Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Acceptability of alternative classroom treatment strategies and factors affecting teacher’s ratings McKee, William Treen 1984

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
UBC_1985_A8 M34.pdf [ 6.91MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0054606.json
JSON-LD: 1.0054606+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0054606.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0054606+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0054606+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0054606+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0054606 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0054606.txt
Citation
1.0054606.ris

Full Text

ACCEPTABILITY OF ALTERNATIVE CLASSROOM TREATMENT  STRATEGIES  AND FACTORS AFFECTING TEACHER'S RATINGS  by WILLIAM B.A., The U n i v e r s i t y  TREEN  MCKEE  of B r i t i s h  Columbia,  1972  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS  in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE Department  of E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology  We a c c e p t to  this  t h e s i s as  the r e q u i r e d  STUDIES and S p e c i a l  Education  conforming  standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA December,  ©  W i l l i a m Treen  1984  McKee,  1984  *% ~  In  presenting  requirements  this  Columbia,  freely  available  permission  scholarly  for  purposes or  understood  that gain  by  the  reference  may his  copying  shall  partial  not  be or  fulfillment  Library  shall  and s t u d y .  the  make  I further  copying  of  this  granted  by  the  her  Head  allowed  of t h i s  without  of it  agree  thesis  representatives.  or p u b l i c a t i o n be  of  d e g r e e a t t h e The U n i v e r s i t y  I agree that  for extensive  Department  financial  in  f o r an a d v a n c e d  British  that  thesis  for  of It  my is  thesis for my  written  permission.  Department  of E d u c a t i o n a l  The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e V a n c o u v e r , Canada V6T 1W5  D a t e : December,  1984  Psychology Columbia  and S p e c i a l  Education  Abstract A s c r e e n i n g sample of completed  a  behavioral of  32  16-item  principles.  low  Two  is  presented  follow the  adult  type  as  mainstreaming conditions classroom  low  having  and  The  other  case  two  teachers  clinical  cases  who  case  does  differed  to each.  One  as a r e s u l t  makes no  strategies  Reinforcement, Positive  s u b j e c t s t o rank  basis  of  likelihood  only in  Teachers  of  Kazdin  order  the  alternative  Incompatible  i n the h i g h  acceptability  Following  treatment  a q u e s t i o n n a i r e which,  of e a c h b e i n g  ii  in part,  d e s c r i b e d treatments used  by  the  and  in a 4 x 4  using treatment  the  and  description,  treatments  (1980a).  in a l l  Medication,  of  the a s s i g n e d case  class  reference tc  for children:  Practice.  s u b j e c t s completed  asked  not  of  four  Reinforcement  Latin-square design by  of  who  is described  or t o p r e v i o u s placement. Teachers  measures d e v e l o p e d ratings,  two  description  r a t e d the a c c e p t a b i l i t y  replicated  of  for  the  been p r e v i o u s l y i n a s p e c i a l  knowledge g r o u p s r e a d  then  t o one  regular classroom  treatment  Behavior,  selected  knowledge g r o u p  e v a l u a t e d the a c c e p t a b i l i t y  from  consisting  s c o r e s on  b e i n g v e r y a g g r e s s i v e , and  instructions.  to the  The  each  of  B o t h d e s c r i p t i o n s were of a 9-year o l d boy  'mainstreaming',  Time Out  low  of b a c k g r o u n d a t t r i b u t e d  as coming  setting.  and  on  teachers  knowledge  t e a c h e r s , were randomly  random a s s i g n m e n t  descriptions.  school  s u b j e c t groups,  knowledge g r o u p s b a s e d  knowledge m e a s u r e . H i g h were g i v e n  elementary  m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e measure of  regular classroom  h i g h and  107  subject  on  the  doing  the  rating.  High  knowledge g r o u p t e a c h e r s  as more a c c e p t a b l e the primary  than  d i d low  i n terms of a c c e p t a b i l i t y .  r a t e d more a c c e p t a b l e w h i c h d i d not  differ  than from  the o t h e r  were not results  Treatment rating  the  is also  tend  results  using both  apparent  than  findings are  do  case  of  acceptability descriptions.  treatments the  rating  classroom  low  d i s c u s s e d , and  f u t u r e research are  of acceptability  on  the  Case  the a n a l y s e s  t h a t the h i g h  the  in  was  Practice,  ratings The  and  g e n e r a l l y followed those  to rate a l t e r n a t i v e  acceptable  for  The  two  Reinforcement  i n terms  on  readily  Positive  r a t e d lower  treatments  differentiate  acceptability It  r a n k i n g of  procedure.  and  Treatment  f o r the  Questionnaire  t e a c h e r s do  was  treatments.  different of  Time Out each other  a c c e p t a b i l i t y . Medication  treatments  knowledge g r o u p t e a c h e r s  d e p e n d e n t m e a s u r e . T r e a t m e n t s were  differentiated  than  rated  of  the  indicate  that  i n t e r m s of and  ranking  procedures.  knowledge g r o u p treatments  teachers  as more  knowledge g r o u p t e a c h e r s . T h e s e implications  presented.  for education  and  Table  of  Contents  Abstract  i i  List  of T a b l e s  v i i  List  of F i g u r e s  ..ix  Acknowledgement  x  I . DEVELOPMENT OF THE STUDY A.  1  INTRODUCTION  1  B. BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM  4  C. PROBLEM AREA 1. Knowledge  of B e h a v i o r a l P r i n c i p l e s  17  2. Type o f C a s e  20  3. Method o f A s s e s s i n g A c c e p t a b i l i t y  26  D. PROBLEM SUMMARY  28  E.  29  PURPOSE OF THE STUDY  F. SIGNIFICANCE II.  14  OF THE STUDY  30  METHODOLOGY  34  A. NATURE OF THE STUDY  34  B. INSTRUMENTATION  35  1. Demographic Q u e s t i o n n a i r e  36  2. Knowledge  36  Measure  3. T r e a t m e n t A c c e p t a b i l i t y  Measures  43  4. Case and T r e a t m e n t Q u e s t i o n n a i r e  49  C. DESIGN OF THE STUDY  53  1. Dependent V a r i a b l e s  53  2. I n d e p e n d e n t V a r i a b l e s  54  3. E x p e r i m e n t a l  Design  D. PROCEDURE  ...55 58  iv  1 . Subjects  58  2. A s s i g n m e n t  of S u b j e c t s  60  3. Data C o l l e c t i o n E. DATA  PREPARATION  61  AND ANALYSIS  62  1. D a t a P r e p a r a t i o n  62  2. A n a l y s i s o f Demographic 3. P s y c h o m e t r i c  Questionnaire  Analysis  4. A n a l y s i s o f T r e a t m e n t  63 Acceptability  Ratings  5. A n a l y s i s o f Case and T r e a t m e n t Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Responses F. CHAPTER III.  63  .64 70  SUMMARY  70  RESULTS  72  A. SUBJECTS  72  B. PSYCHOMETRIC  ANALYSIS  74  1. Knowledge Measure 2. T r e a t m e n t  74  Acceptability  Measures  74  C. ANALYSIS OF TREATMENT ACCEPTABILITY RATINGS 1. T r e a t m e n t 2. S e m a n t i c  Evaluation Inventory  79  Differential  3. Summary o f T r e a t m e n t  79  87 Acceptability  D. CASE AND TREATMENT QUESTIONNAIRE IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS  R e s u l t s ..94  ANALYSIS  98 101  A. SUMMARY OF METHODS AND RESULTS  101  1. Knowledge Group  103  2. C h i l d  105  Case  3. T r e a t m e n t  Type  108  B. IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATION  v  ...111  C. IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH  114  REFERENCES  117  APPENDIX A  133  APPENDIX B  137  APPENDIX C  1 44  APPENDIX D  147  APPENDIX E  148  APPENDIX F  150  APPENDIX G  1 53  vi  List  of T a b l e s  Table  1 - KBPAC  Table  2 — Characteristics  Table  3 — S u b j e c t Demographic  Table  4 - KBPAC  Item A n a l y s i s  7 5  Table  5 - KBPAC T e s t A n a l y s i s  76  Table  6 - TEI T e s t A n a l y s i s  77  Table  7 — Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l  Table  8 - Anova  Table  9 — Tukey (HSD) C o m p a r i s o n s Means on t h e TEI  Table  1 0 - Tukey  Pilot  Study R e s u l t s  42  of S c r e e n i n g  Sample  60  Characteristics  7 3  Test A n a l y s i s  F o r TEI  80 Between  Treatment 82  (HSD) C o m p a r i s o n s  Between O r d e r Means  on t h e TEI Table  11 - ANOVA  78  83 f o r SD E v a l u a t i v e D i m e n s i o n  1 2 — Tukey (HSD) C o m p a r i s o n s Between T r e a t m e n t Means on t h e SD E v a l u a t i v e D i m e n s i o n T a b l e 13 — Tukey (HSD) C o m p a r i s o n s Between O r d e r Means on t h e SD E v a l u a t i v e D i m e n s i o n  88  Table  Table  14 — Tukey  (HSD) C o m p a r i s o n s  Between  15 - ANOVA  f o r SD P o t e n c y D i m e n s i o n  Table  16 — Tukey  (HSD) C o m p a r i s o n s  Table  Between  91  Sequence  Means on t h e SD E v a l u a t i v e D i m e n s i o n Table  90  91 9 3 Treatment  Means on t h e SD P o t e n c y D i m e n s i o n  9 4  17 - ANOVA  9 5  f o r SD A c t i v i t y  Dimension  Table  18 - Tukey (HSD) C o m p a r i s o n s Between O r d e r Means on t h e SD A c t i v i t y D i m e n s i o n T a b l e 1 9 — Summary o f Tukey (HSD) C o m p a r i s o n s Between Treatment C o n d i t i o n s T a b l e 2 0 - Summary of Tukey (HSD) C o m p a r i s o n s Among Orders of P r e s e n t a t i o n  vii  96 9 7 9 7  Table  Table  21 - R e s u l t s o f F r i e d m a n Two-Way A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e on R a n k i n g of T r e a t m e n t s 2 2 — Nemenyi P a i r w i s e T r e a t m e n t Ranks  Comparisons  99  Between Mean 100  vi i i  List  Figure Figure Figure  1 — Layout  of  the  of  Figures  Experimental  Design  2 - LSR E f f e c t s — C x F x B R e s i d u a l s : R e i n f o r c e m e n t and P o s i t i v e P r a c t i c e f o r Two Knowledge C o n d i t i o n s 3 - LSR E f f e c t s — C x D x B R e s i d u a l s : R e i n f o r c e m e n t and M e d i c a t i o n f o r Two C a s e D e s c r i p t i o n s  ix  57 .84 86  Acknowledgement I  wish  both  appreciation  t o a c k n o w l e d g e and t o e x p r e s s  t o a number of i n d i v i d u a l s  f o r many  c o n t r i b u t i o n s made d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e of t h i s First,  I wish  t o e x p r e s s my  my  sincere  study.  appreciation  t o my  research  s u p e r v i s o r , D r . B a r r y Munro, who has p r o v i d e d  constant  support  model  and t h o u g h t f u l a d v i c e , and who h a s been a  f o r the p u r s u i t - o f  association.  I wish  also  academic  e x c e l l e n c e throughout our  t o thank  my r e s e a r c h c o m m i t t e e  members, D r . Todd R o g e r s and D r . R o b e r t guidance,  constructive  throughout are  gratefully  crucial  thanks.  and this  for their  committee  and R o b e r t  A special  contributions  a special  note of  G o n r y , a word o f  involvement.  for their  also  i s due t o D r s . A l a n  encouragement  thanks  Kazdin  (from a f a r ) i n p u r s u i n g  of o t h e r w i s e u n a v a i l a b l e  t o Dr. Kazdin  f o r allowing the  and amendment o f r e s e a r c h i n s t r u m e n t s and c a s e and descriptions.  My a p p r e c i a t i o n teachers  to  and d e s e r v e  s t u d y , and f o r t h e p r o v i s i o n  treatment  the  o f my  members made v i t a l  i n the study  e x p r e s s i o n of thanks  materials. use  Faculty  To D r s . G. J i m J o h n s o n  Joe Witt  support  acknowledged.  stages  appreciation An  and g e n e r o u s  t h e p r o j e c t . The c o n t r i b u t i o n s  Two a d d i t i o n a l at  criticism  McMahon f o r t h e i r  also  who gave t h e i r  study procedures, facilitate  goes t o t h e B u r n a b y  time  school  and e n e r g i e s t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n  and t o D r . B l a k e  teacher p a r t i c i p a t i o n  x  Ford  for his efforts  i n the p r o j e c t .  Finally, daughter  I give  Caitlin,  unfailingly  and  preoccupations study.  Marie,  perfection, sizable  thanks  both  who over  of  have  her  tolerated  several  contribution  well to  wife Marie,  whom h a v e  particularly  and  t o my  years  my of  f o r her  timed this  absences part-time  tireless  my  to  my  efforts and graduate  efforts  encouragement,  study.  xi  supported  and  has  toward  made a  I . DEVELOPMENT OF THE STUDY  A.  INTRODUCTION The  acceptability  approaches  developed  and c r e d i b i l i t y  from  have l o n g been a t i s s u e . behaviorism,  of t r e a t m e n t  the b e h a v i o r a l psychology In t h e r e l a t i v e l y  D r . L o u i s Berman  early  (1927) s u g g e s t e d  paradigm  days of  that:  . . . a new, a p o w e r f u l r e l i g i o n i s g r o w i n g into m a t u r i t y i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a s a r e s u l t o f a new p s y c h o l o g i c a l movement. I t c a l l s i t s e l f B e h a v i o r i s m . . . i t may be a s s u r e d l y p r e d i c t e d t h a t laws w i l l be p a s s e d and p o l i c e m e n p a i d t o make t h e v e r y name of B e h a v i o r i s m anathema, ( p p . 9-10) The  behaviorism  perspective,  t o w h i c h Berman r e f e r s  not i n i t s m a t u r i t y , but r a t h e r i n i t s i n f a n c y .  In h i s P r e s i d e n t i a l Analysis  was, i n a h i s t o r i c a l  Address  t o the A s s o c i a t i o n  (ABA) i n 1980, J a c k M i c h a e l  stated  f o r Behavior  that,  P r i o r t o 1930 t h e r e wasn't much g o i n g on . . . . In t h e p e r i o d from 1930 t o 1938, S k i n n e r [B. F. S k i n n e r ] p u t i t a l l t o g e t h e r . He managed, w i t h i n t h a t b r i e f b u t f e r t i l e p e r i o d , t o come up w i t h a l m o s t a l l of t h e e s s e n t i a l methods, c o n c e p t s , and f u n c t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s o f o u r f i e l d a s we s e e i t t o d a y . ( p . .1 ) Behaviorism approaches in  fact,  Lanson,  has indeed p e r s e v e r e d . B e h a v i o r a l  t o the study  o f human b e h a v i o r  become p e r v a s i v e 1972; M a r t i n ,  ( s e e , f o r example,  1981; O ' L e a r y ,  many ways, however, t h e p r e d i c t i o n s Dr.  Berman  Benassi &  1984; W i l s o n , made e a r l y  (1927) have come t o p a s s .  modification,  have e v o l v e d a n d ,  on by  Behaviorism,  and a m u l t i t u d e of a p p r o a c h e s  1982). I n  behavior  developed  the b e h a v i o r a l paradigm a r e the s u b j e c t of e n d u r i n g interest  and s c r u t i n y .  These c o n t i n u e 1  out of  public  t o be t h e s u b j e c t o f  2  debate  and a t t e m p t s  at resolution  in several  arenas,  as w e l l  courts,  and t h e s u b j e c t of i n v e s t i g a t i o n  number  of p r o f e s s i o n a l ,  organizations. 1970,  as b e i n g the i s s u e  Farkas  1971; E y s e n c k  multitude  academic,  (1981),  & Beech,  of c r i t i c i s m s  of l i t i g a t i o n  and s p e c i a l  as w e l l 1971),  1979;  McCullough, Holland, 1980a, 1974;  1980; E b e r  as o t h e r s  1982; F a r n h a m - D i g g o r y ,  1975; K a z d i n ,  1980b,  Wolpe,  1979, 1981b,  1980c; K r a s n e r ,  Skinner,  1971; Spece,  these  Numerous  same  issues  1980; B e r g e r ,  1982; E n g e l h a r d t & 1981; Heldman, 1973; 1981c,  1976; M a r o t z ,  1972; S z a s z ,  1982; K i t c h e n e r , 1983; Roos,  1978; T y l e r , 1982;  1978).  Fifty suggested  years a f t e r that:  modification  Berman's t e x t ,  " . . . behavior  and community  label  from  behavior  would a p p e a r  Arnold Lazarus  that  their  funding  a g e n c i e s have had t o d r o p t h e  program p r o p o s a l s " (p. 553).  t h e r e remain  of a c c e p t a b i l i t y  (1977)  t h e r a p y and b e h a v i o r  have a c q u i r e d a b a d p r e s s . To r e c e i v e  many h o s p i t a l s  issue  (Eysenck,  has documented a  F o r s & Decker,  & O'Brien,  in a  interest  of b e h a v i o r a l a p p r o a c h e s .  1975, 1977; B a r n e s ,  Bergin,  before the  and e v a l u a t i o n  o t h e r s have made p r e s e n t a t i o n s d i s c u s s i n g (Bandura,  political  significant  concerns  of b e h a v i o r a l approaches  It  with the  to  treatment. Although the  treatments  from  a variety  s u b j e c t of p r o b i n g a n d s c r u t i n y  acceptability, legal  several  and e t h i c a l  authors  dimensions  have  of o r i e n t a t i o n s are  on many d i m e n s i o n s o f recently considered  of a c c e p t a b i l i t y  related to  3 behavior  modification  Dipasquale,  1979;  (Christian,  Feldman  & Peay,  1975b; I n n i s ,  1981;  Woods,  Acceptability  1982).  literature  relates  though  a dimension validity. and  related  legal  proposed  measures  suggested  involve  that  a demonstration  and  analysts develop  whether  occur  From  (1978) i n t r o d u c e d  c o n c e p t u a l i z e d as  behavior  validation  1983;  behavioral treatments.  t o be  for asking society  1975a,  this  regulation,  a n a l y s t s ) were a c c o m p l i s h i n g s o m e t h i n g Wolf  Wherry,  p e r s p e c t i v e , Wolf  that  1981;  Goldiamond,  1979;  to development, and  & Luke,  i n t h e c o n t e x t of  of a c c e p t a b i l i t y  He  1982;  James & A l l o n ,  maintenance of e t h i c a l another,  Clark,  they  social systems  (behavior  of s o c i a l  importance.  at three l e v e l s .  These  of:  1. The  social  significance  of  the treatment  2. The  social  a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of  the  goals.  treatment  procedures. 3. The  social  Stephanie and  importance  Stolz  methodological  of t h e  (1981) has  treatment  suggested  i n n o v a t i o n s from  that  effects. technological  the b e h a v i o r a l  have e x p e r i e n c e d l i t t l e  widespread  primarily  i n n o v a t i o n s have not been  by  because  these  government p o l i c y  sensitivity  m a k e r s . Wolf  a d o p t i o n by  our  (1978) e x p r e s s e d  to i s s u e s of a c c e p t a b i l i t y  paradigm society accepted a  of t r e a t m e n t s  partie ipants: . . . t h a t i f the p a r t i c i p a n t s don't l i k e the t r e a t m e n t t h e n t h e y may a v o i d i t , o r run away, o r c o m p l a i n l o u d l y . And t h u s , s o c i e t y w i l l be l e s s l i k e l y t o use our t e c h n o l o g y , no m a t t e r how p o t e n t i a l l y e f f e c t i v e and e f f i c i e n t i t might be. ( p . 206)  similar to  4 Other  authors  demonstrated are  indicate  effectiveness  simply unacceptable  consumers"  identify.  treatment a r e not  totally  acceptance  McMahon and  children,  literature  refer  assessment  of treatment  generality The  "has  of t r e a t m e n t  importance,  perhaps,  therapeutic  interventions  B.  BACKGROUND OF Few  reasons  THE  a r e a of  lack  exists  of  (Kiesler,  consumer of  1981a) f o r the  the b a s i s  of  legal  and  214) has  been  investigation  o f consumer  acceptability  equal i n  satisfaction  1983).  with  However, i n  a r e a , the  literature  i s far less  developed.  PROBLEM r e p o r t e d which  of a c c e p t a n c e  the c l a s s r o o m treatment paucity  (p.  easy  used.  1980b,  acceptability  to that  s t u d i e s have been f o r the  Treatments  a n d ^ u s e f u l but  effectiveness  t o r e s e a r c h i n the l a t t e r to treatment  on  or  treatments  a compelling case  long-term  as a l e g i t i m a t e  related  (1980a,  they  are often  are  effective  acceptability  of the p r o c e d u r e s . "  issue  1).  i n the b e h a v i o r a l treatment  established  contrast  p.  (1983) i n a r e v i e w  developed  i s s u e s and  "because  hence a r e not  t o work by K a z d i n  feel  ethical  and  Forehand  which they  and  1984,  unacceptable  t o be  with  care givers,  However of more a c u t e c o n c e r n  which g a i n l i m i t e d  satisfaction  b e i n g used  & Elliot,  w h i c h have been d e m o n s t r a t e d  Finally,  procedures  to p a r t i c i p a n t s ,  (Witt, Martens,  w h i c h a r e o b v i o u s l y and to  that  the  o f b e h a v i o r a l methods f o r  of c h i l d r e n ' s  d e s p i t e the  investigate  problem  knowledge and  behavior. This  public  lamentation  5  of  the  'under u t i l i z a t i o n '  overwhelming support  of  body of  the  effectiveness  1980;  Boutilier,  Shapiro,  1978;  Giles,  1978b; Kent  Kirigin,  1982;  1981;  1983;  and  Foxx & J o n e s ,  Kazdin  & O'Leary,  Wilson,  Seaton  1976;  1980;  1978;  Foxx & Kazdin  Molloy,  & Shapiro, 1981;  procedures  & Lambert,  1982;  in  1982;  1980  1980;  &  ;  Pevsner,  Rosenbaum, O ' L e a r y ,  Treiber  & Lahey,  1983;  1982).  Some i n v e s t i g a t o r s , W i t t , Moe, Woolfolk, global  Kerr  & Wolf,  & Aaron,  evidence  1978;  & Hersen,  Matson, Esveldt-Dawson,  1975;  empirical  d e s p i t e the  s u c h methods and  R e e s e , Murphy, & F i l i p c z a k ,  & Jacob,  G u t k i n , and and  Wilson  notably Kazdin  Andrews  e v a l u a t i o n s of b e h a v i o r the e f f e c t  evaluations  of t r e a t m e n t .  have been d i r e c t e d behavior  settings attention graduate  and on  modification  (in press),  of  the  (e.g., Kazdin  Forehand,  1979;  Woolfolk  1977). A t  least  one  Sandler,  Trani,  graduate  business  study  i n the area  on  h e l d by  the p u b l i c ' s variety have  t h e use 1981;  & Woolfolk,  of  1978)  1979;  has  students' a t t i t u d e s  of  methods,  and behavior  Turkat, Harris, Woolfolk  (Dubno, H i l l b u r n ,  & Weingarten,  conception  focused  undergraduate  toward  & Cole,  of  numerous o t h e r s t u d i e s  subjects. Several projects  students  Woolfolk,  'behavioral' label  using a large  the a t t i t u d e s  and  (1981),  in  T h e s e and  modification,  Cole  m o d i f i c a t i o n and,  at a s c e r t a i n i n g  psychology  and  (1977) have p r o c e e d e d  particular,  of  of  Braukmann, A t w a t e r ,  Ollendick,  t h e s e methods, and  theoretical  (Barlow,  Wilson,  of  et a l . ,  Robinson,  investigated  toward  &  behavior  6 modification Barling  and  Woolfolk  in business  (1979),  u s i n g a methodology  Woolfolk  (1979),  assessed  and  and  graduate  industrial  r e p o r t s have p r e s e n t e d  teachers'  attitudes  toward  the  Harms,  Throll  & Ryan,  & Congreve,  1975;  1980a,  i s r e p o r t e d by  and  i s made t o an  in  which s u p e r i n t e n d a n t s  institutions with  and  of  to  of  students.  investigations of  of  behavior  1976;  Vane,  further  S a u n d e r s and study  area  of  Reppucci by  1972;  (1978)  Saunders  (1975)  juvenile corrections  elementary  r e s p e c t to t h e i r  Ryan,  earlier  similar  ( e . g . , Musgrove &  1980b). A  investigation reference  psychology of  by  attitudes  implementation  in educational settings  1975;  the  results  modification  Wheldall  study  Wainstein  undergraduate Several  o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Another  school p r i n c i p a l s  attitudes  toward  were s t u d i e d  behavior  modi f i c a t i o n . The  results  of  i n c o n c l u s i v e . While toward b e h a v i o r (Burton,  1981;  & Reppucci, Forehand, 1978;  this  several authors  m o d i f i c a t i o n are Kazdin  1978;  Stainbrook  others  Behles,  & Stumphauzer, 1979;  Congreve,  1980a,  attitudes  Ryan,  that  1982;  1984;  e t a l . , 1977),  attitudes  (Burkhart,  Frey,  1970;  Hickey,  1976;  Vane,  1972;  Wheldall  (Barling  studies report  & Wainstein,  &-  & Feuerstein,  1976;  1980b. F u r t h e r  Saunders  Turkat  Turkat  Woolfolk  attitudes  negative  O'Leary,  & Green,  r e p o r t more p o s i t i v e  & McClure,  s t u d i e s are  in general  1981;  1979;  of  suggest  e t a l . , 1979;  & Woolfolk,  several  neutral  & Cole,  1980a; T u r k a t  Woolfolk  large variety  1979;  1977; &  almost Musgrove,  Jeger  7  1974;  Throll  would  suggest  & Ryan, that  1976). T h e s e c o n t r a d i c t o r y  the question  of a t t i t u d e toward  modification  has n o t been a n s w e r e d c o m p l e t e l y .  inconclusive  in this  valuable  data  attitudes  this  under  as  behavior  s u f f e r s from  and C o l e  "research  behavior  therapy  (p.  6 6 ) . Many t e c h n i q u e s ,  discusses  be a p p l i e d .  erroneous  Feuerstein  modification'  synonymously)"  t o be e x a m p l e s o f differently  i n the techniques  be a r g u e d  information.  (1978) and e c h o e d  that,  behavior  by O ' L e a r y  (1984),  and  with  brain  washing, psychosurgery,  torture. link  associated  Friedman  sensory  (1975) s u g g e s t s  between b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n  that  t o which  they  b a s e d on  by T u r k a t and  i s frequently  incorrectly  but a l s o  modification  As r e p o r t e d  not o n l y  in fact,  coverage of behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n often,  very  modification  i n p r o b l e m s and c l i e n t s  i n d i v i d u a l s may be a s s e s s i n g rather  used  may n o t  several  by b e h a v i o r  may be e v a l u a t e d  I t could  that  modification  'behavior  considered  because of a c t u a l d i f f e r e n c e s because of d i f f e r e n c e s  of the study of  studies  In f a c t ,  (terms u s u a l l y  behavior modification,  provided  f o r the notion  i n these  t e c h n i q u e s a r e embraced  and  might  have  the behavior  a u n i f o r m method o f t r e a t m e n t .  different  While  some f u n d a m e n t a l p r o b l e m s . As  scrutiny  typically  behavior  modification.  (1981) s u g g e s t ,  such c o n s i d e r e d  exist:  studies  i s some s u p p o r t , however,  research  Kazdin  these  f u r t h e r i n g our u n d e r s t a n d i n g  toward  There  regard  findings  media negative,  such p r o c e d u r e s as deprivation, the p u b l i c  and water view of a  and any number o f  8 questionable  therapies,  as w e l l  as a c o n f u s i o n between  behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n  as an  procedure,  " a l l t h e a b u s e s of t h e  or .  has  caused  the p s y c h o p h a r m a c o l o g i s t s . . (p. 47) Kazdin  direction  of b e h a v i o r  and  from  investigations manner  Cole  of  with consideration as  the  settings  clients might  and  full  i s the  who  may,  efforts  Characteristic emphases. One  studies  classroom Kent  f o c u s has  & O'Leary,  classroom  the  effect  the  procedures  of  such  factors  i s t o be a p p l i e d ,  individuals  who  may  s u b j e c t of t h e i r  be  in a  application.,  application.  treatment  studies  alternatives.  or  s t u d e n t , p a r e n t and  1981).  the emphasis here  used  & Armstrong, being both  t h e use  Other  teacher  b e h a v i o r a l approaches Azrin,  in  institutional  1980b; K a z d i n ,  and  f o r the  i s a great v a r i e t y  been upon c l i n i c a l  for treatment  the  procedures  regarding their  (Besalel-Azrin,  1976),  setting  and  of p a r t i c u l a r  of p a r t i c u l a r  with p a r t i c u l a r  projects  to  ( p . 6 7 ) . What  f o r which these  1980a; K a z d i n ,  have e m p h a s i z e d  satisfaction  the  the  acceptability  investigated"  study  of t h e s e e a r l y  (Kazdin,  that  have begun t o c r e a t e a p p r o a c h e s  s t u d y of a c c e p t a b i l i t y  settings  be  decisions be  doorstep  acceptability  i n which the procedure  in fact,  specific  psychosurgeons  gamut of p r o c e d u r e s  t y p e s of p r o b l e m s  Initial  further  of the p a r t i c u l a r  to influence  as a  at the  of t r e a t m e n t  of g l o b a l  be a p p r o p r i a t e and  position or  "the  then,  laid  (1981) s u g g e s t  that  and  modification.  i n w h i c h t h e s e might  suggested,  product  t o be  for investigations  s h o u l d change  is  end  on  in 1977; the  of a p o s t hoc  or  9 consumer his Moe,  e v a l u a t i o n of  colleagues Gutkin,  approached classroom analogue report of  Foxx and  Shapiro  children,  as  particular  evaluation  of  procedures, experience  with  Allen,  teacher  and  of  parent  early  of  first  of  these  the a p p l i c a t i o n  sort  several behavioral  second  or o t h e r  on  fairly  the  of a p a r t i c u l a r  These e v a l u a t i o n s of  commonly b a s e d  set  of  The  be c o n c e p t u a l i z e d teacher  individuals  prior  can  measure, f o l l o w i n g  the c h i l d  major approach  of  hoc  approach to treatment.  in treatment,  t h e e v a l u a t i o n of p r o c e d u r e s treatments.  delayed  i n v o l v e s a post  of a p a r t i c u l a r  the approach,  treatment  The  behaviors.  major a p p r o a c h e s  of e v a l u a t i o n might  of a c h i l d used  two  satisfaction  the a p p l i c a t i o n  treatment.  evaluations  s t u d i e s of t h e a c c e p t a b i l i t y  alternatives,  or consumer  who  (1983)  treatments.  these  The  in this  using  in several  & Hilton  e f f e c t i v e n e s s of  with a p a r t i c u l a r  as a p a r e n t  way  Austen,  treatment  working with developmentally  treatment  identified.  therapist  treatments  have  (1978) r e p o r t u s i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l s and  raters  Considering  consumer  and  of  of  and  Witt,  e t a l . , 1984)  for reducing c h i l d r e n ' s d i s r u p t i v e  paraprofessionals,  subject  raters  comparing  the a c c e p t a b i l i t y  in press;  the a c c e p t a b i l i t y  s t u d i e s . Norton, a study  employed. W i t t  & Martens,  in press; Witt  i s s u e of  t e a c h e r s as  on  treatment(s)  (Witt, E l l i o t ,  & Andrews,  the  procedures  be  the  who  or  has  been  the  i n v o l v e d i n some mode or method  of  involves individuals  t o any  treatment  comprehensive  application  of  acceptability  d e s c r i p t i o n s of  in  are  the  10  individual  procedure  information  might  McMahon and  treatment  be  procedures,  further  that  measures  and  Other  treatments  a r e a has  treatment  satisfaction  Kirigin  Scheirer  (1978) has  1978)  significant satisfaction evaluate  training  measures  suggested  i s that  1983).  "participants and  place  stated  "While  However,  interpretation  Guba  shared  (cited  that  this  many i n v e s t i g a t o r s  concern  have  in  one  programs,  beneficial,  b e h a v i o r a l changes  p r o g r a m g o a l s " (p. 5 5 ) . McMahon  (1983) e c h o e d  by  client  social  t h i n k they are  of whether m e a s u r e a b l e  toward  like  of 1983;  1982).  sentiment  w i t h t h e measurement o f  them f a v o r a b l y ,  inclusion  Garfield,  c a u t i o n i n the  Kiesler,  report  satisfaction  f o r the  Lebow,  p r o v i d e s the p r o p o s i t i o n  problem  satisfaction  i n the e v a l u a t i o n  e t a l . , 1982;  1983;  t h e major  literature.  support  irrespective  Forehand  f o c u s e d on  examine  treatment  that  of consumer  o f s u c h consumer m e a s u r e s — a (Garfield,  which  suggest  ( B o r n s t e i n & R y c h t a r i k , 1983;  1983;  Scheirer,  studies  outcome. T h e s e a u t h o r s  i n the parent  Kiesler,  others  but  the  in behavioral  outcome, t h e r a p i s t s ,  a u t h o r s have e x p r e s s e d  of consumer  use  reviewed  the most p e r v a s i v e use  i s found  i n which  much of  satisfaction  t e a c h i n g format,  of r e s e a r c h i n t h i s  with therapist  and  They  with treatment and  settings  (1983) have r e v i e w e d  w i t h consumer  of c h i l d r e n .  include  applied.  Forehand  dealing  satisfaction  portion  would  such as t h e t y p e s of c a s e s and  the procedure  literature  b e i n g e v a l u a t e d and  and  included  concluded consumer  and  that:  take  11 satisfaction are of  measures  in their  serious methodological these  Witt  on m a t e r i a l  application  acceptability  have been made,  treatment,  that  was t h a t  though  t h e r e f o r e suggest  treatment  evaluation  relates  This  (1983)  suggested  t h e need  the c l i e n t s '  t o the treatment  & A t k i s s o n , 1978; Lebow, f o r an a d d i t i o n  with  p r i o r to  how much o f p o s t  i s a common m e t h o d o l o g i c a l c r i t i c i s m  (Hargreaves  suggests  satisfaction  or e x p e c t a t i o n f o r treatment  and c a n n o t  of treatment  research in this  o f consumer  entering,  as w e l l . A  significant  r e s e a r c h e r s have n o t e s t a b l i s h e d  general a t t i t u d e s  focused  the development  the assessment even  i n the study  This report  but reviewed  i s at a pioneering stage. K i e s l e r  additionaly,  method o f a s s e s s i n g  i n other s e t t i n g s  review  to understanding  much o f t h e  t o the a c c e p t a b i l i t y of  method  contributions  adequate  satisfaction.  alternatives.  strategies  of t h i s  as  be g i v e n t o a b s o l u t e  the second  relevant  major c o n c l u s i o n o f t h i s  area  utilization  ( i n p r e s s ) have r e v i e w e d  of treatment  c l a s s r o o m management and  o f consumer  w h i c h has employed  acceptability primarily  as i n t h e i r  before attention  assessments  and E l l i o t  literature  i n t h e development  ( p . 2 2 2 ) , and recommend t h a t  measures be d e v e l o p e d or c o m p a r a t i v e  evaluations, there  shortcomings  i n s t r u m e n t s as w e l l  outcome m e a s u r e s "  treatment  experience.  of such r e s e a r c h  1982).  Kiesler  t o consumer  (1983)  satisfaction  research  o f " t h e m e t h o d o l o g i c a l e q u i v a l e n t o f an a t t i t u d e  pretest"  ( p . 2 2 8 ) . He s u g g e s t s  approach  e m p l o y e d by K a z d i n  support  (in press),  f o r the 'pretest' and t h a t  s u c h an  12  approach  be  used  acceptability  to study  of m e n t a l  the p u b l i c  health  f o r the v a l i d i t y  acceptability  particularly  that  i n t h e complex  becomes i m p o r t a n t  setting  and  only  effectiveness  w i t h i n a system  but  of  also  i s needed t o e s t a b l i s h  rate  the t r e a t m e n t s )  on  implementation  t e a c h e r s and that  an  valuable  direction  treatment  selection  which may  will  be u s e d .  