Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Counselling children with behavior problems in a specialized social learning classroom Westwood, Caroline Ann 1990

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1991_A8 W37.pdf [ 6.3MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0053662.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0053662-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0053662-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0053662-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0053662-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0053662-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0053662-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0053662-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0053662.ris

Full Text

COUNSELLING CHILDREN WITH BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS IN A SPECIALIZED SOCIAL L E A R N I N G C L A S S R O O M By CAROLINE A N N WESTWOOD B.Sc, B.Ed. University of Lethbridge, 1986 A THESIS S U B M I T T E D I N P A R T I A L F U L F I L L M E N T O F THE REQUIREMENTS FOR T H E DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS  in T H E F A C U L T Y O F G R A D U A T E STUDIES (Department of Counselling Psychology)  W e accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard  T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F BRITISH C O L U M B I A December 1990 © Caroline A n n Westwood, 1990  In  presenting  degree  this  at the  thesis  in  partial  fulfilment  University of  British  Columbia,  freely available for reference and study. copying  of  department  this or  publication of  thesis by  this  for  his thesis  or  scholarly her  of  the  I agree  purposes  may  representatives.  for financial gain shall not  C6QN<~€cL/'/V'6-  The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  DE-6 (2/88)  be  It  <f5y£//oLQ6U/  is  for  an  advanced  that the Library shall make it  I further agree  permission.  Department of  requirements  that permission  for extensive  granted  head  by  understood  the that  be allowed without  of  my  copying  or  my written  ii  ABSTRACT  In order to measure counselling effectiveness on three male primary school-aged children w i t h behavior problems, an interrupted timeseries analysis was done on each child's daily classroom behavior scores for a time period of three months. Three experimental subjects received 20 bi-weekly i n d i v i d u a l counselling sessions, w h i l e three primary-aged control male subjects (ages 7 and 8) from the same social learning classroom received no counselling intervention.  The  experimental subjects showed significant gradual increases i n daily behavior point scores. This result indicated they made significant gains i n d i s p l a y i n g more appropriate school behaviors while the control subjects d i d not. Pre and post scores on the Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale (1969) and the Joseph Pre-School and Primary SelfConcept Screening Test (1979) indicated that the experimental subjects' self-concept scores decreased after three months of counselling; while the control subjects' self-concept scores slightly increased. Explanations for these results are discussed.  iii  T A B L E OF C O N T E N T S Page Chapter I Introduction  1  Chapter II Literature Review of C h i l d r e n w i t h Behavior Problems Chapter III Literature Review of the Self-Concept of a C h i l d w i t h Behvior Problems Chapter IV Literature Review of Play-Therapy A s Treatment For C h i l d r e n w i t h Behavior Problems Chapter V Methodology  13  46 60 79  Chapter V I Results  88  Chapter VII Discussion and Conclusions References  93 106  Appendix A : Social Learning Program Rules For Behavior Points  124  A p p e n d i x B: Letters of Consent  127  Appendix C: Time-Series Analysis Methodology  132  Appendix D: Time-Series Analysis A p p l i e d to Subject A ' s Time-Series  142  A p p e n d i x E: Standardized Tests A p p e n d i x F: Graphs of Time-Series Results  146  155  iv  LIST OF TABLES Page Table I R a w Scores for General Self-Concept and Subscales o n the Piers Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale M a r c h 30 and June 26, 1990. Table II R a w Scores for General Self-Concept Classification on the Joseph Pre-School and P r i m a r y Self-Concept Screening Test Table III Criteria for M o d e l l i n g a Time-series and Intervention Effects on Experimental Subject A  92  93  143  T A B L E OF C O N T E N T S Graph 1 Time-Series (Ti) For Experimental Subject A Graph 2 Time-Series (T2) For Experimental Subject A Graph 3 Time-Series (T3) For Experimental Subject A Graph 4 Time-Series (Ti) For Experimental Subject B Graph 5 Time-Series (T2) For Experimental Subject B Graph 6 Time-Series (T3) For Experimental Subject B Graph 7 Time-Series (Ti) For Experimental Subject C Graph 8 Time-Series (T2) For Experimental Subject C Graph 9 Time-Series (T3) For Experimental Subject C G r a p h 10 Time-Series (Ti) For Experimental Subject X Graph 11 Time-Series (T2) For Experimental Subject X G r a p h 12 Time-Series (T3) For Experimental Subject X G r aTime-Series p h 14 13 (T2) ( T i ) For Experimental Subject Y  vi  Page G r a p h 15 Time-Series (T3) For Experimental Subject Y  167  G r a p h 16 Time-Series (Tl) For Experimental Subject Z  168  G r a p h 17 Time-Series (T2) For Experimental Subject Z  169  G r a p h 18 Time-Series (T3) For Experimental Subject Z  170  1  CHAPTER I: I N T R O D U C T I O N Background to the Problem Children w h o do not learn i n regular classroom settings because of their maladaptive social behavior are often segregated and placed into self-contained special education settings. These children may be intellectually and physically above average, but are either unable or not w i l l i n g to adapt to the social behavior required for regular classroom learning. Coleman (1986) states that prevalence estimates for such children vary widely, but that many researchers believe that approximately 2% of school-aged children are severely behavior disordered, w i t h another 7-10% w i t h behavior severe enough to warrant attention for remediation. In British Columbia, the number of children i n the category of severe behavior problems was 0.8% during the 1983/84 school year (Csapo, 1985). W h e n children are assessed as behavior disordered and placed i n a classroom w i t h other behavior problem students, special educators often employ behavior modification techniques i n order to help the child learn more socially appropriate behaviors. Behavior modification has been reported to be one of the most successful and quick methods of trying to modify problem behavior (Fisher, Burd, K u n a , & Berg, 1985; Ross & Ross, 1982); but its effects have also been cited as short lived (Griest & Wells, 1983). A l t h o u g h behavior modification techniques can teach a child h o w to behave more appropriately at school they do not deal w i t h the  2  reasons behind the child's misbehavior (Nystrul, 1986). Even after new adaptive behaviors are learned and full integration back into the regular classroom occurs, old maladaptive behaviors can resurface w h e n the structured reinforcement schedule is removed (Van Hasselt, Griest, K a z d i n , Esveldt-Dawson, & U n i s , 1984). Unless the new behaviors can be reinforced continually, the behavioral model falls short of meeting the needs of children w i t h behavior problems. The cognitive-behavioral approach often utilized i n social learning classrooms adds a verbal explanation for each reward earned or taken away. The assumption being that once a child learns w h i c h behaviors are appropriate and can explain w h y they are more functional, they w i l l then choose them more often i n order to gain rewards. The rewards in this approach are still mostly external to the child (McCarney, 1985). This model does not explain internal rewards such as feelings of acceptance, love, and respect and is still largely dependent on antecedents and consequences. In order to help a child foster his or her positive feelings of selfworth, counselling may be beneficial i n helping the child w i t h behavior problems discover some of his or her positive inner strengths (Friesen & Der, 1984). The effectiveness of counselling students who have less severe behavior problems (who are still i n regular classrooms) has yielded conflicting results. Marchant (1972) and Whitely and Sulzer (1970) found significant behavioral changes i n students receiving counselling  3  while others (Mayer, Branzier, & Matthes, 1967) found no significant changes i n behavior between students receiving counselling and those not receiving counselling. Cant and Spackman (1985) found that regular 10 year olds who received 20 minute group counselling meetings twice weekly for three months showed greater gain scores i n self-esteem and reading levels. Friesen and Der (1984) found significant differences between three counselling models used w i t h regular classroom children identified w i t h learning or behavior problems. After 5 months of counselling student reading scores i m p r o v e d significantly i n comparison to control group reading scores. Friesen and Der (1984) also found that counselling teachers, parents and students was the most effective model utilized. It produced more cooperative relationships between these parties than the parent, teacher or student models of counselling implemented. M a y n a r d , Warner, and Lazzaro (1969) utilized group counselling w i t h verbal reinforcement and client-centered approach to improve the behavior of emotionally disturbed students. Other researchers of elementary school counselling have found that promising behavior change results from reinforcement programs (Hosford & Bowles, 1974) from behavior contracts (Thompson, Prater & Poppen, 1974) and from various group counselling and group guidance approaches (Omizo, Hershberger, & O m i z o , 1988; Cant & Sparkmen, 1985). D o w n i n g (1977) found that group counselling designed to  4  modify the behavior of sixth-grade children had the additional benefit of significantly i m p r o v i n g achievenent. A l t h o u g h research on counselling children w i t h behavior problems is sparse and inconclusive, the U.S. Office of Education states that approximately 2% of school-aged children do have severe behavior problems. Others, such as Kauffman (1985) find this figure to be conservative. Csapo's (1985) survey indicated that i n the province of British C o l u m b i a a considerable number of behavior problem children especially at the elementary level, receive no effective intervention. To date, this author has not found any studies that have examined i n d i v i d u a l counselling effectiveness on elementary behavior problem students who have been segregated into special social learning classrooms. Statement of the P r o b l e m The purpose of this investigation was to examine whether or not i n d i v i d u a l counselling i n addition to a social learning program resulted i n changes i n a child's or self-concept a n d / o r school behaviors as measured by: the Piers Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale (1969); the Joseph Pre-School and Primary Self-Concept Screening Test (1979); and the daily behavior points totals earned by each student i n the social learning classroom.  5  Subproblems 1. D o children w i t h behavior problems typically have a l o w selfconcept? 2. Does a more positive self-concept lead to more positive school behavior? 3. Is counselling related to the enhancement of self-concept and school behaviors of children w i t h behavior problems? Definitions C h i l d r e n W i t h Behavior Problems In British C o l u m b i a 48% of school districts do not have formulated criteria for defining and identifying students w i t h behavior problems (Csapo, 1985). The others (52%) use the Ministry of education's criteria w h i c h is a provincial funding category for children w i t h behavior problems i n B.C. Because this study incorporates behavior problem children i n B.C., the following definition was utilized for the purpose of this study. Severe Behavior Problems Definition. Students w i t h severe behavior problems are those w h o exhibit a variety of excessive and chronic deviant behaviors, ranging from impulsive and aggressive to depressive, w i t h d r a w a l behaviors w h i c h seriously interfere w i t h the student's o w n learning a n d / o r the learning of classmates. These students frequently exhibit a significant discrepancy between academic performance and potential.  6  The M i n i s t r y of education recognizes the population of students w i t h severe behavior problems as pertaining to less than 1% of the school-aged population. In order to qualify for ministry special education funding under Section 3 of the financial management system, students w i t h severe behavioral problems must be receiving specialized educational services related to their problem. (Csapo, 1985, p. 31) Self-Concept There is m u c h confusion over the terms self-concept and selfesteem i n the literature. W h i l e the two have been used interchangeably for many years (Shavelson, Hubner, & Stanton, 1976) they actually represent two distinct dimensions of self-perceptions (Beane, 1986). Beane (1986) refers to self-concept as the description an i n d i v i d u a l attaches to himself or herself. The self-concept is based on the roles one plays and the attributes one believes he or she possesses. Each of these items is descriptive and whether or not an item is actually true or false, it is perceived to be true by the i n d i v i d u a l and therefore is part of the personal self-concept. For the purposes of this study, this writer has chosen Piers' (1984) definition to operationally measure self-concept. Self-concept is a relatively stable set of self attitudes reflecting both a description and an evaluation of one's o w n behavior and attributes. (Piers, 1984, p. 1)  7  Self-Esteem Self-esteem, on the other hand, refers to the evaluation one makes of the self-concept description, and more specifically, to the degree to w h i c h one is satisfied or dissatisfied w i t h it, i n whole or i n part (Beane & L i p k a , 1986). Self-esteem involves the individual's sense of self-worth or selfregard manifested i n feelings such as "I am happy w i t h myself" or "I don't like myself" (Beane & L i p k a , 1986, p. 6). For the purpose of this study this author has chosen to adopt Battle's (1981) definition. Self-esteem refers to the perception the i n d i v i d u a l possesses of his or her o w n worth. A n individual's perception of self develops gradually and becomes more differentiated as he or she matures and interacts w i t h significant others. (Battle, 1981, p. 14) School Behaviors Various school behaviors were monitored to see whether counselling i n addition to a social learning program facilitated behavioral changes i n primary students w i t h behavior problems. following behaviors earned (or lost) points i n the social learning classroom where the teacher utilized a cognitive-behavior modification approach (token economy coupled w i t h verbal reinforcement) of instruction: 1. U s i n g manners (Temper tantrums, being rude) 2. Staying on task (off task) 3. Being a friend (teasing)  The  8  4. F o l l o w i n g instructions (arguing) 5. M i n d i n g o w n business (intruding into someone else's business) (See A p p e n d i x A )  Counselling The theoretical orientation of counselling employed i n this study was based on an Egan's (1975) model w i t h interventions from A d l e r i a n psychology (Driekurs, G r u n w a l d , & Pepper, 1971). Three major stages were used i n the counselling process: exploration, understanding and action (Friesen & Der, 1984). The exploration stage was directed toward b u i l d i n g a relationship w i t h the clients. It included verbal and non verbal expressions, such as painting, drawing and play, w i t h the goal being to facilitate client exploration. The understanding stage i n v o l v e d assisting the clients to better understand their perceptions of themselves, significant others and their perceptions of their problems. The action phase i n v o l v e d assisting the clients i n devising a plan of action to resolve their problems. Both the client and the counsellor considered various plans the client could act upon (Friesen & Der, 1984). Parents and teachers were also involved i n the counselling process i n either group or i n d i v i d u a l conferences.  By talking to parents  and teachers, the counsellor had an opportunity to learn about the expectations and values held by both the family and school, and hence,  9  what the child's environment was like. Consultations were held at the convenience and interest of parents and teachers. Due to the availability and access of only one primary social learning class i n a suburban school district, subjects aged 6 - 8 were all come from the same classroom. Because the investigator had access to the counselling room only two half-days per week, only three students were able to receive i n d i v i d u a l counselling sessions. A recommendation for the other students to receive counselling followed the investigation. Because the investigator d i d not have the funds to hire the services of another counsellor, the investigator also acted as counsellor. However, behaviors were recorded by the teacher and teacher aide. The resident school counsellor w h o administrated the standardized tests utilized i n order to avoid investigator bias. Assumptions Findings reported by a number of investigators indicate that selfconcept is related to behavior (Battle, 1981). Several authors have written books on how to enhance a child's self-esteem and achievement (Battle, 1981; Samuels, 1977; Beane and L i p k a , 1986). However, few studies have been done relating counselling effects to a child's self-concept (Cant and Spackman, 1985) or problem behavior (Friesen and Der, 1984). This may be due in part to the only recent development of school programs for students w i t h behavior problems (Csapo, 1985). In this study this investigator assumes there is a  10  relationship between self-concept and the behaviors of primary behaviored problem students. Hypotheses and Rationale The literature on counselling effectiveness at the elementary level is i n its infancy. Some researchers have found that a consultative model of counselling students, parents and teachers has produced more positive student behavior (Cant & Spackman, 1985; Whitley & Sulzer, 1970; Dinkmeyer & Carlson, 1973; Dreikurs, G r u n w a l d & Pepper, 1971; Marchant/1972). McCarney (1985) states that through careful study of student values, counsellors can gain insight into h o w to approach teaching the appropriate behavior that is expected at school. Through behavioral ratings of students, by teachers and other personnel, counsellors can target behavioral patterns for goals, specific behaviors for objectives, and consider the form that behaviors take to determine interventions for improvement i n the educational environment (McCarney, 1985). McCarney even claims that the counsellor is "the variable i n the educational environment are i n the best position to help the student learn responsibility for his or her behavior" (McCarney, 1987, p. 33). L i p k a , Beane, and L u d e w i g (1980) interviewed middle graders (grades 4 - 6 ) and found that the character of teachers, the nature of learning activities and the social nature of peers seem to be particularly related to positive self-esteem. Beane and L i p k a (1986) reviewed  11  hundreds of studies and found a persistent relationship has been demonstrated between self-concept and self-esteem and several school related variables. For example: "...learners w i t h clear self-concepts and positive self-esteem tend to participate more, have higher school completion rates, exhibit more prosocial behavior, and demonstrate greater academic achievement than do peers w i t h unclear or negative selfperceptions." (Beane & L i p k a , 1986, p. 190) The above citations suggest there is a relationship between counselling and more positive school behavior, and that behavior is related to selfconcept. However, no studies to this investigator's knowledge have compared the relationship between counselling and the segregated student's self-concept, and school behaviors. In order to evaluate counselling effectiveness w i t h such students, the following hypothesis was tested: 1. Primary behavior problem students w h o receive 20 counselling sessions w i l l show no significant improvement i n their school behavior point scores as measured by the behavior point system in A p p e n d i x A , i n comparison to similar students w h o receive no counselling. 2. Primary students w i t h behavior problems w h o receive 20 i n d i v i d u a l counselling sessions w i l l show no significant improvement i n self-concept scores on the Piers-Harris  12  Children's Self-Concept Scale (1969) the Joseph Pre-School and Primary Self-Concept Screening Test (1979). Significance The significance of this study is two-fold: 1. To extend current theory and knowledge about primary students w h o have behavior problems. 2. To examine whether counselling i n addition to social learning program enhances more appropriate school behaviors i n primary students who have behavior problems.  13  C H A P T E R II: LITERATURE REVIEW OF C H I L D R E N WITH B E H A V I O R PROBLEMS The field of behavioral disorders and emotional disturbance possesses little consensus i n its definition of the phenomenon (Balow, 1979; Bower, 1982; Forness, Sinclair & Russell, 1984). The absence of an agreed upon definition has been noted i n surveys of legislative and administrative definitions and reveal w i d e discrepancy i n form and content (Kavale, Forness & A l p e r , 1986). The definition most w i d e l y used i n the United States is p r o v i d e d by Public L a w 94:142, The Education of the Handicapped Act, and is often used for funding purposes. The term serious emotional disturbance (SED) means: a condition exhibiting one or more of the following characteristics over a long period of time or to a marked degree w h i c h adversely affects school performance: (a) an inability to learn which cannot be explained by intellectual, sensory, or health factors; (b) an inability to b u i l d or maintain satisfactory relationships with peers and teachers; (c) inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under normal circumstances; (d) a general pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression; or (e) a tendency to develop physical symptoms of fears associated w i t h personal or school problems. (Bower, 1959, p. 12) Most professionals i n special education consider both the term SED itself and its definition not only problematic but also a primary source of difficulty both i n underidentification and state to state variations i n school prevalence. Research reviewed over the past few years demonstrates that these five criteria bear little or no relationship  14  to the types of emotional disturbance found i n school-aged children, and do not relate to types of disorders i n the diagnostic nomenclature n o w used by most mental health professionals (Forness & Kavale, 1989). Recent studies have also demonstrated that one of the largest subgroups of children w i t h emotional or psychiatric disorders are likely to have been diagnosed as having conduct disorders, a disturbance not only i n need of treatment itself but also having symptomatic components commonly seen i n association w i t h childhood depression and schizophrenia or as early indications of these two disorders (Forness & Kavale, 1989). Special education professionals have therefore increasingly viewed the term "behavior disorders" as a more reasonable term than SED, one that encompasses children w i t h both internalizing (withdrawn, anxious, etc.) and externalizing (acting out, aggressive, etc.) behavior. There are two major reasons for defining and labeling children w i t h behavior problems: for research purposes (Chenbach, 1978) and for provision of services (Hobbs, 1975). Epstein, C u l l i n a n and Sabatino (1977) outline a number or pragmatic implications of a definition: (1) the chosen definition dictates the type of intervention and program description that is used to communicate the goals to others, (2) the definition affects prevalence estimates and thus influences decisions about w h o w i l l receive services, and (3) the definition influences the areas of legislation, advocacy, and personal preparation for employment. (Epstein, C u l l i n a n & Sabatino, 1977)  15  Coleman (1986) also points out that definitions may describe a general population but are not specific enough to allow individuals to be identified; instead, state and local education agencies must create regulations w h i c h outline specific criteria for identification purposes. In the province of British Columbia, Canada, Csapo (1985) d i d a survey to determine the existence or extent of under identification of behavior problem children i n special education programs as well as issues of definition and identification w h i c h might promote or restrain the availability of services. The provincial funding category for children w i t h "severe behavior problems" according to the British C o l u m b i a M a n u a l of Policies Procedures and Guidelines for Special Education (1981) states: Students w i t h severe behavior problems are those w h o exhibit a variety of excessive and chronic deviant behaviors, ranging from impulsive and aggressive to depressive, w i t h d r a w a l behaviors w h i c h seriously interfere w i t h the student's o w n learning a n d / o r the learning of classmates. These students frequently exhibit a significant discrepancy between academic performance and potential. The M i n i s t r y of Education recognizes the population of students w i t h severe behavior problems as pertaining to less than 1 % of the school-aged population. In order to qualify for ministry special education funding under Section 3 of the financial management system, students w i t h severe behavioral problems must be receiving specialized educational services related to their problem. (Csapo, 1985, p. 31)  16  This manual also provides a suggestive procedure for identifying children w i t h Severe Behavior Problems: Identification of these students usually begins at the classroom level. The classroom teacher should document as fully as possible the specific behaviors causing concern, the frequency of the behavior, and the circumstances or setting leading to the behaviors. In focus of this teacher assessment should be the educational context of the behaviors. The first referral should be to the school-based team w h i c h can identify resources w i t h i n the school. Observations of the student i n the classroom environment by the learning assistance teacher, principal, counsellor is usually necessary to provide data on the rating, the specific behaviors and the effects of the intervention. Referral to special education district services should be through the school-based team. It may be that community agencies, the M i n i s t r y of H u m a n Resources, or Mental Health personnel needed to be i n v o l v e d i n the identification process. A medical referral is essential if a student is viewed as having severe behavior problems. For purposes of establishing that a student has severe behavior problems, the assessment should describe behaviors w h i c h distinguish between common disciplinary problems and severe behavior problems. For purposes of distinction, the following behaviors serve as examples of common disciplinary problems: (a) (b)  '  truancy defiance of certain but not all school personnel (e.g. one teacher or bus driver) (c) abusive behavior toward selected peers, but satisfactory relations w i t h others (d) disruption of certain classes, but voluntary self-control i n other environments (e.g. auditorium, recess, etc.) It must be noted that while prevalence of severe behavior problems is difficult to determine, there is a tendency to overestimate the number of such children. (Csapo, 1985, p.33)  17  Characteristics of Behavior Disorders Behavior disorders occur frequently i n combination w i t h other problems, such as learning disabilities. C u l l i n a n , Epstein, and L l o y d (1983) point out that the difference between normal and disturbed behavior is one of degree not kind. The types of behavior that most children exhibit are essentially the same. C r y i n g , spitting, fighting, throwing tantrums and urinating are behaviors found i n normal as w e l l as disturbed children. O n l y the situations in w h i c h disturbed children perform these acts and / o r the frequency and duration at w h i c h they occur set them apart from normal children (Cullinan, et al., 1983). Kauffman (1979) refers to these processes as behavioral excesses or deficiencies. Too much or too little of behaviors that w o u l d be considered normal i n an appropriate quantity are the characteristics of disturbed behavior. A s an example, the child may show excessive antisocial behavior (i.e. hitting, kicking, teasing) and be deficient i n social skills (i.e. making friends). A child w i t h behavior problems also exhibits such behavior i n unusual, unwarranted  circumstances.  