a bit confused,
Block Design low, Rorschach usually clear per
ceptions ; Bender irregular to confused, Ror
schach fair; Bender neat, slow, sequence con
fused, takes it too seriously but over-all pro
ductions are fair; Bender orderly, slight per
severation, angle difficulties;. Design A poor, |
I
improves, zig-zag placement, good Rorschach
form level; Design A too large, perseverates
on Designs 1 and 2, remainder all right; Bender
with random, primitive circles, some overlap,
Rorschach fair form level; Bender random, some-'
what poor and a lack of effort, Block Design
good, Rorschach form level good; Bender: De
sign A expanded, rest randomly placed, some
poor form level responses on Rorschach; Bender
neat, 1 overlap, Rorschach minus form level;
Bender rigid, Rorschach form level bad; Bender
neat, slightly random placement, Rorschach |
i
shows endless reworking of same response to
most cards; Bender progressively more random i
j
placement; Bender rigid, Design 4 detached, !
378 |
i
good form level on Rorschach.
jRating (4): Minimal planning but good execution, random
! rotation or paper rotation; simplification of
' i
designs. Specific characteristics; a very
good Bender but boxes around drawings, over
reaction, and poor form level on Rorschach;
| Bender neat, draws well, but changes paper
around, gives poor impression, rotates first 3 '
i 1
| designs, then improves, on Rorschach persever-
j ;
; ates primitive concepts; Bender reproduced all j
I ■ i
! around edge of paper, 2 rotations, poor Ror-
!
schach form level; Bender poor, overlaps, in-
i i
! !
complete, irregular, confused; tilts drawing o
i
Bender, poor, confused order; Bender neat, 2
rotations, confused, adds guides to help him
self; 4 start-overs on Bender, tilts, confused,!
Rorschach form level deteriorates.
gating (5); Poorest of cases seen, indicative of least
| adequacy in this behavioral dimension.
Multiple scoring errors on Bender, floating
| and tilting designs; unplanned, confused place
I ' '
i ment, crossing out, boxing, many rotations; odd
I
and bizarre; very regressed; low Block Design;
379
form level poor on Rorschach; WISC performance
score low. Specific characteristics: Bender
! confused, overlaps and rotates designs freely,
on Rorschach a flood of wildly free associa-
j
tions; Bender drawn at random, crosses out
| work, Rorschach poor form level, wild behavior
! problem during testing; 4 rotations on Bender,
i neat but eccentric, some poor form level on
Rorschach, low performance score on WISC; Ben-
der has 7 rotations, draws well but bizarre,
i
| ' Rorschach confirms unusual behavior; Bender
i
I
' confused, 4 rotations, expansions, Rorschach
form level very poor.
i
3. Inferential rating 3— The Rorschach indicates a
i . i
jpupil with severe personality problems. The presence of
emotional problems was based predominantly on the Rorschach,:
jwith ratings of deviant Benders and observations of general |
1
mood added. The initial problem was to differentiate be-
! ‘ I
jtween transient age concerns and actual problems, and be-
jtween environmental factors which could be overcome and ]
permanent problems.
Infantile perceptions and concerns were given spe- !
cial weight. These included such factors as the absence of j
human movement responses (M), preoccupation with whole re
sponses (W) which were not clearly seen, lack of adequate
j
color responses (FC, CF), or excess explosive color (CF, C)
1
iand the preservation of primitive responses (for example,
i
"tree" usually seen by much younger children).
I Bizarre qualities in the responses were particularly
jsuspect. . The investment of energy in odd, unusual ideas
! ’ I
jsuggested a problem. The flooding of ideas, often in the j
j |
form of precision equivalents (for example, "It looks like
a bat— bird— butterfly— moth— flying dragon— robin— spar- j
i
|row" with no real specification) was assumed to represent a j
substitution of quantity for quality, and would presumably !
reflect somewhat similar problems in the classroom.
A lack of communication, or severe blocking, was
also explored. The child who could not explain his respon
ses or even delimit them on the blot seemed to have some
i
jkind of difficulty.
Rating (1): Best or most adequate in this dimension of
| children seen.
Imaginative, creative, buoyant, lively; pro
ductive; 1 original, clever Rorschach percep
tion; typical concern over self, but also about
! s*
others; on Rorschach a good M, stable form
Rating (2
I
t
Rating (3
level, positive content and good use of color;
good M and form level, good productivity, calm;
sunny, cheerful. Specific characteristics:
I
highly imaginative, creative, yet loads of
life, volatile, cheerful; rather pleasant con
cepts, good popular responses, well rounded;
lively, lots of popular responses; unusually
i
rich, creative concepts but still a lively, j
I
active boy.
): Creative, lots of ideas, combined with some j
negative concepts; bad start, excellent finish.
Specific characteristics: very creative, imagH
i
inative, but some slight withdrawal; creative
but a bit lopsided, represses evidence of inner]
i
drive; some good signs, the rest neutral or
unimpressive; lacks control but generally good
on important issues; a bit withdrawn, terribly
down to earth; rattles easily yet recovers well,
mostly does well.
: Averagef typical, at median level or in between
best and poorest in this dimension.
Flat, uninspired, excess number of populars;
!
or good and bad, uneven functioning, lopsided;
382
difficult inquiry, good concepts poorly ex
plained; mild meaningful perseveration; 1 bad
response or poor response on 1 Rorschach card;
reasonably calm, average; negative signs con
trasted with some good, some creative signs;
evasive, but not necessarily pathological;
human, conflict. Specific characteristics:
good behavior, but signs of anxiety, or guilt; j
i
active, frustrated, and stereotyped thoughts
suggest some immaturity; good recovery from a
poor, irregular start; good signs coupled with j
some confusion; outgoing, apparently not much
i
inner life. I
Rating (4): Poor Rorschach, no human movement or even human?
j ;
i content; severe blocking and rejection, can't
cope with task; perseveration of 1 negative
idea on Rorschach like "insides." Specific
characteristics: several minus concepts and
disturbed concepts; strange concepts lacking
good perception, self concerned; perseverates
same concepts over and over, reworks on and on;
rejected 4 cards, rest only populars; bright,
compulsive, ideational, negative concepts,
383 i
t
I
spoils her own good percepts; blocking, no
human movement or human content, mainly popu-
lars or immature responses; no human content,
I
perseverates "insides"; considerable number of |
inanimate movement responses.
jRating (5): Poorest of cases seen, indicative of least
adequacy in this behavioral dimension.
Multiple negative signs, endless precision al- i
!
j ternatives, can't make up mind; poor judgment, •
confused, misses the obvious; excess minus M; :
no H, color naming, low P, can't improve; pecu-j
liar content construction, poor color, poor
■
form level, erratic; anxious, blocked, bizarre ;
i
with poor form level, disturbed content, per- j
severates, barren ideas; perceptual distortion
| and confusion, severely limited content, patho-
i !
! logical anatomy content; loss of control;
I i
!
blocking. Specific characteristics: Rorschach
|
i j
| dull, some minus responses on important cards; '
wild flood of ideas, many negative responses,
vague, M minus; highly frustrated boy with
bizarre responses (e.g., "fly's face").
4. Inferential rating 4— This child has problems
384 |
relating to classroom teacher. When rating pupils' problems
relating to the classroom teacher, the psychologist drew
directly on the interaction in the test situation, which was
