Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Hyperactive behavior in relation to children’s perceptions of teacher’s classroom behavior 1981

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1981_A8 P48.pdf
UBC_1981_A8 P48.pdf
UBC_1981_A8 P48.pdf [ 6.24MB ]
UBC_1981_A8 P48.pdf
Metadata
JSON: 1.0054325.json
JSON-LD: 1.0054325+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0054325.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0054325+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0054325+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0054325+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0054325.ris

Full Text

HYPERACTIVE BEHAVIOR IN RELATION TO CHILDREN'S PERCEPTIONS OF TEACHER'S CLASSROOM BEHAVIOR By DENNIS WAYNE PETER B.A., The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1970 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN THE REQUIREMENTS MASTER PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF FOR THE DEGREE OF OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of Counselling Psychology We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August, 1981 (c) Dennis Wayne Peter, 19 81 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e for reference and study. I further for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by h i s or her representatives. I t i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis Department of The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 D F - 6 (2/79) ABSTRACT This study sought to investigate the relationship be- tween hyperactive behavior and children's perceptions of teachers. P a r t i c u l a r attention was paid to two aspects of teacher behavior — acceptance and demand. An extensive l i t e r a t u r e review supported the p o s i t i o n of viewing hyperactive behavior from an i n t e r a c t i o n a l perspective. In t h i s study the context was the teacher-child i n t e r a c t i o n within the classroom as viewed by the c h i l d . The l i t e r a t u r e also indicated that children's behavior i s affected by t h e i r perceptions of adult behavior. This study sought to examine thi s view i n greater d e t a i l . The sample consisted of 4 7 grade four boys and 45 grade f i v e boys from eight regular classrooms i n two schools, located in a major urban center i n the i n t e r i o r of B r i t i s h Columbia. Children's perceptions of acceptance and demand of t h e i r teacher's behavior were measured by administering a p a r t i a l form of the Teacher Behavior Questionnaire to classroom groups. Observed levels of hyperactive behavior were measured by having subjects' teachers complete the Conner's Abbreviated Question- naire for each boy. Using c o r r e l a t i o n a l analyses, hyperactive behavior was found to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to both variables i n the directions of less perceived acceptance and greater perceived demand. Hyperactive behavior ratings allowed for a retrospec- t i v e l y i d e n t i f i e d teacher-rated hyperactive group and a teacher- rated non-hyperactive group. On group comparison measures, hyperactive boys perceived s i g n i f i c a n t l y less acceptance and greater demand than t h e i r non-hyperactive peers. In conclusion, hyperactive children perceive teacher be- havior as less accepting and more demanding than t h e i r non- hyperactive peers. The variable of perceived acceptance appears more c r i t i c a l to pds i t i v e teacher-child i n t e r a c t i o n than the demand variable. Individual teacher differences and c u l t u r a l factors also appeared operative. i v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express my gratitude to the chairman of my com- mittee, Dr. J. Allan and to the other members, Dr. H. Ratzlaff and Dr. D. Der for t h e i r willingness to help and t h e i r encour- agement. To the children, teachers and p r i n c i p a l s who very kindly became involved i n t h i s research, I am gra t e f u l . My deepest appreciation must be expressed to my wife, Karen, for her patience, l o y a l t y and constant support during the many hours spent on t h i s project. She kept Nathan and David company while I was away and maintained our home as a restorative center. I thank God for His amazing world and for the miracle of people. V TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i v TABLE OF CONTENTS - V LIST OF TABLES v i i i : Chapter I. SCOPE AND FOCUS OF THE STUDY 1 Background of the Study 1 Purposes of the Study 6 Statement of the Problem 7 Def i n i t i o n of Terms 7 Research Questions and Rationale 9 Assumptions Underlying t h i s Research 10 Delimitations of the Study 10 J u s t i f i c a t i o n of the Study 11 II . REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 13 Behavioral View of Hyperactivity Operational D e f i n i t i o n 13 Hyperactive Children: Homogeneous or Heterogeneous Group? 17 One Focus: A Behavioral D e f i n i t i o n of Hyperactivity 18 Models of Hyperactivity: Etiology 19 The Interactional Model The Interactional Position 20 Hyperactivity as a Reaction 2 3 Prevalence of Hyperactivity and Male-Female Ratio 25 Developing a Position: Behavioral, Interactional 27 Facets of Interactional Position 28 Si t u a t i o n a l Aspects of Hyperactivity 30 Soc i a l Aspects 32 Importance of Soc i a l Aspects: Follow-Up Studies 35 Interaction: Adult-Child 39 Families with Hyperactive Children 42 Hyperactivity and Anger 43 Hyperactivity and the S o c i a l Emotional Climate 44 Hyperactivity and Reactive Depression 46 v i Chapter Page Parent-Child and Teacher-Child Dynamics Parent-Child Dynamics Generalizing to Teacher-Child Interaction . 49 Teacher-Child Interaction. 53 Teacher-Child Interaction: Setting Related and Task Related Factors 5 8 Children's Perceptions Acceptance as a C r i t i c a l Factor 61 Interpersonal Perceptions 6 3 Importance and Need for Determining Children's Perceptions 6 3 V a l i d i t y of Children's Perceptions 66 V a l i d i t y of Hyperactive Child's Perceptions 6 7 Conclusion 69 III . METHODOLOGY 70 Population and Sampling Procedures 70 Description of Measuring Instruments 72 The Conner's Abbreviated Teacher Questionnaire . 72 Teacher Behavior Questionnaire 76 Nature of the Inventory's Measurement Scales 81 Design and Data Co l l e c t i o n Procedures 82 S t a t i s t i c a l Analyses 84 IV. RESULTS 85 The Relationship Between Hyperactive Behavior and Perceived Acceptance (Question 1) 85 The Relationship Between Hyperactive Behavior and Perceived Demand (Question 2) 87 The Relationship Between Perceived Acceptance and Perceived Demand (Question 3) .89 Comparing Grade Four Boys with Grade Five Boys 91 Comparing Teacher-rated Hyperactive and Teacher-rated Non-hyperactive Boys 93 Additional Analyses 9 7 Chapter Page V. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS 102 The Relationship Between Hyperactive Behavior and Perceived Acceptance 102 The Relationship Between Hyperactive Behavior and Perceived Demand 105 The Relationship Between Perceived Acceptance and Perceived Demand 107 Comparing Grade Four Boys with Grade Five Boys 109 Comparing Teacher-rated Hyperactive and Teacher-rated Non-Hyperactive Boys.., 110 Additional Analyses 113 Summary, Conclusions and Suggestions for Further Research 115 REFERENCES 119 APPENDICES A. Teacher Inventory 126 B. Children's Inventory 12 7 v i i i LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. L i s t of Stimulus Items for the P a r t i a l Teacher Behavior Questionnaire (Children's Inventory) 78 2. A L i s t of the Test Variables and Their Abbreviations 86 3. Pearson Product-Moment Correlations Between BEHAVE and ACCEPT Variables 87 4. Pearson Product-Moment Correlations Between BEHAVE AND DEMAND Variables 88 5. Pearson Product-Moment Correlations Among ACCEPT and DEMAND Variables 89 6. Means, Standard Deviations and Pearson Product-Moment Correlations Among the Variables BEHAVE, TOT ACCEPT and TOT DEMAND 91 7. Means, Standard Deviations and t Values Comparing Grade Four and Grade Five Boys on the Variables BEHAVE, TOT ACCEPT and TOT DEMAND...92 8. Means, Standard Deviations and t Values Comparing Hyperactive and Non-hyperactive Boys i n Grade Four and Five on the Variables BEHAVE, SERIOUS, ACCEPT, and DEMAND 95 9. One-Way Analysis of Variance Attributable to Classroom Differences 97 10. Di s t r i b u t i o n of Hyperactive and Non-hyperactive Boys Between Schools 99 11. Means, Standard Deviations and t Values Comparing School Differences on the Variables BEHAVE, ACCEPT and DEMAND 100 12. Cultural D i s t r i b u t i o n Across Schools 101 1 CHAPTER I Scope and Focus of the Study Background of the Study Hyperactive behavior of children has been i d e n t i f i e d as the most common childhood behavior disorder presented to doctors, p s y c h i a t r i s t s , teachers, and other related profes- sionals, not to mention parents (Ney, 1974; Weiss and Hechtman, 1979). Laufer et a l . (1956) are credited often for coining the l a b e l "hyperkinetic impulse disorder" and although t h e i r category i s being o f f i c i a l l y revised as we enter /the 1980's (Loney, 1980), i t s behavioral features have remained amazingly constant. Problems i n defining hyperactivity as a c l i n i c a l e n t i t y (Loney, 1980) or i n i s o l a t i n g a homogeneous group of t r u l y "hyperactive" children (Langhorne and Loney, 1980; Ney, 1974, Sandberg et a l . , 1978) has led to the often noted research methodology of o b s e r v e r - i d e n t i f i c a t i o n (Keith, 1974) of the most commonly agreed upon symptoms. These include: excessive physical restlessness, short attention span, impulsivity, low f r u s t r a t i o n tolerance, and emotional l a b i l i t y . A further noteworthy d i r e c t i o n points to the informant describing the hyperactive behavior as being most s i g n i f i c a n t (Langhorne et a l . , 1976). The p r o l i f e r a t i o n of l i t e r a t u r e investigating hyper- a c t i v i t y i s dominated by the search for etiology (Varga, 1979) 2 which has resulted i n three major perspectives on the problem. Hyperactivity was f i r s t viewed as an a t t r i b u t e of the i n d i - vidual while l a t e r studies pointed to the c h i l d ' s environment and role i n i t as being causative. More recent research posits an interaction between the child ' s environment and the ch i l d ' s physio-psychological status (Lambert et a l . , 1978). Recently, much emphasis has been given to the interac- t i o n a l model of hyperactivity as having the most promise of achieving better understanding of t h i s problem (Stephenson, 1975; Thomas, 1976; Weiss and Hechtman, 1979). One trend of research c l o s e l y related to t h i s perspective views hyperac- t i v i t y as a reaction by the c h i l d to subtle but powerful environmental dynamics (Hembling, 1978, 1980; Marwit and Stenner, 1972; Ney, 1974). These dynamics are operative at home and at school as the present investigation w i l l explore. Studies of incidence (Firestone and Martin, 1979; Lambert et a l . , 1978; Stephenson, 1975) and studies of prevalence i n d i - cators demonstrate a predominantly higher male to female r a t i o of hyperactive behavior (Ney, 1974). Another facet of the i n t e r a c t i o n a l p o s i t i o n points to the s i t u a t i o n a l s p e c i f i c i t y of the hyperactive behavior and the need to examine the c h i l d and the s i t u a t i o n simultaneously (Conrad, 1977; Langhorne and Loney, 1976; Loney, 1980; Wahler, 1969; Whalen et a l . , 1978). Studies focusing on " s i t u a t i o n a l hyperactivity" and, more'specifically, the related s o c i a l aspects of th i s d i f f i c u l t y emphasize the s o c i a l inappropriate- 3 ness (Firestone and Martin, 19 79), the s o c i a l disadvantage (Sandberg et a l . , 19 80), and the a d u l t - c h i l d relationships (Routh, 1978 i n Whalen and Henker, 1980) as being closely related to hyperactive behavior. The importance of i n v e s t i - gating the s o c i a l aspects of t h i s problem i s also emphasized most dramatically by the follow-up studies of hyperactive children (Ackerman et a l . , 1977; Cantwell, 1978; Morrison, 1980; Weiss et a l . , 1979) which demonstrate rather convinc- ingly that despite the best e f f o r t s at diagnosis and treatment, th i s i s a l i f e - l o n g disorder (Barkley, 1978). A recurring theme, also evident i n the follow-up studies, i s the hyperactive chil d ' s relationship d i f f i c u l t i e s with authority figures. Studies focusing on the interactions be- tween parents and hyperactive children ( B e l l , 196 8; B e l l and Harper, 1977; Cunningham and Barkley, 1979; Stevens-Long, 1973) point to a s p i r a l of negative i n t e r a c t i o n characterized by high l e v e l expressions of annoyance, anger, and control by the parent with correspondingly l i t t l e change i n the c h i l d ' s behavior. Other investigators have found s i m i l a r dynamics at work i n families with hyperactive children (Barkley, 19 78; Hembling, 1978; Ney, 1974). Inadequate management of anger within families has also been related to hyperactive behavior in children by Randall and Lomas (1978) and M i l l e r (1977) and the present author postulates t h i s as a s i g n i f i c a n t teacher- c h i l d dynamic within the classroom. Anger i s an obvious contributor to perceived acceptance 4 or r e j e c t i o n and t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n has been shown to be opera- t i v e i n studies examining hyperactivity as a reaction to a "social-emotional climate" (Ackerman et a l . , 1977; Ackerman et a l . , 1979; Sandberg et a l . , 1980). A wealth of evidence supporting hyperactivity as a reaction to a p a r t i c u l a r " s o c i a l - emotional climate" i s found i n the r e l a t i v e l y young d i s c i p l i n e of c h i l d psychiatry (Neubauer, 1974). In p a r t i c u l a r , several researchers (Hembling, 1978; M i l l e r , 1977; Weinberg et a l . , 1973; Yahraes, 1978; Z r u l l et a l . , 1978) demonstrate convinc- ingly that hyperactivity i s a common symptom of a reactive type of childhood depression which i s best understood as an inte r a c t i o n within a parent-child r e l a t i o n s h i p . The mis- management of anger within t h i s relationship eventually finds expression through the child' s hyperactive behavior. The present study assumes that the parent-child dynamics generalize to the teacher-child r e l a t i o n s h i p . Cox (1972), Toman (19 76), and Van Kaam (1977), likewise support the premise that the c h i l d w i l l perceive the teacher as a surro- gate parent and consequently w i l l bring to the classroom a unique perceptual set that influences greatly the teacher- c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n . Studies of the interactions of teachers and hyperactive children have been mainly observational i n methodology and have shown how the behavior of these children i s t y p i c a l l y i n c o n f l i c t with classroom routines and i s p a r t i c u l a r l y challenging for the classroom teacher (Ackerman et a l . , 1977; 5 Bowers, 1978; Conrad, 1977; Kl e i n and Young, 1979; Z e n t a l l , 1980). The one study, discovered i n a thorough l i t e r a t u r e search, which explored the teacher-child r e l a t i o n s h i p from the hyperactive chil d ' s point of view (Loney et a l . , 1976), supported the c h i l d ' s unique and d i f f e r e n t perception as proposed i n the present study. Further studies of hyperac- t i v e children i n various settings involved i n varying tasks (Flynn and Rapoport, 1976; Jacob et a l . , 1978; Steinkamp, 1980; Whalen et a l . , 1979) add more weight to the rather inflammatory dynamics of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the teacher and the hyperactively behaving c h i l d . Ackerman et a l . (1977), Cunningham and Barkley (1979), Loney et a l . (1976), Morrison (1980), P h i l i p s (1979), and Z r u l l et a l . (1970) a l l lend more d i r e c t support for examining the degree of acceptance and the degree of demand perceived from the parent and the teacher by the c h i l d displaying varying l e v e l s of hyperactive behavior. The need and importance for determining children's percep- tions of the behavior of s i g n i f i c a n t adults i s based on the well established p r i n c i p l e which states how parent behavior affects the c h i l d ' s development only to the extent i n which the c h i l d perceives i t . That the c h i l d ' s less experienced and less devious responses seem l i k e l y to be more accurate than the ratings by parents, teachers, or observers has been amply demonstrated by researchers (Ausubel, 1954; Gecas et a l . , 1970; Hembling, 1980; Loney et a l . , 1976; Rohner et a l . , 1980; Schaefer, 1965; Woyshner, 1979). The v a l i d i t y of children's 6 perceptions as being r e l i a b l e sources of information about the behaviors of others has been further studied and supported (Campbell and Paulauskas, 1979; Lefkowitz and Tesiny, 1980; Whalen et a l . , 1979) and, the v a l i d i t y of hyperactive c h i l ^ dren's perceptions has also been well documented (Ackerman et a l . , 1979; Baxley et a l . , 1978; Campbell and Paulauskas, 1979; Loney, 1974; Paulauskas and Campbell, 1979). Purposes of the Study Previous research on hyperactive children has been charac- te r i z e d by a focus on the c h i l d ' s d e f i c i t s , using c l i n i c a l populations, and by searching for etiology. No hyperactive c l i n i c a l e n t i t y or homogeneous subgroup has been isol a t e d and a prominent current thrust uses s t r i c t l y behavioral defining c r i t e r i a such as the Abbreviated Conners Teacher Questionnaire, hereafter referred to as Teacher Inventory (see Chapter I I I ) . Another recent trend has been to explore the s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n a l aspects of t h i s problem by using mainly observational methods to understand the hyperactively behaving c h i l d . The v a l i d i t y and importance of the c h i l d ' s point of view has been well documented although scant attention has been given to the perceptions of the c h i l d who behaves i n a hyperactive manner. A purpose of t h i s study was to gather information on the c h i l d ' s perception of two c r i t i c a l dimensions of teacher behavior (acceptance and demand), i n a sample of boys enrolled i n regu- l a r educational programs. 7 Children with behavior problems resembling the t r a d i - t i o n a l pattern of hyperactive behavior may be reacting to t h e i r experience of a p a r t i c u l a r type of social-emotional climate. Boys i n p a r t i c u l a r have been shown to receive higher l e v e l s of disapproval and control from parents and teachers, e s p e c i a l l y boys with behavior problems. A second purpose of t h i s study was to compare the extent to which boys, rated by teachers as displaying varying lev e l s of behavior attributed to hyper- a c t i v i t y , d i f f e r e d i n t h e i r perceptions of teacher behavior. Statement of the Problem The present study measured the levels of observed behav- ior s attributed to hyperactivity of boys i n grades four and f i v e by means of a teacher questionnaire. The boys' percep- tions of teacher behavior were then assessed with the use of a s e l f - r e p o r t questionnaire i n order to investigate the r e l a - tionship these variables have with lev e l s of behavior attributed to hyperactivity. D e f i n i t i o n of Terms . Operational d e f i n i t i o n s of terms c r i t i c a l to t h i s study follow. 1. Hyperactive behavior and other related terms, for the purposes of t h i s investigation, r e f e r to the commonly agreed upon behavioral"patterns associated with the hyperactive c h i l d (physical restlessness, short attention span, impulsivity, 8 low f r u s t r a t i o n t o l e r a n c e , and emotional l a b i l i t y ) . The Teacher Inventory (Conners, 1969; 1973) w i l l be employed i n the p r e s e n t study to assess the l e v e l of h y p e r a c t i v e behavior i n s u b j e c t s . 2. P e r c e p t i o n ( s ) i s used i n a p s y c h o l o g i c a l sense r a t h e r than a p h y s i o l o g i c a l sense where the concern would be on the mech- anisms and processes i n v o l v e d . The c h i l d ' s p e r c e p t i o n r e f e r r e d to i n t h i s study i n c l u d e s the p e r s o n a l meaning a p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n has as he experiences i t . T h i s p e r c e p t i o n i n c l u d e s t h i n k i n g and f e e l i n g f u n c t i o n s as w e l l as conscious and uncon- s c i o u s p r o c e s s e s . The c h i l d ' s p e r c e p t i o n of teacher behavior w i l l be assessed u s i n g the Teacher Behavior Q u e s t i o n n a i r e , h e r e a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o as C h i l d r e n ' s Inventory (see Chapter I I I ) . 3. Acceptance, as used i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , r e f e r s to a degree of p e r s o n a l experience or meaning f o r a c h i l d r e s u l t i n g from h i s / h e r p e r c e p t i o n s o f . t h e behavior of s i g n i f i c a n t o t h e r s . Acceptance i s being used i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y f o r " l o v i n g " i n t h i s study and was measured by a c l u s t e r of f i v e v a r i a b l e s on the C h i l d r e n ' s I n v e n t o r y . ( n u r t u r a n c e , a f f e c t i v e reward, i n s t r u m e n t a l companionship, a f f i l i a t i v e companionship and p r i n c i p l e d d i s c i - p l i n e ) . 4 . Demand may be most e a s i l y understood as the degree of e x p e c t a t i o n from others which i s p e r c e i v e d by the c h i l d . For purposes of t h i s study i t was assessed by combining ( p r e s c r i p - t i v e , power, achievement demands, and indulgence) from the C h i l d r e n ' s Inventory. 9 Research Questions and Rationale The following research questions were investigated i n the present study: 1. Is there a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between observed l e v e l s of hyperactive behavior (measured by the Teacher Inventory) and perceptions of acceptance (measured by the "loving" dimen- sion of the Children's Inventory)? 2. Is there a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between observed l e v e l s of hyperactive behavior and perceptions of demand (measured by the "demanding" dimension of the Children's Inventory)? 3. Is there a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between perceived acceptance (measured by the "loving" dimension of the C h i l - dren's Inventory) and perceived demand (measured by the "demanding" dimension of the Children's Inventory)? These research questions arose from some previous personal observations by the researcher and from an extensive explora- t i o n of other studies and related theory. As noted i n the "background of the study", several prominent researchers have recently pointed to the need for examining the s o c i a l aspects of hyperactive behavior while others have noted the importance of the a d u l t - c h i l d r e l a t i o n s h i p as a powerful influence on th i s behavior. In studying the ad u l t - c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n dynam- i c s , some investigators have stressed the need for understanding the c h i l d ' s perceptions of the behavior of parents and teachers as s i g n i f i c a n t adults, since t h i s personal experience has proven to be a great influence on children's behavior, i f not 10 a d e t e r m i n a n t . C h i l d r e n ' s e x p e r i e n c e s o f a n g e r , h o s t i l i t y and f r u s t r a t i o n f rom s i g n i f i c a n t a d u l t s , who a l s o e x e r c i s e h i g h e r l e v e l s o f c o n t r o l o v e r them and demand t o w a r d them, has been c l o s e l y l i n k e d t o h y p e r a c t i v e b e h a v i o r i n t h e c h i l d . However , t o d a t e t h e r e i s s c a n t r e s e a r c h i n v e s t i g a t i n g t h i s dynamic f rom t h e c h i l d ' s p o i n t o f v i e w . T h i s s t u d y was d e s i g n e d t o e x p l o r e some c r i t i c a l a s p e c t s o f t h i s n e g l e c t e d a r e a o f r e s e a r c h . A s s u m p t i o n s U n d e r l y i n g t h i s R e s e a r c h T e a c h e r s were a s k e d t o a s c r i b e l e v e l s o f b e h a v i o r t o boys i n t h e i r c l a s s r o o m s based on t h e i r own o b s e r v a t i o n s o f t h e c h i l d r e n d u r i n g t h e s c h o o l y e a r . M a l e s u b j e c t s were c h o s e n o v e r f e m a l e s because o f t h e h i g h e r i n c i d e n c e o f h y p e r a c t i v e boys and on t h e b a s i s o f t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t o b s e r v a b l e b e h a v - i o r p r o b l e m s w i l l be shown t o v a r y i n degree and f r e q u e n c y w i t h i n any g i v e n c l a s s r o o m g r o u p i n g o f b o y s . A s i m i l a r assump- t i o n was made r e g a r d i n g t h e v a r y i n g l e v e l s o f p e r c e i v e d a c c e p t a n c e and p e r c e i v e d demand. I t was a l s o assumed t h a t s u b j e c t s were c a p a b l e o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s and i t e m s o f t h e i n v e n t o r y w i t h o u t d i f f i c u l t y . D e l i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e S t u d y T h i s r e s e a r c h f o c u s e d on boys i n g r a d e s f o u r and f i v e w i t h an age r ange f rom 8.42 y e a r s t o 12.83 y e a r s . These s u b j e c t s were a t t e n d i n g r e g u l a r c l a s s e s i n two e l e m e n t a r y 11 schools located i n a large urban center i n the i n t e r i o r of B r i t i s h Columbia which contains a broad range of family- patterns, c u l t u r a l groups, and socioeconomic st r a t a . These schools were situated i n r e s i d e n t i a l areas which included several c u l t u r a l groups and various family types. J u s t i f i c a t i o n of the Study;. •: Research investigating hyperactive behavior/has only recently s h i f t e d emphasis towards the s o c i a l - s i t u a t i o n a l aspects of the ch i l d ' s d i f f i c u l t y . With very l i t t l e excep- t i o n , these studies have r e l i e d on understanding these behav- ior s through ratings by teachers, parents, doctors and other professionals using a vari e t y of observational techniques. As suggested by some investigators, and carr i e d out by only one or two, the perceptions of the children themselves needs further exploration. Since children's perceptions are v a l i d sources of data, and since the child' s perception of the behavior of s i g n i f i c a n t others influences that c h i l d ' s behavior, greater understanding of t h i s dynamic within the classroom setting may provide valu- able i n s i g h t for the teacher. One recurring source of concern and demand on the teacher's resources l i e s i n managing e f f e c - t i v e l y those children, often boys, who display varying behaviors which can be p a r t i c u l a r l y problematic. A l l children have a unique way of seeing the world and some children bring i n t o the classroom a set of "negative" perceptions of others. 