H i t t i n g children, taking belongings of others and swearing may be tolerated or even encouraged i n the child's neighborhood but is likely to be met w i t h objection i n the classroom. The disturbed child has more difficulty than his or her peers i n determining what is accepted and expected i n differing environments (Kauffman, 1979). Kauffman (1979) describes the aggressive child as "one w h o arouses negative feelings and induces negative behavior i n others"  18  (p.10). Such a child is not well liked or popular among peers, classmates or teachers.  Though the aggressive child may have control  or prestige over others because of intimidation or force, he continually operates on the fringe of any group (Forness & Hewett, 1984). C h i l d r e n w i t h acting-out tendencies, more than any other student, find themselves at odds w i t h school rules and discipline procedures.  The  behavior is so persistently irritating that they seem to invite punishment or rebuke (Kauffman, 1979). These children suffer from l o w self-esteem, lack of self-worth and often spend m u c h of their time i n self-defeating behavior (Kauffman, 1979). They are handicapped by behaviors that are incongruent w i t h societal expectations. Sex and A g e Differences Roberts and Baird (1972) found i n their widespread study of American school children, that elementary boys are twice as likely as girls to be considered adjustment problems. N i c o l (1980) found Canadian boys ages 6-13, more likely to be considered behavior problems; by the age of fourteen an even balance between girls and boys became more apparent. These studies indicate that y o u n g boys are twice as likely to be labelled behavior disordered as young girls and the differing types of behavior they exhibit appear to be the reason (Cullinan, et al., 1983). Boys are more likely to have problems that irritate, disrupt or cause conflicts w i t h others i n the environment while girls tend to show problems i n v o l v i n g w i t h d r a w a l or personal  19  conflict which is not particularly destructive.  Walker (1982) found  teacher descriptions of boys to be "easily angered", "destructive to property", "hyperactive", "uncooperative i n group situations", and "boisterous". Girls were described as "hypersensitive", "socially withdrawn", "having feelings of inferiority", and "lack of confidence". Boys exhibit behavior w h i c h is more overt i n nature and consequently is readily identified and referred by the classroom teacher (Walker, 1982). Auchenbach and Edelbrock (1981) found that children labelled behavior disordered are m u c h more likely than their peers to be unhappy, sad or depressed. Epstein, Kauffman & C u l l i n a n (1985) found similar results, also adding that behavior problem children consistently perform poorly on school w o r k as compared to peers. They are unhappy youngsters w h o are behavioral misfits i n school, likely to be the cause of consternation of teachers, and almost certain to be rejected by their peers (Epstein, et al., 1985). Gelfand et al., (1988) states that "a breakdown i n the social control of a child's personal standard of behavior by a parent, teacher, or society i n general leads to insufficiently controlled behavior excesses referred to as a conduct disorder" (p. 134). This is an externalizing disorder that includes aggression, noncompliance, temper tantrums, stealing, fire setting and destructiveness. Intensity and frequency of these behaviors set them apart. They show poor moral development and lack of empathetic behavior, many  20  show little guild or conscience concerning their destructive behavior. They are usually contingency-governed as i n "What can I get" (Gelfand et al., 1988). Behavior problem children often have poor social skills, academic deficiencies and are frequently described as being inappropriately competitive, uncooperative, bossy and defensive about criticism (Gelfand et al., 1988) Prevalence The estimation of how many children actually have behavior disorders is difficult to saybecause of the inconsistency of definitions i n the literature. The U.S. Office of Education in 1975 stated 2% of the school population was behavior disordered. Coleman (1986) reports a host of consistent data that indicates approximately 10% of children i n school have moderate to severe emotional problems. R u b i n and Balow (1978) conducted a study where 7.5% of children i n one school were identified by three different teachers over three consecutive years as having a behavior problems. Students w h o evidence conduct problems (especially aggression) or inadequate-immature behaviors over a long period of time and to a marked degree are likely to become labelled behavior problem children. The majority of these students are male and manifest academic deficiencies (Coleman, 1986). H e concludes that although prevalence estimates vary widely, many researchers believe that  21  approximately 2% of school-aged children are severely disordered, w i t h another 7-10% evidencing behavior or emotional problems severe enough to warrant attention. Csapo (1985) surveyed the enrollment figures for the 1983/84 school year and compared it to the estimated British C o l u m b i a Guidelines for the number of children i n the category of severe behavior problems (0.8% at the elementary level). A c t u a l enrollment numbers for the severe behavior problem classes came out to be only 0.5%. These figures suggest that children may receive little help d u r i n g the elementary level and have to endure repeated social and academic frustration and failure before the system reacts. Csapo (1985) also states that the inconsistency reported across state criteria for identification (Wood & L a r k i n , 1979) holds true for school districts i n British Columbia. Varying district criteria identify different students for the same category. Both degree of availability of service and the type of student served depends to a large extent of the district i n w h i c h the student resides. Interdistrict residence changes may affect eligibility. Only 77% of the school districts i n British C o l u m b i a offer programs for children w i t h behavior problems (Csapo, 1985). Csapo (1985) concludes that the needs of elementary severe behavior problem children are not being met, and suggests a shift of emphasis to early intervention might reduce the need for more secondary intervention programs.  22  Coleman (1986) states four factors that influence an individual's perception of deviance are: (1) differences i n personal tolerance ranges, (2) differing theoretical models, (3) terminology, and (4) sociological parameters of behavior. These factors influence definitions of normalcy versus deviance and, subsequently, perceptions of problem behavior. H o w severe teachers and parents view problem behavior also influences prevalence rates i n each school district. Safran and Safran (1984) found that behaviors least tolerated by teachers are outer-directed or disruptive, originating i n the student but having an observable, tangible effect on other pupils. Examples of such behaviors are p o k i n g , tormenting, teasing, belittling, breaking of classroom rules, and poor peer cooperation. Behaviors described as self or teacher-directed such as irrelevant thinking, blaming, confusion, need for direction, failure anxiety and w o r r y elicited less negative ratings from elementary teachers polled. Webster-Stratton (1988) had 120 mothers and 85 fathers of children w i t h conduct problems (ages 3-8) complete two measures of child adjustment, three personal adjustment measures, and a life experience survey. They were also observed interacting w i t h their children at home. In addition, teachers also completed a child behavior questionnaire.  Fathers' perceptions of their children's  behaviors were significantly correlated w i t h teachers' ratings but mothers' ratings were not. Correlations showed that mothers w h o  23  were depressed or stressed due to marital problems perceived more c h i l d deviant behaviors and interacted w i t h their children w i t h more commands and criticisms. However, there were no significant correlations between fathers' perceptions of deviant child behaviors and father behaviors. Moreover, there were no significant correlations between fathers' personal adjustment measures and father behaviors w i t h children (Webster-Stratton, 1988). H a l l and Farel (1988) sampled 115 mothers of 5 and 6 year o l d children comparing maternal everyday stressors, stressful life events and maternal depressive symptoms to mothers' reports of children's behavior problems. Maternal everyday stressors were more strongly associate w i t h child behavior problems than life events.  Children of mothers indicating a high level of  everyday stressors were 13 times more likely to be rated as having behavior problems than children of mothers reporting a l o w level of everyday stressors (Hall & Farel, 1988). H a l l & Farel (1988) discuss their results by making reference to a Fergusson, H o r w o o d , & Shannon's (1984) explanation w h i c h suggests that when mothers are faced w i t h many stresses, they may be more likely to view their children's behavior as problematic. Fergusson et al. (1984) suggest that children react to behavior and mood. Stressors may influence maternal interaction w i t h the child by increasing maternal irritability, inattentiveness or punitiveness w h i c h may evoke child behaviors such as acting out, making somatic complaints, or seeking attention through aggressive behavior.  24  The above mentioned studies are examples of h o w differences i n personal tolerance and sociological parameters (home vs. school settings) affect h o w individual's perceive problem behavior i n children. Different theoretical models all have their o w n w a y of describing, classifying and treating chidren w i t h behavior disorders. Explanations of C h i l d Behavior Disorders Etiology The disturbed child is one who because of organic a n d / o r environmental influences, chronically displays: (a)  inability to learn at a rate comparable w i t h h i s / h e r intellectual, sensory-motor and physical development (b) inability to establish and maintain adequate social relationships (c) inability to respond appropriately i n day to day life situations (d) a variety of excessive behavior ranging from hyperactive, i m p u l s i v e responses to withdrawal. (Haring, 1963, p. 291) Biophysical Model Perceptual and neurological factors. The genetic factor refers to inherited biological characteristics that may cause a predisposition toward disturbed behavior. Sagor's (1974) review of related literature indicated an inherited and environmental component i n the development of schizophrenia and autism. H e found it was evident that severely disturbed children had more neurological abnormalities than their normal peers (Sagor, 1974). Developmental delays are often found among these populations (Coleman, 1986). Stellern, M a r l o w e ,  25  Jacobs and Cossairt (1985) found significantly more emotionally disturbed students classified right hemisphere cognitive mode by the A d a p t e d Children's F o r m of Your Style of Learning and T h i n k i n g (SOLAT) than control subjects; and the emotionally disturbed subjects h a d significantly higher right hemisphere S O L A T scores than controls. Emotionally disturbed subjects scored significantly lower than controls on the Wechsler Intelligence Survey for Chilren Revised, the Woodcock Reading Achievement Test, the Bender-Gestalt V i s u a l M o t o r Perception test, and higher on the Walker Problem Behavior Identification Checklist. Their results suggest that children w i t h academic/behavioral deficits and emotionally disturbed children demonstrated a stronger preference for using a right style of information processing. O n the other hand, children without academic/behavioral deficits and nonhandicapped children seem to have developed greater skills in using an integrative style of processing information, using both the specialized cerebral functions of the left hemisphere and those of the right hemisphere, either i n conjunction w i t h one another by shifting from one to the other as demanded by the nature of the task (Stallern et a l , 1985). These findings suggest that the educational programs emphasize classroom behavior and achievement that call for integrative ways of processing information. Left to right temporal sequencing and detail-analysis is necessary for reading and spelling (Stellern et al., 1985). Predominantly right hemisphere cognitive mode students may become frustrated by the left-minded  26  school environment, w i t h consequent symptoms of emotional disturbance, acting-out and distractibility. Conversely, left and integrated hemisphere subjects may be more likely to fit into and be rewarded by the left-minded school environment, and therefore have less acting-out and distractibility (Stellern et a l , 1985). A possible explanation for the relationship between hemispheric asymmetry and emotionally disturbed subjects involves a suggestion by Levy, Heller, Banich, and Burton (1983) that cognitive and emotional dimensions are related to the arousal levels of the left and right hemispheres, and that the arousal level of the right hemisphere conditions emotional tone. It is possible then that some right hemisphere individuals could have an electorcortical, or neurotransmitter (for example, dopamine) anomaly i n the dominant right hemisphere, thus causing right hemisphere arousal irregularities w i t h resulting symptoms of emotional disturbance. This is to say that neuroarousal anomalies of the right hemisphere i n d i v i d u a l s , could adversely affect the emotional integration and control of especially predominant right hemisphere i n d i v i d u a l s , causing emotionally disturbed learning and behavior problems (Stellern, et al., 1985). Metabolic factors are proposed by some researchers w h o believe that schizophrenic, autistic, and other severely disturbed children and adults suffer from biochemical disturbances caused by severe v i t a m i n deficiencies. Originally, many researchers claimed that large dosages of v i t a m i n B3 and vitamin C help metabolize adrenaline, w h i c h , i n  27  pathological cases, can be metabolized by the body into a toxic chemical causing bizarre behaviors (Coleman, 1986). Other researchers reported that behavior of autistic children improved significantly as a function of the amount of vitamin  i n their diets (Rinland, Callaway, &  Dryfus, 1978). A l t h o u g h these authors are unsure of the specific mechanism through w h i c h v i t a m i n therapy works, they remain adamant that it does work. The efficacy of both mega v i t a m i n therapy and nutrition therapy is dependent on alleviation of the symptoms. Currently, neither approach can claim absolute positive results (Coleman, 1986). A l t h o u g h some studies have shown a relationship between problem behavior and food coloring (Rose, 1978; Swanson & Kinsbourne, 1980) or certain classes of foods (O'Banion, Armstrong, C u m m i n g s & Strange, 1978), others have failed to find any causal connection (Bird, Russo & Cataldo, 1977; Harley, Matthews & Eichman, 1978). Research strongly suggests that food chemicals do produce a highly, negative behavioral response i n some children (Rose, 1978; Swanson & Kinsbourne, 1980), but as the research on neurological and perceptual factors, it is promising but inconclusive i n helping determine the etiology of behavior disorders. Temperament Factors - Temperament refers to a behavioral style that is an inborn tendency but also highly influenced by the environment. Thomas and Chess (1977) followed a sample of over a hundred  28  children from infancy to adulthood and found 70% of difficult children who cried frequently, had intense reactions, and were easily frustrated. These children developed behavior disorders ranging from adjustment reaction to conduct disorder i n later life. Parents d i d not initially differ i n child-rearing practices but later became more negative towards their children (Thomson & Chess, 1977). A s the children grew, parents reported being more frustrated and admitted that a negative cycle of behavior often occurred. Attention-seeking acting out behavior was followed by yelling spanking, and punishment. Rarely d i d these consequences correct the aversive behavior (Thomas & Chess, 1977). Psychodynamic M o d e l Prior to 1950, all work w i t h children was derived from variations of psychodynamic theory (Kauffman, 1979). The most fundamental concept shared by the psychodynamic models of F r e u d and Erickson, is that the child's personality develops along lines determined by the dynamic interplay of internal mental processes and experiences. Personality proceeds through a sequence of stages and mastery of each stage is essential for mental health. The child suffers emotional conflict when development is stopped or inhibited during a crucial sequence. Disruption of emotional growth leads to maladaption, and behavior is seen as an outward reflection of inner psychic energies (Kauffman, 1979). Freud concluded i n his theory that human motivation is  29  basically irrational and that people are driven by powerful and relentless unconscious sexual and aggressive desires. These unconscious forces are expressed indirectly and in symbolic form i n dreams, speech, and play (Gelfand et al., 1988). Freud v i e w e d abnormal behavior or disturbed behavior as the result of an inability to resolve a conflict within a specific psychosocial stage. In his view, when an individual becomes fixated at a given stage, personal adjustment i n that area becomes very difficult and the majority of the individual's interpersonal interactions become a replay of the difficulties encountered during that stage (Coleman, 1986). Erickson's psychosocial stages describe h o w a child develops trust, autonomy, initiative, industry, and identity. Parents can either facilitate emotional growth i n these stages or condemn the child to feelings of inferiority. According to Erikson, if the crises i n each stage is not dealt w i t h successfully, the i n d i v i d u a l w i l l continue to demonstrate behaviors indicative of that stage, which may be several years below the individual's mental and physical development. The successful resolution of a crisis is not a permanent achievement; instead, healthy adults continue to struggle with the issues on a superficial level throughout life. Blackman (1967) describes the psychodynamic v i e w of the behavior problem child when he says that such a child:  30  ...is so thwarted i n satisfaction of his needs for safety, affection, acceptance, and self-esteem that he is unable intellectually to function efficiently, cannot adapt to reasonable requirements of social regulation and convention, or is so plagued w i t h inner conflict, anxiety and guilt that he or she is unable to perceive reality clearly or meet the ordinary demands of the environment i n w h i c h he or she lives (p. 73)  31  Humanistic Model Carl Rogers proclaims that behavior may be understood only i n terms of the individual's frame of reference, that is one's personal experiences and perceptions of the world. According to Rogers (1959) organismic valuing process, infants have a regulatory system that tells them h o w well their basic needs are being met. Each i n d i v i d u a l has innate w i s d o m for preservation and actualization. A s the self-concept emerges, so does a need for positive regard, a universal need for acceptance and respect. The need for positive regard then motivates the developing person to judge personal actions i n terms of societal values. Conflict arises when the innate criteria clash w i t h societal values so that the person is torn between the organismic valuing process and the need for positive regard (Coleman, 1986). Maladjustment occurs when there is an incongruence between self and experience. This incongruence is usually dealt w i t h through either distortion or denial of the experience. If these strategies fail, a serious breakdown of the self-concept may occur and the i n d i v i d u a l experiences disorganization characterized by irrational or psychotic behaviors (Coleman, 1986). From Roger's perspective, when the child's parents find some aspects of his or her behavior unacceptable, the child may come to share her parent's disapproval. To ensure his or her acceptance the child may deny their o w n socially dangerous tendencies, such as  32  hostility toward siblings. H e or she may demand irreproachable behavior of herself as a condition of worth, just as their parents d i d . H e or she denies her hostility and projects it onto others, treating them as though they were threatening, thus creating interpersonal problems. To improve, the child should experience unconditional positive regard, or whole-hearted and complete acceptance just as they are. Parents and therapists must create safe environments i n w h i c h children can express themselves freely without fear of rejection. Such positive and accepting relationships free the child of the need to be shy or defiant, and behavior problems disappear (Gelfand et al., 1988). Ecological Model Behavioral disabilities are defined as a variety of excessive, chronic, deviant behaviors ranging from impulsive and aggressive to depressive and w i t h d r a w a l acts w h i c h violate the perceiver's expectations of appropriateness and w h i c h the perceiver wishes to see stopped (Grauberd, 1973). Deviance lies i n the interaction of an i n d i v i d u a l w i t h others (the perceivers) i n the environment. Rhodes (1967) states the disturbance is i n the behavioral expectations of those w i t h w h o m the child must interact. Certain environments may be unable to accommodate the unfolding nature of children, thereby generating disturbance i n the ecosystems. People, objects, time, space, and psychological variables are all components of an ecosystem (Coleman, 1986).  33  Student characteristics such as gender, socio-economic status, appearance, achievement and behavioral style influence teacher expectations. The behaviors that teachers find most disturbing are best described as defiant-aggressive.  