UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Teaching parents behaviour modification principles and techniques Kuchenmuller, Manfred D. 1975

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1975_A8 K82.pdf [ 5.63MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0053808.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0053808-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0053808-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0053808-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0053808-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0053808-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0053808-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0053808-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0053808.ris

Full Text

TEACHING PARENTS BEHAVIOUR MODIFICATION FRB TCIPI8S AND TECHNIQUES by MANFRED ©. KUCHEN*<ULLER B. A., U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1966 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE CF MASTER CF ARTS i n the Department o f Ccounselling Psychology We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o the re a u i r e d standard: THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October 7 , 1975 In presenting th i s thesis in pa r t i a l fu l f i lment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L ibrary sha l l make it f ree ly ava i l ab le for reference and study. I fur ther agree that permission for extensive copying of th i s thes is for scho lar ly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s representat ives . It i s understood that copying or pub l i ca t i on of th is thes i s fo r f i nanc ia l gain sha l l not be allowed without my writ ten permiss ion. The Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Depa rtment D a t e & - /Cfy*r _ i _ Abstract Involving parents as change agents for their children i s an important step towards a more comprehensive model i n the treatment and prevention of juvenile delinquency. This study investigates the effectiveness of using parents as behaviour modifiers of their delinquent children. The research questions explored are the following; f i r s t l y , w i l l parents benefit from the learning of behaviour modification techniques; secondly, w i l l parents generalize their knowledge of these techniques to other problem situations; thirdly, i s there an inverse relationship between parent understanding of behaviour modification techniques and child problem behaviours; fourthly, w i l l children whose behaviour has been modified commit fewer delinquencie s. The subjects were 13 adjudged delinquent boys and g i r l s and their parents who volunteered to take part i n the program. A randomized before and after experimental and control group design was used, with seven subjects i n the experimental and six i n the control group. - i i Under the guidance of a student c l i n i c i a n parents were instructed, during the six month intervention phase, i n operant behaviour modification principles and techniques required for the modification of targeted problem behaviours. Parents were responsible for identifying, collecting baseline and intervention data, and recording problem behaviours. They were also responsible for the carrying out the modification process through contingency contracting, and generally rewarding positive and ignoring negative behaviours. If the parents carried out these duties they were paid $ 2 0 per week. Parent learning of behaviour modification techniques was measured on a 50 question multiple choice child problem situation questionnaire developed for this study. Behaviour change was measured on the Walker Problem Behaviour Identification Checklist, a Problem Checklist and a Behaviour Checklist. The latter two were developed for this study. The Problem Checklist was constructed on a binomial yes, no basis and sets out 3 0 child problem behaviours. The Behaviour Checklist was constructed on a four point behaviour differential scale and covered 23 positive and negative behaviours. A l l questionnaires were completed by the parent implementing the behaviour change program. - i i i -Preliminary s t a t i s t i c a l procedures were conducted to examine inter-rater r e l i a b i l i t y on the Family Interaction Tasks, and to provide a validity check for the Problem Checklist and Behaviour Checklist. The Mann-Whitney U Test was used at the .05 level of significance to check on the equivalence of the experimental and control groups. For the main s t a t i s t i c a l procedures the Wilcoxon-Matched Signed Ranks Test, for a one t a i l test at the .05 level of significance was used to measure within group change. A programmed Pearson Product Moment Correlation coefficient at the .05 level of significance was used to examine the relationship between parental understanding of behaviour modification techniques and child problem behaviours. The results from the preliminary analysis showed significant inter-rater r e l i a b i l i t y , and correlations between the Walker Problem Behaviour Identification Checklist and the Behaviour Checklist and Problem Checklist. Equivalence between groups was established on a l l measures. In the main analysis results showed that a l l 26 targeted behaviours were modified. Parents increased their knowledge or operant behaviour modification techniques, i n relation to the problem behaviours modified. They did not generalize this knowledge to non-targeted problem behaviours. An inverse relationship was shown between knowledge - iv -gained by parents about behaviour m o d i f i c a t i o n techniques and c h i l d problem behaviours reduced, however t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p was n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t . There was no d i f f e r e n c e between the two groups i n subsequent delinquencies committed during the s i x month i n t e r -v e n t i o n and three month follow-up. These f i n d i n g s provide evidence t h a t parents can e f f e c t i v e l y modify problem behaviours d i s p l a y e d by t h e i r teenage delinquent c h i l d , and t h n t they are capable of assuming a complementary r o l e t o other agencies i n v o l v e d w i t h t h e i r delinquent c h i l d . Cn the b a s i s of these r e s u l t s i t was f e l t t h a t i n c r e a s i n g p a r e n t a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n the behaviour change process of t h e i r adjudged delinquent c h i l d should r e c e i v e more emphasis i n the courts and c o r r e c t i o n s s e r v i c e s . - V -TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION 2 - Present Laws and the Administration of these Laws regulating Juvenile Offenders 3 - Present Philosophy of and Process for Dealing with Juvenile Delinquents i n Bri t i s h Columbia 6 - Parents as a Resource for their Delinquent Child 8 r- The Aim of this Investigation 13 II . REVIEW OF LITERATURE - Studies with Limited Parental Involvement 16 - Studies with Extensive Parental Involvement 22',* - Research Hypotheses 30 III. RESEARCH DESIGN 32 - Subjects 32 (i) Assignment to experimental and control groups 33 - Instruments 34 (i) H i l l M. Walker Problem Behaviour Identification Checklist 34 ( i i ) The Family Interaction Tasks 35 ( i i i ) Behaviour Checklist 37 (iv) Problem Checklist 39 - Procedure 39 (i) Clinicians 39 ( i i ) Duties of the Clinicians 40 ( i i i ) Role of Project Supervisor 42 (iv) Parent Training 42 (v) Administration of Instruments 43 - Administration of Intervention Program 45 - S t a t i s t i c a l Procedures RESULTS - Preliminary Analysis - Hypotheses Testing INTERPRETATIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS - Hypothesis 1 - Hypothesis 2 - Hypothesis 3 - Hypothesis U - Hypothesis 5 - Hypothesis 6 - Limitations of the Study - A Proposal for Future Research - Practical Application of the Findings BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX A: Tables A - Demographic Variables of Subjects Table B - Offence History of Subjects APPENDIX B: Tables A to G - Sample Pretest Comparison data Table G - Child Behaviours Modified Table H - Sample Posttest Comparison data on the Family Interaction Tasks APPENDIX C: Family Interaction Tasks questionnaire Behaviour Checklist questionnaire Problem Checklist questionnaire - v i i -LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1. Correlations between raters on the Family Interaction Tasks 4 8 2 . Probabilities of differences between raters' variances on the Family Interaction Tasks 49 3 . Correlations between the Walker Problem Behaviour Identification Checklist, the negative scale of the Behaviour Check-l i s t and the Problem Checklist 50 4 . Pre and posttest scores on the Family Interaction Tasks for experimental and control families 52 5 . Pre and posttest scores for the experimental group on the Family Interaction Tasks corresponding to targeted behaviours 53 6 . Pretest, posttest and difference scores on questions i n the Family Interaction Tasks not related to targeted behaviours 56 7. Pre and posttest scores on the Walker Problem Behaviour Identification Checklist 57 8 . Pre and posttest scores on the Behaviour Checklist for the experimental group 58 9 . Pre and posttest scores on the Behaviour Checklist for the control group 58 10. Pre and posttest scores on the Problem Checklist 59 6 0 11. Subsequent offence data of experimental and control group subjects from March 1974 to December 1974 inclusive 1 2 . Correlations for the experimental and control groups of the difference scores on the Family Interaction Tasks with the d i f -ference scores on the Walker Problem Behaviour Identification Checklist, the negative scale on the Behaviour Checklist and the Problem Checklist, for the experimental and control groups 6 l - v i i i -APPENDIX A Age, sex, parents i n the home and family-level of income for experimental and control group subjects Number of offences committed by subjects as of March 1, 1974 APPENDIX B Pretest scores on the Family Interaction Tasks Pretest scores on the Walker Problem Behaviour Identification Checklist Pretest scores of the negative scale of the Behaviour Checklist Pretest scores of the positive scale of the Behaviour Checklist Pretest scores on the Problem Checklist Number of indictable offences committed by subjects as of March 1, 1974 Experimental families targeted child behaviours, reinforcement for these behaviours, baseline and intervention means and percentage change Pre and posttest difference scores on the Family Interaction Tasks less, for the parents i n the experimental group, the increase i n scores l i s t e d i n Table 4 - i x -ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my appreciation to Dr. John Friesen and Dr. Marg Csapo for their unstinting support and guidance i n developing this research paper; to Dr. Todd Rogers and Louis Varga for their guidance i n the s t a t i s t i c a l and computer analyses; to Margaret Moreau for her support, encouragement and hours of scoring and tabulating test results; to the parents and children who took part i n this study; and f i n a l l y to my wife Karen without whose typing s k i l l s and a b i l i t y to read between the lines this paper would not have materialized. _ 11 -TEACHING PARENTS BEHAVIOUR MODIFICATION PRINCIPLES AND TECHNIQUES - 2 -CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The question of how a child develops, maintains and changes inappropriate behaviour patterns i s a v i t a l one for anyone deal-ing with children. Deviant child behaviour has been attributed to social^ psychological and biological problems. Family theories aimed at explaining and dealing with juvenile delinquency gained recognition at the beginning of the twentieth century when a shift i n emphasis occurred from individual inadequacies to the family as a source of delinquent problems. Family oriented approaches to delinquency have considered structural approaches such as broken homes (Monahan 1957), working mothers (Gluecks 1957), deviance as a family tradition (Shulman 1928; and " Gluecks 1934) and faulty socialization (Community Research Associates Inc., 1958; Gluecks 1 9 5 0 ) . Coulter (1948) and Gluecks ( 1 9 5 0 ) , indicated that what appeared to be an important cause of juvenile delinquency i s not so much the physical structure of the home, but the relationship existing among family members. Family research into the causes of delinquency has been primarily diagnostic rather than remedial and has therefore largely f a i l e d to provide for workers involved with delinquents and their families specific remedial answers to the problems of family child socialization within the home. In this province social workers and probation officers focus primarily on outside of the home "treatment" of identified problem children. Martin and Fitzpatrick ( i 9 6 0 ) i n their - 3 -proposal for an integrated theory called for the integration of family and individual centered theories within the framework of broader social and cultural issues. IVhat Martin and Fitzpatrick propose i s an a l l fronts attack on the problem of delinquency. This i s not happening at the present time i n Br i t i s h Columbia where the main emphasis i s on programme development (Macdonald, February 2 2 , 1 9 7 4 ) . (A) Present Laws and the Administraticn of these Laws regulating Juvenile Offenders  Juvenile offenders are dealt with through the Federal Statute known as the Juvenile.Delinquents Act ( 1 9 2 9 ) . Section 3 ( 2 ) of this Statute describes the juvenile offender not as an offender but as one i n a condition of delinquency and therefore requiring help and guidance and. proper supervision. The Provincial Court Act ( 1 9 6 9 ) section 1 6 ( 4 ) also addresses the issue of how a juvenile i n the state of delinquency shall be dealt with. This section states that on the recommendation of a probation officer the probation officer may, with the consent of the child or parents of the child, enter into an agreement i n writing with the child and his parents for the supervision of the child. Both acts suggest that the juvenile did not receive the guidance and direction he required. The acts pay no specific attention however, to how positive guidance shall be effected. Section 2 0 of the Juvenile Delinquents Act, which deals with the disposition open to the court, makes no specific reference whatever to the parents role i n dealing with the - 4 -behaviour of their delinquent child. A criminal offence as described i n the Criminal Code of Canada or as outlined i n various Provincial Acts, does not deal with an offender as having offended against another individual or his or her property, but rather as having offended against the state or province. The responsibility therefore of making a remedial disposition for a person who has conflicted with the law i s assumed by the state or government rather than by the offended party or i n the case of juveniles the parents. The Acts dealing with juvenile delinquents do not intend to take away from the parents or other significant people i n the offender's l i f e the responsibility for "acceptable" social conduct. In practice however, these Acts indicate that the offender must assume f u l l responsibility for his behaviour, become self directing and somehow approach a level of acceptable conduct. Though this goal cannot be cri t i c i z e d , acceptable conduct does not i n most cases occur without specific remedial inter-vention. Further parents play a minor role i n the court proceedings dealing with their child. Expressed parental attempts to help the child, and frustrations experienced, are generally readily accepted and outwardly, at least, sympathized with by the court and correctional systems. The parents are given nods indicating understanding, acceptance, and i n behaviour modification terminology, social reinforcement for their expressed efforts of dealing with the child, while the child i s denounced - 5 -as having failed in being responsible i n a society which i n many cases has offered the child repeated failures. The child is identified as the problem and i s given f u l l responsibility for any unlawful conduct. The police, the courts and corrections are largely reactive systems which swing into action when an individual's behaviour becomes unacceptable and they become inactive when the behaviour moderates. A juvenile offender, barring any crime of an extremely vicious nature, is generally released into the custody of his parents without court action or follow-up, after an investigation of the home situation has been completed. Rarely do parents receive direction with 'minor' problems experienced with their child at this stage. Generally only offenders who repeat or commit offences of an extremely serious nature w i l l be corrected by the court and receive follow-up supervision. When parents have failed to curb their child's delinquencies a professional, such as a probation officer or social worker becomes involved and deals almost exclusively with the child's inadequacies, neglecting to deal with parental inadequacies i n handling the child. When parents are given advice on how to handle their child more effectively this advice i s usually directed at punishing negative behaviours rather than rewarding positive behaviours or improving the relationship between the parents and the child. - 6 -(B) Present Philosophy of and Process for Dealing with Juvenile Delinquents i n B r i t i s h Columbia  Within this province there exists not only unclear direction i n how to deal with juvenile delinquents but also, for most line workers, inadequate awareness of how to deal with relationship problems between conflicting family members and or between family members and the community. In 1972 the Bri t i s h Columbia Corrections Branch adminis-tration set down a Five Year Plan i n Corrections (Macdonald 1974), including the corrections of juvenile offencers i n a l l but the Unified Family Court pilot project area. In this Five Year Plan emphasis i s placed on the resolution of conflict between the offender and offended. Functionally this suggests a systems approach to dealing with offenders, where the offender i s brought together with the offended party or parties i n a problem solving process. Again however, the offender i s the main target i n this process and though expanding his responsibility to the community, the parent's role i n this process and the relationship to their child i s largely ignored on the basis that the child's relation-ship to the community i s the most essential aspect of this conflict. This directive presents the line workers with the task of "treating" the offenders faulty relationship with his community. The Fourth Report of the Royal Commission on Family and Children Law (1975) formulated.through the findings of the lower mainland Pilot' Unified Family Court project, places - 7 -greater emphasis on the relationship between family members as a source of juvenile delinquency. This report notes i n part, "We believe that the governments approach to families i n c r i s i s and children i n trouble should be a comprehensive approach. We reject the notion that juveniles violating the law should be hived off and dealt with as i f there were no connection between the events that occur i n childhood and the behaviour of adolescence (p. 2)." The report further notes, "The causes often l i e within the family, and the remedy often l i e s with the family (p. 3)." It i s not clear which of the above two directives takes precedence. There i s therefore no clear direction for the line, social and probation workers i n dealing -with the parents of juvenile offencers. Further, given that the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Family and Childrens Law are implemented, the line workers s t i l l have not been given any precise information on how remedial intervention i n reconciliation of the relationship between family members should occur. The probation officer i s charged with the supervision of a juvenile offender on probation who i s required by the court to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. Additional conditions of probation may include that the child attend' school regularly, not associate with certain friends, seek employment, make restitution, report monthly to the probation officer etc. These conditions suggest the involvement of parents however, the childs account-a b i l i t y to the court removes the parents onus i n the behaviour - 8 -change process while at the same time ignoring specific parental concerns with the child which are usually not directly covered by the probation order. The "treatment" of recidivist offenders may include compulsory involvement i n a community work program and out of the home treatment programs including group homes and psychological assessment and treatment centers. In effect as the juvenile offender becomes more d i f f i c u l t to control parental responsibility for his behaviour decreases. At this stage parents are either ignored or receive blame for inadequate efforts i n rearing their child rather than being provided with viable alternatives to their inappropriate child guiding behaviour. (C) Parents as a,Resource for their Delinquent Child Alfred Adler drew attention to what happens when we work with children apart from the significant people i n their l i v e s . Adler (1930) states, "We are i n a sad state of having to remember that our pedagogical efforts (teachers and other professionals involved i n the education of children) are a l l too frequently brought to naught by the unwise parental treatment at home (pp. 247.