University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A Four-Year Follow-Up Of Educationally Disadvantaged Preschool Children, Analyzing Home Environment Variables Facilitating Achievement

(USC Thesis Other)

A Four-Year Follow-Up Of Educationally Disadvantaged Preschool Children, Analyzing Home Environment Variables Facilitating Achievement

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 69-16,568
WEISBENDER, Leo Frederic, 1933-
A FOUR-YEAR FOLLOW-UP OF EDUCATION
ALLY DISADVANTAGED PRESCHOOL
CHILDREN, ANALYZING HOME ENVIRONMENT
VARIABLES FACILITATING ACHIEVEMENT.
University of Southern California, Ph.D., 1969
Education, psychology
University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan
(?)
^Copyright by
Leo Frederic Weisbender
1969
A FOUR-YEAR FOLLOW-UP OF EDUCATIONALLY DISADVANTAGED
PRESCHOOL CHILDREN, ANALYZING HOME ENVIRONMENT
VARIABLES FACILITATING ACHIEVEMENT
by
Leo Frederic Weisbender
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
(Educational Psychology)
June 1969
UNIVERSITY O F S O U T H E R N CALIFORNIA
T H E GRADUATE SCHOO L
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES, CALIFO RNIA 9 0 0 0 7
This dissertation, written by
..... Leo.. Frederic, .Weisbender....
under the direction of IiXjS l ... Dissertation Com
mittee, and approved by all its members, has
been presented to and accepted by The Gradu
ate School, in partial fulfillment of require
ments for the degree of
D O C T O R OF P H I L O S O P H Y
Dean
DaU JUNE 1969.
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
~ ffihaxrtnan
. . J f h .
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This investigation was conducted with the permis
sion of the Division of Elementary Education, Los Angeles
City School Districts, and with the cooperation of pupils,
parents, and staff at many schools* I am grateful to these
generous primary sources of data*
1 thank all my graduate professors, and especially
my Dissertation Committee, for their magesterial attention
to my learning behaviors.
I am particularly grateful to Professor Newton
Metfessel, Committee Chairman and personal mentor, for his
advice and encouragement over the years.
When Chris, Beth, Mark, and Eric read their names
here they will know their father is proud of them for
giving up the countless togetherness-times they might
have shared so he could study and write about fifty other
boys and girls.
My devoted wife Lynda has been a treasury of pa
tience, understanding, encouragement, and optimism, and
has been my mainstay through every phase of this degree
project.
I express my filial gratitude to William and
Pauline Boyle for their staunch support of a young man's
ii
dream*
Finally, for my chronic love of books and learning,
1 thank my mother, Violet Weisbender Mark*
To all those named, as well as to the dozens more
unnamed, 1 am deeply grateful* Without them this disserta
tion could never have been written*
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .
LIST OF TABLES .
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION................. ..
Antecedents
Background for the Study
Objective of the Study
Statement of Hypothesis
Summary of Procedures
Assumptions
Limitations
Definitions
Organization of Remaining Chapters
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE .....................
Preschool Research on Ability-Achievement
Overview
Null Hypothesis Accepted in Short-Range
Studies
Null Hypothesis Accepted in Long-Range
Studies
Null Hypothesis Rejected in Short-Range
Studies
Null Hypothesis Rejected in Long-Range
Studies
Preschool Research on Creativity
Rise of Creativity Research
Creativity Research with Young Children
Guilford and Associates
Torrance and Associates
Preschool Research on Learning Environment
Fixed and Predetermined Intelligence
Heredity, Environment, and Interaction -
Deprived Environments
Enriched Environments
Critical Periods, Irreversibility,
and Cumulative Deficit
Creative Environments
Chapter
School-Home Environments and the
Hidden Curriculum
Chapter Summary
III. STRUCTURE OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR
PARENTS AS TEACHERS (QPAT) . . . . . . . 50
Background for the QPAT
Rationale for the QPAT
Building the QPAT
Piloting the QPAT
Training the Interviewers
Administering the QPAT to Target Parents
Scoring the QPAT
QPAT Validity
QPAT Reliability
Chapter Summary
IV. PROCEDURES............................. . 69
The Schools and their Neighborhood
Sample Measurements
The Children's Individual Test
of Creativity (CITOC)
Data Analyses
Chapter Summary
V. FINDINGS REPORTED AND DISCUSSED ............ 77
Statement of Hypothesis
Ability-Achievement Characteristics
Variables
Descriptive Statistics
Covariance Analyses for Reading
and Intelligence
District Reading Achievement
Ability-Achievement and the Null
Hypothesis
Creativity Characteristics
Variables
Descriptive Statistics
Creativity and the Null Hypothesis
Home Learning Environment Characteristics
Variables
Descriptive Statistics
Family Sociology
QPAT Analyses
Home Learning Environment and the
Null Hypothesis
Discussion of Major Findings
Chapter Summary
v
Chapter
VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS . . . 118
Summary of Antecedents
Background for the Study
Statement of Hypothesis
Procedures for the Study
Summary of Findings
Ab il i ty-Achievement
Creativity
Home Learning Environment
Conclusions and Recommendations
for Further Research
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . .......................... 130
APPENDICES...................................... 153
APPENDIX A. List of Variables............. 154
APPENDIX B. Intercorrelation M a t r i x ........ 158
APPENDIX C. Theoretical Framework of Questionnaire
for Parents as Teachers (QPAT),
Arranged Taxonomically in the
Affective Domain.............. 185
APPENDIX D. QPAT Items Sorted by Developmental
Areas in the Affective Taxonomy • • 197
APPENDIX E. The QPAT Protocol: Structured
Questions and Minimal Responses • • 199
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. QPAT Validity Coefficients for Experimental
(E) and Control (C) Groups on Selected
Variables............................. 61
2. QPAT Reliability (r) Analyzed by Coefficient
Alpha and the Coefficient of Determination
for Experimental (E) and Control (C)
Groups................................... 67
3. Descriptive Statistics for Ability-
Achievement Characteristics ............... 79
4. Analysis of Covariance for Standardized
Test Variables, Experimentals vs*
Controls................................ 84
5* Analysis of Covariance for Standardized
Test Variables, Experimental Boys vs.
Girls................................... 86
6. Analysis of Covariance for Standardized
Test Variables, Control Boys vs* Girls • • 88
7* Experimental and Control Samples Compared
On Stanford Reading Tests with Universe
of All First and Second Graders in Los
Angeles Unified School District .... 91
8. Descriptive Statistics for Creativity
Characteristics, Experimental Group . . . 94
9. Descriptive Statistics for Home Learning
Environment Characteristics............... 98
10* Average Responses Describing Experimental
and Control Families on Selected
Sociological Variables .................... 101
11. Chi-Square Analysis of QPAT Responses for
Experimental (E) and Control (C) Groups,
Indicating Taxonony Categories of Items
and Confidence Level of Significant
Differences............................... 105
vii
Table Page
12* Intercorrelation Matrix for All Pupil
Variables, Grouped by Experimental (E)
and Controls (C).................... 160
viii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Antecedents
Early childhood is a period of rapid growth*
Changes, some of which are the greatest that occur in
the total development of the individual, become evi
dent as the child manifests differences in physical
appearance and abilities and develops, in a few short
years, a multiplicity of complicated skills and be
havior patterns* (Brunner, 30:144)
Educators and philosophers have emphasized for
centuries the crucial importance of early experiences to
the eventual development of the individual* In 400-B*C*
Greece, Plato (157:20) wrote that education begins in the
first year of childhood and continues until death*
Twenty-two centuries later, Johann Pestalozzi
(154:72) was advocating teaching children from the cradle
upward, and Friedrich Froebel (72:30) was teaching that
within childhood play and speech lay the seeds of all
later life*
Anchored with the quotation from Brunner which
opened this chapter, the chain of thinking about early
childhood education remains unbroken from early Greek
philosophers to modem educators* Other names influen
tial in preschool and primacy education include Abata
1
Aporti, John Comenius, Jean Oberlin, Robert Owen, Jean
Rousseau, John Locke, Charles and Elizabeth Mayo, and
Maria Montessori* (Whipple, 217:7-16) These people and
their intellectual legacies span the sixteenth to the
twentieth centuries•
Preschool is not a new idea*
Is the idea of preschool for the disadvantaged
new? It was June 1848 when Friedrich Froebel (217:13)
convoked German educators to a conference on kindergarten
and wrote that the home education of both rich and poor
needed to be supplemented* Shades of the Great Society,
120 years and 4,000 miles away*
The first nursery school established in 1909 in
London, England, cared for the neglected children of the
poor* Maria Montessori's work paralleled this effort in
Italy during the same decade*
The same historical figures named above were per
suasive on the role of parents in their children's early
education* The idea of preschool was easily blended with
home educational environment* Whipple (217:71) complained
in 1929, however, that little attention had been given to
methodically studying the family as an educational insti
tution* Four decades later, his complaint has been echoed
by scientists such as Bloom (23:184) Who pointed out that
empirical study of an individual's environment, including
his home environment, markedly improves the ability to
predict the mature status of a human characteristic*
Between 1961 and 1965, only five formal studies
had examined the processes by which parents interact with
their children and the resultant stimuli for early learn
ing* According to Bloom (22:200-201), these investiga
tions accumulated evidence for variations in parents as
models and as teachers, accounting for many of the indi
vidual differences that educators find in children begin
ning school*
Bloom further observed that only in five other
studies, all during 1963-64, did schools and teachers have
a deliberately planned strategy of teaching to make up for
the variations in "parents as teachers*"
Planning a strategy for intervention in the learn
ing patterns of disadvantaged four-year-olds was part of
the motivation behind the midcity preschool program pio
neered by Los Angeles City School Districts (hereafter
called the "District") in fall 1964, leading to the present
longitudinal follow-up and investigation of home learning
environment*
Background for the Study
Research of the past decade has convinced psy
chologists that a substantial number of children suf
fer from a family environment which inhibits their
mental development during their preschool years*
This statement by Havighurst and Moorefield (98:13)
capsulizes the findings of prominent psychologists such as
Hunt (109, 110), Deutsch (53), and Bloom (23).
Increasing attention has been given lately to the
influence of experience in the cognitive development of
the young child. There has been a growing awareness of the
early learning potential of infants, and of increasing con
trol over that learning. Bruner's (29:33) bold hypothesis
that "any subject can be taught effectively in some intel
lectually honest form to any child at any stage of devel
opment" is being tested widely. The recent impetus of
federal monies for compensatory education has boosted pro
grams variously called preschool, prekindergarten, and
Head Start.
While hereditary variables in the preschool learner
are in no way being discounted, investigation of the in
fluence of environmental variables seems to be on the up
swing. Both variables share mutual importance in shaping
all stages of the learner's development.
This interdependent action has created some unique
problems for those responsible for the school environment,
where testing has traditionally distinguished achiever from
nonachiever. Reporting the impact of parent-child inter
action on intellectual development as measured through en
vironmental processes, Wolf (225:94) wrote in 1964:
There is abundant evidence that many of the be
havioral differences we find in test performance are
largely the result of differences in the environments
in which individuals have lived rather than of in
herent differences in individuals themselves.
5
Primary school educators in the District have long
been aware of the bewildering impact of kindergarten on
the five-year-olds from low socioeconomic neighborhoods*
Acting on the amassing evidence from District personnel as
well as from such experts as Deutsch, Hunt, Riessman, and
others, the Elementary Division piloted a preschool program
in two elementary schools in Watts during 1964-65*
Underlying the program was the concept of inter
vention environment: to reconcile the home environment
with that of the school, and give the disadvantaged pre-
kindergartner the boost he needed to enter kindergarten on
a par with classmates from more advantaged backgrounds*
The instructional program was built on the devel
opmental needs of the four-year-old: perceptual-motor,
social-emotional, and intellectual-academic* Parents and
teachers were active together in the preschool curriculum*
A research team from the University of Southern California,
directed by Dr* Newton Metfessel, evaluated the program
and its results* The children were measured pre and post
with an array of both standardized and nonstandardized
instruments*
The meticulous report published by Metfessel during
stammer 1965 announced these key findings (141:15-35):
1* Posttest scores for the experimental pupils on
the Stanford-Binet (L-M) and Children *s Indi
vidual Test of Creativity were significantly
higher than their pretest scores*
2* As measured before the preschool year, both
experimentals and controls were found to be
essentially alike on the characteristics
measured*
3* As measured after the preschool year, the ex
perimentals scored significantly higher than
the controls on the Stanford-Binet*
Wilkerson (220:437), in describing preliminary
evaluations of preschool projects in Baltimore, Maryland,
and in Ypsilanti, Michigan, where early spurts in intel
lectual and language development were reported, framed
what he called an unresolved question: Why wasn't the
initial spurt in IQ sustained during the second year of the
program? He continued:
The real test of these preschool programs is the
performance of the participating children when they
enter elementary school, and for this, data are not
yet available*
The preschoolers of the 1964-65 Metfessel study
completed second grade in June 1968, their fourth year of
formal education* It is the intent of this study to pro
vide some comparisons of their achievement and ability,
both scholastic and creative, over the four years* In
addition, the influence of measured environmental vari
ables will be reported, in response to the research need
expressed by Wolf (225:94):
7
We have rarely attempted to systematically relate
individual test data to environmental data in ways
which are designed to increase our tinders tending of
the interactive process between the individual and
the environment*
To accomplish this last goal, a structured parent
interview was devised with open-end questions covering six
basic areas of child development: intellectual, achieve
ment, language, social, creativity, and psychomotor* Bloom
(23:200), after describing five solid studies of research
into home environment and school learning, wrote that a
common thread in studies of home backgrounds was the widely
different quality of parents as teachers and as models for
learning* For better or worse, their children have been
taught at home before entering school*
The structured interview, designed to measure home
learning environment, was named Questionnaire for Parents
as Teachers (abbreviated NQPAT" and pronounced "cue-pat11)*
Objective of the Study
The major focus of this study was to assess the
effects of one year's prekindergarten environment after a
nonfacilitating lapse of three years, with emphasis on pa
rental self-reports of environmental factors in the home
contributing to achievement*
Statement of Hypothesis
The major hypothesis for this investigation is
stated in terms of the null:
8
H0: The experimental and control groups (those
experiencing the prekindergarten year and those
not experiencing it) do not differ over the four
years with respect to the following three charac
teristics :
1* Ability-Achievement
II• Creativity
III* Home Learning Environment
Variables used to assess the three characteristics
are detailed below:
I • Ab ill ty-Achievement
A* Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, Form
L-M, scores
B. Pintner-Cunningham Primary Test, Form A,
scores
C* Stanford Reading Tests, Primary. I and II,
Form W, scores:
— 1* Word Meaning
2* Paragraph Meaning
3. Total
D* Grade point averages
E* Attendance records
II* Creativity
A* Children's Individual Test of Creativity
(CITOC) scores:
1• Verbal Scale
9
2. Performance Scale
3* Total
III. Home Learning Environment
A. Questionnaire for Parents as Teachers
(QPAT) scores:
1. Intellectual Development
2. Achievement Development
3. Language Development
4. Social Development
5. Creativity Development
6. Psychomotor Development
7. Total
Sociological family variables:
1. Occupational level of father
2. Occupational level of mother
3. Number of occupants in household
4. Number of living siblings
5. Parents in the home
6. Educational level of mother
7. Educational level of father
8. Pupil's usual transportation to school
9. Family buying or renting dwelling
10. Family size
10
Summary of Procedures
Of the original 76 preschoolers studied in two Los
Angeles City elementary schools in 1964, 50 were located in
12 schools for follow-up in spring 1968 during the closing
months of their second grade* The remaining 26 pupils
could not be traced due to incomplete school records*
The Stanford-Binet was administered to each sub
ject by the investigator, a credentialed school psychol
ogist* The Children's Individual Test of Creativity was
given by another school psychologist, the developer of
that test*
School records were examined to collect Ability-
Achievement information: (a) scores from the Pintner-
Cunningham Primary Test and the Stanford Reading Tests;
and (b) data on pupil subject marks, attendance records,
sex, and age*
Facts about home learning environment and family
sociology were obtained through parental interviews con
ducted in each home by three persons trained by the in
vestigator in the use of the Questionnaire for Parents as
Teachers, written especially for this study*
The major hypothesis was .investigated statistically
through analysis of covariance, correlation, and the com
mon measures of central tendency and significant mean dif
ferences*
A detailed account of the procedure followed in
the collection and analysis of data for this study is
presented in Chapter IV*
Assumptions
For the purposes of this study it was assumed that
1* The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, Form
L-M, was a valid individual measure of in
telligence*
2. The Pintner-Cunningham Primary Test, Form A,
was a valid group measure of intelligence*
3* The Stanford Reading Tests, Word Meaning and
Paragraph Meaning, were valid measures of read
ing achievement*
4* The Children's Individual Test of Creativity
(C1T0C) was a valid measure*
5* The Questionnaire for Parents as Teachers
(QPAT) was a valid measure of home learning
environment*
6* Information provided through parental inter
view was reliable.
7* Pupil grade point averages were valid indica
tors of achievement*
8* Data recorded on school records were reliable*
Limitations
Of necessity, the following major limitations
applied to the investigation:
12
1* The Children's Individual Test of Creativity
(CITOC) was considered to be an experimental
research instrument still undergoing standard
ization for the population under study*
2* The Questionnaire for Parents as Teachers
(QPAT) was considered to be an experimental
research instrument, having previously been
used only in a pilot study to prepare for the
present investigation*
3* The study was limited to pupils who had at
tended or had been eligible to attend the
District's first preschool program during
1964-65.
4* The study was further restricted to those
original pupils who could be located in
spring 1968, and for whom data could be
obtained*
Def lyiit^ons
Special terms used in the study are operationally
defined in this section*
1* Abilitv-Achievement. — Abilitv-Achievemant is a
characteristic related to the following variables:
a) Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale scores
b) Pintner-Cunningham Primary Test scores
c) Stanford Reading Tests scores: Word
13
Meaning, Paragraph Meaning, and Total
d) Qrade point averages
e) Attendance records
2. Creativity.— Creativity is a characteristic re
lated to scores obtained on the Children's Individual Test
of Creativity.
3. Grade Po^p^ g arage (GPAl.— Obtained by divid
ing the total number of grade points by the total number
of subjects, GPA is the arithmetic average of report card
marks. Numerical values were assigned to report card marks
for progress in knowledge, skills, and school adjustment
according to the following scheme:
Numerical
Class Level Symbol Explanation Value
Kindergarten 0 Outstanding 3
G Very Good 2
S Satisfactory 1
N Needs to Improve 0
Grades 1 and 2 A Outstanding 4
B Very Good 3
C Satisfactory 2
D Needs to Improve 1
F Unsatisfactory 0
4. Home Lefpninp Envi^pm*infc. Home Learning En
vironment is a characteristic of the families studied, as
(a) derived from scores yielded by the Questionnaire for
Parents as Teachers; and (b) described by the sociological
family variables reported by parents.
5. Preschool or Prekindergarten.— Preschool is
14
understood to be the year before usual entrance into kin
dergarten, during which the children range in age from ap
proximately 3*5 to 4*5 years*
Organization of Remaining Chapters
Chapter II reviews the literature covering previ
ous research into the long- and short-term effects of
early childhood education, and discusses the growing ac
ceptance of intervention education via preschool*
Chapter III explains the development of the Ques
tionnaire for Parents as Teachers (QPAT) and its applica
tion to this study*
Chapter IV describes the procedures followed in
this study, the sample investigated, the measurements used,
and the analysis of data*
Chapter V presents the findings of this investiga
tion, with a discussion of the statistics utilized*
Chapter VI summarizes the study and its findings,
draws conelusions, and makes recommendations for further
research*
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Chapter II summarizes key research into psycho
logical areas directly related to this study: preschool
research on ability and achievement, on creativity, and on
learning environment*
Preschool Research on Ability-Achievement
Overview
In an analysis of research on what she calls early
group experience, Swift (194) labeled the years from 1925
to 1940 as the period of greatest research concentration
on effects of nursery experience* After reporting numerous
studies yielding conflicting findings, she concluded that
at best the evidence is inconclusive about the preschool
influence for positive changes in young children's intel
lectual development*
Differences in IQ scores, perhaps due to preschool
attendance, can be expected to level off during early ele
mentary school, according to Swift* One significant ex
ception concerns children from culturally deprived back
grounds or children who present special learning problems*
(145, 146, 18) Active intervention in their learning pro-
15
16
grams may bring about important gains for the children and
indirect gains for the community. (Swift, 194:259)
It is not always possible in this section to dis
tinguish between investigations of culturally disadvantaged
children and those of advantaged children* Many of the
pre-1960 researchers point out that most of their subjects
were upper- or middle-class children* Others make no such
distinctions*
The fact that preschool experiences have been re
ported as exercising positive measurable influences on
many different social classes of children (134) seems to
encourage continuation of such programs* It has stimulated
wide research aimed at answering two focal questions:
(a) How significant is the influence? and (b) How long
does it last?
Null Hvoothesis Accepted in
Short-Range Studies
Many studies, from 1931 to the present, report no
statistically significant differences between experimental
and control preschoolers in measured intelligence or
achievement* The test period usually covers just the
preschool year, or in some cases a shorter period*
Among the better documented investigations re
porting insignificant or negligible results are Kawin and
Hoefer (125), Coffey and Wellman (40), Wellman and Stoddard
(215), Wellman and McCandless (214), Phillips (156), Alpern
17
(3) Hiraley (103), and Bottrill (26).
Null Hypothesis Accepted in
styd&e.s
Nonsignificant differences have been found between
preschoolers and nonpreschoolers at the end of kindergarten
on measures of IQ (Office of Research and Development, 150),
and on both IQ and reading at the end of grade one (Jacobs
and Felix, 115)*
Bonn ay and Nicholson (25) investigated the carry
over value of preschool by matching preschoolers with non
preschoolers on variables of sex, age, IQ, and father's
occupation* Posttesting these two groups of pupils from
grades one through six, the researchers found no signifi
cant differences on any of the comparisons*
Such findings are typical, according to Bereiter
and Engelmann (18:15-16): measured preschool advantages
disappear during kindergarten when the nonpreschoolers
catch up and the preschoolers remain stationary* Both
authors are skeptical of preschool gains reported to ex
ceed one standard deviation, and feel that most changes
in preschool IQs are explained by maturation, test sophis
tication, and regression to the mean (no IQ Change, they
postulate, will be greater than half the distance from the
tested IQ to the population average of 100)*
When Bereiter and Engelmann revise their 1966 book,
they may want to qualify some of their pronouncements in
18
the light of careful research such as the following, espe
cially the long-range studies*
Null Hypothesis Rejected in
Short-Range Studies
Numerous studies from 1940 forward found statisti
cally significant differences for preschoolers over non
preschoolers in measures of intelligence, cognition, read
ing, or language, and reported such findings for the period
of preschool treatment only* A listing of these investiga
tions would include: Wellman and Stoddard (215), Wellman
(213), Levinson (135), Deutsch and Brown (58), Smilansky
(184), Weikart (212), Deutsch (50), Gray and Klaus (83),
Metfeasel (141), Ametjian (4), Gray, Klaus, Hiller, and
Forrester (84), DiLorenzo (61), Griffiths (86), Diehl (60),
Cowling (41), Gill (78), Howard and Plant (107), and Risley
(163).
Null Hypothesis Rejected in
Long-Range Studies
A few researchers have reported positive results
over longer periods of study* These will be reviewed in
detail since the research in hand is also longitudinal*
While noting several strong indicators of regres
sion toward the mean, Katz (124) found a large percentage
of children showing significant changes in IQ over a two-
year period in spite of fairly high test-retest correla
tions for the group as a whole* Her subjects were tested
19
every six months from ages three through five*
Pratt (158) found kindergarten-experienced pupils
superior to kindergarten-nonexperienced pupils in reading
achievement at the end of first grade*
While discussing the unusual finding that after
two years of schooling second grade disadvantaged children
were apparently closer to the middle-class group, Wei
(211:4143) commented that Piagetian equilibration, which
stresses the continual interaction between the individual
and the environment, was not evident in this sample* Wei
suggested that opportunities for such interaction are often
lacking in deprived environments and xnay contribute to dif
ferences in developmental levels*
Clark (39:145) wrote of 60 preschool-experienced
children still superior to preschool-nonexperienced peers
in grade one in the use of language and understanding of
ideas* In grade one, two-thirds of the original 60 were
in the top half of their class, and 10 were in the top
fourth*
Disadvantaged pupils exposed to an eight-week pre
school program were posttested with a comparable group of
nonpreschool peers at the conclusion of first grade in an
investigation by Daniel and Giles (45)* The preschool
group excelled (significance reached *05) on 7 of the 20
oral language variables under study* No statistically
significant differences favored the controls*
20
Ability differences between nursery school and
nonnursery school children reached statistical signifi
cance only in the second grade, even though there ware
consistent trends in this direction earlier, according to
a study published in 1957 by Allen and Masling (2). They
commented that their search of the literature revealed no
other experimental or theoretical evidence supporting their
finding, and concluded that the problem had not been di
rectly investigated before.
In a 1968 monograph, Klaus and Gray (128) presented
detailed findings on several groups of preschoolers fol
lowed through second grade* Generally, experimentals main
tained superiority over controls in tests of intelligence,
vocabulary, language (only through first grade), and read
ing*
In a four-year follow-up study of environmental
manipulation to improve education for selected disadvan
taged children, Liddle, Rockwell, and Sacadat (136:78) re
ported that the most and least handicapped pupils improved
their IQ scores more than did the moderately handicapped
group* At the end of third grade, no differences were
found between experimentals and controls on the Iowa Test
of Basic Skills or in attendance patterns*
Ivancic (114:4166) contrasted children enrolled in
a one-year prereading instructional program with similar
children enrolled directly into first grade* The first
21
group exceeded the second in age-grade status and achieve
ment levels four years after kindergarten*
According to Deutsch (52), he had preliminary in
dications in 1964 that preschool, kindergarten, or day-care
experience, or a combination of these, was associated with
higher group intelligence scores* Such was true of his
subjects in first grade as well as in fifth, and remained
true when social class was controlled*
In a study by Deutsch and Brown (58), fifth graders
with preschool experience scored significantly higher (at
• 01) on the Lorge-Thomdike Intelligence Test than did
those without* Similar testing of first graders yielded
4
results below the conventional limit of statistical sig
nificance* Deutsch and Brown (58:304) concluded: "Pres
ence or lack of preschool experience at grade 5 more highly
differentiates intelligence test scores than it does at
grade 1•"
Hobson (104), in a related field of investigation,
reported that underage children, originally admitted to
elementary school on the basis of physical and psychologi
cal examinations, continued to demonstrate scholastic supe
riority and even increased it through high school*
In a 25-year follow-up of selected subjects, Brad
way and Thompson (27) found correlations of preschool IQs
with adult Stanford-Binet and full Wechsler Adult Intelli
gence Scale IQs on the order of *59 and • 65— moderately
strong relationships*
Baker, Sontag, and Nelson (186, 9) reported in
1958 on a longitudinal study (begun in 1929) of mental
ability in 140 selected children aged 3 through 12* They
found larger increments of IQ Change during preschool
years than during later school years, and concluded that
preschool tests should be considered unreliable for pre
dicting future IQ "because of the nature of changes in
mental growth found in a group rather than from the stand
point of unreliability due to error of measurement*"
(9:52-53)
Bayley and Schaefer (16), investigating mothering
and development of mental abilities spanning 18 years,
found male children's intelligence to be strongly related
to the love-hostility dimension of motherly behavior*
Girl babies who had loving but controlling mothers were
happy, responsive babies who earned high mental scores*
After three years, however, the girls' IQs showed little
relationship to either mother or child behavior variables*
High correlations in IQ were evident after the first six
years; there was little consistency in IQ over time in the
first year or so*
In a related study by Bayley (11), a preschool
factor labeled "verbal knowledge" correlated positively
and usually significantly with all of the later IQs for
both boys and girls* Correlations between the boys' pre
23
school verbal knowledge and an information test at age 36
ranged from *49 to *58, while girls' correlated only be
tween *09 and *35* The author decided that she had evi
dence for different, sex-linked, and differently timed fac
tors of intelligence which showed some stable relations
with subsequent intellectual performance* She urged that
further analyses of intellectual functioning, including
learning, be made separately for the sexes, since the re
ported differences cannot be explained entirely by cultural
expectations or differential environmental experiences*
This concludes the general presentation of pre
school research on Ability-Achievement factors, emphasizing
longitudinal studies* A review of related creativity re
search follows*
Preschool Research on Creativity
Creativity is a concept that has been discussed for
decades in psychology and education* Most of the discus
sions reinforced the fact that too little was known about
creativity and recommended more research*
Rise of Creativity Research
Guilford (88) is credited with inaugurating "the
first systematic attack of significance on the problem of
creativity" (Metfessel, 142:619) in his presidential ad
dress to the American Psychological Association in 1950*
Guilford had reported finding, among 121,000 titles listed
24
in the previous quarter century of Psychological Abstracts,
only 186 articles definitely on creativity— 0*153% of the
total* Another way of emphasizing this fact is to say that
over 99% of all creativity research ever conducted occurred
after 1950* (Metfessel, 142:645)
In 1959 there were only 10 national centers for the
study of creativity; by 1961 there were 17 (152:191); and
by 1966 this number had nearly doubled (163)* Articles
have increased, as was evident in 1965 when Gowan (82) pub
lished a 1,000-item bibliography on creativity and gifted
ness*
The topic of creativity and giftedness has been
popular among investigators (Getzels and Jackson, 77; Tor
rance, 201, 204, 205), but the findings of such studies
might more appropriately be accepted as "symptoms" of crea
tivity since the interrelatedness of multiple creativity
traits in individuals remains to be established* Further,
these symptoms may easily indicate the very highly creative
child, but bypass others of less potential* (Guilford,
91:88)
Since giftedness is usually indexed by IQ scores,
it should be pointed out that correlations between scores
on divergent-production tests and IQs are usually quite
low* It further seems true that, while having a high IQ
is not alone sufficient for achieving a high creativity
score, being at least above-average in IQ does appear to be
25
a prerequisite for high achievement in creativity tests*
(Guilford, 93:166-170)
Results of studies with culturally disadvantaged
subjects has led to the suggestion (Torrance, 201) that
highly creative individuals may be found and identified
among those now considered to be average in intelligence*
This would seem to be a natural correlate of the typical IQ
parameters for the disadvantaged* (Jensen, 116, 118, 119;
Guilford, 93)
Specific investigation of creativity in young
children has not been widely reported, although some pio
neering research is known to be in progress*
Creativity Research with
Young Children
In a comprehensive review of the literature on
creativity research to 1963, Gardner (75) pointed out that
while creativity theorists frequently discuss children's
creativity, few individuals engage in research on creativ
ity of children* Of the 17 studies on children's creativ
ity discussed by Gardner, only 1 mentions measurement of
creativity below grade three* Most of the studies incor
porate modifications of the Guilford tests, and have been
conducted in the 1960s*
Guilford and Associates
The research output by Guilford and associates in
26
the Aptitudes Research Project, begun in 1949 at the Uni
versity of Southern California, has been massive* Guil
ford's widely known model for the Structure of Intellect
(87, 93) postulates 120 different kinds of intelligence,
over half of which have been verified through research*
Guilford (93:138-170) has postulated 24 divergent-
production abilities, matrixed in his Structure of Intel
lect theory, which contribute directly to creative think
ing* As of 1968, 16 of these factors had been investigated
and demonstrated*
Host of the Guilford research on human intellectual
abilities has been conducted with men of superior intelli
gence* A growing proportion of Guilford's investigation
of divergent-production factors involves younger subjects,
as evidenced by three reports from 1961 through 1964 on
creative thinking in grades nine, seven, and six* (Guil
ford, Merrifield, and Cox, 94; Merrifield, Gardner, and
Cox, 139; Merrifield, Guilford, and Gershon, 140)
Concerning the sixth grade group, whose verbal
mental ages ranged from 8 to 18, Merrifield et al» (140:11)
concluded that the results established some confidence in
the existence of different factors of intellect in the
divergent-production area for sixth-grade children* Such
factors obviously differentiate before children reach sixth
grade*
Schmadel (171:89-90), another Guilford staff asso-
elate, found that creative thinking abilities do contribute
to measures of current and desirable achievement for sixth
graders* She suggested that early identification of these
creative abilities would enhance their development in chil
dren taught by a creative teacher*
Three recent studies (Torrance, 206; Cartledge and
Krauser, 34; Rusch, Denny, and Ives, 169) compared the re
sults of classes taught creatively with those taught con
ventionally* Grades one through six were covered in the
investigations and in all three studies the experimental
groups showed positive gains over controls on measures of
creativity* Guilford (93:337) is critical of such in
school experiments since they naturally ''suffer from lack
of full control of conditions, but the results can be sug