f o r study and  and  since  further  a major  ideal  raters  of  by  probability t o be  a  identified  in  reported studies  have employed as  raters  s t u d e n t s , not c o n s u m e r s o r  consumers of the p r o c e d u r e s would  research  i n the s c h o o l  major p o r t i o n  prospective  who  source f o r  some c h a n g e . The  psychology  that  T h i s appears  need of  undergraduate  of v a r i o u s  of t h o s e  i n c r e a s e the  t e a c h e r of the c h i l d  to date  empirical  interventions  f o r implementation  acceptability  future  t o e v a l u a t i o n s of  i s the c l a s s r o o m  treatment  that  of  elucidate  setting  of  not  effects  (and p r e s u m a b l y  They s u g g e s t  on v a r i a b l e s  intervention  need t o  by  individuals  the a c c e p t a b i l i t y  of c l a s s r o o m  suggest  t o examine  suggest  which c o n t r i b u t e  acceptability.  (in  treatment  in describing  area  research w i l l  f e a t u r e s of t r e a t m e n t s  treatment focus  that  of  the c r i t e r i a  c o n c e r n i n g the a p p l i c a t i o n  for research in this  Elliot  They  the p e r c e p t i o n s of  directions  specific  t o expand  Elliot  the  ( f o r example) " i t  a r e e v a l u a t e d and  ( p . 4 - 5 ) . W i t t and  t r e a t m e n t s , and  study  approach.  school  treatment"  support  of t h e  this  desirable  which v a r i o u s treatments  a s p e c t s of  s e r v i c e s . W i t t and  p r e s s ) a l s o argue and  policy  i n c l u d e c l a s s r o o m and  being  rated.  special  More  education  1 3 teachers,  students  settings,  those  i n both  who c o n s u l t  o t h e r s who d i r e c t l y might  regular  and s p e c i a l  directly  influence  education  w i t h t e a c h e r s , and  t h e k i n d s of t r e a t m e n t s  be i m p l e m e n t e d - - f a c u l t i e s of e d u c a t i o n and d i s t r i c t  inservice  and s p e c i a l  Witt Witt,  Hannefin,  remain  service  & Martens,  concern  that  unused b e c a u s e  individuals regarding suggests receive  selection that  many e f f e c t i v e they appear  because  professional  committees  & B u s h e l l , 1981; 1978) have  treatment  procedures  unacceptable to to effect  of treatments. Kazdin  acceptability  attention  (Baer  i n p r e s s ; Wolf,  who a r e i n a p o s i t i o n  the c o u r t s , review  p e r s o n n e l , f o r example.  e t a l . (1984) and o t h e r s  expressed  decisions  ( i n press)  of treatments  h a s begun t o  of the " i n c r e a s e d p a r t i c i p a t i o n of organizations,  i n the l e g a l  and  and e t h i c a l  institutional issues  r a i s e d by  treatment"  ( p . 6 ) . D e s p i t e t h e o v e r w h e l m i n g volume o f  literature  and e m p i r i c a l  the e f f e c t i v e n e s s link  between  widespread has  e v i d e n c e which e x i s t s  o f most b e h a v i o r a l t r e a t m e n t  the development  acceptance  of e f f e c t i v e  and i m p l e m e n t a t i o n  n o t been made. The p r o b l e m  "better  b r i d g e s from  schools]"  (Stolz,  'marketing' press), 1950;  which  procedures of t h e s e  and t h e  procedures  may be one o f b u i l d i n g  1981, p. 5 0 3 ) , o r one o f b e t t e r  or of changing  the problem  methods, t h e  r e s e a r c h t o s t a t e h o s p i t a l s [and  of e f f e c t i v e  Woolfolk  t o support  strategies  t h e k i n d s of l a b e l s  e t a l . , 1977).  may r e q u i r e  (Witt  & E l l i o t , in used  More r e a l i s t i c a l l y  the development  (Kelly, perhaps,  of a methodology f o r  14  ascertaining that  p r o c e d u r e s might  information being  C.  those v a r i a b l e s  evaluation  such  developed,  t r a i n i n g given,  disseminated  which w i l l  lead  to  better  well  as  other  implemented  in classrooms  (as  or treatment  settings).  PROBLEM AREA investigations  identified  a host  evaluation  r a t i n g s . These  of  t y p e of  intervention; (e.g.,  the  of  factors  a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of  particular  the  or  resources,  and  theoretical  who  will  orientation  characteristics;  and  t r e a t m e n t ( s ) under  assessing  Kazdin  available  and  University  his of  Treatment variety  b a s e d on  of  the  effectiveness  type  and  for  the  of  acceptability  issues  assessment  s u c h as  treatment;  [Lebow,  time  intervention;  l a n g u a g e and  of  the be  treatment attributed  at  Pittsburgh.  subjects  t r e a t m e n t s and  the  can  the  client  and  the or  rater  labels attached  Inventory have  acceptability to  School  the  to  the  of  rated  comparisons  these evaluations.  for  (TEI) the  such  Alan  Medicine, has  study. Using  (Kazdin,  1980a),  a c c e p t a b i l i t y of  have been made between Additionally  research  work of  A particular contribution  a methodology  Evaluation  of  of  colleagues  development  the  multidimensional  the  the  in general,  in question;  perform  affect  consideration.  A major p o r t i o n presently  to  include:  treatment  method of  a c c e p t a b i l i t y have  which appear  factors  client  unidimensional  treatment  1982]); p r a c t i c a l implementation  the  to  be  Initial  and  relevant  been the  a  various  treatments  K a z d i n ' s work  has  15 explored to  the  effect  specific  of  s e v e r a l f e a t u r e s of  treatment  e v a l u a t i o n s : s e v e r i t y of p r o b l e m s f e a t u r e s of  d e g r e e of effects  effects  a single  e f f e c t i v e n e s s of  ( 1 9 8 1 a ) , who  Sherick,  mode of  treatment  r a t e s the  1981), and  treatment and  1980a),  (1980b),  s e v e r i t y of  treatment  s u b j e c t s and  (Kazdin,  likely  (Kazdin,  side  French,  e f f e c t i v e n e s s (Kazdin,  &  in  press). The context  first  assumption  i s that  individuals  presented  b a s e d on  according  to h i s or her  treatment. that  the  by  can  as  Kazdin  way,  provide Witt  Rating  similar  children  any  of  other  suggest  valid  r a t e each  Rating  TEI  items  where e a c h s u b j e c t  these  this  (CIRP)  Kazdin,  d i r e c t e d more f o r use  approach  replicated  r a t e s each treatment,  reported in a  individuals  ratings. the  and  Intervention  the  Children's  Witt,  & Galvin,  which are but  which  with  Latin  quite use  teachers  s e t t i n g s . While Kazdin's  measures  treatment  assumptions  (Elliot,  in press)  is  extraneous  research  have d e v e l o p e d  by  research  particular  e t a l . , 1984)  developed  that  in this  acceptability  & Elliot,  in classroom  employed a r e p e a t e d  about  The  support  that with  Profile  i n , Witt  any  treatment.  (Witt  react  c o n t r o l f o r such  rating  treatment  (IRP)  can  this  treatment  m a t e r i a l s and  perceptions  his colleagues  t o the  l a n g u a g e and  own  design  effect  and  Profile  cited  stimulus  his colleagues  and  Intervention 1983,  the  and  will  second major assumption  or a f t e r  general  the  experimental  variables before  The  underlying comparisons within  and  s t u d i e s have Square  Witt's  design,  studies  have  16 employed  large  numbers o f s u b j e c t s ,  case-treatment this  way W i t t  alternative thought  combination  child,  teacher  children,  level  of s k i l l  materials  required  (Witt, al.,  & Andrews,  required,  required  several  Elliot,  in press);  In  among  features risks  e f f e c t on n o n - t a r g e t  f o r implementation, & Martens,  problem  1983); and r a t i n g s p r o v i d e d  i n press; (Witt,  Witt  Moe,  t y p e and s e v e r i t y  by c h i l d r e n  ( E l l i o t et  in press). The  Witt  design.  have made c o m p a r i s o n s  a l . , 1984); how t r e a t m e n t s a r e p r e s e n t e d  Gutkin,  assumptions u n d e r l y i n g  and h i s c o l l e a g u e s  absolute  f e e l i n g s about  described,  and t h a t  Several acceptability ratings  type of case  using  and s e v e r a l  inservice  studies  of these  combination f o r the  on t r e a t m e n t  o f a r e l a t i o n s h i p between other  t o which treatment  d a t e . The i m p l i c a t i o n s  some  t h e IRP.  f a c t o r s such a s ,  o f knowledge o f b e h a v i o r a l  have n o t been s a t i s f a c t o r i l y  the f i r s t  i n d i v i d u a l s have  f e e l i n g s c a n be q u a n t i f i e d  are suggestive  level  t h e a p p r o a c h employed by  a p a r t i c u l a r treatment  of the r e p o r t e d  obtained  teacher's  are that  these  purpose or comparison  of  factorial  acceptability: potential  time  (Witt,  rating a single  and i n v e s t i g a t e d  t o a f f e c t treatment  to t a r g e t  et  i n a simple  and h i s c o l l e a g u e s  interventions  each  i s applied.  investigated  f o r such  p r i n c i p l e s and These  i n any r e p o r t t o  investigations,  f a c t o r s , f o r teacher  t r a i n i n g and f o r c o n s u l t a t i o n  factors  particularly  p r e s e r v i c e and  are c l e a r .  17  1. KNOWLEDGE OF  BEHAVIORAL  The work of J e g e r (1983); and  and M c C l u r e  Musgrove and Harmes  Swanton  (1980);  PRINCIPLES  (1975);  techniques  approaches.  support  Congreve  ( 1 980a)  student  also  Musgrove  toward  sex,  of 116 mature  t h e more t h e y  knew about  were  by a r e t e s t  their  although  a highly  and Ryan  significant attitude  and p o s i t i v e  to behavior  knowledge measure counselors. Hickey factor,  effect.  (1976) where  positive  related  teachers  was  found  higher  i n any  t o b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n had  Hickey  (1977) r e p o r t s a between  s c o r e s on an  and s c o r e s on a  in addition  sex and p e r c e i v e d s o c i o e c o n o m i c  from  behavior  u s i n g a sample o f 30 p u b l i c  w h i c h s u b j e c t s work a f f e c t e d  to  s c o r e s and age, e x p e r i e n c e o r  correlation  that  This  t h o s e of  modification scale  found  behavior  support  relationship  p r e v i o u s exposure  significant  inservice  study.following instruction  These f i n d i n g s  test  and  attitudes.  b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n were  s t u d i e s between  such  s t u d i e s have r e p o r t e d  a r e l a t i o n s h i p . Wheldall  significant  (1981)  toward  s c o r e s on m e a s u r e s of knowledge about  these  Robinson  and G r i e s t  attitudes  i n a study  modification.  m o d i f i c a t i o n . No of  found  (1974) and T h r o l l  attitudes  (1970);  et a l .  i n c r e a s e s i n knowledge of  t h e more p o s i t i v e  supported  in behavior  higher  f o r such  teachers that  modification was  with  Several additional  empirical  Frey  Norton  and McMahon, F o r e h a n d ,  i s a l l s u g g e s t i v e o f more p o s i t i v e behavioral  (1979);  attitude  socioeconomic  high  school  t o t h e knowledge  level  ratings.  of s c h o o l i n F e m a l e s , and  schools expressed  more  18 positive  attitudes  Patterson  (1981),  toward  behavior  i n a study  involving  s t u d e n t s and  67  of  In g e n e r a l t h e s e  interest.  faculty  members,  above w i t h more p o s i t i v e modification on  about  their  based  labeled  measure of  themselves  overall  p o o r l y informed performance  on  (1982) r e p o r t t h a t  teachers  in a course  s t u d e n t s who  modification teaching in  Several relationships with  1979;  Luiselli, Two  study find a  as  involving differences  semantic  those  behavior knowledge  scores  differ  or very from  informed  the  very poorly  the  knowledge t a s k . M e r r e t t  informed  involving  110  in and  student  modification in teaching,  grades  in behavior  on v a r i o u s measures of  t h e r e was  have a l l u d e d and  a significant  of b e h a v i o r  Miller,  change  nine  1981;  attitude. juvenile  in attitude  differential  positive  familiarily  m o d i f i c a t i o n (Camplese, 1980;  Lambert,  Reppucci,  s t u d i e s r e p o r t no  and  t o such  knowledge of o r  Knapp & D e l p r a t o ,  level  to  b e h a v i o r a l t e a c h i n g methods.  of a t t i t u d e  empirical  similar  informed  a course  that  other authors  1981;  knowledge  and  toward  techniques  & Hale,  taken  findings  knowledge. However  i n a study  received higher  performance  attitudes  several  toward  and  and  in behavior  had  Young  undergraduate  f i n d i n g s are  attitudes  Wheldall  those  indicate  b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n d i d not  self-labeled  475  being a s s o c i a t e d with higher  a performance  s u b j e c t s who  modification.  1976;  1977).  relationship  Burkhart  between  e t a l . , (1976) i n a  probation o f f i c e r s toward  O'Bruba,  behavior  between a t r a i n e d  and  failed  to  m o d i f i c a t i o n on control  group.  19 The  t r a i n e d group scored  competency multiple Taylor,  but d i d not d i f f e r  choice]  scorers  differ  relating  and  expressed  competence  d i d not  i n t h e use  techniques with c h i l d r e n .  of these  would  of these  by K a z d i n  that  studies  fall  short  i n reading  this  literature  behavior  i s that  while  and C o l e  of g l o b a l  of i d e a l  an a p p r o p r i a t e  indicate a possible  s t u d i e s . The s e c o n d  the majority report  target  issues  knowledge o f b e h a v i o r a l  treatment  of behavior  i s one  modification may n o t  issue  i s the  on t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p w h i c h  being  unresolved  p r i n c i p l e s being  of a c c e p t a b i l i t y of b e h a v i o r a l h a s n o t been a d e q u a t e l y  earlier:  concept  f o r s t u d y . The t h i r d  o f a g r e e m e n t amoung s t u d i e s  assessment  issue  such a u n i t a r y  knowledge  methodological  (1981) and d e t a i l e d  evaluations  i n that  may e x i s t . W i t h t h e s e of  of t h e i r  subjects  v a l i d a t e d and c o m p r e h e n s i v e m e a s u r e s o f b o t h  a t t i t u d e . This  lack  indicates  modification  i n d i c a t e a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p , few  shortcoming  be  which  d i f f e r e n c e s among  knowledge and a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d  studies  o f 47  modification.  the revealed  become e v i d e n t  The f i r s t  Marholin,  and low b e h a v i o r  perceptions  issues  modification.  using  on a s t u d y  knowledge o f c o n c e p t s ,  modification  behavioral  on a [30 i t e m ,  i n s p e c i a l education  and d e s p i t e  in their  Three  of  (1978) r e p o r t  students  in their  behavior  significantly  on r a t i n g s o f b e h a v i o r  Furthermore, subjects  on a t e s t of  knowledge measure.  d i f f e r e n c e between h i g h  test  of  behavior  and Warren  undergraduate no  higher  the question  a factor  i n the  approaches to  researched.  I t appears  20 necessary  then  knowledge of  to  investigate  behavioral  acceptability  of  directly  p r i n c i p l e s as  specific  treatments.  the a  effect  factor  Such an  of  i n the  investigation  must employ a v a l i d a t e d  methodology  for e s t a b l i s h i n g  levels  differences  i n degree  of  knowledge and  acceptability  2.  TYPE OF  In in  1954  tied  to  U.  that  success  S.  Supreme C o u r t  Education  educational in l i f e .  landmark c a s e s one,  Children  of  established  children  to a  culminated,  mandated,  in d e t a i l , of  Charter  although the of  providing  the  in  of  as  i n the  legal obligations for children  t e a c h e r s are  two  has now  the  S.  S.  the  Association  Law  v.  District  services schools  for a l l children (Pollack  adoption  not  a  mandated  With the  mainstreaming  result regular  t o meet t h e  a  similar rights,  d e t a i l e d or  of  &  i n Canada of  legislation. issue  These  94-142 w h i c h  'least restrictive'  d e v e l o p e d . As challenged  are  further  education.  in Public  are  U.  for children  other M i l l s  public  recent  services  decision  established  Pennsylvania the  the  r i g h t s for a l l handicapped  r i g h t s and i n U.  1972  Rights guarantees c h i l d r e n  r i g h t s to  opportunities  Topeka w h i c h  and  the  1975,  1981). The  same e x t e n t these  1971  (PARC) and  handicap  Sulzer-Azaroff, new  In  free appropriate  decisions  regardless  of  a r r i v e d at  opportunities  involving  for Retarded Columbia,  of  CASE  B o a r d of  concept  both  treatments.  the  Brown v.  the  of  rated  needs o f  to  advent and  educational classroom not  only  a  21 greater with  number o f c h i l d r e n  a greater variety  public  but a l s o  of s p e c i a l  o f a g r o u p of c h i l d r e n  needs. Both  and t h e t e a c h i n g p r o f e s s i o n have  particular  concern  disruptive  and d e t r i m e n t a l t o c l a s s r o o m  student Frith,  learning  about  student  order  (Stouffer  (1955) w h i c h s u g g e s t e d  concerned  (Wickman,  1938) o r i n f r a c t i o n s  forms o f c l a s s r o o m  physically  of r u l e s and  misbehavior  i n t h e Baer e t a l . (1983)  dangerous b e h a v i o r s , d i s r u p t i o n s t o  and c h a l l e n g e s t o t h e t e a c h e r ' s a u t h o r i t y a s t h e  t h r e e most  s e r i o u s problems t e a c h e r s  i s reasonable  behaviors  Tollefson  today.  t o assume t h a t t h o s e  teacher  (1983) and o t h e r s  1971) have  classroom  face  students  c o n t r i b u t e t o teachers' concerns  of d i f f e r e n t i a l  in fact  teachers  reject  presented those  behaviors. Teachers,  themselves  don't  o f t e n agree  view  their  be t h e  data  &  1974; S i l b e r m a n ,  t o suggest who  that  exhibit  p a r e n t s , and t h e p u p i l s  either  p r o b l e m s . Adelman, T a y l o r , F u l l e r , view  & Good,  children  t h e p r o b l e m s o r on t h e a s s i g n m e n t  students  will  whose  r e a c t i o n s . Lewin, Nelson,  (Brophy  disruptive  parents  that  about d i s r u p t i o n s i n  & Owen, 1955). T e a c h e r s  listed  learning  that  f u n c t i o n i n g and  work by Wickman  r o u t i n e s and s i m i l a r  1969;  which a r e  1983). Baer e t a l . (1983) r e v i e w e d  classroom  source  behaviors  1983; L i n d s e y &  t e a c h e r s were m o s t l y  It  registered  ( B a e r , G o o d a l l , & Brown,  (1938) and S t o u f f e r a n d Owen  study  the general  on t h e s e r i o u s n e s s o f  of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and Nelson  problems as l e s s  t h e p r o b l e m and t h a t t e a c h e r s  f o r the  (1979)  severe  than  rate the  found their  22 s t u d e n t s ' p r o b l e m s even more s e v e r e l y than Guttmann  (1982) found  (teachers, more t h a n  parents, other the c h i l d  misbehaving off  that p u p i l s  child  second  education). associated reasons assign  first  They t e n d  blame e v e n l y  teacher future  attitudes adjustment  about  attitudes  himself, teachers,  the sources  & Good,  (1974) s u g g e s t e d  other  that  toward the  1973; N e c c o ,  i s presented  area  r e g a r d i n g the e f f e c t of  i n evaluating students'  their  1976;  1970; S a f r a n ,  1982). I n v e s t i g a t o r s i n t h e t h i s  behavior.  t h a t some e v i d e n c e  students, while from  of a t t i t u d e s  have  1974; F o s t e r & Y s s e l d y k ,  stereotypes bias teacher  toward  tend t o  investigators  e t a l . , (1982) s t a t e  a child  Parents  of s t u d e n t s , many  (Brophy  (1982) s u g g e s t  reasons  pronouncedly,  themselves.  work o f H a r i n g  to identify  mainstreamed  of  i n determining the  expectancies  negative  l e v e l of  as p a r e n t s .  a r e n o t i n unanimous agreement  Safran  to l e t  were i n s t r u m e n t a l  & Orlansky,  teacher  a n d , most  teachers  Hughes, K a u f f m a n , & W a l l a c e , Safran,  t o blame t h e  t o p l a y down t h e i m p o r t a n c e  to the c h i l d  the e a r l y  handicapped  tend  environment)  s t a t u s w i t h c l a s s m a t e s ) , and t h e  and t o t h e m s e l v e s  attempted  the c h i l d ' s  ( p s y c h o l o g i c a l problems, need  with other c h i l d r e n  Since  t o blame a l l o t h e r s  (bad example a t home, p a r e n t s '  a s s o c i a t e d with  children  children,  h i m s e l f . Teachers  steam, d e s i r e t o g a i n  parents  tend  do t h e p a r e n t s .  expectancies  suggests  that  against  others disagree. Safran  eta l . ,  work t h a t t h e way i n f o r m a t i o n will  that c h i l d .  influence teachers'  Thus t h e k i n d o f i n f o r m a t i o n  23 with  which the  receiving  teacher  established, those  teacher  and  selection  efficent  1977;  and  those  on  the  1978;  right  Implicit  1970;  t o the  kinds  the of  goals  in achieving  as  problem are  and  effective,  manner p o s s i b l e  1980;  O'Leary  basic  i s the  best  of  treatment  recent  interests  selecting  in  the  needs  the  not  factors related  satisfactorily  & Martens  p r e s s ) ; and  (1980) have  acceptability  of  found  treatment  of  client.  strategies will  to  problems  type  treatment and  to the  problem  presenting  r e s o l v e d . Lambert Witt,  M c F a l l , Hamilton, no  (from  differentially.  (in press); E l l i o t ,  Wollersheim,  have  individuals  treatment  related  i s s u e s of p r o b l e m  w e l l as  this  children,  of  that  approaches  literature  1982;  judicious selection  understanding  of  issue  in p a r t i c u l a r  the  & O'Leary,  & Risley,  p o s s i b l e assessment and  and  heed t o d i f f e r e n c e s between p r e s e n t i n g  Witt,  Bordewick  design  i n t h e most  1980). The  f o r the  the duty  acceptability severity  the  n e c e s s i t y of  Sheldon-Wildgen  perspectives)  select  In t h e  Elliot,  best  in this  thus  1982;  procedures  pay  and  Hochbaum,  i s that c l i e n t s ,  charged with fact  goals  Wray & S t e e r ,  appropriate treatment  goals  the  professionally appropriate  & Adams,  literature  of  of  Sapon-Shevin,  Stolz,  (in  effect  a t t i t u d e of  p o s s i b l y t h e methods employed  of a p p r o p r i a t e  (Carrerra  and  have an  been w r i t t e n s t r e s s i n g  implementation  in  will  and  goals. Much has  the  i s presented  significant  & Galvin  Hickey,  effect  where d i f f e r e n t  (1976);  on  &  ratings  presenting  24  problems mixed  are  results,  toward found  the  however,  handicapped  no d i f f e r e n c e  inservice and  considered. Gargiulo  regular,  inservice  in  versus  favoring  more  part  positive  of  Reflecting by  Kazdin  that  this  1981a)  which  presenting  problem  acceptability  of  treatments.  Witt,  effect Young  for and  behavior minor  severity  Patterson  (1981)  modification  found  Singer,  and  correlation preference  and  that was  between  school  that  the  implementation  found  perceived  referral and  type of  of  indicate  ratings  that  problem than  Mannarino  problem  significant  of  treatments. regarded  serious  and M a r h o l i n  problem  of type.  et  for  a l . ,  Gutkin,  positive and  consultation of  teacher  services.  nondirective  and D u r l a k  presented  than  behavior  severity  study  (in  but  students for  of  and Martens  a minimal  evaluation  services.  consistently  a moderate  rather  programs,  reported  acceptance to  students  results  Elliot,  (1979)  differential  (1980)  the  affects  appropriate a l . ,  groups,  handicapped  on a c c e p t a b i l i t y  attributable  Brown  for  et  found  found  more  Turkat  implementation  token  report  (1984)  problem  modification  an  a l . ,  problems.  (1978)  In  et  physiological  between  are  of  Witt  special,  educators.  severity  press);  They  of  preservice  toward  contradiction  1980b,  (1980a,  attitudes  measures  However,  special  report  non-handicapped.  regular,  attitudes  (1983)  teachers'  differences  inservice  Yonker  self-report  educators.  suggested great  the  the  preservice  measures  on  assessing  between  special  and  (1980)  facilitated  25 The 1980b,  work of K a z d i n  1981a,  and  h i s c o l l e a g u e s (Kazdin,  in press; Kazdin  acceptability  of t r e a t m e n t s  e t a l . , 1981)  has  in  i n a l l c a s e s employed  stimulus case d e s c r i p t i o n s  in order  possibility  e v a l u a t i o n s of the  based  that  upon, or  treatment  restricted  stimulus material" Kazdin  refers  populations In an  has  dimensions  of s t i m u l i ,  we  " i f we  wish  must  sample  t o sample d i f f e r e n t  of p s y c h i a t r i c  as age,  characteristics  on  (1978) work c r i t i c i s m  Kazdin  has  variables  may  "scripts"  (Maher,  from  from  not be  people.  employed  of  p.  695)  gender  might  be  single  s t i m u l u s case  prospect  our  may  at  hesitation  from  in fact not  (p.  646).  stimuli  settings  and  leveled  a case  that  at  the  stimulus  such  not  represent  be  a  sample  i s t o be  in generalizing by  i s not  made.  from  a  the  known t o  all.  In a s t u d y a s s e s s i n g t h e a c c e p t a b i l i t y procedures  to  important  i s increased substantially  of g e n e r a l i z i n g  have e x i s t e d  them"  secondly that  In o t h e r words, t h e s e may  that  (1978)  the c r i t i c a l  the p o p u l a t i o n t o which g e n e r a l i z a t i o n  Maher s u g g e s t s  the  the c a s e s d e s c r i b e d . Based  in that  sampled and  1978,  the  of  regard  to generalize  p o p u l a t i o n s of  intellectual  'real'  In t h i s  or b e h a v i o r a l p r o b l e m s ;  where p r o b l e m s o c c u r ; as w e l l  approach  263).  employed c a s e s w h i c h v a r y on  t h e Maher  s t u d e n t s were  characteristics  ( K a z d i n , 1980a, p.  two  the  t o t h e a r g u m e n t s p r e s e n t e d by Maher  attempt  Kazdin  to "assess  t o , unique  which c a u t i o n simply that  1980a,  Norton  of  e t a l . , (1983) s u b s t a n t i a l l y  time-out replicated  26 earlier Kazdin case  work by study,  stimuli  ratings  of  did  sex  of  not  the  child,  and  w r i t t e n background the  on  acting-out  child.  f u r t h e r the  r a t i n g s of  particular  to e s t a b l i s h  present  e m p h a s i s on  variety  of p r o b l e m  3. METHOD OF The  two  acceptability Inventory  the  (TEI)  (IRP)  affect  effects  found  and  normal  student  then,  of  that  to the  case  to  information  treatments,  in light  of  of c h i l d r e n who  on  in  the exhibit  a  behaviors.  ASSESSING  ACCEPTABILITY  reported  treatments (Kazdin,  in a  are  methods f o r r a t i n g  the  1980a) and  (Witt, E l l i o t ,  method d e s c r i b e d  will  background  acceptability these  occurred  stimulus  extend  It i s necessary,  mainstreaming  predominant of  of  d i d not  of  such  such  types  impaired  perceptions  effect  features  of i n t e r v e n t i o n s .  s e v e r a l case  finding  support  or e f f e c t i v e n e s s .  information  hearing  particular  In  where b e h a v i o r  acceptability  However, t h i s  investigate  stimulus  however, whether  a f f e c t e d teachers'  teachers'  acceptability.  location  unclear,  for  the  described affected  r a t i n g s of a c c e p t a b i l i t y  information  behaviors.  Profile  of c h i l d  e t a l . , (1982) u s i n g  children  the  age  e f f e c t i v e n e s s and  r a t i n g s of  background  i n c o n t r a s t to  e t a l . (1983) c o n t r o l l e d  found  is s t i l l  teachers  (1980b). Although  f i n d i n g s , however, o t h e r  f e a t u r e s as  of  and  affect  It  Safran  Norton  both  of K a z d i n ' s as  Kazdin  recent  Treatment  the  Evaluation  the  Intervention  Rating  & Martens,  in press). A  third  study  (Norton  et a l . ,  1983)  27  used  a single  acceptability study  those  would s u g g e s t assessing In  (1980b) s t u d y . T h e s e  problem  and c l i n i c a l  c o n s u l t a t i o n or  charged  f o r implementation  t o have t h e ' b e s t  situation  some i m p l i c i t select  restricted secondly  f i t ' , given  treatment  by t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s used  approach  t h a t one w h i c h  the p r e s e n t  situation.  confronted with a will  employ  to evaluate a l l a l t e r n a t i v e s The r a n g e o f  w h i c h would be c o n s i d e r e d would  by t h e c r i t e r i a  so n o t by  i s multi-dimensional)  personal c r i t e r i a  selecting a  and c o n t r a s t i n g a  i s t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l  (which  with  does  of a s i n g l e  an a p p r o p r i a t e t r e a t m e n t .  alternatives  findings  of t h e m e t h o d o l o g y f o r  b u t r a t h e r by c o m p a r i n g  here  this  may be f r u i t f u l .  the a c c e p t a b i l i t y  assumption  While  measure, t h e r e s u l t s  o f p o s s i b l e o p t i o n s and s e l e c t i n g  appears  the r e l a t i v e  procedures.  simple  the i n d i v i d u a l  treatment  isolation,  to assess  that investigations  settings  considering  number  of Kazdin's  many c l a s s r o o m s  particular  and  scale  of v a r i o u s time-out  acceptability  treatment  The  rating  employed a r e l a t i v e l y  support  in  item  f i r s t l y be  knowledge o f a l t e r n a t i v e s and i n e v a l u a t i n g those  known  alternatives. While assumption, to  i t may be r e a s o n a b l e both  the Witt  to accept  and t h e K a z d i n  t h e above s t u d i e s have  c o n s i d e r a b l e lengths t o a v o i d the very process  c o m p a r i s o n s among t r e a t m e n t subjects  look at a s i n g l e  a l t e r n a t i v e s . Witt  treatment  c o m p a r i s o n s among a l t e r n a t i v e  gone  of d i r e c t  has h i s  o n l y and makes  treatments  u s i n g grouped  data.  28  Kazdin  has  each  treatments through  but  attempts  Both  information treatment  f o r any  of t h e s e a p p r o a c h e s  toward  our  but  might  and  allow  through along  of s e v e r a l  i t i s important  similar  research  D.  d a t a . An  f o r the e v a l u a t i o n  the d i r e c t  research.  has  generalizable  and  dimensions  Such an  as  approach  literature  not  more  approach  alternatives of  treatments  i n the p r e v i o u s  received  attention  i n the  an a p p r o p r i a t e m e t h o d o l o g y  developed.  PROBLEM SUMMARY In the  review  of l i t e r a t u r e  related  three problem  exists  of s y s t e m a t i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n  a lack  a r e a s were  to  acceptability  knowledge o f b e h a v i o r a l p r i n c i p l e s the a c c e p t a b i l i t y although is  to c o n s i d e r  alternative  investigated has  dimensions  generate  comparison  t o d a t e and  not as y e t been  might  of t r e a t m e n t  explicit  comparison  have y i e l d e d v a l u a b l e  understanding  acceptability  four  control  c a r r y o v e r (or  whether t h e s e o r some o t h e r a p p r o a c h relevant  of t h r e e or  to p r o v i d e s t a t i s t i c a l  experimental design  effect).  of  s u b j e c t e v a l u a t e each  also  such  of  selected  r e s e a r c h suggests inconclusive  r a t i n g s . While  substantiating treatment  identified.  of  teachers' ratings  of  alternatives,  a relationship.  research evidence  the comparison  i s either  Present  clear  does  exist  whether  t h e most e f f i c i e n t  research  of type of case  of a c c e p t a b i l i t y  i t i s not  There  the e f f e c t  treatment  of  r e g a r d i n g the e f f e c t  alternatives  methodology  on  treatment  or  of v a r i o u s the p r e s e n t  i s intended to  on  29  be  a close  approximation  of t h e c l i n i c a l  decision-making  process.  E.  PURPOSE OF THE STUDY Reflecting  present  study  acceptability of  certain  question  the problems  was t o q u e s t i o n of a l t e r n a t i v e  experimental  addressed  practicing  the e f f e c t classroom  which might  treatment  assess  alternative be a p p l i e d  classroom  q u e s t i o n was whether  The t h i r d  of treatment  the a c c e p t a b i l i t y  subjects data other  t h e way  case  ratings  q u e s t i o n was whether an  method o f a s s e s s i n g a c c e p t a b i l i t y  will  data  which might  established settings.  from  description  the  intent  teachers  findings of t h i s  teacher  i n a g e n e r a l way,  investigations  certain  alternative  a sample o f l o c a l  be compared,  in similar  i n which  classroom  which  reflect  u s i n g t h e T E I . I t was t h e f i n a l  to e s t a b l i s h  problem  q u e s t i o n was whether  affect  study  whether  treatment  of s e l e c t e d  of the presented  established  initial  l e v e l of  affects  stimulus c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  p r o v i d e . The f o u r t h  The  with children's  the a c c e p t a b i l i t y  procedures.  procedures  was t o d e t e r m i n e  knowledge of b e h a v i o r a l p r i n c i p l e s individuals  treatment  school teachers d i f f e r e n t i a t e , in  terms o f a c c e p t a b i l i t y ,  b e h a v i o r s . The s e c o n d  on t h e  and s u b j e c t v a r i a b l e s .  i n t h e study  elementary  procedures  i d e n t i f i e d , the purpose of the  carried  with out i n  30 F.  SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY Classroom  taken  a major  t e a c h e r s appear responsibility  are e x h i b i t i n g procedures  problem  for identifying  and s e l e c t i n g  and i m p l e m e n t i n g  to the s e t t i n g  The  of implementation  appropriate the  procedures  individual  array  children  b e h a v i o r s , of i n i t i a t i n g  appropriate quality  t o have been g i v e n o r t o have  appears  assessment  treatments  and t o t h e c h i l d and even  so  identified.  the s e l e c t i o n of  t o depend a g r e a t d e a l upon  t e a c h e r ' s knowledge of and v i e w s  of p o s s i b l e  who  toward t h e  alternatives.  