considered a prototype of the teacher-pupil relationship.
j
Therefore, aspects which tended to impress the examiner
I
(looks, grooming, verbal skills, intelligence) were added
to the child's reaction to the examiner: cooperative, in
terested, helpful, and studious. Specific factors which j
I
were found worth rating were brashness and hostility toward !
the examiner, a lack of cooperation, blocking, and the in- j
j
ability to respond to direct questions. The child rated
well here could accept the discipline of the test situation |
i 1
(remain seated, try hard to do well), and also accept sup
port from the examiner without becoming excessively depen-
i
dent. Thus, at certain stages, the examiner would help make
a failure more palatable by pointing out that the child had
J
I
not yet studied that. The well adjusted children accepted
this gracefully. The dependent children were quick to use
!
it as an excuse and fail to try. j
Rating (1): Best or most adequate in this dimension of
cases seen.
Shy, quiet, effortful, cooperative (puts things
away for examiner); initiates own behavior;
385 |
bright; good natured, humorous, lively reaction,
cheerful; some reserve; conforming; successful
accomplishment; relaxed with examiner, control
i !
i ' 1
j with spontaneity; good M+ on Rorschach; alert,
j
very cooperative; tries to please adults; per-
i sistent, even if slow; answers questions readi-
| ly, verbal, self critical, appropriate. Speci-
i j
I !
j fic characteristics: shy, sweet, long-haired
| little blonde, a room monitor, bright, unusual-;
| ^ i
l i
j ly even, capacity for sudden insights; bright, j
t i
verbal, neat, cooperative, and reserved. Said
i ;
i
! "goodby" formally when leaving; brighter than
most, well controlled, yet all-around boy; big j
i
blonde, polite, humorous, controlled with high j
! I
| social awareness.
gating (2): Surface control with some lapses as pressure j
i '
I rises; mild slips; less ability, or less effi- j
I 1
ciency. Specific characteristics: pleasant, j
j !
very assured, but only average IQ and quick to
I
cover her inabilities with mild defensiveness; j
productive, rattles slightly but improves,
■
showing humor and distance from mild problems;
cute, moralistic, tendency to hysterical !
386 |
character traits; good, quiet, "well adjusted";
first impression but control seems superficial,
and under pressure might lapse; skinny, shy,
I !
J
j beaming little girl, charmingly embarrassed;
: quiet, well behaved, cooperative, helpful, a
little dependent; grinning, freckled boy, ini
tially over-reacts to WISC, making too much of
! it, but recovers well. I
jRating (3); Average, typical, at median level or in between
| best and poorest of cases seen.
i j
Nothing specific, appropriate behavior; more
j effort for results than seen in children rated
i higher; occasional over-reaction, talking out |
i i
S of turn; occasional nervousness or sudden !
j 1
| rattling; not particularly at ease with an
i
adult; fairly passive, fair relationship with
: examiner, good control; responds to slight j
i t
i
urging with positive reactions; works for ac-
I
i j
| ceptance; responds to encouragement. Specific !
i
characteristics; a quiet, subdued, very "aver-|
age" boy; handsome, not at all verbal, perhaps
erratic in class at times; wide-eyed, strained,
i struggles to answer; average, pleasant; sturdy ;
Rating
I
I
Rating
I
I
387 i
girl, very average ability; average, has a
"sniffle," reworks her responses getting no
where .
(4); Dull, uninterested; doesn't expect to do well;
rushes the examiner, tries to take over; brash
("heck, don't ask ME I"). Specific character
istics: low verbal skills, brash, rushed the
examiner, would not stick to task; chronic naili
biter, shy, giving-up behavior; brash, unstable
functioning, excited self comments, combined
with surprisingly good achievement; resistant
and mute, held out on everything; very bright,
very compulsive, became very frustrating to
examiner with her insistence on doing things
"just so"; dull, slow, confused, very difficult
to question.
(5): Poorest of cases seenr indicative of least
adequacy in this behavioral dimension.
i
Extremely brash, unpredictable; refuses to try;!
dependent, infantile; needs constant urging, j
won't work alone; flooded by own thoughts, out
bursts, non sequiturs; whistles, can ignore
examiner's efforts to control him with gestures;
388
or words ("the heck with it;"); obsessive try-
j ing, can't accept own limitations, thereby
i keeping examiner on edge; discrepancies in per
formance compared to IQ level; resentment of
test situation; not comfortable with examiner;
tense and scared; poor control; marked open or
covert aggression; low IQ and personal prob-
! lems; constant need for approval; does every
thing wrong; extreme rationalization; manner-
j istic, inattentive; overdependent; overly sus-
; picious of examiner; withdrawn. Specific char-
]
i
acteristics: unusually preoccupied with self,
i ;
J •
many non sequiturs in the middle of test re
sponses; whistles, scribbles over work rather
I
!
than erase, plays with material, doesn't con
centrate; grabs material from examiner, unpre-
j dictable, dull, odd stare, zombie-like.
! i
5. Inferential judgment 5— This pupil meets learn- |
I ' ;
ling tasks effectively. The presence of learning problems
I I
was rated with inferences of several kinds: actual level of
• I
intelligence, apparent availability of intellectual resour- |
i • i
! I
|ces, acceptance of the role of student (as indicated on the I
previous rating), and evidence of actual learning as, for
[instance, inferred from the Information sub-test.
Thus, a bright child who was relating easily and
trying hard on the test material, who had a good fund of
[general information, and who did not seem to break down un
der pressure, would be assumed to be one without learning
problems. On the other hand, a brash, erratically function
ing youngster who tended to resist the examiner would prob
ably express his problems in the failure to learn.
■Rating (1): Best or most adequate in this dimension of
cases seen.
IQ high— 110 or 120 level, even functioning;
i
high Information, good Bender; bright with ini-
i
j tiative; accepts own failures without rattling;
j reflective, productive, enjoys working; stable,:
! :
no anxiety in test situation; cooperative,
eager, anxiety does not lower maximum effec
tiveness; IQ not interfered with by personality
problems; good usage of time, with accuracy;
| tests even better than appearance would sug
gest; asks relevant questions; well organized.
! Specific characteristics: bright, unusually
!
I even functioning, meets new tasks with great
i
effectiveness; well controlled, unusually
390
intelligent and effective in all areas; reflec
tive, good verbal skills; excellent verbal
skills make up for some rigidity and mild prob
lems— obviously an effective learner; readily
picks up information, bright, efficient in
school areas; quiet, well behaved, has the
ability to adapt to classroom demands;, excel-
| lent work habits, evidence of learning.
jRating (2): Good achievement and IQ, though a higher per-
j
!
formance IQ than verbal IQ suggests could do
even better, high Information out of line with
other verbal scores, uneven application. Spe-
i
| cific characteristics: verbal skills not above!
t ;
average, coupled with his having been raised
I '
i
; abroad, very fine Rorschach, suggests he has
potential but is not a top learner; good verbal
skills plus really excellent performance j
skills, apparently reflect limitations due to
i :
obsessive defenses; again the skill in perfor
mance not in verbal area, with blocking and a
1 i
| "moralistic" and "repressive" attitude; verbal !
| |
skills poured into practical areas, minimizing ;
learning per se (Comprehension well above
/
391 |
Information); very bright, especially in per