gestive* "
Since 1963, Professor Newton Metfessel, as Director
of Project Potential, School of Education, University of
Southern California, has sponsored a series of Wechsler-
Guilford prototype creativity tests for children (Risser,
164; Foster, 66; Bums, 31), all based on the Structure of
Intellect model*
The present investigation used the latest test from
this series (31)*
One application of these tests was in a year-long
preschool program (Metfessel, 141) where experimental crea
tivity posttest scores were significantly higher than pre-
test* The control group was not given the creativity test*
Four years later the same experimental population was re
tested for divergent-production as a sidelight of the pres
ent study, and the findings are reported in Chapter V*
Torrance and Associates
One of the largest bodies of creativity research
with school-age children has originated from the University
of Minnesota's Bureau of Educational Research under the
direction of E* P* Torrance* Over the past decade Torrance
and co-workers have devised tests of creativity, especially
the Minnesota Tests of Creative Thinking, studied the na
ture and development of creativity, and investigated the
relatedness of creativity to giftedness* A sampling of
their key findings for early childhood follows*
As background for his own measurement of creativi
ty, Torrance (202:28-29) examined 10 studies in creativity
in the early childhood and elementary school years dating
from 1900 to 1949* Most of the studies were limited to
estimates of artistic creativity and creative writing*
The investigators of this half century seriously limited
the scope of their observations of creative thinking and
its manifestations*
Measurement techniques used by these pioneers in
cluded ink blots, drawings, paintings and verbalizations,
imitation, imaginary playmates, new games, appropriate
29
quotations, leadership with plans, fanciful naming of vis
ual stimuli, block building, compositions, sets of small
dots as stimuli for constructions, representing words by
single drawn lines, poetry writing, and an art-form test*
Other approaches included music tasks, storytelling, clay
moulding, and notation of critical incidents in free play*
(Arasteh, 5:80-85)
According to Torrance (202:81-82), kindergartners
taught by teachers with high creative motivation made sig
nificant gains over peers taught by teachers with low crea
tive motivation* The treatment period lasted from January
to May.
Creativity tests of the Guilford type have been
used by Torrance (198, 203) with subjects from kindergarten
to graduate school* Reported reliability coefficients for
primary-grades battery totals ranged approximately from *40
to *70* (203:212) Growth curves for Torrance's Ask and
Guess Test for grades one through three showed a generally
steady growth of creative ability* Using the Product Im
provement Test, these same subjects revealed sex differ
ences which increased with age: by grade three boys sur
passed girls on all tasks in this test* (Arasteh, 5; Tor
rance, 199)
The decline in creative abilities noted in fourth
graders by Torrance, and widely quoted, is perhaps an
otherwise irrelevant artifact, since children in grades one
30
through three gave only oral responses while fourth graders
had to write their answers to the test* (Torrance, 203)
Evidence of noticeable drops in creative ability has been
reported for ages 5, 9, 13, and 17* (Arasteh, 5; Torrance,
203)
For contrast, Iscoe and Pierce-Jones (113) found
no significant age changes in ideational fluency in Negro
and white children, ages five through nine, who took the
/Unusual Uses Test from Torrance's Minnesota Tests of Crea
tive Thinking*
Olshin (151) reported significant positive rela
tionships between chronological age and verbal creativity
test scores (older subjects had higher scores), but the
same relationship was not true for nonverbal creativity
tasks* Much more remains to be discovered about the nature
of age-related lags in creative abilities* Arasteh (5:85)
suggested using longitudinal data and a common core of cre
ativity tests to clarify some of these reported differ
ences*
Torrance (198) has also reported finding a nearly
zero relationship between creativity and IQ scores* If IQ
alone were used as the criterion of giftedness, about 70%
of creative students would be excluded from the selection*
The Torrance results with bright children in early school
years tend to support those of Getzels and Jackson (77)
with gifted and creative high school subjects*
31
The status of creativity research as described in
1963 by Gardner (75:112-113) seems highly appropriate as a
conclusion to this subsection, and still relevant in 1969:
Although historical precedent can be found for
much of the current research on creativity, the re
surgence of interest in the topic has led to research
endeavors that are primarily concerned with the identi
fication and description of the creative person* Much
of the reported results are confusingly contradictory
and most of the questions concerning the attributes of
the creative person and the nature of creativity are
still unanswered*
Is the creative person childlike or mature? Does
he suppress his impulses or act them out? Is he con
servative or radical? Is creativity correlated pos
itively, negatively, or at all with other intellec
tual functions? Is creativity general or specific?
Does one develop creative ability, or realize one's
potential, or perhaps remove emotional impediments
that are limiting one's performance?
Studies can be cited as evidence for or against
almost every theoretical assumption made about crea
tivity and creative persons*.
Preschool Research on Learning Environment
Implicit in the preceding two subsections of this
chapter was the influence of environmental variables on
the child in his development of cognitive or creative
ability* Current psychological theory on the relationship
between organism and environment has profited from the
thinking, right and wrong, of developmental psychologists
over the past century* A brief historical review of major
trends will help set the present study in perspective*
32
Fixed and Predetermined
Intelligence
Until the 1950s, there was widespread belief in
genetically fixed intelligence and in genetically prede
termined intellectual development* The cast of characters
reenforcing these beliefs boasted many notables from the
halls of philosophy and psychology: Rousseau, Pestalozzi,
Froebel, and Freud; Darwin, Galton, Binet, and Cattell;
Hall and his students: Goddard, Kuhlmann, Terman, and
Gesell; Morgan, Loeb, Thorndike, and Watson* (109:3-64)
The weight of contrary evidence accumulated as in
vestigative techniques became more sophisticated, and in
1961 Hunt (109) published a systematic refutation of both
assumptions* He made it clear that human intelligence is
not just an inherited capacity, unalterably fixed at con
ception and biologically determined to devolve with the
organism* Rather, intelligence "is a dynamic, on-going
set of processes that within wide hereditary limits is sub
ject to innumerable experiential factors(Pettigrew,
155:107)
What is the extent of interaction between heredity
and experience?
Heredity. Environment.
and Interaction
The discussion of heredity and environment and
their proportionate contributions to the development of
33
the human organism is also an older topic in psycho-
philosophical literature* (Caspari, 35) While the history
of this issue is not germane to this study, its highlights
are*
First, heredity and environment are not dichoto-
mous, although often erroneously so labeled (for example,
Cynthia Deutsch, 51:59-62). A particular trait is not the
result of heredity alone or environment alone* Technical
ly, "The concept of heritability refers to the genetically
determined proportion of variance in individual differences
in a trait*" (Jensen, 118:5)
Second, it is untrue that characteristics acquired
through environmental experience are easily changed while
genetic Characteristics are immutable* For example,
studies of IQs in identical twins, fraternal twins, and
other siblings have demonstrated that both heredity and
environment contribute to individual variances in general
intelligence* (Guilford, 93:385)
Third, it is a misconception to believe that the
one true value for a given trait's heritability can even
tually be determined "by making more and more careful and
precise measurements with better and better instruments*"
(Jensen, 118:6) The fact that Guilford has reported mul
tiple intellectual factors only means that when the effects
of heredity and learning are combined they do not produce
uniform results in all areas of mental functioning* (Guil
34
ford, 89:164)
The recent developmental-psychological theories of
Jean Piaget incorporate the concept of equilibration which
stresses the continual interaction between the individual
and his environment* The constant working of assimilation
and accommodation between organism and environment gives
rise, during sensory-motor development, to an increasingly
elaborate and complex schematic organization within the
organism* (Flavell, 64) Such are the necessary anteced
ents and concomitants to the Piagetian periods and stages
of psychological development*
Guilford (89:164) conceded that heredity probably
determines upper and lower limits within which development
occurs* He pointed out that an individual's intellectual
status is necessarily and physically based "in the genetic
material that directs the development of his nervous sys
tem in great detail*" (Guilford, 93:385)
Stott and Ball (191:17) concurred by saying that
the extent to which any given individual approaches his
intellectual upper limit may be largely determined by his
encounters with his environment* C* Deutsch (51:61) pre
fers the term "interpenetration" over interaction to de
scribe the mutual modiflability of nature and nurture*
Growth curves of increases in intellectual capac
ity have been plotted (Bloom, 23) and plateaus have been
noted in adulthood* This parallels what we know of physi-
35
cal development, yet from these two discrete facts it does
not necessarily follow that the two are causally related*
There is increasing evidence, as noted above with
Jensen (118), Guilford (93, 89), Skeels (111, 69), Hunt
(109), and Piaget (64), that, like all development, intel
lectual development "comes about through the interaction
of the organism (with its fixed developmental potential)
and its environment*" (Stott and Ball, 191:17-18)
As Wei (211:4143) has concluded, however, "Oppor
tunities for such interaction are often missing in deprived
environments and may contribute to differences in levels of
development."
What happens to the child's psychological develop
ment in a deprived environment?
Deprived Environments
There is ample evidence that early environmental
deprivations stunt intellectual development* Children who
remain in substandard surroundings such as orphanages (49,
180, 181) or foundling homes (71, 188, 189) generally have
depressed IQs when compared with IQs of control children
placed in more advantaged environments* The same result
occurs in children of feebleminded mothers (187)*
Progressively lower IQs have also been reported for
isolated mountain and canal boat children who are raised in
unstimulating and nondemanding intellectual environments
36
(6, 176, 216)* The same ef£ect has been observed for rural
children compared with urban (6, 38, 216), for certain so
cial classes (15), and for rural Negro children compared
with urban Negro immigrants (131)*
Guilford (93:394) notes that, compared with chil
dren reared in their own homes with their own mothers,
children from foundling homes and orphanages may be severe
ly restricted in their opportunities for learning during
the years of infancy and preschool*
Most intellectual impairment, according to Yarrow
(226), is observable in children maternally deprived be
tween the ages of 3 and 12 months* Social stimulation
during ages six to eight months is important for develop
ment of adequate social ability or intelligence* Depriva
tion before six months does not appear to seriously affect
general personality development*
A growing number of researchers are currently ex
amining selected variables in the psychological environ
ment of deprived children, particularly those of parent-
child interaction, to discover if such variables are dif
ferently distributed among disadvantaged subpopulations
than among advantaged* What needs direct testing, accord
ing to Jensen (118:14), is the strong possibility that
many Negroes may grow up in environmental conditions that
hinder full development of genetic intellectual potential*
What happens to a child's psychological development
37
in an enriched environment?
Enriched Environments
Research over several decades lends support to the
idea that removal from a nonstimulating orphanage to a su
perior institution (179, 177), or to a superior foster home
(69, 182), or even giving orphanage children the enriching
experience of nursery school (160) will raise tested IQ*
Skeels (178:5, 15) reported that children of moth
ers with low IQ.or of fathers with low job status, or of
both combined, placed in adoptive homes at infancy, at
tained a mental level equaling or exceeding the population
norm, according to tests given one to three years after
placement* Control children not so placed regressed in IQ
over the same period of time*
How much of a boost in IQ points might be expected
from intensive, systematic efforts? Knowledgeable esti
mates range from an average improvement of 10 to 20 IQ
points* (Jensen, 116:5; Bloom, 23:71)
Jensen (116:2) offered some cogent arguments for
the idea of concertedly trying to raise not individual but
population IQ* Briefly, to raise the mean population IQ by
15 points, one standard deviation, would increase to 50%
the present 167* of the population who are college-able* To
lower mean population IQ one standard deviation, on the
other hand, would "probably make civilization impossible*"
38
We know that Intellectual ability can be modified*
The question arises, How late in the course of deprivation
can appropriate intervention reverse the systematic drop
in intellectual capacity?
Critical Periods. Irreversibility.
ana Cumulative Deficit
The idea of crucial stages in the psychological de
velopment of a child which, once passed, are irrecoverable
has been widely discussed lately* This has been especially
noticeable since the publication of Stability and Change in
Human Characteristics where Bloom (23:210) concluded, from
exhaustive study of extended research: "A characteristic
can be more drastically affected by the environment in its
most rapid period of growth than in its least rapid period
of growth* "
Stated differently: As the characteristic's sta
bility increases, its potential for change decreases pro
portionately*
In similar context, Bloom (23) said that the de
velopments in the early years are crucial for all that
follow* Kagan and MOss (121:272) agreed* Early learning,
as opposed to later unlearning and relearning, powerfully
resists later alteration or extinction* This is largely
inferred, however, from animal research, since the field of
early learning in human infants is likewise in its infancy*
Bloom (23:110) suggested that, since grades one to three
39
are the most crucial period for academic learning, all
subsequent learning is affected and somewhat determined by
what the child has learned by that period (age nine, end
of grade three)*
Hertzig et al» (100) supported this concept in a
study of individual learning styles of disadvantaged Puerto
Rican and advantaged middle-class preschoolers.
Cass (36:11) agreed with Bloom that the preschool
and primary years are crucial for growth and development
in learning, adding that they hold a now-or-never quality.
Smilansky (183:82) heavily supported the concepts
of crisis and irreversibility, warning that his experi
ments indicate that if the readiness time for developing
specific abilities transpires without being influenced by
such environmental agents as the home or school, "these
abilities may never be developed."
Optimistically, Riessman (162) has affirmed that
the educational weaknesses of the disadvantaged are re
versible and that the demonstrably positive elements in
their culture should form the bases for new learning tech
niques to overcome those weaknesses.
Deutsch (57:9) criticized the concept of crucial
periods of now-or-never development for preschoolers. He
felt that this leads to what he calls a rubric of "the
earlier the stimulation, the better the result." He ob
jected to the implication that the critical-time concept
40
essentially means "the more the better*M
Deutsch (57:9) advised enriching preschoolers' en
counters with the environment as early as possible, but
added a special proviso:
It may very well be that initiation of special in
tervention before a certain -period of time has elapsed
is crucial for the enhancement of intellective func
tions, but that the overall quantity at that time is
not so critical as long as there is continuity of en
richment after the period has passed*
Language deficiency is the central handicap of dis
advantaged children, according to Bereiter and Engelmann
(18:13, 24-45), and if it is not remediated as early as
possible, other intellectual handicaps cannot be reversed*
In apparent agreement with Deutsch and his follow
ers, Ausubel (8:51-52) extended as implicit in the criti-
cal-periods hypothesis the concept that many intellectual
skills and certain subject matter can be learned better by
children than by adults* As noted earlier, Bruner (29:33)
has proposed that "any subject can be taught effectively in
some intellectually honest form to any child at any stage
of development*"
There is evidence from Bayley (10:68) that early
environment is more important for boys than for girls, in
terms of personality and intelligence variables* She
urged that studies of environmental influences, and par
ticularly the reversibility of early environmental effects,
treat the sexes separately* Kagan and Moss (121:273-276)
41
reported numerous sex differences in their 30-year study of
normal individuals from birth to adulthood, while Klaus and
Gray (128:49-50) found no sex-dominant variables in their
5-year follow-up of disadvantaged Negro preschoolers*
It is true that postponing early learnings means
loss of the chance to learn most economically, without re
sort to the unleam-releam cycle mentioned earlier* When
this occurs in an individual's development, he incurs a
learning deficit which limits both his current and future
rates of intellectual development* (Ausubel, 8:52) This
feature, so prominent in the learning patterns of cultural
ly deprived children, is frequently called cumulative
learning deficit. (Deutsch, 56:86)
In order for developmental deficit to operate, the
learning organism accumulates missed opportunities for ap
propriate intellectual stimulus through his formative
years* Deprived children who bring this intellectual defi
cit to scdiool find themselves less able than more advan
taged peers to capitalize on appropriate school-oriented
experiences* They frequently are overwhelmed by sudden
exposure to learning tasks far exceeding their cognitive
readiness* 111 equipped to cope with formal learning,
children suffering from cumulative intellectual deficit
are characterized by failure, lack of self-confidence,
alienation and eventual dropout from the learning estab
lishment* (Ausubel, 8:54)
42
This syndrome is supported by the findings of Met-
fessel and Foster (143) who reported that deprived children
often end the achieving habit before they have really begun
it:
The cycle of skill mastery which demands that suc
cessful experiences generate more motivation to per
form which in turn guarantees levels of skill suffi
cient to prevent discouragement, and so on, may be
easily reversed in direction and end the achieving
habit prior to its beginning* (143:4)
What is known about the psychological development
of a child experiencing a creative environment?
Creative Environments
Guilford (93) and Torrance (202) both discuss en
vironments conducive to creative output* The bulk of the
surveys deals with adults, most of whom are scientists*
In connection with creativity in the school child's
environment, Guilford (90:122) suggested that almost any
subject could be taught via productive thinking rather
than rote memory*
Rural and small-city children achieved higher
scores on divergent-production tests than did large-city
children in studies by Torrance (206) and Klausmeier and
Wiersma (130)*
"The creative child needs a responsive environ
ment rather than lust a stimulating one," cautioned Tor
rance (204:67)* The child needs both environments for
optimal creative development, whether from parents or
teachers•
Deprecating certain categories of people, such as
culturally disadvantaged children, may seriously inhibit
their creative energies, according to Riessman (164)*
Such children need but perhaps do not receive self-respect
to be successful in their creative output* This is psy
chologically germane to the self-fulfilling prophecy (168)
as well as to the philosophy of cumulative deficit*
Educators can promote individual creative develop
ment, according to Speer (187), if first they correct some
misconceptions among themselves about intelligence and
creativity, and then actively instruct children in creative
production*
Risser (164:7-11), in listing nearly a dozen prac
tical reasons why educators should be interested in crea
tivity and its measurement, included these less obvious
and perhaps provocative points:
1* Almost any subject can be taught creatively*
2. Some students prefer to learn creatively*
3* Learning theory has been dominated too long
by the stimulus-response model*
4* Possession of creative abilities is valuable
for maintaining mental health*
The subject of creative environments has only be
gun to be investigated* The study of school and home en
vironments, on the other hand, is old enough to boast some
44
history in research literature.
f l B . 4
the Hidden Curriculum
The major studies reporting pupil gains due to
special preschool environments have already been reported
in the beginning of this chapter* Many of the Investiga
tions over time have found that preschool gains are short
lived into the primary years* The fact remains, however,
that planned manipulation of school environment can pro
duce Changes in the young learner*
When nursery school was on the rise in the 1930s
and 1940s, promoters of the idea discovered it desirable
and profitable to show that their institution was benefi
cial to children* (93:402) Tests of intelligence were
heavily used toward this end* The Iowa studies (215, 213)
are examples of many early reports of IQ gains which later
had to be attributed to regression effects*
Next came a period of intense interest in socio
economic status (SES) as a correlate of tested intelli
gence and achievement in school* (118:15) Until recently,
social class and SES were the major indices of environment*
Warner, Meeker, and Eells (209:168), for example, reported
correlations from *82 to *91 between scores for social
class position and ratings of four status characteristics:
occupation, source of income, house type, and dwelling
area* Outstanding exceptions to this narrow focus include
45
such longitudinal studies as those from the Berkeley Growth
Study (10, 11, 16) and the Fels Research Institute (121,
186).
SES differences have genetic as well as environ
mental bases. Such differences in family life style, pa
rental occupational level, and child-rearing practices do
influence educationally relevant skills, attitudes, and
values as well as interclass mobility for both parents and
children. (118:15, 93:390)
Studies correlating IQ with SES variables have
abounded. McNemar (138), for a typical example, found a
mean gap of 10 IQ points between children of fathers in
professions and children of fathers in unskilled occupa
tions. Changing the emphasis, Bayley (14) reported cor
relations between IQs of parent and child ranging from
approximately .40 to .65 from ages 2 to 18. She also dis
cussed the increase in child's IQ as a function of parent's
education. Similar relationships between child's IQ and
father's occupation have been found in European countries
(93:391). Leahy (133) reported a correlation index of ap
proximately .40 between children's IQ and a sociological
rating of the home.
Picking the home as a legitimate psychological
variable, Strodtbeck (193:17) suggested investigation of
what he labeled the "hidden curriculum":
If one reasons that the curriculum of the school
46
supplements the curriculum of the home, then the com
pensatory preparation of students from culturally de
prived families may require an analysis of what is
learned in the middle class home*
The suggestion, however, is incomplete* Educa
tional psychologists need to know more about the hidden
curriculum in the homes of the culturally deprived as well,
to discover family-life variables (106) conducive to ef
ficient learning*
Ausubel wrote recently (8:49):
We 8till lack firm evidence concerning the influ
ence of an optimal learning environment on the intel
lectual development of culturally deprived elementary
school and adolescent children, especially those who
have been subjected for many years to the frustra
tion and demoralization of inappropriate school ex
perience*
Bloom (22:201) substantiates this concern by re
portedly being able to cite only five exemplary studies,
all during 1963-64, in which the school personnel had a
planned teaching strategy to compensate at school for the
variations in "parents as teachers*"
Serving the idea of discovering more about the
hidden curriculum, Bloom (22:200) could commend only five
additional major studies in the 1960s which concentrated
on parent-child interaction and its subsequent stimulus to
early learning*
The Berkeley Growth Studies (10, 11, 16), excellent
examples of longitudinal research still in progress, have
examined non-SES variables between mother and child and re
47
lated these to intellectual functioning and personality in
later life* (Schachter, Cooper, and Gordet (170),- for ex
ample, have proposed a longitudinal Q-sort method for
follow-up assessment of the preschool child's personality
development*) The investigators reported strong trends in
sex differences noticeable by ages 4 and 5 and continuing
through 18* During these periods, correlations were posi
tive between sons' IQs and loving maternal behavior*
Through preschool, girls with loving, controlling mothers
scored higher, but by age 5 the correlation dropped to and
remained at zero through age 18* (10:67)
Two recent systematic studies of the relationship
between (a) environmental process variables in the "normal
range of home environments rather than of extreme condi
tions" (Bloom, 23:79) and (b) both general intelligence and
general educational achievement have been reported by Wolf
(224) and Dave (47)*
Wolf (224) investigated the relationship between
intelligence and home-environment interactions between
parents and children by means of a 60-item structured in
terview covering three major areas: press for achievement
motivation, press for language development, and provision
for general learning* He obtained a multiple correlation
of *76*
In a study of the same parent population, Dave (47)
investigated the relationship between parent-child inter-
48
action and school achievement* The overall correlation
yielded was *80*
Of Dave*8 research, Bloom (23:124-125) has written:
"It demonstrates that it is what the parents do in the home
rather than their status characteristics which are the pow
erful determiners in the home environment*" He further
characterized the Wolf and Dave studies as "major attacks"
on the problem of defining specific environmental variables
and their influence on the individual*
The environment-aptitude and -achievement correla
tions of *76 and *80 found in these two studies overshadow
the usual correlations of *40 and *50 for the cruder SES
variables such as occupation, family income, neighborhood,
and social class* (119, 23) Such factors are incidental
correlates of IQ or achievement, and hardly have the causal
qualities of parent-child interaction* Jensen (119:11)
noted that "at most, only about 30% of the variance in in
telligence can be predicted from a composite of various in
dices of socioeconomic status*"
Bronfenbrenner (28:909) suggested some of the many
non-SES variables to be researched in the school-home en
vironment when he observed that among the primary origins
of serious inadequacies experienced in school by disadvan
taged children, especially Negro boys, are prenatal damage,
father absence, impoverished home environment, and dysfunc
tional patterns of child rearing*
49
Jensen encouraged psychologists to search beyond
crude SES variables for causal environmental influences on
educability, and specified the search area as the more
subtle psychological aspects of intra-family and inter
personal interactions during the child's development*
(118:19)
As attested by Bloom (23:184), introducing environ
ment as a research variable greatly improves the prediction
of mature human characteristics* Until quite recently,
under the influence of testing individual differences, en
vironmental variables were considered as merely sources of
error variance* Evidence of this is seen in the existence
of many tests of individual differences but few tests of
environmental differences* (32)
Chapter Summary
This chapter has presented preschool research re
lated to ability, achievement, creativity, and learning
environment* Reported findings and unanswered questions
in the literature reviewed became the background stimuli
motivating this study, which included building an instru
ment to measure parent-child interactions and their influ
ence on learning*
Chapter 111 describes this instrument and its com
position*
CHAPTER III
STRUCTURE OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR
PARENTS AS TEACHERS (QPAT)
Briefly, this chapter describes the building of a
questionnaire to measure parent-child interactions for
learning* Included are descriptions of the instrument's
research background, rationale, developmental areas, ad
ministration, scoring techniques, validity, and reliabil
ity.
Background for the QPAT
As seen in Chapter II, the moderate relationship
between IQ and gross SES variables leaves too much unan
swered in the attempt to predict mature human character
istics*
Indices of static traits such as social class
status, SES, parental occupation, and parental level of
education have been labeled inadequate classifications of
environment*
In conducting the present investigation, care was
taken to create an index of dynamic environmental variables
related to ability and achievement rather than create an
other list of stable SES variables* An example of the lat-
50
51
ter is the list of status characteristics used by Warner,
Meeker, and Eells (209): occupation, source of income,
house type, and dwelling area* Contrast these with the
ongoing processes described by Bloom (23:190):
General Intelligence.— Differences in general in
telligence are likely to be related to:
1* Stimulation provided in the environment for verbal
development*
2* Extent to which affection and reward are related
' to verbal-reasoning accomplishments*
3* Encouragement of active interaction with problems,
exploration of the environment, and the learning
of new skills*
School Achievement.— Differences in school achieve
mentarelikelytoH3e'‘related to:
1* Meaning which education comes to have for one's
personal advancement and role in society*
2* Level of education of and value placed on educa
tion by the significant adults in the individual's
life.
3* Extent to which school achievement is motivated
and reinforced by parents or significant adults
in the individual's life.
The need is clear for environmental measures of
specific individual characteristics, dynamic and develop
mental in nature. Recent efforts in this direction have
been promising (23, 47, 224) but more needs to be done*
This chapter describes one effort to build a
measure of environmental specifics, based on both theoret
ical and empirical research* It was intended that the re
sults obtained from this Questionnaire for Parents as
Teachers (QPAT) might lend some support to the general
identification and scaling of parent-child interactions
conducive to selected learning characteristics in the dis-
52
advantaged child*
Briefly, the QPAT is a 150-item structured inter
view for parents covering six areas of child development:
intellectual, achievement, language, social, creativity,
and psychomotor* The remainder of this chapter describes
the instrument in detail* Appendices C, D, and £ show the
text of the QPAT and chart its theoretical framework*
Rationale for the QPAT
The general rationale for the six areas and 150
items included in the QPAT is derived, in part, from se
lected comments by leaders in the field of research in
child growth and development.
What has been pointed out or implied in the many
studies which have investigated differences in the
home backgrounds of children is that the quality of
parents as teachers (and as models for learning) dif
fers widely and that children have been taught well,
or poorly, in the home before they enter school*
(Bloom, 22:201)
There is abundant evidence that many of the be
havioral differences we find in test performance are
largely the result of differences in the environments
in which individuals have lived rather than of inherent
differences in individuals themselves*••*We have rarely
attempted to systematically relate individual test data
to environmental data in ways which are designed to in
crease our understanding of the interactive process be
tween the individual and the environment* (Wolf, 225:
94)
The following citations seem specially apt in sup
porting the reasons behind this six-sided search for en
vironmental variables that facilitate learning*
53
Area I:
Intellectual Development (1)
Various bits of the evidence reviewed hint that
if the manner in which encounters with the environ
ment foster the development of intellectual interest
and capacity were more fully understood, it might be
possible to increase the average level of intelligence
within the population substantially* (Hunt, 109:346)
The possibility of arresting and reversing the
course of intellectual retardation in the culturally
deprived pupil depends largely on providing him with
an optimal learning environment as early as possible
in the course of his educational career* (Ausubel,
7:462)
The formation of cognitive and intellectual skills
can be conceived of as developmental in nature and mod
ifiable by variation in the environment* (Freeberg
and Payne, 68:68)
Area II:
Achievement Development (A)
Examination of the literature yields no explana
tion or justification for any child with an intact
brain, and who is not severely disturbed, not to learn
all the basic scholastic skills* The failure of such
children to learn is the failure of the schools to
develop curricula consistent with the environmental
experiences of the children and their subsequent ini
tial abilities and disabilities* (Deutsch, 55:232)
Academic underachievement is a phenomenon which
characteristically began so early in the school ca
reers of male children that presdhool influences were
suggested* (Shaw and McCuen, 175:103)
Area III:
Language Development (L)
It is the parents who stimulate the Child to ex
perience and interact with a complex environment, and
it is the parents who are the models as well as stimu
lators of language and thought development* (Bloom,
22: 201)
54
Area IV:
Social Development (S)
For the most part, the present measures of en
vironments consist of social class status, socio
economic level, and occupational and educational
level of parents* These are so general that they are
likely to have only moderate relationships with the
more specific environments that influence the develop
ment of physical characteristics, intelligence, and
general school achievement* We are in need of more
precise and specific environmental measures which
are likely to be related very directly to the rate
and level of development for specific individual
characteristics* (Bloom, 23:221),..
Area V:
Creativity Development (C)
Until we have more established scientific facts
on the question of heredity and the factors (related
to creativity in the model of structure of intellect),
the best attitude to take is that while heredity may
establish the limits within which development can
occur, we have considerable latitude within which to
effect improvements* (Guilford, 87:8)
The overall impression of the high creative
family is one in which individual divergence is per
mitted and risks are accepted* (Getzels and Jackson,
77:359)
Area VI:
Psychomotor Development (P)
Motor performance levels are usually affected by
the social implications of the immediate situation,
as well as by the over-all cultural context in which
the action takes place* As the individual learns a
skill, he is concerned with not only task specifics
but how the culture expects one of his age, sex, and
background to perform* Thus, the performer is con
tinually sensitive to the extent to which his per
formance level either coincides with or falls short
of cultural expectations* (Cratty, 43:288-289)
A child's motor development may be accelerated
or retarded by differential handling and home atmos
phere* •• .Present investigation suggests that accel
55
eration of gross motor development is not a MracialH
characteristic but is, to an extent, related to the
way in which a child is cared for and handled, in turn
a function of socio-economic level* (Williams and
Scott, 221:120, 116)
Area VII:
Family Data (F)
Although not part of the QPAT protocol as such,
eight questions (F151-F158) were added as a seventh area
to gather data related to family sociology or customs*
These items matched family information gathered in 1964,
and were used to update the socioeconomic profiles for
both groups•
Building the QPAT
Research literature in educational psychology,
psychology of child growth and development, and the newer
field of cultural disadvantage was examined for findings
pertinent to parent-child relationships in the six areas
encompassed by the QPAT* '
Appropriate research findings were gathered and
framed into open-end questionnaire items, numbering ap
proximately 250* Tentative scoring criteria were written
for each item, keyed to the findings* Built around the
concept of high-achiever and low-achiever, responses
aligned with the research outcome for high achievers were
assigned the highest score, and the lowest score went to
responses equated with low achievers* A two-point middle
56
ground was allowed to accommodate Individual differences*
All items were examined for content and affect by
five adults, three of whom (two men and one woman) were
Negroes personally and professionally acquainted with the
target population, both parents and children, relative to
this study* Four of the five were research specialists in
metropolitan public school administration* Numerous items
were rewritten or deleted in the light of their sugges
