Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Behavioural parent training with mothers of preschool children Hyde, Susan Ann 1978

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

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1978_A8 H93.pdf [ 3.76MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094346.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094346-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094346-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094346-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094346-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094346-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094346-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094346-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094346.ris

Full Text

BEHAVIOURAL PARENT TRAINING WITH MOTHERS OF PRESCHOOL CHILDREN by SUSAN ANN HYDE B.A., Univ e r s i t y of Calgary, 1975 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n l THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of Psychology We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA March, 1978 (c) Susan Ann Hyde, 1978 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of Brit ish Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Psychology The University of Brit ish Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 D a t e March 31. 1978 i ABSTRACT F i f t e e n subjects, mothers of presctlool age ch i l d r e n with behaviour problems were assigned to one of two conditions: (1) general s k i l l s , i n which behavioural p r i n c i p l e s and step's to s e t t i n g up a behaviour change project were taught, and (2) s p e c i f i c focus, i n which attention was focused on s e t t i n g up behavioural intervention programmes for i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d r e n but where more general p r i n c i p l e s were not e x p l i c i t l y discussed. Both conditions involved attendance at f i v e weekly, two hour sessions, and a one month at home follow-up. Several hypotheses were made r e -garding the l i k e l i h o o d of greater maintenance and generalization of t r a i n i n g for the general s k i l l s group. In addition, a preliminary i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the assertion and temperament c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the parents i n the study was c a r r i e d out. While both groups did show s i g n i f i c a n t improvement over time, none of the hypotheses made regarding between group differences were supported. Several possible explanations f o r the lack of s i g n i f i c a n t differences between conditions were discussed as were the r e s u l t s of the temperament and assertion surveys. F i n a l l y suggestions for future in v e s t i g a t i o n s of parent t r a i n i n g procedures and parent c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were made. i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract L i s t of Tables Acknowledgements Page 111 i v Introduction 1 . Method 12 Results Discussion Reference Notes References Appendix A: Fact sheets, Parenting questionnaire, Missouri c h e c k l i s t , Becker c h e c k l i s t Appendix B: Monitoring form, feedback questionnaire Appendix C: EASI III temperament scales Appendix D: Gambrill Assertion Inventory Appendix E: Handouts Appendix F: Treatment r a t i o n a l e i i i LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Type of R e f e r r a l Problem 13 Table 2. Summary of Subject Survival and M o r t a l i t y between I n i t i a l Contact and End of Treatment 14 Table 3. Demographic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Experimental Groupa 16 Table 4. Summary Table of Two Way ANOVAs with Repeated Measures 25 Table 5. Summary Table of t - t e s t Results Table 6 . Summary of Descriptive S t a t i s t i c s for Feedback Questions Table 7. Parent and C h i l d Temperament Factor Means Table 8. Correlations between Post and Follow-Up Missouri Checklist Factors and Four Feedback Items Table 9. Correlations between the Missouri Checklist Factors and Their Corresponding Problem Indicators for the Pre, Post, and Follow-Up Administrations i v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express my appreciation to the members of my advisory committee: Dr. Lynn Alden (supervisor), Dr. Jerry W i l l i s , and Dr. Everett Waters for the invaluable suggestions and guidance which they have provided for t h i s project. I would also l i k e to thank the nursing and c l e r i c a l s t a f f of the West Main Unit of the Vancouver Department of Health f o r t h e i r cooperation i n carrying out t h i s study. F i n a l l y , I would l i k e to thank Nancy Michel without whose pro f e s s i o n a l assistance and constant moral support t h i s research would hot have been possible. 1 INTRODUCTION The use of nonprofessionals as psychotherapeutic and behaviour change agents has become more widespread i n the past decade (Guerney, 1969; H e l l e r & Monahan, 1977; Rappaport, 1971; Zax & Specter, 1974). The r i s e of nonprofessionalism has occurred, i n part, due to the i n a b i l i t y of the mental health professions (psychiatry, psychology, and s o c i a l work) to provide adequate numbers of professionals to f u l f i l l the needs of the community (Hobbs, 1964). These nonprofessionals include volunteer workers, peers, teachers, and parents. One of the advantages of using a nonprofessional i s h i s / her natural s i g n i f i c a n c e to the c l i e n t (Guerney, 1969). Another advan-tage i s that the nonprofessional i s l i k e l y to spend f a r more time i n the natural environment of the c l i e n t than would be possible for any pr o f e s s i o n a l . Such assets make i t more l i k e l y that any therapeutic intervention w i l l be e f f e c t i v e and that the e f f e c t s w i l l be maintained. Concurrent with the increase i n the use of nonprofessionals, has been a r i s i n g concern with prevention rather than cure i n the mental health f i e l d . In l i n e with the notions of primary and e a r l y secondary prevention (Caplan, 1964), attention has been focussed on childhood as a point of intervention. Given t h i s focus and the unique assets of nonprofessionals, parents would seem to be f e a s i b l e choices as change agents for t h e i r c h i l d r e n . Indeed, parents have been involved informally i n the treatment of t h e i r c h i l d r e n f o r some years (Guerney, 1969). It i s only i n the past ten or f i f t e e n years, however, that a more systematic examination of the ro l e parents may play i n intervention 2 has taken place. A great deal of research has been done, demonstrating that parents, when trained, can e f f e c t i v e l y change t h e i r children's behaviour (Berkowitz & Graziano, 1972; Johnson & Katz, 1973; O'Dell, 1974; Reisinger et a l . , 1976; Tavormina, 1974). While there i s by no means agreement as to whether behaviour modification i s an appropriate or e f f e c t i v e approach to parent t r a i n i n g (Reisinger et a l . , 1976; Tavormina, 1974), there do seem to be several advantages of behaviour modification with regard to such t r a i n i n g . 0' D e l l (1974) l i s t s several of these including the following: (a) the a b i l i t y of i n d i v i d u a l s u n s k i l l e d i n sophisticated therapy techniques to le a r n the p r i n c i p l e s of behaviour modification and carry out treatment programmes; (b) people can be taught i n groups; (c) only a short t r a i n i n g period i s required; (d) many childhood problems consist of f a i r l y w e l l defined behaviours that are conducive to behavioural treatment; and (e) the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of behaviour modification i n dealing with problems i n the natural environment. These advantages would appear to be supported by the l i t e r a t u r e as the evidence of case studies (e.g., Barret, 1969; Bernal et a l . , 1972; Masden, 1965; Mira, 1970), s i n g l e subject (e.g., Bernal et a l . , 1968; H a l l & Broden, 1967; H a l l et a l . , 1970; Johnson, 1971; Patterson et a l . , 1965; Wahler, 1969a), and group comparison designs (e.g., Johnson, 1970; Kovitz, 1976; Nay, 1975; Peed, 1977; Rose, 1974a, 1974b; Schae.fer et a l . , 1974; Sloop & Glogower, 1976) a l l i n d i c a t e that parents trained i n the use of behaviour modification techniques do indeed act as e f f e c t i v e change agents f o r t h e i r c h i l d r e n . Behaviour modification programmes have also been successful with ' the parents of a wide range of problem or exceptional c h i l d r e n . Parents have been trained to decrease deviant or undesirable behaviours with aggressive (Patterson, 1973; Patterson & Reid, 1973; Wiltz & Patterson, 1974), b r a i n damaged (Patterson et a l . , 1975; Salsinger, Feldman, & Portnoy, 1970), a u t i s t i c (Deatherage, 1972; Graziano, 1970), retarded (Terd&l & B u e l i , 1969), and schizophrenic c h i l d r e n (Herbert & Baer, 1972). Parents of c h i l d r e n with l e s s serious d i f f i c u l t i e s but with single or multiple behaviour problems has also used behaviour modification techniques s u c c e s s f u l l y . Johnson (1971) trained parents to decrease the disruptive mealtime behaviour of t h e i r c h i l d r e n . Christopherson, Arnold, H i l l , and Q u i l i t c h (1972) suc c e s s f u l l y taught two sets of parents to use a token economy with t h e i r children. H a l l et a l . (1972) reported success i n teaching parents behavioural p r i n c i p l e s f or use with t h e i r c h i l d r e n at home. Rose (1974a), comparing groups of welfare and middle cl a s s f a m i l i e s , found that both were successful i n learning and applying behavioural techniques. Aragona, Cassady, and Drabman (1975) demonstrated that parents of overweight c h i l d r e n could be trained to a i d i n t h e i r children's weight l o s s . Karoly and Rosenthal (1977) reported p o s i t i v e changes i n both parent a t t i t u d e and i n re-ported c h i l d behaviour for a group of parents tra i n e d to use behavioural techniques. F i n a l l y , Peed (1977) reported that parents trained to a l t e r the noncompliant behaviour of t h e i r c h i l d were also successful. Research on t r a i n i n g parents i n behaviour modification techniques has also concentrated on the procedure and actual content of t r a i n i n g . 