formance skills, but brash, grabby attitude
would call for outside discipline; fantastic
fund of information but not effective, less a
problem solver than he should be; good learner,
suggestion of some unused potential, strains a
bit; nice cooperative girl but IQ suggests less
potential than a top student needs.
Rating (3); Average P typical,, at median level or in between
best and poorest of cases seen.
Average IQ, fair Bender; requires some urging;
sometimes obliged to verbalize or vocalize
thinking, not too smooth here; could do better,
but passive or erratic; starts very well, then ;
rattles in 1 area so dramatically that rating
drops from 1 to 3; less achievement than abili
ty would indicate (as a drop in Information);
90-100 IQ, cooperative, average Information; j
i
needs careful instruction, but follows accur
ately; asks questions indicating slow catching ■
i
on. Specific characteristics: very average ;
verbal IQ, occasional indications of emotional
problems with recovery; low average IQ but is
392 I
learning at own level; very passive in problem
solving in spite of average or better ability;
over-reacts, memory gaps, talks too much while
j i
| working; pours his energy into work with hands,
poor verbalizer, rushes the examiner, doesn't
wish to stay with "learning" tasks; unused po-
i
! tential, doesn't finish his Bender; good start,
t ;
! good verbal skills, but serious rattling, very !
; susceptible to anxiety-producing situations,
| which tend to make him confused; high ability
i ;
' yet minimal learning (low Information); good
i
i ability but lapses which suggest she might not
| follow through on her work after good start;
| very average in all areas.
j
i
jRating (4): Dull, very passive on intellectual tasks, mini
mal achievement (low Information), emotional
, . i
problems limit learning ability. Specific |
• i
characteristics: very low verbal as compared
1 i
i ’ '
to performance scores, terribly anxious, slow,
can't present her ideas coherently; lower IQ,
few facts, unreflective; minimal accumulation j
!
i of information in spite of good ability, mild-
; ly bizarre aspects; very bright but compulsive j
393
tendencies must be seriously limiting her ef
fectiveness; shy, very dull, not oriented to
ward learning or achievement.
Rating (5): Poorest of cases seen, indicative of least
adequacy in this behavioral dimension.
Quite low IQ, poor Bender, especially with ro
tations present; can't screen random thoughts,
over-reacts; constant chatter, unpredictable;
very shaken by failure, can't recover; block
ing, needs more urging than is available, com
bination of low IQ and erratic functioning;
anxiety in test situation; uncooperative,
blocking, low Information; disorganized,
doesn't follow directions; wild guessing; per
severation, sticky thinking; concrete thinking.
Specific characteristics: fails to achieve on
any test in the battery, never able to come
through, dull, "gabby"; every evidence of a
poor student; scribbles out work, whistles,
gives up, acts up, and hasn't learned; exces
sively mute; rates low because whe would not
produce; verbal versus performance shows fan
tastic divergence in favor of former, but over-
394
reacts, acts out, unable to produce; dull, un-
|
responsive, "deaf," slow,
j 6. Inferential rating 6— This child has creative
potential. Whatever creativity may be, it seems progres
sively more approachable as a concept as a child grows old-
I
ier. The following appear to be variables related to crea-
I
jtivity: intelligence, productivity, availability of a wide
range of ideas, imagination (Rorschach). Perhaps also, a
jcertain degree of planning ability (Bender) would be called
ifor in that the child who could handle everyday tasks ef-
I
jfortlessly would have both time and energy for creative
Ithought. Creativity would be counterindicated in a child
jwho had a rigid need for order— his time would be "bound up"j
!
;in achieving order at the expense of creativity. A child's !
'freedom to produce a few poor Rorschach responses, or "far
out" ideas, when coupled with signs of control, would sug
gest creativity.
i ' :
Rating (1); Best or most adequate in this dimension of
i cases seen.
High intelligence, lively imagination, sponta-
i
j neous flow of ideas; lively Rorschach (M's j
| |
i especially); good, free M, wide, varied con- |
tent, excellent original responses; spontaneity^
Rating (2
j
395
uses many aspects of Rorschach cards for re
sponses . Specific characteristics: unusually
high verbal IQ (142), very high number of re
sponses on Rorschach with 7M, 7PM, and a spread
of other responses; bright, highest on reason
ing, 9M plus lively CF, lots of ideas; bright,
particularly good sudden insights, well bal-
i
anced Rorschach; bright, recoverability of Ror-|
schach suggests a creative bent, also some
pleasant responses; a wild but very good and
original imagination (6M) in a very unverbal
child— must be full of bright ideas!
: Intelligent, and imaginative, not as effectively!
applied; occasional confusion or lapses; less
intelligent and imaginative than a higher rated
child: Specific characteristics: fairly imag
inative, yet verbally only average and at a
I
loss for words; major skills and concerns are
in introversive areas, apparently has problems
relating to others, so might turn toward crea
tive pursuits; imaginative, works effectively; j -
' i
quite a few ideas, can recover well from rat
tling, ideas good; smart, lively, less creative'
r
396
than some but probably full of verve; unusually
ideational, 8M, lots of drive, bright, but
i
| could compulsively beat her own ideas to death,
j I
smart, creative, non-conformist, a future beat
nik .
iRating (3): Average, typical, at median level or in between
best and poorest of cases seen.
i Nothing outstanding on WISC or Rorschach; a
| ■ !
routine, orderly kind of thinking; average IQ,
I
few M, average number of R; more apt to act
than reflect, but some imagination. Specific
characteristics: bright but perseverates the
same ideas, no freedom of inner life; average
j
in all areas; average-plus ability, a rather
frustrated boy who has no extra energy free for
creative tasks; action-oriented, no time for
reflection; well behaved but no evidence of
i
creative energy; average and unreflective; i
i i
creative (5M) but low average IQ; bright, con- ;
trolled, with possible outbursts rather than
| creative potential; all energies go into being '
! a "good girl," none left over.
: I
Rating (4): Ineffective intellectual functioning may block
1
i
i
Rating (5
397 '
the few signs of imagination noted; dull; per
severation of ideas suggests a lack of creativ
ity. Special characteristics: not too bright,
i
imagination like a young child, nothing origi
nal, also some pars pro toto thinking and a
faint bizarre note; obsessive thinking, minimal
creativity; too preoccupied with. infantile con
cerns, unresolved family conflicts, no freedom
i
for concern over others; perseveration of the
most mundane ideas, reworks and reworks, get
ting nowhere, not one original thought; he has !
imagination but it controls him, rather than
the reverse, and he can't tell the difference
|
between his distorted, malignant concepts and |
those with at least some originality; dull per-
severative thinking; very blocked in spite of
good reasoning ability, no freedom to produce; |
very bright but his thinking is unstable and !
disturbed, he is preoccupied with "blood,
bones, your insides," and fails to produce any |
but the most commonplace— or disturbed— ideas. j
: Poorest of cases seenf indicative of least j
adequacy in this behavioral dimension.
398
Low IQ, flat Rorschach; immature, perseverates
simple concepts; no available resources; or too
| emotionally involved to utilize ability; Ror-
i '
i
j schach stereotyped, banal content; low IQ;
j
1
