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

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1985_A8 M34.pdf [ 6.91MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0054606.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054606-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054606-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054606-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054606-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054606-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054606-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0054606-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0054606.ris

Full Text

ACCEPTABILITY AND OF ALTERNATIVE CLASSROOM TREATMENT STRATEGIES FACTORS AFFECTING TEACHER'S RATINGS by WILLIAM TREEN MCKEE B.A., The U n i v e r s i t y 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 STUDIES Department of E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology and S p e c i a l Education We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA December, 1984 © W i l l i a m Treen McKee, 1984 *% ~ In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and study. I f u r t h e r agree that permission f o r e x t e n s i v e copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s or her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department of E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology and S p e c i a l Education The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date: December, 1984 A b s t r a c t A s c r e e n i n g sample of 107 elementary school teachers completed a 16-item m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e measure of knowledge of b e h a v i o r a l p r i n c i p l e s . Two s u b j e c t groups, each c o n s i s t i n g of 32 r e g u l a r classroom t e a c h e r s , were randomly s e l e c t e d f o r high and low knowledge groups based on scores on the knowledge measure. High and low knowledge group teachers were given random assignment to one of two c l i n i c a l case d e s c r i p t i o n s . Both d e s c r i p t i o n s were of a 9-year o l d boy who i s presented as being very a g g r e s s i v e , and who does not f o l l o w a d u l t i n s t r u c t i o n s . The two cases d i f f e r e d only i n the type of background a t t r i b u t e d to each. One i s d e s c r i b e d as coming to the r e g u l a r classroom as a r e s u l t of 'mainstreaming', having been p r e v i o u s l y i n a s p e c i a l c l a s s s e t t i n g . The other case d e s c r i p t i o n makes no r e f e r e n c e t c mainstreaming or to previous placement. Teachers i n a l l c o n d i t i o n s e v a l u a t e d the a c c e p t a b i l i t y of four a l t e r n a t i v e classroom treatment s t r a t e g i e s f o r c h i l d r e n : M e d i c ation, Time Out from Reinforcement, Reinforcement of Incompatible Behavior, and P o s i t i v e P r a c t i c e . Teachers i n the high and low knowledge groups read the a s s i g n e d case d e s c r i p t i o n , and then r a t e d the a c c e p t a b i l i t y of the treatments i n a 4 x 4 r e p l i c a t e d L a t i n - s q u a r e design using treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y measures developed by Kazdin (1980a). F o l l o w i n g treatment r a t i n g s , s u b j e c t s completed a q u e s t i o n n a i r e which, i n p a r t , asked s u b j e c t s to rank order the d e s c r i b e d treatments on the b a s i s of l i k e l i h o o d of each being used by the s u b j e c t doing i i the r a t i n g . High knowledge group teachers r a t e d treatments as more ac c e p t a b l e than d i d low knowledge group teachers on the primary dependent measure. Treatments were r e a d i l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d i n terms of a c c e p t a b i l i t y . Reinforcement was r a t e d more ac c e p t a b l e than Time Out and P o s i t i v e P r a c t i c e , which d i d not d i f f e r from each other i n terms of a c c e p t a b i l i t y . M e d i c a t i o n was r a t e d lower i n a c c e p t a b i l i t y than the other treatments. Treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y r a t i n g s were not d i f f e r e n t f o r the two case d e s c r i p t i o n s . The r e s u l t s of the ranking of treatments on the Case and Treatment Q u e s t i o n n a i r e g e n e r a l l y f o l l o w e d those of the r a t i n g procedure. The r e s u l t s of the analyses i n d i c a t e that teachers do d i f f e r e n t i a t e treatments i n terms of a c c e p t a b i l i t y using both the r a t i n g and ranking procedures. I t i s a l s o apparent that the high knowledge group teachers tend to r a t e a l t e r n a t i v e classroom treatments as more acc e p t a b l e than do the low knowledge group t e a c h e r s . These f i n d i n g s are d i s c u s s e d , and i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r education and for f u t u r e r e s e a r c h are presented. Table of Contents A b s t r a c t i i L i s t of Tables v i i L i s t of F i g u r e s . . i x Acknowledgement x I . DEVELOPMENT OF THE STUDY 1 A. INTRODUCTION 1 B. BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM 4 C. PROBLEM AREA 1 4 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 of Case 20 3. Method of 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. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY 29 F. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY 30 I I . 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 Measure 36 3. Treatment A c c e p t a b i l i t y Measures 43 4. Case and Treatment 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. Independent V a r i a b l e s 54 3. Experimental Design ...55 D. PROCEDURE 58 i v 1 . Subjects 58 2. Assignment of Subjects 60 3. Data C o l l e c t i o n 61 E. DATA PREPARATION AND ANALYSIS 62 1. Data P r e p a r a t i o n 62 2. A n a l y s i s of Demographic Q u e s t i o n n a i r e 63 3. Psychometric A n a l y s i s 63 4. A n a l y s i s of Treatment A c c e p t a b i l i t y Ratings .64 5. A n a l y s i s of Case and Treatment Qu e s t i o n n a i r e Responses 70 F. CHAPTER SUMMARY 70 I I I . RESULTS 72 A. SUBJECTS 72 B. PSYCHOMETRIC ANALYSIS 74 1. Knowledge Measure 74 2. Treatment A c c e p t a b i l i t y Measures 74 C. ANALYSIS OF TREATMENT ACCEPTABILITY RATINGS 79 1. Treatment E v a l u a t i o n Inventory 79 2. Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l 87 3. Summary of Treatment A c c e p t a b i l i t y R e s u l t s ..94 D. CASE AND TREATMENT QUESTIONNAIRE ANALYSIS 98 IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 101 A. SUMMARY OF METHODS AND RESULTS 101 1. Knowledge Group 103 2. C h i l d Case 105 3. Treatment Type 108 B. IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATION ...111 v 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 L i s t of Tables Table 1 - KBPAC P i l o t Study R e s u l t s 42 Table 2 — C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Screening Sample 60 Table 3 — Subject Demographic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 7 3 Table 4 - KBPAC Item A n a l y s i s 7 5 Table 5 - KBPAC Test A n a l y s i s 76 Table 6 - TEI Test A n a l y s i s 77 Table 7 — Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l Test A n a l y s i s 78 Table 8 - Anova For TEI 80 Table 9 — Tukey (HSD) Comparisons Between Treatment Means on the TEI 82 Table 1 0 - Tukey (HSD) Comparisons Between Order Means on the TEI 83 Table 11 - ANOVA for SD E v a l u a t i v e Dimension 88 Table 1 2 — Tukey (HSD) Comparisons Between Treatment Means on the SD E v a l u a t i v e Dimension 90 Table 13 — Tukey (HSD) Comparisons Between Order Means on the SD E v a l u a t i v e Dimension 91 Table 14 — Tukey (HSD) Comparisons Between Sequence Means on the SD E v a l u a t i v e Dimension 91 Table 15 - ANOVA fo r SD Potency Dimension 9 3 Table 16 — Tukey (HSD) Comparisons Between Treatment Means on the SD Potency Dimension 9 4 Table 17 - ANOVA fo r SD A c t i v i t y Dimension 9 5 Table 18 - Tukey (HSD) Comparisons Between Order Means on the SD A c t i v i t y Dimension 96 Table 1 9 — Summary of Tukey (HSD) Comparisons Between Treatment C o n d i t i o n s 9 7 Table 2 0 - Summary of Tukey (HSD) Comparisons Among Orders of P r e s e n t a t i o n 9 7 v i i Table 21 - R e s u l t s of Friedman Two-Way A n a l y s i s of Variance on Ranking of Treatments 99 Table 22 — Nemenyi Pairwise Comparisons Between Mean Treatment Ranks 100 v i i i L i s t of F i g u r e s F i g u r e 1 — Layout of the Experimental Design 57 F i g u r e 2 - LSR E f f e c t s — C x F x B R e s i d u a l s : Reinforcement 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 .84 F i g u r e 3 - LSR E f f e c t s — C x D x B R e s i d u a l s : Reinforcement and M e d i c a t i o n f o r Two Case D e s c r i p t i o n s 86 i x Acknowledgement I wish both to acknowledge and to express my a p p r e c i a t i o n to 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 during the course of t h i s study. F i r s t , I wish to express my s i n c e r e a p p r e c i a t i o n to my res e a r c h s u p e r v i s o r , Dr. Barry Munro, who has pro v i d e d constant support and t h o u g h t f u l a d v i c e , and who has been a model f o r the p u r s u i t - o f academic e x c e l l e n c e throughout our a s s o c i a t i o n . I wish a l s o to thank my r e s e a r c h committee members, Dr. Todd Rogers and Dr. Robert McMahon f o r t h e i r guidance, c o n s t r u c t i v e c r i t i c i s m and generous support throughout the p r o j e c t . The c o n t r i b u t i o n s of my committee are g r a t e f u l l y acknowledged. Two a d d i t i o n a l F a c u l t y members made v i t a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s at c r u c i a l stages i n the study and deserve a s p e c i a l note of thanks. To Drs. G. Jim Johnson and Robert Gonry, a word of a p p r e c i a t i o n f o r t h e i r involvement. An e x p r e s s i o n of thanks a l s o i s due to Drs. Alan Kazdin and Joe Witt f o r t h e i r encouragement (from a f a r ) i n pur s u i n g t h i s study, and f o r the p r o v i s i o n of otherwise u n a v a i l a b l e m a t e r i a l s . A s p e c i a l thanks to Dr. Kazdin f o r a l l o w i n g the use and amendment of re s e a r c h instruments and case and treatment d e s c r i p t i o n s . My a p p r e c i a t i o n a l s o goes to the Burnaby school teachers who gave t h e i r time and energie s to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the study procedures, and to Dr.Blake Ford f o r h i s e f f o r t s to f a c i l i t a t e teacher p a r t i c i p a t i o n in the p r o j e c t . x F i n a l l y , I g i v e t h a n k s t o my w i f e M a r i e , a n d t o my d a u g h t e r C a i t l i n , b o t h of whom ha v e s u p p o r t e d my e f f o r t s u n f a i l i n g l y a nd who have t o l e r a t e d my a b s e n c e s and p r e o c c u p a t i o n s o v e r s e v e r a l y e a r s of p a r t - t i m e g r a d u a t e s t u d y . M a r i e , p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r h e r t i r e l e s s e f f o r t s t o w a r d p e r f e c t i o n , a nd h e r w e l l t i m e d e n c o u r a g e m e n t , h a s made a s i z a b l e c o n t r i b u t i o n t o t h i s s t u d y . x i I. DEVELOPMENT OF THE STUDY A. INTRODUCTION The a c c e p t a b i l i t y and c r e d i b i l i t y of treatment approaches developed from the b e h a v i o r a l psychology paradigm have long been at i s s u e . In the r e l a t i v e l y e a r l y days of behaviorism, Dr. Lo u i s Berman (1927) suggested t h a t : . . . a new, a powerful r e l i g i o n i s growing i n t o m a t u r i t y i n the United S t a t e s as a r e s u l t of 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 Behaviorism . . . i t may be a s s u r e d l y p r e d i c t e d that laws w i l l be passed and policemen p a i d to make the very name of Behaviorism anathema, (pp. 9-10) The behaviorism to which Berman r e f e r s was, in a h i s t o r i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e , not i n i t s m a t u r i t y , but rather 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 Address to the A s s o c i a t i o n f o r Behavior A n a l y s i s (ABA) in 1980, Jack Michael s t a t e d t h a t , P r i o r to 1930 there wasn't much going on . . . . In the p e r i o d from 1930 to 1938, Skinner [B. F. Skinner] put i t a l l together. He managed, w i t h i n that b r i e f but f e r t i l e p e r i o d , to come up with almost a l l of the e s s e n t i a l methods, concepts, and f u n c t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s of our f i e l d as we see i t today. (p. .1 ) Behaviorism has indeed persevered. B e h a v i o r a l approaches to the study of human behavior have evolved and, in f a c t , become p e r v a s i v e (see, f o r example, Benassi & Lanson, 1972; M a r t i n , 1981; O'Leary, 1984; Wilson, 1982). In many ways, however, the p r e d i c t i o n s made e a r l y on by Dr. Berman (1927) have come to pass. Behaviorism, behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n , and a multitude of approaches developed out of the b e h a v i o r a l paradigm are the sub j e c t of enduring p u b l i c i n t e r e s t and s c r u t i n y . These continue to be the subject of 1 2 debate and attempts at r e s o l u t i o n i n s e v e r a l p o l i t i c a l arenas, as we l l as being the i s s u e of l i t i g a t i o n before the c o u r t s , and the subject of i n v e s t i g a t i o n and e v a l u a t i o n i n a number of p r o f e s s i o n a l , academic, and s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Farkas (1981), as we l l as others (Eysenck, 1970, 1971; Eysenck & Beech, 1971), has documented a mul t i t u d e of c r i t i c i s m s of b e h a v i o r a l approaches. Numerous others 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 these same i s s u e s (Bandura, 1975, 1977; Barnes, Fors & Decker, 1980; Berger, 1979; B e r g i n , 1980; Eber & O'Brien, 1982; Engelhardt & McCullough, 1982; Farnham-Diggory, 1981; Heldman, 1973; Ho l l a n d , 1975; Kazdin, 1979, 1981b, 1981c, 1982; K i t c h e n e r , 1980a, 1980b, 1980c; Krasner, 1976; Marotz, 1983; Roos, 1974; Skinner, 1971; Spece, 1972; Szasz, 1978; T y l e r , 1982; Wolpe, 1978). F i f t y years a f t e r Berman's t e x t , A r n o l d Lazarus (1977) suggested t h a t : " . . . behavior therapy and behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n have a c q u i r e d a bad p r e s s . To r e c e i v e funding many h o s p i t a l s and community agencies have had to drop the l a b e l behavior from t h e i r program p r o p o s a l s " (p. 553). I t would appear that there remain s i g n i f i c a n t concerns with the is s u e 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 approaches to treatment. Although treatments from a v a r i e t y of o r i e n t a t i o n s are the s u b j e c t of probing and s c r u t i n y on many dimensions of a c c e p t a b i l i t y , s e v e r a l authors have r e c e n t l y c o n s i d e r e d l e g a l and e t h i c a l dimensions of a c c e p t a b i l i t y r e l a t e d to 3 behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n ( C h r i s t i a n , C l a r k , & Luke, 1981; Dipasquale, 1979; Feldman & Peay, 1982; Goldiamond, 1975a, 1975b; I n n i s , 1981; James & A l l o n , 1979; Wherry, 1983; Woods, 1982). A c c e p t a b i l i t y in the context of t h i s l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t e s to development, r e g u l a t i o n , and maintenance of e t h i c a l and l e g a l b e h a v i o r a l treatments. From another, though r e l a t e d p e r s p e c t i v e , Wolf (1978) introduced a dimension of a c c e p t a b i l i t y to be c o n c e p t u a l i z e d as s o c i a l v a l i d i t y . He proposed that behavior a n a l y s t s develop systems and measures for a s k i n g s o c i e t y whether they (behavior a n a l y s t s ) were accomplishing something of s o c i a l importance. Wolf suggested that v a l i d a t i o n occur at three l e v e l s . These i n v o l v e a demonstration o f : 1. The s o c i a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of the treatment g o a l s . 2. The s o c i a l a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of the treatment procedures. 3. The s o c i a l importance of the treatment e f f e c t s . Stephanie S t o l z (1981) has suggested that t e c h n o l o g i c a l and methodological i n n o v a t i o n s from the b e h a v i o r a l paradigm have experienced l i t t l e widespread adoption by our s o c i e t y p r i m a r i l y because these i n n o v a t i o n s have not been accepted by government p o l i c y makers. Wolf (1978) expressed a s i m i l a r s e n s i t i v i t y to i s s u e s of a c c e p t a b i l i t y of treatments to p a r t i e i p a n t s : . . . that i f the p a r t i c i p a n t s don't l i k e the treatment then they may a v o i d i t , or run away, or complain l o u d l y . And thus, s o c i e t y w i l l be l e s s l i k e l y to use our technology, no matter 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) 4 Other authors i n d i c a t e that treatment procedures with demonstrated e f f e c t i v e n e s s are not being used "because they are simply unacceptable to p a r t i c i p a n t s , care g i v e r s , or consumers" (Witt, Martens, & E l l i o t , 1984, p. 1). Treatments which are o b v i o u s l y and t o t a l l y unacceptable are o f t e n easy to i d e n t i f y . However of more acute concern are treatments which have been demonstrated to be e f f e c t i v e a n d^useful but which gain l i m i t e d acceptance and hence are not used. F i n a l l y , McMahon and Forehand (1983) in a review of consumer s a t i s f a c t i o n l i t e r a t u r e in the b e h a v i o r a l treatment of c h i l d r e n , r e f e r to work by Kazdin (1980a, 1980b, 1981a) which they f e e l "has developed a compelling case f o r the assessment of treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y on the b a s i s of l e g a l and e t h i c a l i s s u e s and long-term e f f e c t i v e n e s s and g e n e r a l i t y of the procedures." (p. 214) The i s s u e of treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y has been e s t a b l i s h e d as a l e g i t i m a t e area of i n v e s t i g a t i o n equal i n importance, perhaps, to that of consumer s a t i s f a c t i o n with t h e r a p e u t i c i n t e r v e n t i o n s ( K i e s l e r , 1983). However, in c o n t r a s t to r e s e a r c h i n the l a t t e r area, the l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t e d to treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y i s f a r l e s s developed. B. BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM Few s t u d i e s have been r e p o r t e d which i n v e s t i g a t e the reasons f o r the lac k of acceptance of b e h a v i o r a l methods f o r the classroom treatment of c h i l d r e n ' s problem behavior. T h i s p a u c i t y e x i s t s d e s p i t e the knowledge and p u b l i c lamentation 5 of the 'under u t i l i z a t i o n ' of these methods, and d e s p i t e the overwhelming body of t h e o r e t i c a l and e m p i r i c a l evidence i n support of the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of such methods and procedures (Barlow, 1980; B o u t i l i e r , 1981; Foxx & Jones, 1978; Foxx & Shapiro, 1978; G i l e s , 1983; Kazdin & Hersen, 1980; Kazdin & Wilson, 1978b; Kent & O'Leary, 1976; Kerr & Lambert, 1982; K i r i g i n , Braukmann, Atwater, & Wolf, 1982; Molloy, 1980 ; O l l e n d i c k , Matson, Esveldt-Dawson, & Shapiro, 1980; Pevsner, 1982; Reese, Murphy, & F i l i p c z a k , 1981; Rosenbaum, O'Leary, & Jacob, 1975; Seaton & Aaron, 1978; T r e i b e r & Lahey, 1983; Wilson, 1982). Some i n v e s t i g a t o r s , n o t a b l y Kazdin and Cole (1981), Witt, Moe, Gutkin, and Andrews ( i n p r e s s ) , and Woolfolk, Woolfolk, and Wilson (1977) have proceeded i n the area of g l o b a l e v a l u a t i o n s of behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n and, i n p a r t i c u l a r , the e f f e c t of the ' b e h a v i o r a l ' l a b e l on e v a l u a t i o n s of treatment. These and numerous other s t u d i e s have been d i r e c t e d at a s c e r t a i n i n g the p u b l i c ' s conception of behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n , u sing a l a r g e v a r i e t y of methods, s e t t i n g s and s u b j e c t s . S e v e r a l p r o j e c t s have focused a t t e n t i o n on the a t t i t u d e s held by undergraduate and graduate psychology students toward the use of behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n (e.g., Kazdin & Cole, 1981; Turkat, H a r r i s , & Forehand, 1979; Woolfolk & Woolfolk, 1979; Woolfolk et a l . , 1977). At l e a s t one study (Dubno, H i l l b u r n , Robinson, Sandler, T r a n i , & Weingarten, 1978) has i n v e s t i g a t e d graduate business students' a t t i t u d e s toward behavior 6 m o d i f i c a t i o n i n business o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Another study by B a r l i n g and Wainstein (1979), using a methodology s i m i l a r to Woolfolk and Woolfolk (1979), assessed the a t t i t u d e s of undergraduate and graduate i n d u s t r i a l psychology students. S e v e r a l r e p o r t s have presented r e s u l t s of i n v e s t i g a t i o n s of teachers' a t t i t u d e s toward the implementation of behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n i n e d u c a t i o n a l s e t t i n g s (e.g., Musgrove & Harms, 1975; T h r o l l & Ryan, 1975; Ryan, 1976; Vane, 1972; Wheldall & Congreve, 1980a, 1980b). A f u r t h e r area of i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s r e p o r t e d by Saunders and Reppucci (1978) and r e f e r e n c e i s made to an e a r l i e r study by Saunders (1975) in which superintendants of j u v e n i l e c o r r e c t i o n s i n s t i t u t i o n s and elementary school p r i n c i p a l s were s t u d i e d with r e s p e c t to t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward behavior modi f i c a t i o n . The r e s u l t s of t h i s l a r g e v a r i e t y of s t u d i e s are i n c o n c l u s i v e . While s e v e r a l authors suggest that a t t i t u d e s toward behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n are i n general negative (Burton, 1981; Kazdin & Cole, 1981; O'Leary, 1984; Saunders & Reppucci, 1978; Stainbrook & Green, 1982; Turkat &-Forehand, 1980a; Turkat et a l . , 1979; Turkat & F e u e r s t e i n , 1978; Woolfolk & Woolfolk, 1979; Woolfolk et a l . , 1977), s e v e r a l o t hers report more p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s (Burkhart, Behles, & Stumphauzer, 1976; Frey, 1970; Hickey, 1977; Jeger & McClure, 1979; Ryan, 1976; Vane, 1972; Wheldall & Congreve, 1980a, 1980b. F u r t h e r s t u d i e s report almost n e u t r a l a t t i t u d e s ( B a r l i n g & Wainstein, 1979; Musgrove, 7 1974; T h r o l l & Ryan, 1976). These c o n t r a d i c t o r y f i n d i n g s would suggest that the q u e s t i o n of a t t i t u d e toward behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n has not been answered completely. While i n c o n c l u s i v e in t h i s regard these s t u d i e s have provided v a l u a b l e data f u r t h e r i n g our understanding of the study of a t t i t u d e s toward behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n . There i s some support, however, f o r the n o t i o n that t h i s r e s e a r c h s u f f e r s from some fundamental problems. As Kazdin and Cole (1981) suggest, the behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n under such c o n s i d e r e d s c r u t i n y i n these s t u d i e s may not e x i s t : " r e s e a r c h t y p i c a l l y d i s c u s s e s 'behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n ' as a uniform method of treatment. In f a c t , s e v e r a l very d i f f e r e n t techniques are embraced by behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n and behavior therapy (terms u s u a l l y used synonymously)" (p. 66). Many techniques, c o n s i d e r e d to be examples of behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n , may be ev a l u a t e d d i f f e r e n t l y not only because of a c t u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n the techniques but a l s o because of d i f f e r e n c e s i n problems and c l i e n t s to which they might be a p p l i e d . I t c o u l d be argued t h a t , i n f a c t , i n d i v i d u a l s may be a s s e s s i n g behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n based on ra t h e r erroneous i n f o r m a t i o n . As re p o r t e d by Turkat and F e u e r s t e i n (1978) and echoed by O'Leary (1984), media coverage of behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n i s f r e q u e n t l y n e g a t i v e , and o f t e n , i n c o r r e c t l y a s s o c i a t e d with such procedures as b r a i n washing, psychosurgery, sensory d e p r i v a t i o n , and water t o r t u r e . Friedman (1975) suggests that the p u b l i c view of a l i n k between behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n and any number of 8 q u e s t i o n a b l e t h e r a p i e s , 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 end product and as a s p e c i f i c procedure, has caused " a l l the abuses of the psychosurgeons or the psychopharmacologists to be l a i d at the doorstep . . . (p. 47) of behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n . Kazdin and Cole (1981) suggest f u r t h e r that the d i r e c t i o n f o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s of treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y should change from that of g l o b a l a c c e p t a b i l i t y to i n v e s t i g a t i o n s of "the f u l l gamut of procedures and the manner in which these might be i n v e s t i g a t e d " (p. 67). What i s suggested, then, i s the study of p a r t i c u l a r procedures with c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the p a r t i c u l a r e f f e c t of such f a c t o r s as the s e t t i n g s i n which the procedure i s to be a p p l i e d , the c l i e n t s and types of problems f o r which these procedures might be a p p r o p r i a t e and the i n d i v i d u a l s who may be i n a p o s i t i o n to i n f l u e n c e d e c i s i o n s regarding t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n . , or who may, i n f a c t , be the s u b j e c t of t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n . I n i t i a l e f f o r t s have begun to c r e a t e approaches f o r the study of a c c e p t a b i l i t y of p a r t i c u l a r treatment a l t e r n a t i v e s . C h a r a c t e r i s t i c of these e a r l y s t u d i e s i s a great v a r i e t y i n emphases. One focus has been upon c l i n i c a l or i n s t i t u t i o n a l s e t t i n g s (Kazdin, 1980a; Kazdin, 1980b; Kazdin, 1981). Other s t u d i e s have emphasized student, parent and teacher s a t i s f a c t i o n with p a r t i c u l a r b e h a v i o r a l approaches used i n classroom p r o j e c t s ( B e s a l e l - A z r i n , A z r i n , & Armstrong, 1977; Kent & O'Leary, 1976), the emphasis here being both on the classroom s e t t i n g f o r treatment and the use of a post hoc or 9 consumer e v a l u a t i o n of the treatment(s) employed. Witt and h i s c o l l e a g u e s (Witt, E l l i o t , & Martens, i n press; Witt, Moe, Gutkin, & Andrews, in press; Witt et a l . , 1984) have approached the issue of the a c c e p t a b i l i t y of treatment using classroom teachers as r a t e r s of treatments i n s e v e r a l analogue s t u d i e s . Norton, Austen, A l l e n , & H i l t o n (1983) report on a study comparing teacher and parent e v a l u a t i o n s of the a c c e p t a b i l i t y and e f f e c t i v e n e s s of s e v e r a l b e h a v i o r a l procedures f o r reducing c h i l d r e n ' s d i s r u p t i v e b e h a v i o r s . Foxx and Shapiro (1978) r e p o r t using p r o f e s s i o n a l s and p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s , working with developmentally delayed c h i l d r e n , as r a t e r s of treatments. C o n s i d e r i n g these e a r l y s t u d i e s of the a c c e p t a b i l i t y of p a r t i c u l a r treatment a l t e r n a t i v e s , two major approaches can be i d e n t i f i e d . The f i r s t of these i n v o l v e s a post hoc e v a l u a t i o n of the a p p l i c a t i o n of a p a r t i c u l a r set of procedures, or consumer s a t i s f a c t i o n measure, f o l l o w i n g experience with a p a r t i c u l a r approach to treatment. The consumer i n t h i s s o r t of e v a l u a t i o n might be c o n c e p t u a l i z e d as a parent of a c h i l d i n treatment, the teacher or t h e r a p i s t who used the approach, the c h i l d who has been the su b j e c t of treatment or other i n d i v i d u a l s i n v o l v e d i n some way with the a p p l i c a t i o n of a p a r t i c u l a r mode or method of treatment. The second major approach i n v o l v e s i n d i v i d u a l s i n the e v a l u a t i o n of procedures p r i o r to any a p p l i c a t i o n of treatments. These e v a l u a t i o n s of treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y are commonly based on f a i r l y comprehensive d e s c r i p t i o n s of the 10 i n d i v i d u a l procedure being e v a l u a t e d and would include i n f o r m a t i o n such as the types of cases and s e t t i n g s in which the procedure might be a p p l i e d . McMahon and Forehand (1983) have reviewed much of the l i t e r a t u r e d e a l i n g with 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 treatment of c h i l d r e n . They reviewed s t u d i e s which examine s a t i s f a c t i o n with treatment outcome, t h e r a p i s t s , treatment procedures, and t e a c h i n g format, but suggest that the major p o r t i o n of r e s e a r c h in t h i s area has focused on s a t i s f a c t i o n with t h e r a p i s t and treatment outcome. These authors report f u r t h e r that the most p e r v a s i v e use of consumer s a t i s f a c t i o n measures i s found i n the parent t r a i n i n g l i t e r a t u r e . Other authors have expressed support f o r the i n c l u s i o n of consumer s a t i s f a c t i o n measures in the e v a l u a t i o n of treatments ( B o r n s t e i n & R y c h t a r i k , 1983; G a r f i e l d , 1983; K i e s l e r , 1983; K i r i g i n et a l . , 1982; Lebow, 1982). However, S c h e i r e r (1978) has suggested c a u t i o n i n the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and use of such consumer m e a s u r e s — a sentiment shared by others ( G a r f i e l d , 1983; K i e s l e r , 1983). Guba ( c i t e d i n S c h e i r e r , 1978) p r o v i d e s the p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t one s i g n i f i c a n t problem with the measurement of c l i e n t s a t i s f a c t i o n i s that " p a r t i c i p a n t s l i k e s o c i a l programs, evaluate them f a v o r a b l y , and t h i n k they are b e n e f i c i a l , i r r e s p e c t i v e of whether measureable b e h a v i o r a l changes take p l a c e toward s t a t e d program g o a l s " (p. 55). McMahon and Forehand (1983) echoed t h i s concern and concluded t h a t : "While many i n v e s t i g a t o r s have i n c l u d e d consumer 11 s a t i s f a c t i o n measures i n t h e i r treatment e v a l u a t i o n s , there are s e r i o u s methodological shortcomings i n the development of these instruments as w e l l as i n t h e i r u t i l i z a t i o n as outcome measures" (p. 222), and recommend that adequate measures be developed before a t t e n t i o n be given to absolute or comparative assessments of consumer s a t i s f a c t i o n . Witt and E l l i o t ( i n press) have reviewed much of the l i t e r a t u r e which has employed the second method of a s s e s s i n g a c c e p t a b i l i t y of treatment a l t e r n a t i v e s . T h i s report focused p r i m a r i l y on m a t e r i a l r e l e v a n t to the a c c e p t a b i l i t y of classroom management s t r a t e g i e s but reviewed the development and a p p l i c a t i o n of t h i s method i n other s e t t i n g s as w e l l . A major c o n c l u s i o n of t h i s review was that s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n s to understanding the assessment of treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y have been made, even though r e s e a r c h i n t h i s area i s at a p i o n e e r i n g stage. K i e s l e r (1983) suggests a d d i t i o n a l y , that i n the study of consumer s a t i s f a c t i o n with treatment, r e s e a r c h e r s have not e s t a b l i s h e d the c l i e n t s ' g eneral a t t i t u d e s or e x p e c t a t i o n f o r treatment p r i o r to e n t e r i n g , and cannot t h e r e f o r e suggest how much of post treatment e v a l u a t i o n r e l a t e s to the treatment experience. T h i s i s a common methodological c r i t i c i s m of such r e s e a r c h (Hargreaves & A t k i s s o n , 1978; Lebow, 1982). K i e s l e r (1983) suggested the need f o r an a d d i t i o n to consumer s a t i s f a c t i o n r e s e a r c h of "the methodological e q u i v a l e n t of an a t t i t u d e p r e t e s t " (p. 228). He suggests support f o r the ' p r e t e s t ' approach employed by Kazdin ( i n p r e s s ) , and that such an 1 2 approach be used to study the p u b l i c p o l i c y aspects of the a c c e p t a b i l i t y of mental h e a l t h s e r v i c e s . Witt and E l l i o t ( i n press) a l s o argue for the v a l i d i t y of the study of treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y and p a r t i c u l a r l y t h i s approach. They suggest that i n the complex s e t t i n g of school ( f o r example) " i t becomes important and d e s i r a b l e to expand the c r i t e r i a by which v a r i o u s treatments are e v a l u a t e d and to examine not only e f f e c t i v e n e s s but a l s o the p e r c e p t i o n s of i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h i n a system concerning the a p p l i c a t i o n and e f f e c t s of treatment" (p. 4 - 5 ) . Witt and