4 The majority of recent studies have involved t r a i n i n g parents i n groups, although Patterson and h i s associates tend to work with i n d i -v i d u a l parents. Training procedures i n recent years seem to be f a i r l y s i m i l a r across studies with the bulk involving some kind of d i d a c t i c i n s t r u c t i o n i n behavioural theory and p r i n c i p l e s combined with home assignments. Parents carry out behaviour modification pro-grammes designed with the therapists and receive assistance when prob-lems are encountered (Christopherson, Arnold, H i l l , & Q u i l i t c h , 1972; Eyeberg & Johnson, 1974; Ferber & Kealey, 1974; Johnson & Christensen, 1975; Patterson, 1973). Some programmes also use a programmed learning text (usually Patterson & G u i l l o n , L i v i n g with Children, 1968). A few studies have also used such techniques as modeling, r o l e playing, and behaviour rehearsal (Johnson, 1971; Rose, 1974 ). Several recent studies have employed the "bug-in-the-ear" technique (Gordon & Kogan, 1975; Peed, 1975). This technique involves one or more observers i n s t r u c t i n g and guiding the mother as she i n t e r a c t s with her c h i l d and i s not tenable for use with groups. O'Dell (1974) has noted that some form of behavioural s k i l l s t r a i n i n g i s necessary to produce measurable changes i n parent behaviour. However, there i s l i t t l e information i n the l i t e r a t u r e as to which methods are most e f f e c t i v e i n producing behaviour change. One of the few studies i n t h i s area (Nay, 1975) has shown that a modeling-role playing method was s i g n i f i c a n t l y superior to either written or lecture presentation methods of teaching middle class mothers a behavioural technique (Time Out). Nay notes that i f knowledge of behavioural techniques i s to generalize from the c l i n i c session to the environment, then a more ac t i v e approach such as modeling may be necessary. As O'Dell (1974) and Forehand (1977) point out, g e n e r a l i z a t i o n i s an issue which has not been dealt with s u f f i c i e n t l y i n the parenting l i t e r a t u r e . Assuming that the parent does acquire the basic s k i l l s needed for modification of h i s c h i l d ' s behaviour, then these s k i l l s must generalize outside the t r a i n i n g s i t u a t i o n and be maintained, i f t r a i n i n g i s to be considered e f f e c t i v e . In addition i t would also enhance the effectiveness of t r a i n i n g i f i t were to generalize to problems other than the ones dealt with during the programme. Forehand (1977),in a recent examination of behavioural parent t r a i n i n g studies, concluded that the more rigorous the procedures used to assess gener-a l i t y of treatment, the l e s s p o s i t i v e the r e s u l t s have been. "Rigorous assessment" i s generally thought to include the use of behavioural observations i n the lab or natural environment. Such observations were considered to represent f a r more v a l i d sources of data than more subjective pencil-and-paper measures or parental r e -ports. However, i t has been recently pointed out (Johnson & Bolstad, 1973; L i p i n s k i & Nelson, 1974) that there are problems with behavioural observations that need to be investigated. Some of the methodological d i f f i c u l t i e s encountered are as follows: (1) Content v a l i d i t y — most behavioural observations involve the use of behavioural codes. Uses of such codes can r e s u l t i n a loss of information as behaviours which occur, but which don't f a l l within the code s e l e c t i o n are l o s t . The only information recorded i s that which occurred during the coding i n t e r v a l , any occurring outside i t i s also l o s t . Other information which may not be recorded includes time of onset and duration of 6 behaviour. There are also problems concerning when to discontinue recording, i . e . , when i s a sample considered to be representative? This i s e s p e c i a l l y problematic with low base rate behaviours. (2) Observer r e l i a b i l i t y — high i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y i s e s s e n t i a l i f i t i s to be concluded that a strong r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s between the behaviour emitted by the subject and that recorded by the observer. There are a number of d i f f e r e n t observation codes a v a i l a b l e (e.g., Mash, Terdal & Anderson, 1973; Patterson, Ray, Shaw, & Cobb, 1969) and each, because of the assumptions made, has i t s own problems ( L i p i n s k i & Nelson, 1974). (3) Observer bias — factors such as knowledge of expected r e s u l t s , evaluative feedback from the experimenter and knowledge of r e l i a b i l i t y checks can influence the observer's r a t i n g . (4) Reactive e f f e c t s of observation — the very presence of an observer i n the home or know-ledge of being observed i n the lab can i t s e l f have reactive e f f e c t s on the subject. Moreover, i t i s not clear that habituation to the observer occurs. The subject may react to the demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the s i t u a t i o n by i d e n t i f y i n g the observer as a representative of the ex-perimenter rather than as a neutral stimulus. Several researchers have subsequently attempted to address these issues with varying r e s u l t s . Johnson and Lobitz (1974) i n s t r u c t e d parents to manipulate the behaviour of the (parent l a b e l l e d ) deviant c h i l d so that he/she would look bad or deviant during half the obser-vation periods and good or normal during the remaining periods. The re s u l t s indicated that the c h i l d ' s deviant behaviour score was indeed higher on "bad" days than on "good" days. Lobitz and Johnson (1975b) continued t h i s l i n e of research by comparing the e f f e c t s of such 7 i n s t r u c t i o n s on the parents of nondeviant as we l l as deviant children. In addition parents were also in s t r u c t e d to t r y to make t h e i r c h i l d look better than normal during some observations (normal i n t h i s study meaning usual treatment for the c h i l d versus faking good or bad). The re s u l t s demonstrated that both deviant and nondeviant c h i l d r e n showed s i g n i f i c a n t l y more deviant behaviour under the bad condition as compared to the normal. The normal and good conditions did not d i f f e r . Zegiob, Arnold, and Forehand (1975) studied the e f f e c t s of an observer's presence on mother-child i n t e r a c t i o n s i n the lab. Observa-tions were made under two conditions: mother-informed and mother-un-informed. The r e s u l t s indicated that mothers played s i g n i f i c a n t l y more with t h e i r c h i l d r e n , were more p o s i t i v e i n t h e i r verbal behaviour, and structured t h e i r children's a c t i v i t i e s more during the informed than during the uninformed period. Johnson and Bolstad (1975) attempted to determine i f a less obtrusive method, i . e . , other than a l i v e observer would r e s u l t i n less r e a c t i v i t y on the part of the subject. Families were observed i n the home hal f the time by an observer and the remainder by audio tape recordings. The r e s u l t s showed no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the two conditions. However, as the subjects were aware that the audio observations were being made i t may be that the two conditions were considered to be equally obtrusive and thus there was no r e a l testable difference. F i n a l l y , Johnson, Christensen, and Bellamy (1976), i n a treatment intervention study, compared parent observation data, parental verbal report measures and two types of audiotape home observations. Of the l a t t e r , h a l f were made at random periods and half during planned or 8 picked times when the subjects knew that the recorder was operative. Both the parent observations and the verbal report measure indicated s i g n i f i c a n t improvement. The home observation data indicated several points of i n t e r e s t . F i r s t , at baseline, the deviant c h i l d behaviour was much higher during the picked times than during the random times. Second, at termination, the rates were the same for both times with the picked showing a decline to the prebaseline random l e v e l . F i n a l l y , the taped data at the picked i n t e r v a l s was highly consistent with the parent observations and verbal report data. The authors suggest, i n l i n e with the r e s u l t s of e a r l i e r studies (Johnson & Christensen, 1975; Johnson & Lobitz, 1974; Lobitz & Johnson, 1975b) that parental a t t i t u d e s may be a more c r i t i c a l v a r i a b l e i n determining treatment outcome than has been thought. At the very l e a s t , i t may be that for some parent-c h i l d p a i r s , intervention aimed at a l t e r i n g parent perceptions may be s u f f i c i e n t . This i s something behavioural observations are not designed to assess. Aside from considerations such as those j u s t noted, i t i s not c l e a r whether behavioural observations are indeed more v a l i d sources of data than parent based reports. However, the issues of maintenance and g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s t i l l need to be addressed. U n t i l conclusions can be made as to the u t i l i t y of one type of data over the other, a m u l t i -method approach such as that used by Johnson and h i s colleagues (Eyeberg & Johnson, 1974; Lobitz & Johnson, 1975a) i s probably the most desirable, i . e . , home observations or standardized lab s i t u a t i o n s , parent reports and verbal report measures. One of the few recent studies using such c r i t e r i a which did attempt 9 to systematically examine the issues of maintenance and general i z a t i o n was performed by Glogower and Sloop (1976). Two groups, each composed of four mothers, meeting for ten weekly sessions, were compared. The f i r s t four sessions of a combination group were devoted to teaching the parents the p r i n c i p l e s of behaviour modification, while sessions 5 through 10 involved changing target behaviours. A s p e c i f i c focus group dealt s o l e l y with modifying target behaviours during the 10 week programme. At the end of the t r a i n i n g the combination group mothers were able to deal with a wider range of problem s i t u a t i o n s that the s p e c i f i c focus group mothers. In addi t i o n they established 15 home projects compared to only s i x projects established by the s p e c i f i c focus group. A 5 month follow-up demonstrated that the improvements achieved by the combination group tended to be more stable than the s p e c i f i c focus group and that the former i n i t i a t e d more new behaviour change projects. The present study was, i n part, a conceptual r e p l i c a t i o n of the Glogower and Sloop study. However, while the s p e c i f i c focus group was to be s i m i l a r i n procedure, the combination group was not planned to involve concentration on target behaviours i n the session. This group was to concentrate on learning a set of behaviour modification s k i l l s that could be used with a wide v a r i e t y of problem behaviours and/or children. Subjects were to be ins t r u c t e d to implement the techniques on target behaviours of t h e i r own designation, i n t h e i r home environments, By making the parent responsible for designing and carrying out the proj e c t , i t was hoped that greater maintenance and ge n e r a l i z a t i o n of the s k i l l s would occur. 