tions •
The surviving items, numbering 150, were then
sorted five different times into the categories of the
Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Affective Domain
(132), and are displayed in this arrangement in Appendix C*
In the QPAT protocol, Appendix E, the taxonomic references
appear within parentheses after each item*
Piloting the QPAT
During spring 1968 the investigator administered
the QPAT to 22 randomly selected Negro and white families
in approximately the same SES range as the target popula
tion* Another prerequisite was that the pilot family have
a child in the second grade*
In the light of experience with the pilot adminis
tration of the QPAT, numerous modifications in wording and
scoring criteria were adopted for the final edition used
with target parents*
57
Training the Interviewers
Three adult Negroes, two men and one woman, were
trained by the investigator to administer the QPAT* All
three were experienced in educational research, counseling,
and teaching in neighborhoods identical to those of the
target population* It was felt that people of this caliber
would have better rapport and perhaps elicit more valid re
sponses from the target parents than would the investigator
who does not share their background*
Instructions to the interviewers included these:
1* Item wording is not to be adhered to slavishly
but is to be altered to fit the real situation,
for example, in one-parent families*
2. The phrase "your child" and similar references
should be replaced by the first name of the
second grader to personalize the interview*
3* The parent's responses are not to be recorded
on the protocol but on lined and otherwise un
printed paper after the corresponding item
numbers* The interviewer does the writing,
not the parent*
4* Scoring is not to occur simultaneously with
the interviewing* All protocols will be scored
by the investigator after all interviews are
completed.
5* The minimum scoring guides are, however, in
58
tended to provide the interviewer with clues to
the need for further interrogation to secure
scorable responses.
An individual child's group status in the study
(whether experimental or control) was unknown to the inter
viewer* As the interviews progressed, the investigator
checked weekly with each interviewer to affirm interviewing
procedures and to help keep them uniform*
Administering the QPAT to Target Parents
The investigator personally contacted a parent in
each family by telephone, explained the nature of the re
quested interview, and, upon obtaining permission, informed
the interviewer that he could call to make an appointment
for the home visit*
During the introductory calls, the investigator
told parents that the school district was interested in
knowing parents' opinions on raising and teaching children,
and that the parents of other second graders in their
child'8 school were being similarly contacted and inter
viewed* They were told that if teachers knew more parents'
feelings about education for their children, it would bene
fit both parents and teachers, and of course the children*
Other preliminary information included the facts
that the interview would last approximately one hour, that
anything said by the parent would be held in strict con-
59
fidence, that no individual would be in any way identified
in the subsequent report, and that all answers by the par
ent were to be oral, not written* It was emphasized to the
parents that since their opinions were being asked, there
were no wrong answers to the questionnaire* Every answer
would be a good answer*
All 50 families were contacted in this manner and
interviewed during June, July, and August 1968*
Scoring the QPAT
All scoring was done by the investigator* After
family or pupil names were removed from the interview
notes, and after the child's sex and roster status were
recoded by a second person, the questionnaires were scored
by the investigator* All responses for item 1 were re
viewed and rated, then all responses for item 2, and so on
through item 150* In this way both area and cumulative
scores were obtained for each family, and subjected to
statistical analysis as discussed in Chapter V*
QPAT Validity
Evidence for construct and content validity in the
QPAT has been documented earlier in this chapter* The
latest research literature covering parent-child relation
ships and the psychology of child development, paying ap
propriate attention to environmental studies, was examined
for findings that could be reasonably applied to the target
60
families of this study* The findings were collected under
the six major QPAT headings which conceptually encompass
the total psychological development of the child: Intel-
— lectual, achievement, language, social, creativity, and
psychomotor*
A pool of questions derived from the findings was
written* The items were refined, sorted into the affective
taxonomy, judged for appropriateness of fit to the target
population, piloted with a sample of parents, edited and
revised, and finally administered to the target parents*
The dearth of instruments measuring family-
environment variables related to child development and
achievement was pointed out in Chapter II* Parental an
swers to the structured QPAT items were expected to pro
vide descriptive parameters of parent-child interactions,
and it was hypothesized that these parameters would be
the same for both experimental and control pupils* Dif
ferences were found, however, and are reported in Chap
ter V*
r-*
Table 1, based on the correlation matrix output
from BMD03D (Dixon, 62), presents intercorrelations be
tween QPAT scores and selected criterion-related data*
Basically these are grade point averages of teacher-
assigned marks from kindergarten through second grade,
pupil's age in spring 1968, intelligence and reading test
scores, and scores on the experimental test of creativity.
TABLE 1
QPAT VALIDITY COEFFICIENTS FOR EXPERIMENTAL (E) AND CONTROL (C) GROUPS ON SELECTED VARIABLES
QPAT Developmental Areas
Intellec- Achieve- Language Social Creativity Psycho- Total
Selected tual ment motor
Variables 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59.
E C
4. K1 Progress GPA 06 20
11. K2 Progress GPA -42 09
15. B1 Reading GPA -15 -31
17. B1 Total GPA -02 -09
24. Al Reading GPA -28 -16
26. A1 Total GPA -08 -17
33. B2 Reading GPA -36 33
35. B2 Total GPA -21 31
42. A2 Reading GPA -07 34
44. A2 Total GPA -07 29
51. A2 Chronological Age -03 13
78. Binet IQ, Fall 1964
— Preschool Pretest -17 24
79. Binet IQ, Spring 1965
— Preschool Posttest -10 05
80. Binet IQ, Spring 1966
— K2 -05 06
E C E C E C
-22 -11 -18 -58 08 -06
-44 -06 -13 -21 -14 33
-23 -33 29 -36 -28 48
-15 01 26 -16 -24 49
-44 -26 18 -30 -40 34
-24 -00 11 -23 -38 55
-41 35 26 01 25 24
-27 32 17 -05 -32 17
-16 18 12 -18 -16 22
-04 17 22 -30 -27 34
-26 31 -27 10 -02 17
-42 54 09 12 -43 -05
09 -14 41 -31 -43 -05
14 29 25 36 -12 -31
E C E C E C
18 -26 -25 29 -14 -40
28 -36 -17 02 -28 -15
-18 -31 -50 14 -24 -32
-17 -21 -46 -05 -18 -05
-15 -34 -45 22 -41 -30
-27 -30 -41 -10 -36 -16
26 03 -36 -08 -15 29
03 -16 -30 -20 -20 08
09 -19 -44 -00 -13 04
11 -47 -42 08 -04 -12
-37 37 -06 01 -43 44
09 05 -49 16 -33 35
-02 -28 -18 -00 07 -38
16 30 -31 -37 13 23
TABLE 1— Continued
Intellec-
Selected tual
Variables 53.
Achieve
ment
54.
QPAT Developmental Areas
Language Social Creativity
55. 56. 57.
Psycho
motor
58.
Total
59.
E C E C E C E C E C E C E C
81. Binet IQ. Spring 1968
— A2 06 28 -04 39 15 17 -27 16 16 -27 -47 -00 -03 24
82. Plntner-Cunnlnghan
IQ, Spring 1967— Al -10 48 02 36 02 09 -29 -04 03 -19 14 10 -01 22
83. Stanford Reading,
Word Meaning, Spring
1967— Al -21 30 -32 09 -02 -10 -19 28 -23 -09 -40 -13 -43 10
84. Stanford Reading,
Paragraph Meaning,
Spring 1967— Al -23 33 -28 20 14 10 -29 06 06 23 -37 -15 -22 33
85. Stanford Reading,
Total, Spring 1967
— Al -23 33 -32 16 07 01 -26 16 -07 09 -41 -15 -34 24
86. Stanford Reading,
Word Meaning, Spring
1968— A2 -12 68 -14 20 13 14 -27 -03 29 03 -18 27 01 45
87. Stanford Reading,
Paragraph Meaning,
Spring 1968— A2 -17 01 -12 02 13 -06 -25 42 24 -26 -32 10 -06 05
TABLE 1—-Continued
Selected
Variables
Intellec
tual
53.
Achieve
ment
54.
QPAT Developmental Areas
Language Social Creativity
55. 56. 57.
Psycho
motor
58.
Total
59.
•
00
00
Stanford Reading,
Total, Spring 1968
— A2
E C
-16 34
E C
-14 11
E C
14 03
E C
-27 27
E C
27 -16
E C
-29 20
E C
-04 26
89. CITOC Total, Fall
1964— Preschool
Pretest 03 — -03 — -00 — 09 — 22 — -21 — 06 —
90. CITOC Total, Spring
1965— Preschool
Posttest -16 — -02 — 15 — -33 — -08 — -25 — -14 —
91. CITOC Verbal, Spring
1968— A2 -00 — 08 — 08 — -07 — -07 — -20 — -02 —
92. CITOC, Performance,
Spring 1968— A2 -06 — 12 — 18 — -05 — 13 — -17 — 12 —
93. CITOC Total, Spring
1968— A2 -03 — 10 — 14 — -06 — 04 — -19 ~ 05 —
ON
u>
64
These 27 variables were correlated with QPAT subtotal and
total scores*
Considering the first 10 GPA variables, parents'
ratings of control pupils' Social development show moder
ately positive correlations with teacher marks, ranging
from -*06 to *55* For the same subtest, experimental
pupils show consistently negative correlations, from *08 to
-.40.
This pattern is nearly reversed in the Language
subtest, where experimental coefficients range upward from
-.18 to .29 while control values descend from .01 to -.58*
Similar polarization between the two groups is
evident throughout Table 1.
For the five standardized intelligence tests (Vari
ables 78-82), experimentals show 16 positive correlations
(range: .02 to .41) and the controls 22 (range: .05 to
• 54). Similarly, 19 coefficients are negative for the
experimentals (range: -.01 to -.49), and 13 for the con
trols (range: -.00 to -.38).
On correlations with standardized reading tests
(Variables 83-88), r values tend to be typically negative
for experimentals and positive for controls.
The 35 correlations between QPAT and CITOC scores
range from -.33 to .22, tending to parallel the typical
pattern of low correlation between measures of creative
ability and intelligence.
65
Statistically, the influence of restricted range
enters into the QPAT validity problem* Anticipating re
sults reported in Chapter V (Tables 3, 8, and 9), it is
generally true that on the preponderance of measures ap
plied, experimental and control pupils exhibited strong
trait homogeneity* The small sample sizes (of the 76
original pupils in 1964-65, 31 experimentals and 19 con
trols were located for the 1968 follow-up), and the neces
sary preselection criterion of random assignment to treat
ment (confirmed by reports of no significant differences
between groups on standardized pretests) were restricting
factors contributing to low validity coefficients for the
QPAT.
A nonstatistical viewpoint would also be allowable
on the low validity issue* The QPAT, according to the
values in Table 1, seems to be measuring different per
ceptions of behaviors in the same children* In other
words, parent and teacher estimates of pupil behavior
differ for the same children* Since it was theorized that
home learning environment would differ, perhaps markedly,
from school learning environment, the fluctuations and
polarities in validity coefficients reflected in Table 1
may be interpreted as supportive of that theory, yet
inconclusive•
No widely accepted criteria presently exist for
validating home environment data related to school achieve-
66
ment parameters* Extensive measurement of home environ
ment variables must be carried out to establish such a
model*
QPAT Reliability
Internal consistency for the QPAT was estimated
according to Cronbach's coefficient alpha (44), which is
essentially the same as the Kuder-Richardson 20 formula
for reliability (Guilford, 92)* Computations were made
from the variance-covariance matrix generated by the BMD02D
computer program (Dixon, 62)* Data input consisted of QPAT
raw scores for each individual in both groups* The results
of this analysis are shown in Table 2*
The area of Language appears to be the most con
sistent subsection of the QPAT, with coefficient alpha
values of *65 and *70* It is also shown, by the coef
ficient of determination, that these r values account for
less than 50% of the total error variance of that sub
section*
Applying this same two-step pattern of analyzing
the results, QPAT reliability seems to be weak for most of
the areas* The three negative coefficient alphas point to
areas most seriously in need of examination and revision*
Accountability for the generally low internal reliabilities
would include such factors as small sample size (n s 31,
19), shortness of subtests (n ranged from 14 to 42), and
67
TABLE 2
QPAT RELIABILITY (r) ANALYZED BY COEFFICIENT ALPHA AND THE COEFFICIENT
OF DETERMINATION FOR EXPERIMENTAL (E) AND CONTROL (C) GROUPS
QPAT Areas
Coefficient Alpha
E (N-31) C (N-19)
r r
Coefficient
E (N-31)
r2
of Determination
C (N-19)
r2
Intellectual .05 -.15 .003 .02
Achievement .46 -.64 .21 .41
Language .65 .70 .42 .49
Social -.22 .45 .05 .20
Creativity .35 .06 .12 .004
Psychomotor .23 .12 .05 .01
Total .54 .24 .29 .06
68
relative homogeneity of subjects* This last fact is evi
dent in Table 9, Chapter V, where the QPAT subtest means
are not significantly different between groups, and their
variances are relatively narrow* QPAT Creativity Develop
ment scores are the obvious exception to this observation*
Steps to improve QPAT reliability might include
wider sampling, broader scaling of item responses, in
creasing the number of subtest items, and more precise
analysis of results, perhaps through a replicative factor
analytic technique*
QPAT results will be discussed further in Chap
ter V*
Chapter Summary
Chapter 111 has described the building of a struc
tured questionnaire for parents, and included treatment
of its research background, construct rationale, item con
tent, administration, scoring, validity, and reliability*
The following chapter delineates the steps taken
in gathering and analyzing the data for this study*
CHAPTER IV
PROCEDURES
This chapter will explain the procedures followed
in the study, the sample investigated, the measurements
used, and the techniques of data analysis.
The Schools and their Neighborhood
The two elementary schools hosting the original
1964-65 preschool program are located in south central
metropolitan Los Angeles, and are part of the Los Angeles
City School Districts which in 1967-68 encompassed 710.53
square miles and served more than 818,000 pupils in over
600 schools. (153:5)
Scarcely a mile apart, both schools stand on prop
erty that 100 years ago was part of an old Mexican land
grand called El Rancho Tajuata and today is known as Watts,
scene of the August 1965 riots. The area has been charac
terized as a ghetto nearly from its inception as an inde
pendent city in the early 1900s, when its Mexican and
Negro residents worked on several railroad lines intersect
ing in the Watts area.
According to the Governor's Commission on the Los
Angeles Riots, Watts was one of the communities in Los
69
70
Angeles County which in 1965 ranked lowest on the major
criteria of family income, male unemployment, education,
family status, housing, ratio of youth and aged to pro
ductive adults, and status of youth in terms of neglect and
delinquency* (81:49)
Unruh (207:8) had evidence in 1965 that Watts con
tained more than 500 parolees from the California Youth
Authority, and had filed more delinquency and dependency
petitions under Juvenile Court law than had all the rest of
metropolitan Los Angeles*
The 50 Negro children and their families who par
ticipated in the present investigation witnessed episodes
of the August 1965 riots, one of the earliest epicenters
of which erupted midway between the two schools* Two
months before, in June 1965, the preschoolers had concluded
their experimental year of school before kindergarten and
had made significant improvement on measures of IQ, con
cept formation, and creativity*
Surviving the August riots, they entered kinder
garten in September and progressed in regular fashion under
ordinary District learning conditions through kindergarten
and the first two grades* It was during the latter half of
second grade that the investigator met and tested as many
of the original experimental and control pupils as could
be found*
The investigator spent three months tracing and
71
testing these original pupils* Of the 76 pupils in the
1964-65 study, only 50 (25 boys, 25 girls) could be found
in spring 1968* Of these, 37 were attending their two
original schools while the remaining 13 had scattered into
10 neighboring schools*
Five of these 10 schools were less than one mile
from the two original schools* Nine of the 10 schools were
within the curfew zone mapped by the McCone Commission, a
46.5-square-mile area inhabited by approximately 89% of Los
Angeles's 650,000 Negroes* (81:75) Only 1 of the 50 chil
dren located in spring 1968 had moved out of this area*
Concerning the 26 original pupils (14 boys, 12
girls) who could not be traced, 3 were known to have made
out-of-District moves, but the remaining 23 could not be
found due to lack of enrollment records*
To better estimate the selection bias operating
within the group of pupils located for follow-up, measured
abilities of the 26 pupils lost to this study were ex
amined* Scores for the total original group of 76 were
categorized and compared*
As described by 1964-65 preschool means on the
Stanford-Binet and Children's Individual Test of Crea
tivity (CITOC), presented in the following tabulation,
higher-scoring experimentals and lower-scoring controls
were those available for this follow-up*
Lost (N=26) Found (N=50)
1964-1965 Experimental Control Experimental Control
Tests n M n M n M n M_
Binet IQ
Pre 19 85 7 96 30 94 17 88
Post 18 93 7 99 30 103 17 91
CITOC Total
Pre
Post
18
15
67
93
30
29
82
121
Unanswerable, however, is the question of score
status for the missing 26 pupils on the variables used in
this investigation*
Sample Measurements
Testing the 50 experimental and control pupils was
accomplished late in spring 1968* Each pupil was given the
Stanford-Binet by the investigator, and another school psy
chologist administered the Children's Individual Test of
Creativity (CITOC) to 24 of the 31 experimental pupils at
three of the schools* Pupil absences plagued completion
of CITOCs for the other seven cases*
As described in Chapter III, all 50 families were
contacted by the investigator and interviewed with the
Questionnaire for Parents as Teachers (QPAT) during summer
1968 by three Negro interviewers* All parents were co
operative and generous with their time*
The Stanford-Binets were scored by the investiga
tor, as were all QPAT protocols*
73
Available at each school were the pupils' cumula
tive records, from which the investigator gathered data
on previous individual intelligence tests, group achieve
ment and intelligence tests, marks in subjects and citizen
ship, attendance records, and family information of a gen
eral sociological nature*
Data in hand from the original 1964-65 study in
cluded selected family information as well as pre and post
Stanford-Binet and CITOC scores*
While descriptions of the standardized tests used
would be superfluous, and since the QPAT has already been
discussed in Chapter III, all that remains to complete the
file on tests used is an exposition of the CITOC*
The Children's Individual Test
o
Hie Stanford-Binet measures, as do all traditional
intelligence tests, a subject's ability to produce the cor
rect answer to a question, to think convergently* Until
the middle of this century, measures of the ability to
think up new or original answers to questions have been
lacking* There are multiple creativity tests in use today
which primarily focus on measuring divergent thinking* The
CITOC is one of these*
Developed by the University of Southern California
Project Potential staff in 1964 (66), directed by Professor
Newton Mietfessel, the CITOC is based on factors in Guil-
74
ford's brilliant model for the Structure of Intellect (93)
chosen by these criteria: (a) high correlation with school
achievement, low correlation with other tests of creative
abilities; (b) degree to which cultural bias was minimized
in the selected factor; and (c) the degree to which the
test conformed to the chosen theoretical model* (141:107)
Styled after the Wechsler series, the CITOC con
tains verbal and performance subtests, each of which in
corporates appropriate items for the same six areas of cog
nitive abilities from Guilford's model: sensitivity to
problems, fluency, flexibility, originality, elaboration,
and redefinition*
As revised by Bums (31), the 1968 edition of the
CITOC— used in the present study— differs from the 1964 in
the following major features:
1* Subtest sequencing was realigned to more close
ly match the“Structure of Intellect model,
based on factor analysis in Guilford's Apti
tudes Project*
2. One new subtest was written*
3* Stimulus pictures were redrawn*
4* The administration format was revised*
5* Scoring standards were refined, based on a
larger number of pupils sampled and repre
senting a wider span of ages*
The 1964 edition of the CITOC was reported (66:
75
66-71) to have yielded an internal consistency reliability
coefficient of .24, by application of the Hoyt (108) analy
sis of variance. One reason advanced for the depressed
value was possible lack of sufficient floor in the pretest.
Weber (210) and Harsh (96) reported higher reli
ability for the 1968 edition of the CITOC, based on test-
retest analysis with the Spearman rho:
Subtest Verbal r Performance r
Sensitivity to Problems .70 .61
Fluency .64 .53
Flexibility .74 .78
Originality .40 .42
Elaboration .67 .67
Redefinition .71 .68
Total .86 .78
Grand Total .84
For validity, Foster (66:49-53, 90-93, 105-106) re
ported significant correlations (at .01) between four of
the 1964-65 CITOC verbal scale subtests and selected fac
tors of the Stanford-Binet. One CITOC performance scale
subtest was similarly related. None of the teacher rank
ings of abilities paralleling the CITOC areas correlated
with CITOC scores above .36.
Validity studies of the 1968 CITOC are being
%
planned.
76
Data Analyses
Most of the data derived from the various tests
and from school records were statistically analyzed
through Fortran IV programs processed on the Honeywell 800
at the Computer Sciences Laboratory, University of South
ern California*
The major statistical treatments included analysis
of covariance, chi square, matched t, F ratio, correla
tion, factor analysis, and general measures of central ten
dency*
The results of these analyses are presented and
discussed in Chapter V*
Chapter Summary
This chapter has described the educational and
socioeconomic status of the sample schools and their at
tendance areas* The process of locating the original
pupils after four years was outlined, as was the testing
and data-gathering procedure* The CITOC was discussed,
including its history, reliability, and validity* Gen
eral statistical treatments applied to the data were
mentioned briefly, as a preface to their full exposition
in Chapter V*
CHAPTER V
FINDINGS REPORTED AND DISCUSSED
This chapter reports and discusses results of the
investigation according to these main topics: (a) the
statement of hypothesis, (b) the characteristics of
Ability-Achievement, Creativity, and Home Learning En
vironment, (c) discussion of major findings, and (d) a
chapter summary*
Statement of Hypothesis
The major hypothesis submitted for investigation
is stated in terms of the null:
Hq : The experimental and control groups (those
experiencing the prekindergarten year and those
not experiencing it) do not differ over the four
years with respect to the following three charac
teristics :
Ability-Achievement
Creativity
Home Learning Environment
The 5% confidence level was predetermined as neces
sary to reject the null hypothesis in all tests of signifi
cant difference*
77
78
Ability-Achievement Characteristics
Variables
As listed in Appendix A, the data gathered for
Ability-Achievement characteristics included Variables
1-52 and 78-88* These 63 scores summarize each pupil's
report card data from the beginning of kindergarten through
second grade, his standing on individual and group tests of
ability over four years, and his reading achievement as
measured for two consecutive years*
Descriptive Statistics
Table 3 profiles the central tendencies of experi
mental and control groups on Ability-Achievement variables
by showing their Number (N), Mean (M), Standard Deviation
(SD), and F Ratio (F)* Similar headings will be found in
subsequent tables of descriptive statistics* Missing data
are responsible for the fluctuations in N. F values for
Variables 78-88 were obtained from covariance data*
Available in Appendix B for comparison is a matrix
of correlations between the Ability-Achievement variables
and all other variables used in this study*
Kindergarten report card data (Table 3) held three
significant mean differences, all favoring control pupils:
K1 Effort 6PA, Kl Progress GPA, and K2 Citizenship GPA*
All other report card information was virtually the same
for the two groups of pupils*
79
TABLE 3
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR ABILITY-ACHIEVEMENT CHARACTERISTICS
Variables
Experimental
N M SD N
Controls
M SD
F
(df-1,
N-2)
1. Kl Effort GPA 17 1.07 .24 17 1.35 .49 4.20*
2. Kl Work Habits GPA 18 1.11 .27 18 1.17 .47 .28
3. Kl Citizenship GPA 18 1.18 .29 18 1.44 .48 3.65
4. Kl Progress GPA 18 1.01 .28 18 1.22 .26 5.15*
5. Kl Days Present 18 71.33 16.93 18 75.89 7.03 1.06
6. Kl Days Absent 17 12.41 14.32 17 12.24 6.43 .002
7. Kl Times Tardy 6 4.50 3.15 10 3.70 5.60 .12
8. K2 Effort GPA 25 1.28 .46 19 1.47 .70 1.00
9. K2 Work Habits GPA 26 1.25 .40 19 1.43 .56 1.37
10. K2 Citizenship GPA 25 1.29 .45 19 1.72 .58 6.81*
11.
K2 Progress GPA 26 1.25 .48 19 1.37 .34 .92
12. K2 Days Present 26 74.00 14.51 19 71.26 12.38 .45
13. K2 Days Absent 25 19.00 14.52 19 15.89 8.88 .74
14. K2 Times Tardy 12 5.75 6.27 11 5.55 6.07 .01
15. B1 Reading GPA 30 2.07 .97 18 1.89 .76 .49
16. B1 English GPA 30 2.28 .92 18 2.39 .56 .26
17. B1 Total GPA 30 2.30 .81 18 2.28 .46 .01
18. B1 Effort GPA 29 2.68 1.01 18 2.61 .78 .07
19. B1 Work Habits GPA 30 2.42 .98 18 2.34 .50 .14
20. B1 Citizenship GPA 30 2.71 .98 18 2.75 .75 .03
21. B1 Days Present 30 74.00 19.65 18 76.94 7.95 .52
22. B1 Days Absent 26 11.65 11.55 16 8.25 5.98 1.49
23. B1 Times Tardy 11 10.73 15.64 6 2.50 1.64 2.69
24. A1 Reading GPA 30 2.07 1.07 17 2.21 .77 .26
25. A1 English GPA 30 2.10 1.05 17 2.44 .61 1.93
26. A1 Total GPA 30 2.33 .94 19 2.31 .62 .01
27. A1 Effort GPA 30 2.79 1.60 19 2.50 .80 .69
28. A1 Work Habits GPA 30 2.47 1.07 19 2.37 .72 .15
29. A1 Citizenship GPA 30 2.67 1.20 19 2.62 .87 .03
30. A1 Days Present 30 77.77 20.41 19 80.00 7.43 .29
31. A1 Days Absent 27 11.26 13.58 19 10.16 6.48 .13
32. A1 Time Tardy 14 7.57 10.21 7 5.57 4.16 .004
* p < .05
80
TABLE 3— Continued
Variables
Experimental
N M SD N
Controls
M
i
SD
F
(df-1,
N-2)
33. B2 Reading GPA 29 1.85 1.01 18 1.81 .86 .02
34. B2 English GPA 29 2.02 .87 18 2.03 .63 .72
35. B2 Total GPA 29 2.23 .74 18 2.16 .57 .13
36. B2 Effort GPA 29 2.31 .76 18 2.33 .77 .01
37. B2 Work Habits GPA 29 2.27 .73 18 2.21 .70 .07
38. B2 Citizenship GPA 28 2.50 .76 18 2.39 .68 .25
39. B2 Days Present 29 81.48 5.49 18 81.06 6.76 .05
40. B2 Days Absent 26 6.00 5.03 16 6.94 6.51 .23
41. B2 Times Tardy 15 4.07 3.67 10 4.20 6.18 .003
42. A2 Reading GPA 31 1.97 1.02 19 1.95 .69 .01
43. A2 English GPA 31 2.13 .74 19 2.08 .58 .07
44. A2 Total GPA 31 2.24 .75 19 2.23 .57 .002
45. A2 Effort GPA 31 2.23 .85 19 2.37 .76 .35
46. A2 Work Habits GPA 31 2.08 .78 19 2.17 .57 .21
47. A2 Citizenship GPA 31 2.66 .98 19 2.34 .73 1.69
48. A2 Days Present 31 86.29 6.61 19 84.58 4.71 1.10
49. A2 Days Absent 25 6.96 6.90 19 5.53 4.84 .62
50. A2 Times Tardy 10 10.00 7.63 9 6.44 5.79 1.19
51. A2 Chronological Age 31 91.00 2.31 19 91.42 2.61 .32
52. A2 Mental Age 31 90.87 13.54 19 82.21 9.43 6.92*
78. Binet IQ, Fall 1964
--Preschool Pretest 30 94.17 13.62 17 87.88 9.28 2.79
79. Binet IQy Spring 1965
— Preschool Posttest 30 103.27 14.24 17 91.29 8.81 6.97*
80. Binet IQ, Spring 1966
~K2 22 99.82 16.04 15 92.27 11.23 1.99
81. Binet IQ, Spring 1968
--A2 31 98.35 28.26 19 88.21 11.16 3.78
82. Plntner-Cunningham IQ,
Spring 1967— A1 29 93.72 13.10 19 90.26 11.95 .12
83. Stanford Reading, Word
Meaning, Spring 1967
— A1 28 10.79 6.14 17 10.71 4.41 .08
84. Stanford Reading,
Paragraph Meaning,
Spring 1967— A1 28 9.36 7.85 17 9.88 6.06 1.22
* p < .05
81
TABLE 3— Continued
Variables
Experlmentals
N M SD N
Controls
M SD
F
(df-1,
N-2)
85. Stanford Reading,
Total, Spring 1967
— A1 29 19.45 13.27 17 20.59 9.96 .94
86. Stanford Reading,
Word Meaning, Spring
1968— A2 30 11.20 5.94 19 9.89 4.14 .06
87. Stanford Reading,
Paragraph Meaning,
Spring 1968— A2 29 17.45 10.68 19 10.79 5.75 3.34
88. Stanford Reading,
Total, Spring 1968
— A2 30 28.07 15.67 19 20.68 8.45 1.53
O
82
An explanation is required for the observable dis
crepancies in Table 3 in the reported mean number of days
present and absent for both groups of pupils* Since the
District publishes an annual school calendar, the number
of school days in each semester is set* As is evident
from the chart presented below, records of average attend
ance (mean days present plus mean days absent, rounded to
the nearest whole day) for experimental and control pupils
vary considerably from the official District calendar*
These variations are attributable to differences found in
the record keeping for each child*
Semester
Experimental
Attendance
Control
Attendance
District
Calendar
Kl 84 88 87
K2
93 87 92
Bl 86 85 86
Al 89 90 91
B2 87 88 87
A2 93 90 91
The high F ratio reported for A2 Mental Age, to
the experimental group's advantage, was an artifact at
tached to the Stanford-Binet data, and should be combined
with the discussion of covariance which follows*
83
Covp^lfnce Analyses for
Beading and Intelligence
Tables 4, 5, and 6 present data over the four years
from the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, the Pintner-
Cunningham Primary Test, and the Stanford Reading Tests
(Variables 78-88) after analysis of covariance treatment
with the BMD04V program (Dixon, 62)*
For all comparisons the covariate was Variable 78
(Binet IQ, Fall 1964, Preschool Pretest)*
For the 30 comparisons made— total experimental
vs* controls, experimental boys vs* girls, and control
boys vs* girls— only one F ratio reached significance:
total experimentals vs* controls on Variable 79 (Binet IQ,
Spring 1965, Preschool Posttest)* The F value of 6*97 was
significant at *05*
This result may be accepted as confirming for
present samples the pre-post results reported for the
first year of the preschool study* In other words, the
pupils located for this four-year follow-up reflected the
same year-end results on the Binet as had the original,
larger groups*
District Reading Achievement
Special investigation of reading achievement led
to a comparison of experimental and control pupils with all
same-grade peers in the total school District over a two-
year period* At the end of first grade, the experimental
84
TABLE 4
ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE FOR STANDARDIZED TEST VARIABLES,
EXPERIMENTALS VS. CONTROLS
Covarlate (78. Binet IQ,
Fall 1964) and Variate Source SS df MS F
79. Binet IQ, Spring 1965
--Preschool Posttest Between
Within
Total
585.66
3696.08
4281.74
1 585.66
44 84.00
45
6.97*
80. Binet IQ, Spring 1966
— K2 Between
Within
Total
157.69
3166.46
3324.15
1 157.69
40 79.16
41
1.99
81. Binet IQ, Spring 1968
— A2 Between
Within
Total
496.46
6165.71
6662.17
1 496.46
47 131.19
48
3.78
82. Pintner-Cunningham IQ,
Spring 1967— A1 Between
Within
Total
16.52
6086.18
6102.70
1
45
46
16.52
135.25
.12
83. Stanford Reading, Word
Meaning, Spring 1967
— A1 Between
Within
Total
2.46
1293.18
1295.65
1 2.46
42 30.79
43
.08
84. Stanford Reading, Para
graph Meaning, Spring
1967— A1 Between
Within
Total
53.51
1849.20
1902.71
1 53.51
42 44.03
43
1.22
85. Stanford Reading, Total,
Spring 1967— A1 Between
Within
Total
126.86
5826.78
5953.64
1
43
44
126.86
135.51
.94
* p < .05
85
TABLE 4— Continued
Covarlate (78. Binet IQ,
Fall 1964) and Varlate Source SS df MS F
86. Stanford Reading, Word
Meaning, Spring 1968
~A2 Between 1.63 1 1.63 .06
87. Stanford Reading, Para
graph Meaning, Spring
1968— A2 Between
Within
Total
243.14
3274.14
3517.28
1
45
46
243.15
72.76
3.34
88. Stanford Reading, Total,
Spring 1968— A2 Between
Within
Total
229.12
6898.36
7127.49
1
46
47
229.12
149.96
1.53
86
TABLE 5
ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE FOR STANDARDIZED TEST VARIABLES f
EXPERIMENTAL BOYS VS. GIRLS
Covarlate (78. Binet IQy
Fall 1964) and Varlate Source SS df MS
79. Binet IQ, Spring 1965
— Preschool Posttest Between
Within
Total
183.56
2810.14
2993.70
1 183.56
27 104.08
28
1.76
80. Binet IQ, Spring 1966
— K2 Between
Within
Total
41.48
1908.24
1949.71
1 41.48
25 76.33
26
.54
81. Binet IQ, Spring 1968
— A2 Between
Within
Total
273.95
3755.61
4029.56
1 273.95
28 134.13
29
2.04
82. Pintner-Cunningham IQ,
Spring 1967— A1 Between
Within
Total
129.23
3762.18
3891.41
1 129.23
26 144.70
27
.89
83. Stanford Reading, Word
Meaning, Spring 1967
— A1 Between 57.33 1 57.33 1.60
Within 898.34 25 35.93
Total 955.67 26
84. Stanford Reading, Para
graph Meaning, Spring
1967— A1 Between
Within
Total
140.66
1065.30
1205.96
1 140.66
25 42.61
26
3.30
85. Stanford Reading, Total,
Spring 1967— A1 Between
Within
Total
370.53
3692.02
4062.55
1 370.53
26 142.00
27
2.61
TABLE 5— Continued
87
Covarlate (78. Binet IQ,
Fall 1964) and Variate Source SS df MS F
86. Stanford Reading, Word
Meaning, Spring 1968
— A2 Between 72.09 1 72.09 2.42
Within 803.43 27 29.76
Total 875.52 28
87. Stanford Reading, Para
graph Meaning, Spring
1968— A2 Between
Within
Total
53.36
2478.37
2531.73
1 53.36
26 95.32
27
.56
88. Stanford Reading, Total,
Spring 1968— A2 Between
Within
Total
276.98
5105.03
4382.01
1 276.98
27 189.08
28
1.47
88
TABLE 6
ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE FOR STANDARDIZED TEST VARIABLES,
CONTROL BOYS VS. GIRLS
Covarlate (78. Binet IQ,
Fall 1964) and Variate Source SS df MS
79. Binet IQ, Fall 1964
— Preschool Posttest Between
Within
Total
68.28
605.81
674.08
1
14
15
68.28
43.27
1.58
80. Binet IQ, Spring 1966
— K2 Between
Within
Total
80.83
1080.47
1161.30
1
12
13
80.83
90.04
.90
81. Binet IQ, Spring 1968
— A2 Between
Within
Total
8.28
1974.81
1983.09
1 8.28
16 123.43
17
.07
82. Pintner-Cunningham IQ,
Spring 1967— A1 Between
Within
Total
18.70
2167.79
2186.49
1 18.70
16 135.49
17
.14
83. Stanford Reading, Word
Meaning, Spring 1967
— A1 Between
Within
Total
16.62
289.49
306.12
1 16.62
14 20.68
15
.80
84. Stanford Reading, Para
graph Meaning, Spring
1967— A1 Between
Within
Total
67.34
515.91
583.25
1 67.34
14 36.85
15
1.83
85. Stanford Reading, Total,
Spring 1967— A1 Between
Within
Total
150.86
1435.21
1586.08
1 150.86
14 102.52
15
1.47
89
TABLE 6— Continued
Covarlate (78. Binet IQ,
Fall 1964) and Variate Source SS df MS
86. Stanford Reading, Word
Meaning, Spring 1968
— A2 Between
Within
Total
.02
290.71
290.73
1
16
17
.02
18.17
.001
87. Stanford Reading, Para
graph Meaning, Spring
1968— A2 Between
Within
Total
1.29
592.98
594.27
1
16
17
1.29
37.06
.04
88. Stanford Reading, Total,
Spring 1968— A2 Between
Within
Total
1.00
1259.37
1260.37
1
16
17
1.00
78.71
.01
90
pupils were found to be achieving at virtually the same
level on the Stanford Reading Tests as were their 32,344
"classmates*" (Note that both groups of pupils were them
selves part of the District total*) Table 7 shows these
comparisons•
All other comparisons with the total District
yielded highly significant results to the advantage of the
District group* With simple maturation constant over the
groups, but with other variances influencing reading
achievement randomized over the large population compris
ing the District group, it is apparent that both experi
mental and control pupils were reading at a lower level
than were their classmates through the total District* In
terms of mean scores, experiroentals led controls in both
grades, but the lead fell short of statistical signifi
cance*
ievement
and the Null Hypothesis
It was postulated in Chapter I that the null hy
pothesis would obtain between experimental and control
groups over the four years on all variables descriptive of
the Ability-Achievement characteristic:
A* Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, Form L-M,
scores
B* Pintner-Cunningham Primary Test, Form A, scores
C* Stanford Reading Tests, Primary I and II,
91
TABLE 7
EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL SAMPLES COMPARED ON STANFORD
READING TESTS WITH UNIVERSE OF ALL FIRST AND SECOND
GRADERS IN LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Grade, Tine, and Group
Total Score
N M SD
F
(df«l,N-2)
Al, May 1967
Experimental 29 22.24 18.49
District 32,373 27.88 15.61 2.59
Control 17 20.59 9.96
District 32,373 27.88 15.61 8.53**
A2, May 1968
Experimental 30 27.60 15.88
District 32,289 37.51 20.49 11.36**
Control 19 20.68 8.45
District 32,289 37.51 20.49 71.57**
Al, May 1967 Experimental 29 22.24 18.49
A2, May 1968 Experimental 30 27.60 15.88 1.39
Al, May 1967 Control 17 20.59 9.96
A2, May 1968 Control 19 20.68 8.45 .0008
Al, May 1967 District 32,373 27.88 15.61
A2, May 1968 District 32,289 37.51 20.49 4869.25**
** p < .01
Form W, scores:
1 • Word Meaning
2. Paragraph Meaning
3. Total
D> Grade Point Averages
E. Attendance Records
The null was confirmed for 58 of the 63 Ability-
Achievement variables* In rank order, from highest F ratio
to lowest, these five exceptions were significant at the
•05 level of confidence:
79* Binet IQ, Spring 1965, Preschool Posttest
(favored experimental)
52* A2 Mental Age (favored experimentals)
10* K2 Citizenship GPA (favored controls)
4* Kl Progress GPA (favored controls)
1* Kl Effort GPA (favored controls)
These findings corroborate the results reported
for long-range studies accepting the null (150, 115, 25,
194, 18), as discussed in Chapter II* After the preschool
year, meaningful Ability-Achievement differences between
preschoolers and nonpreschoolers in this study disappeared
rapidly*
The question posed by Wilkerson (220) goes begging:
Why isn’t the initial spurt in preschoolers1 IQ sustained
into the next year or subsequent years of schooling?
93
Creativity Characteristics
The variables descriptive of creativity were the
C1T0C scores collected from three administrations to the
experimental group over the four-year period of this study*
As named in Appendix A, these are Variables 89-93*
Descriptive Statistics
Pairing the three total CITOC scores for all pos
sible comparisons yielded F ratios significant well beyond
the *01 level of confidence* These may be seen in Table 8*
The F values also demonstrate a direct, positive relation
ship with time or maturation: the widest time span, from
fall 1964 to spring 1968, is associated with the highest F*
Intercorrelations between CITOC scores and all
other variables in this study may be examined in Table 12,
Appendix B* The following chart, excerpted from Table 12,
shows r values for the CITOC with IQ and reading scores*
Stanford-Binet Stanford Reading
CITOCs 1964 1968 1967 1968
1964 CITOC (N=43)
Total, 1964 *46 .28 *01 *27
Total, 1965 .58 .44 .31 .23
1968 CITOC (Ns24)
Verbal, 1968
Performance, 1968
Total, 1968
•20 .20 .08 .01
.00 .17 .15 .36
.13 .24 .14 .23