12 Children generally believe that t h e i r perceptions are true, and i t i s therefore c r i t i c a l that teachers be able to accurately assess the children's perceptions of t h e i r behavior. With t h i s enhanced awareness teachers w i l l be better able to correct these faulty assumptions and re d i r e c t children's behavior. Classroom strategies d i r e c t l y aimed at both a l t e r i n g children's fa u l t y perceptions and r e i n f o r c i n g more accurate perceptions would include s p e c i f i c verbal and non-verbal s t r a t - egies from the teacher who i s seen by the c h i l d as a s i g n i f i - cant adult. This focus of research on hyperactive behavior i s very new with only a scant amount of information av a i l a b l e . A few investigators have suggested such a d i r e c t i o n and the present study w i l l attempt to shed further l i g h t on t h i s current topic. 13 CHAPTER II Review of Related Literature The l i t e r a t u r e relevant to this study i s presented i n a developmental sequence and may be c l a s s i f i e d under four general areas, each having subdivisions. The f i r s t area develops a model for viewing hyperactivity i n a behavioral manner. The i n t e r a c t i o n a l position i s then elaborated from various vantage points followed by an examination of parent-child and teacher- c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n . Establishing the need for determining key aspects of children's perceptions and t h e i r v a l i d i t y rounds out the review. Behavioral View of Hyperactivity Operational D e f i n i t i o n The hyperactive c h i l d has been c a l l e d so many d i f f e r e n t names by lay people and professionals alike that several promi- nent researchers corr e c t l y i d e n t i f y t h i s syndrome as probably the most common behavior disorder of children (Weiss and Hechtman, 19 79). These authors further i d e n t i f y a behavior description which found i t s way into popular c l a s s i c a l l i t e r a t u r e for c h i l - dren i n several countries. They c i t e Stewart who quoted an English t r a n s l a t i o n of a popular German tale "Struwel Peter" by Hoffman: Fidgety P h i l He won't s i t s t i l l He wiggles He giggles..." and when t o l d o f f : The naughty res t l e s s c h i l d Grows s t i l l more rude and wild. (p. 1348) 14 Laufer et a l . (1956) are often c i t e d as being the f i r s t investigators to l a b e l t h i s problem as "hyperkinetic impulse disorder" of childhood. They also described i t s main features of i r r i t a b i l i t y , low f r u s t r a t i o n tolerance, poor schoolwork, and visual-motor d i f f i c u l t i e s . These t y p i c a l l y , c h a r a c t e r i s t i c behaviors have proven to be accurate descriptors over time as noted by another prominent researcher i n t h i s f i e l d (Loney, 1980) . One might ac t u a l l y say that Laufer 1s 22-year-old hyper- k i n e t i c impulse disorder w i l l expire just a f t e r reaching i t s maturity, because as we enter the 1980's the Diag- nostic and S t a t i s t i c a l Manual of the American Psyc h i a t r i c Association w i l l be replacing the diagnostic category of Hyperkinetic Reaction of Childhood (DSM-II) with the category Attention D e f i c i t Disorder with Hyperactivity (DSM-III). (p. 30) Although Loney goes on to sound a note of optimism and encour- agement for t h i s recent s h i f t i n focus, the complexities inherent i n any i n v e s t i g a t i o n of t h i s problem of childhood are enormous. Levine and Oberklaid (1980) demonstrate t h i s v i v i d l y i n a recent study which surveyed ten previous retrospective and follow-up reports. Those studies surveyed included several i n f l u e n t i a l researchers who suggested that children i d e n t i f i e d as "hyperactive" are at r i s k for a wide range of d i f f i c u l t i e s as adolescents and as adults. In attempting to match the symptoms emphasized and other diagnostic c r i t e r i a used i n sample selections with the most recent categorial d e f i n i t i o n of t h i s disorder (DSM-III), Levine, and Oberklaid state: 15 "recently there has been considerable i n t e r e s t i n the term attention d e f i c i t disorder. This too may turn out to be an overly i n c l u s i v e categorization" (p. 412). They go on to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between children with primary attention d e f i c i t , secondary attention d e f i c i t , s i t u a t i o n a l inattention and mixed forms of chronic attention d e f i c i t . Further, they describe possible sub-groups within each category and then conclude by saying: As a c l i n i c a l phenomenon, i t i s u n l i k e l y ever to become e t i o l o g i c a l l y and therapeutically s p e c i f i c . I t should be conceptualized as a v i t a l subject area for develop- mental ped i a t r i c s (and other d i s c i p l i n e s ) rather than a c l e a r l y definable syndrome. I t i s l i k e l y that "hyper- a c t i v i t y " i s both a complex symptom and a complex symptom complex. We prefer not to use the term! (p. 413) Other problems i n defining "hyperactivity" are noted by Loney (1980) i n her extensive review. She points to the tendency i n studies of hyperactivity to consider the syndrome to be v a l i d and present only i f i t i s displayed uniformly and r e l i a b l y and yet a prevalent c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of hyperactivity noted i n the l i t e r a t u r e i s i t s u n p r e d i c t a b i l i t y . Loney (1980) notes another tendency which surfaces r e s u l t i n g from "those who believe that the l a b e l i s misapplied to normally exuberant and l i v e l y youngsters by' hyperrepressive and hyperannoyable parents" (p. 29). Although Loney's contention that l i t t l e data exists to support or refute t h i s b e l i e f i s v a l i d , Keith (1974) points out that the hyperactive c h i l d i s t y p i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d by observers: who are subject to errors of judgement; who may expect the c h i l d to f u l f i l l t h e i r needs; or who may be 16 influenced by others' s t o r i e s of the c h i l d ' s history or present functioning. In reviewing some of the measures which have been employed s p e c i f i c a l l y to assess a c t i v i t y l e v e l s i n the classroom, Bowers (1978) summarized quite succintly, that: A fundamental problem i n attempting to provide a measure of hyperactivity l i e s i n finding an acceptable behavioral d e f i n i t i o n of the term. The vagueness, disagreement and s u b j e c t i v i t y involved have been highlighted by Buddenhagen and S i c k l e r (1969) who conclude: 'It i s our impression that hyperactivity describes those aspects of a person's behavior which annoy the observer'. (p. 540) To add to the confusion, at l e a s t 37 d i f f e r e n t labels have been applied to overactive behavior manifested i n childhood (DeLong, 1972): Terms such as hyperkinesis, hyperkinetic impulse disorder, hypermobility neurosis, postencephalitic behavior d i s - order, organic driveness and minimal brain dysfunction, while r e f l e c t i n g d i f f e r i n g views of etiology and recom- mended treatment, in e v i t a b l y overlap and have come to be used almost interchangablyj' (p. 412) However, Weiss and Hechtman (197 9). note that "in spite of the diverse terminology there i s a remarkable s i m i l a r i t y i n the c l i n i c a l description of the syndrome, and DSM III defines operational c r i t e r i a for the diagnosis" (p. 1348). The most commonly observed and agreed upon symptoms would include; excessive general hyperactivity (physical restlessness), d i f f i c u l t y i n sustaining attention, impulsive behavior (as manifested by sloppy work, speaking out, interrupting, d i f f i - c u lty waiting, f i g h t i n g because of low f r u s t r a t i o n tolerance), poor f r u s t r a t i o n tolerance, and emotional l a b i l i t y . Two other important q u a l i f i e r s would include these symptoms being 17 s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the norm for age i n q u a l i t y and quantity and that the duration be at l e a s t one year. I t should be noted here that i n view of the confusing s i t u a t i o n evident i n the l i t e r a t u r e t h i s study used the term "hyperactive" and i d e n t i f i e d children by s t r i c t l y behavioral c r i t e r i a . Hyperactive Children: Homogeneous or Heterogeneous Group? Another focus i n the l i t e r a t u r e worth noting, along with i t s present outcomes, has been the e f f o r t s by researchers such as Langhorne and Loney (1979), Ney (1974), and Sandberg et a l . (1978) to delineate a group of children who could be c a l l e d hyperactive and who would behave and respond consistently. As alluded to e a r l i e r , and as stated very c l e a r l y by Loney (1980) that "despite decades of searching, however, no such homogeneous group i s presently known to e x i s t " (p. 30). She emphasizes further how " i t i s c l e a r that the syndrome i s not monolithic and that children who are said to have the syndrome are a hetereogeneous group i n etiology, symptoms and course" (p. 34). To paint a picture even more p e s s i m i s t i c a l l y i n t h i s regard Langhorne and Loney (1979) point out that even though six of t h e i r reviewed researchers have suggested sub- groups based on t h e i r c l i n i c a l experiences, these categories, have not been supported empirically. They further note two other studies which have had s i m i l a r l y disappointing r e s u l t s using multivariate s t a t i s t i c a l techniques i n attempting to i s o l a t e clusters of symptoms. A previous attempt by Langhorne 18 et a l . (19 76) used factor analytic methods on measures of the most widely agreed upon core symptoms of hyperkinesis i n a group of 94 boys seen at a c h i l d psychiatry c l i n i c between 1967 and 1972. It was noted that the three stable factors accountin for 64% of the variance were defined mainly by variables from a p a r t i c u l a r source of information such as p s y c h i a t r i s t , chart- rater, teacher or parent, rather than symptom-related variables They then conclude with the somewhat surprising r e s u l t that "instead, the outcome of t h i s study, which was designed to maximize the p o s s i b i l i t y of obtaining a single syndrome clu s t e r i s e s s e n t i a l l y the same as previous analyses of presumably more heterogeneous c o l l e c t i o n s of MBD symptoms" (p. 206). This b r i e f review of the more extensive attempts to delineate a homogeneous subgroup of hyperactive children i s not included to demonstrate the f u t i l i t y of such endeavors, but rather to indicate a strong thrust of previous research on hyperactivity and to emphasize some important assumptions of the present study. One Focus: A Behavioral D e f i n i t i o n of Hyperactivity The f i r s t p o s ition taken here, which finds support i n the previously mentioned studies, i s that a behavioral d e f i n i t i o n of the hyperactive syndrome i s a v a l i d basis for i d e n t i f y i n g children manifesting these hyperactive behaviors. In fact, t h i s i s the d i r e c t i o n taken by the more recent studies on t h i s problem. Another aspect of t h i s study which finds support i n 19 the l i t e r a t u r e involves the teacher rating children on the l e v e l of various t y p i c a l behaviors since the teacher i s one c r i t i c a l source factor as mentioned by Langhorne et a l . (1976). F i n a l l y , these studies also indicate one clear example of the search for etiology which dominates the l i t e r a t u r e . Varga (1979) notes how "the l i t e r a t u r e i s replete with a variety of attempts to explain the origins of hyperactivity" (p. 414). Models of Hyperactivity: Etiology These views of etiology have been summarized b r i e f l y and comprehensively by Lambert et a l . (1978) i n terms of three models of hyperactivity. The f i r s t model sees the condition as an attribute of the i n d i v i d u a l and posits some organic, neurological or metabolic d e f i c i t . The s o c i a l system model blends s o c i o l o g i c a l and anthropological perspectives by stressing the c h i l d ' s environment and the child's role i n that environment as defining the hyperactivity. Combining both the child-centered and s o c i a l system models y i e l d s the t h i r d i n t e r a c t i v e system model which suggests a complex i n t e r a c t i o n between the child's environment and his physical and psycho- l o g i c a l status which leads to the c h i l d being defined as hyper- active. The l o g i c a l extension of t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n model would claim that hyperactivity i n children could not be defined by a single behavioral dimension or by a single defining system. A further outcome of t h i s p o s i t i o n , c r i t i c a l not only to t h i s study but to a broader understanding of hyperactivity, i s to 20 view i t as a symptom r a t h e r than a d i s e a s e e n t i t y . The I n t e r a c t i o n a l Model The I n t e r a c t i o n P o s i t i o n The i n t e r a c t i o n p o s i t i o n f i n d s wide support i n the l i t e r a - t u r e . Ackerman e t a l . (1979), i n a p s y c h o s o c i a l study comparing p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s , c o g n i t i v e r o l e t a k i n g and moral r e a s o n i n g between 20 h y p e r a c t i v e and 20 l e a r n i n g - d i s a b l e d boys, noted the l i k e l i h o o d of an i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t . They observed t h a t "as recent analyses of the Chess-Thomas study group have shown, i t i s i r r e s p o n s i b l e to attempt to e x p l a i n the b ehavior of c h i l d r e n without t a k i n g i n t o account t h e i r home m i l i e u and l i f e e x p e r i e n c e s as w e l l as t h e i r temperments" (Cameron, 1977 p. 92). Z r u l l e t a l . (1970), i n a n a l y z i n g two case h i s t o r i e s i n depth to i n d i c a t e the r o l e of d e p r e s s i o n i n the h y p e r k i n e t i c syndrome, a l s o noted the t r e n d apparent i n the voluminous l i t e r a t u r e r e g a r d i n g minimal b r a i n d y s f u n c t i o n as p o i n t i n g "toward g r e a t e r a t t e n t i o n t o the i n t e r a c t i o n of o r g a n i c and emotional components" (p. 33). F i n a l l y Weiss and Hechtman (19 79) a l s o stress.."this p o s i t i o n i n t h e i r e x t e n s i v e review of r e s e a r c h on h y p e r a c t i v i t y . They c i t e Engel who c h a l l e n g e d the t r a d i t i o n a l biomecular model of i l l n e s s t o suggest t h a t a l l d i s e a s e s be viewed i n wider terms by use of a biopsycho- l o g i c a l model. T h i s wider concept of a medical model a p p l i e s very aptly, to the h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d a c c o r d i n g to them and t h e i r 21 conclusion i s that: The hyperactive c h i l d syndrome can only be understood i n a l l i t s complexity when viewed from s o c i a l , psychological, and b i o l o g i c a l standpoints, and the t r a d i t i o n a l biomecular medical model does not f i t the various manifestations, etiology,.and course of the disorder of childhood. M u l t i - dimensional or i n t e r a c t i o n a l models are required which take into account the complex in t e r a c t i o n between the child's environment and his psychological and b i o l o g i c a l status. (p. 1353) The present study also viewed hyperactivity from the i n t e r - a c t i o n i s t p osition and investigated one c r i t i c a l aspect of the hyperactive child's classroom environment, namely, the child's perception of some c r i t i c a l dimensions of the teacher-child relationship. Further support for the in t e r a c t i o n position i s found i n some very relevant studies which viewed hyperactivity as a symptom rather than a syndrome. Thomas (1976) , i n her review of the l i t e r a t u r e concerning d i f f e r e n t conditions which may have hyperactivity as a symptom, described three underlying disorders. She c i t e s : Chess (1956) who saw hyperactivity as one manifestation of primary emotional problems; Bakwin (196 7) who referred to developmental hyperactivity as a description of the a c t i v i t y l e v e l of children who were on the upper end of a normal curve of a c t i v i t y for a l l children; and Bax (19 72) who i d e n t i f i e d hyperkinesis apart from o v e r a c t i v i t y and sug- gested inappropriate educational management as one underlying problem. Thomas then goes on to describe two case studies which i l l u s t r a t e how hyperactivity i s associated with severe sensory impairment and further adds that: 22 The use of the term "hyperactivity" as a diagnostic l a b e l rather than as a possible symptom of an underlying d i s - order - eith e r within the c h i l d or the environment - i s hazardous to the c h i l d . I t i s hazardous because such use implies a single therapeutic category ( i . e . , treat the hyperactivity per se) when the key to successful manage- ment i s to evaluate the underlying disorder and treat appropriately. (p. 44) Another survey of the l i t e r a t u r e by Stephenson (19 75), i n t e - grated with her own c l i n i c a l experience working i n a p e d i a t r i c ambulatory diagnostic centre, where children referred because of hyperactivity were assessed by a m u l t i - d i s c i p l i n a r y team, lead her to a very s i m i l a r conclusion as that stated by Thomas above. An i n t e r e s t i n g and productive off-shoot of viewing hyperactivity as a symptom was postulated by Marwit and Stenner (1972) as a p a r t i a l explanation for the confusion evidenced i n the l i t e r a t u r e regarding the disorder's terminology, etiology, behavioral correlates and treatment techniques. They,contend that organicity i s but one of several factors to be considered i n distinguishing two r e l a t i v e l y independent forms of the general disorder "hyperkinesis". They delineated and d i f f e r - entiated between Pattern I or "hyperactive" children, which would be s i m i l a r to the f i r s t model described e a r l i e r i n t h e i r review, and Pattern II or "hyperreactive" children, which resembles the second model mentioned e a r l i e r . Although l a t e r studies have shown t h i s model to be rather l i m i t e d as well since no in t e r a c t i o n of the Pattern I with Pattern II factors was suggested, the description of a "hyperreactive" pattern of behavior appears to be an accurate forerunner of the thrust 23 of present investigation. In p a r t i c u l a r , the focus of the present study i s suggesting that a child ' s hyperactive behav- i o r may be viewed p a r t i a l l y as a reaction to some c r i t i c a l elements i n that c h i l d ' s classroom environment, namely, the c h i l d 1 s perception of teacher behavior. Hyperactivity as a Reaction One such investigator foreshadowed by Marwit and Stenner i s Hembling (1978, 1980). This family therapist and researcher shares the view that: Gradual c l a r i f i c a t i o n of currently unclear and divergent views on 'hyperkinesis' may come from viewing hyperactive symptomotology as a key manifestation of possible d i f f e r e n t syndromes. Stephenson's contention that pre-pubertal "hyperkinesis" or "hyperactivity" i s simply a symptom, al b e i t a well-noticed symptom, rather than a discrete feature of any one childhood condition may o f f e r a salutary d i r e c t i o n for further discussion, possibly toward the r e c o n c i l i a t i o n of previously disparate hypoth- eses, (p. 3) In a retrospective study, 72 hyperactive pre-pubertal children were i d e n t i f i e d from 114 family r e f e r r a l s . Hembling noted through interviewing the families i n t h e i r homes that i n approx- imately h a l f of the cases chaotic parenting existed r e s u l t i n g in the c h i l d experiencing quite obvious anxiety as a reaction to family dynamics. However, i n the other h a l f of the children, no chaotic home-life for the c h i l d was revealed even after the most c a r e f u l ! interviewing. When a treatment plan was routinely offered to these parents as though chaotic parenting existed i t was demonstrated rather convincingly that t h i s hyperactive c h i l d s e t t l e d down s i g n i f i c a n t l y . Hembling posits a rather 24 convincing explanation for t h i s phenomenon based on a view of hyperactivity as a key manifestation of pre-pubertal reactive depression. He claims: The mosaic i s made up of c h i l d - s p e c i f i c v u l n e r a b i l i t i e s (Anthony, 1974), certain parental-family dynamics, and c l e a r l y i n many cases operant conditioning of the type already referred to by many writers (Baine, 19 78) (Ney, 1974). The mosaic then becomes complicated further by the huge i n d i v i d u a l variations i n maturational rates of the central nervous system (CNS),. e s p e c i a l l y with boys, when stressed further by grouped expectations i n most elementary school environments (Bener, 1975) (Ames, 1968). Former " d i f f i c u l t babies" (Allen, 1976) are not the only casualties to emerge i n the early primary grades, usually referred for assessment on the basis of t h e i r "hyperactivity" and often becoming placed i n spec i a l education classes. Add to t h i s mosaic the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y common lack of agreement among various c l i n i c i a n s . . . w i t h respect to diagnostics and treatment. Add further to the poorly defined d i s t i n c t i o n between a true motoric version of CNS disorder and the vaguer sometimes imperceptible "conduct" disorder, the l a t t e r often masked t o t a l l y i n the short period of time devoted and the unfamiliar surroundings, t y p i c a l of many c l i n i c a l assessments of the c h i l d himself (Eisenberg, 1966) (Rapoport, 1978). So much confusion and ambivalence i n the adults pro- viding care for such children, must r e a l i s t i c a l l y be considered as one further contribution to the child' s sense of insec u r i t y and anxiety. We know well how s i g n i f i c a n t the environmental and interpersonal factors are, p a r t i c u l a r l y with respect to subjects already well- known to be hiqhly field-dependent (Flynn and Rapoport, 1976). (p. 3-4) Hembling goes on to explain why, on t h i s basis, he believes Ney's (1974) fourth type of hyperkinesis — chaotic — which accounted for 21% of his 60 children, was s i g n i f i c a n t l y underidentified. This insightful-'and s i g n i f i c a n t work by Hembling provides a powerful example of the absolute necessity to assume an i n t e r - a c t i o n i s t p o s i t i o n when studying hyperactive children and i t 25 a l s o d e m o n s t r a t e s t h e w i s d o m o f M a r w i t a n d S t e n n e r ' s p o s t u l a - t i o n o f a h y p e r r e a c t i v e p a t t e r n . A n o t h e r r e a s o n f o r i n c l u d i n g H e m b l i n g ' s s t u d y h e r e i s t o p r o v i d e s o m e i n i t i a l s u p p o r t f o r t h e n e e d t o c o n s i d e r t h e p e r c e p t i o n s o r e x p e r i e n c e s o f c h i l d r e n w h e n a s s e s s i n g t h e c h i l d ' s f a m i l y a n d s c h o o l e n v i r o n m e n t . T h i s p o i n t w i l l b e s u p p o r t e d f u r t h e r i n . t h i s r e v i e w a l o n g w i t h t h e s u g g e s t i o n t h a t t h e c h i l d ' s p e r c e p t i o n o r e x p e r i e n c e o f h i s t e a c h e r i s a c o m p a r a b l e i n f l u e n c e o n h i s b e h a v i o r i n t h e c l a s s r o o m e n v i r o n m e n t . P r e v a l e n c e o f H y p e r a c t i v i t y a n d M a l e - F e m a l e R a t i o A s n o t e d a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h i s s u r v e y , h y p e r a c t i v i t y i s o n e o f t h e m o s t c o m m o n r e a s o n s f o r c h i l d r e n b e i n g r e f e r r e d t o c l i n i c i a n s a n d e d u c a t o r s t o d a y . S t e p h e n s o n (1975) s u m m a r i z e s p r e v a l e n c e f i n d i n g s w h i c h i n d i c a t e t h a t a l t h o u g h N o r t h A m e r i c a n p u b l i c s c h o o l p o p u l a t i o n s t u d i e s s h o w 5% a r e h y p e r k i n e t i c , t h e K a u i P r e g n a n c y S t u d y e s t i m a t e d 8% o f b o y s m a y h a v e t h i s h a n d i c a p . S h e r e f e r r e d t o a n o f t e n c i t e d s t u d y b y B a x w h e r e n o c a s e s o f t h e h y p e r k i n e t i c s y n d r o m e w e r e f o u n d a m o n g s t 12,000 f i v e y e a r - o l d s i n t h e I s l e o f W i g h t . A s i m i l a r r e f e r e n c e i s m a d e t o a s t u d y b y R u t t e r e t a l . w h o i d e n t i f i e d o n l y 1 h y p e r - k i n e t i c c h i l d i n a p o p u l a t i o n o f o v e r 2,000. A m o r e r e c e n t w o r k b y F i r e s t o n e a n d M a r t i n (1979) m a d e r e f e r e n c e t o t h i s l a b e l b e i n g a p p l i e d t o b e t w e e n 7% a n d 10% o f t h e s c h o o l - a g e p o p u l a t i o n . L a m b e r t e t a l . (1978) s o u g h t t o r e c o n c i l e t h e w i d e l y v a r y i n g p r e v a l e n c e e s t i m a t e s b y h a v i n g p a r e n t s , t e a c h e r s 2 6 and physicians i d e n t i f y hyperactive children i n a sample of 5 0 0 elementary school children. They note that "approximately 5 % were considered hyperactive by at least one defining system; only one percent were considered hyperactive by a l l three de- fin e r s . Prevalence rates were r e l a t i v e l y constant from kinder- garten through f i f t h grade" (p. 4 4 6 ) . They go on to conclude that no more than 1 0 % of an elementary school population would be considered hyperactive by a l l three definers. A noteworthy aspect of prevalence studies, as stated by Ney ( 1 9 7 4 ) and which also finds support i n numerous other studies, i s the male to female sex r a t i o of hyperkinetic children of approximately 9 : 1 . These indicators of prevalence are included here not simply for i n t e r e s t sake, but to provide additional guidance i n iden- t i f y i n g the hyperactive children involved i n t h i s study and also to help i n the interpretation of re s u l t s . Lambert et al.'s ( 1 9 7 8 ) .study not only provides valuable data regarding prevalence i n d i c a t o r s , but i t also provides additional support for the i n t e r a c t i o n i s t p o s i t i o n and for the c r i t i c a l environmental and s i t u a t i o n a l aspects of hyperactivity by noting: that the report of the child's behavior i s made by those who contribute to the child's environment namely the parents and teachers. Because they are a part of the child's environment, t h e i r attitudes and behaviors a f f e c t both the child' s behavior and t h e i r perception of the child' s behavior. (p. 4 4 7 ) They further contend how " i t therefore becomes incumbent... to specify the environment i n which the behaviour occurs