10 The following hypotheses were made with regard to the outcome: (1) the two groups would differ i n i t i a l l y in the success of modifying the chosen target behaviours since the specific focus group would con-centrate in and out of the training session on these behaviours; (2) the general focus group would i n i t i a t e more projects on their own both during and after treatment; (3) the general focus group would be able to generalize their knowledge to other problem situations and/or children better than the specific focus group; and (4) while both should have shown an improvement in their attitudes toward their children on the follow-up, the general focus group w i l l have changed to a greater degree than the specific focus group. One f i n a l area that has not been studied to any great extent in the parent training literature i s that of parent types or characteris-tics and their possible implications for intervention procedures. Most of the data has focused on the demographic characteristics (O'Dell, 1974). Research on personality characteristics has focused largely on parents of aggressive children. Patterson (1976) cites a few studies reporting that parents of very aggressive children referred for treat-ment tend to have negative self concepts. Other studies (Anderson, 1969; Hanvik & Byram, 1959; Patterson, 1976; Wolking et a l . , 1967) have looked at profile differences on the MMPI between mothers of aggressive children and those of nonproblem children. However there is no information available from nondiagnostic personality assessment instruments. The second purpose of the study was therefore to carry out a pre-liminary investigation of the temperament and assertive characteristics 11 of the mothers i n t h i s study. The temperament of the c h i l d , as assessed ^ by the mother, was also to be determined. No hypotheses as to what c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s subjects would posses j i f any, as compared to a sample of mothers of nonproblem children were made. 12 METHOD Subjects Subjects were mothers of c h i l d r e n aged 3 to 6 years who could be described as having behaviour-type problems. Subjects were r e f e r r e d to the programme by the psychologist and pu b l i c health nurses of a unit of the Vancouver Department of Health. Once re f e r r e d , subjects were screened according to the following c r i t e r i a : 1. a b i l i t y to understand and speak English; 2. s u i t a b i l i t y of r e f e r r a l problem for treatment (e.g., temper tantrums, excessive noncompliance, d i s r u p t i v e behaviour at s p e c i f i c times, fears, see Table 1); 3. the presence of psychoses (parent). Subjects were assigned to groups randomly subject to time constraints. Two meeting times were necessary as baby s i t t i n g was not provided and most subjects had only ha l f the day free. Of the 20 mothers deemed to be appropriate, 17 a c t u a l l y started the treatment programme and 15 were included i n the f i n a l sample (see Table 2). The average age of the subjects was 34.7, the average age of the spouse was 33.8. The average age of the target c h i l d was 4.3 years and the average number of chi l d r e n was two. Mothers had an average of one year of u n i v e r s i t y education while the fathers had an average of two years of such education. Thirteen f a m i l i e s had both parents i n the home, two were single parent f a m i l i e s . English was the f i r s t language for 12 of the subjects, while German (2) and Spanish (1) were the l a n -guages of the remainder. F i f t y - t h r e e percent of the target c h i l d r e n T a b l e 1 Type o f R e f e r r a l P r o b l e m * P r o b l e m S p e c i f i c Focus G e n e r a l S k i l l s T o t a l Noncompliance 4 4. 8 Temper Tantrums 1 .'. 1 D i s r u p t i v e b e h a v i o u r a t meal or. bed t i m e 3 3 6 A g g r e s s i o n 1 1 F e a r f u l n e s s 1 1 O t h e r 3 2 5 Some c h i l d r e n were r e f e r r e d f o r more t h a n one problem. Table 2 Summary of Subject S u r v i v a l and M o r t a l i t y Between I n i t i a l Contact and End of Treatment Dropped out during treatment* F a i l u r e to a r r i v e at Session 1 Number of Subjects F i n a l Sample 15 Tota l 20 Both these subjects, one i n each condition, stressed that they were attending the group f o r educational reasons and not because t h e i r c h i l d r e n had behaviour problems. While i t was not clear to the group leaders that t h i s was a c t u a l l y the case, there was no way of ver i f y i n g , i t . One mother ( S p e c i f i c Focus) attended three out of f i v e sessions, the other (General S k i l l s ) attended twice. 15 were female, 47% were male (see Table 3). The comparison subjects were r e c r u i t e d from two l o c a l daycare centers. Of the f o r t y questionnaire packets handed out, 13 were f u l l y completed. There were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the treatment and comparison subjects with regard to the demographic data. Experimental Design There was one treatment factor with two l e v e l s : general s k i l l s versus s p e c i f i c focus. No c o n t r o l group was used as the majority of studies i n the behavioural parent t r a i n i n g area which have included a waiting l i s t c ontrol have found that behavioural t r a i n i n g was s i g n i f i -cantly more successful than no treatment (e.g., Gordon & Kogan, 1975; Nay, 1975; Peed, 1977; W i l t z , 1969; Wiltz & Patterson, 1974). There were a t o t a l of 15 subjects i n two c e l l s : general s k i l l s (8) and s p e c i f i c focus (7). The experimental hypotheses were tested by using a Students ^ - t e s t and by two-way analyses of variance with repeated measures (Winer, 1971). Dependent Measures The Missouri Children's Behavior Checklist (Sines, Pauker, Sines, & Owen, 1969) was chosen as an outcome measure over numerous other such scales according to the following c r i t e r i a : (1) was the instrument designed to be f i l l e d out by parents rather than teachers or c l i n i c i a n s ? (2) did the measurement sample include preschool age children? (3) did the test items deal with s p e c i f i c behaviours? (4) were the r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y data adequate? While there were other c h e c k l i s t s which 16 Table 3 Demographic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Experimental Groups Variable . x ': SD Range Mother's Age 34.7 7.0 23-46 years Father's Age 33.8 6.7 24-45 years Child's Age 4.3 1.0 3-6 years Mother's Education 1 year of un i v e r s i t y 2 years Grade 10 -Master's degree Father's Education 2 years of u n i v e r s i t y 2 years Grade 10 -L.L,B., M.D. Ma r i t a l Status married N=12 - Single (2) Commonlaw (1) Number of Children i n Family 2 0. 7 1-4 As the two experimental groups did not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y on any of the above v a r i a b l e s , the data were combined. 17 met some of the above c r i t e r i a better than the Missouri, the l a t t e r was able to meet them a l l at l e a s t to some degree. The c h e c k l i s t was o r i g i n a l l y keyed to be answered yes or no. This format was modified so that each item was rated on a f i v e - p o i n t scale accompanied by a yes/no problem i n d i c a t o r , i . e . , does t h i s behaviour, at t h i s frequency, repre-sent a problem for you? I t was thought that t h i s would r e s u l t i n a f i n e r i n d i c a t o r of behaviour change over time. The Becker Adjective Checklist (Becker, 1960; Patterson & Fagot, 1967) was chosen as the parent a t t i t u d e outcome measure because ot i t s use by both Patterson and Johnson i n t h e i r research and the outcome information a v a i l a b l e i n t h e i r studies. In order to te s t the parents' knowledge of behavioural p r i n c i p l e s and techniques, a parenting questionnaire was developed (see Appendix A). Eight s i t u a t i o n s , based on problems discussed i n the programmed learning text, L i v i n g with Children (Patterson & G u i l l o n , 1968), were presented. The subjects were asked to report how they would deal with each s i t u a t i o n , e.g., How would you handle a c h i l d having a temper tantrum? I t was thought that parents would respond i n i t i a l l y according to t h e i r own Ideas about and experiences of parenting. On subsequent administrations i t was assumed that parents would at l e a s t employ behavioural terminology, e.g., "reinforcement", "shaping", and/or would demonstrate knowledge of behavioural p r i n c i p l e s and techniques, e.g., e x t i n c t i o n , p o s i t i v e r e i n -forcement versus punishment, use of time out-Parents were also requested to monitor the frequency of t h e i r children's behaviour on a d a i l y basis and t h i s data was c o l l e c t e d and provided the f i n a l outcome measure. 18 An assertion inventory (Gambrill & Richey, 1975) was used to deter-mine the assertiveness of the subjects. This p a r t i c u l a r inventory was chosen as i t gave not only an i n d i c a t i o n of how uncomfortable a par-t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n made the i n d i v i d u a l f e e l but also how l i k e l y she would respond a s s e r t i v e l y to the s i t u a t i o n . The temperament scale (Buss & Plomin, 1975) was chosen because i t was designed so that parents could rate the temperament of t h e i r c h i l d r e n as well as of themselves. In addition Buss and Plomin had discussed how the c h i l d rearing s t r a t e g i e s of parents and the c h i l d temperament c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s might i n t e r a c t . The l a t t e r was of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t to the present study. Procedure Once re f e r r e d to the programme, each mother was contacted by phone to double check her s u i t a b i l i t y and to determine which time period, morning or afternoon, would be preferred. A l l groups met weekly f o r two hours for a period of f i v e weeks. The groups were co-led by the author of the present study and the psychologist of the West Main Health Unit. A l l groups were conducted i n the conference room of the health u n i t . A t o t a l of four groups were conducted, two i n each condition. The i n i t i a l groups i n each condition had a mean of 6.5 subjects, the l a t e r ones a mean of 2.5 subjects. (However, not a l l subjects were included i n the analysis.) A l l subjects were assigned to conditions on the same basis ( i . e . , subject to time c o n s t r a i n t s ) . The same format was followed f o r both groups i n each condition, however, the difference i n the siz e of the groups may have had some e f f e c t . 