Beyond t h e f a c t t h a t t e a c h e r s ' p e r c e p t i o n s o f c l a s s r o o m i n t e r v e n t i o n s a r e v a l u a b l e i n t h e i r own r i g h t , t h e r e l a t i o n between t h e s e p e r c e p t i o n s and o t h e r v a r i a b l e s i s a l s o o f some i m p o r t a n c e ( G a r f i e l d , 1983). An i n d i v i d u a l ' s s u b j e c t i v e e v a l u a t i o n o f a t r e a t m e n t may e f f e c t whether i t i s i m p l e m e n t e d p r o p e r l y , whether i t i s e f f e c t i v e ( o r p e r c e i v e d t o be e f f e c t i v e ) , t h e l e n g t h o f t i m e i t w i l l be used o r whether i t w i l l even be u s e d a t a l l . W i t t & E l l i o t , i n p r e s s , p . 25) Although  the study of treatment  some r e c e n t r e s e a r c h a t t e n t i o n , problems  remain.  findings  on d i f f e r e n t i a l  on  One need  (in  this  case  r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s and  e v a l u a t i o n s of treatment  i t c a n be e s t a b l i s h e d  to i d e n t i f y  or perhaps  treatments. P a r t i c u l a r  procedures  I f , using the present  t e a c h e r s ) do d i f f e r e n t i a t e  may be p o s s i b l e procedures,  major  has r e c e i v e d  i s f o r d a t a on t h e g e n e r a l i t y o f  the b a s i s of a c c e p t a b i l i t y .  r e s e a r c h methodology,  acceptability  salient  individuals  procedures,  variables  t o the i n d i v i d u a l s treatments  that  related  then i t t o the  evaluating  o r f e a t u r e s o f some  t r e a t m e n t s may t h e n be i d e n t i f i e d  and amended i n ways w h i c h  might  without  enhance t h e i r  acceptability  compromising  their  31  effectiveness. subject for  I t may  variables  may  be a l s o  that  identification  suggest  changes  in future  of c e r t a i n  directions  c u r r i c u l u m and p r a c t i c u m e x p e r i e n c e s f o r s t u d e n t  teachers,  as w e l l  as i n s e r v i c e  training  for practicing  teachers. The  m a j o r i t y of p u b l i s h e d r e s e a r c h t o d a t e  acceptability  has employed u n d e r g r a d u a t e  psychology  s t u d e n t s as s u b j e c t s .  therefore,  whether p r e s e n t o r p o t e n t i a l  classroom fashion  treatment  similar  procedures  to that  and  I t must be  on  treatment  graduate established,  consumers of  (e.g., t e a c h e r s ) respond  established  i n other  in a  s t u d i e s by  other p o p u l a t i o n s . In t h i s ratings  s t u d y an a t t e m p t  of a c c e p t a b i l i t y  f e a t u r e s of both ratings. degree  and s u b j e c t s w h i c h a f f e c t  other  t h e s t u d y may  factors  suggest  preparation,  treatment  d e s i g n might  be a l t e r e d .  the development  consumers'  and t o i d e n t i f y  s u c h as  ways i n w h i c h  those  or l e v e l of teacher  p r e s e n t a t i o n , or i n f a c t ,  treatment  The g o a l o f s u c h a l t e r a t i o n s  and use o f e f f e c t i v e  other  individuals'  o f knowledge o f b e h a v i o r a l p r i n c i p l e s ,  training,  be  of t r e a t m e n t s  treatments  By e x a m i n i n g  was made t o a n a l y s e  would  and a c c e p t a b l e  treatments. Ideally,  i n the study  of t r e a t m e n t  a c c e p t a b i l i t y , the  body o f knowledge ought  t o be e s t a b l i s h e d  t e a c h e r s who a r e f a c i n g  real  select  from  problems with  among a l l t h e a l t e r n a t i v e  those procedures  which they  feel  'fit'  by h a v i n g real  treatment  real  children procedures  b e s t . A l l such  32  selections teacher,  c o u l d be r e c o r d e d  or subject v a r i a b l e s .  procedures such  c o u l d be m o n i t o r e d  effects  procedure, In  this  time  as i n t e g r i t y  and e f f e c t  way i t might  evidence  The a p p l i c a t i o n  of a p p l i c a t i o n ,  o u t on  e f f e c t i v e n e s s of  on n o n - t a r g e t c h i l d r e n ,  b o t h about  t o name a few.  over a l o n g p e r i o d of  the wealth  acceptability  which c o n t r i b u t e  Although of d a t a  this  The n e x t  approach  ideal  t h e most n a t u r a l i s t i c )  (i.e.,  w h i c h most n e a r l y  the a t t e n d a n t p r o h i b i t i v e naturalistic treatments greater study  procedure  costs.  1960)  generality.  best approach  approximates the  I t may be t h a t  a more  yield  are presently  useful  d a t a a t no  expended  i n the  and worthwhile,  particularly  i n any new  a body o f d a t a on s u b j e c t and  Thus s y s t e m a t i c r e p l i c a t i o n  (Sidman,  of c u r r e n t r e s e a r c h i s a v i a b l e and important  study. T h i s study w i l l  examination developed subjects  attempt  to establish  of the q u e s t i o n s r a i s e d  in diverse  then  of t r e a t m e n t s .  research area, to e s t a b l i s h setting  the research costs  f o r a s s e s s i n g a c c e p t a b i l i t y of  r e s e a r c h c o s t s than  i s important  i n terms  b u t w h i c h does n o t have  c a n be d e v i s e d w h i c h w i l l  of a c c e p t a b i l i t y It  may be i d e a l  i t would p r o d u c e ,  must be t h a t  of treatments  t o treatment  approach  would seem t o be p r o h i b i t i v e .  of  problem,  of these  and s t u d i e s c a r r i e d  be e s t a b l i s h e d  t h e many f a c t o r s  acceptability. of  any s a l i e n t  and p r o b a b l y a t g r e a t e x p e n s e , more d i r e c t and  believable and  including  other  ( K a z d i n , 1980a,  settings  1980b,  purpose  t h r o u g h an  above whether  findings  and u s i n g o t h e r t y p e s o f  1981, i n p r e s s ; K a z d i n e t  33  a l . ,  1981;  Andrews, and  in  Witt  &  press)  s e t t i n g s .  M a r t e n s , can  be  in  p r e s s ;  g e n e r a l i z e d  W i t t , to  Moe, other  G u t k i n ,  &  p o p u l a t i o n s  II. The followed  p u r p o s e of t h i s t o address  METHODOLOGY  chapter  t h e r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s posed  p r e v i o u s c h a p t e r . The c h a p t e r of  the nature  descriptions the  of the study,  begins  f o l l o w e d by more  overview  complete  of the i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n and e x p e r i m e n t a l  procedures.  a n a l y s i s procedure analyses  i n the  with a broad  s u b j e c t s o f t h e s t u d y , and t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l  preparation  A.  i s t o d e s c r i b e t h e method  follow  Finally,  an o u t l i n e  and d a t a  of the data  i s p r e s e n t e d . The r e s u l t s  i n Chapter  of these  Three.  NATURE OF THE STUDY  This  i s primarily  of p r o c e d u r e s  elementary to assess  a causal-comparative  of experimental  methodologies.  Briefly,  level  b u t makes u s e  survey  a s c r e e n i n g sample o f v o l u n t e e r  school teachers completed their  study  and a n a l y t i c  an i n s t r u m e n t  intended  o f knowledge o f b e h a v i o r a l p r i n c i p l e s  as a p p l i e d  to children.  elementary  s c h o o l t e a c h e r s was s e l e c t e d  A study  sample of r e g u l a r c l a s s from  the screening  sample on t h e b a s i s o f t h e knowledge measure r e s u l t s demographic  data  s u p p l i e d . Study  w i t h one o f two c h i l d terms o f t h e h i s t o r y One  design,  child  assignment setting.  case  s u b j e c t s were  descriptions  and the  presented  which d i f f e r e d i n  of treatment  the c h i l d  had e x p e r i e n c e d .  was d e s c r i b e d a s h a v i n g  a history  of s p e c i a l  with  intensive  teacher  In the d e s c r i p t i o n  made o f p r i o r  treatment.  support  in a structured  of t h e o t h e r c a s e  no m e n t i o n i s  S u b j e c t s were p r e s e n t e d  34  class  with  35  written  descriptions  appropriate as  of  for application  t h e one p r e s e n t e d  reading  of f o u r  on a f o u r  m e a s u r e . When a l l f o u r subjects  responded  reactions  treatment The  i n a classroom with a c h i l d  part  acceptability  treatment  treatment  to a f i n a l  ratings  were  to s o l i c i t  the r e l a t i v e  and s u b j e c t i v e  responses to  needs f o r t h e c h i l d d e s c r i b e d . f o c u s of the study  was upon d i f f e r e n c e s i n  r a t i n g s p r o v i d e d by t e a c h e r s , w i t h  teachers'  knowledge l e v e l ,  particular  treatments  B.  INSTRUMENTATION  In  addition  t h e c a s e d e s c r i b e d and t h e  t o a demographic q u e s t i o n n a i r e completed  the present  measure o f t r e a t m e n t questionnaire  s t u d y employed  intended to s o l i c i t  by a l l  t h r e e measurement  knowledge measure, a f o u r  acceptability,  the case d e s c r i p t i o n  description  respect to the  presented.  i n s t r u m e n t s : an i n i t i a l  scoring  completed  measure d e s i g n e d  treatment  to  F o l l o w i n g the  the a c c e p t a b i l i t y  of the t r e a t m e n t s  primary  subjects,  such  subjects rated  t o the case d e s c r i p t i o n ,  acceptability  w h i c h m i g h t be  i n the case d e s c r i p t i o n .  of each treatment,  the treatment  treatments  and a  other  and t o t r e a t m e n t  part  final  information relevant ratings. A  o f e a c h o f t h e i n s t r u m e n t s and t h e method o f  subject responses  follows.  36 1 . DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE The  demographic q u e s t i o n n a i r e  completed  by  procedures. age,  level  a l l teachers  of e d u c a t i o n a l  experience,  Subjects  were a l s o a s k e d training  c a t e g o r i z e any questionnaire  the  Teachers'  and  level  only,  of  study  training,  i n d i c a t e whether  to provide and  2.  sex,  of  taught. had  any  further  r e s p o n s e s on  a means of  (i.e.,  the  both  screening  subjects  regular  status).  the Demographic  Questionnaire  responses to the  questionnaire  age  in years,  of p r o f e s s i o n a l e d u c a t i o n  grade  (teacher  earned degree p l u s c e r t i f i c a t i o n ,  training  years  they  to  Teachers'  population  subjects'  of c h i l d r e n  management, and  experience,  certification).  Responses to the  were c o d e d as  yes  or  final  were c o d e d level  for  taught,  certification  graduate degree question  of  plus  special  no.  KNOWLEDGE MEASURE  A modified Behavioral (O'Dell,  (16-item) v e r s i o n  Principles  as  Applied  Tarler-Benlolo, & Flynn,  understanding with  level  was  study  included  required characteristics  teachers  years  to  in c h i l d  the  Scoring  sex,  grade  were i n t e n d e d  b a s i s of  classroom  and  d e g r e e or  such e x p e r i e n c e s .  characterizing on  to a l l other  C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s surveyed  teaching  special  prior  (see A p p e n d i x A)  and  c h i l d r e n . In  a p p l i c a t i o n of the  development  of  the  Knowledge  to C h i l d r e n 1979) basic of  was  (KBPAC) used  to  behavioral  the  of  KBPAC, 70  assess  principles items  37  were g e n e r a t e d expressed of  c h i l d r e n ' s behavior 1968,  administered and  recognized  (Becker,  Patterson,  t o a sample of  with  behavior  a Kuder-Richardson odd-even  KBPAC. F i f t y  point-biserial  1971;  147  the  the  final  cited  together  coefficient of  with  0.93  total  v e r s i o n d i d not  1971;  Patterson  items  were  t e x t s the a u t h o r s  a reasonable  et a l . r e p o r t  of  0.94  and  an  v e r s i o n of  highest  score  (all>  0.30,  v e r s i o n . While  a l l principles  sugggested  both  of  for this  final  cover  management  representing  which a t t a i n e d the  correlation  provided  the  a wide v a r i e t y  mean=0.49) were r e t a i n e d f o r t h e in  70  found  modification. O'Dell  correlation  items  Hall,  persons  with  reliability  split-half  t e x t s on  1971). T h e s e  p r o f e s s i o n a l people  experience  the  behavioral principles  in four widely  & Gullion,  lay  b a s e d on  t h a t the  sampling  of  the  items  found  50  in  items  content  of  interest. O'Dell involving training the  et a l . r e p o r t u s i n g  volunteer  workshop. In b o t h  instrument  first  subjects  t o 85%  s a m p l e s of  s t u d i e s odd-even  parents  c o r r e c t on  pre  students,  training  This additional  correct  increased pre/post  using  split-halves  post  training.  s u b j e c t s , one  were p r o v i d e d  sample of  training  the a l t e r n a t e form.  with  from  The  other  third the  to  of  same  91  57%  of  increase  the a l t e r n a t e form. Four  whom were p s y c h o l o g y  respondents  and  studies  management  d e m o n s t r a t e d an  undergraduate u n i v e r s i t y  experience.  KBPAC i n two  i n a 5-hour c h i l d  were a d m i n i s t e r e d  g r o u p of v o l u n t e e r  f r o m 48%  the  85%  38 A modified study in  i n which  social  was  the e f f e c t  learning  investigated  items  modified  incorporating  principles  version.  g r o u p s who social  In t h i s  differences had  training  learning  development  suggests assess  reflect  s t u d y t h e KBPAC  i n the d e s i r e d only  and  principles.  Other  Five  content  between  instruction  and  & Warren, in these  of the approach  knowledge of b e h a v i o r a l  plus  i n purpose  results  used  principles  i n the  reflected  s t u d i e s have  Taylor,  of s i m i l a r  the v a l i d i t y  training  1981).  direction  training  of i n s t r u m e n t s s i m i l a r  finding  training  parent  & Griest,  in a  o f t h e s t u d y were n o t u s e d  o f t h e KBPAC ( M a r h o l i n ,  1982). The  used  formal  in behavioral  (McMahon, F o r e h a n d ,  t o the p u r p o s e  significant  that  of  o f t h e KBPAC was  from t h e KBPAC w h i c h d i d not  appropriate  in  45-item v e r s i o n  reported design to  1978;  Milne,  studies  i n t h e KBPAC t o as a p p l i e d  to  children. Furtkamp,  Giffort,  10-item p a r a l l e l evaluation in for  settings.  reaction most  forms  and  Schiers  o f t h e KBPAC f o r use  These  s u b j e c t s to complete  164 M e n t a l H e a l t h T e c h n i c i a n KBPAC. From t h e r e s u l t s  predicted  were u s e d  total  point-biserial median was  score  0.297. The  (30-60 m i n u t e s )  the f u l l  sample  item  t o d e t e r m i n e t h e 20 f o r the t e s t .  range  or  was  0.296  0.693  required  KBPAC. A sample  t r a i n e e s completed  of t h i s  correlation  in research  two  s h o r t e n e d v e r s i o n s were d e v e l o p e d  t o the l e n g t h of time  correlations  (1982) have examined  the  of  50-item  point-biserial items which  Overall,  best  t h e mean i t e m  (S.D.=0.157) and  the  ( f r o m -0.153 t o =0.540).  39  The  twenty  items  items  were t h e n  versions. 111  following  modification, responses.  and  C.540 t o 0.383. T h e s e t h e two t e n - i t e m  were a d m i n i s t e r e d t o a sample of i n basic  behavior  and i t e m and t e s t  analysis  completed  The a u t h o r s impact  found  that  on t h e i r  reducing the length  on t h e i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y  (Kuder-Richardson  of the  of the  20 o f 0.862 f o r t h e 5 0 - i t e m  version,  0.735 a n d 0.765 f o r t h e two t e n - i t e m v e r s i o n s ) . The  correlation responses 2  between  of Mental  (r =0.423,  tests  t h e two f o r m s ,  from t h e  trainees,  was  s c o r e s on t h e  i s 0.87. F u r t k a m p e t a l . (1982) c o n c l u d e d r e s u l t s supported  parallel  forms.  For version O'Dell  the purpose  of the p r e s e n t  of t h e KBPAC was d e v e l o p e d .  versions,  they  Based  s a t i s f a c t o r y r e s u l t s from also  suggest  two forms may need  discriminated point-biserial  reworking.  below  that  10-item  a  t h e two  Although  10-item  versions  used i n  a l l items attained  0.30 w i t h  f o r t h e 50-item  16-item  Furtkamp e t a l .  some of t h e i t e m s  c o r r e l a t i o n s l e s s than  revised  on t h e f i n d i n g o f  i n the r i g h t d i r e c t i o n s e v e r a l  A d d i t i o n a l l y , both  reliabilities  that  as  study a f u r t h e r  of t h e KBPAC was p r e p a r e d . W h i l e  (1982) r e p o r t  that  use o f t h e s e two v e r s i o n s  e t a l . (1979) and F u r t k a m p e t a l . ( 1 9 8 2 ) ,  version  0.65  2 < 0 . 0 0 1 ) . When c o r r e c t e d f o r  t h e e s t i m a t e d c o r r e l a t i o n of t r u e  research  test.  determined  Health Technician  F(1,109)=80.17,  attenuation,  the  from  a course  had l i t t l e  tests  ranged  randomly a s s i g n e d t o form  These v e r s i o n s  trainees  test  selected  the t o t a l  attained version  (0.86) and  40 below  the  desired  Spearman-Brown reliabilities indicated  desired Form A  formula obtained  that  were added  level  to  i f test  of  those  correlation score  test  selection Form B  Furtkamp e t  a l . study  15  might  be  attained  16 20  or  i t e m s Form  16  items r e t a i n e d  f o r the  new  three  items  (point-biserial  (1982)  than  items, 16  (for  by  items  Furtkamp  with  of  the  total  test  KBPAC.  This  from Form A and  c o r r e l a t i o n s of  the  0.19,  one  0.22,  from  0.27  and  0.29). The versions  newly  developed  administered five  to  by  form  together  the  of  samples of  British  students  equal  version.  subject  Each  Administration approximately minutes  4-5  two  10-item  psychology  classes  c l a s s , each  r a n d o m l y d i s t r i b u t e d so  numbers of  subjects  completed  f o r the  minutes,  one  completed  version  the  version  that each  only.  10-item v e r s i o n s the  at  in  16-item v e r s i o n  was taking  3-4  longer.  Student analysed  time  the  (n=95) r e g i s t e r e d  Columbia. Within  r e v i s e d KBPAC was  approximately  with  F u r t k a m p e t a l . (1982) were  undergraduate educational  University of  revised  responses  using  the  to each v e r s i o n  Laboratory  of  of  Education  et  point-biserial  0.30  version  version  B  items which e x h i b i t e d  eliminated  the  the  to  c o e f f i c i e n t s greater  were s e l e c t e d  with  length  for  From t h e 16  1970)  of  i t e m s homogenous w i t h e i t h e r  reliabi1ity=0.82,  (1982),  Application  (Nunnally,  reliability  reliability=0.84). al.  0.80.  i n the  increase  level  of  the  KBPAC were  Research  Test  41 Analysis  Package  procedure  (LERTAP) ( N e l s o n , 1974). T h i s  provides both  Examination  of r e s u l t s  item p o i n t - b i s e r i a l exceeded of  0.30  i t e m and t o t a l from t h i s  test  analysis  correlations  were l e s s  .46).  results  of  Furtkamp  o f Furtkamp  purpose  of comparison. results  pilot the  summarized  of e i t h e r  reported  would  demonstrate  obtained barely  the  i s much l e s s  which i n the  o f measurement f o r different  version  reliability,  from  Additionally,  the r e s u l t s  ( 1 0 a , r=.54;  study a r e  to that obtained  the e s t i m a t e d  f o r each of the 10-item v e r s i o n s formula  sample.  of the t e s t  in the p i l o t  (.42 and .58) i n c o m p a r i s o n  Spearman-Brown  internal  i n the p i l o t  a longer  f o r t h e two 1 0 - i t e m v e r s i o n s  reliabilities  an  e t a l . (1982) a l t h o u g h t h e  an i m p r o v e d  the 16-item v e r s i o n .  f o r the  i n Table 1 indicate  be e x p e c t e d t h a t  adequate  of the  a r e p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e 1.  i s not s u b s t a n t i a l l y  among s u b j e c t s  i t might  Results  of t h e 1 0 - i t e m v e r s i o n s  by Furtkamp  While  for  test  test.  s t u d y . The o b t a i n e d s t a n d a r d e r r o r  variability  range  with the f i n d i n g s  f o r the 16-item v e r s i o n  two 1 0 - i t e m v e r s i o n s  that  (Form A  e t a l . (1982) a r e i n c l u d e d  reliability  that  with t o t a l  f o r the f u l l  Results  surpasses  results  0.06 t o 0.72, mean  were c o n s i s t e n t  correlations  LERTAP a n a l y s i s  consistency  that a l l  e t a l . , w i t h t h e same i t e m s a c h i e v i n g low  point-biserial  The  revealed  satisfactory  .42, and Form B, range  latter  analysis.  . 5 1 ) . Item  0.23 t o 0.63, mean These  analysis  f o r t h e 1 6 - i t e m KBPAC  ( r a n g e 0.31 t o 0.69, mean  the 10-item v e r s i o n s  test  i n f l a t e d by  10b, r=.69 when  42  TABLE 1 KBPAC PILOT STUDY RESULTS  Version  Pilot 1 OA 1 OB 16  Number of Subjects  Mean  Standard Deviation  Reliability  Standard E r r o r of Measurement  31 31 33  5. 87 5. 10 8. 18  1 ,91 . 2,, 15 3.,90  0.,42 0..58 0.,81  1 .31 , 1 .32 . 1 .63 .  2.,62 2.,75 4.,61 4..17 8..26  0,.74 0,.77 0,.77 0,.74 0,,86  1 .35 , 1 .33 , 2,.20 2,. 1 5 3,.07  1  Furtkamp e t a l .  2  11 1 11 1 1 64 1 64 1 64  1 OA 1 OB 25 odd 25 even 50  4. 4. 12. 13. 25.  78 78 14 17 31  Note. R e l i a b i l i t i e s r e p o r t e d f o r p i l o t study are Hoyt's, t h o s e f o r F u r t k a m p e t a l . (1982) a r e K u d e r - R i c h a r d s o n . For d i c h o t o m o u s l y s c o r e d i t e m s s u c h as t h o s e r e p r e s e n t e d h e r e , t h e s e two forms a r e e q u i v a l e n t . P i l o t s u b j e c t s were s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s . S t u d y s u b j e c t s were M e n t a l H e a l t h T e c h n i c i a n t r a i n e e s . 1  2  increased desired upon  in length to  level  the  of  result  comparing  the  16  items)  reliability, obtained  obtained  results  the d e s i r e d l e v e l  reliability.  While  with  a sample of  of  reliability student  do  not  certainly  those  reach  do  16-item  with  16-item  approximates  (.81)  and  u s i n g the  F u r t k a m p e t a l . (1982) t h e  the  still  not  the improve  v e r s i o n . In reported  by  v e r s i o n most n e a r l y internal obtained  teachers  consistency for this  i s less  than  form that  43 reported Health  f o r the 50-item v e r s i o n  Technician  represented subject an  time. Since  principles  the Mental  t r a i n e e s , use of the 16-item  a p o t e n t i a l saving  accurate  (.86) w i t h  version  o f 20 t o 40 m i n u t e s o f  i t was a d e s i r e o f t h e a u t h o r  measure of s u b j e c t s '  to obtain  knowledge o f b e h a v i o r a l  a s a p p l i e d t o c h i l d r e n i n t h e most  efficient  manner, t h e 1 6 - i t e m v e r s i o n o f t h e KBPAC was s e l e c t e d a s t h e appropriate  measure f o r i n c l u s i o n  A copy  of t h e 16-item v e r s i o n  instructions  f o r completion,  Scoring The and  one  subject  placed  i s presented  i n Appendix  f o r both the instrument  samples were hand c a l c u l a t e d . Item  f o r agreement  response.  of t h e KBPAC, i n c l u d i n g  with  keyed  responses  file  and t o t a l  with  item  score f o r  r e c e i v e d a value of  r e s p o n s e and z e r o  In a d d i t i o n , s u b j e c t  on a computer  scored  development  f o r any o t h e r  r e s p o n s e s were c o d e d and  100% v e r i f i c a t i o n .  This  verification  as w e l l as f o r c o m p l e t i o n  and t e s t  3.  score  a n a l y s i s using  treatment  Treatment part  Inventory  of  program.  measures c o n s i s t e d o f t h e  (TEI) (Kazdin,  ( E v a l u a t i v e , Potency, A c t i v i t y )  Differential  was u s e d f o r  MEASURES  acceptability  Evaluation  file  t h e LERTAP computer  TREATMENT ACCEPTABILITY  The  three  of t o t a l  computer  No e r r o r s  were f o u n d on v e r i f i c a t i o n .  item  B.  t h e Knowledge Measure  KBPAC r e s p o n s e s  screening  each  i n the study.  (SD) (Osgood, S u c i ,  1980a) and a  Semantic  & Tannenbaum,  1957).  44 a. T r e a t m e n t The reflect  TEI c o n s i s t s  overall  of a p a r t i c u l a r  considerations  fair,  of 15 L i k e r t - t y p e  an i n d i v i d u a l ' s  acceptability  whether  Evaluation Inventory  evaluation  treatment.  as t h e t r e a t m e n t ' s  i t s h o u l d be recommended  humane o r e f f e c t i v e  appropriate  f o r use w i t h  and  i t fits  whether  items which  together  of t h e  I n c l u d e d a r e such  overall  acceptability;  f o r broad  application;  i t might  be; whether  how  i t would be  someone n o t a b l e t o g i v e  w i t h common n o t i o n s of what  consent  treatment  s h o u l d be. Regarding reports to  that  relate  45 o r i g i n a l  to client  number K a z d i n related  development  reports that  on e a c h  16 were s e l e c t e d  to rate  s c a l e . One  to  indicate  the a c c e p t a b i l i t y  of  'suitability'  suitable ratings  than  of treatment factor  evaluative  validity  16 i t e m s . The  From  this  which  best  u s i n g a seven  f o r example, a s k e d of treatment  suitable,  on one a s p e c t  analytic  studies  version  respondents  for application  with  p o i n t s , not  f o r example, r e p r e s e n t of a c c e p t a b i l i t y . conducted  to assess the  of t h e T E I l e d t o d e l e t i o n  15-item  point  on t h e d i m e n s i o n  t h o s e d e s c r i b e d . The a n c h o r  at a l l to very  appeared  a particular described  of t h e t r e a t m e n t  Subsequent  study  item,  which  and t h e use o f p u n i s h m e n t .  of t h e 16 i t e m s  Likert-type  problems other  of treatment.  of c h i l d r e n  R e s p o n d e n t s were a s k e d  (1980a)  i t e m s were g e n e r a t e d  evaluation  to treatment  treatment  of t h e T E I , K a z d i n  o f t h e TEI u s e d  ( s e e A p p e n d i x C) was d e v e l o p e d  o f one o f t h e i n the present  and i m p l e m e n t e d i n  45 several  s t u d i e s subsequent Scoring  All  15  checking nearly  items  one  position  was  the  and  negative of  of  represented  input 5%  provide  scores  i t e m and Semantic  The consisted  evaluative,  15  by  of  not  one  at a l l  positive the  15  a neutral position score  to each  item  t o a computer  e r r o r s in coding to a n a l y s i s .  to c a l c u l a t e  of  105.  f o r each  file  with  100%  and  input  were  The  LERTAP  individual r a t e d , and  to  a n a l y s i s data.  SD  used  items,  potency  Kazdin  i n the  including  and  activity  The  study  five  (1980a) who  (see A p p e n d i x  from e a c h of  i n the  gave two  study  reasons  D)  the  dimensions described  v e r s i o n used  on  could  Differential  Osgood e t a l . ( 1 9 5 7 ) . developed  t o the  f o r each treatment  test  three part of  used  described  (e.g.,  acceptability  responses  Fewer t h a n  p r o g r a m was  acceptability  b.  subject  subjects  where a v a l u e  anchor p o i n t  a l l were c o r r e c t e d p r i o r  computer  study.  response  15 t o a maximum s c o r e  were c o d e d and  verification. found;  value,  i t e m . Thus a t o t a l  Individual treatment  s c o r i n g , each  s u i t a b l e ) f o r e a c h of  four  from a minimum of  t o by  to the  seven a s s i g n e d  (e.g., very  a particular  (1980a)  s c a l e w h i c h most  s u b j e c t ' s response  a value  questions. A value  responded  a seven p o i n t  the p u r p o s e of  t o the  anchor p o i n t  range  on  are  given a numerical  assigned  suitable)  t h e TEI  position  For  first  TEI  on  represents  treatment.  was  the  to Kazdin's  for  is  by one  46  including  t h e SD  acceptability. diversity allowing factor. the  second  T E I . I t was more  dimensions dimension  highly  placing  values  (e.g.,  dimension value  i n one  of seven  adjectives.  was  one.  Scores  that  f o r each  evaluative  overall dimensions  were  perhaps  acceptability.  assigned  was  t o by s u b j e c t s  positions  t o the check  ( e . g . , good) and a v a l u e  For the f i v e the pole  , the less  f o r each subject  pole  dimension three  nearest to  o f one t o t h e  greater  of seven  fast)  (e.g.,  the  potency  and the  of one. F o r the  (e.g.,  active  dimension  representing  representing  ( e . g . , weak) a v a l u e  space  to  between were a s s i g n e d  items  assigned a value  active  relative  For the evaluative  (e.g., bad). P o s i t i o n s  t h e more  of seven  of  mark  dimension,  pole  would  activity  of treatment  to the evaluation  of  dimension  and a c t i v i t y  are responded  accordingly.  opposite  validation  to reflect  dimensions  analysis,  homogeneous  t h e TEI and t h e  thought  important  and  t h e SD  pole  strong)  the potency  on  of seven  potency  of a  and  t h e SD  items  pole  factor  the evaluative  the potency  s e t of b i p o l a r  negative  that  than  relevant  positive  delineation  treatment  t h e number  to provide a partial  were  while  a check  value  the  15  to increase  the T E I . Both  Scoring  a  was  to reflect  The  careful  o f t h e SD  directly  was  of  f o r the subsequent  expected  with  acceptability  each  first  f o r a more  correlate  not  The  the TEI as measures  of v a r i a b l e s  The  thought  with  was  slow)  activity  assigned a  a value of  were c o n s i d e r e d s e p a r a t e l y  dimension  totals  were  so  found f o r  47  each  of the t r e a t m e n t s  dimension  could  35 f o r e a c h As under  range  Total  s c o r e s f o r each  from a minimum of f i v e  treatment  computer  file  analysis  statistics  Subject  condition  for calculation  measures  with  then  psychology  treatments  the  the a c c e p t a b i l i t y  of  criterion  revealed  items  from  dimension  acceptability with  study  descriptions,  be a p p l i e d  to a  t o the s u b j e c t .  of the treatment  Subjects  using the  s u b j e c t s were s u b m i t t e d t o a analysis  two f a c t o r s .  ranged  which  ( K a z d i n , 1980a).  t h e TEI l o a d e d h i g h l y  coefficients  were  above.  components f a c t o r  varimax  analysis  described  scores for p i l o t  principal  5%  A l l errors  s t u d e n t s . In t h e p i l o t  h e a r d one o f f o u r  measures d e s c r i b e d The  than  TEI and t h e 15 i t e m s o f t h e SD)  case p r e v i o u s l y  rated  test  program.  fewer  file.  the treatment  each p r e s e n t e d as the t r e a t m e n t might clinical  to a  Properties  ( t h e 16-item  each  and i n p u t  s c o r e , i t e m , and  to the data  (1980a) p i l o t e d  60 u n d e r g r a d u a t e subjects  of t o t a l  individual  to a n a l y s i s .  c. P s y c h o m e t r i c Kazdin  were c o d e d  100% v e r i f i e d ,  i n c o d i n g and i n p u t prior  f o r each  u s i n g t h e LERTAP computer  r e s p o n s e s were  corrected  t o a maximum o f  treatment.  w i t h the TEI, item responses  each  errors  rated.  from  rotated to  The r e s u l t s  Fifteen  on t h e f i r s t  was  of  of t h e s i x t e e n factor  this items  (pattern  .61 t o . 9 5 ) , as d i d t h e e v a l u a t i v e  t h e SD. L o a d i n g  f o r the potency  o f t h e SD were low ( l e s s  than  and  activity  .40) f o r t h e s i n g l e  48 factor  that  confirmed  characterized  items of the T E I . These  the e x p e c t a t i o n that  t h e TEI a s s e s s e d  evaluations  of the treatments  evaluations  were made i n d e p e n d e n t  activity  ratings.  reported  i n a second  enrolled  i n undergraduate  1980a). In t h i s loadings from  Additional  to  studies 1981) 15  from  1980b,  supported  t h e range  factor  acceptability supported  (Kazdin, high  factor  ranged  dimension of  ranged  from  .69  i n subsequent  i n press; Kazdin  et a l . ,  SD and a TEI c o n s i s t i n g factor  studies,  of data  from  findings.  from  a high  inter-item  these A l t h o u g h no  of the f a c t o r  f o r items  .35 t o .96, median  of the  internal  the r e s u l t s  correlations  of t h e  of the a n a l y s e s  l o a d e d t o g e t h e r on a common  o f t h e TEI ( f r o m  Validity  students  t h e TEI o r t h e d i m e n s i o n s  c o n s i s t e n c y may be i n f e r r e d items  courses  the o r i g i n a l  d a t a on e i t h e r  (i.e.,  analysis i s  t o 144 c o l l e g e  coefficients  1981a,  SD were r e p o r t e d i n t h e s e  analysis  of t h i s  the e v a l u a t i v e  above. R e s u l t s of a n a l y s i s  reliability  p o t e n c y and  measures used  the three part  studies  these  t h e TEI y i e l d e d  i t e m s w h i c h l o a d e d on t h e f i r s t  latter  that  as w e l l .  acceptability  included  overall  (pattern c o e f f i c i e n t s  (pattern  factor  (Kazdin,  reported  and  from  factor  .56 t o .95) a n d i t e m s  Treatment  support  psychology  items  on t h e f i r s t  .89) on t h i s  of both  administration  study  t h e SD l o a d e d h i g h l y  and s u g g e s t e d  data  factor)  of the f i r s t  r=.67).  of the TEI f o r a s s e s s i n g t r e a t m e n t i s partly  by s u b s e q u e n t  established studies  above and f u r t h e r  i n w h i c h t h e TEI was u s e d a s  49 a d e p e n d e n t measure 1980b, these  1981a,  in press;  Kazdin  s t u d i e s e s t a b l i s h e d the  distinguish, separate  4.  i n the  treatment  populations  and  CASE AND  The  information of  the  for  less  provide the  from t e a c h e r s  of  the  higher  severe  TEI  to  between  several  a v a r i e t y of  E)  was  about  study  present  was  a  questionnaire  study.  intended  to  This solicit  c e r t a i n f e a t u r e s of  the  been  regard  asked  rated.  subjects  case d e s c r i b e d .  In  this  cases.  of c a s e s two  experience  how  students  i n the  intended  to obtain  The of  and  to  Kazdin  r a t e the  case  scores)  (i.e.,  when t r e a t m e n t s  more s e v e r e  f i r s t question  the  cases was  than  intended  d e g r e e of p e r c e i v e d  to detect  perceived  (1980a) f o u n d  r a t e d more p o s i t i v e l y  acceptability  indication  Question own  the  for a p p l i c a t i o n with  an  the  of  were p o s e d .  case presented  severity  i n the  (see A p p e n d i x  t r e a t m e n t s were g e n e r a l l y  presented  of  direction,  p u r p o s e of  f i r s t question  assigned  ability  t r e a t m e n t s w h i c h had  seriousness  Kazdin,  e t a l . , 1981). R e s u l t s  s t r a t e g i e s across  measure u s e d  four questions The  1984;  settings.  f o r the  questionnaire  expected  & Caldwell,  TREATMENT QUESTIONNAIRE  final  developed  and  (Hobbs, W a l l e ,  that were  were those to  s e v e r i t y of  potential differences in  described. required typical  regular  subjects the  to  i n d i c a t e from  case d e s c r i b e d  classroom.  