There is a substantial area of similarity shared
I
94
TABLE 8
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR CREATIVITY
CHARACTERISTICS, EXPERIMENTAL GROUP
Variables N M SD
F
(df-l,N-2)
CITOC Total
89. Fall 1964
90. Spring 1965
30
29
81.60
121.17
28.55
32.31 23.72**
CITOC Total
89. Fall 1964
93. Spring 1968
30
24
81.60
197.54
28.55
35.38 165.07**
CITOC Total
90. Spring 1965
93. Spring 1968
29
24
121.17
197.54
32.31
35.38 60.37**
CITOC Verbal
91. Spring 1968 24 92.83 22.73
CITOC Performance
92. Spring 1968 24 104.63 22.00
** p < .01
95
by the Binet and the 1964 CITOC (Foster, 66; Metfessel,
141), with r ranging from *28 to .58 • The 1968 CITOC
(Burns, 31), in contrast, has demonstrated a marked im
provement over its predecessor, with the CITOC-Binet r
values of *13 and *24 for Totals, and from *00 to *20 for
Subtests•
A similar phenomenon occurs between CITOC total
scores and Stanford Reading total scores*
A note is necessary concerning the degree of com
monality among CITOC, Stanford-Binet, and Stanford Reading
scores expressed for the subjects of this study* While
the parameters of the latter two tests are well known, the
CITOC was constructed to measure dimensions other than in
tellectual ability and reading achievement* Guilford (93)
and Torrance (198) have pointed out that divergent-
production test scores, such as those of the CITOC, cor
related with intelligence test scores usually produce low
or near-zero r values*
The 24 CITOC subjects of this investigation also
formed a subset within a larger sample tested by Bums (31)
with the 1968 CITOC* In that situation, with increased N
and wider age span, the total group closely approximated
the Guilford and Torrance expectations of low correla
tions: -*14 for reading with CITOC, and *13 for IQ with
CITOC.
96
Creativity and
the Null Hypothesis
The null hypothesis was proposed in Chapter 1 for
scores of experimental pupils over the four years of this
study on variables selected to describe the characteristic
of Creativity:
Children's Individual Test of Creativity (CITOC)
scores:
1* Verbal Scale
2* Performance Scale
3. Total
The null was rejected for all three comparisons of
the CITOC total scores as documented in Table 8, and listed
below in F-ratio rank order:
89* Fall 1964 vs* 93* Spring 1968
90* Spring 1965 vs* 93* Spring 1968
89* Fall 1964 vs* 90* Spring 1965
In each instance the more recent score differed
significantly from the earlier score*
Individual Verbal and Performance scores were un
available for the fall 1964 and spring 1965 CITOCs, making
comparison with 1968 subtest scores impossible*
The present investigation found no data to support
the reported drops in creative ability at certain ages
(Torrance, 203; Arasteh, 5)*
It was found that the older the subjects, the
97
higher their scores on the CITOC (i*e*, there was a posi
tive increase in score corresponding to the increase in
subject age)* This matches the result reported by Olshin
(151), and is contrary to the lack of age change reported
by Iscoe and Fierce-Jones (113)*
Home Learning Epvftf^pant Characteristics
Variables
Variables assigned to the multidimensional trait
labeled Home Learning Environment include 7 scores derived
from the Questionnaire for Parents as Teachers (QPAT) and
18 facts pertinent to parent-child sociology* These are
listed in Appendix A as Variables 53-77*
Reference may be made to Appendix E for the spe
cific item stimuli which generated parent responses, and
for the scoring criteria applied*
Descriptive Statistics
Table 9 displays statistics describing the two
samples and compares their relative standings on each
trait with an F ratio*
The two pupil groups differed significantly on 6
of the 25 variables: 3 each at the *01 and *05 levels of
confidence*
The QPAT Total reflects a spurious difference (at
•01) inflated by the size of the results on QPAT Creativity
Development, and should be disregarded* Consequently, only
TABLE 9
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR HOME LEARNING ENVIRONMENT CHARACTERISTICS
Variable
Experimentals
N M SD N
Controls
M SD
F
(df-l,N-2)
53. QPAT Intellectual Development 31 48.90 4.11 19 47.74 3.56 1.08
54. QPAT Achievement Development 31 57.81 6.22 19 56.47 3.15 1.00
55. QPAT Language Development 31 51.71 8.18 19 49.11 7.26 1.32
56. QPAT Social Development 31 39.87 3.28 19 41.05 4.59 .92
57. QPAT Creativity Development 31 96.48 7.44 19 87.74 5.82 20.79**
58. QPAT P8ychomotor Development 31 59.03 4.57 19 59.79 3.52 .42
59. QPAT Total 31 353.87 16.57 19 342.00 11.62 8.58**
60. Father's Work, 1964 (Warner Scale) 19 6.05 1.95 9 6.11 1.77 .04
61. Mother's Work, 1964 (Warner Scale) 20 6.50 1.39 13 6.62 1.43 .07
62. Number Living in Household, 1964 31 6.10 2.04 19 6.58 1.98 .66
63. Number of Living Siblings, 1964 31 3.45 2.06 18 4.33 1.85 2.31
64. Pupil Living With Whom, 1964? 31 3.48a 3.02 19 4.26b 3.21 .71
65. Pupil's Birth Order 31 3.19 1.66 19 4.37 1.92 4.75*
a Modes ■ 1.00, 7.00
b Modes ■ 1.00, 7.00
* p < .05
** p < .01
vO
00
TABLE 9— Continued
Variable N
Experimentals
M SD N
Controls
M SD
F
(df-l,N-2)
66. Father*8 Work, 1968 (Warner Scale) 20 5.50 2.94 13 4.77 2.86 .07
67. Mother's Work, 1968 (Warner Scale) 13 4.69 1.78 1 5.00 0.00 .02
68. Number Living in Household, 1968 31 5.45 1.48 19 6.53 1.58 5.57*
69. Nuaber of Living Siblings, 1968 31 2.94 1.32 19 3.74 1.82 2.66
70. Pupil Living With Whom, 1968? " 31 3.32^ 2.83 19 2.05° 2.15 3.13
71. Highest Grade Completed by Mother 31 11.65 1.60 19 10.21 1.87 7.51**
72. Highest Grade Completed by Father 31 10.42 3.23 19 9.21 3.34 1.54
73. Pupil'8 Usual Transportation to School 31 1.03 .18 19 1.00 0.00 .86
74. Buying or Not Buying Home 31 1.58 .50 19 1.74 .45 1.32
75. Family Size: Children 31 3.81 1.47 19 4.63 1.64 3.06
76. Family Size: Adults 31 1.68 .48 19 1.90 .32 3.35
77. If Not Buying, Is Rent More Than $129? 31 l.lfif1 .97 19 1.68s .75 4.41*
a Modes ■ 1.00, 7.00
c Mode - 1.00
d Modes ■ * 1.00, 3.00
e Mode - 3.00
* p < .05
** p < .01
\o
vO
100
the remaining five significant differences are considered
to be legitimate*
These statistically significant facts are apparent
from Table 9:
1* Experimental pupils received markedly higher
scores than did control pupils for the QPAT
area of Creativity Development* (Variable 57*)
2* The average experimental pupil was the third-
bom in his family, while his control peer
was fourth* (Variable 65*)
3* The average family size for the experimental
group was five (5*45) in contrast to the con
trol group's seven (6*53)* (Variable 68*)
4* Mothers of experimental pupils characteristi
cally graduated from high school (11*65 years
of school), while mothers of control pupils
concluded their education with tenth grade
(10*21 years)* (Variable 71*)
5* Nearly half of the experimental pupils' fam
ilies were buying their house* The other half,
like the majority of the control group fami
lies, were renting their dwelling at a cost
exceeding $129 per month* (Variable 77*)
The quantitative mean and modal values for family
data (Variables 60-77) presented in Table 9 have been qual
ified in Table 10 to facilitate comparisons* Modal values
TABLE 10
AVERAGE RESPONSES DESCRIBING EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL FAMILIES ON SELECTED SOCIOLOGICAL VARIABLES
Variable Experimentals Controls
60. Father's Work, 1964 (Warner Scale) protective and service (6) protective and service (6]
61. Mother's-Work, 1964 (Warner Scale) unskilled, heavy work (7) unskilled, heavy work (7)
62. Number Living in Household, 1964 6 7
63. Number of Living Siblings, 1964 3 4 ,
64. Pupil Living with Whom, 1964? bimodal: natural parents
(n*18) or natural mother
only (n«10)
bimodal: natural parents
(n"9) or natural mother
only (n«9)
65. Pupil's Birth Order third fourth
66. Father'8 Work, 1968 (Warner Scale) protective and service (6) manual workers (5)
67. Mother's Work, 1968 (Warner Scale) manual workers (5) manual workers (5)
68. Number Living In Household, 1968 5 7
69. Number or Living Siblings, 1968 3 4
70. Pupil Living with Whom, 1968? same as Variable 64. natural parents (n»15) ►
TABLE 10— Continued
i
Variable
Experimentals Controls
71. Highest Grade Completed by Mother twelfth grade tenth grade
72. Highest Grade Completed by Father tenth grade ninth grade
73. Pupil's Usual Transportation to School walking walking
74. Buying or Not Buying Home not buying not buying
75. Family Size: Children 4 5
76. Family Size: Adults 2 2
77. If Not Buying, Is Rent More Than $129? bimodal: buying (n-12) or
renting for less than $129
(n-16)
renting for less than
$129 (n-16)
102
103
are used to Interpret Variables 64, 70, and 77*
Intercorrelations between Home Learning Environment
variables and all other variables used in this study may be
examined in Appendix B, Table 12*
Family Sociology
Some mobility within the sociological profiles was
noticeable from 1964 to 1968, partly evident in Tables 9
and 10* Mothers and fathers of control pupils reported
jobs in 1968 which classified one to two levels above their
1964 jobs* The working mothers of experimental pupils also
advanced two levels in their jobs over the four years*
Not presented in the tables are facts concerning
presence of parents in the family structures* In 1964, 12
fathers were reportedly absent from the homes of experi
mentals, and 10 from homes of controls* Four years later,
the corelative figures were 10 and 1*
In all cases, mothers were reported present in the
families* For the experimental group, the number of moth
ers reporting themselves as housewives only (not employed
outside the home) increased from 11 to 18 over the four
years, while control mothers Changed from 5 in the house
wife category to 17*
The four-year drop from six to five persons living
in the households of experimental pupils is unexplainable
from present data*
104
QPAT Analyses
QPAT responses were analyzed Item by item for var
ious groupings of experimental and control boys and girls,
and finally for the two total groups* Results of these
chi-square analyses are given in Table 11*
The comparison between experimental girls and con
trol boys yielded 29 significant differences (the highest
number for any combination), with 6 at the *001 level*
The lowest number (six each) occurred for both same-sex
comparison groups* Total experimentals differed from total
controls on 11 of the 150 items*
Among the seven groups analyzed, 98 items proved to
be significantly different: an average of 11 per group*
The items, as displayed in Table 11, are fairly well dis
persed over the six QPAT areas*
The incidence of significant differences found by
chi-square treatment also can be inspected for patterning
within the QPAT responses as arranged in the affective tax
onomy* Such a listing is shown below:
Differences Subtotals
Taxonomy Level (N«»98) (N«98)
1*0 Receiving 31
1.1 14
1.2 10
1.3 7
2.0 Responding 43
2.1 3
2*2 22
2.3 18
!
TABLE 11
CHI-SQUARE ANALYSIS OF QPAT RESPONSES FOR EXPERIMENTAL (E) AND CONTROL (C) GROUPS,
INDICATING TAXONOMY CATEGORIES OF ITEMS AND CONFIDENCE LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES
QPAT
Area and Taxonomy
Item No. Category
E Boys
vs.
C Boys
(N-25)
E Girls
vs.
C Girls
(N-25)
E Boys
vs.
E Girls
(N-31)
C Boys
vs.
C Girls
(N-19)
E Boys
vs.
C Girls
(N-22)
E Girls
vs.
C Boys
(N-28)
E Total
vs.
C Total
(N-50)
Number of
significant
difference!
per item
Intellectual
3 1.1 .01 .05 .01 3
5 3.1 .01 .05 2
6 2.2 .05 1
8 3.3 .05 .05 .01 3
9 2.1 .05 1
12 2.2 .05 1
14 1.2 .05 .05 2
16 3.2 .001 .01 .01 .001 4
Achievement
35 1.2 .001 .001 .01 .001 4
37 3.1 .001 .01 .01 .001 4
42 1.2 .05 .05 2
TABLE 11— Continued
QPAT
Area and
Item No.
Taxonomy
Category
E Boys
vs.
C Boys
(N-25)
E Girls
vs.
C Girls
(N-25)
E Boys
vs.
E Girls
(N-31)
C Boys
vs.
C Girls
(N-19)
E Boys
vs.
C Girls
(N-22)
E Girls
vs.
C Boys
(N-28
E Total
vs.
C Total
(N-50)
Number of
significant
difference!
per Item
Language
55 2.2 .05 1
57 2.2 .01 1
59 2.2 .05 .01 2
62 3.2 .001 .01 .01 .001 4
63 2.2 .05 1
65 2.2 .05 .05 .01 3
66 2.2 .05 .05 2
69 2.2 .05 .05 2
70 1.1 .05 .05 2
Social
78 2.2 .001 .01 .01 .001 4
81 3.2 .05 1
84 3.2 .001 .05 .01 .01 4
Creativity
85 1.1 .05 .05 2
88 1.1 .05 1
90 1.3 .05 .05 .01 .05 4
o
C T \
:em I
91
93
97
98
102
103
104
105
108
109
110
117
122
123
125
126
TABLE 11— Continued
E Boys E Girls E Boys C Boys E Boys E Girls E Total Number of
vs. vs. vs. vs. vs. vs. vs. significant
Taxonomy C Boys C Girls E Girls C Girls C Girls C Boys C Total differences
Category (N-25) (N-25) (N-31) (N-19) (N-22) (N-28) (N-50) per item
1.3
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
1.3
3.2
2.1
2.2
1.1
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.01
.01
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.01
.01
.01
.05
.05
.01
.05
.01
.01
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
2
3
2
o
TABLE 11— Continued
E Boys E Girls E Boys C Boys E Boys
«
E Girls E Total Number of
QPAT ▼s. vs. vs. vs. vs. vs. vs. significant
Area and Taxonomy C Boys C Girls E Girls C Girls C Girls C Boys C Total differences
Item No. Category (N-25) (N-25) (N-31) (N-19) (N-22) (N-28) (N-50) per item
Psychomotor
128 1.1 .01 .05 .01 3
131 1.2 .05
136 1.3 .05 1
141 1.1 .05 1
146 1.2 .05 1
147 3.2 .05 1
Number of
significant
differences
per group 6 6 17 17 12 29 11 98
109
lflgongFg.keZ.eJ , PAtfePSBSSP, SubtotjijLs
3.0 Valuing 24
3.1 6
3.2 15
3.3 3
Returning to Table 11, Items In level 2.0 Respond
ing were most influential in distinguishing between boys
and girls. For ability to separate preschool-experienced
from preschool-nonexperienced, the pool of items in level
1..0 Recej [ - v i f * f i had the greatest leverage. Both the boy-girl
analyses and the total-group analyses were least influenced
by items found in affective level 3.0 Valuing.
Statements concerning reliability and validity for
the QPAT were made earlier in Chapter 111, and need to be
recalled here. Briefly, validity coefficients were con
sidered to be weak and to be displaying fluctuations which
tended to polarize the two groups of scores. Reliability
coefficients were characteristically positive though low
and accounted for much less than 50% of the variance for
each QPAT area.
Although significant differences were found through
chi-square applications, they must be interpreted in the
light of the above reminder.
The QPAT results for this study were further ana
lyzed by the BMD03M General Factor Analysis program (Dixon,
62) which performs a principal component solution and makes
an orthogonal rotation of the factor matrix.
110
Examination of the multiple output from BMD03M con-
finned the previous findings reported in Chapter III for
validity and reliability* Recurrence of near-zero and
negative values suggested that a major revision of the
scoring criteria might yield data more suitable to factor
analysis, and thus more amenable to interpretation* Gen
erally the search for meaningful response patterns and
item clustering was inconclusive*
Finally, the contrast between target parents1 ob
served QPAT responses and the expected responses based on
generalized research findings with other, largely middle-
class, parents can be sharpened by comparing actual scores
with possible* In the following tabulation, based on Table
9 data, actual mean scores for both groups were rounded to
the nearest whole number*
QPAT Area
Experimental
Score
Control
Score
Possib:
Score
Intellectual 49 48 76
Achievement 58 56 100
Language 52 49 96
Social 40 41 56
Creativity 96 88 162
Psychomotor 59 60 81
Total 354 342 571
Although there is ample distance from actual scores
Ill
to the ceiling for each QPAT area, the interpretation of
that distance remains open until the QPAT can be given to
a much broader parent sample* No implication is intended
that any QPAT score less than the possible is somehow in
dicative of defective family values, nor is there any evi
dence to suggest that a sample of middle-class advantaged
families would generally achieve ceiling scores* These
and other missing facts can be supplied by further research
with the QPAT*
From the foregoing discussion of the QPAT, several
inferences may be drawn*
First, sample smallness, the shortness of the sub
tests, and the value-system homogeneity of families inter
viewed contributed maximally to the insignificance of re
sults •
Second, the QPAT items were built on research find
ings with primarily middle-class subjects* Little research
on the learning environments in lower-class disadvantaged
homes had been conducted or reported by summer 1967 when
the QPAT was construeted*
The studies of environmental processes by Wolf
(224) and Dave (47), which reported multiple correlations
of *76 and *80 for environmental interactions with intel
ligence and achievement, also explained that the lower
classes were not fully represented in their sample*
It seems valid to conclude that the families inter-
112
viewed with the QPAT subscribed to different parent-child
interaction values than did families who contributed data
to the research rationale behind the QPAT*
Third, interviewee and interviewer response biases
were judged to be active but undetermined influences in the
QPAT data*
Home Learning Environment
It was part of the major hypothesis of this study
that no significant differences would be found over the
four years between experimental and control groups on any
of the variables assigned to the characteristic of Home
Learning Environment:
A* Questionnaire for Parents as Teachers (QPAT)
scores:
1* Intellectual Development
2* Achievement Development
3 • Language Development
4* Social Development
3* Creativity Development
6* Psychomotor Development
7. Total
B* Sociological family variables:
1* Occupational level of father
2* Occupational level of mother
3* Number of occupants in household
113
4* Number of living siblings
5. Parents in the home
6. Educational level of mother
7. Educational level of father
8. Pupil's usual transportation to school
9. Family buying or renting dwelling
10. Family size
Comparisons for 6 of the 25 variables investigated
for Home Learning Environment rejected the null hypothesis
at the .05 level of confidence* Ranked from largest F
value to smallest, these six are:
57* QPAT Creativity Development (experimentals)
59* QPAT Total (experimentals— spurious)
71* Highest Grade Completed by Mother
68* Number Living in Household, 1968
65* Pupil's Birth Order
77* If Not Buying, Is Rent More Than $1297
Only one of these variables has practical implica
tions for educational change: QPAT Creativity Development*
Discussion of Maior Findings
It would be helpful to examine the practical sig
nificance of the 14 traits on which experimental and con
trol pupils differed to some degree of statistical sig
nificance*
The three statistical differences found in kinder
114
garten report card data, while reflecting teacher percep
tions of pupil behavior, have little or no practical sig
nificance since five of the six marks round out to the
same value of 1*0, or Satisfactory* The reason for teach
ers' marking the two groups differently in effort, prog
ress, and citizenship would be a more interesting question
psychologically, but data were not gathered to elucidate
this point*
Stanford-Binet posttest mean scores differed at
the conclusion of the preschool year, but subsequent in
telligence test scores were virtually identical for the
two groups* This finding has instructional meaning* Num
erous reports have indicated that at best preschool gains
are short-term and tend to disappear with normal progres
sion through the grades* It was true in most such re
ports, as it was true in this study, that after the pre
school year the preschool-experienced pupils received
little or no special instructional treatment other than
the regular, traditional program usually implemented for
their age group in that school*
Support for the need to continue individualized
help begun in preschool was seen in Table 7 where both
groups trail the District group in reading achievement*
Sociological traits which distinguished between
the two groups cannot be said to favor one group or the
other since such traits are purely qualitative or nominal*
115
They do add a third dimension to an otherwise flat, sta
tistical family picture* In terms of educational mallea
bility such nominal traits are untouchable*
Within Table 12 will be found the intercorrela
tions among the 14 variables rejecting the null hypothesis*
Their r values range from -*60 to *97; 50 of the 239 cor
relations are negative; and no operable pattern of educa
tional importance emerges from examining these intercor
relations •
While the QPAT total scores differed markedly for
the two groups, this was judged to be a spurious differ
ence ballooned by the QPAT Creativity Development scores,
evident in the F ratio, and as such should be discounted*
It appears to have no useful application to the general
learning situation*
Creativity Development, on the other hand, clearly
delineated experimentals from controls but only correlated
from -*08 to *22 with CITOC scores* Although the tests
share nomenclature, they seem to measure little in common*
Perhaps the lack of congruence can be attributed to the
psychologist test-maker's perception of (a) what parents
might consider to be creative in their children (QPAT Cre
ativity), and (b) which verbal and performance skills dem
onstrated by the same children adequately fit the crea
tivity submodel in the Structure of Intellect (CITOC)* It
is not denied that the two concepts could substantially in
116
crease their factorial commonalities• It is suggested
that, in the face of data presently in hand, the two in
struments (QPAT Creativity and CITOC) appear to be measur
ing nearly unrelated pupil behaviors*
In view of the relatively high reliability reported
for the CITOC (Chapter IV) and the low reliability found
for QPAT Creativity (Chapter 111), the latter is judged re
sponsible for the intertest correlation misfit*
Chants Summary
This chapter has described the findings accumulated
by empirical investigation, and has discussed them under
the three major characteristics measured: Ability-
Achievement, Creativity, and Home Learning Environment*
Of the 93 variables examined, 77 accepted the null
hypothesis as postulated, 14 rejected it, and 2 could not
be compared (Variables 91 and 92)*
Of the 14 substantially different traits, 5 were
characteristics of Ability-Achievement, 3 belonged to Crea
tivity, and 6 described Home Learning Environment*
Analysis of covariance was used to test for dif
ferences in standardized reading and intelligence test
scores for the two groups, as well as for boy-girl combi
nations* All comparisons accepted the null except the pre
school Binet posttest of experimentals and controls*
Chi squares were derived for QPAT responses and
117
yielded 11 marked differences between the two total groups,
with at least one such difference in each QPAT area* Six
combinations of boy-girl groups similarly analyzed identi
fied 87 other significantly different responses*
Those findings with direct implications for educa
tion were judged to be the Binet IQ at the conclusion of
preschool and the several creativity scores (CITOC and
QPAT)* The other results carried statistical significance
but lacked practical significance*
Compared with total school District Stanford Read
ing scores in first and second grades, the 50 subjects of
this study evidenced a trend of progressively lower read
ing achievement* This lends support to the concept of cu
mulative deficit*
The main outcome of all the statistical manipula
tions was that this study confirms the many reports that
measured differences between preschool-experienced and
preschool-nonexperienced classmates fade within the first
year of traditional school experience*
The effort to field an instrument sensitive to dif
ferences in parent-child interactions within the home
learning environment was partially successful* The many
limitations of the sample necessarily used in this study
may account for most of the conflicting results reported*
Other restrictions were discussed in Chapter III*
The summary in Chapter VI includes recommendations*
CHAPTER VI
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter summarizes the conduct of the investi
gation and findings yielded by statistical analyses* Con
clusions and recommendations are formulated from the data
presented*
Summary of Antecedents
Background for the Study
Increasing attention has been given lately to the
influence of early experience in the young child's cog
nitive development* Prominent psychologists such as Hunt
(109, 110), Deutsch (53), and Bloom (23) have written in
sightfully to this point* Bruner's (29:33) challenge that
"any subject can be taught effectively in some intellectu
ally honest form to any child at any stage of development"
is being tested widely*
Heredity and environment are interdependent fac
tors* Without neglecting hereditary variables in the
preschooler, investigation of the environmental variables
influencing him is increasing*
There is evidence that differences in test be
haviors may be attributable largely to environmental dif-
118
119
ferences rather than to Inherent individual differences*
(225) For the preschooler, his formative environment is
the home and the family*
Children from low socioeconomic areas, such as
Watts, usually begin kindergarten with many more psycho
logical or learning disadvantages than do their advantaged
peers* To compensate for this, the Division of Elementary
Education, Los Angeles City School Districts, piloted a
preschool program in 1964 based on the concept of inter
vention environment*
Posttest scores at the conclusion of the preschool
year favored the experimental group over control counter
parts* The present four-year follow-up was planned to
assess the effects of one year's prekindergarten experience
after a nonfacilitating lapse of three years* One feature
of the study was the vise of parental self-reports of en
vironmental factors in the home contributing to the child's
achievement.
Statement of Hypothesis
The major hypothesis of this study is stated in
terms of the null:
Hq: The experimental and control groups (those
experiencing the prekindergarten year and those
not experiencing it) do not differ over the four
years with respect to the following three charac-
120
teri8tics:
I* Ability-Achievement
II* Creativity
III* Home Learning Environment
Variables used to assess the three characteristics
are detailed below:
I* Ability-Achievement
A* Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, Form
L-M, scores
B* Pintner-Cunningham Primary Test, Form A,
scores
C* Stanford Reading Tests, Primary I and II,
Form W, scores:
1* Word Meaning
2* Paragraph Meaning
3* Total
D* Grade point averages
E* Attendance records
II* Creativity
A* Children's Individual Test of Creativity
(CITOC) scores:
1• Verbal Scale
2* Performance Scale
3* Total
III* Home Learning Environment
A* Questionnaire for Parents as Teachers
(QPAT) scores:
1 • Intellectual Development
2* Achievement Development
3 • Language Development
4* Social Development
5. Creativity Development
6* Psychomotor Development
7. Total
Sociological family variables:
1. Occupational level of father
2. Occupational level of mother
3. Number of occupants in household
4* Number of living siblings
5. Parents in the home
6* Educational level of mother
7* Educational level of father
8* Pupil's usual transportation to school
9. Family buying or renting dwelling
10* Family size
Alpha was set to equal the 5% level for rejecting
the null hypothesis*
Procedures for the Study
The original 1964-65 study, evaluated by Metfessel
(141), used a pool of 76 youngsters from which the experi
mental group was randomly selected and assigned to pre
122
school treatment in one of two schools* Four years later,
only 31 experimental and 19 control pupils could be located
(in 12 different schools) for follow-up testing and parent
interviews •
During spring 1968, school records were searched
for report card data and test scores* Pupils were indi
vidually tested with the Stanford-Binet and the Children's
Individual Test of Creativity (CITOC)* During summer 1968
the Questionnaire for Parents as Teachers (QPAT) was ad
ministered to the parents of all 50 pupils*
Data gathered through these procedures were ana
lyzed by common measures of central tendency, t test, F
ratio, correlation, chi square, analysis of covariance,
and factor analysis*
Summary of Findings
The results of statistical analyses are summarized
under each of the three main characteristics investigated*
Ability-Achievement
The null hypothesis was accepted for 58 of the 63
variables describing the Ability-Achievement characteris
tic, with five exceptions (in rank order):
79* Binet IQ, Spring 1965, Preschool Posttest
(favored experimental)
52* A2 Mental Age (favored experimentals)
10* K2 Citizenship GPA (favored controls)
4* Kl Progress GPA (favored controls)
1* Kl Effort GPA (favored controls)
Analysis of covariance applied to intelligence and
reading achievement data found no other significant dif
ferences either for experimentals vs* controls or for vari
ous comparisons of boys vs* girls*
Compared with all first and second graders in the
District, the 50 subjects of this study evidenced a trend
of cumulative deficit in reading achievement*
Virtually all meaningful Ability-Achievement dif
ferences measured between preschoolers and nonpreschoolers
disappeared shortly after entrance into, traditional primary
school programs*
Creativity
The null hypothesis was rejected for all three com
parisons of CITOC total scores, listed here in rank order
of F-value significance:
89* Fall 1964 vs* 93* Spring 1968
90* Spring 1965 vs* 93* Spring 1968
89* Fall 1964 vs* 90* Spring 1965
In each comparison, the later score differed
markedly from the earlier*
The CITOC was administered to experimental pupils
only* Individual Verbal and Performance CITOC scores were
available only for spring 1968, eliminating any comparisons
124
with previous years*
The investigation did not substantiate other re
search reports of drops in creative ability at certain
ages*
Support was obtained for other studies which found
subjects' scores on creativity measures to be positive
functions of chronological age*
Home Learning Environment
Comparisons for 6 of the 25 variables studied under
this characteristic rejected the null hypothesis* Ranked
in order of F ratios these six are:
57* QPAT Creativity Development (experimentals)
59* QPAT Total (experimentals— judged to be unduly
inflated by Variable 57)
71* Highest Grade Completed by Mother
68* Number Living in Household, 1968
65* Pupil's Birth Order
77* If Not Buying, Is Rent More Than $1297
Chi-square analyses of QPAT responses for total
experimentals and controls yielded 11 differences meeting
the preselected alpha of *05* Eighty-seven other signifi
cantly different responses separated the sexes in six com
binations of experimentals and controls*
Items exerting leverage in these differences clus
tered into patterns according to levels of the affective
125
domain* In rank order of influence, these levels were:
2*0 Responding, 1*0 Receiving, and 3*0 Valuing*
Factor analysis of the QPAT with BMD03M failed to
produce meaningful results* This matched the general out
come of validity and reliability studies for the QPAT by
means of intercorrelations via BMD02D, Cronbach's coef
ficient alpha, and the coefficient of determination* The
strongest internal consistency belonged to Language Devel
opment: *65 and *70 for experimentals and controls*
Conditions contributing to weakness of QPAT instru
mentation include:
1* Sample size was small: 50 families*
2* Experimental and control samples were virtually
identical on 85% of all variables measured*
3* The QPAT stab tests were relatively short, rang
ing from 14 to 42 items each*
4* The construct rationale behind the QPAT was
necessarily based on parent-child research
with predominantly middle-class families,
since published research on the home environ
ments of disadvantaged or lower-class families
is scarce* The QPAT's target population was
Negro parents residing in Watts*
5* Another case of restricted range was the homo
geneity of parental value systems concerning
home learning environment* Parents of both ex
perimental and control pupils described their
parent-child interactions in highly similar
ways* They deviated from this sameness only
in their perceptions of their children's Crea
tivity Development*
6* The imponderables of psychological bias or
mental set on the part of either interviewer
or interviewee are allowable as influences on
the results*
Parents who answered the QPAT items were nearly
unanimous in describing themselves as markedly different
from parents who provided the data used in QPAT item con
struction* The task of defining those differences remains
undiminished •
Conclusions and Recommendations
for Further Research
This study joins the ranks of previous research
which found that preschool gains faded shortly after the
children entered regular school programs. One strong in
dicator of the deeper implications of this finding was the
disparity between District reading scores and experimental-
con trol reading scores near the end of first and second
grades* This recalls the discussion in Chapter II of crit
ical periods, irreversibility, and cumulative deficit in a
child's psychological development*
Deutsch's (57) plea for continuity of enrichment
127
beyond preschool Is strongly seconded by this investigator,
with the recommendation that such children move with their
preschool teacher into the primary program* Preschool-
primary school articulation is crucial* A key feature of
programs reporting residual superiority after several years
for disadvantaged preschool experimentals over controls
has been the presence of carefully planned and continuous
enrichment that escalated vertically with the children into
the primary years* Such structured programs have been out
lined in both theory (122, 141) and practice (84, 85, 127,
128, 58)* Implementation of this research lies in the
hands of decision-makers for primary school curricula*
Specific research attention, formative as well as
summative, should be directed to the longitudinal effects
of any such well defined intervention programs in early
childhood education*
Creative abilities came to the surface several
times in this study* Parents of the experimental group
described their children (QPAT Creativity Development) as
especially creative, while the same group of pupils made
marked advances in their CITOC scores at the end of pre
school and again at the conclusion of second grade*
There is enough of a trend in even this small a
sample to support proposals by Torrance (201), Jensen (116,
118, 119), Guilford (93), and Metfessel (142) that highly
creative individuals be identified within the average IQ
128
ranks by tests o£ creativity* Inquiry also should be made
into use of the CITOC to improve instruction for disad
vantaged pupils who are both creative and below-average in
measured IQ* Creative abilities could be the criteria for
instructional subgroupings, which could open a new channel
of pupil-teacher communication for more effective learning*
Parent-child interactions within the home learning
environment remain largely undefined in the wake of the
QPAT* The near unanimity of parental responses, while
emphasizing that these parents' value systems differ from
those underlying the QPAT, may also add to the growing
body of systematic knowledge of interpersonal dynamics and
the hidden curriculum within disadvantaged family life*
Future research with the QPAT and similar instruments will
help this empirical body mature*
Research quantity and quality have increased re
cently in the general area of social class differences and
group comparisons, emphasizing patterns of parent-child
interactions and various home environment variables re
lating to cognitive development in the child*
There is encouragement from data in the present
and other correlational and summative studies to move
toward such environmental assessments by using process-
oriented or formative techniques* Such investigations
would bridge the gap between what resulted through educa
tional intervention and how it evolved*
129
One of the more direct approaches would be obser
vational studies of Children in their home environments*
Promoters of most preschool programs have largely presumed
from extra-home behaviors what developmental deficiencies
needed correcting* Experience with the QPAT suggests that
to improve measurement of dynamic intra-home behaviors it
would be advisable to bolster self-report data with direct
observation*
Accepting the caution that characteristics relevant
in one subculture may not generalize across subcultures,
environmental research of this nature should include fami
lies of diverse ethnic, social, economic, and national
backgrounds• Variations in environmental circumstances
and psychological characteristics, especially those oper
ant in parent-Child dynamics, thus could be observed freely
and could help stabilize emergent definitions of learning
behavior in Children*
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1* Aberie, D. F*, and Naegele, K. D* "Middle-Class Fa
thers' Occupational Role and Attitudes toward
Children*" American Journal of Orthopsychiatry.
XXII (1952),366-378.
2. Allen, G. B., and Masling, J* M. "Evaluation of the
Effects of Nursery School Training on Children in
the Kindergarten, First and Second'Grades*" Jour
nal of Educational Research. LI (1957), 285-2957"
3* Alpera, G. D* "The Failure of a Nursery School Enrich
ment Program for Culturally Disadvantaged Chil
dren*" Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Orthopsychiatric Association, San
Francisco, California, 1966*
4. Ametjian, A* "The Effects of a Preschool Program upon
the Intellectual Development and Social Competency
of Lower-Class Children*" Dissertation Abstracts.
XXVII, No. 1 (1966), 105A*
5* Arasteh, J* D* "Creativity and Related Processes in
the Young Child: A Review of the Literature*"
' j ^^ournal^of Genetic Psychology. CXII, No. 1
6* Asher, E* J* "The Inadequacy of Current Intelligence
Tests for Testing Kentucky Mountain Children*"
^ggrnal of Genetic Psychology. XLVI (1935), 480
7* Ausubel, D. P. "A Teaching Strategy for Culturally
Deprived Pupils: Cognitive and Motivational Con
siderations*" The School Review (Winter 19631.
454-463.
8* * "The Influence of Experience on the Develop
ment of Intelligence." Productive Thinking in Edu
cation. Edited by J. J* Aschner ana C* E. Bish*
Washington, D* C*: National Education Association,
1965, 45-62.
131
I
I
132
9. Baker, C. T.; Sontag, L. W.; and Nelson, V. L. "Indi
vidual and Group Differences in the Longitudinal
Measurement of Change in Mental Ability.1 1 Mono
graphs of the Society for ^search in Child Devel
opment T XXIII, No. 2 11958 V Serial No. 68. Part I*
10. Bay ley, N. "Commentaries•" Productive Thinking in
Education. Edited by J. J. Aschner and C. E.
Bish. Washington, D. C.: National Education
Association, 1965, 66-68.
11. . "Learning in Adulthood: The Role of In
telligence •" Analyses of Concept Learning. Ed
ited by H. J. Klausmeier and C. W. Harris. New
York: Academic Press, 1966, 117-138.
12* * ,,Qn tb® Growth of Intelligence." American
Psychologist. X (1955), 805-818.
13* . "Research in Child Development: A Longi
tudinal Perspective." Merrill-Palmer Quarterly oi
Behavior and Development. XI (1965). 183-ZQ8.