19 Treatment Strategies A. General S k i l l s Session 1. The mothers were welcomed to the group and pre-sented with a r a t i o n a l e for the treatment approach used (see Appendix E). The f a c t sheets, behaviour c h e c k l i s t , and parenting questionnaire were f i l l e d out. The second h a l f of the session involved learning how to define target behaviours so that they could be counted. In addition the mothers were instructed i n the use of the monitoring sheets to be f i l l e d i n during the course of the programme (see Appendix B). A f t e r a question period, a handout covering defining and counting behaviours was given out (see Appendix E). Session 2. The mothers handed i n the monitoring sheets from the previous week and discussed any problems they had encountered. The primary target behaviours were noted as well. A second handout covering p r i n c i p l e s of reinforcement was then given out (see Appendix E). The co-leaders explained the concepts using d e s c r i p t i v e examples and r o l e playing s i t u a t i o n s , i . e . , each co-leader would take the r o l e of parent and/or c h i l d and demonstrate how the p r i n c i p l e s could be applied. Another handout covering examples of v e r b a l - s o c i a l reinforcement was also given out (see Appendix E). F i n a l l y , at the session's end, the parent attitu d e survey was administered (see Appendix A). It became cl e a r to the co-leaders at t h i s time that most of the mothers did not f e e l comfortable with the idea of being p r i m a r i l y responsible for s e t t i n g up behaviour change programmes. In view of the fa c t that the Health Department's p r i o r i t y was service rather than research, i t was decided that more d i r e c t i o n would subsequently be given than had 20 o r i g i n a l l y been planned. I t was thought that unless t h i s were done subject a t t r i t i o n would be high, even though i t was possible that the experimental conditions were being contaminated. Session 3. As i n the previous session the monitoring sheets were turned i n and the progress of the behavioural programmes discussed. Problems were noted and the use of relevant techniques, e.g., time-out, ignoring, reward, were mentioned. A more d e t a i l e d discussion of the use of time-out was conducted a f t e r the appropriate handouts (see Appendix E) were given out. At the end of the session, the a s s e r t i o n inventory was administered (see Appendix D). Session 4. The same format was used as i n the previous sessions. The handout for t h i s session covered s e t t i n g up a point system and using the appropriate chart (see Appendix E). The awarding of points and accompanying verbal r e i n f o r c e r s were emphasized over the use of f i n e s or the l o s i n g of points. The two forms of the temperament scale were administered at the end of t h i s session (see Appendix C). Session 5. The behaviour change programmes were reviewed. For those which were not yet successful, suggestions were made f o r modifications. For those which were, subjects opted e i t h e r to continue the programme to ensure maintenance or pinpointed a new target behaviour. A handout covering behavioural shaping was given out and discussed. A f i n a l handout summarizing the steps i n s e t t i n g up a programme was also given out (see Appendix E). The behaviour c h e c k l i s t and the parenting questionnaire were administered once again. In addition, an anonymous feedback form was f i l l e d out be the mothers (see Appendix B). 21 B. S p e c i f i c Focus Session 1. This session followed the same format as for the general group except that the r a t i o n a l e was s l i g h t l y modified and no handout was given. Sessions 2 through 5. During these sessions, the co-leaders and mothers designed programmes t a i l o r e d to the s p e c i f i c problem be-haviour designated by each mother. Group discussion of problems was encouraged and engaged i n . The questionnaires were administered i n the same order as i n the general group. In order that any posttreatment differences between groups could not be a t t r i b u t e d to a d i f f e r e n c e i n encouragement to use the techniques with other s i t u a t i o n s or problems, t h i s group was also encouraged to try the techniques out on t h e i r own. C. Follow-Up A one-month follow-up was conducted with both groups. The mothers were requested to continue monitoring throughout t h i s period. When the one month period had elapsed the mothers were interviewed, at home, by one or both of the co-leaders. Information regarding any behaviour change programmes implemented since the end of the groups was c o l l e c t e d along with any monitoring sheets. In addition, the subjects were asked to complete the behaviour c h e c k l i s t , the a t t i t u d e survey, and the parenting questionnaire once again. D. Comparison Group for Parent C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s The comparison sample sata was c o l l e c t e d from two l o c a l day-care f a c i l i t i e s . A l l subjects were requested to f i l l out a f a c t sheet, the assertion inventory, and the temperament scales. The rate of return 22 was 10% and 60% for the two centers, respectively. I t i s not known i f the normative sample i s biased. Subjects were chosen on the basis of t h e i r having a preschool age c h i l d whom they did riot report as being a behaviour problem. It could not be determined i f t h i s were a c t u a l l y the case. The normative sample d i d not d i f f e r from the experimental sample on any of the demographic v a r i a b l e s . Overview of the S t a t i s t i c a l Analyses 1. A one way ANOVA was performed to test f or any pretreatment group differences on the demographic and dependent va r i a b l e s . 2. Two way ANOVAs with repeated measures were performed on the pre-post and pre-followup administrations of the behaviour c h e c k l i s t and parenting questionnaires. The same s t a t i s t i c a l tests were per-formed on the two administrations of the parent a t t i t u d e survey and the four weeks of monitoring data. 3. Pearson c o r r e l a t i o n matrices were computed for the following v a r i a b l e a. pre, post, and follow-up behaviour c h e c k l i s t f a c tors with the corresponding i n d i c a t o r s ; b. pre and post Missouri c h e c k l i s t , Becker c h e c k l i s t (second adminis t r a t i o n ) , feedback questions with the week 4 monitoring; c. mother temperament factors with c h i l d temperament f a c t o r s ; d. mother and c h i l d temperament factors with assertion f a c t o r s ; e. pre and post Missouri c h e c k l i s t factors with feedback. 23 RESULTS None of the i n i t i a l hypotheses were supported. The hypothesis that any differences immediately following treatment would favour the s p e c i f i c focus group was tested by a two-way ANOVA with repeated mea-sures. No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found between groups. However, both groups improved s i g n i f i c a n t l y over time on the parenting question-naire, HI,9) = 10.52, p_ < .01, on the monitoring, F^(3,15) = 4.47, p_ < .02, and on the aggression problem i n d i c a t o r of the Missouri c h e c k l i s t , 1T(1,9) = 5.99, p_ < .05. Parents of both groups saw t h e i r c h i l d r e n as being s i g n i f i c a n t l y more act i v e , _F(1, 10) = 13.22, p_ < .005, however t h i s was not perceived as being a problem, J?(l,9) = 2.16, p < .15 (see Table 4). ' The second hypothesis that the general s k i l l s group would i n i t i a t e more new projects a f t e r treatment than the s p e c i f i c focus group was tested by use of a Jt-test. Although the general s k i l l s group i n i t i a t e d an average of twice as many projects as the s p e c i f i c s k i l l s group the difference was not s i g n i f i c a n t (see Table 5). The t h i r d hypothesis that the general s k i l l s group would generalize t h e i r knowledge, as measured by t h e i r responses on the parenting ques-tionnaire, to more s i t u a t i o n s than the s p e c i f i c focus group was tested by a two-way ANOVA with repeated measures. There were no between group differences but both groups improved s i g n i f i c a n t l y over time, i . e . , pre to post to follow-up, F(2,14) = 10.31, £ < .002 (see Table 4). F i n a l l y , the fourth hypothesis that while both groups would improve t h e i r a t t i t u d e s , as measured by the Becker scale, the general s k i l l s 24 Table 4 Summary Table of Two Way ANOVAs with Repeated Measures I t e m Source MS df F-r a t i o Parenting Treatment 0.9244 1/9 0.1909 Questionnaire Within gs 23.18 1/10 10.52^ Pre-Post Ss x Treatment 5.22 1/10 2.38 Monitoring Treatment 65.27 1/5 2.58 Week 1-4 Within Ss 36.24 3/15 4.47 a Ss x Treatment 5.55 3/15 0.68 Missouri Aggression Treatment 21.81 1/9 2.61 Problem Indicator Within Ss 12.82 1/9 5.99 a Pre-Post Ss x Treatment 0.09 1/9 0.04 Missouri A c t i v i t y Treatment 33.20 1/10 0.21 Factor Score Within Ss 95.34 1/10 13.22 c Pre-Post Ss x Treatment 18.00 1/10 2.49 Parenting Questionnaire Treatment 0.06 1/7 0.01 Pre-Post-Follow-up Within Ss 11.92 2/14 10.31^ Ss x Treatment 0.85 2/14 0.73 Becker Aggression Treatment 70.04 1/10 8.39 a Factor Within Ss 22.04 1/10 0.24 Ss x Treatment 0.37 1/10 0.87 Missouri Aggression Treatment 20.42 1/10 2.91 Problem Indicator Within Ss 31.62 1/10 46.31 d Pre-Follow-up Ss x Treatment 1.29 1/10 1.89 a £ •< • 05 b £ < .01 C £ < .005 d £ < .001 25 Table 5 Summary Table of t - t e s t Results Variable N df t-value New Projects i n i t i a t e d is 13 1.35 n S Feedback - continue to use techniques 15 13 -3.02 b Temperament - Adult Impulsivity - Experimental vs. Comparison 28 26 2.33 a Temperament - Ch i l d A c t i v i t y - Experimental vs. Comparison 28 26 2.17 3 Temperament Mother vs. C h i l d 1. A c t i v i t y 30 28 - 3 . 8 6 ° 2. S o c i a b i l i t y 30 28 -2.44 a 3. Impulsivity 30 28 - 4 . 7 3 ° 3 P_ < .05. b p_ < .01 ° p_ < .001 26 group would show a greater change was also tested by a two-way ANOVA with repeated measures. There was no s i g n i f i c a n t improvement over time for either group although the general s k i l l s group reported t h e i r c h i l d r e n as being s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s aggressive than the s p e c i f i c focus group's c h i l d r e n , F.(l,10) = 8.39, p_ < .02 (see Table 4). The improvement on the aggression problem i n d i c a t o r of the Missouri c h e c k l i s t was maintained by both groups at the follow-up, F(l,10) = 46.31, £ < .001 (see Table 4), but again the general s k i l l s group did not im-prove s i g n i f i c a n t l y more than the s p e c i f i c focus group. Feedback Four of the questions on the feedback form were tested for between group differences using a t - t e s t . Of these questions r e l a t i n g to per-ceived and expected helpfulness of techniques, continued use of tech-niques, and expected behaviour change, only one re s u l t e d i n a s i g n i f i c a n t difference. The general s k i l l s group expected to continue to use the techniques s i g n i f i c a n t l y more than the s p e c i f i c focus group, _t(13) = -3.02, £ < .01 (see Table 5). The mean values for both groups on the four questions were: 1. Perceived helpfulness 2. Expected future helpfulness 3. Continued use of techniques 4. Expect future behaviour change 1.47 (see Table 6 ) . 3.27 h e l p f u l 3.20 h e l p f u l 3.80 very l i k e l y d e f i n i t e l y Table 6 Summary of Descriptive S t a t i s t i c s for Feedback Questions Variable X SD Range Perceived helpfulness 3.20 .704 2 - 4 Expected helpfulness 3.20 .561 2 - 4 Continued use 3.80 .561 3 - 4 Expect behaviour change 1.47 .990 0 - 3 28 Parent C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t - t e s t s were used to test f or any differences between the two ex-perimental groups and between the combined experimental groups and the comparison sample. There were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the experimental groups. The comparison and experimental groups d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y on the adult i m p u l s i v i t y f a c t o r of the temperament scale, ^(13) a 2.33, p < . OS , with the experimental groups being more impulsive than the comparison group. In addition, the two groups d i f -fered s i g n i f i c a n t l y on the c h i l d a c t i v i t y f a c t o r , _t(13) = 2.17, p_ < .04 (see Table 5), with the experimental group's c h i l d r e n being rated as more act i v e than the comparison group's c h i l d r e n . Assertion The experimental groups had a mean score of 103 on the discomfort factor and 113 on the response p r o b a b i l i t y f a c t o r . The cutoff points used by Gambrill and Richey (1975), based on college student sample norms, were 96 and above for high discomfort and 105 and above for low response p r o b a b i l i t y . Thus i t would appear that the present sample could be described as being le s s a s s e r t i v e than college students. Temperament No norms are presently a v a i l a b l e for the Buss and Plomin tempera-ment scales, thus i t cannot be determined i f the subjects In t h i s study represent average, high, or low points on the scales. A _t-test was performed, however, to determine i f the temperament of mothers and c h i l d r e n d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y . The two groups did d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y I 29 on the a c t i v i t y f a c t o r , _t(28) = -3.86, p_ < .001, on the s o c i a b i l i t y f a c t o r , _t(28) = -2.44, £ < .05, and on the imp u l s i v i t y f a c t o r , _t(28) = -4.73, £ < .001 (see Table 5). The children's scores were higher than the adults for a l l three factors (see Table 7). Correlations A number of Pearson c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t matrices were generated to determine i f any r e l a t i o n s h i p s existed among a v a r i e t y of the de-pendent v a r i a b l e s . 