and the 27 source of the l a b e l " (p. 447). There i s also some d i r e c t support implied i n thi s statement for the need to include the child's perception of the environmental experiences. Before leaving t h i s study by Lambert et a l . (1978) i t i s important to note what they discovered regarding peaks i n prevalence rates of the sch o o l - i d e n t i f i e d hyperactive children. Their basic finding was that although s l i g h t peaks were noted at kindergarten and grade three, i n contrast to grades one and two, with further peaks at grades four and f i v e , the pattern was more one of r e l a t i v e l y s i m i l a r prevalence rates across grades. They explained t h i s movement as res u l t i n g from children moving i n and out of the considered hyperactive group as a r e f l e c t i o n of the changing demands of school and home and d i f f e r e n t responses of the child's developing organism i n t e r a c t i n g with environmental circumstances. Again, we f i n d support for the i n t e r a c t i o n a l p o sition. Developing a Position: Behavioral, Interactional Before moving on to the next stage of thi s review, a summary w i l l serve to highlight the development of our topic and the focus of t h i s study. I t has been noted that extensive e f f o r t s to i s o l a t e a homogeneous group of children with a hyperactive syndrome has been unsuccessful. There i s wide- spread agreement however, on common behavioral manifestations of hyperactivity which lends support to our behavioral opera- t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n . Another trend gaining recent acceptance i s 2 8 that of viewing hyperactivity as a symptom which i s best under- stood as a dynamic in t e r a c t i o n between the c h i l d and the en- vironment within which the hyperactive behavior occurs. A more s p e c i f i c focus on the child' s experience of a p a r t i c u l a r environment has also been noted and prevalence studies indicate that the elementary school population would l i k e l y include a s i g n i f i c a n t number of children which could be i d e n t i f i e d by teachers as exhib i t i n g hyperactive behaviors. In order to delineate further underlying premises and positions of t h i s study, previous reviews and studies w i l l be examined next for t h e i r findings, cautions, and suggestions related to the i n t e r a c t i o n a l perspective of hyperactivity. Facets of Interactional Position The e a r l i e r c i t e d review by Weiss and Hechtman (19 79) offers some supportive d i r e c t i o n by i n d i c a t i n g that even though the environment may not provide answers regarding primary cause for hyperactive children, i t i s a highly s i g n i f i c a n t antecedent variable. They add further that the family and school environ- ment are c r u c i a l variables a f f e c t i n g the child's aberrations regardless of t h e i r largely unquantifiable r o l e . Support for Lambert et a l . ' s (1978) in t e r a c t i o n p o s i t i o n of the e f f e c t of teachers' and parents' attitudes on both the child' s behavior and t h e i r perception of i t i s given, and they also suggest the strong p o s s i b i l i t y that many hyperactive children have various reactive problems related to family interactions or to re s u l t i n g 29 experiences of r e j e c t i o n and f a i l u r e at school, at home and with peers. Loney 1s (19 80) extensive review deserves reconsideration to note her discussion and summary comments regarding her hypo- t h e t i c a l "state hyperactives" (children whose behavior i s r e l a - t i v e l y r e s i s t a n t to environmental changes). She poses an important question worth investigating: "In what kinds of situations do they behave l i k e normals and i n what situations are they hyperactive" (p.33)? She also lends support to the d i r e c t i o n of t h i s study by adding that "additional illumination of the in t e r a c t i o n between i n d i v i d u a l and environment variables might i n fact be e a s i l y supplied by workers who choose to focus upon that paradoxically responsive organism: the hyperactive c h i l d " (p.33). The c r i t i c i s m aimed at studying a c h i l d who i s n ' t t r u l y hyperactive because he only behaves that way at school i s refuted most s a t i s f a c t o r i l y by Loney when she i n s i g h t - f u l l y adds that "certainly the problems of children with state hyperactivity are as 'real' i n t h e i r own context as are the problems of children with t r a i t hyperactivity" (p.33). A t h i r d study, also referred to e a r l i e r , by Langhorne and Loney (1976) sought to delineate a stable c l u s t e r of symptoms of hyperkinesis. The results of t h e i r extensive factor- analytic methods e s s e n t i a l l y p a r a l l e l l e d those obtained i n previous studies by demonstrating that measures of presumably d i f f e r e n t symptoms from a common source of information ( i . e . , p s y c h i a t r i s t s , chart-raters, teachers and parents) are more highly i n t e r r e l a t e d than are several alternative measures of 30 a s i n g l e symptom. In b r i e f , they suggest s t r o n g l y to r e t u r n to the source of the i n f o r m a t i o n s i n c e much of c h i l d b e havior i s s p e c i f i c t o p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n s . F u r t h e r support f o r the s i t u a t i o n a l s p e c i f i c i t y of behavior i s given i n t h e i r c i t i n g of Wahler (196 9) who demonstrated t h a t treatment e f f e c t s o f t e n do not g e n e r a l i z e across environments as i s the case from home to s c h o o l s e t t i n g s . The need to study the s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n a l aspects of h y p e r a c t i v i t y has been f u r t h e r underscored by Whalen e t a l . (1978) who have been i n v o l v e d i n e x t e n s i v e r e s e a r c h r e l a t e d t o the s o c i a l ecology of h y p e r a c t i v i t y . Before beginning the c i t e d r e s e a r c h , dozens of c h i l d r e n c o n s i d e r e d h y p e r a c t i v e were observed, coupled w i t h parent and teacher i n t e r v i e w s , r e v e a l i n g a p a t t e r n of d i s t i n g u i s h i n g b ehavior d e s c r i b e d as " r e l a t i v e l y i n f r e q u e n t but i n a p p r o p r i a t e behaviors t h a t stand out i n a given s i t u a t i o n or are n o t i c e a b l y u n p r e d i c t a b l e from the ongoing stream of a c t i v i t y " (p. 79). Other evidence s t r e s s i n g the need f o r t h i s focus of r e s e a r c h w i l l f o l l o w but the b a s i c i n t e r - a c t i o n a l p o s i t i o n assumed i n the p r e s e n t study w i l l be f u r t h e r expanded by examining and summarizing a p o s i t i o n s t a t e d by Conrad (1977). S i t u a t i o n a l Aspects of H y p e r a c t i v i t y T h i s s o c i a l system approach r e s u l t e d i n the very appro- p r i a t e d e s c r i p t o r , " s i t u a t i o n a l h y p e r a c t i v i t y " . Drawing s i g - n i f i c a n t l y from Jane Mercer's approach to the mentally r e t a r d e d , Conrad (1977) argues t h a t h y p e r a c t i v i t y can be viewed as d e v i a n t 31 behavior since the behavior: varies from the norms and the expectations of a given s o c i a l system; i s i d e n t i f i e d and defined by a s i g n i f i c a n t audience (family or school); i s designated as hyperactive and i s ascribed to the c h i l d ; can be i d e n t i f i e d and understood only within the boundaries of a p a r t i c u l a r s o c i a l system. S i t u a t i o n a l hyperactivity then i s that which i s reported i n one or more, but not a l l s o c i a l systems the c h i l d i s i n . He further points out that the child's behavior may vary depending on the s o c i a l system and understanding the behavior would require an evaluation of the s o c i a l system as well as an evaluation of the c h i l d . The present study supports Conrad's suggestion that the hyperactive children might be t e l l i n g us more about the s i t u a - tion they experience than about t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l "pathology". This s i t u a t i o n a l hyperactivity may be seen as " s o c i a l l y caused" or as a response to a s p e c i f i c environment and i n f a c t , i t may be a meaningful response that i s e l i c i t e d within the s i t u a t i o n . To summarize Conrad's po s i t i o n , he notes that the behavior may be; an adaptation to the s i t u a t i o n , a r e s u l t i n g c o n f l i c t within i t , or a statement about the s o c i a l system. His contention that remediation might need to be focused on the s o c i a l system rather than the c h i l d c e r t a i n l y finds support i n previously mentioned research (Hembling, 1978, 1980). Assuming that an adequate argument has been presented for the need to explore the s i t u a t i o n a l aspects of hyperactivity, l e t us now turn to further research which explores i t s s o c i a l aspects. 32 S o c i a l Aspects In an analysis of the hyperactive syndrome, where an attempt was made to determine whether the commonly described symptoms associated with hyperactivity are unique to a s p e c i f i c population, Firestone and Martin (19 79) concluded that d i f f e r - ences existed i n comparison to normals but only attentional d e f i c i t s distinguished them from behavior problem and asthmatic children. Since t h e i r c r i t e r i a for delineating the behavior problem children may have included those where 3 of 4 raters described them as hyperactive, t h e i r categories could not be considered independent or exclusive. However, i n t h e i r review they note that: Although early investigations suggested that hyperactives were much more active than normal controls, more systematic research has revealed that i t i s not the o v e r a l l a c t i v i t y l e v e l that distinguishes these children but i t s s o c i a l inappropriateness. (p. 262) In reviewing t h e i r own findings they noted other studies which also support the observation that hyperactive children are unable to cope r e a l i s t i c a l l y with f r u s t r a t i n g events and tend to deny t h e i r existence. One important question to be asked here would be: What factors i n the child's environment might pre c i p i t a t e such a denial or such an over-reaction? The present study may y i e l d some answers. Sandberg et a l . (19 80) focused on the uncertainty about whether organic and s o c i a l factors of possible causal influence can discriminate between the disorder of hyperkinesis and what Hembling (1978) described as the "vaguer, sometimes imperceptible 33 'conduct disorder' " (p. 4). Working with a sample of 226 boys in the age range of peak ri s k (five to nine years) these re- searchers gathered information on: medical and s o c i a l back- ground factors, physical examination of the c h i l d , behavior ratings of the c h i l d by two teachers' questionnaires (Conners 1969, 1973; and Rutter, 1967), and a parent questionnaire (Conners, 1974). After examining and imtercorrelating t h e i r results they confirmed and extended the re s u l t s of a previous c l i n i c study (Sandberg et a l . , 19 78) where evidence was found that s o c i a l factors play a causal role i n hyperkinesis with l i t t l e or no suggestion that they played any d i f f e r e n t role i n conduct disturbance. They further note that " o v e r a l l s o c i a l disadvantage was strongly related with both kinds of disturbance on the teacher questionnaire and mother's mental distress with high scores of both hyperactivity and conduct problems on the parent questionnaire" (p. 306). Of noteworthy i n t e r e s t i n t h i s study was the weight placed on parent and teacher ratings as being v a l i d discriminators. In a rather comprehensive presentation of the s o c i a l ecology of hyperactivity Whalen and Henker (1980) included a chapter by Routh. He traced the development of his own research which began i n 19 72 by looking at the covariation of minimal brain dysfunction leading to a narrower focus on hyperactivity and i t s relationship to normal c h i l d development and s o c i a l behavior. In 19 74 Routh began his i n i t i a l playroom studies with younger hyperactive children and t h i s led him to comment 34 in 1978: But c l e a r l y , s o c i a l variables are proving to be c r u c i a l i n understanding children's playroom behavior. Looking at the l i t e r a t u r e on hyperactivity a f t e r these eye-opening experiences with the importance of s o c i a l variables, the author finds much emerging evidence for the importance of s o c i a l factors. (p. 69) One p a r t i c u l a r aspect of s o c i a l development which Routh noted, and which has p a r t i c u l a r relevance i n the present study, was the attachment behavior of hyperactive children. Routh was led to suggest that "perhaps when we come to understand better the 'mother presence e f f e c t ' i n the laboratory playroom, we w i l l f i n d that i t , too, has some relevance to hyperactivity" (p. 72). In the present study i t i s suggested that the r e l a - tionship that exists between the c h i l d and the s i g n i f i c a n t adult, p a r t i c u l a r l y from the' child's perception of that adult, i s highly i n f l u e n t i a l on the child's behavior and i n fa c t , the behavior may be a reaction to the perceived r e l a t i o n s h i p . In a recent overview of research Barkley (19 78) traced a trend apparent i n the l i t e r a t u r e where hyperactivity was i n i t i a l l y "viewed as a disturbance i n motoric a c t i v i t y levels (Werry, 196 8) and l a t e r as an attention d e f i c i t (Douglas, 19 72; 1974). Current conceptualizations place greater emphasis on the broader problems i n the s o c i a l development of these children (Routh, 1978)" (p. 158). He l a t e r concluded his review by r e i t e r a t i n g the notion that the more important prob- lems of hyperactive children center on t h e i r s o c i a l development and adaptation. Another s i g n i f i c a n t observation made by Barkley, which w i l l be taken up further, views hyperactivity as a 35 l i f e - l o n g disorder of the i n d i v i d u a l and he further suggested that the more s i g n i f i c a n t problems i n s o c i a l development become exacerbated with increased age and with increased entry into larger s o c i a l contexts. Since a l l children need to relate to adults i n numerous s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s , and since relationships with authority figures i s a l i f e - l o n g experience, a focus on some research investigating the s o c i a l functioning of hyperactive children as adolescents and as adults w i l l not only shed more l i g h t on thi s area, but w i l l also serve to emphasize the importance of making the s o c i a l aspects of hyperactive behavior a focus of research. Importance of S o c i a l Aspects: Follow-Up Studies Beginning with reference to Barkley (19 78), he c i t e d one of the few studies by Weiss which posits optimistic outcomes for hyperactive children. However i n examining t h i s study by Weiss et a l . (1979), where 75 hyperactive and 44 controls, i n i t i a l l y assessed at s i x to twelve years of age, were followed up for ten to twelve years, i t was noted that the hyperactive subjects had less education, a history of more car accidents, more geographical moves and some continuing symptoms from the hyperkinetic c h i l d syndrome, including impulsive personality t r a i t s . They then stress the importance of tryi n g to i d e n t i f y t h i s subgroup as early as possible for purposes of intervention since these impulsive personality t r a i t s sometimes r e s u l t i n 36 problems i n t h e i r l i f e s i t u a t i o n . A study by Morrison (19 80) compared s o c i a l factors of 4 8 adult patients, who as children had hyperactive syndrome, with 4 8 patients matched for sex, age and f i n a n c i a l status who never had been i d e n t i f i e d as hyperactive. Each patient was asked about his a c t i v i t y during the early school years and those who stood out from t h e i r peers were questioned further to obtain s p e c i f i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h i s disorder. Morrison found s i g n i f i c a n t differences between groups which included such s o c i a l d e b i l i t a t i n g experiences as: less education, more divorces, trouble serving i n the m i l i t a r y , less l i k e l i - hood of achieving a higher job status, four times the frequency of violence, and twice the prevalency of l e g a l involvement. He then goes on to suggest that the hyperactive group's s o c i a l d e f i c i t may have resulted from "a f a i l u r e of parental control rather than a d i r e c t e f f e c t of t h e i r childhood hyperactivity" (p.40). This point i s worth noting here as i t i s c r i t i c a l to a focus of the present study which suggests a possible r e l a - tionship between perceived demand and hyperactive behavior. In fact, an in t e r a c t i o n between the two i s l i k e l y more accurate. Ackerman et a l . ' s (1977) study involved three groups of learning disabled boys, 23 hyperactives, 25 normoactives~and. 14 hypoactives, compared to 31 controls. Follow-up was done on 80% of the subjects at age 14 with an average i n t e r v a l between the i n i t i a l study of four years. Measures obtained included: behavior ratings i n the laboratory, home, and 37 community; academic progress measures; and a combination of the two. I t was found that a l l three groups remained at a disadvantage to controls on academic and cognitive measures and on complex reaction time. Of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t i s the finding that hal f the hyperactives had experienced major con- f l i c t s with authority. In a thorough review of the l i t e r a t u r e examining the connection between the hyperactive c h i l d syndrome and the development of delinquent, a n t i s o c i a l behavior i n childhood, adolescence, and l a t e r l i f e , Cantwell (19 78) used three sub- di v i s i o n s . From six studies based on childhood h i s t o r i e s of adults with a n t i s o c i a l behavior Cantwell noted outcomes such as: impulsiveness, destructiveness, alcoholism, antisocial.", personality, and delinquency. Two retrospective or post facto follow-up studies noted outcomes including: psychotic, time i n j a i l and juvenile h a l l s , and more frequent job changes. His t h i r d d i v i s i o n , prospective follow-up studies, referred to three major studies which also support the l i n k between the hyperkinetic syndrome and a n t i s o c i a l behavior i n l a t e r l i f e , with outcomes c i t e d such as: a n t i s o c i a l behavior, high i n c i - dence of r e f e r r a l to the courts, f i g h t i n g , s t e a l i n g , and drug abuse. In summary, Cantwell feels confident i n stating that a relationship between childhood hyperkinesis and l a t e r a n t i - s o c i a l behavior exists and, although he i s unclear of the reason for the association, he suggests p o s s i b i l i t i e s such as: psychological abnormalities; f a m i l i a l and environmental factors; 38 and educational f a i l u r e . This review of the outcomes of hyperactive children i s best summarized by Barkley (19 78): F i r s t , i t i s apparent that while the gross motor a c t i v i t y problems of these children may decline with age, as i t does i n normal children (Routh et a l . 1974), problems with restlessness, poor attention span, and sch o l a s t i c d i f f i - c u l t i e s continue into adolescence and even adulthood. Second i t appears that with age, the problems of hyper- active children become more and more serious i n the realm of s o c i a l functioning. That i s the overactive, temper- mental infant becomes the hyperactive, non-compliant preschool c h i l d , and eventually the c h i l d who has trouble following rules and teacher commands i n the classroom during school years. As the c h i l d enters adolescence and participates i n a larger s o c i a l sphere, problems with peer relationships become paramount, as does d i f f i - culty i n obeying the rules of society. With entry into adulthood, these problems p e r s i s t and may a f f e c t the adult's s o c i a l adaptation and a b i l i t y to obtain and hold employment. . . . a t h i r d implication from the follow-up research i s that hyperactivity, despite our best treatment e f f o r t s , i s a l i f e - l o n g disorder, rather than simply one lim i t e d to childhood. (p. 160) This rather powerful statement leads to both an obvious and a more subtle conclusion. F i r s t , i t becomes clear that the s o c i a l aspects of t h i s problem need immediate investigation i n order to interrupt the rather vicious outcomes. Secondly, the present author maintains that an underlying dimension i n the studies reviewed here i s that of rela t i o n s h i p s , i n p a r t i c u l a r the hyperactive child's relationship with parents, teachers, and increasingly more authority figures as he matures. Having established the importance and need for exploring more f u l l y the s o c i a l aspects of hyperactivity and also having determined the wisdom of: examining i t s s i t u a t i o n a l aspects, l e t us now review some research on the s p e c i f i c aspects of 39 a d u l t - c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n . Interaction: Adult-Child Some very relevant research i n t h i s regard by Stevens-Long (19 73) required 5 7 female and 3 male parents of children en- r o l l e d i n an elementary school to respond to videotaped sequences showing eith e r an overactive, underactive, or average- active c h i l d , by selecting a d i s c i p l i n a r y practice and an a f f e c t toward the c h i l d . It was her assumption that certain contexts influence an adult's evaluation of a child's behavior and may also influence the nature and severity of d i s c i p l i n a r y practices chosen to control the child's behavior as well as the feelings directed toward the c h i l d . She further proposed that certain c h i l d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , such as a c t i v i t y l e v e l , or a s p e c i f i c l a b e l such as emotionally disturbed, might provide t h i s "beha- v i o r a l context" within which the child's behavior i s evaluated. Analysis of variance generally supported her hypothesis that overactive children were punished more severely than the other children, and there was also a c o r r e l a t i o n between f e e l i n g tone or a f f e c t and severity of d i s c i p l i n e . Other aspects of Steven-Long's research also bear mentioning. B e l l (196/8) i s c i t e d for his elaboration of the relationship between certain c h i l d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and parental use of d i s c i p l i n e . He suggests that a c t i v i t y l e v e l and assertiveness can be viewed as congenital c h i l d differences which require a parent to use high magnitude, perhaps more severe, measures of control. Two other researchers are also c i t e d for t h e i r further support of 40 t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t . Cunningham and Barkley's (1979) study of 20 normal and 20 hyperactive boys ranging i n age from 6 to 12 years observed the child-mother interactions during a 15-minute free play and a 15-minute s t r u c t u r a l task. Hyperactive boys proved to be more active, less compliant and less l i k e l y to remain on task while mothers of hyperactive boys were less l i k e l y to respond p o s i t i v e l y to any of the child's behavior, even the constructive. These mothers also imposed more structure and control on a l l aspects of the child's behavior. In t h e i r review they note the lack of research emphasis placed on an objective analysis of the hyperactive child's i n t e r a c t i o n with s i g n i f i c a n t individuals i n his environment and go on to state that: The behavior of the c h i l d , however, i s a function not only of his i n d i v i d u a l temperment and a b i l i t i e s , but also of the constraints imposed by s p e c i f i c environments and, perhaps even more importantly, the ind i v i d u a l s with whom the c h i l d interacts i n those environments. (p. 217) They further postulate that the behavior of the hyperactive c h i l d may e l i c i t rather i n e f f e c t i v e management strategies from adults and thus a s p r i a l of negative i n t e r a c t i o n occurs. For these reasons the behavior of the hyperactive c h i l d can only be understood c l e a r l y within the context of the behavior of s i g n i f i c a n t i n d i v i d u a l s i n his environment. Evidence supporting two key assumptions of the present study are already quite evident from the above two researchers. The premise that children described as hyperactive by a c l a s s - 41 room t e a c h e r w i l l p e r c e i v e s i g n i f i c a n t l y more r e j e c t i o n and l e s s a c c e p t a n c e f rom t h e a d u l t i s d i r e c t l y s u p p o r t e d , a l o n g w i t h t h e p r e m i s e t h a t t h e s e same c h i l d r e n w i l l e x p e r i e n c e t h e a d u l t as b e i n g more demanding o f them. Cunningham and B a r k l e y ' s (19 79) s t u d y showed t h e mother s o f h y p e r a c t i v e s as i m p o s i n g more c o n t r o l and s t r u c t u r e , y e t t h e c h i l d r e n r e m a i n h y p e r a c t i v e . The p r e s e n t a u t h o r s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d w i l l c o n s e q u e n t l y p e r c e i v e t h e a d u l t as b e i n g more demanding and y e t l e s s c o n t r o l l i n g o f them s i n c e t h e a d u l t ' s r e p e a t e d e f f o r t s f a i l t o s t o p what i s i n t e n d e d . F u r t h e r e v i d e n c e w i l l be g a t h e r e d t o s u p p o r t t h i s p o s i t i o n . S i n c e t h e i n t e r a c t i v e p a t t e r n between a d u l t and c h i l d d e s c r i b e d above i s so c r i t i c a l t o t h e p o s i t i o n t a k e n i n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y , i t w i l l be s t r e s s e d a g a i n u s i n g r e f e r e n c e t o work by B e l l and H a r p e r (1977) w h i c h examines t h e e f f e c t t h a t c h i l d r e n have on a d u l t s . T h e i r p o s i t i o n i s summarized s u c c i n c t l y by Cunningham and B a r k l e y (19 79) i n t h e i r p r e v i o u s l y m e n t i o n e d s t u d y : B e l l and H a r p e r (1977) have e m p h a s i z e d t h e r e c i p r o c i t y i n h e r e n t i n t h e i n t e r a c t i o n s o f c h i l d r e n and t h e i r p a r e n t s . T h i s p o s i t i o n r e c o g n i z e s t h a t t h e b e h a v i o r o f e a c h member o f a dyad i s i n f l u e n c e d by t h e b e h a v i o r and r e s p o n s e s o f t h e o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e m o t h e r ' s b e h a v i o r s e r v e s as a s t i m u l u s t o w h i c h t h e c h i l d r e s p o n d s . S i m i l a r l y t h e c h i l