Such behaviors engender negative  attitudes w h i c h are often translated into negative teacher-student interactions, thus setting i n motion the r i p p l i n g through the ecosystem (Coleman, 1986). In any ecological context behavior may be viewed as deviant w h e n discordance arises or organism-behavior-environment homeostasis is disrupted. Consequently, the organism, behavior, a n d / o r the environment requires modification to reestablish "balance". For the ecologist, environmental determinism is the underlying construct on w h i c h assessment and intervention approaches are based (Hendrickson, Gable, & Shores, 1987). Setting events constitute the contextual conditions i n w h i c h organism-environment interactions occur. They can be internal (fatigue, drugs, emotional status, injury, and hunger); or external (classroom noise level, lighting, teacher arrangements, number of classmates and adults present). Setting events such as these may increase or decrease the value of the stimuli that directly affect a given behavior. These represent ecological variables over which the teacher may exert some control and thereby affect the potential power of the educational program (Hendrickson et al., 1987). For example, to arrange the setting to improve the chance of increased engaged time on  34  task, the teacher can schedule i n advance sufficient time for practice as w e l l as select those materials of instructional arrangements that increase the student's opportunity to respond (Lentz & Shapiro, 1986). The majority of special educators view the possible detrimental effects of labelling as a v a l i d issue, but the administrative necessity of labelling for obtaining funds and p r o v i d i n g services is a reality. Coleman (1986) identifies two major sources leading to socialization failure: 1. deficiency i n the child or parent that results i n the child's failure to acquire the desired values and behaviors. 2. conflicting demands from different socialization agents (parents & teachers) which creates stress for the individual (p. 97). The child's reaction to stress and the power distribution w i l l determine whether the child is labelled deviant. The child is a victim of conflict that arises out of the socialization process (Coleman, 1986). Schools have a dual role—as transmitters of culture in the socialization process and as agents of social control. N o t all school rules are posted formally and enforced consistently. The student must be an astute observer of others' expectations and must learn the intricacies of rules and rule-related behavior. Inability to read the environment accurately often gets them into trouble w i t h rule enforcers and are consequently labelled deviant (Coleman, 1986).  35  Behavioral M o d e l  Behaviorists see emotional disturbance as maladaptive behavior. A s a learned behavior, it is developed and maintained like all other behaviors (Russ, 1974). The only difference between most disturbed behaviors and normal behaviors are the frequency, magnitude, and social adaptiveness of the behaviors.  Therefore,  behaviors are not v i e w e d as intrinsically deviant but rather as abnormal to the extent that they deviate from societal expectations (Coleman, 1986). Behaviorists also believe that maladaptive behavior can be unlearned and new behaviors learned i n its place. They place the utmost importance on the setting i n w h i c h the behavior occurs and on events immediately preceding and following the behavior. It is a method that stresses observable behavior; it is not concerned w i t h explaining intrapsychic forces or recognizing internal process i n the individual. In modeling, individuals may acquire new responses by observing and subsequently imitating the behavior of other individuals. Bandura, Ross and Ross, (1961) found that children w h o observed on an aggressive adult model were more apt to behave aggressively than children w h o had observed a nonaggressive model. Bandura's social learning theory lists six possible causes of deviant behavior.  36  1. Exposure to socially deviant models can teach the child inappropriate forms of behavior. 2. Insufficient reinforcement could lead to extinction of appropriate behaviors, as i n the case of hostile or neglectful parents failing to reinforce a child's appropriate behavior. 3. Inappropriate reinforcement or reinforcement of undesirable behavior can promote problem behavior. 4. Faulty respondent conditioning of negative emotional states can derive from experiencing fear and anxiety, either directly or vicariously from observing another person. 5. Fictional reinforcement contingencies (such as household objects dangerously contaminated dirt) can lead to maladaptive behavior. 6. Faulty self-reinforcement can occur when people h o l d themselves to overly strict or too-generous standards. (Gelfand, et al., 1988, p.50) Bandura believes that by attending to a model's demonstration, mentally encoding the behavior and having the necessary requisites to perform the new behavior, an i n d i v i d u a l can imitate a model if they can anticipate the positive consequences that w i l l result (Gelfand, et al., 1988). Self-reinforcement is derived when an i n d i v i d u a l thinks about his o w n attitudes and behaviors i n positive ways (Bandura, 1968). Selfreinforcement can also be systematically taught to students as a behavioral self-control technique (Workman, 1982). Students can learn to reinforce themselves by merely imagining their involvement i n a pleasant and rewarding scene or activity. However, children w i t h behavior problems usually require a m u c h more structured approach when one is trying to alter their coercive behavior. Coercive control follows a typical sequence of  37  behaviors where a demand or request is made to a noncompliant child by either an adult or another child. The behavior problem child usually responds w i t h tantrums, teasing or aggression, while the person making the request usually withdraws. Instead of trying to interpret underlying conflict or stored aggressive impulses, behavioral methods utilize environmental consequences, parent training, contingency contracting, and conflict resolution training to change disruptive behavior (Wells & Forehand, 1981). Techniques such as point systems, reinforcement, precision request making, time out, and relaxation training are commonly used to deal w i t h aggressive and noncompliant behavior. Patterson for over two decades at the Oregon Research Institute has seen over 200 families w i t h children w h o are primarily aggressive and noncompliant. The primary treatment approach used w i t h these children has been to train parents to effectively reduce their children's adverse behaviors (Fleishman, 1981; Patterson, 1974, 1976; Patterson & Fleishman, 1979). Treatment i n the home consisted of training parents to define and track both deviant and appropriate behaviors; to w i t h d r a w reinforcement, or to ignore inappropriate responding, and to use time out for inappropriate behaviors; to construct contracts w i t h specified contingencies for behaviors and to catch the child being good and reinforce h i m for appropriate behaviors (Gelfand et al, 1988).  38  After treatment and a twelve month follow-up, the observed rate of the obnoxious behaviors for the aggressive boys was within normal limits (Patterson, 1982). Behavior management principles have been w i d e l y used i n both Canada and the United States to help parents and teachers cope w i t h the social/emotional difficulties experienced by children and youth. Behavioral techniques have successfully been used w i t h a variety of interventions that change behavior of pupils i n regular classes, special day classes and residential units (Webster, 1989). Such children usually have adjustment difficulties such as: hyperactivity, impulsivity, lack of attention (Hewitt, 1968); immaturity, withdrawal and inadequacy (strain, 1981); and aggressive and hostile behavior (Patterson, 1982). F a m i l y Factors Research shows that parental psychopathology, parental control techniques, marital relationships, maternal or paternal dominance, parental personality, or role assignment within the family are not, w h e n considered alone, predictive of mental health or behavioral pathology (Bell, 1971; Martin, 1975; Sameroff, Seifer & Zax, 1982). Such family variables appear to be predictive of the child's behavior development only i n complex interactions w i t h each other and w i t h other factors, such as socioeconomic status, ethnic origin, and the child's age, sex, and temperamental characteristics.  Nevertheless,  broken homes, father absence, parental separation, divorce, chaotic or  39  hostile family relationships, and l o w socioeconomic level appear to increase children's vulnerability to behavior problem's (Hetherington & M a r t i n , 1979; Martin, 1975; Sameroff et a l , 1982). Patterson (1982) found that i n families w i t h aggressive children, not only d i d the children behave i n ways that were highly irritating and aversive to their parents, but the parents relied primarily on aversive methods (biting, shouting, threatening) to control their children. Patterson (1982) also found that the problem children tended to increase their disruptive behavior i n response to parental punishment. Other research indicates that hostile, inconsistent discipline and family conflict are associated w i t h problem behavior (Moore & A r t h u r , 1983; W i l l i s , Swanson & Walker, 1983), but these do not demonstrate that punitive parents caused their children to become aggressive any more than aggressive children caused their parents to become punitive. Parents undoubtedly contribute toward or detract from their child's success at school i n several ways. Their expressed attitudes toward school, academic learning, and teachers; their o w n competence or lack of success i n school; and their disinterest i n or reinforcement of appropriate school-related behaviors, such as attending regularly, completing homework, reading, and studying, all affect a child's scholastic success (Kauffman, 1985).  40  Once the specific problem behaviors of parents and their children are identified and the relationships among parent and child behaviors are analyzed, intervention consisting of rearranging the consequences p r o v i d e d by one i n d i v i d u a l (usually the parent) for the other (usually the child) can be implemented (Kauffman, 1985). S c h o o l Factors Bower (1981) reported several large-scale studies that compared disturbed children's achievement i n arithmetic and reading to the achievement of their normal peers i n grades four, five, and six. Behavior problem children scored significantly below the other children at each grade level. The achievement deficiencies of the problem children were greater i n arithmetic than i n reading, and their deficiencies became more marked w i t h each succeeding grade level. Kauffman (1985) lists six ways to contribute to the development of problem behavior: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.  insensitivity to children's i n d i v i d u a l i t y inappropriate expectations inconsistent management instruction i n nonfunctional and irrelevant skills convoluted contingencies of reinforcement undesirable models (p. 153)  Rutter, M a u g h a n , Mortimore, Ouston & Smith (1979) point out that "pupils are likely to be influenced—either for good or ill—by the models of behavior provided by teachers both in the classroom and elsewhere" (p. 189). Teachers whose attitude toward academic work is  41  cavalier, w h o treat others with cruelty or disrespect, or w h o are disorganized, may foster similar undesirable attitudes and conduct i n the students (Kauffman, 1985). Educating C h i l d r e n W i t h Behavior Problems There has been extensive research done on behavior modification techniques as the most w i d e l y used intervention i n schools to manage behavior problem children. These students can be part of a regular classroom, a resource room program or a special selfcontained classroom for behavior problem students. In the case of students whose behavior is seriously and persistently aggressive and disruptive, even w i t h a regular classroom teacher whose behavior management skills are adequate, Kauffman, M c C u l l o u g h , and Sabornie (1984) believe segregation of the student i n a special class is desirable until he or she has acquired the skills necessary to meet expectations for appropriate behavior in a regular class. Once the student has learned to behave nonaggressively and nondisruptively i n a segregated environment, reintegration should be the goal. A l m o s t all children referred to self-contained classrooms for behavior problems are referred because of misbehaviors or skill deficiencies so severe that the children cannot be effectively taught i n a regular classroom or other part-time setting. The disruptive behaviors are frequently externalizing and include noncompliance,.tantrums, vandalism, fighting, arguing, inattentiveness and theft.  They are  42  excesses i n the sense that they occur too often and too intensely (Jenson, Reavis, & Rhodes, 1987; K a z d i n , 1985; Patterson, 1986). Some children are also referred for internalizing problems. Shyness, anxiety, fears, w o r r y i n g bodily complaints, and social w i t h d r a w a l are internalizing behavior problems. Because most of those students can be educated i n less restrictive settings, self-contained behavior problem classrooms usually contain children w h o demonstrate more externalizing behavior disorders (Morgan & Jenson, 1988). Systematically applying behavior management strategies may be the initial key to teaching behavior problem children. H o w e v e r , children i n self-contained classrooms can come to depend too heavily on the structured and behaviorally engineered environment. Therefore, an effective behavior management program for a selfcontained classroom: 1. Decreases inappropriate behaviors (behavioral excesses) 2. Increases survival skills such as social and academic skills (behavioral deficits) 3. Transfers behavioral control from external sources to the student 4. Facilitates generalization to regular education settings as soon as possible (Morgan & Jenson, 1988, p. 370). M o r g a n and Jenson (1988) describe a level system as the backbone of the behavior management program i n a self-contained classroom. The beginning level contains behavioral requirements w h i c h are designed to control behavior excesses. A t this level, the  43  behavior management techniques feature external control devices such as a point system to help children remain i n their seats, keep their hands and feet to themselves, engage i n non-aggressive behavior, and refrain from cheating, stealing and lying. The m i d d l e levels are used for learning and practicing replacement behaviors i n academic and social skills. Such skills involve following directions, paying attention, raising hands, contributing to class activities, using polite language, cooperating w i t h others and initiating play. The upper levels are designed for generalization and self-control skills. Students begin to monitor their o w n behavior and mark them on a point card. If the teacher's and student's ratings are the same, the child is reinforced. If they are significantly different the child loses reinforcement.  C h i l d r e n are taught to monitor themselves and match  their teacher's perception because this self-control technique w i l l be used when they return to the regular classroom. Students also start to increasingly spend more time w o r k i n g independently. The academic materials should be the same or similar to materials used i n the regular classroom. W o r k i n g independently w i t h regular classroom academic materials is a critical step i n generalization, because most regular classroom teachers require students to work from a blackboard. It is a major classroom survival skill, and, frequently, one i n w h i c h behavior disordered students are deficient.  44  In the highest level, all classroom privileges are available as long as they maintain their classroom behavior and academic progress. In addition, they spend more time i n the regular classroom and carry a report rate from the regular teacher. The child continues to monitor his or her academic and social behaviors i n the regular classroom and the regular teacher and student compare reports. If they match the child is rewarded i n the self-contained classroom and by parents (Morgan & Jenson, 1988). Center (1986) claims that the most effective direct approach to dealing w i t h inappropriate social behavior, emotional responses and excessive and deficit behavior is based on behavioral principles. H e cites several authors as evidence for behavior management  techniques  as the most successful method of educating the children w i t h behavior problems. However, H i l t o n (1987) points out that although such an approach is often effective i n the short term i n the setting i n w h i c h it is used, the causes of the behavior are not addressed, often resulting i n additional maladaptive behavior i n other environments the child encounters.  Lovejoy and Routh (1988) found that social skills training  i m p r o v e d the occurrence of positive behavior from four behavior problem boys, but these behaviors were not sustained after the training was terminated nor were the behaviors reciprocated by their peers. Martinez (1985) claims that when reinforcers are used solely and mechanically as a means of behavior modification and control, the  45  child can learn that these externals have the control over his or her behavior, success and failure. The child can even start perceiving h i m / h e r s e l f as helpless (Martinez, 1985). M c C o n n e l l (1987) suggests that the only way the effects of social skills training w i l l last w i t h behavior problem students is to use what he calls "entrapment". This involves teaching those behaviors that w i l l naturally be reinforced by peers. For example, when a child offers a toy to a peer, this share offer is very likely to set the occasion for a positive peer response and to be reciprocated by peers offering toys to the child in the future. Sharing is a skill that is likely to entrap, that is, the likelihood of future share offers by the child is thus increased by exposure to naturally occurring social behaviors of others (McConnell, 1987). Sandler, A r n o l d , Gable and Strain (1987) found that w h e n the teacher asked students to identify, explain and offer suggestions to correct a fellow student's problem behavior, the occurrence of problem behaviors displayed by that student decreased significantly. They suggest that peer confrontation is an effective procedure for decreasing inappropriate classroom conduct of children w i t h behavior problems (Sandler et al., 1987). Rosenberg (1986) found that a brief daily review of classroom rules and rehearsal on student behavior increased behavior problem students' overall time-on-task by 12%, and a 50% reduction i n instances of disruptive talkouts was achieved i n comparison to a class  that d i d not have the rule review i n addition to a token economy program. Both the Sandler et al., (1986) and Rosenberg (1986) studies ; examples of h o w cognitive explanations can maximize the effectiveness of structured classroom management programs.  47  C H A P T E R III: T H E S E L F - C O N C E P T O F T H E C H I L D W I T H BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS The relationship of a student's self-concept to inappropriate behavior has been described as an important contribution to social psychology (Oldfield, 1986). Cenname (1977) reported that elementary school children w i t h l o w self-concepts demonstrate more incidents of disruptive, aggressive behaviors and hostile attitudes than do their peers w i t h high self-concepts. Burdett and Jensen (1983) have also found significantly larger mean aggressiveness scores among children w i t h l o w self-concepts when compared to children w i t h m e d i u m and high self-concepts. If this is so, h o w does self-concept influence behavior? D e v e l o p m e n t of Self-Concept Felker (1974) defined self-concept as a unique set of perceptions, ideas, and attitudes an i n d i v i d u a l has about himself or herself. Piers (1984) similarly states self-concept is a "relatively stable set of selfattitudes reflecting both a description and an evaluation of one's o w n behavior and attributes" (p. 7). Self-perception involves smells, sounds, tastes and tactual feelings all coming from the environment, allowing i n d i v i d u a l s to constantly receive and absorb sensory data. Everyone receives sensory data i n a unique way so that it is not "raw" data but data filtered and  48  interpreted by the receiver. The experiences individuals have through the perceptions they receive provide the basis for the self-concept (Felker, 1974). The self also contains a unique set of ideas w h i c h define w h o and what they are. A s the i n d i v i d u a l absorbs sensory data and attaches meanings to it, the self-concept develops. The meanings attached to sensory data are the conclusions that people come to about themselves from perceptions of their environment. A s meanings become definite ideas, they operate to define and i n turn give meaning to new data w h i c h is received and the whole process becomes circular. In the process of giving meaning and getting meaning out of the data received, we draw conclusions about ourselves and begin to see ourselves i n abstract terms. The tendency of individuals w h o have characteristics rated as undesirable by others, begin to see themselves as undesirable, particularly those w h o are physically unattractive, physically handicapped, or w h o come from minority groups that experience prejudice. These persons may have a particularly difficult time developing a positive self-concept because of the continual bombardment of negative ideas from the environment (Felker, 1974). Ideas and internal thoughts develop into attitudes w h i c h are aimed at the self. Because self-attitudes are directed i n w a r d , the emotions aroused by these attitudes are particularly powerful. Everyone directs attitudes toward others and, at the same time, perceives the attitudes of others towards them. External attitudes can  49  be avoided if they are negative or painful. But negative self-attitudes cannot be avoided; h o w can one w a l k away from oneself? H o w e v e r , children often must face negative attitudes from external sources w h i c h they cannot avoid. H o w does a child remove himself or herself from parents or teachers w h o have negative attitudes toward them? They might get away for a short time, but so m u c h of their life is under the control of others that they do not really have the option of removing themselves from a home or a classroom where they feel negative attitudes are directed toward them (Felker, 1974). Another w a y i n w h i c h individuals defend themselves against negative attitudes of others is by rationalization. One of the most common rationalizations is to maintain that the negative attitude is unjustified and that it is an indication of fault w i t h the person that holds it, rather than with the object of the attitude. But if the attitude becomes self-directed, one is really blaming oneself, although they may be trying to externalize the blame. Self-directed attitudes are more powerful because they are not easily controlled by the usual defenses individuals use to handle negative attitudes directed toward oneself. A n y o n e w h o attempts to tell an i n d i v i d u a l that reality is different than what he sees, feels, and thinks is likely to have a difficult time convincing that person. In fact, Rogers (1959) defines anxiety as a discrepancy or incongruence between the way one views oneself (self-image) and reality. O n l y through  50  congruent experiences of self-image and reality can one develop a positive self-concept. The experiences w h i c h an i n d i v i d u a l has every day indicates to h i m or her that he or she is competent or incompetent, good or bad, worthy or unworthy. The people w h o are important to h i m or her influence what he or she thinks about themselves. W h e n others offer an opinion about ourselves or describe us i n abstract terms, even though we may not believe the opinion, we often wonder if it is true, since others see us that way. W e may choose to accept or ignore the opinion, but the experience does help to m o l d and shape our selfconcept (Felker, 1974). The self-concept also has a dynamic role in shaping experiences, for it determines an individual's actions i n various situations, and is a powerful determiner of behavior (Felker, 1974). The role of the self-concept is threefold: it operates as a mechanism for maintaining inner consistency; it determines h o w experiences are interpreted; and it provides a set of expectancies. W h e n individuals have ideas, feelings, or perceptions w h i c h are out of harmony or i n opposition to one another, a psychologically uncomfortable situation of dissonance is produced (Felker, 1974). A person is then likely to take any sort of action that w i l l remove this uncomfortable feeling and reduce the tension. The i n d i v i d u a l may refuse to see things i n the environment; refuse to accept as v a l i d things  51  w h i c h other people tell h i m or her about them; or he or she may strive to change things about himself or herself or others (Felker, 1974). The child or adult w i l l often act i n ways w h i c h are consistent w i t h the way they think of themselves. If a child hears that he or she is a troublemaker and difficult, they w i l l likely act i n ways that w i l l lead to trouble and difficulty. This strong motivating force w h i c h initiates actions and happenings into harmony w i t h their self-view makes the self-concept powerful and important. In order to maintain this harmony, an i n d i v i d u a l w i l l often interpret experiences i n ways w h i c h are consistent w i t h i n d i v i d u a l views. This factor makes it extremely difficult to change a self-concept that is formed and operating, because one has learned to expect experiences i n congruence w i t h the selfconcept. People w h o v i e w themselves as worthless expect others to treat them i n a manner consistent w i t h this expectation. Self-Concept a n d C o u n s e l l i n g Effectiveness Research Parkey and N o v a k (1984) stated that the disruptive student has learned to see himself or herself as a troublemaker and behaves accordingly and people w i t h a negative self-concept tend to be more disruptive, more anxious, more stressful and more likely to manifest psychosomatic symptoms than people w i t h average and h i g h selfregard. A l t h o u g h feeling worthless is not the same as being worthless, its impact on student behavior is often the same.  52  Pidduck (1988) describes characteristics of children w i t h l o w selfesteem below: 1.  