1. Temperament and Assertion A c o r r e l a t i o n matrix between the temperament factors of both mother and c h i l d and the two as s e r t i o n factors was constructed. Only two of the obtained c o r r e l a t i o n s were s i g n i f i c a n t and these may have been expected by chance. The mother and c h i l d emotionality factors correlated p o s i t i v e l y , r; = .6014, £ < .02. There was a marginal nega-t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between the mother emotionality factors and the d i s -comfort on the assertion inventory, _r = -.5055, £ < .055. 2. Week 4 Monitoring Several v a r i a b l e s were cor r e l a t e d with the week 4 monitoring (post) to determine i f any r e l a t i o n s h i p existed. Neither the perceived helpfulness of the feedback questionnaire nor the post and follow-up Missouri c h e c k l i s t f a c tors and follow-up Becker c h e c k l i s t factors cor-related s i g n i f i c a n t l y with the monitoring. 3. Feedback The post and follow-up c h e c k l i s t f a c t o r s were cor r e l a t e d with the four feedback questions. I t was hypothesized that any change i n a 30 Table 7 Parent and C h i l d Temperament Factor Means Factor Mean Score 1. Adult Emotionality 27.66 Child Emotionality 31. 20 2. Adult A c t i v i t y 18.26 Ch i l d A c t i v i t y 26.20 3. Adult S o c i a b i l i t y 11.26 Ch i l d S o c i a b i l i t y 14.46 4. Adult Impulsivity 33.93 Child Impulsivity 46.46 p_ < .05 p_ < .001 31 a factor score or a problem i n d i c a t o r score might be r e l a t e d to the general perceived helpfulness of the techniques and/or to t h e i r con-tinued helpfulness and future use. For the post Missouri f a c t o r scores the only s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n was between the s o c i a b i l i t y f a c t o r and the perceived helpfulness of the techniques, x_ = .6246, £ = .05. On the follow-up Missouri a l l the f a c t o r s except somatization correlated s i g n i f i c a n t l y with at least one of the feedback items (see Table 8). For the post Missouri problem i n d i c a t o r s , the only s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s were between the aggression problem i n d i c a t o r and the per-ceived helpfulness item, r_ = -.6010, p_ = .05; between the i n h i b i t i o n problem i n d i c a t o r and the expected behaviour change item, x_ = .7146, p_ < .01; and between the s o c i a b i l i t y problem in d i c a t o r and the expected behaviour change item, j r = .6355, p_ < .04. For the follow-up Missouri problem i n d i c a t o r s the only s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s were between the expected behaviour change item and the i n h i b i t i o n , j_ = .5974, £ < .04 and s o c i a b i l i t y , _r = .6304, £ < .03 problem i n d i c a t o r s . Measurement Instruments The parenting questionnaire was marked by the experimenter and a graduate student i n psychology who took no p a r t i n the research. The achieved l e v e l of i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y (Pearson c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t ) was .87, £ < .001. A c o r r e l a t i o n matrix was generated to determine the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the Missouri c h e c k l i s t factors and t h e i r corresponding problem i n d i c a t o r s f o r each administration of the c h e c k l i s t (see Table 9). The two correlated most highly at the i n i t i a l administration with a l l but 32 Table 8 Correlations Between Post and Follow-Up Missouri Checklist Factors and Four Feedback Items Missouri Factors Helpful Continue Continue Helpful To Use Expect Behaviour Change Post S o c i a b i l i t y •6246 a - -Follow-up Aggression -.6093 a .5854a .5864a Follow-up I n h i b i t i o n -.6768 b - -Follow-Up A c t i v i t y - - .6751 b Follow-Up Sleep - - • -Follow-Up Somatization -.5985 a - .5525 a Follow-Up S o c i a b i l i t y .5951 a .7309 d -.8321° a p_ < .05 b £ < .01 ° £ < .005 d £ < .001 Table 9 Correlations Between the Missouri Checklist Factors and Their Corresponding Problem Indicators for the Pre, Post, and Follow-Up Administrations Factor Pre Post Follow-Up Aggression .7109° .6638 a .5009 I n h i b i t i o n .3483 .5515 .1281 A c t i v i t y .6430 b .3876 .6321 a Sleep •7713 d .0098 .4165 Somatization .62H b .5981 .1209 S o c i a b i l i t y .0494 -.4246 .4739 ap < .05 b p < .0.1 C £ < .. 005 d £ < .001 34 the sociability factor and problem indicator being significant at the .01 level or less. At subsequent administrations the correlations tended to decrease. However, as the test-retest r e l i a b i l i t y of the Missouri checklist is not available, i t cannot be determined whether these differences are due to error or actual change, i.e., i f parents see the problems as being less serious even i f the frequency stays the same. 35 DISCUSSION As expected there were p o s i t i v e changes on the dependent measures over time for both groups. Parents' responses improved on the parenting questionnaire i n d i c a t i n g that they were learning the techniques and underlying p r i n c i p l e s that the programmes were based on. The monitoring data, i.e.., the d a i l y frequency counts of the target behaviours also showed a steady decline from week to week. As the two conditions did not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n the rate of decline the date were combined. The behavioural frequencies decreased from a week 1 average of 7.5 per day to a week 4 average of 2.85 per day. Unfortunately, the monitoring, e s p e c i a l l y during the follow-up was not done consistently. I f contin-gency contracting, i . e . , earning back a deposit by completing assignments, could have been used i t i s l i k e l y that more of the monitoring would have been completed (Eyeberg & Johnson, 1974). There was net a great deal of change as measured by the Missouri c h e c k l i s t and the Becker a t t i t u d e c h e c k l i s t . Parents saw aggression (Missouri factor) as being le s s of a problem a f t e r treatment. It i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that while phy s i c a l aggression, e.g., hair p u l l i n g , pushing, h i t t i n g , was not a common r e f e r r a l problem, noncompliance and disruptive behaviour were, and may have been perceived as aggression. An examination of the means from pre to follow-up for both the Missouri factors and t h e i r corresponding problem i n d i c a t o r s shows a change for almost a l l v a r i a b l e s i n the predicted d i r e c t i o n s . It should be noted that most of the mothers never rated t h e i r c h i l d r e n very badly on any of the factors nor did they see many of the problems as being 36 very serious. This may have contributed to the failure of the trends to reach significance. It may be that at the preschool age level behaviour problems are, in fact, not as severe or are not viewed as seriously as at later stages, i.e., a sort of " i t ' s just a phase" attitude may prevail. However, is this is indeed the case, then the question arises as to why these mothers f e l t the need to seek profes-sional intervention. It i s also possible that i f the Missouri checklist had been administered in i t s original yes/no format that the results would have been congruent with the monitoring data. A f i n a l explanation may be that the checklist is useful for assessing an individual's need for treatment but that i t simply is not a good indicator of behaviour change. The latter may be shown to be the case when the test-retest r e l i a b i l i t y of the instrument is made available. The scores on the Becker did not change nor are there any clear cut trends evident in the means. Parental attitudes seemed to f a l l at the midpoint of the possible range for a l l factors at both administra-tions. Previous studies (e.g., Eyeberg & Johnson, 1974; Glogower & Sloop, 1976) have found an improvement in attitude on at least some of the factors. However, these studies had longer intervention periods (12 and 10 weeks respectively versus 7 weeks between administrations in the present study) and such periods may be necessary for attitude change to occur. It is also possible that the parents in these studies had more negative attitudes than those in the present one, and that the post scores of a l l groups would be the same. The feedback questionnaires indicated that the parents found the 3 7 techniques h e l p f u l and that they expected them to continue to be so and would continue t h e i r use. While t h i s p o s i t i v e response may have been influenced by the demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the s i t u a t i o n the anonymity of the measure should have provided a p a r t i a l safeguard at l e a s t . It i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that the s t a f f of the health unit perceived the programme as a success and created a demand for a continu-ation of some form of behavioural parent t r a i n i n g . None of the experimental hypotheses regarding the differences between the general s k i l l s and s p e c i f i c focus groups were confirmed. There are several possible explanations for t h i s f i n d i n g . F i r s t of a l l i n modifying the format of the general s k i l l s group so that more d i r e c -t i o n was provided, i t i s quite l i k e l y that the difference between the two groups was lessened. While empirical considerations would c l e a r l y have dictated maintaining the o r i g i n a l procedure, i t was necessary, i n t h i s case, to make a c l i n i c a l judgement. In order to make use of Health Department c l i e n t s and f a c i l i t i e s i t was expected that a service would be provided. It would have been valuable to determine i f a nonproblem focus group such as the intended general s k i l l s group would r e s u l t i n higher subject a t t r i t i o n . However, t h i s would not have been an accep-table consequence for the Health Department. A second factor which may have contributed to the lessening of group differences i s r e l a t e d to the group format used. While mothers i n the s p e c i f i c focus group concentrated on working with one target behaviour they were not i s o l a t e d from other mothers. They had the oppor-timoty to l i s t e n to discussion of the programmes being developed for other c h i l d r e n and problems. Thus while the behaviour p r i n c i p l e s and 38 techniques were not e x p l i c i t l y presented, there was probably a good deal of i n c i d e n t a l learning taking place. Perhaps a long term follow-up, e.g., s i x months, would demonstrate that the teaching