- 248)." Adler emphasized parental involvement i n a l l professional dealings with children knowing that without parental co-operation nothing w i l l be achieved. Since Adler however, these considerations have been largely ignored un t i l recent years. Gordon (1970) notes that family counsellors communicate to colleagues i n books and professional journals, but do not communicate as well with parents, the rightful consumers of these - 9 -new methods. Why not, one may ask? As a person who has worked with juveniles i n conflict with the law the relationship of parents to their offending child i s an important and perplexing issue. With theoretical positions suggesting an integrated approach to the problem of delinquency, as well as most workers f e l t need to assist family members i n improving their relation-ship, this issue deserves further exploration. One aspect of the socialization process which has contributed to the development of delinquent behaviour is the relationship existing between parents and their child or children. The exploration of this relationship represents a departure from traditional individual psychotherapy with parents and their children, by de-emphasizing intra-personal conflict and emphasizing inter-personal conflict existing within the social environment of the family. Peine (1969) indicates that a large part of a childs behaviour i s maintained by the effects of the childs behaviour in the natural environment and can be most effectively modified by changing the reinforcing;; contingencies supplied by the social agents who l i v e with the child. From the inter-personal model i t follows that a childs maladaptive behaviour has been acquired i n his or her natural environment and can best be changed or modified i n that environment. It further follows that the maintenance of newly developed adaptive behaviour depends upon continued reinforcement of that behaviour i n the natural environment. If the natural - 10 -environment i s not modified new adaptive behaviour perhaps acquired at the school or through counselling may be extinguished in the home, as nonadaptive behaviour extinguished within the school may be reinstated i n the home. The question can be asked, why use parents as therapists. Graziano (1969) indicates that parents by virtue of their role; (l) have assumed the major moral, ethical and legal responsibility for their children; (2) they generally have the greatest degree of contact with the children and greatest control over the natural environments; and (3) they are typically both willing and f u l l y capable of assuming and carrying out detailed and direct therapeutic measures. Graziano (1969) adds that i t i s not the task of the therapists to assume the f u l l burden of ''treatment" and, i n the process allow the parents to relinquish their responsibility, but i t i s the therapist's task to help the parents directly to be more effective i n carrying out a parent's moral, ethical, and legal obligation to care for his child. The position that a child's maladaptive behaviour has been acquired i n the natural environment and that i f the natural environment i s not successfully modified new and adaptive behaviours may be extinguished, suggests that i t makes sense to involve not the therapists and his c l i n i c a l setting or the probation officer or social worker i n his office, but rather or i n addition the parents i n their home setting. This emphasis makes even further sense when one considers the findings which have come out of family systems theory and practice where the child's functioning - 11 -becomes a meaningful part of the whole family process. Bowen (1966), u t i l i z i n g a family systems approach to family counselling, states that the whole family i s greater than i t s parts and a change i n any one part of the family system w i l l require a change i n any other part of that system. In c l i n i c a l strategy Bowen (1966) further indicates a change i n the behaviour of the more powerful members of the family, parents rather than children, probably provides the most productive way of going about change i n the family. Haley (1963) makes reference to the power associated with role expectations indicating that when one person presents a change i n relation to another the other w i l l act upon the f i r s t so as to diminish and modify that change. Parsons (1970) gives further reason for opting for parent training, when he, like Bowen identified the family triangle describing unique role expectations and behaviours associated with each position, with the effect that each member must play his part and i n turn i s dependent upon other members to play their part. The implications for involving parents as therapists are clearly more than economical, i n that treating the problem child outside of the system does not deal with those forces which have perpetuated within the home the behaviour of the identified problem child. These forces w i l l l i k e l y upon re-introduction of that "problem" family member be re-established when that family member again takes his expected position i n the family. It i s only when those significant others change their behaviour patterns towards this individual that lasting change - 12 -w i l l take place within that system. As O'Leary, O'Leary and Becker ( 1 9 6 7 ) conclude, "The direct modification of children's behaviour by parents under a clinicians guidance would seem to be a very useful approach (p. 1 3 3 ) . " Studies involving parents as behaviour modifiers were conducted by Walder, Cohen and Daston ( 1 9 6 7 b ) and Patterson ( 1 9 7 1 ) where parents were trained i n observing, rewarding, targeting and tracking behaviour as well as completing various standard exercises such as discussion programs revolving around specific targeted behaviours.. Patterson has shown s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant findings i n the generalization by parents of behaviour modification techniques across non-targeted behaviours of children, improvement i n the behaviour of siblings and i n the parents global description of their children. Patterson and Reid ( 1 9 7 3 ) successfully replicated an earlier investigation i n which parents were trained to alter the behaviours of their aggressive children. Global improvements i n children were again noted indicating generalization of parental learning of behaviour modification techniques. Alexander and Parsons ( 1 9 7 3 ) describe a large scale parent project involving both male and female delinquents aged between 13 and 16 years. Alexander and Parsons using both a process and an outcome measure of behaviour change, utilized behaviour contingency contracting within the family as a means of improving family interaction. These findings question directly the present trend i n corrections where only the child i s held accountable for his maladaptive behaviour and i n "treatment" - 13 -dealt with primarily apart from his parents. (D) The aim of this Investigation This investigation i s aimed at exploring the effects of involving " d i f f i c u l t " parents i n remedial behavioural training with their " d i f f i c u l t " children, by providing these parents with a new approach i n confronting existing behaviour problems displayed by their child. The main focus of this paper i n involving parents i n the behaviour modification process of their delinquent children, i s on assessing the parents learning of behaviour modification techniques through the application of these techniques, as well as the parent's a b i l i t y to generalize these learned techniques from specific targeted problem behaviours to other problem behaviours. Will parents learn behaviour modification techniques through the application of these techniques i n modifying their child's problem behaviours, and w i l l these parents use these newly acquired techniques i n dealing with problem situations which w i l l not be specifically dealt with? The reduction of delinquent behaviour w i l l also be considered even though i t i s expected that dealing only with the relationship existing between parents and their delinquent children w i l l f a l l short of a comprehensive a l l fronts approach of dealing with delinquency. This experiment was not designed to question the effectiveness of behaviour modification techniques per se, which has received much supportive evidence reported i n some detail later, but rather to deal with the effectiveness of such an approach with " d i f f i c u l t " - 14 -parents who have limited or ambivilent expectations and motivation regarding their a b i l i t y and desire to modify the behaviour of their delinquent child. A further test of the effectiveness of this remedial approach l i e s i n dealing with " d i f f i c u l t " teenage children whose accountability to parents w i l l be substantially less than that of preteens and who have presented their parents and law enforcement officers with numerous problems. Robinson ( i 9 6 0 ) indicates that often times families of delinquent children are complacently unaware of their children's delinquency or i n their f a l l i n g short i n any manner. The author indicated that no matter how much ministers, teachers, probation officers and youth workers work with these families the efforts have been largely ineffective because of what they have to offer meets no need recognized by the families themselves. Patterson and Reid ( 1 9 6 9 ) , Patterson and Fagot ( 1 9 6 7 ) indicate that some parents lack the desire to carry out a systematic and consistent behaviour change program for their children without a tangible reinforcer for improving their socializing behaviours. Demonstrating the parents i n this sample effective i n changing the behaviour of their delinquent child may provide a further and largely ignored additional remedial approach to front line workers involved i n dealing i n the rehabilitation of delinquent children. - 15 -CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE The studies reviewed i n this chapter deal with involving, to varying degrees, parents as behaviour modifiers of their children's problem behaviours. The studies examined vary i n terms of the degree of parental involvement i n and responsibility for the behaviour modification program, and i n the size and methodological sophistication. Only one of the studies researched dealt specifically with juvenile delinquent subjects, and only a few of the studies claim that parents attained general knowledge of behaviour modification principles, moving from therapeutic to preventative objectives. None of these studies address themselves specifically to parental understanding or learning of behaviour modification techniques as the research objective. The studies w i l l be covered beginning with the smaller and less sophisticated examples of parents involved i n the behaviour modification process of their children. Even though the data which comes out of these less sophisticated studies i s primarily subjective, the studies do add to the belief that behaviour modification can be implemented within the home using parents as both support and therapeutic agents. In terms of cl a r i t y these smaller studies dealing with one or two families and using parents only indirectly, provide generally clear examples of changes which take place as a result of professional inter-vention. Increasing the parents responsibility i n carrying out a - 1 6 -behaviour modification program for their child would appear to detract from the treatment sophistication inherent i n programs which u t i l i z e professionals i n carrying the burden of this process. This is particularly true when the program i s carried out primarily on the professionals home ground such as a c l i n i c or school. (A) Studies with Limited Parental Involvement Williams ( 1 9 5 9 ) provided parents of a 22 month old boy dis-playing severe bedtime crying, with simple instructions to extinguish this behaviour by ignoring. Nineteen extinction t r i a l s and a two month follow-up indicated that no further problems were encountered. Straughan ( 1 9 6 4 ) xvorking i n a c l i n i c a l setting with a mother and her eight year old daughter described as inhibited and concerned with neatness and adult approval, trained the mother through modelling and direct instruction to increase her spontaneity and decrease her inhibitions when interacting with the child. Both home and school improvement was noted and this improvement was maintained as indicated by an eight month follow-up. Though controls were lacking i n both studies and very l i t t l e parental involvement was required, parental support however, was present. Studies by Sloane, Johnson and Bijou ( 1 9 6 7 ) , Wolfe, Riseley and Mees ( 1 9 6 4 ) and Wolfe, Johnston, Harris and Allen ( 1967) indicate greater parental involvement however, again primary responsibility for the treatment plan was i n the hands of school and hospital authorities. Parents were given some responsibility i n the home but were not required to gather data, learn general - 17 -behaviour modification principles, or design or evaluate treat-ment. Parents were given specific instruction i n applying social approval and contingency management techniques. Clement (l97Ca) though placing the i n i t i a l emphasis on working i n a c l i n i c a l setting with an eight year old non-assertive and anxious boy, involved parents i n both operant and respondent techniques such as a token system and social approval and negative practice. Clement does not indicate any data suggesting what parental change took place, and i f i t did take place how this change affected the children. Sloan et a l . (1967) described specific procedures and collected both baseline and post treatment measures within the school setting but gave no specific training to parents other than that they were expected to carry out tasks supportive of the program carried out i n the school. It is d i f f i c u l t therefore to assess the parental effectiveness and noted behaviour change, though subjective reports from parents seemed to indicate that their new behaviour was instrumental i n changing child behaviours. Both studies by Wolfe et a l . (1964, 1967) indicate that parents were gradually introduced into the childs hospital program. Parents were then assisted through frequent home v i s i t s , to apply the same program within the home, where parents were taught such techniques as extinction and shaping. Data on paremtal work was not reported. The above studies have involved only one or two subjects and have taken place primarily outside of the home setting with only - 18 -limited emphasis on parent training other than mastering the specific techniques for the modification of designated behaviours. Generic learning of behaviour modification techniques did not take place and further there were no controls and therefore some question as to how much of the change was specifically due to the intervention programs assigned. • The following studies reported increased parental involvement and give further support to assigning the responsibility for behaviour change to the parents. Russo (1964) reported two cases, one of a six; year old g i r l who displayed i n the home behaviour problems such as fighting with siblings, destroying things and temper tantrums, and the other an eight year old under achieving boy displaying aggressive behaviour and unintelligible speech. Clinic treatment sessions were effected by Russo using differential positive reinforcement. Parents observing Russo were then given supervised practice i n applying social reinforcement to apply within the home setting. Termination for the boy occurred after 20 sessions and for the g i r l after nine months, both showing considerable improvement i n behaviour. Parents appear to have received consider-able training i n specific operant behaviour principles though again generic understanding of these principles was not measured or apparently effected. Parents did not collect data nor design the intervention program. Holland (1969) instructed parents i n eliminating the f i r e setting behaviour of their seven year old boy. Monetary and social rewards were dispensed by the parents. - 19 -Monetary rewards were paired with social reinforcement with an attempt to fade out the monetary rewards. In this study Holland had no contact with the child, and though there was only limited instruction of operant learning theory principles the parents were directly responsible for the application of the program. No systematic observation of data or follow-up was effected by the parents. Wagner (1968) i n his study comes close to the process applied i n this project even though he worked only with one case, that of an 11 j^ear old g i r l . This child displayed a high degree of dependent, demanding, and self-deprecating behaviour. The parents were provided with training sessions which included written instructions specifying target behaviours and instructions i n positive reinforcement, extinction and shaping. After eight contacts treatment ended and considerable improvement was noted. The shortcoming of this study, aside from.the lack of controls, was a lack of precision i n baseline measurement thus one may question the extent of gains made. Allan and Harris (1966) worked with the mother of a five year old g i r l i n teaching her differential reinforcement i n order to eliminate her severe self scratching behaviour. I n i t i a l l y token rewards were used by the mother which were gradually phased out and replaced by social reinforcement. The scratching behaviour was eliminated i n six weeks and maintained as indicated i n a four month follow-up. Peine (1969) dealt with a three year old autistic boy whose presenting behaviours included crying, aggression and biting. The 0 - 20 -parents were trained i n the home for six one hour sessions to observe and record behaviour. They were trained further i n differential reinforcement and time out