d ' s b e h a v i o r a c t s as an a n t e c e d e n t t o v a r i o u s r e s p o n s e s f rom t h e m o t h e r . The r e s p o n s e s o f t h e mother and c h i l d a re f u r t h e r m o d i f i e d by t h e s u b s e q u e n t r e s p o n s e s o f t h e o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l . I t i s , t h e r e f o r e , t h e i n t e r a c t i o n s o f t h e mother and c h i l d w h i c h must be s t u d i e d r a t h e r t h a n t h e i n d e p e n d e n t r e s p o n s e s o r u n i l a t e r a l e f f e c t s o f e i t h e r i n d i v i d u a l . (p. 217) I n o r d e r t o g a i n a p i c t u r e o f t h e c o m p l e x i t y o f t h i s 42 in t e r a c t i o n process, we w i l l now examine various family experi- ences involving hyperactive children. Families with Hyperactive Children Barkley's (1978) review describes the evolution of family disturbance contributed to by the role of the hyperactive c h i l d as seen i n his c l i n i c a l experience. Fathers claim not to have d i f f i c u l t y managing the c h i l d and blame the mother for being too permissive, r e s u l t i n g i n marital arguments and often divorce. Barkley further adds that the parents' response s t y l e s may exacerbate the behavior problems. Ney (19 74), i n his delinea- t i o n of four types of hyperkinesis by categorizing 60 hyper- k i n e t i c children from a sample of 26 3, describes two of his subgroups. "Conditioned hyperkinetic" children t y p i c a l l y have parents, usually single mothers who are depressed. Being withdrawn and unaware of the child's normal play, she only interacts with the c h i l d for misbehaving. This s i t u a t i o n escalates to the point where the mother i s angry and the c h i l d feels alienated. "Chaotic hyperkinetic" children experience an unpredictable s o c i a l environment r e s u l t i n g i n a r i s e i n the child's anxiety l e v e l , which contributes further to his restlessness leading to increased chaos i n his environment. Hembling (1978) notes: Even adults have weaker impulse control when they're anxious. They get clumsy, knock things over, or b l u r t out things they don't mean to say. That's just what the hyperactive c h i l d i s doing. Worse s t i l l , his anxiety makes him angry, and then his aggressive behavior annoys the adults . . . and so the c h i l d gets less parenting, 43 not more. The parents have to keep reminding themselves that t h e i r k i d feels unsafe, threatened. He needs to be held and made to f e e l that things are under control, (p. 24) Hyperactivity and Anger The above references to anger deserve highlighting here since i t i s the handling of t h i s emotion which contributes to the hyperactive child's experience of rejecti o n from s i g n i f i - cant adults i n his l i f e — a key assumption i n the present study. Two other studies shed further l i g h t on t h i s dynamic. M i l l e r (1977) i s o l a t e d 70 children with hyperkinetic syndrome from an o r i g i n a l sample of 290 based on 10 years of c l i n i c a l experience as a p e d i a t r i c i a n . His unique r e l a t i o n - ship as family physician i s the basis for the conclusions he presents — the main one being that hyperactivity i s primarily an emotional problem. He goes on to add that: The hyperactive children i n my practice have, I believe, problems with excessive i n t e r n a l anger, often s e l f - d i r e c t e d , but intermittently directed outward. Hyperkinesis i s the outcome of t h i s ; diffuse motor a c t i v i t y - not depressive a f f e c t - i s the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c response of pre-adolescents to i n t e r n a l anger without outlet or means of resolution. Several l i n e s of evidence suggest t h i s . In the study fam i l i e s , the parents did not express t h e i r anger to each other d i r e c t l y ; i t was displaced onto the c h i l d at an early age. This displacement apparently helped the parents' relationship to survive, but the c h i l d was scapegoated. In the nature of fami l i e s , one of the few defenses open to the c h i l d i s acting-out. (p. 221) Randall and Lomas (19 78) provide a d i f f e r e n t focus on the dynamics of anger and extend M i l l e r ' s (19 77) argument. They contend that parents perceive children with behavior 44 'problems (e.g., hyperactive) as being :"disabled" because of projecting feelings of helplessness onto the c h i l d . From a psychodynamic viewpoint, t h i s projection can also be interpreted as a defense against anger. They then argue that parents generally invest so much energy i n avoiding anger that they f a i l to influence t h e i r children c l e a r l y and consistently to change the problem behavior. The present author suggests that t h i s suppression of anger along with the f r u s t r a t i o n of a c h i l d not behaving as desired contributes greatly to the parent or teacher sending strong messages of re j e c t i o n , l i k e l y unconsciously, which the c h i l d receives ei t h e r overtly or covertly. Since teachers represent a surrogate parent to children, p a r t i c u l a r l y at the elementary school l e v e l and es p e c i a l l y for preadolescent children, these dynamics are very l i k e l y to be present i n the teacher-child relationship within the classroom context. This represents another key concept for purposes of the present study and i t w i l l be expanded on l a t e r . Hyperactivity and the Social-Emotional Climate Three studies w i l l add relevant data to the suggested link expressed between hyperactive behavior and the " s o c i a l - emotional climate". Ackerman et al.'s (1979) study compared three groups of 20 boys with a mean age of 8.5 years (hyper- active, learning disabled, and controls) on measures of personality t r a i t s , cognitive role-taking, and moral reasoning. 45 In addition, parents of these children were interviewed i n a process-oriented fashion, with one finding from the psycho- s o c i a l data i n d i c a t i n g that the two clinical-groups were separated most c l e a r l y by a dimension of aggressivity-passivity and with the suggestion that immature mothers may be a s i g n i f i - cant force i n the emergence of the hyperkinetic syndrome. The suggestion here being that the hyperactive boys' conduct exasperated the younger moms. A previously referred to study by Ackerman et a l . (1977) followed-up three groups of learning disabled boys (hyperactive, normoactive, and hypoactive) to age 14, comparing them to a normal control group on measures of behavior and achievement. They are led to conclude that a hyperactive c h i l d i s a phenotype and not a genotype, and they speculate on the d i f f e r e n t possible outcomes had his e a r l i e r l i f e experiences, p a r t i c u l a r l y parenting, been d i f f e r - ent. The hyperactive boys i n t h e i r study were t y p i c a l l y f i r s t or second born to f a i r l y young mothers with small fa m i l i e s . Lastly, Sandberg et al.'s (1980) previously c i t e d study included investigations of the influence of s o c i a l factors on the incidence of hyperkinesis and conduct problems i n a primary school population. They c i t e Brandon (19 71) and Loney et a l . (1977) who have shown a correlation between hyperkinetic beha- v i o r i n children and broken homes, parents' marital d i f f i c u l t i e s , p s y c h i a t r i c disorder i n the mother and h o s t i l i t y i n parent- c h i l d relationships. Sandberg et al.'s study added support to one p a r t i c u l a r aspect of these findings by showing a strong 46 relationship between both v a r i e t i e s of behavior disturbance at home and the mother's report of her own mental d i s t r e s s . As pointed out by these authors, the question of which variable affects the other i n terms of sequence and d i r e c t i o n must be asked. However, i t does add further support for the child ' s hyperactive behavior as being one possible reaction to a par- t i c u l a r social-emotional climate. Hyperactivity and Reactive Depression The complex int e r a c t i o n between a child's emotional mechanisms and a proposed social-emotional climate, as referred to above, needs further elaboration and c l a r i f i c a t i o n . The study of these dynamics and t h e i r possible consequences finds root i n the r e l a t i v e l y young d i s c i p l i n e of c h i l d psychiatry and i n p a r t i c u l a r the work being done investigating childhood depression. As Neubauer (19 74) points out, " c h i l d psychiatry i s a comparatively new d i s c i p l i n e . I t i s s t i l l struggling against the e f f o r t to apply to children the experiences and diagnostic categories that have been established for adult patients" (p. 51). The l i n k between childhood depression and hyperactivity has been noted e a r l i e r by Hembling (19 78) and M i l l e r (1977) i n t h i s review. A s i g n i f i c a n t work by Z r u l l et a l . (1978) observed t h i s relationship i n t h e i r report of case studies from c l i n i c a l p ractice. They note that upon c a r e f u l examination of children with hyperkinetic syndrome, based on a variety of e t i o l o g i c a l 4 7 explanations, there i s evidence for a link between i t and depression. Using both descriptive evidence of the depressive disorder i n the c h i l d as well as the psychological dynamics, they substantiate depression i n preadolescent children whose presenting complaint was hyperkinesis. These investigators outline the type of comprehensive and i n s i g h t f u l assessment necessary i n coming to a clearer understanding of hyperkinesis. It seems reasonable that a dual approach to viewing children with t h i s problem would be more useful. For instance, the developmental history i s one example where both the areas of physical and psychological factors converge and can i n some measure be assessed simultane- ously. Noting c l a s s i c a l developmental milestones i n the hyperkinetic child's background i s not enough. We need to understand developmental processes, such as the quantity of maternal attention at any early age, the mother's attitude toward the c h i l d , the circumstances under which the c h i l d began such independent acts as feeding and walking, and the q u a l i t y of the t o i l e t - t r a i n i n g (not just when), with the child's emotional responses to i t . Then, too, the responses of the parents to the hyperkinesis, with attendant prohibitions on them, or feelings of helplessness; a l l have an impact on the symptomatology. (pp. 3 4 - 3 5 ) Z r u l l et a l . also provide us with a revealing prospective on the l i n k between hyperactivity as a symptom of childhood depression i n a comparison to the symptoms of an adult syndrome, c a l l e d agitated depression, where the frequently seen symptoms are:agitation, poor concentration, depression and i r r i t a b i l i t y . Upon matching, p a r a l l e l s can be seen between hyperactivity and agitation, d i s t r a c t i b i l i t y and poor concentration, i r r i t a b i l i t y and emotional i n s t a b i l i t y . The important difference worth noting i s that i n children the impulsivity i s the means of handling aggression, whereas the adult turns t h i s aggression 48 inward and "appears" depressed. An additional point deserving hi g h l i g h t i n g i n t h i s c l i n i c a l study i s the explanation given for the empirical findings noted i n the l i t e r a t u r e review of the present study, regarding the outcomes of hyperactive children as adolescents. They observe that generally the hyperkinetic behaviors decrease at puberty with an upswing i n a n t i s o c i a l behavior, along with the not uncommon development of overt depression i n the adolescent. Z r u l l et a l . postulate th i s as a possible answer to what happens to the hyperkinesis as the c h i l d reaches puberty. A further example of the subtle but powerful consequences of these parent-child dynamics i s found i n a previously c i t e d work by Hembling (1978). He states: I believe that some children may be made anxious and become reac t i v e l y depressed i n response to parental inconsistencies and double messages, so hidden from view, that even the most s k i l l f u l therapist w i l l not i d e n t i f y t h e i r presence or si g n i f i c a n c e . Reactive depression i s just such a diagnostic category, and i n pre-latency aged children i t s presence generally results i n hyperactivity, acting-out, a high l e v e l of anger, d i s t r a c t i b i l i t y , loss of normal sleep patterns, a l l of which i s to be distinguished from t y p i c a l depressed states i n adults. (p. 5) Hembling also c i t e s Segal (19 77) who argues for the value of viewing hyperactivity i n the context of depressive state. This p o s i t i o n i s also supported by Yahraes (19 78) who ci t e s the work of Dr. W. E. Bunney J r . and associates i n t h e i r work with the National Institute of Mental Health. They report that hyperactivity i s common i n the children experiencing the most prevalent type of childhood depression -- masked depression. 49 Hyperactivity as a common symptom of 45 out of 72 prepubertal children referred to an educational diagnostic center and l a t e r diagnosed as c l i n i c a l l y depressed was also reported by Weinberg et a l . (1973). It i s clear then that much evidence exists to support a strong link between hyperactivity and childhood depression which i s best understood as an in t e r a c t i o n within a parent- c h i l d relationship. It i s also clear that anger, and the manner in which i t i s managed i s a s i g n i f i c a n t variable i n the symptom- atology of depression, p a r t i c u l a r l y the hyperactivity. Although t h i s foregoing research suggests very strongly that M i l l e r ' s (19 77) contention of emotional dynamics providing the best explanation for hyperactivity i s probably accurate, the etiology of t h i s disorder i s not the concern of the present study. This research was presented to provide further evidence for examining the a d u l t - c h i l d r e l a t i o n s h i p , and i n p a r t i c u l a r , the child' s experience of that relationship i n order to relate to the hyper- active c h i l d more e f f e c t i v e l y . Further evidence was also pro- vided to support the dimension of acceptance versus r e j e c t i o n in the a d u l t - c h i l d r elationship as a consequence of the manner of dealing with the underlying emotion of anger. Parent-ChiId and Teacher-ChiId Dynamics Parent-Child Dynamics Generalizing to Teacher-Child Interaction So far we have explored dynamics of the a d u l t - c h i l d r e l a - tionship from the parent-child perspective. This has occurred 50 for two main reasons. F i r s t , there i s much more research on the parent-child relationship than on any other investigations of a d u l t - c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n . Secondly, the position taken here, and supported by other theorists and researchers, i s that the dimensions of t h i s relationship generalize to other adult relationships. As referred to e a r l i e r , the teacher as "surrogate parent" represents another very s i g n i f i c a n t adult in the l i f e of an elementary school age c h i l d and i t i s t h i s relationship that the present study i s exploring from the ch i l d ' s point of view. Before looking at the teacher-child r e l a t i o n - ship i t i s important to gather more evidence supporting the assumption presented above suggesting that the dimensions of the parent-child relationship generalize to other a d u l t - c h i l d relationships. Cox (1962) provided a p a r t i a l test for the hypothesis that the attitudes a c h i l d has towards his parents generalize to many other i n d i v i d u a l s , by gathering data from 243, 10 to 11 year old boys on the Thematic Apperception Test as a means of assessing degree of attachment to or rej e c t i o n of both parent figures. He then correlated these findings with four peer group measures and found a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n . In presenting h i s t h e o r e t i c a l background he notes the d i f f e r e n t concepts used to explain these transfers or generalizations. One such concept — stimulus generalization — proposed by Dollard and Mi l l e r , describes how the personality of a therapist and his presence creates a s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n which 51 reminds the patient of e a r l i e r experiences of punishment or reward involving authority figures. The stimuli of the therapist then makes him si m i l a r i n many ways to parents and the patient generalizes those responses on to the therapist. Cox also c i t e s a reference to Piaget: According as the f i r s t i n t e r i n d i v i d u a l experiences of the c h i l d who i s just learning to speak are connected with a father who i s understanding or dominating, loving or c r u e l , etc., the c h i l d w i l l tend (even throughout l i f e i f these relationships have influenced his whole youth) to assimilate a l l other indiv i d u a l s to his father scheme. (p. 872) On the basis of t h i s t h e o r e t i c a l background Cox then assumes: There would be a posi t i v e correlation between a child's attitudes towards his parents and the q u a l i t y of his interpersonal relationships with other indiv i d u a l s with whom he enters into s i m i l a r r e l a t i o n s h i p s : namely interpersonal relationships which have a f f e c t i v e and/or authoritarian components (cf. teachers). (p. 822) In a powerful and persuasive paper, Van Kaam (19 77) traces the dynamics of hope and despondency i n the parents of handi- capped children — we could consider hyperactivity to be one such handicap. In exploring the in t e r a c t i o n between a c h i l d and his parents he notes how every c h i l d , p a r t i c u l a r l y one with a handicap, i s l e f t with a deep impression of how he experiences and must cope with his parents regardless of how obvious that impression might be. The child's future r e l a - tionships are then modelled on these e a r l i e r ones to the extent that "these early meetings with d i s i l l u s i o n e d , anxious or f a l s e l y g u i l t y parents give r i s e to emotional experiences that permeate the l i f e of the handicapped c h i l d to i t s deepest 52 roots" (p. 30 8). Toman (19 76) also posits how: A person transfers or generalizes his experiences within the family to s o c i a l situations outside the family, for instance to the playground, to kindergarten or school, to acquaintances he might have and to friends he might make . . . at any rate, day a f t e r day, often for many years. (p. 4) And he further proposes: One may assume that i t i s the early and more pervasive l i f e contexts rather than contexts emerging r e l a t i v e l y late and more sporadically that serve as a basis for generalizations of past experiences to new contexts. The family's influence on a person's behavior i n school i s usually greater than the school's influence on his behavior i n the family. (p. 5) As we now begin to explore the dynamics of the teacher- c h i l d relationship and search for evidence supporting what the present study considers c r i t i c a l dimensions of t h i s r e l a t i o n - ship as i t relates to the hyperactive c h i l d , a b r i e f re- focusing w i l l serve both as a reminder and as a guidepost. The necessity of examining the context where hyperactive behavior occurs i s evident, along with the need to focus on the a d u l t - c h i l d relationship i n that context. A more s p e c i f i c need i s to assess the i n t e r a c t i v e process occurring between the adult and c h i l d as influenced by the child's perceptions. It i s assumed that the classroom teacher w i l l react to the hyperactive c h i l d and w i l l also be experienced by the c h i l d i n a fashion s i m i l a r to the foregoing elaboration of the parent-child dynamics. In a sense, the classroom can be viewed as a family with a single surrogate parent having an extra- ordinary number of s i b l i n g s a l l with s u r p r i s i n g l y s i m i l a r ages. The c r i t i c a l dynamics which we are exploring i n the present 53 study, as p e r c e i v e d by the c h i l d , are acceptance and demand. A thorough review of the l i t e r a t u r e uncovered o n l y one study (Loney e t a l . , 1976) which examined the t e a c h e r - c h i l d r e l a t i o n - s h i p from the h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d ' s p o i n t of view, thus r e q u i r i n g evidence to be gathered by more i n d i r e c t means such as r e a d i n g between the l i n e s of r e l a t e d s t u d i e s . T e a c h e r - C h i l d I n t e r a c t i o n In a p r e v i o u s l y c i t e d study which focused on the degree o f e f f e c t i v e n e s s of a s s e s s i n g h y p e r a c t i v i t y i n s c h o o l s , Bowers (1978) c i t e s Campbell e t a l . ' s (1977) d e s c r i p t i o n of a p o s s i b l e classroom i n t e r c h a n g e . The p o s s i b l e contagion of h i g h a c t i v i t y l e v e l coupled with the teacher's response can serve t o e i t h e r calm or exacerbate such behavior, so t o compare any one c h i l d ' s l e v e l of a c t i v i t y with some i d e a l or norm would r e q u i r e account- i n g f o r the s t i m u l i i n the context. The f u l l meaning of the behavior would a l s o r e q u i r e an awareness of what i s being taught, how i t i s being taught, and by whom. One c l e a r i m p l i - c a t i o n here i s t h a t the q u a l i t y of the teacher response i s very c r i t i c a l i n the s p e c i f i c context. Ackerman e t a l . ' s (1977) s i g n i f i c a n t work p o i n t s out t h a t both parents and t e a c h e r s are l i k e l y t o l e r a n t of the r e s t l e s s o r wiggly c h i l d as l ong as work i s completed and other c h i l d r e n are not d i s t u r b e d . However, the h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d ' s p r o p e n s i t y f o r b r e a k i n g classroom r u l e s , f o r being r e s t l e s s and d i s t r a c t - a b l e , f o r not completing work, and f o r not performing up t o expectations would c e r t a i n l y lead him to being singled out. One wonders a f t e r a l l how many teachers could tolerate and accept such a c h i l d within the classroom. Using multivariate analyses and planned comparisons of teacher ratings, peer perceptions and interactions, and cl a s s - room behaviors on 17 hyperactive and 17 active elementary school-age boys, Klein and Young (19 79) attempted to assess hyperactivity i n what they described as i t s most probable setting — the classroom. Their major results delineated four types of hyperactives ( i . e . , anxious, conduct problem, i n a t - tentive, and low problem) and pointed to the need to study and treat them as heterogeneous groups. However, among t h e i r other findings some have p a r t i c u l a r relevance to the present study. They note, for example, that t h e i r review of the l i t e r a t u r e i d e n t i f i e d behavioral and academic problems occurring i n the classroom se t t i n g as being two of the common c l i n i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s leading to the l a b e l l i n g of hyperactivity. In t h e i r observations of classroom i n t e r a c t i o n , hyperactive boys interacted s i g n i f i c a n t l y more with adults i n the cl a s s - room than did active boys and these observations validated the teachers' report that a time-consuming and formidable task was to keep the hyperactive boys on-task and nondisruptive. The present author suggests that regardless of the per- sonality of the classroom teacher, the nature of the teacher's task requires a p r i o r i t y of concern for order, routine and on- task behavior. Since hyperactive children present functioning 55 patterns v i r t u a l l y at odds with these goals, i t i s the excep- t i o n a l teacher who would not become frustrated with and unaccepting of these hyperactive children who could e a s i l y be seen as thwarting the teacher's plans. I t i s also f e l t that the children themselves must be experiencing the teacher's behavior i n a rather unique manner from other more "competent" and "compliant" peers. In fact, K l e i n and Young's other relevant finding was that "hyperactive boys were found to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from actives on measures from a l l data sources i n that they were perceived and interacted more nega- t i v e l y " (p. 425). This need for order and control i n the classroom has been referred to by Conrad (1977) as a possible explanation for the c h i l d being reported hyperactive at school but not at home. He contends 7 that the child's behavior might be a comment or adaptation to the classroom s o c i a l system and he c i t e s Holt and Silberman as having documented the main preoccupations i n elementary school classrooms as being order and control. Along t h i s l i n e , Zentall (1980), i n a study which w i l l be described l a t e r , noted that hyperactive children talked more and were n o i s i e r i n the f a m i l i a r classroom settings. He further notes, and r i g h t l y so, how t h i s type of behavior: would draw a teacher's attention, might be i r r i t a t i n g , and could be noticed continuously even i f the teacher wasn't looking at the c h i l d . This pattern could also contribute substantially to the teacher l a b e l l i n g the c h i l d hyperactive. 