L o w self-esteem children are often isolated: they may feel despondent or depressed, and their poor sense of self also makes them feel uncomfortable w i t h their peers.  2.  They are often fearful: fearful of criticism for being a failure w h i c h they often expect people to tell them.  3.  Such children are very self-conscious: they are too aware of their o w n l o w status, their o w n feelings of inferiority, and this often is h o w they see themselves.  4.  They underachieve i n school: many research workers and educationalists have shown positive relationships between self-esteem and academic performance.  5.  Children w i t h poor self-confidence are anxious for approval: they are so unsure of themselves, they tend to rely too m u c h on getting their teacher or their peers to approve of them.  6.  They set l o w goals for themselves or unrealistic h i g h ones.  7.  Some of them are intent upon causing disruption: this may be to do w i t h their marked feelings of frustration and anger at their sense of failure i n life, and this gets expressed i n outward disruption.  8.  They are reluctant to join in: in case they get ridiculed by their peers or their teachers for being failures or being stupid.  9.  They are over-sensitive to criticism—they have a demanding and unrealistic conscience.  10. L o w self-esteem children are never satisfied w i t h their efforts: they feel they are "no good" so what they do try feels "not good enough." (Pidduck, 1988, p. 158)  53  Pidduck believes that to children who display characteristics of l o w self-esteem have not had enough experience of being loved and valued as they are. Lawrence (1983) reviewed several studies and found consistent relationships between self-esteem and achievement. Self-concept develops as a function of the information teachers, other students, and parents provide regarding the individual's level of achievement (Bloom, 1977). C h i l d r e n w i t h behavior problems may be susceptible to lower self-concepts because of difficulties they encounter i n school. A s various stages i n learning a school task, marks and grades are assigned and made public to children and parents. A s performancerelated perceptions accumulate, a consistent pattern of achievement and self-perception develop. If performance has been satisfactory, future tasks are approached with confidence but if performance has been inadequate (i.e. problem behavior), then students develop a belief i n their inadequacy i n respect to certain types of learning (Bloom, 1977). M a r s h and O ' N e i l l (1984) have also found that high achievers generally indicate more positive self-concepts than l o w achievers. There is a variety of conflicting results i n the literature regarding self-concept and its relationship to problem behavior. Sorsdahl and Sanche (1984) found that after 40 classroom counselling meetings, grade four students i m p r o v e d significantly i n classroom behavior whereas measures i n self-concept d i d not differ between experimental and control groups.  54  Conversely, Cant and Spackman (1985) found after 24 class group counselling sessions experimental ten-year-olds gained significantly i n self-esteem measures compared to controls. This same experimental group made significant reading age scores gains as well. L u n d (1987) found that 44 primary aged children and 66 secondary aged children attending special day schools for the emotionally disturbed and behavior disordered i n Northamptonshire had significantly lower self-esteem scores as compared to children i n regular public schools. Testing for that study was done i n January 1986. T w o years later i n January 1988, L u n d retested 17 primary and 20 secondary school-aged children w h o were part of the original study. L u n d found gain scores i n self-esteem as measured by the Laurence Self-Esteem Questionnaire, particularly i n children at the primary phase, indicating that positive intervention at an early age is effective w i t h children w h o have emotional and behavioral difficulties ( L u n d , 1989). Martinez (1979) counselled grades 1-4 students for a four week period consisting of eight i n d i v i d u a l sessions for each subject and found there was no significant change i n global self-concept. One subsystem on the Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale (Happiness and Satisfaction), d i d indicate change for the counselled group compared to control subjects. Martinez (1979), however, d i d find a significant reduction i n the frequency of disturbed and disturbing behavior by students w h o received counselling compared to the  55  control group. Behavior was measured by the Children's Behavior Scale, and Martinez (1979) found no significant relationship between change i n behavior and change i n self-concept. Warger and K l e m a n (1986) had institutionalized, noninstitutionalized, handicapped, nonhandicapped, and behavior disordered children participate in nine 45 minute creative drama sessions. Results indicated that the intervention group significantly i m p r o v e d on both self-concept and creative expression measures.  The  most improvement was noted in subjects w h o were institutionalized for their behavior problems. Counselling intervention studies on self-esteem i n children have been few since many lack adequate experimental control procedures. Bruce (1958) carried out an investigation w i t h 11 or 12 year old children into the effects of a program designed to develop greater insight into self-behavior and that of others. The experimental group pupils showed greater self-acceptance than the controls at the conclusion of the program. Pigge (1970) also used a group counselling program w i t h 9 to 10 year olds, involving 18 sessions of 50 minutes each. U t i l i z i n g a discussion approach, pupils were encouraged to talk freely about themselves. A t the end of the program, it was found that group self-esteem had i m p r o v e d i n comparison w i t h the control group, but not to a significant degree. Laurence (1973), concentrating on i n d i v i d u a l counselling w i t h poor readers i n English schools, found that using helpers w i t h a  57  expectation that adults are untrustworthy, unreliable or nonunderstanding. A child's experiences may have created a picture of others strong enough to withstand his or her destructive acts and able to help h i m or her control them. If important figures i n his or her early life were easily overwhelmed or struck d o w n by illness or death, it w i l l have confirmed his or her fears of being destructive. If the teacher or counsellor can provide a different experience from the one that is feared or unrealistically desired, the p u p i l has another chance to adjust his or her picture of the w o r l d and grow on the basis of this new experience. In so far as powerful feelings are alive and active i n the present, the child is capable of change i n the context of a new relationship. Thus M a c k (1988) argues that the school at w h i c h the child spends such a large part of his or her w a k i n g life, and the teachers and counsellors w h o become such influential adults for the child have a great responsibility for p r o v i d i n g experiences w h i c h w i l l encourage trust as opposed to idealization and dread, and thus help the i n d i v i d u a l to grow. To understand the motivation behind a child's misbehavior, it is essential first to understand the child's private logic and "hidden reason." Dreikurs (1973) defines the hidden reason as the unconscious justification and motivational force behind movement toward the "long range goals of the life style and the immediate goals w i t h i n a given situation" (p. 23).  58  The nature of humans is positive. From birth, children want to contribute, please and comfort. W h e n their efforts are not appreciated they feel dismissed as if they do not belong to the family or classroom group. The child needs the involvement of significant others to develop a healthy self-concept and personal identity. Through parental involvement, specifically, children begin to believe they are important and that their existence means something (Nystul, 1986). A c c o r d i n g to N y s t u l (1986), a child has four possibilities in life. She or he can become a "good somebody," a "good nobody," a "bad somebody," or he or she can develop "severe mental health problems"(p. 46). Children tend to define themselves as good somebodies w h e n they have opportunities to make a contribution and w h e n parents and significant others communicate that their contributions are special and appreciated. Unfortunately, parents may be too tired or too busy to provide opportunities for positive involvement. Too often the parent forgets or becomes distracted w i t h something else and does not get involved w i t h the child. Children may continue to be "good" for weeks or months. These children are behaving as good children but receive little parental involvement; therefore, they have little chance for development of positive self-concept or identity. Because they rarely have a chance to feel that they are important, or somebodies, they may begin to feel like "good nobodies."  59  M a n y children quickly tire of being good nobodies. C h i l d r e n learn that they can get their parents i n v o l v e d if they misbehave i n order to satisfy the short term goals of attention, power, and revenge. They may display their inadequacy i n various ways i n order to let people k n o w this is h o w they view themselves. There are some good nobodies w h o may not want to become bad somebodies. The h i d d e n reason that motivates these children may be discouragement. They may be very tired of waiting for an opportunity for positive involvement. These children may begin to use the defense mechanism of reaction formation (e.g. instead of saying "I want involvement," they may say, "I don't want involvement from others"), and start to isolate themselves from others. N y s t u l (1986) pointed out that counsellors should attempt to understand the child's private logic. After the counsellor has formulated some tentative hypotheses about the child's misbehavior, it is important that these hypotheses about the child's misbehavior be explored w i t h the child. Finally, it is important to note that self-concept is a difficult subject to quantitatively study. Few well standardized tests w i t h good reliability and validity, have been developed for children (Wylie, 1989). This makes experimental design difficult for this population. In addition, so many factors affect self-concept that it is difficult to pinpoint what contributes to its improvement.  60  CHAPTER IV: PLAY THERAPY AS T R E A T M E N T FOR C H I L D R E N WITH BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS One of the main forms of treatment for behavior problem children under the age of ten, is likely to involve some type of play therapy, i n w h i c h the child expresses his or her needs, feelings, and conflicts i n unstructured play sessions. Some approaches to play therapy attempt to help the child achieve insight into his or her feelings as they express them i n play, w h i l e others stress the importance of sheer emotional release. Behavior therapies, i n contrast, focus o n direct modification of the child's maladaptive behavior. Three major approaches to play therapy involve either the psychoanalytic, structured or relationship (nondirective) schools of thought.  Each theoretical approach can explain the therapeutic changes  that occur during play i n terms of different psychological processes and levels of psychic functioning. Psychoanalytic Approach In general, the psychoanalytic approach to play therapy emphasizes the use of the therapist's interpretation of a child's words and actions, as w e l l as the analysis of the transference relationship, to help children achieve insight into their unconscious conflicts (Shaefer, 1985). K l e i n (1937) was the first analyst to use interpretation frequently  61  i n the psychoanalysis of children.  She w o u l d deeply explore their  unconscious by analyzing h o w the child transfers to the therapist earlier experiences and feelings toward his or her parents, thus attempting to understand the child's psyche and reveal this insight to - the child. If the father doll is put out of house, K l e i n might interpret this as meaning that the child wants the father out of the w a y so he can have his mother all to himself at times. A n n a Freud (1940) used interpretations much more sparingly. She employed play to a considerable extent during the early stages of treatment to get to k n o w the child. She w o u l d supplement play observations w i t h information from the parents i n order to gain a broad perspective on the child's problem. O n l y after she had gained extensive knowledge about a child w o u l d she offer direct interpretations to the child concerning the real meaning of the play behavior. A n n a Freud also believed that play may not necessarily be symbolic of anything. A child could enjoy making a tower just because he or she recently saw one. The presence of severe infantile neurosis and verbal abilities are regarded as two prerequisites for analytic treatment (Schaefer, 1985). Since children are typically seen i n analysis three or four times a week for an extended period, parents must have high motivation for treatment and ample financial resources. A m o n g the criticisms of the psychoanalytic play technique are that interpretations are difficult to make accurately and that they often  62  impede the development of the therapeutic relationship. It has also been said that children's capacity for insight into hidden meanings is limited and that insight alone rarely leads to constructive behavior change (Schaefer, 1985). But analysts find that interpretations often help a child get i n touch w i t h feelings and motives w h i c h frequently leads to the development and anticipation of new adaptive modes of behavior. In comparison w i t h other methods, the psychoanalytic use of play is both active i n the sense of offering interpretations and nondirective i n the sense of not attempting to reeducate or pressure the child towards alternate courses of action (Schaefer, 1985). Structured A p p r o a c h Rather than allowing children to play freely w i t h a w i d e variety of toys and materials, Levy (1939) controlled the play by selecting a few definite toys w h i c h he felt the child needed to work out a particular problem. The probable cause of a child's difficulty is determined from the case history. For example, if a specific event such as watching a monster movie precipitates nightmares, the therapist w o u l d have the child release his fears and anxieties by playing w i t h toy monsters i n the therapy sessions. The child is asked to say what the dolls are thinking and feeling during the play. This controlled situation may be repeated several times to allow release of pent-up feelings. The therapist notes or reflects the feelings that the child expresses both verbally and nonverbally i n play. Moreover, the therapist plays w i t h and  63  sometimes for the child i n order to bring out and release the assumed emotions (Schaefer, 1985). Three forms of release therapy have been developed: 1. simple release of instinctual drives by encouraging the child to throw objects around the playroom, burst balloons, or such a nursing bottle; 2. release of feelings in a standardized situation such as stimulating feelings of sibling rivalry by presenting a baby doll at a mother's breast; 3. release of feelings by recreating i n play a particular stressful experience i n a child's life. (Schaefer, 1985, p. 99) The process of repetition is an important element i n release therapy because by repeatedly playing out a difficulty or loss the natural slow healing process of nature can take place. By play repetition a child can relieve and gradually assimilate a stressful event and integrate it rather than denying or being overwhelmed by it. In play a child has control of the situation so that events seem less overpowering and can be mastered. It also allows a child to vicariously try out new roles or possible solutions, anticipate the future, and generally become an active problem-solver. In general it takes frequent repetition of the stimulus for this "working through" process to occur. The encouragement of a supportive therapist or parent is needed to get the child to keep facing  64  strong hurtful emotions and gradually overcome them (Schaefer, 1985). Structured or release therapy should only be used w h e n a positive therapeutic relationship is firmly established and the child is judged to possess sufficient ego strength to tolerate an emotional upheaval. It should be recognized that the feelings of troubled children are quite deep and powerful. It has been found, for instance, that emotionally disturbed children differ from normal children not i n the content of their play but i n the intensity of feelings (Schaefer, 1985). A major advantage of structured play therapy is that it increases the specificity of treatment. A s a result, the most recent trend i n play therapy is toward the use of structured techniques to encourage a child to express emotions without undue delay. A m o n g the more recent techniques for structuring play therapy are mutual-story telling, drama or role-play, art therapy, sand play, and the use of hand puppets. M o s t play therapists n o w incorporate a mixture of free and structured play i n their w o r k w i t h children (Schefer, 1985). Relationship Approach C a r l Rogers' nondirective therapy emphasizes the importance of the relationship between therapist and client. The therapist endeavors to create a playroom atmosphere i n w h i c h the child feels fully accepted, respected, and understood. In this way it is felt that the child is free to experience and realize his or her o w n inner w o r l d and activate his or  65  her self-curative powers and innate potential for growth. Selfawareness and self-direction by the child are the goals of this approach. The therapist actively observes and reflects the child's thoughts and feelings and tries to empathically understand the w o r l d from the child's perspective (Axline, 1969). A basic premise of nondirective therapy is that w h e n a child's feelings are expressed, identified, and accepted, the child can accept them more and is better able to integrate and deal w i t h them. By reflecting or being a mirror to the feelings of the child and accepting these negative feelings, the child can also accept them without thinking he or she is abnormal or "bad" for having such thoughts (Schaefer, 1985). The therapeutic process i n play seems to pass through four distinct phases (Schaefer, 1985). A t first the child exhibits diffuse, undifferentiated emotions that are very negative i n nature. Thus, disturbed children either want to destroy everything or to be alone i n silence. A s the therapeutic relationship grows the children are able to express anger more specifically such as towards a parent, teacher or sibling. When these negative feelings are accepted the child begins to accept h i m or herself more and feel worthwhile. This leads to the third stage wherein the child is able to express positive feelings. H e or she show considerable ambivalence i n the stage so that his or her k i n d l y feelings are interspersed w i t h hostile ones. The child may h u g a doll one moment and yell at it or attempt to hurt it the next. The  66  ambivalent feelings tend to be intense and irrational i n the beginning but as the positive emotions become stronger the child enters the final stage i n which he or she is able to separate and express more realistically his or her positive and negative emotions (Schaefer, 1985). The goals of insight-oriented therapy is to resolve internal conflict and to help the child master developmental crises (such as school entry, birth of a sibling, parental divorce). Client-centered counselling assumes that inner emotional turmoil lies at the heart of the child's problem (Gelfand et al., 1988). The child's disturbed behavior presumably results from underlying emotional conflict stemming from parental and societal demands that the child should behave perfectly. Enlightenment about one's feelings is expected to remove the need to repress or deny them, so the psychopathology should occur less often (Gelfand, et al., 1988). The therapist does this by attempting to create a w a r m and accepting atmosphere in w h i c h the sad, angry, or unloved child feels accepted and completely free to express h i m or herself. Simply expressing the freedom to communicate anger or anxiety is presumed to have some beneficial effect. The insightoriented therapist may interpret the meaning of the child's communications to help the child explore his or her o w n true wishes and emotions and come to terms w i t h them. To do this the therapist comments on or reflects the child's fear, anxiety or rage, and interprets  67  the meanings of the child's dreams, play themes or fantasies (Gelfand et al., 1988). C h i l d r e n are helped to deal w i t h their w o r l d as it presently exists and w i t h their families, teachers and peers as they are. Client-centered therapy aims to combat the effects of threatening experiences by helping the client develop more realistic expectations and move toward self-acceptance. It gives the initiative to the client to control the direction and rate of the therapeutic process. The client chooses the conversation's theme w h i l e the therapist maintains a nonjudgemental, accepting atmosphere to help the client comprehend and accept his or her o w n feelings. The therapist refrains from interpretation, but encourages disclosure, occasionally m a k i n g clarifying statements to reflect and focus on the client's views. This helps the client move beyond selfblame to acceptance of h i m or herself and others (Gelfand et al., 1988). The child is free to do as he or she pleases, play w i t h whatever toys he or she wants, and talk or not talk as he or she chooses. (Usually, harm to themself or others, and property destruction is not permitted). It is presumed that the child's behavior problems are caused by a profound lack of self-acceptance which may have been acquired through the disapproval of parents or others. The client-centered therapist attempts to increase the child's positive self-regard by  68  indicating that the child's actions and attitudes are completely acceptable (Gelfand et al„ 1988). Play can be used to help a child act out unconscious material and to relieve the accompanying tension (Landreth, 1982). The therapist provides material, opportunities and encouragement i n order that each child may use the interview situation as a place to test themselves out as a person and to mobilize his or her strength for their current and future life. The child may have considerable difficulty i n trying to tell what he or she feels or h o w they have been affected by experience, but if permitted, i n the presence of caring, sensitive, and an empathic adult, he or she w i l l show what they feel through the toys and materials they choose by what they do w i t h and to the materials, and by the story the i n d i v i d u a l acts out (Landreth, 1982). Since the child's total being is thrust into his or her play, expressions and feelings are experienced by the child as being specific, concrete, and current; thus allowing the counsellor to respond to the child's present activities, statements, feelings, and emotions rather than past circumstances. V i r g i n i a A x l i n e defines play therapy as: A play experience that is therapeutic because it provides a secure relationship between the child and the adult, so that the child has the freedom and room to state himself (herself) i n his (or her) o w n terms, exactly as he (or she) is at that moment i n his  69  (or her) o w n time. I am using the term 'play' as freedom or 'room to act' rather than the usual recreational sense. (Axline, 1969, p. 47) According to A x l i n e (1969), i n play-therapy experience, the child is given a safety zone i n w h i c h to try out h i m or herself, to state the self through the m e d i u m of play, and by so doing, learns to k n o w that self a little better, and, by that increased self-knowledge, utilize his or her capacities i n more adequate ways. The therapist is an accepting and appreciative of the client and guards w e l l the essential elements i n the relationship to make this strictly the child's statement of self. This is done by keeping out as m u c h as possible any intrusion of the other person's self—the therapist's attitudes, feelings, judgements or suggestions.  