of behavioural p r i n c i p l e s and the a v a i l a b i l i t y of the handouts for reference purposes does indeed r e s u l t i n greater maintenance and gene r a l i z a t i o n of behaviour change. Unfortunately, such a follow-up was beyond the scope of the present study. The i n v e s t i g a t i o n into parent c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s did r e s u l t i n one i n t e r e s t i n g f i n d i n g . The combined experimental group adults were more impulsive and t h e i r c h i l d r e n were rated as more active than the compari-son group. When comparisons were made within the combined experimental groups on temperament, parents and c h i l d r e n d i f f e r e d on three f a c t o r s : s o c i a b i l i t y , i m p u l s i v i t y , and a c t i v i t y . The comparison group also d i f f e r e d on the f i r s t two f a c t o r s , however there was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between parents and ch i l d r e n on the a c t i v i t y f actor. It may be that the combination of an impulsive mother and an active c h i l d r e s u l t s i n the c h i l d being seen as a behaviour problem. Thus for some parents at l e a s t , intervention aimed at helping such parents deal with more active c h i l d r e n may be more b e n e f i c i a l than s e t t i n g up programmes aimed at modifying the c h i l d ' s behaviour per se. It i s d i f f i c u l t to make any statements regarding the assertiveness of the mothers i n the study. They c e r t a i n l y would be rated as unasser-t i v e i n comparison to college students, however i t has been suggested (Alden, Note 1) that college students may be more ass e r t i v e than the general population. It would be necessary to r e f e r to more generally based norms before 39 i t could be determined i f mothers of problem ch i l d r e n are indeed unasser-t i v e . I f t h i s were shown to be the case i t would be i n t e r e s t i n g to examine the e f f e c t s of assertion t r a i n i n g on parent-child i n t e r a c t i o n s . In summary, there were no between group differences a f t e r treatment. There was p o s i t i v e change over time for both groups on several of the measures and trends towards improvement on the others. However, as a l l of the measures were s e l f - r e p o r t i t may be possible that actual behaviour change did not occur or at l e a s t not to a s i g n i f i c a n t degree. Because the d i s t i n c t i o n between the two experimental groups i n t h i s study was not c l e a r , i t would be necessary to repeat the experiment maintaining the o r i g i n a l general s k i l l s condition before any conclusive statements could be made regarding the two types of treatment. If subjects did not drop out at a higher rate, i t would be of i n t e r e s t to determine i f any ac t u a l behaviour change occurred at the post assessment or i f i t emerged l a t e r at the follow-up. It might be that with such an approach, occasional "booster" sessions or telephone consultations would be necessary. Another point of i n t e r e s t f o r future i n v e s t i g a t i o n would be the optimal length of intervention. Perhaps a short term intervention such as that of the present study, e s p e c i a l l y i n a group format, i s inade-quate. C e r t a i n l y other programmes tend to be longer and Patterson averages 30.9 hours of treatment exclusive of assessments. F i n a l l y , i t may be that an exclusive focus on general p r i n c i p l e s i s simply not tenable and the combination approach advocated by Glogower and Sloop may be the most e f f e c t i v e . 40 REFERENCE NOTES 1. Alden, L. Personal communication, February 25, 1978. 41 REFERENCES Anderson, L.N. Personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of parents of neurotic, aggressive, and normal preadolescent boys. Journal of C l i n i c a l and  Consulting Psychology, 1969, 33, 575-581. Aragona, J . , Cassady, J . , & Drabman, R.S. Treating overweight c h i l d r e n through parental t r a i n i n g and contingency contracting. Journal  of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 1975, £3(3), 269-278. Barrett, B.H. Behavior modification i n the home: parents adapt laboratory-developed t a c t i c s to bowel-train a 5% year old. Psycho- therapy: Theory, Research, and P r a c t i c e , 1969, £, 172-176. Becker, W.C. The r e l a t i o n s h i p of parental ratings of s e l f and each other to the behaviour of kindergarten ch i l d r e n as rated by mothers, fathers, and teachers. Journal of Consulting Psychology , 1960, 24, 507-527. Berkowitz, B.A. & Graziano, A.M. Training parents as behavior t h e r a p i s t s : a review. Behavior Research and Therapy, 1972, 10. Bernal, M. , Duryee, J . , Pruett, H., & Burns, B. Behavior modification and the brat syndrome. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1968, 32, 447-455. Bernal, M., Williams, D., M i l l e r , W., & Reagor, P. The use of video-tape feedback and operant learning p r i n c i p l e s i n t r a i n i n g parents i n management of deviant chi l d r e n . In R. Rubin, H. Festerheim, J. Henderson, & L. Ullman (Eds.), Advances i n behavior therapy. New York: Academic Press, 1972. Brockway, B.S. & Williams, W.W. Training i n c h i l d management: a 42 prevention oriented model. In E. Mash et a l . A behavior modifi- cation approach to parenting . Buss, A.H. & Plomin, R. A temperament theory of personality development. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 1975. Caplan, G. P r i n c i p l e s of preventive psychiatry. New York: Basic Books, 1964. Christopherson, A., Arnold, S., H i l l , D.W., & Q u i l i t c h , H.R. The home point system: token reinforcement procedures for a p p l i c a t i o n by parents of c h i l d r e n with behavior problems. Journal of Applied  Behavioral Analysis Deatherage, R. Modifying appropriate and i n t e r f e r i n g behaviors i n a u t i s i t c c h i l d r e n using a system of behavior modification thera-peutic teaching. D i s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts , 1972, 3>2_(12-a). 6827. Dorgan, M.A. I n i t i a t i n g a programme of foster parent education. C h i l d  Welfare, 1974, 59(9), 588-593. Eyeberg, S.M. & Johnson, S.M. Multiple assessment of behavior modifi-cation with f a m i l i e s . Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1974, 42(2), 594-606. Ferber, H., Keelye, S.M., & Shemberg, K.M. Training parents i n behavior modification: outcome and problems encountered i n a program a f t e r Patterson's work. Behavior Therapy, 1974, 5_, 415-416. Forehand, R. & Atkeson, B. Generality of treatment e f f e c t s with parents as therapists. A review of assessment and implementation pro-cedures. Behavior Therapy, 1977, 8/4), 575-593. Gambrill, E. & Richey, C. An assertion inventory for use i n assessment and research. Behavior Therapy, 1975, £, 550-561. Glogower, F. & Sloop, E.W. Two strategies of group t r a i n i n g of parents as e f f e c t i v e behavior modifiers. Behavior Therapy, 1976, ]_, 177— 184. Graziano, A. A group treatment approach to multiple problem behaviors of a u t i s t i c c h i l d r e n . Exceptional Children, 1970, '36, 765-770. Guerney, B.G. Psychotherapeutic agents: New roles for nonprofessionals parents and teachers. New York: Holt, 1969. H a l l , R., Alexrod, S., Taylor, L . , C r i e f , E., Jones, F. , & Robertson, R. Mod i f i c a t i o n of behavior problems i n the home with a parent as observer and experimenter. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 1972, 5(1), 53-64. H a l l , R. , and Broden, M. Behavior changes i n brain injured c h i l d r e n through s o c i a l reinforcement. Journal of Experimental C h i l d Psychiatry, 1967, _5, 463-479. H a l l , R. , C r i s t l e r , C., Cranston, S., & Tucker, B. Teachers and parents as researchers using multiple baseline designs. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 1970, /3, 247-255. Hanvik, L. & Byrum, M. The MMPI p r o f i l e s of parents of c h i l d p s y c h i a t r i c patients. Journal of C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1959, 1_5, 427-431. He l l e r , K. & Monahan, J. Psychology and community change. I l l i n o i s : Dorsey, 1977. Herbert, E.W., & Baer, D.M. Training parents as behavior modifiers: s e l f recording on contingent attention. Journal of Applied Behavioral  Analysis, 1972, 5(2), 139-149. Hobbs, N. Mental health's t h i r d r e volution. The American Journal of  Orthopsychiatry, 1964, 34(5), 822-833. 44 Johnson, C. & Katz, R.C. Using parents as change agents for t h e i r c h i l d r e n : a review. Journal of C h i l d Psychology and Psychiatry  and A l l i e d D i s c i p l i n e s , 1973, _14, 181-200. Johnson, J.M. Using parents as contingency managers. Psychological  Reports, 1971, 2A, 703-710. Johnson, S.A. A comparison of mother versus c h i l d groups and t r a d i -t i o n a l versus behavior modification procedures i n the "treatment" of disobedient chi l d r e n . D i s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts, 1970, 31(5), 2989. Johnson, S.M. & Bolstad, D.D. Methodological issues i n n a t u r a l i s t i c observation: some problems and solutions f or f i e l d research. In L.A. Hamerlynck, L.C. Handy, & E.J. Mash (Eds.), Behavior  change: Methodology, concepts, and p r a c t i c e . I l l i n o i s : Research Press, 1973. Johnson, S.M. & Bolstad, D.D. R e a c t i v i t y to home observation: a comparison of audio recorded behavior with observers present or absent. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 1975, J3 (2), 181-185. Johnson, S.M. & Christensen, A. Mu l t i p l e c r i t e r i a follow-up of behavior modification with f a m i l i e s . Journal of Abnormal Ch i l d Psychology, 1975, 3(2), 135-154. Johnson, S.M.', Christensen, A., & Bellamy, G. Evaluation of family intervention through unobtrusive audio recordings: experiences i n "bugging" chi l d r e n . Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 1976, .9.(2) , 213-219. Johnson, S.M. & Lobitz, G.K. Parental manipulation of c h i l d behavior 45 i n home observation. Journal of Applied Behavioural Analysis, 1974, 2 ( D » 23-31. Kardy, P. & Rosenthal, M. Training parents i n behaviour modification: e f f e c t s on perceptions of family i n t e r a c t i o n and deviant c h i l d behaviour. Behavior Therapy, 1977, 406-410. Kovitz, K. Comparing group and i n d i v i d u a l methods for t r a i n i n g parents , i n c h i l d management techniques. In E. Mash et a l . , A behavior  modification approach to parenting. New York: Bruner/Mazel, 1976. L i p i n s k i , D. & Nelson, R. Problems i n the use of n a t u r a l i s i t c observa-t i o n as a means of behavioral assessment. Behaviour Therapy, 1974, 5_, 341-351. Lobitz, G.K. & Johnson, S.M. Normal vs. deviant c h i l d r e n . a m u l t i -method comparison. Journal of Abnormal C h i l d Psychology, 1975a, 3(4), 353-374. Lobitz, WC. & Johnson, S.M. Parental manipulation of the behavior of normal and deviant c h i l d r e n . C h i l d Development, 1975b, 46, 719-726. Masden, C. P o s i t i v e reinforcement i n the t o i l e t t r a i n i n g of a normal c h i l d : a case report. In L. Ullmann and L. Krasner (Eds.), Case studies i n behavior modification. New York: Holt, 1966, 305-307. Mash, E., Terdal, L., & Anderson, K. The response cl a s s matrix: a procedure for recording parent-child i n t e r a c t i o n s . Journal of  Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1973, ^D, 163-164. Mira, M. Results of a behavior modification t r a i n i n g program for parents and teachers. Behavior Research and Therapy, 1970, 8, 309-311. 