. "Some Increasing Parent-Child Similarities
during the Growth of Children." Journal of Educa
tional Psychology. XLV (1954), l-zl.
15. Bay ley, N., and Jones, H. E. "Environmental Corre
lates of Mental and Motor Development: A Cumu
lative Study from Infancy to Six Years." Child
Development. IV (1937), 329-341.
16. Bayley, N., and Schaefer, E. S. "Correlations of
Maternal and Child Behaviors with the Develop
ment of Mental Abilities: Data from the Berkeley
Growth Study." Monographs of the Society for Re
search in Child Development. XXIX. No. 6 (1964).
Serial No. 97.
17. Becker, W. C. "Relationship of Factors in Parental
Ratings of Self and Each Other to the Behavior
of Kindergarten Children as Rated by Mothers,
Fathers, and Teachers." Journal of Consulting
Psychology. XXIV (1960), 507-527. ''
18. Bereiter, C., and Engelmann, S. Teaching Disadvan
taged Children in the PresChool. Englewood
Cliff8, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1966.
19. Bernstein, B. "Language and Social Class." British
Journal of Sociology. XI (1960), 271-276.
133
20* Binet, A*, and Simon, T. The Developmmt ofLntelli-
gence in Children. Translated by E. S. Kite*
Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1916*
21. Bing, £• "Effect of Childrearing Practices on Devel
opment of Differential Cognitive Abilities*"
Child Development, XXXIV, No* 3 (1963), 631-648*
22* Bloom, B* S* "Social Factors in Education*" Inter
national Study of Achievement in Mathematics; A
Comparison of TWelve Countries. Edited bv T. Hu-
sen* VolV II. New York: Wiley and Sons, 1967,
199-259.
23 • ________* Stability and Change in H«num Character
istics.New York: Wiley and Sons, 1964*
24* Bloom, B* S.; Davis, A*; and Hess, R* Compensatory
Education for Cultural Deprivation* New Yorks
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1965*
25* Bonney, M* E., and Nicholson, E* L* "Comparative
Social Adjustments of Elementary School Pupils
with and without Preschool Training." Child De
velopment, XXIX (March 1958), 125-133.
26* Bottrill, H. "Effects of Preschool Experience on the
School Readiness Level of Privileged and Under
privileged Children." Exceptional Children,
XXXIV, No. 4 (1967), 27
27. Bradway, K. P., and Thompson, C. W. "Intelligence at
Adulthood: A Twenty-Five Year Follow-Up." Jour
nal of Educational Psychology. LIII (1962), 1-14.
28. Bronfenbrenner, U. "The Psychological Costs of Qual
ity and Equality in Education." Child Develop
ment. XXXVIII, No. 4 (1967), 909-525V
29. Bruner, J. S. The Process of Education. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard UniversityPress, 1961.
30. Brunner, C. "Preschool Experiences for the Disadvan
taged. " The Educationally Retarded and Disadvan
taged. The Sixty-Sixth Yearbook of the National
Society for the Study of Education, Part I. Ed
ited by P. A. Witty. Chicago. Illinois: Univer
sity of Chicago Press, 1967, 144-167.
31. Bums, M. J. "Selected Characteristics of a Chil
dren's‘Individual Test of Creativity." Unpub-
134
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
lished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern
California, 1969.
Buros, 0. K», ed. The Sixth Mental Measurements Year*
book. Highland Park, New Jersey: The Gryphon
Press, 1965.
Campbell, D. T., and Stanley, J. C. "Experimental
and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research on
Teaching." Handbook of Research on Teaching.
Edited by N. L. Gage. Chicago: Rand McNally and
Co., 1963, 171-246.
Cartledge, C. J., and Krauser, E. L. "Training First-
Grade Children in Creative Thinking under Quanti
tative and Qualitative Motivation." Journal of
Educational Psychology. L1V (1963), 295-299.
Caspar!, E. "Genetic Endowment and Environment in the
Determination of Human Behavior: Biological View
point." American Educational Research Journal. V,
No. 1 (1968}, 43-55.
Cass, J. "A Non-Professional Looks at Early Childhood
Education." Journal of Research and Development
in Education. 1. No. 3 (Soring 1968K 9-15.
Chance, J. E. "Independence Training and First Grad
ers* Achievement." Journal of Consulting Psy
chology. XXV (1961), 14^-154.
Chapanis, A., and Williams, W. C. "Results of a
Mental Survey with the Kuhlmann- Anders on Intelli
gence Tests in Williamson County, Tennessee."
ffiuggal of Genetic Psychology. LXVII (1945),
Clark, K. B. Dark Ghetto: Dilemmas of Social Power.
New York: Harper and Row, 1965.
Coffey, H. S., and Wellman, B. L. "Role of Cultural
Status in Intelligence Changes of Preschool Chil-
drenJ' Jour^gl of Experimental Education, V
Cowling, D. N. C. "Language Ability and Readiness
for School of Children Who Participated in Head
967)i"l7ffif?ir*9n » X1CV1II>
135
42. Crandall, V. J.; Preston, A*; and Rabson, A* "Mater
nal Reactions and the Development of Independence
and Achievement Behavior in Young Children*1 1
Child Development. XXXI (I960), 243-251.
43. Cratty, B. J. Movement Behavior and Motor Learning.
Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger, 1964.
44. Cronbach, L. J. "Coefficient Alpha and the Internal
Structure of Tests." PsvChometrika. XVI. No. 3
(1951), 297-334.
45. Daniel, A. A., and Giles, D. E. "A Comparison of the
Oral Language Development of Head Start Pupils
with Non-Head Start Pupils." A Research Report
Presented to the U.S. Department of Health, Edu
cation, and Welfare (in fulfillment of the pro
visions of HEW Grant #OEG-4-6-068293-0644). Den
ton, Texas: August 1966. (Mimeographed.)
46. Darwin^C. Origin of the Species. London: Murry,
47. Dave, R. H. "The Identification and Measurement of
Environmental Process Variables That Are Related
to Educational Achievement." Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Chicago, 1963.
48. Davis, F. B., and Lesser, G. S. "The Identification
and Classroom Behavior of Elementary-School Chil
dren Gifted in Five Different Mental Character
istics." Hunter College, October 1959.
49. Dennis, W., and Najarian, P. "Infant Development
under Environmental Handicap." Psychological
Monographs. LXXI (1957).
50. Deutsch, C. P. "Education for Disadvantaged Groups:
Lew (
iTC"
W w * ■ M U U W O W A V 1 I A W J . J / A O a V
Educational Programming." Review of Educational
Research. XXXV, No. 2 (1965?, 1/ J ’
51. . "Environment and Perception." Social
Class. Race, and Psychological Development. Ed-
ited by M. Deutsch, 1. Katz, and A. R. Jensen.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968,
58-85.
52. Deutsch, M. "Early Social Environment: Its Influ
ence on School Adaptation." The School Dropout.
Edited by D. Schreiber. Washington, D. C.:
National Education Association, 1964, 102-103.
136
53* » "Facilitating Development in the Preschool
Child: Social and Psychological Perspectives*"
^rlll-Paimey Qt«rteplv. x (Summer 1964), 249-
54* • Institute for Developmental Studies*
Annual Report, New York, 1965* New York: New
York Medical College, 1965*
55. » "Social and Psychological Perspectives on
the Development of the Disadvantaged Learner*"
jTguagal ^gro Education. XXXIII, No* 3 (Stunner
56* » "The Role of Social Class in Language De
velopment and Cognition*" American -Trnirn«jl of
Orthopsychiatry. XXXV, No. 1 (1945), 78-87.
57*
the
New
. , ed. The Disadvantaged Childs Studies of
Social Environment and the Learning Process.
York: Basic Books, 1967.
58* Deutsch, M., and Brown, B* R. "Social Influence in
Negro-White Intelligence Differences*" Journal
of_Social Issues. XX (1964), 24-35.
59. Deutsch, M.; Katz, I*; and Jensen, A* R*, eds* Social
Class. Race, and Psychological Development. New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 19o8*
60* Diehl, M* J* S. "Preschool Education for Disadvan
taged Children: An Evaluation of Project Head
Start." Dissertation Abstracts. XXVIII. No. 5-A
(1967), 172^733. ----
61. DiLorenzo, L* T* "A Study of Year-Long Prekinder
garten Programs for Educationally Disadvantaged
Children." Paper presented at the 1967 annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Asso
ciation, New York, February 18, 1967*
62. Dixon, W* J., ed* BMP: Biomedical Computer Programs.
2nd edition* Berkeley, California: University
of California Press, 1967*
63* Drews, E* M., and Teahan, J* E* "Parental Attitudes
and Academic Achievement*" Journal of Clinical
Psychology. XIII (1957), 328-3lz.
64. Flavell, J. H. The Developmental Psychology of Jean
137
et. Princeton, New Jersey: Van Nostrand,
65* Fleming, £• S., and Weintraub, S. "Attitudinal Rigid
ity as a Measure of Creativity in Gifted Chil
dren. ' ■ Journal of Educational Psychology. Llll
(1962), 51-85.
66. Foster, J. T. "Some Effects of Preschool Experience
on the General Intelligence and Creativity of
Culturally Disadvantaged Children." Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern Cali
fornia, 1966.
67. Freeberg, N. E., and Payne, D. T* "Dimensions of
Parental Practice Concerned with Cognitive De
velopment in the Preschool Child." Journal of
Genetic Psychology. CXI, No. 2 (1967), 245-261•
68. Freeberg, N. E., and Payne, D. T. "Parental Influ
ence on Cognitive Development in Early Child
hood: A Review." Child Development. XXXVIII,
No. 1 (1967), 65-87*:
69. Freeman, F. N.; Holzinger, K. J.; and Mitchell, C. B.
"The Influence of Environment on the Intelligence,
School Achievement, and Conduct of Foster Chil
dren. " Intelligence: Its Nature and Nurture.
Twenty-Seventh Yearbook, Part I, National Society
for the Study of Education. Bloomington, Illi
nois: Public School Publishing Co., 1928, 103-
217.
70. French, J. W., and Michael, W. B., cochairmen. Stan
dards for Educational and Psychological Tests and
Mfljttmlff. Wachinofrm n. Q. » P«vrVift1ftf>4-
cal Association, 1966.
71 * Freud, A., and Burlingham, D. Infants without Fami
lies. New York: International Universities
Press, 1944.
72. Froebel, F. The Education of Man. New York: D. Ap
pleton and Co., 1893.
73. Galton, F. Hereditary Genius: An Inquiry into Its
Laws and Consequences. New York: Appleton-
Century-Crofts, 1880.
74* . Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its De
velopment.New York: Macmillan, 18&3.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
138
Gardner, S. F. "Creativity in Children: A Study of
the Relationship between Temperament Factors and
Aptitude Factors Involved in the Creative Ability
of Seventh-Grade Children with Suggestions for a
Theory of Creativity." Unpublished Ph.D. disser
tation, University of Southern California, 1963*
Gesell, A. The Mental Growth of the Preschool Child.
New York: Macmillan, 1925.
Getzels, J. W., and Jackson, P. W* Creativity and
Intelligence. New York: Wiley and Sons, l9(>k.
Gill, M. P. "Relationship between Junior Kinder
garten Experience and Reading Readiness." Ontario
^uggal of Educational Research. X, No. 1 (196/J,
Goddard, H. H. The Binet-Simon Measuring Scale for
Intelligence. Revised edition. Vineland. New *
Jersey: Training School, 1911.
Goldfarb, W. "Psychological Privation in Infancy and
Subsequent Adjustment." American Journal of Or
thopsychiatry . XV (1945), 247-£55.
Governor's Commission on the Los Angeles Riots. Re
port of the Commission. Violence in the Citv— An
End or A Beginning? j. A. McCone, Chairman. Los
Angeles, California: Jeffries Banknote Co., De
cember 1965.
Gowan, J. C., compiler. Annotated Bibliography on
Creativity and Giftedness. Northrldge. Califor-
nia: San Fernando Valley State College Founda
tion, 1965. (Mimeographed.)
Gray, S. W., and Klaus, R. A. "Experimental Pre
school Program for Culturally Deprived Children."
Child Development. XXXVI (1965), 887-898.
Gray, S. W.; Klaus, R. A.; Miller, J. 0.; and For
rester, B. J. Before First Grade: The Early
Training Project for Culturally Disadvantaged
Children. New York: Teachers College Press,
Columbia University, 1966.
Gray, S. W., and Miller, J. 0. "Early Experience in
Relation to Cognitive Development." Review of
Educational Research. XXXVII, No. 5 (l96>), 475-
493.
139
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
Griffiths, K. A. "The Influences of an Intensive Pre
school Educational Experience on the Intellectual
Functioning of Ute Indian Children." Dissertation
Abstracts. XXVIII, No. 3-A (1967), 963-964.
Guilford, J. P. "Creative Intelligence in Education."
An address prepared for presentation to the Cali
fornia Educational Research and Guidance Associa
tion at Whittier, California, November 14, 1958.
(Typewritten.)
_______ • "Creativity." American Psychologist. V
(TOO), 444-454.
. "Creativity; Its Measurement and Develop
ment." A Source Book for Creative Thinking. Ed
ited by S. J. Pames and H. F. Harding. New York:
Scribner, 1962, 156-168.
. "Factors That Aid and Hinder Creativity."
Creativity; Its Educational Implications. Com
piled by J. C. Gowan, G. D. Demos, and E. P. Tor
rance. New York: Wiley and Sons, 1967, 106-123.
. "Potentiality for Creativity." Creativity;
Its Educational Implications. Compiled by J. C.
Gowan, G. D. Demos, and E. P. Torrance. New
York: Wiley and Sons, 1967, 83-89.
. Psychometric Methods. New York: McGraw-
Hill, l WT.
. The Nature of Human Intelligence. New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
Guilford, J. P.; Merrifield, P. R.; and Cox, A* B.
"Creative Thinking in Children at the Junior High
School Levels•" Reports from the Psychological
Laboratory. No. 2 ( S > . Los Angeles, California:
University of Southern California, September 1961.
Hall, G. S. Adolescence. Volumes I and II. New
York: D. Appleton and Co., 1904.
Harsh, J. R. "Evaluation Report for Orff-Schulwerk
Project, ESEA Title 111." Bellflower, California:
Bellflower Unified School District, August 1967.
(Mimeographed.)
Hartup, W. W. "Early Pressures in Child Development."
Young Children. XX (1965), 270-283.
140
98* Havighurst, R. J., and Moorefield, T. E. "The Dis
advantaged in Industrial Cities*" The Educa
tionally Retarded and Disadvantaged!. The Sixty-
Sixth Yearbook of the National Society for the
Study of Education, Part I* Edited by P* A*
Witty* Chicago, Illinois: University of Chi
cago Press, 196/, 8-20*
99* Hereford, C* Changing Parental Attitudes through
Group Discussion. Austin, Texas: University of
Texas Press, Hogg Foundation, 1963*
100* Hertzig, M. E*; Birch, H. G.; Thomas, A*; and Mendez,
0* A* "Class and Ethnic Differences in the Re
sponsiveness of Preschool Children to Cognitive
Demands •" Monographs of the Society for Research
in Child Development. XXXIII. No. 1 (1968J.
Serial No. 117.
101. Hess, R. D., and Bear, R. M., editors. Earlv Educa
tion: Current Theory. Research and Action. Chi
cago, Illinois: Aldine Publishing Co., 1968.
102. Hess, R. D*, and Shipman, V. C. "Early Experience
and the Socialization of Cognitive Modes in Chil
dren." Child Development. XXXVI, No. 4 (1965),
869-886.
103. Himley, 0. T- "A Study to Determine If Lasting Edu
cational and Social Benefits Accrue to Summer
Head Start Program Participants." Dissertation
Abstracts. XXVIII, No. 5-A (1967), T52T1
104* Hobson, J. R. "High School Performance of Underage
Pupils Initially Admitted to Kindergarten on the
Basis of Physical and Psychological Examine-
105. Hodges, W. L., and Spicker, H. H. "The Effects of
Preschool Experiences on Culturally Deprived
Children." Young Children. XXIII, No. 1 (1967),
23-43.
106. Hoffman, L. W., and Lippitt, R. "The Measurement of
Family Life Variables." Handbook of Research
Methods in Child Development. Edited bv P. H.
Mussen. New York: Wiley and Sons, 1960, 945-
1013.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
114.
115.
116.
117.
118.
141
Howard, J. L*, and Plant, W. T. "Psychometric Evalu
ation of an Operation Head Start Program." Jour-
SSt ^|aGenet Psychology. CXI, No. 2 (1967),
Hoyt, C. "Test Reliability Estimated by Analysis of
Variance." Psvdhometrika. VI, No. 3 (1941),
153-160.
Hunt, J. McV. Intelligence and Experience. New
York: Ronald Press, 1961.
. "The Psychological Basis for Using Pre
school Enrichment as an Antidote for Cultural
Deprivation." Merrill-Palmer_Quarterly of Be
havior and Development. X (1964). 209-248.
Hurley, J. R. "Maternal Attitudes and Children's
Intelligence." Journal of Clinical Psychology.
XV (1959), 291-255T
Hurlock, E. B. Child Development. 4th ed. New
York: Me Graw-Hill, 1964.
Iscoe, 1., and Pierce-Jones, J. "Divergent Think
ing, Age, and Intelligence in White and Negro
Children." Child DeveloDment. XXXV (19641.
785-797.
Ivancic, R. "Effect of a Year of Pre-Reading Cur
riculum on Later Achievement and School Prog
ress for Selected Children." Dissertation Ab
stracts. XXVII, No. 12-A (1967), 41'557"
Jacobs, J. N., and Felix. J. L*, editors. "Early
Childhood Education." Journal of Instruction^
Research and Program Development (Department of
Instruction, Cincinnati Public Schools), III,
No. 2 (1967), 1-39.
Jensen, A* R. "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scho
lastic Achievement?" Paper presented at the an
nual meeting of the California Advisory Council
on Educational Research, San Diego, California,
November 1967.
. "Learning in the Preschool Years." Jour
nal of Nursery Education. XVIII (1963), 1337T37.
"Social Class, Race, and Genetics: Im
plications for Education." American Educate
142
Research Journal. V, No. 1 (1968), 1-42.
. "The Culturally Disadvantaged: Psycho-
logical and Educational Aspects." Educational
Research. X (1967), 4-20.
120. Johnson, R. D. "Measurement of Achievement in Fun
damental Skills: Elementsry-School Children."
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, State University
of Iowa, I960.
121. Kagan, J., and Moss, H. A. Birth to Maturity: A
Study in Psychology Development. New York:
Wiley and Sons, 1962.
122. Kamil, C. E., and Radin, N. L. "A Framework for a
Preschool Curriculum Based on Some Piagetian Con
cepts. " Journal of Creative Behavior. I. No. 3
(1967), 3TC38K
123. Katovsky, W.; Preston, A.; and Crandall, V. J.
"Parents1 Attitudes toward their Personal
Achievements and toward the Achievement Behaviors
of their Children." Journal of Genetic Psychol
ogy. CIV (1964), 67-82.
124. Katz, E. "Constancy of the Stanford-Binet IQ from
Three to Five Years." Journal of Psvcholoav.
XII (1941), 159-181.
125. Kawin, E., and Hoefer, C. A Comparative Study of a
Nursery School versus a Nonnurserv School Group.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1931.
126. Kennedy, W. A.; Van de Riet, V.; and White, J. "A
Normative Sample of Intelligence and Achievement
of Negro Elementary School Children in the South
eastern United States." Monographs of the Soci
ety for Research in Child PeveTc
No. 6 (1963), Serial NoT 90.
Development. XXVIII.
127. Klaus, R. A., and Gray, S. W. "Murfreesboro Pre-
school Program for Culturally Deprived Chil
dren." Childhood Education. XLII (1965), 92-95.
128. Klaus, R. A., and Gray, S. W. "The Early Training
Project for Disadvantaged Children: A Report
after Five Years." Monographs of the Society
~ J",d Development. XXXIII. No. 4 for Research , ifl ChU
(1968), Serial No. 120.
143
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.
136.
137.
138.
Klausmeier, H. J.; Harris, C. W.; and Ethanathios, Z.
"Relationships between Divergent Thinking Abili
ties and Teacher Ratings of High School Stu
dents •" Journal of Educational Psychology. LIII
(1962), 72-75.
Klausmeier, H. J., and Wiersma, W• "Relationship of
Sex, Grade Level, and Locale to Performance of
High IQ Students on Divergent Thinking Tests."
Journal of Educational Psychology. LV (1964),
1 1 4 - 1 1 9 . '
Klineberg, 0. Negro Intelligence and Selective Mi-
f
ration. New York: Columbia University Press,
v n r .
Krathwohl, D. R.; Bloom, B. S.; and Masia, B. B.
Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classi
fication of Educational Goals: Handbook II: in
fective Domain. New York: David McKay Co.. 19o4»
Leahy, A. M. "Nature-Nurture and Intelligence."
. Genetic Psychology Monographs. XVII (1935), 236-
30&1
Lesser, G* S.; Fifer, G.; and Clark, D. H. "Mental
Abilities of Children from Different Social-Class
and Cultural Groups." Monographs of the Society
for Research in Child Development, XXX. No. 4
(19&5), Serial No. 102.
Levinson, B. M. "Comparative Study of the Verbal
and Performance Ability of Monolingual and Bi
lingual Native Bom Jewish Preschool Children
of Traditional Parentage." Journal of Genetic
Psychology. XCVII (1960), 93-112.
Liddle, G. P.; Rockwell, R. E.; and Sacadat, E.
Education Improvement for the Disadvantaged in
an Elementary Setting. Springfield, Illinois:
Charles C. Thomas, 1967.
Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools Office. ,
Evaluation of Children^ Behavioral Changes in
Child Development Centers of Los Angeles Countv
under Assembly Bill 1331. State of California.
Spring1966. Los Angeles. California: Office of
the County Superintendent of Schools, 1966.
McNemar, Q. The Revision of the Stanford-Binet
Scale. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1942.
144
139.
140.
141.
142.
143.
144.
145.
146.
Merrifield, P. R.; Gardner, S. F.; and Cox, A. B.
"Aptitudes and Personality Measures Related to
Creativity in Seventh-Grade Children." Reports
from the Psychological Laboratory. No. 28.Los
Angeles, California: University of Southern
California, January 1964.
Merrifield, P. R.; Guilford, J. P.; and Gershon, A.
"The Differentiation of Divergent-Production
Abilities at the Sixth-Grade Level." Reports
from the Psychological Laboratory. No. 2/. Los
Angeles, California: University of Southern
California, May 1963.
Metfessel, N. S. The Final Evaluation Report for
the Preschool Program of the Los Angeles City
Schools. Los Angeles, California: University
of Southern California, 1965. (Mimeographed.)
. "The School Psychologist's Role in De
veloping Creativity." School Psychological
Services in Theory and Practice— A Handbook.
Edited by J. F. Magary. Englewood Cliffs,New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1967, 617-650.
Metfessel, N. S., and Foster, J. T. "Twenty-One Re
search Findings re Culturally Disadvantaged
Youth Supported by Information Obtained from Pre
school Critical Incident Observation Records."
Project Potential: Center for the Study of Edu
cationally (Culturally) Disadvantaged Youth.
Los Angeles, California: University of Southern
California, 1965. (Mimeographed.)
Meyer, W. J. Developmental Psychology. New York:
The Center for Applied Research in Education,
1964.
Meyers, C. E.; Dingman, H. F.; Orpet, R. E.; Sitkei,
E. G.; and Watts, C. A. "Four Ability-Factor
Hypotheses at Three Preliterate Levels in Normal
and Retarded Children." Monographs of the So
ciety for Research in Child Development. XXIX.
No. 5 (1964), Serial No. 96.
Meyers, C. E.; Orpet, R. E.; Atwell, A. A.; and Ding
man, H. F. "Primary Abilities at Mental Age
Six." Monographs of the Society for Research in
Child Development. XXVII. No. 1 (196^). Serial
No. 8£.
145
147.
148.
149.
150.
151.
152.
153.
154.
155.
156.
157.
158.
Milner, E. A* "A Study of the Relationships between
Reading Readiness in Grade One School Children
and Patterns of Parent-Child Interactions."
Child Development. XXII (1951), 95-112.
Moss, H. A., and Kagan, J. "Maternal Influences on
Early IQ Scores." Psychological Reports. IV
(1958), 655-661.
Newman, H. H.; Freeman, F. N.; and Holzinger, K. J.
Twins; A Study of Heredity and Environment.
Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press,
1937.
Office of Research and Development. "ESEA Kinder
garten Component Evaluation." Evaluation Re
ports. Elementary. ESEA Title I. September 1967
through August 1968. Los Angeles. California:
Los Angeles City Schools, 1968, 59-66.
Olshin, G. M. "The Relationship among Selected Sub
ject Variables and Level of Creativity." Excep
tional Children. I (1965), 588-589.
Pames, S. J. "Can Creativity Be Increased?" A
Source Book for Creative Thinking. Edited Ey
S. J. Pames and H. F. Harding. New York:
Scribner, 1962, 185-191.
Personnel Data 1967-68. Los Angeles City Schools.
9th ed. Los Angeles, California: ResearchSec
tion, Personnel Division, 1967.
Pestalozzi, J. H. How Gertrude Teaches Her Chil
dren. Letter 3. Syracuse, New York: Swann,
Sonnenschein and Co., 1894, 61-72.
Pettigrew, T. F. A Profile of the Negro American.
Princeton, New Jersey: Van Nostrand, 1964.
Phillips, L. W., et al. "REACH (Raising Educational
Aspirations of the Culturally Handicapped)." Un
published report on Cooperative Research Project
#5-8-72-2-12-1, State University of New York
College at Plattsburgh, 1965. (Mimeographed.)
Plato. Protagoras. Translated by B. Jowett. Ox
ford: Clarendon Press, 1885.
Pratt, W. E. "Study of the Differences in the Pre
diction of Reading Success of Kindergarten and
146
159.
160.
161.
162.
163.
164.
165.
166.
167.
168.
Nonkindergarten Children. " Journal of Educa
tional Research. XLII (1949), 525-533.
Rambusch, N. M. Learning How to Learn: An American
Approach to Montessori. Baltimore: Helicon
Press, 19&J.
Reymert, M. L., and Hinton, R. T* "The Effect of a
Change to a Relatively Superior Environment upon
the IQs of One Hundred Children." Intelligence:
Its Nature and Nurture. Thirty-Ninth Yearbook,
Part II, National Society for the Study of Edu
cation. Bloomington, Illinois: Public School
Publishing Co., 1940, 255-268.
Riessman, F. The Culturally Deprived Child. New
York: Harper and Row, 1962.
. "The Culturally Deprived Child: A New
View." School Life, U.S. Office of Education,
XLV (1963), £-77
Risley, T. "Learning and Lollipops." Psychology
Today. I, No. 8 (1968), 28-31.
Risser, J. J. "An Individual Testing Approach to
Assess Creative Abilities." Unpublished Ed.D.
dissertation, University of Southern California,
1966.
Robinson, H. B. "The Problem of Timing in Preschool
Education." Supplement to the IRCD Bulletin.
Ill, No. 2A. New York: Yeshiva University, n.d.
Rosen, B.C. "Race, Ethnicity, and the Achievement
Syndrome." American Sociological Review. XXIV
(1959), 47-601
Rosen, B. C., and D'Andrade, R. "The Psychosocial
Origins of Achievement Motivation." Sociometrv.
XXII (1959), 185-218. '
Rosenthal, R., and Jacobson, L. "Self-Fulfilling
Prophecies in the Classroom: Teachers1 Expec
tations as Unintended Determinants of Pupils'
Intellectual Competence." Social Class. Race.
and Psychological Development. Edited py M.
Deutsch, I. Katz, and A* R. Jensen. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968, 219-253.
147
169.
170.
171.
172.
173.
174.
175.
176.
177.
178.
Rusch, R. R.; Denny, D. A.; and Ives, S. “Fostering
Creativity in Sixth Grade." Elementary School
Journal. LXV (1965), 262-268.
Schachter, F. F.; Cooper, A*; and Gordet, R. "A
Method for Assessing Personality Development for
Follow-Up Evaluations of the Preschool Child."
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development. XXXIII. No. 3 Cl968). Serial No.
Schmadel, E. "The Relationship of Creative Think
ing Abilities to School Achievement." Unpub
lished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern
California, I960.
Sears, P. S., and Dowley, E. M* "Research on Teach
ing in the Nursery School." Handbook of Research
on Teaching. Edited by N. L. Gage. Chicago,
Illinois: Rand McNally and Co., 1963, 814-864.
Sears, R. R.; Rau, L.; and Alpert, R. Identification
and Child Rearing. Stanford University Press,
T 5 & T .
Shaw, M. C. "Note on Parental Attitudes toward In
dependence Training and the Academic Achievement
of Their Children." Journal of Educational Psy
chology. LV, No. 6 (1964), 3>l-374.
Shaw, M* C., and McCuen, J. T. "The Onset of Aca
demic Underachievement in Bright Children."
Journal of Educational Psychology. LI (1960),
103-108.
Sherman, M., and Key, C. B. - "The Intelligence of
Isolated Mountain Children." Child Development.
Ill (1932), 279-290.
Skeels, H. M. "Adult Status of Children with Con
trasting Early Life Experiences." Monographs of
the Society for Research in Child Development.
XXXI, No. 3 (1^6f>), Serial No* l05.
. "Headstart on Head Start: A Thirty Year
Evaluation." Fifth Annual Distinguished Lec
tures in Special Education. Summer Session T966.
Edited by J. F. Magary and R. B. McIntyre. Los
Angeles, California: School of Education, Uni
versity of Southern California, 1967, 1-23.
148
179.
180.
181.
182.
183.
184.
185.
186.
187.
Skeels, H. M., and Dye, H. "A Study of the Effects
of Differential Stimulation in Mentally Retarded
Children." Proceedings of the American Associ
ation on Mental Deficiency. XLIV C193^). 114-136.
Skeels, H. M., and Fillmore, E. A. "Mental Develop
ment of Children from Underprivileged Homes."
Journal of Genetic Psychology. L (1937), 427-439.
Skeels, H. M.; Updegraff, R.; Wellman, B. L.; and
Williams, H. M. "A Study of Environmental Stimu
lation: An Orphanage Preschool Project." Uni
versity of Iowa Studies in Child Welfare. XV,
No. 4 (1938).
Skodak, M., and Skeels, H. M. "A Final Follow-Up of
One Hundred Adopted Children." Journal of Ge
netic Psychology. LXXV (1949), 8^-12!>.
Smilansky. M. "Fighting Deprivation in the Promised
Land." Saturday Review. October 15, 1966, pp.
82-86.
Smilansky, S. "Progress Report on a Program to
Demonstrate Ways of Using a Year of Kindergarten
to Promote Cognitive Abilities, Impart Basic
Information and Modify Attitudes Which Are Essen
tial for Scholastic Success of Culturally De
prived Children in Their First Two Years of
School." Jerusalem, Israel. Henrietta Szold
Institute, 1964. (Dittoed.)
Sontag, L. W., and Baker, C. T. "Personality, Famil
ial, and Physical Correlates of Change in Mental
Ability." Monographs of the Society for Research
in Child Development. XXIII. No. 2 (1958). Serial
No. 68, Part II.
Sontag, L. W.; Baker, C. T.; and Nelson, V. L. "Men
tal Growth and Personality Development: A Longi
tudinal Study." Monographs of the Society for
Research in Child' Development. XXIII. No. 2
(1958), Parts I and II.
Speer, G. S. "The Mental Development of Children of
Feeble-Minded and Normal Mothers." Intelligence:
Its Nature and Nurture. Thirty-Ninth Yearbook,
Part II, National Society for the Study of Edu
cation. Bloomington, Illinois: Public School
Publishing Co., 1940, 309-314.
149
188.
189.
190.
191.
192.
193.
194.
195.
196.
197.
198.
Spitz, R. A. “Hospitalism: An Inquiry into the
Genesis of Psychiatric Conditions in Early
Childhood." The Psychoanalytic Study of the
Child. Vol. I. New York: International Uni
versities Press, 1945, 53-74.
. "The Role of Ecological Factors in Emo-
tional Development in Infancy." Child Develop
ment. XX (1949), 145-155.
Stodolsky, S., and Lesser, G. "Learning Patterns
in the Disadvantaged." Harvard Educational Re
view. XXXVII, No. 4 (Fall 1967), 546-593.
Stott, L. H., and Ball, R. S. "Infant and Pre
school Mental Tests: Review and Evaluation."
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development. XXX. No. 3 (196i>). Serial No. 101.
Strodtbeck, F. L. "Family Interaction, Values, and
Achievement." Talent and Society: New Perspec
tives in the Identification of Talent. Edited
by D. C. McClelland etal. Princeton, New
Jersey: Van Nostrand, 1958.
. "The Hidden Curriculum of the Middle Class
Home." Urban Education and Cultural Deprivation.
Edited by C. w. Hunnicutt. Syracuse, New York:
Syracuse University Press, 1964, 15-31.
Swift, J. W. "Effects of Early Group Experience:
The Nursery School and Day Nursery." Review of
Child Development Research. Vol. I. Edited by
M. L* and L. W. Hoffman. New York: Russell
Sage Foundation, 1964, 249-288.
Terman, L> M. The Measurement of Intelligence.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1^16.
Torrance, E. P. "Cultural Discontinuities and the
Development of Originality of Thinking." Excep
tional Children. XXIX (1962), 2-13.
. "Developing Creative Thinking through
School Experiences•" A Source Book for Creative
Thinking. Edited by S. J* Pames and H. F.
Harding. New York: Scribner, 1962, 31-47.
. "Explorations in Creative Thinking in the
Early School Years: A Progress Report." Scien
tific Creativity: Its Recognition and Develop-
150
199.
200.
201.
202.
203.
204.
205.
206.
207.
208.
ment. (Selected Papers from the Proceedings of
the First, Second, and Third University of Utah
Conferences: "The Identification of Creative
Scientific Talent.") Edited by C. W. Taylor
and F. Barron. New York: Wiley and Sons, 1963,
173-183.
. "Give the *Devil* His Dues." Creativity:
Its Educational Implications. Compiled by J. C.
Gowan, G. D. Demos, and E. P. Torrance. New
York: Wiley and Sons, 1967, 137-149.
. Guiding Creative Talent. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1962.
• . "Identifying the Creatively Gifted among
Disadvantaged Children." Gifted Child Quarterly.
VIII (Winter 1964), 171-17^
. Rewarding Creative Behavior: Experiments
in Classroom Creativity. Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1965.
. "The Measurement of Creative Behavior in
Children•" Productive Thinking in Education.
Edited by M. J. Aschner and C. E. Bish. Wash
ington, D. C.: The National Education Associa
tion, 1965, 199-216.
• "Toward the More Humane Education of
Gifted Children." Creativity: Its Educational
Implications. Compiled by J. C. Gowan, G. D.
Demos, and E. P. Torrance. New York: Wiley and
Sons, 1967, 53-78.
» "Understanding Creativity in Talented
Students." The Guidance of Exceptional Chil
dren. Edited by J. C. Gowan and G. D. Demos.
New York: McKay, 1965, 86-94*
. et al. Rewarding Creative Thinking. Min
neapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota,
1960.
Uhruh, J. M. "Proposals for State Action--A Response
to the Los Angeles Riots," Los Angeles, September
1965. (Mimeographed.)
Ward, W» C. "Creativity in Young Children." Child
Development. XXXIX, No. 3 (1968), 737-754.
151
209.
210.
211.
212.
213.
214.
215.
216.
217.
218.
Warner, W. L*; Meeker, M.; and Eells, K. Social
Glass in America. Chicago, Illinois: Science
Research Associates, 1949•
Weber, G. McN. "Analysis of the Reliability and Sub
test Intercorrelation of the Children's Individu
al Test of Creativity." Unpublished Master's
Thesis, University of Southern California, 1968.
Wei, T. T. D. "Piaget's Concept of Classification:
A Comparative Study of Advantaged and Disadvan
taged Young Children." Dissertation Abstracts.
XXVII, No. 12-A (1967), WET. “
Weikart, D. P., et al. Perry Preschool Project
Progress Report. Michigan: Ypsilanti Public
Schools, 1964.
Wellman, B. L. "IQ Changes of Preschool and Non
preschool Groups during the Preschool Years: A
Summary of the Literature." Journal of Psychol
ogy. XX (1945), 347-368.
Wellman, B. L., and McCandless, B. R. "Factors As
sociated with Binet IQ Changes of Preschool Chil
dren." American Psychological Association Mono
graphs . LX, No. 1 (1946).
Wellman, B. L>, and Stoddard, G. D* "Environment and
the IQ." Intelligence: Its Nature and Nurture:
Comparative and Critical Exposition. Thirty-
Ninth Yearbook of the National Society for the
Study of Education, Part 1. Bloomington, Illi
nois: Public School Publishing Co., 1940, 405-
442.
Wheeler, L. R. "A Comparative Study of the Intelli
gence of East Tennessee Mountain Children."
Journal of Educational Psychology. XXXIII (1942),
321-334.
Whipple, G. M., ed. Preschool and Parental Educa
tion. The Twenty-Eighth Yearbook of the Na
tional Society for the Study of Education, Parts
I and II. Bloomington, Illinois: Public School
Publishing Co., 1929.
Whipple, H. D. "Effects of Elementary-School Physi
cal Education upon Aspects of Physical, Motor,
and Personality Development." Research Quarterly
of the American Association for Health. Physical
152
219.
220.
221.
222.
223.
224.
225.
226.
Education, and Recreation* XXXII (1961), -249-260.
White, M. S. "Social Class, Child-Rearing Practices
and Child Behavior." American Sociological Re
view. XXII (1957), 704-712.
Wilkerson, D. A. "Programs and Practices in Compen
satory Education for Disadvantaged Children:
Preschool Programs." Review of Educational Re
search, XXXV, No. 5 (196^), 434-437.
Williams, J. R., and Scott, R. B. "Growth and De
velopment of Negro Infants, IV: Motor Develop
ment and Its Relationship to Child Rearing Prac
tices in Two Groups of Negro Infants." Child
Development. XXIV (1953), 103-121.
Winterbottom, M. "The Relation of Need for Achieve
ment to Learning Experiences in Independence and
Mastery." Motives in Fantasy. Action, and So
ciety. Edited by J. Atkinson. New York: Van
Nostrand, 1958, 453-478.
Witkin, H. A.;.Dyk, R. B.; Patterson, H. F.; Good-
enough, D. R.; and Karp, S. A. Psychological
Differentiation. New York: Wiley and Sons,
r o
Wolf, R. M. "The Identification and Measurement of
Environmental Process Variables Related to In
telligence." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Chicago, 1964.
. "The Measurement of Environments." Pro
ceedings of the 1964 Invitational Conference on
Testing Problems. C. W. Harris, chairman.
Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing
Service, 1964, 93-106.
Yarrow, L* J. "Maternal Deprivation: toward an
Empirical and Conceptual Re evaluation." Psy
chological Bulletin. LVIII (1964), 285-293.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
LIST OF VARIABLES
LIST OF VARIABLES
Number Description
1. Kl effort GPA
2. Kl work habits GPA
3. Kl citizenship GPA
4* Kl progress GPA
5. Kl days present
6* Kl days absent
7. Kl times tardy
8. IC2 effort GPA
9. K2 work habits GPA
10* K2 citizenship GPA
11• K2 progress GPA
12. K2 days present
13* K2 days absent
14 • IC2 times tardy
15. Bl reading GPA
16. Bl English GPA
17. Bl total GPA
18. Bl effort GPA
19. Bl work habits GPA
20. Bl citizenship GPA
21• B1 days present
22. Bl days absent
23. Bl times tardy
24. Al reading GPA
25. Al English GPA
26. Al total GPA
27. Al effort GPA
28. Al work habits GPA
29. Al citizenship GPA
30. Al days present
31. Al days absent
32. Al times tardy
33. B2 reading GPA
34. B2 English GPA
35. B2 total GPA
36. B2 effort GPA
37. B2 work habits GPA
155
Number
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
156
Description
B2 citizenship GPA
B2 days present
B2 days absent
B2 times tardy
A2 reading GPA
A2 English GPA
A2 total GPA
A2 effort GPA
A2 work habits GPA
A2 citizenship GPA
A2 days present
A2 days absent
A2 times tardy
A2 chronological age
A2 mental age
QPAT Intellectual Development
QPAT Achievement Development
QPAT Language Development
QPAT Social Development
QPAT Creativity Development
QPAT Psychomotor Development
QPAT Total
father's work, 1964 (Warner Scale)
mother's work, 1964 (Warner Scale)
number living in household, 1964
number of living siblings, 1964
pupil living with whom, 19647
pupil's birth order
father's work, 1968 (Warner Scale)
mother's work, 1968 (Warner Scale)
number living in household, 1968
number of living siblings, 1968
pupil living with whom, 1968?
highest grade completed by mother
highest grade completed by father
pupil's usual transportation to school
buying or not buying home
family size: children
family size: adults
if not buying, is rent more than $129?
Binet IQ, fall 1964— preschool pretest
Binet IQ, spring 1965— preschool
posttest
Binet IQ, spring 1966— K2
157
Number Description
81. Binet IQ, spring 1968— A2
82. Pintner-Cunningham IQ, spring 1967— Al
83. Stanford Reading, Word Meaning,
spring 1967— Al
84. Stanford Reading, Paragraph Meaning,
spring 1967— Al
85. Stanford Reading, Total,
spring 1967— Al
86. Stanford Reading, Word Meaning,
spring 1968— A2
87. Stanford Reading, Paragraph Meaning
spring „ 1968— A2
88. Stanford Reading, Total,
spring 1968, A2
89. GITOG Total, fall 1964— preschool
pretest
90. CITOC Total, spring 1965— preschool
posttest
91. CITOC Verbal, spring 1968— A2
92. CITOC Performance, spring 1968— A2
93. CITOC Total, spring 1968— A2
APPENDIX B
INTERCORRELATION MATRIX
158
159
Notes on Using the Matrix
1. Minus signs (-) are typed. Plus signs are presumed by
their absence.