The child's  statement of self is for his or her benefit only. H e or she is not concerned w i t h pleasing the other person or earning approval. It is there (Axline, 1969). A x l i n e claims that there is no severer discipline than to maintain the completely accepting attitude necessary, and to refrain at all times from injecting and directing suggestions or insinuations into the play of the child. To remain alert to catch and reflect back accurately the feelings the child is expressing i n his or her play or conversation calls for complete participation d u r i n g the entire session (Axline, 1969).  70  In order to achieve such discipline, A x l i n e (1969) outlines eight basic principles to guide the non-directive play therapist: 1. The therapist must develop a w a r m friendly relationship w i t h the child, i n w h i c h good rapport is established as soon as possible. 2. The therapist must accept the child exactly as he or she is. 3. The therapist must be permissive and allow the child freedom to express feelings completely. 4. The therapist reflects back the child's feelings to help the child gain insight into their o w n behavior. 5. The therapist shows a deep respect for the child's ability to solve their o w n problems w h e n given the opportunity. Responsibility for decision m a k i n g and change is left w i t h the child. 6. The therapist does not attempt to direct a child's behavior or conversation i n any way. The child takes the initiative and the therapist follows. The child is i n charge i n the playroom. 7. The therapist does not attempt to hurry the therapy w h i c h is seen as a gradual process. 8. The therapist only sets those limits necessary to anchor therapy to the w o r l d of reality and to make the child aware of his or her responsibility i n the relationship. (Axline, 1969, p. 76) Clark Moustakas (1966) has also stressed the importance of genuineness or authenticity i n the therapist-child relationship. In this w a y the child is helped to differentiate his or her o w n feelings, find meaning i n their life, and to discover their o w n unique selfhood. Loss of self, according to Moustakas, is the central problem of the disturbed  71  child. Moustakas currently calls his form of relationship therapy "experiential or existential child therapy."  Rather than p l a y i n g a role,  the therapist communicates his or her real self to the child (Schaefer, 1985). Moustakas believes that the disturbed child is impaired at some level of the process of emotional development and adjustment. H e or she is motivated by undifferentiated, unfocussed feelings of hostility toward almost everyone and everything. The main outer expression may be an attitude of generalized anxiety (Moustakas, 1984). The disturbed child operates on anxiety-hostility cycle. A s he or she outwardly expresses hostility, feelings of guilt increase and inner anxiety is intensified. A s he or she expresses the anxiety, he or she begins to feel more and more hostile. W h e n one becomes more angry inside, he or she expresses more fear outside, and the expression of more fear leads to more anger inside. The individual is operating as a superficial self i n order to protect the real self within (Moustakas, 1984). Through exploration of the various levels of the client's feelings and attitudes i n an extended interpersonal relationship such as that offered by play therapy, the disturbed child gains a sense of emotional insight and inner comfort, relaxation, and a sense of personal adequacy and worthiness, thereby decreasing the damaging effects of intense attitudes of hostility and anxiety. There is an apparent parallel between normal and emotional development i n the early years of life i n a family relationship, and  72  emotional growth i n a play therapy relationship. Analysis of cases of disturbed children in play therapy shows the following levels of the therapeutic process: a) diffuse negative feelings, expressed everywhere i n the child's play b) ambivalent feelings, generally anxious or hostile c) direct negative feelings expressed toward parents siblings and others, or i n specific forms of regression d) ambivalent feelings, positive and negative toward parents, siblings, and others. e) clear, distinct separate, usually realistic positive and negative attitudes predominating i n the child's play (Landreth, 1982, p. 222) The disturbed child's problems and symptoms are reflections of his or her attitudes. A s these attitudes are modified the child's problems and symptoms begin to disappear. In play therapy this exploration and growth move from pervasive, generalized totally negative attitudes that immobilize the disturbed child to clear attitudes positive and negative, w h i c h enable the child to feel adequate and express himself i n terms of his or her real potential and abilities. The change i n his or her emotional play appears i n i n d i v i d u a l varying sequences and not automatically i n a play situation. It becomes possible only i n a therapeutic relationship where the therapist  73  responds i n constant sensitivity to the child's feelings, accepts the child's attitudes, and maintains a sincere belief i n the child and his or her abilities, and a deep respect for h i m or her as they are (Moustakas, 1955). Moustakas also believes that it is the environment that disturbs the child. H e or she is provoked by the environment, and lacks the ability to cope w i t h an environment that makes them angry and fearful. H e or she surely expressed his or her needs i n more subtle ways previously, but adults usually don't pay attention until they exaggerate their behaviors. These behaviors are often a desperate attempt to reestablish a social connection. The child is unable to communicate his or her true feelings i n any other w a y but by what they are doing n o w (Moustakas, 1955). What seems to be necessary is to allow the child to be conscious of the anger, to k n o w the anger. Next the child needs to learn to assess the situation, and to make a choice about whether to express the anger directly to the person or to express it privately i n some other way. Violet Oaklander (1978) believes that self-integration of feelings, situations, and anxieties occurs through open expression, symbolic play, and also through the child's experiencing the play i n a safe, accepting atmosphere.  M a n y parents and teachers report that the child  leaves a session showing a sense of peacefulness and serenity. In the sand tray, figures can be moved around or buried. The sand feels wonderful to the fingers and hands, creating an ideal tactile  74  and kinesthetic experience (Gumaer, 1984). The child can create his or her o w n miniature w o r l d i n the sand. The child can say a great deal through this m e d i u m without needing to talk. A l l a n & Berry (1987) describes the crux of sand-play therapy not being interpretation, but that it must be witnessed respectfully. The counsellor's attitude for this process is one of 'active being' rather than of direction or guidance. The process of the play and dramatization seems to release blocked psychic energy and to activate the self-healing potential that Jung (1964) believed is embedded i n the human psyche (Allan & Berry, 1987). Oaklander (1978) also describes games as a m u c h used tool for social learning. Behavior disordered children have trouble taking turns, playing without cheating, watching someone else be ahead of them on the board, and most of all, losing the game. Often these children end up screaming, yelling, crying or hitting w h e n they lose. To these children, being accused of cheating is just another example of the constant accusations they face. Their defense i n the game is extremely important to them (Oaklander, 1978). The way a child plays a game is a good barometer of h o w he or she is coping w i t h life. The games help the child learn about relating to others i n life, and grow stronger i n game-playing attitudes. In spite of the strong negative reactions of disturbed children during the course of their games, they want to play and love to play because they rarely get a chance to because of their intense reactions.  75  Games help the therapist k n o w the child, can help get past the initial resistance, and promote mutual trust and confidence. Games are particularly good w i t h children w h o have trouble communicating, and w i t h those w h o need some focusing activity. They are valuable for i m p r o v i n g contact skills right in the therapy setting (Oaklander, 1978). Oaklander (1978) describes her role of a therapist as one where she attempts to guide the child from his or her symbolic expressions and fantasy material to reality of his or her o w n life experiences. She perceives the child w h o engages i n hostile, intrusive, destructive behaviors as one w h o has deep angry feelings, feelings of rejection, insecurity, anxiety, hurt feelings and often a diffused sense of selfhood. H e or she has, too, a very l o w opinion of the self they k n o w . Landreth (1987) describes play therapy as a highly treasured and rewarding experience for children w i t h poor self-concepts. The therapeutic play time allows them to express themselves fully at their o w n pace w i t h the assurance that they w i l l be understood and accepted. Landreth (1987) goes on to describe seven objectives of play therapy that are appropriate regardless of the theoretical orientation of the counsellor: 1. To establish an atmosphere of safety for the child 2. To understand and accept the child's w o r l d as it is. 3. To encourage the expression of the child's emotional w o r l d . 4. To establish a feeling of permissiveness.  76  5. To facilitate decision making by the child. 6. To provide the child w i t h an opportunity to assume responsibility and to develop a feeling of control. 7. To put into words what is experienced and observed i n the child's behavior, words, feelings, and activity. Through the process of accurately labelling the child's emotions, the play therapist teaches the child an emotional language, thus p r o v i d i n g the child w i t h an additional means of communication. (Landreth, 1987, p. 258) In play therapy, the media provided i n the playroom should be materials that might be used i n many ways, such as clay, paints, and pipe cleaners.  They should encourage communication and expression  of aggression such as a toy gun or bobo doll. Toys that are unstructured and lead to creative imaginative play are useful. Examples of such toys are: paper, crayons, paints, blocks, dolls, puppets, board games, legos, d o l l family and house, nursing bottle, telephone, cars and trucks, sand tray, miniature figures and animals, a workbench, and safe tools (Gumaer, 1984). In summary, play therapy is a useful strategy of intervention for the elementary school counsellor to adopt because it is based on developmental principles and thus provides a developmentally appropriate means of expression and communication for children. Play therapy offers problem children an opportunity to work through their problems, to learn to k n o w themselves, to accept  77  themselves as they are, and to grow more mature through the therapy experience. Thus far, a picture of the behavior problem child w i t h all his or her characteristics including self-concept and their v i e w of the w o r l d has been presented. In addition, play therapy theory has been outlined and its contribution to the treatment of the behavior problem children has been discussed. This naturally leads to one of the initial questions of inquiry for this study: Does play therapy and counselling help to i m p r o v e children's behavior? Gerler (1985) reviewed the literature on student behavior change from 1974 to 1984. Several of these studies focused on counsellors' consulting practices w i t h teachers. Bobb and Richards (1983), for instance, studied teachers consultation i n combination w i t h classroom guidance and group counselling and found a significant reduction i n behavior problems among fourth and fifth graders.  L e w i n , Nelson,  and Tollefson (1983) studied consultation w i t h groups of student teachers and found significant positive changes i n children's behavior as reported by the student teachers. Bleck and Bleck (1982) used play group counselling w i t h disruptive third graders to raise self-esteem scores and behavior rating scores significantly. Other researchers of elementary school counselling have found that promising behavior change results from reinforcement programs (Hosford & Bowles, 1974) from behavior contracts (Thompson, Prater & Poppen, 1974) and from various group  78  counselling and group guidance approaches (West, Sonstegard, & Hagerman, 1980; O m i z o , Hershberger, & O m i z o , 1988; Cant & Sparkment, 1985). D o w n i n g (1977) found that group counselling designed to modify the behavior of sixth-grade children had the additional benefit of significantly i m p r o v i n g achievement. Friesen and Der (1984) discovered after 5 months of counselling, student reading scores i m p r o v e d significantly i n comparison to the control group. Thus play therapy techniques have been used successfully i n m o d i f y i n g children's classroom behavior.  79  C H A P T E R V: M E T H O D O L O G Y Design This study employed an interrupted times-series analysis w i t h a nonequivalent no-treatment control group design w h i c h focused on behavior before and after a counselling intervention. The most basic time-series experimental design involves some number of repeated observations, O, on an outcome variable across time w i t h an intervention, X , introduced at some time period i n the series. Interrupted time-series analysis requires k n o w i n g the specific point i n time of w h e n a treatment occurred i n the series. The purpose of the analysis is to infer whether the treatment had a significant impact and, if so, the nature of the impact. If the intervention had a significant impact the observations after the treatment w o u l d reflect this and indicate the type of impact the intervention had. That is the series should show signs of an "interruption" at an expected point i n time (Cook & Campbell, 1979). A n abrupt or gradual change i n some property of the observations w h i c h coincides w i t h X may be the effect of X on the dependent variable. W h e n a no-treatment control group time-series was added for comparison to an interrupted time-series the resulting design was diagrammed as follows: O i O2 O3 O4 O5 X 0 6 O7 Os O9 O10  O1O2O3O4O5  O6O7O8O9O10  80  The ability to test for the threat of history is the major strength of the control group times-series design. In this experimental design the m a i n task was to model the serial dependency (noise) and the intervention of the series, to see what type of change was happening (if any) to the series as a result of intervention. The n u l l hypotheses were tested by comparing the preand post-intervention segments of the times-series for each group (treatment and control) by modelling each segment of the series and testing for the goodness-of-fit of the models. Subjects Six male subjects (3 experimental A , B, C , and 3 control X , Y , Z) w h o were all between the ages of 7 and 8 and in grade 2 were selected for the study. A l l subjects were from middle class families and were i n the same primary social learning class i n a suburban school district i n British Columbia, Canada. They were segregated from the regular class due to behavior that was hindering their o w n learning and the learning of those around them. The investigator chose three boys w i t h l o w monthly desirable behavior scores as experimental subjects, and boys w i t h high scores as control subjects. The investigator used this criterion as a w a y of deciding w h o was i n need of treatment d u r i n g the limited counselling time available. The 3 children w h o served as control subjects received no counselling during the entire period of the study.  81  Procedure Once subjects were identified, letters of consent requesting each child's participation i n the study were sent home for parental signatures (See A p p e n d i x C). Three males, A , B, C , all 8 years of age and from the same social learning classroom, received bi-weekly, i n d i v i d u a l , 45-minute counselling sessions. Twenty consecutive sessions occurred over a period of 13 weeks. Counselling sessions took place i n the school counsellor's office and were audio-taped. Three control male subjects (X, Y , Z , ages 8, 8 and 7) received no counselling for a period of 13 weeks. Daily behavior scores were awarded by the special education teacher and teacher-aide w h o were b l i n d to the purpose of the investigation and the content of the treatment. They also d i d not k n o w w h o the experimental subjects were. Because the author was counselling other children from the same class since October as part of a counselling practicum, the teacher and teacher-aide d i d not k n o w w h i c h children were being removed from class as subjects. Behavior points were earned w h e n the subjects adhered to the classroom rules listed i n A p p e n d i x A . The five m a i n rules were: using manners; staying on task; being a friend; following instructions; and m i n d i n g ones o w n business. A total daily behavior score for each subject was obtained and graphed.  82  Pre and post tests on the Piers Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale (1969) and the Joseph Pre-School and Primary Self-Concept Screening Test (JPPSST) (1979) were administered by the resident school counsellor before and after the treatment period. The data files were set up for each subject i n the following manner:  (March)  Tl 1st Phase of Treatment (April)  T 2nd Phase of Treatment (May)  T 3rd Phase of Treatment (June)  days  days  days  days  1, 2,...20  21, 22,...40  41, 42,...60  61, 62, ...80  Baseline  2  3  Each numerical data point for each subject represents a daily total behavior point score. Thus, the observed time-series was a record of daily changes i n behavior scores over a period of 80 days. Four time series analyses were obtained for each subject. The first time-series was the baseline period of 1-20 days. The second series covered the first intervention period from day 21- day 40 (T}).. The third time-series covered the second intervention period from day 41day 60 (T2X The fourth and final time-series included the interventions from days 61-day 80 (T3).  83  Intervention The theoretical orientation of counselling employed i n this study was based on Egan's (1975) client-centered model. There were three major stages i n the counselling process: exploration, understanding and action (Friesen & Der, 1984). The exploration stage was directed toward b u i l d i n g a relationship w i t h the clients. It included verbal and non-verbal expressions, such as painting, drawing and play, w i t h the goal being to facilitate client exploration. The understanding stage involved assisting the clients to better understand their perceptions of themselves, significant others and their perceptions of their problems through reflection of their responses. The action phase involved assisting the clients i n devising a p l a n of action to resolve their problems. Both the client and the counsellor considered various plans the client could act u p o n (Friesen & Der, 1984). The client was then encouraged to make his or her o w n decision and this decision was supported by the counsellor.  84  Instruments Behavior Point Scale This scale was designed by the special education teacher w h o taught the subjects i n this study. It was not a standardized test. Students w o u l d earn 1 point for displaying any of the positive school behaviors listed i n A p p e n d i x A , and w o u l d also lose 1 point for displaying negative or opposite behaviors to those listed. Daily points earned for performing positive behaviors were tallied and graphed monthly for each subject. A criterion score of 15 points per day was considered the m i n i m a l score i n order to conclude a child's behavior was acceptable for that day. This criterion was designated by the teacher w h o felt there was ample opportunity to score at least 15 points i n a given day. Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale The Piers-Harris (1969) is an 80 item self-report questionnaire designed to assess h o w children and adolescents feel about themselves. C h i l d r e n listened to 80 statements (read aloud) that described h o w some people feel about themselves (See A p p e n d i x B). Subjects were asked to indicate whether each statement applied to them or not by using dichotomous "yes" or "no" responses (Piers, 1984). Items were grouped into six subscales: behavior, intellectual and school status, physical appearance and attributes, anxiety, popularity, and happiness and satisfaction. N o r m s were based on pupil's responses i n  85  Pennsylvania school districts i n the 1960's, so comparison to the population i n this study was not assumed. Mitchell (1985) reports test-retest reliabilities ranging from .42 to .96, w i t h a mean of .73 for periods of two and four months for 244 fifth grade pupils. Studies investigating internal consistency yielded coefficients ranging from .88 to .93 on the total scale w h i c h is quite high. The Piers-Harris has face validity, and reports moderate relationships w i t h other measures of self-concept.  "Intercorrelations  between cluster scales ranging from .21 to .59 were obtained, indicating a moderate degree of relatedness" (Mitchell, 1985, p. 1169). Mitchell (1985) also describes the Piers-Harris to be the "best children's selfconcept measure currently available" (p. 961). Toseph Pre-School and Primary Self-Concept Screening Test (TPPSST) The JPPSST is an instrument comprising of 13 bipolar items presented on same sex picture cards and is intended to obtain global self-concept estimates for pre-schoolers. It is based on a theoretical premise that self-concept is the way an i n d i v i d u a l perceives him/herself, his or her behaviors, h o w others see them, and the feelings of personal w o r t h and satisfaction that are attached to these perceptions (Joseph, 1979). The JPPSST measures this personal judgement based on five general dimensions:  86  Significance - perceived value to significant others; C o m p e t e n c e - the perception of being able to successfully perform; P o w e r - the perceived ability to influence, manipulate, and control others; G e n e r a l E v a l u a t i o n Content - feelings of satisfaction w i t h one's present life circumstances; and V i r t u e - perceived adherence to moral standards. (Joseph, 1979, p. 8) The JPPSST has face validity, a test-retest reliability coefficient of .87 and internal consistency Kuder-Richardson (20) coefficients ranging from .59 to .81. Construct validity was established b y comparing Global SelfConcept Scores to the scores obtained on two self-concept rating scales completed by teachers. In his discussion of concurrent validity, Joseph (1979) reports significantly different scores for preschoolers placed i n self-contained special education classes vs. preschoolers i n regular education classes. This test is norm referenced and was standardized on 1,245 children (aged 4-10) residing i n Illinois (Mitchell, 1985). In summary, the JPPSST is one of the best self-concept measures available for young children because it is well written, clear, and the pictures insure that the child understands the questions (Mitchell, 1985). Data Analysis Four interrupted time series analyses for each subject were conducted by utilizing the B M D P : 2 T Box-Jenkins Time-Series Analysis computer program, on the behavior point data that was recorded daily.  87  This program was able to analyze for intervention effects on behavior over time i n order to see whether or not counselling affected each subject's behavior. The time series analysis program is explained i n detail i n Appendix D. In addition pre and post measures on the Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale (1969) and the Joseph Pre-School and Primary SelfConcept Screening Test (1979) were administered and scored by the resident school counsellor on M a r c h 30 and June 26, 1990.  88  CHAPTER VI: RESULTS Time-Series A n a l y s e s o n Behavior Scores In testing the hypotheses that there w o u l d be no significant changes i n the experimental subjects' behavior as mesured by the teacher-made behavior point scale, the B M D - P : 2T Box Jenkins TimeSeries Analysis was carried out on each subject's monthly behavior point scores. Experimental Subject A . A n A R I M A (0, 0, 0) model fitted the preintervention (baseline) of the time-series well (See A p p e n d i x D ) , indicating that behavior occurring during this time period was realization of random processes. The model of the second and third phase of treatment (T2,and T3), indicated that intervention was resulting i n a significant gradual improvement i n Subject A ' s behavior. H i s preintervention (baseline) behavior point mean was 11.56. In A p r i l (Ti), no significant intervention effect was found, but i n M a y (T2), June (T3), significant gradual improvement i n behavior became evident. Graphs 1, 2, and 3 illustrate the behavior point changes for time series T i , T2, and T3 for Experimental Subject A . Experimental Subject B. A n A R I M A (0, 0, 0) fitted the preintervention time-series well, indicating that Experimental Subject B's behavior during this time period was the realization of random  89  processes.  