procedures. After a six month follow-up the parents completed a frequency count of the previous maladaptive behaviour showing that gains made during intervention had been maintained. This study indicates that the parents assumed responsibility i n terms of becoming involved i n the change process. Zeilberger, Sampen and Sloane ( 1968) i n a less sophisticated study than that of Peine ( 1 9 6 9 ) reinstated baseline conditions after intervention and used two observers i n the home to indicate that the problem behaviours of fighting, teasing and "bossing" of a four year old boy were indeed manipulated by the parents of the child. The parents were not however, responsible for observing and recording data. It would appear that parental training was limited to specific techniques required for the designated problem behaviours. There was no follow-up and therefore no statement could be made on how well the new modified behaviours were maintained. Hawkins, Peterson, Schweid and Bijou ( 1 9 6 6 ) dealing with a four year old boy who displayed aggressive, destructive, uncooperativeness and poor speech, trained the mother i n observing specific behaviour and in the use of time out, attention, praise and affectionate physical contact. Hawkins et a l . included follow-up data and conducted a l l observations, training and evaluating i n the home. The study indicates that a high level of parental competance i n general understanding of behaviour modification principles was attained suggesting the possibility that parents could generalize - 21 -their understanding to other problem situations. No follow-up was conducted to test whether indeed some preventative child guidance behaviour had been attained. Johnson and Brown (1969) i n a paper dealing with a two year and nine month old g i r l exhibiting hyperactivity and social unresponsiveness and a six year old boy presenting hyperactivity, aggressiveness, demanding and manipulative behaviours, trained parents, following observations of parent child interaction, i n differential reinforcement which included food and social rewards. Training involved instructions i n learning principles through discussion groups, programmed reading material and training the mothers i n a c l i n i c i n the direct interaction with their children by modelling and coaching them. Additional refresher and maintenance sessions were held to insure that mothers maintained their newly acquired behaviours. Behaviour change was noted and served as reinforcement for further more adaptive parental behaviour. Parents had considerable responsibility i n this study by observing and recording data, and by acquiring an overall knowledge of techniques. There was no follow-up made however, to indicate whether newly acquired techniques by parents were generalized to other child problem behaviours. Advani (1973) worked with six kindergarten children who were enrolled i n a special class and displayed hyperactivity, were easily distracted and showed poor gross muscular a c t i v i t i e s . Once a week for approximately two hours a student "child care worker" - 22 -visited the child and family i n the home to instruct parents i n the principles of behaviour change, of observing the child, analyzing behaviour and in assisting i n the development of an intervention program. Parental instruction was given via modelling, audio tapes, film and attendance i n a behaviour modification work-shop. Evaluation of the child's behaviour was completed by teacher, home v i s i t o r , and research supervisor using (Cassell 1 9 6 2 ) a behaviour rating scale and by the mother using (Roth 1 9 6 l ) a mother child attitudenal scale. The results indicated improvement by a l l children i n both home and school behaviour. This project gives descriptive data on families and actively involved mothers i n pinpointing behaviours that were maladaptive and appears to have involved the mothers i n collecting data, recording on a graph and assuming responsibility for implementing the treatment plan. There was however, no follow-up data to see whether behaviour had been maintained.. The ages of the children, their non delinquent status, and the lack of control differentiates this study from the present investigation. Studies which come close to the design of this project i n focussing on the natural environment, multiple problem behaviours and generalized nature of training are outlined i n the following more extensive behaviour intervention projects. (B) Studies 'with Extensive Parental Involvement Walder, Cohen and Daston ( 1 9 6 7 b ) and Vfalder, Cohen, Daston Breiter and Hirsch ( 1 9 6 7 c ) outlined a fifteen week parent training - 23 -program of family therapy based on operant techniques. Programs were developed to teach parents to analyze behaviour and apply learning principles i n problems relating to parent child interactions. There were a variety of problem behaviours dealt with. The program included a contract with each family outlining their responsibilities. Further, group meetings were held with families on a weekly basis for instruction i n the theory and techniques of behaviour modification through modelling, role playing, group discussion, written homework, films, lectures, and xveekly individual family sessions with a therapist consultant. The families i n these studies had the major responsibility for observing, identifying problems and recording problem behaviours. Parents were held to individual contracts by being debited for incomplete work by loss of payment and weekly meetings. Walder et a l . ( 1 9 6 7 b , 1 9 6 7 c ) found that using before and after ratings of video tapes and pre and post personality tests, that there was improvement i n both child behaviours and i n parental test scores on child rearing behaviour after operant training as compared with a no treatment and. non-operant treatment controls. A two year follow-up indicated that gains had been maintained. Walder's main weaknesses would appear to be his lack of quantitative data, specific analysis of the parents or childrens behaviour or of the training techniques. Patterson ( 1 9 6 9 ) described a study of family behavioural intervention with six families having identified problem boys displaying withdrawal, hyperactivity and extreme aggression. - 24 -The children i n this study, i t was f e l t , displayed severe conduct disorders. These boys, ranging from ages four to •twelve, were referred by local agencies or physicians. Baselines were obtained i n the home for ten sessions and i n some cases i n the school. Intervention was carried out i n the home and again i f necessary i n the school. Parent training was done i n four stages. F i r s t the parents were trained i n the use of language and concepts of social learning. This training was provided by a programmed reading textbook (Patterson & Gullion 1968). Secondly the parents were trained to observe and count child behaviour. Thirdly the parents were involvedlin a series of sample intervention programs modelled by the experimentor and f i n a l l y they were required to i n i t i a t e the intervention program with their child. The aim of the intervention program was for the parents to reduce their reinforcement for negative behaviours and increase their reinforcement for positive behaviours. A baseline was established with ten observations, each consisting of one to two hours i n the family with follow-up data monthly, over twelve months. Patterson utilized a system of coding family interactions consisting of 29 behaviours, (Patterson, Ray & Shaw 1968) which were sufficiently inclusive to allow for the classification of most of the social behaviours which occurred i n the families. In five of the six families the coding was done on a monthly basis during intervention as outlined. ; A six month post intervention follow-up was also included. The intervention varied - 25 -from two to seven months and follow-up indicated that behaviour change had been maintained. Though no controls were u t i l i z e d the training given parents and the responsibilities assumed by them were of a sophisticated nature. Patterson, Cobb and Ray (1970) i n an experiment dealing with 11 families with male children aged from six to thirteen years, described a sophisticated study providing both control and a high degree of parental involvement. The targeted behaviours displayed by these children included high rate negative behaviours such as temper tantrums, yelling and teasing. He described these families as d i f f i c u l t to work with i n that they had a low economic standard and fathers were absent i n four of the eleven families. Parents were enrolled i n a 10 to 12 week training program aimed at teaching a basic social learning program. Parents were trained i n observing, recording, targeting and tracking behaviour as well as devising treatment programs for specific target behaviours. Parents joined i n groups where, under supervision, they designed programs for treatment and became involved i n role playing, modelling, discussion of social reinforcement, time-out and token reward systems. Parents were contacted daily by telephone to monitor progress and given reinforcement for work done. Treatment programs were revised i f no change occurred i n the behaviour after 10 or 12 weeks. Six months follow-up family analysis 'was done to assess st a b i l i t y of change. Patterson presented data on r e l i a b i l i t y of behavioural measures and significance of behaviour change. As was the case i n the former - 26 -study, (Patterson, Cobb & Ray 1967) Patterson et a l . ( 1 9 7 0 ) utilized a coding system to analyze family interaction. Findings revealed significant decrease in problem behaviours of the targeted behaviours, as compared to a control group which received no inter-vention. Data on the effects of the parental child training showed improvement in child targeted and non-targeted behaviours, i n the behaviour of siblings, and i n parent's global description of their children. What Patterson et a l . ( 1970) has shown with these findings w i l l be attempted also with this project where as a result of training parents i n general behavioural principles global improvement in childrens behaviour is expected. Alexander and Parsons (1973) i n a study which comes closest to this research i n terms of the subjects under consideration, worked with 99 families having teenage children referred to the Salt Lake Juvenile Court between October 1970 and January 1972 . Alexander et a l . attempted to modify family communication i n the direction of c l a r i t y and reciprocity and institute into the families a system of contingency contracting. Objectives of this study were a clear description of intervention techniques, measuring process behavioural change, using adequate outcome measures and adequate controls for maturation and professional attention. The short term intervention program had clearly defined therapists responsibilities for assessing deviant behaviour and. directing the family i n terms of communication reciprocity and contingency - 27 -contracting. The authors hypothesized that those subjects receiving behavioural intervention, i n contrast to the comparison groups, would demonstrate changes i n interaction by displaying less silence, more equality of speech and more positive interruptions. As the outcome measure i t was hypothesized that children of the families receiving the treatment would demonstrate lower recidivism than the children of the comparison groups. The subjects ranged from ages 13 to 16 and were convicted for such offences as running away, unmanageability, truancy, shoplifting and possession of alcohol or drugs. Forty-six families were assigned on a random basis to the short term behavioural intervention group. It i s not clear whether selection for program was consecutive or other-wise. The system applied appears to be more of a model or point of view rather than a clearly outlined body of techniques. The lack of reciprocity i n the family interaction was modified by the therapist actively modelling contingency contracting such as negotiation of privileges for assuming some responsibility. Communication patterns were taught and emphasized interruptions for c l a r i f i c a t i o n , for further information and for informative feedback. Both verbal and non-verbal social reinforcement was given to parents by the therapists for co-operative efforts. The parents were asked to read an operant behaviour modification text (Patterson & Gullion 1968) however, a poor response to this led the therapists to believe that time was better spent directly modifying interaction patterns. - 28 -It would appear that i n general the responsibility for change was primarily assumed by the therapists and i t i s uncertain just how much understanding the family members reached about the modification program. As specifically training parents and children, i n a more f a c i l i t a t i v e communication process was not a direct aim of this study, the preventative nature of this program i s questionable. Therapists were f i r s t and second year c l i n i c a l graduate students xvho received four weeks of group training i n role playing training, as outlined i n a therapy manual developed by Parsons, and direct instruction from the authors. The clinicians were super-vised with families through one way mirrors. Bi-weekly group supervision of therapists, consisting of approximately six hours of supervision and training, was also undertaken. The treatment programs were developed by the authors. Thirty families were randomly assigned to three comparison groups, the f i r s t consisting of the behaviour modification program, the second of a psycho-dynamic family program and the third a no treatment program. The families&assigned to the alternative treatment programs received equal attention as those i n the behaviour modification treatment approach and were led by clinicians having somewhat more experience than the clinicians assigned to the behaviour modification treatment group. The approximate six week intervention program indicated that significant differences were found with families receiving the short term behavioural intervention i n that these families indicated more - 29 -equality i n talk time, less silence and more positive interruptions than the control group families. On the outcome measure of recidivism again significant reductions i n recidivism were noted for the treatment group. Though these findings are extremely interesting long term maintenance of the process intervention out-come i s questionable, since the emphasis was not on training of this new technique. Though recidivism dropped considerably 26% for the short term behavioural family program versus 50$ for the no treatment control and 73$ for the psychodynamic family program, the authors do not indicate what the new offences were, how many there were, or how the offences committed compare between groups and with the offences committed prior to the program. It would appear then that a.major shortcoming of this study i s comparing recidivism only i n terms of quantity and relating this to a behavioural intervention program which was not evaluated i n terms of stability after the treatment phase was concluded. These related studies a l l indicate the general effectiveness of behaviour modification programs involving parents to varying degrees i n carrying out the behaviour change of their children. The objectives of this study do not differ from the objectives of any of the studies outlined i n terms of both producing some specific child behaviour change and involving parents i n the change process. This project i s no more, i f not less rigorous i n methodology and sophistication of design than the ?Jalder et a l . (1967b and 1967c) Parson et a l . (1973) and Patterson et a l . (1970) - 30 -studies. The crucial distinguishing feature of this experimental study i s i n the population dealt with, the attempt to measure the effects of parental intervention on the parents understanding of a new system of behaviour management and their a b i l i t y to apply this learning across non-targeted behaviours. (C) Research Hypotheses The hypotheses generated for this study were designed to provide information on the effectiveness of involving parents i n the behaviour change programs of their delinquent teenage children, a task which is now primarily undertaken by agencies. More specifically the aims were to obtain information on the effectiveness of parental learning of behaviour modification techniques through application df these techniques and to examine the relationship between the learning or understanding of these techniques and the problem child behaviours worked on as well as the problem child behaviours not worked on. It was further f e l t that this study would provide an opportunity to look at the relationship between behaviour change and delinquent recidivism. The specific hypotheses to be tested are: 1. Parents i n the experimental group w i l l have higher posttest scores on the Family Interaction Tasks than parents i n the control group. 2. Parents i n the experimental group, who have successfully modified their child's targeted behaviours, w i l l score higher on the posttest as compared to the pretest on the Family Interaction Tasks on items similar to the targeted behaviours. 3. Parents i n the experimental group, as compared to parents i n the control group, w i l l demonstrate generalization of learned behaviour modification techniques as measured by posttest scores on the Family Interaction Tasks. - 31 -4. Parents i n the experimental group, as compared, to parents i n the control group, w i l l rate their children as exhibiting fewer problems as measured by the posttest scores on the Walker Problem Behaviour Identification Checklist, the Behaviour Checklist and the Problem Checklist. 5. Children i n the experimental group, as compared to children i n the control group, w i l l commit fewer delinquencies requiring the investigation of a probation officer during the period from March 1974 to December 1974. 