2. All unity correlations (r of 1.00 for a variable com
pared with itself) are omitted.
3. All r values have been rounded to the nearest hun
dredth: for example, .665 became »67r and .664 became
.66.
4. To save more space, the decimal point is omitted pre
ceding each pair of numbers. For example, an entry of
£2. should be read as .67.
5. The reflected matrix has been deleted to conserve
space. This means that the r for any given pair of
variables appears only once in the matrix.
6. Paired Variables 6-7, 13-14, 22-23, 31-32, 40-41, and
49-50 represent, in sequence, scores for days absent
and times tardy from kindergarten through second grade.
Because the lowest number is the "best" score, valences
for these variables1 correlations in the matrix were
reversed for accurate interpretation: for example,
-50 was corrected to read 5£ ) , and 50 was corrected to
read -50.
7. Variables 60-61 and 66-67 code the level of occupation
for parents in 1964 and again in 1968 according to the
Warner, Meeker, Eells*s Revised Scale for Rating Occu
pation (209). Since the Scale ranges from one to
seven, high to low, signs were reversed (corrected)
for the above variables in the matrix. The examples
under item 6 above apply equally here.
8. Correlations within the groups of variables specified
in items 6 and " 7 above— e.g., 13 with 14, or 22 with
61— were not re-signed in the matrix since the original
valences assigned were directionally correct.
160
TABLE 12
INTERCORRELATION MATRIX FOR ALL PUPIL VARIABLES, GROUPED
BY EXPERIMENTALS (E) AND CONTROLS (C)
Var.
1.
E C
2.
E C
3.
E C
4.
E C
5.
E C
6.
E C
7.
E C
1.
2. 27 55
3. 74 57 38 48
4. 02 70 -02 53 -02 61
5. -06 43 -19 20 02 15 35 51
6. 20 27 19 20 22 21 42 48 72 93
7. 16 27 -03 24 -01 38 57 62 22 24 40 30
8. 38 15 22 21 39 26 43 20 23 17 54 01 50 13
9. 06 -04 30 19 23 -15 43 -03 21 04 43 -07 40 08
10. 51 23 18 39 68 13 20 24 -08 11 17 -03 -25 09
11. -01 16 08 49 13 01 57 41 11 31 24 01 66 29
12. 16 36 14 06 29 11 20 29 -04 53 39 39 91 02
13. 12 49 05 16 19 34 59 47 23 64 37 59 94 26
14. 14 28 01 05 11 -03 19 28 -09 14 -03 10 54 14
15. -02 33 12 -00 19 19 -17 18 00 34 03 48 82 33
16. -06 30 -01 10 -07 16 -14 39 -08 34 -17 38 69 26
17. -11 15 05 08 07 13 -30 23 -03 38 -14 39 84 12
18. -09 27 17 -10 05 25 -16 07 01 05 -09 19 68 21
19. -19 15 11 25 01 20 -18 16 -00 08 -15 12 55 06
20. -10 10 17 27 -02 11 -30 17 -04 19 -21 18 27 02
21. 12 24 -12 24 20 28 -33 30 -01 36 06 34 66 03
22. 15 26 12 48 17 27 55 09 23 32 40 27 36 -07
23. -04 35 -10 46 -13 -06 60 49 40 20 53 13 69 43
24. -01 29 46 -14 25 -02 38 02 30 10 60 32 -05 79
25. -02 29 41 13 23 05 35 30 46 20 54 08 -05 60
26. -09 15 40 29 12 -10 24 27 57 39 70 26 -22 63
27. -08 31 49 22 13 -18 18 29 47 33 48 18 -55 32
28. -06 25 48 52 11 -15 29 25 54 22 66 06 -27 32
29. -02 41 57 28 15 00 13 36 42 29 62 19 -15 23
30. 11 25 08 45 14 36 -12 20 39 -01 62 06 -42 33
_ 31. 15 32 08 41 16 24 54 17 -02 11 20 -08 91 -38
32. -51 24 -27 09 -69 -22 14 26 15 -00 07 10 60 44
33. 07 03 28 07 -01 -13 62 -13 18 -01 15 09 74 -31
34. 00 -13 29 02 -06 -24 58 -15 17 -12 20 -17 88 -35
35. 00 13 31 25 -00 -06 69 06 23 -09 23 -05 66 -10
36. -03 04 14 -05 -19 -11 48 -04 39 -05 21 -01 46 13
161
TABLE 12— Continued
Var.
1.
E C
2.
E C
3.
E C
4.
E C
5.
E C
6.
E C
7.
E C
37. 02 -00 27 17 -15 -12 48 -12 29 -15 19 -06 33 02
38. .04 19 38 41 -25 12 40 08 21 -10 20 11 43 05
39. -03 36 07 38 07 34 70 16 41 21 54 09 51 -08
40. 12 40 02 42 04 39 16 24 -14 26 -01 15 54 06
41. -05 31 -23 24 -27 22 16 57 -22 29 -16 33 50 81
42. -21 24 -03 49 -18 03 59 42 28 42 07 25 85 22
43. -42 10 -09 49 -47 -03 46 37 22 37 -04 27 71 34
44. -23 25 12 60 -20 15 62 48 23 22 08 09 76 38
45. -34 56 -15 42 -36 30 49 43 43 -01 11 -09 85 34
46. -15 45 20 70 -13 29 38 40 20 09 06 07 51 23
47. -28 16 05 65 -34 02 32 22 29 -11 -06 -21 57 09
48. 16 06 02 24 15 -04 63 05 37 23 56 10 67 26
49. -29 14 -06 30 -12 01 62 03 35 10 41 -03 57 07
50. 13 -01 -17 40 -22 19 27 35 08 03 22 13 51 79
51. 11 -16 -02 -23 21 11 32 -40 18 -38 33 -35 15 -79
52. -08 -21 18 25 -15 -19 58 -06 25 -07 18 -03 86 -14
53. —08 -02 -28 50 -11 31 06 20 23 00 -02 -14 36 -49
54. -21 -33 -43 -00 -39 -34 -22 -11 18 -24 -07 -34 31 -52
55. -24 -56 -19 -17 -43 -50 -18 -58 -34 -16 -31 -30 38 -61
56. -20 -02 -35 19 06 -13 08 -06 14 -09 -28 -12 -54 -24
57. -17 -23 -20 -45 -36 -24 18 -26 -21 07 -30 -13 54 -59
58. 16 36 -06 07 -04 31 -25 29 01 26 29 44 -24 38
59. -28 -43 -50 -11 -53 -39 14 -40 -08 -08 -25 -29 36 -93
60. -07 -10 -08 -01 -31 -34 12 -21 02 -22 -21 -13 33 -01
61. -40 14 08 -24 -11 03 -17 -24 29 -23 23 11 -74 03
62. 10 27 -12 -02 10 36 -00 -01 -33 11 -07 48 -48 26
63. 05 29 -12 04 13 44 -07 05 -39 14 -11 45 -52 36
64. -20 08 -02 30 19 36 -37 30 -39 20 -24 04 -54 43
65. -04 28 -29 10 -01 40 02 13 -32 11 -15 36 -38 42
66. -21 -25 02 -43 -09 -46 -20 -51 -24 -41 -38 -33 16 -56
67. -22 -04 10 -33 -21 -20 07 -38 33 -28 03 -03 -74 -33
68. 22 40 05 32 -18 57 -09 54 -05 45 -08 53 -34 59
69. 35 39 01 30 03 61 01 49 16 43 11 53 -48 60
70. 28 -40 -08 -13 08 06 -21 -09 10 03 -02 -04 -34 25
71. -44 -34 -01 -50 -22 -51 -09 -40 -01 -45 -16 -36 40 -42
72. -62 11 02 29 -25 -02 -04 26 -17 -23 -29 -34 -21 -36
73. 00 00 -47 00 28 00 26 00 04 00 04 -00 -00 -00
74. 24 21 04 -09 39 46 -20 21 -27 14 01 58 -12 41
75. 33 33 03 25 -16 56 -08 46 04 44 -01 54 -44 60
162
TABLE 12— Continued
Var.
1.
E C
2.
E C
3.
E C
4.
E C
5.
E C
6.
E C
7.
E C
76. -32 27 -01 29 -18 -04 -06 32 -22 -08 -18 -19 12 -25
77. 27 34 19 10 39 42 -13 52 -20 56 14 60 03 55
78. -18 -43 39 -08 -17 -32 53 00 08 07 02 -02 80 -13
79. 02 23 -00 16 -24 08 46 46 25 27 29 24 71 92
80. 07 -23 -27 -18 -10 -43 33 -23 50 08 11 -02 79 -06
81. -10 -17 18 29 -17 -22 55 03 21 02 12 05 88 07
82. 12 14 43 29 24 02 41 28 37 30 49 23 36 25
83. -33 31 10 34 -18 09 37 22 19 22 19 18 35 -18
84. -06 31 41 18 -06 -04 31 19 05 38 18 27 45 -36
85. -18 32 29 26 -12 02 35 21 12 32 19 24 44 -29
86. 09 04 03 36 -11 38 40 09 18 20 15 15 13 -52
87. -08 09 -04 37 -16 -07 46 -11 16 20 04 22 81 -18
88. -02 08 -01 42 -15 14 47 -03 18 23 08 21 74 -37
89. 14 29 05 78 13 14 48
90. 10 29 07 60 34 53 88
91. -38 47 -20 29 17 19 -07
92. -41 31 -24 29 31 25 -00
93. -40 39 -22 29 25 23 -03
163
TABLE 12— Continued
8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.
Var. E C E C E C E C E C E C E C
8.
9. 67 70
10. 40 56 35 81
11. 61 47 77 57 26 63
12. 40 11 46 13 19 21 43 05
13. 40 24 45 17 11 30 40 17 95 87
14. 07 33 19 38 23 49 05 40 19 46 22 51
15. 06 -10 29 -21 20 -10 -12 17 20 01 18 09 27 -00
16. -04 -45 22 -45 12 -25 -22 18 14 11 17 09 28 22
17. 03 -30 19 -40 16 -25 -24 15 06 04 12 01 30 05
18. -00 -27 19 -51 07 -37 -20 -10 -01 -20 06 -26 16 -20
19. -06 -48 25 -60 11 -45 -20 -10 -01 -23 06 -34 20 -25
20. -11 -53 08 -50 06 -30 -36 -02 -10 01 -02 -10 -04 -06
21. -22 -48 -25 -53 15 -19 -59 09 15 08 11 13 04 32
22. 34 44 29 40 19 46 20 26 46 41 43 61 -06 28
23. 06 11 35 38 04 41 24 57 56 -18 50 -05 -10 -12
24. 45 26 71 31 27 18 59 14 29 -09 25 04 49 -12
25. 58 11 77 04 29 -07 62 28 27 10 23 15 45 03
26. 40 28 65 34 24 21 40 52 15 16 15 16 51 11
27. 29 -05 59 30 12 22 33 24 04 47 07 30 20 21
28. 29 10 61 40 14 32 36 48 16 23 18 16 20 12
29. 42 18 54 35 14 18 35 21 13 37 22 35 33 12
30. 27 15 05 15 01 29 08 28 -03 43 -08 48 18 41
31. 30 20 30 16 23 37 37 26 60 51 48 51 18 48
32. 06 -06 15 23 -36 17 12 25 29 -21 41 -11 -07 -10
33. 53 18 76 35 27 15 58 10 38 -05 38 -08 20 -40
34. 52 33 70 38 15 14 53 39 41 -16 42 -20 32 -19
35. 36 19 63 25 25 10 45 22 41 -02 35 —08 26 -11
36. 14 18 44 16 19 -03 21 06 21 21 25 07 14 -03
37. 24 07 47 17 26 -01 21 02 17 16 21 01 17 -08
38. 17 06 38 17 19 -03 15 03 15 00 21 02 23 -15
39. 21 19 41 01 30 -08 29 23 44 01 36 18 09 01
40. 31 11 07 -10 -23 16 13 17 38 27 37 47 13 51
41. 14 15 -04 29 -06 44 07 42 34 19 33 25 -03 41
42. 32 35 61 45 19 42 43 57 40 17 32 15 33 -12
43. 16 24 45 40 05 40 36 58 35 08 28 13 06 05
44. 25 39 58 40 05 40 44 58 44 05 43 07 13 13
45. 35 39 45 45 19 52 38 41 44 18 39 11 00 11
164
TABLE 12— Continued
8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.
Var. E C E C E C E C E C E C E C
46. 28 41 56 54 15 58 35 46 30 05 25 05 06 11
47. 13 16 40 38 -12 27 27 33 20 -04 23 -16 -13 24
48. 24 -12 27 01 23 14 26 25 62 47 53 52 -10 60
49. 15 -20 26 -11 16 -05 29 15 53 33 44 35 -11 69
50. 26 15 09 28 -09 33 14 45 52 -26 49 -10 -23 03
51. -08 10 04 -17 15 -18 12 -47 07 -05 -05 -09 52 -10
52. 39 19 71 13 00 -04 52 11 55 -31 62 -38 11 -13
53. -48 21 -35 19 12 23 -42 09 -01 -09 -06 -21 -16 -13
54. -33 17 -45 28 -42 03 -44 —06 11 08 15 -10 -64 12
55. -24 -24 -15 -11 -30 -19 -13 -21 11 -23 16 -52 -11 -16
56. -17 13 -14 14 14 02 -14 33 -03 03 -09 15 -35 36
57. 30 -04 09 -09 -00 -27 28 -36 00 20 11 -00 -22 -24
58. 00 09 -36 -15 -23 05 -17 02 -20 -17 -19 13 28 -22
59. -24 03 -41 05 -32 -14 -28 -15 04 -08 11 -32 -57 -12
60. -18 -07 11 14 -12 01 -05 -35 15 19 23 -09 -48 27
61. -19 08 -18 18 -20 11 -21 -39 -11 -06 -04 -01 -58 -29
62. -19 19 -23 -06 01 -09 06 -34 01 -26 -13 -16 08 -59
63. -18 24 -29 -07 01 -07 03 -21 -03 -33 -20 16 14 63
64. -13 21 -31 -02 05 08 -19 54 -38 -27 -39 01 36 -20
65. -37 28 -25 06 -04 05 -01 -03 00 -47 -17 -28 24 -80
66. -17 -22 -01 -16 -01 -41 03 -66 -15 -11 -29 -37 -17 -10
67. -07 04 -10 26 -15 19 -17 -18 -33 -14 -20 -22 22 -14
68. 03 27 -23 -00 -26 14 -02 15 -23 29 -20 42 -28 13
69. -01 32 -28 04 -27 18 -05 19 -16 22 -08 39 -44 14
70. -14 02 -34 -02 -02 03 -43 20 -29 00 -15 09 18 28
71. -18 -25 15 -07 -18 -29 06 -47 -10 -12 00 -32 15 09
72. -14 -02 04 -03 -08 -12 11 -07 -14 -12 -15 -15 -24 -03
73. -13 00 02 00 33 00 23 00 25 00 -00 -00 -00 -00
74. 18 -29 08 -25 21 -00 01 -24 -03 -07 -08 17 41 -09
75. -04 26 -28 00 -29 14 -13 15 -25 28 -15 41 -27 14
76. 20 -01 20 -01 01 -02 30 -03 06 -04 -05 -08 06 -08
77. 16 -12 10 -19 17 14 -02 18 03 18 02 41 46 -00
78. 39 -11 64 -07 21 -20 49 -01 19 -07 30 -21 56 -35
79. 27 33 34 28 -20 15 37 48 50 -16 52 -04 01 -11
80. 39 -20 39 -14 -09 -37 34 -26 27 35 42 -04 -11 17
81. 40 15 70 15 -01 -01 50 21 54 -29 64 -35 03 -10
82. 36 24 47 04 13 00 19 07 31 12 29 -05 -19 -03
83. 32 25 71 39 00 38 47 42 32 25 24 25 09 53
165
TABLE 12— Continued
8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.
Var. E C E C E C E C E C E < C E C
84. 38 04 74 11 -05 13 40 13 23 45 29 30 33 34
85. 38 14 78 25 -03 25 46 27 29 37 29 29 26 44
86. 51 44 67 16 14 14 44 06 16 05 21 03 -12 -19
87. 43 12 64 30 -04 17 45 23 26 13 29 09 19 -19
88. 50 30 70 28 03 18 48 19 25 11 28 08 10 -23
89. 24 44 31 55 26 28 18
90. 31 53 -01 41 60 68 15
91. 09 38 -02 16 29 45 -02
92. 10 38 -19 19 25 43 -27
93. 10 39 -11 18 27 46 -16
166
TABLE 12— Continued
15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.
Var. E C E C E C E C E C E C E C
15.
16. 86 70
17. 89 85 91 79
18. 43 72 46 51 47 56
19. 76 40 84 48 91 58 62 63
20. 70 31 79 60 86 57 57 33 87 77
21. 55 06 61 05 66 08 16 -31 56 -10 69 -02
22. 20 -11 26 -33 23 -19 29 -47 17 -37 15 -20 46 66
23. 51 07 62 27 66 06 -05 -09 56 12 61 09 89 27
24. 75 84 58 51 68 65 24 67 53 39 46 34 40 07
25. 70 56 58 69 70 56 24 55 54 45 51 58 41 -06
26. 68 76 60 71 72 89 21 42 58 52 58 54 50 23
27. -08 42 -17 64 -13 58 -25 17 -07 37 -10 47 -45 27
28. 57 50 50 63 64 63 31 19 58 49 62 59 46 30
29. 59 52 47 74 65 59 32 28 53 40 61 50 43 -01
30. 24 02 23 09 33 -04 -18 -19 17 -22 26 -06 67 21
31. 30 -10 36 -13 35 -20 -34 -29 24 -39 26 -28 62 20
32. 46 21 60 30 62 19 -21 10 48 23 51 30 70 13
33. 65 56 65 32 57 61 53 27 55 36 47 32 10 -13
34. 58 45 59 21 55 52 49 23 47 21 38 09 22 -13
35. 45 51 44 37 38 60 46 32 34 45 28 39 02 -04
36. 43 62 51 55 42 72 37 51 40 49 36 53 13 -13
37. 34 44 44 43 35 57 41 35 38 53 30 56 01 01
38. 41 42 46 42 42 51 37 27 38 57 41 54 11 10
39. 15 29 17 15 09 25 17 16 11 09 -04 24 20 02
40. -02 03 02 -03 00 -15 -11 -10 -08 -21 -13 -04 22 23
41. -18 31 -05 48 -10 33 -30 14 -18 17 -25 14 -09 55
42. 48 46 42 47 37 63 40 07 33 31 19 28 -07 20
43. 38 34 42 38 32 56 28 -12 28 27 18 34 -12 41
44. 42 45 41 49 35 62 36 15 28 45 18 38 -07 21
45. 37 42 45 44 38 35 38 43 36 36 25 25 02 12
46. 47 32 43 29 38 37 43 16 38 46 27 33 -14 32
47. 24 01 37 20' 28 21 40 01 35 55 21 36 -14 27
48. 20 03 23 12 18 04 04 -24 13 -15 03 23 38 60
49. 16 02 22 17 19 04 06 -07 16 07 04 32 29 40
50. -02 30 13 39 -04 37 -21 14 -16 40 -20 35 -00 47
51. 13 -11 -13 -38 -13 -20 06 02 -21 -16 -23 -15 -04 -64
52. 50 13 54 04 44 39 46 07 41 52 34 33 15 -10
167
TABLE 12— Continued
15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.
Var. E C E C E C E C E C E C E C
53. -15 -31 05 -16 -02 -09 10 -16 03 21 09 05 33 -17
54. -23 -33 -05 -04 -15 01 -03 -36 -16 07 -15 18 24 -45
55. 29 -36 39 -43 26 -16 03 -11 18 12 06 -02 07 -17
56. -28 48 -21 41 -24 49 15 12 -06 17 -06 39 05 -02
57. -18 -31 -16 -39 -17 -21 01 -20 -05 -30 -19 -35 -21 -29
58. -50 14 -58 01 -46 -05 -43 06 -52 -09 -41 02 -07 -03
59. -24 -32 -08 -36 -18 -05 -06 -24 -14 04 -20 02 10 -42
60. 28 -07 52 15 36 14 14 10 33 49 41 52 23 -14
61. -10 48 -24 15 -12 20 16 40 -02 12 -08 -00 -04 -23
62. -20 45 -13 -01 -19 28 -45 53 -24 40 -27 05 06 -06
63. -27 49 -27 -01 -29 28 -48 55 -32 36 -39 -01 -02 -00
64. -32 19 -53 03 -37 06 -13 05 -28 -12 -41 -21 -36 27
65. -25 42 -14 07 -24 23 -46 53 -23 36 -37 03 00 -14
66. 39 -42 46 -43 41 -36 14 -04 31 10 32 -12 17 -29
67. 01 20 11 -16 15 05 16 15 21 -06 22 -24 23 -05
68. -28 53 -11 56 -19 58 -17 37 -32 39 -07 53 -04 13
69. -46 61 -39 54 -39 60 -15 42 -44 35 -22 46 -06 11
70. -42 29 -46 16 -47 30 -14 06 -34 -12 -35 -07 -28 15
71. 20 -59 23 -38 20 -50 34 -29 23 -18 01 -27 -06 -27
72. 02 -63 08 -22 11 -49 23 -44 13 -02 09 -09 -14 -24
73. -01 00 -06 00 -12 00 -32 00 -16 00 -33 00 07 00
74. -16 28 -34 14 -25 06 -11 08 -16 -09 -21 -09 -30 32
75. -41 62 -25 59 -34 64 -19 44 -41 38 -18 51 -14 14
76. 46 -53 49 -24 50 -41 08 -42 33 -01 31 00 29 -09
77. -13 19 -34 09 -23 06 01 -18 -21 -33 -11 -24 -27 66
78. 44 -36 50 09 47 01 39 -24 47 14 33 40 -09 -38
79. 31 46 43 49 27 42 18 35 13 23 09 -12 08 15
80. 25 -31 39 01 31 01 31 -04 22 22 16 21 01 05
81. 48 15 56 12 47 42 45 06 45 53 38 35 16 04
82. 15 22 09 33 13 48 -00 27 07 56 08 42 01 -18
83. 55 47 50 33 46 47 24 04 40 06 41 -05 16 26
84. 55 27 54 20 42 38 34 -08 39 01 32 -04 09 14
85. 59 37 56 27 47 43 32 -03 42 03 38 -05 13 20
86. 15 -04 21 -19 12 14 22 -04 08 19 04 13 -18 -06
87. 38 35 31 19 29 48 45 06 26 37 15 47 -17 39
88. 32 22 30 04 24 40 40 02 21 35 12 38 -19 23
89. -03 11 -02 42 06 -03 -02
90. 25 31 19 20 12 -01 03
168
TABLE 12— Continued
15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.
Var. E C E C E C E C E C E C E C
91. 04 14 17 24 17 21 -08
92. 01 02 09 27 12 09 -23
93. 02 08 13 27 15 15 -17
r
169
TABLE 12— Continued
22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.
Var. E C E C E C E C E C E C E C
22.
23. 21 -08
24. 08 00 66 09
25. 05 -22 67 -00 93 64
26. 03 -06 72 -03 89 89 92 88
27. -37 -03 -24 56 11 54 16 74 10 68
28. 03 07 70 42 78 64 77 76 90 84 22 84
29. 03 -04 73 28 78 55 80 71 89 62 18 80 93 74
30. 05 53 90 -78 44 -23 48 -02 56 07 42 16 44 32
31.
16 62 70 -63 33 -19 35 -03 37 -06 21 12 30 18
32. 06 -18 82 71 44 33 45 28 58 39 04 41 48 50
33. 17 04 -12 -16 68 33 70 51 59 55 23 47 54 53
34. 33 -10 -15 -22 67 24 70 61 61 56 17 29 54 45
35. 29 -01 -37 -08 52 32 53 63 48 67 28 52 48 67
36. 08 -12 -12 -22 40 44 42 70 50 71 34 53 56 63
37. 23 00 -32 -32 38 20 40 50 44 60 34 54 49 69
38. 12 09 -06 -15 42 18 43 32 49 54 30 49 53 67
39. 51 17 -26 -28 14 04 17 -11 16 40 10 08 13 35
40. 19 54 -03 -63 04 12 06 -04 03 -05 -13 -18 01 -02
41. 09 02 -33 51 -03 58 -03 49 02 43 07 44 -01 36
42. 10 06 -56 41 47 68 50 71 42 72 27 61 36 68
43. -01 10 -59 80 41 66 46 54 41 68 21 45 32 61
44. 12 04 -52 55 49 66 48 65 44 75 29 50 43 69
45. 11 15 -57 45 36 52 43 70 41 52 17 55 38 60
46. 05 32 -65 28 49 45 48 49 48 53 36 50 51 66
47. -01 06 -82 15 26 15 28 28 30 39 26 53 39 65
48. 54 45 -10 -28 21 15 18 10 26 25 -02 20 28 35
49. 59 31 -19 -53 22 01 20 06 27 19 05 22 28 33
50. 27 -08 -32 47 07 53 08 35 10 52 05 21 02 45
51. -03 14 -14 -63 08 -40 -01 -34 -08 -38 -14 -41 -13 -41
52. 16 -14 -41 23 50 07 55 06 48 38 17 10 44 30
53. 31 05 08 -15 -28 -16 -24 -09 -08 -17 -34 -01 -01 -07
54. 30 -30 -20 31 -44 -26 -37 -04 -24 -00 -41 20 -22 17
55. -02 -17 -07 -57 18 -30 06 -25 11 -23 -30 -10 -06 -20
56. 18 06 04 -16 -40 34 -36 37 -38 55 -23 17 -23 47
57. -13 -12 -41 -60 -15 -34 -17 -27 -27 -30 -00 04 -24 -31
58. -11 17 12 73 -45 22 -43 -09 -41 -10 -20 -43 -38 -31
59. 13 -15 -29 -45 -41 -30 -43 -22 -36 -16 -49 -05 -37 -16
60. 20 -12 39 27 19 06 22 24 35 08 06 36 34 27
170
TABLE 12— Continued
22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.
Var. E C E C E C E C E C E C E C
61. 04 16 -40 -06 -22 40 -26 26 -23 03 -38 08 -21 05
62. -04 22 40 -57 08 31 -00 02 -06 09 -27 -11 -16 -12
63. -08 22 29 -56 00 35 -10 03 -17 14 -29 -17 -27 -11
64. -24 06 -40 -24 -29 26 -40 02 -44 23 -04 -24 -43 04
65. -15 02 21 -17 -02 35 -13 09 -15 14 -13 -16 -18 -06
66. 00 -25 21 -18 38 -51 38 -35 36 -43 -08 -06 19 -27
67. 06 14 41 00 -04 -07 01 -02 06 -08 -17 03 05 -08
68. 00 20 22 03 -06 54 -02 42 -05 49 -18 18 -05 25
69. 14 25 27 -12 -29 56 -27 41 -31 49 -26 11 -21 21
70. -26 -04 -31 -41 -60 22 -58 10 -54 27 -05 00 -46 07
71. 18 -40 -58 63 16 -56 10 -38 - 07 -58 04 -19 -03 -43
72. 27 -24 -28 59 15 -42 13 -26 08 -38 -09 -07 -01 -10
73. 12 -00 -00 -00 08 00 -02 00 -09 00 -21 00 -21 00
74. -31 26 -28 45 -11 06 -12 -17 -20 -15 11 -15 -19 -25
75. -03 21 16 -12 -25 57 -22 44 -24 52 -19 17 -19 24
76. 09 -08 33 75 58 -27 58 -19 56 -25 01 00 42 -02
77. -18 34 -20 45 -10 23 -11 -05 -14 06 18 00 -07 -10
78. -00 -55 -35 51 55 -16 61 -04 51 -05 45 -07 39 -06
79. 32 -32 -23 29 41 56 42 53 33 50 01 33 20 37
80. 13 -26 -20 -27 23 -22 31 07 20 -03 08 23 11 05
81. 19 -17 -37 58 50 15 56 14 51 45 19 18 47 38
82. 21 -15 -33 02 15 32 26 40 26 41 23 29 22 30
83. 06 30 15 -21 60 34 61 51 61 43 29 46 59 43
84. 07 27 -12 -19 62 15 60 36 55 27 24 48 48 27
85. 07 29 03 -21 65 24 64 46 61 35 28 49 56 36
86. 13 34 -52 -68 27 -01 30 -12 18 00 20 -22 13 -16
87. 23 36 -66 -43 39 32 41 33 31 51 20 32 26 50
88. 20 41 -63 -59 37 20 39 14 28 35 21 11 23 26
89. 48 -38 15 17 05 -04 04
90. 45 -32 37 33 26 29 20
91. 27 -30 22 25 26 37 35
92. 30 -57 17 15 15 31 27
93. 29 -46 20 20 21 35 31
171
TABLE 12— Continued
29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35.
Var. E C E C E C E C E C E C E C
29.
30. 45 24
31. 29 17 60 86
32. 48 29 74 -17 82 -42
33. 51 44 02 05 09 -16 -06 12
34. 55 20 12 08 18 -14 -02 46 84 80
35. 45 41 -12 21 01 -08 -29 54 84 86 86 77
36. 50 49 -05 20 16 -07 -14 24 64 59 64 47 73 75
37. 43 44 -16 35 -01 04 -30 46 71 57 68 39 79 79
38. 54 52 -03 32 13 -06 -04 69 68 64 69 32 75 75
39. 14 20 -09 34 19 05 -21 56 00 -42 23 -50 18 -45
40. -03 09 30 41 22 58 06 -35 01 -44 22 -52 16 -45
41. -02 21 -03 05 -03 -08 -16 25 -11 02 07 05 14 25
42. 28 54 -16 09 -04 09 -24 04 74 66 75 67 85 73
43. 25 30 -13 -04 -09 -09 -21 34 68 52 70 54 80 61
44. 35 49 -15 13 -05 06 -32 30 71 53 77 56 90 72
45. 34 49 -08 22 02 11 -25 36 61 38 60 40 69 63
46. 45 44 -24 23 -14 13 -45 47 72 53 68 45 84 72
47. 30 42 -24 23 -24 15 -57 47 57 30 49 29 65 54
48. 25 08 11 44 38 42 -03 43 -06 -47 13 -50 09 -35
49. 25 21 06 42 29 38 -03 31 -11 -47 07 -54 07 -38
50. 04 08 04 -04 06 -28 -15 58 02 05 13 10 15 28
51. -16 -10 -16 16 -07 21 -26 -51 -08 19 -04 06 -01 -02
52. 41 03 -02 -18 08 -28 -37 26 67 54 69 55 62 64
53. -12 06 09 01 05 11 -26 -51 -36 33 -22 33 -21 31
54. -27 33 16 11 -03 05 -21 -16 -41 35 -19 28 -27 32
55. -02 -35 12 -35 -10 -10 26 -77 26 01 21 13 17 -05
56. -37 39 -07 30 -18 09 -30 49 -25 24 -42 19 -32 17
57. -21 -07 -21 -17 -17 01 -24 -78 26. 03 09 08 03 -16
58. -30 -18 12 -34 05 -32 32 36 -36 -08 -27 -20 -30 -20
59. -39 -05 06 -26 -14 -07 -11 -65 -15 29 -14 32 -20 08
60. 34 35 17 -08 14 -02 22 -68 20 29 08 01 07 42
61. -26 28 -14 -03 -41 -03 -37 -34 -10 57 -11 24 -02 44
62. -17 -04 32 -36 03 -38 23 -25 -16 47 -20 24 -26 36
63. -28 -09 25 -32 -03 -37 18 -12 -26 37 -25 22 -31 27
64. -45 -19 -28 13 -29 06 -22 60 -33 -36 -26 -05 -21 -32
65. -30 -01 19 -34 05 -44 16 16 -29 36 -19 25 -22 27
66. 23 -15 28 -35 24 -24 46 -45 28 04 36 -04 30 02
172
TABLE 12— Continued
29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35.
Var. E C E C E C E C E C E C E C
67. -03 -20 18 -19 03 -22 20 -06 -04 63 -03 62 -05 53
68. 02 35 22 06 -04 -09 04 10 11 17 18 -07 14 21
69. -17 32 06 09 -14 -06 -17 05 -16 17 -12 -04 -18 17
70. -51 -07 -38 26 -37 23 -51 -39 -36 -16 -43 -02 -35 -18
71. -03 -25 -20 -37 -17 -29 -07 -17 02 -06 19 -00 08 -10
72. 06 13 -09 -00 -27 02 -16 26 01 -07 06 -04 07 01
73. -34 00 11 00 15 -00 13 -00 -16 00 -23 00 -16 00
74. -23 -24 -17 -07 -15 -22 -25 15 00 15 -10 -07 -08 06
75. -14 33 05 09 -18 -06 -13 -00 -01 16 -01 -07 -02 18
76. 49 05 48 -17 38 -14 60 47 38 02 49 02 40 13
77. -06 -25 -20 -06 -10 -06 -34 26 -03 -10 -06 -10 -01 -09
78. 46 -00 -19 -34 -03 -42 -07 15 65 -03 61 -03 57 -05
79. 20 37 11 -05 11 -06 08 32 52 14 57 33 48 29
80. 12 -02 -02 -15 06 -09 09 -27 44 -08 44 -00 33 09
81. 44 05 01 -21 10 -32 -28 42 68 48 70 52 62 62
82. 18 35 -03 -13 09 -03 -13 -37 28 37 34 29 41 54
83. 51 40 15 29 19 33 12 -35 51 69 46 72 48 67
84. 44 31 07 14 07 29 -30 -79 65 68 62 64 53 65
85. 50 37 12 22 13 32 -09 -70 62 71 58 70 54 68
86. 12 -10 -21 -07 -12 -04 -36 -50 58 35 65 33 60 23
87. 24 16 -24 02 -23 -15 -43 62 70 58 74 47 76 55
88. 21 06 -25 -02 -21 -12 -43 22 71 55 77 47 76 47
89. 02 -18 -16 -56 30 21 24
90. 20 -10 19 -06 32 35 31
91. 36 -18 -11 -25 21 31 38
92. 28 -36 -32 -41 22 27 34
93. 33 -28 -23 -35 22 30 37
173
TABLE 12— Continued
36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42.
Var. E C E = C E C E C E C E C E C
36.
37. 88 87
38. 87 59 88 81
39. -11 -26 -10 -28 -12 -22
40. -10 -26 -11 -28 -16 -21 90 99
41. 03 17 05 14 -02 21 58 -24 62 -17
42. 64 53 65 45 69 48 24 -18 17 -27 20 52
43. 63 38 64 35 70 42 21 -18 11 -24 32 70 89 88
44. 72 55 69 50 71 55 28 -11 20 -21 41 72 91 91
45. 59 56 58 51 57 48 39 -15 25 -21 57 59 80 57
46. 69 39 76 53 65 69 14 -15 11 -27 52 54 84 71
47. 65 19 72 46 51 64 18 -19 04 -19 43 29 65 46
48. 02 -11 -07 -02 -03 -15 64 63 72 86 95 15 22 -15
49. -06 -22 -04 -10 -05 -08 69 69 60 87 86 -11 22 -25
50. 05 15 07 22 -01 34 52 -22 59 -17 86 80 14 41
51. -20 10 -31 01 -16 -07 19 25 31 10 27 -76 11 -28
52. 52 34 40 44 35 48 33 -43 31 -53 41 10 71 47
53. 08 -03 -02 10 01 30 04 -21 -06 -42 -14 -17 -07 34
54. -03 25 -08 34 -21 33 26 -31 25 -36 13 -31 -16 18
55. 15 -21 17 -09 28 -23 -01 -24 -00 -19 10 -63 12 -18
56. -22 27 -16 15 -26 19 04 49 -13 45 -59 -24 -16 22
57. 06 -13 16 -22 04 -36 -10 -24 -38 -21 -36 -52 09 -19
58. -34 -17 -31 -34 -23 -14 02 26 -06 09 -19 21 -44 -00
59. -03 -09 00 -09 -04 -12 08 -19 -11 -28 -32 -80 -13 04
60. 37 53 30 67 23 58 -24 -24 -23 -18 -05 -13 11 06
61. -18 54 -09 47 -14 49 12 -08 -01 -15 -08 -19 -01 12
62. -33 25 -30 18 00 35 -22 -22 -20 -42 -33 03 -39 19
63. -45 -16 -39 06 -11 24 -14 -13 -11 -33 -41 11 -41 20
64. -40 -35 -30 —46 -27 -41 06 38 02 37 -37 43 -16 13
65. -20 10 -28 03 06 23 -04 -22 06 -50 -41 16 -21 27
66. 22 -01 22 13 41 09 -07 -42 -06 -39 16 -57 30 -44
67. 02 23 09 26 -11 26 29 -60 10 -65 -04 -18 -13 07
68. 18 41 27 23 22 30 -18 22 -29 12 11 53 -27 41
69. -10 34 -03 14 -16 24 -21 28 -27 18 -07 49 -51 39
70. -19 -02 -20 -13 -45 -31 -01 23 07 35 -21 22 -29 00
71. 05 -15 11 -05 -04 -04 06 -52 00 -51 -13 -34 19 -45
72. -17 -17 04 -02 00 22 07 -12 -10 -20 00 -22 05 01
73. -33 00 -41 00 00 00 09 00 12 -00 -00 -00 01 00
74. -28 -06 -24 -05 -14 18 -15 -15 -03 -19 -44 29 -06 -05
174
TABLE 12— Continued
0
36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42.
Var. E C E C E C E C E C E C E C
75. 11 41 18 21 05 25 -28 25 -37 18 -12 50 -38 38
76. 28 -08 30 03 51 21 09 -21 -03 -30 24 -07 32 10
77. -15 -20 -19 -28 -10 -19 -14 00 -01 03 -33 62 -01 18
78. 48 07 55 04 41 -02 -01 -33 -13 -35 11 -10 60 08
79. 34 20 35 10 36 18 29 -22 31 -22 34 95 54 56
80. 43 32 34 41 23 13 08 -37 05 -24 11 -11 40 -02
81. 55 30 45 41 38 48 30 -48 26 -53 37 42 69 51
82. 12 56 23 51 13 44 29 -17 21 -26 58 34 26 57
83. 29 34 25 31 29 45 35 —06 25 -20 41 29 44 70
84. 37 40 44 35 29 37 19 -16 14 -24 27 -14 45 62
85. 35 39 37 35 31 42 28 -12 21 -23 35 02 48 68
86. 41 08 49 04 42 18 07 -01 -02 -30 18 -22 55 33
87. 47 37 56 45 43 52 17 -11 18 -20 21 -22 83 50
88. 49 28 58 31 46 43 15 -08 11 -27 21 -27 78 51
89. 07 20 -01 09 -06 -02 29
90. 20 19 09 34 40 34 42
91. 38 46 33 08 -11 03 32
92. 30 44 19 02 -16 07 30
93. 35 47 27 05 -14 05 33
175
TABLE 12— Continued
43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49.
Var. E C E C E C E C E C E C E C
43.
44. 89 89
45. 86 43 79 66
46. 84 67 87 81 82 80
47. 72 42 72 58 74 51 84 79
48. 25 04 35 -07 50 -08 35 -09 27 01
49. 27 -15 33 -15 51 -10 36 -09 34 20 90 87
50. 30 62 30 61 44 44 32 59 36 43 63 14 63 -02
51. -10 -44 -03 -31 -09 -28 -07 -35 -30 -39 11 -28 -01 -18
52. 69 57 75 58 67 15 64 51 54 52 40 -34 40 -31
53. -01 17 -07 29 09 12 -13 41 -01 46 27 -51 41 -33
54. -00 10 -04 17 04 -03 -15 13 06 36 24 -29 41 -19
55. 32 -21 22 -30 17 -43 20 -22 34 13 03 -14 07 00
56. -30 31 -27 34 -17 11 -26 11 -09 09 -22 40 -05 45
57. 12 -41 11 -47 14 -37 09 -48 20 -26 -11 -25 -19 -18
58. -40 18 -42 08 -46 -03 -51 -01 -44 -43 -19 -12 -35 -23
59. 04 -07 -04 -12 03 -38 -14 -17 13 10 02 -34 10 -15
60. 27 05 23 16 19 17 27 29 44 44 12 07 29 01
61. 02 -01 03 10 02 25 -06 16 -04 -17 -07 -34 -07 -40
62. -27 13 -32 19 -42 22 -43 31 -37 -05 -23 -54 -40 -52
63. -33 16 -36 21 -46 22 -48 29 -45 -10 -26 -47 -44 -47
64. -30 18 -26 17 -33 03 -30 -04 -42 -17 -34 25 -28 15
65. -17 20 -16 27 -32 32 -33 37 -30 -04 -14 -58 -22 -58
66. 45 -45 30 -45 29 -26 33 -23 31 12 02 -31 06 -13
67. -22 07 -20 -00 -08 23 -22 24 -09 04 -08 -46 03 -50
68. -07 44 -09 53 -16 39 -13 40 04 00 -17 07 -29 00
69. -42 39 -34 49 -44 35 -41 38 -20 -03 -17 06 -30 01
70. -40 -03 -38 -02 -34 -25 -36 -26 -32 -21 -19 35 -18 26
71. 12 -37 23 -45 04 -29 12 -31 17 01 01 -35 33 -25
72. 18 -01 13 08 12 01 18 10 25 33 -05 -33 25 -17
73. -03 00 -01 00 -05 00 -16 00 -22 00 13 00 -00 -00
74. -16 08 -22 -05 -24 -03 -20 04 -44 -30 -36 -13 -54 -27
75. -24 38 -22 47 -34 34 -28 34 -07 -05 -27 12 -37 04
76. 41 20 36 17 35 17 35 23 30 29 08 -26 10 -22
77. -15 31 -11 10 -21 02 -14 03 -43 -30 -26 15 -38 -11
78. 56 17 57 06 53 -21 56 -14 47 -05 15 -23 22 -28
79. 63 42 55 57 55 44 44 41 48 31 32 -25 28 -27
80. 38 -04 45 -08 43 -04 28 -09 41 16 11 02 10 -00
81. 70 64 76 62 68 19 64 56 58 59 39 -26 41 -26
176
TABLE 12— Continued
43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49.
Var. E C E C E C E C E C E C E C
82. 31 46 39 62 25 30 36 48 17 39 35 -31 29 -27
83. 40 56 45 61 41 44 53 58 36 42 22 -12 30 -08
84. 41 46 51 44 32 24 56 35 44 25 14 -19 23 -17
85. 43 52 52 54 38 34 59 47 43 34 18 -17 27 -13
86. 52 31 64 33 43 08 55 35 45 15 12 -36 13 -30
87. 73 64 81 49 59 35 77 55 60 36 15 15 14 08
88. 70 59 81 50 57 28 74 54 59 32 15 -07 15 -09
89. 24 33 25 23 26 29 32
90. 37 50 41 35 33 51 55
91. 35 48 31 35 38 12 43
92. 34 47 28 44 54 11 41
93. 36 50 31 41 48 12 43
177
TABLE 12— Continued
50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56.
Var. E C E C E C E C E C E C E C
50.
51. 34 -62
52. 26 41 07 -06
53. 19 12 -03 13 05 31
54. 74 -14 -26 31 -08 47 47 38
55. 17 -54 -27 10 10 19 -24 37 25 14
56. -46 -24 -02 17 -28 20 32 -38 31 15 -26 -36
57. -45 -69 -37 37 10 -21 -13 13 03 28 19 49 17 -35
58. 07 18 -06 01 -47 01 -14 -13 10 -37 -09 -44 -13 09
59. 13 -73 -43 44 -11 34 27 53 72 58 54 76 31 -06
60. -22 09 -54 05 35 38 21 21 28 55 44 22 -03 -06
61. -07 25 10 40 -12 -02 01 -12 26 02 08 -31 26 06
62. -01 63 -08 14 -40 32 -09 16 -01 -27 22 -09 -01 -21
63. -03 59 01 08 -49 25 -13 09 -03 -42 14 -16 05 -15
64. -28 27 30 -24 -44 -22 -13 -20 -20 -58 -31 -28 24 21
65. 11 73 09 -01 -35 27 -05 18 09 -31 17 -23 06 -18
66. -09 -50 -29 22 13 19 02 04 -04 42 40 51 -28 -34
67. 31 29 29 10 -15 30 12 00 09 05 -18 12 27 -14
68. 17 54 -33 —08 -23 16 -02 09 22 -16 20 -54 -19 26
69. 12 52 -13 -03 -35 12 06 09 31 -24 -01 -51 10 29
70. 23 09 44 04 -20 -25 17 -18 09 -26 -37 08 31 21
71. 02 -32 07 09 U 08 -12 05 17 46 35 33 -00 -34
72. -34 -24 -32 07 -07 18 -07 40 06 59 31 -07 10 -12
73. -00 -00 24 00 -18 00 05 00 -02 00 07 00 23 00
74. -48 37 17 -14 -11 -13 -15 -11 -43 -49 -43 -38 05 -21
75. 07 51 -23 -07 -27 10 00 04 27 -24 15 -49 -05 27
76. -00 -09 -39 -08 09 31 -22 22 -07 44 38 -14 -33 -11
77. -58 40 22 -44 01 -23 -06 -16 -40 -64 -55 -32 -02 -25
78. 06 -14 -01 -02 66 35 -17 24 -42 54 09 12 -43 -05
79. 48 90 -02 -54 60 15 -10 05 09 -14 41 -31 -43 -05
80. 48 -24 -14 -19 51 18 -05 06 14 29 25 36 -12 -31
81. 20 57 -10 -28 98 98 06 28 -04 39 15 17 -27 16
82. 14 58 -16 -06 33 64 -10 48 02 36 02 09 -29 -04
83. 19 35 13 -08 54 29 -21 30 -32 09 -02 -10 -19 28
84. -15 -11 01 04 66 29 -23 33 -28 20 14 10 -29 06
85. 02 09 07 -02 64 30 -23 33 -32 16 07 01 -26 16
86. -21 17 -20 29 55 46 -12 68 -14 20 13 14 -27 -03
87. -09 18 -01 -18 70 52 -17 01 -12 02 13 -06 -25 42
178
TABLE 12— Continued
Var.
50.
E C
51.
E C
52.
E C
53.
E C
54.
E C
55.
E C
i
E
88. -14 21 -08 02 70 58 -16 34 -14 11 14 03 -27
89. -21 13 41 03 -03 -00 09
90. 30 09 58 -16 -02 15 -33
91. -34 -36 34 -00 08 08 -07
92. -31 -36 34 -06 12 18 -05
93. -33 -37 35 -03 10 14 -06
179
TABLE 12— Continued
57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63.
Var. E C E C E C E C E C E C E C
57.
58. 15 -49
59. 59 64 28 -33
60. 02 -09 -39 -21 27 22
61. 22 -14 14 21 32 -21 -40 32
62. 02 -11 21 42 15 -08 -04 05 -06 56
63. 04 -17 25 46 12 -19 -25 -16 05 48 96 97
-64. 14 -24 23 20 -09 -38 -77 -83 44 -33 -01 -07 23 43
65. -16 -26 05 51 06 -22 -15 -18 -07 43 78 88 82 90
66. -13 47 -30 -35 -01 45 39 57 -23 11 -06 07 -11 -37
67. -19 12 -05 -05 -07 11 -30 13 39 45 -13 46 -09 09
68. 12 -49 37 52 29 -35 19 06 -13 18 42 41 31 53
69. 16 —48 47 52 34 -34 01 -04 06 19 38 45 32 57
70. 03 09 17 -34 01 -06 -43 -40 29 -15 -20 -26 -11 04
71. -04 36 -31 -19 10 34 07 42 15 00 -17 -17 -13 -55
72. 04 03 -26 02 13 21 23 28 11 -12 08 -24 09 -25
73. -09 00 -12 00 01 00 -19 -00 05 -00 54 00 59 00
74. 13 -30 25 45 -27 -50 -53 -27 05 33 07 49 19 40
75. 17 -46 44 46 36 -36 15 01 -02 19 40 41 29 54
76. -02 -05 -13 23 -00 11 29 27 -25 -11 17 -07 12 -13
77. -01 -15 28 39 -37 -47 -43 -56 -05 -14 -13 20 -04 42
78. 09 05 -49 16 -33 35 22 27 -23 -27 -25 -20 -33 -12
79. -02 -28 -18 -00 07 -38 34 -14 -18 07 -05 17 -16 38
80. 16 30 -31 -37 13 23 31 49 -08 -23 -24 -15 -32 -21
81. 16 -27 -47 -00 -03 24 45 35 -14 -11 -39 28 -50 34
82. 03 -19 14 10 -01 22 03 56 09 09 -22 33 -26 38
83. -23 -09 -40 -13 -43 10 19 00 -26 18 -19 16 -25 19
84. 06 23 -37 -15 -22 33 28 13 -22 11 -15 15 -23 14
85. -07 09 -41 -15 -34 24 26 08 -26 15 -18 16 -26 17
86. 29 03 -18 27 01 45 18 04 -09 -05 -19 45 -24 58
87. 24 -26 -32 10 -06 05 17 11 -00 06 -37 30 -40 33
88. 27 -16 -29 20 -04 26 18 09 -04 02 -33 43 -37 50
89. 22 -21 06 13 -04 -07 -13
90. -08 -25 -14 19 -10 -21 -27
91. -07 -20 -02 32 07 -19 -25
92. 13 -17 12 35 17 -19 -26
93. 04 -19 05 35 13 -20 -27
180
TABLE 12— Continued
64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70.
Var. E C E C E C E - C E C E ° C E C
64.
65. 17 23
66. -25 -72 -07 -19
67. 19 40 -11 31 26 36
68. -37 12 10 41 17 -56 -00 -23
69. -18 21 08 46 -26 -63 14 -20 82 98
70. 43 51 -07 -23 -72 -47 43 -29 -24 02 13 13
71. 13 -66 06 -30 22 84 22 35 -14 -60 -09 -68 -12 -53
72. 05 -28 -03 -15 49 36 -02 -19 11 -23 -04 -34 -53 -62
73. 22 00 65 00 05 -00 -15 -00 -18 00 -13 00 -15 00
74. 58 09 06 44 -32 -29 -25 34 -37 36 -24 38 33 07
75. -31 18 10 40 -15 -61 10 -22 91 98 92 99 08 18
76. -26 -30 08 -20 75 34 -27 02 26 -11 -19 -24 -91 -81
77. 46 45 -12 24 -33 -55 -30 02 -33 34 -20 34 30 22
78. -30 -25 -28 -06 19 12 06 -25 -14 12 -34 01 -25 -32
79. -53 38 -12 39 31 -34 -05 -07 23 19 -01 21 -41 13
80. -37 -46 -21 -31 14 53 09 -02 14 -19 11 -32 -16 -35
81. -49 -16 -36 26 19 14 -20 27 -18 17 -34 11 -28 -25
82. -16 -32 -32 25 -03 04 -17 -09 02 51 -05 44 -13 -26
•
CO
0 0
-29 -04 -18 06 15 -26 -10 40 -23 17 -43 21 -37 03
84. -33 -29 -27 -06 18 -01 -09 37 01 10 -20 09 -28 -13
85. -33 -19 -24 -00 18 -13 -10 40 -11 14 -33 15 -35 -06
86. -23 -07 -18 36 22 -09 -34 13 17 43 -03 44 -32 -24
87. -14 -03 -33 22 21 -13 -24 36 -11 30 -27 27 -25 -25
88. -19 -06 29 33 23 -13 -29 31 -01 41 -20 40 -30 -29
89. -21 -14 -05 20 11 16 -02
90. -32 -16 04 06 -09 -12 -23
91. -25 -13 03 -01 02 -04 -33
92. -24 -24 -04 -07 06 09 -27
93. -25 -20 -01 -05 04 03 -31
181
TABLE 12— Continued
71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77.
Var. E C E C E C E C E C E C E C
71.
72. 48 55
73. 04 00 09 00
74. -40 -19 -34 -33 16 00
75. -11 -68 -07 -39 -23 00 -29 39
76. 15 51 48 87 13 00 -31 -20 -09 -29
77. -41 -42 -35 -37 -03 00 90 72 -26 35 -32 -15
78. 35 30 15 43 -28 00 -19 -26 -20 03 23 45 48 00
79. 12 -27 05 01 -06 00 -35 04 11 20 36 -07 13 00
80. 37 47 03 23 -01 00 -33 -40 15 -23 16 28 01 00
81. 12 06 01 16 -21 00 -14 -10 -24 10 17 31 47 00
82. 04 -10 -01 19 -09 00 08 -20 -02 44 09 21 34 00
83. -02 -23 15 -07 04 00 02 11 -38 17 34 -06 09 00
84. 13 -04 14 02 -17 00 -03 04 -08 08 26 10 26 00
85. 07 -13 15 -02 -08 00 -01 08 -23 12 32 03 19 00
86. 21 -13 18 11 -06 00 -07 01 08 38 27 16 18 00
87. 23 -22 16 -19 -10 00 02 06 -18 27 24 11 27 00
88. 24 -22 18 -07 -09 00 -01 05 -01 37 27 15 25 00
89. 34 15 -03 -34 16 -08 41
90. - 35 05 -01 -32 -10 13 38
91. 36 39 -30 -37 02 19 46
92. 38 47 -31 -38 10 10 47
93. 38 45 -32 -39 06 15 48
182
TABLE 12— •Continued
78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84.
Var. E C E C E C E C E C E C E C
78.
79. 70 63
80. 83 58 86 79
81. 66 34 74 34 78 63
82. 41 39 61 49 63 77 62 63
83. 25 -13 47 -10 51 09 54 45 49 28
84. 52 09 62 -18 69 09 67 36 49 41 78 80
85. 42 -01 58 -15 62 09 66 42 51 37 92 93 95 96
86. 38 24 36 21 52 11 54 38 36 48 49 56 71 53
87. 46 04 56 13 61 06 66 54 52 20 57 72 66 55
88. 49 14 54 19 64 10 68 56 51 37 56 77 75 64
89. 46 47 42 28 14 -15 17
90. 58 59 65 44 26 18 43
91. 20 26 26 20 13 04 14
92. 00 41 21 17 33 -02 27
93. 13 42 29 24 29 01 26
183
TABLE 12— Continued
85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91.
Var. E C E C E C E C E C E
85.
86. 63 57
87. 65 65 66 45
88. 70 73 86 79 96 90
89. 01 24 18 27
90. 31 18 15 23 46
91. 08 14 -19 01 29 47
92. 15 27 28 36 23 31
93. 14 26 06 23 34 49
184
TABLE 12— Continued
92. 93.
Var. E C E C
92.
93. 78
APPENDIX C
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PARENTS
AS TEACHERS (QPAT), ARRANGED TAX ONOMICALLY
IN THE AFFECTIVE DOMAIN
185
Outline of Taxonomy. Affective Domain
186
Enumerated below are the major and minor categories
from the Affective Domain (132) into which the QPAT items
were sorted*
1*0 Receiving (Attending)
1*1 Awareness
1*2 Willingness to receive
1*3 Controlled or selected attention
2•0 Responding
2*1 Acquiescence in responding
2*2 Willingness to respond
2*3 Satisfaction in response
3.0 Valuing
3*1 Acceptance of a value
3.2 Preference for a value
3.3 Commitment (conviction)
4.0 Organization
4.1 Conceptualization of a value
4.2 Organization of a value system
5.0 Characterization by a value or value complex
5.1 Generalized set
5.2 Characterization
Framed in the following section, and categorized
by the above taxonomy, are the insights or conclusions from
research literature which generated the QPAT items cited
with each reference. A letter-number code cross-references
each item to its position in the QPAT protocol, seen in
Appendix E.
187
Taxonomic Framework of QPAT Research
1.0 Receiving (Attending)
1.1 Awareness
Insights, Conclusions from Research Literature
Intelligent children are characterized, in
part, by concern for high marks.
Creative children are characterized, in
part, by valuing a sense of humor and by play
ing with ideas and concepts. (77)
A child who has learned restricted lan
guage at home will have difficulty with the
elaborate language of the school. (19)
Children are under pressure toward stan
dardization, conformity, and show drops in
originality at stages of stress in school,
significant at kindergarten as well as during
periods of developmental stress. (196)
Lower SES children are superior to higher
SES in self-care skills, such as washing hands
and face, and combing the hair. (112)
Children who are taller, heavier, and old
er tend to be more proficient in motor skills.
(144)
Boys who participate in extraclass physical
activities are superior in motor skills to boys
who don*t. (218)
New activities involving large muscles will
be more attractive to the culturally deprived
child than will more sedentary occupations.
(84)
Markedly higher motor scores are recorded
for children in homes characterized by: large
families; and renting (not buying) for less
than $125 per month. (137)
QPAT Items
13, A24
C85, C86,
C87, C88,
C89
L70
Cl 26
P127,
Pi 28
P133,
Pi 34
PI 37
P141
Pi 48,
P 149,
PI 50
1.2 Willingness to Receive
Insights. Conclusions from Research Literature
A high-achieving child is less dependent
upon the mother for emotional support. (42)
The intellectual growth of any given child
will result, in part, from the material environ
ment in which he grows: the opportunities for
experiences and for learning, and the extent to
which these opportunities are continuously
geared to his capacity to respond to and make
use of them. (12)
The need for achievement appears to develop
where the mother stresses independent achieve
ment at an early age.
The preschooler whose behavior was charac
terized by self-initiation was favored to ac
celerate in performance on mental tasks.
Independence training is characteristic
of mothers of children showing high achievement-
need.
Maternal acceleration is characteristic of
children with high achievement-need who in
creased their mental growth rate during ele
mentary school years. (185)
Children whose mothers favored later inde
pendence training made more adequate school
progress in reading and arithmetic. (37)
Earlier demands by mothers for independ
ence behaviors are related to higher need
achievement in eight-year-old boys. (222)
Mothers can impose achievement standards
on the boy by use of rejection, and this ap
parently does not crush him. If the father
dominates the boy, however, this is inter
preted as an imposition. (167)
The deprived individual admires strength,
endurance, physical prowess, ruggedness.
Large muscle activities afford the occa
sion for the child to channel his aggressions
into more socially acceptable expression.
(84)
188
QPAT Items
A39
114
119, A26
A21
A23
A42
A21
119, A39
A35
P131
P131
Insights. Conclusions from Research Literature
Negro subjects from the low SES group are
much more active, free, and uninhibited; they
have a closer, much more direct and manipulat
ing relationship to their environment than do
babies in the high SES* (221)
The child between 3% and 4% has not yet
gained sufficient muscle control to feel con
fident in his ability to engage in^manipulat
ing all types of wheel toys, in climbing
jungle gyms, and in throwing and catching a
ball* The culturally deprived child often
has had no experience with equipment of this
sort, so he may be especially inept at such
play. (84)
1.3 Controlled or
Selected Attention
Intelligent children are characterized,
in part, with concern for high marks. (77)
The preschooler whose behavior was char
acterized by aggressiveness is favored to ac
celerate in performance on mental tasks.
(185)
Mothers are more critical of poor academic
achievement. (21)
Premature attempts by parents and teachers
to eliminate fantasy block the development of
creative thinking, as do restrictions on manip
ulativeness and curiosity. (205)
The deprived individual appears to learn
in a much more physical or motoric fashion.
(161)
Culturally disadvantaged children gener