56 Loney et a l . ' s (19 76) study, referred to e a r l i e r as the only one found to have studied the hyperactive child's percep- t i o n of teacher behavior, compared three groups of elementary school boys rated by the teacher to be hyperactive and r e f e r r a b l e , most active but not referrable, and normoactive classmates. Each boy was then given the Teacher Approval-Disapproval Scale. This s e l f - r e p o r t questionnaire had previously been validated on a sample of 144 boys and 166 g i r l s i n ten grade four classes and on t e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y studies was shown to produce c o - e f f i c i e n t s s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from 0 at the p<.001 l e v e l for 21 out of 2 3 items for boys and 20 out of 2 3 items for g i r l s . Although the sample size was r e l a t i v e l y small for the hyperactives when the test was then administered to the three groups (n's = 16, 25, 93 re s p e c t i v e l y ) , s i g n i f i c a n t d i f - ferences were noted i n t h e i r responses to 8 out of 11 i n d i v i d u a l items which ask the c h i l d about the amount of teacher approval and disapproval directed toward himself personally and about the frequency of his own happiness and unhappiness i n the c l a s s - room. In comparison, the boys d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y on only 2 of 11 corresponding class items, which ask the c h i l d about teacher behaviors toward the class as a whole or about the happiness and unhappiness of the entire class. More s p e c i f i - c a l l y , the most active rated boys d i f f e r e d from normoactives i n t h e i r rating of i n d i v i d u a l teacher disapproval to the whole class. However, the hyperactive boys said they received s i g - n i f i c a n t l y less approval from teachers for academic, motivational, 57 and s o c i a l behaviors than did normoactives as well as s i g n i f i - cantly more general disapproval. Loney et a l . then suggest the p o s s i b l i t y of a higher prevalence of learning problems i n the hyperactive group and consequently less academic reinforce- ment . They also c i t e other relevant research pointing to d i f f e r - e n t i a l teacher perceptions and treatment based on sex of c h i l d . For example: Meyer and Thompson (1956) and Jackson and Lahaderne (1967) report more teacher disapproval dispensed to boys; Good and Brophy (1972) noted twice as many boys i n a teacher-nominated "rejection group"; and Martin (1972) discovered that high rates of teacher-child disapproving contacts were recorded for boys as compared to g i r l s and, more c r i t i c a l l y , for a minority of boys — those with behavior problems. F i n a l l y , Loney et a l . noted t h e i r study boys receiving less personal approval, more personal disapproval, and having more negative i n d i v i d u a l attitudes about being i n the classroom. One c r i t i c i s m of the above study by the present author i s addressed at the nature of the s e l f - r e p o r t questionnaire, which, although being described as behaviorally focused, does i n fact ask the c h i l d to make judgements about others' happi- ness and enjoyment on a few items. In spite of t h i s short- coming, th i s study provides some valuable groundwork i n determining the hyperactive child's perceptions of teachers' behavior toward them. Of p a r t i c u l a r importance i s the i m p l i - cation that children with disruptive behavior problems, mostly boys, are l i k e l y to receive greater teacher disapproval. 58 The present study explores and extends this implication. Teacher-Child Interaction: Setting Related and Task Related Factors Closely p a r a l l e l i n g these studies on teacher-child i n t e r - action are some that investigate the e f f e c t s of d i f f e r e n t settings and tasks on the pattern of functioning of hyper- active children. These w i l l be examined for the added l i g h t they shed on the overriding important teacher-child relationship as influenced by the child's perception. Zentall's (1980) previously referred to work involved a continuous recording of s p e c i f i c behaviors of matched pai r s of hyperactive and normally active children i n six d i f f e r e n t natural classroom settings which varied from high structure and low external stimulation ( i . e . , seat work and no d i s t r a c - t i o n s ) , to low structure and high external stimulation ( i . e . , free choice and h i g h ) l e v e l of d i s t r a c t i o n ) . Some of the findings using multivariate analyses have been reported e a r l i e r but of s p e c i a l note here i s that i n the most frequently observed classroom settings — low stimulation (seat work) — the hyper- active children showed s i g n i f i c a n t l y more noise and t a l k i n g along with more disruptive and off-task behavior. The amount of structure, defined here as degree of teacher d i r e c t i o n , was d i r e c t l y related to the. type of off-task behavior, and the hyperactive children showed higher levels of disruptive acts across the high and low structure settings even though these differences became less over time i n the high structure settings. In a closely related study by Jacob et a l . (19 78) eight hyperactive and sixteen nonhyperactive children were compared on f i v e i n d i v i d u a l categories of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c hyperactive behavior: s o l i c i t i n g teacher attention, aggression, refusing teacher request, change of p o s i t i o n , and daydreaming. Using observational measures, s i g n i f i c a n t differences were found between the two groups i n formal settings involving a small number of teacher-specified tasks but not i n the informal settings involving choice and a variety of tasks. Further noted by Jacob et a l . (1978) was the tendency of children i n the hyperactive group to display higher frequencies of behavior than controls i n both settings on four of the f i v e behavior categories. An i n t e r e s t i n g by-product of t h i s study showed a highly s i g n i f i c a n t c orrelation between the composite observa- t i o n a l measures.;and the Connors Abbreviated Rating Scale (1969) as well as a teacher subjective rank ordering of hyperactivity i n the formal setting. This supports one aspect of the metho- dology of the present study. A f i n a l point i m p l i c i t i n Jacob et a l . ' s study may be drawn by considering the p o s s i b i l i t i e s of teacher-child in t e r a c t i o n i n a t y p i c a l , teacher-directed, formal classroom setting. The present author maintains that children displaying higher frequencies of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c , hyperactive behavior may be the target of less teacher accep- tance and more teacher demand. One other p o s s i b i l i t y posited i n the present study suggests that these "hyperactively acting" children w i l l i n fact perceive the teacher more negatively 60 than t h e i r less disruptive classmates, thus aggravating an already d i f f i c u l t s i t u a t i o n . Flynn and Rapoport (19 76) compared two groups of 30 hyper- active boys who had previously participated i n a study of drug treatment of hyperactivity. In attempting to gather data on the more appropriate type of classroom for these boys, 10 were observed i n "open" classroom environments and 13 were observed i n " t r a d i t i o n a l " settings. Using the Connors Teacher Rating Scale (1969), as completed by observers as well as the teacher, the groups were compared for l e v e l of hyperactivity and academic status as i t related to type of classroom. Flynn and Rapoport (19 76) c i t e Cruickshank (196 7) and Strauss and Lehtinen (19 47) as supporting the long standing assumption that the high structured, self-contained classroom i s the most desirable environment for hyperactive children. However, t h e i r findings indicate that open classrooms may be a preferable placement for many hyperactive boys. This seemingly c o n f l i c t i n g finding i s c l a r i f i e d i n t h e i r description of the open cl a s s - rooms i n t h e i r study which t y p i c a l l y : operated with clear guidelines; had teachers who dealt with c o n f l i c t s and disruptive behavior without involving the group; and had warm, open, and accepting emotional climates. The emphasis here on teacher differences has been further reinforced by Whalen et a l . (19 79) i n t h e i r long term research investigating the classroom environ- ment as one c r i t i c a l aspect of the s o c i a l ecology of hyper- a c t i v i t y . They note that: 61 Individual differences i n teachers also enter the picture. Some teachers function best i n quiet, orderly classroom settings where a l l children follow a single, w e l l - delineated routine. Other teachers (and t h e i r students) thrive i n a more complex, f l e x i b l e , and-multidimensional environment. (p. 79) While comparing the relationships between various d i s t r a c - tions and task performance of hyperactive and normal children, Steinkamp (19 80) made some rather i n t e r e s t i n g observations which add further emphasis to the dynamics of the teacher-child i n t e r a c t i o n . She noted that although the presence of an adult decreases time-off on a complex task ( i . e . , Arithmetic), the e f f o r t s addressed to decreasing time-off task do not i n them- selves r e s u l t i n improved score performance. The p o t e n t i a l teacher f r u s t r a t i o n r e s u l t i n g from no school gains i n spite of increased e f f o r t i n managing the hyperactive c h i l d i s obvious to the present author. Add to t h i s the child's faulty perception of the teacher's e f f o r t s at "helping" him, and a destructive, i n t e r a c t i o n a l cycle i s set i n motion. Children's Perceptions Acceptance as a C r i t i c a l Factor Supporting evidence for the need to examine the degree of acceptance perceived by the c h i l d displaying varying l e v e l s of hyperactive behavior has already been referred to i n the foregoing review. Ackerman et a l . (1977) and Morrison (1980) lend additional support for t h i s i n t h e i r follow-up studies by noting how adults diagnosed retrospectively as hyperactive 62 v i v i d l y r e c a l l the multiple f a i l u r e s with r e s u l t i n g disapproval and depression, and the higher tendency for hyperactive boys to remember fathers who were h o s t i l e . Cunningham and Barkley (1979) c i t e Battle and Lacey as noting how mothers of overactive boys appear more c r i t i c a l and disapproving. Z r u l l et a l . (1970) i n t h e i r c l i n i c a l description of the role of depression i n the hyperkinetic syndrome describe how the c h i l d reacts not only to himself but to others' attitudes, expectations, and frustrations because of his d e f i c i t s . He also points out how parents may eit h e r r e j e c t the c h i l d or have u n r e a l i s t i c expec- tations depending on whether they are unwilling to recognize the problem or are unaware of i t . Z r u l l et a l . also postulate how the child's depression may be related to parental re j e c t i o n . Stewart et a l . ' s (1973) study of the s e l f description of f o r - merly hyperactive children, now adolescents, pointed out the common phenomenon of the arousal of feelings of f r u s t r a t i o n and resentment i n t h e i r parents and teachers as well as d i s l i k e among t h e i r peers. P h i l i p s (19 79) also describes some possible consequences for the hyperactively behaving c h i l d i n school whose faul t y e f f o r t s ( i . e . , clowning, daydreaming) at gaining acceptance and reward often lead to scolding and punishment. He further notes how the child's acting-out behavior i s seldom recognized as a need for consolation but i s rather seen as annoying and the corresponding teacher response further r e i n - forces the chil d ' s negative perceptions. F i n a l l y , Loney et al.'s (1976) study deserves h i g h l i g h t i n g again. Using a Teacher Approval-Disapproval Scale t h i s study 63 confirmed the expectation that teachers behave more disapprov- ingly towards hyperactive children from the child's point of view. The suggested reasons for t h i s are attributed to more disruptive classroom behavior and poorer performance on cognitive and academic tasks. A further finding pointed to fewer perceived differences when the c h i l d was asked about teacher behaviors toward the class as a whole. Also suggested i n the results was a pattern of greater teacher disapproval of children with behavior problems, most of whom are boys. This study supports the claim i n the present study that children who display a higher l e v e l of disruptive behavior, sometimes l a b e l l e d hyperactive, perceive teacher behavior d i f f e r e n t l y from t h e i r classmates. More evidence i s also found for examining the dimension of acceptance i n the child's experience of the teacher-child relationship. Our attention w i l l now be turned to various aspects of interpersonal per- ceptions . Interpersonal Perceptions Importance and Need for Determining Children's Perceptions In reviewing the l i t e r a t u r e around children's perceptions of s i g n i f i c a n t others, as t h i s relates so c e n t r a l l y to the present study, i t seemed important to demonstrate the need for determining children's perceptions, p a r t i c u l a r l y of the c h i l d who i s displaying hyperactive behaviors. Support for the accuracy of the perceptions of the hyperactive c h i l d was also gathered. ( 64 Research examining children's perceptions of s i g n i f i c a n t adults has arisen through extensive study of parent-child r e l a - tionships. Ausubel et al.'s (1954) often c i t e d work notes two main assumptions underlying the need for determining children's perceptions of parent behavior. F i r s t , although parent beha- v i o r i s an objective event, i t affects the chil d ' s development only to the extent i n which the c h i l d perceives i t . Secondly, i n attempting to measure such i n t r i n s i c and emotionally laden issues as acceptance or r e j e c t i o n , the child's less experienced and less devious responses seem l i k e l y to be more accurate than the ratings by the parents themselves or by an observer. Schaefer (1965) i s also c i t e d regularly and i s viewed by Goldin (196 9) as one researcher who has done the most exten- sive f a c t o r - a n a l y t i c work i n the area of children's reports of parent behavior. His Children's Reports of Parent Behavior Inventory (1965), which has been used most widely by subsequent researchers i n the f i e l d , i s based on t h i s same underlying assumption that the child's perception of his parents' beha- v i o r may be more related to his adjustment than the actual behaviors of his parents. Using the Bronfenbrenner Parent Behavior Questionnaire (Rogers, 1966), Gecas et a l . (1970) applied t h i s p r i n c i p l e of the child's perceptions of parents across two cultures and found s i g n i f i c a n t s i m i l a r i t i e s . Their t h e o r e t i c a l orientation deserves mentioning here: In the t r a d i t i o n of G.H. Mead (19 34) and CH. Cooley (1902) the s e l f i s defined as a symbolic construct and explained i n terms of the r e f l e c t e d appraisal of others. 65 In coining the concept of the "looking-glass s e l f " , Cooley emphasized the r e f l e c t i v e nature of the s e l f , i . e . , one's s o c i a l reference i s determined by his imagination of how he appears i n the minds of others. Sul l i v a n (1947) defined the s e l f as an organization of conceptions and perceptions whose primary purpose i s to decrease anxiety which results from the disapproval of others. . . . Thus, through evaluational i n t e r a c t i o n with others, the i n d i v i d u a l forms an organized pattern of perceptions about his own n a t u r e — p e r c e p t i o n s of both negative and p o s i t i v e value. (p. 317) The present author contends that children bring these varying perceptions into the classroom and they influence greatly the ensuing teacher-child i n t e r a c t i o n . Loney et a l . (19 76) point out quite r i g h t l y that children know better than observers which teacher behaviors actually serve as approvals and disapprovals, and, since the children spend much more time in the classroom than i s eit h e r p r a c t i c a l or possible for even the most astute observer, the children's perceptions w i l l be important regardless of the degree of correspondence with observer ratings. Woyshner (19 79) surveyed 2,2 79 children ages 7 to 11 and 1,747 parents along with 1,730 teachers using self-administered questionnaires. Of p a r t i c u l a r noteworthi- ness to our study i s her observation that children's percep- tions of themselves and t h e i r environment are often very d i f f e r e n t from the perceptions of the adults who know them and who share the same environments. She also noted how r i c h a source of information children have about themselves and how they can be both a r t i c u l a t e and eloquent about matters that a f f e c t them d i r e c t l y . Hembling (19 80) comes to a s i m i l a r conclusion i n his investigations of the etiology of family- based c h i l d disturbance. He c i t e s Rohner et a l . ' s (1980) work 66 i n t h i s d i r e c t i o n and concludes: Such a child-centered approach and focus on the child' s own experience of his family appears more relevant than some external judge's view of the parenting a p a r t i c u l a r c h i l d might experience. (p. 7) V a l i d i t y of Children's Perceptions Having established the importance and need for deter- mining children's perceptions, we now examine some evidence i n support of the v a l i d i t y of children's perceptions as being r e l i a b l e sources of information about the behavior of others, p a r t i c u l a r l y adult behavior. A few rather i n t e r e s t i n g studies involving elementary school boys which surfaced i n the l i t e r a t u r e included data derived from peers which was found to be very r e l i a b l e . Whalen et a l . (19 79) compared interactions of normal and hyperactive boys i n a structured communication task. Their review observes, i n several studies which are unusual from most, data derived from peers included i n predictive batteries for hyperactivity. In longitudinal studies of "at r i s k " children, peer sociometric data was shown to predict adult outcomes better than adult ratings, professional assessments, or objective t e s t r e s u l t s . They also c i t e Bruininks (1978) and Gronlund (1959) who suggest that ratings by children of the same sex are the most sensi- t i v e measure of status within the child's peer group. Likewise, Campbell and Paulauskas (1979) c i t e Cowen et a l . (1973) who report children rated negatively by peers i n grade three as being more l i k e l y to experience p s y c h i a t r i c disturbance as adults. A f i n a l example of the accuracy of children's perceptions 67 of others i s demonstrated by Lefkowitz and Tesiny (19 80). In t h e i r assessment of childhood depression using a peer nomina- tio n inventory with children 10 years old, findings indicated that a l i s t of the presumed symptoms can be translated into observable behaviors which can be assessed r e l i a b l y and v a l i d l y by a peer nomination technique. V a l i d i t y of Hyperactive Child's Perceptions Although children's perceptions have been proven generally r e l i a b l e , does t h i s also hold true for children behaving i n a hyperactive manner? Campbell and Paulauskas (19 79) noted studies which assessed the hyperactive child's cognitive s k i l l s and have not found d e f i c i t s . They suggest the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c behavioral symptoms of hyperactive children are influenced more strongly by factors other than a delay of s o c i a l cognitive s k i l l s . Loney (19 74) s p e c i f i c a l l y examined behavior and i n t e l - ligence test scores of 12 younger and 12 older hyperactive boys. Her r e s u l t s supported the hypothesis that hyperactive children i n school at second and f i f t h grades do not d i f f e r from t h e i r peers i n i n t e l l e c t u a l endowment. Ackerman et a l . (1979) compared and contrasted 7 to 10 year old hyperactive and learning disabled boys on several measures including per- sonality t r a i t s , cognitive role taking, and moral behavior. The hyperactive boys were found to be as much i n touch with the i d e a l , or the way things should be, as other children, but teachers saw them as much less w i l l i n g or able to r e d i r e c t 68 t h e i r attention and e f f o r t to the classwork or to the control of t h e i r behavior. Paulauskas and Campbell (1979) compared 10 year old hyperactive boys with controls on three measures of s o c i a l perspective taking and f a i l e d to f i n d s i g n i f i c a n t differences between groups. They further report that although the hyperactive boys were able to d i f f e r e n t i a t e t h e i r perspec- t i v e i n a controlled setting, teacher reports suggest that they' do not use t h e i r s o c i a l reasoning a b i l i t y i n the natural s o c i a l environment. In assessing 26 eleven year old boys' knowledge and attitudes about t h e i r own medication for hyperactivity, Baxley et a l . (19 78) found t h e i r responses to be knowledgeable about the purpose of t h e i r medication and suggest t h i s accurate perception as having possible c l i n i c a l relevance for the out- come of drug treatment of hyperactive children. This evidence for the r e l i a b i l i t y of the perceptions of hyperactive children may appear counter to the argument stated e a r l i e r for the unique and faulty perception of others that these children have. The rather delicate point being estab- li s h e d here maintains the "soundness" of the hyperactively behaving child's mechanisms for perceiving others' behavior. In other words, these children are able to perceive others as accurately or r e l i a b l y as t h e i r peers. However, the message they pick up i s d i f f e r e n t because of t h e i r unique perceptual "set". 69 • Conclusion In conclusion, the focus of t h i s study w i l l be restated to highlight and underscore i t s importance. Since children's perceptions of others are r e l i a b l e and greatly influence t h e i r own behavior, they deserve further examination i n the context of the classroom. Children who behave i n a hyperactive manner present one of the major concerns for parents, teachers and many other professionals. However, the p r o l i f e r a t i o n of studies on these children have v i r t u a l l y ignored the child's perception. As stated by Stewart et a l . (19 73) and l a t e r by Weiss and Hechtman (19 79): Among the many studies of hyperactivity and i t s treatment there does not seem to be one that i s concerned with the thoughts and feelings of the patients themselves. (Stewart et a l . , p. 3) This issue of children's perceptions i s the concern and the main thrust of the present study. 7 0 CHAPTER III Methodology The methodological considerations and de t a i l s of the present study are s p e c i f i e d i n thi s chapter. Population and Sampling Procedures A t o t a l of 1 0 3 boys served as subjects i n t h i s study. The i n i t i a l thrust was to involve boys i n grades four and five enrolled i n regular elementary school classrooms. This target group was r e a l i z e d with 4 7 grade four boys and 4 5 grade five boys p a r t i c i p a t i n g . In grade four the ages of boys ranged from 9 . 0 0 years to 1 1 , 3 3 years; the mean age being 1 0 . 0 7 years with a standard deviation of . 5 0 years. The f i f t h grade boys ranged i n age from 1 0 . 4 2 years to 1 2 . 3 3 years; the mean age being 1 0 . 9 7 years with a standard deviation of . 3 7 years. As mentioned e a r l i e r , the boys were enrolled i n eight reg- ular classes i n two d i f f e r e n t elementary schools which were part of a large school system i n a major urban centre located i n the i n t e r i o r of B r i t i s h Columbia. Both schools were s i t u - ated i n r e s i d e n t i a l areas somewhat removed from the "inner-city" core. However, the p a r t i c u l a r demographic features could be described as: generally middle-class with some v a r i a t i o n i n 71 socio-economic l e v e l s ; containing r e l a t i v e l y t r a d i t i o n a l family types with .a small percentage (less than 30% according to school administrators) of single-parent homes; sub s t a n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t i n terms of c u l t u r a l group representation. There were f i v e c u l t u r a l groups i d e n t i f i e d for the p a r t i - c i p ating subjects. These were: Anglo, Continental European, East Indian, Native Indian, and Oriental. The Anglo group was comprised of subjects with eit h e r B r i t i s h , I r i s h , Scottish or Canadian backgrounds. Subjects with I t a l i a n , German and French backgrounds formed the Continental European group. The East Indian group was comprised of subjects with background from India, while one subject formed the Native Indian group. Two subjects with Japanese background and one with Chinese background made up the Oriental group. The somewhat delicate nature of the present study resulted i n the accessible population (Borg and G a l l , 19 79) being boys i n grades four and f i v e classrooms where the teacher volunteered to p a r t i c i p a t e . Although volunteer samples have been shown to d i f f e r from true random samples i n some t y p i c a l ways (Borg and G a l l , 19 79; Rosenthal and Rosnow, 19 75;), t h i s i s seen as n o n - c r i t i c a l for t h i s study since i t i s examining dimensions of teacher-child i n t e r a c t i o n from the child's perspective. The data gathered on each c h i l d , and summarized above, appears to indicate a population which could represent many classroom si t u a t i o n s , but c e r t a i n l y not a l l . Boys i n grades four and f i v e were chosen for three major 72 reasons. The instrument to be used to measure children's per- ceptions (see Appendix B) has been used previously with children i n grades four, fiv e and six. Secondly, the discussion of prevalence rates and male:female r a t i o i n studies on hyper- a c t i v i t y (see Chapter II) j u s t i f i e s the focus on boys and time constraints resulted i n narrowing the study to children i n grades four and f i v e . Parental consent to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the study was obtained for the boys p r i o r to the onset of te s t i n g by each school administrator. Description of Measuring Instruments The instruments used i n the present study were the Teacher Behavior Questionnaire (Koopman and Schroeder, 1977) and the Conners' Abbreviated Teacher Questionnaire (Conners, 1969). Subjects completed the f i r s t measure and were rated by t h e i r teacher on the second measure. A description of each i n s t r u - ment follows. 