some i n d i c a t i o n  was  This question of  incidence  their  of was  and  possibly  50 to  lend  validation  confront relate that at  this  kind  directly  better  (here the case d e s c r i p t i o n )  r e p r e s e n t an  that  like  ideal  'typical'  the manticore,  (p. 6 4 5 ) . whether  in a relevant  (1978) s u g g e s t s , one  Teacher  in fact  realistic  may  responses  never  and  i s that,  t h e assumed c a s e d e s c r i p t i o n  enough t o a l l o w t e a c h e r s t o r e l a t e  might  in using i n an  "case  question  or  plausible  attempt  i s created  have e x i s t e d  to this  child  ratings  danger  case, a  important  difficult  treatment  to  descriptions  i t was  'typical'  so t h a t  acceptability  c o n t e x t . As Maher  to  one  teachers having  Since treatment  the c a s e as a  a plausible  reflect  scripts  of p r o b l e m .  of  t o the c a s e d e s c r i p t i o n ,  t e a c h e r s see  least  t o the p l a u s i b i l i t y  in nature"  indicate i s relevant to  and  treatment  descriptions. The four ranks each  third  treatments on  question required a t one  t h e b a s i s of how  i n the classroom.  to  reveal  of  the a c c e p t a b i l i t y  t o a s s i g n each  likely  the  I f t h e TEI  q u e s t i o n asks  acceptability  Witt  Elliot  acceptability  treatment  will  be  used  of t h e  ( p . 2 ) . They  acceptability  and  four  will  suggest use,  can  treatment,  to  use  be p e r c e i v e d  individual's  ratings  then  this  treatments described. that  a  "reason f o r  i s to i n c r e a s e the and  relative  s u b j e c t to c o n s i d e r the  (in press) stated  assessing  integrity"  the  to  s u b j e c t would be  procedure  of a p a r t i c u l a r  relative  link  and  some a b s o l u t e measure of an  particular  and  time  subjects to consider a l l  be  likelihood  implemented  t h e need  but a l s o  that  with  f o r research to  stress  the need  to  a  51 establish relevant school  appropriate' selected  setting(s).  decision-making or 'best  process,  available'  important  some t e a c h e r s  acceptable  which a r e i n the  I t i s important  to  which as n e a r l y as p o s s i b l e a p p r o x i m a t e s  in light  find  t h e 'most  situation.  This i s  of r e s e a r c h which  no i n t e r v e n t i o n w h i c h  (Witt & E l l i o t ,  at establishing  whereby  o f s e v e r a l known o p t i o n s i s  f o r use i n t h e p a r t i c u l a r  particularly  attempt  and use o f t r e a t m e n t s  clinical)  a procedure  clinical  that  for assessing acceptability  t o the s e l e c t i o n  (and o t h e r  develop the  procedures  suggests  is totally  in press). This question  a methodology  i s one  for soliciting  such  informat ion. The  final  describe child  question  the approach they  d e s c r i b e d were  teachers  in their  although  descriptions prior  treatment  acceptability  likely In t h i s  this  that teachers  treatments.  i n f o r m a t i o n ought  of a c c e p t a b i l i t y  of those  treatments.  ( i n press)  are t y p i c a l l y then  t o the  t o be  and Lambert  known t r e a t m e n t s  to this  intervention  aware o f o n l y  may  for future  responses  to consider  This question  which had  some d a t a  research. Teacher  I t i s important  question  q u e s t i o n . A major  was t o p r o v i d e  and E l l i o t  use i f t h e  by t h e t r e a t m e n t s  may r e v e a l a p p r o a c h e s t o c l a s s r o o m  accumulated. Witt  possible  subjects to  a l l had been e x p o s e d  upon w h i c h a c c e p t a b i l i t y  suggest  class.  t o answering  of t h i s question  question  would most  were n o t r e s t r i c t e d  been p r e s e n t e d  intent  required teacher  the  (1976)  one o r two dimension  relative  to other  r e v e a l a l s o the  52  breadth  of a p p r o a c h e s  appropriate  f o r use i n t h e c l a s s r o o m  Scoring In which  seen by t e a c h e r  s u b j e c t s as setting.  t h e Case and T r e a t m e n t  response  to the f i r s t  Questionnaire  question,  teachers  s c a l e p o i n t most n e a r l y r e p r e s e n t e d  their  indicated e s t i m a t e of  the  s e r i o u s n e s s of t h e p r o b l e m s d e s c r i b e d . The p o s i t i o n s on  the  five  all)  to five  asked not  point  s c a l e ranged  (extremely  teachers  produce  metric  responses  dichotomously.  or  five  right  all  their  was  this  order  to  use t h i s  Responses which  indicated  that the c h i l d  (e.g.,  "one e v e r y  year",  "one o u t o f f i f t y " , of t e a c h i n g " )  indicated  coded  "two  was  him i n four  a s one.  d e s c r i b e d was  three  not a t  on t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e  of t h e r e l a t i v e  ranking  by a r r a n g i n g  l i k e l i h o o d of  'most l i k e l y  treatment  t o use t h i s  p o s i t i o n s i n the arrangement from, one f o r ' l e a s t  Subjects code  letters  one' t o ' l e a s t  one'. F o r t h e p u r p o s e of s c o r i n g  ranging  likely'.  like  and " I ' v e seen  were s c o r e d  t h a t the case  subjects ranking  from  responses,  a s no  were c o d e d a s z e r o .  their  in  which  child, did  quantifiable  u s i n g e a c h of t h e d e s c r i b e d t r e a t m e n t s .  indicated  value  typical  w h i c h were r e a d i l y  Responses t o q u e s t i o n represented  The s e c o n d q u e s t i o n ,  were  i n 10 y e a r s  typical  serious at  responses  now",  Responses which  (not v e r y  Therefore  somewhat t y p i c a l class  serious).  t o d e s c r i b e how  was p r o v i d e d .  my  from one  these  were a s s i g n e d  likely'  likely  to four  a  f o r 'most  53  Question study  as  i t d i d not  Moreover, purpose  these  of  the  Coded  treatment  scored  not  yield  responses  data  were not  file  was  readily  of d i r e c t  treatment  m e a s u r e s . As  acceptability  Questionnaire data zero weighting  tabulation  responses  of  treatment  DESIGN OF  i n the  coded.  interest  to  100% verification  c o n t a i n i n g the coded  subtests with  C.  that  analysis  responses  the  acceptability  THE  the  measures t h e s e d a t a  were t r e a t e d for this  without  to  to  d e s c r i b e d above f o r  u s i n g t h e LERTAP computer p r o g r a m . The  Treatment  the  for direct  were added w i t h  acceptability  of  scored  study.  responses  t h e computer  scoring  f o u r was  as  Case  and  precoded  analysis,  affecting  were  allowing for  the a n a l y s i s  of  measures.  STUDY  1 . DEPENDENT VARIABLES The subject for  each  dependent s c o r e s on of  Medication Positive  variables t h e TEI  Time Out  Practice the  each  treatment  the  the  total  ranking procedure  Questionnaire, assigned  the  The  three dimensions  treatments  score a t t r i b u t e d acceptability  treatment.  (R),  of  the  SD  t o each  and  were treatment  measures. With  i n t h e Case and  represent  included:  dependent v a r i a b l e s  the dependent v a r i a b l e  to each  study  (TO), Reinforcement  ( P P ) . The  measured as of  and  the t r e a t m e n t s . (M),  i n the p r e s e n t  on  regard to  Treatment was  the  A more d e t a i l e d  relative  description  rank of  54  procedures  f o r s c o r i n g and  the d e s c r i p t i o n  2.  study  included three  r e p r e s e n t e d as  Subjects'  factors  s c o r e s on  type  the  initial  blocking factor  scoring  of t h e  description the  independent  i n the  of d a t a  of c a s e ,  section  i n the  of  study. D e t a i l s  p r e p a r a t i o n . On  description on  The  s c o r e s as  attributed  descriptions  Mike R.  exhibiting variety  are  severe  of o t h e r case,  addition  treatment.  and  into  an  regarding  the b a s i s o f . t o t a l  the  procedure  into  score two  'cutpoint'. Subjects  considered  variable,  t o the h i s t o r y t o the case the  of  further.  i s presented  A more  i n the  type  of c a s e ,  special  same c h i l d  settings. same as  The  and  efforts  two  class  are presented who  t h a t of Mike R.  i n the  is  i n s c h o o l and  description  i n t r o d u c t o r y paragraph the p r e s e n t  had  (see Appendix F ) . Both  b e h a v i o r a l problems  district  as  i n c l u d e d i n the  i s d e s c r i b e d as a young boy  i s the  of an  a s coming  of  These  of s u b j e c t s .  independent  corresponding  same way.  of t h i s  assignment  second  treatment  school  type  knowledge measure s u b j e c t s were s e p a r a t e d  detailed  second  and  which  design.  knowledge measure were u s e d  s c o r e d a t t h e median were not  levels  variables  experimental  knowledge measure a r e  g r o u p s u s i n g t h e median who  in  of d a t a p r e p a r a t i o n .  were knowledge g r o u p ,  on  i s presented  INDEPENDENT VARIABLES  This are  assigning values  in a  of M i k e S., except  the  f o r the  which p r e s e n t s Mike  teacher's class  as a r e s u l t  toward mainstreaming.  His  of  S.  55  history  states  where he  has  that  has  been u s e d  programming. O t h e r the  history  are  identical  Kazdin  he  to  than  third  treatments,  attention  the d e s c r i p t i o n s  of  setting  and  special  paragraph the  two  a r e a d a p t a t i o n s of d e s c r i p t i o n s  independent  (Kazdin,  descriptions,  presented  reported  variable  M e d i c a t i o n , Time Out,  Reinforcement  v e r s i o n s of  on  cases  used  The  by  Positive  type.  Practice,  i n A p p e n d i x G,  interventions  are  applied  i n the case  Four  and  treatment  r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of to the  type  description  of  (Kazdin,  497). design  effect  of  of two  the  treatments  study  additional  were t h e v a r i a b l e s  position  i s treatment  1981a) were c o n s i d e r e d . The  behaviors presented  1981a, p.  the  individual  class  (1981a).  The  target  in a special  the a d d i t i o n . o f t h i s  of t r e a t m e n t and  been  related  appeared  (row  n e c e s s i t a t e d c o n s i d e r a t i o n of independent  to sequence  e f f e c t ) and  i n which a treatment  These might variables  be  distinguished  as n u i s a n c e  or d e s i g n  i n which  These  the  t h e o r d e r , or  appeared from  variables.  the  (column  relative  effect).  foregoing  independent  variables.  3. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN The of  the  similar is,  design  4 x 4  i n the p r e s e n t  Latin-square design  to that  in part,  were t o be  used  used  by  Kazdin  a systematic  presented  and  study  (Myers,  was  an  1979)  extension  and  is  (1981a) of w h i c h t h i s  replication.  Since  four  r e p e a t e d measures taken  study  treatments on  the  56 dependent in  the  variables,  square  f o l l o w i n g the  Latin-squares Cox  (1950).  d e s c r i b e d by  One  of  random. Rows and yielding Within in  the  this  then  four  p r e s e n t a t i o n was  procedure Kirk  squares  columns were t h e n  square  square  e a c h of  or column  once  the  (i.e.,  possible  was  Cochran  four  treatments  i n which the  and  independently  i n the  first,  present  study.  occurs  once  second, t h i r d , row.  of  of  s e l e c t e d at  randomized  i n e a c h s e q u e n c e or  sequences  by  used  r e p r e s e n t s a random s e l e c t i o n  randomized  for randomization  (1968) and  standard  particular  each o r d e r  f o u r t h ) and  treatment  The  or  Latin-square  f o u r of  the  four treatments  24  could  be  presented. In a d d i t i o n t o t h e knowledge l e v e l  and  as b e t w e e n - s u b j e c t s replicated yielding  of  the  Myers  factors,  overall  (1979) has  Latin-square  several subjects  v a r i a b l e s with than  Myers s u g g e s t s efficiency designs.  of  level  the  In u s i n g  an  these  of  design.  even more i m p o r t a n t  Latin-square  design  the L a t i n - s q u a r e  The 1.  designs.  time  x  designs  investigation  expenditure factorial  level  in Figure  that Latin-square  f o r the  design  was  design.  other  of  factors  x case  Latin-square  advantages over  a comparable than  Latin-square  i s presented  allows  factors  were i n c l u d e d i n t h e  of e a c h of  suggested  less  the  (knowledge l e v e l  design  design  variable,  hence t h e  replicated  have s e v e r a l p o t e n t i a l the  of c a s e  (4 x 4)  (sequence x o r d e r ) ) layout  type  once at each  a 2 x 2 x  treatment  and  First, of  fewer  Additionally,  advantage  relative  to  i n a repeated  i s the  other measures  FIGURE 1 LAYOUT OF THE EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN  Knowledge Group  Case  Sequence  Order 1 st  2nd  3rd  4th  1  M  TO  R  PP  2  TO  PP  M  R  3  PP  R  TO  M  4  R  M  PP  TO  1  M  TO  R  PP  2  TO  PP  M  R  3  PP  R  TO  M  4  R  M  PP  TO  1  M  TO  R  PP  2  TO  PP  M  R  3  PP  R  TO  M  4  R  M  PP  TO  1  M  TO  R  PP  2  TO  PP  M  R  3  PP  R  TO  M  4  R  M  PP  TO  Hi£h  Low  58  design, not  the  researcher  i s able  to  individual  d i f f e r e n c e , as  only  measures d e s i g n ,  but  remove e r r o r v a r i a n c e in a regular  a l s o s e q u e n c e and  effects.  T h i s advantage  repeated  measures on  affected  by  D.  to  is particularly  the  carryover  order  or  of  important  potent  repeated  temporal  dependant v a r i a b l e are  effects  due  when  likely  to  be  treatments.  PROCEDURE  1.  SUBJECTS  The  s u b j e c t s of  practicing schools  elementary  i n the  representative surrounding proportion  provided  the  Since by  sample was  had  assigned  special  Subjects staff the  and  focus  education  local  Burnaby  the of  the  study  teachers, who  three  was  the  had  p r e s e n t a t i o n and  the  of  researcher  and  school  final  the  subject class as  time. presentation  to  facilitated  district  administration. subsequent  large  ratings  h o u r s e a c h week  oral  school  It i s  a regular  t h r o u g h an  the  nine  i s a major  population  or a d m i n i s t r a t i o n  were s o l i c i t e d  the  from  which comprises a  student of  more t h a n  cooperation  solicited  Vancouver a r e a .  area  to teachers  m e e t i n g s by  c o m m i t t e e and introductory  no  volunteer  r e l e v a n t d i m e n s i o n s of  teaching  restricted  and  through  Greater  suburban  a major  107  District.  regular classroom  enrolled  school  most  u r b a n and of  the  were  teachers,  School  within along  study  school  Burnaby  suburban c e n t e r  province.  this  research The  procedures  required  59 approximately presented  procedures  One the  s u b j e c t time.  f o r the  in p a r t i c i p a t i o n  questionnaire teachers  m i n u t e s of  with a written introduction  p u r p o s e and interest  10-15  and  the  responded  study  and  study.  completed  16-item  seven  completed  statement  A l l staff  the  r e q u i r e d consent  t o the  h u n d r e d and  and  were  of  indicating  demographic form. F o l l o w i n g  knowledge  teachers agreed  the  Teachers  this,  measure. to p a r t i c i p a t e  knowledge measure  in  and  demographic q u e s t i o n n a i r e . The or  mean s c o r e on  the  knowledge measure  f o r the  s c r e e n i n g sample of  107  t e a c h e r s was  (S.D.=3.68)  w i t h a maximum s c o r e and of the  77  female  14 y e a r s  16 p o s s i b l e .  t e a c h e r s had  of  teachers  of  i n the  T h i s sample of  a mean age  teaching experience.  7.03  of  The  s c r e e n i n g sample a r e  39  years  initial  30  and  male a mean  characteristics summarized  of  in Table  2. All the  teachers  study  had  procedures. and  the  interest  in p a r t i c i p a t i o n  those  who  met  w i l l i n g n e s s to p a r t i c i p a t e  study  as  s u b j e c t s and  had  study were  their  requirements designated  data t r e a t e d  a c c o r d i n g l y . D a t a p r o v i d e d by  other  retained  o u t s i d e the d i r e c t  the  and  study.  in  the o p p o r t u n i t y to complete a l l e x p e r i m e n t a l  S i x t y - f o u r of  indicated  within  indicating  used  This  t h e measurement  in analyses  included analysis instruments  used  participants  were purpose  of  of v a r i o u s p r o p e r t i e s of i n the  study.  60  TABLE 2 CHARACTERISTICS  Age (years)  OF SCREENING  Experience (years)  SAMPLE  Knowledge Level  Mean  39.29  14.16  7.03  S.D.  8.74  7.52  3.68  32-60  0-35  Range  Sex  Male=30 Female=77  Schools  Educational  Represented  Total  Those t e a c h e r s  criterion  who  (i.e.,  of C l a s s Enrolled  Primary=42 Intermediate=45 Spec i a l = 20  Special Training  Subjects  Yes=56; No=5!  s c o r e d a t t h e median l e v e l (n=l3),  o r who  (mdn=7)  d i d n o t meet t h e  regular classroom  d i d not wish t o p a r t i c i p a t e  were n o t c o n s i d e r e d  16)  SUBJECTS  t h e knowledge measure  stated  (max.  Levels  n=1 07  2. ASSIGNMENT OF  who  Levels  Teach. Cert.=10 Deg. + C e r t . = 8 3 G r a d . Deg. + C e r t . = 1 4  n=9  on  0-16  teacher)  (n=12) o r  f u r t h e r i n the study  f o r the purpose of s e l e c t i o n of  (n=9)  61  subjects.  Of t h o s e  knowledge g r o u p s  remaining,  32 s u b j e c t s  from e a c h of t h e  (high,  low) were randomly  selected for  assignment  to treatment  c o n d i t i o n s . Within  e a c h knowledge  group four  teachers  each of e i g h t descriptions  were r a n d o m l y  experimental x four  s e l e c t e d and a s s i g n e d  conditions  treatment  were randomly  of  a t e a c h knowledge l e v e l  data  collection,  subject  case  s e q u e n c e s ) . Thus, a t o t a l of  32 t e a c h e r s subjects  (two c h i l d  to  selected  and i d e n t i f i e d  from t h e r e m a i n i n g for participation  within  the study  pool and  as t h e  sample.  3. DATA COLLECTION Experimental procedures proceeded, for  this  as t h e f i r s t ,  session  materials condition. different  with  teachers  appropriate Differences  were  Each s u b j e c t containing  four  questionnaire.  earlier.  However,  packages of  experimental t h e two  different  sequences i n  presented.  was p r o v i d e d  copies  with  an e v a l u a t i o n  case d e s c r i p t i o n , four of the treatment  treatment  o f t h e c a s e and t r e a t m e n t  i n w h i c h t r e a t m e n t s were a r r a n g e d viewing  package  acceptability  The c a s e d e s c r i p t i o n i n c l u d e d  to subjects  meeting  individual  i n packages represent  m e a s u r e s and a s i n g l e copy  prior  received  to the preassigned  the appropriate  descriptions,  second  group a d m i n i s t r a t i o n .  case d e s c r i p t i o n s and f o u r  which treatment  sequence  for this  materials,  and t h e  was  determined  i n t h e manner  described  62  After were a s k e d and  then  with  reading their  to c o n s i d e r the f i r s t  t o complete  treatment  the treatment  reference to their  aside  a s s i g n e d case d e s c r i p t i o n  and t h e p r o c e d u r e  repeated  f o r the remaining  treatment  s e p a r a t e l y , b u t t o remember  ratings  giving  completion  of i n s t r u c t i o n s , required  session,  experimental  that  description  of t h e f o u r  treatment  each  each  treatment  presented. treatment  t h e c a s e and  session,  including  e v a l u a t i o n s , and  approximately  three  to consider  separate  t o complete  q u e s t i o n n a i r e . The s e c o n d  t i m e . The e x p e r i m e n t e r  to  case  s u b j e c t s were a s k e d  questionnaire  first  S u b j e c t s were a s k e d  to the p a r t i c u l a r  treatment  package,  c a s e . T h e s e m a t e r i a l s were t h e n p u t  descriptions.  Following  in their  a c c e p t a b i l i t y measures  treatment  related  teachers  final  30 m i n u t e s of s u b j e c t  was p r e s e n t d u r i n g b o t h  this  t o answer q u e s t i o n s and t o e n s u r e  and t h e  compliance  procedures.  E . DATA PREPARATION AND  ANALYSIS  1. DATA PREPARATION Scoring described and  procedures  earlier  under  f o r subject data  those  I n s t r u m e n t a t i o n . A l l d a t a were  e n t e r e d o n t o computer f i l e s  e r r o r s were c o r r e c t e d  follow  prior  with  coded  100% v e r i f i c a t i o n . A l l  to a n a l y s i s .  63 2.  ANALYSIS OF  The  r e s p o n s e s of  questionnaire 64  teachers.  final  DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE teachers  provided  data  to the  to d e s c r i b e  Descriptive statistics  sample of  64  demographic  teachers,  the  are  separated  final  provided i n t o the  sample for  the  two  knowledge g r o u p s . The  SPSS:X computer p r o g r a m CROSSTABS  (SPSS I n c . ,  used  statistics  1983) of  was  these  two  PSYCHOMETRIC ANALYSIS  a.  Knowledge Measure psychometric  KBPAC was  a n a l y s i s of  accomplished  T h i s program p r o v i d e s deviation, (Hoyt,  estimate  1941), and  statistics  for  correlation  scoring subjects  and  scoring  scores  pools.  at  mean,  consistency  d i f f i c u l t i e s and  the  program.  standard reliability  e r r o r of measurement, as  satisfactory  f o r the  subject  point'  responses to  LERTAP computer  scores,  internal  standard  item  the  subject  well  as  point-biserial  coefficients.  Following analysis  using  subjects  of  summary d e s c r i p t i v e  groups.  3.  The  'cut  to provide  of  p u r p o s e of  pools, was  the  median of  the  two  median e l i m i n a t e d  of  the  identifying  calculated. This  for dividing the  results  the  psychometric high  and  low  distribution  score  of  then p r o v i d e d  groups, with  those  from a s s i g n m e n t  to  the  subjects subject  64  b.  Treatment  The  first  Acceptability  analysis  dependent  measures  again  LERTAP  the  deviations, item-test  was  correlations reliability  ratings  each  The  treated  test  score  was  and  was  for used  of  the on  tests. each  in  In  of in  item by the  subject  the  obtain  estimates  subtests  provided  level  on  the  the  of  the  analysis.  as  of  the  each  means,  measurement,  determined  in  test  used to  summing  each  r e s p o n s e s on  and  Hoyt  of  of  statistics  variables  was  separate  measure  obtained  item  treatment  appropriateness  dependent and  as  subject  errors  consistency  were  an  program  standard  for  of  Measures  standard  well  the  Once  as  internal  present  dependent LERTAP  study measures  analysis.  responses within  each  an  item  inspection  analysis. each  of  second a n a l y s i s  The  the of  of  total  dependent  treatment  ratings.  4.  A N A L Y S I S OF T R E A T M E N T A C C E P T A B I L I T Y R A T I N G S  The  analysis  significant knowledge teacher the  effects  level,  analysis  variance  are  sequence,  investigated  of  the  the  by with  acceptability  independent  case,  considered  which  (subjects,  treatment  child  r e s p o n s e s on  variables  of  of  and  the  and  utilizing repeated  type,  measures.  effects  functions  variables  treatment  dependent  of  ratings  experimental  order).  All  of  measures.  on  other  the  replicated  of based  of  a  for  Additionally,  several  these  was  design  effects  Latin-square  were  analysis  65 Although advantages design)  L a t i n - s q u a r e d e s i g n s have c e r t a i n  w h i c h were d e s c r i b e d e a r l i e r  such d e s i g n s a l s o  t h e amount o f major the  information available  that  treatment  and  row  impossible  to extract.  treatments  t o be a f f e c t e d  column p l a c e m e n t interactions, of  aliased that  such  the a n a l y s i s . designs  interactions  and/or  exist  The from  between are  f o r example, f o r by e i t h e r  of b o t h .  may  stems  column v a r i a b l e s  differentially  or a c o m b i n a t i o n  t h i s type  within  row  or  Such  obscure  analysis order  & Rosnow, treatment  (row  order,  1984;  Winer,  effects  t h e main  effects  are  to  i n themselves,  i s the a l i a s e d  experimental  d e s i g n s s u c h as  effects  independent  (and  variables  term.  effects  1968;  within  the  While  sequence,  effects  the primary effect.  of  the  to  These  column)  t o s o u r c e s other than  with  from  interactions  treatment  in  extract  of t r e a t m e n t  s e q u e n c e and  to the  be  It i s possible,  effects  interactions.  sequence x  may  f o c u s of  t h e p r e s e n t one,  o t h e r than  be  In t h e p r e s e n t  interaction  however, c o n t a i n i n a d d i t i o n attributable  (Kirk,  1962).  interaction  s p e c i f i c higher order  variance  zero  treatment  said  interaction  are a l i a s e d  sequence x o r d e r  some i n t e r e s t  treatment  assumed t o be  x column) i n t e r a c t i o n  and  research  of d e s i g n t r e a t m e n t s  s p e c i f i c higher order  are themselves  Rosenthal  may,  from  It i s possible,  i f t h e y do  experimental  interest. Within  the  of  i n f o r m a t i o n about  variables  (c.f.,  and  have a t t e n d a n t c o s t s i n terms of  s a c r i f i c e i n the a n a l y s i s  fact  benefits  effect,  treatment.  In  66  the p r e s e n t  analysis  the  sequence x order  (which  i s the  treatment  plus a  'Latin  Square R e s i d u a l '  personal  communication,  isolated  and  i n most c a s e s  be  that  a significant  LSR  other  may  (LSR)  August,  x order  independent  be  1984). The but  interpreted  interaction  variable  LSR  may  where  (1979)  t o be  an  (or a treatment  interaction,  depending  for  interactions  Myers  further  permits  sequence  states,  determining  are  however, t h a t , " t h e r e  which  interaction  is significant,  a  r e v e a l s t h a t some i n t e r a c t i o n  result  only  present" In  (p.  complete  first  1980b,  exact  source  presented.  Latin-square  the  presented. remaining  of  x  the  LSR  evidence  test  that  i s present  that].  . .  component  (in press)  these  being  analysis  impact  The  of  second  variables  of  experimental  i s not  t a b l e s f o r the a n a l y s i s suggests  a 3 x 3  of v a r i a n c e  s t a t e s that t h i s  evaluate  on  i s no  1981a, i n p r e s s ; K a z d i n  model of a n a l y s i s  Kazdin of  effect  such is  282).  1980a,  1981), t h e  Kazdin  concludes  several studies using a similar  (Kazdin,  the  and  suggests  present.  component  [when t h e LSR  both  x order  i s strong a p r i o r i  t h a t no  be  significant  under c o n s i d e r a t i o n ) i f t h e r e assuming  effect  (G. J . J o h n s o n ,  u n i n t e r p r e t a b l e . Myers can  term  c o n t a i n treatment  tested for significance,  will  a treatment  alias)  interaction  stage the  stage  way  et a l . ,  stated  and  of v a r i a n c e a r e  a two  (sequence x  stage  of a n a l y s i s  analysis;  measures.  i s used  i n which treatments  interest,  not  order)  for repeated  of a n a l y s i s  design  focuses  on  to were the  i g n o r i n g s e q u e n c e and  order  67 factors. In  earlier  approach LSR.  work, K a z d i n  suggested  In t h e f i r s t  tests  by Myers study  of treatment  (1980a) a p p e a r s t o f o l l o w t h e (1979) of t e s t i n g e f f e c t s o f t h e  by K a z d i n  using  the  biased  a n d hence h i g h l y  term,  leading  conservative  subjects  error  F test  term. Kazdin  (Kazdin,  mean s q u a r e and fewer d e g r e e s o f f r e e d o m  as w e l l . Other  experimental (Kazdin,  design,  1980a,  1980b,  1981a,  1981), however do n o t r e p o r t such  i n design)  using  t h e same  basic  by K a z d i n  and h i s c o l l e a g u e s  i n press;  Kazdin  et a l . ,  r e s u l t s of a n a l y s i s  requiring  tests. A  the  F tests  o f a s i g n i f i c a n t LSR i n t h i s  studies  reported  testing  f o r s e q u e n c e and o r d e r  (larger  analysis  than t h e  two o f t h e K a z d i n  use o f t h e c o n s e r v a t i v e  presence  using  but a s i g n i f i c a n t  also  the l i k e l y  1980a,  reported  effects  indicating  required  analysis  negatively  was l a r g e r  in this analysis,  the i n i t i a l  effects for  does n o t r e p o r t  may be i n f e r r e d . I n e x p e r i m e n t  (1980a) s t u d y  to a  1979, p . 2 7 6 ) . K a z d i n  LSR f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e  result  within  o f t h e SD were made  a p p r o a c h b e c a u s e t h e LSR o b t a i n e d  within the  dimension  t h e LSR a s an e r r o r  265; s e e a l s o M y e r s ,  that  the usual  t e r m s , b u t t h e t e s t s of t r e a t m e n t  TEI and t h e e v a l u a t i v e  against  p.  error  (1980a),  e f f e c t s on t h e p o t e n c y and a c t i v i t y  d i m e n s i o n s o f t h e SD were made a g a i n s t subjects  t h i s design  further  methodological  two s t a g e a n a l y s i s  Kazdin  states,  issue  reported  f o r example, t h a t  i s raised  i n the Kazdin there  i n reviewing studies.  i s "no d i r e c t  While  68 interest  in evaluating  interactions  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of  with other v a r i a b l e s " neither  (1981a,  apparent  that  Case D e s c r i p t i o n  Efficacy  (the other between-subjects  s t u d y ) were c o n s i d e r e d i n t h e Analysis  at t h i s f i r s t  v a r i a n c e due or  to d i f f e r e n c e  interactions  involving  s t a g e of a n a l y s i s variables  and  s e q u e n c e and  and  level  first  order are  variables s t a g e of  either  or b o t h .  are  investigated  i n t h e two  in both  by  analysis stage  formulae  (G. J .  1984)  described  squaring treatment  computer p r o g r a m BMDP:8V  analysis  and  used  are  exactly  by Myers  (Dixon,  1983)  (1979,  independent  combinations', was  used  from  each  four  treatment  the  to p r o v i d e  s e p a r a t e a n a l y s e s o f d a t a c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o the the  i n the  Johnson,  four  of  the  (1979).  the approach  'Latin  study  s o u r c e s of v a r i a n c e i n  t o Johnson  August,  The  279-285) f o r i n v e s t i g a t i n g a d d i t i o n a l  variables  the e f f e c t s of  the p r e s e n t  a single  for a l l identifiable  p e r s o n a l communication,  p.  but  s o u r c e s of v a r i a n c e not  s t u d y was  are a t t r i b u t a b l e  Employing  second  h i s c o l l e a g u e s has  stage a n a l y s i s .  f o r the p r e s e n t  t o Myers  In the  not.  for identifying several  equivalent  analysis.  between-subjects  the experimental d e s i g n . Computational analysis  in t h i s  factors  r e p o r t e d by K a z d i n and  which a c c o u n t s  Treatment  between l e v e l s of t h e s e  those  selected  i t is  f o r any  e x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n used  investigated  496),  t h e n does not a c c o u n t  The  potential  p.  nor  t h e e f f e c t s of t h e  treatments  the c a s e and i t s  ratings  a c c e p t a b i l i t y measures.  The  69  analysis  a p p r o a c h was t h e same f o r e a c h and p r o c e e d e d  follows.  Since  analysis  of a L a t i n - s q u a r e w i t h  analyses  o f v a r i a n c e were p e r f o r m e d  yield  the sources  proposed  first  performed second  The  repeated  using  repeated  sums o f s q u a r e s interaction,  levels then  produce  In  x case  interaction  analysis  a significant  analyses,  alias.  performed  ordering.  x knowledge and t r e a t m e n t  x  t o decompose a l l These r e s u l t s  of the f i r s t  were  analysis to  d e s c r i b e d by J o h n s o n August,  was  ordering) p r o v i d e d the  necessary  (G. J . J o h n s o n ,  1984) and Myers  (1979).  t h e LSR i s t e s t e d f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e .  LSR t h e t e s t s  term. Given  o f r e l e v a n t main the usual  significant  t h e means were compared  Significant  level  interaction,  a r e made a g a i n s t t h e LSR r a t h e r t h a n subjects) error  communication,  i n column o r d e r . The  treatment  the r e s u l t s  communication, this  t o the a n a l y s i s  o f v a r i a n c e was  level  f o r treatment,  with  combined t o  of v a r i a n c e  i n treatment  (treatment  t h e ANOVA t a b l e  personal  Given  presented  of t h e sequence x o r d e r  combined  and then  measures a n a l y s i s  reordered  treatment  knowledge x c a s e  r e p e a t e d m e a s u r e s , two  measures a n a l y s i s  analysis  required  (1979).  subject data  t h e same d a t a second  study  (G. J . J o h n s o n , p e r s o n a l  1984) and Myers  The  of the p r e s e n t  of v a r i a n c e c o r r e s p o n d i n g  by J o h n s o n  August,  with  the d e s i g n  as  D i f f e r e n c e (HSD) t e s t  (within  F ratios  u s i n g Tukey's (Bruning  effects  i n these Honestly  & Kintz,  1977).  70  5. ANALYSIS OF CASE AND TREATMENT QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES Only yielded for  one t h e f o u r q u e s t i o n s p o s e d  results  the e f f e c t  provided  i n the q u e s t i o n n a i r e  w h i c h c o u l d be a n a l y s e d . T h i s a n a l y s i s was of d i f f e r e n c e s  i n question  i n r a n k i n g of  three. This analysis  F r i e d m a n ' s Two-Way A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e Kendall's Coefficient performed this  the dependent statistic,  ranks  given  variable.  Nemenyi's  utilized  both  by Ranks and  o f C o n c o r d a n c e . T h i s a n a l y s i s was  by t h e computer  analysis  treatments  p r o g r a m BMDP:3S t o each  Given  (Dixon,  treatment  were e n t e r e d a s  a significant  (1963) p r o c e d u r e  1983). In  Friedman  was u s e d  test  t o compare  means.  F. CHAPTER The  primary  method in  SUMMARY purpose of t h i s  was t o d e s c r i b e t h e  f o l l o w e d i n t h e s t u d y . The method was f i r s t  general  terms as t h e n a t u r e  specifically. of  chapter  The d e v e l o p m e n t ,  f o u r measurement  presentation description experimental described  instruments  of the design  methods o f d a t a  and  section  more  implementation  i n c l u d e d both a and the p a r t i c u l a r  s e l e c t e d . The p r o c e d u r e  the s u b j e c t s of the study  The f i n a l  then  was d e s c r i b e d . The  of i n t e r e s t  whereby s u b j e c t s were a s s i g n e d gathered.  