6. There v a i l be a significant negative relationship between parent's difference scores on the Family Interaction Tasks as compared to the difference scores on the Walker Problem Behaviour Identification Checklist, the Behaviour Check-l i s t and the Problem Checklist. - 32 CHAPTER I I I RESEARCH DESIGN (A) Subjects The subjects of this study are adjudged juvenile delinquent children and their parents. The children, ranging from ages 13 to 17 were a l l on probation at the Vancouver Family Court for the duration of the program and had at least monthly contact of one to two hours with their probation officers. These children attended an alternate school program with an operant approach, receiving individualized instruction emphasizing the rewarding; of positive and the non rewarding of negative behaviours. Further, a l l children were assigned to a paid sponsor who spent time with the child i n primarily recreational persuits and secondarily i n providing guidance with school, employment and home problems. The subjects were considered "hard core" delinquents by their probation officers i n that a l l but two of the subjects had committed previous delinquencies. The probation officers f e l t that existing juvenile resources for dealing with these offenders had been exhausted making transference to adult court on further unlawful conduct probable. The parents of these subjects have, through their children and their own l i v i n g situation, had extensive contact with courts, probation, welfare, and children's aid services. The parents were generally pessimistic regarding the potential effectiveness of a behaviour change program for their children. Pessimism was i n - 33 -part due to some extent to past efforts by social agency personnel to effect improvement i n their child's behaviour, and the length of time these parents had experienced behavioural problems with their child or children. Table A of Appendix A contains the demographic variables of age, sex, parents i n the home, and level of family income. Table B of Appendix A l i s t s the offence histories of the subjects, the offences, and whether these offences are summary, or less serious, or indictable or more serious, (i) Assignment to experimental and control groups From over thirty families approached i n December 1973 and January 1974 i n response to participating i n a program aimed at involving the parents, with the guidance of a student cli n i c i a n , i n improving the behaviour- of their child, 20 families volunteered. Of these, 10 families were randomly assigned to treatment and 10 to no treatment control. Family interaction coders vrere required i n this study to record the family communication process prior to, during and after the program (Csapo & Friesen 1975). As a result of this i n i t i a l coding contact made by 20 f i f t h year education students a number of families stated that they would withdraw from the program i f the coding continued. These families were reacting to the interference caused by the coder, stating that the coder proved to be an intruder into their family l i f e , and that the coding unduly restricted their usual behaviour. These families consented to continuing i n the program i f no further coding was requested or demands other than completing questionnaires was - 3 4 -placed upon them. From this i n i t i a l practice coding with the families to the commencement of the intervention program i n March 1974 a to t a l of seven families terminated the program. Most of these terminations occurred with the designated control families. Two experimental families were shifted into the control group and one experimental family dropped from the program. One family was added to the experimental sample i n mid March. Of the eight familiesJ.in the experimental and six families i n the control group who made up the experimental population of this study the data of a l l but one experimental family was included. A change of group home parents i n this case invalidated the data. (B) Instruments (i) H i l l M. Walker Problem Behaviour Identification Checklist The H i l l M. Walker, Walker Problem Behaviour Identification Checklist ( 1 9 7 0 ) was utilized i n this study both to provide pre and posttest measures on behaviour change, as well as to provide a means of checking the validity of the Behaviour Checklist and the Problem Checklist, two instruments designed for the purpose of this study. The instrument was developed i n 1967 by H. M. Walker as a doctoral dissertation entitled Construction and Validation of Behaviour Checklist for the Identification of Children with behaviour problems. The instrument was designed - 35 -as a preliminary screening tool to assist teachers i n the identification of children with behaviour problems within the school system. The instrument's capacity to discriminate between disturbed and non-disturbed subjects was significant at the . 0 0 1 l e v e l . Kuder-Richardson sp l i t half r e l i a b i l i t y for the instrument was . 9 8 and . 8 9 respectively (Walker 1 9 7 0 ) and though there was no test retest r e l i a b i l i t y reported, research literature cited i n Buros ( 1972) mentions successful replication of original research observations. Though this instrument was utilized primarily for discovering disturbed child behaviour within a classroom setting, i t was f e l t that the parents would also be able to describe similar behaviours within the home setting. The checklist consists of 50 items describing observable behaviours. These 50 items provided data for five factors within the checklist; (l) acting out or disruptive and aggressive behaviour; ( 2 ) social withdrawal; ( 3 ) distractability or short attention span; ( 4 ) disturbed peer relationships and ( 5 ) immaturity described as high rates of initiations to teacher and inadequate social and study s k i l l s , ( i i ) The Family Interaction Tasks The Family Interaction Tasks, developed for this study, consists of 5 0 , six alternative multiple choice questions including an open ended item describing conflict situations be-tween parents and children. A total of 3 0 0 responses were thus - 36 -possible on this instrument. The 50 situations i n this questionnaire are presented as hypothetical problems which parents might experience with their children. It was expected that some or most of the targeted child behaviours by experimental families would be covered i n the questionnaire thus making i t possible to assess parental understanding of behaviour modification techniques as utilized i n this study, by comparing the parents pre and posttest responses to the problem situations i n the questionnaire corresponding to the behaviours which they worked on. The questionnaire covers, i n the alter-natives offered i n each question, the techniques, such as praising, and offering rewards for positive behaviours completed, and ignoring for negative behaviours to be extinguished. Techniques, such as having a talk with, punishing, ignoring positive behaviours, or paying attention to negative behaviours, were also included among the alternatives offered. The instrument was designed to assess the extent to which parents acquired, as a result of the intervention program and the instructions received by the clinicians as well as parental perusal of two assigned books, understanding of behaviour modification techniques. The questionnaire was constructed to cover a l l of the behaviours l i s t e d on the Behaviour Checklist, the Problem Checklist and various other situations which were considered as possible target behaviours for the intervention phase. Equating the problem situations presented i n this instrument with those included i n the Behaviour Checklist and the - 37 -Problem Checklists allowed for closer comparison between the instruments. A total score of 85 was possible on this instrument using alternatives (a) to (e) inclusive. Using only alternatives (a) to (e) the score could have been attained i n 69 different ways. That i s , i n 14 questions two or more alternatives were rated as equivalent i n value and were given the same score. If parents inserted an answer under alternative (f) by providing a written response rated at two on those questions where only one point was possible on the multiple choice responses, a t o t a l score of 100 could have been attained. The higher the score obtained by parents, the greater their understanding of behaviour modification techniques. The instrument was rated, prior to administration, for quantification by the project supervisor and four second year clinicians. The rating of zero was applied to those options which were not related to behaviour modification as presented by the instructions, a rating of one was applied to those options which were slightly related to the instructions given and a rating of two was applied to those options e x p l i c i t l y outlining a behaviour modification alternative. A sample of this instrument i s contained i n Appendix C. ( i i i ) Behaviour Checklist The Behaviour Checklist, an instrument developed for this study, consists of 23 items which include six positive and 17 negative behaviours, taken primarily from Patterson, Ray and Shaw (1968). - 38 -Six items for this code were l e f t out because i t was f e l t that these behaviour descriptions were inappropriate for the age group dealt with i n this study. The Behaviour Checklist asked the parents to check off each question about the behaviour of their delinquent child on a four point behaviour di f f e r e n t i a l scale headed "Never", "Sometimes", "Often", and "Very Often" with behaviours occurring zero times, one to two times per day, three to five times per day and more than five times per day respectively. A t o t a l of 12 and 45 points for child positive and negative behaviours respectively were possible on this questionnaire. Questions 2, 14, 21 and 22 were not quantified as they were considered neutral. This questionnaire i s aimed at measuring the frequency of both positive and negative behaviours displayed by the child. The behaviour descriptions included were expected to tap the major parent child behaviour problem situations experienced by the families. Scoring for this instrument was achieved by applying scores of zero to the category of "Never", one to the category of "Sometimes", two to the category of "Often" and three to the category of "Very Often" for both positive and negative behaviours. Positive behaviours are listed i n questions, 1, 4, 5 and 3b6, while negative behaviours are l i s t e d i n questions, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 23. A sample of this instrument i s contained i n Appendix C. - 39 -(iv) Problem Checklist This instrument, also developed for the purpose of this study, i s made up of 30 child behaviour problem situations which were expected to be typical for the population dealt with. The instrument was designed for pretest administration primarily to aid the clinicians and parents, i n pinpointing specific behaviour problems. Secondarily, the posttest was designed to be used as a comparison, within experimental and control groups of child problem behaviours. The Checklist, constructed on a binomial yes or no basis was scored by simply adding the number of times the yes and no columns were checked by parents. A sample of this instrument i s included i n Appendix C. (C) Procedure (i) Clinicians The clinicians were f i r s t and second year graduate students enrolled i n a program of counselling psychology, at the University of Bri t i s h Columbia. The graduate program i n which these clinicians participated consisted of both theoretical and practical training i n individual, group and family counselling. The clinicians were prepared for this project by participating i n a number of study sessions led by the project supervisor and by reading publications on behavioural engineering (Patterson 1969, 1971; Engelman, Becker & Thomas 1972) and intervention with deviant behaviours (Csapo 1972, 1973 and 1974). - 4 0 -I n i t i a l l y eight clinicians worked on the program, one for each family, however, into the fourth week of intervention five clinicians,four second year students and one f i r s t year student, assumed the total responsibility for the intervention program. Three students assumed two families each and two one family each. The clinicians were contracted for two contacts with each family per week, consisting usually one to two hour family v i s i t s and one telephone c a l l . The clinicians were paid $ 3 . 0 0 for each of the weekly contacts. ( i i ) Duties of the Clinicians In general the duties of the clinicians were to assist parents to identify specific behaviours which the parents wished to increase or decrease i n their child. Clinicians demonstrated for the parents the recording of data both for the baseline and intervention phases," assisted i n setting up the behaviour contracts, modelled for the parents social reinforcement, encouraged parents with the program and did some counselling by listening and responding to general concerns brought forward by family members. In a l l families i n the experimental group except one, the clinicians worked with the mothers who assumed the responsibility for implementing the intervention program. The fathers were present i n two of the other experimental families however, i n each case these fathers played only a minimal role i n the program. - 41 -The average clinician time spent with each family was one and one-half hours per week for a total of approximately 3 6 hours per family over the duration of the intervention program. More specifically the duties of the clinicians included: 1. To participate i n the f i r s t meeting with a l l parents included i n the project. 2. To participate i n the meeting with parents i n the experi-mental group and assist assigned parents, i f necessary, i n the f i l l i n g out of questionnaires. 3 . On the f i r s t meeting with the parents i n their home test them on the basic understanding of operant behavioural principles and targeted behaviour and assist and identify the f i r s t target behaviour, teaching parents to define, pinpoint, observe and record targeted behaviour. 4. To teach parents behaviour management s k i l l s and assist the parents i n the reading and understanding of behaviour modification primers. 5. To contact families daily during the baseline period. 6 . To collect from the parents on a weekly basis baseline and intervention data. 7 . To assist parents i n working out a contract with the child for specific targeted behaviours. 8. To discuss with the parents the operationalization of social reinforcement by giving approval to appropriate behaviours and ignoring inappropriate behaviours. 9. To attend i n i t i a l l y weekly and later bi-monthly sessions with the project supervisor and report on the progress made with families. - 42 -( i i i ) Role of Project Supervisor The project supervisor was responsible for the overall design of the program, which included a process recording of the families i n the experimental group, funding, and consulting with the c l i n i -cians on the progress of the intervention programs. Under the d i r -ection of the project supervisor clinicians met weekly for the f i r s t tvro months of the intervention phase and then bi-monthly. The sessions lasted approximately 40 minutes and clinicians attendance became sporadic following the fourth month of the intervention phase. During these supervision sessions the clinicians discussed the progress of their family or families outlining specifically d i f f i c u l t i e s which were encountered with their family or families regarding identifying further problem behaviours and providing suitable modification programs when a particular'approach had proved unsuccessful. The project supervisor further examined collected data and maintained consistency i n c l i n i c i a n intervention programs. (iv) Parent Training The parents attended two group sessions with the project supervisor and clinicians. At the f i r s t session, with both experimental and control families present, the nature of the project was explained to the parents as was their expected involvement i n and committment to the program. The second session on March T, 1974 marked the beginning of the intervention program. This session was attended only by the parents i n the experimental group. These parents were unaware of their experimental status at t h i time or at any time of the intervention program. The project supervisor - 43 -gave these parents a description of the program as well as some indication of their expected involvement, the length of the program, and the effectiveness of a behaviour modification program i f i t i s applied systematically and d i l l i g e n t l y . The parents were shown the film "Who Did What To Whom" (Mager 1972) followed by a slide presentation demonstrating reinforcement and extinction techniques i n dealing with behaviour modification i n children. The parents were given the operant behaviour modification manuals by Patterson and Gullion (1968) LIVING WITH CHILDREN and Csapo (1973) A •POCKETFUL OF PRAISES, which parents were instructed to read during the f i r s t six weeks of the program. An introduction into the mechanics of how to collect a baseline data was presented followed by clinicians sitting down with their assigned families i n an attempt to identify i n i t i a l behaviours which they wanted to see changed i n their child. The parent training continued on a one to one basis with the assigned clinicians throughout the intervention program and was conducted with the parents i n their homes. In the training, emphasis was placed on rewarding positive behaviours and ignoring negative behaviours. The clinicians modelled for parents social reinforcement such as "that's good", "thank you for doing that", etc. for accelerating appropriate behaviours and they modelled ignoring behaviours to extinguish the often argumentative inter-changes which occurred between parents and their children, (v) Administration of Instruments The four measuring instruments were administered to the parents of seven experimental families on March 7 , 1974 under the guidance - 44 -of clinicians. In a l l cases except one the parents completed the questionnaires without assistance from clinicians. In the case of one family where the parents had d i f f i c u l t y reading, the question-naires were read out to the mother and father. The questionnaires were administered at the beginning of the meeting with the parents i n the experimental group and took approximately one and one-half hours to complete for most parents. Administration of the question-naires prior to discussion of the program was expected to lessen any possible pretest sensitization effect. Pretesting the parents i n the control group was done by two clinicians i n the homes of these families. This testing was completed by the third week i n March. Though the families i n the experimental group were not aware prior to completion of testing of their status i n the program, the control families, due to their rejection of the coders and consequent assignment to control status were generally aware of their expected role i n the program. The implications of this factor i n terms of control family committment to the testing and the possible effects of this on the equivalence and non equivalence of these two groups on pretest w i l l be examined i n Chapter V. Posttesting was again completed by the same two clinicians i n the home of both the experimental and control group families following the termination of the intervention program on August 31, 1974- Testing was spread out over a period of four weeks with the exception of one control family where the testing was completed - 45 -after eight weeks. Some d i f f i c u l t i e s were encountered i n contacting the families and i n the families completing the testing. D i f f i c u l t i e s were experienced with both the experimental and control groups though the problems were somewhat greater with the control group since these families had not been contacted for some time. Parents i n the control group were paid a total of $20 for completion of pre and posttest questionnaires, while experimental group parents were paid $10 for the completion of posttest questionnaires. No pretest payment was given to the experimental family parents since they were receiving payment for participation in the program. (D) Administration of Intervention Program At the second group meeting the parents i n the experimental group were informed that they would be paid $15 per week for their participation i n the program. Parents were further informed that i n addition to the $15 per week they were eligible for a $5 weekly bonus i f they collected baseline intervention data, followed intervention strategies agreed upon with the clinicians and made progress i n modifying their child's behaviour. The rational for paying families followed from the i n i t i a l assumption that working with these "difficult"families would be facilitated through monetary reinforcement (Patterson & Reid 1969; Patterson & Fagot 1967). The goal assigned to parents was their identification of five high rate child negative behaviours to be extinguished and/or five low rate positive behaviours to be accelerated. For each behaviour - 46 -the parents were to collect 10. days of baseline observation followed by the recording and administration of an intervention program discussed with the assigned clinicians. The parents assumed f u l l responsibility for a l l data collecting and administration of the intervention program. (E) S t a t i s t i c a l Procedures Three preliminary s t a t i s t i c a l procedures were completed. The f i r s t procedure was to examine i f there were significant differences between the experimental and control groups on the pretest measures of the Walker Problem Behaviour Identification Checklist, the Behaviour Checklist, the Problem Checklist, the Family Interaction Tasks, and the offence history. This procedure was necessary because of the small sample size and because the assumption of randomization could not be maintained following parental reaction to coding and subsequent shifting of families from one group to the other, as well as additions and deletions from the sample. The Mann Vihitney-U Test (Siegel 1956) was util i z e d as a one t a i l test at the . 