ally come from a home environment where there
is a sparsity of objects, and do not have the
stimulus bombardment representative of the mid
dle class home; this, consequently, has an ef
fect on the curiosity level.
Culturally disadvantaged children need to
see concrete application of what is learned re
lated to immediate sensory and topical satis-
189
QPAT Items
P136
Pi 42,
PI 43,
P144,
Pi 45,
Pi 46
14, A25
A20
A40
C118,
C119,
Cl 20
P132
C90,
C91,
C92,
Cl 20
C117
P132
190
Insights, Conclusions from Research Literature QPAT Items
factions* (143)
Fathers set similar standards for their Pi35
children's physical-achievement performances as
for their own* (123)
Fathers of sons who are achievers strongly PI38
expect their sons to be active and energetic in
climbing, jumping, and playing sports. (174)
2•0 Responding
2.1 Acquiescence
in Responding
Intelligent children are characterized, in 19
part, by having families concerned with proper
manners. (77)
Maternal acceleration is characteristic of A43
children with high achievement-need who in
crease their mental growth rate during ele
mentary school years. (185)
Fear and timidity block the development Cl 23
of creative thinking. (205)
There is a strong emphasis on masculinity Pi30
in the life of the underprivileged boy; par
ental authority is backed with physical force.
(161)
Earlier demands by mothers for independ- A31,
ence behaviors are related to higher need A33
achievement in eight-year-old boys. (222)
Parents of achievers expect them to be A31,
more adult in their behavior at an earlier A33
age than do the parents of underachievers.
(174)
Mothers of high scorers on reading and L49,
language tests appear to lay more stress on L51
responsibility for self as the focus of home-
duty expectations. (147)
191
2.2 Willingness to Respond
Insights. Conclusions from Research Literature QPAT Items
Intelligent children are characterized, in 16,
part, by choice of limited and stereotyped 17
career goals•
Creative children are characterized, in C93,
part, by having diffuse, unconventional career C94,
goals, and by tending to have relaxed mothers. C95
(77)
Children of superior ability come from 112,
homes where parental interest in their intel- 113
lectual development is evidenced by pressures
to succeed and assistance in doing so, espe
cially in the development of verbal skills.
( 68)
As a group, the children who gain in IQ 118
during the preschool years appear to be those
who are venturing out of the maternal fold.
(185)
Parents of achievers make demands that are A28,
more clearly defined and specific. They are A29,
concerned with developing in their children A30,
the ability to make their own decisions, and A32,
expect their children to be more adult in A34
their^behavior at an earlier age. Parents of
underachievers are concerned with having their
children learn to protect their personal
rights. (174)
Earlier demands by mothers for independ- 118, A28,
ence behaviors are related to higher need- A29, A30,
achievement in eight-year-old boys. (222) A32, A34
High scorers on reading and language tests L45, L53,
express significantly more appreciation for L54, L55,
the time the mother spends taking them places; L56, L57,
possess several or many storybooks; and are L58, L59,
regularly read to by their parents. L60
Mothers of high scorers on reading and L46, L47,
language tests appear to lay more stress on re- L48, L50,
sponsibility for self as the focus of home- L52
duty expectations. (147)
Time spent reading to child by father is L61, L63,
associated with high verbal scores for girls L64, L65,
only. Mothers of high-verbal children provide L66, L67,
Insights. Conclusions from Research Literature QPAT
more verbal stimulation in early childhood* L68,
( 21)
Creative children are characterized, in C93,
part, by tending to choose unusual or rare C94
careers* (200)
Overemphasis on prevention and on educa- Cl21
tion in the verbal skills tends to block the . Cl24
development of creative thinking, as do limi- Cl25
tations of resources for working out ideas*
(205)
The mother's encouragement of the child's Pi39
developmental skills may temporarily facili
tate her son's achievement on the early intel
ligence test items* (148)
The culturally deprived child soon learns Pi40
in his home environment that he must scramble
if he is to get his share, and that he must be
prepared to fight if his rights are violated.
(84)
2*3 Satisfaction in Response
The intellectual growth of any given child 115
will result, in part, from the emotional cli
mate in which he grows: whether he is en
couraged or discouraged* (12)
The preschooler whose behavior is char- A22
acterized by competitiveness is favored to
accelerate in performance on mental tasks*
(185)
Parents hold values for the intellectual A36
achievement of their children (particularly
their daughters) similar to those which they
hold for themselves* (123)
The mother of a high-achieving child A38
frequently rewards his achievement efforts.
(42)
Parents of high achievers of gifted intel- A41
ligence seem to have more punitive attitudes
with respect to child-rearing. (63)
Items
L69
193
Insights. Conclusions from Research Literature QPAT
Highly creative children may: have wild, C96,
unusual ideas; question and experiment con- C98,
stantly; be aggressive; alienate friends; re- C100,
sist improvement of verbal skills; diverge from Cl01,
sex norms or roles; prefer to learn on their C102,
own; need an open learning situation; like to Cl03,
attempt the difficult; be very apt at coping C104,
with failure and frustration; undertake the Cl05,
dangerous; have a critical, hostile sense of C106,
humor; be independent in their thinking; ap- Cl08,
pear to be unable to stop working; create Cl09,
problems by trying hard to be different; be Cl10,
shut out by the gfoup. (200) Cl 11
Mothers of children with a more analytical Cl08
field approach (field-dependency is low; tend
to be field-independent, highly creative) in
teract with their children in a way that tends
to foster the development of differentiation
in their children. (223)
Many of the highly creative individuals Cl 07
are disturbing elements in classroom groups
in elementary schools.
At the second-grade level, the most highly Cl12
creative individuals may be quite unpleasant, Cl13
showing little consideration for the group, Cl14
little or no goal orientation, little or no Cl15
identification with the group, and little or Cl16
heed to the leadership attempts of their less
creative peers. (205;
3.0 Valuing
3.1 Acceptance of a Value
Intelligent children are characterized 15
by being highly success-oriented. (77)
Parents value achievement more for boys A37
than for girls. (123)
The parent socializes the child for the S71,
adult role he is expected to occupy. The S72
parent's model for this role is the one he
himself occupies. (1)
Items
C97,
C99,
194
Insights, Conclusions from Research Literature QPAT Items.
Permissive methods of child training lead
to better motor control than authoritarian meth
ods, which emphasize pushing the baby to come
up to standards set by overzealous parents*
(U2)
Children who are left to develop at their
own rate in the motor area do so more quickly
than children who are "pushed" by the family*
( 221)
3*2 Preference for a Value
Maternal acceleration (striving to increase
the rate at which the child's behavior is matur
ing) facilitates the preschool (age three) intel
ligence test performance for boys, but not for
girls•
Maternal acceleration is related to maternal
hostility for girls but not for boys. Mothers
are more restrictive of daughters than of sons.
When a close relationship exists between
mother and son, the mother's efficacy as a rein
forcing agent of developmental skills is maxi
mized*
A young boy is expected to be skilled with
gross motor games and able to defend himself
physically* (148)
The overall impression of the high IQ fam
ily is one in which individual divergence is
limited and risks minimized. (77)
Mothers of high achievers are more authori
tarian and restrictive in the treatment of
their children than are mothers of low achiev
ers. (63)
Mothers of field-dependent children
(achievers of high IQ) have the kind of rela
tionship with their children that tends to in
hibit the children's progress toward differen
tiation* (223)
Mothers of high-verbal children provide
more verbal stimulation in early childhood
(significant for boys, not for girls).
Mothers let the children take greater part
P129
PI 29
II
116
117
Pi 47
110,
III
A27
A44
L62
S84
195
Insights. Conclusions from Research Literature QPAT Items
in mealtime conversations* (21)
The parent socializes the child for the S77
adult role he is expected to occupy* The
parent's model for this role is the one he
himself occupies* (1)
Masculinity and femininity both appear S78
to be more influenced by parental attitudes
toward the control of sex and aggression than
by any aspect of the availability of behavior
of models*
Masculinity is associated with freedom of S78
expression, and with parental nonpunitiveness,
whereas femininity is associated with the op
posite* This principle holds for children of
both sexes* (173)
Lower-class mothers more often rely on S79
their own inclinations and their own upbring
ings as sources of ideas about child rearing*
(219)
Evidence is emerging that the meaning S80,
of deprivation is a deprivation of meaning* S81,
This environment produces a child who relates S82,
to authority rather than to rationale; who, S83
although often compliant, is not reflective
in his behavior; and for whom the consequences
of an act are largely considered in terms of
immediate punishment or reward rather than
future effects and long-range goals* (102)
Overemphasis on sex roles blocks the Cl22
development of creative thinking* (205)
If the father's conception of his ideal S73,
relationship with the child is more loving, S74,
democratic, and emotionally mature, the child S75,
is rated by the mother as better adjusted, S76
outgoing, and less demanding* (17)
3*3 Commitment (Conviction)
Mothers of the more intelligent children 12
tend to be more accepting and less dominating
in child-rearing attitudes. (Ill)
196
Insights. Conclusions from Research Literature QPAT Items
Intelligent children tend to have mothers 18
who worry about correct child-rearing* (77)
A Note on Levels 4*0 and 5.0
An explanation is due for the absence of QPAT items
in levels 4*0 and 5*0:
4*0 Organization
4*1 Conceptualization of a value
4*2 Organization of a value system
5.0 Characterization by a value or value complex
5.1 Generalized set
5.2 Characterization
Affective level 4.0 is intended to describe the in
ception of a value system, according to the authors (Krath-
wohl, Bloom, and Masia, 132), and includes features of ab
straction and ordered relationships which are internally
consistent.
At the 5.0 level of internalization, the individual
consistently acts in accord with his value hierarchy. Two
facts dominate his behavior: (a) the generalization of
this value control is so much a part of him that he is de
scribed and characterized as a person by these pervasive
tendencies; and (b) the integration of his beliefs, ideas,
and attitudes formulates a total philosophy or world view,
embracing the whole of what is known or knowable.
This fifth step in the affective hierarchy is, as
the authors caution, rarely if ever achieved in formal edu
cation in our society. (132:165)
The pattern of QPAT responses elicited from the
parents in levels 1.0 through 3.0 was intended to lend
itself to a systematization and characterization of the
child-rearing practices of parents of achievers and non
achievers. In view of the personality maturity required
for levels 4.0 and 5.0, specific questions for these two
steps were judged inappropriate for inclusion in the QPAT.
APPENDIX D
QPAT ITEMS SORTED BY DEVELOPMENTAL AREAS
IN THE AFFECTIVE TAXONOMY
197
QPAT ITEMS SORTED BT DEVELOPMENTAL AREAS IN THE AFFECTIVE TAXONOMY
Taxonomy Intellectual Achievement Language Social Creativity Psychomotor Total
1.1 3 24 70 85-89, 126 127, 128, 133,
137, 141,
148-150
18
1.2 14, 19
21,
35,
23, 26,
39, 42
131, 136,
142-146
15
1.3 4 20, 25, 40 90-92,
117-120
132, 135, 138 14
2.1 9
31,
33, 43 49, 51 123 130 8
2.2 6, 7, 12,
13, 18
28,
34
29, 30, 45-48, 50,
52-61,
63-69
93-95,
121, 124,
125
139, 140 40
2.3 15 22, 38 96-116 26
3.1 5 37 71, 72 129 5
3.2 1, 10, 11,
16, 17
27, 44 62 73-84 122 147 22
3.3 2, 8 2
Total 19 25 26 14 42 24 150
APPENDIX E
THE QPAT PROTOCOL: STRUCTURED QUESTIONS
AND MINIMAL RESPONSES
199
Overview of the QPAT Protocol
200
This overview shows the final arrangement of QPAT
items resulting from the taxonomic sort presented in Ap
pendix G.
Developmental Areas Code Letters Item Ranees
I. Intellectual I 11 119
II. Achievement A A20 - A44
III. Language L L45
m
L70
IV. Social S S71 - S84
V. Creativity C C85 - Cl 26
VI. Psychomotor P PI 27
mm
P150
(VII. Family Data F F151 - FI 58)
The appending of Area VII, Family Data, was ex-
plained in Chapter III, p. 55.
In the QPAT protocol which follows, the paren
thetical numbers cross-reference each question to its
category in the taxonomy detailed in Appendix C. Other
utilitarian details will be found in Chapter III.
The QPAT Protocol
QPAT Area I:
Intellectual Development (I)
II • Some parents say you should make a child walk and talk
and read as early as possible. Do you agree or dis
agree? (3.2)
1 disagree: boy
2 disagree: girl
3 agree: girl
4 agree: boy
12. Some parents have rules for just about anything a
child wants to do. Other parents make up the rules
as they go along. How do you feel about this? (3.3)
201
1 mother dominating— have rules
2 mostly have set rules, but make up a few miles
3 mostly make up rules, but have a few set rules
4 mother accepting— make up rules; be flexible,
adjust
13. What kind of grades (marks) does your child usually
get on his report card? (1.1)
1 below average
2 average
3 above average
14. For your child, what do you consider a bad grade (low
mark)? (1*3)
1 F
2 D
3 C
4 B
15. We*ve all heard of parents who have told their child
he can be anything he wants to be, just as long as
he's good at it. How do you feel about that? (3.1)
1 doesn't matter if he's good or not; job
should be a good one
2 important to make enough money at the job
3 ought to like the job; be whatever he wants to
4 agree; be good at it; do the best he can
16. What does your child say he wants to be when he grows
up? (2.2)
1 unconventional career: tightrope walker, pi
anist, artist, rocket mechanic, etc.
2 he can be whatever he wants
3 undecided; he doesn't know, hasn't said
4 conventional career: doctor, lawyer, nurse,
teacher, fireman, cowboy, soldier, athlete,
minister, airplane pilot, model, housewife,
etc.
17. What do you want your child to be when he grows up?
( 2. 2)
(Scoring: 16.)
18. What advice do you have for a mother who worries
about raising her children right? (3.3)
202
1 don't worry; they'll turn out O.K.
2 try not to worry; educate yourself; do the
best you can; be natural; be patient; see
a counselor
3 most parents worry—-you just have to relax
4 can't help worrying; have to watch the kids
every minute; I worry— it's natural
19. Who else besides you corrects the child's manners a
lot? (2.1)
1 one person; nobody else
2 two people
3 three people
4 four or more people
110. Some parents want their children to go along with
the crowd. Other parents want their children to be
different. What is your feeling about this? (3.2)
1 diverge (be different); be independent
2 mostly diverge
3 mostly conform; in-between; it depends; do
what is felt to be right, best; use common
sense; be himself
4 conform (with crowd)
111. Some parents don't want their children to try any
thing they may not be strong enough to do. Other
parents say, "Nothing ventured, nothing gained."
What do you think about this? (3.2)
1 try anything once; nothing ventured, nothing
gained
2 try things within reason; be realistic
3 take no risks if it's dangerous--if it's
safe, O.K.
4 take no risks
112. What should parents do to help a child succeed in
school? (2.2)
1 one recommendation
2 two recommendations
3 three recommendations
4 four or more recommendations
113. What's the best thing for parents to do to help
their children speak well? (2.2)
1 do nothing special; child will pick it up on
203
114.
115.
116.
117.
118.
his own
2 help child only if needed
3 speak well themselves (no elaboration)
4 give lots of practice; be a good model; praise
When your child is at home with the family, what are
some of the things you do together in your free time
(weekends and after school)? (1.2)
1 one parent-child activity
2 two parent-child activities
3 three parent-child activities
4 four or more parent-child activities
Some parents feel that a child will learn better if
he is praised for his good work. Other parents feel
a child will learn better if he is punished for his
bad work. What do you think about this? (2.3)
1 strongly: punish
2 mostly punish
3 mostly praise; both
4 strongly: praise
Some mothers feel that a son deserves more freedoms
because nboys will be boys,’ 1 but a daughter needs
to be kept closer to home and protected. How do you
feel about this? (3.2)
1 daughters free, sons restricted
2 both equal: boy
3 both equal: girl
4 daughters restricted, sons free
Which child do you think will do better schoolwork
just because his mother wants him to: a son or a
daughter? (3.2)
1 neither
2 daughter
3 both
4 son
Some parents think that before children start school
they should be free to roam the neighborhood and ask
as many questions as they want. Other parents think
children of that age should stay close to home and
mother so they can learn about things that she wants
to teach them. What do you think about this? (2.2)
204
1 stay close to home
2 may go out if supervised; some of each
3 may roam and/or question freely— depending
on the neighborhood
4 roam and question freely
119* Before your child started school, which did he like
better: to play at home by himself or to go out and
play with his friends in the neighborhood? (1«2)
1 play at home (self)
2 siblings at home
3 both: 1 plus 4
4 go out and play (friends)
QPAT Area II:
Achievement Development (A)
A20. Tell me which one of these descriptions seems to
fit your second-grader before he started school:
(a) picked on by playmates, or (b) a leader in
games* (1*3)
1 picked on; follower
2 more 1 than 4
3 more 4 than 1; both
4 leader
A21• Tell me which one of these descriptions seems to
fit your child now: (a) usually does exactly as
he's told, or (b) works very hard on what he's in
terested in at school, and tends to neglect subjects
he's not interested in. (1»2)
1 usually does as told
2 sometimes 1
3 sometimes 4; both
4 usually works very hard on interests
A22. Which of these descriptions seems to fit your child
now: (a) tries hard to win the game he's playing;
^b) wants to quit if the competition gets too tough?
1 quit
2 more 1 than 4
3 more 4 than 1
4 win
205
A23. Tell me which one of these descriptions seems to fit
your child nows (a) generally more comfortable with
adults, or (b) generally more comfortable with chil
dren his own age. (1.2)
1 with adults
2
3 both
4 with children
A24. (Same as 13.) (1.1)
A25. (Same as 14.) (1*3)
A26. (Same as 119.) (1.2)
A27. Some parents feel that they should make all the de
cisions for their family; other parents feel that
all members should have a vote in family decisions.
How do you feel about this? (3.2)
1 all family members vote
2 children usually in on most decisions
3 parents make major decisions, children make
minor
4 parents decide
(A28- Some parents feel it is very important for their
A34) child to be able to do the things listed below, but
they do not agree on how old the child should be
when he can first do the things. What do you say?
A28. A child should stand up for his own rights with
other children— at what age? (2.2)
1 age 5+
2 age 4
3 age 3
4 age 2-
(Use same scoring for A28 through A34)
A29. A child should know his way around the neighborhood
so he can play (where he wants to) without getting
lost— at what age? (2.2)
(Scoring: A28.)
A30. A child should be active and energetic in climbing
and jumping and playing games— at what age? (2.2)
206
(Scoring: A28.)
A31. A child should be able to hang up his own clothes
and look after the things that belong to him— at
what age? (2.1)
(Scoring: A28.)
A32. A child should have interests and hobbies of his
own so he can entertain himself— at what age? (2.2)
(Scoring: A28.)
A33. A child should be able to stay alone at home during
the day (all day)— at what age? (2.1)
(Scoring: A28.)
A34* A child should be able to make decisions by himself
on such things as choosing his own clothes (picking
what to wear) or deciding how to spend his allowance
--at what age? (2.2)
(Scoring: A28.)
A35. Which parent (Who) has been more (most) successful
in getting your child to improve his schoolwork?
( 1. 2)
1 father-son
2 mother-daughter
3 father-daughter; both-daughter
4 mother-son; both-son
A36. Some parents feel their child should do at least as
well in school as they themselves did. How do you
feel about this? (2.3)
1 they're on their own; do their best
2 son/daughter must exceed parents' achievement
3 son's achievement should equal parents'
4 daughter's achievement should equal parents'
A37. In the long run, is it more important for a boy to
do well in school or for a girl to do well? (3.1)
1 both: girl
2 both: boy
3 girl
4 boy
207
A38.
A39.
A40.
A41.
A42.
A43.
Some mothers give their children rewards and prizes
for their good efforts in school* Other mothers
don't believe in giving prizes. How do you handle
this? (2.3)
1 give no rewards
2 give few rewards infrequently; reward some
times
3 give rewards frequently for achievements
4 give rewards frequently for good efforts
When you have to go to the doctor's or dentist's
office and you take your child with you, can you
leave him in the waiting room with the other pa
tients , or does the child have to go in with you?
( 1. 2)
1 accompanies parent
2 somebody else watches him
3 stays alone, but mother checks on him
4 stays, alone
Which parent would be more (Who would be most)
upset if your child brought home a poor report
card? (1.3)
1 other relative
2 both father and mother equally
3 father
4 mother
(Same as 115, except:) (2.3)
1 strongly: praise
2
3
4 strongly: punish
Does your child take any lessons after school hours
or on weekends? (1.2)
1 none
2 one
3 two
4 three or more
How much time (hours per week) does your second-
grader spend doing homework? (2.1)
1 one hour
2 two hours
208
3 three hours
4 four or more hours
A44. (Same as 110.) (3.2)
QPAT Area III:
Language Development (L)
L45. About how many times a month do you take your child
on outings away from the neighborhood? (e.g., zoo,
museum, art gallery, beach, park, mountains, lake,
river, airport, etc.) (2.2)
1 one outing
2 two outings
3 three outings
4 four or more outings
L46. (Same as A28.) (2.2)
L47. (Same as A29.) (2.2)
L48. (Same as A30.) (2.2)
L49. (Same as A31. ) (2.1)
L50. (Same as A32.) (2.2)
L51. (Same as A33.) (2.1)
L52. (Same as A34*) (2.2)
L53. About how much time do you spend reading to your
child at home (hours per week)? (2.2)
1 one hour or less
2 two hours
3 three hours
4 four or more hours
L54. Does your child get any of his own magazines
through the mail? (2.2)
1 no
2 yes
L55. (Interviewer judgment: kinds of juvenile reading
materials available to the child at home?) (2.2)
209
1 only one kind; none
2 at least two kinds
3 three kinds
4 four or more kinds
L56. (Interviewer judgment: is it evident from observa
tion of adult reading matter that parents are read
ers also?) (2*2)
1 no
2 yes
L57. Does your child have his own public library card?
( 2. 2)
1 no
2 yes
L58. About how often do you take your child to the public
library (or Bookmobile)? (2.2)
1 once a month or less
2 twice a month
3 three times a month
4 four or more times a month
L59. Would it be right to say your child likes to read?
( 2. 2)
1 no
2 yes
L60. About how often do you listen to your child read to
you at home? (2.2)
1 once a week or less
2 twice a week
3 three times a week
4 four or more times a week
L61. Who usually reads to the child at home? (2.2)
1 other relative; father: boy
2 both parents
3 mother
4 father: girl
L62. Some mothers encourage their children to talk with
them at mealtime. Other mothers encourage their
children to be seen and not heard. How do you feel
about this? (3.2)
I
210
1 seen and not heard
2 speak only when spoken to; quiet until
finished eating
3 talk: girl
4 talk: boy
L63. About how often do you have to correct your child
for not saying a word right (pronunciation)? (2.2)
(Scoring: L60.)
L64. About how often do you have to correct your child
for using the wrong word (grammar)? (2.2)
(Scoring: L60.)
L65. About how often do you help your child with a new
word (other than spelling)? (2.2)
1 once a week or less; school does it
2 twice a week
3 three times a week
4 four or more times a week
L66. About how often do you help your child spell a new
word? (2.2)
(Scoring: L65.)
L67. About how often do you tell your child a make-believe
or let's-pretend story? (2.2)
(Scoring: L60.)
L68. About how often do you listen to your child tell
you a make-believe or let's-pretend story? (2*2)
(Scoring: L60.)
L69. About how often does your child try to help a
younger child say something better? (2.2)
1 once a day or less
2 twice a day
3 three times a day
4 four or more times a day
L70. (Interviewer's judgment: Is the language of the
family at home restricted or elaborate?; (1•1)
211
1 jargon
2 restricted
3 both; mixed
4 elaborate
QPAT Area IV;
Social Development (S)
571. Nobody is perfect, and neither are our children,
but we do have our ideals that we try to live up
to. What would you consider to be three ideal
D
ualities of a second-grader, at home or at school?
3.1)
1 all three negative
2 one positive
3 two positive
4 all three positive
572. Along this same line, what do you think are the
three most important qualities a person should have
to be a good parent? (3.1)
(Scoring: S71.)
573. (Same as A20.) (3.2)
574. (Same as A21.) (3.2)
575. (Same as A22.) (3.2)
576. (Same as A23.) (3.2)
577. Some parents want their child to grow up to be just
like they are: the son like the father, the daugh-
, ter like the mother. What is your feeling about
this? (3.2)
1 rejection of same-sex model
2 don't care; whatever children want, however
they develop
3 same-sex model, but minus parental faults
4 same-sex model
578. (Same as 116.) (2.2)
579. Some mothers rely on experts, books, and friends for
information about how to raise their children. Some
mothers prefer to raise their children according to
the way they were raised. How do you feel about
212
this? (3.2)
1 rely on experts
2 no way is the way
3 self plus advice
4 rely on self
580. Some parents feel it is very important to explain to
a child the reason they want him to do something*
Other parents feel it is important that a child obey
first and perhaps be told reasons later* How do you
feel about this? (3.2)
1 reasons now
2 sometimes reasons now
3 both
4 reasons later
581. How old was your child when he started asking why
he had to do something you told him to do? (3.2;
1 age 2
2 age 3
3 age 4
4 age 5+
582. Does he do that very much now? (3.2)
1 very often
2 often, except...(more + than -)
3 seldom, except.••(more - than +)
4 very seldom
583. Is your child like the child who spends his allow
ance as soon as he gets it, or is he like the child
who saves his money until he has enough to buy
something he wants? (3.2)
1 no allowance
2 saves for at least a month
3 spends some, saves most; saves for less than
a month, more than a week
4 spends within a week
S84. (Same as L62.) (3.2)
213
QPAT Area V:
Creativity Development (Cl
C85. Does your child like to make up funny stories or
jokes around the house? (1*1)
1 ’ no
2 yes
C86. When a child tries to be funny (tell jokes), should
his parents not pay any (special) attention to him,
or should they encourage him? (1«1)
1 strongly discourage
2 discourage; be neutral
3 encourage
4 strongly encourage
C87. Does your child like to think up new ways to play
an old game? (1*1)
1 no
2 yes
C88. Does your child often please you by doing something
you would call smart or clever? (1*1)
1 no
2 yes, with no elaboration
3 yes, with little elaboration— 1 or 2 examples
4 yes, with much elaboration— 3 or 4 examples
C89. Does your child like to imitate others? (1*1)
1 no; very seldom
2 yes; sometimes
C90. How much time (how many hours a day) does your child
spend watching television? (1*3)
1 four or more hours a day
2 three hours a day
3 two hours a day
4 one hour a day or less
C91. How much time (how many hours a day) does your child
spend listening to the radio? (1*3)
(Scorings C90.)
C92.
C93.
C94.
C95.
(C96-
C116)
C96.
C97.
214
How often (how many times a month) does your child
go to the movies? (1.3)
1 four or more times a month
2 three times a month
3 twice a month
4 once a month or less
(Same as 16, except:) (2.2)
1 conventional career..•
2
3
4 unconventional career...
(Same as 17, except:) (2.2)
1 conventional career...
2
3
4 unconventional career...
What advice do you have for a mother who says little
kids make her nervous? (2.2)
1 let someone else watch them; none; don't let
them
2 they'll always make you nervous; try harder;
see a doctor; take tranquilizers; be patient
3 you deserve a vacation from them
4 learn to relax, like me
I am going to read you short descriptions of older
children who have some very different but very good
talents. I want you to tell me how well each de
scription might fit your second-grader.
Known for wild or unusual (way-out) ideas. (2.3)
1 no; doesn't fit at all
2 yes; fits, except.••(more - than +)> sometimes
3 yes; fits, except...(more + than -)
4 yesl fits very well
(Use same scoring for C96 through C116)
Known for always asking questions. (2.3)
(Scoring: C96.)
C98.
C99.
Cl 00.
Cl 01.
C102.
Cl 03.
Cl 04.
Cl 05.
Cl 06.
Cl 07.
Cl 08.
215
Known for toughness. (2.3)
(Scoring: C96.)
Known to have few friends. (2.3)
(Scoring: C96.)
Known for wanting to do things his way, which is
often not the usual way. (2.3)
(Scoring: C96.)
(Boy:) Known for liking things that we usually
say girls should like.
(Girl:) Known for liking things that we usually
say boys should like* (2.3)
(Scoring: C96.)
Known for wanting to learn things his own way.
(2.3)
(Scoring: C96.)
Just because something is hard to do doesn't stop
him from trying to do it. (2.3)
(Scoring: C96.)
Known for his ability to stick with a job even
when the going gets tough. (2.3)
(Scoring: C96.)
Known for liking things that are at least a little
b it dangerous• (2.3)
(Scoring: C96.)
Known for his cutting sense of humor. (2.3)
(Scoring: C96.)
Has a reputation for causing a certain amount of
trouble in school* (2.3)
(Scoring: C96.)
Known for his ability to think for himself and not
necessarily go along with the crowd. (2.3)
Cl 09.
C110.
cm .
C112.
C113.
C114.
Cl 15.
C116.
Cl 17.
216
(Scoring: C96.)
Finds it hard to stop studying something that he
likes very much. (2.3)
(Scoring: C96.)
Sometimes seems to make problems for himself be
cause he's just trying too hard to be different
from other children. (2.3)
(Scoring: C96.)
Sometimes finds himself snubbed by the so-called
nice kids at school or in the neighborhood. (2.3)
(Scoring: C96.)
Has a reputation for being unfriendly or even un
pleasant. (2.3)
(Scoring: C96.)
Has a reputation for showing little consideration
for others. (2.3)
Has a reputation for starting many things but
finishing few. (2.3)
(Scoring: C96.)
Seems to be unconcerned about what the most popular
kids say or do. (2.3)
(Scoring: C96.)
Pays little attention to the leadership of his
playmates. (2.3)
(Scoring: C96.)
If he studies art in school, do you think your
child will learn more from reading about it in
the textbook or from working with the art ma
terials? (1.3)
1 textbook
2 art materials, except...(more - than +)
3 art materials, except • • • (more + than -)
4 art materials in hand
217
C118.
C119.
Cl 20.
Cl 21.
Cl 22.
Cl 23.
When your child was a baby (below age 1), where
(physical location) did he play at home? (1*2)
1 in a playpen beyond age 1
2 in a playpen below age 1
3 on the rug, floor, bed, etc.
4 on the grass, in the yard, etc.
Some parents feel that children's imaginations
should be controlled; other parents feel that they
should help their Children become more imaginative.
What do you think? (1.3)
1 discourage fantasy, imagination
2 encourage, except.••(more - than +)
3 encourage, except...(more + than -)
4 encourage fantasy, imagination
Some parents feel that curiosity is a good thing
in children; other parents feel that children are
too curious for their own good. What do you think?
(1.3)
1 restrict curiosity; children are too curious
2 encourage, except.••(more - than +)
3 encourage, except.••(more + than -)
4 encourage curiosity
Some parents watch over their children too closely,
others don't watch them enough. Where do you stand
on this? (2.2)
1 you can't be too careful; watch closely
2 half-and-half; balance
3 avoid overprotection— 1 or 2 examples
4 avoid overprotection— 3 or more examples
Some parents are upset if boys play with girls'
toys, or the other way around; other parents are
not upset. What is your feeling about this? (3.2)
1 would get upset at either; don't want sissy
or tomboy
2 O.K., except. •• (More - than +)
3 O.K., except...(More + than -)
4 O.K. for boys or girls to play with others'
toys; not upset
Some children do what their parents say only be
cause they are afraid of what will happen if they
don't. How do you think it should be? (2.1)
218
1 act out of fear
2 act out of fear and love
3 not because afraid; principle other than love
4 act out of love
Cl24. Some parents constantly correct their children*s
English; other parents feel that this is something
best left to the teachers at school* How do you
feel about this? (2*2)
1 correct every mistake
2 leave it to the teachers
3 correct at home and back up what's learned
at school
4 correct mistakes but tolerate some too
Cl25. What was your child's latest arts-and-crafts
project at home? (2.2)
1 none
2 hard to remember; infrequent
3 one, with little or no elaboration
4 several, with elaborations
Cl26. When do you think your child was doing his most
original work in arts and crafts: before kinder
garten, during kindergarten, or during first
grade? (1.1)
1 during kindergarten
2 before kindergarten
3 during first grade
QPAT Area VI:
Psvchomotor Development CP)
Pi 27. At what age was your child able to wash his hands
and face all by himself? (1.1)
1 age 5+
2 age 4
3 age 3
4 age 2-
P128. How old was your child when he could comb his hair
all by himself? (1.1)
1 age 6+
2 age 5
219
3 age 4
4 age 3-
P129. What method worked for you when you were trying to
help your child learn to walk? (3.1)
1 pushed, encouraged heavily
2 used special prop
3
4 permissive, let him do it on his own
Pi30. Before your children went to school, how did you
teach them to mind you? (2.1)
1 left it to someone else
2 talked to them; threatened
3 restricted privileges
4 used physical force; punished (physically)
P131. If your son wants (or: if you had a son who
wanted.; or: if one of your sons wanted.••) to
play a contact sport like football in high school,
will (would) you let him? (Whether response is
Yes or No:) Why? (1.2)
1 not play; too dangerous
2 one parent says yes, other says no
3 leave it up to him
4 play; will make him strong, manly, rugged;
will teach him teamwork, sportsmanship.••
P132. (Same as C117.) (1.3)
P133. Would you describe your second-grader as taller,
heavier, and older than most of his playmates or
classmates? (1*1)
1 shorter, lighter, and younger than most
(all three -); average
2 taller/heavier/older (any 1 +)
3 taller/heavier/older (any 2 +)
4 taller, heavier, and older than most
(all three +)
P134. For his age, how good is your child at playing
football, baseball, basketball, volleyball, tennis,
or similar sports? (1.1)
1 very poor
2 poor; fair
220
3 good; average
4 very good
Pi35. Which parent (Who) is more concerned about the
child's performance in active games? (1*3)
1 other relative; parents not concerned
2 mother
3 father and mother
4 father
Pi36* (Same as Cl18*) (1*3)
Pi37. Tell me how often your child plays a game at home
that requires some ability in running or jumping,
or throwing and catching a ball* (1*1)
1 very seldom
2 several times a month (1 to 3)
3 several times a week (1 to 3); frequently
4 every day
Pi 38. How much time does the father spend with the child
teaching him how to play football, baseball, basket
ball, volleyball, tennis, or similar sports? (1*3)
1 one hour or less per week
2 two hours per week
3 three hours per week
4 four or more hours per week; daily
P139. What do you think about letting three-to-six-year-
olds go to the park or school playground (without
parents) for the supervised sports and recreation
programs? (2*2)
1 strongly disagree
2 disagree; with older child, O.K.; not alone
3 agree— alone
4 strongly agree
Pi40. How can parents who have taught a child to fight
for his rights also teach him how to get along with
others at school? (2.2)
1 solve problems by fighting
2 don't start but do finish a fight; protect,
defend self
3 tell the teacher, to avoid fighting
4 solve problems by self without fighting;
golden rule
221
Pi41* When your child was in kindergarten, which did he
like better: to sit and listen to a story, or
to play on the swings and bars outdoors? (1*1)
1 sit and listen
2
3 both equally
4 play outdoors
(Pi42- Before he started school, which of these things
Pi 46) could your child have shown another child how to
do? (1.2)
Pi42. Ride a tricycle. (1.2)
1 no
2 yes
(Use same scoring for Pi42 through Pi46)
P143. Ride a wagon. (1*2)
(Scoring: Pi42.)
P144. Climb on the bars (jungle gym). (1.2)
(Scoring: P142.)
Pi 45. Throw a ball. (1.2)
(Scoring: PI 42)
Pi 46. Catch a ball. (1.2)
(Scoring: Pi42.)
Pi 47. A man who writes about children says a boy should
be good in athletic games and be able to fight for
himself if he's attacked. Do you agree or disagree
with these ideas? (3*2)
1 disagree strongly
2 disagree; depends on the boy
3 agree
4 agree strongly
Pi48. (Interviewer's judgment: Is the family buying or
not buying the dwelling?) (1.1)
1 buying
2 not buying (renting)
222
Pi49. (Interviewer's judgment: Is the family large or
small?) (1.1)
1 small (five or less members)
2 large (six or more members)
PI50. (Interviewer's judgment: If renting, is rent less
than $129 per month?) (1.1)
1 buying (not renting)
2 more than $129
3 less than $129
QPAT Area VII:
Family Data (F)
F151. Occupation of father (1968)?
F152. Occupation of mother (1968)?
F153. Number of occupants in household
F154. Number of living siblings (1968;
F155. Pupil living with...(1968)?
1 natural parents
2 adoptive parents
3 foster parents
4 natural father/stepmother
5 natural mother/stepfather
F156. Highest grade in school completed by mother?*
F157. Highest grade in school completed by father?*
*K, 1. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. 8. 9, 10, 11, 12:
13, 14 (junior college): 15, 16 (college);
17, 18 (master's degree); 19, 20 (doctor's
degree)•
F158. Pupil's usual transportation to school?
1 walking
2 parent's car or car pool
3 public bus or taxi
4 school bus
5 special school bus
6 other
(1968)?
excluding subject)7
6 natural father
7 natural mother
8 sibling
9 relative

