University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Effects Of Different Treatment Procedures On Reading Ability And Anxiety Level In Children With Learning Difficulties

(USC Thesis Other)

Effects Of Different Treatment Procedures On Reading Ability And Anxiety Level In Children With Learning Difficulties

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content This dissertation has been
microfilmed exactly as received 68*1184
DESKIN, Gerald, 1929-
EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT TREATMENT PROCEDURES
ON READING ABILITY AND ANXIETY LEVEL IN
CHILDREN WITH LEARNING DIFFICULTIES.
University of Southern California, Ph«D., 1967
Psychology, clinical
University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan
EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT TREATMENT PROCEDURES ON READING
ABILITY AND ANXIETY LEVEL IN CHILDREN WITH
LEARNING DIFFICULTIES
by
Gerald Deskin
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)
August 1967
UNIVERSITY O F SOUTHERN CAUFORNIA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANOELEE, CALIFORNIA 90 0 0 7
This dissertation, written by
Is* J rtt jfjtC'l' * 1
under the direction of huS...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 TO R OF P H IL O S O P H Y
......
Date S . e p . t i e r a h f c r .. .2 .» .. .1 9 .6 1
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES................................. iii
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION........................... 1
The Problem
Review of the Literature
Hypotheses to be Tested
II. METHODOLOGY............................. 25
Subjects
Instruments
Design
Procedures
III. RESULTS................................. 38
IV. DISCUSSION............................. 45
V. SUMMARY................................. 54
REFERENCES..................................... 58
APPENDICES....................................... 73
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix c
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Appendix H
ii
List of Tables
Table Page
1. Age Range................................ 25
2. Intelligence Quotients.................... 27
3. Analysis of Variance and Means
for Dependent variables................ 40
4. Analysis of Covariances Intelligence
as Covariate............................ 41
5. Analysis of Covariances TASC Pre-Test
as Covariate............................ 42
6. Analysis of Covariances TASC Post-Test
Minus TASC Pre-Test as Covariate......... 43
iii
J
J
| CHAPTER I
i
INTRODUCTION
I
The Problem
j
The last few years, especially since the advent
i
of Sputnik, has seen a resurgence of interest in the area
of remediation of learning difficulties. This has
i occurred both in the popular press (Time, Look, Saturday
; Review), as well as in the educational and psychological
literature, e.g., Bouise (1955), Johnson (1955), Bond and
■ Tinker (1957), Smith and Dechant (1961), Money (1966),
; Hobbs (1966). Articles about reading and-learning
problems have increased yearly in number. In these and
many other standard texts in educational psychology,
reading takes primary focus as the major learning problem.
The foremost area of lack of significant success in
studying learning problems is the remediation of reading
difficulties. It is also a major area of disagreement as
; to causes of the problem and approaches to the solution.
! The various approaches to the solution of reading
i
I
! difficulties are well illustrated in standard educational
1
I texts. In this study we are concerned with the differ-
| ential effects of group treatment approaches to the
| solution of the problem of remediation of reading diffi-
!
i culties.
; The Importance of the Problem
; The problem is not a new one. Durrell (1940)
investigating 6,000 children in grades two to six, found
that twenty seven per cent were functioning one or two
i
! years or more below their capacity in reading achieve-
; ment. These children who are functioning below ttieir
intellectual capacity frequently pose a persistent and
i puzzling problem for both the educator and the psycholo-
! gist. More recently, Hobbs (1966) reports that there is
| an estimated one and a half million emotionally disturbed
children in the United States today. While this appears
to be a different group from the former one, he says:
"Underachievement in school is the single most common
characteristic of emotionally disturbed children"
(Hobbs, 1966).
He stresses the present author's point of view
that underachievement in academic work makes a significant
difference in the child's emotional health.
With such a large portion of the child population
involved, the problem has both immediacy and urgency in
! 3 •
!
i terns of social need. Teachers are now more often taking
!
I the initiative in referring disturbed children or children
j who are not learning, for specialized help to places such
as child guidance clinics and clinic schools. These
children are referred frequently for both behavior and
I academic difficulties. However, often initial identifies-
i
tion has been followed by the application of a variety of
i
corrective techniques which have had disappointing
results. This study then is directed towards gaining a
j
I clearer understanding of some of the significant variables
t
that affect the remediation of children with learning dis
orders.
What are the significant independent variables?
' Both a review of the literature and discussions with
professional educators show fairly clear agreement upon
several crucial areas which are significant to learning.
These are first; the techniques in the educational area;
second, the emotional factors which affect the child who
is learning; third, home or parental factors, and fourth,
the area involving maturational lag, or genetic factors,
or minimal brain dysfunction. These later factors were
! not dealt with in the present study specifically, but no
i
; children with known brain damage or hereditary defects
i
were included in this study.
i " ' " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
The problem as a Primary Interest
j of the Author
- For the last six years this author has been
i
| closely involved in the problem of diagnosis and treat
ment of learning disorders as well as emotional disorders
i ■ i
of children, it soon became clear from the writer's j
i |
i experience that most clinical child psychologists were
: able to-diagnose emotional problems. Most educators
could diagnose educational problems. However, there was
I a failure at integrating the two fields at a clinical or
I
; treatment level. There was only lip service paid to the
fact that each child with a learning problem had it in a
! matrix of a living, feeling child, in his environment,
i In fact, this author has found few clinic schools or j
i
remedial treatment centers (and those only recently)
where it was found necessary to accept the fact that
possibly joint educational and psychotherapeutic assist- I
i
ance might benefit the child significantly more than one
approach alone. The two questions then become both
practically and theoretically, first, whether emotional
factors must be considered in reading remediation, and
< secondly, if so, what to do about them. j
i
; Controversy over the "Disease" versus j
j "Learning1 1 Theories of Treatment
Since this study concerned the relationship
between emotional factors and reading, certain arbitrary j
5
decisions had to be made. To deal with emotional
problems was too vague, so the decision was made to dis
cuss the primary symptom of emotional disorder— anxiety.
To discuss treatment, two radically different types of
treatment were chosen. One represents the "disease" or
"medical" model and one a "learning" model. This conflict
can be dated from a provocative article by Eysenck (1959),
although the seeds were planted much earlier, e.g.,
Watson and Rayner (1920). Paul (1966) points out that
active, direct intervention into neurotic behavior pre
dated today's traditional "disease" model therapeutic
approach. However, the almost total acceptance of
Freudian theory readily displaced the older, unsystematic
re-educative procedures. Lately, there is a movement
involving rediscovery of early proponents of a learning
model, e.g., Jones (1924), as well as new articles by
vociferous advocates of a learning approach such as
Bachrach (1962), Bandura (1961), Eysenck (1959, 1960,
1964), Wolpe (1958, 1961, 1962) and Wolpe, Salter and
Reyna (1964)•
Because of this controversy it was felt that if
treatments were chosen from each of these two areas, it
would help clarify the problem as well as the claims made
by proponents of each model. Hobbs (1966) and Lewis
(1965) point out that therapeutic intervention is not
6
demonstrably superior to the passage of time without
treatment in the subsequent adjustment of children
diagnosed as emotionally disturbed. Eysenck (1959),
Wolpe (1958) and Paul (1966) claim as much as one hundred
per cent success with a learning theory approach. Other
behavioral therapists claim success in the region of
seventy five per cent, e.g., Hain, Butcher and Stevenson
(1966), Marks and Gelder (1966) and Meyer and Crisp
(1966). Analytic or "disease" model practitioners are
somewhat more modest in their claims.
Difficulties in Understanding the
Relationship Between EmotionaT
Factors and Learning
Studying the relationship between personality
variables and academic achievement is made difficult by
reason of several factors. Researchers using specific
instruments, sometimes invented for a particular study,
tend to define basic terms in their own unique manner.
The same terms are used in different experiments, yet
they have different meanings. Henc&~, the studies and
conclusions, while sounding relevant to each other, are
really not. Frequently the validity or reliability of
instruments is not known. Sometimes studies report
anecdotal information rather than to examine experiment
ally pertinent variables. Also, samples differ in
significant ways. In this study an attempt to review the
literature led to articles that did not account for sex,
social class, genetic or organic causes of difficulty.
The samples were so heterogeneous, for example, as to IQ
|or age, that one must be careful in comparing results with
|other studies. Basic terms are defined differently so
that results clearly could not be compared. Therefore,
|
one must be cautious in comparing the results of the
|present study to earlier studies.
I
! Review of the Literature
i
I
! The Relationship Between the Emotional
iLife of the Child and Learning
!Difficulties
The failure in reading and in other areas of
;learning frequently leads to discouragement, negative
jattitudes toward school, and to disturbed behavior.
Coleman, Berres, Briscoe and Hewitt (1959) point out the
consequent approach-avoidant conflict with regard to
failure in reading. Depending on their background,
children react to academic failure in various ways. Some
continue to try. Some develop various defensive patterns,
'but the relationship between emotional and learning dis-
i
! organization has been discussed and reviewed by many
i
! investigators. Wiksell (1948) reported that about fifty
i
per cent of poor readers in a college freshman class had
emotional difficulties. Bouise (1955) reported 21 out of
8
30 retarded readers had serious personal problems. Gann
(1945) found that poor readers were less stable, less.
i
i
secure, and less well-adjusted emotionally than average j
readers of the same age. Johnson (1955), Robinson (1949), j
i
Siegal (1954) and others note that children with learning {
I
difficulties also have serious emotional difficulties.
Smith and Dechant (1961) in ttieir summary of this re- j
i
lationship point out that almost all studies examined by j
them point to the emotional concomitants of poor reading
and poor learning ability. The evidence appears weighted
in favor of a strong relationship between the two. j
i
i
i
The Nature of the Relationship I
Between Emotional Difficulties j
and Learning Difficulties j
The question of cause and effect in this relation-j
ship has also been studied. Robinson (1949) and Gates
I
(1941) suggest that emotional disturbance is the cause of j
many cases of reading difficulty. Gates (1941) states
that the reverse is also sometimes true. Bender (1953)
suggests that reading difficulties lead to aggressiveness.:
I
i
Bond and Tinker (1957) in a review of this relationship
i
concluded that the weight of the evidence generally |
indicates that emotional maladjustment is more frequently ’
i
an effect than a cause of learning difficulties. Other
factors may also be correlated with either or both of
these areas. The problem of chronic ill health, visual j
9
perceptual difficulties and family unrest or parental
influence, e.g., Coleman, Bornston and Fox (1958), also
may play a significant part. Of all the possibilities
however, a pathological family constellation still re
mains as a major possibility for further study with
children who are having learning difficulties.
Anxiety as a Major Response in
Emotional Disorder
Not all of the various studies already mentioned
above specify that anxiety is a major response character
istic of emotional disorder. English and English (1958)
define chronic anxiety as a major symptom in emotional
disorder. Although the studies cited sometimes do not
specify the meaning of anxiety, the symptoms described
match the definition of anxiety given by English and
English (1958).
Anxiety and Learning.
Anxiety and Reading
There have been many studies describing the
relationship between learning and anxiety, for example,
Spence (1953), Spence and Farber (1953), Taylor (1951),
and Taylor and Spence (1952)• Taylor (1953) describes
a personality scale for measuring manifest anxiety in
adults which was later modified for children by Castaneda,
McCandless and Palermo (1956)• Children with learning
10
difficulties have been measured for specific defects and
specific problem areas, e.g., low auditory retention and
recall, Rose (1958), Saunders (1931). Alwitt (1963) also