0 5 level of significance. The second preliminary s t a t i s t i c a l procedure examines the inter-rater r e l i a b i l i t y on the Family Interaction Tasks. For this procedure an analysis of variances (ANOV 1 2 , UBX., 1 9 7 5 ) at the . 0 5 level of significance was completed i n order to examine the correlations between raters and the probabilities for differences between rater variances on the questionnaire items scored. In the f i n a l preliminary s t a t i s t i c a l procedure the negative - 47 -behaviour scale of the Behaviour Checklist and the Problem Checklist were correlated with the validated Walker Problem Behaviour Identification Checklist to provide .a- validity check on these two questionnaires. The Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient at the .05 level of significance was used (*C0RN, UBC, 1975). The main s t a t i s t i c a l procedure examined the direction, extent and significance of pre and posttest changes within groups on the measures used. For this purpose the Wilcoxon-Matched Pairs Signed-Ranks Test (Siegel 1956) was used as a one t a i l test at the .05 level of significance. In order to examine the type of relationship existing between the Family Interaction Tasks, as compared to the Walker Problem Behaviour Identification Checklist, the negative scale of the Behaviour Checklist and the Problem Checklist the Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient at the . 0 5 level of significance was used.(-*CCRN, UBC, 1975). 48 -CHAPTER IV RESULTS (AO Preliminary Analysis In the preliminary analysis the experimental and control groups samples were compared on the; (a) Family Interaction Tasks, (b) Walker Problem Behaviour Identification Checklist, (c) Behaviour Checklist, both negative and positive behaviours, (d) Problem Checklist and (e) subject's offence histories. The Mann-Whitney U-Test (Siegel 1 9 5 6 ) for two independent samples was used for a one t a i l test at the . 0 5 level of significance. The results of this analysis show that no significant differences existed between the two groups on the above measures, with the exception of the Problem Checklist. For a more detailed analysis see Appendix B. In order to examine the inter-rater agreement on the scoring of the Family Interaction Tasks a multi-variate analysis of variances (ANOV 1 2 , UBC, 1975) was used. Five raters, each rated 2 5 0 multiple choice items on the questionnaire and the results are shown i n Tables 1 and 2 below. Table 1 Correlations between raters on the Family Interaction Tasks Raters ' 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 . 0 0 0 0 . 7 9 9 0 . 7 9 7 0.755 0.821 2 0 . 7 9 9 1 . 0 0 0 0 . 7 7 0 0.781 0 . 7 2 9 3 0 . 7 9 7 0 . 7 7 0 1 . 0 0 0 0.751 0.828 4 0.755 0.781 0.751 1 . 0 0 0 0.757 5 0.821 0 . 7 2 9 0.828 0.757 1 . 0 0 0 - 49 -Table 2 Probabilities of differences between raters' variances on the Family Interaction Tasks Raters' 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 . 0 0 0 0 . 4 1 3 0 . 1 5 6 0 . 4 4 5 0 . 2 6 2 2 0 . 4 1 3 1 . 0 0 0 O.568 0 . 9 9 1 0.831 3 0 . 1 5 6 0 . 5 6 8 1 . 0 0 0 0 . 5 8 9 O .698 4 0 . 4 4 5 0 . 9 9 1 0 . 5 8 9 1 . 0 0 0 0.832 5 0 . 2 6 2 0.831 0 . 6 9 8 0.882 1 . 0 0 0 Tables 1 andc:2 show that correlations between raters range from .729 to -.828 with the probabilities of differences between variances non-significant at the . 0 5 l e v e l . The procedure used for comparing the pre and posttest scores obtained on the Walker Problem Behaviour Identification Checklist with the Behaviour Checklist and the Problem Checklist was a programmed Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient (-"-CORN, UBC, 1975). Table 3 below shows the pretest and post-test correlation scores and significance of these scores between the Walker Problem Behaviour Identification Checklist and the Behaviour Checklist (child negative behaviours) and the Problem Checklist for both the experimental and control groups. - 50 -Table 3 Correlations between the Walker Problem Behaviour Identi-fication Checklist, the negative scale of the Behaviour Checklist and the Problem Checklist Walker Problem Behaviour Identification Checklist Behaviour Checklist Problem Check-(child negative) l i s t Correlations Correlations Experimental Pretest n--7 Posttest . 9 8 0 5 * .9978-* .9893* .9990* Control Pretest n-6 Posttest .7254** .8561-* .1117** .7148** •»• significant at the .05 level •!Bi- non significant The effects of the intervention program are examined i n the preliminary analysis since no hypothesis was developed relating specifically to the effect of dealing with the targeted behaviours. For this study these results are pertinent to the second hypothesis. Table G i n Appendix B l i s t s the 26 child problem behaviours dealt with by parents, the reinforcements applied, baseline and inter-vention means and percentage change. The means of baseline and intervention periods were obtained by dividing the total occurrance or non occurrance of the targeted behaviours by the number of baseline days and an equivalent number of intervention days. The last days of the intervention phase were utilized for this procedure. The results show that intended change i n targeted - 5 1 -behaviours took place i n a l l cases with 50$ or more occurring i n 24 of the 26 behaviours modified. Pre and posttesting was completed i n the case of two experimental families and three control families by both parents. To provide rater equivalence the pre and posttest results were only counted for the parents assuming the major child rearing function i n the home. These parents were working with the clinicians in the behaviour modification program of their children. As a result the questionnaires used for this study were completed i n 11 families by the mothers, and i n two families, one i n the experimental and one i n the control group, by the fathers. (B) Hypotheses Testing The Wilcoxon-Matched Pairs Signed-Ranks Test (Siegel 1956) was used i n the f i r s t step of the analysis of the hypotheses that there w i l l be a s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant pre and posttest difference within the experimental and control groups on the Family Interaction Tasks, the Walker Problem Behaviour Identification Checklist, the Behaviour Checklist, the Problem Checklist and on subsequent offences committed. The support for the hypothesis that parents i n the experimental group w i l l have higher posttest scores on the Family Interaction Tasks than parents i n the control group, i s shown i n the data presented i n Table 4. Table 4 Pre and Posttest scores on the Family Interaction Tasks for experimental and control families Experimental families Control families Pre Post d Pre Post d 36 4 0 4 21 19 -2 15 25 1 0 12. 9 - 3 2 0 26 6 28 2 7 - 1 2 1 19 - 2 25 10 - 1 5 ' 1 0 17 7 16 9 - 7 19 2 0 1 1 6 9 - 7 16 27 1 1 n*7; T - -2; P< 0 5 n*6 ; T . O J P<.05 The Wilcoxon-Matched Pairs Signed-Ranks Test s t a t i s t i c i n this table indicates that both the experimental and control group difference scores were significant. For the experimental group an increase i n scores via,s noted while for the control group a decrease i n scores was noted. The above hypothesis can therefore be accepted. The hypothesis that parents i n the experimental group who have successfully modified their child's targeted behaviours w i l l score higher on the posttest as compared to the pretest on the Family Interaction Tasks on items similar to the targeted behaviours, is examined in the data set out i n Table 5 . - 53 -Table 5 Pre and posttest scores for the experimental group on the Family Interaction Tasks cor-responding to targeted behaviours Targeted Behaviour modified FAMILY INTERACTION TASKS Family Question Pre Post Difference 1 Curfew 1 0 1 1 4 0 2 2 0 Getting up i n a.m.. none Picking up clothes 2 0 0 1 1 33 0 2 2 2 Going to school 3 0 1 1 12 0 2 2 4 1 0 1 1 Curfew 1 0 1 1 4 0 1 2 1 Making bed 8 0 0 0 15 0 1 1 24 0 1 1 26 0 1 1 31 1 1 0 38 0 1 1 3 Not throwing clothes 20 0 0 0 on the floor 33 0 1 1 - 54 -Table 5 continued Targeted Behaviour modified FAMILY INTERACTION TASKS Family Question Pre Post Difference 3 Swearing 23 0 1 1 4 Curfew 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 Fighting 5 0 0 0 5 Curfew 1 0 1 1 4 0 1 2 1 6 Curfew 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 Doing homework 32 2 2 2 36 0 1 1 7 Curfew 1 0 0 0 4 0 1 2 1 Doing chores 8 0 0 0 15 0 1 1 ... 24 0 1 1 2 6 0 1 1 31 0 1 1 38 0 3 3 - 55 -Table 5 continued •Targeted Eehaviouf modified -FAMILY INTERACTION TASKS Family •Question Pre Post Difference 7 Putting away clothes 20 1 1 0 33 0 2 2 Clean up room and. make bed 24 0 1 1 Totals 18 4 0 9 4 1 32 Of the 2 6 behaviours modified by the families, 18 were covered on the Family Interaction Tasks i n 4 0 similar or identical situations. The pre and posttest differences of these 4 0 situations rated, by the seven parents show that a l l changes i n scoring were positive with 19 of the 4 0 questions ansvrered showing a higher score on posttesting, while on the remaining 13 questions no change was shown. The Wilcoxon-Matched Pairs Signed-Ranks Test result indicates a significant pre and posttest difference score. No s t a t i s t i c a l computation was necessary since the differences were a l l positive. The above hypothesis can therefore be accepted. The hypothesis that parents in the experimental group, as compared to parents i n the control group, w i l l demonstrate generalization of learned behaviour modification techniques as measured by posttest scores on the Family Interaction Tasks i s examined from the data set out i n Table 6 . The posttest scores l i s t e d i n this table do not include the parents scores relating - 56 -to those questions which cover child behaviours similar or the same as those modified, (Table 5 ) . Table 6 Pretest, Posttest and difference scores on questions i n the Family Interaction Tasks not related to targeted behaviours Pretest Posttest Difference 36 36 0 15 15 0 2 0 22 2 21 19 - 2 1 0 15 5 19 19 0 16 16 . 0 n^7; T.-l; P>-05 The Wileoxon-Matched Pairs Signed-Ranks Test results indicate that there i s a non significant pre and posttest intervention difference i n scores indicating that generalization of behaviour change techniques did not take place. The hypothesis i s therefore rejected. The hypothesis that parents i n the experimental group, as compared to parents i n the control group, w i l l rate their children as exhibiting fewer problems as measured by the posttest scores on the Walker Problem Behaviour Identification Checklist, the Behaviour Checklist and the Problem Checklist i s examined i n Tables 7 to 1 0 inclusive. - 57 -Table 7 Pre and posttest scores on the Walker Problem Behaviour Identification Checklist Experimental families Control families Pre • Post d Pre Post d 2 5 1 6 - 9 25 13 - 1 2 8 4 - 4 1 2 . 5 ZL.5 9 2 0 14 - 6 15 24 9 22 22 0 29 4 1 1 2 35 26 - 9 34 19 -15 2 4 . 5 2 6 . 5 2 8 • 35 27 . 33 18 .5 -14.5 n =7; T=lj P < . 0 5 n : 6 ; T^8.5 P > .05 The Wileoxon-Matched Pairs Signed-Ranks Test results i n this table indicates a significant decrease i n child problem behaviours for the' experimental group, and no significant difference for the control group. - 58 -Table 8 Pre and posttest scores on the Behaviour Checklist for the experimental group Positive Behaviours Negative Behaviours Pre Post d Pre Post d 5 4 - 1 12 6 - 6 4 4 0 ' 5 2 - 3 4 5 1 22 13 - 9 5 1 0 5 11 9 - 2 3 4 1 8 3 - 5 2 0 - 2 16 15 - 1 4 3 - 1 12 4 -8 n-=7; T =10; p > . 0 f n .7; T=0 ; p<C.05 The Wileoxon-Matched Pairs Signed-Ranks Test results on child positive behaviours are non significant while the results on child negative behaviours are significant. Table 9 Pre and posttest score on the Behaviour Checklist for the control group Positive Behaviours Negative Behaviours Pre Post d Pre Post d 4 2 -2 12. 18 6 6 8 2 8 1 -7 5 5 0 rs 1 -7 3 1 -2 6 12 6 5 5 0 2 15 13 4 5 1 13 7 6 n. - 6 ; T-.6; P > . 0 5 n- 6 ; T=9; P > .05 - 59 -The Wilcoxon-Matched Pairs Signed-Ranks Test results i n : Table. 9 are non significant for both child positive and negative behaviours. Table 10 Pre and posttest scores on the Problem Checklist Experimental families Control families Pre Post d Pre Post d 18 16 . -2 9 4 -5 16 11 -5 13 25 12 19 16 -3 12 7 -5 15 9 -6 , 16 28 12 14 11 -3 7 2 -5 14 13 -1 7 15 8 8 . 4 -4 n=7; T=0; P<.05 n-6; Tz6; P? . 0 5 The Wilcoxon-Matched Pairs Signed-Ranks Test results indicated i n this table show a s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant decrease i n problem behaviours by the experimental family children, while no s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant decrease i n problem behaviours was noted for the control family children. The hypothesis therefore that the children i n the experimental group, as compared to children i n the control group, w i l l demonstrate fewer problems on posttesting can be accepted. - 6 0 -The hypothesis that children i n the experimental group, as compared to children i n the control group, w i l l commit fewer delinquencies requiring the investigation of a probation officer during the period from March 1974 to December 1974 i s examined i n the data set out i n Table 11. Table 1 1 Subsequent offence data of experimental and control group subjects from March 1974 to December 1974 inclus ive Experimental subjects Control subjects Subject Number of offences Of fen ce Subject Number of I offences Offence 1 0 1 0 2 2 Mischief Theft under $ 2 0 0 2 0 3 . 0 3 0 4 0 4 2 Auto, theft hit and run 5 0 5 0 6 1 Auto theft 6 1 Poss. of stolen prop. 7 0 Totals 3 3 n--7 n - 6 Both- groups showed three additional offences committed between - 61 -October and December of that year. No s t a t i s t i c a l computation was necessary since both groups showed an equal increase i n subsequent delinquencies committed. The above hypothesis i s therefore rejected. In the f i n a l step of the analysis the hypothesis that there w i l l be a significant negative relationship between parents pre and posttest difference scores on the Family Interaction Tasks as compared to the pre and posttest difference scores on the Walker Problem Behaviour Identification Checklist, the Behaviour Checklist and the Problem Checklist i s examined i n Table 1 2 . Table 12 Correlations for the experimental and control groups of the difference scores on the Family Interaction Tasks with the difference scores on the Walker Problem Behaviour Identification Checklist, the negative scale on the Behaviour Checklist and the Problem Checklist, for the experimental and control groups. Family Interaction Tasks Walker Problem Behaviour Identi-fication Checklist Behaviour Checklist (child negative) Problem Checklist Experimental group difference - . 4 9 0 1 9 - . 4 7 7 4 8 - . 3 2 1 1 1 Control group difference - . 3 4 6 5 3 - . 3 4 6 4 2 - . 5 0 4 0 4 - 62 -The Pearson Product Moment Correlation coefficients on the difference scores as shown i n Table 12 are a l l negative though non significant at the .05 le v e l . The hypothesis that there w i l l be a significant negative relationship between parent's difference scores on the Family Interaction Tasks as compared to the difference scores on the behaviour checklists i s therefore rejected. - 6 3 -CHAPTER V INTERPRETATIONS CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS In this chapter interpretations, conclusions and applications of the findings reported i n the previous chapter w i l l be presented. Some possible reasons for the decrease i n control group scores on the Family Interaction Tasks w i l l be given. Limitations and weak-nesses of the study w i l l be discussed. In addition implications of this study for helping agents w i l l be examined, and a proposal for future research w i l l be provided. Interpretations, conclusions and results as they relate to the experimental hypotheses w i l l be examined f i r s t . Hypothesis 1: Parents i n the experimental group w i l l have higher posttest scores on the Family Interaction Tasks than parents i n the control group. From the s t a t i s t i c a l analysis applied to the pre and posttest data, the above hypothesis i s accepted. Though this conclusion follows from the data, the decrease i n scores obtained by the parents i n the control group are unexpected. As shown i n Table 4, not only was a significant increase i n scores noted for the experimental families on this measure, but also a significant decrease i n scores for the control families. Though the former follows from the expected aims of the instructions given to parents i n behaviour modification techniques, the latter does not follow from non instruction of these techniques. In order to examine the decrease i n scores obtained on posttesting more - 64 -closely the posttest scores of the parents i n the experimental and control groups were examined for equivalence with the data set out i n Table H of Appendix B. This table shows the scores obtained by families i n the experimental and control groups on the Family Interaction Tasks. For the families i n the experi-mental group the scores on the Family Interaction Tasks were reduced for this purpose by the increase i n scores obtained on those questions on the Family Interaction Tasks which were similar or the same as the child behaviours modified. The Mann Whitney U-Test one t a i l at the . 0 5 level of significance was used as a measure of equivalence between the two groups. The results show that the two groups were significantly different on post-testing with p > . 