selection,  of the study  of the v a r i a b l e s design  of t h e s t u d y ,  described  section  and t h e p r o c e d u r e s  t o c o n d i t i o n s and d a t a  of t h e chapter  p r e p a r a t i o n and a n a l y s i s .  presented the The methods  71  followed of  i n both  the a n a l y s i s  t h e measurement  demographic,  properties  i n s t r u m e n t s and a n a l y s e s of t h e  and c a s e  and t r e a t m e n t  p r e s e n t e d . The d e v e l o p m e n t procedures  of t h e p s y c h o m e t r i c  f o r the a n a l y s i s  q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were  and s e l e c t i o n  of a p p r o p r i a t e  of the treatment  r a t i n g s were d e s c r i b e d i n some  detail.  acceptability  Ill. The  intent  the a n a l y s i s  of  the  study,  the  next  and  responses  the  results  results  The  focused  on  and  chapter results  The  related  The  of  results  chapter  the the  of  of  begins  responses  psychometric chapter  is  the a n a l y s i s  results  treatment concludes  the  contributed  results  ratings.  to the case  last.  Two.  m a j o r p o r t i o n of  acceptability  presented  i s to present  s u b j e c t s who  t o t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n of  treatment of  of  f o l l o w e d by  a n a l y s i s . The devoted  chapter  as d e s c r i b e d i n C h a p t e r  with a d e s c r i p t i o n in  this  RESULTS  of  the  of  analysis  questionnaire are w i t h a summary  to the  of  the  primary  hypotheses.  A.  SUBJECTS  Subjects  f o r the  study  were v o l u n t e e r  elementary  school teachers  within  study  the  Chapter  who  were s e l e c t e d  f o l l o w i n g the p r o c e d u r e s  32  t e a c h e r s were s e l e c t e d  ( h i g h and  low)  sample o f  64  screening  sample on  and  assigned  outlined  in  s u b j e c t s d i d not  characteristics  the  appear  of  the  two  characteristics  no  72  study  r e p o r t e d on  the  3 presents  a summary of  low  f o r e a c h of  significant  The  the  the  knowledge  t h e KBPAC). S i g n i f i c a n c e  knowledge g r o u p s  the  from  g r o u p s of h i g h and  indicated  study.  to d i f f e r  characteristics  (as m e a s u r e d by the  f o r e a c h of  knowledge g r o u p s w i t h i n t h e  demographic q u e s t i o n n a i r e . T a b l e  between  class  Two.  Briefly,  teachers  regular  the  tests reported  differences  between  73  TABLE 3 SUBJECT DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS Characteristic  Screen ing Sample  Subject Sample  Low Knowledge  High Knowledge  Subjects  1 07  64  32  32  Total  Sex Male Female  30(28%) 77(72%)  12(19%) 52(81%)  9(28%) 23(72%)  3(9%) 29(91%)  Mean S.D.  39.29 8.74  39. 1 7 8.82  39.81 9.59  38.53 8.09  14.16 7.52  13.73 6.77  15.06 8.40  1 1 .78 4.51  10(9%) 83(78%) 14(13%)  7(11%) 54(84%) 3(5%)  5(16%) 27(84%) 0  2(6%) 27(84%) 3(9%)  3.84 1 .92  10.16* 2.27  Age  Experience Mean S.D.  (years)  Educational Level Teach. C e r t . Deg. + C e r t . G r a d . Deg. + C e r t . Knowledge Mean S.D.  Level 7.03 3.68  C h i l d Management Training Yes No  7.00 3.80  33(52%) 31(48%)  12(38%) 20(63%)  f o r s e x , age, number  of years  56(52%) 51(48%)  21(66%)** 11(34%)  *0 = .82, 2 < - ° 5 **X  2  = 4.00,  knowledge  groups  experience, expected, (# =  2<-  0 5  and l e v e l  t h e two  of e d u c a t i o n a l  knowledge  .82, p_<.05) w i t h  regard  groups  measure. A d d i t i o n a l y , s i g n i f i c a n t  training.  do d i f f e r  to score  of  on t h e  teaching  As would  be  significantly knowledge  d i f f e r e n c e s were  found  74 between  knowledge g r o u p s w i t h  management having not, of  (x  2  = 4.00,  p_<.05), w i t h  a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n of  and  the  low  as w e l l a r e screening  training  summaries of  and  to t r a i n i n g the h i g h  total  than  the  in  child  knowledge  group  subjects with t r a i n i n g . t h a n  knowledge g r o u p h a v i n g  s u b j e c t s without  and  regard  with.  a greater proportion Included  characteristics  s u b j e c t samples,  c o n t r a s t between g r o u p s a l o n g  of b o t h  affording  e a c h of  the  in Table  3  the  comparison reported  dimensions.  B.  PSYCHOMETRIC ANALYSIS  1. KNOWLEDGE MEASURE The  summary of  KBPAC a d m i n i s t e r e d Table  4.  .62.  The  t o the  Examination  the d i f f i c u l t y item-test  results  of  corresponding  reported  in Table  analysis  f o r the  5,  item a n a l y s i s  individual  ranged  point-biserial  the  from  Hoyt  estimate  .78.  items  .16  correlations  was  of  the  s c r e e n i n g sample a r e p r e s e n t e d  the  indicies  from  to  of  and  from  the  .35  to  reliability,  R e s u l t s of t h e  s c r e e n i n g sample a r e  revealed that  .70,  ranged  in  total  summarized  test  in Table  5.  2. TREATMENT ACCEPTABILITY MEASURES  the  a. T r e a t m e n t  Evaluation  Inventory  S i n c e each  s u b j e c t used  t h e TEI  four treatments  represent  separate  and  responses  tests,  to respond  to each  of  t o e a c h were c o n s i d e r e d  item-test correlations  were  to  75  TABLE 4 KBPAC ITEM  I tern  Difficulty  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 1 3 14 1 5 16  calculated  separately  one was with  related  presented  exceeded  t h e TEI a p p e a r  i n Table  Hoyt's estimate  of i n t e r n a l  measurement  high.  was  Examination  of t h e  f o r t h e most  part,  score.  .50, of t h e r e m a i n i n g  r e s u l t s compare  and d i s c u s s e d  of t h e t e s t  that  to test  (-.07). T h e s e  The r e s u l t s of  f o r each treatment.  of t h e i t e m s  negative  those  .39 .35 .55 .49 .45 .58 .41 .62 .57 .52 .56 .43 .43 .40 . 57 .50  correlations revealed  were p o s i t i v e l y Fifty  Point B i s e r i a l C o r r e l a t i o n with T o t a l Test Score  Index  .28 .51 .16 .22 .54 .60 .70 .33 .50 .24 .64 .43 .44 .48 .38 .58  point-biseial items  ANALYSIS  i n Chapter  only  favorably Two.  a n a l y s i s f o r each a p p l i c a t i o n  6. As shown  by t h e v a l u e  consistency,  reliability  of the of  76  TABLE 5 KBPAC TEST  ANALYSIS  Number of I n d i v i d u a l s = 107  Number o f Items =  Mean =  7.03  Highest  S.D.  3.68  Lowest  =  Hoyt E s t i m a t e Standard  b.  Semantic  analysis did .20. the  indicate  T h i s was  level  analyses  item  number  r e p r e s e n t i n g the three  considered  correlation  this  only  greater  one  than  dimension  within  c o n d i t i o n , r e p r e s e n t i n g the a d j e c t i v e p a i r In t h i s  .178, lower  case  than  the subtest  the other  the r e s u l t  considered  insufficient  of the item  level  Practice=.47).  to reject  c o n d i t i o n was this  a n a l y s i s in general  in calculation  conditions  c o n d i t i o n s were  i n the Reinforcement evidence  correlation  three  and P o s i t i v e  a t t a i n e d i n the other  acceptable  of a l l i t e m s  R e s u l t s of  5 on t h e a c t i v i t y  ( M e d i c a t i o n = . 6 6 , Time Out=.55,  Results  1 .66  were p e r f o r m e d on  t h a t o f t h e 60 i t e m s  ferocious/peaceful.  Since values  0.00  E r r o r of Measurement  a point-biserial  Reinforcement  was  16.00  0.78  of t h e SD f o r each t r e a t m e n t .  not a t t a i n  attained  Score  Reliability  t o each of the s u b t e s t s  dimensions  =  Differential  Item a n d t e s t responses  of  Score  16.00  of t o t a l  score  item.  supported  f o r each  use  77  TABLE 6 TEI  S.D.  TEST ANALYSIS  Treatment  Mean  High Scoret  Low Scored  M  50.97  18.01  93  18  0.94  4.35  TO  69.97  20.00  96  16  0.95  4.24  R  79.03  14.22  1 03  52  0.89  4.64  PP  66.45  1 9.48  1 03  18  0.94  4.68  n = 64 N o t e . M = M e d i c a t i o n ; TO = Time Out; PP = P o s t i v e P r a c t i c e fMaximum h i g h e s t s c o r e = 105 ^Minimum l o w e s t s c o r e = 7  dimension The  of t h e results  of t h e  test  LERTAP p r o g r a m a r e  the  data  represent scores  for  each  s u b t e s t . The  and  a minimum r a t i n g  results  of t h e  SD  level  Reinforcement;  summarized from  analyses provided in Table  64  would be  five.  reliability  over  each  reported in Tables  measurments e m p l o y e d . G i v e n  these  through  In a l l c a s e s five  questions  t h e r e f o r e would be As  summarized  were h i g h  treatment  6 and  7.  s u b j e c t s on  maximum r a t i n g  H o y t ' s e s t i m a t e s of  dimension  R =  SD.  the  7,  Hoyt Standard E s t i m a t e of E r r o r of R e l i a b i l i t y Measurement  for  35  in Table each  condition.  The  7 supported  t h e use  findings,  subjects'  of  the  total  78  TABLE 7 SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL TEST  Mean  Treatment  S.D.  ANALYSIS  Hoyt E s t i m a t e of Reliability  Standard E r r o r of Measurement  EVALUATIVE DIMENSION M  17.50  7.46  0.96  1 .38  TO  23.48  6.83  0.90  1 .97  R  27.05  6.05  0.91  1 .59  PP  21 .94  6.61  0.91  1 .80  6.79  0.93  1 .62  POTENCY DIMENSION M  . 23.38  TO  23.03  5.68  0.90  1 .64  R  19.25  5.39  0.86  1 .79  PP  20.63  6.43  0.95  1 .32  ACTIVITY DIMENSION M  19.95  7.44  0.88  2.34  TO  21 .83  6.48  0.88  1 .99  R  20.42  4.49  0.75  1 .99  PP  22.30  5.83  0.85  2.03  N o t e . M = M e d i c a t i o n ; TO=Time Out; R = R e i n f o r c e m e n t ; PP=Positive Practice s c o r e on e a c h of t h e d e p e n d e n t m e a s u r e s f o r e a c h were c o n s i d e r e d  i n subsequent  analyses.  treatment  79 C.  ANALYSIS OF  TREATMENT ACCEPTABILITY RATINGS  1. TREATMENT EVALUATION The  results  of t h e a n a l y s i s  ratings  are  present  comparisons  analysis,  D B  reported  shown  of v a r i a n c e LSR^  presented  in this  on  directly.  corresponding against  in Table  analysis.  remaining  follow,  interaction  The  sources, with  significant  acceptability  of  Two  of t h e s e ,  c a r r y o v e r or a r e not  (i.e.,  AF,  the  the  (Myers,  effects  interaction  term  f o r the  and  error  order  factor. knowledge g r o u p  t h a t knowledge  effect  on  ratings  factor  group  of  treatment  In g e n e r a l , s u b j e c t s i n the  i s not  ( w i t h the  LSR^™).  were t e s t e d  1979). D i s c u s s i o n of  knowledge g r o u p  interaction  AD)  however,  usual within subjects  knowledge  low  knowledge g r o u p  and  environmental  effects  treatments of  C F B  sources  interpreted  ratings  factor  LSR  residuals,  F ratio  d i d the  overall  significant  knowledge g r o u p gave h i g h e r than  11  posteriori  knowledge, t r e a t m e n t  the T E I .  and  square  a significant on  10,  TEI  8.  [ F (1 , 48) =6 . 33 , p_<.02] i n d i c a t e d membership had  9,  the  Latin  r a t h e r than  beginning  F tests  r a t i n g s and  significant  t h e LSR  Tables  8 t h e r e were f i v e  t e r m . ( C s u b j e c t s w i t h i n FDB) the  8.  to d i f f e r e n t i a l  treatment Given  of v a r i a n c e of  between means f o r the a  in Table  correspond  effects  in Table  following significant  differences As  INVENTORY  high  (M=69.38) a c r o s s  present  (M=63.88).  i n any  e x c e p t i o n of  the  The  significant residual  80  TABLE 8 ANOVA FOR TEI  Source  df  MS  F  Knowledge ( F )  1  1897.74  Case  1  3.33  Sequence (B)  3  376.16  FD  1  73.27  FB  3  321.26  DB  3  75.79  0.25  FDB  3  330. 10  1.10  48  299.81  3  1101.35  CF  3  51 .50  0.17  CD  3  131.51  0.44  3  8751.84  29.27*  6  299.83  1 .00  CFD  3  193.66  0.65  AF  3  574.43  0.82  6  697.84  2.33*  3  422.00  0.64  6  658.31  2.20*  3  185.58  0.62  6  268.88  0.90  (D)  Subjects Order  w i t h i n FDB  (C)  Treatments CB L a t i n  L S R  (A)  Square R e s i d u a l  CFB  AD L S R  CDB  AFD L S R  CFDB  C Subjects *2<-05  w i t h i n FDB  (LSR  C B  )  1 44  298.98  6.33* 0.01 1 .26 0.24 1 .07  3.68*  81 The  s i g n i f i c a n t F r a t i o for treatment  P_<.001] i n d i c a t e s the  factor  The  treatment  treatment  9.  Difference summary  intervention the o t h e r  was  as  and  Time Out  the M e d i c a t i o n  t h e TEI  than  using  procedure  ratings.  i n any s i g n i f i c a n t between  t h e Tukey are  Honestly  summarized  9 shows t h a t  the  in  Reinforcement  s i g n i f i c a n t l y more a c c e p t a b l e  u s i n g the TEI. Although  procedures  d i f f e r e n t from  less acceptable  l e v e l s of  i n treatment  participate  in Table  rated  between  R e s u l t s of c o m p a r i s o n s  (HSD)  interventions  significantly  rated  does not  r a t i n g means on  The  Practice  factor  to d i f f e r e n c e s  effects tested.  Significant Table  a significant difference  attributed  interaction  [F(3,144)=29.27,  were not  each other  Reinforcement  intervention.  The  and  Positive  rated  on  t h e TEI  both  more a c c e p t a b l e  Medication  s i g n i f i c a n t l y less acceptable  the  than  than  were than  intervention  a l l other  was  treatment  interventions. The  s i g n i f i c a n t F r a t i o for order  indicates  that  the o r d e r  i n which t r e a t m e n t s  be  interpreted  significant order  TEI  with  between o r d e r  ratings  terms  were not  10  indicate  in light C F B  and  of  LSR  that,  The  the  C D B  a summary of ratings.  However, r a t i n g s  than  in third  and  i n second  fourth  of  T h i s r e s u l t must  )  two  involving  the  comparisons results  in general,  treatment  s i g n i f i c a n t l y different in f i r s t  positions. those  (LSR  t h e TEI  d i f f e r e d as a r e s u l t  were r a t e d .  10 p r e s e n t s  means on  in Table  ratings  some c a u t i o n  residual  f a c t o r . Table  presented  treatment  of p r e s e n t a t i o n  position  and  were  position. Similarly  second  higher ratings  82  TABLE 9 TUKEY  (HSD) COMPARISONS  BETWEEN TREATMENT MEANS ON THE T E I  Mean  Treatment  Di f f e r e n c e TO PP  R Reinforcement  (R)  79.03  Positive  Practice  Medication  9.06* 12.58 *  69.97  Time Out (TO) (PP)  28.06*  3.52  19.00*  —  66.45  (M)  M  15.48* —  50.97  *2<.05 in  the f i r s t  the  fourth  position  were,  i n general, higher  p o s i t i o n . I t must  be n o t e d  that  than those i n  perhaps these are  general  t r e n d s and t h a t t h e p r e s e n c e of s i g n i f i c a n t LSR  effects  suggests  case did that  o f t h e term  the presence x order  (Myers,  directly  follow  reinforce  this  interaction  1979).  There  i n order  case  with  groups  However,  LSR e f f e c t s  Two g r a p h s  c a n be  o f t h e main  are presented to  of the o r d e r e f f e c t  the caution i n i t s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .  p r e s e n t s LSR e f f e c t s  and w i t h  to s u b s t a n t i a t e  to a i d i n the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n  the complexity  (LSR^gp)  suggests a s i g n i f i c a n t  knowledge g r o u p ,  i s no t e s t  factor.  ( i n the  s p e c i f i c t r e n d . I t may be  o f t h e LSR e f f e c t s  f o r the order  illustrate  knowledge g r o u p s  B  s u c h an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .  displayed effect  individual  L S R ^ p ) and i n d i v i d u a l  not n e c e s s a r i l y  treatment case  that  f o r the Reinforcement  and t o Figure 2  and P o s i t i v e  83  TABLE 10 TUKEY  (HSD) COMPARISONS BETWEEN ORDER MEANS ON THE TEI  Order  Mean  Difference 1 3  2 S e c o n d (2)  72. ,05  First  67. .33  (1)  T h i r d (3)  64. .64  F o u r t h (4)  62, .41  4.72 —  4  7.41*  9.,64*  2.69  4..92*  --  2,.23 -—  *p_<. 05 Practice two  interventions  knowledge g r o u p s . As c a n be seen  ratings  f o r the Reinforcement  across orders less  lines  Practive pattern  represent  2, t h e  are f a i r l y  i s that  appear  In s t a r k  t h e LSR e f f e c t s and appear  the P o s i t i v e  t o be a f f e c t e d  way than  Secondly,  with  slightly  area  contrast  Practice  t h e two  a different  between  factor  intervention Practice  t h e two knowledge g r o u p s a p p e a r  t h e two  intervention  by t h e o r d e r  to the P o s i t i v e  groups  f o r the Postive  to reflect  the Reinforcement  respect  stable  e f f e c t s f o r t h e two knowledge  o f e f f e c t s . The m a j o r d i f f e r e n c e  different  ratings,  intervention  intervention.  intervention,  treatments ratings  in Figure  f o r the  knowledge g r o u p . The s h a d e d  the r e s i d u a l  the Reinforcement  broken  orders  f o r t h e low knowledge g r o u p , a n d o n l y  so f o r t h e h i g h  highlights on  a t each of the four  in a ratings.  intervention  t o be a f f e c t e d  Figure 2 LSR EFFECTS-CxFxB RESIDUALS Reinforcement and Positive Practice for High and Low Knowledge 15-i  10-  \  5-  9-  -a 77/77^77////////////^.  '  x  y  < Q  to  -5-\  \  UJ  \ -10-  -15-  Legend  \  \ \ a  -20-  First  Third  Second  ORDER  — i Fourth  •  R for HIGH KNOWLEDGE  o  R for LOW KNOWLEDGE  •  PP for HjGHJKNOWLEDGE  D  PP for LOW KNOWLEDGE  CO  85  quite  d i f f e r e n t l y by  the  A similar contrast LSR  e f f e c t s of two  Figure  3 presents  Reinforcement M i k e R.  the  case  ratings  are higher  t h e M i k e S. case  affected differ  g r o u p s on  first  opposite  the M e d i c a t i o n  ratings  appear  i n a d i f f e r e n t way  treatment order  the  As  well  group  ratings  by  of  appear  third  affected  are  the  order  For  the to  be  but  the  Medication  the  order  Reinforcement  ratings.  the o r d e r  effects  The  Additionally  t o be  than  and  to  position.  intervention  second,  to  somewhat  in fourth  i s true.  and  appears  t o M i k e S.  t h e M i k e R.  than  and  of Mike S.  affected  the  cases.  intervention  assigned  t o be  of  f o r the M e d i c a t i o n  f a c t o r . For  i n the  two  for subjects assigned  i n d e g r e e when i n f o u r t h .  Since  of  order  the  f o r the c a s e s  s i m i l a r l y in f i r s t ,  intervention  LSR  f o r e a c h of  f o r those  group the  intervention factor  than  the  i n a comparison  the Reinforcement  groups appear by  drawn  effects  across orders  o f Mike R.  differently  two  t h e LSR  factor.  be  treatments  Here a g a i n  two  can  interventions  be more s t a b l e case  order  x treatment  interaction  i s p e r f e c t l y confounded with  interaction  further  of p r e s e n t a t i o n and  the  interpretation of  the  residual  i n e a c h of  the  sequence x of  the  effect  effects is  unwarranted. Thus t h e analysis  s i g n i f i c a n t , and  of TEI  level  and  rated  treatments  interpretable,  acceptability ratings  treatment  t y p e . The  generally  high  were  effects  in  the  f o r knowledge  knowledge g r o u p  more p o s i t i v e l y t h a n  did  teachers those  Figure 3 LSR EFFECTS-CxDxB RESIDUALS Reinforcement and Medication for Two Cases  in  i— o  UJ  < z>  '//////////.  O'//,  '///A.  \  \  V////'/ ///// y-:>•  \  \  \ \  Q  \  UJ  Legend -10-1  -15+-  First  Second  Third ORDER  Fourth  •  R f o r M i k e s  o  R  Mike  R.  •  MJorJrfike  S.  •  M for  R.  for  -  Mike  CO  87  teachers  i n the  affected  by  second  this in  finding  which the was  that teachers d i d  overall  the M e d i c a t i o n  acceptability,  intervention treatments  while  the  interventions  The  d i d not  on  was  the T E I .  rated  of t h e  Practice  differ  in their  than  Medication  were r a t e d h i g h e r  The  In  lowest  Reinforcement  ratings  Positive  not  differentiate  ratings  intervention  r e c e i v e d the h i g h e s t  presented.  was  teachers considered.  i n terms of a c c e p t a b i l i t y  context,  both  knowledge g r o u p . T h i s f i n d i n g  the case  major  treatments  low  and  four Time  Out  acceptability,  but  although  lower  than  Reinforcement.  2 . SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL As  d e s c r i b e d i n Chapter  each dimension analysis. SD  The  SD  The  results  same way  f o r each dimension as  of t h e a n a l y s i s  dimension  treatment  for  t h e TEI  of  the  results.  of  the  SD:  of p r i m a r y  effect  f o r treatment;  treatment  significant  of v a r i a n c e f o r t h e  are presented  ratings  treatment,  interest  means a r e  in Table  significant  acceptability  result  of  of a n a l y s e s  i n the  responses  were c o n s i d e r e d s e p a r a t e l y i n t h e  11 t h e r e were t h r e e  dimension  teachers'  E v a l u a t i v e Dimension  Evaluative Table  t h e SD  results  are presented a.  in  of  Two,  on  presented order  variation  order.  i s the  result  first.  effects  of  shown i n  the E v a l u a t i v e  study  therefore, this  s e q u e n c e and  sources  s e q u e n c e and  to the  1 1 . As  The  The  significant  and  comparisons  p r e s e n t a t i o n of  follows.  88  ANOVA  FOR  T A B L E 11 SD E V A L U A T I V E  Source  DIMENSION  df  Knowledge  (F)  MS  F  1  87.89  2.10  1  4.00  0.10  3  124.28  FD  1  5.06  0.12  FB  3  67.42  1.61  DB  3  18.03  0.43  FDB  3  5.49  0.13  Case  (D)  Sequence  Subjects  (B)  within  FDB  2.98*  48  41 . 7 7  3  161.32  CF  3  23.40  0. 5 4  CD  3  2.89  0.07  3  1001.80  6  39.22  0.90  CFD  3  9.45  0.22  AF  3  62.90  1 .44  6  62.87  1 . 44  3  19.51  0.45  6  92. 1 2  2.11  3  27.01  0.62  6  65.64  1 .50  1 44  43.64  Order  (C)  Treatments CB  L  S  R  Latin  (A)  Square  Residual  CFB  AD L  S  R  CDB  AFD L  S  C  R  CFDB Subjects  *p_<.05  within  FDB  (LSR^g)  3.70*  22.95*  89 The  significant  F ratio  p_<.00l] i n d i c a t e s given  particular  involving ratings factor hoc  treatments. suggests  difference  levels  in Table  interventions. Positive  The r a t i n g s  12. The r e s u l t s  Practice  significantly;  summarized  intervention  than  the other  HSD  was  three  t h e Time Out and t h e  i n t e r v e n t i o n s d i d not d i f f e r  however, b o t h  the M e d i c a t i o n  intervention  higher given  group  means u s i n g T u k e y ' s  i n Table  significantly  interactions  o f knowledge  12 show t h a t t h e R e i n f o r c e m e n t  ratings  ratings  c a s e s . R e s u l t s of t h e p o s t  treatment  a r e summarized  between  that the d i f f e r e n c e s i n  as w e l l as with d i f f e r e n t between  [F(3,144)=22.95,  The a b s e n c e o f  were c o n s i s t e n t a c r o s s  procedure  than  a significant  treatments  comparisons  given  f o r treatment  were r a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y  higher  i n t e r v e n t i o n . The M e d i c a t i o n  was r a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y  lower  than  a l l other  treatment i n t e r v e n t i o n s . Tables  13 and 14 p r e s e n t  o r d e r means r e s p e c t i v e l y .  The r e s u l t s  between means f o r t h e o r d e r Table  13 i n d i c a t e  from  or f i r s t  those  second  given  position  position.  than  position  sequence  given  those  given  i n the t h i r d  were a l s o  position.  higher  The summary o f r e s u l t s  than  position  to treatments  but not s i g n i f i c a n t l y  i n the f i n a l  s e q u e n c e means i n T a b l e  of the comparisons  o f p r e s e n t a t i o n summarized i n  that ratings  were g e n e r a l l y lower second  c o m p a r i s o n s o f s e q u e n c e and  Ratings  those  i n the  different given  i n the  i n the f o u r t h  of comparisons  between  14 r e v e a l s t h a t t h e t r e a t m e n t s i n  f o u r were r a t e d h i g h e r  than  those  in either  90  TABLE TUKEY  (HSD)  12  COMPARISONS BETWEEN TREATMENT MEANS ON EVALUATIVE DIMENSION  Treatment  Mean  Time Out  27 .05  (R)  (TO)  Positive  Medication  3.57*  --  23 .48  Practice (M)  M  5.11*  9. 55*  1 .54  5. 99*  --  4. 44*  21 .94  (PP)  SD  Difference TO PP  R Reinforcement  THE  —  1 7.50  *2<-05  s e q u e n c e two between  presence  analysis  w h i l e not  carryover  effects  of  treatment  Evaluative  the  were  found  may  of  the  dimension,  was  result  different  of p r i m a r y  sequence e f f e c t s interest,  be p r e s e n t i s that  interest  in t h i s  suggests  that  i n the a n a l y s i s . these e f f e c t s  (i.e.,  The  may  major  obscure  knowledge, c a s e ,  and  differences).  summarize  interest  o r o r d e r and  such a r e s u l t  some o t h e r e f f e c t s  To  other d i f f e r e n c e s  s e q u e n c e means.  The  concern  or t h r e e . No  that  results  the s i n g l e  of t r e a t m e n t  of t h e TEI  analysis.  knowledge g r o u p s  descriptions  of the a n a l y s i s  d i d not  rate  and  of t h e  interpretable  effect  type. This finding S u b j e c t s i n the  of  reflected two  reading different  treatments  SD  differently.  case  91  TABLE 13 TUKEY (HSD) COMPARISONS BETWEEN ORDER MEANS ON THE SD EVALUATIVE DIMENSION  Order  Second (2)  24.52  F i r s t (1)  23.00  Fourth (4)  21 .28  T h i r d (3)  21.17  t  Di f ference 1 4  Mean  1 .52  3.24*  3.35*  1 .72  1 .83* 0.11  2<.05  TABLE 14 TUKEY (HSD) COMPARISONS BETWEEN SEQUENCE MEANS ON THE SD EVALUATIVE DIMENSION  Sequence  Mean  Four (4)  24.30  One (1)  22.72  Two (2)  21 .95  Three (3)  21 .00  *p<.05  Di f ference 1  2  1 .58  2.35*  3.30*  0.77  1 .72 0.95  92  b. SD P o t e n c y The  results  dimension  Dimension of the a n a l y s i s  of v a r i a n c e f o r t h e p o t e n c y  are presented in Table  in  Table  of  variation  of  t h e SD. A summary o f c o m p a r i s o n s  for  15 show t r e a t m e n t  15. The r e s u l t s  this  i n treatment  measure  Reinforcement potency  ratings  Medication,  Positive  intervention  received  results  results  but not s i g n i f i c a n t l y The Time Out dimension  than  interventions.  Dimension  o f t h e SD a r e p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e  effect.  o r d e r of p r e s e n t a t i o n  C o m p a r i s o n s between  means on t h e a c t i v i t y  18. The r e s u l t s  of p r e s e n t a t i o n  dimension  of comparisons  on t h e a c t i v i t y  t r e a t m e n t s when p r e s e n t e d i n t h e t h i r d higher  was  the Reinforcement or  and R e i n f o r c e m e n t  o f t h e SD show t h a t  significant  Table  order  rating  17. The  of the a n a l y s e s of v a r i a n c e f o r the a c t i v i t y  presentation in  lower  of the a n a l y s e s of v a r i a n c e f o r t h e  dimension  dimension single  means  interventions.  h i g h e r on t h e p o t e n c y  Practice  c . SD A c t i v i t y  activity  significantly  t h e Time Out i n t e r v e n t i o n .  was r a t e d  dimension  16. As shown, t h e  the highest potency  interventions  the P o s i t i v e  The  received  source  between t r e a t m e n t  in Table  h i g h e r than e i t h e r  from  on t h e p o t e n c y  t h a n any o f t h e o t h e r  Practice  different  both  i s presented  which  significantly  t o be t h e o n l y s i g n i f i c a n t ratings  intervention  summarized  activity  ratings  No o t h e r d i f f e r e n c e s  than  were  ordered  a r e summarized  between means f o r  dimension position  i n any o f t h e o t h e r  found.  was t h e  show  that  are given positions.  93 TABLE 15 ANOVA FOR SD POTENCY DIMENSION  Source  df  MS  F  Knowledge ( F )  1  13.14  0.28  Case  1  45.56  0.98  Sequence (B)  3  109.09  2.34  FD  1  9.00  0.19  FB  3  3.55  0.08  DB  3  56.03  1 .20  FDB  3  36.01  0.77  48  46.66  3  26.48  0.74  CF  3  45.92  1 .28  CD  3  6.76  3  248.93  6  8.56  CFD  3  55.80  1 .55  AF  3  51.14  1 .42  6  32.28  0.90  3  44. 60  1 .24  6  47.69  1 .33  3  0.75  0.02  6  7.70  0.21  (D)  Subjects Order  w i t h i n FDB  (C)  Treatments CB L a t i n  L S R  (A)  Square R e s i d u a l  CFB  AD L S R  CDB  AFD L S R  CFDB  C Subjects *p_<.05  w i t h i n FDB  (LSR^g)  1 44  35.94  0.19 6.93* 0.24  94  TABLE 16 TUKEY  (HSD) COMPARISONS BETWEEN TREATMENT MEANS ON THE SD POTENCY DIMENSION  Treatment  Mean  Difference TO PP  M Medication  (M)  23. 38  Time Out (TO) Positive  —  23. 03  Practice  Reinforcement  0.35  2.75*  4 . 1 3*  2.40*  3 .78*  —  20. 63  (PP)  (R)  R  1 .38* —  19. 25  *p<.05 3.  SUMMARY OF TREATMENT ACCEPTABILITY RESULTS  The  results  treatment  of t h e a n a l y s e s  acceptability  of v a r i a n c e  measure r e v e a l e d  f o r the  several  significant  f indings. The  effect  acceptability The  effect  significant  o f knowledge g r o u p was s i g n i f i c a n t f o r  ratings  on t h e TEI [ F ( 1 , 4 8 ) = 6 . 3 3 , p<.05] o n l y .  o f t r e a t m e n t s was, however, for acceptability  ratings  [ F ( 3 , 144)=29.27, p_<.05] and f o r t h e [ F ( 3 , 1 4 4 ) = 2 2 . 9 5 , p_<• ] 01  a  n  d  Potency  statistically on t h e TEI  Evaluative [F(3,144)=6.93,  2<-  d i m e n s i o n s of t h e S e m a n t i c D i f f e r e n t i a l . The r e s u l t s comparison T a b l e 19.  tests  among t r e a t m e n t  0 5  ^  of the  means a r e summarized i n  95 TABLE 17 ANOVA FOR SD A C T I V I T Y  Source  DIMENSION  df  MS  F  Knowledge (F)  1  6.89  0.16  Case  1  50.77  1.14  Sequence (B)  3  59.84  1 .35  FD  1  FB  3  38.32  0.86  DB  3  46.59  1 .05  FDB  3  13.72  0.31  48  44.42  3  102.45  CF  3  33.63  0.93  CD  3  0.32  0.01  3  79.69  2.20  6  29.30  0.81  CFD  3  13.53  0.37  AF  3  20.64  0.57  6  50.60  1 .40  3  11.14  0.31  6  37.23  1 .03  3  69. 13  1 .91  6  32.59  0.90  (D)  Subjects Order  within  (C)  Treatments CB L a t i n  L S R  FDB  (A)  Square R e s i d u a l  CFB  AD L S R  CDB  AFD L S R  CFDB  C Subjects  *p_<. 05  within  FDB  (LSR,,,-)  1 44  1 .56  36.26  0.04  2.83*  96  TABLE TUKEY  18  (HSD) COMPARISONS BETWEEN ORDER MEANS ON THE SD ACTIVITY DIMENSION  Order  Mean  Difference 1 4  3 Third  (3)  22.,91  First  (1)  20..92  Fourth  (4)  1 .99* —  2. 16*  2,.99*  0. 17  1 .00 ,  --  0,.83  20.,75  S e c o n d (2)  2  —  19..92  *2<-05  On b o t h intervention while  r e c e i v e d the highest  the lowest  Medication are  t h e TEI and SD E v a l u a t i v e , t h e  acceptable  acceptability  i n t e r v e n t i o n . In terms o f p o t e n c y  [ F ( 3 , 144) = 3.68,  position clear any  i n Table  over  these  results  f o r t h e TEI  [F(3,144)=2,83,  dimensions of the Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l .  order  to the  p_<.05] and f o r t h e E v a l u a t i v e  [ F ( 3 , 1 4 4 ) = 3 . 7 0 , p<.05] and A c t i v i t y  The  ratings,  r a t i n g s were a s s i g n e d  r e v e r s e d . O r d e r was s i g n i f i c a n t  summarized  Reinforcement  These  2<-  0 5  ]  results are  20.  effect  was n o t c o n s i s t e n t i n f a v o r i n g one  the t h r e e measures. A d d i t i o n a l l y ,  d i f f e r e n c e s across  conclusion regarding  lack of  d e p e n d e n t m e a s u r e s does n o t a l l o w this  effect.  97  TABLE 19 SUMMARY OF TUKEY  Dependent  Measure  Treatment  Evaluation  SD E v a l u a t i v e  (HSD) COMPARISONS CONDITIONS  BETWEEN  TREATMENT  Condition t Inventory  Dimension  SD P o t e n c y D i m e n s i o n  R  TO  PP  M  R  TO  PP  M  M  TO  PP  R  N o t e . Any two means u n d e r l i n e d by t h e same l i n e a r e n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t , whereas any two means n o t u n d e r l i n e d by t h e same l i n e a r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . A l l d i f f e r e n c e s a r e a t t h e p_<.05 l e v e l . Means a r e a r r a n g e d i n d e s c e n d i n g o r d e r from l e f t t o r i g h t . t R = R e i n f o r c e m e n t ; PP = P o s i t i v e P r a c t i c e ; TO = Time Out; M = Medication.  TABLE 20 SUMMARY OF TUKEY  Dependent  Measure  Treatment  Evaluation  SD E v a l u a t i v e SD A c t i v i t y  (HSD) COMPARISONS PRESENTATION  Orders Inventory  Dimension  Dimension  AMONG ORDERS OF  Fourth Third Third  First  Second  Fourth F i r s t  Second  Second F o u r t h F i r s t  Third  N o t e . Any two means u n d e r l i n e d by t h e same l i n e a r e n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t , whereas any two means n o t u n d e r l i n e d by t h e same l i n e a r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y different. Means a r e a r r a n g e d i n d e s c e n d i n g s i z e from l e f t t o r i g h t . A l l d i f f e r e n c e s a r e a t t h e p<.05 l e v e l .  98  Three  further significant  identified. dimension but  Sequence was  of  d i d not  dependent  the  sources  significant  significance  m e a s u r e s . Two f o r the  effects  knowledge g r o u p s and  With the LSR^ , B D  exception  t h e r e were no  [ F ( 3 , 4 8 ) = 2 . 9 8 , p_<.05]  any  of  the  other  Square R e s i d u a l s  significance over  TEI  Latin  over  suggesting  of t h e  main or  were  f o r the E v a l u a t i v e  Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l  attain  of v a r i a n c e  reached  differential  case  carryover  levels.  possible interaction interaction  effects  of  for  the case  description.  D.  CASE AND  The  results  for  the  of  the  responses  summarized The  TREATMENT QUESTIONNAIRE ANALYSIS  t h e mean r a n k s  have t h e the  of  A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e  to question  in Table  results  Inspection  Friedman  of t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e  the  in Table  treatments  21  show t h a t ,  differ  (x  mean r a n k s ,  Medication,  P o s t i v e P r a c t i c e mean rank  falling  the  Concordance  (a)=.2435) i n d i c a t e s t h a t t e a c h e r s  teachers is  is significant  some agreement The  results  are  i n the  significant  average  relative  a  n  and  Coefficient agree  suggesting  ranking  of p a i r w i s e c o m p a r i s o n s  rank means u s i n g Nemenyi's  ks ^"^^" =  r  intercorrelation  (jr=.23), a g a i n  fact,  Time  Out  with  above t h a t f o r  In a d d i t i o n , t h e  of p r e f e r e n c e s . The  in  smallest,  Medication.  ranking  2  t h e means show t h a t R e i n f o r c e m e n t  larger  Ranks  21.  summarized  given  three  by  of  in  their  between  that  there  treatments.  between  (1963) p r o c e d u r e  of  are  treatment summarized  99  TABLE RESULTS OF  21  FRIEDMAN TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF ON RANKING OF TREATMENTS  VARIANCE  Treatment  Rank Sum  Mean Rank  S.D.  