finds a lowered memory span in a sample of children with
reading difficulties when digits were presented visually.
j
The Concept of Anxiety
i
There exist today many theories and approaches j
to the study of anxiety, e.g., Freud (1959), Bornstein
|
(1951), Sullivan (1948, 1953, 1956), Gershman (1950), j
Erikson (1950), May (1950), Thompson (1952), Mussen and i
i
Conger (1956) , White (1956), Wolpe (1958), and Spielberger 1
(1966). But Freud (1959) was one of the first to describe j
anxiety within a theoretical framework which will serve
as a basis for the present study. Freud's genetic or j
i
developmental point of view underwent theoretical changes
i
as his ideas developed. But basically Freud considered
the sudden flooding of stimulation of the foetus at birth
to be both the beginning and the prototype of all later
i
anxiety reactions. The development of anxiety too under- j
went several universal stages.
The first anxiety reaction is an uncontrolled, |
I
automatic reaction of the helpless inexperienced infant,
I
who has clearly not yet learned to deal with the resulting
feelings. The response is adaptive in that it helps
initial breathing and the elimination of toxic products. j
i This initial reaction sets the stage for further automatic
; anxiety reactions which continue to occur after birth, at
ithe onset of each painfully new stimulus.
The next series of stages occur as the child
undergoes continuing anxiety reactions under different
: sets of circumstances. -As each reaction occurs in the
context of these new and/or repeated experiences, a
transition takes place, involving the maturation of the
child in time, as well as experience. With time, anxiety
I
reactions become less global and more specific. The
anxious reaction no longer occurs automatically to a
painful situation, but gives rise to the signals that the
event is going to occur, and so enables the child to try
to avoid the painful stimulation. This sequence appears
to be a process of learning through conditioning, but
clearly is dependent on both maturation and esqserience.
If this sequence continues the process becomes more and
more sophisticated in the child. It is mediated by such
factors as verbal cues and, in the case of this study,
the thought of talcing a test.
In most human beings, anxiety gives rise to
signals which the ego learns to react to in various ways.
These defensive reactions may be called symptoms,
especially if considered abnormal. If the ego handles
them flexibly and adaptively a healthy human being will
12
|result, e.g., one whose anxiety level is not disruptive.
j
If not, i.e., if they are handled rigidly and neurotically,
. i
we have an abnormal personality. These early learned |
i i
|reactions to anxiety then are basic determinants of j
|personality in later life. |
| When the transition of anxiety from an automatic
I
reaction to a signaling function is disturbed, and the |
I
ego therefore does not take control, the child may con
tinue to experience anxiety in catastrophic doses in the
face of every painful situation. He may therefore with
draw from reality as suggested by Spitz (1945). j
Freud's structural development of personality
i
jlists particular anxieties at particular stages in
I
; development, e.g., fear of his superego in the latency
phase, which exists with other ongoing anxieties. He
also points up what he considers a basic sex difference,
i.e., that for girls the danger situation of loss of
object is most anxiety producing, but for boys the loss
i
of object becomes transformed into a fear of loss of the
object's love.
Freud (1925) mentions three criteria of an
j
ianxiety reaction. It is unpleasant. It has physio- j
I
'logical concommitants and it is consciously experienced.
i i
For him anxiety was an experimental phenomenon although
he talks of unconscious affect, when he talks of anxiety
!this way he means not anxiety itself but an unconscious
readiness to develop the affect of anxiety (Fenichel,
i
| 1945). The experience of abnormal amounts of anxiety
i
seems to be indicative of some malfunction in the
Iindividual1s ego or control apparatus. Later workers
frequently discuss fear and anxiety, or phobia and
! anxiety as different quantitatively or qualitatively.
Sarason et al. (1960) suggest that the younger the child
the more difficult it becomes to maintain the distinction
between fear and anxiety and no distinction is made for
the purpose of this study.
The Problem of Reading Disorders
Some authors choose to define reading disorders
as a lack of correlation with intelligence, e.g.,
Roswell and Natchez (1964). Another author discusses
reading as a problem in visual discrimination, e.g.,
Gibson (1966) or in visual perception, e.g., Frostig
(1962). Smith and Dechant (1961) define reading as
interpretation of the printed page. A recent survey
of the problem reader, Money (1966), describes various
I
approaches which lead one to the conclusion that no one
is clear as to what constitutes the essential correlates
of reading. In the field of remediation the same problem
naturally follows. For the last 30 years the field has
been growing in an alarming fashion. Over 15,000 articles
14
on reading appeared by 1959 (Smith and Carrigan, 1959)•
For the current year a conservative estimate would be
double that amount. Yet tiie problem of what reading is,
has not been answered. Reading clinics in this author's
experience all achieve somewhat over 50 per cent success
no matter what the method used. However, both the
definitions of the problem and its remediation remains
a persistent and frustrating problem. Eisenberg (1966)
cites a report by Gray (1956) suggesting that 11 per
cent of U.S. citizens could not read. Although, what
reading is, is not clear, many of its components are
know, and each of the above mentioned definitions as
well as many others, all contain a part of the truth.
Rather than define reading once again, we shall
mention some of the essential correlates of the process.
It is party a visual process. It involves decoding or
receiving of visual symbols. It involves association of
these symbols usually visually and sometimes auditorialy.
It takes place most importantly in a human being. This
human being may have, or not have, his basic physiological
equipment, e.g., endocrine glands, appropriately developed.
He may have defects in basic sensory equipment. There may
be other defects or differences in emotional functioning.
Most definitions of reading fail to take into account one
or more of these basic factors both in definition of the
15
process and in remediation of the basic skills.
This study attempts to deal with a homogenous
group of problem readers in several respects. Primarily,
that large group of children with known organic brain
damage or genetic defects were eliminated. Therefore,
two essential considerations in remediation of reading
might be considered. These are first, the remedial
techniques specific to the area of difficulty, and
secondly, a consideration of the emotional factors which
inevitably accompany reading difficulty. The treatment
of the latter then remains the essential uncontrolled
variable dealt with in this study.
Specialized Treatment of Learning
Disorders other Than Remedial
Reading
Besides the many remedial learning techniques,
Smith and Dechant (1961), in a review of the area, point
out that the various therapeutic techniques such as art
therapy, language therapy, play therapy, psychodrama,
group interview therapy, sociodrama, and individual
interview therapy have been successful in one degree or
another. Thus, Osburn (1951), claims success for
substitution, catharsis and psychodrama in helping poor
readers. McGann (1947) reported that the reading of
dramatic dialogues involving teacher and pupil had the
effect of emotional release and of developing motivation
and interest in reading.
16
Group Approaches to the Treatment !
of Reading Disability j
i
There are studies regularly appearing through j
I
the years concerning the beneficial effects of counseling j
i
on children with reading difficulties as in Arthur (1940), I
I
and Dolan (1964). I
!
There are also a number of studies concerned with :
both effects of group counseling and achievement in
general, chestnut (1965) in a survey of the field,
I
states that several studies reported group counseling
to have a beneficial effect on academic achievement of !
i
under-achieving college students. |
i
However, there have been fewer studies that have i
been concerned with the more direct relationship between
group counseling and reading difficulties. We shall take
|
a closer look at these few studies.
One of the first studies involving nondirective
tfierapy for poor readers was that of Axline (1947). She
i
utilized a class of 37 second grade poor readers or non-
!
readers. She divided them into four reading groups. j
IQ's ranged from 80 to 148. Eight girls and 29 boys |
were used. Axline reported improved reading readiness j
and better personal adjustment for the class, it is
difficult to evaluate this study in that, (1) no controls j
17
were used, (2) several students had physical handicaps
such as speech defects or defective vision, (3) results
were reported only in months gained and no statistical J
evaluation was given, (4) gains during the three and j
one-half months of the experiment ranged from -5.5 months |
i
to +17 months.
Bills (1950) reported a study of 18 third graders
in a class of slow learners. Conducted over three j
J
periods of 30 school days each; the first was a control j
period of testing and remedial reading. In the second j
period, four average and four high IQ students were j
chosen and were additionally given six individual and
three group counseling sessions over a six week period. |
I
The balance of the children were considered a control
i
group. During the last period all 18 students were
given remedial reading. Bills reported a significantly
greater mean reading level with the group given non
directive play therapy than with the control group,
using a t test he reported significance level beyond
the .001 level. This study is not directly comparable
with the present one for several reasons. First, play
i
therapy rather than group counseling or behavior therapy j
!
was used. Secondly, no measure of anxiety was made. j
Selection was not random but pre-selected as to IQ. {
Bills reported that the Mean IQ of the therapy group
18
was 130 and for the control group was 95. With this much
difference loaded in favor of the therapy group we would
i
expect the brighter group to learn much faster than the
control group. However, even the four average IQ
students in the therapy group also improved. It is
difficult to understand the significance of this experi
ment with such a small sample and lack of control of
important variables such as anxiety. Finally, Bills
mentioned the self-concept as a possible vital factor
which will be considered further in the Discussion section
of this paper. He also raises the question of what his
results mean in terms of kinds of learning, i.e., gains
due to the child's being able to utilize already learned
material, or new material.
Fisher (1953) worked with 12 delinquent boys who
were three years or more retarded. He divided them into
two groups matched for IQ and initial reading age.
Both groups were given remedial reading help. One group
was given nondirective group counseling once a week for
one hour over a six months period. The control group
improved an average of 8.25 months. The counseling group
improved an average of 11.5 months or a gain of 3.25
months over the control group, i.e., 39.4 per cent more
than the non-therapy group. Fisher did not control for
anxiety level. His sample of six in each group also
19
limited the usefulness of his conclusions since, e.g.,
four out of six of his non-therapy group gained more
than 8.25 months, four out of the therapy group gained
more than 8.25 months in reading. The unreported median
gain in months for the therapy group was 10.5 months and
for the non-therapy group was 9.0 months which suggests
a non-significant gain.
Roman (1955) worked with a group of 21 delinquent
boys aged 13 years to 16 years of age. IQ ranged from
65 to 95 and all were two years below grade level in
reading. He gave seven subjects tutorial group therapy,
seven group remedial reading, and seven interview group
therapy, all over a period of seven months. Roman found
all improved in reading ability, but none significantly
over the other. The first group achieved the greatest
gain in psycho-social adjustment.
This study suggests that when remedial techniques
and psychotherapy are combined the best progress in read
ing remediation occurs.
Shatter (1956) utilized 24 fourth grade boys of
normal IQ and two years' reading retardation. They each
received 36 hours of group therapy one hour each week.
They met in four groups of six members each. Twelve of
the mothers of members of the group received group
therapy separately. No special remedial help other than
this regular reading period in class was given. Those '
t
boys whose mothers also were involved in group therapy j
made gains in reading ability significant beyond the .02 j
levels of confidence compared with the controls. These !
results suggest that changing parental attitudes effects j
f
the child's reading. ;
i
Lipton and Feiner (1956) reported a three months' ■
I
study of nine fourth graders, 10 to 11 years of age, of
i
average or above average intelligence. They came from j
deprived socioeconomic levels and manifested both
personality and academic difficulties. This was not an
i
experimental study so one cannot evaluate the usefulness
of the approach from their report alone. However, they
stated that reading can be learned only when a child is
emotionally ready. Their treatment consisted of group
therapy three sessions of one hour each per week. No
remedial reading training was given. They indicated in
general that this approach was successful in helping
children to read. The present author questions strongly