5 2 7 , a difference not recorded at pretesting. The decrease i n scores on the Family Interaction Tasks obtained by parents i n the control group i s d i f f i c u l t to explain, though may be partly due to the following factors: (a) short-comings i n the r e l i a b i l i t y and or validity of the Family Inter-action Tasks, (b) a decrease i n parents care i n , or concern for, completing posttesting as compared to pretesting and (c) an increase i n frustration experienced by parents i n controlling their child or children at posttesting compared to pretesting. This latter factor i s supported by the parent's responses on the questionnaire at posttesting which contained more "have a talk with ..." and punitive.responses than at pretesting. - 65 -Hypothesis 2: Parents i n the experimental group who have successfully modified their child's targeted behaviours w i l l score higher on the posttest as compared to the pretest on the Family Interaction Tasks on items similar to the targeted behaviours. As shown i n Table G of Appendix B, a l l behaviours dealt with by parents were modified i n the expected direction. The data presented i n Table 5 shows that parents i n the experimental families significantly increased their scores on the Family Interaction Tasks questions which were identical or similar to the child behaviours modified. The above hypothesis i s there-fore accepted. This finding indicates that parents were able, through application of behaviour modification techniques, to r e c a l l these techniques having applied them or similar techniques. Some generalization of the behaviour modification problem solving techniques set out i n this instrument was noted i n the increase of scores obtained on those problems which were similar rather than identical to the problems modified. Hypothesis 3' Parents i n the experimental group, as compared to parents i n the control group, w i l l demonstrate generalization of learned behaviour modification techniques as measured by posttest scores on the Family Interaction Tasks. The 36 point increase i n scores obtained by the parents i n the experimental group l i s t e d on Table 5, is only five points less than the total increase of scores for experimental families as l i s t e d on Table 4. The s t a t i s t i c a l analysis applied i n - 66 -Table 6 indicates that parents did not significantly generalize their understanding of behaviour modification techniques to non targeted behaviours. The above hypothesis i s therefore rejected, and the major objective of this study to teach parents new and more consistent techniques of child guidance behaviour through application of these techniques was not met. The above conclusion does not support the findings of Walder et a l . (l°67b, 1967c) and Patterson (1970). In the case of Walder et a l . parents were able to generalize improved parental techniques of child rearing both through test scores and by applying new or improved child rearing methods on other non targeted behaviours. In Patterson, behaviour changes i n siblings of the problem child, problem child behaviour change i n non targeted behaviours, as well as improvement i n parents subjective descrip-tion of their children's behaviour was noted. Three factors which may have contributed to the findings that parents did not generalize applied and learned techniques beyond those which dealt with the problem behaviours worked on are; (a) though parents were instructed i n behaviour modification principles, the instruction wras primarily aimed at the targeted behaviours, (b) a l l parents -failed to f u l l y read the assigned material on behaviour modification techniques and (c) parents generally lacked committment to the project, which was reflected to some degree i n the lack of efforts made by parents to read assigned material and submit on a regular basis accurate and weekly data on their child's behaviour. - 67 -Hypothesis 4: Parents i n the experimental group, as compared to parents i n the control group, w i l l rate their children as exhibiting fewer problems as measured by the posttest scores on the Walker Problem Behaviour Identification Checklist, the Behaviour Checklist and the Problem Checklist. On the basis of the s t a t i s t i c a l results set out i n Tables 7 to 10 inclusive, the above hypothesis i s accepted. A significant decrease i n child problem behaviours i s notedifor the experimental families, while no such significant decrease i n child problem behaviour was noted for the control families. There was no increase noted i n child positive behaviours for the children i n the experimental group as was anticipated, however, this did not affect the acceptance of this hypothesis. The fact that the main emphasis i n the behaviour modification program with the parents was on child negative behaviours rather than positive behaviours, supports these results. The reduction of child problem behaviour i s i n agreement with the research findings presented and indicates further that this age group of delinquent children i s amenable through the efforts of their often unmotivated parents, of substantial behaviour change over a relatively short period of time using behaviour modification techniques. Hypothesis 5: Children i n the experimental group, as compared to children i n the control group, w i l l commit fewer delinquencies requiring the investigation of a probation officer during the period from March 1974 to December 1974. According to the data contained i n Table 11 there i s no significant difference between the experimental and control subjects on subsequent offences. The above hypothesis is there-fore rejected. For both the experimental and control subjects no subsequent offences were committed during the intervention period. A l l subsequent offences were committed during the three months following the intervention program. In the study reported by Alexander and Parsons (1973) a significant drop i n delinquent behaviour was noted however, since there was no follow-up measure on the continued effectiveness of their intervention program, and since delinquencies at the pre and posttest stages were not differentiated these conclusions may not be entirely accurate. The results of this study lends support to modern theories of crime, that crime or delinquency i s a multidimensional social problem and that i t i s unlikely that modification of only school teacher relationships (the alternate learning school which a l l subjects attended) and child parent relations w i l l result i n a substantial and immediate reduction i n delinquent behaviour. Further delinquency has been attributed to immaturity, a factor which a short term study of this nature does not take into account. Delinquency i s also a non frequent behaviour whereas the behaviours dealt with i n this study were comparatively frequent and though modified to an acceptable level a relapse would not have the same negative effect as even an isolated delinquent act. - 69 -Hypothesis 6: There w i l l be a significant negative relationship between parent's difference scores on the Family Interaction Tasks as compared to the difference scores on the Walker Problem Behaviour Identification Checklist, the Behaviour Checklist and the Problem Checklist. According to the results set out i n Table 12 the above hypothesis i s rejected. The correlations for the experimental group were negative, as expected from the intervention outcomes, though non significant. The negative correlations indicate that as the scores on the Family Interaction Tasks increased the reported child negative behaviours decreased. These findings are supported by the studies of Walder et a l . (1967b and 1967c) where parent test results showed improvement i n parent understanding of child rearing techniques. For the control group the correlations were also negative though non significant. For the control group the significant decrease i n test results shown on the Family Interaction Tasks was not accompanied by a significant increase i n child problem behaviours as measured by the behaviour checklists. The negative though non significant correlation scores for the control group are therefore not due to the expected inverse relationship between the Family Interaction Tasks and the behaviour checklists. These results question the obtained, though non significant, inverse relationship i n scores for the experimental group, on the Family Interaction Tasks as compared to the behaviour checklists. In effect this leaves unanswered the question of whether or not - 70 -parents who have a better understanding of behaviour modification techniques w i l l experience fewer behaviour problems with their children. The results presented i n the discussion on hypothesis six again raises questions about why parents i n the control group decreased their scores on the Family Interaction Tasks. Aside from questions about the r e l i a b i l i t y or validity of the question-naire two possible explanations are examined. The f i r s t i s that no relationship exists between the Family Interaction Tasks and child problem behaviours as measured by the behaviour checklists. This explanation however, i s not supported by the significant relationship found. for the parents i n the experimental group, between behaviours successfully modified and the increase i n scores obtained on the Family Interaction Tasks for problem behaviour situations similar or the same as those modified, (Hypothesis 2). The second and most apparent explanation for the decrease i n control group scores on the Family Interaction Tasks, not borne out by the pretest;equivalence comparison made between the two groups, i s i n the noted differences between the two groups i n level of committment to the project. Family member committment to the project was not high for either group and this i s i n line with the label " d i f f i c u l t " parents or families discussed b r i e f l y i n the f i r s t chapter. Parents i n the experimental were however, generally more committed - 71 -to the project particularly with regard to questionnaire completion. The parents i n the control group required more extensive coaxing, than did parents i n the experimental group, to complete pre and posttest questionnaires, though primarily posttest questionnaires. Additionally i t is f e l t that the Family Interaction Tasks as compared to the behaviour checklists, takes more time to complete because of i t s length and d i f f i c u l t y of questions. Whereas the behaviour checklists deal with easily identifiable behaviours the Family Interaction Tasks deals with more d i f f i c u l t to identify strategies of behaviour management. The more limited committment displayed by the control group parents as compared to the experimental group parents, especially with regard to questionnaire completion at posttesting, may have contributed to the significant decrease i n control parents scores on the Family Interaction Tasks. Limitations of the Study A number of limitations and shortcomings are evident i n this study. These limitations are outlined here to further enable accurate interpretation of the information. Fi r s t , the families committment to the project did not reflect the need to change the behaviours of their child or children, as was assumed by the parents i n i t i a l willingness to become involved i n the project. Additionally, differences i n committment between the two groups, especially with regards to completing the questionnaires, limits comparisons between the two groups. - 72 -Second, generalizing the findings of this study is limited by the small sample size, the children's enrollment i n an alternate educational program, and i n their assignment to a probation sponsor. Third, the questionnaires used for this study had not been subjected to, with the exception of the Walker Problem Behaviour Identification Checklist, any validity or r e l i a b i l i t y tests. The two behaviour checklists designed for this project correlated significantly with the Walker Problem Behaviour Identification Checklist and indicated face validity i n that the problem behaviours decreased on the checklists generally corresponded with the behaviours modified. Despite these two supportive factors conclusions drawn from these two measures must remain tentative. The Family Interaction Tasks questionnaire generally responded i n the-expected direction to changes i n parent's scores on the items corresponding to the behaviours modified however, again conclusions drawn on this instrument can only be tentative. Fourth, the absence of post treatment probes to measure the st a b i l i t y of behaviour changes, particularily i n the light of the additional delinquencies committed by children i n both groups, and the general lack of committment to the project shown by parents, i s a further shortcoming of this study. A Proposal For Future Research From the positive results obtained through the intervention program i t does seem practical to pursue further programs that involve " d i f f i c u l t " parents i n behaviour modification programs with their delinquent children. - 73 -It i s f e l t that though parents i n a similar l i f e situation to those who participated i n this project would always be more limited i n committment to changing the behaviour of their children than parents who requested assistance, evaluating more extensively the readiness of parents and their children to undertake a concentrated behaviour change project i s important. The majority of parents i n both samples were unorganized i n terms of administrating their day to day activities i n the household. Some of the households were subjected to frequent changes i n family member employment, the number of hours spent by the parents i n the home and other day to day changes adding inconsistency and irregularity. In the household where there was a second parent, the second parent was usually uninterested or even disinterested i n the project. Appointments with clinicians and testers were often forgotten, data was not collected, data cards were misplaced, assigned readings not completed or directions given were not followed or forgotten. It would seem important therefore that parents and children indicate a need to improve their relationships before substantial gains i n correcting problem behaviours can be made. Least of a l l such a committment w i l l undoubtedly increase the enthusiasm of both the worker and the family members. As a correctional approach, though not providing evidence of effective reduction i n delinquent behaviour, reintroducing the parents as significant socializing agents or important reinforcers of their children's behaviours, provides a functional additional front to the various preventative and training programs that have - 74 -become part of the corrections system i n B r i t i s h Columbia. To provide additional impetus to such an approach i n dealing with delinquent children i t would seem important to involve i n an experimental program not only committed parents but also the agency workers involved with the subjects of a study. These workers provide the ground rules of how change shall be affected, and they must therefore be an i n t r i c a l part of any program that includes parents as change agents for their child. Without their support programs including parents as modifiers of their children's problem behaviours w i l l not develop into the practical helping programs for which they were intended. Practical Application of the Findings Agencies involved with delinquent children continue to face the parents of these children with uncertainty. They have d i f f i c u l t y i n determining to what extent and how these parents can be involved i n the modification of their children's problem behaviours. For this parental involvement to occur two important factors must be met. F i r s t , agencies must see the parents as important i n the socialization process of their children, and second these workers must have at their disposal the knowledge to provide some parents with a system of child training that i s consistent and provides short term observable changes i n child behaviour. Given these two prerequesites, the knowledge already amassed on the effectiveness of parents as therapists, as well as the tentative - 75 -conclusions presented i n this study, the provision of this type of intervention on a large scale does indeed appear as a practical and more comprehensive approach i n dealing with delinquency. The optimistic findings of this study regards the role that parents can play i n the retraining of their children, w i l l provide assistance to the helping professionals i n the development of a more comprehensive model i n the prevention and treatment of delinquency. - 76 -BIBLIOGRAPHY Adler, Alfred. The Education of Children. George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1930 Advani, Kan. Involving parents i n the behaviour modification program of their children i n home and school. Paper presented at the fifteenth annual conference of the Ontario Educational Research Council. Toronto: December 7, 1973 Alexander, J. F. and Parsons, B. V. Short term behavioural intervention with delinquent families. Impact on family process and recidivism. Journal of Abnormal  Psychology. 1973, 81, No. 3, 219 - 225 Allen, K. S. and Harris, F. R. Elimination of a child's excessive scratching by training the mother i n reinforcement procedures. Behaviour Research and  Therapy. 1966, 4_, 79 - 84 Berger, T., Q. C , The Fourth Report of the Royal Commission  on Family and Childrens Law. Victoria: A p r i l , 1975 Bowen, M. The use of family Theory i n c l i n i c a l practice. Comprehensive Psychiatry. 1966, 7, No. 5, 345 - 374 Buros, 0. The Mental Measurement Yearbook. Highland Park: N. J ~ Gryphon Press, 1972 (7th edition) Coulter, C. W. Family disorganization as a causal factor i n delinquency and crime. Federal Probation. X l l (September, 1948), 14 - 15 Clement, P. W. Elimination of sleepwalking i n a seven year old boy. J. Consult. C l i n . Psychol. 1970a, 34, 22 - 26 Community Research Associates Inc. Reorganizing to prevent and control disordered behaviour. Mental Hygiene. 1958, 42, 173 - 174 Csapo, M. Parent-teacher intervention with inappropriate behaviour. Elementary School Guidance and  Counselling. March, 1973, No. 3, 198 - 203 Csapo, M. Pocketful of Praises. Vancouver: Special Education Association, Br i t i s h Columbia Teachers' Federation, 1973 I - 77 -Csapo, M. and Friesen, J . The Parenting, Project. Ventura Press: Vancouver: 1975 Gordon, T. Parent Effectiveness Training. Van Rees Press: New York: 1970 Glueck, S. and Glueck, E. One Thousand Juvenile Delinquents. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1 9 3 4 Glueck, S. and Glueck, E. Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency. New York: Commonwealth Fund, 1 9 5 0 Glueck, S. and Glueck, E. Working mothers and delinquency. Mental Hygiene. 1957, 4 1 , 3 2 7 - 352 Hanf, C. Modifying problem behaviours i n mother-child inter-action: Standardized laboratory situations. Paper presented at the meetings of the Association of Behaviour Therapies. Washington: 1 9 6 8 Hanf, C. A two stage program for modifying maternal controlling during mother-child (M-C) interaction. Paper presented at the meetings of the Western Psychological Association. Vancouver: 1969 Holland, C. J. Elimination by the parents of f i r e setting behaviour i n a seven year old boy. Behav. Res, and  Therapy. 1 9 6 9 , <7, 135 - 1 3 7 Hawkins, R. P., Peterson, F. R., Schweid, E., and Bijou, S. W. Behaviour therapy i n the home: Amelioration of problem parent-child relations with the parent i n a therapeutic role. J. Exp. Child Fsychol. 1 9 6 6 , 4 , 99 - 1 0 7 . Johnson, J. M. Using parents as contingency managers. Psychological Reports. 1 9 7 1 , 28^ 703 - 710 Johnson, S. M. and Brown, R. A. Producing behaviour change i n parents of disturbed children. J. Child Psychol. Psychiat. 1 9 6 9 , 1 0 , 107 - 121 Macdonald, A., Q. C. A Five Year Plan i n Corrections. Victoria: February 2 2 , 1974 Martin, J. M. and Fitzpatrick, J. P. Delinquent Behaviour. Random House Inc. 1964 Monahan, T. P. Family status and the delinquent child. Social Forces. 1 9 5 7 , 3.5, 2 5 0 - 258 - 78 -O'Leary, K., O'Leary, S. and Becker, S. Modification of a deviant sibling interaction pattern in the home. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 1967, 5, 113 - 120 Patterson, G. R. and Brodsky, G. A behaviour modification programme for a child with multiple problem behaviours. J. Child Psychol. Psychiat. 1966, 1, 277 - 295 Patterson, G. R., McNeal, S., Hawkins, N. and Phelps, R. Reprogramming the social environment. J. Child Psychol.  Psychiat. 1967, 8, 181 - 195 Patterson, G. R. and Fagot, B. I. Selective responsiveness to social reinforcers and deviant behaviour i n children. The Psychological Record. 