H i s preintervention (baseline) behavior point mean was  11.7°. In A p r i l ( T l ) , the independent counselling variable was not significant but M a y (T2), and June (T3) both yielded significant independent variable estimates at the p<0.05 level. These results are illustrated i n graphs 5 and 6, w h i c h indicate that the intervention counselling impacted Subject B's behavior i n M a y and June. Experimental Subject C . A n A R I M A (0, 0, 0) model fitted the preintervention time-series w e l l , indicating that Experimental Subject C's behavior during this time period was the realization of random processes.  H i s pereintervention (baseline) behavior point mean was  15.70. N o significant independent (counselling) variable estimates were found i n A p r i l (Tl) or June (T3), but M a y (T2) d i d yield a significant independent variable estimate of +0.98 u n i t s / d a y at the p<0.05 level. The results for Experimental Subject C are illustrated i n graphs 7, 8, and 9. Control Subject X . A n A R I M A (0, 0, 0) model fitted the Baseline and T i , T2, and T3, time-series well, indicating that Experimental Subject X's behavior during these time periods were essentially the realization of chance processes.  H i s preintervetnion (baseline)  behavior point mean was 24.85. Control Subject X's behavior means for A p r i l , M a y , and June were 24.75, 27.85 and 23.70 behavior points, respectively, w h i c h were not significant changes.  90  N o significant change estimates were found i n A p r i l ( T i ) , M a y (T2), June (T3) indicating that no significant intervetnion events took place i n any of the time series. This result is important i n that the behavior of the control subject remained essentially unchanged i n comparison to the experimental subjects.  The results of these series are  illustrated i n graphs 10,11, and 12. Control Subject Y . A n A R I M A (0, 0, 0) model fited the Baseline, of the time-series well, indicating that Control Subject Y's behavior d u r i n g this time period was only due to chance. H i s preintervetnion (baseline) behavior point mean was 20.60. Control Subject Y's behavior means for A p r i l , and M a y , were 20.85, 21.95, behavior points, respectively. N o significant change parameter estimates were found i n A p r i l (Ti) and M a y (T2). The rate-of-change parameter estimate (0.79) was found to be significant at the p<0.05 level i n series (T3), indicating Control Subject Y's behavior d i d change significantly i n June. This result was unexpected. The results of these series are illustrated i n graphs 13,14, and 15. Control Subject Z . A n A R I M A (0, 0, 0) model fitted the Baseline of the time-series well, indicating that Experimental Subject Y's behavior during the baseline period was only due to chance. H i s preintervetnion (baseline) behavior point mean was 16.10. C o n t r o l Subject Z's behavior means for A p r i l , and June were changed by 16.95, and 17.75 behavior points, respectively.  N o significant change parameter estimates were found i n A p r i l (Ti), and June (T3). But, the rate-of-change parameter estimate (0.82) i n M a y (T2), was found to be significant at the p<0.05 level, indicating Control Subject Z's behavior changed significantly d u r i n g the month of M a y .  This was an unexpected result. The results of Control Subject  Z's time series are illustrated i n graphs 16,17, and 18. A s indicated b y the self-concept scores, all three experimental subjects scored lower on both the Piers-Harris and JPPST i n June w h e n scores are compared to A p r i l ' s results. O n the contrary Control Subject X and Y made gains on both measures. Control Subject Z also had lower self-concept scores i n June as compared to A p r i l . Self-Concept Results Tables 1 and 2 list the results obtained for each subject on the Piers Harris and Joseph Pre-School and Primary Self Concept Tests.  Raw Scores  Subject A  Subject B  Mar 30  June Mar 26 30  General Self Concept  71  65  48  36  I.  Behavior  14  13  8  II.  Intellectual and School Status  15  15  IE. Physical Appearance & Attributes  12  IV. Anxiety V.  on:  Popularity  V I . Happiness & Satisfaction  Table I  Subject C  June Mar 26 30  Control X  Control Y  Control Z  June Mar 26 30  June Mar 26 30  June Mar 26 30  June 26  62  56  65  73  63  72  65  60  8  14  12  15  14  12  16  12  12  12  9  12  13  17  15  15  14  16  14  11  9  3  9  8  11  11  12  10  9  9  12  14  8  4  14  12  11  14  10  13  8  10  12  8  8  4  7  9  9  8  10  8  9  10  10  8  8  4  7  9  9  8  10  8  9  10  Raw Scores for General Self-Concept and Subscales on the Piers Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale March 30 and June 26,1990. The mean total raw score on 1,183 grades 4-12 students was 51.84 with a standard deviation of 13.87.  93  R a w Scores March 30  Tune 26  Subject A Classification  24 Poor  23 Poor  Subject B Classification  27 Moderate Positive  22 H i g h Risk Negative  Subject C Classification  25 Watch List  21 H i g h Risk Negative  Control X Classification  23 Poor  22 H i g h Risk Negative  Control Y Classification  29 Moderate Positive  30 H i g h Positive  Control Z Classification  27 Moderate Positive  23 Poor  Table i i R a w Scores and Self-Concept Classification on the Joseph Pre-School and Primary Self-Concept Screening Test. O n the normative age group 6-0 to 9-11 presented i n the manual: 18% fell into the H i g h Positive self-concept reange 53% fell into the Moderate Positive self-concept range 8% fell into the Watch List self-concept range 9% fell into the Poor self-concept range 12% fell into the H i g h Risk Negative self-concept range  The median Global Self Concept Score attained for the normative group aged 6-0 to 9-11 was 27.  95  C H A P T E R VII: D I S C U S S I O N A N D C O N C L U S I O N S In order to comment o n the n u l l hypothesis stating that no significant changes i n behavior or self-concept occurred i n students w i t h behavior problems as a result of counselling, references were made to the results presented i n Chapter VI. Each subject w i l l be discussed separately and then comparisons between experimental and control subjects w i l l be made. E x p e r i m e n t a l Subject A It was established earlier Experimental Subject A ' s behavior was due to chance during the baseline period. It was also found that his behavior was affected by the counselling intervention. N o significant intervention effect was found i n A p r i l , w h i c h may have been due to A just starting to develop a relationship w i t h the counsellor at that time. Significant intervention effects were found i n M a y and June. The significant intervention estimates and behavior point gain scores indicated that counselling helped A to improve his behavior over time. Graphs 2 and 3 showed h o w the increase i n A ' s behavior points was a gradual process. Because Subject A received one-to-one attention and empathy d u r i n g the counselling sessions, he may have felt more understood and less i n need of acting out i n order to get attention. Positive reinforcement, praise and privledges were also awarded to Subject A  96  for appropriate considerate behaviors i n the classroom and on the playground. It is interesting to note that Subject A ' s self-concept scores went d o w n from M a r c h to June on the Piers'-Harris Self-Concept test. W h e n I first started counselling Subject A he w o u l d frequently present himself as a good boy w h o was just mistreated and provoked b y others. By the end of June, Subject A was telling me he was unhappy at home and school. D u r i n g the month of M a y , Subject A was returned to his natural mother for a two week trial period because G r a n d m a (the legal guardian) was fed up with A ' s behavior. Subject A reported feeling loved by his biological M o m , and was sad that Grandma started saying h o w m u c h she missed h i m . Subject A chose to return to G r a n d m a i n June because he didn't want to upset her. A t the same time Subject A very m u c h wanted to b u i l d a closer relationship w i t h his biological M o m , but G r a n d m a disapproved. By the end of June, A had mixed feelings for both M o m and Grandma and this sadness may have resulted i n the lower Self-Concept score. It is also worth noting that as one starts to discover more about oneself through counselling, it is very possible that learning to accept negative attributes about oneself could lower self-concept. Cotton (1983) reports that self-concept scores lower as a person moves from one developmental stage to another. D u r i n g periods of new learning there is a return to external sources of self-concept as one tries to shift from external to internal sources of self-worth (Cotton, 1983).  97  Experimental Subject B It was also established that an A R I M A (0, 0, 0) model fitted all of Subject B's time series well. This indicates that B's behavior was partly due to chance factors throughout the whole experiment. N o significant intervention effect was found i n A p r i l w h i c h may have been due to B just starting to form a relationship w i t h the counsellor at that time. Significant intervention effects were found i n M a y and June resulting i n behavior point increases d u r i n g those months.  The significant intervention estimates and behavior point  gain scores indicated that counselling helped B improve his behavior over time. Graphs 5 and 6 showed h o w the increase i n B's behavior was a gradual process. Subject B made great gains i n his behavior points over three months. D u r i n g the experimental time period, he was being integrated into a regular grade 3 class at a different school. This was w o r k i n g w e l l for B, but he was unhappy at home. D u r i n g the initial month of play therapy, B was agressive w i t h the toys, and spent many of the sessions having the character figures order each other around. A s the counsellor-client relationship developed, B w o u l d increasingly express his anger toward his parents w h o m he reported to be domineering, demanding, and confusing to him. O n the last session, it was reported by the examiner that a question on the Piers-Harris Self-Concept scale triggered a response of "Everyone always thinks things are m y fault, and I don't k n o w w h y , they just tell me I'm wrong."  98  It is quite understandable that Subject B's self-concept scores went d o w n from M a r c h to June. It may have been that the more B heard reflective statements about himself i n the sessions, the more frustrated and negative he became as a result of this new information. O n the other hand, school was a positive place for B, the integration was going well and his progress resulted i n more positive behavior at school. Experimental Subject C It has been established that the A R I M A (0, 0, 0) model fitted the Baseline, T i , T2 and T3 time-series well, indicating that Experimental Subject C's behavior was partly due to chance factors d u r i n g the whole experiment. N o significant intervention effects were found i n A p r i l w h i c h may have been due to C just starting to form a relationship w i t h the counsellor at that time. H o w e v e r , a significant intervention effect was found i n M a y at p<0.05 level. The decrease i n behavior points i n June may have been due to C finding out that he w o u l d not be able to live i n the same city as his biological father, because of his mother's recent remarriage. This news distressed C as he was close to his father and visited h i m every other weekend. C's attitude and effort i n school w o r k and behavior went d o w n significantly i n June. A s for Subject C's behavior point increases i n M a y , it may w e l l be that C was just starting to feel comfortable i n the sessions w h e n this remarriage took place, triggering a period of readjustment for h i m .  99  A l t h o u g h feelings of being angry and left out were explored, C had a hard time talking about them and preferred to play them out by having one hero figure annihilate several figures and objects. This struggle for power and a w i s h for triumph over intruders was a recurrent theme i n his play, and C rarely was able to w i n all his battles as the hero. A s feelings of anger and frustration were reflected to C , he preferred to respond w i t h more play and a few verbalizations such as "Yah, yah." It is interesting to note that Experimental Subject C's self-concept scores also went d o w n , again, possibly suggesting that as more negative feelings were explored i n the play, the more they became part of C's self-concept. A n unpublished study done by Michael Stockdale at the Children's Foundation i n Vancouver, British C o l u m b i a i n 1982, also found that as children w i t h behavior problems progressed through counselling, their self-concept scores went d o w n as well. Once negative aspects of self were accepted and integrated into the child's self-concept, acceptance of negative attributes was considered healthy i n itself. The foundation found that it generally took over 6 months of i n d i v i d u a l sessions to explore all the hurt feelings a child had experienced. They found that once the child accepted negative feelings and attributes as part of life, the client could move on to discovering positives about him/herself. By the end Of their treatment year, clients showed an increase i n self-concept scores (Stockdale, 1982).  100  C o n t r o l Subject X It has been established that the A R I M A (0, 0, 0) fitted the Baseline, T l , T2, and T3 time-series well, indicating that Experimental Subject X's behavior was partly due to chance factors d u r i n g the whole experiment. N o significant intervention effects were found i n A p r i l , M a y , June or for the whole series (T4). X's behavior point means d u r i n g the experiment d i d not differ significantly from his baseline mean of 24 behavior points. This result indicated that X's behavior d i d not significantly change throughout the experiment (See graphs 10, 11, and 12). This result was an important finding because it demonstrated that Control Subject X d i d not make any significant behavior point gains i n comparison to the Experimental Subjects w h o d i d make gradual behavior point gains. This finding suggests that the Experimantal Subjects may have benefitted from the counselling intervention. C o n t r o l Subject Y It has been established that the A R I M A (0, 0, 0) model fitted the Baseline, T l , T2, and T3 time-series well, indicating that Experimental Subject Y's behavior was partly due to chance factors d u r i n g the whole experiment. N o significant intervention effects were found i n A p r i l or M a y . A significant intervention effect was found i n June (see graph 15 on pg. ??) but this effect could not have been due to counselling, since Y d i d  101  not receive counselling. Y's significant improvement i n behavior may have been due to the fact that Y was informed i n June that he w o u l d be almost fully integrated into a regular class next year. This was a goal of Y's and could explain his sudden increase i n good behavior. C o n t r o l Subject Z It has been established that the A R I M A (0, 0, 0) model fitted the Baseline, T\, T2 and T3 time-series well, indicating that Experimental Subject Z's behavior was partly due to chance factors d u r i n g the whole experiment. N o significant intervention effects were found i n A p r i l or June. H o w e v e r a significant intervention effect was found i n M a y . This increase i n good behavior may have been partly due to Z's receiving parental attention i n M a y . Z's sixteen year o l d sister was r u n n i n g a household of four children for two weeks i n A p r i l , while Z's parents were away on a holiday. The return of Z's parents may have added more stability to Z's life at that time, resulting i n i m p r o v e d behavior. It should be noted that this new improved behavior d i d not occur i n June. In fact, Z regressed into some old patterns of manipulating classmates and had consequently lost m u c h of his l u n c h hour playtime d u r i n g the month of June.  102  S u m m a r y and C o n c l u s i o n s The time-series analyses for Subjects A and B revealed that counselling d i d produce a definite intervention effect resulting i n more positive school behaviors. Subject C had one series w h i c h was significant i n M a y , but counselling d i d not prove to be as beneficial for the month of June. This may have been due to the rapid changes taking place i n C's life, specifically his mother's remarriage. However, there is enough sufficient evidence from Subjects A and B to reject the n u l l hypotheses and conclude that primary grade students i n this study w h o had behavior problems and received 20 i n d i v i d u a l counselling sessions, showed significant gradual improvement i n their daily school behaviors. This result adds support to Marchant's (1972) and Whitely and Sulzer (1970) claim that significant behavioral changes took place w i t h sutdents w h o received counselling. A b r u p t changes d i d not occur i n school behavior nor i n self-concept scores and this finding is consistent w i t h Coopersmith (1981) w h o states that self-concept develops gradually over time. Control Subject X , d i d not show any significant improvement i n behavior. A l t h o u g h this child was managing fairly well i n the social learning classroom environment, there was a lack of significant change i n his behavior. Including h i m as a control subject was useful i n strengthening the design of the experiment, and demonstrting differences i n results between subjects. Both Control Subjects X and Z had one month of better behavior, but the effects of this success was not long lasting. This  103  supports Griest and Well's (1983) finding of short-lived behavior modification effects. It should also be noted that all three of the Experimental Subjects went d o w n on raw score measures of self-concept, while two Control Subjects made gains i n raw score measures of self-concept although this result was not statistically significant. This author is i n agreement w i t h the explanation offered by the Stockdale (1982) and Cotton (1983) mentioned earlier. It is also important to remember that Sordahl and Sanche (1984) found no difference i n self-concept scores between experimental and control groups after 40 classroom counselling meetings i n v o l v i n g grade four students. However, their classroom behavior d i d improve significantly (Sordahl & Sanche, 1984). A d d i t i o n a l l y , after Martinez (1979) counselled grade 104 students for eight i n d i v i d u a l sessions each, there was no change i n self-concept scores for the counselled group i n comparison to the control group. However, Martinez (1979) found a reduction i n the frequency of disturbed behavior by students who received counselling compared to the control group. H e also found no significant relationship between change i n behavior and change i n self-concept (Martinez, 1979). The literature also shows that 9 and 10 year olds w h o received 18 classroom discussion counselling sessions, i m p r o v e d their self-esteem scores i n comparison to the control group, but not to a significant degree (Pigge, 1970).  104  A l l these studies support the findings of this research w h i c h indicated that after 20 sessions of i n d i v i d u a l counselling, seven and eight year o l d experimental subjects i m p r o v e d their classroom behavior, but went d o w n on raw score measures of self-concept whereas two control subjects scored higher self-concept scores. These results, however, were not statistically significant. The similar finding among all these studies is that the behavior of experimental subjects improved; that the changes i n self-concept scores were not statistically significant, and that no significant relationship was found between changes i n behavior and changes i n self-concept. This may be due to the time limits of all these studies. Possibly, a study i n v o l v i n g a whole year of counselling sessions w o u l d yield different results. In order for children w i t h behavior problems to make any progress i n counselling, they must first be ble to explore their negative feelings and accept them. Once this difficult task is complete, learning and performing positive behavior becomes the option more desirable and possible, once the child knows he or she is accepted, validated and loved even w i t h all of their negative qualities. Once children k n o w that, risk taking i n the form of positive behavior may seem less scarry. A l t h o u g h the literature (Gerler, 1985; Bobb & Richards, 1983; Hosford & Bowles, 1974; O m i z o , Hershberger & O m i z o , 1988: Friesen & Der, 1984) indicates that elementary school counselling is useful i n effectively modifying regular children's classroom behavior, this is the first study that the author is aware of that indicates i n d i v i d u a l  105  counselling has similar positive results w i t h children w h o have behavior problems i n social learning classrooms. Counselling effectiveness is difficult to measure since so many factors contribute to a client's success or failure i n therapy. H o w e v e r , time-series analysis allows us to analyze behavior over time, and this has proven to be a useful tool i n looking for intervention effects i n the behavioral sciences (Cook & Campbell, 1979). Studies on play therapy (Axline, 1969; Moustakas, 1984) mostly rely on case study and qualitative methods of reporting w h i c h are subject to investigator bias and interpretation. This relatively new of time-series analysis (Box-Jenkins, 1983) adds a quantitative component to the single case study approach. The inclusion of a control group as w e l l gives the interrupted time series design even more power (Cook & Campbell, 1979). By including a control group i n this design we were able to see that counselling was an effective treatment L i m i t a t i o n s of the S t u d y It is evident that this study falls short of being ideal. The fact that all subjects were from the same classroom limits its generalizability. Generalizability is also limited to only 6 males (ages 78) w i t h behavior problems. Each child had varying levels of problem behavior, so results cannot generalize to all students w i t h behavior problems. Family factors also influenced a child's behavior to a great degree, therefore  106  changes i n behavior cannot be attributed solely to method of instruction a n d / o r counselling alone. Counselling was also coupled w i t h an already existing cognitive-behavioral program, so conclusions about counselling can only be made "in addition with" such a program. However, because the literature is sparse on this segregated population and such children do not necessarily receive counselling, this study has been worthwhile i n order to extend the research available, and provide evidence of counselling being an effective intervention for children w h o have behavior problems. Recommendations For Further Research Because some positive counselling intervention effects were found, further research using time series analysis w i t h behavior disordered students is imperative for replication. In addition, the use of a standardized behavior observation form may allow for more replication from other experimenters, since not all segregated classrooms have the same behavior modification point system. Counselling intervention w o u l d also most likely be more beneficial over a longer period of time (e.g. six months-one year). Subjects w i t h the same severity of problem behavior w o u l d also make a study more generalizable. A similar study on normal 7 and 8 year olds w o u l d also be of great help i n order to compare what is normally happening w i t h school behaviors at this particular developmental age.  107  Very few studies i n Counselling Psychology employ the BoxJenkins Time-Series Analysis Computer program even though it has proven to be a very sensitive and statistically sound methodology (Cook and Campbell, 1979). This method could prove to be of great value i n this discipline i n order to test for counselling effectiveness over time.  108  References Achenbach, T. M . , (1978). Psychopathology of childhood: Research problems and issues. Tournal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 759-776. Achenbach, T. M . & Edelbrock, C . S. (1981). Behavioral problems and competencies reported by parents of normal and disturbed children aged 4 through 16. Monographs of the Society for Research i n C h i l d Development, 46, (1, Serial N o . 188). A l l a n , J. A . & Berry, P. (1987). Sandplay. Elementary School Guidance & Counseling, 21, 301-357. Algozzine, R., Schmid, R. and Mercer, C D . (1981). C h i l d h o o d behavior disorders. Rockville, M a r y l a n d : A s p e n System Corporation. Axline, V . (1969). Play therapy. N e w York: Ballantine Books. Ballow, B. (1979). Definitional and prevalence problems i n behavior disorders of children. School Psychology Digest, 8, 348-354. Bandura, A . , Ross, D . , & Ross, S. (1961). Transmission of aggression through immitation of aggressive models. Tournal of A b n o r m a l and Social Psychology, 63, 575-582. Bandura, A . (1968). A social learning interpretation of psychological dysfunctions. In P. L o n d o n & D . Rosenhan (Eds.), Foundations of abnormal psychology. N e w York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Battle, J. (1981). Enhancing self-esteem and achievement:  A handbook  for professionals. Seattle, W A : Special C h i l d Publications.  