constricted; flat, dull ideas; Rorschach few
if any good color responses, narrow range of
content and determinants. Specific character-
! istics: dull, unreflective, infantile ideas;
i !
i I
i on Rorschach rejected 4 cards, lower IQ, no
I ;
i l
l
signs of any freedom of ideas; much reworking
of simple ideas suggests he would spend "crea
tive" time tinkering with nothing, even though
he has good ability; dull, very limited ideas. ■
! ;
7. Inferential rating 7— This pupil has poor school]
jadjustment. Since this study was concerned with identifying
I
[the child who had trouble in school, the rating of school
! i
[adjustment attempted 1 more, facet of the school problem. j
j '
friere, there was an attempt to detect the child who could
behave well in the classroom. The youngster who was unable
to settle down to the examination procedures without moving !
!
from the table or interrupting with extraneous thoughts
presumably would not be able to adjust in the classroom. i
]
The child who did not produce anything without coaxing and j
cajoling would not work in the classroom unless the teacher
gave her individual attention. A factor which could only be
hypothesized from the test situation was the child's re-
jsponse to a classroom itself. Thus, some children were the
soul of cooperation in the individual test session, and
I
jeffectively concealed their tendency to be distracted or
|fail to produce when they did not get individual attention.
i |
!The Rorschach was utilized here to estimate social skills
land interest, but this was a difficult rating to make for
jsome children.
j
Rating (1): Best or most adequate in this dimension of
cases seen.
Friendly, spontaneous, interested in people, j
| ' |
| polite, thoughtful; warm response to examiner, |
j :
| helpful; lively, sometimes a bit impulsive,
i
l
able to smile at his own errors; well control-
I led; Rorschach color variables indicate warmth !
s I
and control; positive adjustment to test situ- j
j ation, good WISC and Rorschach, stable func
tioning; anxiety free, intelligent, happy and
I
I
eager; proper degrees of aggressiveness, pas
sivity, absence of constriction; motivated,
I
independent, especially alert, motility.
Rating (2
V
i
N
400
/
Specific characteristics:, not especially
l 4
smart, but Rorschach suggests creative, warm,
reactive child; a very evenly bright, achiev-
v -
ing, responsive child, bright, creative, warm.
): Some reserve or blocking; fewpr bf the features
characterized in optima*! ratings. Specific \
*
■I
characteristics: some repressive tendencies,^
might be a bit of a moralist, bu£ has ability I
and warmth; susceptible to pressure, rattles
yet recovers, bright, would assume less than
desirable social adjustment; an hysterical
little girl who has limited freedom both soci
ally and in learning areas, in spite of abili- j
ty; very strong on social adjustment but noth- |
ing special in achievement; reflective little
magazine-salesman type who is outgoing but
I
should not be too socially adept, and a fair |
student; nice, cooperative, a bit inhibited;
bright, warm, well balanced; bright, good rea
soning, reasonable, but a little inhibited; |
very bright, stylized speech of a pre-teener,
yet can cooperate socially and in classroom. !
jRat-ing (3): Average, typical, at median level or in between
**bes^ and poorest of cases seen.
( ■
Just one of the "group"; sometimes self cen-
; j
tered or passive; tries to rush through; less 1
frustration tolerance than appropriate; social-
«■
ly deprived, so he is less at ease in new
I
(middle class) situations; average ability;
| cooperative, tries to follow directions, tries j
to please authority. Specific characteristics;
i ;
not much of a verbalizer, yet highly ideation- j
al; average ability, has a creative side, less
! ' i
social involvement, and some confusion; a touch
of various skills, a social and an inner life, j
i - |
! yet just seems average; possible frustration |
i |
and depression coupled with "reserves"; pleas- !
ant, average, some rather odd-ball ideas; lower
verbal IQ, fairly immature,
gating (4J: Dull, too sfty, holds in, little to offer to I
i i
| others; great self concern; tends to act out
I or to rattle, but responds to control; persev- j
j
erates same ideas over and over again. Speci
fic characteristics: low average IQ, very un-
a productive, holds back, probably not productive
jRating (5
|
I
402 ]
I
in school or able to share with friends; bright,
too compulsive; would not do for others, can
become confused; dull, disturbed; strong evi- j
i
dence of emotional disturbance, presumably it
invades all areas to some extent.
): Poorest of cases seen, indicative of least
adequacy in this behavioral dimension.
"Odd-ball," odd ideas, acts out wildly, unpre- j
i
j
dictable; blurts out things, grabs material; j
!
frankly hostile toward others, personal refer- I
ence regarding fighting; isolate, can't fit in;!
low frustration tolerance; negative reaction to
tests; anxious, disturbed Rorschach responses; '
i
i
resentful or withdrawn; strong anxiety; dull, |
!
unhappy; possibly "organic," perseveration,
learning block, hyperactive, comprehension
difficulties; overdependent; low motivation for
learning; overt demands on teacher; physical
i
!
abnormality; depressed. Specific characteris- j
tics: dull, odd, acts out; minimal frustration!
i
i
i
i
tolerance, is not learning, over-reacts, very
disturbed, decompensating.
Inferential judgment 8— This child has poor
403
school achievement. A prediction of achievement in class
shared’ some javerlap with the "learning problems" item. Ini
tial impressions were based on the intelligence level and
; . I
jthe relative success on the Information sub-test. Uneven,
erratic successes on both the WISC and Rorschach would be
jassumed to result in uneven school success. This might be
I
in direct opposition to the presence of learning problems,
I |
jin that a child would not reveal what he could do, but had I
|no difficulty learning. A blocked child might learn but
j
jfail to produce in class. A perfectionistic child might ;
|
jnever finish an assignment because of the urge to get it
i
!"just right." The general approach to test materials, with
i
j j
jsome emphasis on the Bender, was used to estimate work
habits and thus achievement.
jRating (1): Best or most adequate in this dimension of
cases seen.
High IQ (120's), high Information, bright, j
|
quick; loves to achieve on tests, volunteers !
information ("I like big words"); appropriate j
| ;
lively reactions; notably efficient in ap-
| proach; comfortable approach to test, some j
; drive, a need to succeed; high verbal IQ, re-
i
| laxed, with verve; motivation, functional
efficiency; quick response, accuracy; quiet,
even withdrawn, but persistent, relevant; ap
propriately self critical; well organized, com
pulsive, verbal. Specific characteristics: an
all around bright, insightful, warm, well ad
justed child, who certainly must achieve well;
high IQ for his school, signs of achievement
beyond level of ability; bright, reflective,
reserved, looks like an achiever; accomplished,
unusually verbal, defensive about achievement,
everything must count.
Very good, but 1 "rattle”; doesn't achieve
quite as well as should, in terms of IQ; a bit !
i
t
passive, yet high on Information, suggests he
would learn some things, not others; thinking
sometimes vague or erratic, yet generally at a
|
high level. Specific characteristics: every- |
thing else at a 1 level but he seems to be
achieving a bit below potential; quite the op
posite, many bad signs, emotional, brash, yet j
i
I
he is controllable and he is very bright, j
achievement is likely; bright but not achieving!
i
as measured by Information, in view of other
I 405
I
signs, must rate at this level; bright, achiev-
| ing, but somewhat erratic, can be vague, better