E l l i o t i n d e s c r i b i n g f u t u r e d i r e c t i o n s f o r r e s e a r c h i n t h i s area suggest that e m p i r i c a l support i s needed to e s t a b l i s h the a c c e p t a b i l i t y of v a r i o u s treatments, and that research w i l l need to e l u c i d a t e s p e c i f i c f e a t u r e s of treatments (and presumably of those who r a t e the treatments) which c o n t r i b u t e to e v a l u a t i o n s of treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y . They suggest f u r t h e r that r e s e a r c h focus on implementation of classroom i n t e r v e n t i o n s by teachers and on v a r i a b l e s which may i n c r e a s e the p r o b a b i l i t y that an i n t e r v e n t i o n w i l l be used. T h i s appears to be a v a l u a b l e d i r e c t i o n f o r study s i n c e a major source f o r treatment s e l e c t i o n and f o r implementation i n the school s e t t i n g i s the classroom teacher of the c h i l d i d e n t i f i e d i n need of some change. The major p o r t i o n of r e p o r t e d s t u d i e s of treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y to date have employed as r a t e r s undergraduate psychology students, not consumers or p r o s p e c t i v e consumers of the procedures being r a t e d . More i d e a l r a t e r s would i n c l u d e classroom and s p e c i a l education 1 3 teachers, students in both r e g u l a r and s p e c i a l education s e t t i n g s , those who c o n s u l t d i r e c t l y with t e a c h e r s , and others who d i r e c t l y i n f l u e n c e the kinds of treatments which might be implemented--faculties of education and d i s t r i c t i n s e r v i c e and s p e c i a l s e r v i c e personnel, f o r example. Witt et a l . (1984) and others (Baer & B u s h e l l , 1981; Witt, Hannefin, & Martens, in press; Wolf, 1978) have expressed concern that many e f f e c t i v e treatment procedures remain unused because they appear unacceptable to i n d i v i d u a l s who are i n a p o s i t i o n to e f f e c t d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g s e l e c t i o n of treatments. Kazdin ( i n press) suggests that a c c e p t a b i l i t y of treatments has begun to r e c e i v e a t t e n t i o n because 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 the c o u r t s , p r o f e s s i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s , and i n s t i t u t i o n a l review committees i n the l e g a l and e t h i c a l i s s u e s r a i s e d by treatment" (p. 6). Des p i t e the overwhelming volume of l i t e r a t u r e and e m p i r i c a l evidence which e x i s t s to support the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of most b e h a v i o r a l treatment methods, the l i n k between the development of e f f e c t i v e procedures and the widespread acceptance and implementation of these procedures has not been made. The problem may be one of b u i l d i n g " b e t t e r b r i d g e s from r e s e a r c h to s t a t e h o s p i t a l s [and s c h o o l s ] " ( S t o l z , 1981, p. 503), or one of b e t t e r 'marketing' of e f f e c t i v e s t r a t e g i e s (Witt & E l l i o t , i n p r e s s ) , or of changing the kinds of l a b e l s used ( K e l l y , 1950; Woolfolk et a l . , 1977). More r e a l i s t i c a l l y perhaps, the problem may r e q u i r e the development of a methodology f o r 1 4 a s c e r t a i n i n g those v a r i a b l e s r e l e v a n t to e v a l u a t i o n such that procedures might be developed, t r a i n i n g given, or i n f o r m a t i o n disseminated which w i l l l e a d to b e t t e r treatment being implemented in classrooms (as w e l l as other s e t t i n g s ) . C. PROBLEM AREA I n i t i a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n s of treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y have i d e n t i f i e d a host of f a c t o r s which appear to a f f e c t e v a l u a t i o n r a t i n g s . These f a c t o r s i n c l u d e : the e f f e c t i v e n e s s and a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of the treatment in g e n e r a l , and f o r the p a r t i c u l a r type of c l i e n t i n q u e s t i o n ; the type of i n t e r v e n t i o n ; the method of a s s e s s i n g a c c e p t a b i l i t y (e.g., unidimensional or m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l assessment [Lebow, 1982]); p r a c t i c a l implementation i s s u e s such as time and r e s o urces, and who w i l l perform the i n t e r v e n t i o n ; the t h e o r e t i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n of the treatment; c l i e n t or r a t e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ; and the language and l a b e l s attached to the treatment(s) under c o n s i d e r a t i o n . A major p o r t i o n of the treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y r e s e a r c h p r e s e n t l y a v a i l a b l e can be a t t r i b u t e d to the work of Alan Kazdin and h i s c o l l e a g u e s at the School of Medicine, U n i v e r s i t y of P i t t s b u r g h . A p a r t i c u l a r c o n t r i b u t i o n has been the development of a methodology for such study. Using the Treatment E v a l u a t i o n Inventory (TEI) (Kazdin, 1980a), a v a r i e t y of s u b j e c t s have r a t e d the a c c e p t a b i l i t y of v a r i o u s treatments and comparisons have been made between treatments based on these e v a l u a t i o n s . A d d i t i o n a l l y Kazdin's work has 1 5 explored the e f f e c t s of s e v e r a l f e a t u r e s of treatment l i k e l y to e f f e c t e v a l u a t i o n s : s e v e r i t y of problems (Kazdin, 1980a), s p e c i f i c f e a t u r e s of a s i n g l e mode of treatment (1980b), degree of e f f e c t i v e n e s s of treatment and s e v e r i t y of s i d e e f f e c t s (1981a), who r a t e s the treatment (Kazdin, French, & S h e r i c k , 1981), and s u b j e c t s and e f f e c t i v e n e s s (Kazdin, in p r e s s ) . The f i r s t assumption u n d e r l y i n g comparisons w i t h i n t h i s context i s that i n d i v i d u a l s w i l l r a t e each treatment presented based on the s t i m u l u s m a t e r i a l s and r e a c t a c c o r d i n g to h i s or her own p e r c e p t i o n s about that treatment. The second major assumption in t h i s r e s e a r c h i s that the experimental design can c o n t r o l f o r such extraneous v a r i a b l e s as the e f f e c t of r a t i n g any p a r t i c u l a r treatment before or a f t e r any other treatment. The r e s e a r c h r e p o r t e d by Kazdin and h i s c o l l e a g u e s support these assumptions in a general way, and suggest that with t h i s approach i n d i v i d u a l s can provide v a l i d treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y r a t i n g s . Witt and h i s c o l l e a g u e s have developed the I n t e r v e n t i o n Rating P r o f i l e (IRP) (Witt et a l . , 1984) and the C h i l d r e n ' s I n t e r v e n t i o n R a t i n g P r o f i l e (CIRP) ( E l l i o t , W i t t , & G a l v i n , 1983, c i t e d i n , Witt & E l l i o t , i n press) which are q u i t e s i m i l a r to the TEI developed by Kazdin, but which use language and items d i r e c t e d more for use with t e a c h e r s and c h i l d r e n i n classroom s e t t i n g s . While Kazdin's s t u d i e s have employed a repeated measures r e p l i c a t e d L a t i n Square design, where each su b j e c t r a t e s each treatment, W i t t ' s s t u d i e s have 16 employed l a r g e numbers of s u b j e c t s , each r a t i n g a s i n g l e case-treatment combination i n a simple f a c t o r i a l d e s i g n . In t h i s way Witt and h i s c o l l e a g u e s have made comparisons among a l t e r n a t i v e i n t e r v e n t i o n s and i n v e s t i g a t e d s e v e r a l f e a t u r e s thought to a f f e c t treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y : p o t e n t i a l r i s k s to t a r g e t c h i l d , teacher time r e q u i r e d , e f f e c t on non-target c h i l d r e n , l e v e l of s k i l l r e q u i r e d f o r implementation, m a t e r i a l s r e q u i r e d (Witt, E l l i o t , & Martens, i n press; Witt et a l . , 1984); how treatments are presented (Witt, Moe, Gutkin, & Andrews, i n p r e s s ) ; problem type and s e v e r i t y (Witt, 1983); and r a t i n g s provided by c h i l d r e n ( E l l i o t et a l . , i n p r e s s ) . The assumptions u n d e r l y i n g the approach employed by Witt and h i s c o l l e a g u e s are that i n d i v i d u a l s have some abso l u t e f e e l i n g s about a p a r t i c u l a r treatment combination d e s c r i b e d , and that these f e e l i n g s can be q u a n t i f i e d f o r the purpose or comparison u s i n g the IRP. S e v e r a l of the r e p o r t e d s t u d i e s on treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y are suggestive of a r e l a t i o n s h i p between r a t i n g s obtained and s e v e r a l other f a c t o r s such as, teacher's l e v e l of knowledge of b e h a v i o r a l p r i n c i p l e s and type of case to which treatment i s a p p l i e d . These f a c t o r s have not been s a t i s f a c t o r i l y i n v e s t i g a t e d i n any re p o r t to date. The i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r such i n v e s t i g a t i o n s , p a r t i c u l a r l y of the f i r s t of these f a c t o r s , f o r teacher p r e s e r v i c e and i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g and f o r c o n s u l t a t i o n are c l e a r . 1 7 1. KNOWLEDGE OF BEHAVIORAL PRINCIPLES The work of Jeger and McClure (1979); Norton et a l . (1983); Musgrove and Harmes (1975); Frey (1970); Robinson and Swanton (1980); and McMahon, Forehand, and G r i e s t (1981) i s a l l suggestive of more p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s toward b e h a v i o r a l techniques with i n c r e a s e s in knowledge of such approaches. S e v e r a l a d d i t i o n a l s t u d i e s have reported e m p i r i c a l support f o r such a r e l a t i o n s h i p . Wheldall and Congreve ( 1 980a) found i n a study of 116 mature i n s e r v i c e student teachers that the more they knew about behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n the more p o s i t i v e were t h e i r a t t i t u d e s . T h i s was a l s o supported by a r e t e s t s t u d y . f o l l o w i n g i n s t r u c t i o n i n behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n . These f i n d i n g s support those of Musgrove (1974) and T h r o l l and Ryan (1976) where p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s toward behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n were r e l a t e d to higher scores on measures of knowledge about behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n . No s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p was found i n any of these s t u d i e s between t e s t scores and age, experience or sex, although p r e v i o u s exposure to behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n had a h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t . Hickey (1977) r e p o r t s a s i g n i f i c a n t and p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between scores on an a t t i t u d e to behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n s c a l e and scores on a knowledge measure using a sample of 30 p u b l i c high school c o u n s e l o r s . Hickey found that i n a d d i t i o n to the knowledge f a c t o r , sex and p e r c e i v e d socioeconomic l e v e l of school i n which s u b j e c t s work a f f e c t e d a t t i t u d e r a t i n g s . Females, and teachers from higher socioeconomic schools expressed more 18 p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s toward behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n . Young and P a t t e r s o n (1981), i n a study i n v o l v i n g 475 undergraduate students and 67 f a c u l t y members, i n d i c a t e s e v e r a l f i n d i n g s of i n t e r e s t . In general these f i n d i n g s are s i m i l a r to those above with more p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s toward behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n being a s s o c i a t e d with higher knowledge scores on a performance based measure of knowledge. However s u b j e c t s who l a b e l e d themselves as informed or very informed about behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n d i d not d i f f e r from the s e l f - l a b e l e d p o o r l y informed and very p o o r l y informed in t h e i r o v e r a l l performance on the knowledge task. Merrett and Wheldall (1982) report that i n a study i n v o l v i n g 110 student teachers i n a course i n behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n i n t e a c h i n g , those students who had taken a course i n behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n r e c e i v e d higher grades on v a r i o u s measures of t e a c h i n g performance and that there was a s i g n i f i c a n t change i n a t t i t u d e s toward b e h a v i o r a l t e a c h i n g methods. Se v e r a l other authors have a l l u d e d to such p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s of a t t i t u d e and knowledge of or f a m i l i a r i l y with techniques of behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n (Camplese, O'Bruba, & Hale, 1979; Knapp & D e l p r a t o , 1980; Lambert, 1976; L u i s e l l i , 1981; M i l l e r , 1981; Reppucci, 1977). Two e m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s r e p o r t no r e l a t i o n s h i p between knowledge l e v e l and a t t i t u d e . Burkhart et a l . , (1976) in a study i n v o l v i n g nine j u v e n i l e p r o b a t i o n o f f i c e r s f a i l e d to f i n d d i f f e r e n c e s i n a t t i t u d e toward behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n on a semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l between a t r a i n e d and c o n t r o l group. 19 The t r a i n e d group scored higher on a t e s t of b e h a v i o r a l competency but d i d not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y on a [30 item, m u l t i p l e c h o i c e ] behavior knowledge measure. M a r h o l i n , T a y l o r , and Warren (1978) report on a study of 47 undergraduate students i n s p e c i a l education which i n d i c a t e s no d i f f e r e n c e between high and low behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n t e s t s c o r e r s on r a t i n g s of behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n . Furthermore, and d e s p i t e the r e v e a l e d d i f f e r e n c e s among s u b j e c t s i n t h e i r knowledge of concepts, s u b j e c t s d i d not d i f f e r i n t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s of t h e i r competence i n the use of behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n techniques with c h i l d r e n . Three i s s u e s become evident i n reading t h i s l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t i n g knowledge and a t t i t u d e s toward behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n . The f i r s t of these i s that while the m a j o r i t y of s t u d i e s 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 re p o r t using v a l i d a t e d and comprehensive measures of both knowledge and a t t i t u d e . T h i s would i n d i c a t e a p o s s i b l e m ethodological shortcoming of these s t u d i e s . The second i s s u e i s one expressed by Kazdin and Cole (1981) and d e t a i l e d e a r l i e r : that s t u d i e s of g l o b a l e v a l u a t i o n s of behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n f a l l s hort of i d e a l i n that such a u n i t a r y concept may not be an a p p r o p r i a t e t a r g e t f o r study. The t h i r d i s s u e i s the lack of agreement amoung s t u d i e s on the r e l a t i o n s h i p which may e x i s t . With these i s s u e s being unresolved the q u e s t i o n of knowledge of b e h a v i o r a l p r i n c i p l e s being a f a c t o r i n the assessment 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 approaches to treatment has not been adequately researched. I t appears 20 necessary then to i n v e s t i g a t e d i r e c t l y the e f f e c t of knowledge of b e h a v i o r a l p r i n c i p l e s as a f a c t o r in the rated a c c e p t a b i l i t y of s p e c i f i c treatments. Such an i n v e s t i g a t i o n 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 both l e v e l s of knowledge and d i f f e r e n c e s i n degree of a c c e p t a b i l i t y of treatments. 2. TYPE OF CASE In 1954 the U. S. Supreme Court a r r i v e d at the d e c i s i o n i n Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka which e s t a b l i s h e d the concept that e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r c h i l d r e n are t i e d to success in l i f e . In 1971 and 1972 two f u r t h e r landmark cases one, i n v o l v i n g the Pennsylvania A s s o c i a t i o n f o r Retarded C h i l d r e n (PARC) and the other M i l l s v. D i s t r i c t  of Columbia, e s t a b l i s h e d the r i g h t s f o r a l l handicapped c h i l d r e n to a f r e e a p p r o p r i a t e p u b l i c e d u c a t i o n . These d e c i s i o n s culminated, i n 1975, i n P u b l i c Law 94-142 which mandated, in d e t a i l , r i g h t s and s e r v i c e s f o r a l l c h i l d r e n r e g a r d l e s s of handicap in U. S. s c h o o l s ( P o l l a c k & S u l z e r - A z a r o f f , 1981). The recent adoption in Canada of a new Charter of R i g h t s guarantees c h i l d r e n s i m i l a r r i g h t s , although r i g h t s to s e r v i c e s are not d e t a i l e d or mandated to the same extent as i n the U. S. l e g i s l a t i o n . With the advent of these l e g a l o b l i g a t i o n s the i s s u e of mainstreaming and p r o v i d i n g f o r c h i l d r e n the ' l e a s t r e s t r i c t i v e ' e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s has developed. As a r e s u l t r e g u l a r classroom teachers are now c h a l l e n g e d to meet the needs of not only a 21 gr e a t e r number of c h i l d r e n but a l s o of a group of c h i l d r e n with a grea t e r v a r i e t y of s p e c i a l needs. Both the general p u b l i c and the teaching p r o f e s s i o n have r e g i s t e r e d p a r t i c u l a r concern about student behaviors which are d i s r u p t i v e and d e t r i m e n t a l to classroom f u n c t i o n i n g and student l e a r n i n g (Baer, G o o d a l l , & Brown, 1983; Lindsey & F r i t h , 1983). Baer et a l . (1983) reviewed work by Wickman (1938) and S t o u f f e r and Owen (1955) which suggested that teachers were mostly concerned about d i s r u p t i o n s i n classroom order (Wickman, 1938) or i n f r a c t i o n s of r u l e s and r o u t i n e s and s i m i l a r forms of classroom misbehavior ( S t o u f f e r & Owen, 1955). Teachers i n the Baer et a l . (1983) study l i s t e d p h y s i c a l l y dangerous behaviors, d i s r u p t i o n s to l e a r n i n g and c h a l l e n g e s to the teacher's a u t h o r i t y as the three most s e r i o u s problems t e a c h e r s face today. I t i s reasonable to assume that those students whose behaviors c o n t r i b u t e to tea c h e r s ' concerns w i l l be the source of d i f f e r e n t i a l teacher r e a c t i o n s . Lewin, Nelson, & T o l l e f s o n (1983) and others (Brophy & Good, 1974; Silberman, 1969; 1971) have i n f a c t presented data to suggest that classroom teachers r e j e c t those c h i l d r e n who e x h i b i t d i s r u p t i v e b e h aviors. Teachers, parents, and the p u p i l s themselves don't o f t e n agree e i t h e r on the s e r i o u s n e s s of the problems or on the assignment of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the problems. Adelman, T a y l o r , F u l l e r , and Nelson (1979) found that students view t h e i r problems as l e s s severe than t h e i r parents view the problem and that teachers r a t e the 22 students' problems even more s e v e r e l y than do the par e n t s . Guttmann (1982) found that p u p i l s tend to blame a l l others ( t e a c h e r s , parents, other c h i l d r e n , the c h i l d ' s environment) more than the c h i l d h i m s e l f . Teachers tend to blame the misbehaving c h i l d f i r s t ( p s y c h o l o g i c a l problems, need to l e t o f f steam, d e s i r e to gain s t a t u s with c l a s s m a t e s ) , and the parents second (bad example at home, parents' l e v e l of e d u c a t i o n ) . They tend to play down the importance of reasons a s s o c i a t e d with other c h i l d r e n and, most pronouncedly, reasons a s s o c i a t e d with teachers themselves. Parents tend to a s s i g n blame evenly to the c h i l d h i m s e l f , t e a c h e r s , other c h i l d r e n and to themselves as par e n t s . Since the e a r l y work of Haring (1974) suggested that teacher a t t i t u d e s were in s t r u m e n t a l i n determining the fu t u r e adjustment of students, many i n v e s t i g a t o r s have attempted to i d e n t i f y the sources of a t t i t u d e s toward the handicapped (Brophy & Good, 1974; Fo s t e r & Ysseldyk, 1976; Hughes, Kauffman, & Wallace, 1973; Necco, 1970; Sa f r a n , Sa f r a n , & Orlansky, 1982). I n v e s t i g a t o r s i n the t h i s area are not i n unanimous agreement re g a r d i n g the e f f e c t of teacher expectancies i n e v a l u a t i n g students' b e h a v i o r . Safran et a l . , (1982) s t a t e that some evidence suggests that negative s t e r e o t y p e s b i a s teacher expectancies a g a i n s t mainstreamed students, while others d i s a g r e e . S a f r a n et a l . , (1982) suggest from t h e i r work that the way i n f o r m a t i o n about a c h i l d i s presented w i l l i n f l u e n c e t e a c h e r s ' a t t i t u d e s toward that c h i l d . Thus the kind of i n f o r m a t i o n 23 with which the teacher i s presented and a t t i t u d e of the r e c e i v i n g teacher w i l l have an e f f e c t on the kinds of goals e s t a b l i s h e d , and p o s s i b l y the methods employed in a c h i e v i n g those g o a l s . Much has been w r i t t e n s t r e s s i n g the n e c e s s i t y of s e l e c t i o n of a p p r o p r i a t e goals and the design and implementation of those goals i n the most e f f e c t i v e , e f f i c e n t and p r o f e s s i o n a l l y a p p r o p r i a t e manner p o s s i b l e ( C a r r e r r a & Adams, 1970; Hochbaum, 1980; O'Leary & O'Leary, 1977; Sapon-Shevin, 1982; Sheldon-Wildgen & R i s l e y , 1982; S t o l z , 1978; Wray & S t e e r , 1980). The b a s i c i s s u e i n t h i s l i t e r a t u r e i s that c l i e n t s , and in p a r t i c u l a r c h i l d r e n , have the r i g h t to the best p o s s i b l e assessment of needs (from a p p r o p r i a t e p e r s p e c t i v e s ) and the j u d i c i o u s s e l e c t i o n of treatment procedures f o r the best i n t e r e s t s of the c l i e n t . I m p l i c i t i n t h i s i s the understanding that i n d i v i d u a l s charged with the duty of s e l e c t i n g treatment s t r a t e g i e s w i l l i n f a c t pay heed to d i f f e r e n c e s between p r e s e n t i n g problems and thus s e l e c t treatment approaches d i f f e r e n t i a l l y . In the recent l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t e d to treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y the i s s u e s of problem type and problem s e v e r i t y as w e l l as f a c t o r s r e l a t e d to the p r e s e n t i n g problem are not s a t i s f a c t o r i l y r e s o l v e d . Lambert (1976); E l l i o t , W i t t , & Martens ( i n p r e s s ) ; E l l i o t , W i t t , & G a l v i n ( i n p r e s s ) ; and Wollersheim, M c F a l l , Hamilton, Hickey, & Bordewick (1980) have found no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on r a t i n g s of a c c e p t a b i l i t y of treatment where d i f f e r e n t p r e s e n t i n g 24 p r o b l e m s a r e c o n s i d e r e d . G a r g i u l o and Y o n k e r (1983) r e p o r t m i x e d r e s u l t s , h o w e v e r , i n a s s e s s i n g t e a c h e r s ' a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d t h e h a n d i c a p p e d v e r s u s t h e n o n - h a n d i c a p p e d . T h e y f o u n d no d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n s e l f - r e p o r t m e a s u r e s o f i n s e r v i c e r e g u l a r , p r e s e r v i c e r e g u l a r , p r e s e r v i c e s p e c i a l , a n d i n s e r v i c e s p e c i a l e d u c a t o r s . H o w e v e r , p h y s i o l o g i c a l m e a s u r e s s u g g e s t e d g r e a t d i f f e r e n c e s be tween g r o u p s , f a v o r i n g more p o s i t i v e 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 s t u d e n t s on t h e p a r t o f i n s e r v i c e s p e c i a l e d u c a t o r s . R e f l e c t i n g t h i s c o n t r a d i c t i o n a r e t h e r e s u l t s r e p o r t e d by K a z d i n (1980a, 1980b , 1981a) w h i c h c o n s i s t e n t l y i n d i c a t e t h a t s e v e r i t y o f p r e s e n t i n g p r o b l e m a f f e c t s r a t i n g s o f a c c e p t a b i l i t y o f t r e a t m e n t s . W i t t , E l l i o t , a n d M a r t e n s ( i n p r e s s ) ; W i t t e t a l . , (1984) f o u n d a m i n i m a l b u t s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t f o r p r o b l e m s e v e r i t y on a c c e p t a b i l i t y o f t r e a t m e n t s . Young a n d P a t t e r s o n (1981) f o u n d t h a t s t u d e n t s r e g a r d e d b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n more a p p r o p r i a t e f o r s e r i o u s t h a n f o r m i n o r p r o b l e m s . T u r k a t e t a l . , (1979) a n d M a r h o l i n e t a l . , (1978) f o u n d t h a t d i f f e r e n t i a l a c c e p t a n c e o f b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n was a t t r i b u t a b l e t o p r o b l e m t y p e . G u t k i n , S i n g e r , a n d Brown (1980) f o u n d a m o d e r a t e p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n p e r c e i v e d p r o b l e m s e v e r i t y a n d t e a c h e r p r e f e r e n c e f o r r e f e r r a l r a t h e r t h a n c o n s u l t a t i o n s e r v i c e s . In an i m p l e m e n t a t i o n a n d e v a l u a t i o n s t u d y o f n o n d i r e c t i v e a n d t o k e n s c h o o l p r o g r a m s , M a n n a r i n o a n d D u r l a k (1980) r e p o r t t h a t t h e t y p e o f p r o b l e m p r e s e n t e d f a c i l i t a t e d i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f s e r v i c e s . 25 The work of Kazdin and h i s c o l l e a g u e s (Kazdin, 1980a, 1980b, 1981a, in press; Kazdin et a l . , 1981) in a c c e p t a b i l i t y of treatments has i n a l l cases employed two stimulus case d e s c r i p t i o n s i n order to "assess the p o s s i b i l i t y that treatment e v a l u a t i o n s of the students were based upon, or r e s t r i c t e d t o , unique c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the stimulus m a t e r i a l " (Kazdin, 1980a, p. 263). In t h i s regard Kazdin r e f e r s to the arguments presented by Maher (1978) which c a u t i o n simply that " i f we wish to g e n e r a l i z e to p o p u l a t i o n s of s t i m u l i , we must sample from them" (p. 646). In an attempt to sample d i f f e r e n t p o p u l a t i o n s of s t i m u l i Kazdin has employed cases which vary on the important dimensions of p s y c h i a t r i c or b e h a v i o r a l problems; s e t t i n g s where problems occur; as w e l l as age, gender and i n t e l l e c t u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the cases d e s c r i b e d . Based on the Maher (1978) work c r i t i c i s m might be l e v e l e d at the approach Kazdin has employed i n that the c r i t i c a l s t i m u l u s v a r i a b l e s may not be sampled and secondly that such " s c r i p t s " (Maher, 1978, p. 695) may i n f a c t not represent ' r e a l ' people. In other words, these may not be a sample from the p o p u l a t i o n to which g e n e r a l i z a t i o n i s to be made. Maher suggests that our h e s i t a t i o n i n g e n e r a l i z i n g from a s i n g l e s timulus case i s i n c r e a s e d s u b s t a n t i a l l y by the prospect of g e n e r a l i z i n g from a case that i s not known to have e x i s t e d at a l l . In a study a s s e s s i n g the a c c e p t a b i l i t y of time-out procedures Norton et a l . , (1983) s u b s t a n t i a l l y r e p l i c a t e d 26 e a r l i e r work by Kazdin (1980b). Although i n c o n t r a s t to the Kazdin study, Norton et a l . (1983) c o n t r o l l e d f o r p a r t i c u l a r case s t i m u l i and found age of c h i l d d e s c r i b e d a f f e c t e d r a t i n g s of both e f f e c t i v e n e s s and a c c e p t a b i l i t y . In support of Kazdin's f i n d i n g s , however, other stimulus f e a t u r e s such as sex of the c h i l d , and l o c a t i o n where behavior occurred d i d not a f f e c t r a t i n g s of a c c e p t a b i l i t y or e f f e c t i v e n e s s . I t i s s t i l l u n c l e a r , however, whether such stimulus f e a t u r e s as w r i t t e n background i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l a f f e c t teachers r a t i n g s of the a c c e p t a b i l i t y of i n t e r v e n t i o n s . Safran et a l . , (1982) using s e v e r a l case types found that background i n f o r m a t i o n on hearing impaired and normal c h i l d r e n a f f e c t e d teachers' p e r c e p t i o n s of student behaviors. However, t h i s f i n d i n g d i d not extend to the case of the a c t i n g - o u t c h i l d . I t i s necessary, then, to i n v e s t i g a t e f u r t h e r the e f f e c t of background i n f o r m a t i o n on teachers' r a t i n g s of the a c c e p t a b i l i t y of treatments, i n p a r t i c u l a r to e s t a b l i s h these e f f e c t s i n l i g h t of the present emphasis on mainstreaming of c h i l d r e n who e x h i b i t a v a r i e t y of problem b e h a v i o r s . 3. METHOD OF ASSESSING ACCEPTABILITY The two predominant rep o r t e d methods for r a t i n g the a c c e p t a b i l i t y of treatments are the Treatment E v a l u a t i o n Inventory (TEI) (Kazdin, 1980a) and the I n t e r v e n t i o n Rating P r o f i l e (IRP) (Witt, E l l i o t , & Martens, in p r e s s ) . A t h i r d method d e s c r i b e d i n a recent study (Norton et a l . , 1983) 27 used a s i n g l e item r a t i n g s c a l e to assess the r e l a t i v e a c c e p t a b i l i t y of v a r i o u s time-out procedures. While t h i s study employed a r e l a t i v e l y simple measure, the r e s u l t s support those of Kazdin's (1980b) study. These f i n d i n g s would suggest that i n v e s t i g a t i o n s of the methodology for a s s e s s i n g a c c e p t a b i l i t y may be f r u i t f u l . In many classrooms and c l i n i c a l c o n s u l t a t i o n or treatment s e t t i n g s the i n d i v i d u a l charged with s e l e c t i n g a p a r t i c u l a r treatment f o r implementation does so not by c o n s i d e r i n g the a c c e p t a b i l i t y of a s i n g l e treatment approach i n i s o l a t i o n , but ra t h e r by comparing and c o n t r a s t i n g a number of 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 that one which appears to have the 'best f i t ' , given the present s i t u a t i o n . The assumption here i s that an i n d i v i d u a l c o n f r o n t e d with a problem s i t u a t i o n (which i s m u l t i - d i m e n s i o n a l ) w i l l employ some i m p l i c i t p e r s o n a l c r i t e r i a to evaluate a l l a l t e r n a t i v e s and s e l e c t an a p p r o p r i a t e treatment. The range of a l t e r n a t i v e s which would be co n s i d e r e d would f i r s t l y be r e s t r i c t e d by the i n d i v i d u a l ' s knowledge of a l t e r n a t i v e s and secondly by the c r i t e r i a used i n e v a l u a t i n g those known a l t e r n a t i v e s . While i t may be reasonable to accept the above assumption, both the Witt and the Kazdin s t u d i e s have gone to c o n s i d e r a b l e lengths to a v o i d the very process of d i r e c t comparisons among treatment a l t e r n a t i v e s . Witt has h i s s u b j e c t s look at a s i n g l e treatment only and makes comparisons among a l t e r n a t i v e treatments using grouped data. 28 Kazdin has each subject evaluate each of three or four treatments but attempts to p r o v i d e s t a t i s t i c a l c o n t r o l through experimental design f o r any c a r r y o v e r (or comparison e f f e c t ) . Both of these approaches have y i e l d e d v a l u a b l e inf o r m a t i o n toward our understanding of s e v e r a l dimensions of treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y but i t i s important to c o n s i d e r whether these or some other approach might generate more r e l e v a n t and g e n e r a l i z a b l e data. An a l t e r n a t i v e approach might allow f o r the e v a l u a t i o n of treatment a l t e r n a t i v e s through the d i r e c t and e x p l i c i t comparison of treatments along s i m i l a r dimensions as i n v e s t i g a t e d i n the previous r e s e a r c h . Such an approach has not r e c e i v e d a t t e n t i o n i n the r e s e a r c h l i t e r a t u r e to date and an a p p r o p r i a t e methodology has not as yet been developed. D. PROBLEM SUMMARY In the review of l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t e d to treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y three problem areas were i d e n t i f i e d . There e x i s t s a la c k of systematic i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the e f f e c t of knowledge of b e h a v i o r a l p r i n c i p l e s on teachers' r a t i n g s of the a c c e p t a b i l i t y of s e l e c t e d treatment a l t e r n a t i v e s , although r e s e a r c h suggests a r e l a t i o n s h i p . Present r e s e a r c h i s a l s o i n c o n c l u s i v e r e g a r d i n g the e f f e c t of type of case on such r a t i n g s . While r e s e a r c h evidence does e x i s t s u b s t a n t i a t i n g the comparison of a c c e p t a b i l i t y of v a r i o u s treatment a l t e r n a t i v e s i t i s not c l e a r whether the present methodology i s e i t h e r the most e f f i c i e n t or i s intended to 29 be a c l o s e approximation of the c l i n i c a l decision-making process. E. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY R e f l e c t i n g the problems i d e n t i f i e d , the purpose of the present study was to q u e s t i o n the e f f e c t on the 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 classroom treatment procedures of c e r t a i n experimental and subject v a r i a b l e s . The i n i t i a l q u e s t i o n addressed i n the study was to determine whether p r a c t i c i n g elementary school teachers d i f f e r e n t i a t e , in terms of a c c e p t a b i l i t y , a l t e r n a t i v e classroom treatment procedures which might be a p p l i e d with c h i l d r e n ' s problem behaviors. The second q u e s t i o n was whether l e v e l of knowledge of b e h a v i o r a l p r i n c i p l e s a f f e c t s the way i n which i n d i v i d u a l s assess the a c c e p t a b i l i t y of s e l e c t e d classroom treatment procedures. The t h i r d q u e s t i o n was whether c e r t a i n stimulus c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the presented case d e s c r i p t i o n a f f e c t the a c c e p t a b i l i t y of treatment r a t i n g s which teachers p r o v i d e . The f o u r t h q u e s t i o n was whether an a l t e r n a t i v e method of a s s e s s i n g a c c e p t a b i l i t y w i l l r e f l e c t the f i n d i n g s e s t a b l i s h e d using the TEI. I t was the f i n a l i n t e n t of t h i s study to e s t a b l i s h data from a sample of l o c a l teacher s u b j e c t s which might be compared, i n a gen e r a l way, with data e s t a b l i s h e d i n s i m i l a r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s c a r r i e d out i n other s e t t i n g s . 30 F. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY Classroom teachers appear to have been given or to have taken a major r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r i d e n t i f y i n g c h i l d r e n who are e x h i b i t i n g problem behaviors, of i n i t i a t i n g assessment procedures and s e l e c t i n g and implementing treatments a p p r o p r i a t e to the s e t t i n g and to the c h i l d so i d e n t i f i e d . The q u a l i t y of implementation and even the s e l e c t i o n of a p p r o p r i a t e procedures appears to depend a great deal upon the i n d i v i d u a l teacher's knowledge of and views toward the ar r a y of p o s s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s . Beyond the f a c t that t eachers' p e r c e p t i o n s of classroom i n t e r v e n t i o n s are v a l u a b l e i n t h e i r own r i g h t , the r e l a t i o n between these p e r c e p t i o n s and other v a r i a b l e s i s a l s o of some importance ( 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 of a treatment may e f f e c t whether i t i s implemented p r o p e r l y , whether i t i s e f f e c t i v e (or p e r c e i v e d to be e f f e c t i v e ) , the length of time i t w i l l be used or whether i t w i l l even be used at a l l . W itt & E l l i o t , i n p r e s s , p. 25) Although the study of treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y has r e c e i v e d some recent research a t t e n t i o n , major r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s and problems remain. One need i s f o r data on the g e n e r a l i t y of f i n d i n g s on d i f f e r e n t i a l e v a l u a t i o n s of treatment procedures on the b a s i s of a c c e p t a b i l i t y . I f , using the present r e s e a r c h methodology, i t can be e s t a b l i s h e d that i n d i v i d u a l s ( i n t h i s case teachers) do d i f f e r e n t i a t e procedures, then i t may be p o s s i b l e to i d e n t i f y s a l i e n t v a r i a b l e s r e l a t e d to the procedures, or perhaps to the i n d i v i d u a l s e v a l u a t i n g treatments. P a r t i c u l a r treatments or f e a t u r e s of some treatments may then be i d e n t i f i e d and amended i n ways which might enhance t h e i r a c c e p t a b i l i t y without compromising t h e i r 31 e f f e c t i v e n e s s . It may be a l s o that i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of c e r t a i n subject v a r i a b l e s may suggest changes i n f u t u r e d i r e c t i o n s fo r c u r r i c u l u m and practicum experiences f o r student teachers, as w e l l as i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g f o r p r a c t i c i n g t e a c h e r s . 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 to date on treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y has employed undergraduate and graduate psychology students as s u b j e c t s . I t must be e s t a b l i s h e d , t h e r e f o r e , whether present or p o t e n t i a l consumers of classroom treatment procedures (e.g., teachers) respond i n a fa s h i o n s i m i l a r to that e s t a b l i s h e d i n other 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 study an attempt was made to analyse consumers' r a t i n g s of a c c e p t a b i l i t y of treatments and to i d e n t i f y other f e a t u r e s of both treatments and s u b j e c t s which a f f e c t those r a t i n g s . By examining other f a c t o r s such as i n d i v i d u a l s ' degree of knowledge of b e h a v i o r a l p r i n c i p l e s , or l e v e l of t r a i n i n g , the study may suggest ways i n which teacher p r e p a r a t i o n , treatment p r e s e n t a t i o n , or i n f a c t , treatment design might be a l t e r e d . The goal of such a l t e r a t i o n s would be the development and use of e f f e c t i v e and a c c e p t a b l e treatments. I d e a l l y , i n the study of treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y , the body of knowledge ought to be e s t a b l i s h e d by having r e a l teachers who are f a c i n g r e a l problems with r e a l c h i l d r e n s e l e c t from among a l l the a l t e r n a t i v e treatment procedures those procedures which they f e e l ' f i t ' b e st. A l l such 32 s e l e c t i o n s c o u l d be recorded i n c l u d i n g any s a l i e n t problem, teacher, or subject v a r i a b l e s . The a p p l i c a t i o n of these procedures c o u l d be monitored and s t u d i e s c a r r i e d out on such e f f e c t s as i n t e g r i t y of a p p l i c a t i o n , e f f e c t i v e n e s s of procedure, and e f f e c t on non-target c h i l d r e n , to name a few. In t h i s way i t might be e s t a b l i s h e d over a long p e r i o d of time and probably at great expense, more d i r e c t and b e l i e v a b l e evidence both about a c c e p t a b i l i t y of treatments and the many f a c t o r s which c o n t r i b u t e to treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y . Although t h i s approach may be i d e a l i n terms of the wealth of data i t would produce, the resea r c h c o s t s would seem to be p r o h i b i t i v e . The next best approach then must be that approach which most n e a r l y approximates the i d e a l ( i . e . , the most n a t u r a l i s t i c ) but which does not have the attendant p r o h i b i t i v e c o s t s . I t may be that a more n a t u r a l i s t i c procedure 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 treatments can be d e v i s e d which w i l l y i e l d u s e f u l data at no gr e a t e r research c o s t s than are p r e s e n t l y expended i n the study of a c c e p t a b i l i t y of treatments. I t i s important and worthwhile, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n any new re s e a r c h area, to e s t a b l i s h a body of data on s u b j e c t and s e t t i n g g e n e r a l i t y . Thus systematic r e p l i c a t i o n (Sidman, 1960) 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 purpose of study. T h i s study w i l l attempt to e s t a b l i s h through an examination of the q u e s t i o n s r a i s e d above whether f i n d i n g s developed i n d i v e r s e other s e t t i n g s and using other types of s u b j e c t s (Kazdin, 1980a, 1980b, 1981, i n p r e s s ; Kazdin et 33 a l . , 1 9 8 1 ; W i t t & M a r t e n s , i n p r e s s ; W i t t , M o e , G u t k i n , & A n d r e w s , i n p r e s s ) c a n b e g e n e r a l i z e d t o o t h e r p o p u l a t i o n s a n d s e t t i n g s . I I . METHODOLOGY The purpose of t h i s chapter i s to d e s c r i b e the method fol l o w e d to address the resea r c h q u e s t i o n s posed i n the prev i o u s chapter. The chapter begins with a broad overview of the nature of the study, f o l l o w e d by more complete d e s c r i p t i o n s of the ins t r u m e n t a t i o n and experimental design, the s u b j e c t s of the study, and the experimental and data p r e p a r a t i o n procedures. F i n a l l y , an o u t l i n e of the data a n a l y s i s procedure i s presented. The r e s u l t s of these analyses f o l l o w i n Chapter Three. A. NATURE OF THE STUDY T h i s i s p r i m a r i l y a causal-comparative study but makes use of procedures of experimental and a n a l y t i c survey methodologies. B r i e f l y , a s c r e e n i n g sample of vol u n t e e r elementary school teachers completed an instrument intended to assess t h e i r l e v e l of knowledge of 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 c h i l d r e n . A study sample of r e g u l a r c l a s s elementary school teachers was s e l e c t e d from the s c r e e n i n g sample on the b a s i s of the knowledge measure r e s u l t s and the demographic data s u p p l i e d . Study s u b j e c t s were presented with one of two c h i l d case d e s c r i p t i o n s which d i f f e r e d i n terms of the h i s t o r y of treatment the c h i l d had experienced. One c h i l d was d e s c r i b e d as having a h i s t o r y of s p e c i a l c l a s s assignment with i n t e n s i v e teacher support in a s t r u c t u r e d s e t t i n g . In the d e s c r i p t i o n of the other case no mention i s made of p r i o r treatment. Subjects were presented with 34 35 w r i t t e n d e s c r i p t i o n s of four treatments which might be a p p r o p r i a t e f o r a p p l i c a t i o n i n a classroom with a c h i l d such as the one presented in the case d e s c r i p t i o n . F o l l o w i n g the reading of each treatment, s u b j e c t s rated the a c c e p t a b i l i t y of the treatment on a four p a r t treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y measure. When a l l four treatment r a t i n g s were completed s u b j e c t s responded to a f i n a l measure designed to s o l i c i t r e a c t i o n s to the case d e s c r i p t i o n , the r e l a t i v e a c c e p t a b i l i t y of the treatments and s u b j e c t i v e responses to treatment needs f o r the c h i l d d e s c r i b e d . The primary focus of the study was upon d i f f e r e n c e s i n treatment r a t i n g s p r o v i d e d by te a c h e r s , with respect to the teac h e r s ' knowledge l e v e l , the case d e s c r i b e d and the p a r t i c u l a r treatments presented. B. INSTRUMENTATION In a d d i t i o n to a demographic q u e s t i o n n a i r e completed by a l l s u b j e c t s , the present study employed three measurement instruments: an i n i t i a l knowledge measure, a four p a r t measure of treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y , and a f i n a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e intended to s o l i c i t other i n f o r m a t i o n r e l e v a n t to the case d e s c r i p t i o n and to treatment r a t i n g s . A d e s c r i p t i o n of each of the instruments and the method of s c o r i n g s u b j e c t responses f o l l o w s . 36 1 . DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE The demographic q u e s t i o n n a i r e (see Appendix A) was completed by a l l teachers p r i o r to a l l other study procedures. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s surveyed i n c l u d e d s u b j e c t s ' sex, age, l e v e l of e d u c a t i o n a l degree or t r a i n i n g , years of t e a ching experience, and grade l e v e l of c h i l d r e n taught. Subjects were a l s o asked to i n d i c a t e whether they had any s p e c i a l t r a i n i n g i n c h i l d management, and to f u r t h e r c a t e g o r i z e any such exp e r i e n c e s . Teachers' responses on the q u e s t i o n n a i r e were intended to provide a means of both c h a r a c t e r i z i n g the study p o p u l a t i o n and s c r e e n i n g s u b j e c t s on the b a s i s of r e q u i r e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ( i . e . , r e g u l a r classroom teachers s t a t u s ) . S c o r i n g the Demographic Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Teachers' responses to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e were coded f o r sex, years of experience, age i n years, grade l e v e l taught, and l e v e l of p r o f e s s i o n a l education (teacher c e r t i f i c a t i o n o nly, earned degree p l u s c e r t i f i c a t i o n , graduate degree p l u s c e r t i f i c a t i o n ) . Responses to the f i n a l q u e s t i o n of s p e c i a l t r a i n i n g were coded as yes or no. 2. KNOWLEDGE MEASURE A m o d i f i e d (16-item) v e r s i o n of the Knowledge of 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 C h i l d r e n (KBPAC) (O ' D e l l , T a r l e r - B e n l o l o , & F l y n n , 1979) was used to assess understanding and a p p l i c a t i o n of b a s i c b e h a v i o r a l p r i n c i p l e s with c h i l d r e n . In the development of the KBPAC, 70 items 37 were generated based on b e h a v i o r a l p r i n c i p l e s found expressed i n four widely r e c o g n i z e d t e x t s on the management of c h i l d r e n ' s behavior (Becker, 1971; H a l l , 1971; P a t t e r s o n & G u l l i o n , 1968, P a t t e r s o n , 1971). These 70 items were ad m i n i s t e r e d to a sample of 147 persons r e p r e s e n t i n g both l a y and p r o f e s s i o n a l people with a wide v a r i e t y of experience with behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n . O'Dell et a l . r e p o r t a Kuder-Richardson r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t of 0.94 and an odd-even s p l i t - h a l f c o r r e l a t i o n of 0.93 f o r t h i s v e r s i o n of the KBPAC. F i f t y items which a t t a i n e d the h i g h e s t p o i n t - 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 score ( a l l > 0.30, mean=0.49) were r e t a i n e d f o r the f i n a l v e r s i o n . While items in the f i n a l v e r s i o n d i d not cover a l l p r i n c i p l e s found i n the c i t e d t e x t s the authors sugggested that the 50 items together provided a reasonable sampling of the content of i n t e r e s t . O ' Dell et a l . r e p o r t using the KBPAC in two s t u d i e s i n v o l v i n g v o l u n t e e r s u b j e c t s i n a 5-hour c h i l d management t r a i n i n g workshop. In both s t u d i e s odd-even s p l i t - h a l v e s of the instrument were a d m i n i s t e r e d pre and post t r a i n i n g . The f i r s t group of v o l u n t e e r parents demonstrated an i n c r e a s e from 48% to 85% c o r r e c t on the a l t e r n a t e form. Four other samples of undergraduate u n i v e r s i t y s u b j e c t s , one t h i r d of whom were psychology students, were pr o v i d e d with the same t r a i n i n g experience. T h i s a d d i t i o n a l sample of 91 respondents i n c r e a s e d pre/post t r a i n i n g from 57% to 85% c o r r e c t u s i n g the a l t e r n a t e form. 38 A m o d i f i e d 45-item v e r s i o n of the KBPAC was used i n a study i n which the e f f e c t of i n c o r p o r a t i n g formal t r a i n i n g in s o c i a l l e a r n i n g p r i n c i p l e s i n b e h a v i o r a l parent t r a i n i n g was i n v e s t i g a t e d (McMahon, Forehand, & G r i e s t , 1981). F i v e items from the KBPAC which d i d not r e f l e c t content a p p r o p r i a t e to the purpose of the study were not used i n the m o d i f i e d v e r s i o n . In t h i s study the KBPAC r e f l e c t e d s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the d e s i r e d d i r e c t i o n between groups who had t r a i n i n g only and t r a i n i n g p l u s i n s t r u c t i o n i n s o c i a l l e a r n i n g p r i n c i p l e s . Other s t u d i e s have repo r t e d development of instruments s i m i l a r i n purpose and design to that of the KBPAC (Marholin, T a y l o r , & Warren, 1978; Milne, 1982). The f i n d i n g of s i m i l a r r e s u l t s i n these s t u d i e s suggests the v a l i d i t y of the approach used i n the KBPAC to assess knowledge of 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 c h i l d r e n . Furtkamp, G i f f o r t , and S c h i e r s (1982) have examined two 10-item p a r a l l e l forms of the KBPAC f o r use i n r e s e a r c h or e v a l u a t i o n s e t t i n g s . These shortened v e r s i o n s were developed in r e a c t i o n to the l e n g t h of time (30-60 minutes) r e q u i r e d f o r most s u b j e c t s to complete the f u l l KBPAC. A sample of 164 Mental Health T e c h n i c i a n t r a i n e e s completed the 50-item KBPAC. From the r e s u l t s of t h i s sample item p o i n t - b i s e r i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s were used to determine the 20 items which best p r e d i c t e d t o t a l score f o r the t e s t . O v e r a l l , the mean item p o i n t - b i s e r i a l c o r r e l a t i o n was 0.296 (S.D.=0.157) and the median was 0.297. The range 0.693 (from -0.153 to =0.540). 39 The twenty items s e l e c t e d ranged from C.540 to 0.383. These items were then randomly assigned to form the two ten-item v e r s i o n s . These v e r s i o n s were administered to a sample of 111 t r a i n e e s f o l l o w i n g a course i n basic behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n , and item and t e s t a n a l y s i s completed on t h e i r responses. The authors found that reducing the l e n g t h of the t e s t had l i t t l e impact on the i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y of the t e s t s (Kuder-Richardson 20 of 0.862 f o r the 50-item v e r s i o n , and 0.735 and 0.765 f o r the two ten-item v e r s i o n s ) . The c o r r e l a t i o n between the two forms, determined from the responses of Mental Health T e c h n i c i a n t r a i n e e s , was 0.65 (r 2=0.423, F ( 1 , 1 0 9 ) = 8 0 . 1 7 , 2 < 0.001). When c o r r e c t e d f o r a t t e n u a t i o n , the estimated c o r r e l a t i o n of true s cores on the t e s t s i s 0.87. Furtkamp et a l . (1982) concluded that r e s e a r c h r e s u l t s supported use of these two v e r s i o n s as p a r a l l e l forms. For the purpose of the present study a f u r t h e r r e v i s e d v e r s i o n of the KBPAC was developed. Based on the f i n d i n g of O'Dell et a l . (1979) and Furtkamp et a l . (1982), a 16-item v e r s i o n of the KBPAC was prepared. While Furtkamp et a l . (1982) r e p o r t s a t i s f a c t o r y r e s u l t s from the two 10-item v e r s i o n s , they a l s o suggest that some of the items used i n the two forms may need reworking. Although a l l items d i s c r i m i n a t e d in the r i g h t d i r e c t i o n s e v e r a l a t t a i n e d p o i n t - b i s e r i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s l e s s than 0.30 with the t o t a l t e s t . A d d i t i o n a l l y , both 10-item v e r s i o n s a t t a i n e d r e l i a b i l i t i e s below that f o r the 50-item v e r s i o n (0.86) and 40 below the d e s i r e d l e v e l of 0.80. A p p l i c a t i o n of the Spearman-Brown formula (Nunnally, 1970) with the r e l i a b i l i t i e s obtained i n the Furtkamp et a l . study (1982) i n d i c a t e d that i f t e s t items homogenous with e i t h e r v e r s i o n were added to i n c r e a s e t e s t length to 15 or 16 items, the d e s i r e d l e v e l of r e l i a b i l i t y might be a t t a i n e d ( f o r 16 items Form A r e l i a b i 1 i t y = 0 . 8 2 , f o r 16 items Form B r e l i a b i l i t y = 0 . 8 4 ) . From the 20 items r e t a i n e d by Furtkamp et a l . (1982), those 16 items which e x h i b i t e d p o i n t - b i s e r i a l c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s g r e a t e r than 0.30 with t o t a l t e s t score were s e l e c t e d f o r the new v e r s i o n of the KBPAC. T h i s s e l e c t i o n e l i m i n a t e d three items from Form A and one from Form B ( p o i n t - b i s e r i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s of 0.19, 0.22, 0.27 and 0.29). The newly r e v i s e d form together with the two 10-item v e r s i o n s developed by Furtkamp et a l . (1982) were adm i n i s t e r e d to samples of students (n=95) r e g i s t e r e d i n f i v e undergraduate e d u c a t i o n a l psychology c l a s s e s at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. Within c l a s s , each v e r s i o n of the r e v i s e d KBPAC was randomly d i s t r i b u t e d so that approximately equal numbers of s u b j e c t s completed each v e r s i o n . Each subject completed one v e r s i o n only. A d m i n i s t r a t i o n time f o r the 10-item v e r s i o n s was approximately 4-5 minutes, the 16-item v e r s i o n t a k i n g 3-4 minutes l o n g e r . Student responses to each v e r s i o n of the KBPAC were analysed u s i n g the Laboratory of Education Research Test 41 A n a l y s i s Package (LERTAP) (Nelson, 1974). T h i s t e s t a n a l y s i s procedure provides both item and t o t a l t e s t a n a l y s i s . Examination of r e s u l t s from t h i s a n a l y s i s r e v e a l e d that a l l item p o i n t - b i s e r i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s f o r the 16-item KBPAC exceeded 0.30 (range 0.31 to 0.69, mean .51). Item r e s u l t s of the 10-item v e r s i o n s were l e s s s a t i s f a c t o r y (Form A range 0.23 to 0.63, mean .42, and Form B, range 0.06 to 0.72, mean .46). These l a t t e r r e s u l t s were c o n s i s t e n t with the f i n d i n g s of Furtkamp et a l . , with the same items a c h i e v i n g low p o i n t - b i s e r i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s with t o t a l t e s t . R e s u l t s of the LERTAP a n a l y s i s f o r the f u l l t e s t are presented i n Table 1. R e s u l t s of Furtkamp et a l . (1982) are i n c l u d e d f o r the purpose of comparison. The r e s u l t s summarized i n Table 1 i n d i c a t e an i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y r e l i a b i l i t y f o r the 16-item v e r s i o n which surpasses that of e i t h e r of the 10-item v e r s i o n s i n the p i l o t study. The obtained standard e r r o r of measurement f o r the two 10-item v e r s i o n s i s not s u b s t a n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t from that r e p o r t e d by Furtkamp et a l . (1982) although the v a r i a b i l i t y among s u b j e c t s i s much l e s s i n the p i l o t sample. While i t might be expected that a longer v e r s i o n of the t e s t would demonstrate an improved r e l i a b i l i t y , the r e s u l t s o b t ained f o r the two 10-item v e r s i o n s in the p i l o t study are b a r e l y adequate (.42 and .58) i n comparison to that o b tained f o r the 16-item v e r s i o n . A d d i t i o n a l l y , the estimated r e l i a b i l i t i e s f o r each of the 10-item v e r s i o n s i n f l a t e d by the Spearman-Brown formula (10a, r=.54; 10b, r=.69 when 42 TABLE 1 KBPAC PILOT STUDY RESULTS V e r s i o n Number of Mean Standard R e l i a b i l i t y Standard Subjects D e v i a t i o n E r r o r of Measurement P i l o t 1 1 OA 31 5. 87 1 . ,91 0. ,42 1 , .31 1 OB 31 5. 10 2, , 15 0. .58 1 . .32 1 6 33 8. 18 3. ,90 0. ,81 1 . .63 Furtkamp et a l . 2 1 OA 1 1 1 4. 78 2. ,62 0, .74 1 , .35 1 OB 1 1 1 4. 78 2. ,75 0, .77 1 , .33 25 odd 1 64 12. 1 4 4. ,61 0, .77 2, .20 25 even 1 64 13. 1 7 4. .17 0, .74 2, . 1 5 50 1 64 25. 31 8. .26 0, ,86 3, .07 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, those f o r Furtkamp et a l . (1982) are Kuder-Richardson. For dichotomously scored items such as those represented here, these two forms are e q u i v a l e n t . 1 P i l o t s u b j e c t s were student t e a c h e r s . 2Study s u b j e c t s were Mental H e a l t h T e c h n i c i a n t r a i n e e s . i n c r e a s e d i n l e n g t h to 16 items) s t i l l do not reach the d e s i r e d l e v e l of r e l i a b i l i t y , and c e r t a i n l y do not improve upon the r e s u l t obtained using the 16-item v e r s i o n . In comparing the obtained r e s u l t s with those reported by Furtkamp et a l . (1982) the 16-item v e r s i o n most n e a r l y approximates the d e s i r e d l e v e l of i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y r e l i a b i l i t y . While the r e l i a b i l i t y o btained f o r t h i s form (.81) with a sample of student teachers i s l e s s than that 43 reported f o r the 50-item v e r s i o n (.86) with the Mental Health T e c h n i c i a n t r a i n e e s , use of the 16-item v e r s i o n represented a p o t e n t i a l saving of 20 to 40 minutes of subject time. Since i t was a d e s i r e of the author to obt a i n an accurate measure of s u b j e c t s ' knowledge of 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 c h i l d r e n i n the most e f f i c i e n t manner, the 16-item v e r s i o n of the KBPAC was s e l e c t e d as the ap p r o p r i a t e measure f o r i n c l u s i o n i n the study. A copy of the 16-item v e r s i o n of the KBPAC, i n c l u d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r completion, i s presented i n Appendix B. Sc o r i n g the Knowledge Measure The KBPAC responses f o r both the instrument development and s c r e e n i n g samples were hand scored and t o t a l score f o r each subject c a l c u l a t e d . Item responses r e c e i v e d a value of one for agreement with keyed response and zero f o r any other response. In a d d i t i o n , s u b j e c t item responses were coded and pla c e d on a computer f i l e with 100% v e r i f i c a t i o n . No e r r o r s were found on v e r i f i c a t i o n . T h i s computer f i l e was used f o r v e r i f i c a t i o n of t o t a l score as w e l l as f o r completion of item and t e s t a n a l y s i s using the LERTAP computer program. 3. TREATMENT ACCEPTABILITY MEASURES The treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y measures c o n s i s t e d of the Treatment E v a l u a t i o n Inventory (TEI) (Kazdin, 1980a) and a three part ( E v a l u a t i v e , Potency, A c t i v i t y ) Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l (SD) (Osgood, S u c i , & Tannenbaum, 1957). 44 a. Treatment E v a l u a t i o n Inventory The TEI c o n s i s t s of 15 L i k e r t - t y p e items which together r e f l e c t an i n d i v i d u a l ' s o v e r a l l e v a l u a t i o n of the a c c e p t a b i l i t y of a p a r t i c u l a r treatment. Included are such c o n s i d e r a t i o n s as the treatment's o v e r a l l a c c e p t a b i l i t y ; whether i t should be recommended f o r broad a p p l i c a t i o n ; how f a i r , humane or e f f e c t i v e i t might be; whether i t would be a p p r o p r i a t e f o r use with someone not able to g i v e consent and whether i t f i t s with common notio n s of what treatment should be. Regarding development of the TEI, Kazdin (1980a) r e p o r t s that 45 o r i g i n a l items were generated which appeared to r e l a t e t o c l i e n t e v a l u a t i o n of treatment. From t h i s number Kazdin r e p o r t s that 16 were s e l e c t e d which best r e l a t e d to treatment of c h i l d r e n and the use of punishment. Respondents were asked to r a t e a p a r t i c u l a r d e s c r i b e d treatment on each of the 16 items using a seven p o i n t L i k e r t - t y p e s c a l e . One item, f o r example, asked respondents to i n d i c a t e the a c c e p t a b i l i t y of treatment on the dimension of ' s u i t a b i l i t y ' of the treatment f o r a p p l i c a t i o n with problems other than those d e s c r i b e d . The anchor p o i n t s , not  s u i t a b l e at a l l to very s u i t a b l e , f o r example, represent r a t i n g s of treatment on one aspect of a c c e p t a b i l i t y . Subsequent f a c t o r a n a l y t i c s t u d i e s conducted to assess the e v a l u a t i v e v a l i d i t y of the TEI l e d to d e l e t i o n of one of the 16 items. The 15-item v e r s i o n of the TEI used i n the present study (see Appendix C) was developed and implemented i n 45 s e v e r a l s t u d i e s subsequent to Kazdin's f i r s t (1980a) study. Scoring the TEI A l l 15 items on the TEI are responded to by s u b j e c t s checking one p o s i t i o n on a seven p o i n t s c a l e which most n e a r l y represents the s u b j e c t ' s response to the d e s c r i b e d treatment. For the purpose of s c o r i n g , each response p o s i t i o n was given a numerical v a l u e , where a value of one was a s s i g n e d to the negative anchor p o i n t (e.g., not at a l l  s u i t a b l e ) and a value of seven assi g n e d to the p o s i t i v e anchor p o i n t (e.g., very s u i t a b l e ) f o r each of the 15 q u e s t i o n s . A value of four represented a n e u t r a l p o s i t i o n on a p a r t i c u l a r item. Thus a t o t a l a c c e p t a b i l i t y score c o u l d range from a minimum of 15 to a maximum score of 105. I n d i v i d u a l subject responses to each item f o r each treatment were coded and input to a computer f i l e with 100% v e r i f i c a t i o n . Fewer than 5% e r r o r s i n coding and input were found; a l l were c o r r e c t e d p r i o r to a n a l y s i s . The LERTAP computer program was used to c a l c u l a t e i n d i v i d u a l a c c e p t a b i l i t y scores f o r each treatment r a t e d , and to provide item and t e s t a n a l y s i s data. b. Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l The three part SD used i n the study (see Appendix D) c o n s i s t e d of 15 items, i n c l u d i n g f i v e from each of the e v a l u a t i v e , potency and a c t i v i t y dimensions d e s c r i b e d by Osgood et a l . (1957). The v e r s i o n used i n the study i s one developed by Kazdin (1980a) who gave two reasons f o r 46 i n c l u d i n g t h e SD w i t h t h e TEI as measures of t r e a t m e n t a c c e p t a b i l i t y . The f i r s t was t o i n c r e a s e t h e number and d i v e r s i t y o f v a r i a b l e s f o r t h e s u b s e q u e n t f a c t o r a n a l y s i s , a l l o w i n g f o r a more c a r e f u l d e l i n e a t i o n of a homogeneous f a c t o r . The s e c o n d was t o p r o v i d e a p a r t i a l v a l i d a t i o n of t h e T E I . I t was e x p e c t e d t h a t t h e e v a l u a t i v e d i m e n s i o n would c o r r e l a t e more h i g h l y t h a n 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 w i t h t h e T E I . B o t h t h e TEI and t h e e v a l u a t i v e d i m e n s i o n o f t h e SD were t h o u g h t t o r e f l e c t o v e r a l l a c c e p t a b i l i t y w h i l e 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 were t h o u g h t t o r e f l e c t i m p o r t a n t d i m e n s i o n s of t r e a t m e n t p e r h a p s n o t d i r e c t l y r e l e v a n t t o t h e e v a l u a t i o n of a c c e p t a b i l i t y . S c o r i n g t h e SD The 15 i t e m s on t h e SD a r e r e s p o n d e d t o by s u b j e c t s p l a c i n g a c h e c k mark i n one of se v e n p o s i t i o n s r e l a t i v e t o e a c h s e t of b i p o l a r a d j e c t i v e s . F o r t h e e v a l u a t i v e d i m e n s i o n a v a l u e of seven was a s s i g n e d t o t h e che c k s p a c e n e a r e s t t o t h e p o s i t i v e p o l e ( e . g . , good) and a v a l u e of one t o t h e n e g a t i v e p o l e ( e . g . , b a d ) . P o s i t i o n s between were a s s i g n e d v a l u e s a c c o r d i n g l y . F o r t h e f i v e i t e m s r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e p o t e n c y d i m e n s i o n , t h e p o l e r e p r e s e n t i n g g r e a t e r p o t e n c y ( e . g . , s t r o n g ) was a s s i g n e d a v a l u e of s e v e n and t h e o p p o s i t e p o l e ( e . g . , weak) a v a l u e of one. F o r t h e a c t i v i t y d i m e n s i o n t h e more a c t i v e p o l e ( e . g . , f a s t ) was a s s i g n e d a v a l u e of se v e n , t h e l e s s a c t i v e ( e . g . , slow) a v a l u e o f one. S c o r e s f o r e a c h d i m e n s i o n were c o n s i d e r e d s e p a r a t e l y so t h a t f o r e a c h s u b j e c t t h r e e d i m e n s i o n t o t a l s were f o u n d f o r 47 each of the treatments r a t e d . T o t a l scores f o r each dimension c o u l d range from a minimum of f i v e to a maximum of 35 f o r each treatment. As with the TEI, item responses f o r each i n d i v i d u a l under each treatment c o n d i t i o n were coded and input to a computer f i l e f o r c a l c u l a t i o n of t o t a l score, item, and t e s t a n a l y s i s s t a t i s t i c s u s i ng the LERTAP computer program. Subject responses were 100% v e r i f i e d , with fewer than 5% e r r o r s i n coding and input to the data f i l e . A l l e r r o r s were c o r r e c t e d p r i o r to a n a l y s i s . c. Psychometric P r o p e r t i e s Kazdin (1980a) p i l o t e d the treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y measures (the 16-item TEI and the 15 items of the SD) with 60 undergraduate psychology s t u d e n t s . In the p i l o t study s u b j e c t s each heard one of four treatments d e s c r i p t i o n s , each presented as the treatment might be a p p l i e d to a c l i n i c a l case p r e v i o u s l y d e s c r i b e d to the s u b j e c t . Subjects then r a t e d the a c c e p t a b i l i t y of the treatment using the measures d e s c r i b e d above. The scores f o r p i l o t s u b j e c t s were submitted to a p r i n c i p a l components f a c t o r a n a l y s i s which was r o t a t e d to the varimax c r i t e r i o n (Kazdin, 1980a). The r e s u l t s of t h i s a n a l y s i s r e v e a l e d two f a c t o r s . F i f t e e n of the s i x t e e n items of the TEI loaded h i g h l y on the f i r s t f a c t o r ( p a t t e r n c o e f f i c i e n t s ranged from .61 to .95), as d i d the e v a l u a t i v e items from the SD. Loading f o r the potency and a c t i v i t y dimension of the SD were low ( l e s s than .40) f o r the s i n g l e 48 f a c t o r that c h a r a c t e r i z e d items of the TEI. These data confirmed the e x p e c t a t i o n that the TEI assessed o v e r a l l e v a l u a t i o n s of the treatments and suggested that these e v a l u a t i o n s were made independent of both potency and a c t i v i t y r a t i n g s . A d d i t i o n a l support of t h i s a n a l y s i s i s reported i n a second a d m i n i s t r a t i o n to 144 c o l l e g e students e n r o l l e d i n undergraduate psychology courses (Kazdin, 1980a). In t h i s study items from the TEI y i e l d e d high f a c t o r l o a dings on the f i r s t f a c t o r ( p a t t e r n c o e f f i c i e n t s ranged from .56 to .95) and items from the e v a l u a t i v e dimension of the SD loaded h i g h l y ( p a t t e r n c o e f f i c i e n t s ranged from .69 to .89) on t h i s f a c t o r as w e l l . Treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y measures used i n subsequent s t u d i e s (Kazdin, 1980b, 1981a, i n p r e s s ; Kazdin et a l . , 1981) i n c l u d e d the three part SD and a TEI c o n s i s t i n g of the 15 items which loaded on the f i r s t f a c t o r of the analyses reported above. R e s u l t s of a n a l y s i s of data from these l a t t e r s t u d i e s supported the o r i g i n a l f i n d i n g s . Although no r e l i a b i l i t y data on e i t h e r the TEI or the dimensions of the SD were r e p o r t e d i n these s t u d i e s , a high i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y may be i n f e r r e d from the r e s u l t s of the f a c t o r a n a l y s i s ( i . e . , items loaded together on a common f a c t o r ) and the range i n t e r - i t e m c o r r e l a t i o n s f o r items of the f i r s t f a c t o r of the TEI (from .35 to .96, median r=.67). V a l i d i t y of the TEI f o r a s s e s s i n g treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y i s p a r t l y e s t a b l i s h e d above and f u r t h e r supported by subsequent s t u d i e s i n which the TEI was used as 49 a dependent measure (Hobbs, Walle, & C a l d w e l l , 1984; Kazdin, 1980b, 1981a, in p r e s s ; Kazdin et a l . , 1981). R e s u l t s of these s t u d i e s e s t a b l i s h e d the a b i l i t y of the TEI to d i s t i n g u i s h , in the expected d i r e c t i o n , between s e v e r a l separate treatment s t r a t e g i e s a c r o s s a v a r i e t y of p o p u l a t i o n s and s e t t i n g s . 