the usefulness of any program of reading remediation that
I
does not as a continuing part of the program involve j
remedial reading techniques. i
21 I
Relaxation Training and systematic i
Desensitization as a Treatment
for Reading Disorders
Jacobson (1938) demonstrated that the process of
relaxation has autonomic accompaniments opposite to those
of anxiety. Wolpe (1958/ 1959) claims that muscle j
relaxation inhibits anxiety, and that concurrent expres- j
sion of both is physiologically impossible, i.e., j
reciprocal inhibition. His method of anxiety reduction j
is called systematic desensitization, and he described j
it as a more efficient method of combining relaxation
i
and anxiety reduction than the Jacobson technique. :
Davison (1965) attempted to isolate the effective ele
ments of desensitizatipn treatment. He found that j
i
desensitization under relaxation was more effective than •
I
without relaxation, leading to Rachman's (1967) con
clusion in his review that relaxation is an essential
i
part of the treatment process.
Wolpe*s procedures have also been applied to a
group by Lazarus (1961). His sample consisted of 35 ,
middle-class urban South Africans who were handicapped
by phobic disorders. One group of 18 was given group j
desensitization treatment, one group of 9 was given
group interpretation and one group of 8 was given group
interpretation plus relaxation. He found a significant
difference in favor of the group desensitization
- 22
treatment, i.e., a 66 per cent recovery rate after a
mean of only 10.1 sessions. There were no recoveries
in the second group and two recoveries in the last group.
Paul (1966) studied the effectiveness of
systematic desensitization in reducing interpersonal
performance anxiety, as related to public speaking. He
utilized 74 students in five matched groups: (1) syste
matic desensitization, (2) insight therapy, (3) attention
placebo, (4) no treatment control, and (5) no contact.
During five hours over a six-week period he found the
systematic desensitization group superior on three types
of measurement, subjective report, physiological arousal
and reaction to stress. Paul and Shannon (1966) in a
further development of a group approach found that
systematic desensitization could be combined with group
discussion and be effective.
The group approach to systematic desensitization
is relatively new (Lazarus, 1961). Although no studies
were found that dealt with the relationship to reading
problems, one recent study by Katahn, Stranger and cherry
(1966) dealt with a combined group counseling and be
havior therapy approach as it related to test-anxious
college students' achievement. They studied a group of
45 students, 14 of whom were high-anxious. Two groups of
eight students, four males and four females, underwent
|eight sessions of one hour of a combined group counseling
|and behavior therapy approach. The authors found, as
idid Paul and Shannon (1966) that the approach was an
i
{effective one, resulting in a significant increase in
grade point average and a significant decrease in Test
{Anxiety Scale scores. However, the students reported
subjectively that they felt that the discussion of their
problems was more helpful than the systematic desensiti
zation procedures, in helping their academic achievement.
I
! Hypotheses To Be Tested
This study will endeavor to determine whether:
1. subjects in a remedial reading group will
improve in reading as a function not only
of type of treatment given, but of initial
anxiety level.
2. subjects in a remedial reading group will
improve more in reading as a result of
additional assistance in the form of
relaxation training and systematic
desensitization.
3. subjects in a remedial reading group will
i
improve more in reading as a result of
additional assistance in the form of group
counseling.
24
4. separate treatments will differentially
affect the level of anxiety in children
with learning difficulties in that there
will be a greater change in anxiety in the
desensitization and counseling groups them
in the remedial group.
CHAPTER II
METHODOLOGY
Subjects
Subjects consisted of 45 boys selected from those
entering the summer session program at the University of
California, Los Angeles, Psychology Clinic School, for a
six-week program. They all came for help in remediation
of a reading problem. Selection and assignment to three
groups was made by means of a table of random numbers.
Subjects ranged in age from 8 years, 1 month, to 12
years, 3 months, as follows:
TABLE 1
AGE
N Age Range Mean Age Median Age
Group Is 17 8-1 to 11-11 10-2 9-9
Group II: 15 8-1 to 12-3 10-5 9-10
Group III: 13 8-1 to 12-1 10-2 10-5
Total: 45 8-1 to 12-3 10-3 10-0
The family was intact. A mother and father were
present in each home. A study by Sears, Pintler and
Sears (1946) suggests that the presence of the father in
the home is an important factor in determining the
emotional stability of the child.
J Male subjects only were used in this study for |
j j
practical as well as theoretical reasons. The population
of the Psychology Clinic School consisted mostly of male
j students. Durell (1940) points out that more boys than j
j girls have learning difficulties. Phillips (1962) notes I
I
I I
1 that both the level o£ anxiety and its relationship to '
j school achievement depend on the interaction of sex as
I
well as social class. In terms of theories of anxiety, |
Sarason et al. (1958) speculate that males obtain lower I
| anxiety scores on tests because anxiety is "ego alien"
I and they are reluctant to admit the presence of anxiety,
i Sex differences in the consequences of anxiety have
frequently been reported, e.g., McGuire, Hindsman, King
and Jennings (1961), Phillips, Hindsman and McGuire
1 (1960), Sarason, Davidson, Lighthall, Waite and Ruebush
(1960). That sex also interacts with a variety of other
factors in producing these differences in the conse
quences of anxiety was also investigated by Grooms and
Endler (1960), Phillips, Hindsman and Jennings (1960),
| and Reese (1961)•
I
27
j
Subjects ranged in IQ from 87 to 131. Scores
j
j were obtained from previous school records.
|
i TABLE 2
INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENTS
N IQ RANGE MEAN IQ MEDIAN IQ
Group I: 17 91-125 103 100
Group II: 15 87-131 104 100
Group III: 13 92-126 104 103
Total: 45 87-131 104 100
Sarason et al. (1960) reviewed the literature
i concerning the relationship of IQ and anxiety and in
dicated that brighter children have more fear and tend
to fear actual changes. Duller children tend to fear
more ambiguous and unknown stimuli. Two particular
problems in this area are the suggestions of Sarason
et al. (1960) that the brighter children are more verbal
; and therefore better able to discuss their fears than
i
! dull children. Amen and Renison (1954) suggest also the
brighter child can recall frightening experiences better
i
than dull children. A second problem pointed out by
Trent (1957) is that the tendency to deny anxiety is
28
negatively related to intelligence.
Although all subjects were pre-selected by the
nature of the school setting and fees, the three groups
were matched for socioeconomic level by the Hollingshead
Scale, Hollingshead (1949). In a study of the interaction
jof several variables with anxiety, Phillips (1962) found
•that sex differences in level of anxiety occurred only in
ithe lower social class, where males had lower anxiety
I
scores than females. Lower-class males with high anxiety
had higher intelligence scores than lower-class males with
low anxiety. He also found that anxiety as a debilitating
factor was more evident in relation to teacher grades than
jin relation to an achievement test.
I
I All subjects were Caucasian. There was no evi-
j
dence in previous school records or medical history of
any physical defects in any of the subjects.
Instruments
The California Achievement Test (CAT)
The CAT Lower Primary, Upper Primary, and
Elementary forms, 1957 edition, 1963 norms is published
by the California Test Bureau, Del Monte Research Park,
Monterey, California. The authors are W. W. Tiegs and
i
Willis W. Clark. The test yields the following summary
i
i
grades: a reading grade, an arithmetic grade, a language
29
grade, and a total battery grade. The reading grade was
used in this study.
The reliability of the reading grade is as
follows. Lower primary coefficient is .88. Upper
primary reliability coefficient is .94. Elementary
reliability coefficient is .95.
The CAT has been used in the context of remedial
reading clinics as well as in the public school system
for several years. The exact sample used is not
described in the test manual. The authors claim it is
a valid instrument on the basis of both content and
construct validity. The items have been selected to
measure many of the most universal subject-matter
objectives of the curriculum. The test correlates
highly with similar achievement tests such as the
Metropolitan Vocabulary Test, Metropolitan Reading Test,
Stanford Paragraph Meaning Test. Correlations range
from .74 to .99. To eliminate as far as possible
practice effects, alternate forms were used in this study. |
As standard practice this test is administered at the
beginning and end of the summer school program at the
Psychology Clinic School. It was included in this study
because it was felt that another independent measure of
reading would be worthwhile. The data was also available
as a matter of course at the Psychology Clinic School.
The Gilmore Oral Reading Test
The Gilmore Oral Reading Test (GORT) is published
by Harcourt, Brace and World. Its author is John V.
Gilmore. The test is designed to measure the oral read-*
i
|ing performance of pupils in grades one through eight.
i
jThere are two equivalent forms, A and B. The former was
i
jadministered as a pre-test and the latter as a post-test.
Each form consists of ten oral reading paragraphs
which form a continuous story of increasing reading
difficulty. Grade equivalents are given for accuracy
i
and comprehension. The average of these two scores was
used for measuring pre and post oral reading.
The GORT was standardized on 1620 pupils. Forms
A and B were administered alternately within each grade.
As evidence of validity of the instrument the author
reports the following correlations between the GORT
Form A and two other oral reading tests. GORT and Gray
Oral Reading Tests for accuracy, r = .77. GORT and
i
Durrell Reading Test, r for accuracy is .77, for
comprehension is .59.
A reliability check involving the administration
|for both Form A and B to groups of pupils in Grades 2,
5 and 7. One-half took Form A first and the other half
Form B first. For grades 2 and 5 the r for accuracy
i
were .89 and .85, respectively. For comprehension the
31
r's were .68 and .67, respectively. Standard error of
measurement for grades 2 and 5 for accuracy were 4.3 and
4.7 while for comprehension they were 3.3 and 3.0.
The Test Anxiety Scale for children (TASC)
The TASC is a scale of 30 items described in
Sarason, Davidson, Lighthall, Waite and Ruebush (I960).
It consists of questions read to an individual or group
and responded to by circling a "Yes" or "No" answer which
is written on an answer sheet. The total score is the
number of items scored YES. The scale was initially
validated on 2,211 children in grades two through five.
It correlated significantly with teacher ratings and
with other measures of anxiety. The TASC was assumed to
have construct validity in that the scale enabled the
prediction of behavior in a number of different but
relevant situations (Sarason et al., I960). In the same
study the authors discuss the problem of position effect.
They note that there is a statistically significant
difference when the test is given before or after other
tests, and that there is a decrement of about 2.68 points
when the test is given again within as much as a one
year lapse.
Design
32
Treatments (Details of Treatments appear in Appendix 6)
Remedial techniques-— The subjects all received
remedial help by means of several techniques. The
techniques as described by Fernald (1943), emphasizing
a kinesthetic approach to the remediation of learning
difficulties, is the primary system of remediation
utilized by the Psychology Clinic School. Hbwever, it
is supplemented by other techniques as required. There
fore, this study does not specify the Fernald technique
as the sole remedial technique, but rather the basis
and major emphasis at the Psychology Clinic School at
the time of the study.
Relaxation Training and Systematic
Desensitization
The relaxation training in the present study
differed both from that of Jacobson (1938) and of Wolpe
(1958, 1961). It was administered by the author to a
group of 15 subjects who were seated in an office at the
Psychology Clinic School, twice weekly for one hour, for
a period of six weeks. The anxiety hierarchy was then
presented to the group.
Before the anxiety hierarchy was presented to
the group, the entire first session and half of the
33
subsequent eleven sessions were devoted to training in
deep muscle relaxation as follows:
1. The subjects were seated and told to sit as
relaxed as they were able to.
2. The subjects were asked to try to relax
even further.
3. The subjects were asked to concentrate on
their breathing. They were to note the
feeling of relaxation on expiration and
feeling of tension on inspiration.
4. They then were taught to be aware of tension,
e.g., they were taught to make themselves
more tense as they breathed in. They were
then taught to become more relaxed as they
breathed out.
5. They were taught to control their degree of
relaxation in steps, e.g., to breathe out,
relax, relax further. On another trial the
number of steps are increased.
6. They were then taught to tense and relax
other muscle groups, e.g., arm, face,
shoulder, tongue.
7. The awareness of the subject's tension and
the decrease in a step or staircase manner
are essential factors in deep muscle
34
i
relaxation. j
The items in the anxiety hierarchy were presented I