1. The Conners' Abbreviated Teacher Questionnaire The Conners 1 Teacher Questionnaire, i n one of i t s several forms (Conners, 1969; Goyette, Conners and U l r i c h , 1978; Werry and Hawthorne, 19 76; Werry, Sprague and Cohen, 19 75) has been used most extensively and has been recommended for research and screening purposes (Loney, 19 80). The Abbreviated Teacher Questionnaire consists of 10 b r i e f descriptive statements of behavior d i r e c t l y related to hyper- a c t i v i t y . Each statement i s rated from a "Not at A l l " (0) to 73 "Very Much" (3), y i e l d i n g a score from 0 to 30. A score from 15 to 30 has been shown to c l e a r l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e hyperactive from non-hyperactive children (Campbell and Redfering, 1979; Gordon, 19 79; Loney, 19 80; Sprague, Christensen and Werry, 19 74; Weissenburger and Loney, 197 7; Werry, Sprague and Cohen, 19 75). Although the primary thrust of the present study did not attempt to i d e n t i f y a group of hyperactive children, t h i s stated purpose of the instrument bears mentioning. For the purposes of the present study t h i s instrument was chosen to ascribe to children various levels of behavior t y p i c a l l y attributed to hyperactivity i n a fashion s i m i l a r to Copeland and Weissbrod (1978). This rating scale was used to assess the r e l a t i v e l e v e l of problematic behavior of a l l boys p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the study. The classroom teachers, who are considered r e l i a b l e and competent raters of observed behavior (Conners, 196 9; Campbell and Redfering, 1979; Lambert et a l . , 19 78; Loney, 19 74; Whalen et a l . , 19 7 8), completed the scale for t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i n g students. Conners' (196 9) o r i g i n a l teacher questionnaire consisted of 39 items describing problem behaviors rated on a 4-point scale. In attempting to provide information on the r e l i a b i l i t y , construct v a l i d i t y , and s e n s i t i v i t y of th i s instrument to teacher observed behaviors, Conners compared one group of children having learning and/or behavior disorders, and being treated with drugs, to another placebo group i n a double-blind study. The study sample consisted of 82 boys and 21 g i r l s , 74 with a mean age of nine years and nine months, being assigned randomly to either group. Teachers who knew the c h i l d well were asked to f i l l out a pre and post-study scale for each c h i l d . The pre-drug results were subjected to a p r i n c i p a l components factor analysis, using unity i n the diagonal and rotation to simple structure by the varimax c r i t e r i o n . This analysis yielded fi v e factors as follows: Factor I - defiant, aggressive conduct disorder; Factor II - daydreaming, inatten- t i v e dimension; Factor III - anxious, f e a r f u l ; Factor IV - hyperactive, r e s t l e s s ; Factor V - health. By further corre- l a t i n g the fi v e highest factor pre and post-treatment scores for each placebo group subject, t e s t - r e t e s t correlations ranged from .71 to .91. A f i n a l analysis involved computing change scores for each group which were evaluated by t-tests on uncorrelated groups. The results showed highly s i g n i f i c a n t changes with drug treatment for a l l f i v e factors. It was also noted that Factor I, measuring aggressive, disturbing behavior, accounted for most of the variance and was somewhat correlated with Factor IV - hyperactivity. The l i s t has been factor analyzed on a sample of c l i n i c outpatients and normal children (N = 6 83) and has been shown to give r e l a t i v e l y stable factor structure across ages and a wide s o c i a l class range (Conners, 1970). As noted by Zentall and Barack (19 79) i n 19 73 Conners shortened t h i s form to the 10-item Abbreviated Teacher Ques- tionnaire (ATQ) by eliminating the anxiety and s o c i a b i l i t y 75 items which were less related to hyperactivity. These 10 items are among those most frequently checked by parents and teachers of outpatient children and have been found to be r e l a t i v e l y sensitive to drug changes. Steinkamp (19 80) c i t e s work by Sprague, Christensen and Werry (19 74) who found the rating of 15, chosen as a cutoff i n grouping subjects, to represent two standard deviations above the item mean of the standardiza- t i o n sample of 291 children. Zentall and Barack (1979), have examined the concurrent v a l i d i t y , i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y , and i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y for the ATQ (Conners, 19 73) and the Rating Scales for Hyperkinesis (Davids, 1971). They had eight teachers rate 83 boys and g i r l s , mean age 8 years and 3 months, i n regular classrooms, along with 46 boys and 3 g i r l s , mean age 8 years and 9 months, i n spe c i a l classes being rated by eight other teachers on both measures. In determining interscale p r e d i c t a b i l i t y , scores from the Conners and Davids Scales were correlated r e s u l t i n g i n the s i g n i f i c a n t o v e r a l l c o r r e l a t i o n of r_ (228) = .84, and for both regular schools r (179) = .81, and for the sp e c i a l classes _r (47) = . 80, a l l at the p< .001 l e v e l . The ATQ was chosen to ascribe various lev e l s of observable classroom behaviors, having a strong rel a t i o n s h i p to hyper- a c t i v i t y , to subjects i n the present study. It has been used most extensively with teachers by various researchers and i t s brevity and r e l i a b i l i t y also contribute to i t s s u i t a b i l i t y . To avoid a " c l i n i c a l set" or negative halo, the scale was 76 named Teacher Inventory for purposes of t h i s study. Refer to Appendix A for the ATQ (Teacher Inventory). 2. Teacher Behavior Questionnaire This instrument i s based upon the Bronfenbrenner Parent Behavior Questionnaire (Devereux, Bronfenbrenner and Suci, 1962). Koopman and Schroeder (1977) modified the items to r e f l e c t the classroom environment. The questionnaire has 45 statements concerning teachers' behavior and taps 15 separate variables using three statements for each. Sophisticated factor a n a l y t i c a l methods have consistently yielded three major components: "loving", "punishment", and "demanding". The punishment component was eliminated from the present study, r e s u l t i n g i n f i v e remaining variables c l u s t e r i n g together to arrive at a score for "loving" and four variables for the "demanding" score. Variables for the "loving" component include: nurturance, a f f e c t i v e reward, instrumental companionship, a f f i l i a t i v e companionship, and p r i n c i p l e d d i s c i p l i n e , while the "demanding" concept consists of: p r e s c r i p t i v e , power, achievement demands, and indulgence. Each c h i l d was asked to select one of the following f i v e choices for each of the 27 items: Never, Hardly Ever, Sometimes, F a i r l y Often, and Always. The scoring ranges from 5 (Never) to 1 (Always), so that a low f i n a l score affirms certain teacher behaviors. I t should be noted here that the three statements comprising the "indulgence" sub-dimension were presented i n a "reflected" manner. This resulted i n a higher score affirming 77 that dimension of teacher behavior. Children's scores were transformed to account for t h i s i n the calculations. The weightings range from: 1 to 5 for a single item; from 3 to 15 for a single variable; from 15 to 75 for the "loving" compo- nent; and from 12 to 6 0 for the "demanding" component. The 9 variables with t h e i r corresponding statements are presented i n Table 1. This p a r t i a l Teacher Behavior Questionnaire (Children's Inventory) was administered to classroom groupings of p a r t i c i p a t i n g children by the researcher. TABLE 1 78 L i s t of Stimulus Items for the P a r t i a l Teacher Behavior Questionnaire~ (Children's Inventory) Loving Component 1. Nurturance: Comforts me when I have troubles. Is there for me when I need her/him. I can talk with him/her e a s i l y . 2. Affective Reward: Says nice things about me to other people. Is very f r i e n d l y with me. Praises me when I have done something good. 3. Instrumental Companionship: Teaches me things I want to learn. Helps and encourages me with my own sp e c i a l i n t e r e s t s . Helps me with my schoolwork when I don't understand something. 4. A f f i l i a t i v e Companionship: Does fun type a c t i v i t i e s with me. Is happy when with me. Enjoys t a l k i n g with me. 5. P r i n c i p l e d D i s c i p l i n e : Is just and f a i r when punishing me. When I must do something she/he' explains why. Is reasonable when correcting my mistakes. Demanding Component 6. Pr e s c r i p t i v e : Expects me to help around the classroom. T e l l s me what I have to do when my regular schoolwork i s completed. Expects me to keep my things i n order. 7. Power: Insists that I get permission before I go to the bathroom. Makes me do my work exactly when and how he/she t e l l s me to. Insis t s that I do things her/his way. 8. Achievement Demands: Insists that I make a spe c i a l e f f o r t i n everything. Insists that I t r y to get good grades. Ins i s t s that I do a good job on my schoolwork. 9. Indulgence: I can talk her/him into most anything. Lets me o f f easy when I misbehave. Finds i t d i f f i c u l t to punish me. 79 The Bronfenbrenner Parent Behavior Questionnaire consists of 45 parent practice items drawn from a larger set used by Devereux, Bronfenbrenner, and Suci (1962) i n a previous study which found the 15 general variables to be s i g n i f i c a n t . They then used i t for cross-national comparisons of chil d - r e a r i n g practices with 72 German-American pairs of sixth grade students (40 boys and 32 g i r l s ) . In searching for dimensions of parental behavior ,which were empirically independent they i n t e r c o r r e l a t e d a l l 45 items to generate four separate co r r e l a t i o n matrices: boys describing fathers; boys describing mothers; and the same matchings for g i r l s . Applying Thurstone's diagonal method of factor analysis to each matrix they found 9 factors to be common to a l l four matrices. In comparing the mean score ratings between groups on these 9 factors, 7 were found to be s i g n i f i - cantly d i f f e r e n t at the p< .05 l e v e l and 1 at the p< .01 l e v e l . Siegelman (1965) evaluated the effectiveness of the Bronfenbrenner Parent Behavior Questionnaire as a research technique by administering i t to 81 boys and 131 g i r l s i n grades four, f i v e and s i x . Using the same four matrices of male-father, male-mother, female-father and female-mother, several analyses of the data were made. In applying generalized Kuder-Richardson formula 20 r e l i a b i l i t i e s , he found mean r e l i a b i l i t i e s of .58, .45, .68, and .51 i n correspondence to the above matrices. Considering the scale's use of only three items per factor, Siegelman found these r e l i a b i l i t i e s quite s a t i s f a c t o r y . He further analyzed the data using a combination of 80 p r i n c i p a l component factor analysis with a varimax procedure and found three factors to account for 62%, 54%, 54% and 48% of the t o t a l variance corresponding to the above-mentioned matrices. These three factors were la b e l l e d "Loving", "Punish- ment", and "Demanding" and factor-score r e l i a b i l i t i e s based on these merged scales ranged from .70 to .91. Siegelman notes further how his fact o r - a n a l y t i c interpretation f a c i l i t a t e s insight into the psychological nature of a given variable (e.g., the "Nurturance" variable for male-father has high f a c t o r i a l v a l i d i t y for Factor I - "Loving" and low f a c t o r i a l v a l i d i t y for Factors II and I I I ) . In t h i s way, examining factor loadings contributes to our understanding of the con- struct v a l i d i t y of the Bronfenbrenner Parent Behavior Ques- tionnaire. Several other findings and observations are worth noting for purposes of the present study. Mean comparisons between descriptions of father versus mother found s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r - ences between boys and g i r l s on f i v e variables. Siegelman.o. then observed how the three factors resemble dimensions reported by other researchers i n assessing children's perceptions of parent behavior. Schaefer (1965) and Roe and Siegelman (1963) conclude that factors of love versus rejec t i o n and casual versus demanding are descriptive of results reported by several researchers. Koopman and Schroeder (1977), credited e a r l i e r for de- veloping the Teacher Behavior Questionnaire, administered i t 81 to 78 boys and 61 g i r l s i n grades four, f i v e and s i x . Using a varimax r o t a t i o n a l principal-component analysis i n a manner simi l a r to Siegelman (1965), they also derived three p a r a l l e l components of teacher behavior: "Loving", "Punishing", and "Demanding". Test-retest r e l i a b i l i t i e s calculated for the 15 variables ranged from .69 for power to .85 for expressive re j e c t i o n which was found s a t i s f a c t o r y for such an instrument. They also calculated i n t e r n a l consistencies using Cronbach's alpha on the three factors and chose the variables with loadings above .50 as defining the factors. The r e l i a b i l i t i e s were .86 for Factor I - "Loving", .81 for Factor II - "Punishing", and .63 for Factor III - "Demanding", re s u l t i n g i n non-overlapping factors. The Teacher Behavior Questionnaire was chosen for purposes of the present study because of i t s r e l i a b i l i t y , construct v a l i d i t y , and s e n s i t i v i t y to children's d i f f e r e n t i a l percep- tions of teacher behavior. In order to avoid a " c l i n i c a l set" or negative halo e f f e c t the name of the questionnaire was changed to Children's Inventory. Refer to Appendix B for the Teacher Behavior Questionnaire (The Children's Inventory). Nature of the Inventory's Measurement Scales Both of the instruments used i n the present study employ Likert scales. The Teacher Inventory consists of 11 statements which require the teacher to give a rating on a bipolar continuum from,"Not At A l l " (0) to "Very Much" (3). The Children's 82 Inventory consists of 2 7 items which require the c h i l d to give a rating on a bipolar continuum from "Always" (1) to "Never" (5). Although i t would be d i f f i c u l t to argue that the i n t e r v a l between each point i n the scale i s equivalent, there i s s u f f i - cient reason to suggest that the points i n the scale are more refined than a simple ordinal l e v e l . One could argue that the measurement scales employed i n the present study's intruments are at least q uasi-interval i n nature. (This j u s t i f i c a t i o n allows us to employ parametric s t a t i s - t i c a l techniques and analyses, including the Pearson product- moment corr e l a t i o n i n comparing the results.) Design and Data Col l e c t i o n Procedures This study i s c l a s s i f i e d as c o r r e l a t i o n a l research. Sub- jects selected were expected to vary on the measures of observed classroom behavior and on the measures of t h e i r perceptions of teacher behavior. I t may further be defined as a rel a t i o n s h i p study between classroom behavior and perceptions of teacher be- havior which were both measured at approximately the same time. Subjects' classroom teachers were given copies of the Teacher Inventory and were asked to complete them for p a r t i c i - pating boys i n t h e i r classroom according to the directions given at the top of the form. These ratings were then scored by the researcher. The Children's Inventory was administered by the researcher to classroom groupings of boys with one testing session i n each of the eight p a r t i c i p a t i n g classrooms. 83 The procedure for administering t h i s questionnaire followed the instructions at the top of the form. The experimenter began by giving each group the three practice statements for purposes of f a m i l i a r i z i n g subjects with the 5-point rating scale. The following points were stressed with the subjects: 1. Answering these items requires a d i f f e r e n t kind of thinking. 2. There i s no right or wrong answer. 3. The teacher w i l l not see the r e s u l t s . 4. The important information desired i s how true each student thinks a statement i s . 5. This information w i l l help other teachers understand children's points of view better. Once the children understood the answering format, the researcher read the instructions and stressed that subjects respond to the statements about the teacher as they r e a l l y f e l t and not as they thought i t should be. Each item was read twice for the subjects and the experimenter paused a f t e r each item u n t i l a l l students appeared to have responded. Fift e e n to twenty seconds was used as a guiding l i m i t for responding, and each group's tes t i n g required 30 minutes. Again, a l l scoring was completed by the researcher. I t should be mentioned here that i n order to f a c i l i t a t e the t e s t i n g procedure i n each school, the g i r l s remained i n the classroom and also completed the Children's Inventory. However, t h i s data gathered was not related to the present study. 84 S t a t i s t i c a l Analyses Analyses of results i n the present study are primarily c o r r e l a t i o n a l i n nature. Pearson product-moment correlations were computed between the Teacher Inventory behavior rating and the acceptance variables of the Children's Inventory (see Research Question 1, Chapter I ) . Correlations were also computed to estimate the relationship) between the Teacher Inventory behavior rating and the demand variables of the Children's Inventory (see Research Question 2, Chapter I ) . The acceptance variables and the demand variables of the Children's Inventory were also correlated to determine t h e i r l e v e l of relationship (see Research Question 3, Chapter I ) . T-tests were performed to test for s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r - ences between grade four and f i v e boys on mean scores of behavior, acceptance, and demand. The results of the Teacher Inventory behavior ratings allowed for t-tests to be computed which compared groups of teacher-rated hyperactive and teacher- rated non-hyperactive boys on the variables of acceptance and demand (see The Conner's Abbreviated Teacher Questionnaire, Chapter I I I ) . Other analyses were conducted to explore additional ques- tions which arose from the findings related to the research. The S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r the S o c i a l Sciences (1980) was used for conducting a l l the above mentioned analyses. I 85 CHAPTER IV Results The results obtained i n the investigation of the proposed research questions are reported i n t h i s chapter. The post facto analyses with corresponding results follow and the results of adjunct analyses, although not d i r e c t l y connected to the i n i t i a l exploration of the s p e c i f i c research questions, are also presented for the additional understanding they give. Information on the three research questions of the present study was obtained by computing Pearson product-moment cor r e l a - tions between pairs of measures administered to subjects. It should be noted here that a l l correlations computed were one- t a i l e d tests and the sample consisted of 47 boys i n grade four and 45 boys i n grade f i v e , thus y i e l d i n g a t o t a l of N = 92. A l i s t of these measures and variables, along with t h e i r respec- t i v e abbreviations are presented i n Table 2. The Relationship Between Hyperactive Behavior and Perceived Acceptance (Question 1) The teacher rating of hyperactive behavior was correlated with the child's perceived acceptance variables i n order to investigate t h e i r relationship (see Table 3 ) . 86 TABLE 2 A L i s t of the Test Variables and Their Abbreviations TEST VARIABLES ABBREVIATIONS Teacher Inventory Hyperactive Behavior BEHAVE Children 1s Inventory Nurturance NURT Affective Reward AFF REW Instrumental Companionship INST COMP A f f i l i a t i v e Companionship AFFIL COMP Pri n c i p l e d D i s c i p l i n e PRINC DIS Acceptance - Total Score TOT ACCEPT Prescriptive PRES Power POW Achievement Demand ACH DEM Indulgence INDUL Demand - Total Score TOT DEMAND 87 TABLE 3 Pearson Product-Moment Correlations c Between BEHAVE and ACCEPT Variables Variables NURT AFF REW INST COMP AFFIL COMP PRINC DIS TOT ACCEPT BEHAVE . 34**•*••• .26*** .22** .19* . 28** • . 3 2 * * * A l l tests are one-tailed. *•'•£< .05. * * p< .O I L ; ' *** p< .001. As the resu l t s of Table 3 indicate, there i s a s i g n i f i c a n t relationship between hyperactive behavior and a l l of the per- ceived acceptance variables. The correlation between BEHAVE and TOT ACCEPT i s r = +.32, p < .001; which i s expected since a l l of i t s sub-dimensions have s i g n i f i c a n t correlations with BEHAVE. The correlation of r = +.19, p < .05 for AFFIL COMP with BEHAVE, although s i g n i f i c a n t , i s the lowest co r r e l a t i o n of the five sub-dimensions for TOT ACCEPT. The Relationship Between Hyperactive Behavior and Perceived Demand (Question 2) The question of how the child's perception of demand i s related to the teacher's rating of hyperactive behavior was 88 examined. Table 4 contains the results of t h i s c o r r e l a t i o n . TABLE 4 Pearson Product-Moment C o r r e l a t i o n s 5 Between BEHAVE and DEMAND Variables Variables PRES POW ACH DEM INDUL TOT DEMAND BEHAVE -.11 -.18* -.12 -.29** • -.25** tests are one-tailed. .05. Three s i g n i f i c a n t correlations are indicated between the rating of hyperactive behavior and the perceived demand v a r i - ables. The corr e l a t i o n of r = -.25, p < . 0 1 between BEHAVE and TOT DEMAND i s accounted for by s i g n i f i c a n t correlations of two sub-dimensions. The BEHAVE with POW shows an r = -.18, p< .05 and the BEHAVE with INDUL shows an r = -.29, p< .01.„ The high degree of relationship between BEHAVE and TOT DEMAND appears attributable to the POW sub-dimension and, more par- t i c u l a r l y , the INDUL sub-dimension. 89 The Relationship Between Perceived Acceptance and Perceived Demand (Question 3). In order to investigate the l e v e l of relationship between each dimension of the chi l d ' s perception of acceptance with each dimension of perceived demand, these variables were cross- correlated. Table 5 presents the results of these analyses. TABLE 5 Pearson Product-Moment C o r r e l a t i o n s 5 Among ACCEPT and DEMAND Variables Variables NURT AFF REW INST COMP AFFIL COMP PRINC DIS TOT ACCEPT PRES . 12 -.03 .04 . 11 .20* . 11 POW .01 .14 .003 .08 .06 .07 ACH DEM .07 . 17* . 14 .20* .17* . 19* INDUL -.35*** -.22** -.24** -.20* -.35*** -.33*** TOT DEM -.06 .03 -.02 .07 .02 .01 aTests are a l l one - t a i l e d . * P . 05. ** p .01. *** p .001. AS indicated, the variable of TOT DEM does not show a s i g n i f i c a n t l e v e l of relationship with TOT ACCEPT, r = .01. 90 However, several of the sub-dimension variables do show r e l a t i v e l y high correlations. Most notably, the INDUL v a r i - able i s strongly related to a l l of the ACCEPT sub-dimensions at the following l e v e l s : r = -.35, p< .001 with NURT; r = -.22, p < .01 with AFF REW; r = -.24, p < .01 with INST COMP; r = -.20, p< .05 with AFFIL COMP; and r = -.35 with PRINC DIS. Also notable i s the rather s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n - ship that INDUL shows with TOT ACCEPT, r = -.33, p< .001. It bears mentioning here that a l l of these variables are negatively correlated i n d i c a t i n g an inverse relationship with indulgence which was expected. Four other s i g n i f i c a n t relationships involve the ACH DEM variable. It shows an r = .17 with AFF REW; an r = .20 with AFFIL COMP; an r = .17 with PRINC DIS; and an r = .,19 with TOT ACCEPT, a l l at the p< .05 l e v e l . F i n a l l y , the PRES sub-dimension i s related s i g n i f i c a n t l y to the.PRINC DIS variable with an r = .20, p < .05. A summary of the correlations between the major variables — hyperactive behavior, perceived acceptance and perceived demand — along with t h e i r means and standard deviations are presented i n Table 6. 91 TABLE 6 Means, Standard Deviations, and Pearson Product-Moment C o r r e l a t i o n s 5 Among the Variables BEHAVE, TOT ACCEPT, and TOT DEMAND TOT TOT Variables BEHAVE A C C E p T DEMAND M e a n ^ BEHAVE 8.90 7 . 0 1 TOT ACCEPT . 3 2 * * — 4 0 . 2 3 10 .34 TOT DEMAND - . 2 5 * . 0 1 — 2 4 . 1 8 6 . 8 8 a A l l tests are one-tailed. * p < . 0 1 . ** p < . 0 0 1 . Comparing Grade Four Boys with Grade Five Boys It was assumed i n the present study that the outcomes of the variables measured would be f a i r l y s i m i l a r for the boys i n both grades. In order to investigate the accuracy of t h i s assumption, t-tests were computed to compare the differences between these two groups i n t h e i r mean scores on the behavior ra t i n g as well as t h e i r mean scores on the perceived acceptance and perceived demand variables. The 47 grade four boys and the 45 grade f i v e boys were viewed as independent groups i n these analyses and the tests performed were a l l two-tailed using pooled variance estimates. The r e s u l t s of these comparisons along with the means and standard deviations for each group are presented i n Table 7, 92 TABLE 7 Means, Standard Deviations and t Values Comparing Grade Four and Five Boys on the Variables, BEHAVE, ACCEPT, and DEMAND Variables Grade Mean SD — Value BEHAVE 4 9. 45 7.48 9 0 a 5 8. 33 6.65 • 75 TOT ACCEPT 4 38.47 10. 01 5 42.07 10. 46 -1.69 NURT 4 8.13 2.53 5 8.69 2.51 -1.07 AFF REW 4 7. 36 2. 36 5 8. 80 2.29 -2.96** INST COMP 4 6 . 79 2. 39 5 7. 33 2.60 -1.05 AFFIL COMP 4 8. 79 2.54 5 9.27 2.50 -.91 PRINC DIS 4 7. 40 2.60 5 7.98 2. 71 -1.04 TOT DEMAND 4 21.66 5.26 5 26. 82 7. 42 -3.86*** PRES 4 6.09 1.91 5 6.64 2.32 -1.27 POW 4 4. 87 2.00 5 6. 89 2. 42 -4.36*** ACH DEM 4 4. 89 2. 18 5 6. 44 2.93 -2.89** INDUL 4 5. 81 2.44 5 6. 84 2.71 -1.93* a d f = 90 for a l l tests.. * p_< .05. ** p< .005. *** p< .000. I t i s obvious that some highly s i g n i f i c a n t differences are operative between grade four and grade five boys, as p a r t i c u l a r l y shown by t = -3.86, p_< .000 on the TOT DEMAND variable. This high l e v e l of difference i s riot surprising considering that three of i t s four sub-dimensions shows d i f f e r - ences ranging from t = -1.93, p < .05 for INDUL to t = -4.36, p< .000 for POW. The only other s i g n i f i c a n t difference between these two groups occurs with the AFF REW variable, t = -2.96, p< .005. Comparing Teacher-rated Hyperactive and Teacher-rated Non-Hyperactive Boys The outline of s t a t i s t i c a l analyses for the present study (see S t a t i s t i c a l Analyses, Chapter III) refers to some possible ;post facto' comparisons between teacher-rated hyperactive children and teacher-rated non-hyperactive children (see also The Conner's Abbreviated Teacher Questionnaire, Chapter I I ) . For purposes of comparing differences between these two groups on the main variables of hyperactive behavior, acceptance and demand, the designated cut-off point of 15 or higher i d e n t i f i e d 21 hyperactive boys i n our sample. In order to promote a substantial difference i n the l e v e l of hyperactive behavior i n a comparison group, the cut-off point of 10 or lower iden- t i f i e d 5 8 non-hyperactive boys i n our sample. In order to explore the significance of differences be- tween these two groups, t - t e s t s were computed on the dependent 94 varibles referred to e a r l i e r . These groups were considered independent and two-tailed tests were used including pooled variance estimates. The results of these comparisons along with means and standard deviations are presented i n Table 8. Also included are the comparisons of the teacher-rating of seriousness of problem (SERIOUS) f o r these boys (see Teacher Inventory, Appendix A). 95 TABLE 8 Means, Standard Deviations and t Values Comparing Hyperactive 5 and Non-hyperactive b Boys i n Grades Four and Five on the Variables, BEHAVE, SERIOUS, ACCEPT, and DEMAND Variables Group 0 Mean SD d f d t Value BEHAVE 1 19. 10 4.07 77 2 4. 36 3. 33 16. 36*** SERIOUS 1 1. 81 . 75 2 . 38 . 70 7.90*** TOT ACCEPT 1 45. 33 11.16 2 38.53 8.78 2.82** NURT 1 9.48 2.60 2 7. 90 2.26 2.64** AFF REW 1 9. 10 2.57 2 7. 76 2. 15 2. 32* INST COMP 1 8.00 2. 