4. CASE AND TREATMENT QUESTIONNAIRE The f i n a l measure used i n the study was a q u e s t i o n n a i r e developed f o r the purpose of the present study. T h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e (see Appendix E) was intended to s o l i c i t i n f o r m a t i o n from teachers about c e r t a i n f e a t u r e s of the case and of the treatments which had been r a t e d . In t h i s regard four q u e s t i o n s were posed. The f i r s t q u e s t i o n asked s u b j e c t s to r a t e the p e r c e i v e d s e r i o u s n e s s of the case d e s c r i b e d . Kazdin (1980a) found that treatments were g e n e r a l l y r a t e d more p o s i t i v e l y ( i . e . , were ass i g n e d higher a c c e p t a b i l i t y scores) when treatments were presented f o r a p p l i c a t i o n with more severe cases than those f o r l e s s severe cases. The f i r s t q u e s t i o n was intended to p r o v i d e an i n d i c a t i o n of the degree of p e r c e i v e d s e v e r i t y of the case presented and to d e t e c t p o t e n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n s e v e r i t y of cases d e s c r i b e d . Question two r e q u i r e d s u b j e c t s to i n d i c a t e from t h e i r own experience how t y p i c a l the case d e s c r i b e d was of students i n the r e g u l a r classroom. T h i s q u e s t i o n was intended to o b t a i n some i n d i c a t i o n of i n c i d e n c e and p o s s i b l y 50 to lend v a l i d a t i o n to the p l a u s i b i l i t y of teachers having to c o n f r o n t t h i s kind of problem. Since treatment d e s c r i p t i o n s r e l a t e d i r e c t l y to the case d e s c r i p t i o n , i t was important that teachers see the case as a ' t y p i c a l ' d i f f i c u l t c h i l d or at l e a s t a p l a u s i b l e one so that treatment r a t i n g s might b e t t e r r e f l e c t a c c e p t a b i l i t y in a r e l e v a n t and p l a u s i b l e c o ntext. As Maher (1978) suggests, one danger i n using s c r i p t s (here the case d e s c r i p t i o n ) i s t h a t , i n an attempt to represent an i d e a l ' t y p i c a l ' case, a "case i s c r e a t e d that l i k e the manticore, may never have e x i s t e d i n nature" (p. 645). Teacher responses to t h i s q u e s t i o n i n d i c a t e whether i n f a c t the assumed case d e s c r i p t i o n i s r e l e v a n t and r e a l i s t i c enough to allow teachers to r e l a t e to treatment d e s c r i p t i o n s . The t h i r d q uestion r e q u i r e d s u b j e c t s to c o n s i d e r a l l four treatments at one time and to a s s i g n each to r e l a t i v e ranks on the b a s i s of how l i k e l y the s u b j e c t would be to use each i n the classroom. I f the TEI procedure can be p e r c e i v e d to r e v e a l some absolute measure of an i n d i v i d u a l ' s r a t i n g s of the a c c e p t a b i l i t y of a p a r t i c u l a r treatment, then t h i s p a r t i c u l a r q u e s t i o n asks the subject to c o n s i d e r the r e l a t i v e a c c e p t a b i l i t y of the four treatments d e s c r i b e d . Witt and E l l i o t ( i n press) s t a t e d that a "reason 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 i s to i n c r e a s e the l i k e l i h o o d that a treatment w i l l be used and w i l l be implemented with i n t e g r i t y " (p. 2). They suggest the need f o r research to l i n k a c c e p t a b i l i t y and use, but a l s o s t r e s s the need to 51 e s t a b l i s h procedures 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 which are r e l e v a n t to the s e l e c t i o n and use of treatments in the school (and other c l i n i c a l ) s e t t i n g ( s ) . I t i s important to develop a procedure which as n e a r l y as p o s s i b l e approximates the c l i n i c a l decision-making process, whereby the 'most a p p r o p r i a t e ' or 'best a v a i l a b l e ' of s e v e r a l known opt i o n s i s s e l e c t e d f o r use i n the p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n . T h i s i s p a r t i c u l a r l y important in l i g h t of r e s e a r c h which suggests that some teachers f i n d no i n t e r v e n t i o n which i s t o t a l l y a c c e p t a b l e (Witt & E l l i o t , i n p r e s s ) . T h i s q u e s t i o n i s one attempt at e s t a b l i s h i n g a methodology f o r s o l i c i t i n g such informat i o n . The f i n a l q u e s t i o n r e q u i r e d teacher s u b j e c t s to d e s c r i b e the approach they would most l i k e l y use i f the c h i l d d e s c r i b e d were i n t h e i r c l a s s . In t h i s q u e s t i o n teachers were not r e s t r i c t e d by the treatments which had been presented although a l l had been exposed to the d e s c r i p t i o n s p r i o r to answering t h i s q u e s t i o n . A major i n t e n t of t h i s q u e s t i o n was to provide some data f o r f u t u r e treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y r e s e a r c h . Teacher responses to t h i s q u e s t i o n may r e v e a l approaches to classroom i n t e r v e n t i o n upon which a c c e p t a b i l i t y i n f o r m a t i o n ought to be accumulated. Witt and E l l i o t ( i n press) and Lambert (1976) suggest that teachers are t y p i c a l l y aware of only one or two treatments. I t i s important then to c o n s i d e r the dimension of a c c e p t a b i l i t y of those known treatments r e l a t i v e to other p o s s i b l e treatments. T h i s q u e s t i o n may r e v e a l a l s o the 52 breadth of approaches seen by teacher s u b j e c t s as a p p r o p r i a t e for use in the classroom s e t t i n g . S c oring the Case and Treatment Q u e s t i o n n a i r e In response to the f i r s t q u e s t i o n , teachers i n d i c a t e d which s c a l e p o i n t most n e a r l y represented t h e i r estimate of the s e r i o u s n e s s of the problems d e s c r i b e d . The p o s i t i o n s on the f i v e p o i n t s c a l e ranged from one (not very s e r i o u s at a l l ) to f i v e (extremely s e r i o u s ) . The second q u e s t i o n , which asked teachers to d e s c r i b e how t y p i c a l was t h i s c h i l d , d i d not produce responses which were r e a d i l y q u a n t i f i a b l e as no met r i c was pro v i d e d . Therefore responses were coded dichotomously. Responses which i n d i c a t e d that the c h i l d was somewhat t y p i c a l (e.g., "one every year", "two l i k e him i n my c l a s s r i g h t now", "one out of f i f t y " , and "I've seen four or f i v e i n 10 years of teaching") were scored as one. Responses which i n d i c a t e d that the case d e s c r i b e d was not at a l l t y p i c a l were coded as zero. Responses to q u e s t i o n three on the q u e s t i o n n a i r e represented s u b j e c t s ranking of the r e l a t i v e l i k e l i h o o d of t h e i r using each of the d e s c r i b e d treatments. S u b j e c t s i n d i c a t e d t h e i r ranking by a r r a n g i n g treatment code l e t t e r s i n order from 'most l i k e l y to use t h i s one' to ' l e a s t l i k e l y to use t h i s one'. For the purpose of s c o r i n g these responses, p o s i t i o n s i n the arrangement were assig n e d a value ranging from, one f o r ' l e a s t l i k e l y ' to four f o r 'most l i k e l y ' . 53 Question four was not scored f o r d i r e c t a n a l y s i s in the study as i t d i d not y i e l d data that was r e a d i l y coded. Moreover, these responses were not of d i r e c t i n t e r e s t to the purpose of the study. Coded responses were added with 1 0 0 % v e r i f i c a t i o n to the computer f i l e c o n t a i n i n g the coded responses to the treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y measures. As d e s c r i b e d above for s c o r i n g of treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y measures these data were scored using the LERTAP computer program. The Case and Treatment Q u e s t i o n n a i r e data were t r e a t e d as precoded s u b t e s t s with zero weighting f o r t h i s a n a l y s i s , a l l o w i n g f o r t a b u l a t i o n of responses without a f f e c t i n g the a n a l y s i s of the treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y measures. C. DESIGN OF THE STUDY 1. DEPENDENT VARIABLES The dependent v a r i a b l e s i n the present study represent subject scores on the TEI and the three dimensions of the SD f o r each of the treatments. The treatments i n c l u d e d : Medication (M), Time Out (TO), Reinforcement (R), and P o s i t i v e P r a c t i c e (PP). The dependent v a r i a b l e s were measured as the t o t a l score a t t r i b u t e d to each treatment on each of the treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y measures. With regard to the ranking procedure i n the Case and Treatment Q u e s t i o n n a i r e , the dependent v a r i a b l e was the r e l a t i v e rank ass i g n e d to each treatment. A more d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n of 54 procedures f o r s c o r i n g and a s s i g n i n g values i s presented i n the d e s c r i p t i o n of data p r e p a r a t i o n . 2. INDEPENDENT VARIABLES T h i s study i n c l u d e d three independent v a r i a b l e s which are represented as f a c t o r s in the experimental design. These were knowledge group, type of case, and type of treatment. S u b j e c t s ' scores on the knowledge measure were used as an i n i t i a l b l o c k i n g f a c t o r i n the study. D e t a i l s regarding s c o r i n g of the knowledge measure are i n c l u d e d i n the d e s c r i p t i o n of data p r e p a r a t i o n . On the b a s i s o f . t o t a l score on the knowledge measure s u b j e c t s were separated i n t o two groups using the median scores as the ' c u t p o i n t ' . Subjects who scored at the median were not c o n s i d e r e d f u r t h e r . A more d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n of t h i s procedure i s presented in the s e c t i o n on assignment of s u b j e c t s . The second independent v a r i a b l e , type of case, had two l e v e l s c orresponding to the h i s t o r y of s p e c i a l c l a s s treatment a t t r i b u t e d to the case (see Appendix F ) . Both d e s c r i p t i o n s are of the same c h i l d and are presented i n the same way. Mike R. i s d e s c r i b e d as a young boy who i s e x h i b i t i n g severe b e h a v i o r a l problems in school and i n a v a r i e t y of other s e t t i n g s . The d e s c r i p t i o n of Mike S., the second case, i s the same as that of Mike R. except f o r the a d d i t i o n of an i n t r o d u c t o r y paragraph which presents Mike S. as coming i n t o the present teacher's c l a s s as a r e s u l t of school and d i s t r i c t e f f o r t s toward mainstreaming. His 55 h i s t o r y s t a t e s that he has been in a s p e c i a l c l a s s s e t t i n g where he has been used to i n d i v i d u a l a t t e n t i o n and s p e c i a l programming. Other than the a d d i t i o n . o f t h i s paragraph on the h i s t o r y of treatment the d e s c r i p t i o n s of the two cases are i d e n t i c a l and are a d a p t a t i o n s of d e s c r i p t i o n s used by Kazdin (1981a). The t h i r d independent v a r i a b l e i s treatment type. Four treatments, M e d i c a t i o n , Time Out, P o s i t i v e P r a c t i c e , and Reinforcement (Kazdin, 1981a) were c o n s i d e r e d . The treatment d e s c r i p t i o n s , presented i n Appendix G, are r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of r e p o r t e d v e r s i o n s of i n t e r v e n t i o n s a p p l i e d to the type of t a r g e t behaviors presented in the case d e s c r i p t i o n (Kazdin, 1981a, p. 497). The design of the study 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 the e f f e c t of two a d d i t i o n a l independent v a r i a b l e s . These were the v a r i a b l e s r e l a t e d to sequence i n which the treatments appeared (row e f f e c t ) and the order, or r e l a t i v e p o s i t i o n i n which a treatment appeared (column e f f e c t ) . These might be d i s t i n g u i s h e d from the f o r e g o i n g independent v a r i a b l e s as nuisance or design v a r i a b l e s . 3. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN The design used i n the present study was an extension of the 4 x 4 L a t i n - s q u a r e design (Myers, 1979) and i s s i m i l a r to that used by Kazdin (1981a) of which t h i s study i s , i n p a r t , a s y s t e m a t i c r e p l i c a t i o n . Since four treatments were to be presented and repeated measures taken on the 56 dependent v a r i a b l e s , treatment p r e s e n t a t i o n was randomized in the square f o l l o w i n g the procedure f o r randomization of L a t i n - s q u a r e s d e s c r i b e d by K i r k (1968) and by Cochran and Cox (1950). One of four standard squares was s e l e c t e d at random. Rows and columns were then randomized independently y i e l d i n g the p a r t i c u l a r square used in the present study. Within t h i s square each of the four treatments occurs once in each order or column ( i . e . , f i r s t , second, t h i r d , or fourth) and once in each sequence or row. The L a t i n - s q u a r e then r e p r e s e n t s a random s e l e c t i o n of four of the 24 p o s s i b l e sequences in which the four treatments c o u l d be presented. In a d d i t i o n to the treatment v a r i a b l e , the f a c t o r s of knowledge l e v e l and type of case were i n c l u d e d i n the design as between-subjects f a c t o r s , hence the L a t i n - s q u a r e was r e p l i c a t e d once at each l e v e l of each of these f a c t o r s y i e l d i n g a 2 x 2 x (4 x 4) (knowledge l e v e l x case l e v e l x (sequence x o r d e r ) ) r e p l i c a t e d L a t i n - s q u a r e d e s i g n . The layout of the o v e r a l l design i s presented i n F i g u r e 1. Myers (1979) has suggested that L a t i n - s q u a r e designs have s e v e r a l p o t e n t i a l advantages over other d e s i g n s . F i r s t , the L a t i n - s q u a r e design allows f o r the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of s e v e r a l v a r i a b l e s with l e s s expenditure of time and fewer s u b j e c t s than a comparable f a c t o r i a l d e s i g n . A d d i t i o n a l l y , Myers suggests than an even more important advantage i s the e f f i c i e n c y of the L a t i n - s q u a r e design r e l a t i v e to other d e s i g n s . In using the L a t i n - s q u a r e i n a repeated measures FIGURE 1 LAYOUT OF THE EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN Knowledge Case Sequence Order Group 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 Hi£h 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 Low 1 M TO R PP 2 TO PP M R 3 PP R TO M 4 R M PP TO 58 design, the researcher i s able to remove e r r o r v a r i a n c e due not only to i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e , as in a r e g u l a r repeated measures design, but a l s o sequence and order or temporal e f f e c t s . T h i s advantage i s p a r t i c u l a r l y important when repeated measures on the dependant v a r i a b l e are l i k e l y to be a f f e c t e d by c a r r y o v e r e f f e c t s of potent treatments. D. PROCEDURE 1. SUBJECTS The s u b j e c t s of t h i s study were 107 v o l u n t e e r p r a c t i c i n g elementary school t e a c h e r s , s o l i c i t e d from nine schools in the Burnaby School D i s t r i c t . Burnaby i s a major suburban center w i t h i n the Greater Vancouver area. I t i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e along most r e l e v a n t dimensions of the surrounding urban and suburban area which comprises a l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n of the t e a c h i n g and student p o p u l a t i o n of the p r o v i n c e . Since a major focus of the study was r a t i n g s p r o v i d e d by r e g u l a r classroom t e a c h e r s , the f i n a l s u b j e c t sample was r e s t r i c t e d to teachers who had a r e g u l a r c l a s s e n r o l l e d and had no more than three hours each week as a s s i g n e d s p e c i a l education or a d m i n i s t r a t i o n time. Subjects were s o l i c i t e d through an o r a l p r e s e n t a t i o n to school s t a f f meetings by the r e s e a r c h e r and f a c i l i t a t e d through the c o o p e r a t i o n of the school d i s t r i c t r e s e a r c h committee and the l o c a l school a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . The i n t r o d u c t o r y p r e s e n t a t i o n and subsequent procedures r e q u i r e d 5 9 approximately 10-15 minutes of s u b j e c t time. Teachers were presented with a w r i t t e n i n t r o d u c t i o n and statement of purpose and procedures f o r the study. A l l s t a f f i n d i c a t i n g i n t e r e s t i n p a r t i c i p a t i o n completed the demographic q u e s t i o n n a i r e and the r e q u i r e d consent form. F o l l o w i n g t h i s , t eachers responded to the 16-item knowledge measure. One hundred and seven teachers agreed to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the study and completed the knowledge measure and demographic q u e s t i o n n a i r e . The mean score on the knowledge measure f o r the i n i t i a l or s c r e e n i n g sample of 107 teachers was 7.03 (S.D.=3.68) with a maximum score of 16 p o s s i b l e . T h i s sample of 30 male and 77 female teachers had a mean age of 39 years and a mean of 14 years of teaching experience. The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the teachers i n the s c r e e n i n g sample are summarized in Table 2. A l l teachers i n d i c a t i n g i n t e r e s t in p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the study had the o p p o r t u n i t y to complete a l l experimental procedures. S i x t y - f o u r of those who met study requirements and i n d i c a t e d w i l l i n g n e s s to p a r t i c i p a t e were designated w i t h i n the study as s u b j e c t s and had t h e i r data t r e a t e d a c c o r d i n g l y . Data p r o v i d e d by other p a r t i c i p a n t s were r e t a i n e d and used i n analyses o u t s i d e the d i r e c t purpose of the study. T h i s i n c l u d e d a n a l y s i s of v a r i o u s p r o p e r t i e s of the measurement instruments used i n the study. 60 TABLE 2 CHARACTERISTICS OF SCREENING SAMPLE Age (years) Experience (years) Knowledge Le v e l Mean 39.29 14.16 7.03 S.D. 8.74 7.52 3.68 Range 32-60 0-35 0-16 (max. 16) Sex E d u c a t i o n a l L e v e l s L e v e l s of C l a s s E n r o l l e d Male=30 Female=77 Teach. Cert.=10 Deg. + Cert.=83 Grad. Deg. + Cert.=14 Primary=42 Intermediate=45 Spec i a l = 20 Schools Represented T o t a l S u b j e c t s S p e c i a l T r a i n i n g n=9 n=1 07 Yes=56; No=5! 2. ASSIGNMENT OF SUBJECTS Those teachers who scored at the median l e v e l (mdn=7) on the knowledge measure (n=l3), or who d i d not meet the s t a t e d c r i t e r i o n ( i . e . , r e g u l a r classroom teacher) (n=12) or who d i d not wish to p a r t i c i p a t e f u r t h e r i n the study (n=9) were not c o n s i d e r e d f o r the purpose of s e l e c t i o n of 61 s u b j e c t s . Of those remaining, 32 s u b j e c t s from each of the knowledge groups (high, low) were randomly s e l e c t e d f o r assignment to treatment c o n d i t i o n s . Within each knowledge group four teachers were randomly s e l e c t e d and assigned to each of e i g h t experimental c o n d i t i o n s (two c h i l d case d e s c r i p t i o n s x four treatment sequences). Thus, a t o t a l of 32 teachers were randomly s e l e c t e d from the remaining pool of s u b j e c t s at each knowledge l e v e l for p a r t i c i p a t i o n and data c o l l e c t i o n , and i d e n t i f i e d w i t h i n the study as the subj e c t sample. 3. DATA COLLECTION Experimental procedures f o r t h i s second meeting proceeded, as the f i r s t , with group a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . However, fo r t h i s s e s s i o n teachers r e c e i v e d i n d i v i d u a l packages of m a t e r i a l s a p p r o p r i a t e to the prea s s i g n e d experimental c o n d i t i o n . D i f f e r e n c e s i n packages represent the two d i f f e r e n t case d e s c r i p t i o n s and four d i f f e r e n t sequences i n which treatment were presented. Each su b j e c t was pro v i d e d with an e v a l u a t i o n package c o n t a i n i n g the a p p r o p r i a t e case d e s c r i p t i o n , four treatment d e s c r i p t i o n s , four copies of the treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y measures and a s i n g l e copy of the case and treatment q u e s t i o n n a i r e . The case d e s c r i p t i o n i n c l u d e d and the sequence i n which treatments were arranged was determined p r i o r to s u b j e c t s viewing m a t e r i a l s , in the manner d e s c r i b e d e a r l i e r . 6 2 A f t e r reading t h e i r a s s i g n e d case d e s c r i p t i o n teachers were asked to c o n s i d e r the f i r s t treatment i n t h e i r package, and then to complete the treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y measures with r e f e r e n c e to t h e i r case. These m a t e r i a l s were then put asi d e and the procedure repeated f o r the remaining three treatment d e s c r i p t i o n s . Subjects were asked t o c o n s i d e r each treatment s e p a r a t e l y , but to remember that each treatment r e l a t e d to the p a r t i c u l a r case d e s c r i p t i o n p r e s ented. F o l l o w i n g completion of the four separate treatment r a t i n g s s u b j e c t s were asked to complete the case and treatment q u e s t i o n n a i r e . The second s e s s i o n , i n c l u d i n g g i v i n g of i n s t r u c t i o n s , treatment e v a l u a t i o n s , and f i n a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e q u i r e d approximately 30 minutes of su b j e c t time. The experimenter was present d u r i n g both t h i s and the f i r s t s e s s i o n , to answer q u e s t i o n s and to ensure compliance to experimental procedures. E. DATA PREPARATION AND ANALYSIS 1. DATA PREPARATION Sc o r i n g procedures f o r subject data f o l l o w those d e s c r i b e d e a r l i e r under Instrumentation. A l l data were coded and entered onto computer f i l e s with 100% v e r i f i c a t i o n . A l l e r r o r s were c o r r e c t e d p r i o r to a n a l y s i s . 63 2. ANALYSIS OF DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE The responses of teachers to the demographic q u e s t i o n n a i r e provided data to d e s c r i b e the f i n a l sample of 64 t e a c h e r s . D e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s are p r o v i d e d f o r the f i n a l sample of 64 t e a c h e r s , separated i n t o the two knowledge groups. The SPSS:X computer program CROSSTABS (SPSS Inc., 1983) was used to p r o v i d e summary d e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s of these two groups. 3. PSYCHOMETRIC ANALYSIS a. Knowledge Measure The psychometric a n a l y s i s of subject responses to the KBPAC was accomplished using the LERTAP computer program. T h i s program prov i d e s s u b j e c t s scores, mean, standard d e v i a t i o n , estimate of i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y r e l i a b i l i t y (Hoyt, 1941), and standard e r r o r of measurement, as w e l l as s t a t i s t i c s f o r item d i f f i c u l t i e s and p o i n t - b i s e r i a l c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s . F o l l o w i n g s a t i s f a c t o r y r e s u l t s of the psychometric a n a l y s i s and f o r the purpose of i d e n t i f y i n g h i g h and low s c o r i n g s u b j e c t p o o l s , the median of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of s u b j e c t s scores was c a l c u l a t e d . T h i s score then provided the 'cut p o i n t ' f o r d i v i d i n g the two groups, with those s u b j e c t s s c o r i n g at the median e l i m i n a t e d from assignment to subject p o o l s . 64 b . T r e a t m e n t A c c e p t a b i l i t y M e a s u r e s The f i r s t a n a l y s i s o f s u b j e c t r e s p o n s e s on e a c h o f t h e d e p e n d e n t m e a s u r e s was an i t e m a n d t e s t l e v e l a n a l y s i s . Once a g a i n t h e L E R T A P p r o g r a m was u s e d t o o b t a i n m e a n s , s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s , s t a n d a r d e r r o r s o f m e a s u r e m e n t , a s w e l l a s i t e m - t e s t c o r r e l a t i o n s and H o y t e s t i m a t e s o f t h e i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y r e l i a b i l i t y o f t h e t e s t s . In t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y r a t i n g s f o r e a c h t r e a t m e n t on e a c h o f t h e d e p e n d e n t m e a s u r e s were t r e a t e d a s s e p a r a t e s u b t e s t s i n t h e L E R T A P a n a l y s i s . The a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f summing i t e m r e s p o n s e s w i t h i n e a c h d e p e n d e n t m e a s u r e was d e t e r m i n e d by an i n s p e c t i o n o f i t e m a n d t e s t s t a t i s t i c s p r o v i d e d i n t h e a n a l y s i s . The t o t a l s c o r e o b t a i n e d f o r e a c h s u b j e c t on e a c h o f t h e d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s was u s e d i n t h e s e c o n d a n a l y s i s o f t r e a t m e n t r a t i n g s . 4 . A N A L Y S I S OF TREATMENT A C C E P T A B I L I T Y RATINGS The a n a l y s i s o f 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 was f o r s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s o f t h e i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s o f k n o w l e d g e l e v e l , c h i l d c a s e , a n d t r e a t m e n t t y p e , b a s e d on t e a c h e r r e s p o n s e s on t h e d e p e n d e n t m e a s u r e s . A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e a n a l y s i s c o n s i d e r e d t h e e f f e c t s o f s e v e r a l o t h e r v a r i a b l e s w h i c h a r e f u n c t i o n s o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n ( s u b j e c t s , s e q u e n c e , and o r d e r ) . A l l o f t h e s e e f f e c t s were i n v e s t i g a t e d by u t i l i z i n g a r e p l i c a t e d L a t i n - s q u a r e a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e w i t h r e p e a t e d m e a s u r e s . 65 Although L a t i n - s q u a r e designs have c e r t a i n b e n e f i t s and advantages which were d e s c r i b e d e a r l i e r ( c . f . , experimental design) such designs a l s o have attendant c o s t s i n terms of the amount of i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e from the a n a l y s i s . The major s a c r i f i c e i n the a n a l y s i s of such designs stems from the f a c t that i n f o r m a t i o n about i n t e r a c t i o n s between treatment v a r i a b l e s and row and/or column v a r i a b l e s are impossible to e x t r a c t . I t i s p o s s i b l e , f o r example, for treatments to be a f f e c t e d d i f f e r e n t i a l l y by e i t h e r row or column placement or a combination of both. Such i n t e r a c t i o n s , i f they do e x i s t may obscure the main e f f e c t s of i n t e r e s t . Within t h i s type of design treatments are s a i d to be a l i a s e d w i t h i n s p e c i f i c higher order i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s that are themselves assumed to be zero ( K i r k , 1968; Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1984; Winer, 1962). In the present a n a l y s i s treatment e f f e c t s are a l i a s e d w i t h i n the sequence x order (row x column) i n t e r a c t i o n term. While sequence, order, and sequence x order i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s may be of some i n t e r e s t i n themselves, the primary focus of the res e a r c h i s the a l i a s e d treatment e f f e c t . I t i s p o s s i b l e , i n experimental designs such as the present one, to e x t r a c t treatment e f f e c t s (and i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s of treatment with independent v a r i a b l e s other than sequence and column) from the s p e c i f i c higher order i n t e r a c t i o n s . These i n t e r a c t i o n s may, however, c o n t a i n i n a d d i t i o n to the treatment e f f e c t , v a r i a n c e a t t r i b u t a b l e to sources other than treatment. In 66 the present a n a l y s i s the sequence x order i n t e r a c t i o n term (which i s the treatment a l i a s ) may c o n t a i n treatment e f f e c t p l u s a ' L a t i n Square R e s i d u a l ' (LSR) (G. J . Johnson, p e r s o n a l communication, August, 1984). The LSR may be both i s o l a t e d and t e s t e d f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e , but where s i g n i f i c a n t w i l l i n most cases be u n i n t e r p r e t a b l e . Myers (1979) suggests that a s i g n i f i c a n t LSR can be i n t e r p r e t e d to be an e f f e c t of a treatment x order i n t e r a c t i o n (or a treatment x order x other independent v a r i a b l e i n t e r a c t i o n , depending on the LSR under c o n s i d e r a t i o n ) i f there i s strong a p r i o r i evidence fo r assuming that no sequence i n t e r a c t i o n s are p r e s e n t . Myers f u r t h e r s t a t e s , however, t h a t , "there i s no t e s t that permits determining which i n t e r a c t i o n component i s present [when the LSR i s s i g n i f i c a n t , and concludes t h a t ] . . . such a r e s u l t only r e v e a l s that some i n t e r a c t i o n component i s p r e s e n t " (p. 282). In s e v e r a l s t u d i e s u s i n g a s i m i l a r experimental design (Kazdin, 1980a, 1980b, 1981a, i n p r e s s ; Kazdin et a l . , 1981), the exact model of a n a l y s i s i s not s t a t e d and complete source t a b l e s f o r the a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e are not presented. Kazdin ( i n press) suggests a two stage a n a l y s i s ; the f i r s t of these being a 3 x 3 (sequence x order) L a t i n - s q u a r e a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e f o r repeated measures. Kazdin s t a t e s that t h i s stage of a n a l y s i s i s used to e v a l u a t e the impact of the way i n which treatments were presented. The second stage of a n a l y s i s focuses on the remaining v a r i a b l e s of i n t e r e s t , i g n o r i n g sequence and order 67 f a c t o r s . In e a r l i e r work, Kazdin (1980a) appears to f o l l o w the approach suggested by Myers (1979) of t e s t i n g e f f e c t s of the LSR. In the f i r s t study by Kazdin using t h i s design (1980a), t e s t s of treatment e f f e c t s on the potency and a c t i v i t y dimensions of the SD were made ag a i n s t the usual w i t h i n s u b j e c t s e r r o r terms, but the t e s t s of treatment e f f e c t s f o r the TEI and the e v a l u a t i v e dimension of the SD were made aga i n s t the LSR as an e r r o r term, l e a d i n g to a n e g a t i v e l y b i a s e d and hence h i g h l y c o n s e r v a t i v e F t e s t (Kazdin, 1980a, p. 265; see a l s o Myers, 1979, p. 276). Kazdin r e p o r t e d using that approach because the LSR obtained was l a r g e r than the w i t h i n s u b j e c t s e r r o r term. Kazdin does not re p o r t t e s t i n g the LSR f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e i n t h i s a n a l y s i s , but a s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t may be i n f e r r e d . In experiment two of the Kazdin (1980a) study the i n i t i a l a n a l y s i s f o r sequence and order e f f e c t s a l s o r e q u i r e d use of the c o n s e r v a t i v e F t e s t s ( l a r g e r mean square and fewer degrees of freedom i n design) i n d i c a t i n g the l i k e l y presence of a s i g n i f i c a n t LSR i n t h i s a n a l y s i s as w e l l . Other s t u d i e s using the same b a s i c experimental design, r e p o r t e d by Kazdin and h i s c o l l e a g u e s (Kazdin, 1980a, 1980b, 1981a, i n p r e s s ; Kazdin et a l . , 1981), however do not report r e s u l t s of a n a l y s i s r e q u i r i n g such t e s t s . A f u r t h e r methodological i s s u e i s r a i s e d i n reviewing the two stage a n a l y s i s r e p o r t e d i n the Kazdin s t u d i e s . While Kazdin s t a t e s , f o r example, that there i s "no d i r e c t 68 i n t e r e s t i n e v a l u a t i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the case and i t s i n t e r a c t i o n s with other v a r i a b l e s " (1981a, p. 496), i t i s apparent that n e i t h e r Case D e s c r i p t i o n nor Treatment E f f i c a c y (the other between-subjects v a r i a b l e s in t h i s study) were c o n s i d e r e d i n the f i r s t stage of a n a l y s i s . A n a l y s i s at t h i s f i r s t l e v e l then does not account f o r any v a r i a n c e due to d i f f e r e n c e between l e v e l s of these f a c t o r s or i n t e r a c t i o n s i n v o l v i n g e i t h e r or both. In the second stage of a n a l y s i s the e f f e c t s of the between-subjects v a r i a b l e s and treatments are i n v e s t i g a t e d but the e f f e c t s of sequence and order are not. The experimental design used i n both the present study and those r e p o r t e d by Kazdin and h i s c o l l e a g u e s has the p o t e n t i a l f o r i d e n t i f y i n g s e v e r a l sources of v a r i a n c e not i n v e s t i g a t e d i n the two stage a n a l y s i s . The a n a l y s i s s e l e c t e d f o r the present study was a s i n g l e stage a n a l y s i s which accounts f o r a l l i d e n t i f i a b l e sources of v a r i a n c e i n the experimental d e s i g n . Computational formulae used i n the a n a l y s i s are a t t r i b u t a b l e to Johnson (G. J . Johnson, p e r s o n a l communication, August, 1984) and are e x a c t l y e q u i v a l e n t to Myers (1979). Employing the approach d e s c r i b e d by Myers (1979, p. 