1967, 17_, 369 - 378 Patterson, G. R. and Gullion, M. E. Living with Children. New methods for parents and teachers. Champagne, I l l i n o i s : Research Press, 1968 Patterson, G. R. and Reid, J. B. Reciprocity and coercion: Two facets of social systems. C. Neuringer and J. Michaels (eds.). Behaviour Modification for C l i n i c a l  Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969 Patterson, G. R., Cobb, J. A. and Ray, R. S. A social engineering technology for retraining aggressive boys. H. Adams and L. Unikel (eds.). Georgia Symposium i n Experimental C l i n i c a l Psychology. 1970, 2, Oxford: Pergamon Press Patterson, G. R. Behavioural intervention procedures i n the classroom and in the home. A. E. Bergin and S. L. Garfield (eds.). Handbook of Psychotherapy and  Behaviour Change. John Wiley, New York: 1971, 751 - 777 Patterson, G. R. and Reid, J. B. Intervention for families with aggressive boys: A replication study. Behav.  Res, and Therapy. 1973, 11, 383 - 394 Peine, H. Programming the home. Paper presented at the meetings of the Rocky Mountain Psychological Association. Albuqyerque, N. M.: I969 Patterson, G. R., Ray, R. S. and Shaw, D. A. Direct inter-vention i n families of deviant children. Oregon  Research Institute Research Bulletin. 1968, 8, No. 9 - 79 -Pendergrass, E. Behaviour modification of autistic and retarded children using time-out procedure. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association. San Francisco: August, 1968 Robinson, S. Juvenile Delinquency, It's Nature and Control. Holt, Rinehart and Winston. New York: i960 Russo, S. Adaptions i n behavioural therapy with children. Beh. Res, and Therapy. 1964, 2, 43 - 47 Shulman, H. M. From Truancy to Crime. New York State Crime Commission. Albany: 1928 Siegel, S. Non-Parametric Sta t i s t i c s . New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company Inc. 1956 Sloane, H. N., Johnston, M. K. and Bijou, S. W. Successive modification of aggressive behaviour and aggressive fantasy play by management of contingencies. J. Child  Psychol. PsycMat. 1967, 8, 217 - 226 Straughan, J. H. Treatment with child and mother i n the playroom. Behav. Res, and Therapy. 1964, 2, 37 - 41 Walder, L. 0., Breiter, D. E., Cohen, S. I., Daston, P. G., Forbes, J. A. and Mclntyre, R. W. Teaching parents to modify the behaviour of their autistic children. Paper presented at the 74th annual convention of the American Psychological Association, New York, 1966 Walder, L. 0., Cohen, S. I., Daston, P. G. Breiter, D. E., Hirsch, I. S. and Leibowitz, J. M. Teaching behavioural principles to parents of disturbed children. Paper presented at the meetings of the Eastern Psychological Association, Boston, 1967 (a) Walder, L. 0., Cohen, S. I. and Daston, P. G. Teaching parents and others principles of behaviour control for modifying the behaviour of children. Progress Report, U. S. Office  of Education. 32-31-7515-5024, 1967 (b) Walder, L. 0., Cohen, S. I., Daston, P. G., Breiter, D. E. and Hirsch, I. S. Behaviour therapy of children through their parents. A revision of a paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D. C. 1967 (c) - 80 -Wagner, M. K. Parent therapist: An operant conditioning method. Mental Hygiene. 1968, J§2, 452 - 455 Wolf, M. M., Riseley, R. and Mees, H. Application of operant conditioning procedures to the behaviour problems of an autistic child. Behav. Res, and Therapy. 1964, 1, 305 - 312 Wolfe, M. M., Riseley, R., Johnston, M., Harris, R. and Allen, E. Application of operant conditioning procedures to the behaviour problems of an autistic child: A follow-up and extension. Behav. Res, and Therapy. 1967, 5., 103 - 111 Walker, H. Manual for the Walker Problem Behaviour Id e n t i f i -cation Checklist, section 2, f i n a l report for U. S. 0. E. Assessment and Treatment of Deviant Behaviour i n  Children. Project OEG 4-6-061308-0571. Bureau of Education for the Handicapped, Division of Research Williams. C. D. The elimination of tantrum behaviour by extinction procedures. J. Abnormal and Social Psychol. 1959, 59, 269 Zeilberger, J., Sampen, S. and Sloane, H. N. Modification of a child's problem behaviours i n the home with the mother as therapist. Appl. Behav. Analysis. 1969, 1, 47 - 53 - 81 -APPENDIX A - 82 -Table A Age, sex, parents i n the home and family level of income for experimental and control group subjects AGE SEX PARENTS IN HOME LEVEL OF INCOME 1 6 M Mother Welfare Recipient EXPERIMENTAL SUBJECTS 15 15 M M Mother Father Mother $ 8 , 0 0 0 per annum Welfare Recipient 14 M Mother $ 7 , 0 0 0 per annum 15 M Mother Welfare Recipient 16 M Mother Father $ 1 2 , 0 0 0 per annum 17 M Mother Father $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 per annum 14 M Mother $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 per annum CONTROL SUBJECTS 16 15 M F Mother Father Mother Father Welfare Recipients Welfare Recipients 14 M Mothe r Father $ 7 , 0 0 0 per annum 1 6 F Father $ 8 , 0 0 0 per annum 16 M Group home guardians $ 1 2 , 0 0 0 per annum - 83 -Table B Number of offences committed by-subjects as of March 1 , 1974 EXPERIMENTAL SUBJECTS CONTROL SUBJECTS OFFENCE TYPE OFFENCE TYPE Damage under $ 2 0 0 Summary Attempted auto theft Indictable Poss. Marijuana Summary Causing disturb. Summary Mischief, 3 counts Summary Theft under $ 2 0 0 B. and E . , 3 counts Indictable 2 counts Indictable B. and E. and T. Indictable Robbery, 5 counts Indictable Auto theft, 4 counts Indictable Poss. of auto Indictable Poss. auto, 3 counts Indictable Auto theft Indictable Theft under $ 2 0 0 , 3 counts Indictable B. and E. and T. Indictable As sault Indictable B. and E. Indictable Theft over $ 2 0 0 Indictable Total summary1 5 Total' summary 1 Total indictable 1 6 Total indictable 12 - 84 APPENDIX B - 85 -Tables A through F inclusive on the following pages, outline for the families i n the experimental and control groups data at pretest, pretest data and the means of scores. The Mann-Whitney U Test for a one t a i l test at the .05 level of significance was applied to the data i n each table. According to the results the assumption that the two groups are samples from the same population can be made on a l l pretest measures with the exception of the Problem Checklist i n Table E .where the obtained U i s associated with a probability of . 0 2 6 . Despite the significant difference obtained between samples at pre-testing this questionnaire was used for posttesting, as i t was fe l t that i t would respond to within group child behaviour change. Table A Pretest scores on the Family Interaction Tasks Experimental Group Control Group Score Score 1 0 12 15 1 6 16 16 19 2 1 2 0 25 21 28 36 X--19.5 X--19.6 U--22 p > . 0 5 Table B Pretest scores on the Walker Problem Behaviour Identification Checklist Experimental Group Control Group Score Score 8 8 20 1 2 . 5 22 15 2 4 . 5 25 25 29 33 3 4 35 X=23.5 X=20.5 U-17 p > . 0 5 - 87 -Table C Pretest scores of the negative scale of the Behaviour Checklist Experimental Families Control Families Score Score 5 2 8'- 6 11 8 12 8 12 12 1 6 13 22 X--12.2 it-8.1 U--11 y, p > . 0 5 Table D Pretest scores of the positive scale of the Behaviour Checklist Experimental Families Control Families Score Score 2 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 4 5 5 6 5 - . •  .X--3.9 X - - 4 . 5 U»22 p>.P5.; - 88 -Table E Pretest scores on the Problem Checklist Experimental Group Control Group Score Score 8 7 14 7 14 9 15 12 16 13 18 16 19 X--L4.8 X«ll.3 U=7 p<.Q5'.'' Table F Number of indictable offences committed by subjects as of March 1 , 1974 Experimental Subjects Control Subjects Offences Committed:..." Offences committed 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 4 6 6 X=2.3 X--2 U=i3 P>.05 - 89 -Table G Experimental families targeted child behaviours, reinforcement for these behaviours, baseline and intervention means and percentage change BEHAVIOURS AND REINFORCEMENTS BASELINE MEANS INTERVENTION MEANS PERCENTAGE CHANGE Midnight curfew. Plus 25$ for on time Minus 25^ for lateness 63 minutes late 18 minutes late 77 Being Bossy. 3.8 times . 9 times 68 Minus 10$ each time Teasing mother. Minus 5$ each time 2.8 times . 4 times 86 Getting up after one c a l l i n the morning 17 minutes after c a l l 4 minutes after c a l l 77 30$ i f called once Going to school. $ 1 for every day attendance . 5 times attendance .8 times attendance 60 1 0 : 3 0 p.m. curfew. $ 1 for i n on time . 4 2 times on time . 7 1 times on time 69 Making up bed. 0 times .8 times 80 $ 1 for each time bed i s made. Not throwing jacket and two carrying bags on floor. 1 0 times 5 times • 50 25 £ for coat and 12^ for each bag - 9 0 -Table G continued BEHAVIOURS AND REINFORCEMENTS BASELINE MEANS INTERVENTION MEANS PERCENTAGE CHANGE Read i n a book for 30 minutes or more. 40 minutes per day 63 minutes per day 5 7 5 0 $ per day-Swearing . 5 times per day 4.3 times per day 1 4 Loose 1 cigarette for each time Curfew .5 times on time On time 1 0 0 Social Fighting with sister .4 time s per day Zero times 1 0 0 5 0 $ per day i f no . fighting Complementing sister. Zero times Once per day 1 0 0 1 0 $ per day Calling sister dirty names. Once per day Zero times 1 0 0 Curfew 2 0 minutes late 1 5 minutes late 2 5 5 0 $ per week Shower or bath at least 3 times per week. .3 times per week .5 times per week 6 6 Guitar lessons - 9 1 -Table G continued BEHAVIOURS AND REINFORCEMENTS BASELINE MEANS INTERVENTION MEANS PERCENTAGE CHANGE Brushing teeth 2 times per day. Guitar lessons .9 times per day 1 . 9 times per day 1 1 0 Flicking hands i n siblings face. Social 1 2 times . 0 4 times 9 9 Curfew 6 5 minutes late 1 2 minutes late 82 Social Spending time with brother.  Social 2 9 minutes 4 4 minutes per day per day 52 Doing Homework. per hour 14 minutes per day 3 7 minutes per day 1 6 5 Spending time with family.  Social 1 6 minutes per day 1 0 5 minutes per day 5 5 5 Curfew 1 7 8 minutes Zero minutes late late 1 0 0 $ 5 per week - 92 -Table G continued BEHAVIOURS AND REINFORCEMENTS BASELINE MEANS INTERVENTION MEANS PERCENTAGE CHANGE Assisting i n clean-ing up after meals. Zero times 47 minutes $1 each day for one half hour plus Putting laundry i n laundry room Zero times .8 minutes 80 $1 for each time done Cleaning room and making up bed Zero times Once per day 100 $1 per day for each task - 93 -Table H Pre and posttest difference scores on the Family Interaction Tasks less, for the parents i n the experimental group, the increase i n scores l i s t e d i n Table 4 i j EXPERMENTAL FAMILIES CONTROL FAMILIES Difference Scores Difference Scores 0 - 1 5 - 2 - 7 0 - 7 0 - 3 0 - 2 2 - 1 5 U - 4 0 p > . 0 5 - 94 - 95 -FAMILY INTERACTION TASKS Name _ ^ _ Date (surname) ( f i r s t name)' We would l i k e to knoxv what parents usually do i n dealing with problem situations i n the home. The following f i f t y questions represent some typical situa-tions requiring some parental intervention or guidance. The situations are followed by five responses and one blank (f) OTHER. From these five responses you are to select the response you think would be the best way of dealing with the situation, by c i r c l i n g the letter appearing before the response of your choice. I f none of the five responses suit you, i n a short sentence under OTHER write down what would be a more suitable response for you. Respond to only one of the six alternatives. There are no correct or incorrect responses to these situations. Example What would you do i f your child neglected the pet cat he/she promised f a i t h f u l l y to look after? a. send your child to bed without supper b. take away your child's television privileges u n t i l he/she feeds the cat c. have a talk with your child about why he/she must look after the cat d. t e l l your child that since you're feeding the cat i t i s now your cat e. give the cat away f. other Choose from one of the alternatives by circli n g the letter appearing before the response. If your response i s OTHER, please record i n a short sentence what you would do. Again, think of the following situations i n terms of how you would deal with them. Remember there are no right or wrong answers to the responses you do make. Take your time but please do not discuss your answers with anyone. - 9 6 -This questionnaire w i l l be treated with s t r i c t confidentiality. 1. What would you do i f , your teenage son/daughter has a 10 p.m. curfew, and he/she walks into the house at 12 p.m.? a. have a talk with him/her about the consequences of violating the curfew b. t e l l him/her that he/she w i l l have to stay home un-t i l he/she can manage to come home on time c. take away his/her television privileges d. t e l l him/her that he/she can't have the family car anymore e. punish him/her f. other 2. What would you do i f , your teenager regularly complained about the meals i n your home? a. have a talk with him/her about why he/she should not complain about the meals b. t e l l him/her to stop complaining c. ignore him/her d. take away his/her television privileges u n t i l he/ she stops complaining e. everytime he/she does not complain t e l l him/her you appreciate i t f. other 3. What would you do i f , you received a c a l l from the vice principal of the school that your child has been skipping school for some time? a. t e l l him/her forcefully that you don't ever want that to happen again b. take away his/her television rights c. have a talk with him/her about the benefits of a good education d. make him/her do more homework e. t e l l him/her that i f he/she attends regularly for one week you w i l l take him/her to a movie f. other - 97 -4. What would you do i f , your child throws a temper tantrum whenever he/she doesn't get his/her wish? a. lock him/her i n a room for five minutes b. take away his/her television privileges for one night c. give him/her what he/she wants d. punish him/her e. have a talk with him/her about how temper tantrums get him/her i n trouble f. other 5. What would you do i f , your oldest child i s always beating up on his younger brothers and sisters? a. send him/her to bed without supper b. lock him/her i n a room by himself whenever he/she fights c. take away his/her television rights for one night d. have a talk with him/her about why he/she shouldn't fight e. let the children handle their own arguments f. other 6. What would you do i f , your child i s always late for supper and upsets the whole household schedule? a. have a talk with him/her about why he/she should be home on time b. give him/her some chores to do c. don't give him/her any supper d. take away his/her television privileges e. t e l l him/her that he/she can't go out i n the evening until he/she comes home i n time for supper f. other 7 . What would you do i f , one of your children i s constantly trying to get your attention whenever you are busy? a. have a talk with him/her about why he/she shouldn't bother you a l l the time b. t e l l him/her to leave you alone c. give him/her some chores to do d. ignore him/her e. pay attention to him/her f. other 8. What would you do i f , the child that i s supposed to take the garbage out has failed to do so for three days i n a row? a. put the garbage i n the child's room b. t e l l him/her i n a serious manner that he/she better take the garbage out or else c. have a talk with him/her about why everyone must help around the house d. take away his/her television privileges for two nights e. everyday he/she f a i l s to take the garbage out take away one of his/her privileges f. other 9. What would you do i f , your child always refuses to go to bed i n the evening? a. send him/her to bed without supper b. punish him/her c. t e l l him/her, he/she can collect 25$ everytime her/she goes to bed without an argument d. drag him/her to bed e. take away his/her television privileges u n t i l he/ she goes to bed on his/her own f. other 10. What would you do i f , your teenager has trouble getting out of bed i n the morning and as a result i s usually late for school? a. l e t him/her miss school b. force him/her out of bed c. have a talk with him/her about the benefits of a good education d. t e l l him/her that everytime he/she gets up i n the morning he/she can have 25$ - 99 -e. take away his/her television privileges f. other 11. What would you do i f , your child proudly displays what you consider a poor report card even though i t i s a l i t t l e better than the l a s t one? a. have a talk with him/her about the benefits of a good education b. take away his/her television privileges u n t i l he/she brings home a good report c. t e l l him/her that i t i s good but that he/she needs to study harder d. t e l l him/her that you are happy with the improvement e. phone the teacher and t e l l him to assign more homework for your child f. other 12. What would you do i f , your teenager often stays away from school? a. take away his/her allowance u n t i l he/she goes to school everyday b. give him/her 25$ for every day he/she attends school c. praise the child for every day he/she attends school d. have a talk with him/her about the benefits of a good education e. give him/her an extra chore to do for each day he/she misses school f. other 13. What would you do i f , your child brings home a l o t of neighbourhood kids who end up making a lot of noise? a. t e l l him/her to send the kids home b. t e l l him/her, he/she cannot have any more kids i n the home unti l they behave c. have a talk with him/her about why they should be quiet d. t e l l them i f they keep quiet for half an hour they can a l l have a bottle of pop e. t e l l your child to do some chores f. other - 100 -14. What would you do i f , your youngest child i s always playing with matches and today you catch him/her starting a small f i r e i n the front room? a. punish him/her b. have a talk with the child about how dangerous matches and fires are c. burn his/her fingers d. make him/her light ten boxes of matches outside while you watch e. take away his/her television privileges u n t i l he/she stops playing with matches f. other __ 15. What would you do i f , you ask your child to help clean up the basement and he/she says that someone else can do i t ? a. t e l l him/her that i f he/she can't help you then you won't have time to do anything for him/her b. take away his/her television privileges u n t i l he/she does what he/she i s told c. ignore the matter d. have a talk with him/her about.why everybody must share chores e. t e l l him/her i n a stern voice that he/she better help or else f. other 16. What would you do i f , your sitting down and relaxing and one of your child-ren playing i n the same room i s constantly disturbing you? a. have a talk with him/her about winy you want him/her to be quiet b. punish him/her c. ignore him/her d. send him/her to bed without supper e. take away his/her television privileges f. other :  - 101 -1 7 - W h a t w o u l d y o u d o i f , o n e o f y o u r c h i l d r e n i s a l w a y s a c t i n g h e l p l e s s a n d y o u f i n d y o u r s e l f d o i n g a l o t o f t h i n g s f o r t h e c h i l d t h a t h e / s h e c o u l d d o q u i t e a d e q u a t e l y o n h i s / h e r o w n ? a . h a v e a t a l k w i t h h i m / h e r a b o u t w h y h e / s h e s h o u l d b e d o i n g t h i n g s o n h i s / h e r o w n . b . p r a i s e h i m / h e r e v e r y t i m e h e / s h e d o e s s o m e t h i n g o n h i s / h e r o w n c . h e l p y o u r c h i l d a s m u c h a s y o u c a n d . g i v e h i m / h e r s o m e c h o r e s t o d o e . t a k e a w a y h i s / h e r t e l e v i s i o n p r i v i l e g e s u n t i l h e / s h e b e c o m e s m o r e i n d e p e n d e n t f . o t h e r 1 8 . W h a t w o u l d y o u d o i f , y o u t o l d y o u r c h i l d t o k e e p q u i e t f o r 1 5 m i n u t e s a n d a l l h e / s h e m a n a g e d w a s f i v e m i n u t e s ? a . t e l l h i m / h e r t o l e a v e t h e r o o m b . p u n i s h h i m / h e r c . h a v e a t a l k w i t h t h e c h i l d a b o u t w h y h e / s h e s h o u l d b e q u i e t d . g i v e h i m / h e r c a n d y a n d t e l l h i m / h e r h e / s h e w i l l g e t a n o t h e r o n e i f h e / s h e k e e p s q u i e t f o r t e n m i n u t e s e . g i v e h i m / h e r s o m e c h o r e s t o d o f . o t h e r 1 9 . W h a t w o u l d y o u d o i f , o n e o f y o u r c h i l d r e n o f t e n i g n o r e s y o u w h e n e v e r y o u a s k h i m / h e r s o m e t h i n g ? a . i g n o r e h i m / h e r w h e n e v e r h e / s h e a s k s y o u s o m e t h i n g b . h a v e a t a l k w i t h t h e c h i l d a b o u t h o w r u d e h e / s h e i s c . g i v e h i m / h e r s o m e c h o r e s t o d o e v e r y t i m e h e / s h e i g n o r e s y o u d . s a y s o m e t h i n g n i c e t o h i m / h e r e v e r y t i m e h e / s h e d o e s a n s w e r y o u e . t a k e a w a y h i s / h e r t e l e v i s i o n p r i v i l e g e s u n t i l h i s / h e r m a n n e r s i m p r o v e f . o t h e r - 102 -20. What would you do i f , your teenager usually throws his/her jacket on the floor when he/she comes home? a. take away his/her television privileges, u n t i l he/she starts to hang up his/her jacket b. punish him/her c. have a talk with him/her about why clothes should be hung up d. ignore the matter e. t e l l him/her that he/she cannot go out anymore until he/she hangs up his/her clothes f. other 21. What would you do i f , one of your children destroys things i n the house whenever he/she doesn't get his/her way? a. punish him/her b. give your child some chores to do c. take away one of his/her privileges whenever he/she breaks something d. have a talk with him/her about how this w i l l get him/her into trouble e. take away his/her television privileges f. other 22. What would you do i f , one of your children has the habit of shoplifting l i t t l e things from stores? a. punish him/her b. c a l l the police c. have a talk with him/her about how stealing w i l l get him/her into trouble d. give him/her 10$ for everyday that he/she doesn't steal anything e. take away his/her television privileges u n t i l he/she stops stealing f. other 23. What would you do i f , your oldest child always swears about everything and at everybody? a. punish him/her b. swear back at him/her c. send him/her out of the house when he/she swears - 103 -d. have a talk with him/her about why swearing i s not nice e. t e l l your child he/she cannot have the family car until he/she stops swearing f. other . 