to the subjects with the weakest item presented first and
i
each item was repeatedly presented until it appeared that
little or no anxiety in most of the group was evoked by j
it. The following lists the hierarchy.
1. Imagine you are in your bedroom with your
schoolbooks on a chair.
2. Imagine you are in a classroom with a book
closed before you.
3. Imagine you are reading something easy and
interesting like a comic book or a hot rod
magazine.
4. Imagine you are reading a book to yourself
that is quite difficult.
5. Imagine you are reading something out loud
in your home.
6. Imagine you are reading something assigned
by the teacher out loud in class.
7. Imagine you are reading a test paper while
taking a test. You only have a short time
to complete the test.
Group Counseling
This group of 13 subjects met in an office
grouped in a circle, with the author as counselor. They
met for two sessions per week for six weeks. The initial
session was structured by the group leader as follows:
We are going to meet twice a week for the next
six weeks while you are attending summer school here.
Our purpose is to discuss the problems and feelings
we are all having around school, around reading and
around taking tests, to see if we can get a better
understanding of why we feel so badly about it.
The remainder of the sessions were conducted by the
author in a non-directive fashion, with the exception of
attempting to keep the group focused on school problems.
Procedure
1. All male students entering the Psychology Clinic
School from ages 7 to 12 years were initially
given the CAT, the GORT and the TASC. The CAT
was administered in a group by the classroom
teacher. The GORT and the TASC were administered
individually by.the author.
2. Forty-five subjects were assigned randomly to
three groups matched for age, amount of reading
difficulty and level of anxiety.
3. Group I attended classes 15 hours a week for
remedial training. None were involved with
personal psychotherapy or counseling.
4. Group II (Desensitization) attended classes 13
hours a week far remedial training. They also
36
attended two one hour sessions per week or 12
sessions for systematic desensitization.
5. Group III (Counseling) attended classes 13 hours
a week for remedial training. They also attended
2 one hour sessions per week or 12 one hour
sessions for group counseling.
6. At the end of the six week summer session, all
three groups were re-tested. An alternate
form of the CAT was administered in the group
classroom situation. An alternate form of the
GORT was administered individually by the author.
The same form of the TASC was administered
individually by the author.
Analysis of the Data
1. A separate analysis of variance was performed on
each of the three dependent variables, the TASC,
the GORT and the CAT analyzing the changes in
the students. This statistical technique
appeared appropriate for evaluating group means
in deciding whether the treatment had an effect
or not. To provide equal size groups the
samples were reduced to an N of 13.
2. Analysis of covariance was calculated using
intelligence, initial anxiety level and change
in anxiety level each as control variables. —-
Correlations were computed for all variables
for each of the three groups as well as for the
total group of subjects, to identify the con
sistent relationship among the variables.
I
CHAPTER III
RESULTS
Reading Improvement as a Function
of Initial Anxiety
The first hypothesis relating to improvement in
reading as a function of initial anxiety level, measured
i
by the TASC, was not confirmed. None of the correlations
I
{between TASC pre-test scores and the various reading
i
,change scores reached the .05 level of significance.
Reading Improvement as a Result
of Systematic Desensitization
The second hypothesis relating to improvement in
{reading as a result of additional assistance in the form
jof relaxation training and systematic desensitization was
reading as a result of additional assistance in the form
of group counseling was confirmed (|> ^ .05). Table 3
comprises these results.
Table 3 comprises these results.
[ Reading Improvement as a
Result of Counseling
i
The third hypothesis relating to improvement in
38
Differential Effects of Treatments
on Change in Anxiety Level
The fourth hypothesis relating to the differential
effects of treatments on change in anxiety level was not
confirmed. The hypothesis was made that change in
anxiety during treatment would interact with various
treatments, i.e., that therapeutic intervention would
change the level of anxiety as the treatment proceeded.
i
! Neither the correlations between TASC pre-test scores
; and reading improvement scores, nor the analysis of
t
! variance for the TASC difference was proved to be
! significant at, or beyond, the .05 level.
I
i Intelligence
i Since the subjects were randomly assigned to the
i
j treatments and one might expect that intelligence would
| have an effect, or interact in different types of treat-
i
| ments, e.g., counseling might work best with the brighter
i
students, IQ was taken as a covariate. Table 4 comprises
these results. The same variables were significant
(jp ^.05). The Duncan New Multiple Range test was sig
nificant for the comparison (p ^.05) of the remedial and
desensitization groups, and slightly below the .05 level
l
| of significance for the remedial and counseling groups.
i
I Covariates
The data presented in Tables 3, 4, 5, and 6 show
TABLE 3
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE AND MEANS FOR DEPENDENT VARIABLES
DV SOURCES df
MEAN
SQUARES F
GROUP
MEANS
DUNCAN1S NEW
MULTIPLE
RANGE TEST
Gilmore Oral Reading Test,
Comprehension Grade Equiva
lent Post-Test Minus Pre-
Test Difference Scores
Mean
G
S(G)
1
2
36
84.19
16.03
2.33
6.88*
1)
2)
3)
.32
2.53
1.56
3-1
2-1
2-3
=
1.21
2.21**
.97
Gilmore Oral Reading Test
Mean 1 51.92
1)
.42 3-1 = .88*
Grade Post-Test Minus Pre- G 2 5.83 6.70* 2) 1.74 2-1
=
1.32**
Test Difference Scores
S(G) 36 .87 3) 1.30 2-3 = .44
Overall Reading Retardation
Mean 1 55.92
1)
.56 3-1
=
.73
Pre-Test Minus Post-Test G 2 4.59 5.16* 2) 1.74 2-1
=
1.18**
Difference Scores
S(G) 36 .89 3) 1.29 2-3 = .45
* = .05
** = .01
o
TABLE 4
ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE: INTELLIGENCE AS COVARIATE
DV SOURCES df
MEAN
SQUARES F
ADJ
GROUP
MEANS
DUNCAN'S NEW
MULTIPLE
RANGE TEST
Gilmore Or al Reading Test,
Comprehension Grade Equiva
lent Post-Test Minus Pre-
Test Difference Scores
Mean
G
Covariate
S(G)
1
2
1
35
14.56
16.80
8.78
2.14
7.84**
4.10
1) .28
2) 2.54
3) 1.59
3-1 =
2-1 =
2-3 =
1.31*
2.26**
.95
Gilmore Oral Reading Test
Grade Post-Test Minus Pre-
Test Difference Scores
Mean 1
G 2
Covariate 1
S (G) 35
6.24
6.14 7.65**
3.34 4.16
.80
1) T40
2) 1.75
3) 1.32
3-1
2-1
2-3
.92
1.35**
.43
Overall Reading Retardation
Pre-Test Minus Post-Test
Difference Scores
Mean 1
G 2
Covariate 1
S(G) 35
4.69
4.80 5.60*
2.15 2.50
.86
1) .54
2) 1.75
3) 1.30
3-1
2-1
2-3
.76
1.21**
.45
* = .05
** = .01
TABLE 5
ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE: TASC PRE-TEST AS COVARIATE
DV SOURCES df
MEAN
SQUARES F
ADJ
GROUP
MEANS
DUNCAN'S NEW
MULTIPLE
RANGE TEST
Gilmore Oral Reading Test,
Comprehension Grade Equiva
lent Post-Test Minus Pre-
Test Difference Scores
Mean 1 20.58
G 2 16.04
Covariate 1 .03
S(G)______35 2.39
6.70*
.01
1) .31
2) 2.53
3) 1.56
3-1 = 1.25*
2-1 = 2.22**
2-3 = .97
Gilmore Oral Reading Test
Grade Post-Test Minus Pre-
Test Difference Scores
Mean 1 10.80
G 2 5.78
Covariate 1 .03
S (G)______35 .90
6.44*
.04
1) 743
2) 1.74
3) 1.30
3-1
2-1
2-3
.87*
2.10**
1.23**
Mean 1 12.71
1)
.56 3-1 = .73
Overall Reading Retardation
Pre-Test Minus Post-Test
G 2 4.57 4.98* 2) 1.74 2-1 = 1.18**
Difference Scores Covariate
S(G)
1
35
.00
.92
.00 3) 1.29 2-3 = .45
* =
* * -
.05
.01
> * >
to
TABLE 6
ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE: TASC POST-TEST MINUS TASC PRE-TEST AS COVARIATE
DV SOURCES df
MEAN
SQUARES F
ADJ
GROUP
MEANS
DUNCAN'S NEW
MULTIPLE
RANGE TEST
Gilmore Oral Reading Test,
Comprehension Grade Equiva
lent Post-Test Minus Pre-
Test Difference Scores
Mean 1 72.06
G 2 16.01
Covariate 1 1.44
S(G) 35 2.35
6.80*
.61
1) .32
2) 2.53
3) 1.56
2-1 = 2.21**
2-3 = .97
3^1 = .88*
2-1 = 1.32**
2-3 = .44
Gilmore Oral Reading Test
Grade Post-Test Minus Pre-
Test Difference Scores
Mean 1 40.68
G 2 5.83
Covariate 1 .14
S(G) 35 .89
6.52*
.16
1) 742
2) 1.74
3) 1.30
Overall Reading Retardation
Pre-Test Minus Post-Test
Difference Scores
Mean 1 43.29
G 2 4.59
Covariate 1 .10
S(G) 35 .92
5.00*
.11
1) 756
2) 1.74
3) 1.29
3-1 = .73
2-1 = 1.18**
2-3 = .45
* = .05
** = .01
44
that none of the analyses of covariance produced results
that differed significantly from those obtained by the
analysis of variance.
Correlation
Although many correlations were significant in
the group and in the over-all analysis (see Appendices F
and H), most had to do with intra-test relationships and
so are not particularly meaningful in this study.
45
CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION
Variables Influencing Anxiety
The results of this study did not support the
first hypothesis regarding initial anxiety level. Im
provement in reading over this six-week period appears
to be a function primarily of factors other than initial
anxiety level. The possibilities are numerous as to what
these variables might be. They might, for example, be a
function of the kind of remedial training given, or the
type of treatment given to the child to help deal with
his emotional problems. Other variables such as ego
strength, the child's relationship to significant members
of his family or to his peer group may be important.
This finding contrasts with the results of Sarason et al.
(1964), and of Hill and Sarason (1966). Their studies
also suggest several possibilities to account for the
difference. First, they find that over a longer time
period anxiety scores become increasingly and negatively
correlated with academic performance, particularly
reading. They point out that children who showed the
46
; greatest increases in anxiety demonstrated the smallest
increases in test performance.
In the present study, time may have been a
' significant variable in using the TASC as a measure of
i
anxiety. Since, however, it is difficult to obtain a
i
! significant change in TASC scores over a short period of
!
j time, a follow-up study of the two treatments over a
longer time span such as a year might be considered.
The study by Hill and Sarason (1966) indicates
| that when a scale of defensiveness and a lie scale were
included with the TASC and were partialed out, the
results were significantly different from the situation
]
without these two scales. Since anxiety is reported to
I be "ego-alien" for males, defensiveness is an additional
variable of importance when working with the concept of
anxiety. Certainly future studies should include some
measure of defensiveness.
The final hypothesis dealing with the differen
tial effects of the three treatments on anxiety was not
confirmed. Anxiety was reduced in all three groups.
i
Anxiety was not reduced significantly more in one group
!
1 than another. This finding suggests that the treatments
were equally effective in changing the level of anxiety.
This is not a surprising result inasmuch as the pre
viously reported research-studies show changes in
anxiety from counseling, from systematic desensitization,
and from the effects of remedial reading. Since the first
two effects are adequately explained and documented else
where, the last one only will be discussed further in
this chapter.
Problems in Studying Anxiety
Anxiety is a difficult concept to study, par
ticularly in children. Either it is defined so
operationally as to lose the richness of meaning, or
it is defined so loosely as to lose heuristic value.
One solution that might have merit is never to study the
concept alone, but always in relationship to several
interacting factors or to use multiple measures of
anxiety. Defensiveness is one such variable. Intel
ligence is another. If, as Sarason (1960) suggests,
bright children have more fears than dull children, one
is not justified in studying one without the other.
Clearly the TASC alone is not adequate as a single
measure of "anxiety," nor is any other measure known.
Quite probably anxiety in the child should not be
studied without a clearer understanding and measure of
parental factors, or social factors that might influence
the child. Although a test is reliable insofar as a
repeat administration produces a result matching that
found initially, there is no question that the child on
48
one day is different six weeks later in many ways in
spite of the re-test score stability.
Effectiveness of Relaxation
and Desensitization
This study confirms the second hypothesis re
lating to the effectiveness of relaxation training and
systematic desensitization as means of improving reading
ability. Of special heuristic interests is that the
children responded extremely well, with willingness and
interest, to the rather structured procedures. Behavior
therapy is a major interest at the present time in
current literature on psychotherapy. However, there has
been little utilization of this method with groups, or
with children. Behavior therapy as a form of brief
therapy opens up possibilities for school personnel who
do not have training in the long-term traditional pro
cedures. One problem in using this method with children
is the difficulty in understanding what the instructions
mean to a specific child. They appear to see the
procedure initially as a game and delight in exploring
and discovering new aspects of the control of their body.
In this way they might gain some security and comfort
in what is at times a confusing world to children with
learning difficulties. There is possibly a change in
body image as the children gain more understanding of
49
their body parts, possibly accompanied by a better
understanding of their bodily position in space. These j
factors were neither measured nor controlled in this j