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 independent v a r i a b l e s by ' L a t i n squaring treatment combinations', the computer program BMDP:8V (Dixon, 1983) was used to p r o v i d e four separate analyses of data corresponding to the r a t i n g s from each of the four treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y measures. The 69 a n a l y s i s approach was the same f o r each and proceeded as f o l l o w s . Since the design of the present study r e q u i r e d a n a l y s i s of a L a t i n - s q u a r e with repeated measures, two analyses of va r i a n c e were performed and then combined to y i e l d the sources of v a r i a n c e corresponding to the a n a l y s i s proposed by Johnson (G. J . Johnson, personal communication, August, 1984) and Myers (1979). The f i r s t repeated measures a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e was performed using subject data presented i n column order. The second repeated measures a n a l y s i s of va r i a n c e was performed with the same data r e o r d e r e d i n treatment l e v e l o r d e r i n g . The second a n a l y s i s (treatment l e v e l ordering) p r o v i d e d the sums of squares f o r treatment, treatment x knowledge i n t e r a c t i o n , treatment x case i n t e r a c t i o n , and treatment x knowledge x case i n t e r a c t i o n necessary to decompose a l l l e v e l s of the sequence x order a l i a s . These r e s u l t s were then combined with the r e s u l t s of the f i r s t a n a l y s i s to produce the ANOVA t a b l e d e s c r i b e d by Johnson (G. J . Johnson, p e r s o n a l communication, August, 1984) and Myers (1979). In t h i s a n a l y s i s the LSR i s t e s t e d for s i g n i f i c a n c e . Given a s i g n i f i c a n t LSR the t e s t s of r e l e v a n t main e f f e c t s are made a g a i n s t the LSR r a t h e r than the usual ( w i t h i n s u b j e c t s ) e r r o r term. Given s i g n i f i c a n t F r a t i o s i n these a n a l y s e s , the means were compared using Tukey's Honestly S i g n i f i c a n t D i f f e r e n c e (HSD) t e s t (Bruning & K i n t z , 1977). 70 5. ANALYSIS OF CASE AND TREATMENT QUESTIONNAIRE  RESPONSES Only one the four q u e s t i o n s posed i n the q u e s t i o n n a i r e y i e l d e d r e s u l t s which c o u l d be analys e d . T h i s a n a l y s i s was for the e f f e c t of d i f f e r e n c e s i n ranking of treatments provided i n qu e s t i o n t h r e e . T h i s a n a l y s i s u t i l i z e d both Friedman's Two-Way A n a l y s i s of Va r i a n c e by Ranks and Ke n d a l l ' s C o e f f i c i e n t of Concordance. T h i s a n a l y s i s was performed by the computer program BMDP:3S (Dixon, 1983). In t h i s a n a l y s i s ranks given to each treatment were entered as the dependent v a r i a b l e . Given a s i g n i f i c a n t Friedman t e s t s t a t i s t i c , Nemenyi's (1963) procedure was used to compare means. F. CHAPTER SUMMARY The primary purpose of t h i s chapter was to d e s c r i b e the method fo l l o w e d i n the study. The method was f i r s t d e s c r i b e d i n g eneral terms as the nature of the study, then more s p e c i f i c a l l y . The development, s e l e c t i o n , and implementation of four measurement instruments was d e s c r i b e d . The p r e s e n t a t i o n of the design of the study i n c l u d e d both a d e s c r i p t i o n of the v a r i a b l e s of i n t e r e s t and the p a r t i c u l a r experimental design s e l e c t e d . The procedure s e c t i o n d e s c r i b e d the s u b j e c t s of the study and the procedures whereby s u b j e c t s were assigned to c o n d i t i o n s and data gathered. The f i n a l s e c t i o n of the chapter presented the methods of data p r e p a r a t i o n and a n a l y s i s . The methods 7 1 f o l l o w e d i n both the a n a l y s i s of the psychometric p r o p e r t i e s of the measurement instruments and analyses of the demographic, and case and treatment q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were presented. The development and s e l e c t i o n of a p p r o p r i a t e procedures f o r the a n a l y s i s of the treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y r a t i n g s were d e s c r i b e d i n some d e t a i l . I l l . RESULTS The i n t e n t of t h i s chapter i s to present the r e s u l t s of the a n a l y s i s as d e s c r i b e d in Chapter Two. The chapter begins with a d e s c r i p t i o n of the s u b j e c t s who c o n t r i b u t e d responses i n the study, followed by the r e s u l t s of the psychometric a n a l y s i s . The next and major p o r t i o n of the chapter i s devoted to the p r e s e n t a t i o n of r e s u l t s of the a n a l y s i s of treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y r a t i n g s . The r e s u l t s of the a n a l y s i s of responses to the case and treatment q u e s t i o n n a i r e are presented l a s t . The chapter concludes with a summary of the r e s u l t s focused on r e s u l t s r e l a t e d to the primary hypotheses. A. SUBJECTS Subjects f o r the study were v o l u n t e e r r e g u l a r c l a s s elementary school t e a c h e r s who were s e l e c t e d and a s s i g n e d w i t h i n the study f o l l o w i n g the procedures o u t l i n e d i n Chapter Two. B r i e f l y , 32 t e a c h e r s were s e l e c t e d f o r each of the (high and low) knowledge groups w i t h i n the study. The study sample of 64 s u b j e c t s d i d not appear to d i f f e r from the s c r e e n i n g sample on the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s r e p o r t e d on the demographic q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Table 3 p r e s e n t s a summary of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the groups of high and low knowledge teachers (as measured by the KBPAC). S i g n i f i c a n c e t e s t s between the two knowledge groups f o r each of the r e p o r t e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n d i c a t e d no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between 72 73 TABLE 3 SUBJECT DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS C h a r a c t e r i s t i c Screen ing Sample Subject Sample Low Knowledge High Knowledge Subjects T o t a l 1 07 64 32 32 Sex Male Female 30(28%) 77(72%) 12(19%) 52(81%) 9(28%) 23(72%) 3(9%) 29(91%) Age Mean S.D. 39.29 8.74 39. 1 7 8.82 39.81 9.59 38.53 8.09 Experience (years) Mean S.D. 14.16 7.52 13.73 6.77 15.06 8.40 1 1 .78 4.51 E d u c a t i o n a l L e v e l Teach. C e r t . Deg. + C e r t . Grad. Deg. + C e r t . 10(9%) 83(78%) 14(13%) 7(11%) 54(84%) 3(5%) 5(16%) 27(84%) 0 2(6%) 27(84%) 3(9%) Knowledge L e v e l Mean S.D. 7.03 3.68 7.00 3.80 3.84 1 .92 10.16* 2.27 C h i l d Management T r a i n i n g Yes No 56(52%) 51(48%) 33(52%) 31(48%) 12(38%) 20(63%) 21(66%)** 11(34%) *0 = .82, 2<-°5 **X 2 = 4.00, 2 < - 0 5 knowledge groups f o r sex, age, number of years of t e a c h i n g experience, and l e v e l of e d u c a t i o n a l t r a i n i n g . As would be expected, the two knowledge groups do d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y (# = .82, p_<.05) with regard to score on the knowledge measure. A d d i t i o n a l y , s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found 74 between knowledge groups with regard to t r a i n i n g i n c h i l d management ( x 2 = 4.00, p_<.05), with the high knowledge group having a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n of s u b j e c t s with t r a i n i n g . t h a n not, and the low knowledge group having a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n of s u b j e c t s without t r a i n i n g than with. Included i n Table 3 as w e l l are summaries of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of both the s c r e e n i n g and t o t a l s u b j e c t samples, a f f o r d i n g comparison and c o n t r a s t between groups along each of the r e p o r t e d dimensions. B. PSYCHOMETRIC ANALYSIS 1. KNOWLEDGE MEASURE The summary of r e s u l t s from the item a n a l y s i s of the KBPAC administered to the s c r e e n i n g sample are presented in Table 4. Examination of the i n d i v i d u a l items r e v e a l e d that the d i f f i c u l t y i n d i c i e s ranged from .16 to .70, and the i t e m - t e s t p o i n t - b i s e r i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s ranged from .35 to .62. The corresponding Hoyt estimate of r e l i a b i l i t y , r e p o r t e d i n Table 5, was .78. R e s u l t s of the t o t a l t e s t a n a l y s i s f o r the s c r e e n i n g sample are summarized i n Table 5. 2. TREATMENT ACCEPTABILITY MEASURES a. Treatment E v a l u a t i o n Inventory Since each subject used the TEI to respond to each of the four treatments and responses to each were c o n s i d e r e d to represent separate t e s t s , i t e m - t e s t c o r r e l a t i o n s were 75 TABLE 4 KBPAC ITEM ANALYSIS I tern D i f f i c u l t y Index 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 1 .28 .39 2 .51 .35 3 .16 .55 4 .22 .49 5 .54 .45 6 .60 .58 7 .70 .41 8 .33 .62 9 .50 .57 10 .24 .52 1 1 .64 .56 1 2 .43 .43 1 3 .44 .43 1 4 .48 .40 1 5 .38 . 57 16 .58 .50 c a l c u l a t e d s e p a r a t e l y f o r each treatment. Examination of the p o i n t - b i s e i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s r e v e a l e d that f o r the most p a r t , items were p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to t e s t score. F i f t y of the items exceeded .50, of the remaining only one was negative (-.07). These r e s u l t s compare f a v o r a b l y with those presented and d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter Two. The r e s u l t s of the t e s t a n a l y s i s f o r each a p p l i c a t i o n of the TEI appear i n Table 6. As shown by the value of the Hoyt's estimate of i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y , r e l i a b i l i t y of measurement was high. 76 TABLE 5 KBPAC TEST ANALYSIS Number of I n d i v i d u a l s = 107 Number of Items = 16.00 Mean = 7.03 Highest Score = 16.00 S.D. = 3.68 Lowest Score 0.00 Hoyt Estimate of R e l i a b i l i t y 0.78 Standard E r r o r of Measurement 1 .66 b. Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l Item and t e s t l e v e l analyses were performed on responses to each of the subt e s t s r e p r e s e n t i n g the three dimensions of the SD f o r each treatment. R e s u l t s of t h i s a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e that of the 60 items c o n s i d e r e d only one d i d not a t t a i n a p o i n t - b i s e r i a l c o r r e l a t i o n g r e a t e r than .20. T h i s was item number 5 on the a c t i v i t y dimension w i t h i n the Reinforcement 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 f e r o c i o u s / p e a c e f u l . In t h i s case the subtest c o r r e l a t i o n a t t a i n e d was .178, lower than the other three c o n d i t i o n s (Medication=.66, Time Out=.55, and P o s i t i v e P r a c t i c e = . 4 7 ) . Since v a l u e s a t t a i n e d i n the other c o n d i t i o n s were acc e p t a b l e the r e s u l t i n the Reinforcement c o n d i t i o n was c o n s i d e r e d i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence to r e j e c t t h i s item. R e s u l t s of the item l e v e l a n a l y s i s i n general supported use of a l l items i n c a l c u l a t i o n of t o t a l score f o r each 77 TABLE 6 TEI TEST ANALYSIS Treatment Mean S.D. High Low Hoyt Standard Scoret Scored Estimate of E r r o r of R e l i a b i l i t y Measurement 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 Note. M = M e d i c a t i o n ; TO = Time Out; R = Reinforcement; PP = P o s t i v e P r a c t i c e fMaximum highest score = 105 ^Minimum lowest score = 7 dimension of the SD. The r e s u l t s of the t e s t l e v e l a n a l y s es p r o v i d e d through the LERTAP program are summarized i n Table 7. In a l l cases the data represent scores from 64 s u b j e c t s on f i v e q u e s t i o n s f o r each s u b t e s t . The maximum r a t i n g t h e r e f o r e would be 35 and a minimum r a t i n g would be f i v e . As summarized in Table 7, Hoyt's estimates of r e l i a b i l i t y were high f o r each dimension of the SD over each treatment c o n d i t i o n . The r e s u l t s r e p o r t e d i n Tables 6 and 7 supported the use of the measurments employed. Given these f i n d i n g s , s u b j e c t s ' t o t a l 78 TABLE 7 SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL TEST ANALYSIS Treatment Mean S.D. Hoyt Estimate of R e l i a b i l i t y 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 POTENCY DIMENSION M . 23.38 6.79 0.93 1 .62 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 Note. M=Medication; TO=Time Out; R=Reinforcement; PP=Positive P r a c t i c e score on each of the dependent measures f o r each treatment were c o n s i d e r e d i n subsequent a n a l y s e s . 79 C. ANALYSIS OF TREATMENT ACCEPTABILITY RATINGS 1. TREATMENT EVALUATION INVENTORY The r e s u l t s of the a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e of the TEI r a t i n g s are presented i n Table 8. Tables 9, 10, and 11 present comparisons between means for the a p o s t e r i o r i a n a l y s i s , f o l l o w i n g s i g n i f i c a n t F t e s t s of o v e r a l l d i f f e r e n c e s r e p o r t e d i n Table 8. As shown in Table 8 there were f i v e s i g n i f i c a n t sources of v a r i a n c e in t h i s a n a l y s i s . Two of these, L S R C F B and L SR^ D B correspond to d i f f e r e n t i a l c a r r y o v e r or environmental e f f e c t s on treatment r a t i n g s and are not i n t e r p r e t e d d i r e c t l y . Given s i g n i f i c a n t L a t i n square r e s i d u a l s , however, corresponding i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s ( i . e . , AF, AD) were t e s t e d a g a i n s t the LSR rather than the usual w i t h i n s u b j e c t s e r r o r term.(C s u b j e c t s w i t h i n FDB) (Myers, 1979). D i s c u s s i o n of the remaining sources, knowledge, treatment and order f o l l o w , beginning with the knowledge f a c t o r . The s i g n i f i c a n t F r a t i o f o r the knowledge group f a c t o r [ F (1 , 48) =6 . 33 , p_<.02] i n d i c a t e d that knowledge group membership had a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on r a t i n g s of treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y on the TEI. In g e n e r a l , s u b j e c t s i n the high knowledge group gave higher r a t i n g s (M=69.38) acr o s s treatments than d i d the low knowledge group (M=63.88). The f a c t o r of knowledge group i s not present i n any s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s (with the exception of the r e s i d u a l i n t e r a c t i o n term L S R ^ ™ ) . 80 TABLE 8 ANOVA FOR TEI Source df MS F Knowledge (F) 1 1897.74 6.33* Case (D) 1 3.33 0.01 Sequence (B) 3 376.16 1 .26 FD 1 73.27 0.24 FB 3 321.26 1 .07 DB 3 75.79 0.25 FDB 3 330. 10 1.10 Subject s w i t h i n FDB 48 299.81 Order (C) 3 1101.35 3.68* CF 3 51 .50 0.17 CD 3 131.51 0.44 Treatments (A) 3 8751.84 29.27* CB L a t i n Square R e s i d u a l ( L S R C B ) 6 299.83 1 .00 CFD 3 193.66 0.65 AF 3 574.43 0.82 L S R C F B 6 697.84 2.33* AD 3 422.00 0.64 L S R C D B 6 658.31 2.20* AFD 3 185.58 0.62 L S R C F D B 6 268.88 0.90 C Subjec t s w i t h i n FDB 1 44 298.98 *2<-05 81 The s i g n i f i c a n t F r a t i o f o r treatment [F(3,144)=29.27, P_<.001] i n d i c a t e s a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between l e v e l s of the f a c t o r a t t r i b u t e d to d i f f e r e n c e s i n treatment r a t i n g s . The treatment f a c t o r does not p a r t i c i p a t e in any s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s t e s t e d . R e s u l t s of comparisons between treatment r a t i n g means on the TEI using the Tukey Honestly S i g n i f i c a n t D i f f e r e n c e (HSD) procedure are summarized i n Table 9. The summary in Table 9 shows that the Reinforcement i n t e r v e n t i o n was r a t e d as s i g n i f i c a n t l y more ac c e p t a b l e than the other i n t e r v e n t i o n s u s i n g the TEI. Although the P o s i t i v e P r a c t i c e and Time Out procedures were not r a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from each other on the TEI both were l e s s a c c e p t a b l e than Reinforcement and more ac c e p t a b l e than the M e d i c a t i o n i n t e r v e n t i o n . The M e d i c a t i o n i n t e r v e n t i o n was r a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s a c c e p t a b l e than a l l other treatment i n t e r v e n t i o n s . The s i g n i f i c a n t F r a t i o f o r order of p r e s e n t a t i o n i n d i c a t e s that TEI treatment r a t i n g s d i f f e r e d as a r e s u l t of the order i n which treatments were r a t e d . T h i s r e s u l t must be i n t e r p r e t e d with some c a u t i o n i n l i g h t of the two s i g n i f i c a n t r e s i d u a l terms ( L S R C F B and L S R C D B ) i n v o l v i n g the order f a c t o r . Table 10 p r e s e n t s a summary of comparisons between order means on the TEI r a t i n g s . The r e s u l t s presented i n Table 10 i n d i c a t e t h a t , i n g e n e r a l , treatment r a t i n g s were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t i n f i r s t and second p o s i t i o n s . However, r a t i n g s i n second p o s i t i o n were higher than those i n t h i r d and f o u r t h p o s i t i o n . S i m i l a r l y r a t i n g s 82 TABLE 9 TUKEY (HSD) COMPARISONS BETWEEN TREATMENT MEANS ON THE TEI Treatment Mean Di f ference R TO PP M Reinforcement (R) 79.03 9.06* 12.58 * 28.06* Time Out (TO) 69.97 3.52 19.00* P o s i t i v e P r a c t i c e (PP) 66.45 — 15.48* Medica t i o n (M) 50.97 — *2<.05 in the f i r s t p o s i t i o n were, i n g e n e r a l , higher than those i n the f o u r t h p o s i t i o n . I t must be noted that perhaps these are general trends and that the presence of s i g n i f i c a n t LSR e f f e c t s suggests that i n d i v i d u a l knowledge groups ( i n the case of the term LSR^ Bp) and i n d i v i d u a l case groups (LSR^gp) d i d not n e c e s s a r i l y f o l l o w t h i s s p e c i f i c t r e n d . I t may be that the presence of the LSR e f f e c t s suggests a s i g n i f i c a n t treatment x order i n t e r a c t i o n with knowledge group, and with case (Myers, 1979). There i s no t e s t to s u b s t a n t i a t e d i r e c t l y such an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . However, LSR e f f e c t s can be d i s p l a y e d i n order to a i d i n the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the main e f f e c t f o r the order f a c t o r . Two graphs are presented to i l l u s t r a t e the complexity of the order e f f e c t and to r e i n f o r c e the c a u t i o n i n i t s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . F i g u r e 2 presen t s LSR e f f e c t s f o r the Reinforcement and P o s i t i v e 83 TABLE 10 TUKEY (HSD) COMPARISONS BETWEEN ORDER MEANS ON THE TEI Order Mean D i f f e r e n c e 2 1 3 4 Second (2) 72. ,05 4.72 7.41* 9. ,64* F i r s t (1) 67. .33 — 2.69 4. .92* T h i r d (3) 64. .64 -- 2, .23 Fourth (4) 62, .41 -— *p_<. 05 P r a c t i c e i n t e r v e n t i o n s at each of the four orders f o r the two knowledge groups. As can be seen i n F i g u r e 2, the r a t i n g s f o r the Reinforcement i n t e r v e n t i o n are f a i r l y s t a b l e a c r o s s orders f o r the low knowledge group, and only s l i g h t l y l e s s so f o r the high knowledge group. The shaded area h i g h l i g h t s the r e s i d u a l e f f e c t s f o r the two knowledge groups on the Reinforcement i n t e r v e n t i o n . In st a r k c o n t r a s t the two broken l i n e s represent the LSR e f f e c t s f o r the P o s t i v e P r a c t i v e i n t e r v e n t i o n , and appear to r e f l e c t a d i f f e r e n t p a t t e r n of e f f e c t s . The major d i f f e r e n c e between the two treatments i s that the P o s i t i v e P r a c t i c e i n t e r v e n t i o n r a t i n g s appear to be a f f e c t e d by the order f a c t o r i n a d i f f e r e n t way than the Reinforcement i n t e r v e n t i o n r a t i n g s . Secondly, with respect to the P o s i t i v e P r a c t i c e i n t e r v e n t i o n r a t i n g s , the two knowledge groups appear to 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-< Q to UJ 5 -9-\ -a -5-\ -10-- 1 5 --20-First 77/77^77////////////^. x ' y Second Third ORDER \ \ \ \ \ a — i Fourth Legend • R for HIGH KNOWLEDGE o R for LOW KNOWLEDGE • PP for HjGHJKNOWLEDGE D PP for LOW KNOWLEDGE CO 8 5 q u i t e d i f f e r e n t l y by the order f a c t o r . A s i m i l a r c o n t r a s t can be drawn in a comparison of the LSR e f f e c t s of two treatments f o r each of the two cases. F i g u r e 3 presents the LSR e f f e c t s f o r the Medication and Reinforcement i n t e r v e n t i o n s f o r the cases of Mike S. and Mike R. Here again the Reinforcement i n t e r v e n t i o n appears to be more s t a b l e a c r o s s orders f o r s u b j e c t s a s s i g n e d to the case of Mike R. than f o r those assigned to Mike S. As w e l l the two case groups appear to be a f f e c t e d somewhat d i f f e r e n t l y by the order f a c t o r . For the Mike R. group r a t i n g s are higher i n the f i r s t than i n f o u r t h p o s i t i o n . For the Mike S. group the opposite i s t r u e . The r a t i n g s of the two case groups on the M e d i c a t i o n i n t e r v e n t i o n appear to be a f f e c t e d s i m i l a r l y i n f i r s t , second, and t h i r d order but d i f f e r i n degree when i n f o u r t h . A d d i t i o n a l l y the M e d i c a t i o n i n t e r v e n t i o n r a t i n g s appear to be a f f e c t e d by the order f a c t o r i n a d i f f e r e n t way than are the Reinforcement i n t e r v e n t i o n r a t i n g s . Since the order x treatment i n t e r a c t i o n i n each of the LSR e f f e c t s i s p e r f e c t l y confounded with the sequence x treatment i n t e r a c t i o n f u r t h e r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the e f f e c t of order of p r e s e n t a t i o n and of the r e s i d u a l e f f e c t s i s unwarranted. Thus the s i g n i f i c a n t , and i n t e r p r e t a b l e , e f f e c t s i n the a n a l y s i s of TEI a c c e p t a b i l i t y r a t i n g s were f o r knowledge l e v e l and treatment type. The high knowledge group teachers r a t e d treatments g e n e r a l l y more p o s i t i v e l y than d i d those in i — o UJ < z> Q UJ Figure 3 LSR EFFECTS-CxDxB RESIDUALS Reinforcement and Medication for Two Cases '//////////. O'//, '///A. V////'/ \ ///// y-- \ \ :>• \ \ \ \ -10-1 - 1 5 + -First S e c o n d Third Fourth ORDER Legend • R f o r M i k e s-o R f o r M i k e R . • M J o r J r f i k e S . • M f o r M i k e R . CO 87 teachers i n the low knowledge group. T h i s f i n d i n g was not a f f e c t e d by the case which the teachers c o n s i d e r e d . The second major f i n d i n g was that teachers d i d d i f f e r e n t i a t e treatments i n terms of a c c e p t a b i l i t y r a t i n g s on the TEI. In t h i s c ontext, the Medication i n t e r v e n t i o n was r a t e d lowest in o v e r a l l a c c e p t a b i l i t y , while the Reinforcement i n t e r v e n t i o n r e c e i v e d the h i g h e s t r a t i n g s of the four treatments presented. The P o s i t i v e P r a c t i c e and Time Out i n t e r v e n t i o n s d i d not d i f f e r i n t h e i r a c c e p t a b i l i t y , but both were r a t e d higher than M e d i c a t i o n although lower than Reinforcement. 2. SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL As d e s c r i b e d i n Chapter Two, teachers' responses f o r each dimension of the SD were c o n s i d e r e d s e p a r a t e l y in the a n a l y s i s . The r e s u l t s of a n alyses f o r each dimension of the SD are presented i n the same way as the TEI r e s u l t s . a. SD E v a l u a t i v e Dimension The r e s u l t s of the a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e f o r the E v a l u a t i v e dimension are presented i n Table 1 1 . As shown i n Table 11 there were three s i g n i f i c a n t sources of v a r i a t i o n in treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y r a t i n g s on the E v a l u a t i v e dimension of the SD: treatment, sequence and order. The r e s u l t of primary i n t e r e s t to the study i s the s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t f o r treatment; t h e r e f o r e , t h i s r e s u l t and comparisons of treatment means are presented f i r s t . The p r e s e n t a t i o n of s i g n i f i c a n t sequence and order e f f e c t s f o l l o w s . 88 T A B L E 11 ANOVA FOR SD E V A L U A T I V E D I M E N S I O N S o u r c e d f MS F K n o w l e d g e ( F ) 1 8 7 . 8 9 2.10 C a s e ( D ) 1 4.00 0.10 S e q u e n c e ( B ) 3 1 2 4 . 2 8 2 . 9 8 * FD 1 5. 0 6 0.12 F B 3 6 7 . 4 2 1.61 DB 3 1 8 . 0 3 0.43 FDB 3 5. 4 9 0.13 S u b j e c t s w i t h i n FDB 48 41 .77 O r d e r ( C ) 3 1 6 1 . 3 2 3 . 7 0 * CF 3 2 3 . 4 0 0. 54 CD 3 2 . 8 9 0.07 T r e a t m e n t s ( A ) 3 1 0 0 1 . 8 0 2 2 . 9 5 * CB L a t i n S q u a r e R e s i d u a l ( L S R ^ g ) 6 3 9 . 2 2 0.90 CFD 3 9.45 0.22 A F 3 6 2 . 9 0 1 .44 L S R C F B 6 6 2 . 8 7 1 . 44 AD 3 19.51 0.45 L S R C D B 6 9 2 . 1 2 2.11 AFD 3 2 7 . 0 1 0.62 L S R C F D B 6 6 5 . 6 4 1 .50 C S u b j e c t s w i t h i n FDB 1 44 4 3 . 6 4 *p_<.05 89 The s i g n i f i c a n t F r a t i o f o r treatment [F(3,144)=22.95, p_<.00l] i n d i c a t e s a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between r a t i n g s given p a r t i c u l a r treatments. The absence of i n t e r a c t i o n s i n v o l v i n g treatments suggests that the d i f f e r e n c e s in r a t i n g s were c o n s i s t e n t a c r o s s l e v e l s of knowledge group f a c t o r as w e l l as with d i f f e r e n t cases. R e s u l t s of the post hoc comparisons between treatment means using Tukey's HSD procedure are summarized i n Table 12. The r e s u l t s summarized i n Table 12 show that the Reinforcement i n t e r v e n t i o n was given r a t i n g s s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than the other three i n t e r v e n t i o n s . The r a t i n g s given the Time Out and the P o s i t i v e P r a c t i c e i n t e r v e n t i o n s d i d not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y ; however, both were r a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than the Me d i c a t i o n i n t e r v e n t i o n . The Medication i n t e r v e n 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 present comparisons of sequence and order means r e s p e c t i v e l y . The r e s u l t s of the comparisons between means f o r the order of p r e s e n t a t i o n summarized i n Table 13 i n d i c a t e that r a t i n g s given i n the t h i r d p o s i t i o n were g e n e r a l l y lower than those given to treatments i n the second or f i r s t p o s i t i o n but not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from those given i n the f i n a l p o s i t i o n . Ratings given i n the second p o s i t i o n were a l s o higher than those i n the f o u r t h p o s i t i o n . The summary of r e s u l t s of comparisons between sequence means i n Table 14 r e v e a l s that the treatments i n sequence four were r a t e d higher than those i n e i t h e r 90 TABLE 12 TUKEY (HSD) COMPARISONS BETWEEN TREATMENT MEANS ON THE SD EVALUATIVE DIMENSION Treatment Mean D i f f e r e n c e R TO PP M Reinforcement (R) 27 .05 3.57* 5.11* 9. 55* Time Out (TO) 23 .48 -- 1 .54 5. 99* P o s i t i v e P r a c t i c e (PP) 21 .94 -- 4. 44* Medication (M) 1 7 .50 — * 2 < - 0 5 sequence two or t h r e e . No other d i f f e r e n c e s were found between sequence means. The presence or order and sequence e f f e c t s in t h i s a n a l y s i s while not of primary i n t e r e s t , suggests that c a r r y o v e r e f f e c t s may be present i n the a n a l y s i s . The major concern of such a r e s u l t i s that these e f f e c t s may obscure some other e f f e c t s of i n t e r e s t ( i . e . , knowledge, case, and treatment d i f f e r e n c e s ) . To summarize the r e s u l t s of the a n a l y s i s of the SD E v a l u a t i v e dimension, the s i n g l e i n t e r p r e t a b l e e f f e c t of i n t e r e s t was that of treatment type. T h i s f i n d i n g r e f l e c t e d the r e s u l t of the TEI a n a l y s i s . S u b j e c t s i n the two d i f f e r e n t knowledge groups and r e a d i n g d i f f e r e n t case d e s c r i p t i o n s d i d not r a t e treatments d i f f e r e n t l y . 91 TABLE 13 TUKEY (HSD) COMPARISONS BETWEEN ORDER MEANS ON THE SD EVALUATIVE DIMENSION Order Mean Di f ference 1 4 Second (2) F i r s t (1) Fourth (4) Third (3) 24.52 23.00 21 .28 21.17 1 .52 3.24* 1 .72 3.35* 1 .83* 0.11 t 2 < . 0 5 TABLE 14 TUKEY (HSD) COMPARISONS BETWEEN SEQUENCE MEANS ON THE SD EVALUATIVE DIMENSION Sequence Mean Di f ference 1 2 Four (4) One (1) Two (2) Three (3) 24.30 22.72 21 .95 21 .00 1 .58 2.35* 0.77 3.30* 1 .72 0.95 *p<.05 92 b. SD Potency Dimension The r e s u l t s of the a n a l y s i s of vari a n c e f o r the potency dimension are presented i n Table 15. The r e s u l t s summarized in Table 15 show treatment to be the only s i g n i f i c a n t source of v a r i a t i o n i n treatment r a t i n g s on the potency dimension of the SD. A summary of comparisons between treatment means f o r t h i s measure i s presented in Table 16. As shown, the Reinforcement i n t e r v e n t i o n r e c e i v e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower potency r a t i n g s than any of the other i n t e r v e n t i o n s . M e d i c a t i o n , which r e c e i v e d the highest potency r a t i n g was s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than e i t h e r the Reinforcement or P o s i t i v e P r a c t i c e i n t e r v e n t i o n s but not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the Time Out i n t e r v e n t i o n . The Time Out i n t e r v e n t i o n was r a t e d higher on the potency dimension than both the P o s i t i v e P r a c t i c e and Reinforcement i n t e r v e n t i o n s . c. SD A c t i v i t y Dimension The r e s u l t s of the analyses of v a r i a n c e f o r the a c t i v i t y dimension of the SD are presented i n Table 17. The r e s u l t s of the analyses of v a r i a n c e f o r the a c t i v i t y dimension of the SD show that order of p r e s e n t a t i o n was the s i n g l e s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t . Comparisons between ordered p r e s e n t a t i o n means on the a c t i v i t y dimension are summarized i n Table 18. The r e s u l t s of comparisons between means f o r order of p r e s e n t a t i o n on the a c t i v i t y dimension show that treatments when presented i n the t h i r d p o s i t i o n are given higher a c t i v i t y r a t i n g s than i n any of the other p o s i t i o n s . No other d i f f e r e n c e s were found. 93 TABLE 15 ANOVA FOR SD POTENCY DIMENSION Source df MS F Knowledge (F) 1 13.14 0.28 Case (D) 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 Subjects w i t h i n FDB 48 46.66 Order (C) 3 26.48 0.74 CF 3 45.92 1 .28 CD 3 6.76 0.19 Treatments (A) 3 248.93 6.93* CB L a t i n Square R e s i d u a l (LSR^g) 6 8.56 0.24 CFD 3 55.80 1 .55 AF 3 51.14 1 .42 L S R C F B 6 32.28 0.90 AD 3 44. 60 1 .24 L S R C D B 6 47.69 1 .33 AFD 3 0.75 0.02 L S R C F D B 6 7.70 0.21 C Subjects w i t h i n FDB 1 44 35.94 *p_<.05 94 TABLE 16 TUKEY (HSD) COMPARISONS BETWEEN TREATMENT MEANS ON THE SD POTENCY DIMENSION Treatment Mean D i f f e r e n c e M TO PP R Medication (M) 23. 