control on surface; achieves fantastically, but
a bit negative, anxious to leave, in other
words not as achievement-oriented as a "teach
er's pet"; an achieving little girl but less
controlled than optimal; bright, but verbal
skills lower than performance skills, well ad
justed and orderly, assume a "B" student; she
!
is not picking up expected Information, in
spite of great ability, limited by repressive
defenses; bright, achieving, well read, some
emotional concerns could limit achievement in
class slightly.
Rating (3): Averagef typical, at median level or in between
best and poorest of cases seen.
Average IQ, comes through as needed; better in
)
some areas than others, averages out; passive
in achievement areas; calm; slow but persis
tent. Specific characteristics; nice, cooper
ative, average; a flat average; average for her
! i
: i
school; bright for this rating but compulsive, i
ideational thinking is limiting her achieve
406 !
ment; favorable signs of achievement; but slow,
average, thinking sometimes close to persevera-
tivey a peering, struggling boy with only aver
age ability.
Rating (4): Very low verbal ability, high performance
skills; or generally low in both types of in-
| tellectual functioning; some brash, rushes
I ;
I through, "get it over with" attitude; will not I
cooperate. Specific characteristics: minimal j
:
i
achievement for ability plus signs of confusion
and veering on bizarre thinking; verbal too far
below performance, obsessive detailing, errat
ic; one of the lower IQ's; low verbal plus
i
! great difficulty in expressing ideas.
i ;
i
Rating (5): Poorest of cases seen, indicative of least
adequacy in this behavioral dimension.
Low IQ; very dull; cannot tell good from bad
| j
ideas, good immersed in bad; may pick up school]
' i
skills, but won't or can't give it out, exces- j
sive "don't knows"; attention problems; low
! i
; i
frustration tolerance; not picking up Informa-
i
|
[ tion at expected level; poor Bender in areas
i
j
related to school skills; much test scatter;
407
poor use of potential; excessive anxiety in
test; tension, hostility toward testing;
blocked, confused; withdrawn with autistic be
havior; low verbal skills; cannot follow direc
tions adequately; tangential thinking; low
motivation; poorly organized. Specific charac
teristics: one of the lowest IQ's; particular
ly low in Information, generally dull and unre
sponsive; has learned a lot, but is highly dis
turbed at this time, inference is that he sud
denly would draw pictures during class or re
late to others his concern about his over
weight; one of the lowest Information scores j
plus a general unresponsiveness; has not
learned, random acting out; unpredictable, an
"unknowing" boy; one of the most resistant,
"mute" children in sample.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allport, G. Personality and social encounter. Boston:
Beacon Press, 1960.
i
lAmes, Louise B., Learned, Janet, Metraus, Ruth Wt, and
Walker, R. N. Child Rorschach responses. New York:
I Paul B. Hoeber, 1952.
jAmes, Louise B., Metraus, Ruth W., and Walker, R. N. Adol- '
j escent Rorschach responses. New York: Paul B.
j Hoeber, 1952.
j
Andrew, Owen L., and Lockwood, Hilda. Teachers' evaluations
of the mental health status of their pupils. J.
educ. Res.. 1954, 42, 631-635.
jBaughman, E. E. The effect of inquiry method on Rorschach
I color and shading scores. J. proi. Tech.. 1959,
2 1 , 3-7.
t
, _______ . A new method of Rorschach inquiry. J. proi .
Tech.. 1958, 22, 381-389.
Bayley, Nancy, and Schaefer, E. S. Relationships between
socioeconomic variables and the behavior of mothers
toward young children. J. genet. Psvchol.. 1960,
61-77.
jBeck, S. The Rorschach experiment: ventures in blind
| diagnosis. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1960.
i ; --- . Rorschach ' - S . . -test. Vol. II. A variety of person
ality pictures. New York: Grune and Stratton,
1945.
409
410
Beck, S. Rorschach's test. Vol. III. Advances in inter
pretation . New York: Grune and Stratton, 1952.
Becker, W. C., Peterson, D. R., Hellmer, L. A., Shoemaker,
D. J., and Quay, H. C. Factors in parental behavior
and personality as related to problem behavior in
children. J. consult. Psvchol.. 1959, £2, 107-118.
'Bender, L. A_visual motor gestalt test and its clinical
use. New York: Amer. Orthopsychiat. Assoc. R.
Monogr., 1938, No. 3.
jBendig, A. W., and Hamlin, R. M. The psychiatric validity
of an inverted factor analysis of Rorschach scoring j
categories. J. consult. Psychol.. 1955, 19, 183-
.188.
j
jBower, E. M. A process for early identification of emotion- :
| ally disturbed children. Sacramento, Calif.: Cali
fornia State Department of Education, 1958.
I ------- . Early identification of emotionally handicapped
children in school. Springfield, 111.: Charles C.
Thomas, 1960.
1 _______, and Lambert, Nadine. Behavior rating of pupils.
Princeton, N. J.: Educational Testing Service,
| 1961.
i
_______ , and Lambert, Nadine. The class picture. Prince
ton, N. J.: Educational Testing Service, 1961.
j _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, and Lambert, Nadine. The class play. Princeton, j
N. J.: Educational Testing Service, 1961.
j_______, and Lambert, Nadine. Manual for a process for in
school screening of children with emotional handi
caps . Princeton, N. J.: Educational Testing Ser
vice, 1961.
I
I
I
______, and Lambert, Nadine. A picture game. Princeton,
N. J.: Educational Testing Service, 1961.
______, and Lambert, Nadine. Thinking about vourself.
Princeton, N. J.: Educational Testing Service, 1961.;
411
Bower, E. M., at ftl. The education of emotionally handi
capped children. Sacramento, Calif.: California
State Department of Education, 1961.
Burchinal, I., Gardner, B., and Hawkes, G. R. Children's
personality adjustment and the socio-economic status
J of their families. J. genet. Psychol., 1958, 92 T
i 149-159.
|Brill, A. A. Basic writings of Sigmund Freud. New York:
j Random House, 1938.
!
jByrd, E. The clinical validity of the Bender Gestalt Test
I with children: a developmental comparison of chil- |
I dren in need of psychotherapy and children judged |
| well adjusted. J. proi. Tech.. 1956, 20f 127-136.
jCampbell, D. T., and Fiske, D. W. Convergent and discrimi- :
nant validation by the multitrait-multimethod mat
rix. Psychol. Bull.. 1959, 81-105.
|Caplan, G. An approach to community mental health. New
York: Grune and Stratton, 1961.
jClarke, H. H., and Jarman, B. 0. Scholastic achievement of;
i boys 9, 12, and 15 years of age as related to vari- j
ous strength and growth measures. Res, quart.
Amer. Ass. Hlth. Phvs. Educ. Recr.. 1961, 32, 155-
162.
Clawson, Aileen. The Bender Gestalt Test as an index of
| emotional disturbance in children. J. proi. Tech.T :
1959, £2., 198-206. j
I j
| _______. The Bender Visual Motor Gestalt Test for chil-
| drenf a manual. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Western
Psychological Service, 1962.
i
Coan, R. A factor analysis of Rorschach determinants.
J. Proj. Tech., 1956, £0, 280-307.
Cohen, J. The factor analysis of the WISC at 7 1/2,
10 1/2 and 13 1/2. J. consult. Psvchol.. 1959, 23.
285-299 .
412
Collins, L. P., Maxwell, A. E., and Cameron, K. A factor
analysis of some child psychiatric clinic data.
CL-.msnlL>.. . S s j , . , 1962, 1QO, 274-285.
Degan, J. W. Dimensions of functional psychosis. Psychom.
Monoor. No. 6, 1952.
Federal Security Agency, Social Security Administration,
Bureau of Employment Security, Division of Occupa
tional Analysis, United States Employment Service.
Dictionary of occupational titles. Vol. I. Wash
ington, D. C.: U. S; Government Printing Office,
1949.
Fiedler, Miriam, and Stone, L. J. The Rorschach of selected
groups of children in comparison with published
norms. II. The effect of SES on Rorschach perfor-
J mance. J. proi. Tech.. 1956, 2 0 , 273-279.