46 Nay, W.R. A systematic comparison of i n s t r u c t i o n a l techniques for parents. Behavior Therapy, 1976, J5, 14-21. O'Dell, S. Training parents i n behavior modification: a review. Psychological B u l l e t i n , 1974, 131, 418-433. Patterson, G.R. Mu l t i p l e evaluation of a parent t r a i n i n g program. In T. Thompson (Ed.), Proceedings of the F i r s t International Symposium on Behavior Modification . New York: Appelton-Century-Crofts, 1973. Patterson, G.R. Retraining of aggressive boys by t h e i r parents: review of recent l i t e r a t u r e and follow-up evaluation. Canadian Psychological Association Journal, 1974, _19_, 142-161. Patterson, G.R. The aggressive c h i l d : Victim and a r c h i t e c t of a coercive system. In E.J. Mash,. L.C. Handy, and L.A. Hamerlynck (Eds.), Behavior modification and f a m i l i e s . New York: Bruner/ Mazel, 1976. Patterson, G.R. & Fagot, B.I. Selective responsiveness to s o c i a l re-i n f o r c e r s and deviant behavior i n children. Psychology Record, 1967, 17, 369-378. Patterson, G.R. & G u i l l i o n , M.E. L i v i n g with c h i l d r e n : new models for parents and teachers. Champaign, I l l i n o i s : Research Press, 1968. Patterson, G., Jones, R., Whittier, J . , & Wright, M. A behavior modi-f i c a t i o n technique for the hyperactive c h i l d . Behavior Research  and Therapy , 1965, 2, 217-226. Patterson, G., Ray, R., Shaw, D., & Cobb, J . Manual for coding of family i n t e r a c t i o n s . New York: ASIS National A u x i l l i a r y P u b l i -cations Service, 1969. 47 Patterson, G.R. & Reid, J.B. Intervention for fa m i l i e s of aggressive boys: a r e p l i c a t i o n study. Behavior Research and Therapy, 1973, 11, 383-394. Patterson, G.R., Reid, J.P., Jones, R.R., & Conber, R.E. A s o c i a l learning approach to family intervention. Vol. 1. Families with  aggressive ch i l d r e n. Eugene, Oregon: C a s t a l l i a Publishing Co., 1975. Peed, S., Roberts, M., & Forehand, R. Evaluation of the effectiveness of a standardized parent t r a i n i n g program i n a l t e r i n g the i n t e r -a c t i o n of mothers and t h e i r noncompliant c h i l d r e n . Behavior  Modification , 1977, J.(3) , 323-350. Rappaport, J. Community psychology: Values, research, and action. New York: Holt, 1977. Reisinger, J . J . , Ora, J.P., & Frangia, G.W. Parents as change agents for t h e i r c h i l d r e n : a review. Journal of Community Psychology, 1976, 4, 103-123. Rose, S.R. Group t r a i n i n g of parents as behavior modifiers. S o c i a l  Work, 1974a,19(1), 156-162. Rose, S.R. Training parents i n groups as behavior modifiers of t h e i r mentally retarded chi l d r e n . Journal of Behavior Therapy and  Experimental Psychiatry, 1974b, 5/2), 135-140. Salsinger, K., Feldman, R.S., & Portnoy, S. Training parents of brain injured children i n the use of operant conditioning proce-dures. Behavior Therapy, _ ! ( ! ) , 1970. Schaefer, J. , Palkes, H.S., & Stewart, M.A. Group counseling for parents of hyperactive c h i l d r e n . C h i l d Psychiatry and Human 48 Development, 1974, ,5(2), 89-94. Sines, J . , Pauker, J . , Sines, L., & Owen, D. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of c l i n i -c a l l y relevant dimensions of children's behavior. Journal of  C l i n i c a l and Consulting Psychology, 1969, _33(6), 728-734. Tavorminia, J.B. Basic models of parent counselling: a c r i t i c a l review. Psychological B u l l e t i n , 1974, _81(11)827-835. Terdal, L. & B u e l l , J. Parent education i n managing retarded ch i l d r e n with behavior d e f i c i t s and inappropriate behaviors. Mental  Retardation, 1969, ]_, 1073. Wahler, R.G. Oppositional c h i l d r e n : a quest for parental reinforcement co n t r o l . Journal of Applied Behavioural Analysis, 1969a, 2_, 159-170. Wiltz, N. Modification of behaviors through parent p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a group technique. D i s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts International, 1970, 30(11 4786-4787. Wil t z , N.A. & Patterson, G.R. An evaluation of parent t r a i n i n g pro-cedures designed to a l t e r inappropriate aggressive behavior i n boys. Behavior Therapy, 1974, 5_, 215-221. Winer, B. 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 - 2nd e d i t i o n . New York: McGraw H i l l , 1971. Wolking, W.D., Dunteman, G.H., & Bailey, J.D. M u l t i v a r i a t e analyses of parents' MMPl's based on p s y c h i a t r i c diagnoses of t h e i r c h i l d r e n . Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1967, _3_1> 521-524. Zax, M. & Specter, G. An introduction to community psychology. New York: Wiley, 1974. Zegiob, L.E., Arnold, S., & Forehand, R. An examination of observer e f f e c t s i n parent-child i n t e r a c t i o n . C h i l d Development, 46, 1975. APPENDIX A F a c t S h e e t s , P a r e n t i n g Q u e s t i o n n a i r e , M i s s o u r i C h e c k l i s t , B e c k e r C h e c k l i s t 50 FACT SHEET ID// _ Parents' Names: Mother • . ' .—. • Birthdate Father Birthdate M a r i t a l Status: Married . Separated Divorced Single Other Children's Names: 1. 2. 3. ; 4. Address Telephone Educational Level: Mother: Highschool Grade 10 11 12 13 ( i f applicable) College or University Year 1 2 3 4 Post graduate Other ' • Father: Highschool Grade 10 11 12 13 ( i f applicable) College or Uni v e r s i t y Year 1 2 3 4 Post graduate Other .  Name of c h i l d (children) who cur r e n t l y represent(s) a behaviour or management problem: 1. In your own words how would you describe the problem(s)? 51 FACT SHEET ID# M a r i t a l S t a t u s : M a r r i e d S e p a r a t e d D i v o r c e d S i n g l e O t h e r P a r e n t s ' Ages: Mother F a t h e r C h i l d r e n ' s Ages: E d u c a t i o n a l L e v e l : Mother H i g h s c h o o l Grade 10 11 12 _ 13 ( i f a p p l i c a b l e ) C o l l e g e o r U n i v e r s i t y Y e a r 1 2 3 4 P o s t g r a d u a t e Other F a t h e r H i g h s c h o o l Grade 10 11 12 13 ( i f a p p l i c a b l e ) C o l l e g e o r U n i v e r s i t y Y e a r 1 2 3 4 P o s t g r a d u a t e O t h e r 52 PARENTING QUESTIONNAIRE 1. Jimmy r a r e l y does what he i s a s k e d t o do. U s u a l l y he s a y s , " I don't want t o " o r " I won't" when h i s mother makes a r e q u e s t . How would you h a n d l e t h i s s i t u a t i o n ? 2. Jane has a temper t a n t r u m whenever she c a n ' t g e t h e r own way. How would you h a n d l e t h i s p r o b l e m i f i t o c c u r r e d a t home? 3. How woul d you h a n d l e J a n e ' s temper t a n t r u m s i f t h e y o c c u r r e d i n p u b l i c ? e.g., a t t h e s u p e r m a r k e t , i n a department s t o r e , o r i n a r e s t a u r a n t ? 4. Bon n i e i s v e r y a g g r e s s i v e . She t e a s e s and sometimes h i t s her younger b r o t h e r and some o f t h e n e i g h b o u r s ' c h i l d r e n . What w o u l d you do i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n ? 5. B o b b i e i s v e r y a c t i v e and n o i s y . He o f t e n r u n s a r o u n d t h e house and s h o u t s when p l a y i n g . How w o u l d you h a n d l e t h i s ? 6. B i l l y i s v e r y dependent on h i s mother. A l t h o u g h he i s f i v e , he c a n ' t even b e g i n t o d r e s s h i m s e l f and c r i e s i f h i s mother i s n o t i n t h e room w i t h him. What would you do i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n ? 7. S h e l l y i s a f r a i d o f g o i n g t o t h e d e n t i s t . How woul d you cope w i t h h e r f e a r ? 8. K a r e n i s n ' t v e r y f r i e n d l y . She h a r d l y e v e r l o o k s a t . p e o p l e when t h e y t a l k t o h e r and r a r e l y s m i l e s . When she does t a l k i t i s u s u a l l y o n l y a few words. What woul d you do i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n ? 53 MISSOURI CHILDREN'S BEHAVIOUR CHECKLIST F o r each i t e m p l e a s e check. ( I ) how f r e q u e n t l y each b e h a v i o u r o c c u r s and ( I I ) whether o r n o t t h e b e h a v i o u r r e p r e s e n t s a p r o b l e m f o r you a t t h a t f r e q u e n c y . EXAMPLE: ro ro M a. o 9 o o n &> CO H' cn o ro p O 1—1 fu Hi _ M rt o M ro 0 0 < ro rt . ro a I s a p r o b l e m K; ro CO o C r i e s a l o t . 1. Says f o r i n s t a n c e , " I ' l l g e t even", "You won't get away w i t h t h a t " , " I ' l l show him", e x p r e s s e d d e s i r e f o r revenge. 2. F i g h t s 3. Says o t h e r s a r e t o blame f o r h i s own a c t i o n s . 4. S e l f i s h 5. U n s c r u p u l o u s l y t a k e s a dvantage o f o t h e r s . 6. H u r t s a n i m a l s . 7. Makes s t a t e m e n t s c o n t r a r y t o f a c t ( l y i n g , t e l l i n g u n t r u t h s ) 8. Screams, bangs o b j e c t s when d e n i e d s o m e t h i n g , has temper ta n t r u m s 9. P u l l s o t h e r c h i l d r e n s ' h a i r , punches, s t e p s on t o e s , e t c . , annoys o t h e r c h i l d r e n . 10. S t e a l s . 54 < fD fD M O fD O O O CO CO H-O 0 o Hi rt fD 3 < fD H V! O Hi rt ro 3 p r o b l e m I s a B o a ro CD 2 O 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. D e s t r o y s o r d e f a c e s p r o p e r t y . P l a y s w i t h matches. H u r t s o t h e r c h i l d r e n (punches, h i t s , k i c k s , o r o t h e r d e s t r u c t i v e a c t s ) T eases o t h e r c h i l d r e n . H i t s s m a l l e r c h i l d r e n , " p i c k s on" weaker o r s m a l l e r c h i l d r e n . Screams more t h a n o t h e r s . T h r e a t e n s t o k i l l someone. Swears o r c u r s e s (uses " h e l l " , "God damn" o r o t h e r f o u r l e t t e r words) Does n o t answer when spoken t o , p o u t s , l o o k s mean o r s u l l e n . P r e f e r s t o be w i t h c h i l d r e n younger t h a n h i m s e l f . I s a p a t h e t i c o r u n d e r a c t i v e . Does n o t t r y new s i t u a t i o n s , "hangs back", i s c o n s i d e r e d by o t h e r s as f e a r f u l o r shy Does n o t p e r f o r m b e f o r e group, r e f u s e s t o speak b e f o r e c l a s s when r e q u e s t e d , does n o t v o l u n t e e r t o speak o r a c t b e f o r e group o r c l a s s . W i t h d r a w s , r e m a i n s q u i e t , does n o t t a l k back when o t h e r s shove, h i t , a c c u s e o r c r i t i c i s e him. (Does n o t s t a n d up f o r s e l f . ) 55 25. Speaks i n a weak voice, i n a monotone, voice " t r a i l s o f f " at the end of sen-tences, or speaks i n a high-pitched, weak voice. 26. Stays l a r g e l y i n room or house. 27. Says "I'm t i r e d " , "I want to r e s t " , e tc (others say he t i r e s e a s i l y or r e s t s often). 28. Cries e a s i l y . 29. Is s e n s i t i v e . 30. Has few close f r i e n d s h i p s . 31. Is seclusive, prefers to be by himself 32. Does not p a r t i c i p a t e i n group a c t i v i t i e | s stays i n background (said to be re-t i r i n g ) . < ( D i i • < ! cn ft! M CL O S CO ro H o B o o o (U cn o 3 o Hi rt <T> 3 < I D re 3 Is a broblem CO o 33. Is shy or timid. 34. Moves constantly, "gets into every-thing", "swarms a l l over", i s Over-act i v e . 35. Jumps from one a c t i v i t y to the next, does not f i n i s h tasks (others say he/ she has a short a t t e n t i o n span). j 36. Stumbles, f a l l s e a s i l y , throws clumsy, j i s awkward. 