38 0.35 2.75* 4 . 1 3* Time Out (TO) 23. 03 — 2.40* 3 .78* P o s i t i v e P r a c t i c e (PP) 20. 63 — 1 .38* Reinforcement (R) 19. 25 — *p<.05 3. SUMMARY OF TREATMENT ACCEPTABILITY RESULTS The r e s u l t s of the an a l y s e s of v a r i a n c e f o r the treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y measure r e v e a l e d s e v e r a l s i g n i f i c a n t f i n d i n g s . The e f f e c t of knowledge group was s i g n i f i c a n t f o r a c c e p t a b i l i t y r a t i n g s on the TEI [F(1,48)=6.33, p<.05] on l y . The e f f e c t of treatments was, however, s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t f o r a c c e p t a b i l i t y r a t i n g s on the TEI [F(3, 144)=29.27, p_<.05] and f o r the E v a l u a t i v e [F(3,144)=22.95, p_<•01] a n d Potency [F(3,144)=6.93, 2<- 0 5^ dimensions of the Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l . The r e s u l t s of the comparison t e s t s among treatment means are summarized i n Table 19. 95 TABLE 17 ANOVA FOR SD ACTIVITY DIMENSION Source df MS F Knowledge (F) 1 6.89 0.16 Case (D) 1 50.77 1.14 Sequence (B) 3 59.84 1 .35 FD 1 1 .56 0.04 FB 3 38.32 0.86 DB 3 46.59 1 .05 FDB 3 13.72 0.31 Subjects w i t h i n FDB 48 44.42 Order (C) 3 102.45 2.83* CF 3 33.63 0.93 CD 3 0.32 0.01 Treatments (A) 3 79.69 2.20 CB L a t i n Square R e s i d u a l (LSR,,,-) 6 29.30 0.81 CFD 3 13.53 0.37 AF 3 20.64 0.57 L S R C F B 6 50.60 1 .40 AD 3 11.14 0.31 L S R C D B 6 37.23 1 .03 AFD 3 69. 13 1 .91 L S R C F D B 6 32.59 0.90 C Subjec t s w i t h i n FDB 1 44 36.26 *p_<. 05 96 TABLE 18 TUKEY (HSD) COMPARISONS BETWEEN ORDER MEANS ON THE SD ACTIVITY DIMENSION Order Mean D i f f e r e n c e 3 1 4 2 T h i r d (3) 22. ,91 1 .99* 2. 16* 2, .99* F i r s t (1) 20. .92 — 0. 17 1 , .00 Fourth (4) 20. ,75 - - 0, .83 Second (2) 19. .92 — * 2 < - 0 5 On both the TEI and SD E v a l u a t i v e , the Reinforcement i n t e r v e n t i o n r e c e i v e d the highest a c c e p t a b i l i t y r a t i n g s , while the lowest a c c e p t a b l e r a t i n g s were as s i g n e d to the Med i c a t i o n i n t e r v e n t i o n . In terms of potency these r e s u l t s are r e v e r s e d . Order was s i g n i f i c a n t f o r the TEI [F(3, 144) = 3.68, p_<.05] and f o r the E v a l u a t i v e [F(3,144)=3.70, p<.05] and A c t i v i t y [F(3,144)=2,83, 2<- 0 5] dimensions of the Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l . These r e s u l t s are summarized i n Table 20. The order e f f e c t was not c o n s i s t e n t i n f a v o r i n g one p o s i t i o n over the three measures. A d d i t i o n a l l y , lack of c l e a r d i f f e r e n c e s across dependent measures does not allow any c o n c l u s i o n regarding t h i s e f f e c t . 97 TABLE 19 SUMMARY OF TUKEY (HSD) COMPARISONS BETWEEN TREATMENT CONDITIONS Dependent Measure C o n d i t i o n t Treatment E v a l u a t i o n Inventory R TO PP M SD E v a l u a t i v e Dimension R TO PP M SD Potency Dimension M TO PP R Note. Any two means u n d e r l i n e d by the same l i n e are not 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 not un d e r l i n e d by the same l i n e are 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 are at the p_<.05 l e v e l . Means are arranged in descending order from l e f t to r i g h t . t R = Reinforcement; PP = P o s i t i v e P r a c t i c e ; TO = Time Out; M = M e d i c a t i o n . TABLE 20 SUMMARY OF TUKEY (HSD) COMPARISONS AMONG ORDERS OF PRESENTATION Dependent Measure Treatment E v a l u a t i o n Inventory SD E v a l u a t i v e Dimension SD A c t i v i t y Dimension Orders Fourth T h i r d F i r s t Second T h i r d F ourth F i r s t Second Second Fourth F i r s t T h i r d Note. Any two means u n d e r l i n e d by the same l i n e are not 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 not u n d e r l i n e d by the same l i n e are s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . Means are arranged i n descending s i z e from l e f t to r i g h t . A l l d i f f e r e n c e s are at the p<.05 l e v e l . 98 Three f u r t h e r s i g n i f i c a n t sources of v a r i a n c e were i d e n t i f i e d . Sequence was s i g n i f i c a n t f o r the E v a l u a t i v e dimension of the Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l [F(3,48)=2.98, p_<.05] but d i d not a t t a i n s i g n i f i c a n c e over any of the other dependent measures. Two L a t i n Square R e s i d u a l s reached s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r the TEI suggesting d i f f e r e n t i a l c a r r y o v e r e f f e c t s over knowledge groups and case l e v e l s . With the exception of the p o s s i b l e i n t e r a c t i o n of the LSR^ B D, there were no main or i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s f o r case d e s c r i p t i o n . D. CASE AND TREATMENT QUESTIONNAIRE ANALYSIS The r e s u l t s of the Friedman A n a l y s i s of Variance by Ranks fo r the responses to q u e s t i o n three of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e are summarized in Table 21. The r e s u l t s summarized i n Table 21 show th a t , i n f a c t , the mean ranks given the treatments d i f f e r ( x 2 r a n k s = ^ " ^ ^ " I n s p e c t i o n of the means show that Reinforcement and Time Out have the l a r g e r mean ranks, M e d i c a t i o n , the s m a l l e s t , with the P o s t i v e P r a c t i c e mean rank f a l l i n g above that f o r M e d i c a t i o n . In a d d i t i o n , the s i g n i f i c a n t C o e f f i c i e n t of Concordance (a)=.2435) i n d i c a t e s that teachers agree i n t h e i r ranking of p r e f e r e n c e s . The average i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n between teachers i s s i g n i f i c a n t (jr=.23), again suggesting that there i s some agreement i n the r e l a t i v e ranking of treatments. The r e s u l t s of p a i r w i s e comparisons between treatment rank means using Nemenyi's (1963) procedure are summarized 99 TABLE 21 RESULTS OF FRIEDMAN TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ON RANKING OF TREATMENTS Treatment Rank Sum Mean Rank S.D. Reinforcement 193.5 3.02 0.90 Time Out 191.5 3.00 0.94 P o s i t i v e P r a c t i c e 147.0 2.28 1.09 Med i c a t i o n 108.0 1.69 0.97 Friedman Test S t a t i s t i c X 2 r a n j c s = 46.76 * 2(.05,3) = 7 ' 8 2 K e n d a l l C o e f f i c i e n t of Concordance u> = 0.24 I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n between Ranks r = .23 in Table 22. The r e s u l t s summarized i n Table 22 show that while Reinforcement was ranked h i g h e s t , i t was not ranked s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than Time Out. Both of these treatments, however, r e c e i v e d higher rankings than the P o s i t i v e P r a c t i c e i n t e r v e n t i o n . The M e d i c a t i o n i n t e r v e n t i o n was ranked lowest, s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than any of the other three treatments. The r e s u l t s of the Case and Treatment Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ranking of treatments i n d i c a t e d that treatments were ranked d i f f e r e n t i a l l y . Comparisons of treatment means i n d i c a t e d g e n e r a l l y s i m i l a r r e s u l t s to those found on both the TEI and E v a l u a t i v e dimension of the SD. TABLE 22 NEMENYI PAIRWISE COMPARISONS BETWEEN MEAN TREATMENT RANKS Treatment Mean D i f f e r e n c e R TO PP M Reinforcement (R) 3.02 0.02 0.74* 1.33* Time Out (TO) 3.00 — 0.72* 1.31* P o s i t i v e P r a c t i c e (PP) 2.28 0.59* Medica t i o n (M) 1 .69 — *2<-05 The r e s u l t s of the analyses presented i n t h i s chapter and p o s s i b l e i m p l i c a t i o n s are d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter Four. IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The purpose of t h i s chapter i s to summarize the methods used and r e s u l t s obtained i n the present study. These r e s u l t s are d i s c u s s e d i n l i g h t of re s e a r c h f i n d i n g s i n other i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . The i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r f u r t h e r research and fo r education are a l s o c o n s i d e r e d . A. SUMMARY OF METHODS AND RESULTS In t h i s r esearch, r e g u l a r classroom teachers' r a t i n g s of the a c c e p t a b i l i t y of four classroom treatment i n t e r v e n t i o n s were examined. Teachers were assig n e d to treatment c o n d i t i o n s based on the score which they r e c e i v e d on a measure of knowledge of 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 c h i l d r e n and randomly assigned w i t h i n knowledge groups to one of two case d e s c r i p t i o n s . The f i r s t case d e s c r i b e d a student who i s ex p e r i e n c i n g extreme emotional and b e h a v i o r a l problems i n the classroom s e t t i n g s . The second case d e s c r i b e d the same c h i l d but with the i n s e r t i o n of a d d i t i o n a l background i n f o r m a t i o n suggesting a h i s t o r y of. s p e c i a l c l a s s treatment. A major purpose of t h i s r e s e a r c h was to determine i f , as hypothesized, teacher's l e v e l of knowledge of b e h a v i o r a l p r i n c i p l e s would s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t r a t i n g s of treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y . A second purpose of the study was to i n v e s t i g a t e whether t e a c h e r s ' r a t i n g s of treatment would r e f l e c t the d i f f e r e n t cases d e s c r i b e d . Related to these q u e s t i o n s was the qu e s t i o n of whether teachers would d i f f e r e n t i a t e treatments i n terms of a c c e p t a b i l i t y . I t was 1 0 1 1 02 hypothesized that teachers would p r o v i d e s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t r a t i n g s on the treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y measures fo r the four treatments presented and f u r t h e r that the degree of knowledge expressed on the knowledge measure would have a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on the r a t i n g s teachers p r o v i d e . Past research evidence supported these r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s , although research f i n d i n g s had not d i r e c t l y s u b s t a n t i a t e d these s p e c i f i c hypotheses. The q u e s t i o n of case d i f f e r e n c e s i s l e s s c l e a r . Research to date has been e q u i v o c a l . Despite mixed evidence supporting such a h y p o t h e s i s i t was t h e o r i z e d that the background a t t r i b u t e d to the two cases would would have a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on teacher r a t i n g s of treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y . Another q u e s t i o n addressed by the r e s e a r c h was r e l a t e d to the method of measurement of a c c e p t a b i l i t y r a t i n g s . The method d e s c r i b e d in the study as Treatment A c c e p t a b i l i t y Measures r e f l e c t an e s t a b l i s h e d methodology using four measures of treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y (Kazdin, 1980a). The present study employed, in a d d i t i o n to these, a q u e s t i o n n a i r e which i n p a r t asked s u b j e c t s to rank the four d e s c r i b e d treatments i n terms of a c c e p t a b i l i t y and use. I t was suggested that t h i s type of procedure might simulate more c l o s e l y the c l i n i c a l decision-making p r o c e s s , and hypothesized that such a procedure would p r o v i d e r e s u l t s comparable to those of the TEI treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y measure. 1 03 1 . KNOWLEDGE GROUP In general the hypothesis of knowledge group d i f f e r e n c e was supported. The high knowledge group teachers g e n e r a l l y p r o v i d e d higher a c c e p t a b i l i t y r a t i n g s f o r a l l treatments. T h i s r e s u l t was evident from the r a t i n g s on the TEI only. Ratings on the three dimensions of the Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l showed no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e f o r t h i s f a c t o r . The f i n d i n g of g e n e r a l l y higher a c c e p t a b i l i t y r a t i n g s (on the TEI) f o r the high knowledge group lends suppport to the major f i n d i n g s reviewed i n Chapter One. The m a j o r i t y of e a r l i e r s t u d i e s had found 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 toward b e h a v i o r a l approaches to treatment with i n c r e a s e d knowledge of b e h a v i o r a l techniques and u n d e r l y i n g p r i n c i p l e s . T h i s i s a p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r e s t i n g f i n d i n g which would suggest that improved a c c e p t a b i l i t y , and p o t e n t i a l i n c r e a s e i n use of b e h a v i o r a l treatments, may be f a c i l i t a t e d through i n c r e a s e d f a m i l i a r i t y with the techniques and u n d e r l y i n g p r i n c i p l e s of b e h a v i o r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n s . Presumably, the same might be s a i d f o r the a c c e p t a b i l i t y and knowledge of the Medica t i o n i n t e r v e n t i o n . T h i s remains an e m p i r i c a l q u e s t i o n , although i t may be assumed that the two knowledge groups were s i m i l a r l y informed r e g a r d i n g the use of M e d i c a t i o n i n the treatment of b e h a v i o r a l d i s o r d e r s . In a very broad sense, these f i n d i n g s would suggest that with i n c r e a s e d knowledge of a v a r i e t y of t h e r a p u t i c approaches teach e r s would l i k e l y become more a c c e p t i n g of a l t e r n a t i v e approaches to classroom treatment. Perhaps i d e a l , i n 1 04 s e t t i n g s where a v a r i e t y of student needs are expressed, i s a teacher w i l l i n g and able to draw upon a s i m i l a r l y l a r g e v a r i e t y of treatment approaches to meet those needs. The f i n d i n g of no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between knowledge groups on the three dimensions of the Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l i s i n t e r e s t i n g i n l i g h t of s i m i l a r f i n d i n g s of no d i f f e r e n c e by Burkhart, Behles, and Stumphauzer (1976). Burkhart et a l . (1976) employed a semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l measure of a t t i t u d e toward behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n and found no d i f f e r e n c e s i n a t t i t u d e s f o r t r a i n e d and c o n t r o l groups. Kazdin (1980a, 1980b, 1981a, i n press) and Kazdin, French and Sherick (1981) have a l s o found few s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s on the SD other than d i f f e r e n c e s i n treatment type. T h i s would suggest that while the SD p r o v i d e s an accurate r e f l e c t i o n of d i f f e r e n c e s between treatments, i t does not appear to be a s u f f i c i e n t l y s e n s i t i v e r a t i n g procedure to c o n s i s t e n t l y r e f l e c t other more s u b t l e between groups d i f f e r e n c e s . Another comparison of i n t e r e s t i s that of the present study with that of Kazdin, French, and Sherick (1981) which used the same measures of treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y and s i m i l a r treatment d e s c r i p t i o n s . Three groups of s u b j e c t s p a r t i c i p a t e d in the Kazdin et a l . (1981) study: c h i l d i n p a t i e n t s , parents, and treatment s t a f f . The authors r e p o r t f i n d i n g s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between parent and c h i l d o v e r a l l r a t i n g s of treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y ( i . e . , TEI r a t i n g s ) , with parents g i v i n g higher mean r a t i n g s to 1 0 5 treatments than c h i l d r e n . Treatment s t a f f , who presumably are expert in the use of the d e s c r i b e d techniques, provided r a t i n g s which were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from e i t h e r the parent or c h i l d r a t i n g s . In the present study, however, the high knowledge group r a t e d treatments g e n e r a l l y more p o s i t i v e l y than the low knowledge group. While the subject samples i n the two s t u d i e s are d i f f e r e n t , i t i s reasonable to suggest that the s u b j e c t s i n the present study are most s i m i l a r to the treatment s t a f f s u b j e c t s i n the Kazdin study. However, Kazdin et a l . d i d not i n v e s t i g a t e the s t a t u s of p a r t i c i p a n t s ' knowledge of b e h a v i o r a l p r i n c i p l e s and d i d not i n v e s t i g a t e the d i f f e r e n c e s between [parent, s t a f f , c h i l d ] groups i n the r a t i n g s of b e h a v i o r a l treatments or medication making more d i r e c t comparisons of r e s u l t s between these two s t u d i e s i m p o s s i b l e . 2. CHILD CASE The r e s u l t s of the a n a l y s i s of treatment measure r a t i n g s d i d not r e v e a l s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the a c c e p t a b i l i t y of treatments f o r the two cases d e s c r i b e d . There are s e v e r a l p l a u s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n s which might account f o r such a r e s u l t . The most obvious of these i s t h a t , i n f a c t , the cases were not d i f f e r e n t and that the a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n regarding p r e v i o u s s p e c i a l c l a s s placement provided i n the case of Mike S. added no i n f o r m a t i o n r e l e v a n t to treatment e v a l u a t i o n . In e i g h t r e p o r t e d experiments using t h i s methodology, Kazdin and h i s 1 06 c o l l e a g u e s (Kazdin 1980a, 1980b, 1981a, in p r e s s , Kazdin, French, & S h e r r i c k 1981 ) have found a c c e p t a b i l i t y r a t i n g d i f f e r e n c e s between case d e s c r i p t i o n s in only one study and with manipulation of case f e a t u r e s , such as s e v e r i t y of problem, found d i f f e r e n c e s r e f l e c t e d only s p o r a d i c a l l y . In one study (1980a, Experiment 2) the TEI and E v a l u a t i v e dimension of the SD showed s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s f o r case d e s c r i p t i o n although expected d i f f e r e n c e s i n r a t i n g s f o r more and l e s s severe cases were noted only with the TEI. S e v e r i t y of case was s i g n i f i c a n t on the TEI and SD E v a l u a t i v e i n a more recent study as w e l l (Kazdin, i n p r e s s ) . A major d i f f e r e n c e between the present study and e a r l i e r work by Kazdin i s that the cases used i n the Kazdin s t u d i e s are purposely v a r i e d on a number of t r a d i t i o n a l l y r e l e v a n t dimensions, f o r example, age, sex, type of problem i n order to render the r e s u l t s more g e n e r a l i z a b l e . In c o n t r a s t , the present study sought to vary only one dimension ( i . e . , background of c l a s s placement of the case d e s c r i p t i o n ) in order to t e s t the e f f e c t of p r i o r placement i n f o r m a t i o n on treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y r a t i n g s i n a manner more r e l e v a n t to the r e g u l a r classroom s e t t i n g . D espite the d i f f e r e n c e s i n purpose, the f i n d i n g s of the Kazdin s t u d i e s f o r i n c r e a s e d a c c e p t a b i l i t y i n more severe cases may be q u i t e r e l e v a n t here. In the present study, i n a d d i t i o n to the treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y procedures, teachers were asked to r a t e the s e r i o u s n e s s of the problems Mike i s e x h i b i t i n g as p a r t of the Case and Treatment Q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Without 1 07 e x c e p t i o n , teachers r a t e d these problems more than moderately s e r i o u s and almost always as extremely s e r i o u s , although they d i d i n d i c a t e that t h i s c h i l d ' s behavior was t y p i c a l of the kinds of problems e x h i b i t e d by some c h i l d r e n in the r e g u l a r classroom s e t t i n g . Teachers d i d not d i f f e r e n t i a t e the s e v e r i t y of the problems e x h i b i t e d between case d e s c r i p t i o n s . A l s o r e l e v a n t here are the f i n d i n g s of S a f r a n , Safran, and Orlansky (1982). In t h i s study v a r i a t i o n s i n w r i t t e n background i n f o r m a t i o n had s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s upon s u b j e c t s ' p e r c e p t i o n s of the c h i l d ' s behavior, and upon the degree to which c h i l d r e n were regarded as a b l e to f u n c t i o n s u c c e s s f u l l y i n the r e g u l a r classroom. T h i s f i n d i n g was true f o r d e s c r i p t i o n s of both hearing impaired and normal c h i l d r e n . However t h i s f i n d i n g d i d not extend to the case of an a c t i n g - o u t c h i l d . The authors suggest that the extreme nature of the behavior r e l e g a t e d the w r i t t e n background i n f o r m a t i o n to a l e s s i n f l u e n t i a l p o s i t i o n . I t i s reasonable to s p e c u l a t e that such a r e s u l t may have occ u r r e d i n the present study and that any relevance t h a t placement h i s t o r y may have had was masked by the p e r c e i v e d extreme nature of the problems the c h i l d was d e s c r i b e d as e x h i b i t i n g . T h i s e x p l a n a t i o n c e r t a i n l y i s c o n s i s t e n t with the f i n d i n g s of Keogh and L e v i t t (1976, c i t e d i n Safran, S a f r a n , & Orlansky, 1982) who suggest that the s a l i e n t i s s u e s are both the r e g u l a r t e a c h e r s knowledge of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and needs of e x c e p t i o n a l c h i l d r e n and 108 descr i p t ive i n f o r m a t i o n r e l e v a n t to the c h i l d ' s performance. A f u r t h e r p o s s i b l e , although l e s s l i k e l y , e x p l a n a t i o n may be that teachers in the present study d i d not r e l a t e a c c e p t a b i l i t y r a t i n g s to the presented case d e s c r i p t i o n . 3. TREATMENT TYPE R e s u l t s of the a n a l y s i s presented i n the p r e v i o u s chapter suggested that the r e g u l a r classroom teachers sampled i n the present study d i d d i f f e r e n t i a t e treatments i n terms of a c c e p t a b i l i t y . Two measures of a c c e p t a b i l i t y (TEI and E v a l u a t i v e SD) showed that the Reinforcement i n t e r v e n t i o n , a p o s i t i v e approach to classroom i n t e r v e n t i o n f o r the problem behavior d e s c r i b e d , was the most a c c e p t a b l e . The M e d i c a t i o n i n t e r v e n t i o n was r a t e d as the l e a s t a c c e p t a b l e of the four a l t e r n a t i v e s , although i t was c l e a r l y seen as the most potent or powerful. That Reinforcement was seen as the l e a s t powerful i s a l s o worthy of note. In terms of the TEI and SD E v a l u a t i v e r e s u l t s i t seems reasonable to group the i n t e r v e n t i o n s i n v a r i o u s ways f o r the purpose of d i s c u s s i o n . The r e s u l t s of a n a l y s i s on these two measures c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e d that teachers p r e f e r b e h a v i o r a l to medical i n t e r v e n t i o n s , p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r the type of problems d e s c r i b e d . What i s a l s o c l e a r , however, i s that the Reinforcement i n t e r v e n t i o n i s seen as more ac c e p t a b l e than e i t h e r of the two more p u n i t i v e b e h a v i o r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n s , P o s i t i v e P r a c t i c e and Time Out. In turn both of the p u n i t i v e i n t e r v e n t i o n s were seen as more ac c e p t a b l e 1 09 than use of M e d i c a t i o n . In g e n e r a l t h i s f o l l o w s the r e s u l t s of Kazdin (1980a, 1981, i n press), and Kazdin, French, and Sherick (1981). The r e s u l t s of the ranking procedure rep o r t e d in the a n a l y s i s of the Case and Treatment Q u e s t i o n n a i r e suggest that Medication i s lowest 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 f o r use. P o s i t i v e P r a c t i c e i s seen as an improvement on t h i s . The d i s t i n c t i o n evident i n r a t i n g s of Reinforcement r e l a t i v e to other i n t e r v e n t i o n s on the TEI and E v a l u a t i v e SD are not so evident i n the ranking procedure. Perhaps the r e s u l t s of the ranking procedure r e f l e c t both the a c c e p t a b i l i t y as measured by the TEI and E v a l u a t i v e SD as w e l l as some c o n t r i b u t i o n of the s t r e n g t h of the i n t e r v e n t i o n or i t s e f f e c t i v e n e s s as r e f l e c t e d i n the potency r a t i n g s . Kazdin, French, and Sherick (1981), i n d i s c u s s i o n of a s i m i l a r f i n d i n g of high a c c e p t a b i l i t y and low potency f o r Reinforcement concluded that parents and others need to be convinced t h a t , i n f a c t , Reinforcement can be very e f f e c t i v e ( i . e . , p o t e n t ) . The present f i n d i n g s a l s o suggest that when asked about a c c e p t a b i l i t y and p o t e n t i a l use teachers consi d e r not only f e a t u r e s of a c c e p t a b i l i t y but a l s o the p o t e n t i a l f o r the treatments under c o n s i d e r a t i o n to be e f f e c t i v e i n d e a l i n g with the p a r t i c u l a r problem i n the d e s c r i b e d s e t t i n g . R e s u l t s on the a c t i v i t y dimension of the SD d i d not r e v e a l any s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between treatments i n the present study. Again t h i s f i n d i n g i s s i m i l a r to that of 1 10 previous r e s e a r c h . T h i s dimension appears, i n t h i s study and to some extent i n those p r e v i o u s , to be of l i m i t e d u t i l i t y i n r e f l e c t i n g d i f f e r e n c e s between treatments. Two a d d i t i o n a l comments should be made with regard to the treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y f i n d i n g s . The f i r s t of these i s that while M e d i c a t i o n was given the lowest mean r a t i n g on the TEI (50.97) and the SD E v a l u a t i v e (17.5) these r e s u l t s s t i l l suggest moderate o v e r a l l a c c e p t a b i l i t y , as a score of 52.5 on the TEI and 17.5 on the SD E v a l u a t i v e represent n e u t r a l r a t i n g s . In other words, teachers have not suggested o u t r i g h t that M e d i c a t i o n i s an unacceptable i n t e r v e n t i o n . S i m i l a r l y , the mean r a t i n g s f o r Reinforcement on the TEI (79.03) and SD E v a l u a t i v e (27.05) while q u i t e f a v o r a b l e , do not r e f l e c t o u t r i g h t acceptance as these v a l u e s represent 75% and 77% of the maximum value f o r t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e instrument. A second important o b s e r v a t i o n to be made with regard to the r e l a t i v e a c c e p t a b i l i t y of treatments i s that i t i s l i k e l y that many of the teach e r s sampled i n the present study use, d a i l y , v a r i a t i o n s of s e v e r a l of the d e s c r i b e d treatment i n t e r v e n t i o n s . None of these i n t e r v e n t i o n s represent novel approaches to management of problem classroom behavior. L i k e l y the most u n f a m i l i a r of these i s the Me d i c a t i o n i n t e r v e n t i o n and i n p a r t i c u l a r the s p e c i f i c drug treatment d e s c r i b e d . 111 B. IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATION At the present time the t e a c h i n g mandate i n r e g u l a r school classrooms i n c l u d e s an e x p e c t a t i o n that teachers take on the major r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r making changes i n student behavior not only with regard to the student's academic performance but a l s o i n myriad other ways. E d u c a t i o n a l and l e g a l p o l i c y , as w e l l as p r o f e s s i o n a l e t h i c s d i c t a t e that e f f o r t s d i r e c t e d toward such change should occur d e s p i t e such adverse c o n d i t i o n s as i n t e l l e c t u a l impairment and emotional and b e h a v i o r a l d i s t u r b a n c e . Given these demands teachers i n c r e a s i n g l y have need of e f f e c t i v e approaches which w i l l a i d i n the c a r r y i n g out of t h i s mandate. De s p i t e the wealth of l i t e r a t u r e which e x i s t s s u b s t a n t i a t i n g the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of p a r t i c u l a r procedures and indeed of s e v e r a l g e n e r a l approaches i n the classroom s e t t i n g such procedures and approaches have not r e c e i v e d anywhere near u n i v e r s a l acceptance and use. The present study suggests that one f a c t o r which may e x p l a i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n i s a lack of knowledge of the procedures and u n d e r l y i n g p r i n c i p l e s . A f u r t h e r i n d i c a t i o n of note here i s the f i n d i n g that those t e a c h e r s who were i n the high knowledge group g e n e r a l l y i n d i c a t e d having s p e c i f i c t r a i n i n g i n c h i l d management, whereas those i n the low knowledge group i n d i c a t e d not having such t r a i n i n g . T y p i c a l l y teacher t r a i n i n g programs s t r e s s c u r r i c u l u m and methodology but do not r o u t i n e l y prepare t e a c h e r s to be e f f e c t i v e managers and behavior.change agents. T h i s becomes p a r t i c u l a r l y c r u c i a l i n 1 1 2 the case of those students who are not capable of s e l f management in the clasroom s e t t i n g . Teachers must be w e l l informed and capable i n both g e n e r a l management and behavior change s k i l l s as w e l l as i n the understanding and a p p l i c a t i o n of the u n d e r l y i n g p r i n c i p l e s of l e a r n i n g and behavior. The obvious i m p l i c a t i o n here i s that both p r e - s e r v i c e and i n s e r v i c e teacher t r a i n i n g must begin to devote a g r e a t e r emphasis to development and a p p l i c a t i o n of r e l e v a n t knowledge and s k i l l s . The work of s e v e r a l authors (Merrett & W h e l d a l l , 1982; Mohlman, C o l a d a r c i & Gage, 1982 Robinson & Swanton, 1980; ) c e r t a i n l y supports such a c o n t e n t i o n . A second i m p l i c a t i o n which f o l l o w s from t h i s r e s e a r c h and from the f i n d i n g s of W itt, Martens, and E l l i o t (1984) i s that teachers o f t e n are working i n l e s s than i d e a l s e t t i n g s and under c o n s t r a i n t s of time and personnel which seem to d i c t a t e use of procedures which may not be the best but which are pragmatic. Ford and K e n d a l l (1979) suggest that even those c l i n i c i a n s committed to a p a r t i c u l a r o r i e n t a t i o n do not n e c e s s a r i l y bypass more pragmatic s o l u t i o n s i n favor of t h e o r e t i c a l l y c o n s i s t e n t procedures. In attempts at short term change and i n t e r v e n t i o n , c o n s u l t a n t s must be aware that treatment recommendations w i l l vary in t h e i r success not only as a r e s u l t of the v e r i f i e d e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the procedure but a l s o of the a c c e p t a b i l i t y f o r use by the p a r t i c u l a r teacher i n the given s e t t i n g s . Kazdin (Kazdin, French, & S h e r i c k , 1981) has suggested that a v a i l a b l e 1 1 3 treatments may be presented and d e l i v e r e d i n ways which make the treatments "more p a l a t a b l e to persons who, f o r whatever reasons, are not l i k e l y to adhere to treatment procedures" (p. 906). Witt and E l l i o t support t h i s p o i n t of view and f u r t h e r suggest that i n t e v e n t i o n s be d e s c r i b e d from the p e r s p e c t i v e of the a t t i t u d e s and values of the teacher r a t h e r than from a p a r t i c u l a r t h e o r e t i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e , a c c e p t i n g the f a c t that i n short c o n s u l t a t i o n s e s s i o n s i t i s probably impossible to a l t e r markedly a te a c h e r ' s b e l i e f s about the causes of behavior. Thus the i m p l i c a t i o n s s t a t e d above are r e l a t e d i n that the a c c e p t a b i l i t y of an i n t e r v e n t i o n i s a l i k e l y p r e q u i s i t e f o r i t s e v e n t u a l use by a classroom teacher. T h i s study would suggest that i n c r e a s e d knowledge of b e h a v i o r a l p r i n c i p l e s f a c i l i t a t e s g r e a t e r a c c e p t a b i l i t y of e f f e c t i v e b e h a v i o r a l techniques. A c c e p t a b i l i t y i s seen as a necessary c o n d i t i o n f o r use--which i s the primary o b j e c t i v e . Given that i n d i v i d u a l s do vary i n t h e i r knowledge and t h e o r e t i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n , a c c e p t a b i l i t y of treatments can be enhanced through 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 . An approach which i s both a c c e p t a b l e and e f f e c t i v e i s l i k e l y to be used i n the f u t u r e . S i m i l a r l y , an approach which i s not seen as acc e p t a b l e i s not l i k e l y to be used at a l l . 