109  Beane, J. A . & L i p k a , R. P. (1980). Self-concept and self-esteem: A construct differentiation. C h i l d Study Tournal, 10,1-6. Beane, J. A . (1986). The self-enhancing middle-grade school. The School Counselor, 20, 189-195. Bell, J. E. (1971). Impact of emphasis on family units. In H . E. Rie (Ed.) Perspectives i n child psychopathology. Chicago: A l d i n e . Bird, B. L . , Russo, D . C , & Cataldo, M . F. (1977). Considerations i n the analysis and treatment of dietary effects on behavior: A case study. Tournal of A u t i s m & C h i l d h o o d Schizophrenia, 7, 373-382. Blackham, G . J. (1967). The deviant child i n the classroom. Belmont, C A : Wadsworth, Bleck, R. T. & Bleck, B. L . (1982). The disruptive child's play group. Elementary School Guidance & Counseling, 10, 4-12. Bloom, B. S. (1977). Affective outcomes of school learning. P h i Delta Kappan, 59, 193-199. Bower, E. M . (1969). The early identification of emotionally handicapped children i n school (2nd ed.). Springfield, Illinois: Thomas. Bower, E. M . (1981). Early identification of emotionally handicapped children i n school (3rd ed.) Springfield, Illinois: Charles C . Thomas. Bower, E. M . (1982). Defining emotional disturbance: Public policy and research. Psychology i n the Schools, 19, 55-60.  110  Bruce, P. (1958). Relationships of self-acceptance to other variables w i t h sixth-grade children oriented i n self-understanding.  Tournal of  School Psychology, 49, 229-237. Burdett, K . & Jensen, L . C . (1983). The self-concept and aggressive behavior among elementary school children from two socioeconomic areas and two grade levels. Psychology i n the Schools, 20, 370-375. Cant, R. & Spackman, P. (1985). Self-esteem, counselling and educational achievement. Educational Research, 27, 68-71. Cenname, A . F. (1977). The school behavior of children w i t h good and poor self-concepts: A case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Center, D . B. (1989). C u r r i c u l u m and teaching strategies for students w i t h behavioral disorders. Englewood Cliffs, N e w Jersey: PrenticeH a l l , Inc. Charlton, J. M . (1987). Self-concept and locus of control: A study of intermediate and secondary students w i t h learning disabilities. Vancouver, B.C.: University of British Columbia. Cobb, H . C . & Richards H . C . (1983). Efficacy of counselling services i n decreasing behavior problems of elementary school children. Elementary School Guidance & Counseling, 17, 180-187. Coleman, M . C . (1986). Behavior disorders: Theory and practice. Englewood Cliffs, N e w Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.  Ill  Cook, T.D. & Campbell, D.T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation:  Design  and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago: Rand M c N a l l y . Csapo, M . (1985). The extent of under identification of children w i t h behavior disorders i n British C o l u m b i a : Problems of definition and identification. B. C. Tournal of Special Education, 9, 1, 29-45. Cullinan, D., Epstein, M . H . , & L l o y d , J. W . (1983). Behavior disorders of children and adolescents. Englewood Cliffs, N J : Prentice-Hall. Dinkmeyer, D . & Carlson, J. (1975). Consulting: Facilitating humaneness and change processes. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Co. D o w n i n g , C. J. (1977). Teaching children behavior change techniques. Elementary School Guidance & Counseling, 11, 277-283. Dreikurs, R. (1973). The private logic. In H . Mosak (Ed.), Alfred Adler: H i s influence on psychology today (pp. 19-32). Park Ridge, N J : Noyes Press. Dreikurs, R., G r u n w a l d , B. B., & Pepper, F. (1971). Maintaining sanity in the classroom. N e w York: Harper & R o w . Eagen, G . (1975). The skilled helper. Monterey, C A : Brooks-Cole. Epstein, M . H . , Cullinan, D . , & Sabatino, D . A . (1977). State definitions of behavior disorders. Tournal of Special Education, 11, 417-425. Epstein, M . H . , Kauffman, J. M . , & Cullinan, D . (1985). Patterns of maladjustment among the behaviorally disordered: II Boys aged 611, boys aged 12-18, girls aged 6-11, and girls aged 12-18. Behavioral Disorders, 10, 125-135.  112  Felker, D . W . (1974). B u i l d i n g positive self-concepts. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Burgess Publishing C o . Fergusson, D . M . , H o r w o o d , L . J., & Shannon, F. T. (1984). Relationship of family life events, maternal depression, and child-rearing problems. Pediatrics, 73, 773-776. Fleishman, M . J. (1981). A replication of Patterson's "Intervention for boys w i t h conduct problems." Tournal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49,342-351. Fleishman, M . J., & H o m e , A . M . (1979). W o r k i n g w i t h families: A social learning approach. Contemporary Education, 50, 66-71. Fisher, W . , Burd, L., K u n a , D . & Berg, D . (1985). Attention deficit disorders and the hyperactives i n m u l t i p l y disabeled children. Rehabilitation Literature, 46, 250-254. Forness, S. R. & Kavale, K . A . (1989). Identification and diagnostic issues i n special education: A status report for child psychiatrists. C h i l d Psychiatry and H u m a n Development, 19, 279-297. Forness, S. R., Sinclair, E., & Russell, A . (1984). Serving children w i t h emotional or behavior disorders: Implications for educational policy. American Tournal of Orthopsychiatry, 54, 22-32. Friesen, J. D . & Der. D. (1984). The outcomes of three models of counselling and consulting. International Tournal for the Advancement of Counselling, 7, 67-75.  113  Gelfand, D . M . , Jenson, W . R., & Drew, C. J. (1988). U n d e r s t a n d i n g child behavior disorders: A n introducation to child psychopathology (2nd ed.). N e w York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Gerler, E. R. Jr. (1985). Elementary school counseling research and the classroom learning environment.  Elementary School Guidance &  Counseling, 20, 39-48. Graubard, P. S. (1973). C h i l d r e n w i t h behavioral disabilities. In L . D u n n (Ed.), Exceptional children i n the schools. N e w York: H o l t , Rinehart, & W i n s t o n . Griest, D . L . , & Wells, D . C . (1983). Behavioral family therapy w i t h conduct disorders i n children. Behavior Therapy, 14, 337-353. Grosenick, J. K , George, N . L . & George, M . P. (1988). The availability of program descriptions among programs for seriously emotionally disturbed students. Behavioral Disorders, 13, 108-115. Gumaer, J. (1984). Counseling and therapy for children. N e w York: The free Press. Gurney, P. W . (1981). U s i n g behavior modification to enhance selfesteem i n maladjusted boys. In K . Wheldall (Ed.) The behaviorist i n the classroom: Aspects of applied behaviour analysis in British education contexts, pp. 39-51. Birmingham: Educational Review Offset Publications N o . 1. H a l l , C . W . & Wahrman, E. (1986). Theoretical orientations and perceived acceptability of intervention strategies applied to actingout behavior. Tournal of School Psychology, 26, 195-198.  114  H a l l , L . A . and Farel, A . M . (1988). Maternal Stresses and depressive symptoms: Correlates of behavior problems i n young children. N u r s i n g Research, 37, 156-161. H a r i n g , N . (1963). The emotionally disturbed. In S. K i r k & B. Weiner (Eds.), Behavioral research on exceptional children. Washington, D.C.: The C o u n c i l for Exceptional Children. Harley, J. P., Matthews, C . G . , & Eichman, P. (1978). Synthetic food colors and hyperactivity i n children: A double-blind challenge experiment. Pediatrics, 62, 975-983. Hendrickson, J. M . , Gable, R. A . , & Shores, R. E. (1987). The ecological perspective: Setting events and behavior. The Pointer, 31(3), 40-44. Hetherington, E. M . & M a r t i n , B. (1979). Family interaction. In H . C . Quay & J. S. Werry (Eds.), Psychopathological disorders of childhood (2nd ed.). N e w York: Wiley. Hewitt, F. (1968). The emotionally disturbed child i n the classroom. Boston: A l l y n and Bacon. H i l t o n , a. (1987). U s i n g ecological strategies when w o r k i n g With young children. The Pointer, 31(3), 52-55. Hobbs, N . (1975). The futures of children: Categories, labels, and their consequences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hosford, R. E. & Bowles, S. A . (1974). Determining culturally appropriate reinforcers for A n g l o and Chicano students. Elementary School Guidance & Counseling, 8, 290-300.  115  Jenson, W . R., Reanis, K . & Rhodes, G . (1987). A conceptual analysis of childhood behavior disorders: A practical educational approach. In b. Scott & J. G i l l a m (Eds.), Topics i n behavior disorders, A u s t i n TX: Behavioral Learning Center. Jung, C . (1964). M a n and his symbols. N e w York: Doubleday. Kauffman, J. M . (1979). A historical perspective on disordered behavior and an alternative conceptualization of exceptionality. Paper presented at an A d v a n c e d Institute for Trainers of Teachers of Seriously Emotionally Disturbed Children and Youth, Charlottesville, V A . Kauffman, J. M . (1985). Characteristics of children's behavior disorders. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. M e r r i l l Publishing Co. Kauffman, J. M . , M c C u l l o u g h , L . L . , & Sabornie, E. J., (1984). Integrating exceptional students: Special problems i n v o l v i n g the emotionally disturbed/behaviorally disordered. B.C. Tournal of Special Education, 8, 201-209. Kaufmann, J. M . , Swan, W . W . , & W o o d , M . M . (1979). Dimensions of problem behaviors of emotionally disturbed children as seen by their parents and teachers. Psychology i n the Schools, 16, 207-217. Kavale, K . A . , Forness, S. R. and Alper, A . E. (1986). Research i n behavioral disorders/emotional disturbance: Survey of subject identification criteria. Behavioral Disorders, 11, 159-167.  116  Landreth, G . L . (1982). Play therapy: Dynamics of the process of counseling w i t h children. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C . Thomas Publisher. K a z d i n , A . E. (1985). Treatment of antisocial behavior i n children and adolescents. H o m e w o o d , IL: Dorsey Press. Landreth, G . L . (1987). Play therapy: Facilitative use of child's play i n elementary school counseling. Elementary School Guidance & Counseling, 21, 253-261. Lawrence, D . (1973). Improved reading through counselling. L o n d o n : W a r d Lock. Lentz, F., & Shapiro, E. (1986). Functional assessment of the academic environment. School Psychology Review, 15, 346-357. L e v y , J., Heller, W . , Banich, M . , & Burton, L . (1983). A r e variations among righthanded individuals i n perceptual asymmetries caused by characteristics arousal differences between hemispheres? Tournal of Experimental Psychology: H u m a n Perception and Performance, 9,329-359. L e w i n , P., Nelson, R. E. & Tollefson, N . (1983). Teacher attitude toward disruptive children. Elementary School Guidance & Counseling, 1Z, 188-193. L i p k a , R. P., Beane, J. A . & L u d e w i g , J. W . (1980). Self-concept/esteem and the curriculum. In J. A . Beane & R. P. Lipka's Self-concept and the curriculum. N e w York: Teachers College Press.  117  Lovejoy, M . C . & Routh, D . K . (1988). Behavior disordered children's social skills: Increased by training, but not sustained or reciprocated. C h i l d & Family Behavior Therapy, 10(2-3), 15-37. L u n d , Roy (1989). Slef-esteem and long term placement i n day schools for children w i t h emotional and behavioral difficulties. Maladjustment and Therapeutic Education, 1, 55-58. Marchant, W . C . (1972). Counselling a n d / o r consultation: A test of the education model i n the elementary school. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 7, 4-8. Margalit, M . (1989). Academic competence and social adjustment of boys w i t h learning disabilities and boys with behavior disorders. Tournal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 41-45. M a r c h , H . W . , & O ' N e i l l , R. (1984). Self-Description Questionairre III: The construct validity of multidimensional self-concept ratings by late adolescents. Tournal of Educational Measurement, 21, 153-174. M a r t i n , B. (1975). Parent-child relations. In F.D. H o r o w i t z (Ed.), Autism:  Diagnosis, instruction management, and research.  Springfield, IL: Charles E. Thomas. Martinez, M . (1979). Self-concept and behavioral changes through counseling/consulting interventions.  Dissertation Abstracts  International, 40(2-A), 679. Martinez, F.D. (1985). Reinforcing to failure. Academic therapy, 20, 353-357.  118  Martoz Ray, B. (1985). Measuring the social position of the mainstreamed handicapped child. Exceptional children, 52, 57-62. M a s l o w , A . H . (1967). A theory of metamotivation:  The biological  rooting of the value life. Tournal of Humanistic Psychology, 7, 93127. Mayer, G . , Kranzler, G . D . & Matthes, W . (1967). Elementary school counselling and peer relations. Personnel & Guidance Tournal, 46, 360-365. M a y n a r d , P., Warner, R. & Lazzaro, J. (1969). G r o u p counselling w i t h emotionally disturbed students i n a school setting. Tournal of Secondary Education, 44, 365-375. M c C o n n e l l , S. R. (1987). Entrapment effects and the generalization and maintenance of social skills training for elementary school students w i t h behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 12, 252-263. M c G i n n i s , E. (1985). Teaching social skills to behaviorally disordered elementary students. The pointer, 28(4) 5-12. Moore, D . R. & Arthur, J. L . (1983). Juvenille deliquency. In T. H . Ollendick & M . Hersen (Eds.), Handbook of child psychopathology (pp. 357-388). N e w York: Plenum. Morgan, D . P. and Jenson, W . R. (1988). Teaching behaviorally disordered students: Preferred practices. Toronto, Ontario: M e r r i l l Publishing C o .  119  Moustakas, C . E. (1955). Emotional adjustment and play therapy process. In G . L . Landreth (Ed.), Play therapy: Dynamics of the process of counseling w i t h children. Springfield, Illinois: Charles E. Thomas. N i c o l , R. R. (1979). Psychotherapy and the school. Tournal of C h i l d Psychology & Psychiatry & A l l i e d Disciplines, 20, 81-86. N y s t r u l , M . S. (1986). The hidden reason behind children's misbehavior. Elementary School Guidance & Counselling, 22, 188193. Oaklander, V . (1978). W i n d o w s to our children. M o a b , Utah: Real People Press. O'Banion, D . , Armstrong, B., C u m m i n g s , R. A . & Strange, J. (1978). Disruptive behavior: A dietary approach. Tournal of A u t i s m and C h i l d h o o d Schizophrenia, 6, 235-252. Oldfield, D . (1986). The effects of the relaxation response i n self-concept and acting out behaviors. Elementary School Guidance & Counseling, 20, 255-260. O m i z o , M . M . , Hershberger, J. M . , & O m i z o , S. A . (1988). Teaching children to cope w i t h anger. Elementary School Guidance & Counseling, 22, 241-246. Patterson, G . R. (1974). Interventions for boys w i t h conduct problems: M u l t i p l e settings treatments and criteria. Tournal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 42, 471-481.  120  Patterson, G . R. (1982). Coersive family processes. Eugene, Oregon: Castalia. Patterson, G . R. (1986). Performance models for antisocial boys. American Psychologist, 41, 432-444. Patterson, G . R. & Fleishman, M . J. (1979). Maintenance of treatment effects. Some considerations concerning family systems and followup data. Behavior Therapy, 10, 168-185. Pidduck, R. (1988). Self-esteem, love and dignity. Maladjustment and Therapeutic Education, 6,153-161. Piers, E. V . (1984). Piers-Harris children's self-concept scale: Revised manual 1984. Los Angeles, C A : Western Psychological Services. Pigge, F. L . (1970). Children and their self-concepts. C h i l d h o o d Education, 47, 107-108. Purkey, W . W . & N o v a k , J. M . (1984). Inviting school success: A selfconcept approach to teaching and learning (2nd ed.). California: W a n d s w o r t h Publishing C o . Rhodes, W . C . (1967). The disturbing child: A problem of ecological management. Exceptional children, 33, 449-455. R i m l a n d , B., Callaway, E., & Dreyfus, P. (1978). The effect of high doses of vitamin B6 on Autistic children: A double-blind crossover study. American Tournal of Psychiatry, 135, 472-475. Roberts, J., & Baird, J. T. (1972). Behavior patterns of children in school. D H E W Publication N o , (HSM) 72-1042). Washington, D.C.: U . S . Government Printing Office.  121  Safran, S. P. and Safran, J. S . (1984). Elementary teachers' tolerance of problem behaviors. The Elementary School Tournal, 85, 237-243. Sagor, M . (1974). Biological bases of childhood behavior disorders. In W . C . Rhodes & M . L . Tracey (Eds.) A study of child variance (Vol. 1). A n n Arbor, M I : University of M i c h i g a n Press. Sameroff, A . J., Seifer, R., & Z o x , M . (1982). Early development of children at risk for emotional disorder. Monographs of the Society for Research i n C h i l d h o o d Development, 47, (7, Serial N o . 199) Samuels, S. C . (1977). Enhancing self-concept i n early childhood: Theory and practice. N e w York: H u m a n Sciences Press. Sandler, A . G . , A r n o l d , L . B., Gable, R. A . & Strain, P. S. (1987). Effects of peer pressure on disruptive behavior of behaviorally disordered classmates. Behavioral Disorders, 12, 104-110. Schaefer, C.E. (1985). Play therapy. Early C h i l d Development and Care, 19,95-108. Shavelson, R. L., Hubner, J. L . & Stanton, G . C . (1976). Self-concept: Validation of construct interpretations.  Review of Educational  Research, 46, 407-441. Sindelar, P. T., K i n g , M . C , Cartland, D., Wilson, R. J. and Meisel, C . J. (1985). Deviant behavior i n learning disabled and behaviorally disordered students as a function of level and placement. Behavioral Disorders, 10, 105-112.  122  Sorsdahl, S. N . & Sanche, R. P. (1985). The effects of classroom meetings on self-concept and behavior. Elementary School Guidance & Counselling, 20, 49-57. Stellern, J., Marlowe, M . , Jacobs, J. and Cossairt, A . (1985). Neuropsychological significance of right hemisphere cognitive mode i n behavior disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 10, 113-123. Stockdale, W . M . (1982) Introducing program evaluation into a small agency: A case study. Unpublished thesis. Vancouver, British C o l u m b i a : University of British Columbia. Strain, P. (1981). Peer mediated treatment of children's social withdrawal. Exceptional Education Quarterly, 1, 93-106. Swan, W . W . , Brown, C . L., and Jacob, R. T. (1987). Types of service delivery models used i n the reintegration of severly emotionally disturbed and behaviorally disordered students. Behavioral Disorders, 12, 99-103. Swanson, J. M . & Kinsbourne, M . (1980). Food dyes impair performance of hyperactive children on a laboratory learning test. Science; 207,1485-1487. Thomas, A . & Chess, S. (1977). Temperament and development. N e w York: B r u n n e r / M a z e d .  123  V a a n Hesselt, V . B., Griest, D . L . , K a z d i n , A . E., Esveldt-Dawson, K . , & Unis A . S. (1984). Poor peer interaction and social isolation: A case report of successful i n v i v o social skills training on a child psychiatric inpatient unit. Tournal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 15, 271-276. Walker, H . M . (1982). Assessment of behavior disorders i n the school setting: Issues, problems, and strategies. In M . M . N o e l & N . G . H a r i n g (Eds.), Progress or change: Issues i n educating the emotionally disturbed V o l 1. Identification and program planning (pp. 11-42). Seattle, Washington: P D A S , University of Washington. Wallace, G . and Kauffman, J. M . (1986). Teaching students w i t h learning and behavior proglems (3rd ed.). Toronto, Ontario: M e r r i l l Publishing C o . Wagner, C L . & K l e m a n , D . (1986). Developing positive self-concepts i n institutionalized children w i t h severe behavior disorders.  Child  Welfare, 65(2), 165-174. Webster, J. B. (1989). A p p l y i n g behaviour management principles w i t h limited resources: G o i n g it alone. Maladjustment and  Therapeutic  Education, 7, 30-38. Webster-Stratton, C. (1988). Mother's and father's perceptions of child deviance: Roles of parent and child behaviors and parent adjustment. Tounal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 909915.  124  Whitley, A . D . & Salzer, B. (1970). Reducing disruptive behavior through consultation. Personal and Guidance Tournal, 48, 836-841. W i l l i s , D . J., Swanson, B . M . & Walker, C . E. (1983). Etiological factors. In T. H . Ollendick & M . Hersen (Eds.), Handbook of child psychopathology (pp. 41-64). N e w York: Plenum. W o o d , F. & Larkin, K . (Eds.) (1979). Disturbing, Disordered and Disturbed. University of Minnesota: The A d v a n c e d Institute for Training of Teachers for Seriously Emotionally Disturbed C h i l d r e n and Youth, Department of Psychoeducational Studies. W o r k m a n , E . A . (1982). Teaching behavioral self-control to students. A u s t i n , TX: Pro-Ed.  125  APPENDIX A: SOCIAL L E A R N I N G P R O G R A M RULES Daily Observed Behaviors Needed To Earn (Or Lose) Points In The Classroom. U s i n g Manners (temper tantrums) Staying on Task (off task) Being a Friend (bothering) F o l l o w i n g Instructions (arguing) M i n d i n g O w n Business (not m i n d i n g o w n business) Recess and Lunch Rules 1.  Duty teacher w i l l report good news.  2.  Play w i t h a friend.  3.  Play i n the right area.  4.  Wait to be invited in.  5.  W h e n the bell rings move quickly to line up.  6.  Sticks, sand, leaves, rocks and stones stay on the ground.  7.  Keep away from the front door.  8.  Return your o w n equipment.  9.  Keep your voice and hands to yourself i n lineup.  10. Keep out of pubbles. 11. Keep our feet on the ground.  126  L u n c h M a n n e r s Challenge Chart 1.  I sat i n m y desk (with m y manners).  2.  I ate w i t h my mouth closed.  3.  I ate m y growing foods first.  4.  L u n c h finished by 12:15  W h a t It M e a n s To Be A F r i e n d 1.  learn to forgive and forget  2.  saying compliments to someone  3.  always helping out by being a good example  4.  to talk out fights  5.  to k n o w what makes another person feel good about themselves  6.  sharing w i t h each other  7.  help if they ask for it  8.  listen to your friends  9.  show caring for each other  128  A copy of this consent form w i l l be given to you should y o u agree to have your child participate i n this study. Thank y o u for your cooperation. Please circle one choice below and fill your child's name i n the space provided. I consent / do not consent to 's participation i n this study. Parent Signature  130  A copy of this consent form w i l l be given to y o u should y o u agree to have your child participate i n this study. Thank y o u for your cooperation. Please circle one choice below and fill your child's name i n the space provided. I consent / do not consent to 's participation i n this study. Parent Signature  131  APPENDIX C :  T I M E - S E R I E S ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY  In time series analysis we are trying to test and model a significant intervention effect. W e are looking for a model that w i l l best explain a change i n human behavior. In order to do that, we first must determine whether stochastic processes are going on i n the series. Stochastic process refers to whether the series is driven by a probablistic process or chance. If the data points are just drifting about the mean by chance ~ we call this a drifting series. O u r first step is to model the stochastic process of the series to determine whether it it drifting or whether it is trending, that is, is the series stationary or nonstationary. If the series is a realization of a trend we call this a deterministic process. In such a case we w o u l d want to model the process to see h o w the change is taking place i n the series. Four c o m m o n models of change are pictures below.  Abrupt, permanent change  Abrupt, temporary change  Gradual, permanent change  Response to pulse function  Gradual temporary change  A time series can also be a realization of stochastic processes as well as deterministic processes. To identify stochastic processes, it is important to have a lot of data points i n order to see if they are drifting  132  around the mean or whether a deterministic trend is happening i n the series. O u r next step is to model the processes going on i n the series. A time series consist of: Yf- = observation at time t = intervention + Noise (stochastic, white noise) or deterministic trend W e start first by modelling the stochastic processes. They can be either systematic or unsystematic. A n unsystematic process consists of white noise and purely random shocks. This means nothing from the past is systematically affecting what is happening at a given point i n time (Yj-). A stochastic process can also be systematic. There are two types of systematic stochastic processes. One is called the auto-regressive process. This means what y o u d i d yesterday helps to determine what y o u w i l l do today. Recent previous experiences are systematically affecting your decisions and behavior today. The other systematic stochastic process is called the m o v i n g average process. This is best described as cyclical drifting. W h e n many things happen they add to each other and accumulate and y o u respond to them. R a n d o m events (or shocks) that have happened to y o u i n the past accumulate until y o u respond. Y o u are not responding to what happened yesterday, but to an accumulation of random events that happened i n your past.  133  In order to find out what stochastic process is occurring i n the time series, y o u have to remove any trend or deterministic process that m a y be happening. Y o u then check to see if the series is stationary. That is, are all the data points i n equilibrium w i t h a common mean and a common variance (o^)? If the series is nonstationary i.e. not i n equilibrium w i t h a common mean, y o u can difference the series to make it stationary. This is done by taking the difference between successive observation points. For example: t=time  Yj-=observation score  A = l Difference operator  1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8  8 9 12 11 15 17 20 25  1 3 -1 4 2 3 5  This is computed by differencing: 9-8=1 12-9 =3 1 1 - 1 2 =1 etc. If the data points are still not i n equilibrium about a common mean, y o u can difference the series again until it becomes stationary. Once a series is stationary, y o u can then start modelling the noise or stochastic process by fitting an A R I M A (Autoregressive  134  Integrated M o v i n g Average) model to the series. A R I M A models are expressed w i t h 3 numbers i n parentheses representing 3 letters (p, d, q) p = autoregressive order If p = 1 the previous past behavior is operating p = 2 two previous past behaviors are operating d = number of times y o u differenced a series to make it stationary. q = order of moving average process how many integrated random shocks (events) that are affecting behavior q = 1 time period q = 2 time periods Four common A R I M A (p, d, q) models found i n time series are: A R I M A (0, 0, 0)  - purely white noise process  A R I M A (1, 0, 0)  - no trend - autoregressive process = 1 = immediate previous experience affecting behavior today = 1st order autoregressive - no differencing necessary - no m o v i n g average process  A R I M A (1,1, 0)  - 1st order autoregressive process - series differenced once - no moving average process  135  A R I M A (0,1, 1)  - no autoregressive process - series differenced once - m o v i n g average process of 1 time period of accumulation of random shocks is affecting the series.  