85 2 6. 88 2.19 1. 85 AFFIL COMP 1 10. 10 2.63 2 8. 83 2.29 2.09* PRINC DIS 1 8.67 2. 82 2 7. 17 2. 42 2. 32* TOT DEMAND 1 20.90 6.64 2 25. 47 6. 86 -2.63** PRES 1 5.67 2.03 2 6. 41 2.06 -1.43 POW 1 4.90 1. 95 2 6.21 2. 32 -2.29* ACH DEM 1 5.10 2.59 2 5. 84 2.65 -1.12 INDUL 1 5.24 2. 39 2 7.00 2.54 -2.77** aN = 21. bN = 58. cGroup 1 refers to Hyperactive and 2 refers to Non-hyperactive. d d f = 77 for a l l tests (two-tailed). * p < .05. ** p< .01. *** p< .000. 96 As expected, and as indicated by the r e s u l t s , hyperactive boys d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from non-hyperactive boys on a l l but four of the variables compared. Not s u r p r i s i n g l y , some of: the s i g n i f i c a n t differences were found on the SERIOUS and BEHAVE, t = 16.36, p< .000, variables which were measured by an i n s t r u - ment designed to define hyperactive children i n a behavioral manner. The rather s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the two groups on the TOT ACCEPT variable, t = 2.82, p< .01, i s com- posed of s i g n i f i c a n t differences on four of i t s sub-dimension variables. This includes AFF REW, AFFIL COMP, and PRINC DIS, a l l s i g n i f i c a n t at the p< .05 l e v e l , as well as the NURT variable, with a t = 2.64, p< .01. When comparing these two groups on TOT DEMAND, the obviously s i g n i f i c a n t difference of t = 2.6 3, p< .01 appears substantially affected by the INDUL sub-dimension, with a t = -2.77, p< .01, and i s also influenced by the difference i n the POW variable at the p< .05 l e v e l . I t i s somewhat surprising that the ACH DEM component did not show a s i g n i f i c a n t difference between groups since i t measures the degree of insistence and demand the c h i l d experiences from the teacher i n r e l a t i o n to school tasks. Overall, these r e s u l t s , comparing the hyperactive and the non-hyperactive boys on the main variables measured, strongly support the high l e v e l of relationships evidenced between hyperactive behavior and perceived acceptance and perceived demand which have been noted previously. 97 Additional Analyses A number of adjunct analyses were conducted to investigate some questions that arose from the primary analyses and to provide additional information on the sample of subjects who part i c i p a t e d i n the present study. One question a r i s i n g from the primary analyses concerned determining the differences that may be present on the main variables of behavior, perceived acceptance and perceived de- mand as a r e s u l t of p a r t i c u l a r classroom group differences. One-way analyses of variance were performed i n order to deter- mine whether s i g n i f i c a n t classroom differences e x i s t for these variables. Table 9 presents these r e s u l t s , which compare a l l eight classrooms from the two schools involved i n t h i s study. TABLE 9 One-Way Analyses of Variance Attributable to Classroom Differences Variable Source of Variance Sum of Squares Mean Squares df F P BEHAVE BG* WGb 829.46 3716.65 118.49 44.25 7 84 2. 68 .015 ACCEPT BG WG 2100.55 7625.64 300.08 90. 78 7 84 3. 31 .004 DEMAND BG WG 1062.16 3247.72 151.74 38.66 7 84 3. 93 .001 Between Groups Within Groups 98 As the results indicate, s i g n i f i c a n t differences e x i s t on a l l three variables when considering a l l eight classrooms simultaneously. Although t h i s finding allows us to conclude that at least two of the mean classroom results are not equal (Kirk, 19 78), i t would be more h e l p f u l to know whether any two d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y and, i f so, which p a i r . By applying Scheffe's S test (Kirk, 1978) to the data outlined'in Table 9 i t was determined that no two classroom groups are s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t at the p< .05 l e v e l on the variables BEHAVE and ACCEPT. However, one group of grade four boys d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i - cantly from one group of grade f i v e boys, each having N = 12, on the DEMAND variable at the p < .05 l e v e l . This difference i s i l l u s t r a t e d by noting t h e i r respective means and standard deviations on t h i s sub-dimension. The grade four boys showed a M = 19.50, SD = 5.18; while the grade five boys showed a M = 30.00, SD = 9.92. In order to explore these differences on the variable DEMAND even further, additional analyses of variance were per- formed with Scheffe's procedure by eliminating each of the two groups i n turn. This resulted i n no two groups being s i g n i f i - cantly d i f f e r e n t at the p< .05 l e v e l when the group of grade four boys was included. However, the same group of grade f i v e boys showed a s i g n i f i c a n t difference with another group of grade four boys at the p< .05 l e v e l when they were included i n the analyses. Further s t i l l , by eliminating both of these groups at the same time, an analysis of variance along with 99 Scheffe's procedure showed no two groups being s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t on the DEMAND variable. From these findings i t i s apparent that the one group of grade fiv e boys i s d i f f e r e n t from the others on the DEMAND variable. The classroom groups may be considered comparable however, on the BEHAVE and ACCEPT variables. A further question arose from the primary analyses per- tai n i n g to possible differences between schools on the major variables measured i n t h i s study. The f i r s t step i n answering t h i s question was to note the frequencies i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of hyperactive children and non-hyperactive children between the two schools. The results of t h i s are presented i n Table 10. TABLE 10 Distri b u t i o n of Hyperactive and Non-Hyperactive Boys Between Schools N Percent Hyperactive School 1 8 39.1 School 2 13 60.9 Non-hyperactive School 1 35 60.3 School 2 2 3 39.7 It i s obvious from these r e s u l t s that School 2 has a s i g - n i f i c a n t l y higher proportion of teacher-identified hyperactive children and School 1 has a s i g n i f i c a n t l y larger number of teacher-rated non-hyperactive children. 100 This question was next explored by performing t-tests on the mean variable scores for BEHAVE, ACCEPT, and DEMAND as combined for each school. The results of these tests are presented i n Table 11 along with means and standard deviations. TABLE 11 Means, Standard Deviations and t Values Comparing School Differences on the Variables BEHAVE, ACCEPT, and DEMAND Variables School M SD df t Value BEHAVE Xb 7. 42 6.34 90 -2.24* 2 b 10. 67 7.55 ACCEPT 1 37. 74 9.66 90 -2.60** 2 43.19 10. 44 DEMAND 1 25.50 7.29 90 2.03* 2 22.62 6.09 aN = 50. bN = 42. * p< .05 (two-tailed). ** p< .01 (two-tailed). The s i g n i f i c a n t difference shown between schools on the DEMAND variable, t = 2.03, p< .05, was expected since the groups of grade four and five boys, referred to e a r l i e r i n the analyses of variance, were i n d i f f e r e n t schools. However, the BEHAVE and ACCEPT variables also show differences which are s i g n i f i c a n t at the p< .05 and p< .01 levels respectively. These are also expected results i n the l i g h t of the frequency 101 d i s t r i b u t i o n results seen i n Table 10 which point to r e a l differences between the schools. The f i n a l area to be explored next may provide a p a r t i a l explanation for t h i s difference. Information on the subjects' c u l t u r a l background was obtained. Table 12 displays the frequencies of the d i f f e r e n t cultures as they occur i n both schools. TABLE 12 Cultural D i s t r i b u t i o n Across Schools Cultures School Anglo Cont. Europe East Indian Native Indian Oriental 1 42 3 — — 2 2 26 8 10 1 — To investigate possible school differences, a chi-square test was c a r r i e d out to determine whether the difference i n the d i s - t r i b u t i o n of cultures between schools reached s i g n i f i c a n c e . 2 The results of t h i s analysis, _x_ = 2 1 , df = 9, p <; .02, i n d i - cate that the c u l t u r a l groups were, i n f a c t , unevenly d i s t r i b u t e d between schools. This chapter reported the results obtained from the analyses performed to investigate the three i n i t i a l research questions, the post facto analysis, and the additional questions which arose. These results w i l l be discussed and conclusions w i l l be drawn i n the following and f i n a l chapter of t h i s paper. 102 CHAPTER V Discussion of Results and Conclusions The results of the research questions explored i n the present study w i l l now be discussed i n the same order used i n e a r l i e r chapters. Outcomes of the post facto analyses and findings of the additional analyses are also discussed i n r e l a t i o n to the p a r t i c u l a r research question(s) involved. The Relationship Between Hyperactive Behavior and Perceived Acceptance The markedly high l e v e l of relationship shown between hyperactive behavior and the child's perceived acceptance i s consistent with the research discussed e a r l i e r and, i n par- t i c u l a r , the work by Loney et al.,(1976). Since t h i s i s a c o r r e l a t i o n a l analysis, a causal relationship may not be posited between these two dynamics. However, i t i s safe to conclude that as the l e v e l of observed hyperactive behavior i n the classroom increases, the teacher's behavior i s perceived by the c h i l d as less accepting. This could be stated i n the reverse order and s t i l l remain consistent with the s t a t i s t i c a l findings. The c r i t i c a l discussion here does not center on causality or on attempting to e s t a b l i s h which factor comes f i r s t . But, the studies reviewed e a r l i e r which indicated a negative, esca- l a t i n g i n t e r a c t i o n between the adult and the hyperactively behaving c h i l d do f i n d support i n these present findings. In 103 short, the i n t e r a c t i o n a l position i s supported. Some caution needs to be expressed before discussing the results of the correlations between hyperactive behavior and the sub-dimensions of acceptance. The development of t h i s instrument as discussed e a r l i e r did show these factors to be non-overlapping. In spite of t h i s , i t seems rather daring to make claims about a complex factor such as "nurturance" based on the results of three statements only. With t h i s caution i n mind, some further observation and discussion i s i n order. The nurturance sub-variable showed the highest correlation with hyperactive behavior. Again, t h i s finding i s expected as i t concurs with the previous discussion regarding hyperactivity and the social-emotional climate (see Chapter I I ) . The i n d i - vidual statements which y i e l d a "nurturance" score (see Table 1) are e s s e n t i a l l y asking for the chi l d ' s experience of the teacher in terms of comfort, a v a i l a b i l i t y , openness, and caring. Interestingly, these q u a l i t i e s could be seen as more d i r e c t l y related to the personal growth of a teacher and suggest the heed to emphasize these aspects i n teacher t r a i n i n g programs Although s i g n i f i c a n t , a f f i l i a t i v e companionship showed the lowest correlation with hyperactive behavior. Two of the statements comprising the score for t h i s sub-dimension may have given children some d i f f i c u l t y (see Table 1) since they ask the c h i l d to make a judgement on the teacher's inner ex;-, perience. This abstract a b i l i t y may have been beyond the developmental c a p a b i l i t y of some children as was indicated 104 by t h e i r comments during a post-testing debriefing^time. One factor which needs highli g h t i n g when considering these results stems from the e a r l i e r indications i n the l i t e r a t u r e review regarding the d i f f i c u l t y hyperactive children experi- ence with many school tasks. By examining the statements which form the acceptance variable, at least one of the three under each sub-dimension could contain school task connotations which are very l i k e l y to be negative for the c h i l d who behaves more hyperactively than his peers. I t would be d i f f i c u l t to separate the child' s attitude toward school from the attitude toward the teacher and t h i s most l i k e l y has influenced the results of perceived acceptance i n the present study. An additional influencing factor on the behavior and acceptance variable outcomes bears mentioning here as a r e s u l t of comparing school differences i n the additional analyses. School 2 proved to obtain s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher behavior ratings by teachers and ratings of s i g n i f i c a n t l y less perceived accep- tance by children than did school 1. These rather surprising results may be p a r t i a l l y explained by the r e a l difference i n c u l t u r a l backgrounds between schools and they would serve to increase the significance of the measures on relationship strength and di r e c t i o n with acceptance. To summarize, the findings related to t h i s research ques- tion are strong and clear with suggestions for further questions worth exploring. Hyperactive behavior shows a strong inverse relationship with perceived acceptance, p a r t i c u l a r l y with the perceived nurturance sub-dimension. 105 The Relationship Between Hyperactive Behavior and Perceived Demand As the results indicated, hyperactive behavior shows a strong negative relationship with the TOT DEMAND variable. Since a low score affirmed that perceived dimension of teacher behavior, i t appears evident that as the c h i l d i s observed to behave more hyperactively so also the teacher i s perceived as more demanding by the c h i l d . This high l e v e l of c o r r e l a t i o n i n no way suggests a causal relationship but i t does again lend support to the i n t e r a c t i o n a l model of viewing hyperactive beha- vi o r . The possible inflammatory e f f e c t s of greater perceived demand combined with less perceived acceptance by the hyper- ac t i v e l y behaving c h i l d are obvious. Also obvious i s the support given to suggestions i n e a r l i e r research reviewed re- garding the i n - b u i l t stress factors for the hyperactive c h i l d i n many school settings and tasks. The teacher's and school's needs for order, routine, and control are often at odds with th i s child's lack of impulse control. The sub-dimension of indulgence was found to contribute aolarge part towards the s i g n i f i c a n t relationship between hyperactive behavior and the perceived demand variable. Since the statements f o r indulgence were presented i n a r e f l e c t e d manner, the r e l a t i v e l y high negative c o r r e l a t i o n shown suggests that as observed hyperactive behavior increases, the c h i l d perceives the teacher as s i g n i f i c a n t l y less indulgent. The other sub-dimension of power also showed a s i g n i f i c a n t negative 106 correlation with hyperactive behavior, suggesting that as behavior increases the c h i l d perceives the teacher as exerting greater power over him. Since both power and indulgence are such complex issues which can have such d i f f e r i n g meanings, p a r t i c u l a r l y for adults and children, caution needs to be exercised i n drawing too many conclusions from these results based on three statements only. However, some possible meanings of the more hyperactive c h i l d perceiving the teacher as less indulging might include: viewing the teacher as treating them more severely than t h e i r more "compliant" peers; a desire for greater acceptance and approval which may be understood as synonymous with indulgence by a c h i l d ; or i t may even suggest the child's deeper wish for greater control from the teacher. By reviewing the i n d i v i d u a l statements comprising the power dimension (see Table 1) i t i s possible to suggest that words such as " i n s i s t s " , "makes", and "exactly" could contribute to a negative view of power by the c h i l d , p a r t i c u l a r l y the c h i l d who may be experiencing a misuse of power by the other s i g n i f i c a n t adults i n his l i f e . Correspondingly, these statements would tend to accentuate i n d i v i d u a l teacher differences i n t h e i r understanding and use of power i n the classroom. The s i g n i f i c a n t difference on the demand variable noted i n one classroom grouping during the additional analyses could be viewed as a re s u l t of i n d i v i d u a l teacher difference. A f i n a l discussion point centers around the possible 107 i n f l u e n c e o f a t t i t u d e t o s c h o o l t a s k s o n a c h i l d ' s p e r c e p t i o n o f t e a c h e r d e m a n d . V e r y l i k e l y a c h i l d w h o f i n d s c e r t a i n t a s k s d i s t a s t e f u l a n d d i f f i c u l t w o u l d a l s o v i e w t h e t e a c h e r , w h o a s k s h i m t o d o t h e s e t a s k s e a c h d a y , a s m o r e d e m a n d i n g t h a n h i s p e e r w h o f i n d s t h e t a s k s e a s y a n d e n j o y a b l e . I n s h o r t , t h e r e i s a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n o b s e r v e d h y p e r a c t i v e b e h a v i o r a n d p e r c e i v e d d e m a n d . T h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p m a y b e e x p l a i n e d b y i n d i v i d u a l t e a c h e r d i f f e r - e n c e s i n i n d u l g e n c e a n d p o w e r a s p e r c e i v e d b y t h e c h i l d . T h e R e l a t i o n s h i p B e t w e e n P e r c e i v e d A c c e p t a n c e a n d P e r c e i v e d D e m a n d T h e r e s u l t s s u g g e s t v e r y m a r k e d l y t h a t t h e r e i s n o r e l a - t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e T O T A C C E P T a n d T O T D E M A N D v a r i a b l e s . T h i s f i n d i n g w a s r a t h e r s u r p r i s i n g s i n c e i t w o u l d a p p e a r t o f o l l o w l o g i c a l l y t h a t i f h y p e r a c t i v e b e h a v i o r i s r e l a t e d t o b o t h a c c e p t a n c e a n d d e m a n d , t h e n t h e y w o u l d b e r e l a t e d t o e a c h o t h e r . T h e e x p e c t e d f i n d i n g w a s t h a t a s t h e p e r c e i v e d d e m a n d i n c r e a s e d , t h e p e r c e i v e d l e v e l o f a c c e p t a n c e w o u l d d e c r e a s e . H o w e v e r , t h e o u t c o m e s i n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y w o u l d s u g g e s t t h a t t h e s e t w o v a r i a b l e s o p e r a t e r a t h e r i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f e a c h o t h e r . I t m i g h t b e i n t e r e s t i n g t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e s e t w o v a r i a b l e s w i t h a n i d e n t i f i e d g r o u p o f h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n a n d w i t h a g r o u p o f n o n - h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n . A p a r t i a l e x p l o r a t i o n o f t h i s n a t u r e w a s d o n e i n t h e p o s t f a c t o a n a l y s e s a n d w i l l b e d i s c u s s e d l a t e r . 10 8 Although the global r e l a t i o n between acceptance and demand proved to be n e g l i g i b l e , two of the demand sub-dimensions showed several s i g n i f i c a n t correlations with the acceptance sub-dimensions. Indulgence was found to be: sub s t a n t i a l l y related to both nurturance and p r i n c i p l e d d i s c i p l i n e ; obviously related to a f f e c t i v e reward and instrumental companionship; and s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to a f f i l i a t i v e companionship. A l l of these are negative correlations i n d i c a t i n g that as the teacher i s perceived as more accepting on a l l of these sub-dimensions, he i s also very l i k e l y to be perceived as less indulging. This finding gives i m p l i c i t support to the notion that a teacher might contribute best towards a warm, rewarding, relaxing and open classroom climate -- as perceived by the c h i l d -- by being firm and consistent. The other sub-dimension of demand, achievement demands, also showed s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e correlations with a f f e c t i v e reward, a f f i l i a t i v e companionship, and p r i n c i p l e d d i s c i p l i n e leading to a corresponding p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n with the global acceptance variable. These results suggest that a teacher need not s a c r i f i c e or compromise achievement standardfein order to promote a p o s i t i v e and rewarding classroom experience.- In fact, what i s suggested i s that t h i s type of classroom climate i s related to.clear, strong achievement demands. The lack of s i g n i f i c a n t relationship seen between achievement demands and the nurturance, as well as the a f f i l i a t i v e companionship v a r i - ables, could also suggest that some children would not perceive 109 the achievement demands i n an accepting manner. To summarize, as global variables, perceived acceptance and demand are unrelated and would appear to operate indepen- dently i n the classroom. However, the teacher who i s seen as less indulgent can also be perceived as more accepting. Also, the teacher who i s perceived as highly demanding i n achieve- ment may also be viewed by the c h i l d as rewarding, f r i e n d l y , and f a i r . Comparing Grade Four Boys with Grade Five Boys As the results indicate, the assumption of equal outcomes for grade four and grade f i v e boys holds true for the behavior rating and for the o v e r a l l perceived acceptance rating . How- ever, i n considering perceived demand there i s a measurably s i g n i f i c a n t difference found i n the d i r e c t i o n of less demand as perceived by grade f i v e boys. This large difference i s composed of grade five teachers being seen as; exerting far less power, s i g n i f i c a n t l y less demanding i n achievement, and more indulging. The additional analyses investigating classroom differences indicated one grade four group and one grade f i v e group having s i g n i f i c a n t differences on the demand variable. When these two groups were removed i n a subsequent analysis, no s i g n i f i c a n t differences were noted. In f a c t , removing the one grade f i v e group alone led to a si m i l a r finding. This suggests that i n d i - vidual teacher differences i n one grade f i v e class and also i n 110 one grade four class could account for much of the difference noted between grade four and grade f i v e boys on the demand variables. The s i g n i f i c a n t difference noted between grade groupings on the a f f e c t i v e reward sub-dimension does not f i n d support i n any of the other comparisons of acceptance variables or i n the additional analyses. This finding could again be p a r t i a l l y explained by i n d i v i d u a l teacher difference as the correspondin stimulus statements refer to f a i r l y s p e c i f i c teacher behaviors It seems safe to conclude that the grade four and grade f i v e boys i n our sample form a r e l a t i v e l y homogeneous group. The differences noted are generally explainable through i n d i - vidual teacher difference i n one or possibly two classrooms. Comparing Teacher-rated Hyperactive and Teacher-rated Non-Hyperactive Boys These post facto analyses may be viewed as extensions of the previous c o r r e l a t i o n a l findings. The results of the corre lations /between hyperactive behavior and perceived demand acceptance, as well as perceived demand, pointed to high l e v e l relationships i n p a r t i c u l a r directions. The results of t e s t i n for the significance of the differences between these two retrospectively i d e n t i f i e d groups allow f o r stronger state- ments to be made associating p a r t i c u l a r outcomes for hyper- active children. The strong s i g n i f i c a n t difference between these two group I l l i n the seriousness of the hyperactive behavior as judged by the teacher lends some further v a l i d i t y to the r a t i n g i n s t r u - ment used and to the soundness of the teacher's observations. Teacher-rated hyperactive children perceived s i g n i f i c a n t l y less acceptance from teachers than t h e i r non-hyperactive peers which lends more di r e c t support to the work by Loney et a l . , 1976, which showed hyperactive boys as seeing greater teacher disapproval directed towards them. Also supported i s the previous discussion i n the l i t e r a t u r e review on acceptance as a c r i t i c a l factor i n children's perceptions of adult behavior. By reviewing the difference outcome measures for the acceptance sub-dimensions, the nurturance variable, which accounts for the child's experience of comfort, a c c e s s i b i l i t y and openness from the teacher, contributes most highly to the significance of the difference for the t o t a l acceptance v a r i - . able. A f f e c t i v e reward, a f f i l i a t i v e companionship, and p r i n - c i p l e d d i s c i p l i n e each indicate a comparable l e v e l of strength i n t h e i r separation of these two groups. Again, these sub- dimensions are measured by asking for the child's perception of teacher behavior involving dynamics such as: f r i e n d l i n e s s , generosity with praise, personal i n t e r e s t , showing pleasure with the c h i l d , and demonstrated fairness (see Table 1). If the c h i l d brings these types of perceptions into the classroom, as suggested e a r l i e r by Cox (1972); Toman (1976) and Van Kaam (1977),or i f these perceptions represent a t y p i c a l teacher response as experienced by the hyperactive c h i l d , then 112 promoting change requires a multi-faceted strategy involving c h i l d , teacher, and parents. Also apparent i s the strong l i k e l i h o o d that the hyperactive c h i l d would experience the teacher as being angry with him, which may or may not be true. This possible mismanagement of anger by the teacher or t h i s probable experience of anger by the c h i l d can e a s i l y be seen as a contributor to hyperactive behavior i n a fashion s i m i l a r to that proposed by Hembling, 1978; M i l l e r , 1977; and Z r u l l et a l . , 1978. On the measured difference of perceived demand a h s i g n i f i - cant separation exists between hyperactive and non-hyperactive children. This difference i s most evident on the sub-dimension of indulgence which indicates that hyperactive children per- ceive teacher behavior as much less indulging than do t h e i r non-hyperactive peers. Also s i g n i f i c a n t i s the difference noted by the increased perception of power shown for the hyper- active children. As suggested i n the exploration of classroom differences as part of the additional analyses, i n d i v i d u a l teacher difference may p a r t i a l l y explain the s i g n i f i c a n t out- come found between these groups on perceived demand. These findings do however lend support to e a r l i e r suggestions by Ackerman et a l . , 1977; Flynn and Rapoport, 1976; Jacob et a l . , 1978; and Steinkamp, 1980, that the t y p i c a l d i f f i c u l t i e s of impulse control manifested by the hyperactive c h i l d would be at odds with t y p i c a l teacher goals of order and on-task beha- vi o r . This i n turn could be seen to r e s u l t i n higher lev e l s 113 of teacher intervention being directed at these children, r e s u l t i n g i n perceptions of less indulgence being granted them and also greater power being exerted over them. To c h i l - dren, what i s seen as greater indulgence given to t h e i r more compliant peers may be interpreted as greater acceptance. The resultant conclusion of p r e f e r e n t i a l treatment would serve to exacerbate an already negative s p i r a l of i n t e r a c t i o n . In short, hyperactive children perceive teacher behavior as less accepting and more demanding-than do t h e i r non-hyperactive peers. This might be attributed to differences i n teacher styles of r e l a t i n g or to the chil d ' s faulty perceptions. Both p o s s i b i l i t i e s would contribute to inflammatory dynamics between the teacher and the hyperactive c h i l d . Additional Analyses The results of the analyses of variance, which compared classroom groups on the main variables, indicate that the eight d i f f e r e n t groups have s i m i l a r outcomes with respect to the behavior ratings and the perceived acceptance ratings. This outcome lends some support to the r e l i a b i l i t y of the measures employed and adds to the confidence of our findings. The s i g n i f i c a n t variance noted on the perceived demand variable appears attributable to one grade f i v e group and i s at least p a r t i a l l y explained by i n d i v i d u a l teacher difference. A further explanation could be found i n considering s i t u a t i o n a l d i f f e r - ences for that p a r t i c u l a r class. Worth noting here i s a 114 discussion with one grade f i v e teacher during the f i e l d work part of the present study. This p a r t i c u l a r class was involved i n numerous s h i f t s as a r e s u l t of timetabling problems and the teacher shared personal frustrations over the way things were compared to the "hoped for" s i t u a t i o n . Although there i s no affirmation available that t h i s i s the divergent group, t h i s discussion gives some insight into possible contributing factors which were not accounted for i n the present study. The outcome of s i g n i f i c a n t differences between schools on a l l three main variables appears explainable by the noted differences i n d i s t r i b u t i o n of hyperactive and non-hyperactive children. Differences on the perceived demand variable appear accounted for by the two most highly separated classroom groups being i n separate schools as well as the higher i n c i - dence of hyperactive children occurring i n the school which showed greater perceived demand. In addition, the discrepancy i s accentuated by having a lower number of non-hyperactive children i n the: school showing less perceived demand. School differences found on the acceptance variable may also be ex- plained by the variant numbers of hyperactive and non-hyperactive children i d e n t i f i e d i n each school. F i n a l l y , the s i g n i f i c a n t difference found on the behavior variable between schools i s obviously consistent with the di r e c t i o n of occurrence of hyper- active and.non-hyperactive children. The issue l e f t unexplained i s the reason(s) for the school differences i n the teachers' behavior ratings of hyperactive behavior. 