study but future studies should take them into account.
Effectiveness of Counseling
Until recently, counseling either individually or
in a group setting was considered an effective type of
i
treatment (Chestnut, 1965). In the present study the
counseling group made significant gains in reading im- |
provement over the remedial group but these gains were not|
significantly different from those of the desensitization I
group, thus neither confirming nor denying the greater i
!
effectiveness of one type of treatment over another. |
I
The children in the counseling group shared j
l
feelings and thoughts about their teachers, about the
school and about the problem of taking tests. The dis
cussion appeared to give the children feelings of shared
common problems in relation to both subject matter and
school personnel. An assumption would be that they
gained some insight from both the sharing and discussing
!
of common problems. j
Problems in Comparing Two
Types of Treatment
It is easy to define or structure what will
happen in a particular counseling session, than in a
50
specific desensitization session. However, one wonders
j what part of the success indicated by the impressive
statistics reported for behavior therapy is due to the
I therapist's warn empathic relationship and questions to
I the subjects which are identical with those given to the
I
traditional psychotherapist. This author recalls hearing
i
a record made by Wolpe of a systematic desensitization
session and being surprised at the similarity of his
comments to what is considered a more traditional
i
approach.
j Another variable in this study of treatment
l
i groups has to do with the effects of social facilitation.
These boys were called out of class. They walked
i
!
together to the treatment room and when the session was
over they walked back to their classroom. Paul (1966),
who controlled for the sociability factor by using a
contact but no treatment group, found no such effect.
However, this author still considers these factors as
potentially important in affecting treatments.
Another approach to the evaluation of both types
! of treatment was that of Katahn et al. (1966). Their
|
subjects felt that when both counseling and desensitiza
tion treatments were given, counseling, or discussion of
their problems, was more helpful than the systematic
desensitization. Future research should be directed
51
toward an evaluation of both types of treatment with
special attention to eliminating the common factor of
counselor influence on treatment.
Effects of Academic Failures
In this achievement-motivated culture, the child
who fails academically over an extended period of time,
e.g., a year or more, can in general be said to be under
going certain negative feelings. While not all children
respond identically there is great similarity in what
happens to most middle-class children in our society.
Let us assume that a child falls behind in reading at
school. In the first place, this means failure in
relation to the teacher, who then begins to treat him
differently. She may ignore him if he begins to disrupt
the class, or on the other hand give him special help.
He is aware immediately of the change. Secondly, he
fails in relation to his peers. They see him and hear
him in class and know he cannot read well. He knows
that they know it. Thirdly, he fails in relation to his
parents. This author has yet to find a parent who does
not hope that his child will go to college.
The pressures for achievement on the middle-class
child are so obvious and numerous as to be part of our
folklore. The child who fails in reading is aware that
he is failing to live up to social expectations. This
awareness signal to the child that he is not performing
as others, or as he himself, would like. The consequent
j
anxiety feelings as well as other emotional concomitants
I
of learning failure in our society, such as frustration,
lowering of motivation, poor self-concept, all summate
i
to interfere with the child's ability to recoup or catch
up to grade level.
When adequate, appropriate remedial help is
given, children frequently respond in what seems a
i
! "magical" fashion. Many of the secondary emotional
problems such as anxiety disappear. The child often
seems happier and improvement is noted in many personal
as well as academic areas. Therefore, the fact that the
remedial reading alone helps to reduce anxiety is easily
understood. The present study confirms the report by
Roman (1955) that both treatments together, i.e., a
therapeutic approach and remedial reading are the most
effective treatment to remediate reading disorders.
Future Directions of Research
i
1 Future research should be directed towards
finding more effective and meaningful instruments both
in the area of anxiety and in the area of reading
improvement. The problems in using the TASC in this
53
study have been discussed already. The GORT proved
meaningful but the CAT did not. It has already been
mentioned that the CAT was included because it is
automatically given to all new students at the Psychology
Clinic School and a second measure of reading improvement
might prove meaningful. It is the author's impression
that it is not a reliable measure of the child's reading
ability in that setting for several reasons. It is a
group test and children tend to fill in answers fre
quently without careful consideration. The test is
so designed that it is possible to obtain a fairly high
score even when items are answered at random.
Systematic desensitization should be further
explored in relation to work both with emotionally
disturbed children, with children with reading problems,
and with children in groups. The area of the relation
ship of systematic desensitization and relaxation
training to the problem of disturbed body image has not
yet been explored.
One major failure of this study that future
studies might improve upon is the lack of a fourth
control group. In the present study two groups received
treatment. The results would have been more meaningful
if a fourth group had come to the office and just sat
and talked, or watched a movie.
CHAPTER V
| SUMMARY
I
The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate
| the differential effects of treatment procedures on read-
1 ing ability and anxiety level in children with reading
difficulties. The results were evaluated to determine
| whether improvement in reading was a function not only
| of type of treatment given, but of initial anxiety level.
Secondly, we wished to find out whether subjects
1 in remedial reading groups would improve more in reading
as a result of additional assistance in the form of
relaxation training and systematic desensitization.
A third objective was to determine whether sub
jects would improve more in reading level as a result of
additional assistance in the form of group counseling.
Our final task was to discover the differential effects
of separate treatments on the anxiety level of children
with learning difficulties,
j The population studied comprised 45 boys selected
randomly from the University of California, Los Angeles,
Psychology Clinic School's six-week summer session. The
54
55
subjects were matched in sex, age, race, intelligence and
socioeconomic level. They were assigned to three equal
groups all of whom were pre-tested on the "California
Achievement Test," the "Gilmore Oral Reading Test," and
the "Test Anxiety Scale for Children."
All three groups were given the usual remedial
techniques employed by the Psychology Clinic School. In
addition to this basic remedial work. Group II received
two one-hour sessions of systematic desensitization, and
Group III received two one-hour sessions of group
counseling, each week for six weeks. All students spent
the remainder of their time up to 15 hours per week in
class, receiving the usual remedial techniques.
At the end of the six weeks all three groups
were re-tested. Alternate forms of the CAT and GORT
were used. The same form of the TASC was used.
An analysis of variance as well as three
covariates: intelligence, initial anxiety level, and
difference scores on the TASC were calculated. Over-all
and group correlations were also obtained.
The results confirmed those hypotheses dealing
with the effects of the treatments, but did not confirm
the hypotheses dealing with anxiety. The initial
hypothesis relating to improvement in reading as a
function of initial anxiety level was not confirmed.
The second hypothesis according to which the
effectiveness of systematic desensitization as a treat
ment for helping children with reading difficulties was
confirmed.
The third hypothesis predicting the effectiveness
of group counseling as treatment for children with read
ing difficulties was also confirmed. Both treatments
were significantly more effective when combined with
remedial reading techniques than when those techniques
were used alone. However, they were not significantly
different from each other in terms of efficacy.
The last hypothesis relating to the differential
effects of the treatments on change in anxiety level as
measured by the TASC was not confirmed. None of the
covariate analyses changed the outcome of the study in
a significant manner.
Anxiety was reduced in all groups. However,
change was thought to be related to many possible
variables such as the effects of the parental relationship,
peer group effect, ego strength and defensiveness.
The similarities between systematic desensitiza
tion and counseling in terms of actual treatment was
discussed. It was believed that the warm empathic
relationship between subject and the therapist conducting
either type of treatment, might play an important part
57
in the similarity in results of both treatments.
REFERENCES
58
59
REFERENCES
Alwitt, L. F. Decay of immediate memory for visually
presented digits among non-readers and readers.
J. educ. Psvchol., 1963, 44. 144-148.
Amen, E. W. & Renison, N. A study of the relationship
between play patterns and anxiety in young
children. Genet. Psvchol. Monoqr., 1954, 50. 3-41.
Anderson, R. L. An experimental investigation of group
counseling with freshmen in a womans college.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. New York
Univer., 1956.
Arthur, G. Psychotherapy with retarded readers.
J. consult. Psvchol.. 1940, 4, 173-176.
Axline, V. M. Nondirective therapy for poor readers.
J. consult. Psvchol.. 1947, 11. 61-69.
Bachrach, A. J. (Ed.) Experimental foundations of
clinical psychology. New York: Basic Books, 1962.
Bandura, A. Psychotherapy as a learning process.
Psvchol. Bull.. 1961, 58. 143-159.
Baymur, F. B. & Patterson, C. H. A comparison of three
-methods of assisting underachieving high school
students. J. counsel. Psvchol.. 1960, 7./ 83-89.
Bender, L. Agression, hostility and anxiety in children.
Springfield, 111., C. C. Thomas, 1953.
Bills, E. Non-directive play therapy with retarded
readers. J. consult. Psvchol.. 1950, 14, 140-149.
Bond, G. L. & Tinker, M. A. Reading difficultiess
their diagnosis and correction. New York:
Appleton Century Crofts, 1957.
Bornstein, B. On latency. In The psychoanalytic study
of the child. Vol. VI. New Yorks International
Univer. Press, 1951.
Bouise, L. M. Emotional and personality problems of a
group of retarded readers. Elem. English, 1955,
32. 544-548.
Broedel, J., Ohlsen, M., Proff, F. & Southard, C. The
effects of group counseling on gifted under
achieving adolescents. J. counsel. Psvchol.,
I960, 1, 163-170.
Castaneda, A., McCandless, B. R. & Palermo, D. S. The
children's form of the manifest anxiety scale.
Child Develpm., 1956, 27. 317-326.
Castaneda, A., Palermo, D. S. & McCandless, B. R.
Complex learning and performance as a function of
anxiety in children and task difficulty. Child
Develpm.. 1956, 27. 327-332.
61
Chestnut, W. G. The effects of structured and unstructured
group counseling on male college students
underachievement. J. counsel. Psvchol.. 1965,
12, 388-394.
Clements, T. H. A study to compare the effectiveness
of individual and group counseling approaches
with able underachievers when counselor time is
held constant. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Univer. of Southern California, 1963.
Coleman, J. C., Bornston, F. L. and Fox, J.
Parental attitudes as related to reading disa
bilities in children. Psvchol. Rep., 1958, 4,
47-51.
Coleman, J. C., Berres, F., Briscoe, W. S. and Hewitt,
F. M. A teachers manual for the deep-sea
adventure series. San Francisco: Harr Wagner,
1951.
Davison, G. The influence of systematic desensitization,
relaxation and graded exposure to imaginal stimuli
in the modification of phobic behavior.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford
Univer., 1965.
DeWeese, H. L. The extent to which group counseling
influences the academic achievement, academic
potential, personal adjustment of predicted
62
lowachieving first semester college freshmen.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer. of
Illinois, 1959.
Dolan, C. K. Counseling as an aid for delayed readers.
J. Reading. 1964, JB, 129-135.
Duncan, D. R. Effects of required group counseling with
college students in academic difficulty.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer. of
Florida, 1962.
Durrell, D. B. Improvement of basic reading ability.
New Yorks World Book, 1940, P. 45.
Eisenberg, L. The epidemiology of reading retardation
and a program for preventive intervention. In
J. Money (Ed.) The disabled reader. Baltimore!
Johns Hopkins, 1966.
English, H. B. & English, A. C. A comprehensive
dictionary of psychological and psychoanalytical
terms. New Yorks David McKay, 1958.
Erikson, E. H. Childhood and Society. New Yorks
Norton, 1950.
Eysenck, H. J. (Ed.) Experiments in Behavior Therapy.
New Yorks Macmillan, 1964.
Eysenck, H. J. (Ed.) Behavior therapy and the neuroses.
New Yorks Pergamon, I960.
63
Eysenck, H. J. Learning theory and behavior therapy.
. J. Ment. Sci.. 1959, 105. 61-75.
Fenichel, O. The psychoanalytic theory of neurosis.
New Yorks Norton, 1945.
Fernald, G. M. Remedial techniques in basic school