These models can be called up on the B M D P : 2 T Box-JenkinsTime Series Analysis computer program i n order to see if any one of the models model the series i n question. In order to examine whether an A R I M A model fits or not, one has to examine the parameter estimates of the series. This is done by lagging the series. W h e n we lag a series we are correlating the original set of observations w i t h its successive observations. This results i n an intercorrelation of all the data points. This is called the autocorrelation function or the A C F parameter.  This estimate correlates the time series  w i t h its o w n lags. Another parameter estimate to examine is the partial autocorrelation ( P A C F ) . This estimate partials out all the intermediary correlations and gives us a very pure correlation of the original time series w i t h the last lag. These parameter estimates can be called for on the B M D P : 2 T Box=Jenkins Time Series Analysis computer program. The correlograms of the A C F ' s and P A C F ' s are plotted on the computer printout. A correlogram tells us whether the data points fall w i t h i n » . . 9 5 % confidence intervals. If they do then the white noise m o d e l is accepted as tentatively appropriate, for the baseline data points. The patterns of correlograms help to identify w h i c h A R I M A model is i n  136  process. A R I M A model correlograms can be found i n (Cook and Campbell, 1979). After the model for the preintervention series has been established, w e can then attempt to model the postintervention series, w h i c h tells us what happened to the series after an intervention was introduced to the subject. First, we can look at the change between pre and postintervention mean levels to see if there was change happening as a result of intervention. The mean for each series is p r o v i d e d by the computer program. W e can compute either an abrupt permanent change i n the series, or test for gradual permanent change i n mean the series. In the gradual change model, we simply add the change i n level parameter ooO, to the preintervention series mean i n order to find the postintervetnion mean:  A LV 0  This formula computes h o w m u c h each point went up b y i n the postintervention series. W e add these change levels to the preintervention mean and the data points from the postintervention series can n o w be plotted. Total change i n the series can be computed by the following formula:  137  coo change = coo + Sl^coo + Simeon + Si^coo + Simeon +  SI^COQ + SI^COQ +  8i coo + 5i^coo + 5i^coo + Simeon 7  We then check to see if the A C F and P A C F correlograms are w i t h i n the 95% confidence intervals. W e can double check a model's appropriateness b y computing the Q statistic and comparing it to the critical value of the model, the Q statistic is used to test statistically whether the residuals are statistically significant. This can be done w i t h the following formulas at the  = .05 level. It is essentially a  goodness of fit test for the A C F . This can be done w i t h the following formulas: K  If Q is less than the critical value then we can accept the n u l l hypothesis. However, if Q exceeds the critical value we reject the n u l l hypothesis and try to model the series using a different A R I M A model. In order for the autoregressive or m o v i n g average A R I M A model to fit the postintervention series the autoregressive or m o v i n g average order estimate must be statistically significant (T-ratio greater than -1.96 or 1.96) and lie w i t h i n the bounds of stationarity for an autoregressive order, or invertability for a m o v i n g average order. In both cases theta (cp) must be:  138 -1 < <p, < 1 If cp lies too close to +1 or -1, it is a possible bad model. The residual mean square (RMS) statistic is then calculated to assess h o w "good" the model is for its intended use. This is done by computing the following formula:  RMS =  |j 4 Residual Sum of Squares  The residual sum of squares is estimated by both the Least Conditional Squares M e t h o d and the Backcasting M e t h o d on the computer program. The lower residual mean square (RMS) is accepted as the better fitting model.  A final test for the most appropriate A R I M A model involves looking a the residual A C F ' s and P A C F ' s correlograms. They should be essentially zero i n order to accept the model. In summary to this point, one can say a deterministic process (either autoregressive or m o v i n g average) along w i t h a preintervention stochastic process of white noise, indicates that the series is more than just drifting after intervention. If it drifts around a common mean before intervention, the trend after the intervention is more apparent.  139 W e can then call for independent variable commands on the B M D P : 2 T Box-Jenkins Time Series Analysis computer program and do a full impact series analysis. W e can call for either a pulse function called the U P O R D E R where there is an abrupt change i n mean level, or the S P O R D E R w h i c h is the step function that indicates a gradual change. These commands help tell us h o w the series is approaching its limit and h o w fast the rate of change is happening. The S P O R D E R specifically indicates the rate of change. If this estimate is w i t h i n the bounds of stationarity or invertibility (-1 < cp, < 1) and statistically significant (T-ratio is greater than -1.96 or 1.96); then we can say there is a definite intervention effect taking place i n the postintervention series. The correlograms for the residual A C F ' s and P A C F ' s should also be w i t h i n the 95% confidence intervals to ensure the model's goodness of fit. The modelling of intervention effects provide a powerful test of hypothesized forms of change. Thus the model of stochastic processes combined w i t h intervention components can be use to study the dynamics of human behavior over time and the impact of intervention on behavior. W h e n properly implemented and carefully interpreted, the time-series experiment is a sensitive tool for the investigation of causal claims i n the behavioral and social sciences (Cook & Campbell, 1979).  140 APPENDIX D: TIME SERIES ANALYSIS APPLIED T O EXPERIMENTAL SUBJECT A's (T3) TIME-SERIES In order to apply the time series methodology i n Cook and Campbell (1979), a computer printout generated by the B M D P : 2 T BoxJenkins Time Series Analysis program was examined to see whether the series fitted the criteria necessary for proof of significant intervention effect. Experimental Subject A ' s time-series analysis (T3) was an example of h o w the computer printouts were examined. Time-series analysis (T3) for Experimental Subject A compares the baseline period to 20 days of intervention i n June. D u r i n g baseline, the series was drifting about a mean of 11.56. The autocorrelation function ( A C F ) and partial autocorrelation function ( P A C F ) correlograms fell w i t h i n the 95% confidence intervals, indicating that the series was stationary, and not i n need of differencing. W h e n we compared the A C F and P A C F correlograms to the most common correlogram patterns i n Cook & Campbell, (1979), we noted that the preintervetnion series i n resembled a random or white noise pattern. N o significant autoregressive or m o v i n g average estimates were obtained for the preintervention series. W h e n the postintervention series was examined i n conjunction w i t h the baseline series a gradual improvement i n behavior was noted. The entire series was plotted by including the significant rate of change  141 estimate (  =0.72) after the point of intervention. This can be seen  visually i n G r a p h 3, on page 77. The A C F and P A C F residual correlograms for the gradual change model show residuals that lie w i t h i n the 95% confidence intervals. In fact, they are essentially zero, w h i c h indicated that the change model fitted to the whole series very well. The Q-statistic for the gradual change model was: -- tJ^ r j  2  Q = 40 [(0.0) +(0.0) +(0.0) ...(0.0) 2  2  2  2  =40 (0.0)] = 0.00 The critical value for the series was:  )-J"? J  1-  k - ( p + q + d)  .95  20 - (0 + 0 + 0)  .95  20 = 31.41  .95  20  /i  ,  -\  ^K-(rH  Since Q was less than the critical value we accepted the n u l l hypothesis that the residuals were equal to zero as tenable for the gradual change model of intervention, and we assumed that the residuals were all within the values expected by chance. The intervention parameter,  , was estimated 0.73. It was w i t h i n  the bounds of stability (-1 < , < 1) and was statistically significant (Tratio = 3.38).  142 The root mean square for the gradual permanent change model is: RMS  =  >jj ^residual sum of squares  =  J2526"  = 1.25  This was lower than the R M S generated by other change models, so we accepted the gradual change model as the best model tested for the series. Because the rate-of-change parameter was significant, we concluded that the an intervention was affecting the time-series after baseline for Experimental Subject A . Table 1 below gives a complete summary of the analysis carried out for Experimental Subject A .  Tablel 11 Criteria for modelling a time series and intervention effects on Experimental Subject A Preintervention Series (Baseline) Preintervention M e a n Level  11.56  Preintervention A C F and P A C F Correlograms  within 95% confidence intervals resembles white noise pattern  Preintervention  0.32 - within bounds of stationarity, T-ratio = 0.19 not significant.  estimate  Postintervention Series Tl= April  T2=May  T3=June  Postintervetnion mean level  17.05  19.45  24.20  Postintervention estimate  Not significant.  Not significant.  Not significant.  T4=whole series  Significant, T=2.15.  Postintervention residual A C F and P A C F correlograms  within 95% confidence intervals essentially 0  within 95% confidence intervals essentially 0  w i t h i n 95% confidence intervals essentially 0  w i t h i n 95% confidence intervals essentially 0  A R I M A (p, d, q) model for full impact series  (0,0, 0,)  (0, 0,0,)  (0,0, 0,)  (1,0,0,)  Q-statistic  1.2  1.2  1.2  0  Critical Value  31.41  31.41  31.41  30.14  Independent variable estimate  -0.23 within bounds of stationarity, but not significant T=-0.21  0.86 within bounds of stationarity & significant T=5.12  0.72 w i t h i n bounds of stationarity & significant T=3.44  0.88 w i t h i n bounds of stationarity & significant  Residual Mean Square (RMS)  1.09  1.14  1.25  0.95  145  / APPENDIX E: STANDARDIZED T E S T S UTILIZED , T h e J O S E P H P R E S C H O O L and P R I M A R Y S E L F C O N C E P T S C R E E N I N G T E S T by JACK JOSEPH  INDIVIDUAL R E C O R D F O R M Name Address School/Grade . Examiner  Year Month D a y Date T e s t e d Date of B i r t h Age Sex M . F ( c i r c l e one)  SUMMARY INFORMATION Normative A g e Groups G l o b a l S e l f Concept Scare  SELF CONCEPT CLASSIFICATION High P o s i t i v e Moderate P o s i t i v e Watch L i s t Poor High R i s k N e g a t i v e  Hiah Positive Mndomta Pn<:itiv» Watch L i s t Poor Hiah Risk Neaative (check one category)  3-6  4-7  6-0  4-6 28-30 22-27 21 17-20 0-16  5-11 29-30 25-28 24 22-23 0-21  9-11 30 26-29 25 23-24 0-22  to  to  to  IRD E m o t i o n a l I n d i c a t o r s . Qualitative Observations _  R e f e r for further e v a l u a t i o n : Y e s .  T o t a l Number of C o n f u s i o n s _  .No.  Diagnostic Dimensional Evaluation ( T o be completed for c h i l d r e n w h o s e g l o b a l self c o n c e p t s c o r e s f a l l into the Poor or H i g h R i s k Negative c a t e g o r i e s ) . Significance,  Competence.  1.G E C 2.SIG 3.S I G 4.SIG 5.S I G  GEC. Virtue  Power  Item D i m e n s i o n Chart 6. SIG. POW 11. C O M 7. C O M 12. SIG, COM, 8. C O M 13. vm 9. G E C 14. G E C 10. C O M 15. G E C  POW  O p t i o n a l : In order to g a i n further i n s i g h t into the r e l a t i o n s h i p between a c h i l d ' s s e l f - i m a g e and e x t e r n a l l y p e r c e i v e d ratings of that image, the f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n may be detached and rated by a n u n b i a s e d informed observer (e.g., a t e a c h e r ) . Prior t o c o m p l e t i n g this q u e s t i o n , the rater s h o u l d not have a c c e s s to the s u b j e c t ' s J P P S S T s c o r e performance. C h i l d ' s Name  . Rater. To what degree does this c h i l d d i s p l a y a sense of s e l f - r e s p e c t and hold a p o s i t i v e regard for his own w o r t h i n e s s ? (Rate by c i r c l i n g one number) Always 10  Usually 9 8  Sometimes Seldom 7 6 5 4 3 2 1  Never 0  T««t lt»m Adminiltrotion  Score 2 Positive 1. O N E O F T H E S E B O Y S ( G I R L S ) B V E R Y C L E A N A N D T H E O T H E R B O Y ( G I R L ) IS V E R Y D I R T Y . D i s t i n g u i s h . NOW W H I C H O N E IS M O S T L I K E Y O U ? C o n f i r m (e.g., S O Y O U ' R E A C L E A N B O Y ) Scoring  c l e a n = 2,  bothorDK =l ,  dirty = 0  2. O N E O F T H E S E B O Y S ( G I R L S ) H A S N O O N E T O P L A Y W I T H A N D O N E O F T H E S E B O Y S (GIRLS) IS P L A Y I N G W I T H L O T S O F F R I E N D S . D i s t i n g u i s h . NOW W H I C H O N E H A P P E N S T O Y O U T H E M O S T ? C o n f i r m , (if c h i l d s e e m s unable t o understand the s i t u a t i o n a s k : D O Y O U P L A Y A L O N E O R WITH F R I E N D S ? T h e n s c o r e verbal r e s p o n s e ) . Scoring  both or D K - 1,  friends = 2,  alone = 0  3. O N E O F T H E S E B O Y S ( G I R L S ) H A S A T E A C H E R W H O D O E S N ' T L I K E HIM ( H E R ) V E R Y M U C H A N D T H E O T H E R B O Y ( G I R L ) H A S A T E A C H E R WHO L I K E S HIM ( H E R ) A L O T . D i s t i n g u i s h . NOW WHICH O N E H A P P E N S T O Y O U T H E M O S T ? C o n f i r m . (If c h i l d s e e m s unable t o understand the s i t u a t i o n a s k : D O E S Y O U R T E A C H E R L I K E Y O U OR N O T ? Then s c o r e verbal r e s p o n s e ) . Scoring  likes =2,  b o t h « D K = l,  doesn't like - 0  4. D O Y O U H A V E A B R O T H E R O R S I S T E R ? WHAT'S HIS ( H E R ) N A M E ? (If more t h a n 1 s i b l i n g say: G I V E M E J U S T O N E O F T H E I R N A M E S ) . S e l e c t appropriate stimulus card a n d s a y : NOW L E T ' S P R E T E N D T H A T T H I S IS Y O U R B R O T H E R ( S I S T E R ) O K ? NOW WHO D O Y O U R M O M M Y A N D D A D D Y LIKE BETTER, YOU O R ? Confirm. (If c h i l d ' s r e s p o n s e is " b o t h of u s " ask: B U T I F T H E Y H A D T O P I C K J U S T O N E . WHO D O Y O U THINK T H E Y WOULD PICK?) Scoring  me or both of us on s e c o n d inquiry z 2  D K or sometimes e a c h of us r 1  p i c k sibling on first or second inquiry = 0  Score 1 Both 'DK  Score 0 Negative  147  Score 2 Positive  Score 1 Both/DK  Score 0 Negative  Confusion  *Note: If child has no s i b l i n q s then question becomes: D O Y O U R M O M M Y A N D D A D D Y L I K E Y O U ? No picture would be used in this c a s e . Scoring  yes — 2,  sometimes or D K = 1 ,  no — 0  5. O N E O F T H E S E B O Y S (GIRLS) IS G E T T I N G S P A N K E D B Y HIS ( H E R ) M O T H E R A N D T H E O T H E R B O Y ( G I R L ) IS G E T T I N G C A N D Y F R O M HIS ( H E R ) M O T H E R . D i s t i n g u i s h . NOW WHICH O N E H A P P E N S T O Y O U T H E M O S T ? Confirm. Scoring  candy - 2,  both or D K — 1,  spanked = 0  6. O N E O F T H E S E B O Y S ( G I R L S ) H A S A B U N C H O F T O Y S T O P L A Y WITH, A N D T H E O T H E R B O Y ( G I R L ) H A S N O T O Y S T O P L A Y WITH. D i s t i n g u i s h . NOW W H I C H O N E H A P P E N S T O Y O U T H E M O S T ? Confirm. Scoring  toys = 2 ,  D K = 1,  no toys = 0  7. O N E O F T H E S E B O Y S (GIRLS) K N O W S HOW T O S A Y L O T S O F WORDS A N D T H E O T H E R B O Y ( G I R L ) C A N O N L Y S A Y A F E W WORDS. D i s t i n g u i s h . NOW W H I C H O N E IS M O S T L I K E Y O U ? Confirm. Scoring  lots = 2,  both or D K = 1,  few = 0  8. O N E O F T H E S E B O Y S (GIRLS) IS A S L O W R U N N E R AND T H E O T H E R B O Y (GIRL) C A N R U N V E R Y F A S T . Distinguish. NOW W H I C H O N E IS M O S T L I K E Y O U ? Confirm. Scoring  fast ~2,  bothorDKrl,  slow = 0  (No pictures are required) WHAT'S Y O U R F I R S T N A M E ? D O Y O U L I K E T H A T N A M E OR WOULD Y O U R A T H E R H A V E A N O T H E R N A M E ? Confirm. Scoring  likes name = 2,  both or D K - 1,  doesn't like = 0  10. O N E O F T H E S E B O Y S ( G I R L S ) C A N J U M P V E R Y HIGH AND T H E O T H E R B O Y (GIRL) CAN'T JUMP V E R Y M U C H A T A L L - D i s t i n g u i s h . NOW W H I C H O N E IS M O S T L I K E Y O U ? Confirm. Scoring  jump high =: 2,  both or D K — 1,  can't jump — 0  Not Applicable  Score 2 Positive  Score 1 Both D K  Score 0 Neqotive  148 Confusion  11. (Three pictures are required) H E R E A R E SOME BOYS A N D CIRLS P L A Y I N G B A S E B A L L . O N E B O Y ( G I R L ) WINS T H E G A M E AND T H E O T H E R B O Y (GIRL) L O S E S THE GAME. D i s t i n g u i s h a s follows: N O W O U T O F T H E S E T W O B O Y S ( G I R L S ) (examiner points to C a r d s 11L & 11R) W H I C H O N E WINS? NOW W H I C H O N E IS T H E L O S E R ? N O W WHICH O N E H A P P E N S T O Y O U T H E M O S T ? Confirm. •Note: If c h i l d says "I've never done t h a t , " then ask: B U T I F Y C U DID P L A Y B A S E B A L L . D O Y O U T H I N K T H A T Y C U W O U L D WIN O R L O S E ? win r 2,  Scoring  bothorDKrl,  lose r 0  12. H E R E A R E T W O E C Y S ( G I R L S ) T H A T A R E T R I C K O R - T R E A T I N G A T H A L L O W E E N . O N E B O Y (GIRL) GETS LOTS O F CANDY AND THE OTHER BOY (GIRL) O N L Y G E T S A L I T T L E CANDY- Distinguish. NOW W H I C H O N E H A P P E N S T O Y O U T H E M O S T ? Confirm. •Note: If c h i l d s a y s "I've never done t h a t , " then ask: B U T I F Y O U DID G O T R I C K - O R - T R E A T I N G . DO YOU THINK T H A T YOU WOULD G E T L O T S O F C A N D Y OR O N L Y A L I T T L E C A N D Y ? Scoring lots = 2, b o t h o r D K = l . little = 0 * Note: See Administration Section of manual for rewording of this item for c h i l d r e n with limited or no e x p o s u r e to the c u s t o m of H a l l o w e e n . 13. O N E C F T H E S E B C Y S ( G I R L S ) IS A B A D B O Y ( G I R L ) A N D T H E O T H E R B O Y ( G I R L ) IS A G O O D B O Y (GIRL). Distinguish. NOW WHICH O N E A R E Y O U ? Confirm: Scoring  good — 2,  both or D K r 1,  bad = 0  14- O N E C F T H E S E B O Y S ( G I R L S ) IS S M I L I N G A N D T H E O T H E R B O Y ( G I R L ) IS C R Y I N G . D i s t i n g u i s h . NOW W H I C H O N E D O Y O U D O T H E M O S T ? C o n f i r m . Scoring  s m i l e — 2,  both or D K = I.  cry  r0  15. ( N o pictures are required) W H E R E D O Y O U L I V E , IN A H O U S E O R A B I G A P A R T M E N T BUILDING? D O YOU LIKE LIVING IN T H A T H O U S E ( A P A R T M E N T ) O R W O U L D Y O U R A T H E R L I V E S O M E W H E R E E L S E ? Confirm. Scoring l i k e s where sometimes rather live he lives - 2, or D K - 1. somewhere e l s e - 0 Totals (C)  Jock  Josoph  STOELTINC CO.  Coi. No. ]J0".? ;  Global Score  Not Applicable  149  /1y Marnfi  "THE WA YI FEEL ABOUT MYSELF" The Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale Ellen V. Piers, Ph.D. and Dale B. Harris, Ph.D.  wps  Publithed  by  WESTERN PSTCHOtOGICU. SCRVCCS PuWithw* wid Onlnbuun 13031 ttHM Boum** UM A<i«tMt. CjMOrrua 90025  Name:  Today's Date:  Age:  Sex (circle one):  School:  Girl  Boy  Grade:  Teacher's Name (optional):  Directions: Here are a set of statements that tell how some people feel about themselves. Read each statement and decide whether or not it describes the way you feel about yourself. If it is true or mostly true for you, circle the word " y e s " next to the statement. If it is false or mostly false for you, circle the word "no." Answer every question, even if some are hard to decide. Do not circle both "yes" and " n o " for the same statement. Remember that there are no right or wrong answers. Only you can tell us how you feel about yourself, so we hope you will mark the way you really feel inside.  TOTAL SCORE: Raw Score CLUSTERS: l_  II  Percentile III  Stanine IV  V  VI.  Copyright • 1969 Ellen V Piers ano Oale 8. Harris Not to EM reproduced i n whole or m part without written per mission of Western Psychological Services. All rights reserved. 3 4S6 7S9 Printed in U.S.A.  IOA  150  151  1. My classmates make tun of me  yes  no  21. I am good in my school work  yes  no  2. I am a happy person  yes  no  22. I do many bad things  yes  no  3. II is hard for me lo make friends  yes  no  23. I can draw well  yes  no  4. I am often sad  yes  no  24. I am good in music  yes  no  5. I am smart  yes  no  25. I behave badly at home  yes  no  26. I am slow in finishing my school work  yes  no  27. I am an important member of my class  yes  no  28. I am nervous  yes  no  29. I have pretty eyes  yes  no  6. I am shy 7. I get nervous when the teacher calls on me 8. My looks bother me 9. When I grow up, I will be an important person  yes yes yes yes  no no no no  10. I get worried when we have tests in school  yes  no  30. I can give a good report in front of the class  yes  no  11. I am unpopular  yes  no  31. In school I am a dreamer  yes  no  12. I am well behaved in school  yes  no  32. I pick on my brother(s) and sister(s)  yes  no  33. My friends like my ideas  yes  no  13. It is usually my fault when something goes wrong  yes  no  14. I cause trouble to my family  yes  no  34. I often get into trouble  yes  no  15. I am strong  yes  no  35. I am obedient at home  yes  no  16. I have good ideas  yes  no  36. I am lucky  yes  no  17. I am an important member of my family  yes  no  37. I worry a lot  .yes  no  18. I usually want my own way  yes  no  38. My parents expect too much of me  yes  no  19. I am good at making things with my hands  yes  no  39. I like being the way I am  yes  no  2a I give up easily  yes  no  40. I teel left out of things  yes  no  152  41. I have nice hair 42. I often volunteer in school  yes yes  no no  61. When I try to make something, everything seems to go wrong  yes  no  62. I am picked on at home  yes  no  yes  no  43. I wish I were different  yes  no  63. I am a leader in games and sports  44. I sleep well at night  yes  no  64. I am clumsy  yes  no  45. I hate school  yes  no  65. In games and sports. I watch instead of play  yes  no  ...yes  no  66. I forget what I learn  yes  no  47. I am sick a lot  yes  no  67. I am easy to get along with  yes  no  48. I am often mean to other people  yes  no  68. I lose my temper easily  yes  no  49. My classmates in school think I have good ideas  yes  no  69. I am popular with girls  yes  no  50. I am unhappy  yes  no  70. I am a good reader  yes  no  51. I have many friends  yes  no  71. I would rather work alone than with a group  yes  no  52. I am cheerful  yes  no  72. I like my brother (sister)  yes  no  53. I am dumb about most things  yes  no  73. I have a good figure  yes  no  54. I am good-looking  yes  no  74. I am often afraid  yes  no  55. I have lots of pep  yes  no  75. I am always dropping or breaking things  yes  no  56. I get into a lot of fights  yes  no  76. I can be trusted  yes  no  57. I am popular with boys  yes  no  77. I am different from other people  yes  no  58. People pick on me  yes  no  78. I think bad thoughts  yes  no  59. My family is disappointed in me  yes  no  79. I cry easily  y«  n  60. I have a pleasant face  yes  no  80. I am a good person  yes  no  46. I am among the last to be chosen for games  °  APPENDIX F:  GRAPHS OF TIME-SERIES RESULTS  154  156  159  G r a p h 7.  T i m e - s e r i e s ( T ^ ) f o r E x p e r i m e n t a l S u b j e c t C: No s i g n i f i c a n t i m p r o v e m e n t i n b e h a v i o r . to  .  ^  Baseline Days 1-20  . t = May I Days 21-40  Baseline Days 1-20  T = June Days 41-60 3  162  163  Graph 11.  Time-series T f o r Control Subject X: No s i g n i f i c a n t improvement i n behavior.  Graph 12.  Time-series T f o r Control Subject X: No s i g n i f i c a n t improvement i n behavior.  'Baseline Days 1-20  T, = ijune Days 61-80  167 Graph 15. - .  Time-series T for C o n t r o l Subject Y: S i g n i f i c a n t (p<0.05) gradual improvement i n behavior. 3  170  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0053662/manifest

Comment

Related Items