24. What would you do i f , your child seldom cleans up his/her room even though you always ask him/her to do i t a. punish him/her b. ignore the matter c. take away his/her television privileges d. have a talk about the importance of cleanliness with him/her e. give your child some privilege that he/she wants everytime he/she cleans up the room f. other . 25. What would you do i f , one of your children i s always c r i t i c i z i n g what you say? a. ignore him/her b. take away the child's television privileges u n t i l his/her manners improve c. have a talk with the child about why he/she needs to improve his/her manners d. give him/her some chores to do e. get angry with him/her f. other 26. What would you do i f , you asked your teenager to sweep the kitcher floor and he/she did i t poorly? a. t e l l him/her to do i t over b. t e l l him/her you're glad he/she did this much but that you would like him/her to do i t over c. t e l l him/her you're very unhappy with the way he/she does things around the house d. thank him/her for the job he/she did e. ignore the matter f. other - 104 -27. What would you do i f , one of your children often leaves his/her bicycle i n the driveway? a. have a talk with the child about why he/she should pick up his/her bicycle b. drive over the bicycle c. t e l l him/her you w i l l take the bicycle away for two days everytime he/she leaves i t i n the driveway d. take away his/her television privileges u n t i l he/she starts to put his/her bike away e'. praise him/her the next time he/she puts his/her bike away and give him/her five cents f. other 28. What would you do i f , you gave your oldest boy your car for the evening under the condition that he return i t with the same amount of gas i n i t , and the next morning you find that the tank i s empty? a. take the car privileges away until he has paid for a tank of gas b. have a talk with him about how disappointed you are with him c. punish him d. take away his car privileges for one week e. take away his television privileges for one week f. other ; 29. What would you do i f , you have forbidden your child to smoke and one day discover a package of cigarettes i n his pocket? a. punish him/her b. ignore the issue c. take away his/her television privileges for one week d. have a talk with him/her about the dangers of smoking e. make the child smoke cigarettes i n front of you until he/she i s green f. other - 105 -30. What would you do i f , your child comes home with f a i l i n g marks on his/her report card? a. t e l l him/her i f he/she brings home one passing mark the next time you w i l l take him/her to dinner and to the movies b. take away his/her television privileges u n t i l his/her marks improve c. have a talk with the child about the benefits of a good education d. t e l l him/her he/she can't go out unti l his/her marks improve e. make him/her do more "homework f. other 31. What would you do i f , your child refuses to mow the front lawn even though you told him/her and he/she knows i t i s his/her duty? a. make him/her mow the lawn b. take away his/her television privileges u n t i l he/she mows the lawn c. t e l l him/her you w i l l buy him/her an ice cream i f he/she mows the lawn i n 4 5 minutes d. give your child some extra chores to do i f he/she doesn't mow the lawn e. punish him/her f. other 32. What would you do i f , you practiced some spelling with your teenager and he/she got worse and worse as you practiced with him/her? a. have a talk with him about ivhy he/she must be able to spell correctly b. t e l l him/her to smarten up c. give up d. inform his/her teacher that he/she needs more remedial spelling lessons e. praise him/her whenever he/she gets one right f. .. other - 106 -33. What would you do i f , • your youngest child often throws his/her coat and shoes on the hallway floor when he/she comes home? a. show your appreciation whenever he/she hangs his/her coat up or puts his/her shoes away b. take away his/her television privileges u n t i l he/she starts to put his/her clothes away c. t e l l him/her you w i l l give him/her 10$ every-time he/she puts his/her clothes away d. t e l l him/her that he/she cannot go out anymore un t i l he/she starts hanging his/her clothes up e. have a talk with him/her about why clothes should be hung up f. other 34. What would you do i f , . your teenager usually does not answer you whenever you . ask him/her a question? a. give him/her seme chores to do everytime he/she ignores you b. ignore him/her everytime he/she asks you something c. say something nice to him/her everytime he/she does answer you d. have a talk with him/her about how rude i t i s e. take away his/her television privileges u n t i l his/her manners improve f. other 35. What would you do i f , you discover that your child has stolen a toy that belongs to another child? a. punish him/her and make him/her return i t b. have a talk with him/her about why he/she shouldn't steal c. take away his/her television privileges d. t e l l him/her you w i l l buy him/her a toy for every week during which he/she does not steal e. c a l l the police to scare the child f. other - 107 -36. What would you do i f , the teacher assigned your child one hour of homework and your child comes down to watch television after 30 minutes and says he can't do any more homework? a. send him/her back for another half hour of homework b. take away his/her television privileges for one night c. have a talk with him/her about why he/she should be studying d. t e l l the child that he/she won't be able to go out until he/she does his/her homework e. praise him/her for studying for half an hour f. other 37. What would you do i f , one of your younger children has taken a can of paint out of the basement and splashed i t a l l over the neighbour's house? a. punish him/her and make him/her clean up the mess b. make him/her apologize and clean up the mess c. take away his/her allowance for one week d. take away his/her television privileges for one month e. pay him/her $10 for painting your garage f. other 38. What would you do i f , you asked your child five times to take the garbage out and he/she f i n a l l y does i t ? a. t e l l him/her i t l s about time b. ignore his/her slowness c. t e l l him/her you w i l l be very happy i f he/she does i t everyday without being told d. give him/her some other chores to do e. give him/her five cents f. other 39. What would you do i f , your neighbour complains that one of your children has thrown rocks at his children? a. have a talk with him/her about why he/she shouldn't throw rocks b. take him/her into a f i e l d and have him/her throw rocks at a target for 30 minutes - 108 -c . ask the neighbour who started i t d. do nothing e. punish him/her f. other 40. What would you do i f , your child comes home at 10 p.m. exactly i n time to meet his/her curfew requirements? a. ask him/her how the evening was b. praise him/her for being on time c. t e l l him/her to quickly get to bed d. say he's/she's lucky because he/she made i t on time e. ignore the matter f. other 41. What would you do i f , your teenager usually skips school? a. have a talk with him/her about the benefits of a good education b. give him/her an extra chore to do for each day he/she skips c . t e l l him/her that he/she is only hurting himself/ herself whenever he/she skips school d. take away his/her television privileges u n t i l he/she goes to school everyday e. phone the school principal for advice f. other 4 2 . What would you do i f , one of your teenage children i s often very rude to your company? a. t e l l him/her not to be so rude b. give him/her some chores when he/she i s rude to your company c . when the company has gone have a talk with the child about- his/her poor manners d. ignore the matter e. praise him/her when he/she isn't rude f. other - 109 -43. What would you do i f , your child often didn't want to go to bed i n the evening? a. punish him/her b. take away his/her television privileges u n t i l he/she goes to bed without complaining c. send him/her to bed without supper d. make him/her go to bed e. take away a privilege everytime he/she doesn't want to go to bed f. other 4 4 . What would you do i f , your child i s doing the dishes even though you haven't told him/her to do them? a. l e t him/her off as a reward for not having to be told to do the dishes b. t e l l him/her not to use too much soap c. leave him/her alone d. smile at him/her e. ask him/her why he/she hasn't done his/her homework f. other 4 5 . What would you do i f , one of your children i s always looking for your attention and thereby constantly interrupting what you have to do? a. get angry with him/her b. t e l l him/her not to interrupt you c. t e l l the child to watch television d. give him/her some chores to do e. take away his/her television privileges u n t i l he/she, stops annoying you f. other 4 6 . What would you do i f , one of your children l i e d to you? a. ignore the l i e b. t e l l the child that everytime he/she t e l l s the truth he/she gets a point and each point i s worth half a cent c. punish him/her d. take away his/her television privileges - 110 -e. have a talk-with him/her about why he/she shouldn't l i e f. other 47. What would you do i f , one of your children rants and raves everytime you deny him/her something? a. punish him/her b. try to calm him/her down c. give him/her what he/she wants d. take away his/her television privileges everytime he/she rants and raves e. pay more attention to him/her i n the future f. other 48. What would you do i f , your sixteen year old i s not going to school and not working and aside from occasionally going to look for a job does nothing but s i t around the house? si. take away his/her television privileges u n t i l he/she finds a job b. have a talk with him/her about his/her need to become more responsible . c. praise him/her everytime he does look for a job d. t e l l him/her he/she has to leave your home unless he/she pays board e. t e l l your child that he/she cannot go out u n t i l he/she finds a job f. other . 49. What would you do i f , one of your children i s usually late for supper and this upsets your schedule? a. •.don't, give him/her any supper b. give him/her some chores to do c. have a talk with him/her about why he/she should come home on time d. take away his/her television privileges e. punish him/her f. other I l l -What would you do i f , one of your children often complained about his/he dinner? a. t e l l him/her to stop complaining b. make him/her do the dishes everytime he/she complains c. t e l l him/her that your getting tired of the complaining d. have a talk with him/her about-why he/she should eat the dinner e. serve him/her something he/she likes every once in a while f. other - 112 -BEHAVIOUR CHECKLIST This checklist i s for rating , and i s to be f i l l e d i n by . There are 23 behaviour descriptions l i s t e d i n this question-naire, and each description i s followed by four boxes with the headings; NEVER, SOMETIMES, OFTEN, and VERY OFTEN. You are to place a check mark (vQ i n one of the four boxes appearing after behaviour description, describing most accurately the person you are rating. Example: Say you are rating your best friend on the following behaviour description. BEHAVIOUR DESCRIPTION Laughs at funny things people say or do. NEVER 0 times SOMETIMES 1 - 2 times per day OFTEN 3 - 5 times per day VERY OFTEN more than 5 times per day Try to think of an average day and rec a l l the number of times you heard your best friend laugh about something funny, and then check the appropriate box at the right. I f i t i s NEVER then check the f i r s t box, i f i t i s once to twice per day then check the second box headed SOMETIMES, i f i t i s three to five times per day then check the third box headed OFTEN, and i f i t i s more than five times per day then check the last box headed VERY OFTEN. Some of the descriptions w i l l be followed by examples to help you understand what i s meant by the behaviour description. This checklist w i l l not take you very long to complete, so please be as accurate as you can, and remember that you are describing • . THIS QUESTIONNAIRE WILL BE TREATED WITH STRICT CONFIDENTIALITY. - 113 -BEHAVIOUR DESCRIPTION NEVER SOMETIMES OFTEN VERY OFTEN 1 . Gives approval to others i n the family for things they say or do. EXAMPLE; "That's good", "I lik e what you said", etc. 2. Asks people to do things for him/her or to help around the house. EXAMPLE; "Would you please take the garbage out"? or "Please lend me your jacket". 3. Tells people to do things for him/her. EXAMPLE; "Take the the gar-bage out", or "Leave the room", etc. 4. Does what parents ask of him/her. EXAMPLE; helps with the dishe^ or folds the laundry, etc. 5. Does what i s asked of him/her by other members i n the family. EXAMPLE; helps others do the dishes, helps someone clean the kitchen or car, etc. 6. Cries to get attention or show hurt or disappoint-ment . 7. Shows disapproval of the things other members i n tine family say or do. EXAMPLE; "I don't like that", or "Go away you always bother me", etc. - 114 -BEHAVIOUR DESCRIPTION ' NEVER SOMETIMES OFTEN VERY OFTEN 8. Does not do things that other members of the family I ask him/her to do. j 9. Gets people to do things that he/she could do on his/ her own. EXAMPLE; "Please 'write this letter for me", "Could you please get my sweater out of my room for me"? etc. | j j j 10. Is destructive towards things i n and around the house. EXAMPLE; kicks doors when mad, throws things around when mad. j ] | 11. Makes loud and i r r i t a t i n g noises around the house. EXAMPLE; taps the dinner table with a spoon for a long time, makes funny noises with his mouth, etc. j j | 12. Makes fun of other mem-bers of the family. EXAMPLE; "You're dumb", "I think you should go on a diet", etc. __ j | 13. Ignores others i n the family when they talk to him/her. j | J 14. Tends to give you the feeling that he/she wants to be l e f t alone. EXAMPLE; Doesn't answer your question, gives a short snappy answer to your question, etc. j | - 1 1 5 -BEHAVIOUR DESCRIPTION NEVER SOMETIMES OFTEN VERY OFTEN 15. Strikes other family members so as to hurt or punish them. 16. Touches other family members i n a warm and friendly manner. EXAMPLE; hugs you, puts his/ her arm on your shoulders to show love or affection, etc. 17. Swears about things or at other members of the family. EXAMPLE; "Go to hell", "Leave that bloody thing alone", and much worse 18. Teases other members of the family. EXAMPLE; disturbs you a l l the time, calls you names a l l the time, etc. 19. Talks i n a whiny voice sounding lik e complaining or being dissatisfied. 20. Yells or screams loudly at other members of the family. 21. Plays with other members of the family. EXAMPLE; plays games with them. 22. Does things for other members of the family that they could do themselves. EXAMPLE; gets something for somebody who could get i t him/herself. 23. Does not do things that other members of the family ask him/her to do. - 116 -PROBLEM CHECKLIST This checklist i s to be f i l l e d out by , on the behaviour of Please read the following 30 behaviour descriptions and place a check mark (»0 i n the columns headed YES and NO, depending upon whether or not the behaviour describes your teenager. Place a check mark (\/) i n the YES column i f your teenager does the behaviour on the average of once or more than once per week, and place a check mark (\/) i n the NO column i f your teenager does not do the behaviour at least once per week. THINK OF A TYPICAL WEEK, AND ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ABOUT . BEHAVIOUR DESCRIPTION YES NO 1. Does he/she come home i n the evening at a time later than you and he/she had agreed upon? 2. Does he/she complain about your meals? 3. Does he/she skip school? 4. Does he/she throw temper tan-trums to get what he/she wants? 5. Does he/she beat up on his/her younger brothers or sisters? 6. Does he/she come home late for supper? 7. Does he/she try to get.your attention whenever you're busy doing something 8. Does he/she f a i l to do his/her chores? 9. Does he/she refuse to go to bed i n the evening? - 117 -YES 10. Does he/she have trouble getting out of bed i n the morning? 11. Does he/she stay away from school? 12. Does he/she bring home a lot of kids who make a lot of noise i n your home? 13. Dees he/she act helpless so that you end up helping him/her? 14. Does he/she ignore you when you talk to him/her? 15. Does he/she throw his/her clothes a l l over the place? 16. Does he/she destroy things around the house? 17. Does he/she shoplift l i t t l e things from stores? 18. Does he/she swear a lot? 19. Does he/she f a i l to clean up his/her room? 20. Does he/she c r i t i c i z e what you say? 21. Does he/she f a i l to answer you when you ask him/her a question? 22. Does he/she f a i l to do his/her homework? 23. Does he/she f a i l to take the garbage out when you ask him/her? 24. Does he/she l i e to you? 25. Does he/she f a i l to keep himself/ herself clean? 26. Does he/she argue with you? - 118 -YES NO 27. Does he/she f a i l to make his/ her bed? 28. Does he/she refuse to help with the dishes? 29. Does he/she want a job and i s not doing anything about i t ? 30. Does he/she f a i l to clean up after himself/herself? 

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.831.1-0053808/manifest

Comment

Related Items