1 1 4 C. IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH A major goal of the study of treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y i s to b u i l d a body of r e s e a r c h which w i l l f a c i l i t a t e the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and use of e f f e c t i v e and a c c e p t a b l e treatments. Witt and E l l i o t ( i n press) have suggested that the dimensions of treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y , i n t e g r i t y , e f f e c t i v e n e s s , and use are r e c i p r o c a l l y and s e q u e n t i a l l y i n t e r r e l a t e d ( c f . Yeaton & Sechrest, 1 9 8 1 ) . The u l t i m a t e t e s t of a treatment i s i t s use. Witt and E l l i o t ( i n press) suggest that the i n i t i a l i s s u e i n treatment s e l e c t i o n i s a c c e p t a b i l i t y , and that use then i s r e l a t e d to how e f f e c t i v e the procedure proves to be. The i n t e g r i t y with which treatment i s a p p l i e d o f t e n determines i t s e f f e c t i v e n e s s . Future r e s e a r c h should focus on b u i l d i n g strong evidence r e l a t i n g each of these dimensions. An obvious and important area f o r immediate i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s that of the l i n k between a c c e p t a b i l i t y and use. The r e s u l t s of the ranking procedure i n the present study may be viewed as encouraging i n terms of f u r t h e r i n g the development of r e l e v a n t procedures f o r the measurement of treatment a c c e p t a b i l i t y . T h i s procedure was proposed as an i n i t i a l attempt at approximating the c l i n i c a l d e c i s i o n making p r o c e s s . Future r e s e a r c h may extend such an approach to sample more of the dimensions of i n t e r e s t . One p o s s i b l e a p p l i c a t i o n c o u l d i n v o l v e ranking of s e v e r a l treatments on each of the areas sampled by q u e s t i o n s on the TEI. For example s u b j e c t s c o u l d be asked to examine s e v e r a l 1 1 5 treatments and to rank each on i t s r e l a t i v e e f f e c t i v e n e s s or how humane each treatment i s l i k e l y to be. In the f i e l d of s p e c i a l education i n p a r t i c u l a r and education i n general i t i s c l e a r that i t i s o f t e n e a s i e r to f i n d 'good assessments and diagnoses' than i t i s to f i n d good treatment. S i m i l a r l y i t i s o f t e n e a s i e r to f i n d good theory than i t i s to f i n d good a p p l i c a t i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y with respect to d e a l i n g with c h i l d r e n ' s problem behavior i n the r e g u l a r classroom s e t t i n g . There i s a need f o r research which assesses the implementation of a c t u a l treatment recommendations. Related to t h i s are i s s u e s of a c c e p t a b i l i t y but a l s o of ' i n t e g r i t y ' of methods ( i . e . , do people do what they say they do), e f f e c t i v e n e s s , and the a b i l i t y and w i l l i n g n e s s of teachers and other school and treatment personnel to c a r r y out recommended treatments. One example of such r e s e a r c h might i n v o l v e follow-up on implementation of treatment recommendations from a d i a g n o s t i c c e n t e r . There i s the suggestion, from Witt and E l l i o t ( i n p r e s s ) , t h at i n a d d i t i o n to past experience with changing the t a r g e t e d problem, one's p h i l o s o p h i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n or general approach to changing behavior w i l l a f f e c t i n i t i a l judgements about the a c c e p t a b i l i t y of treatments. With regard to the issue of p h i l o s o p h i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n , the work of M i l l e r (1981) and Norcross & Prochaska (1983) represent attempts to c h a r a c t e r i z e i n a r e l i a b l e manner teachers' a f f i l i a t i o n to v a r i o u s o r i e n t a t i o n s and t h e o r i e s . Such approaches may provide important dimensions r e l a t e d to the 1 1 6 a c c e p t a b i l i t y of i n t e r v e n t i o n s from a v a r i e t y of t h e o r e t i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n s . A f u r t h e r i m p l i c a t i o n presented i s in response to the needs i d e n t i f i e d by K i e s l e r (1983). Future r e s e a r c h in the areas of program e f f e c t i v e n e s s and consumer e v a l u a t i o n of treatments w i l l need to e s t a b l i s h what K i e s l e r c a l l s an ' a t t i t u d e p r e t e s t ' i n order to b e t t e r understand the impact of treatments a c c e p t a b i l i t y in such r e s e a r c h s e t t i n g s . The procedures d e s c r i b e d i n t h i s study and p r e v i o u s l y by Kazdin may be most u s e f u l i n p r o v i d i n g such data. F i n a l l y , f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h i s needed which assesses the r e l a t i v e a c c e p t a b i l i t y of treatments among s i g n i f i c a n t groups i n v o l v e d i n the i n t e r v e n t i o n e n t e r p r i s e — t h e c l i n i c i a n s and other c o n s u l t a n t s who recommend treatment, the teachers and parents who implement treatments, and the c h i l d r e n who are the o b j e c t of treatment regimes. Present res e a r c h suggests d i s p a r a t e views, both between groups of i n d i v i d u a l s and between a l t e r n a t i v e treatments. REFERENCES Adelman, H., T a y l o r , L., F u l l e r , W. & Nelson, P. (1979). D i s c r e p a n c i e s among student, parent, and teacher r a t i n g s of the s e v e r i t y of a student's problems. American  E d u c a t i o n a l Research J o u r n a l , J_6(1), 38-41. Baer, D. M. & B u s h e l l , D., J r . (1981). The f u t u r e of behavior a n a l y s i s in the schools? Consider i t s recent past, and then ask a d i f f e r e n t q u e s t i o n . School  Psychology Review, U)(2), 259-270. Baer, G. T., G o o d a l l , R., & Brown, L. (1983). D i s c i p l i n e in the classroom: P e r c e p t i o n s of middle grade t e a c h e r s . The Clearinghouse, 57(3), 139-142. Bandura, A. (1975). The e t h i c s and s o c i a l purpose of behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n . Annual Review of Behavior  Therapy, 3, 13-20. Bandura, A. (1977). S o c i a l l e a r n i n g theory. Englewood C l i f f s , N. J . : P r e n t i c e - H a l l . B a r l i n g , J . & Wainstein, T. (1979). A t t i t u d e s , l a b e l i n g b i a s , and behavior 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 . Behavior Therapy, J_0( 1 ) , 129-136. Barlow, D. H. (1980). Behavior therapy: The next decade. Behavior Therapy, JJ_(3), 315-328. Barnes, S. E., Fors, S. W., & Decker, W. H. (1980). E t h i c a l i s s u e s i n h e a l t h e d u c a t i o n . H e a l t h Education, _M(2), 7-9. Becker, W. C. (1971). Parents as t e a c h e r s . Champaign, IL: Research Press. Benassi, V. & Lanson, R. (1972). A survey of the t e a c h i n g of behavior 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 . American P s y c h o l o g i s t , 27, 1063-1069. Berger, M. (1979). Behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n i n education and p r o f e s s i o n a l p r a c t i c e : The dangers of a mindless 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. Berg i n , A. E. (1980). Behavior therapy 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 Psychology, 48(1), 11-13. Berman, L. (1927). The r e l i g i o n c a l l e d behaviorism. New York: Boni & L i v e r i g h t . 1 1 7 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 i n a d u l t behavior therapy: Procedures, problems, and f u t u r e p e r s p e c t i v e s . Behavior Therapy, 14, 191-208. B o u t i l i e r , J . (1981). Behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n works. A t l a n t i c Canada Teacher, 10, 9-13. Brophy, J . E. & Good, T. L. (1974). Teacher-student r e l a t i o n s h i p s : Causes and consequences. New York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t , & Winston. Bruning, J . L. & K i n t z , B. L. (1977). Computational handbook of s t a t i s t i c s (2nd ed.). Glenview, IL: S c o t t , Foresman. Burkhart, B. R., Behles, M. W., & Stumphauzer, J . S. (1976). T r a i n i n g j u v e n i l e p r o b a t i o n o f f i c e r s i n behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n : Knowledge, a t t i t u d e change, or b e h a v i o r a l competence? Behavior Therapy, ]_, 47-53. Burton, J . K. (1981). B e h a v i o r a l technology: Foundation fo r the f u t u r e . E d u c a t i o n a l Technology, 21, 21-28. Calhoun, K. S. & Turner, S. M. (1981). H i s t o r i c a l 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 behavior therapy. In S. M. Turner, K. S. Calhoun, & H. Adams (Eds.), Handbook  of c l i n i c a l behavior therapy (pp. 1-11). New York: Wiley. Camplese, D. A., O'Brube, W. S., & Hale, R. E. (1979). The r e l a t i o n s h i p between te a c h i n g experience 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. Carey, R. G. & Bucher, B. (1983). P o s i t i v e p r a c t i c e o v e r c o r r e c t i o n : The e f f e c t s of 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 response r e d u c t i o n . J o u r n a l  of A p p l i e d Behavior 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 operant c o n d i t i o n i n g . J o u r n a l of the  American 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., & Luke, D. E. (1981>. C l i e n t r i g h t s i n c l i n i c a l c o u u n s e l i n g s e r v i c e s f o r c h i l d r e n . In G. T. Hannah, W. P. C h r i s t i a n , & H. B. . C l a r k (Eds.), 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  fo r 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 , e d u c a t i o n a l and  r e h a b i l i t a t i v e s e r v i c e s (pp. 19-41). R i v e r s i d e , CA: Free P r e s s . 1 19 Cochran, W. G. & Cox, G. M. (1950). Experimental designs. New York: Wiley. Dipasquale, G. W. (1980). Legal i s s u e s i n 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 . Canadian 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 treatment of c h i l d h o o d d i s o r d e r s . In L. Michelson, M. Hersen, & S. M. Turner (Eds.), Future p e r s p e c t i v e s i n  behavior therapy (pp. 21-43). New York: Plenum. Dubno, P., H i l l b u r n , D., Robinson, G., Sandler, D., T r a n i , J . , & Weingarten, 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 s c a l e . Behavior Therapy, 9, 99-108. Eber, M. & O'Brien, J . M. (1982). Psychotherapy i n the movies. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and P r a c t i c e , J_9( 1 ) , 1 16-120. E l l i o t , S.N., Witt, J.C., & G a l v i n , G. (1983). C h i l d r e n ' s  judgements about the 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  b e h a v i o r a l classroom i n t e r v e n t i o n s . Manuscript submitted f o r p u b l i c a t i o n . E ngelhardt, H. T. & McCullough, L. B. (1982). E t h i c s i n p s y c h i a t r y . In S. A r i e t i & H. K. H. Brodice (Eds.), American handbook of p s y c h i a t r y : V o l . 7. Advances and  new d i r e c t i o n s (2nd ed.) (pp. 795-818). New York: Bas i c Books. Eysenck, H. J . (1971). Behavior therapy as a s c i e n t i f i c d i s c i p l i n e . 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  Psychology, 36, 314-319. Eysenck, H. J . (1970). Behavior therapy and i t s c r i t i c s . J o u r n a l of Behavior Therapy and Experimental P s y c h i a t r y , j_, 5-15. Eysenck, 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. Bergin & S. L. G a r f i e l d (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (pp. 60-97). New York: Wiley. Farnham-Diggory, S. (1981). But how do we shape up r i g o r o u s b e h a v i o r a l a n a l y s t s ? Developmental Review, 1( 1 ) , 58-60. Feldman, M. P. & Peay, J . (1982). E t h i c a l and l e g a l i s s u e s . In A. S. B e l l a c k , M. Hersen, & A. E. Kazdin (Eds.), I n t e r n a t i o n a l handbook of behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n  and therapy (pp. 231-261). New York: Plenum. 120 Ford, 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 behaviors: A survey study. P r o f e s s i o n a l  Psychology, J_0(6), 772-773. F o s t e r , B. & Ysseldyke, J . (1976). Expectancy and halo 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 teacher b i a s . Contemporary E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology, 2, 37-45. Foxx, R. M. & Jones, J . R. (1978). A remediation 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 high school students. Behavior M o d i f i c a t i o n , 2(2), 211-230. Foxx, R. M. & Shapiro, S. T. (1978). The timeout r i b b o n : A nonexclusionary 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). Teachers and b e h a v i o r a l m o d i f i c a t i o n . Phi D e l t a Kappan, 55, 634-635. Friedman P. R. (1975). Legal r e g u l a t i o n of a p p l i e d behavior 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. Furtkamp, E., G i f f o r t , D., & S c h i e r s , W. (1982). I n - c l a s s e v a l u a t i o n of behavior 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 in a p p l i e d s e t t i n g s . J o u r n a l of Behavior  Therapy and Experimental P s y c h i a t r y , 13, 131-134. G a r f i e l d , S. L. (1983). Some comments on consumer s a t i s f a c t i o n i n behavior therapy. Behavior Therapy, 14, 237-241 . G a r g i u l o , R. M. & Yonker, R. J . (1983). A s s e s s i n g teachers' a t t i t u d e toward the handicapped: A methodological i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Psychology i n the  Schools, 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 comparative outcomes. J o u r n a l of Behavior Therapy and Experimental 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 , psychotherapy, and re 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 approach to s o c i a l problems: 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 behavior a n a l y s i s . Annual Review of  Behavior Therapy, 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. Weiss (Ed.), E v a l u a t i o n a c t i o n programs, (pp. 250-266). Boston: A l l y n & Bacon. Gutkin, T. B., Singer, J . H., & Brown, R. (1980). Teacher r e a c t i o n s to school-based c o n s u l t a t i o n s e r v i c e s : A m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s . J o u r n a l of School Psychology, J_8(2), 126-134. Guttmann, J . (1982). P u p i l s ' , t e a c h e r s ' , and parents' c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r problem behavior 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 Research, 7_6( 1 ) , 14-21. H a l l , R. V. (1971). Managing behavior ( v o l . 2). Lawrence, KS: H. & H. E n t e r p r i s e s . Hannah, M. E. & P l i n e r , S. (1983). Teacher a t t i t u d e s toward handicapped c h i l d r e n : A review and s y n t h e s i s . School Psychology Review, _1_2 ( 1 ) , 12-25. Hargreaves, W. A. & A t t k i s s o n , C. C. (1978). E v a l u a t i n g program outcomes. In C. C. A t t k i s s o n , W. A. Hargreaves, & J . E. Sorensen (Eds.), E v a l u a t i o n of human s e r v i c e  programs (pp. 20-37). New York: Academic P r e s s . Haring, N. G. (1957). A study of the a t t i t u d e s of classroom teachers 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. ( U n i v e r s i t y 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 versus the F i r s t Amendment freedoms, due-process l i b e r t y , and l i m i t e d government. Cumberland-Samford Law Review, 4, 1-40. Hickey, D. F. (1977). School c o u n s e l o r s ' a t t i t u d e s toward behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n . Personnel and Guidance J o u r n a l , 55(8), 477-480. Hobbs, S. A., Walle, D. L., & C a l d w e l l , H. S. (1984). Maternal e v a l u a t i o n of s o c i a l reinforcement and time-out: E f f e c t s of b r i e f parent 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 Psychology, 52(1), 135-136. Hochbaum, G. (1980). E t h i c a l dilemmas i n h e a l t h e d u c a t i o n . H e a l t h Education, JJ_(2), 4-6. H o l l a n d , J . G. (1975). Behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n f o r p r i s o n e r s , p a t i e n t s and other people 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 Behavior  A n a l y s i s , U1), 81-95. 1 22 Hughes, S. L., Kauffman, J . M., & Wallace, G. (1973). What do l a b e l s r e a l l y mean to classroom teachers? Academic  Therapy, 8, 285-289. I n n i s , N. K. (1981). E t h i c s of behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n : B e h a v i o r a l and medical psychology. S o c i a l Science and  Medicine: P a r t . F. Medical 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). Legal i s s u e s and behavior 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, 20(4), 175-183. Jeger, A. M. & McClure, 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 . Teaching of  Psychology, 6(4), 226-228. Jeger, A. M. & McClure, G. (1982). An experimental e v a l u a t i o n and process a n a l y s i s of a b e h a v i o r a l c o n s u l t a t i o n program. In A. M. Jeger & R. S. S l o t n i c k (Eds.), Community mental h e a l t h and b e h a v i o r a l ecology:  A handbook of theory, r e s e a r c h & p r a c t i c e , (pp. 389-401;. New York: Plenum. Jones, R. T. & Kazdin, A. E. (1981). Childhood behavior problems i n s c h o o l . In S. M. Turner, K. S. Calhoun, & H. E. Adams (Eds.), Handbook of c l i n i c a l behavior  therapy (pp. 568-606TT New York: Wiley. Kazdin, A. E. (1979). 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 of behavior therapy. Behavior Therapy, 10, 629-654. Kazdin, 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 dev i a n t c h i l d behavior. J o u r n a l of  A p p l i e d Behavior A n a l y s i s , 13, 259-273. Kazdin, A. E. (1980b). A c c e p t a b i l i t y of time out from reinforcement procedures f o r d i s r u p t i v e c h i l d behavior. Behavior Therapy, 11, 329-344. Kazdin, A. E. (1981a). A c c e p t a b i l i t y of c h i l d treatment techniques: The i n f l u e n c e of treatment e f f i c a c y and adverse si d e e f f e c t s . Behavior Therapy, 12, 493-506. Kazdin, A. E. (1981b). Behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n i n educ a t i o n : 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 . Developmental Review, 1(1), 34-57. Kazdin, A. E. (1981c). Uses and abuses of behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n i n ed u c a t i o n : A r e j o i n d e r . Developmental  Review, U1), 61-62. 123 Kazdin, A. E. (1982). The token economy a decade l a t e r . J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Behavior A n a l y s i s , 15, 431-445. Kazdin, A. E. (1983). P s y c h i a t r i c d i a g n o s i s , dimensions of d y s f u n c t i o n , and c h i l d behavior therapy. Behavior  Therapy, J_4, 73-99. Kazdin, A. E. ( i n p r e s s ) . A c c e p t a b i l i t y of a v e r s i v e procedures and medication as treatment a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r deviant c h i l d behavior. J o u r n a l of Abnormal C h i l d  Psychology. Kazdin, A. E. & Cole, 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 toward behavior 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 , content, and jargon. Behavior Therapy, 12, 56-68. Kazdin, A. E., French, N. H., & S h e r i c k , R. B. (1981). 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 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 , parents 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 Psychology, 49, 900-907. Kazdin, A. E. & Hersen, M. (1980). The c u r r e n t s t a t u s of behavior therapy. Behavior M o d i f i c a t i o n , 4(3), 283-302. Kazdin, A. E. & Wilson, G. T. (1978). E v a l u a t i o n of  behavior therapy: Issues, evidence and new r e s e a r c h  s t r a t e g i e s . Cambridge, MA: B a l l i n g e r . 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 impressions of persons. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y , 18, 431-439. Kent, R. N. & O'Leary, K. D. (1976). A c o n t r o l l e d e v a l u a t i o n of behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n with conduct problem c h i l d r e 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  Psychology, 44, 586-596. Keogh, B. K. & L e v i t t , M. L. (1976). S p e c i a l education i n the mainstreem: 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. Kerr, 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 language. Progress i n 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). S o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l i s s u e s i n s t u d y i n g consumer s a t i s f a c t i o n with behavior therapy. Behavior Therapy, 14, 226-236. 1 24 K i r i g i n , K. A., Braukmann, C. J . , Atwater, J . D., & Wolf, M. M. (1982). An e v a l u a t i o n of teaching fam i l y (Achievement Place) group 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 Behavior A n a l y s i s , 15, 1-16. Ki t c h e n e r , R. F. (1980a). E t h i c a l r e l a t i v i s m and behavior therapy. 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 Psychology, 48, 1-7. Ki t c h e n e r , R. F. (1980b). E t h i c a l r e l a t i v i s m , e t h i c a l n a t u r a l i s m , and behavior therapy. 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 Psychology, 48, 14-16. Ki 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 behavior therapy: A r e p l y to Ward. 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 Psychology, 48, 649-651. Knapp, J . R. & D e l p r a t o , D. J . (1980). Willpower, behavior therapy and the p u b l i c . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Record, 30, 477-482. Krasner, L. (1976). On the death of behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n : Some comments from a mourner. American P s y c h o l o g i s t , 3J_, 387-388. Lahey, B. B., Delamater, A., & Kupfer, D. (1981). I n t e r v e n t i o n s t r a t e g i e s with h y p e r a c t i v e and l e a r n i n g - d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n . In S. M. Turner, K. S. Calhoun, & H. E. Adams (Eds.), Handbook of c l i n i c a l  behavior therapy (pp. 607-634). New York: Wiley. Lahey, B. B. & R u b i n o f f , A. (1981). Behavior therapy i n ed u c a t i o n . In L. Michelson, M. Hersen, & S. M. Turner (Eds.), Future p e r s p e c t i v e s i n behavior therapy (pp. 27-43). New York: Plenum. Lambert, N. M. (1976). C h i l d r e n ' s problems and classroom 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 classroom t e a c h e r s . P r o f e s s i o n a l Psychology, 7, 504-517. Lazarus, A. A. (1977). Has behavior therapy o u t l i v e d i t s u s e f u l n e s s ? American 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 with mental h e a l t h 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. Lewin, P., Nelson, 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  Guidance and C o u n s e l i n g , J_7(3), 188-193. Lindsey, J . D. & F r i t h , G. H. (1983). D e t r i m e n t a l student behaviors as p e r c e i v e d by elementary t e a c h e r s . Education, 103(3), 306-308. 1 25 L u i s e l l i , J . K. (1981). C o n s u l t a t i o n in the r e s i d e n t i a l treatment of v i s u a l l y impaired c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l of  V i s u a l Impairment and 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 r e s e a r c h : 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 Psychology, 4_6(4), 643-647. Mannarino, A. P. & Durlak, J . A. (1980). Implementation and e v a l u a t i o n of s e r v i c e programs in community s e t t i n g s . P r o f e s s i o n a l Psychology, n_(2), 220-227. Mar h o l i n , D., T a y l o r , R. L., & Warren, S. A. (1978). Learning to apply psychology: D i d a c t i c t r a i n i n g experience and o p i n i o n s about behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n . Teaching of Psychology, 5(1), 23-26. Marotz, 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 classroom management. Paper presented at the meeting of the 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. M a r t i n , G. L. (1981). Behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n i n Canada in the 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 behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n programs. P s y c h o l o g i c a l  Record, 25, 111-121. McMahon, R. J . & Forehand, 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 treatment of c h i l d e n : Types, i s s u e s and recommendations. Behavior Therapy, 14, 209-225. McMahon, R. J . , Forehand, R., & G r i e s t , D. L. (1981). E f f e c t s of knowledge of 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 enhancing treatment outcome and g e n e r a l i z a t i o n in 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 Psychology, 49(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 the game: A b e h a v i o r a l approach to classroom management in the j u n i o r s c h o o l . 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 teaching s t u d e n t - t e a c h e r s about behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n techniques improve t h e i r t e a c h i n g performance i n the classroom? J o u r n a l of Education f o r Teaching, 8(1), 67-75. M i c h a e l , J . (1980). F l i g h t from behavior a n a l y s i s : P r e s i d e n t i a l address, ABA 1980. Behavior 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 , teachers' opinions and the i d e a t i o n a l b a s i s of ed 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 Research, 27(2), 182-191. Milne, D. C. (1982). A comparison of two methods of tea c h i n g behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n to mental handicap nurses. B e h a v i o r a l Psychotherapy, J_0(1), 54-64. Mohlman, G. G., C o l a d a r c i , J . , & Gage, N. L. (1982). Comprehension and a t t i t u d e as p r e d i c t o r s of implementation of teacher t r a i n i n g . J o u r n a l of Teacher  Education, 33(1), 31-36. Molloy, G. N. (1980). T r a i n i n g parents of ret a r d e d c h i l d r e n as behavior t h e r a p i s t s : What we need to know. Mental R e t a r d a t i o n B u l l e t i n , 8(1), 3-12. Musgrove, W. J . (1974). A s c a l e to measure a t t i t u d e s toward behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n . Psychology i n the  Schools, JJ_, 392-396. Musgrove, W. J . & Harms, R. A. (1975). Teachers' a t t i t u d e s toward behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n . J o u r n a l of Student  Personnel A s s o c i a t i o n f o r Teacher Education, 13, 133-138. Myers, J . L. (1979). Fundamentals of experimental design (3rd e d . ) . Boston: A l l y n and Bacon. N a t r e l l a , M. G. (1963). Experimental s t a t i s t i c s . Washington, DC: U.S. Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e . Necco, E. G. (1970). The e f f e c t s of l a b e l i n g on teachers' p e r c e p t i o n s (Do 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). D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 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, 627). Nelson, L. (1974). Guide to L e r t a p use and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Dunedin, New Zealand: U n i v e r s i t y of Otago.. Nemenyi, P. (1963). D i s t r i b u t i o n - f r e e m u l t i p l e comparisons. Unpublished d o c t o r a l t h e s i s . P r i n c e t o n : P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y . Norcross, J . C. & Prochaska, J . 0. (1983). C l i n i c i a n ' 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 e f f i c a c y . P r o f e s s i o n a l Psychology: Research and  P r a c t i c e , J_4(2), 197-208. 1 27 Norton, G. R., Austen, 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 time out from reinforcement procedures f o r d i s u p t i v e c h i l d behavior: A f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s . C h i l d and Family Behavior Therapy, 5(2), 31-41 . Nunnally, J . M., J r . (1970). I n t r o d u c t i o n to p s y c h o l o g i c a l measurement. Toronto: McGraw-Hill. O'Dell S. L., T a r l e r - B e n l o l o , L., & Flynn, J . M. (1979). An instrument to measure knowledge of 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 c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l of Behavior  Therapy and Experimental P s y c h i a t r y , 10(1), 29-34. O'Leary, K. D. (1984). The image of behavior therapy: I t i s time to take a stand. Behavior Therapy, 15, 219-233. O'Leary, S. G. & O'Leary, 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 r e s e a r c h i n s c h o o l s . Psychology  in the Schools, j_4(3), 299-307. O l l e n d i c k , T. H., Matson, J . L., Esveldt-Dawson, K., & Shapiro, E. S. (1980). I n c r e a s i n g s p e l l i n g achievement: An a n a l y s i s of treatment procedures u t i l i z i n g an a l t e r n a t i v e treatments d e s i g n . J o u r n a l of  A p p l i e d Behavior 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 meaning. Urbana, IL: U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s P ress. P a t t e r s o n , G. R. (1971). F a m i l i e s . Champaign, IL: Research Press. P a t t e r s o n , G. R. & G u l l i o n , M. E. (1968). L i v i n g with  c h i l d r e n . Champaign, IL: Research P r e s s . 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., Leblanc, C. P., & K r a t o c h w i l l , T. R. (1980). The school p s y c h o l o g i s t as b e h a v i o r a l e c o l o g i s t . J o u r n a l of School Psychology, 18(3), 222-233. Pevsner, R. (1982). Group parent t r a i n i n g versus i n d i v i d u a l f a m i l y therapy: An outcome study. J o u r n a l of  Behavior Therapy and Experimental 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 of behavior therapy: Pop behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n . J o u r n a l of Behavior  Therapy and Experimental P s y c h i a t r y , 9, 139-140. 1 28 P i e r s e l , W. C. & Gutkin, T. B. (1983). R e s i s t a n c e to school-based 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 the problem. Psychology in the Schools, 20, 311-320. P o l l a c k , M. J . , & S u l z e r - A z a r o f f , B. (1981). P r o t e c t i n g the e d u c a t i o n a l r i g h t s of the handicapped 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 (Eds.), 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  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 , e d u c a t i o n a l and  r e h a b i l i t a t i v e s e r v i c e s (pp. 61-82). R i v e r s i d e , CA: Free Press. Reese, S. C., Murphy, R. J . , & F i l i p c z a k , J . (1981). Assessment of m u l t i p l e b e h a v i o r a l procedures on academic and s o c i a l classroom behavior. Psychology in the  Schools, 18 , 349-355. Repucci, N. D. (1977). Implementation i s s u e s f o r the behavior m o d i f i e r as i n s t i t u t i o n a l change agent. Behavior Therapy, 8, 594-605. Richardson, M. W. & Kuder, 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 based upon the 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  Psychology, 3_0, 681-687. Robinson, V. & Swanton, C. (1980). G e n e r a l i z a t i o n of b e h a v i o r a l teacher t r a i n i n g . Review of E d u c a t i o n a l  Research, 50(3), 486-496. Roos, P. (1974). Human r i g h t s and behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n . Mental R e t a r d a t i o n , J_2(3), 3-6. Rosenbaum, A., O'Leary, K. D., & Jacob, 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 with h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n : Group consequences as a supplement to i n d i v i d u a l c o n t i n g e n c i e s . Behavior Therapy, 6, 315-323. Ryan, B. A. (1976). Teacher a t t i t u d e s toward behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n : One year a f t e r an i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g program. Behavior Therapy, 1_, 264-265. S a f r a n , S. P., S a f r a n , J . S., & Orlansky, 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 e x c e p t i o n a l c h i l d r e n . Contemporary E d u c a t i o n a l  Psychology, 7, 384-394. Sapon-Shevin, M. (1982). E t h i c a l i s s u e s i n parent t r a i n i n g programs. J o u r n a l of S p e c i a l Education, j_6(3), 341-357. Saunders, J . T. (1975). The s o c i a l i d e n t i t y of behavior  m o d i f i c a t i o n . Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , Yale U n i v e r s i t y . 1 29 Saunders, J . T. & Reppucci, N. D. (1978). The s o c i a l i d e n t i t y of behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n . Progress i n Behavior  M o d i f i c a t i o n , 6, 143-158. Seaton, H. W. & Aaron, 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 reading through p o s i t i v e reinforcement s c h e d u l i n g . Reading Improvement, j_5(2), 96-100. Sheldon-Wildgin, J . & R i s l e y , T. R. (1982). B a l a n c i n g c l i e n t s r i g h t s : The establishment of human r i g h t s and peer review committees. In A. S. B e l l a c k , M. Hersen, & A. E. Kazdin (Eds.), I n t e r n a t i o n a l handbook of behavior  m o d i f i c a t i o n and therapy (pp. 263-289). 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 i n psychology. New York: Basic Books. Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond freedom and d i g n i t y . New York: Knopf. Smith, D. K. (1983). Classroom management: Approaches of r e g u l a r education teachers and l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d resource t e a c h e r s . Psychology in the Schools, 20, 363-366. Spece, R. G., J r . (1972). C o n d i t i o n i n g and other t e c h n o l o g i e s used to 'Treat?' ' R e h a b i l i t a t e ? ' . 'Demolish?' p r i s o n e r s and mental p a t i e n t s . Southern  C a l i f o r n i a Law Review, 45, 616-684. Stainbrook, G. & Green, L. W. (1982). Behavior and behaviorism i n h e a l t h e d u c a t i o n . Health Education, 13, 14-19. S t o l z , S. B. (1978a). E t h i c a l i s s u e s i n behavior  m o d i f i c a t i o n . San F r a n c i s c o : Jossey-Bass. S t o l z , S. B. (1978b). E t h i c s of 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 context and a b e h a v i o r a l a n a l y s i s . In T. A. Brigham & A. C. C a t a n i a (Eds.), Handbook of a p p l i e d behavior 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 processes (pp. 652-676). New York: Wiley. S t o l z , S. B. (1981). Adoption of i n n o v a t i o n s from 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 Behavior 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 problems of c h i l d r e n as i d e n t i f i e d by today's teachers and compared with those r e p o r t e d by E. K. Wickman. J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Research, 48, 321-331. 