115 The s i g n i f i c a n t difference between schools noted i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of c u l t u r a l groups could very l i k e l y contribute to both the l e v e l of children's behavior and to the nature of the teacher-child relationship. Ghildrearing patterns, adult- c h i l d communication s t y l e s , sex ro l e s , and attitudes toward authority figures would be some of the factors related to c u l t u r a l background and would also have some bearing on the teacher-child i n t e r a c t i o n . Results of the present study may be unduly influenced by uncontrolled c u l t u r a l v a r i a t i o n i n the sample. Other variations in: socio-economic or f a m i l i a l patterns may also be operative and are not accounted for. Summary, Conclusions and Suggestions for Further Research The major focus of the present study centered on exploring teacher-child i n t e r a c t i o n from the ch i l d ' s viewpoint and, i n p a r t i c u l a r , investigating the relationship between the child's perceived acceptance and perceived demand and teacher ratings of hyperactive behavior. A secondary thrust sought to deter- mine the significance of differences i n these perceptions of teacher behavior between a group of teacher-rated hyperactive boys and a group of teacher-rated non-hyperactive boys, a l l enrolled i n regular elementary classrooms. An extensive review of l i t e r a t u r e related to hyperactivity promoted the integration of key findings as applied i n the present study. The Conner's Abbreviated Teacher Questionnaire (Teacher Inventory) was used to assess the l e v e l of hyperactive 116 behavior following the most widely adopted recent practice of defining hyperactivity behaviorally. Choosing to focus on the child ' s perception of acceptance and demand from the teacher was the re s u l t of several other s i g n i f i c a n t trends i n past research. An i n t e r a c t i o n a l model of viewing hyperactivity combined with a focus on i t s s o c i a l aspects as thi s relates to a p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n has been strongly suggested. Further suggestions point to a focus On the hyperactive child's experi- ence within a given s i t u a t i o n as being sorely needed. This study used a portion of the Teacher Behavior Questionnaire (Children's Inventory) to assess the child's perception of teachers' classroom behavior along the dimensions of acceptance and demand. There i s a s i g n i f i c a n t relationship between hyperactive behavior and perceived acceptance i n the d i r e c t i o n of less acceptance being experienced by the more hyperactively behaving c h i l d with p a r t i c u l a r l y strong association noted i n the nurturance sub-dimension. The higher levels of hyperactive behavior are also related s i g n i f i c a n t l y to perceptions of greater demand as contributed to most strongly by perceiving teacher behavior as less indulging. In a si m i l a r fashion, teacher-rated hyper- active children perceive the teacher as less accepting and more demanding when compared to t h e i r non-hyperactive peers. I t was also determined by the results obtained that perceived acceptance and perceived demand operate independently within the classroom setting. 117 The i n t e r a c t i o n a l model of viewing hyperactive behavior appears f r u i t f u l as i s the exploration of the s o c i a l - s i t u a t i o n a l aspects of the problem from the child's perception. The results of the present study suggest directions for future research. It would be h e l p f u l to determine the unique- ness of each child's perception of adult behavior as separate from the classroom teacher. This might be accomplished by administering a "Parent Behavior Questionnaire" to the children or by administering the Teacher Behavior Questionnaire at the onset of a school year as well as l a t e r on. The re s u l t s of these measures would help to separate out i n d i v i d u a l teacher differences and parent-related influences. A further d i r e c t i o n for research could involve comparisons of children's s e l f - reports with those of observer ratings and also teacher ratings of t h e i r own behavior. Any discrepancies would become quickly obvious and these results could then be followed further. F i n a l l y , c u l t u r a l v a r i a t i o n , socio-economic factors, and famil- i a l styles need to be controlled i n subsequent research. The uneven c u l t u r a l d i s t r i b u t i o n between schools very l i k e l y had some influence i n the present study, and a l l these factors would c e r t a i n l y appear to be related to behavior and adult- c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n . Some implications for classroom management of hyperactively behaving children arise from t h i s study. It would appear that the teacher who deals with hyperactive behavior i n children might increase his effectiveness by concentrating on ways to 118 communicate nurturance, caring and acceptance to these children. This involves personal growth within the teacher, which i s needed.in the focus of teacher t r a i n i n g programs. The c h i l d experiences acceptance from the teacher through the words the teacher di r e c t s at him or the words spoken about him, and also through non-verbal teacher behaviors. In other words, verbal and non-verbal strategies need to be developed by the teacher who desires to a l t e r the d i f f e r i n g perceptions of hyperactive children. Also pertinent i s the finding that perceived acceptance and perceived demand operate independently within the c l a s s - room. This implies that a teacher need not s a c r i f i c e achieve- ment demands or firm control i n order to communicate acceptance. In f a c t , the present author suspects that the controls may be one means to demonstrate caring i f t h i s i s communicated c l e a r l y to the c h i l d . 119 References Ackerman, P. T., Dykman, R. A., & Peters, J . E. Nonhyperactive learning disabled boys. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1977, 47, 577-596. Ackerman, P. T., Elardo, P. T., & Dykman, R. A. A psychosocial study of hyperactive and learning-disabled boys. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 1979, 7, (1), 91-99. Arnold, E. L. Is t h i s lable necessary? The Journal of School Health, 1973, 43, 510-514. Ausubel, D. P., Balthazar, E. E., Rosenthal, I., Blackman, L. S., Schpoont, S. H., & Welkowitz, J. Perceived parent attitudes as determinants of children's ego structure. C h i l d Development, 1954, 25, 173-183. Barkley, R. A. Recent developments i n research on hyperactive children. Journal of P e d i a t r i c Psychology, 1978, 3_, 158-163. Baxley, G. B., Turner, P. F., & Greenwood, W. E. Hyperactive children's knowledge and attitudes concerning drug treatment. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 1978, 3_, 172-176. Borg, W. R., & G a l l , M. D. Educational Research: Third E d i t i o n . New York: Longman Inc., 1979. Bowers, A. J. Can we e f f e c t i v e l y assess hyperactivity i n schools? American Journal of Mental Deficiency, August 1978, 411-420. Bruininks, V. L. Peer status and personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of learning disabled and nondisabled students. Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s , 1978, 11, (8), 29-34. Campell, E. S., & Redfering, D. L. Relationship among environ- mental and demographic variables and teacher-rated hyper- a c t i v i t y . Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 1979, 1_, (1) , 77-81. Campbell, S. B., & Paulauskas, S. Peer r e l a t i o n s i n hyperactive children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and A l l i e d D i s c i p l i n e s , 1979, 20, 233-246. Cantwell, D. P. The Hyperactive C h i l d : Diagnosis, Management, Current Research. New York: Spectrum Publications, Inc., 1975. Cantwell, D. P. Hyperactivity and a n t i - s o c i a l behavior. American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 1978, _17, 252-262. 120 Cantwell, D. P., & S a t t e r f i e l d , J. H. The prevalence of academic underachievement i n hyperactive children. Journal of P e d i a t r i c Psychology, 1978, 3, 168-171. Conners, C. K. A teacher rating scale for use i n drug studies with children. American Journal of Psychiatry, 196 9, 126, 884-888. Conners, C. K. Symptom patterns i n hyperkinetic neurotic and normal children. Child Development, 1970, 4_1, 667-682. Conners, C. K. Rating scales for use i n drug studies with children. Psychopharmacology B u l l e t i n , 1973, 9̂, (4) , 24-84. Conrad, P. S i t u a t i o n a l hyperactivity: A s o c i a l system approach. The Journal of School Health, May 1977, 280-285. Copeland, A. P., & Weissbrod, C. S. Behavioral correlates of the hyperactive factor of the Conners Teacher Questionnaire. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 1978, 6_, 339-343. Cox, F. N. An assessment of children's attitudes towards parent figures. Child Development, 1962, 3_3, 821-830. Cunningham, C. E., & Barkley, R. A. The interactions of normal and hyperactive children with t h e i r mothers i n free play and structured tasks. Child Development, 1979, 5_0, 217-224. Devereux, E. C., Bronfenbrenner, U., & Suci, G. J . Patterns of parent behavior i n the United States of America and the Federal Republic of Germany: a cross-national comparison. International S o c i a l Science Journal, 1962, 14_, 488-506. Firestone, P., & Martin, J. E. An analysis of the hyperactive syndrome: A comparison of hyperactive, behavior problem, asthmatic, and normal children. Journal of Abnormal C h i l d Psychology, 1979, 261-273. Flynn, N. M., & Rapoport, J . L. Hyperactivity i n open and t r a d i t i o n a l classroom environments. The Journal of Special Education, 1976 , 10̂ , 285-290. Gecas, V., Thomas, D. L., & Weigert, A. Perceived parent-child int e r a c t i o n and boys' self-esteem i n two c u l t u r a l contexts. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 1970, 11, 317-324. Goldin, P. C. A review of children's reports of parent behaviors. Psychological B u l l e t i n , 1969, 71, 222-236. 121 Gordon, M. The assessment of impulsivity and mediating be- haviors i n hyperactive and nonhyperactive boys. Journal of Abnormal (ShiId Psychology, 1979, 7, 317-326. Goyette, C., Conners, C., & U l r i c h , R. Normative data on revised Conners' parent and teacher rating scales. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 1978, 6_, 221-236 . Hembling, D. W. New hope for the hyperactive. Chatelaine, March 1978, 24. Hembling,/D. W. i n E. James Anthony (Ed.), The Child and His ' Family '('Vol. 6). New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1980. Hembling, D. W. Irrelevance of External Judgements of Parenting Unpublished paper by the author i n his capacity as Family Consultant,School D i s t r i c t No. 24, 1280 - 9th Ave., Kamloops, B.C., Canada, June 1980. Jacob, R. G., O'Leary, K. D., & Rosenblad, C. Formal and i n - formal classroom settings: e f f e c t s on hyperactivity. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 1978, 6̂, 47-59. Keith, R. M. High a c t i v i t y and hyperactivity. De velopmenta1 Medicine and C h i l d Neurology, 1974, 16_, 543-544. Kirk, R. E. Introductory S t a t i s t i c s . Monterey, C a l i f o r n i a : Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., 1978. Ki t a , S. S t a t i s t i c a l Package for the Social Sciences: Version 8.00. (Rev. ed.) University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver: Computing Centre, 1980. K l e i n , A. R., & Young, R. D. Hyperactive boys i n t h e i r c l a s s - room: assessment of teacher and peer perceptions, i n t e r a c t i o n s , and classroom behaviors. \Journal of Abnormal Ch i l d Psychology, 1979, 1_, 425-442. Kolata, G. B. Childhood hyperactivity: a new look at treatments and causes. Science, 1978, 199, 515-517. Koopman, E. J . , & Schroeder, N. Evaluation of a modified Bronfenbrenner questionnaire assessing children's perceptions of teachers' behaviors. Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s , 1977, 45, 1247-1251. Lambert, N. M., Sandoval, J . , & Sassone, D. Prevalence of hyperactivity i n elementary school children as a function of s o c i a l system definers. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1978, 48, 446-463. 122 Langhorne, J. E., Loney, J . , Paternite, C. E., & Bechtoldt, P. Childhood hyperkinesis: a return to the source. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1976 , 85_, 201-209. Langhorne, J . E., & Loney, J. A four- f o l d model for sub-grouping the hyperkinetic/MBD syndrome. Ch i l d Psychiatry and Human Development, 1979, 9, 153-159. Laufer, M., Denhoff, E., & Solomins, G. Hyperkinetic impulse disorder i n children's behavior problems. Psychosomatic Medicine, 1956, 19, 38-49. Lefkowitz, M. M., & Tesiny, E. P. Assessment of childhood depression. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1980, 4 8 , (1), 43-50. Levine, M. D., & Oberklaid, F. Hyperactivity, symptom complex or complex symptom? American Journal of Diseases of Children, 1980, 134, 409-414. Loney, J. The i n t e l l e c t u a l functioning of hyperactive elementary school boys: a cross-sectional investigation. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 197.4, £4, 754-762. Loney, J. Hyperkinesis comes of age: what do we know and where should we go? American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 19 80, 50, 28-42. Loney, J . , Weissenburger, F. E., Woolson, R. F., & Lichty, E. C. Comparing psychological and pharmocological treatments for hyperkinetic boys and t h e i r classmates. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychiatry, 1979, 7, 133-143. Loney, J . , Whaley-Kahn, M., & Weissenburger, F. E. Responses of hyperactive boys to a behaviorally focused school attitude questionnaire. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 1976, 6, 123-133. Marwit, S. J. , & Stenner, A. J . Hyperkinesis: delineation of two patterns. Exceptional Children, 1972, ̂ 8, 401-406. M i l l e r , J . C. Hyperactive children: a ten-year study. Pediatrics For The C l i n i c i a n , August 19 77, 217-22 3. Morrison, J. R. Childhood hyperactivity i n an adult p s y c h i a t r i c population: s o c i a l factors. Journal of C l i n i c a l Psychiatry, 1980, 41, (2), 40-43. Neubauer, P. B. Disorders of early childhood. In S. A r i e t i (Ed.), American Handbook of Psychiatry (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books, 1974. 123 Ney, P. G. Four types of hyperkinesis. Canadian P s y c h i a t r i c Association Journal, 1974, 19, 543-550. Paulauskas, S. L., & Goodman Campbell, S. B. S o c i a l Perspective taking and teacher ratings of peer int e r a c t i o n i n hyperactive boys. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 1979 , 1_, 438-493. P h i l i p s , I. Childhood depression: interpersonal interactions and depressive phenomena. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1979, 136, 511-515. Randall, M. F., & Lomas, D. F. Anger d i s a b i l i t y , and demands i n the family. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1978, 4ji, 228-236. Roe, A. & Siefelman, M. A parent-child relations questionnaire. Child Development, 1963, 34, 355-369. Rohner, E. C , C h a i l l e , C., & Rohner. Perceived parental acceptance-rejection and the development of childrens' locus of control. The Journal of Psychology, 19 80, 104, 83-86. Rosenthal, R., & Roscow, R. L. The Volunteer Subject. New York: John Wiley, 19 75. Routh, Donald K. Developmental and s o c i a l aspects of hyper- a c t i v i t y . In C. K. Whalen and B. Henker (Eds.), Hyperactive Children: The S o c i a l Ecology of I d e n t i f i c a t i o n and Treatment. New York: Academic Press, Inc., 1980. Safer, D. J., & Alle n , R. P. Hyperactive Children: Diagnosis and Management. Baltimore, Maryland: University Park Press, 1976. Sandberg, S., Rutter, M., & Taylor, E. Hyperkinetic disorder i n p s y c h i a t r i c c l i n i c attenders. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 1978, _20, 279-299. Sandberg, S. T., Wieselberg, M., & Shaffer, D. Hyperkinetic and conduct problem children i n a primary school population: some epidemiological considerations. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 1980, 21, 293-311. Schaefer, E. S. Children's reports of parental behavior: an inventory. Child Development, 1965, 36_, 413-424. Siegelman, M. Evaluation of Bronfenbrenner's questionnaire for children concerning parental behavior. Child Develop- ment, 1965, 36, 16 3-174 124 Sprague, R., Christensen, D. E., & Werry, J. S. Experimental psychology and stimulant drugs. In C. K. Conners (Ed.), C l i n i c a l Use of Stimulant Drugs i n Children. The Hague: Exerpta Medica,19 74, 141-164. Steinkamp, M. W. Relationships between environmental d i s t r a c - tions and task performance of hyperactive and normal children. Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s , 1980, 1_3, (4), 40-45. Stephenson, S. P. The hyperkinetic c h i l d : some misleading assumptions. CM.A. Journal, 1975 , 113, 764-768. Stevens-Long, J. The e f f e c t of behavioral context on some aspects of adult d i s c i p l i n a r y practice and a f f e c t . C h i l d Development, 1973, 4_4, 476-484. Stewart, M. A., Mendelson, W. B., & Johnson, N. E. Hyperactive children as adolescents: how they describe themselves. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 1973, 3-11. Swidler, H. J . , & Walson, P. D. Hyperactivity: a current assessment. The Journal of Family Practice, 1979, 601-608. Thomas, E. D. Hyperactivity not associated with MBD. Journal of P e d i a t r i c Psychology, 19 76, 1, 42-44. Toman, W. Family Constellation. Its Effects on Personality and S o c i a l B e h a v i o r : ( T h i r d Edition. New York: 'Springer Publishing Co., 1976. Van Kaam, A. The dynamics of hope and despondency i n the parents of handicapped children. Humanitas, 1977, 13, 307-316. Varga, J. The hyperactive c h i l d . American Journal of Diseases of Children, 19 79, 133, 413-418. Weinberg, W. A., Rutman, J., S u l l i v a n , L., Penick, E. C., & Dietz, S. G. Depression i n children referred to an educa- t i o n a l diagnostic center: diagnosis and treatment. The Journal of Pedi a t r i c s, December 1973, 1069-1072. Weiss, G., & Hechtman, L. The hyperactive c h i l d syndrome. Science, 1979, 205, 1348-1353. Weiss, G., Hechtman, L., Perlman, T., Hopkins, J . , & Werner, A. Hyperactives as young adults. Archives of General Psychia- t r y , 1979, 36_, 675-681. Weissenburger, F. E., & Loney, J. Hyperkinesis i n the c l a s s - room: i f cerebral stimulants are the l a s t r esort, what i s the f i r s t resort? Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s , 1977, 10, (6) , 18-27. 125 Werry, J . , & Hawthorne, D. Conners 1 teacher questionnaire - norms and v a l i d i t y . New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 1976, 10, 257. Werry, J., Sprague, R., & Cohen, M. Conners' teacher rating scale for use i n drug studies with children: an empirical study. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 1975, 3_, 217-229. Whalen, C. K., & Henker, B. (Eds.). Hyperactive Children. The S o c i a l Ecology of I d e n t i f i c a t i o n and Treatment. New York: Academic Press, 19 80. Whalen, C. K., Henker, B., C o l l i n s , B. E., Finck, D., & Dotemoto, S. A s o c i a l ecology of hyperactive boys: medication e f f e c t s i n structure classroom environments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1978, _12, 65-81. Whalen, C. K., Henker, B., C o l l i n s , B. E., McAuliffe, S., & Vaux, A. Peer int e r a c t i o n i n a structured communication task: comparisons of normal and hyperactive boys and of methylphenidate ( r i t a l i n ) and placebo e f f e c t s . Child Development, 1979, 50, 388-401. Woyshner, K. At l a s t , a survey of children. Learning, February, 1979, 43-45. Yahraes, H. Causes, detection, and treatment of childhood depression, (D.H.E.W. Publication No. ADM 78-612). Washington, D.C: U.S. Government Printing O f f i c e , 1978. Zen t a l l , S. S. Behavioral comparisons of hyperactive and normally active children i n natural settings. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 1980, 8, 93-109. Zent a l l , S. S., & Barack, R. S. Rating scales for hyperactivity: concurrent v a l i d i t y , r e l i a b i l i t y , and decisions to l a b e l for the Conners and Davids abbreviated scales. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 1979, 1, 179-190. Z r u l l , J . P., McDermott, J. F., & Poznanski, E. Hyperkinetic syndrome: the role of depression. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 19 70, 1, 33-40. 126 APPENDIX A TEACHER INVENTORY INSTRUCTIONS! Listed below are items concerning children's behavior or the problems they sometimes have. Bead each item carefully and decide how much you think this c h i l d has been bothered by this problem at this tlmej NOT AT ALL, JUST A LITTLE, PRETTY MUCH, or VERY MUCH. Indicate your choice by f i l l i n g l n the space (-) l n the appropriate column to the right of each Item, ANSWER ALL ITEMS 1. Restless (overactive) 2 . Excitable, impulsive 3. Disturbs other children k. F a l l s to f i n i s h things he starts (short attention span) 5. Fidgeting 6. Inattentive, dlstractable 7. Demands must be met immediately; frustrated 8. Cries 9. Mood changes quickly 10. Temper outbursts (explosive and unpredictable behavior) How serious a problem do you think this c h i l d has at this time? Not Just at a Pretty Very A l l L i t t l e Much Much 0 1 2 ? Datat- SexiBoy G i r l Code Not AgeiYrs. Mos. Cultural Backgroundt_ 127 APPENDIX B CHILDREN'S INVENTORY Code Not INSTRUCTIONS > Read s i l e n t l y each statement below as you hear i t being read out loud. Then check the column which shows how true you think this i s of your teacher. Always F a i r l y Some Hardly Never Often times Ever 1 2 3 ^ . 5 1. Comforts me when I have troubles. 2. Says nice things about me to other people. 3. Teaches me things I want to learn. k. Does fun type a c t i v i t i e s with me. 5. Expects me to help around the classroom. 6. Insists that I get permission before I go to the bathroom. 7. Insists that I make a special effort l n everything. 8. Is Just and f a i r when punishing me. 9. I can talk her/him into most anything. j J , i 10. Is there for me when I need him/her. 11. Is very friendly with me. 12. Helps and encourages me with my own special interests. 13. Is happy when with me. 1*K T e l l s me what I have to do when my regular schoolwork Is completed. 15. Makes me do my work exactly when and how she/he t e l l s me to. 16. Insists that I try to get good grades. 17. When I must do something she/he explains why. 18. Lets me off easy when I misbehave. * 19. I can talk with her/him easily. 20. Praises me when I have done something good. 21. Helps me with my schoolwork when I don't understand something. 22. Enjoys talking with me. 12 8 APPENDIX B CHILDREN'S INVENTORY Always Fairly Some Hardly Never Often times Ever 1 2 3 ^ 5 23. Expects me to keep my things in order. j I j J Zh. Insists that I do things her/his way. 25. Demands that I do a good job on my schoolwork. 26. Is reasonable when correcting my mistakes. 27. Finds it difficult to punish me. PRACTICE ITEMS A. Animals are more fun ln the summer. B. Doctors treat me ln a kind way. C. Children are kind to me. /

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
Japan 6 0
Netherlands 3 0
Germany 2 0
United States 1 0
City Views Downloads
Tokyo 6 0
Amsterdam 3 0
Unknown 2 0
Ashburn 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items