Reinforcement  193.5  3.02  0.90  Time Out  191.5  3.00  0.94  147.0  2.28  1.09  108.0  1.69  0.97  Positive  Practice  Medication Friedman  Test S t a t i s t i c  * (.05,3) = 2  Kendall  Coefficient  Intercorrelation  in  Table  22.  The  results  while Reinforcement significantly treatments, Positive was  three  lowest,  treatment found  on  summarized ranked  results  higher The  t h e TEI  n  j  c  s  = 46.76  8 2  in Table  Both  of  0.24  .23  22  show not  Medication than  indicated  and  Evaluative  other  Treatment that  results  dimension  the  of the  d i f f e r e n t i a l l y . Comparisons similar  ranked  intervention  any  o f t h e Case and  generally  that  these  r a n k i n g s than  lower  r a n k i n g of t r e a t m e n t s  means i n d i c a t e d both  a  h i g h e s t , i t was  significantly  were r a n k e d  r  between Ranks r =  intervention.  t r e a t m e n t s . The  treatments  '  2  of C o n c o r d a n c e u> =  however, r e c e i v e d  Questionnaire  7  h i g h e r t h a n Time Out.  Practice  ranked  was  X  of to  of t h e  those SD.  TABLE 22 NEMENYI PAIRWISE COMPARISONS  Treatment  BETWEEN MEAN TREATMENT RANKS  Mean R  Reinforcement  (R)  3.02  Time Out (TO)  3.00  Positive  2.28  P r a c t i c e (PP)  Medication  (M)  Difference TO PP 0.02 —  M  0.74*  1.33*  0.72*  1.31* 0.59* —  1 .69  *2<-05 The and  r e s u l t s of t h e a n a l y s e s  possible  implications  presented i n t h i s  are d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter  chapter Four.  IV. The  purpose of t h i s  u s e d and r e s u l t s results  A.  education  chapter  obtained  are discussed  investigations. for  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS i s t o summarize  i n the present  in light  of r e s e a r c h  These  f i n d i n g s i n other  The i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h a n d  are also  considered.  SUMMARY OF METHODS AND RESULTS  In t h i s  research,  acceptability  regular classroom  of four c l a s s r o o m  examined. Teachers  randomly a s s i g n e d  case  child  but with  information  conditions  r e c e i v e d on a measure o f  case  extreme e m o t i o n a l  classroom  i n t e r v e n t i o n s were  as a p p l i e d t o c h i l d r e n  w i t h i n knowledge g r o u p s t o one o f two  d e s c r i p t i o n s . The f i r s t  experiencing  r a t i n g s of the  t o treatment  knowledge o f b e h a v i o r a l p r i n c i p l e s and  teachers'  treatment  were a s s i g n e d  b a s e d on t h e s c o r e w h i c h t h e y  the  study.  t h e methods  settings.  d e s c r i b e d t h e same  of a d d i t i o n a l  a history  background  of. s p e c i a l  class  A major p u r p o s e o f t h i s  r e s e a r c h was t o d e t e r m i n e  hypothesized,  level  principles  investigate  the d i f f e r e n t  questions  cases  was t h e q u e s t i o n  differentiate  affect  treatments  if,  as  r a t i n g s of treatment  A second purpose of t h e study  whether t e a c h e r s '  treatment.  o f knowledge o f b e h a v i o r a l  would s i g n i f i c a n t l y  acceptability.  reflect  teacher's  who i s  and b e h a v i o r a l p r o b l e m s i n  The s e c o n d c a s e  the i n s e r t i o n  suggesting  d e s c r i b e d a student  was t o  r a t i n g s of treatment  described. Related o f whether  teachers  t o these would  i n terms of a c c e p t a b i l i t y .  101  would  I t was  1 02 hypothesized different for  the  degree  that  t e a c h e r s would p r o v i d e  ratings  four of  on  treatments  these is  less clear.  mixed e v i d e n c e that  on  on  the  hypotheses. Research  further  measures  that  the  knowledge measure  the r a t i n g s  supported  research findings  specific  acceptability  p r e s e n t e d and  effect  research evidence  although  treatment  knowledge e x p r e s s e d  have a s i g n i f i c a n t Past  the  significantly  these  teachers provide.  research questions,  had  not d i r e c t l y s u b s t a n t i a t e d  The  q u e s t i o n of c a s e  t o d a t e has  differences  been e q u i v o c a l .  s u p p o r t i n g s u c h a h y p o t h e s i s i t was  the b a c k g r o u n d  have a s i g n i f i c a n t  attributed effect  would  on  to the  two  Despite theorized  c a s e s would  teacher r a t i n g s  of  would  treatment  acceptability. Another  question addressed  t o t h e method of measurement method d e s c r i b e d i n t h e Measures r e f l e c t  an  present  study  questionnaire described was  suggested  that  this  type  the c l i n i c a l  hypothesized  that  measure.  ratings.  (Kazdin,  using  such  t o t h o s e of  s u b j e c t s t o rank and  might  would p r o v i d e  treatment  the  four  use. I t  simulate  decision-making process,  t h e TEI  The  to these, a  of p r o c e d u r e  a procedure  The  four  1980a).  i n terms of a c c e p t a b i l i t y  more c l o s e l y  comparable  asked  related  Acceptability  methodology  in addition  in part  treatments  r e s e a r c h was  s t u d y as T r e a t m e n t  acceptability  employed, which  the  of a c c e p t a b i l i t y  established  measures of t r e a t m e n t  by  and  results  acceptability  1 03  1 . KNOWLEDGE GROUP In g e n e r a l was  supported.  provided This  The h i g h  higher  result  Ratings  the hypothesis  The  finding  the TEI)  the major earlier  from  r a t i n g s f o ra l l treatments. t h e r a t i n g s on t h e TEI o n l y .  on t h e t h r e e d i m e n s i o n s o f t h e S e m a n t i c  showed no s i g n i f i c a n t  (on  knowledge g r o u p t e a c h e r s g e n e r a l l y  acceptability  was e v i d e n t  o f knowledge g r o u p d i f f e r e n c e  difference forthis  of g e n e r a l l y h i g h e r  f o r the high  s t u d i e s had f o u n d  factor.  acceptability  knowledge g r o u p l e n d s  f i n d i n g s reviewed  Differential  i n Chapter  suppport  g e n e r a l l y more p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s with  increased  knowledge o f b e h a v i o r a l t e c h n i q u e s  and u n d e r l y i n g  principles.  interesting  would  suggest  increase through  isa particularly  that  improved a c c e p t a b i l i t y ,  i n u s e of b e h a v i o r a l t r e a t m e n t s , increased f a m i l i a r i t y  underlying  principles  Presumably,  with  t h e same m i g h t  be s a i d  question, although  very  broad  increased teachers  these  likely  t h e t e c h n i q u e s and  f o r t h e a c c e p t a b i l i t y and  informed  r e m a i n s an t h a t t h e two  regarding  t h e use  o f b e h a v i o r a l d i s o r d e r s . In a  f i n d i n g s would  knowledge o f a v a r i e t y would  may be f a c i l i t a t e d  i t may be assumed  i n the treatment  sense,  which  and p o t e n t i a l  intervention. This  knowledge g r o u p s were s i m i l a r l y of M e d i c a t i o n  finding  of b e h a v i o r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n s .  knowledge o f t h e M e d i c a t i o n empirical  to  One. The m a j o r i t y of  toward b e h a v i o r a l approaches t o treatment  This  ratings  suggest  that  with  of t h e r a p u t i c approaches  become more a c c e p t i n g o f a l t e r n a t i v e  approaches t o classroom  treatment.  Perhaps  ideal, in  1 04 settings  where a v a r i e t y  a teacher variety  w i l l i n g and  of  The  treatment  Differential no  by  on  Sherick  would  SD  Burkhart,  in light Behles,  1980b,  other  reflection  toward  of  and  behavior  of  1981a,  than  that  differences  while  t h e SD  of d i f f e r e n c e s  Semantic  similar  findings  t o be  a sufficiently  consistently  reflect  modification  few  and  (1976).  and  control Kazdin,  found groups.  French  significant effects  p r o v i d e s an  type.  This  accurate  treatments,  i t does  s e n s i t i v e r a t i n g procedure  o t h e r more s u b t l e  of  differential  i n treatment  between  between  the  i n p r e s s ) and found  large  Stumphauzer  for trained  (1981) have a l s o  suggest  appear  three dimensions  is  needs.  significant differences  in attitudes  (1980a,  the  t o meet t h o s e  e t a l . (1976) employed a s e m a n t i c  differences  and  needs a r e e x p r e s s e d ,  t o draw upon a s i m i l a r l y  approaches  the  measure of a t t i t u d e  Kazdin  student  is interesting  difference  Burkhart  no  able  f i n d i n g of no  knowledge g r o u p s on  of  between  not to  groups  di f ferences. Another study used  comparison  with that the  similar  of  of K a z d i n ,  interest French,  same measures of t r e a t m e n t treatment  participated inpatients,  descriptions.  i n the Kazdin p a r e n t s , and  and  of t h e  Sherick  acceptability  Three  treatment  significant differences  overall  ratings  of t r e a t m e n t  with parents g i v i n g  present  (1981) w h i c h and  g r o u p s of s u b j e c t s  e t a l . (1981) s t u d y :  finding  ratings),  i s that  staff.  The  between p a r e n t  acceptability  child  authors and  (i.e.,  h i g h e r mean r a t i n g s  report  child TEI to  1 05  treatments  than  are expert  i n t h e use  ratings  children.  or c h i l d  significantly  ratings.  t h e h i g h knowledge g r o u p positively samples to  than  i n t h e two  suggest  similar  that  low  participants' investigate  In t h e p r e s e n t  rated  studies  the  who  presumably  different  treatments  knowledge g r o u p .  e t a l . d i d not  While  i n the r a t i n g s  making more d i r e c t  more  i t i s reasonable s t u d y a r e most  s u b j e c t s i n the Kazdin  study.  investigate  of  between  the  status and  [parent, s t a f f ,  of b e h a v i o r a l t r e a t m e n t s  comparisons  however,  the s u b j e c t  knowledge of b e h a v i o r a l p r i n c i p l e s  the d i f f e r e n c e s  either  generally  are d i f f e r e n t ,  staff  from  study,  s u b j e c t s i n the p r e s e n t  t o the treatment  However, K a z d i n  groups  the  staff,  of t h e d e s c r i b e d t e c h n i q u e s , p r o v i d e d  w h i c h were not  the parent  Treatment  of r e s u l t s  or  between  d i d not child]  medication these  two  studies impossible.  2 . CHILD CASE The  results  r a t i n g s d i d not acceptability There for  are  of t h e a n a l y s i s reveal  such a r e s u l t .  fact,  significant  of t r e a t m e n t s  several  plausible The  i n the c a s e  relevant  to treatment  experiments  f o r the  two  different  o f M i k e S.  using t h i s  i n the  cases described.  e x p l a n a t i o n s w h i c h might of t h e s e and  regarding previous special  provided  measure  differences  most o b v i o u s  t h e c a s e s were not  information  of t r e a t m e n t  that  i s that, the  class  In e i g h t  methodology, Kazdin  placement  reported and  in  additional  added no i n f o r m a t i o n  evaluation.  account  his  1 06  colleagues French,  (Kazdin  1980a,  & S h e r r i c k 1981  differences  1980b,  ) have f o u n d  between c a s e  one  found  study  features,  differences  of t h e SD  description  showed  less  severe cases  Severity  o f c a s e was  earlier  work by K a z d i n  studies  are purposely v a r i e d  relevant  dimensions,  in  to render  the present  dimension  (i.e.,  description) information  more r e l e v a n t differences  the to  study  regular  i n purpose,  relevant  treatment rate  as p a r t  the of  here.  SD  study  t y p e of  the  findings  acceptability  s e r i o u s n e s s of  Kazdin  setting.  In  one of the  of p r i o r  ratings  problem  i n a manner Despite  of the K a z d i n  study,  procedures,  the  studies be  in addition  t e a c h e r s were  t h e p r o b l e m s Mike  Treatment  case  placement  i n more s e v e r e c a s e s may  In t h e p r e s e n t  t h e Case and  placement  classroom  and  i n the  to vary only  acceptability  TEI.  traditionally  sex,  the e f f e c t  for  (Kazdin, in  a number of  sought  to test  increased acceptability  quite  the  r e s u l t s more g e n e r a l i z a b l e .  treatment t o the  and  the p r e s e n t  f o r example, age,  In  f o r case  only with  the c a s e s used  on  of  in ratings  t h e TEI  b a c k g r o u n d of c l a s s  in order on  i s that  the  contrast,  between  and  Evaluative  effects  i n a more r e c e n t s t u d y as w e l l  A major d i f f e r e n c e  for  on  study  severity  and  differences  were n o t e d  press).  order  t h e TEI  significant  rating  only s p o r a d i c a l l y .  significant  although expected  more and  Evaluative  2)  i n o n l y one  such as  reflected  (1980a, E x p e r i m e n t  dimension  acceptability  descriptions  w i t h m a n i p u l a t i o n of c a s e problem,  1981a, i n p r e s s , K a z d i n ,  to asked  is exhibiting  Q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Without  1 07 exception,  teachers rated  moderately  s e r i o u s and  although typical in  the  they  case  the  this  setting.  severity  r e l e v a n t here  background subjects' degree  (1982).  of  extremely  child's  behavior  by  Teachers  serious,  some  In t h i s  i n the  descriptions  of b o t h  However t h i s  d i d not  information  to a l e s s  i s reasonable  have o c c u r r e d that  history  upon  as a b l e t o  d i d not  upon  that  the  r e l e g a t e d the w r i t t e n background influential  position.  to speculate that  may  study  and  have had  was  such that  a result any  masked by  the  as e x h i b i t i n g .  This explanation certainly  cited  findings  of Keogh and  in Safran, Safran, & Orlansky,  salient  i s s u e s are both  the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  and  the  1982)  Levitt who  may  relevance  described  the  of  extreme  of the problems the c h i l d  with  true  t o the case  extreme n a t u r e  consistent  was  normal  extend  suggest  the  function  This finding  i m p a i r e d and  authors  i n the p r e s e n t  placement  effects  b e h a v i o r , and  were r e g a r d e d  hearing  in written  perceived  of  between  of S a f r a n , S a f r a n ,  variations  significant  finding  The  of t h e b e h a v i o r  It  study  regular classroom.  acting-out child.  nature  findings  p e r c e p t i o n s of t h e c h i l d ' s  to which c h i l d r e n  children.  the  was  children  the problems e x h i b i t e d  are the  i n f o r m a t i o n had  successfully  an  that  than  descriptions.  Orlansky  for  a l w a y s as  k i n d s of p r o b l e m s e x h i b i t e d  regular classroom  Also and  almost  did indicate  of t h e  differentiate  t h e s e p r o b l e m s more  was is  (1976,  suggest  regular teachers  that  knowledge  needs of e x c e p t i o n a l c h i l d r e n  and  108  descr ipt ive A further that  information  possible,  teachers  relevant  although  less likely,  i n the present  acceptability  ratings  t o the c h i l d ' s performance.  study  explanation  may  be  d i d not r e l a t e  t o the p r e s e n t e d  case  description.  3 . TREATMENT TYPE Results  of the a n a l y s i s  chapter  suggested  that  sampled  i n the present  presented  the regular  i n the p r e v i o u s  classroom  teachers  study d i d d i f f e r e n t i a t e treatments i n  t e r m s of a c c e p t a b i l i t y . Two m e a s u r e s of a c c e p t a b i l i t y (TEI and  Evaluative  intervention,  SD) showed t h a t  a p o s i t i v e approach  for  the problem behavior  The  Medication  acceptable  of t h e f o u r  to classroom  described,  intervention  was  was  rated  i s also  p u r p o s e of d i s c u s s i o n .  behavioral  acceptable  than e i t h e r  interventions, of  the p u n i t i v e  that  interventions,  t y p e of p r o b l e m s d e s c r i b e d . the Reinforcement  clearly  What  in various  ways f o r  teachers  these  prefer  p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r the  i s seen as more  of t h e two more p u n i t i v e  interventions  on  i s a l s o c l e a r , however, i s  intervention  Positive Practice  was  r e s u l t s i t seems  The r e s u l t s of a n a l y s i s  indicated  to medical  i t was  worthy of n o t e .  reasonable t o group the i n t e r v e n t i o n s  that  as t h e l e a s t  t e r m s of t h e TEI and SD E v a l u a t i v e  two m e a s u r e s c l e a r l y  acceptable.  or p o w e r f u l . That Reinforcement  seen as t h e l e a s t p o w e r f u l  the  intervention  t h e most  a l t e r n a t i v e s , although  seen as t h e most p o t e n t  In  the Reinforcement  behavioral  and Time O u t . In t u r n  were seen as more  both  acceptable  1 09 than use of M e d i c a t i o n . In 1981,  general  i n p r e s s ) , and K a z d i n ,  results the is  t h i s follows  of the ranking  Case and T r e a t m e n t lowest  Practice evident  procedure  in ratings  Questionnaire  procedure  strength  reflected  reflect  Reinforcement convinced  concluded  that,  present  acceptability features  The d i s t i n c t i o n  SD a r e n o t so  a s some c o n t r i b u t i o n o f  or i t s e f f e c t i v e n e s s  as  ratings. (1981),  in discussion  of a  a c c e p t a b i l i t y and low p o t e n c y f o r that  p a r e n t s and o t h e r s need t o be  i n f a c t , Reinforcement  findings  also  suggest  c a n be v e r y e f f e c t i v e  under c o n s i d e r a t i o n  with the p a r t i c u l a r problem Results  that  when a s k e d  and p o t e n t i a l use t e a c h e r s c o n s i d e r  of a c c e p t a b i l i t y but a l s o  treatments  present  f o r use. P o s i t i v e  potent).  The  reveal  Medication  r e l a t i v e to other  SD as w e l l  F r e n c h , and S h e r i c k  f i n d i n g of h i g h  that  b o t h t h e a c c e p t a b i l i t y a s measured  of the i n t e r v e n t i o n  i n the potency  Kazdin,  ( 1 9 8 1 ) . The  procedure. Perhaps the r e s u l t s of the  t h e TEI and E v a l u a t i v e  (i.e.,  suggest  on t h e TEI and E v a l u a t i v e  ranking  (1980a,  i n t h e a n a l y s i s of  on t h i s .  of R e i n f o r c e m e n t  i n the ranking  similar  reported  i s seen a s an improvement  evident  the  F r e n c h , and S h e r i c k  i n a c c e p t a b i l i t y and p o t e n t i a l  interventions  by  t h e r e s u l t s of K a z d i n  on t h e a c t i v i t y  not only f o r the  t o be e f f e c t i v e i n d e a l i n g  i n the described dimension  any s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s study. Again  the p o t e n t i a l  about  this finding  setting.  o f t h e SD d i d n o t  between t r e a t m e n t s  i n the  i s s i m i l a r t o that of  1 10 previous  r e s e a r c h . T h i s dimension  to  some e x t e n t  in  reflecting  i n those  the  treatment  that  in this  p r e v i o u s , t o be o f l i m i t e d  differences  Two a d d i t i o n a l  appears,  between  findings.  w h i l e M e d i c a t i o n was g i v e n  The f i r s t  the lowest  regard to of these i s  mean r a t i n g on  t h e TEI (50.97) and t h e SD E v a l u a t i v e (17.5) t h e s e still 52.5  suggest  moderate o v e r a l l  utility  treatments.  comments s h o u l d be made w i t h  acceptability  s t u d y and  acceptability,  results  as a score of  on t h e TEI and 17.5 on t h e SD E v a l u a t i v e r e p r e s e n t  neutral  ratings.  outright  that  Similarly,  In o t h e r words,  Medication  t e a c h e r s have n o t s u g g e s t e d  i s an u n a c c e p t a b l e  t h e mean r a t i n g s  f o r Reinforcement  intervention. on t h e TEI  (79.03) and SD E v a l u a t i v e (27.05) w h i l e q u i t e f a v o r a b l e , do not  reflect  outright  acceptance  as these v a l u e s  75% and 77% o f t h e maximum v a l u e i n s t r u m e n t . A second regard it  to the r e l a t i v e  is likely  present  study  described  that  of t r e a t m e n t s  i s that  variations  of s e v e r a l  of the  i n t e r v e n t i o n s . None o f t h e s e  r e p r e s e n t n o v e l a p p r o a c h e s t o management of behavior. L i k e l y  i s the Medication drug  o b s e r v a t i o n t o be made w i t h  acceptability  use, d a i l y ,  problem classroom  specific  for their respective  many o f t h e t e a c h e r s sampled i n t h e  treatment  interventions  these  important  represent  treatment  t h e most  intervention described.  u n f a m i l i a r of  and i n p a r t i c u l a r t h e  111  B.  IMPLICATIONS FOR At  school on  t h e p r e s e n t time classrooms  the major  behavior  but a l s o  emotional teachers  and  i s a lack  underlying finding  group  that  not  literature  of  acceptance factor  and  which  procedures  have n o t  received  u s e . The  present  explain  this  knowledge o f t h e p r o c e d u r e s A further  indication  t h o s e t e a c h e r s who generally  not h a v i n g  indicated  such  agents. This  and  of n o t e h e r e i s  were i n t h e h i g h having  specific  i n t h e low  training.  p r e p a r e t e a c h e r s t o be  behavior.change  exists  i n the classroom  may  p r o g r a m s s t r e s s c u r r i c u l u m and  routinely  approaches  mandate.  which  approaches  and  t h e s e demands  of p a r t i c u l a r  management, whereas t h o s e  indicated  training  one  principles.  knowledge g r o u p child  out of t h i s  that  despite  impairment  g e n e r a l approaches  universal  dictate  of e f f e c t i v e  the e f f e c t i v e n e s s  suggests that  situation  in  have need  s u c h p r o c e d u r e s and  academic  should occur  d i s t u r b a n c e . Given  the w e a l t h o f  anywhere n e a r  ethics  intellectual  a i d i n the c a r r y i n g  i n d e e d of s e v e r a l  study  in student  o t h e r ways. E d u c a t i o n a l and  s u c h change  behavioral  substantiating  the  toward  increasingly  will  setting  t e a c h e r s take  f o r making c h a n g e s  as p r o f e s s i o n a l  c o n d i t i o n s as  Despite  and  in regular  expectation that  in myriad  as w e l l  directed  such adverse  which  i n c l u d e s an  responsibility  policy,  efforts  t h e t e a c h i n g mandate  not o n l y w i t h r e g a r d t o the s t u d e n t ' s  performance legal  EDUCATION  training  knowledge  Typically  teacher  m e t h o d o l o g y but  effective  managers  becomes p a r t i c u l a r l y  do and  crucial  in  11 2 the case of those management  i n the clasroom  i n f o r m e d and  capable  change s k i l l s application  a r e not c a p a b l e  setting.  Teachers  pre-service  as w e l l  as  obvious  and  of  self  must be  i n b o t h g e n e r a l management and i n the u n d e r s t a n d i n g  of t h e u n d e r l y i n g p r i n c i p l e s  b e h a v i o r . The  devote  s t u d e n t s who  implication  inservice  here  of  learning  knowledge and  skills.  (Merrett  & W h e l d a l l , 1982;  Robinson  & Swanton,  1980;  The  work of  begin  to  application  several  Mohlman, C o l a d a r c i ) certainly  and  both  must  a g r e a t e r emphasis t o d e v e l o p m e n t and  relevant  behavior  and  i s that  teacher t r a i n i n g  well  of  authors  & Gage,  s u p p o r t s such  1982  a  contention. A second and  from  that and  the  implication findings  teachers often  use  those c l i n i c i a n s  do  not n e c e s s a r i l y  of  theoretically  term  change and  treatment only  procedure particular French,  but  the best  but  vary  aware  of  f o r use Kazdin  that  at short  success  effectiveness  suggested  in favor  In a t t e m p t s  in their  that  orientation  solutions  i n the g i v e n s e t t i n g s . has  settings seem t o  c o n s u l t a n t s must be  of t h e a c c e p t a b i l i t y  & S h e r i c k , 1981)  (1984) i s  ideal  to a p a r t i c u l a r  of the v e r i f i e d  teacher  not be  procedures.  intervention,  also  Elliot  than  more p r a g m a t i c  consistent  research  K e n d a l l (1979) s u g g e s t  committed  bypass  this  p e r s o n n e l which  w h i c h may  F o r d and  and  in less  of t i m e and  recommendations w i l l  as a r e s u l t  from  of W i t t , M a r t e n s ,  of p r o c e d u r e s  which are p r a g m a t i c . even  follows  are working  under c o n s t r a i n t s  dictate  which  that  not  the  by  the  (Kazdin,  available  1 13  t r e a t m e n t s may  be p r e s e n t e d a n d d e l i v e r e d  i n ways w h i c h make  the t r e a t m e n t s  "more p a l a t a b l e  who,  reasons, (p.  a r e not l i k e l y  to adhere  9 0 6 ) . W i t t and E l l i o t  further  suggest  that  rather  from a p a r t i c u l a r  probably about  the f a c t  that  and v a l u e s of the t e a c h e r theoretical perspective,  markedly  i n that  is a likely  prequisite  knowledge o f b e h a v i o r a l p r i n c i p l e s acceptability  of e f f e c t i v e  Acceptability  i s seen  do  vary  acceptability  acceptable  o f an  suggest  that  facilitates  objective.  Given  that  knowledge a n d t h e o r e t i c a l  of t r e a t m e n t s  Similarly,  stated  increased  greater  behavioral techniques.  an a p p r o a c h  i s not l i k e l y  is likely  which  t o be u s e d  individuals  orientation,  c a n be e n h a n c e d  b o t h a c c e p t a b l e and e f f e c t i v e  future.  beliefs  f o r i t s e v e n t u a l use by  a p p r o p r i a t e p r e s e n t a t i o n and a p p l i c a t i o n . is  is  as a n e c e s s a r y c o n d i t i o n f o r  i s the primary  in their  sessions i t  a teacher's  the a c c e p t a b i l i t y  a c l a s s r o o m t e a c h e r . T h i s s t u d y would  use--which  o f view and  o f b e h a v i o r . Thus t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s  above a r e r e l a t e d intervention  point  i n short consultation  impossible to a l t e r  the causes  this  procedures"  i n t e v e n t i o n s be d e s c r i b e d from t h e  of the a t t i t u d e s  accepting  f o r whatever  to treatment  support  perspective than  t o persons  through  An a p p r o a c h t o be u s e d  i s not seen as at a l l .  which i n the  114  C.  IMPLICATIONS FOR  A major build  FUTURE RESEARCH  g o a l of the  study  of  a body of r e s e a r c h w h i c h w i l l  identification  and  use  t r e a t m e n t s . W i t t and  Elliot  of t r e a t m e n t  effectiveness,  and  interrelated  that  the  acceptability, the procedure treatment Future  reciprocally  proves  i s applied  issue use  t o be. often  each  acceptability The  and  results  s t u d y may  be  The  of  treatment  an  initial  of the  of  example  t o how  is  effective  which  i t s effectiveness.  building An  strong  obvious  i s that  as e n c o u r a g i n g relevant  acceptability.  attempt  evidence  and  of t h e  important  link  between  procedures  s u b j e c t s c o u l d be  of  r a n k i n g of by  f o r the  T h i s procedure  r e s e a r c h may  sampled  was  furthering measurement proposed  the c l i n i c a l extend  several  t o examine  as  decision  s u c h an  interest.  q u e s t i o n s on  asked  i n the present  i n terms o f  at approximating  could involve  of the a r e a s  (in press)  selection  with  ranking procedure  sample more of t h e d i m e n s i o n s  each  ultimate  use.  making p r o c e s s . F u t u r e  application  The  Elliot  integrity  determines  investigation  viewed  the development  1981).  is related  of t h e s e d i m e n s i o n s .  f o r immediate  sequentially  i n treatment  then  that  integrity,  and  i s i t s u s e . W i t t and  that  the  acceptable  acceptability,  & Sechrest,  initial  and  and  i s to  ( i n p r e s s ) have s u g g e s t e d  r e s e a r c h s h o u l d f o c u s on  relating  to  are  ( c f . Yeaton  of a t r e a t m e n t  suggest  area  use  acceptability  facilitate  of e f f e c t i v e  the dimensions  test  treatment  One  approach possible  treatments  the T E I . several  For  on  11 5 treatments how  and  t o rank  e a c h on  humane e a c h t r e a t m e n t In  the  education find  field  in general  theory  the  special  than  Similarly  i t i s to  find  also  of  the  in particular  than  i t i s to  i t is often easier good a p p l i c a t i o n ,  say  they  personnel  do),  of  and  such  of  treatment  find  to f i n d  good  press),  that  (i.e.,  suggestion,  in addition  approach  judgements a b o u t regard  t o the  Miller  attempts  to changing  W i t t and  experience  behavior  provide  important  example  implementation  Elliot with  affect  orientation,  & Prochaska  to various o r i e n t a t i o n s  a p p r o a c h e s may  One  treatments.  to c h a r a c t e r i z e i n a r e l i a b l e  affiliation  and  and  (in changing  orientation  will  of  i s s u e of p h i l o s o p h i c a l Norcross  what  a diagnostic center.  the a c c e p t a b i l i t y  (1981) and  do  treatment  treatments.  from  to past  acceptability  people  i n v o l v e f o l l o w - u p on from  for research  the a b i l i t y  t a r g e t e d p r o b l e m , one's p h i l o s o p h i c a l  general  do  s c h o o l and  recommended  in  treatment  i s s u e s of  and  other  recommendations  i s the  i s a need  are  of methods  t e a c h e r s and  r e s e a r c h might  There  to t h i s  to  particularly  of a c t u a l  effectiveness,  t o c a r r y out  of  There  implementation  'integrity'  willingness  of  be.  i t is often easier  diagnoses'  setting.  recommendations. R e l a t e d  the  that  e f f e c t i v e n e s s or  r e s p e c t to d e a l i n g with c h i l d r e n ' s problem behavior  which a s s e s s e s  they  to  education  i t is clear  regular classroom  but  is likely  'good a s s e s s m e n t s and  good t r e a t m e n t .  with  of  i t s relative  initial With the  work  (1983) r e p r e s e n t  manner  teachers'  theories.  dimensions  or  Such  related  to  the  11 6 acceptability  of  interventions  from  a variety  of  theoretical  orientations. A further needs  implication  identified  presented  by K i e s l e r  (1983). Future  a r e a s of program e f f e c t i v e n e s s treatments 'attitude of  will  treatments  procedures may  described in this  be most u s e f u l  relative groups  further  acceptability  involved  clinicians  and  i n the  such  of t r e a t m e n t s intervention  p a r e n t s who  impact  previously  by  research  suggests d i s p a r a t e views,  among  Kazdin  the  significant  enterprise—the recommend  both  treatment,  t r e a t m e n t s , and  a r e t h e o b j e c t of t r e a t m e n t  between a l t e r n a t i v e  The  data.  implement  who  and  an  r e s e a r c h i s needed which a s s e s s e s  children  individuals  the  of  research settings.  o t h e r c o n s u l t a n t s who  t h e t e a c h e r s and  calls  understand  s t u d y and  the  r e s e a r c h i n the  what K i e s l e r  i n such  in providing  to  consumer e v a l u a t i o n  in order to better  acceptability  Finally,  and  need t o e s t a b l i s h  pretest'  i s in response  regimes.  the  Present  between g r o u p s of  treatments.  REFERENCES Adelman, H., T a y l o r , L., F u l l e r , W. & N e l s o n , P. (1979). D i s c r e p a n c i e s among s t u d e n t , p a r e n t , and t e a c h e r r a t i n g s of t h e s e v e r i t y of a s t u d e n t ' s p r o b l e m s . American E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h J o u r n a l , J_6(1), 38-41. B a e r , D. M. & B u s h e l l , D., J r . ( 1 9 8 1 ) . The f u t u r e o f behavior a n a l y s i s i n the schools? Consider i t s recent p a s t , and t h e n ask a d i f f e r e n t q u e s t i o n . School P s y c h o l o g y Review, U ) ( 2 ) , 259-270. B a e r , G. T., G o o d a l l , R., & Brown, L. (1983). Discipline i n t h e c l a s s r o o m : P e r c e p t i o n s of m i d d l e g r a d e t e a c h e r s . The C l e a r i n g h o u s e , 5 7 ( 3 ) , 139-142. B a n d u r a , A. (1975). The e t h i c s and s o c i a l p u r p o s e o f behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n . A n n u a l Review o f B e h a v i o r T h e r a p y , 3, 13-20. B a n d u r a , A. (1977). Social learning C l i f f s , N. J . : P r e n t i c e - H a l l .  theory.  Englewood  B a r l i n g , J . & W a i n s t e i n , T. (1979). Attitudes, labeling b i a s , and b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n i n work o r g a n i z a t i o n s . B e h a v i o r T h e r a p y , J_0( 1 ) , 129-136. B a r l o w , D. H. (1980). B e h a v i o r t h e r a p y : The n e x t B e h a v i o r T h e r a p y , J J _ ( 3 ) , 315-328. B a r n e s , S. E . , F o r s , S. W., & D e c k e r , W. Ethical issues in health education. _ M ( 2 ) , 7-9. B e c k e r , W. C. (1971). Research Press.  Parents  decade.  H. (1980). Health Education,  as t e a c h e r s .  Champaign, I L :  B e n a s s i , V. & L a n s o n , R. (1972). A s u r v e y of t h e t e a c h i n g of b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n i n c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s . A m e r i c a n P s y c h o l o g i s t , 27, 1063-1069. B e r g e r , M. (1979). B e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n i n e d u c a t i o n and p r o f e s s i o n a l p r a c t i c e : The d a n g e r s o f a m i n d l e s s technology. B u l l e t i n of the B r i t i s h P s y c h o l o g i c a l S o c i e t y , 32, 418-419. B e r g i n , A. E . (1980). B e h a v i o r t h e r a p y and e t h i c a l r e l a t i v i s m : Time f o r c l a r i t y . J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 4 8 ( 1 ) , 11-13. Berman, L . (1927). The r e l i g i o n York: Boni & L i v e r i g h t . 11 7  called  behaviorism.  New  1 18  B o r n s t e i n , P. H. & R y c h t a r i k , R. G. (1983). Consumer s a t i s f a c t i o n in adult behavior therapy: Procedures, p r o b l e m s , and f u t u r e p e r s p e c t i v e s . Behavior Therapy, 14, 191-208. Boutilier, J. (1981). Behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n A t l a n t i c Canada T e a c h e r , 10, 9-13.  works.  Brophy, J . E. & Good, T. L. (1974). Teacher-student r e l a t i o n s h i p s : C a u s e s and c o n s e q u e n c e s . New Y o r k : Rinehart, & Winston. B r u n i n g , J . L. & K i n t z , B. handbook of s t a t i s t i c s Foresman.  