subjects. New Yorks McGraw-Hill, 1943.
Fisher, B. Group therapy with retarded readers.
J. educ. Psvchol.. 1953, 44, 354-360.
Freud, S. Inhibitions, symptoms and anxiety. Londons
Hogarth, 1959.
Frostig, M. Education of children with learning
difficulties. Distinguished lectures in special
education. Vol. 1, Univer. of Southern California,
1962.
Gann, E. Reading difficulty and personality organization.
New Yorks Kings Crown, 1945.
Gates, A. I. The role of personality maladjustment in
reading disability. J. gen. Psvchol.. 1941, 59.
77-83.
Gershman, H. The problem of anxiety. Amer. J.
Psvchoanal.. 1950, 10. 89-91.
Gibson, E. J. Experimental psychology of learning to
read. In J. Money (Ed.) The disabled reader.
Baltimores Johns Hopkins, 1966.
64
Gray, W. S. The teaching of reading and writing, Paris:
UNESCO, 1956.
Grooms, R. R. & Endler, N. S. The effect of anxiety on
academic achievement. J. educ. Psvchol.. 1960,
51, 299-304.
Hain, J., Butcher, R. & Stevenson, I. Systematic
desensitization therapy: an analysis of results
in 27 patients. Brit. J. Psvchiat., 1966, 112,
295-308.
Harleston, B. W. & Cunningham, S. M. Task difficulty and
anxiety level as factors affecting performance in
a verbal learning situation. J. Psvchol.. 1961,
52., 77-86.
Hart, D. H. A study of the affects of two types of
group experiences on the academic achievement of
college underachievers. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Michigan State Univer., 1963.
Hill, K. T. & Sarason, S. B. The relation of test
anxiety and defensiveness to test and school
performance over the elementary-school years.
Monoqr. the Soc. for Res, in child Develpm.,
1966, 31. whole No. 2.
Hobbs, N. Helping disturbed children. Amer. Psychologist.
1966, 21, 1105-1115.
65
Hollingshead, A. B. Elmtown's youth. New Yorks John
Wiley, 1949.
Jacobson, E. Progressive relaxation. Chicago: Chicago
Univer. Press, 1938.
Johnson, M. S. A study of diagnostic and remedial
procedures in a clinic laboratory school.
J. educ. Res.. 1955, 48, 565-578.
Jones, M. C. Elimination of childrens fears. J. exp.
Psvchol.. 1924, 2/ 382.
Katahn, M., Strenger, S. & Cherry, N. Group counseling
and behavior therapy with test-anxious college
students. J. consult. Psvchol.. 1966, 30. 6.,
544-549.
Lazarus, A. A. Group therapy of phobic disorders by
systematic desensitization. J. abnorm. soc.
Psvchol.. 1963, 504-510.
Lewis, W. W. Continuity and intervention in emotional
disturbance: a review. Except. Child., 1965,
31, 465-475.
Lipton, A. & Feiner, A. H. Group therapy and remedial
reading. J. educ. Psvchol.. 1956, 47, 330-334.
McGann, M. Dramatic dialogues for simultaneous treatment
of reading and personality problems. J. educ.
Psvchol.. 1947, 38, 96-104.
66
McGuire
Marks, :
Maroney
Marx, G
May, R.
Meyer,
Money,
Mussen,
Osburn,
C., Hindsman, E., King, F. J. & Jennings, E.
Dimensions of talented behavior. Educ. psvchol.
Measmt., 1961, 21, 3-38.
:. & Gelder, M. Severe agorophobia. A
controlled prospective trial of behavior therapy.
Brit. J. Psvchiat.. 1966, 112, 309-320.
K. A. Effectiveness of short-term group
guidance with a group of transfer students
admitted on academic probation. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation. North Texas State Univer.,
1962.
, L. A comparison of the effectiveness of two
methods of counseling with academic underachievers.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State Univer.
of Iowa, 1959.
The meaning of anxiety. New York: Ronald, 1950.
7, & Crisp, A. H. Some problems of behavior
therapy. Brit. J. Psvchiat.. 1966, 112. 367-382.
F. (Ed.) The disabled reader. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins, 1966.
P. H. & Conger, J. J. Child development and
personality. New York: Harper, 1956.
W. J. Emotional blocks in reading. The Elem.
Sch. J.. 1951, 52., 23-30.
67
Palermo, D. S., Castaneda, A. & McCandless, B. R. The
relationship of anxiety in children to performance
in a complex learning task. Child Develpm.. 1956,
27, 333-337.
Paul, G. L. Insight vs. Desensitization in psychotherapy:
an experiment in anxiety reduction. Stanford:
Stanford Univer. Press, 1966.
Paul, G. L. & Shannon, D. T. Treatment of anxiety
through systematic desensitization in therapy
groups. J. abnorm. soc. Psvchol.. 1966, 71.
124-135.
Phillips, B. N. Sex, social class, and anxiety as
sources of variation in school achievement.,
J. educ. Psvchol.. 1962, 53,, 316-322.
Phillips, B., Hindsman, E. & Jennings, E. Influence
of intelligence on anxiety and perception of self
and others. Child Develpm., 1960, 31. 41-46.
Phillips, B., Hindsman, E. & McGuire, C. Factors
associated with anxiety and their relation to
the school achievement of adolescents. Psvchol.
Rep.. 1960, ±, 365-372.
Rachman, S. Systematic desensitization. Psvchol. Bull..
1967, 67, 93-103.
Reese, H. W. Manifest anxiety and achievement test
performance. J. educ. Psvchol.. 1961, 52, 132-135.
68
Robinson, H. M. Why pupils fail in reading. Chicago:
Univer. of Chicago, 1949.
Robinson, H. M. Manifestations of emotional malad
justments. Clinical studies in reading, 1,
Supplementary Educ. Univer. of Chicago, 1949,
114-122, whole no. 68.
Roman, M. Tutorial group therapy: A study of the
integration of remedial reading and group therapy
in the treatment of delinquents. Dissert. Abst.
1503, 1955.
Rose, F. C. The occurrence of short auditory memory span
among children referred for diagnosis of reading
difficulties. J. educ. Res.. 1958, 51, 459-464.
Ruzicka, W. J. Effectiveness of short-term group therapy
for high school students. Amer. Psychologist..
1959, 14* 343.
Sarason, S. B., Davidson, K., Lighthall, F. & Waite, R.
Classroom observation of high and low anxious
children. Child Develpm.. 1958, 29, 287-296.
Sarason, S. B., Davidson, K. S., Lighthall, F. F., Waite,
R. & Ruebush, B. K. Anxiety in elementary
school children. New York: John Wiley, I960.
Sarason, S. B., Hill, K. T. & Zimbardo, P. G. A
longitudinal study of the relation of test anxiety
to performance on intelligence and achievement
69
tests. Monogr. Soc. for Res. Child Develpm.
Serial No. 98, 1964, 29. No. 7.
Saunders, M. J. The short auditory span disability.
Childhood Educ.. 1931, 8, 59-65.
Sears, R. R., Pintler, M. H. & Sears, P. S. Effect of
father separation on preschool children's doll
play agression. Child Develpm., 1946. 17. 216-243.
Shatter, F. An investigation of the effectiveness of a
group therapy program including the child and his
mother for the remediation of reading difficulties.
Dissert. Abstr. 1956, 17, 1032.
Sheldon, W. D. & Landsman, T. An investigation of non
directive group therapy with students in academic
difficulty. J. consult. Psychol., 1950, 14,
210-215.
Siegel, M. The personality structure of children with
reading disabilities as compared with children
presenting other clinical problems. The Nerv.
Child. 1954, 10, 409-414.
Smith, D. E. P. & Carrigan, P. M. The nature of reading
disability. New Yorks Harcourt, Brace, 1959.
Smith, H. P. & Dechant, E. V. Psychology in teaching
reading. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc., 1961.
Speegle, P. T. The effectiveness of twa techniques of
counseling with students on academic probation.
70
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, North Texas
State Univer., 1962.
Spence, K. W. Symposium on relationships among learning
theory, personality theory and clinical research.
New Yorks John Wiley, 1953.
Spence, K. W. & Farber, I. E. Conditioning and extinction
as a function of anxiety. J. exp. Psvchol.. 1953,
| 45, 116-119.
i Spence, K. W. & Taylor, J. A. Anxiety and the strength
|
| of the UCS as determiners of the amount of eyelid
I conditioning. J. exp. Psvchol.. 1951, 42. 183-188
| Spielberger, C. D. (Ed.) Anxiety and Behavior. New Yorks
| Academic Press, 1966.
i
Spielberger, C. D. & Weitz, H. Improving the academic
performance of anxious college freshmans a group
counseling approach to the prevention of
underachievement. Psvchol. Monoqr.. 1964, 78.
| 13, whole No. 590.
I
| Spielberger, C. D., Weitz, H. & Denny, J. D. Group
i
| counseling and the academic performance of anxious
i
college freshman. J. counsel. Psvchol.. 1962.
9, 195-204.
Sullivan, H. S. The meaning of anxiety in psychiatry
and life. Washingtons William Alanson White
Foundation, 1948.
Sullivan, H. S. The interpersonal theory of psychiatry.
i
i New Yorks Norton, 1953.
i — -
j Sullivan, H. S. Clinical studies in psychiatry. New
i Yorks Norton, 1956.
Taylor, J. A. The relationship of anxiety to the
conditioned eyelid response. J, exp. Psvchol.,
1951, 41, 81-92.
| Taylor, J. A. A personality scale of manifest anxiety.
i
J. abnorm. soc. Psvchol., 1953, 48. 285-290.
i
I Taylor, J. A. & Spence, K. W. The relationship of
i
I anxiety level to performance in serial learning.
J. exp. Psvchol.. 1952, 44. 61-64.
Thompson, G. G. Child psychology. Bostons Houghton-
Mifflen, 1952.
Trent, R. The relationship of anxiety to popularity and
rejection among institutionalized delinquent boys.
Child Develpm.. 1957, 28. 379-383.
i Watson, J. B. & Raynor, R. Conditioned emotional
reaction. J. exp. Psvchol.. 1920, 3., 1-4.
j White, R. W. The abnormal personality. New Yorks
i Ronald, 1956.
Wiksell, W. The relationship between reading difficulties
and psychological adjustment. J. educ. Res..
| 1948, 41, 557-558.
Winborn
Wolpe,
i Wolpe,
I
| Wolpe,
I
I
Wolpe,
i
j Wolpe,
B. & Schmidt, L. G. The effectiveness of short
term group counseling upon the academic achievement
i
of potentially superior but underachieving college j
j
freshman. J. educ. Res.. 1962, 55, 169-173. i
' . Psychotherapy bv reciprocal inhibition.
Stanford: Stanford Univer. Press, 1958.
The systematic desensitization treatment
of neuroses. J. Nerv. Ment.Dis., 1961, 132,
189-203.
' • Isolation of a conditioning procedure as the
crucial psychotherapeutic factor: a case study.
J. Nerv. Ment. Pis., 1962, 134, 316-329.
r . The experimental foundations of some new ;
psychotherapeutic methods. In A. J. Bachrach '
(Ed.) Experimental foundations of clinical
psychology. New York: Basic Books, 1962.
r., Salter, A. & Rayna, L. J. (Eds.)
The conditioning therapies. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston, 1964.
APPENDICES
73
APPENDIX A
VARIABLES
1. Age in months.
2. Intelligence quotient.
3. Test anxiety scale for children, pre-test scores.
4. Test anxiety scale for children, post-test minus
pre-test difference scores.
5. Gilmore oral reading test, accuracy grade equivalent
post-test minus pre-test difference scores.
6. Gilmore oral reading test, comprehension grade
equivalent post-test minus pre-test difference
scores.
7. Gilmore oral reading test, grade post-test minus
pre-test difference scores.
8. Gilmore oral reading test, rate post-test minus
pre-test difference scores.
9. Gilmore oral reading test, reading retardation
pre-test scores.
10. Gilmore oral reading test, reading retardation
post-test scores.
11. Overall reading retardation, pre-test minus
post-test difference scores.
12. California achievement test, reading vocabulary
pre-test minus post-test difference scores.
75
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
76
California achievement test, reading comprehension
pre-test minus post-test difference scores.
California achievement test, reading grade placement
pre-test minus post-test difference scores.
California achievement test, arithmetic reasoning
pre-test minus post-test difference scores.
California achievement test, arithmetic fundamentals
pre-test minus post-test difference scores.
California achievement test, arithmetic grade place
ment pre-test minus post-test difference scores.
California achievement test, mechanics of English
pre-test minus post-test difference scores.
California achievement test, spelling pre-test
minus post-test difference scores.
California achievement test, language grade place
ment pre-test minus post-test difference scores.
California achievement test, battery grade placement
pre-test minus post-test difference scores.
APPENDIX B
77
78
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE AND MEANS FOR
DEPENDENT VARIABLES
DV SOURCES df MEAN SQUARES F
DUNCAN'S NEW
GROUP MULTIPLE
MEANS RANGE TEST
1 Mean
G
S(G)
1
2
36
564243.10
1.72
212.40
.01
1
2
3
120.00
120.69
120.15
2 Mean 1 418917.02 1 102.85
G 2 6.33 .06 2 103.92
S(G) 36 104.62 3 104.15
3 Mean 1 5520.41 1 11.31
G 2 3.56 .08 2 12.08
S(G) 36 45.40 3 12.31
4 Mean 1 624.00 1 -4.00
G 2 .08 .00 2 -3.92
S(G) 36 48.38 3 -4.08
5 Mean 1 24.64 1 .47
G 2 1.04 1.58 2 .93
S(G) 36 .66 3 .98
6 Mean 1 84.19 1 .32 3-1
=
1.21
G 2 16.03 6.88* 2 2.53 2-1
=
2.21**
S(G) 36 2.33 3 1.56 2-3
s
.97
7 Mean 1 51.92 1 .42 3-1
=
.88*
G 2 5.83 6.70* 2 1.74 2-1
=
.32*<
S(G) 36 .87 3 1.30 2-3
s
.44
8 Mean 1 .23 1 7.00
G 2 529.00 1.20 2 -5.38
S(G) 36 442.13 3 -1.85
9 Mean 1 99.84 1 1.70
G 2 .15 .15 2 1.48
S(G) 36 1.03 3 1.62
10 Mean 1 52.39 1 1.37
G 2 .63 .11 2 1.18
S(G) 36 .57 3 .93
* = .05
** = .01
79
DV SOURCES df MEAN SQUARES F
GROUP
MEANS
DUNCAN'S NEW
MULTIPLE
RANGE TEST
11 Mean 1 55.92 1) .56 3-1 = .73
6 2 4.59 5.16* 2) 1.74 2-1 - 1.18*’
S(G) 36 .89 3) 1.29 2-3 = .45
12 Mean 1 • 26 1) .08
6 2 .04 .17 2) .03
S(G) 36 .23 3) .14
13 Mean 1 .75 1) .15
G 2 .01 .00 2) .15
S(G) 36 .39 3) .12
14 Mean 1 .86 1) .16
G 2 •02 .11 2) .18
S(G) 36 .19 3) .10
15 Mean 1 .62 l) .19
G 2 .04 .08 2) .08
S(G) 36 .48 3) .10
16 Mean 1 .00 l) .00
G 2 1.63 2.86 2) .36
S(G) 36 .57 3) -.35
17 Mean 1 .26 l) .04
G 2 .14 .38 2) .20
S(G) 36 .37 3) .01
18 Mean 1 2.88 l) .06
G 2 .54 .78 2) .47
S (G) 36 .69 3) .28
19 Mean 1 2.46 1) .03
G 2 1.58 2.19 2) .65
S (G) 36 .72 3) .07
20 Mean 1 3.39 l) .02
G 2 1.20 2.55 2) .62
S (G) 36 .47 3) .24
21 Mean 1 1.15 1) .05
G 2 .31 .86 2) .35
1
t
S(G) 36 .36 3) .12
•
APPENDIX C
80
ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE: INTELLIGENCE
AS COVARIATE
ADJ DUNCAN* S NEW
GROUP MULTIPLE
DV SOURCES df MEAN SQUARES F MEANS RANGE TEST
1 Mean
G
Covariate
S(GJ
1
2
1
35
6744.57
2.58
127.00
214.84
.01
.59
1
2
3
119.85
120.74
120.25
1
J
3 Mean 1 190.25 1 11.22
;
G 2 4.68 .10 2 12.11
Covariate 1 46.37 1.02 3 12.36
S(G) 35 45.37
4 Mean 1 18.26 1 -4.09
G 2 .13 .00 2 -3.89
i
Covariate 1 44.36 .91 3 -4.02