i
Flavell, J. H. The developmental psychology of Jean Piaget.
New York: D. Van Nostrand and Co., 1963.
i
Ford, Mary. The application of the Rorschach Test to young ;
children. Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minne-i
sota Press, 1946.
i
Franshel, D. A study of caseworkers' perceptions of their
clients. Soc. Casewk.. 1958, 20, 543-551.
I
Freeman, F. S. Theory and practice of psychological test
ing . New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962,
! pp. 625-627.
jFreud, Anna. Child observation and prediction of develop-
i ment. In The psychoanalytic study of the child.
| Vol. XIII. New York: International Universities
Press, 1958. Pp. 92-123.
t
Fromm, Erika, Hartman, Lenore D., and Marschak, Marian.
Children's intelligence tests as a measure of dynam
ic personality function. Amer. J. Orthopsychiat.,
1957, £2, 134-144. j
l
iFrost, B. P. An application of the method of extreme devia-j
tions to the WISC. J. clin. Psychol., 1960, 16. 420l
413 I
Geismar, L. L., LaSorte, M. A., and Ayres, Beverly. Measur
ing family disorganization. Mar. and Fam. Living.
1962, 2A, 51-56.
Glasser, A. J., and Zimmerman, Irla L. Projective aspects
of the WISC. Paper read at Calif. State Psychol.
Ass., San Francisco, December, 1961.
IGlidewell, J. C., Mensh, I. N., and Gildea, Margaret C.-L.
| Behavior symptoms in children and degree of sick-
i ness. Amer. J. Psvchiat.. 1957, 114. 47-53.
i
i
jGough, Harrison, G. The relationship of socio-economic
I status to personality inventory and achievement test;
scores. J. educ. Psychol.. 1946, 22., 527-540. |
Gray, Susan W. Masculinity-femininity in relation to anxi
ety and social acceptance. Child Develpm.j 1957, ;
2 3 , 203-214. 1
Grill, Lauretta G., and Himmelman, F. M. Interdisciplinary
I teamwork in a school setting. Soc. Casewk.. 1959,
40. 23-27.
Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry. The diagnostic
process in child psychiatry. New York, Report No.
38, 1957. '
|
Guilford, J. The structure of intellect. Psvchol.
Bull.. 1956, H, 267-293.
| _______. New frontiers of testing in the discovery and
development of human talent. Proceedings of the
| * Western Regional Conference on Testing Problems.
Berkeley, Calif.: Educational Testing Service,
1958.
Halpern, Florence. A clinical approach to children's Ror-
schachs. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1953.
Hansen, P. J. The relationship of certain biographical in- j
formation to the academic and behavioral achievement)
of high school boys. Unpublished doctoral disserta-i
tion, University of Utah, 1950. j
414
Harman, H. H. Modern factor analysis. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1960.
Hartmann, H. Essays on eao psycholocry. New York: Inter
national Universities Press, 1964.
Henry, W. F., and Farley, Jane. Validity of the TAT in the
study of adolescent personality. Psych. Monocrr ..
1959, 22, No. 17 (Whole No. 487).
Hilgard, E. Impulsive versus realistic thinking: an exam-
: ination of the distinction between primary and
secondary processes in thought. Psvchol. Bull.j
1962, 21, 477-488.
Hiller, E. W., and Nesvig, D. Changes in intellectual
! functions of children in a psychiatric hospital,
j J. consult. Psvchol.. 1961, £2, 288-292.
Pinkie, L. E. Jr., Plummer, N., Metraux, Rhoda, Richter, P.,
Gittinger, J. W., Thetford, W. N., Ostfeld, A. M.,
Kane, F. D., Goldberger, L., Mitchell, W. E.,
Leighter, Hope, Pinsky, Ruth, Goebel, D., Bross,
i Irwin D. J., and Rolff, H. G. Studies in human
ecology. Amer. J. Psvchiat.. 1959, 114. 212-220.
t
I
jHollingshead, A. G., and Redlich, F. C., Social class and
, mental illness: a community study. New York: John
Wiley and Sons, 1958.
punt, J. McV. Intelligence and experience. New York: The
Ronald Press Co., 1961.
Hutt, M. L., and Briskin, G. J. The clinical use of the
revised Bender Gestalt Test. New York: Grune and
Stratton, 1960.
Jackson, P. W. Representative correlations among various
indicators of psychological adjustment. Paper read
at a workshop of Amer. Orthopsychiat. Ass., New York,I
March, 1961. j
I
Jones, E. The life and work of Sigmund Freud. Vol. I. New!
York: Basic Books, 1953.
415
Kaiser, H. F. The varimax criterion for analytic rotation
j in factor analysis. Psvchometrika. 1958, £2, 187-
! 200.
Kent Pediatric Society. A study in the epidemiology of
health. Bexleyheath, Kent: The Health Department
(no date listed).
Keogh, B. K., and Smith, C. E. Group techniques and pro
posed scoring system for the Bender Gestalt Test
with children. J. clin. Psychol.. 1961, 17, 172-
175.
Klopfer, B., Ainsworth, Mary D., Klopfer, W. G., and Holt,
I R. Developments in the Rorschach technique. Vol.
I. New York: World Book, 1954.
j Developments in the Rorschach technique. Vol.
| II. New York: World Book, 1959.
| '
Koppitz, Elizabeth M. The Bender Gestalt Test and learning
| disturbances in young children. J. clin. Psychol.,
j 1958, 14, 292-295.
, _______. The Bender Gestalt Test for children: a norma
tive study. J. clin. Psychol., 1960, 4, 432-435.
I :
■ _______. Teacher’s attitude and children's performance on
the Bender Gestalt Test and human figure drawings.
J. clin. Psvchol.. 1960, !£., 204-208.
Koppitz, Elizabeth M., Sullivan, J., Blyth, D. D., and
Shelton, J. Prediction of first grade school
j achievement with the Bender Gestalt Test and human j
figure drawings. J. clin. Psychol.. 1959, 15 ., 164- ;
! 168.
j :
Kris, E. Notes on the development and on some current prob
lems on psychoanalytic child psychology. In Eisslerj
Ruth S., Freud, Anna, Hartmann, H., and Kris, E.
(eds.). Psychoanalytic study of the child. Vol. VI,,
^ New York: International Universities, 1950. Pp.
24-46.
: i
Kuhlen, R. G., and Collister, E. G. Sociometric status of
sixth and ninth graders who failed to finish high J
school. Efluc. p§y.chol. Measmt• , 1952, 12, 632-637.
Laird, James T. Emotional disturbances among the physically
handicapped. Personnel quid. J.. 1957, !£., 190-191.
Lambert, Nadine. A method for validating a procedure to
screen emotionally handicapped children. Paper read
at Western Psychological Association meeting, San
Jose, April 1959.
_______ . The development and validation of a process for
screening emotionally handicapped children. U.S.
0. E. Cooperative Research Project No. 1186. Sacra
mento, Calif.: California State Department of Edu
cation, 1962.
_______ . The high school drop out in elementary school.
In Schreiber, D. (ed.), Guidance and the school drop!
i out. Washington, D. C.: American Personnel and
| Guidance Association, 1964. Pp. 40-65.
( _______. The relationship between the performance on the
Bender Gestalt Test and the reading achievement of
third grade boys and girls. Paper read to Western
Psychological Association meeting, Santa Monica,
April, 1963.
! _______. Technical report for a process for in-school
screening of children with emotional handicaps.
Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service, 1961.
_______ , and Fultz, Jane. Directions for administering and
scoring Verbal and Non-verbal Creative Thinking
Tests. Sacramento, Calif.: Bureau of Special Edu- |
cation, Calif. State Department of Education, 1964. j
Ledwith, Nettie H. Rorschach responses of elementary schoolj
children. Penn.: University of Pittsburgh, 1959.
i _______ . Rorschach study of child development. Penn.:
University of Pittsburgh, 1960.
, |
'Lessing, Elise E. Prognostic value of the Rorschach in a j
child guidance clinic. J. pro~i. Tech.. 1960, 21, i
310-321. |
i
_______ , and Lessing, J. C. WISC sub-test variability and ;
validity of the WISC IQ. J. clin. Psvchol.. 1963, |
417 I
12, 92-95.
Littell, W. M. The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for childrens
review of a decade of research. Psychol. Bull..
; I960, 52, 132-164.
i
Lorr, M., and Jenkins, R. L. Three factors in parent be-