Holt,  L. (1977). Computational (2nd e d . ) . Glenview, IL: Scott,  B u r k h a r t , B. R., B e h l e s , M. W., & Stumphauzer, J . S. (1976). Training juvenile probation o f f i c e r s in b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n : Knowledge, a t t i t u d e c h a n g e , or b e h a v i o r a l competence? B e h a v i o r T h e r a p y , ]_, 47-53. B u r t o n , J . K. (1981). Behavioral technology: Foundation for the f u t u r e . E d u c a t i o n a l T e c h n o l o g y , 21, 21-28. C a l h o u n , K. S. & T u r n e r , S. M. (1981). Historical p e r s p e c t i v e s and c u r r e n t i s s u e s i n b e h a v i o r t h e r a p y . In S. M. T u r n e r , K. S. C a l h o u n , & H. Adams ( E d s . ) , Handbook of c l i n i c a l b e h a v i o r t h e r a p y (pp. 1-11). New York: Wiley. Camplese, D. A., O'Brube, W. S., & H a l e , R. E. (1979). The r e l a t i o n s h i p between t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e and a t t i t u d e toward b e h a v i o r a l l y s t a t e d o b j e c t i v e s . C o l l e g e Student J o u r n a l , J_3(3), 221-223. C a r e y , R. G. & B u c h e r , B. (1983). Positive practice o v e r c o r r e c t i o n : The e f f e c t s o f d u r a t i o n of p o s i t i v e p r a c t i c e on a c q u i s i t i o n and r e s p o n s e r e d u c t i o n . Journal of A p p l i e d B e h a v i o r A n a l y s i s , J_6( 1 ) , 101-109. C a r r e r a , F., I l l , & Adams, P. L. (1970). An e t h i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e on o p e r a n t c o n d i t i o n i n g . J o u r n a l of t h e A m e r i c a n Academy of C h i l d P s y c h i a t r y , 9, 607-623. C h r i s t i a n , W. P., C l a r k , H. B., & L u k e , D. E. (1981>. C l i e n t rights in c l i n i c a l couunseling services for children. In G. T. Hannah, W. P. C h r i s t i a n , & H. B. . C l a r k ( E d s . ) , P r e s e r v a t i o n of c l i e n t s r i g h t s : A handbook for p r a c t i t i o n e r s p r o v i d i n g t h e r a p e u t i c , educational and r e h a b i l i t a t i v e s e r v i c e s (pp. 1 9 - 4 1 ) . R i v e r s i d e , CA: Free Press.  1 19  C o c h r a n , W. G. & Cox, G. New Y o r k : W i l e y .  M.  (1950).  Experimental designs.  D i p a s q u a l e , G. W. (1980). Legal issues in using behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n i n s c h o o l s : A comment on James and A l l o n . C a n a d i a n P s y c h o l o g i s t , 2J_(3), 132-134. Doke, L . A. & F l i p p o , J . R. (1981). Behavior therapy in the t r e a t m e n t of c h i l d h o o d d i s o r d e r s . In L. M i c h e l s o n , M. H e r s e n , & S. M. T u r n e r ( E d s . ) , F u t u r e p e r s p e c t i v e s i n b e h a v i o r t h e r a p y (pp. 2 1 - 4 3 ) . New Y o r k : Plenum. Dubno, P., H i l l b u r n , D., R o b i n s o n , G., S a n d l e r , D., T r a n i , J . , & W e i n g a r t e n , E. (1978). An a t t i t u d e toward behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n scale. B e h a v i o r T h e r a p y , 9, 99-108. E b e r , M. & O ' B r i e n , J . M. (1982). movies. Psychotherapy: Theory, J_9( 1 ) , 1 16-120.  P s y c h o t h e r a p y i n the R e s e a r c h and P r a c t i c e ,  E l l i o t , S.N., W i t t , J . C . , & G a l v i n , G. (1983). Children's j u d g e m e n t s about t h e a c c e p t a b i l i t y of t r a d i t i o n a l and behavioral classroom interventions. Manuscript submitted for p u b l i c a t i o n . E n g e l h a r d t , H. T. & M c C u l l o u g h , L. B. (1982). Ethics in psychiatry. In S. A r i e t i & H. K. H. B r o d i c e ( E d s . ) , A m e r i c a n handbook of p s y c h i a t r y : V o l . 7. A d v a n c e s and new d i r e c t i o n s (2nd ed.) (pp. 7 9 5 - 8 1 8 ) . New Y o r k : B a s i c Books. E y s e n c k , H. J . discipline. Psychology,  (1971). B e h a v i o r t h e r a p y as a s c i e n t i f i c J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l 36, 314-319.  E y s e n c k , H. J . (1970). B e h a v i o r t h e r a p y and i t s c r i t i c s . J o u r n a l o f B e h a v i o r T h e r a p y and E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h i a t r y , j_, 5-15. E y s e n c k , H. J . & Beech, H. R. (1971). C o u n t e r c o n d i t i o n i n g and r e l a t e d methods. In A. E. B e r g i n & S. L. G a r f i e l d ( E d s . ) , Handbook o f p s y c h o t h e r a p y and b e h a v i o r change (pp. 6 0 - 9 7 ) . New Y o r k : W i l e y . F a r n h a m - D i g g o r y , S. (1981). But rigorous behavioral analysts? 1(1), 58-60.  how do we shape up D e v e l o p m e n t a l Review,  F e l d m a n , M. P. & Peay, J . (1982). E t h i c a l and l e g a l issues. In A. S. B e l l a c k , M. H e r s e n , & A. E . K a z d i n ( E d s . ) , I n t e r n a t i o n a l handbook of b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n and t h e r a p y (pp. 2 3 1 - 2 6 1 ) . New Y o r k : Plenum.  120  F o r d , J . D. & K e n d a l l , P. C. (1979). Behavior t h e r a p i s t s ' p r o f e s s i o n a l b e h a v i o r s : A survey study. Professional P s y c h o l o g y , J_0(6), 772-773. F o s t e r , B. & Y s s e l d y k e , J . ( 1 9 7 6 ) . E x p e c t a n c y and h a l o e f f e c t s as a r e s u l t of a r t i f i c a l l y induced t e a c h e r b i a s . C o n t e m p o r a r y E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y , 2, 37-45. F o x x , R. M. & J o n e s , J . R. (1978). A r e m e d i a t i o n program for i n c r e a s i n g the s p e l l i n g achievement of elementary and j u n i o r h i g h s c h o o l s t u d e n t s . B e h a v i o r M o d i f i c a t i o n , 2(2), 211-230. Foxx, R. M. & S h a p i r o , S. T. (1978). The t i m e o u t r i b b o n : A n o n e x c l u s i o n a r y timeout procedure. J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d B e h a v i o r a l A n a l y s i s , 11, 125-136. Frey,  S. H. (1970). T e a c h e r s and b e h a v i o r a l P h i D e l t a Kappan, 55, 634-635.  modification.  F r i e d m a n P. R. (1975). L e g a l r e g u l a t i o n of a p p l i e d b e h a v i o r a n a l y s i s i n mental i n s t i t u t i o n s and p r i s o n s . A r i z o n a Law Review, 17, 39-104. F u r t k a m p , E . , G i f f o r t , D., & S c h i e r s , W. (1982). In-class e v a l u a t i o n o f b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n knowledge: P a r a l l e l t e s t s f o r use i n a p p l i e d s e t t i n g s . J o u r n a l of B e h a v i o r T h e r a p y a n d E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h i a t r y , 13, 131-134. G a r f i e l d , S. L. satisfaction 237-241 .  (1983). Some comments on consumer i n behavior therapy. Behavior Therapy,  14,  G a r g i u l o , R. M. & Yonker, R. J . ( 1 9 8 3 ) . Assessing t e a c h e r s ' a t t i t u d e toward t h e h a n d i c a p p e d : A methodological investigation. Psychology i n the S c h o o l s , 20, 229-233. G i l e s , T. R. (1983). Probable s u p e r i o r i t y of b e h a v i o r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n s - I : T r a d i t i o n a l c o m p a r a t i v e outcomes. J o u r n a l of B e h a v i o r Therapy and E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h i a t r y , j_4, 29-32. Goldiamond, I . (1975a). S i n g l i n g out behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n f o r l e g a l r e g u l a t i o n : Some e f f e c t s on p a t i e n t c a r e , p s y c h o t h e r a p y , and r e s e a r c h i n g e n e r a l . A r i z o n a Law Review, 17, 105-126. Goldiamond, I . (1975b). Toward a c o n s t r u c t i o n a l a p p r o a c h t o s o c i a l p r o b l e m s : E t h i c a l and c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i s s u e s r a i s e d by a p p l i e d b e h a v i o r a n a l y s i s . A n n u a l Review o f B e h a v i o r T h e r a p y , 3_, 21-63.  121  Guba, E. .(1972). The f a i l u r e of e d u c a t i o n a l e v a l u a t i o n . In C. W e i s s ( E d . ) , E v a l u a t i o n a c t i o n p r o g r a m s , (pp. 250-266). Boston: A l l y n & Bacon. G u t k i n , T. B., S i n g e r , J . H., & Brown, R. (1980). Teacher reactions to school-based c o n s u l t a t i o n s e r v i c e s : A multivariate analysis. J o u r n a l of S c h o o l P s y c h o l o g y , J_8(2), 126-134. Guttmann, J . (1982). P u p i l s ' , t e a c h e r s ' , and p a r e n t s ' c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r problem b e h a v i o r at s c h o o l . J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h , 7_6( 1 ) , 14-21. H a l l , R. V. (1971). Managing b e h a v i o r KS: H. & H. E n t e r p r i s e s .  ( v o l . 2).  Lawrence,  Hannah, M. E. & P l i n e r , S. (1983). Teacher a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d h a n d i c a p p e d c h i l d r e n : A r e v i e w and s y n t h e s i s . S c h o o l P s y c h o l o g y Review, _1_2 ( 1 ) , 12-25. H a r g r e a v e s , W. A. & A t t k i s s o n , C. C. (1978). Evaluating p r o g r a m outcomes. In C. C. A t t k i s s o n , W. A. H a r g r e a v e s , & J . E . S o r e n s e n ( E d s . ) , E v a l u a t i o n of human s e r v i c e p r o g r a m s (pp. 2 0 - 3 7 ) . New Y o r k : Academic P r e s s . H a r i n g , N. G. (1957). A s t u d y of t h e a t t i t u d e s o f c l a s s r o o m t e a c h e r s toward e x c e p t i o n a l c h i l d r e n . D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s , 17, 103-104. (University M i c r o f i l m s No. 00-19, 3787. Heldman, A. W. (1973). S o c i a l psychology v e r s u s the F i r s t Amendment f r e e d o m s , d u e - p r o c e s s l i b e r t y , and l i m i t e d government. C u m b e r l a n d - S a m f o r d Law Review, 4, 1-40. H i c k e y , D. F. (1977). S c h o o l c o u n s e l o r s ' a t t i t u d e s toward behavior modification. P e r s o n n e l and G u i d a n c e J o u r n a l , 5 5 ( 8 ) , 477-480. Hobbs, S. A., W a l l e , D. L., & C a l d w e l l , H. S. (1984). M a t e r n a l e v a l u a t i o n of s o c i a l r e i n f o r c e m e n t and t i m e - o u t : E f f e c t s of b r i e f p a r e n t t r a i n i n g . J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 5 2 ( 1 ) , 135-136. Hochbaum, G. (1980). E t h i c a l dilemmas H e a l t h E d u c a t i o n , J J _ ( 2 ) , 4-6.  in health education.  H o l l a n d , J . G. (1975). Behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n for p r i s o n e r s , p a t i e n t s and o t h e r p e o p l e as a p r e s c r i p t i o n f o r the planned s o c i e t y . Mexican J o u r n a l of B e h a v i o r A n a l y s i s , U1), 81-95.  1 22  Hughes, S. L., K a u f f m a n , J . M., & W a l l a c e , G. (1973). What do l a b e l s r e a l l y mean t o c l a s s r o o m t e a c h e r s ? Academic T h e r a p y , 8, 285-289. I n n i s , N. K. (1981). E t h i c s of b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n : B e h a v i o r a l and m e d i c a l p s y c h o l o g y . S o c i a l S c i e n c e and M e d i c i n e : P a r t . F. M e d i c a l and S o c i a l E t h i c s , 15(1)7 69-73. James, E . L . & A l l o n , R. (1979). L e g a l i s s u e s and b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n : A Canadian p e r s p e c t i v e . Canadian P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 2 0 ( 4 ) , 175-183. J e g e r , A. M. & M c C l u r e , G. (1979). A t t i t u d i n a l e f f e c t s of undergraduate b e h a v i o r a l t r a i n i n g . T e a c h i n g of P s y c h o l o g y , 6 ( 4 ) , 226-228. J e g e r , A. M. & M c C l u r e , G. (1982). An e x p e r i m e n t a l e v a l u a t i o n and p r o c e s s a n a l y s i s o f a b e h a v i o r a l c o n s u l t a t i o n p r o g r a m . In A. M. J e g e r & R. S. S l o t n i c k ( E d s . ) , Community m e n t a l h e a l t h and b e h a v i o r a l e c o l o g y : A handbook of t h e o r y , r e s e a r c h & p r a c t i c e , ( p p . 389-401;. New Y o r k : Plenum. J o n e s , R. T. & K a z d i n , A. E . (1981). Childhood behavior problems i n s c h o o l . I n S. M. T u r n e r , K. S. C a l h o u n , & H. E . Adams ( E d s . ) , Handbook o f c l i n i c a l b e h a v i o r t h e r a p y (pp. 568-606TT New Y o r k : W i l e y . K a z d i n , A. E . (1979). behavior therapy.  F i c t i o n s , f a c t i o n s and f u n c t i o n s o f B e h a v i o r T h e r a p y , 10, 629-654.  K a z d i n , A. E . (1980a). A c c e p t a b i l i t y of a l t e r n a t i v e treatments f o r deviant c h i l d behavior. J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d B e h a v i o r A n a l y s i s , 13, 259-273. K a z d i n , A. E . (1980b). A c c e p t a b i l i t y o f t i m e o u t from reinforcement procedures f o r d i s r u p t i v e c h i l d behavior. B e h a v i o r T h e r a p y , 11, 329-344. K a z d i n , A. E . (1981a). A c c e p t a b i l i t y of c h i l d treatment t e c h n i q u e s : The i n f l u e n c e o f t r e a t m e n t e f f i c a c y and adverse side e f f e c t s . B e h a v i o r T h e r a p y , 12, 493-506. K a z d i n , A. E . (1981b). Behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n i n education: C o n t r i b u t i o n s and l i m i t a t i o n s . D e v e l o p m e n t a l Review, 1 ( 1 ) , 34-57. K a z d i n , A. E . (1981c). Uses and a b u s e s o f b e h a v i o r modification i n education: A rejoinder. Developmental Review, U 1 ) , 61-62.  123  K a z d i n , A. E. (1982). The t o k e n economy a d e c a d e l a t e r . J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d B e h a v i o r A n a l y s i s , 15, 431-445. K a z d i n , A. E. (1983). Psychiatric d y s f u n c t i o n , and c h i l d b e h a v i o r T h e r a p y , J_4, 73-99.  d i a g n o s i s , dimensions therapy. Behavior  K a z d i n , A. E . (in press). A c c e p t a b i l i t y of a v e r s i v e p r o c e d u r e s and m e d i c a t i o n as t r e a t m e n t a l t e r n a t i v e s deviant c h i l d behavior. J o u r n a l of Abnormal C h i l d Psychology.  of  for  K a z d i n , A. E . & C o l e , P. M. (1981). A t t i t u d e s and l a b e l i n g b i a s e s t o w a r d b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n : The e f f e c t s of l a b e l s , c o n t e n t , and j a r g o n . B e h a v i o r T h e r a p y , 12, 56-68. K a z d i n , A. E., F r e n c h , N. H., & S h e r i c k , R. B. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . A c c e p t a b i l i t y of a l t e r n a t i v e t r e a t m e n t s f o r c h i l d r e n : E v a l u a t i o n s by i n p a t i e n t c h i l d r e n , p a r e n t s and s t a f f . J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 49, 900-907. K a z d i n , A. E . & H e r s e n , M. (1980). The c u r r e n t s t a t u s of behavior therapy. B e h a v i o r M o d i f i c a t i o n , 4 ( 3 ) , 283-302. K a z d i n , A. E . & W i l s o n , G. T. (1978). E v a l u a t i o n of b e h a v i o r t h e r a p y : I s s u e s , e v i d e n c e and new r e s e a r c h strategies. C a m b r i d g e , MA: Ballinger. K e l l y , H. H. (1950). The warm-cold v a r i a b l e i n f i r s t i m p r e s s i o n s of p e r s o n s . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y , 18, 431-439. K e n t , R. N. & O ' L e a r y , K. D. (1976). A controlled e v a l u a t i o n of b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n w i t h c o n d u c t children. J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 44, 586-596.  problem  Keogh, B. K. & L e v i t t , M. L. (1976). Special education in t h e m a i n s t r e e m : A c o n f r o n t a t i o n of l i m i t a t i o n s ? Focus on E x c e p t i o n a l C h i l d r e n , £3(1), 1-11. K e r r , M. M. & Lambert, D. L. (1982). Behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n of c h i l d r e n ' s w r i t t e n l a n g u a g e . Progress in Behavior M o d i f i c a t i o n , _1_3, 79-108. K i e s l e r , C. A. (1983). Social psychological issues in s t u d y i n g consumer s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h b e h a v i o r t h e r a p y . B e h a v i o r T h e r a p y , 14, 226-236.  1 24  K i r i g i n , K. A., Braukmann, C. J . , A t w a t e r , J . D., & W o l f , M. M. (1982). An e v a l u a t i o n of t e a c h i n g f a m i l y ( A c h i e v e m e n t P l a c e ) g r o u p homes f o r j u v e n i l e o f f e n d e r s . J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d B e h a v i o r A n a l y s i s , 15, 1-16. K i t c h e n e r , R. F. (1980a). Ethical therapy. J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g 48, 1-7.  r e l a t i v i s m and b e h a v i o r and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y ,  K i t c h e n e r , R. F. (1980b). Ethical relativism, ethical n a t u r a l i s m , and b e h a v i o r t h e r a p y . J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 48, 14-16. K i t c h e n e r , R. F. (1980c). E t h i c a l s k e p t i c i s m and b e h a v i o r t h e r a p y : A r e p l y t o Ward. J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 48, 649-651. Knapp, J . R. & D e l p r a t o , D. J . (1980). Willpower, behavior t h e r a p y and t h e p u b l i c . P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e c o r d , 30, 477-482. K r a s n e r , L. (1976). On t h e d e a t h of b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n : Some comments f r o m a mourner. A m e r i c a n P s y c h o l o g i s t , 3J_, 387-388. L a h e y , B. B., D e l a m a t e r , A., & K u p f e r , D. (1981). I n t e r v e n t i o n s t r a t e g i e s w i t h h y p e r a c t i v e and learning-disabled children. In S. M. T u r n e r , K. S. C a l h o u n , & H. E . Adams ( E d s . ) , Handbook o f c l i n i c a l b e h a v i o r t h e r a p y ( p p . 607-634). New Y o r k : W i l e y . L a h e y , B. B. & R u b i n o f f , A. (1981). Behavior therapy i n education. In L . M i c h e l s o n , M. H e r s e n , & S. M. T u r n e r ( E d s . ) , F u t u r e p e r s p e c t i v e s i n b e h a v i o r t h e r a p y (pp. 27-43). New Y o r k : Plenum. L a m b e r t , N. M. (1976). C h i l d r e n ' s p r o b l e m s and c l a s s r o o m i n t e r v e n t i o n s from the p e r s p e c t i v e of c l a s s r o o m teachers. P r o f e s s i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y , 7, 504-517. L a z a r u s , A. A. usefulness?  (1977). Has b e h a v i o r t h e r a p y o u t l i v e d i t s A m e r i c a n P s y c h o l o g i s t , 32, 550-554.  Lebow, J . (1982). Consumer s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h m e n t a l treatment. P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 91, 244-259.  health  L e w i n , P., N e l s o n , R. E . , & T o l l e f s o n , N. (1983). Teacher a t t i t u d e s toward d i s r u p t i v e c h i l d r e n . Elementary School G u i d a n c e and C o u n s e l i n g , J_7(3), 188-193. L i n d s e y , J . D. & F r i t h , G. H. (1983). Detrimental student b e h a v i o r s as p e r c e i v e d by e l e m e n t a r y t e a c h e r s . E d u c a t i o n , 1 0 3 ( 3 ) , 306-308.  1 25  L u i s e l l i , J . K. (1981). t r e a t m e n t of v i s u a l l y V i s u a l Impairment and  C o n s u l t a t i o n i n the r e s i d e n t i a l impaired c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l of B l i n d n e s s , 7J5(9), 353-358.  Maher, B. A. (1978). Stimulus sampling i n c l i n i c a l research: R e p r e s e n t a t i v e design reviewed. J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 4_6(4), 6 4 3 - 6 4 7 . M a n n a r i n o , A. P. & D u r l a k , J . A. (1980). Implementation and e v a l u a t i o n of s e r v i c e p r o g r a m s i n community settings. P r o f e s s i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y , n _ ( 2 ) , 220-227. M a r h o l i n , D., T a y l o r , R. L., & W a r r e n , S. A. (1978). Learning to apply psychology: D i d a c t i c t r a i n i n g e x p e r i e n c e and o p i n i o n s a b o u t b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n . T e a c h i n g of P s y c h o l o g y , 5 ( 1 ) , 23-26. M a r o t z , B. (1983, A p r i l ) . A l t e r n a t i v e s to b e h a v i o r a l c l a s s r o o m management. Paper p r e s e n t e d a t the meeting t h e C o u n c i l of E x c e p t i o n a l C h i l d r e n . D e t r o i t , MI.  of  M a r t i n , G. L. (1981). B e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n i n Canada i n t h e 1970's. Canadian Psychology, 22(1), 7-22. Mazza, J . & Pumroy, D. K. (1975). A review of e v a l u a t i o n of b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n p r o g r a m s . Psychological R e c o r d , 25, 111-121. McMahon, R. J . & F o r e h a n d , R. L. (1983). Consumer s a t i s f a c t i o n i n b e h a v i o r a l t r e a t m e n t of c h i l d e n : T y p e s , i s s u e s and r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s . Behavior Therapy, 14, 209-225. McMahon, R. J . , F o r e h a n d , R., & G r i e s t , D. L . (1981). E f f e c t s o f knowledge o f s o c i a l l e a r n i n g p r i n c i p l e s on e n h a n c i n g t r e a t m e n t outcome and g e n e r a l i z a t i o n i n a parent t r a i n i n g program. J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 4 9 ( 4 ) , 526-532. M e r r e t t , F. & W h e l d a l l , K. (1978). P l a y i n g t h e game: A b e h a v i o r a l a p p r o a c h t o c l a s s r o o m management i n t h e junior school. E d u c a t i o n a l Review, 3_0(1), 41-50. M e r r e t t , F. & W h e l d a l l , K. (1982). Does t e a c h i n g s t u d e n t - t e a c h e r s about b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n t e c h n i q u e s improve t h e i r t e a c h i n g p e r f o r m a n c e i n t h e c l a s s r o o m ? J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n f o r T e a c h i n g , 8 ( 1 ) , 67-75. Michael, J . (1980). F l i g h t from b e h a v i o r a n a l y s i s : P r e s i d e n t i a l a d d r e s s , ABA 1980. B e h a v i o r A n a l y s t , 3_(2), 1-22.  5  1 26  M i l l e r , P. J . (1981). P e r s p e c t i v e s , t e a c h e r s ' o p i n i o n s and the i d e a t i o n a l b a s i s of e d u c a t i o n . A l b e r t a J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h , 2 7 ( 2 ) , 182-191. M i l n e , D. C. (1982). A c o m p a r i s o n of two methods of t e a c h i n g behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n t o mental handicap nurses. B e h a v i o r a l P s y c h o t h e r a p y , J_0(1), 54-64. Mohlman, G. G., C o l a d a r c i , J . , & Gage, N. L . (1982). C o m p r e h e n s i o n and a t t i t u d e a s p r e d i c t o r s of i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of t e a c h e r t r a i n i n g . J o u r n a l of T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n , 3 3 ( 1 ) , 31-36. M o l l o y , G. N. (1980). T r a i n i n g p a r e n t s of r e t a r d e d c h i l d r e n a s b e h a v i o r t h e r a p i s t s : What we need t o know. M e n t a l R e t a r d a t i o n B u l l e t i n , 8 ( 1 ) , 3-12. M u s g r o v e , W. J . (1974). A scale toward b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n . S c h o o l s , JJ_, 392-396.  t o measure a t t i t u d e s Psychology i n the  Musgrove, W. J . & Harms, R. A. (1975). Teachers' a t t i t u d e s toward b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n . J o u r n a l of S t u d e n t P e r s o n n e l A s s o c i a t i o n f o r T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n , 13, 133-138. Myers, J . L. (1979). F u n d a m e n t a l s of e x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n ( 3 r d e d . ) . B o s t o n : A l l y n and B a c o n . N a t r e l l a , M. G. (1963). Experimental s t a t i s t i c s . W a s h i n g t o n , DC: U.S. Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e . N e c c o , E . G. (1970). The e f f e c t s of l a b e l i n g on t e a c h e r s ' p e r c e p t i o n s ( D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of V i r g i n i a 1970). Dissertation Abstracts International, 3j_, 4587A ( U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m s No. 70-26, 6 2 7 ) . Nelson, L. (1974). G u i d e t o L e r t a p use and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . D u n e d i n , New Z e a l a n d : U n i v e r s i t y o f O t a g o . . Nemenyi, P. (1963). Distribution-free multiple comparisons. Unpublished doctoral t h e s i s . Princeton: Princeton University. N o r c r o s s , J . C. & P r o c h a s k a , J . 0. (1983). Clinician's t h e o r e t i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n s : S e l e c t i o n , u t i l i z a t i o n , and efficacy. P r o f e s s i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y : R e s e a r c h and P r a c t i c e , J_4(2), 197-208.  1 27  N o r t o n , G. R., A u s t e n , S., A l l e n , G. E . , & H i l t o n , J . (1983). A c c e p t a b i l i t y of t i m e o u t from r e i n f o r c e m e n t procedures f o r d i s u p t i v e c h i l d behavior: A further analysis. C h i l d and F a m i l y B e h a v i o r T h e r a p y , 5 ( 2 ) , 31-41 . N u n n a l l y , J . M., J r . ( 1 9 7 0 ) . Introduction to p s y c h o l o g i c a l measurement. Toronto: McGraw-Hill. O ' D e l l S. L., T a r l e r - B e n l o l o , L., & F l y n n , J . M. (1979). An i n s t r u m e n t t o measure knowledge o f b e h a v i o r a l p r i n c i p l e s as a p p l i e d t o c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l of Behavior T h e r a p y and E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h i a t r y , 1 0 ( 1 ) , 29-34. O ' L e a r y , K. D. (1984). The i s time t o take a s t a n d .  image o f b e h a v i o r t h e r a p y : I t B e h a v i o r T h e r a p y , 15, 219-233.  O ' L e a r y , S. G. & O ' L e a r y , K. D. (1977). E t h i c a l i s s u e s of behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n research i n schools. Psychology i n t h e S c h o o l s , j_4(3), 299-307. O l l e n d i c k , T. H., M a t s o n , J . L . , E s v e l d t - D a w s o n , K., & S h a p i r o , E . S. (1980). Increasing spelling a c h i e v e m e n t : An a n a l y s i s of t r e a t m e n t p r o c e d u r e s u t i l i z i n g an a l t e r n a t i v e t r e a t m e n t s d e s i g n . J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d B e h a v i o r A n a l y s i s , 13, 645-654. Osgood, C. E . , S u c i , G. J . , & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of m e a n i n g . Urbana, I L : U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s Press. P a t t e r s o n , G. R. (1971). Research Press.  Families.  Champaign, I L :  P a t t e r s o n , G. R. & G u l l i o n , M. E . (1968). Living children. Champaign, I L : R e s e a r c h P r e s s .  with  P e t r i e , P., Brown, K., P i e r s a l , W. C , F r i n f r o c k , S. R., S c h e l b l e , M., L e b l a n c , C. P., & K r a t o c h w i l l , T. R. (1980). The s c h o o l p s y c h o l o g i s t a s b e h a v i o r a l ecologist. J o u r n a l of S c h o o l P s y c h o l o g y , 1 8 ( 3 ) , 222-233. P e v s n e r , R. (1982). Group parent t r a i n i n g v e r s u s i n d i v i d u a l f a m i l y t h e r a p y : An outcome s t u d y . J o u r n a l of B e h a v i o r T h e r a p y and E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h i a t r y , 13(2) , 119-122. P h i l l i p s , L. W. (1978). The s o f t u n d e r b e l l y o f b e h a v i o r t h e r a p y : Pop b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n . J o u r n a l of B e h a v i o r T h e r a p y and E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h i a t r y , 9, 139-140.  1 28  P i e r s e l , W. C. & G u t k i n , T. B. (1983). Resistance to s c h o o l - b a s e d c o n s u l t a t i o n : A b e h a v i o r a l a n a l y s i s of problem. P s y c h o l o g y i n the S c h o o l s , 20, 311-320.  the  P o l l a c k , M. J . , & S u l z e r - A z a r o f f , B. (1981). Protecting t h e e d u c a t i o n a l r i g h t s of t h e h a n d i c a p p e d c h i l d . In G. T. Hannah, W. P. C h r i s t i a n , & H. B. C l a r k ( E d s . ) , P r e s e r v a t i o n of c l i e n t s r i g h t s : A handbook f o r practitioners providing therapeutic, educational and r e h a b i l i t a t i v e s e r v i c e s (pp. 6 1 - 8 2 ) . R i v e r s i d e , CA: Free Press. R e e s e , S. C., Murphy, R. J . , & F i l i p c z a k , J . (1981). A s s e s s m e n t of m u l t i p l e b e h a v i o r a l p r o c e d u r e s on a c a d e m i c and s o c i a l c l a s s r o o m b e h a v i o r . Psychology i n the S c h o o l s , 18, 349-355. R e p u c c i , N. D. (1977). b e h a v i o r m o d i f i e r as B e h a v i o r T h e r a p y , 8,  Implementation i s s u e s f o r the i n s t i t u t i o n a l change a g e n t . 594-605.  R i c h a r d s o n , M. W. & K u d e r , G. F. (1939). The c a l c u l a t i o n of t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s b a s e d upon t h e method of r a t i o n a l e q u i v a l e n c e . J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y , 3_0, 681-687. R o b i n s o n , V. & Swanton, C. (1980). G e n e r a l i z a t i o n of behavioral teacher t r a i n i n g . Review of E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h , 5 0 ( 3 ) , 486-496. Roos, P. (1974). Human r i g h t s and b e h a v i o r M e n t a l R e t a r d a t i o n , J_2(3), 3-6.  modification.  Rosenbaum, A., O ' L e a r y , K. D., & J a c o b , R. G. (1975). B e h a v i o r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n w i t h h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n : Group c o n s e q u e n c e s as a s u p p l e m e n t t o i n d i v i d u a l contingencies. B e h a v i o r T h e r a p y , 6, 315-323. Ryan, B. A. (1976). Teacher a t t i t u d e s toward m o d i f i c a t i o n : One y e a r a f t e r an i n - s e r v i c e program. B e h a v i o r T h e r a p y , 1_, 264-265.  behavior training  S a f r a n , S. P., S a f r a n , J . S., & O r l a n s k y , M. D. (1982). The e f f e c t s of p r i o r i n f o r m a t i o n upon p e r c e p t i o n s of exceptional children. Contemporary E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y , 7, 384-394. S a p o n - S h e v i n , M. (1982). E t h i c a l issues in parent programs. J o u r n a l of S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n , j_6(3),  training 341-357.  S a u n d e r s , J . T. (1975). The s o c i a l i d e n t i t y of b e h a v i o r modification. Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , Yale University.  1 29 S a u n d e r s , J . T. & R e p p u c c i , N. D. (1978). The s o c i a l i d e n t i t y of b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n . Progress in Behavior M o d i f i c a t i o n , 6, 143-158. S e a t o n , H. W. & A a r o n , R. L . (1978). M o d i f i c a t i o n of p u p i l a t t i t u d e toward r e a d i n g t h r o u g h p o s i t i v e r e i n f o r c e m e n t scheduling. R e a d i n g Improvement, j_5(2), 96-100. S h e l d o n - W i l d g i n , J . & R i s l e y , T. R. (1982). Balancing c l i e n t s r i g h t s : The e s t a b l i s h m e n t of human r i g h t s and peer review committees. In A. S. B e l l a c k , M. H e r s e n , & A. E . K a z d i n ( E d s . ) , I n t e r n a t i o n a l handbook of b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n and t h e r a p y (pp. 2 6 3 - 2 8 9 ) . New York: Plenum. Sidman, M. (1960). T a c t i c s of s c i e n t i f i c r e s e a r c h : E v a l u a t i n g experimental data in psychology. New B a s i c Books. S k i n n e r , B. F. (1971). York: Knopf.  Beyond  freedom  and  York:  dignity.  New  S m i t h , D. K. (1983). C l a s s r o o m management: A p p r o a c h e s r e g u l a r e d u c a t i o n t e a c h e r s and l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d r e s o u r c e t e a c h e r s . P s y c h o l o g y i n t h e S c h o o l s , 20, 363-366.  of  Spece, R. G., J r . (1972). C o n d i t i o n i n g and o t h e r t e c h n o l o g i e s used t o ' T r e a t ? ' ' R e h a b i l i t a t e ? ' . ' D e m o l i s h ? ' p r i s o n e r s and m e n t a l p a t i e n t s . Southern C a l i f o r n i a Law Review, 45, 616-684. S t a i n b r o o k , G. & G r e e n , L. W. (1982). B e h a v i o r and behaviorism in health education. Health Education, 14-19.  13,  S t o l z , S. B. (1978a). E t h i c a l issues in behavior modification. San F r a n c i s c o : J o s s e y - B a s s . S t o l z , S. B. (1978b). E t h i c s o f s o c i a l and e d u c a t i o n a l i n t e r v e n t i o n s : H i s t o r i c a l c o n t e x t and a b e h a v i o r a l analysis. In T. A. B r i g h a m & A. C. C a t a n i a ( E d s . ) , Handbook of a p p l i e d b e h a v i o r a n a l y s i s : S o c i a l and i n s t r u c t i o n a l p r o c e s s e s (pp. 652-676). New Y o r k : W i l e y . S t o l z , S. B. (1981). A d o p t i o n of i n n o v a t i o n s f r o m a p p l i e d b e h a v i o r a l r e s e a r c h : "Does anybody c a r e ? " . J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d B e h a v i o r A n a l y s i s , 12, 491-505. S t o u f f e r , G. A. W., J r . , & Owen, J . (1955). Behavior p r o b l e m s of c h i l d r e n as i d e n t i f i e d by t o d a y ' s t e a c h e r s and compared w i t h t h o s e r e p o r t e d by E . K. Wickman. J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h , 48, 321-331.  1 30  Stumphauzer, J . S. (1981). B e h a v i o r a l approaches t o j u v e n i l e d e l i n q u e n t s : F u t u r e p e r s p e c t i v e s . In L. M i c h e l s o n , M. H e r s e n , & S. M. T u r n e r ( E d s . ) , F u t u r e p e r s p e c t i v e s i n b e h a v i o r therapy (pp. 65-80). New Y o r k : Plenum. S z a s z , T. S. (1978). Behavior t h e r a p y : A c r i t i c a l review of t h e m o r a l d i m e n s i o n o f b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n . J o u r n a l of B e h a v i o r T h e r a p y a n d E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h i a t r y , 9(3), 199-203. T h r o l l , D. & Ryan, B. A. (1976). Research note: Teacher a t t i t u d e s toward b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n . New Z e a l a n d J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l S t u d i e s , 11, 68-71. T r e i b e r , F. A. & L a h e y , B. B. (1983). Toward a b e h a v i o r a l model o f a c a d e m i c r e m e d i a t i o n w i t h l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d children. J o u r n a l of L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t i e s , 16(2), 111-116. T u r k a t , I . D. & F e u e r s t e i n , M. m o d i f i c a t i o n and t h e p u b l i c P s y c h o l o g i s t , 33, 194.  (1978). Behavior misconception. American  T u r k a t , I . D. & F o r e h a n d , R. (1980). C r i t i c a l issues in behavior therapy. B e h a v i o r M o d i f i c a t i o n , 4 ( 4 ) , 445-464. T u r k a t , I . D., H a r r i s , F. G., & F o r e h a n d , R. (1979). Assessment of the p u b l i c r e a c t i o n t o b e h a v i o r modification. J o u r n a l of B e h a v i o r Therapy and E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h i a t r y , 1 0 ( 2 ) , 101 -103. T y l e r , W. J . ( 1 9 8 2 ) . B e h a v i o r i s m and s c h o o l i n g : I s s u e s a n d ideas i n education. J o u r n a l o f S o c i a l P o l i c y , 11, 285. Vane, J . R. (1972). A school behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n program: Teacher a t t i t u d e s a year l a t e r . Behavior T h e r a p y , 3, 41-44. W e l l s , K. C. & F o r e h a n d , R. (1981). Childhood behavior p r o b l e m s i n t h e home. In S. M. T u r n e r , K. S. C a l h o u n , H. E . Adams ( E d s . ) , Handbook o f c l i n i c a l b e h a v i o r t h e r a p y ( p p . 12-24). New Y o r k : W i l e y . W h e l d a l l , K. & C o n g r e v e , S. t e a c h e r s toward b e h a v i o r Review, 3 2 ( 1 ) , 53-65.  &  (1980a). A t t i t u d e s of B r i t i s h modification. Educational  W h e l d a l l , K. & C o n g r e v e , S. (1980b). T e a c h e r s and b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n : What do t h e y t h i n k o f i t so f a r ? British J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y , 50, 92-93.  131  Wherry, J . N. (1983). Some l e g a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s and i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the use of b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n i n t h e schools. P s y c h o l o g y i n t h e S c h o o l s , 2_0 ( 1 ) , 46-51. Wickman, G. K. (1938). Teachers New Y o r k : Commonwealth Fund.  and New  behavior problems. Y o r k : Plenum.  W i l s o n , G. T. (1982). P s y c h o t h e r a p y p r o c e s s and p r o c e d u r e : The b e h a v i o r a l mandate. Behavior Therapy, 13(3), 291-312. W i n e r , B. J . (1962). S t a t i s t i c a l principles in e x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n . New Y o r k : M c G r a w - H i l l . W i t t , J . C. (1983). The r e l a t i v e a c c e p t a b i l i t y o f t e a c h e r — implemented v e r s u s p r i n c i p a l — i m p l e m e n t e d interventions. Unpublished manuscript. W i t t , J . C , & E l l i o t t , S. N. (in press). A c c e p t a b i l i t y of c l a s s r o o m management s t r a t e g i e s . In T. R. K r a t o c h w i l l ( E d . ) , Advances i n s c h o o l p s y c h o l o g y . H i l l s i d e , NJ: Lawrence E r l b a u m & A s s o c i a t e s . W i t t , J . C , E l l i o t , S. N., & M a r t e n s , B. K. (in press). A c c e p t a b i l i t y of b e h a v i o r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n s u s e d i n c l a s s r o o m s : The i n f l u e n c e of t e a c h e r t i m e , s e v e r i t y of b e h a v i o r p r o b l e m s , and t y p e of i n t e r v e n t i o n . Behavioral Disorders. W i t t , J . C., M a r t e n s , B. K., & E l l i o t , S. N. (1984). F a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g t e a c h e r s ' judgement of t h e a c c e p t a b i l i t y of b e h a v i o r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n s : Time i n v o l v e m e n t , b e h a v i o r p r o b l e m s e v e r i t y , and t y p e of intervention. B e h a v i o r T h e r a p y , J_5(2), 204-209. W i t t , J . C., Moe, G., G u t k i n , T. B., & Andrews, L. (in press). The e f f e c t of s a y i n g t h e same t h i n g i n d i f f e r e n t ways: The p r o b l e m of l a n g u a g e and j a r g o n i n school-based consultation. J o u r n a l of S c h o o l Psychology. W o l f , M. M. (1978). S o c i a l v a l i d i t y : The c a s e f o r s u b j e c t i v e measurement o r how a p p l i e d b e h a v i o r a n a l y s i s is finding i t s heart. J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d B e h a v i o r A n a l y s i s , H_(2), 203-214. W o l l e r s h e i m , J . P., M c F a l l , M. E., H a m i l t o n , S. B., H i c k e y , C. S., & B o r d e w i c k , M. C. (1980). E f f e c t s of treatment r a t i o n a l e and p r o b l e m s e v e r i t y on p e r c e p t i o n s of p s y c h o l o g i c a l p r o b l e m s and c o u n s e l i n g a p p r o a c h e s . J o u r n a l o f C o u n s e l i n g P s y c h o l o g y , 2_7(3), 225-231.  1 32  Wolpe, J . (1978). The humanity of b e h a v i o r t h e r a p y . J o u r n a l of B e h a v i o r T h e r a p y and E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h i a t r y , 9 ( 3 ) , 205-209. Woods, T. S. (1982). P r o c e d u r e s and p o l i c i e s f o r regulating field-based behavioral technology. B e h a v i o r a l D i s o r d e r s , 8 ( 1 ) , 32-40. W o o l f o l k , A. E . , W o o l f o l k , R. L., & W i l s o n , G. T. (1977). A r o s e by any o t h e r name . . .: L a b e l i n g b i a s and a t t i t u d e s toward b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n . J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 4 5 ( 2 ) , 184-191. W o o l f o l k , R. L . & W o o l f o l k , A. E . (1979). Modifying the e f f e c t of the behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n l a b e l . Behavior T h e r a p y , J_0(4), 575-578. Wray, L. D. & S t e e r , M. (1980). The i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of behaviour m o d i f i c a t i o n programs i n n o n - c l i n i c a l settings. M e n t a l R e t a r d a t i o n B u l l e t i n , 8 ( 1 ) , 13-26. Y e a t o n , W. H. & S e c h r e s t , L . (1981). Critical dimensions i n t h e c h o i c e and m a i n t e n a n c e of s u c c e s s f u l t r e a t m e n t : S t r e n g t h , i n t e g r i t y and e f f e c t i v e n e s s . J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 49, 156-167. Young, L. D. & P a t t e r s o n , J . N. (1981 ).. I n f o r m a t i o n and o p i n i o n s about b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n . J o u r n a l of B e h a v i o r T h e r a p y and E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h i a t r y , 1 2 ( 3 ) , 189-196.  APPENDIX A Introduction,  PROJECT  C o n s e n t , and Demographic D a t a  Forms  TITLE:  Teacher  Ratings  of A l t e r n a t i v e  Classroom  Treatment  Strategies. PROJECT RESEARCHER: W i l l i a m T. McKee, under  the d i r e c t i o n  Munro, P r o f e s s o r , D e p a r t m e n t Special  Education,  PURPOSE AND  of Dr. Barry  of E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y  University  of B r i t i s h  Columbia.  PROCEDURES:  Individuals  participating  in this  project  evaluating  several alternative  strategies  f o r d e a l i n g with c h i l d r e n ' s deviant  behavior.  and  Participants  will  classroom  be a s k e d  will  be  treatment classroom  t o c o m p l e t e an  initial  s i x t e e n - i t e m m u l t i p l e c h o i c e q u e s t i o n n a i r e on a p p r o a c h e s t o dealing  with  Participants  some d i f f i c u l t will  then  package which w i l l Participants following  each  alternatives. than  will  but t y p i c a l  be p r e s e n t e d  be u s e d be a s k e d  child  w i t h an e v a l u a t i o n  i n the r a t i n g s t o complete  procedure  procedure.  two r a t i n g s  of f o u r p r e s e n t a t i o n s of The e n t i r e  behavior.  forms  treatment  should  r e q u i r e no more  4 5 minutes. Participants  personal  data  attained).  will  (e.g.  In o r d e r  be a s k e d  to provide  gender, age, h i g h e s t to maintain  complete  1 33  some level  minimal of e d u c a t i o n  individual  134  confidentiality information, will  be  will  remain  to ensure  o p i n i o n s , and  coded  The  and  and  the  candid responses,  d a t a p r e s e n t e d by a l l s u b j e c t s  identity  confidential  researcher w i l l  of  individuals  throughout be  the  available  the procedures  i n o r d e r t o answer any  the procedures  and  to ensure  Following  completion  available  for discussion  implications regarding  as w e l l  procedures  of the  that study  participating  study.  d u r i n g and inquiries  they are  following concerning  fully  understood.  the r e s e a r c h e r w i l l  o r p r e s e n t a t i o n of r e s u l t s  as t o p r o v i d e any and  the  methodology.  further  be  and  details  1 35  CONSENT It or  i s the r i g h t  t o withdraw  will  neither  indicate  of any s u b j e c t  from t h e p r o j e c t  jeopardize  your  I consent  signature  consenting  to participate  experience:  levels  taught  Have y o u had s p e c i a l yes, please  full  Other  time  mainly training  indicate  Courses Inservice  attained  practicum  years  If  project.  Age  of education  in child  with a check  (  management? ) below.  Workshops training  (please  specify)  Please by  participation.  Date  level  decision  i n the project  t o your  in this  M / F  Teaching  Grade  Such a  DATA:  Gender Highest  to participate  y o u i n any way.  to p a r t i c i p a t e  Signature PERSONAL  a t any t i m e .  nor i n f l u e n c e  your w i l l i n g n e s s  providing  to refuse  APPENDIX B Knowledge Measure KBPAC 16E T h i s measure c o n s i s t s of 16 i t e m s approximately  and w i l l  take  8 t o 10 m i n u t e s t o c o m p l e t e .  Di r e c t ions 1.  You w i l l  be r e q u i r e d t o s e l e c t  questions 2.  d e a l i n g with  Read c a r e f u l l y  responses  some t y p i c a l  each q u e s t i o n  circumstances  correct,  more t h a n  however, y o u must  Circle  the l e t t e r  beside  behaviors.  and under  one answer m i g h t be  select  answer o r one w h i c h y o u f e e l  child  and e a c h o f i t s f o u r  p o s s i b l e a n s w e r s . In some q u e s t i o n s certain  to  the s i n g l e  best  i s most g e n e r a l l y t r u e .  that  answer.  Example; Probably life  t h e most  important  i n f l u e n c e i n a young  child's  is his . . . a.  Toys  b.  Television  c.  Parents  d.  Friends  Please  do n o t c o n s u l t o t h e r s  the q u e s t i o n s . Complete  while  d e c i d i n g how t o answer  a l l questions,  guess.  137  even  i f y o u must  1 38  KBPAC 1.  16E  Which of  controlling  2.  the  f o l l o w i n g i s most  their  child's the  a.  The  rules  b.  The  parents'  c.  The  behaviors  d.  Being  A boy  each time invites a.  p a r e n t s make about  loves f o o t b a l l . he  him He  will  of  the c h i l d ' s  a l s o warm and What  i s most  is playing nicely to play  in  behavior.  to which the p a r e n t s but  for parents  behavior?  understanding  strict,  important  feelings.  attend.  gentle. likely  t o happen i f ,  with h i s s i s t e r ,  his father  football?  a l w a y s be  asking h i s father to play  football. b.  He  will  play nicely  c.  He  will  be  with h i s d.  He  will  with  annoyed w i t h  his sister  more o f t e n .  his father for  interfering  activities. be  encouraged  to teach h i s s i s t e r  to p l a y  football. 3.  I f you  you  should:  want y o u r  a.  E n c o u r a g e him  b.  Help  c.  Reward him  d.  Give  him  him  child  t o do  t o see  to develop  proper  study h a b i t s ,  h i s homework.  s c h o o l as  pleasant.  whenever he s t u d i e s .  good  reasons  why  he  will  need  school.  139  4. her.  A child How  often  cries  s h o u l d her  a.  Reward  b.  Use  a mild  c.  Try  to  and  deal  d.  stop 5.  A father  him  because  reacts  by  r o o m when  she  any  reacts  out  with her  small  react  punishment  find  what  to  matter  best  without when  is  that  reduce  bothers  her  crying?  the  child  crying.  she  cries.  really  troubling  that.  with  something  interesting  so  she  will  store  with  crying. tells she  a  shouting, she  child  didn't  gets  a.  Ignore  b.  Take  her  when  they  c.  parents  when  Provide  over  crying  and  to  Calm her  clean  home.  her  she  go  the  her  and  What to  store  cannot  go  room  like  promising s h o u l d the  the  to  the she  she  promised.  will  father  clean  She the  do?  store.  but  make  her  clean  her  room  clean  her  room  return. down  and  go  help  her  together. d.  Talk  to  her  and  find  out  why  she  doesn't  take  responsibility. 6.  If  you  want  to  make  a  behavior  a  long-lasting  habit,  you  should: a.  Reward  b.  First  it  every  reward  it  time. every  time  and  then  reward  it  occasionally. c.  Promise  d.  Give the  something  several child  of  the  reasons the  child why  reasons  it  wants is  often.  very  much.  important  and  remind  1 40  7.  A  baby  often  screams  p a r e n t s '  a t t e n t i o n .  best  for  way a.  If  h i s  he b.  Which  parents  there  ignore  i s  h i s  D i s t r a c t  d.  None for  8.  the  a l l  f o l l o w i n g  reduce  h i s  even  and  i s  gets  h i s  probably  the  screaming?  p h y s i c a l l y  wrong  though  w i t h  the  the  f i r s t  c h i l d ,  few  times  l o u d e r .  c h i l d  w i t h  whenever n o i s e s  the  minutes  he  and  above.  something  he  f i n d s  screams.  sounds  Babies  the  c h i l d  u s u a l l y  makes.  have  good  reasons  screaming.  Probably  f i r s t  to  even  the  of  of  n o t h i n g  i n t e r e s t i n g Ignore  s e v e r a l  screaming  screams  c .  for  the  changing  most  important  behavior both  idea  to  To  use  b.  To  reward  c .  To  be  f l e x i b l e  about  whether  d.  To  be  sure  c h i l d  understands  behavior 9.  A  c h i l d  why  he  c a n ' t  a.  Ask  every  begins go the  reward  to  i n  mind  when  i s :  a.  the  keep  and  time  the  punishment. d e s i r e d or  behavior not  you  o c c u r s . reward.  why  you  want  h i s  parent  the  change. to  whine  o u t s i d e . c h i l d  and  How  why  c r y  s h o u l d  going  when the  o u t s i d e  parent i s  so  e x p l a i n s  r e a c t ? important  him. b.  E x p l a i n  that  i t  i s  a  p a r e n t ' s  r i g h t  to  make  d e c i s i o n s . c .  E x p l a i n  d.  Ignore  again the  why  whining  he  s h o u l d  and  not  c r y i n g .  go  o u t s i d e .  such  to  141  10.  I f punishment  football  i s used  f o r a behavior  i n the house, which type  such  as p l a y i n g  i s probably  the best to  use? a.  Make t h e c h i l d  do e x t r a  b.  Clearly  c.  Remove t h e c h i l d  d.  A reasonable  e x p r e s s your  disapproval.  to a boring situation  i s most e f f e c t i v e  time.  in getting a  t o do homework?  a.  "When you f i n i s h y o u r  b.  "You c a n w a t c h t h i s do  c.  each  spanking.  11. Which o f t h e f o l l o w i n g child  homework.  your  homework, you c a n watch T.V."  show on T.V., i f y o u p r o m i s e t o  homework when t h e show i s o v e r . "  " I f you don't  do y o u r  homework t o n i g h t ,  you c a n ' t  watch T.V. a t a l l tomorrow." d.  Explain  the importance  dangers  of p u t t i n g  12.  P a r e n t s who use l o t s  few  punishments w i l l  o f s c h o o l work and t h e  things o f f .  of rewards  probably tend  a.  Do n o t u n d e r s t a n d  b.  Will  c.  Take a d v a n t a g e  d.  Are well-behaved  f o r good b e h a v i o r and t o have c h i l d r e n  discipline.  not c o o p e r a t e  u n l e s s they a r e ' p a i d ' .  of t h e i r  parents.  and c o o p e r a t i v e .  who:  1 42  13.  Which  child  reward  i s probably  improve h i s a r i t h m e t i c  best  to help  a  12-year-old  skills?  a.  A d o l l a r f o r each evening  b.  A dime f o r e a c h p r o b l e m he works c o r r e c t l y .  c.  Ten d o l l a r s f o r each A he r e c e i v e s card  d.  he  studies.  on h i s r e p o r t  in arithmetic.  A b i c y c l e f o r passing  arithmetic  f o r t h e r e s t of t h e  year. 14.  Johnny has j u s t t o r n  choices,  which  up a new m a g a z i n e . Of t h e f o l l o w i n g  i s the best  way f o r h i s mother  to d i s c i p l i n e  him? a.  Tell  him he w i l l  gets  home.  be s p a n k e d by h i s f a t h e r  b.  P u n i s h him t h e n and t h e r e .  c.  Explain  t o Johnny  d.  Angrily  s c o l d Johnny  an  t h e w r o n g n e s s of h i s a c t i o n s . so t h a t  a c t i s bad and u p s e t t i n g  he w i l l  learn that  Jimmy sometimes s a y s o b s c e n e words, b u t o n l y  his  m o t h e r . She has been t o h i m . How  should  such  t o h i s mother.  15.  clear  when he  i n f r o n t of  s h o c k e d a n d makes h e r f e e l i n g s she r e a c t  when he u s e s  obscene  words? a.  Wash h i s mouth o u t w i t h  b.  I g n o r e him when he u s e s o b s c e n e  c.  Tell  him how bad he i s and how  when he u s e s t h o s e d.  soap.  Explain  words. she d o e s n ' t  l i k e him  words.  t o him t h e r e a s o n  s u c h words a r e n o t u s e d .  1  16. Which of t h e f o l l o w i n g helping  a child  i s p r o b a b l y most  behave i n d e s i r a b l e  a.  To t e a c h him t h e i m p o r t a n c e  b.  To h e l p him u n d e r s t a n d  c.  Providing  d.  Understanding person.  consistent  right  important i n  ways? of  self-discipline.  and wrong.  consequences  for h i s behavior  h i s moods and f e e l i n g s a s a  unique  APPENDIX C Treatment  Evaluation  Inventory  ( K a z d i n , 1980a)  P l e a s e c o m p l e t e t h e i t e m s l i s t e d below. The i t e m s s h o u l d be c o m p l e t e d by p l a c i n g a checkmark on t h e l i n e under t h e q u e s t i o n t h a t b e s t i n d i c a t e s how you f e e l a b o u t t h e t r e a t m e n t . P l e a s e read the items v e r y c a r e f u l l y because a checkmark a c c i d e n t l y p l a c e d on one s p a c e r a t h e r t h a n a n o t h e r may not r e p r e s e n t t h e meaning you i n t e n d e d . Note t h a t t h r o u g h o u t t h e i n v e n t o r y t h e t e r m t r e a t m e n t i s u s e d , and may be t h o u g h t of as s i m i l a r t o s u c h t e r m s as i n t e r v e n t i o n , method, p r o c e d u r e , o r s t r a t e g y . 1. How child's  a c c e p t a b l e do y o u f i n d problem behavior?  not a t a l l acceptable 2. How w i l l i n g y o u r s e l f i f you not a t a l l willing  this  treatment  t o be  moderately acceptable  very acceptable  would you be t o c a r r y out had t o change t h e c h i l d ' s  t h i s procedure problems?  moderately willing  very willing  3. How s u i t a b l e i s t h i s p r o c e d u r e f o r c h i l d r e n who have o t h e r b e h a v i o r a l p r o b l e m s t h a n t h o s e d e s c r i b e d child? not at a l l suitable  moderately suitable  bad  moderately  1 44  might for this  very suitable  4. I f c h i l d r e n had t o be a s s i g n e d t o t r e a t m e n t t h e i r c o n s e n t , how bad w o u l d i t be t o g i v e them treatment? very  f o r the  bad  without this  n o t bad at a l l  1 45  5. very  How  cruel  or u n f a i r  cruel  do you f i n d  this  treatment?  moderately c ruel  not c r u e l at a l l  6. Would i t be a c c e p t a b l e t o a p p l y t h i s p r o c e d u r e t o i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d c h i l d r e n , the m e n t a l l y r e t a r d e d , or other i n d i v i d u a l s who a r e n o t g i v e n an o p p o r t u n i t y t o c h o o s e treatment f o r themselves? not a t a l l acceptable to a p p l y t h i s procedure  moderately acceptable  very acceptable to apply this procedure  7. How c o n s i s t e n t i s t h i s t r e a t m e n t w i t h common s e n s e o r e v e r y d a y n o t i o n s a b o u t what t r e a t m e n t s h o u l d be? moderately consi stent  very d i f f e r e n t or inconsi stent  8. To what humanely?  extent  does n o t treat humanely a t all  does t h i s  procedure  very consistent with everyday notions treat  t r e a t s them moderately humanely  9. To what e x t e n t do you t h i n k t h e r e might undergoing t h i s kind of treatment? l o t s of r i s k s are l i k e l y  some r i s k s a r e 1 i kely  the c h i l d  t r e a t s them very humanely  be r i s k s i n  no r i s k s are l i k e l y  1 46 10. How much do y o u l i k e treatment? do n o t l i k e them a t a l l 11.  How  the procedures  moderately them  effective  not a t a l l effective  i s this  likely  t o be?  t o make permanent  moderately 1i kely  many undesirable side effects likely  very  side effects  some undesirable side e f f e c t s likely  14. How much d i s c o m f o r t i s t h e c h i l d d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e of t r e a t m e n t ? v e r y much discomfort  moderate discomfort  what  i s your  general  ambivalent  them much  very effective  13. To what e x t e n t a r e u n d e s i r a b l e r e s u l t from t h i s treatment?  negative  like very  moderately effective  unlikely  very  in this  like  treatment  12. How l i k e l y i s t h i s t r e a t m e n t improvements i n t h e c h i l d ?  15. O v e r a l l , treatment?  used  likely  l i k e l y to  no undesirable side effects would o c c u r likely  to experience  no discomfort at a l l reaction to this  form o f  very positive  APPENDIX D  Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l  (Kazdin,  1980a)  P l e a s e p l a c e y o u r c h e c k m a r k s on t h e l i n e t h a t b e s t c h a r a c t e r i z e s your r e a c t i o n t o the treatment. I f the s c a l e i s d i f f i c u l t t o r a t e , s t i l l p u t a checkmark t h a t b e s t r e f l e c t s y o u r g e n e r a l r e a c t i o n t o t h e t r e a t m e n t . T h e r e i s no need t o spend much t i m e on any one o f t h e i t e m s . Your f i r s t i m p r e s s i o n s and immediate f e e l i n g a b o u t t h e i t e m s a r e what I would l i k e .  bad unpleasant cruel worthless unfai r strong  weak  hard  soft  heavy  light  large  small  thick  thin  act ive  passive  sharp  dull  hot  cold  fast  slow  feroc ious  peaceful  1 47  APPENDIX E  Case and T r e a t m e n t Now  that  Questionnaire  you have had a c h a n c e t o t h i n k  p r o b l e m s and a b o u t  some p o s s i b l e  Mike,  you t o c o n s i d e r  I would  like  about  Mike's  strategies for dealing  with  a few a d d i t i o n a l  questions. 1.  How  serious  would y o u r a t e  described  as e x h i b i t i n g ?  5  4  extremely serious  2. of  3  2  moderately serious  In y o u r child  the problems Mike i s  own e x p e r i e n c e , how  being  seen  not very serious at a l l  typical  i n the r e g u l a r  1 48  1  i s Mike of t h e k i n d  classroom?  1 49  3.  Consider  dealing  the four  with  Positive  Mike's  Practice  Reinforcement Please  rank  these  you  would  the  letter(s)  order  be  which  intervention  described for  problems. PP  Medication  M  R  Time  TO  four  Out  interventions  t o use each  i n your  corresponding  best  strategies  classroom.  t o each  represents  your  according  t o how  Do  s o by  intervention  After  feelings.  most likely t o use t h i s one  reading  intervention  through  strategies,  reactions  ( e . g . "My  or,  of course,  "Well  like  him!").  i n many  to  kinds  Mike's  case  you probably  G o d , who  would  t h a t ' s what  Teachers  problems these  placing  i n the  least likely to use t h i s one 4.  likely  face  this  classrooms.  of s i t u a t i o n s  description have  ever  and the  h a d some  do t h a t  to a kid",  I do a l l t h e t i m e and s i m i l a r  kinds of  The r e a c t i o n s o f t h o s e a r e an  for kids  important  teachers  area of  invest igat ion. In approach  a  few s e n t e n c e s , the situation  please  i f Mike  d e s c r i b e how were  i n ycur  you might class.  APPENDIX F  Case D e s c r i p t i o n C a s e o f Mike  i s a 9-year  Mike younger of  R.  brother,  normal  main p r o b l e m  as  i s that  instructions.  aggressive  or t o o t h e r s .  at h i s teachers  books, c h a i r s , t o y s ,  also his  directly  has  at school,  recorder,  sharp  He with  objects  a t him.  have n o t been a b l e already  and h i s t e a c h e r  him b e c a u s e  been  in serious  they  are afraid  trouble  he w i l l  i n t h e community  is particularly  i f something  because He  and h i s f r i e n d s when he was  of the c h i l d r e n i n the s c h o o l  with  Mike's teacher  are worried  to control h i s aggressiveness.  injured h i s brother  a n g r y , a n d most  worse  such  e i t h e r by  them o f f t a b l e s a n d s h e l v e s .  p h y s i c a l l y a n d sometimes t h r o w s  Both Mike's p a r e n t s they  when t h e y ask  h a s h a d p r o b l e m s a t home. F o r example, he f i g h t s brother  things  O c c a s i o n a l l y , he  and h i s p a r e n t s  and a tape  them o r k n o c k i n g  and d o e s  He d o e s many d i f f e r e n t  t o do t h i n g s . He h a s b r o k e n many o b j e c t s  throwing  get  academic  h a s been a c o n c e r n f o r  he i s v e r y  a r e dangerous t o h i m s e l f  throws t h i n g s him  behavior  h i s p a r e n t s and  o l d . A l t h o u g h Mike i s  a n d has no o b v i o u s  his social  follow adult  that  i s 6 years  with  time. His  not  Tom, who  intelligence  difficulties, some  o l d boy who l i v e s  concerned  i s n o t done r i g h t  1 50  hurt  will  not play  them. He has  and a t s c h o o l . that away.  things  will  151  C a s e o f M i k e S. Mike his is  i s a 9 - y e a r o l d boy who l i v e s  younger  brother,  of normal  intelligence  difficulties, some t i m e . teacher  Tom, who  his social  and h e r a i d e .  were With  In t h i s  in  the school  in a regular  school  having  some t r o u b l e  i n the c l a s s .  not  main p r o b l e m  follow adult  that  setting.  i s that  as  a r e dangerous t o h i m s e l f  and w i t h  books, c h a i r s , t o y s ,  also his  of t h i s  skills."  a new  emphais  aggressive  and d o e s  He d o e s many d i f f e r e n t or t o o t h e r s .  things  O c c a s i o n a l l y , he  and h i s p a r e n t s  and a t a p e  them o r k n o c k i n g  Mike i s  recorder,  when t h e y a s k at school,  brother  them o f f t a b l e s and s h e l v e s .  p h y s i c a l l y and sometimes t h r o w s s h a r p  He with  objects  a t him.  Both Mike's p a r e n t s have n o t been a b l e already  angry,  such  e i t h e r by  h a s had p r o b l e m s a t home. F o r example, he f i g h t s  directly  they  and a i d e  Unfortunately  t o do t h i n g s . He h a s b r o k e n many o b j e c t s  throwing  has  and s o c i a l  he i s v e r y  instructions.  throws t h i n g s a t h i s t e a c h e r s him  the teacher  on m a i n s t r e a m i n g , M i k e h a s been  placed  The  academic  t h e d a y . The g o a l s  of program c u t s  district  o l d . A l t h o u g h Mike  c l a s s managed by a  setting,  during  and  h a s been o f c o n c e r n f o r  " t o d e v e l o p b a s i c academic the advent  h i s parents  and h a s no o b v i o u s  in a special  conducted a l l a c t i v i t i e s class  i s 6 years  behavior  Mike h a s been  with  and h i s t e a c h e r  are worried  because  to control h i s aggressivenesss.  injured h i s brother  He  and h i s f r i e n d s when he was  and most o f t h e c h i l d r e n i n t h e s c h o o l  will  not p l a y  152  w i t h him been  because  in serious  Mike's teacher get  worse  they are trouble  afraid  he  will  hurt  i n the  community  and  is particularly  concerned  that  i f something  i s not  done r i g h t  them. He at  away.  has  school.  things  will  APPENDIX G Intervention Medication There  Intervention i s a drug  f o r Mike  that  c a n be used  b e h a v i o r . The d r u g  is called  children,  i s used  tolerate  the drug  ordinarily  might  be f r u s t r a t i n g .  frustrated  to react  a r e more a b l e actions  less  to think  about  the b a s i s  Because  the c h i l d r e n  t o o t h e r s . The d r u g  the consequences  do n o t  seems t o they  of t h e i r  i s administered in tablet dosage  o f body w e i g h t  t h e o p t i m a l dose  with others that  inappropriately.  the drug  t i m e s a d a y . The d a i l y  to  are able  i m p u l s i v e i n g e n e r a l so t h a t  before behaving  For Mike,  ability  when on t h e d r u g , t h e y a r e l e s s  aggressively  make some c h i l d r e n  For aggressive  on t h e d r u g , c h i l d r e n  e v e n t s and i n t e r a c t i o n s  become e a s i l y likely  Mellaril.  to decrease aggressive  to increase a c h i l d ' s  f r u s t r a t i o n . While  to handle  Description  of the drug  and may  i s found.  153  form 3  i s e s t i m a t e d on  be c h a n g e d  slightly  until  1 54 Time-Out  Intervention  A procedure disruptive  noncompliant means t h a t  called  c a n be u s e d  behavior i s c a l l e d  This procedure  removed  that  f o r Mike  b e h a v i o r s so t h a t  there i s a period  REINFORCEMENT.  t h e y a r e e l i m i n a t e d . Time o u t  of time  i n which  a person i s  from t h e s i t u a t i o n . The p r o c e d u r e i s  " t i m e o u t from  receive  TIME OUT FROM  Mike's  i s d e s i g n e d t o p u n i s h h i s a g g r e s s i v e and  i n some way  t h a t Mike  t o change  r e i n f o r c e m e n t " because  i s t a k e n away from  the s i t u a t i o n ,  r e i n f o r c e m e n t or rewards  during  the time  he c a n n o t  such as a t t e n t i o n  from  others. For Mike,  the time out p r o c e d u r e c o n s i s t s  out  of the s i t u a t i o n  For  example, when Mike t h r o w s  pupil be  he i s i m m e d i a t e l y  isolated  partitioned little  i n a part  something  of a c h a i r  t o him so t h a t  or h i t s  misbehaves. another  taken out of the s i t u a t i o n .  of the l a r g e  off for this  whenever he  purpose.  He  would  classroom that i s The p a r t i t i o n  b o o t h where Mike c a n be i s o l a t e d .  consists  and  f o r 10 m i n u t e s  of t a k i n g him  This  makes a  time out booth  i n t h e b o o t h . No books o r t o y s a r e g i v e n  he i s c u t o f f f r o m a l l r e w a r d i n g  from o t h e r p e o p l e .  activities  155  He see out  has  nor can  c l o s e s him After  to s i t i n the booth o t h e r s see  o f f from  h i s time  comes o u t , he can aggression out  cannot  of t h e p a r t i t i o n  that  of t h e c l a s s r o o m c o m p l e t e l y .  t h e t e a c h e r l e t s him  resume h i s a c t i v i t i e s .  o c c u r s , he  booth a g a i n .  i n because  the r e s t  i s up,  f o r 1 0 m i n u t e s . He  o u t . When Mike  As  soon  as  i s immediately p l a c e d  into  the  any time  1 56  Reinforcement  Intervention  A procedure aggressive  behavior  BEHAVIOR. T h i s compliant  is called  behaviors.  appropriate  i s designed  to replace the procedure. I t  desirable behaviors.  are developed,  Mike's teacher  and c o o p e r a t i v e  rewarding appropriate  As t h e  the i n a p p r o p r i a t e  will  behavior  develop compliance to by s y s t e m a t i c a l l y  r e s p o n s e s . The t e a c h e r  will  explain  r e w a r d program t o M i k e . The p r o g r a m c o n s i s t s o f  Mike e a r n p r i v i l e g e s  i f he l i s t e n s  t o the teacher  behaves c o o p e r a t i v e l y .  F o r example,  directions  and c o m p l e t i n g  in starting  cooperative school  i n classroom  property,  a l s o earn  routine  he c a n e a r n  Stars  Stars  by p l a y i n g  throw t h i n g s , traded free  class  in class,  or v i e w i n g  after  with  Stars  h i s own and chart.  Mike  h i s classmates i f he d o e s n o t  recess,  The S t a r s  c a n be  a special  game,  an e d u c a t i o n a l  T.V. show f o r  a s a whole.  When M i k e whines o r a r g u e s this.  and  follows  on a s p e c i a l  nicely  as e x t r a  letting  h i s work on t i m e , i s  o r does n o t a c t a g g r e s s i v e l y .  f o r such p r i v i l e g e s  time  i f Mike  and l o o k s  and, when M i k e g e t mad, he c a n e a r n  the  to develop  d r o p o u t and a r e e l i m i n a t e d .  instructions  can  Mike's  i s not a punishment  by r e w a r d i n g  Specifically,  the  that  behaviors  This  behaviors  t o change  REINFORCEMENT OF INCOMPATIBLE  i s a procedure  rather,  behaviors  c a n be u s e d  and c o o p e r a t i v e  aggressive works,  that  f o r Mike  Mike w i l l  cooperat i v e l y .  not earn  Stars  the teacher unless  will  he b e h a v e s  just  ignore  1 57  Positive  Practice  A procedure  I n t e r v e n t i o n f o r Mike t h a t can  PRACTICE. T h i s p r o c e d u r e and  noncompliant  Positive correct  is called  behaviors  to l e a r n  the a c t u a l  necessary,  when he  i s supposed  made t o p r a c t i c e  guided an  immediately.  though the  The  teacher  tells  t h e a p p r o p r i a t e b e h a v i o r s . The  exactly  what t o do  e a c h of  the a p p r o p r i a t e b e h a v i o r s . For  and  he  i s mad  told  he  then  and  practice  through  With p o s i t i v e a n g e r and or  hitting  behaviors  the  the c o r r e c t  behaving  other this  person  teacher  and,  if  comes  tells  go  him through  example, when Mike  is told  why  sequence  goes  to express  he  i s mad.  3 times  must  his say  Mike i s  i n a row  to  behavior.  practice,  Mike p r a c t i c e s  a p p r o p r i a t e l y .rather than  others. Repeatedly i s an  the  M i k e he.has t o  i n a more a p p r o p r i a t e manner. He  tell  must go  he  When  teacher  s t a y s t h e r e w h i l e M i k e goes  throws something at a c l a s s m a t e ,  the  activities.  a g g r e s s i v e a c t , the  through  right  t o do.  m o t i o n s of a p p r o p r i a t e b e h a v i o r  When M i k e p e r f o r m s  anger  are e l i m i n a t e d .  t h a t s h o u l d have been done. He  is physically  t o him  aggressive  repeatedly practices  i s immediately  behaviors  POSITIVE  to suppress  so t h a t t h e y  p r a c t i c e means t h a t M i k e  appropriate  over  used  i s designed  behaviors  M i k e m i s b e h a v e s , he  through  be  important  practicing  p a r t of  the  the  expressing his throwing correct  procedure.  things  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 27 10
China 9 0
Philippines 3 2
Germany 1 7
Zambia 1 0
France 1 0
Czech Republic 1 0
Canada 1 0
Tanzania 1 0
Japan 1 0
City Views Downloads
Unknown 12 9
Clarks Summit 10 0
Beijing 9 0
Wilkes Barre 5 0
Ashburn 3 0
Redmond 2 2
Providence 2 0
Kansanshi 1 0
Wilmington 1 0
Tokyo 1 0

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

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054606/manifest

Comment

Related Items