i
S (G) 35 48.50
5 Mean 1 3.06 1 .45
G 2 1.15 1.81 2 .94
Covariate 1 1.66 2.61 3 1.00
|
S (G) 35 .63 1
6 Mean 1 14.56 1 .28 3-1
=
1.31* j
G 2 16.80 7.84**2 2.54 2-1
=
2.26** i
Covariate 1 8.78 4.10 3 1.59 2-3
=
.95
S(G) 35 2.14 1
7 Mean 1 6.24 1 .40 3-1
=
.92*
G 2 6.14 7.65**2 1.75 2-1
=
1.35**
Covariate 1 3.34 4.16 3 1.32 2-3
=
.43
S (G) 35 .80
8 Mean 1 818.73 1 6.63
G 2 480.15 1.11 2 -5.25
Covariate 1 828.72 1.92 3 -1.61
S (G) 35 431.09
9 Mean 1 1.83 1 1.69
G 2 .14 .14 2 1.49
Covariate 1 .17 .16 3 1.62
S (G) 35 1.05
10 Mean 1 1.83 1 1.69
G 2 .56 1.03 2 1.18
Covariate 1 1.42 2.62 3 .94
S(G) 35 .54
11 Mean 1 4.69 1 .54 3-1
=
.76*
G 2 4.80 5.60* 2 1.75 2-1
= 1.21**
Covariate 1 2.15 2.50 3 1.30 2-3
=
.45
S (G)
35 .86
82
ADJ DUNCAN'S NEW
GROUP MULTIPLE
DV SOURCES df MEAN SQUARES F MEANS RANGE TEST
12 Mean 1 .17
1)
.08
G 2 .04 .16 2) .03
Covariate 1 .21 .94 3) .13
S (G) 35 .23
13 Mean 1 .07
1)
.14
G 2 .00 .01 2) .15
Covariate 1 .03 .08 3) .12
S(G) 35 .40
14 Mean 1 .12
1)
.17
G 2 .03 .15 2) .18
Covariate 1 .19 .99 3) .10
i
S (G)
35 .19
1 15 Mean 1 .01
1)
.19
j
G 2 .04 .09 2) .08
1
Covariate 1 .00 .00 3) .10
i
S (G) 35 .50
| 16 Mean 1 .00
1)
.00
G 2 1.63 2.79 2) .36
Covariate 1 .00 .00 3) -.35
S (G) 35 .58
17 Mean 1 .03
1)
.04
G 2 .14 .37 2) .20
Covariate 1 .02 .05 3) .01
S(G) 35 .38
18 Mean 1 .00
1)
.06
i
G 2 .53 .75 2) .47
1
Covariate 1 .05 .07 3) .28
1
S (G) 35 .70
119 Mean 1 .03
1)
.03
1
!
1
G 2 1.57 2.13 2) .65
f
Covariate 1 .10 .14 3) .07
1
S (G) 35 .74
i 20 Mean 1 .00
1)
.03
G 2 1.19 2.49 2) .62
Covariate 1 .03 .07 3) .24
S(G) 35 .48
21 Mean 1 .01
1)
.06
G 2 .30 .82 2) .35
j
Covariate 1 .04 .11 3) .11
S(G) 35 .37
APPENDIX D
83
84
ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE: TASC PRE-TEST
SCORE AS COVARIATE
DV SOURCES df MEAN SQUARES F
ADJ
GROUP
MEANS
DUNCAN'S NEW
MULTIPLE
RANGE TEST
Mean
G
Covariate
SiGi
1 120281.97 1
2 1.30 .01 2
1 193.03 .91 3
35 212.96_________
120.20
120.63
120.01
Mean
G
Covariate
SJLG).
1 101397
2 8
1 106
35 104
.90
.95
.86
.56
.09
.02
102.70
103.97
104.26
Mean 1 89.84
G 2 1.23
Covariate 1 594.53 18,
S(G)______35 32.78
04
14
-4.36
-3.81
-3.83
1.25*
2.22**
.97
2.53
1.56
Mean 1
G 2
Covariate 1
S(G) 35
1.36
.98
.38
.67
,.46
.56
6 Mean 1
G 2
Covariate 1
S(G)_____ 35
20
16
.58
.04
.03
.39
».70*
.01
Mean 1
G 2
Covariate 1
S(G)_____ 35
10
5
.80
.78
.03
.90
»,44*
.04
.43
2.53
1.30
3-1
2-1
2-3
.87*
2.10**
1.23**
7.21
■5.45
■1.99
8 Mean 1 162.84
G 2 554.41
Covariate 1 203.53
S (G) 35 448.95
.23
.45
Mean 1 13.62 1
G 2 .19 .18 2
Covariate 1 1.53 1.51 3
S (G)______35_____ 1.01_________
1.72
1.48
1.60
10 Mean 1
G 2
Covariate 1
S(G)_____35
8.81
.66
.31
.58
..15
.54
1.38
1.17
.93
11 Mean 1
G 2
Covariate 1
S(G)______35_
12
4
.71
.57
.00
.92
t.98*
.00
.56
1.74
1.29
3-1
2-1
2-3
.73
1.18**
.45
* = .05
** = .01
85
ADJ DUNCAN'S NEW
i GROUP MULTIPLE
DV SOURCES df MEAN SQUARES F MEANS RANGE TEST
12 Mean 1 .00
1)
.08
G 2 .04 .16 2) .03
Covariate 1 .09 .37 3) .14
S (G) 35 .23
13 Mean 1 .19
1)
.15
G 2 .01 .01
2) .15
Covariate 1 .00 .00 3) .12
S(G) 35 .41
14 Mean 1 .33
1)
.16
G 2 .02 .12 2) .19
Covariate 1 .02 .11 3)
.10
S(G) 35 .19
15 Mean 1 .08
1)
.19
G 2 .05 .09 2) .08
Covariate 1 .01 .02 3) .10
S(G) 35 .50
16 Mean 1 .45
1)
.01
G 2 1.65 2.91 2) .36
Covariate 1 .61 1.08 3) -.35
S (G) 35 .57
17 Mean 1 .01
1)
.04
G 2 .14 .36 2) • 20
Covariate 1 .16 .42 3) .00
S(G) 35 .38
!18 Mean 1 .12
1)
.07
• G
2 .51 .73 2)
.47
j Covariate 1 .28 .40 3) .28
S (G) 35 .70
;19 Mean 1 .20
1)
.05
G 2 1.53 2.23 2) .65
Covariate 1 1.87 2.71 3) .05
S (G) 35 .69
20 Mean 1 .00
1)
M
G 2 1.14 2.52 2) .62
Covariate 1 .93 2.05 3) .23
S (G) 35 .45
21 Mean 1 .00
1)
.06
G 2 .29 .82 2) .34
Covariate 1 .35 .96 3) .11
S (G) 35 .36
APPENDIX E
86
87
ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE: TASC POST-TEST
MINUS TASC PRE-TEST
DV SOURCES df MEAN SQUARES
1 414224.67
ADJ DUNCAN* S NEW
GROUP MULTIPLE
MEANS RANGE TEST
120.00
120.70
120.15
Mean
G 2
Covariate 1
S(G)______35
1.74
3.28
218.38
.01
.02
Mean
G
Covariate
JJG1
1 302864.52
2 6.28
1 95.93
35 104.87
.06
.91
102.85
103.94
104.14
11.31
12.12
12.26
Mean 1
G 2
Covariate 1
S(G)______35
2664.86
3.46
557.88
30.76
.11
18.14
Mean 1 17.44
G 2 1.04
Covariate 1 .03
S(G)______ 35______ .68
1.53
.04
.47
.93
.98
Mean 1 72.06
G 2 16.01
Covariate 1 1.44
S(G)______35______ 2.35
6.80*
.61
.32
2.53
1.56
3-1
2-1
2-3
1.24* !
2.21** i
.97 !
Mean 1 40.68
G 2 5.83
Covariate 1 .14
S (G)______ 35______ .89
6.52*
.16
.42
1.74
1.30
3-1
2-1
2-3
. 88*
1.32**
.44
8 Mean 1 6.18
G 2 528.65
Covariate 1 16.29
S (G)______ 35 454.30
1.16
.04
7.00
■5.38
■1.85
Mean 1 65.85
G 2 .15
Covariate 1 .80
S (G)______ 35_____ 1.03
.15
.77
1.70
1.49
1.61
10 Mean 1 37.00
G 2 .63 1.08
Covariate 1 .06 .11
S(G)______35_______ .J58______
1.37
1.18
.93
T T
2-1
2-3
11 Mean 1 43.29
G 2 4.59
Covariate 1 .10
S(G) 35______ .92
5.00*
.11
.56
1.74
1.29
.73
1.18** |
.45
* = .05
** = .01
i
i
88
%
ADJ DUNCAN'S NEW
GROUP MULTIPLE
DV SOURCES df MEAN SQUARES F MEANS RANGE TEST
12 Mean 1 .14
1)
.08
G 2 .04 .16 2) .03
Covariate 1 .02 .07 3) .14
S (G) 35 .23
13 Mean 1 .80
1)
.15
G 2 .01 .01 2) .15
Covariate 1 .09 .21 3) .12
S (G) 35 .40
14 Mean 1 .78
1)
.16
G 2 .02 .13 2) .18
Covariate 1 .03 .14 3) .10
S (G) 35 .19
15 Mean 1 .06
1)
.19
G 2 .04 .09 2) .09
Covariate 1 .68 1.43
3}
.10
S(G) 35 .48
16 Mean 1 .00
1)
.00
G 2 1.63 2.79 2) .36
Covariate 1 .00 .01 3) -.35
S(G) 35 .58
17 Mean 1 .03
1)
.04
G 2 .14 .38
2) .20
Covariate 1 .26 .68 3) .01
S (G) 35 .38
18 Mean 1 2.51
iy
.06
G 2 .54 .77 2) .47
Covariate 1 .06 .09 3) .28
S (G) 35 .70
19 Mean 1 .32
1)
.03
G 2 1.61 2.38 2) .66
Covariate 1 2.32 3.44 3) .07
S(G) 35 .67
20 Mean 1 1.85
1)
.02
G 2 1.20 2.54 2) .62
Covariate 1 .18 .39 3) .24
S(G) 35 .47
21 Mean 1 .35
1)
.05
G 2 .31 .87
2) .35
Covariate 1 .41 1.14 3) .11
S(G) 35 .36
APPENDIX F
90
OVERALL CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS: r
4_____ 5 6 7_____ 8 9 10 11 13 14
1 .43** .33 .46** .34
2 -.30 -.30 .31
3 -.58**
4
5 .30 .65** .62**
6 .88** .86**
7 .98**
8
9 .33
10
11
12 .58**
13 .79**
** = .01
16 17 18 19 20 21
1 .30 .29 .36 .33
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 .36 .32 .41**
14 .29 .29 .40**
15 .66** .30 .31 .35 .56**
16 .73** .43** .58** .47** .71**
17 .55** .60** .62** .87**
18 .45** .87** .77**
19 .72** .73**
20 .82**
GROUP I CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS: r
91
4 5 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
1 .52 .50
2
3 -.59
4
5 .56 .53
6 .82** .77** .52
7 .48 .95**
8
9 .56
10
11 .50
12 .69**
1 3_____________________________________________.75**
16 17 18 19 20 21
1
2
3
4
5 .65** .61** .50 .55
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
CO
•
.69** .51 .51 .79**
14 .50 .51
15
16 .82** .74** .86** .78** .82**
17 .66** .81** .71** .89**
18 .79** .95** .87**
19 .86** .84**
20 .88**
** = .01
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
T
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
92
GROUP II CORRELATION COEFFICIENTSr r
4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14
62
-.60 * -.60 .62 .60
•57 .56 -.52
.57 .81** .51 .81**
.88** .54 .55 .88**
.52
.52
.64**
.82**
15__________17__________20__________21_
.53
.53
.68** .55
.60
.76**
.68**
GROUP III CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS: r
4 7 . 11 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
.62
-.63
.92** -.55
.99**
.59
.80**
15 .89** .69** .79** .81**
16 .70** .65 .64 .56 .76**
17 .83** .87** .84** .92**
18 .84** .97** .94**
19 .86** .92**
20 .93**
APPENDIX 6
94
DISCUSSION OF TREATMENTS
) Remedial Techniques
i
! Students at the Psychology Clinic School are
j
assigned on the basis of age and achievement to one of
four classes. Since the present study included matching
! for age, the students were drawn equally from all four
classes. Each classroom teacher had 20 students in each
class. Each class also had four student teachers as
assistants to each teacher. Teachers were supervised by
the Assistant Director at the Psychology Clinic School
and in turn supervised the student teachers.
No information is available as to what specifically
happened with each child during each moment the child
i attended class at the Psychology Clinic School. However,
the primary method used at the Psychology Clinic School
is the Fernald system. It involves the use of multiple
sensory modalities but particularly the kinesthetic,
e.g., tracing of words is one technique frequently used.
The Counseling Group
; After the introduction during the first session
i the Counseling Group was allowed to talk about any
! problem, however, an attempt was made to keep the focus
on academic problems* They discussed the following
topics:
95
96
1. Sisters are a problem
2. Who was their favorite teacher
3. How they liked the student teachers
4. How they liked to listen to stories
5. Their nervousness at taking tests
6. Their fear of their fathers
7. Whether it is better to have men or women
teachers
8. How they dislike writing
9. Grades
10. Parental punishment
11. Feeling dumb
12 • Homework
13. Teachers who hit
14. What to be if they do not succeed in school
15• Taking tests
The Relaxation Group
The introduction to the relaxation group was
identical to the counseling group except that instead of
focusing on discussion of problems and feelings, the stated
purpose was to help make reading and taking tests easier.
The group sat in a circle with the therapist as part of
the circle.
The topic of relaxation was introduced by telling
the group that tension sometimes interferes with their
97
lability to do their best, especially on tests and they
j
were going to learn a procedure so they could be more
jrelaxed and so do better on tests. Reaction to these
i
{statements varied. There was some giggling, but all
i
subjects cooperated outwardly.
During the relaxation period students were asked
|to raise their hands if they were not able to follow
instructions and relax. However, hands were raised only
during their first session and their instructions were
then repeated. It was the present author's impression
that the children saw the procedure as a game and as a
welcome relief from classroom work.
APPENDIX H
98
! VARIABLES
| 1. Test anxiety scale for children, pre-test scores.
i
1 2. Test anxiety scale for children, post-test scores.
3. Gilmore
scores.
oral reading test, accuracy pre-test
4. Gilmore
scores•
oral reading test, accuracy post-test
5. Gilmore
scores.
oral reading test, comprehension pre-test
6. Gilmore
scores.
oral reading test, comprehension post-test
7. Gilmore oral reading test. grade pre-test scores.
8. Gilmore oral reading test, grade post-test scores.
9. Gilmore oral reading test. rate pre-test scores.
10. Gilmore oral reading test, rate post-test scores.
11. Gilmore oral reading test. reading retardation
pre-test scores.
12. Gilmore oral reading test, reading retardation
post-test scores.
13. California achievement test, reading grade
placement pre-test scores.
14. California achievement test, reading grade
placement post-test scores.
99
GROUP 1: CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS: r
2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
! 1
! 2
.76
3 .87** .82** .94** .77** .74** .77** .60 .56 .78** .70**
; 4 .69** .80** .85** .81** .80** .51 .74** .72**
! 5 .66** .97** .80** .50 .63** .53* .48 .79** .80**
i 6
.59** .84** .60 .49 .58
7 .83** .63** .72** .58* .53 .82** .79**
8 .63** .63** .67** .73** .77**
9 .74** .74 .65** .62**
110 .58 .66**
11
112
13
.68**
.95**
-----------------
** = .01
GROUP 1:
VARIABLES STANDARD DEVIATIONS MEANS
! 1 5.90 9.29
2 4.80 6.00
! 3 1.27 3.14
i 4
1.90 3.62
i 5 1.74 3.54
! 6 1.84 4.16
7 1.43 3.32
8 1.59 3.88
100
GROUP 1— (Continued)
VARIABLES STANDARD DEVIATIONS MEANS
9 33.11 100.00
10 36.40 104.29
11 1.17 1.63
12 1.11 1.06
13 1.45 4.00
14 1.49 4.20
i ;
r i
t i
I i
!
o
GROUP 2: CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS: r
4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
1
2 .56
3 .77** .78** .60 .75** .61 .66** .63
4 .75** .65** .89** .68** .77** .57 .76** .66**
5 .90** .65** .77**
6 .54 .97** .52 .73** .83** .53 .52
7 .61 .52 .77** .84**
8 • 60 .79** .79** .64** .61
9 .80** .56 .66** .66**
10 .76** .54 .51
11 .52
I 12
13 .96**
** = .01
GROUP 2
| VARIABLES STANDARD DEVIATIONS MEANS
i
i 1 7.16 11.73
i
2 7.09 7.67
3 .79 3.17
4 1.19 3.98
! 5 1.11 3.70
! 6 2.23 5.71 o ;
7 .81 3.41
N)
8 1.61 4.87
!
GROUP 2— (Continued)
VARIABLES STANDARD DEVIATIONS MEANS
9
28.30 107.73
10 29.14 100.07
11 .93
1.40
12 1.65 .06
13
1.42 4.23
14 1.70 4.49
i
H
O
U>
GROUP 3: CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS:
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
1
1 2
! 3
.96** .59 .70** .86** .87** .75** .66 .62 .77** .73**
; 4 .65 .77** .88** .92** .84** .74** .66 .85** .81**
5 .79** .92** .78** .65
00
in
•
.56
6 .84** .95** .68** .67 .70** .62
7 .92** .78** .56 .59 .66 .69** .67
8 .80** • 66 .70** .81** .74**
9 .85** .87** .84**
i 10 .91** .89**
; 11
.83**
i 12
; 13
i
.96
i
** = .01
GROUP 3
VARIABLES
1
STANDARD DEVIATIONS MEANS
' 1
7.54 12.31
i 2
6.42 8.23
! 3
1.29 2.75
4 1.46 3.75
! 5 1.63 3.53
i 6 1.83 5.02
o
7 1.30 3.12
i 8
1.54 4.42
I
GROUP 3— (Continued)
VARIABLES STANDARD DEVIATIONS MEANS
9 31.67 77.23
10 29.76 75.38
11 1.06 1.62
12 1.10 .32
13 1.27 3.34
14 1.41 3.47
!
I
H*
O
OVERALL GROUP CORRELATIONS: r
2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
1
o
.51**
Z
3 .86** .67** .47** .88** .71** .74** .69** .43** .42** .74** .67**
4 .63** .58** .79** .85** .73** .72** .53** .74** .69**
5 .60** .94** .68** .46** .43** .44** .35 .64** .66**
6 .59** .92** .42** .39** .75** .52** .53**
7 .76** .63** .59** .48** .41** .75** .73**
8 .61** .59** .74** .68** .67**
9 .80** .37 .73** .71**
10 .36 .67** .68**
111
.62**
|12
113
14
.96**
** = .01
OVERALL GROUP CORRELATIONS: r
{ VARIABLES STANDARD DEVIATIONS MEANS
1 _ - - _ _ - _ - __
I 1 6.80 10.98
j 2 6.04 7.20
3 1.13 3.04
! 4 1.54 3.78
! 5 1.49 3.59
: 6 2.04 4.92 m
7 1.20 3.29 §
8 1.60 4.36
OVERALL GROUP CORRELATIONS: r— (Continued)
1
VARIABLES STANDARD DEVIATIONS MEANS
9
32.94 96.00
1 io
33.90 94.53
11 1.04 1.55
12 1.36 .51
13 1.40 3.88
14 1.56 4.08
i
I
i
i
i
107