1 30 Stumphauzer, J . S. (1981). B e h a v i o r a l approaches to j u v e n i l e d e l i n q u e n t s : Future p e r s p e c t i v e s . In L. Michelson, M. Hersen, & S. M. Turner (Eds.), Future  p e r s p e c t i v e s i n behavior therapy (pp. 65-80). New York: Plenum. Szasz, T. S. (1978). Behavior therapy: A c r i t i c a l review of the moral dimension of behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n . J o u r n a l of Behavior Therapy and Experimental 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 behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n . New Zealand  J o u r n a l of 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. & Lahey, B. B. (1983). Toward a b e h a v i o r a l model of academic remediation with l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l of Lea r n i n g D i s a b i l i t i e s , 16(2), 111-116. Turkat, I. D. & F e u e r s t e i n , M. (1978). Behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n and the p u b l i c m i s c o n c e p t i o n . American  P s y c h o l o g i s t , 33, 194. Turkat, I. D. & Forehand, R. (1980). C r i t i c a l i s s u e s i n behavior therapy. Behavior M o d i f i c a t i o n , 4(4), 445-464. Turkat, I. D., H a r r i s , F. G., & Forehand, R. (1979). Assessment of the p u b l i c r e a c t i o n to behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n . J o u r n a l of Behavior Therapy and  Experimental P s y c h i a t r y , 10(2), 101 -103. T y l e r , W. J . (1982). Behaviorism and s c h o o l i n g : Issues and ideas i n educ a t i o n . J o u r n a l of 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  Therapy, 3, 41-44. Wells, K. C. & Forehand, R. (1981). Childhood behavior problems i n the home. In S. M. Turner, K. S. Calhoun, & H. E. Adams (Eds.), Handbook of c l i n i c a l behavior  therapy (pp. 12-24). New York: Wiley. W h e l d a l l , K. & Congreve, S. (1980a). A t t i t u d e s of B r i t i s h t eachers toward behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n . E d u c a t i o n a l  Review, 32(1), 53-65. W h e l d a l l , K. & Congreve, S. (1980b). Teachers and behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n : What do they t h i n k of i t so f a r ? B r i t i s h  J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology, 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 for the use of behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n in the s c h o o l s . Psychology in the Schools, 2_0 ( 1 ) , 46-51. Wickman, G. K. (1938). Teachers and behavior problems. New York: Commonwealth Fund. New York: Plenum. Wilson, G. T. (1982). Psychotherapy process and procedure: The b e h a v i o r a l mandate. Behavior Therapy, 13(3), 291-312. Winer, B. J . (1962). S t a t i s t i c a l p r i n c i p l e s i n  experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill. Witt, 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 of teacher — implemented versus p r i n c i p a l — implemented  i n t e r v e n t i o n s . Unpublished manuscript. Witt, J . C , & E l l i o t t , S. N. ( i n p r e s s ) . A c c e p t a b i l i t y of classroom 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 (Ed.), Advances in school psychology. H i l l s i d e , NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & A s s o c i a t e s . Witt, J . C , E l l i o t , S. N., & Martens, B. K. ( i n p r e s s ) . 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 used i n classrooms: The i n f l u e n c e of teacher time, s e v e r i t y of behavior problems, and type of i n t e r v e n t i o n . B e h a v i o r a l  D i s o r d e r s . W i tt, J . C., Martens, 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 the 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 involvement, behavior problem s e v e r i t y , and type of i n t e r v e n t i o n . Behavior Therapy, J_5(2), 204-209. Witt, J . C., Moe, G., Gutkin, T. B., & Andrews, L. ( i n p r e s s ) . The e f f e c t of saying the same t h i n g i n d i f f e r e n t ways: The problem of language and jargon i n school-based c o n s u l t a t i o n . J o u r n a l of School  Psychology. Wolf, M. M. (1978). S o c i a l v a l i d i t y : The case f o r s u b j e c t i v e measurement or how a p p l i e d behavior a n a l y s i s i s f i n d i n g i t s h e a r t . J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Behavior  A n a l y s i s , H_(2), 203-214. Wollersheim, J . P., M c F a l l , M. E., Hamilton, S. B., Hickey, C. S., & Bordewick, M. C. (1980). E f f e c t s of treatment r a t i o n a l e and problem 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 problems and c o u n s e l i n g approaches. J o u r n a l of Counseling Psychology, 2_7(3), 225-231. 1 32 Wolpe, J . (1978). The humanity of behavior therapy. J o u r n a l of Behavior Therapy and Experimental P s y c h i a t r y , 9(3), 205-209. Woods, T. S. (1982). Procedures and p o l i c i e s f o r r e g u l a t i n g f i e l d - b a s e d b e h a v i o r a l technology. B e h a v i o r a l D i s o r d e r s , 8(1), 32-40. Woolfolk, A. E., Woolfolk, R. L., & Wilson, G. T. (1977). A rose by any other name . . .: L a b e l i n g b i a s and a t t i t u d e s toward behavior 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 Psychology, 45(2), 184-191. Woolfolk, R. L. & Woolfolk, 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  Therapy, J_0(4), 575-578. Wray, L. D. & Steer, M. (1980). The implementation 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 s e t t i n g s . Mental R e t a r d a t i o n B u l l e t i n , 8(1), 13-26. Yeaton, W. H. & Sechrest, L. (1981). C r i t i c a l dimensions i n the c h o i c e and maintenance of s u c c e s s f u l treatment: Strength, 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 Psychology, 49, 156-167. Young, L. D. & P a t t e r s o n , J . N. (1981 ).. Information and o p i n i o n s about behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n . J o u r n a l of  Behavior Therapy and Experimental P s y c h i a t r y , 12(3), 189-196. APPENDIX A I n t r o d u c t i o n , Consent, and Demographic Data Forms PROJECT TITLE: Teacher Ratings of A l t e r n a t i v e Classroom Treatment S t r a t e g i e s . PROJECT RESEARCHER: W i l l i a m T. McKee, under the d i r e c t i o n of Dr. Barry Munro, P r o f e s s o r , Department of E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology and S p e c i a l E d ucation, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. PURPOSE AND PROCEDURES: I n d i v i d u a l s p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h i s p r o j e c t w i l l be e v a l u a t i n g s e v e r a l a l t e r n a t i v e classroom treatment s t r a t e g i e s f o r d e a l i n g with c h i l d r e n ' s deviant classroom behavior. P a r t i c i p a n t s w i l l be asked to complete an i n i t i a l 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 approaches to d e a l i n g with some d i f f i c u l t but t y p i c a l c h i l d behavior. P a r t i c i p a n t s w i l l then be presented with an e v a l u a t i o n package which w i l l be used i n the r a t i n g s procedure. P a r t i c i p a n t s w i l l be asked to complete two r a t i n g s forms f o l l o w i n g each of four p r e s e n t a t i o n s of treatment a l t e r n a t i v e s . The e n t i r e procedure should r e q u i r e no more than 45 minutes. P a r t i c i p a n t s w i l l be asked to provide some minimal p e r s o n a l data (e.g. gender, age, highest l e v e l of education a t t a i n e d ) . In order to maintain complete i n d i v i d u a l 1 33 1 3 4 c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y and to ensure candid responses, the i n f o r m a t i o n , o p i n i o n s , and data presented by a l l s u b j e c t s w i l l be coded and the i d e n t i t y of i n d i v i d u a l s p a r t i c i p a t i n g w i l l remain c o n f i d e n t i a l throughout the study. The researcher w i l l be a v a i l a b l e d u r i n g and f o l l o w i n g the procedures in order to answer any i n q u i r i e s concerning the procedures and to ensure that they are f u l l y understood. F o l l o w i n g completion of the study the r e s e a r c h e r w i l l be a v a i l a b l e f o r d i s c u s s i o n or p r e s e n t a t i o n of r e s u l t s and i m p l i c a t i o n s as w e l l as to p r o v i d e any f u r t h e r d e t a i l s r e g a r d i n g procedures and methodology. 1 35 CONSENT It i s the r i g h t of any subject to refuse to p a r t i c i p a t e or to withdraw from the p r o j e c t at any time. Such a d e c i s i o n w i l l n e i t h e r j e o p a r d i z e nor i n f l u e n c e you in any way. Please i n d i c a t e your w i l l i n g n e s s to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the p r o j e c t by p r o v i d i n g your s i g n a t u r e consenting to your p a r t i c i p a t i o n . I consent to p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s p r o j e c t . S ignature Date PERSONAL DATA: Gender M / F Age Highest l e v e l of education a t t a i n e d Teaching experience: practicum years f u l l time Grade l e v e l s taught mainly Have you had s p e c i a l t r a i n i n g i n c h i l d management? If yes, please i n d i c a t e with a check ( ) below. Courses Workshops I n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g Other (please s p e c i f y ) APPENDIX B Knowledge Measure KBPAC 16E Th i s measure c o n s i s t s of 16 items and w i l l take approximately 8 to 10 minutes to complete. Di r e c t ions 1 . You w i l l be r e q u i r e d to s e l e c t responses to que s t i o n s d e a l i n g with some t y p i c a l c h i l d b e h a v i o r s . 2. Read c a r e f u l l y each q u e s t i o n and each of i t s four p o s s i b l e answers. In some q u e s t i o n s and under c e r t a i n circumstances more than one answer might be c o r r e c t , however, you must s e l e c t the s i n g l e best answer or one which you f e e l i s most g e n e r a l l y t r u e . C i r c l e the l e t t e r beside that answer. Example; Probably the most important i n f l u e n c e i n a young c h i l d ' s l i f e i s h i s . . . a. Toys b. T e l e v i s i o n c. Parents d. F r i e n d s Please do not c o n s u l t others while d e c i d i n g how to answer the q u e s t i o n s . Complete a l l q u e s t i o n s , even i f you must guess. 137 1 38 KBPAC 16E 1. Which of the f o l l o w i n g i s most important f o r parents i n c o n t r o l l i n g t h e i r c h i l d ' s behavior? a. The r u l e s the parents make about behavior. b. The parents' understanding of the c h i l d ' s f e e l i n g s . c. The behaviors to which the parents a t t e n d . d. Being s t r i c t , but a l s o warm and g e n t l e . 2. A boy l o v e s f o o t b a l l . What i s most l i k e l y to happen i f , each time he i s p l a y i n g n i c e l y with h i s s i s t e r , h i s f a t h e r i n v i t e s him to play f o o t b a l l ? a. He w i l l always be asking h i s f a t h e r to p l a y f o o t b a l l . b. He w i l l p l a y n i c e l y with h i s s i s t e r more o f t e n . c. He w i l l be annoyed with h i s f a t h e r f o r i n t e r f e r i n g with h i s a c t i v i t i e s . d. He w i l l be encouraged to teach h i s s i s t e r to p l a y f o o t b a l l . 3. I f you want your c h i l d to develop proper study h a b i t s , you should: a. Encourage him to do h i s homework. b. Help him to see school as p l e a s a n t . c. Reward him whenever he s t u d i e s . d. Give him good reasons why he w i l l need s c h o o l . 139 4. A c h i l d o f t e n c r i e s o v e r any s m a l l m a t t e r t h a t b o t h e r s h e r . How s h o u l d h e r p a r e n t s r e a c t t o b e s t r e d u c e h e r c r y i n g ? a . Reward when s h e r e a c t s w i t h o u t c r y i n g . b . U s e a m i l d p u n i s h m e n t when she c r i e s . c . T r y t o f i n d o u t what i s r e a l l y t r o u b l i n g t h e c h i l d a n d d e a l w i t h t h a t . d . P r o v i d e h e r w i t h s o m e t h i n g i n t e r e s t i n g s o s h e w i l l s t o p c r y i n g . 5. A f a t h e r t e l l s a c h i l d s h e c a n n o t go t o t h e s t o r e w i t h h i m b e c a u s e she d i d n ' t c l e a n h e r room l i k e s h e p r o m i s e d . She r e a c t s by s h o u t i n g , c r y i n g a n d p r o m i s i n g s h e w i l l c l e a n t h e room when s h e g e t s home. What s h o u l d t h e f a t h e r d o ? a . I g n o r e h e r a n d go t o t h e s t o r e . b . T a k e h e r t o t h e s t o r e b u t make h e r c l e a n h e r room when t h e y r e t u r n . c . C a l m h e r down a n d go h e l p h e r c l e a n h e r room t o g e t h e r . d . T a l k t o h e r a n d f i n d o u t why she d o e s n ' t t a k e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . 6. I f y o u want t o make a b e h a v i o r a l o n g - l a s t i n g h a b i t , y o u s h o u l d : a . R e w a r d i t e v e r y t i m e . b . F i r s t r e w a r d i t e v e r y t i m e a n d t h e n r e w a r d i t o c c a s i o n a l l y . c . P r o m i s e s o m e t h i n g t h e c h i l d w a n t s v e r y m u c h . d . G i v e s e v e r a l r e a s o n s why i t i s i m p o r t a n t a n d r e m i n d t h e c h i l d o f t h e r e a s o n s o f t e n . 1 40 7. A b a b y o f t e n s c r e a m s f o r s e v e r a l m i n u t e s a n d g e t s h i s p a r e n t s ' a t t e n t i o n . W h i c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g i s p r o b a b l y t h e b e s t w a y f o r h i s p a r e n t s t o r e d u c e h i s s c r e a m i n g ? a . I f t h e r e i s n o t h i n g p h y s i c a l l y w r o n g w i t h t h e c h i l d , i g n o r e h i s s c r e a m i n g e v e n t h o u g h t h e f i r s t f e w t i m e s h e s c r e a m s e v e n l o u d e r . b . D i s t r a c t t h e c h i l d w i t h s o m e t h i n g h e f i n d s i n t e r e s t i n g w h e n e v e r h e s c r e a m s . c . I g n o r e a l l n o i s e s a n d s o u n d s t h e c h i l d m a k e s . d . N o n e o f t h e a b o v e . B a b i e s u s u a l l y h a v e g o o d r e a s o n s f o r s c r e a m i n g . 8. P r o b a b l y t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t i d e a t o k e e p i n m i n d w h e n f i r s t c h a n g i n g b e h a v i o r i s : a . T o u s e b o t h r e w a r d a n d p u n i s h m e n t . b . T o r e w a r d e v e r y t i m e t h e d e s i r e d b e h a v i o r o c c u r s . c . T o b e f l e x i b l e a b o u t w h e t h e r o r n o t y o u r e w a r d . d . T o b e s u r e t h e c h i l d u n d e r s t a n d s w h y y o u w a n t t h e b e h a v i o r t o c h a n g e . 9. A c h i l d b e g i n s t o w h i n e a n d c r y w h e n h i s p a r e n t e x p l a i n s w h y h e c a n ' t g o o u t s i d e . H o w s h o u l d t h e p a r e n t r e a c t ? a . A s k t h e c h i l d w h y g o i n g o u t s i d e i s s o i m p o r t a n t t o h i m . b . E x p l a i n t h a t i t i s a p a r e n t ' s r i g h t t o m a k e s u c h d e c i s i o n s . c . E x p l a i n a g a i n w h y h e s h o u l d n o t g o o u t s i d e . d . I g n o r e t h e w h i n i n g a n d c r y i n g . 141 10. If punishment i s used f o r a behavior such as p l a y i n g f o o t b a l l i n the house, which type i s probably the best to use? a. Make the c h i l d do e x t r a homework. b. C l e a r l y express your d i s a p p r o v a l . c. Remove the c h i l d to a bori n g s i t u a t i o n each time. d. A reasonable spanking. 11. Which of the f o l l o w i n g i s most e f f e c t i v e i n g e t t i n g a c h i l d to do homework? a. "When you f i n i s h your homework, you can watch T.V." b. "You can watch t h i s show on T.V., i f you promise to do your homework when the show i s over." c. " I f you don't do your homework t o n i g h t , you can't watch T.V. at a l l tomorrow." d. E x p l a i n the importance of school work and the dangers of p u t t i n g t h i n g s o f f . 12. Parents who use l o t s of rewards f o r good behavior and few punishments w i l l probably tend to have c h i l d r e n who: a. Do not understand d i s c i p l i n e . b. W i l l not cooperate unless they are 'pa i d ' . c. Take advantage of t h e i r p a r e n t s . d. Are well-behaved and c o o p e r a t i v e . 1 42 13. Which reward i s probably best to help a 12-year-old c h i l d improve h i s a r i t h m e t i c s k i l l s ? a. A d o l l a r f o r each evening he s t u d i e s . b. A dime f o r each problem 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 on h i s report c a r d i n a r i t h m e t i c . d. A b i c y c l e f o r passing a r i t h m e t i c f o r the r e s t of the year. 14. Johnny has j u s t torn up a new magazine. Of the f o l l o w i n g c h o i c e s , which 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. T e l l him he w i l l be spanked by h i s f a t h e r when he gets home. b. Punish him then and t h e r e . c. E x p l a i n to Johnny the wrongness of h i s a c t i o n s . d. A n g r i l y s c o l d Johnny so that he w i l l l e a r n that such an a ct i s bad and u p s e t t i n g to h i s mother. 15. Jimmy sometimes says obscene words, but only i n f r o n t of h i s mother. She has been shocked and makes her f e e l i n g s c l e a r to him. How should she re a c t when he uses obscene words? a. Wash h i s mouth out with soap. b. Ignore him when he uses obscene words. c. T e l l him how bad he i s and how she doesn't l i k e him when he uses those words. d. E x p l a i n to him the reason such words are not used. 1 16. Which of the f o l l o w i n g i s probably most important i n h e l p i n g a c h i l d behave i n d e s i r a b l e ways? a. To teach him the importance of s e l f - d i s c i p l i n e . b. To h e l p him understand r i g h t and wrong. c. P r o v i d i n g c o n s i s t e n t consequences f o r h i s behavior d. Understanding h i s moods and f e e l i n g s as a unique person. APPENDIX C Treatment E v a l u a t i o n Inventory (Kazdin, 1980a) Please complete the items l i s t e d below. The items should be completed by p l a c i n g a checkmark on the l i n e under the q u e s t i o n that best i n d i c a t e s how you f e e l about the treatment. Please read the items very 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 space r a t h e r than another may not represent the meaning you intended. Note that throughout the inventory the term treatment i s used, and may be thought of as s i m i l a r to such terms as i n t e r v e n t i o n , method, procedure, or s t r a t e g y . 1. How a c c e p t a b l e do you f i n d t h i s treatment to be f o r the c h i l d ' s problem behavior? not at a l l moderately very a c c e p t a b l e a c c e p t a b l e a c c e p t a b l e 2. How w i l l i n g would you be to c a r r y out t h i s procedure y o u r s e l f i f you had to change the c h i l d ' s problems? not at a l l moderately very w i l l i n g w i l l i n g w i l l i n g 3. How s u i t a b l e i s t h i s procedure f o r c h i l d r e n who might have other b e h a v i o r a l problems than those d e s c r i b e d f o r t h i s c h i l d ? not at a l l moderately very s u i t a b l e s u i t a b l e s u i t a b l e 4. I f c h i l d r e n had to be a s s i g n e d to treatment without t h e i r consent, how bad would i t be to give them t h i s treatment? very bad moderately bad not bad at a l l 1 44 1 4 5 5. How c r u e l or u n f a i r do you f i n d t h i s treatment? very c r u e l moderately c r u e l not c r u e l at a l l 6. Would i t be accep t a b l e to apply t h i s procedure to 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 mentally r e t a r d e d , or other i n d i v i d u a l s who are not given an o p p o r t u n i t y to choose treatment f o r themselves? not at a l l a c c e p t a b l e to apply t h i s procedure moderately a c c e p t a b l e very acceptable to apply t h i s procedure 7. How c o n s i s t e n t i s t h i s treatment with common sense or everyday n o t i o n s about what treatment should be? very d i f f e r e n t or i n c o n s i s t e n t moderately c o n s i s t e n t very c o n s i s t e n t with everyday n o t i o n s 8. To what extent does t h i s procedure t r e a t the c h i l d humanely? does not t r e a t humanely at a l l t r e a t s them moderately humanely t r e a t s them very humanely 9 . To what extent do you think there might be r i s k s in 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 are 1 i kely no r i s k s are l i k e l y 1 46 10. How much do you l i k e the procedures used i n t h i s treatment? do not l i k e moderately l i k e l i k e them them at a l l them very much 11. How e f f e c t i v e i s t h i s treatment l i k e l y to be? not at a l l moderately very e f f e c t i v e e f f e c t i v e e f f e c t i v e 12. How l i k e l y i s t h i s treatment to make permanent improvements in the c h i l d ? u n l i k e l y moderately very l i k e l y 1i kely 13. To what extent are u n d e s i r a b l e s i d e e f f e c t s l i k e l y to r e s u l t from t h i s treatment? many some no u n d e s i r a b l e u n d e s i r a b l e u n d e s i r a b l e s i d e e f f e c t s s i d e e f f e c t s s i d e l i k e l y l i k e l y e f f e c t s would occur 14. How much dis c o m f o r t i s the c h i l d l i k e l y to experience d u r i n g the course of treatment? very much moderate no disc o m f o r t d i s c o m f o r t d i s c o m f o r t at a l l 15. O v e r a l l , what i s your g e n e r a l r e a c t i o n to t h i s form of treatment? very negative ambivalent very p o s i t i v e APPENDIX D Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l (Kazdin, 1980a) Please p l a c e your checkmarks on the l i n e that best c h a r a c t e r i z e s your r e a c t i o n to the treatment. If 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 put a checkmark that best r e f l e c t s your ge n e r a l r e a c t i o n to the treatment. There i s no need to spend much time on any one of the items. Your f i r s t impressions and immediate f e e l i n g about the items are what I would l i k e . bad unpleasant c r u e l worthless u n f a i r s t r o n g hard heavy l a r g e t h i c k weak s o f t l i g h t small t h i n act i ve sharp hot f a s t f e r o c ious p a s s i v e d u l l c o l d slow p e a c e f u l 1 47 APPENDIX E Case and Treatment Qu e s t i o n n a i r e Now that you have had a chance to think about Mike's problems and about some p o s s i b l e s t r a t e g i e s f o r d e a l i n g with Mike, I would l i k e you to c o n s i d e r a few a d d i t i o n a l q u e s t i o n s . 1. How s e r i o u s would you rate the problems Mike i s d e s c r i b e d as e x h i b i t i n g ? 5 4 3 2 1 extremely moderately not very s e r i o u s s e r i o u s s e r i o u s at a l l 2. In your own experience, how t y p i c a l i s Mike of the kind of c h i l d being seen in the r e g u l a r classroom? 1 48 1 49 3. C o n s i d e r t h e f o u r i n t e r v e n t i o n s t r a t e g i e s d e s c r i b e d f o r d e a l i n g w i t h M i k e ' s p r o b l e m s . P o s i t i v e P r a c t i c e PP M e d i c a t i o n M R e i n f o r c e m e n t R Time Out TO P l e a s e rank t h e s e f o u r i n t e r v e n t i o n s a c c o r d i n g t o how l i k e l y y o u would be t o use e a c h i n y o u r c l a s s r o o m . Do so by p l a c i n g t h e l e t t e r ( s ) c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o e a c h i n t e r v e n t i o n i n t h e o r d e r w h i c h b e s t r e p r e s e n t s y o u r f e e l i n g s . l e a s t most l i k e l y l i k e l y t o t o use t h i s use t h i s one one 4. A f t e r r e a d i n g t h r o u g h M i k e ' s c a s e d e s c r i p t i o n and t h e i n t e r v e n t i o n s t r a t e g i e s , y ou p r o b a b l y have had some r e a c t i o n s ( e . g . "My God, who would e v e r do t h a t t o a k i d " , o r , " W e l l o f c o u r s e , t h a t ' s what I do a l l t h e t i m e f o r k i d s l i k e h i m ! " ) . T e a c h e r s f a c e t h i s and s i m i l a r k i n d s of p r o b l e m s i n many c l a s s r o o m s . The r e a c t i o n s o f t h o s e t e a c h e r s t o t h e s e k i n d s of s i t u a t i o n s a r e an i m p o r t a n t a r e a o f i n v e s t i g a t i o n . In a few s e n t e n c e s , p l e a s e d e s c r i b e how you might a p p r o a c h t h e s i t u a t i o n i f Mike were i n y c u r c l a s s . APPENDIX F Case D e s c r i p t i o n Case of Mike R. Mike i s a 9-year o l d boy who l i v e s with h i s parents and younger brother, Tom, who i s 6 years o l d . Although Mike i s of normal i n t e l l i g e n c e and has no obvious academic d i f f i c u l t i e s , h i s s o c i a l behavior has been a concern f o r some time. His main problem i s that he i s very a g g r e s s i v e and does  not f o l l o w a d u l t i n s t r u c t i o n s . He does many d i f f e r e n t t h i n g s that are dangerous to h i m s e l f or to o t h e r s . O c c a s i o n a l l y , he throws t h i n g s at h i s teache r s and h i s parents when they ask him to do t h i n g s . He has broken many o b j e c t s at s c h o o l , such as books, c h a i r s , t o y s , and a tape r e c o r d e r , e i t h e r by throwing them or knocking them o f f t a b l e s and s h e l v e s . He a l s o has had problems at home. For example, he f i g h t s with h i s brother p h y s i c a l l y and sometimes throws sharp o b j e c t s d i r e c t l y at him. Both Mike's parents and h i s teacher are worried because they have not been ab l e to c o n t r o l h i s a g g r e s s i v e n e s s . He has a l r e a d y i n j u r e d h i s brother and h i s f r i e n d s when he was angry, and most of the c h i l d r e n i n the school w i l l not play with him because they are a f r a i d he w i l l hurt them. He has been i n s e r i o u s t r o u b l e i n the community and at s c h o o l . Mike's teacher i s p a r t i c u l a r l y concerned that t h i n g s w i l l get worse i f something i s not done r i g h t away. 1 5 0 151 Case of Mike S. Mike i s a 9-year o l d boy who l i v e s with h i s parents and h i s younger brother, Tom, who i s 6 years o l d . Although Mike i s of normal i n t e l l i g e n c e and has no obvious academic d i f f i c u l t i e s , h i s s o c i a l behavior has been of concern f o r some time. Mike has been in a s p e c i a l c l a s s managed by a teacher and her a i d e . In t h i s s e t t i n g , the teacher and aide conducted a l l a c t i v i t i e s d u r i n g the day. The goals of t h i s c l a s s were "to develop b a s i c academic and s o c i a l s k i l l s . " With the advent of program cu t s and with a new emphais i n the school d i s t r i c t on mainstreaming, Mike has been p l a c e d i n a r e g u l a r school s e t t i n g . U n f o r t u n a t e l y Mike i s having some t r o u b l e i n the c l a s s . The main problem i s that he i s very a g g r e s s i v e and does  not f o l l o w a d u l t i n s t r u c t i o n s . He does many d i f f e r e n t t h i n g s that are dangerous to himself or to o t h e r s . O c c a s i o n a l l y , he throws t h i n g s at h i s teachers and h i s parents when they ask him to do t h i n g s . He has broken many o b j e c t s at s c h o o l , such as books, c h a i r s , toys, and a tape r e c o r d e r , e i t h e r by throwing them or knocking them o f f t a b l e s and s h e l v e s . He a l s o has had problems at home. For example, he f i g h t s with h i s brother p h y s i c a l l y and sometimes throws sharp o b j e c t s d i r e c t l y at him. Both Mike's parents and h i s teacher are worried because they have not been ab l e to c o n t r o l h i s a g g r e s s i v e n e s s s . He has a l r e a d y i n j u r e d h i s brother and h i s f r i e n d s when he was angry, and most of the c h i l d r e n i n the school w i l l not p l a y 152 with him because they are a f r a i d he w i l l hurt them. He has been in s e r i o u s t r o u b l e in the community and at s c h o o l . Mike's teacher i s p a r t i c u l a r l y concerned that things w i l l get worse i f something i s not done r i g h t away. APPENDIX G I n t e r v e n t i o n D e s c r i p t i o n  M e d i c a t i o n I n t e r v e n t i o n f o r Mike There i s a drug that can be used to decrease a g g r e s s i v e behavior. The drug i s c a l l e d M e l l a r i l . For a g g r e s s i v e c h i l d r e n , the drug i s used to i n c r e a s e a c h i l d ' s a b i l i t y to t o l e r a t e f r u s t r a t i o n . While on the drug, c h i l d r e n are able to handle events and i n t e r a c t i o n s with others that o r d i n a r i l y might be f r u s t r a t i n g . Because the c h i l d r e n do not become e a s i l y f r u s t r a t e d when on the drug, they are l e s s l i k e l y to react a g g r e s s i v e l y to o t h e r s . The drug seems to make some c h i l d r e n l e s s impulsive i n general so that they are more able to think about the consequences of t h e i r a c t i o n s before behaving i n a p p r o p r i a t e l y . For Mike, the drug i s administered i n t a b l e t form 3 times a day. The d a i l y dosage of the drug i s estimated on the b a s i s of body weight and may be changed s l i g h t l y u n t i l the optimal dose i s found. 153 1 54 Time-Out I n t e r v e n t i o n f o r Mike A procedure that can be used to change Mike's d i s r u p t i v e behavior i s c a l l e d TIME OUT FROM REINFORCEMENT. T h i s procedure i s designed to punish h i s a g g r e s s i v e and noncompliant behaviors so that they are e l i m i n a t e d . Time out means that there i s a p e r i o d of time i n which a person i s removed i n some way from the s i t u a t i o n . The procedure i s c a l l e d "time out from reinforcement" because d u r i n g the time that Mike i s taken away from the s i t u a t i o n , he cannot r e c e i v e reinforcement or rewards such as a t t e n t i o n from o t h e r s . For Mike, the time out procedure c o n s i s t s of t a k i n g him out of the s i t u a t i o n f o r 10 minutes whenever he misbehaves. For example, when Mike throws something or h i t s another p u p i l he i s immediately taken out of the s i t u a t i o n . He would be i s o l a t e d i n a part of the l a r g e classroom that i s p a r t i t i o n e d o f f f o r t h i s purpose. The p a r t i t i o n makes a l i t t l e booth where Mike can be i s o l a t e d . T h i s time out booth c o n s i s t s of a c h a i r i n the booth. No books or toys are given to him so that he i s cut o f f from a l l rewarding a c t i v i t i e s and from other people. 155 He has to s i t i n the booth f o r 10 minutes. He cannot see out nor can others see i n because of the p a r t i t i o n that c l o s e s him o f f from the r e s t of the classroom completely. A f t e r h i s time i s up, the teacher l e t s him out. When Mike comes out, he can resume h i s a c t i v i t i e s . As soon as any ag g r e s s i o n occurs, he i s immediately p l a c e d i n t o the time out booth a g a i n . 1 56 Reinforcement I n t e r v e n t i o n f o r Mike A procedure that can be used to change Mike's a g g r e s s i v e behavior i s c a l l e d REINFORCEMENT OF INCOMPATIBLE BEHAVIOR. T h i s i s a procedure that i s designed to develop compliant and coop e r a t i v e behaviors to re p l a c e the ag g r e s s i v e behaviors. T h i s i s not a punishment procedure. I t works, r a t h e r , by rewarding d e s i r a b l e b e h a v i o r s . As the a p p r o p r i a t e behaviors are developed, the i n a p p r o p r i a t e behaviors drop out and are e l i m i n a t e d . S p e c i f i c a l l y , Mike's teacher w i l l develop compliance to i n s t r u c t i o n s and c o o p e r a t i v e behavior by s y s t e m a t i c a l l y rewarding a p p r o p r i a t e responses. The teacher w i l l e x p l a i n the reward program to Mike. The program c o n s i s t s of l e t t i n g Mike earn p r i v i l e g e s i f he l i s t e n s to the teacher and behaves c o o p e r a t i v e l y . For example, i f Mike f o l l o w s d i r e c t i o n s i n s t a r t i n g and completing h i s work on time, i s c o o p e r a t i v e i n classroom r o u t i n e and looks a f t e r h i s own and school p r o p e r t y , he can earn S t a r s on a s p e c i a l c h a r t . Mike can a l s o earn Stars by p l a y i n g n i c e l y with h i s classmates and, when Mike get mad, he can earn S t a r s i f he does not throw t h i n g s , or does not act a g g r e s s i v e l y . The S t a r s can be traded f o r such p r i v i l e g e s as e x t r a r e c e s s , a s p e c i a l game, f r e e time i n c l a s s , or viewing an e d u c a t i o n a l T.V. show f o r the c l a s s as a whole. When Mike whines or argues the teacher w i l l j u s t ignore t h i s . Mike w i l l not earn S t a r s unless he behaves cooperat i v e l y . 1 57 P o s i t i v e P r a c t i c e I n t e r v e n t i o n f o r Mike A procedure that can be used i s c a l l e d POSITIVE PRACTICE. T h i s procedure i s designed to suppress a g g r e s s i v e and noncompliant behaviors so that they are e l i m i n a t e d . P o s i t i v e p r a c t i c e means that Mike rep e a t e d l y p r a c t i c e s the c o r r e c t behaviors to l e a r n when he i s supposed to do. When Mike misbehaves, he i s immediately made to p r a c t i c e the a p p r o p r i a t e behaviors t h a t should have been done. He goes through the a c t u a l motions of a p p r o p r i a t e behavior and, i f necessary, i s p h y s i c a l l y guided though the a c t i v i t i e s . When Mike performs an a g g r e s s i v e a c t , the teacher comes over to him immediately. The teacher t e l l s Mike he.has to go through the a p p r o p r i a t e b e h a v i o r s . The teacher t e l l s him e x a c t l y what to do and s t a y s there while Mike goes through each of the a p p r o p r i a t e b e h a v i o r s . For example, when Mike throws something at a classmate, he i s t o l d to express h i s anger r i g h t then i n a more a p p r o p r i a t e manner. He must say he i s mad and t e l l the other person why he i s mad. Mike i s t o l d he must go through t h i s sequence 3 times i n a row to p r a c t i c e the c o r r e c t behavior. With p o s i t i v e p r a c t i c e , Mike p r a c t i c e s e x p r e s s i n g h i s anger and behaving a p p r o p r i a t e l y .rather than throwing t h i n g s or h i t t i n g o t h e r s . Repeatedly p r a c t i c i n g the c o r r e c t behaviors i s an important part of the procedure. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

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

Comment

Related Items