| havior. J. consult. Psychol.. 1953, 12, 306-308.
Lotsof, E. J., Comrey, A., Bogartz, W., and Arnsfield, P.
! A factor analysis of the WISC and Rorschach. J.
proi. Tech.. 1958, 2 2 , 297-301.
Matthews, C. G. Differential performances of non-achieving
children on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale. Un
published doctoral dissertation, Purdue University,
1958.
McHugh, Ann P. WISC performance in neurotic and conduct
disturbances. J. clin. Psychol.. 1963, 1 2 . , 423-424.
Maxwell, A. E. Discrepancies between the pattern of abili
ties for normal and neurotic children. J. ment.
Sci.. 1961, 102, 300-307.
i
Mensh, I. N., Kantor, Mildred B., Domke, H. R., Gildea,
Margaret C.-L., and Glidewell, J. C. Children's
behavior symptoms and their relationships to school
adjustment, sex, and social class. J. soc. Issues.
1959, 12 (1), 8-15.
j
jMeyer, George. Some relationships between Rorschach scores
! in kindergarten and reading in the primary grades.
| J. PXPj. Tech., 1955, 12, 414-425.
I |
plichael, W. B., and Tobias, M. The factorial dimensions of j
| 35 selected achievement, intellectual, personality,
psychological and maturational variables. Paper
| read at Calif. State Psychol. Assoc., Los Angeles,
j December, 1962.
|
Miller, F. J. W., Court, S. D. M., Walton, W. S., and Knox,
E. G. Growing up in Newcastle on Tyne. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1960.
418 |
Murphy, Lois. The widening world of childhood. New York:
Basic Books, 1962.
Neugarten, B. Social class and friendship among school
| children. Amer. J. Sociol.f 1945, jjl, 304-314.
jNeuropsychiatric Institute, University of California at Los
j Angeles Medical School. Psychiatry project A form
1C and IB. Prepared by the Department of Psychia
try, UCLA, 1959.
INorthway, Mary L., and Wigdor, Blossom L. Rorschach pat-
| terns related to sociometric status of school chil
dren. Sociometrv. 1947, 10, 186-199.
1 :
I
Pascal, G. R., and Suttell, B. J. The Bender Gestalt Test.
New York: Grune and Stratton, 1951.
j
jPetrie, I. R. J. Residential treatment of maladjusted
| children: a study of some factors related to
progress in adjustment. Brit. J. educ. Psychol.,
j 1962, 22., 29-37.
i
Piotrowski, Z. A. Perceptanalysis. New York: Macmillan,
; 1957. |
i !
Rabban, M. Sex-role identification in young children in 2
diverse social groups. Genet. Psychol. Monoar.,
1950, 42, 81-158.
!
Rabin, A. I., and Haworth, Mary R. Protective techniques
with children. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1960.
Rapaport, D. Organization and pathology of thought. New j
York: Columbia University, 1951.
Robbertse, P. M. Personality structure of socially adjusted
and socially maladjusted children, according to the
Rorschach Test. Psychol. Monogr. f 1955, 22., No. 19
j (Whole No. 404). j
i . i
|Robins, L. N., Gyman, H., and O'Neal, Patricia. The inter- j
I action of social class and deviant behavior. Amer.
i sociol. Rev.. 1962, £Z, 480-492.
419
!Roff, M. A factorial study of the Fels Parent Behavior
Scales. Chi Id Deve loin.. 1949, 20. 29-45.
Rosenberg, B. G., and Sutton-Smith, B. A revised conception
of masculine-feminine differences in play activities,
J. genet. Psvchol.. 1960, 21, 165-170.
jRychlak, J. F., and Guenonard, D. Rorschach content, per
sonality, and popularity. J. proi. Tech., 1960,
; 2 A , 322-332.
Sarbin, T. R., Taft, R., and Bailey, D. E. Clinical infer-
1 ence and cognitive theory. New York: Holt, Rine-
j hart and Winston, 1960.
I
Schulberg, H. C., and Tolar, A. The use of the Bender Ge-
| stalt in clinical practice. J. proi. Tech.. 1961,
j 21, 347-351.
I
iScott, W. A. Research definition of mental health and men-
; tal illness. Psychol. Bull.. 1958, j j j L , 29.
I
■Selby, Lola. Typologies for caseworkers. Soc. serv. Rev..
1958, 2 2 , 341-349.
I i
JSewell, W. H., and Haller, A. 0. Factors in the relation
ship between social status and the personality ad
justment of the child. Amer. sociol. Rev., 1959,
24, 511-520.
_______ . Social status and the personality adjustment of
the child. Sociometry, 1956, 21, 114-125.
iSiegal, M. G. The diagnostic and prognostic validity for
the Rorschach Test in a child guidance clinic.
Amer. J. Psychiat.. 1948, 18. 119-133.
Smith, L. M. The concurrent validity of 6 personality and
adjustment tests for children. Psychol. Monoar..
j 1958, 22., No. 4 (Whole No. 457).
i ;
i i
jSnygg, D., and Combs, A. W. Individual behavior. New Yorksj
Harper and Brothers, 1949. i
420
Spence, J., Walton, W. S., Miller, F. J. W., and Court,
5. D. M. A thousand families in Newcastle upon
Tyne. New York: Oxford University Press, 1954.
Spitz, Rene A. The psychogenic diseases in infancy. In
Psychoanalytic study of the child. Vol. VI. New
York: International Universities Press, 1951. P.
255.
jstone, F. H. A critical review of a current program of
! research into mother-child relationship. In Caplan,
6. (ed.), Emotional problems of early childhood.
New York: Basic Books, 1955. Pp. 95-116.
jSutton-Smith, B., Rosenberg, B. G. Manifest anxiety and
game preferences in children. Child Develpm.. i960,
11, 307-311.
i
!Szasz, T. What psychiatry can and cannot do. Harpers,
| 1964, 228. No. 1365, 50-53.
Tamkin, A. S. The effectiveness of the Bender Gestalt in
I *
differential diagnosis. J. consult. Psychol.. 1957,
2 1 , 354-357.
^Torrance, E. Guiding creative talent. Englewood Cliffs,
N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1962.
, __________ Verbal and Non-verbal Creative Thinking Tests.
Bureau of Educational Research, University of Minne
sota, 1960.
Tryon, R. C. Cumulative communality cluster analysis. Con-
! tract Report No. 7, November 1956, University of
California Contract No. AF 41(657)-76.
; _______. Communality of a variable: formulation by clus
ter analysis. Contract Report No. 4, September
| 1956, University of California Contract No.
I AF 41(657)-76.
i
j Communality of a variable: formulation by clus-
j ter analysis. Psvchometrika. 1957, 22., 241-259.
i
421
Tuddenham, R. D. Studies in reputation. Vol. III. Corre
lates of popularity among elementary-school chil-
| dren. gfluc. Psy. ctol., 1951, 12, 257-276.
j _______. Studies in reputation. Vol. I. Sex and grade
differences in school children's evaluations of
their peers. Psychol. Monoar. t 1952, ££., No. 1
I (Whole No. 333).
Ullmann, C. A. Identification of maladjusted school chil-
| dren. Public Health Monograph, No. 7, Washington,
D. C.: U. S. Public Health Service, 1952.
t *
j _______. Teachers, peers and tests as predictors of ad-
; justment. J. educ. Psychol., 1957, IS., 257-267.
Warner, W. L., Meeker, M., and Eells, K. Social class in
i America, a manual on procedure for measurement of
social status. Chicago: Science Research Associ
ates, 1960.
[Wechsler, O. The measurement of adult intelligence. New
York: Williams and Williams, 1943.
I _______. The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for children.
I New York: Psychological Corporation, 1950.
[Welfare Planning Council of Los Angeles. Mental health
survey of Los Angeles Countv. Sacramento, Calif.:
California State Department of Mental Hygiene, 1960,
Wilner, D. M. The housing environment and mental health.
In Pasamanicle, B. (ed.), Epidemiology of mental
j disorder. Washington, D. C.: American Association
for the Advancement of Science, 1959. Pp. 143-174.
i
^ Walkley, Rosabelle P., and Tayback, M. How does
the quality of housing affect health and family ad
justment? Amer. J. Publ. Hlth. 1956, 46, 736-744.
Wysocki, B. A. A factorial study of Rorschach protocols.
Percept, mot. Skills. 1960, .!£, 105-106.
422
Zax, M. Cower, E. L., Izzo, L. D., and Monk, M. A. Identi
fying emotional disturbance in the school setting.
Amer. J. Orthopsvchiat.. 1964, M., 447-454.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A Factor Analysis Of The Symbolic-Evaluation Abilities