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The Role Of Intellectual Abilities In Concept Learning

PDF

Measuring Thought Process As An Ego Function In Schizophrenic, Mentally Retarded And Normal Adolescents By Means Of The Rorschach

PDF

Ego Diffusion In Women With Behavioral Disorders And The Integrating Effects Of Psychodrama In Identity Consolidation

PDF

Effects Of Group Behavior Therapy Imagery On Basketball Performance

PDF

The Effect Of Conditions Of Risk, Internal Versus External Control Of Reinforcement, And Sex On Binary Choice Probability Learning

PDF

Differences Between Cues In Effectiveness As Retrieval Aids

PDF

A Multidimensional Similarities Analysis Of Twelve Choice Probability Learning With Payoffs

PDF

Acculturation And Value Change

PDF

The Effects Of Anxiety And Threat On Self-Disclosure

PDF

Perceptual Defense And Somatization: A Comparison Of The Perceptual Thresholds Of Obese And Peptic Ulcer Patients

PDF

The Effects Of Making Social Desirability Judgments On Personality Inventory Scores Of Schizophrenics

PDF

The Effect Of Discriminability On The Partial Reinforcement Effect In Human Gsr Conditioning

PDF

Behavioral Seriousness And Impulse-Control Balance In Delinquency

PDF

Psychological Test Changes In Schizophrenic Patients Under Brief Stimuluselectroconvulsive Therapy

PDF

Psychological Variables In The Mother Related To Infant Feeding Patterns

PDF

Relationship Of Achievement Motivation To Perception Of Degree Of Task Difficulty And Estimate Of Performance

PDF

Sex-Role Preferences Of Early Adolescents In Relation To Adjustment

PDF

Prognostic Expectancy Effects In The Desensitization Of Anxiety Over Invasion Of Body Buffer Zones

PDF

First Steps In An Attempt To Construct An Objective Test Of Character Structure

PDF

The Influence Of The Achievement Motive, The Affiliation Motive, And Incentive Conditions On Roleplaying Ability In Children

Asset Metadata

Creator Deskin, Gerald (author)

Core Title Effects Of Different Treatment Procedures On Reading Ability And Anxiety Level In Children With Learning Difficulties

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Psychology

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

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,psychology, clinical

Format dissertations (aat)

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Seward, Georgene H. (committee chair), Cliff, Norman (committee member), Slucki, Henry (committee member), Wolf, Richard M. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-581693

Unique identifier UC11360104

Identifier 6801184.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-581693 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 6801184.pdf

Dmrecord 581693

Document Type Dissertation

Format dissertations (aat)

Rights Deskin, Gerald

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