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Ethnic Group Differences In Certain Personal, Intellectual, Achievement, And Motivational Characteristics

PDF

The Relationship Of Personal Data Items To Vocational Rehabilitation

PDF

Selected Characteristics Of A Children'S Individual Test Of Creativity

PDF

Reward Expectancy Strength As Related To The Magnitude Of Frustration In Children

PDF

The Relation Of Sense Of Humor To Creativity, Intelligence, And Achievement

PDF

A Semantic Differential Investigation Of Critical Factors Related To Achievement And Underachievement Of High School Students

PDF

Time And Man-Nature Value-Orientations As Related To Sex Identity, Ethnicidentity, And Socioeconomic Status And As Predictors Of Academic Success

PDF

A Study Of Delinquency Among Urban Mexican-American Youth

PDF

Attitudinal Variables Among Teachers Of Exceptional And Non- Exceptional Children

PDF

A Paradigm For The Implementation Of Accountability Measures In Bilingualeducation

PDF

A Factor Analytic Study Of Tests Designed To Measure Reading Ability

PDF

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

PDF

Variables Differentiating Mexican-American College And High School Graduates

PDF

Librarians' Perceptions Of Librarianship

PDF

Investigation Of A Self-Report Method In The Study Of Underachievement Among Elementary School Children

PDF

Group Factors And Individual Internalization Of A Value

PDF

Validity Concomitants Of Various Scoring Procedures Which Attenuate The Effects Of Response Sets And Chance

PDF

Behavioral Seriousness And Impulse-Control Balance In Delinquency

PDF

Predicting and assessing academic achievement of disadvantaged high school students utilizing a test of study habits and skills

PDF

Development Of A Mid Primary Screening Battery For Schools Of A High Socioeconomic Community

Asset Metadata

Creator Weisbender, Leo Frederic (author)

Core Title A Four-Year Follow-Up Of Educationally Disadvantaged Preschool Children, Analyzing Home Environment Variables Facilitating Achievement

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Educational Psychology

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

Tag education, educational psychology,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Metfessel, Newton S. (committee chair), Martin, David W. (committee member), McDonagh, Edward C. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-703754

Unique identifier UC11360917

Identifier 6916568.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-703754 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 6916568.pdf

Dmrecord 703754

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Weisbender, Leo Frederic

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