PDF

A Factor Analysis Of The Semantic-Evaluation Abilities

PDF

The Effect Of Subject Sophistication On Ratio And Discrimination Scales

PDF

An Analysis Of The Selection Criteria For Assignment Of Students To Advanced Placement Classes In The Los Angeles Unified School District

PDF

Figural And Symbolic Divergent-Production Abilities In Adults And Adolescents

PDF

A Study Of The Relationships Between Factors Found In Cattell'S Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire And Factors Found In The Guilford Personality Inventories

PDF

Factorial Stability As A Function Of Analytical Rotational Method, Type Of Simple Structure, And Size Of Sample

PDF

The Role Of Intellectual Abilities In Concept Learning

PDF

A Rotational Approach To Psychological Invariance

PDF

A Multidimensional Scaling Of Mood Expressions

PDF

An Empirical Study Comparing Various Methods Of Achievement Expectancy Bymeans Of Mental Ability

PDF

Methodological Problems In The Identification Of Suicidal Behavior By Means Of Two Personality Inventories

PDF

A Factor Analytic Investigation Of The Effects Of Specific Visual Contentof Motion Pictures Used In Psychological Measurement

PDF

The Influence Of Order Information And Stimulus Display Time On Short-Term Retention

PDF

A Factor-Analytic Study Of Problem-Solving Abilities

PDF

A Study Of Criteria Of Social Perception And Some Related Variables

PDF

A Factor-Analytic Study Of Military Leadership

PDF

Some Factors Affecting Ucr Diminution

PDF

The Effects Of Prior Part-Experiences On Visual Form Perception In The Albino Rat

PDF

Human Performance As A Function Of The Joint Effects Of Drive And Incentive Motivation

Asset Metadata

Creator Lambert, Nadine Murphy (author)

Core Title Some Aspects Of The Dimensionality Of School Adjustment Of Fifth Grade Boys

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Psychology

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

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,psychology, experimental

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Guilford, Joy P. (committee chair), Carnes, Earl F. (committee member), Cliff, Norman (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-182712

Unique identifier UC11359565

Identifier 6600573.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-182712 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 6600573.pdf

Dmrecord 182712

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Lambert, Nadine Murphy

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