37. Over-talkative, chatters, keeps talking! or i n t e r r u p t i n g conversation. 38. Becomes more act i v e i n groups, becomes n o i s i e r and more excited than usual when i n a group. 39. Sings or hums constantly (to expressed annoyance of others) 40. Speaks r a p i d l y , words "come tumbling out f a s t " 41. Becomes j i t t e r y , b u i l d i n g up tension, becomes wound up. 42. Is said to be d i s t r a c t a b l e , turns away quickly from what he i s doing when something else moves, someone else speaks, or other sounds occur. 43. F a l l s , cuts, bruises, i n j u r e s s e l f , has many accidents. 44. Cries out i n sleep. 45. Talks i n sleep. 46. Complains of bad dreams. 47. Tosses and turns i n sleep, r o l l s , gets up often at night (poor or r e s t l e s s sleeping). 48. Talks or complains about nightmare about serious events (divorce, auto-mobile accident, f i r e ) , loss of a loved one, or other c r i s i s events. 49. Walks i n sleep. 50. Sleeps w e l l , awakes very few times i n night (a "good" sleeper). 51. Has d i f f i c u l t y going to sleep. 52. Irregular bedtime. 57 53. Becomes u p s e t by changes i n r o u t i n e s u c h as c h a n g i n g r e s i d e n c e s o r s c h o o l s o r when e x p e c t i n g v i s i t o r s so t h a t .. c h i l d may v o m i t o r r e p o r t b o d i l y aches] headaches, stomach a c h e s , o r f e e l i n g s o f nausea. 54. W o r r i e s a g r e a t d e a l , i s s a i d t o be a w o r r i e r , e x p r e s s e s w o r r y o r c o n c e r n about bad g r a d e s , h e a l t h , e t c . 55. C l i n g s t o mother ( s t a y s c l o s e t o mother, hangs onto d r e s s o r hand) 56. C o m p l a i n s o f p a i n s i n head. 57. Compains of p a i n s i n l i m b s o r back (muscle aches and p a i n s ) . 58. V o m i t s when t h i n g s do n o t go h i s way, when he/she shows s i g n s o f anger ( r e d f a c e , r a i s e d v o i c e , e t c . ) , when he says he i s w o r r i e d , o r when he/she f e e l s s ad o r e m o t i o n a l l y u p s e t . 59. C r i e s a t s e p a r a t i o n from mother (on g o i n g t o s c h o o l , camp, e t c . ) 60. Has p h y s i c a l c o m p l a i n t s . 61. E x p r e s s e s o f shows c o n c e r n o v e r t h e m i s f o r t u n e s o f o t h e r s ( e . g . , p a t s s h o u l d e r , a s k s q u e s t i o n s about t r o u b l e j s a y s , "you f e e l unhappy, don't you?" 62. E x p r e s s e d a p p r e c i a t i o n f o r o t h e r s ' a c t s . 63. E x p r e s s e d d e l i g h t o v e r t h e h a p p i n e s s o f o t h e r s ( e . g . , c l a p s hands, s a y s " t h a t ' s good"). < ro H ro a o B ro M o B o n o co co H-o 0 Co o Hi rt ro 0 < ro n o Hi rt ro 0 I s a [problem ro CO o 58 < ro H co ro C O O O n pj CO H-O P 0) o Hi < H o Hi I s a p r o b l e m a. o o S ro ro 0 ro CO o 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. E x p r e s s e s d e l i g h t i n b e a u t y . D i s c u s s e s own pr o b l e m s w i t h o t h e r s . Says "I'm s o r r y " , "Won't you f o r g i v e me" more t h a n o t h e r s do ( e x p r e s s e s g r e a t remorse a p o l o g i z e s r e p e a t e d l y , c r i e s a f t e r h u r t i n g o r t e l l i n g un-t r u t h s o r d e s t r o y i n g p r o p e r t y . T a l k s e a s i l y w i t h a d u l t s , i n i t i a t e s a c t i v i t i e s o r c o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h a d u l t s o t h e r t h a n p a r e n t s . A s k s t o be h e l d , hugged, c l i m b s i n t o l a p , e t c . ( s e e k s p h y s i c a l e x p r e s s i o n s o f a f f e c t i o n ) . Sought o u t by o t h e r s , o t h e r s say t h e y l i k e h i m / h e r , among f i r s t s e l e c t e d f o r teams, e t c . Req u e s t s p r a i s e o r a p p r o v a l . 59 BECKER ADJECTIVE CHECKLIST ( P a t t e r s o n V e r s i o n ) INSTRUCTIONS: P l a c e a c h e c k mark w i t h i n t h e s e t o f p a r e n t h e s e s a t t h e p o i n t on each s c a l e w h i c h most a c c u r a t e l y d e s c r i b e s y o u r e v a l u a t i o n o f y o u r c h i l d . 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 1. A d u l t - l i k e ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) I n f a n t i l e 2. A d v e n t u r o u s ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) T i m i d 3. A n x i o u s ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) N o n c h a l e n t 4. B ored ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) I n t e r e s t e d 5. C o l o u r f u l ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) C o l o u r l e s s 6. C o n c e i t e d ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) S e l f - c r i t i c a l 7. C o o p e r a t i v e ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) . ( ) ( ) ( ) O b s t r u c t i v e 8. Demanding ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Not demanding 9. Dominant ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) S u b m i s s i v e 10. D u l l - m i n d e d ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) I n t e l l i g e n t 11. E a s i l y d i s c i p l i n e d ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) D i f f i c u l t t o d i s c i p l i n e 12. E m o t i o n a l ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) O b j e c t i v e 13. E x c i t a b l e ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Calm 14. E x t r o v e r t e d ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) I n t r o v e r t e d 15. F e a r f u l ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Not f e a r f u l 16. F l u c t u a t i n g ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) S t a b l e 17. Happy ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) D e p r e s s e d 18. H e l p i n g ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Not h e l p i n g 19. I m p a t i e n t ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) P a t i e n t 20. Independent ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Dependent 21. I n e f f e c t i v e ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) E f f e c t i v e 22. I n t e r e s t i n g ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) B o r i n g 23. I r r i t a b l e ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Easy g o i n g 24. J e a l o u s ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Not j e a l o u s 25. L o v i n g ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Not l o v i n g 26. M e a n i n g l e s s ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) M e a n i n g f u l 60 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 27. Neat ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) D i s o r d e r l y 28. Nervous ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) P l a c i d 29. N o i s y ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( . ) . ( ) Q u i e t 30. O b e d i e n t ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) D i s o b e d i e n t 31. O p t i m i s t i c ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) P e s s i m i s t i c 32. O r g a n i z e d ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) D i s o r g a n i z e d 33. Poor memory ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Good memory 34. Prone t o anger (• ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Not prone t o anger 35. Prone t o t a n t r u m s ( ) ( . ) . ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Not prone t o t a n t r u m s 36. R e s p o n s i b l e ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) I r r e s p o n s i b l e 37. •' R e s p o n s i v e ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) A l o o f 38. S e l f - c e n t e r e d ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) O u t g o i n g 39. Slow ( ) • ( ' ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Q u i c k 40. S o c i a b l e ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) U n s o c i a b l e 41. S t r o n g w i l l e d ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Weak w i l l e d 42. S u b j e c t i v e l y i n f e r i o r ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) S e l f - c o n f i d e n t 43. S u b j e c t t o d i s t r a c t i o n ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) A b l e t o c o n c e n t r a t e 44. Tense ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) R e l a x e d 45. Tough ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) S e n s i t i v e 46. T r u s t i n g ( ) ( ' ) ' ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) D i s t r u s t i n g 47. Warm ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) C o l d APPENDIX B M o n i t o r i n g Form, Feedback Q u e s t i o n n a i r e 62 MONITORING FORM C o u n t i n g watch y o u r c h i l d ; i d e n t i f y p r o b l e m a t i c b e h a v i o u r ( s ) t h a t he/she p e r f o r m s ; l i s t t h e s e h e r e : 1. 3. choose t h e most p r o b l e m a t i c o f t h o s e b e h a v i o u r s above. D e s c r i b e t h i s b e h a v i o u r : T h i s w i l l be t h e one you c o u n t . M o n i t o r t h i s b e h a v i o u r by r e c o r d i n g ( u s i n g a check mark o r s l a s h ) f o r each o f i t s o c c u r r e n c e s . Cut out t h e c h a r t below and keep i t handy so you can r e c o r d t h i s b e h a v i o u r i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r i t o c c u r s . D a i l y t o t a l s f o r t h i s b e h a v i o u r a r e t o be i n d i c a t e d i n the l o w e r r i g h t hand s q u a r e s . C h i l d ' s name P r o b l e m b e h a v i o r DAY .2 DAY 3 DAY 4 DAY 5 DAY 6 DAY 7 DAY 8 P l e a s e b r i n g t h i s m o n i t o r i n g s h e e t t o t h e n e x t s e s s i o n . Day 1 -Day 2 -Day 3 -63 FEEDBACK FORM 1. What d i d you l i k e b e s t / f i n d t h e most u s e f u l about t h e groups? 2. What t h i n g s w o u l d you l i k e t o see changed o r added? 3. What q u a l i t i e s o f t h e group l e a d e r s d i d you l i k e b e s t / l e a s t ? 4. How h e l p f u l have you f o u n d t h e t e c h n i q u e s d i s c u s s e d i n t h e group t o be? not v e r y somewhat v e r y h e l p f u l h e l p f u l h e l p f u l 5. How h e l p f u l do you e x p e c t t h e s e t e c h n i q u e s t o be w i t h o t h e r problems you haven't worked on y e t ? not v e r y somewhat v e r y h e l p f u l h e l p f u l h e l p f u l 6. Do you t h i n k you w i l l c o n t i n u e t o make use o f t h e t e c h n i q u e s i n t h e f u t u r e , i . e . , f o r problems t h a t m i ght a r i s e l a t e r on? u n l i k e l y p o s s i b l y v e r y l i k e l y 7. Do you e x p e c t t o see p o s i t i v e changes o v e r t h e n e x t month i n y o u r c h i l d ' s b e h a v i o u r ? d e f i n i t e l y d o u b t f u l (NOTE: Items 4-7 were coded as 0-4 r a t h e r t h a n as 1-5.) 64 APPENDIX C E A S I - I I I Temperament S c a l e s 65 EASI-III TEMPERAMENT SURVEY For each item check the category that most accurately described you. Check only one category f o r each item. < ro <^ c 3 rt e ro <! ro H C ro 1. I frequently get upset. 2. I usually seem to be i n a hurry. 3. I make friends very quickly. 4. I have trouble c o n t r o l l i n g my impulses. 5. I am almost always calm — nothing ever bothers me. 6. I often say the f i r s t thing that comes into my head. 7. I am e a s i l y frightened. 8. I l i k e to wear myself out with exertion. 9. I generally seek new and e x c i t i n g experiences and sensations. 10. I get excited e a s i l y . 11. For re l a x a t i o n I l i k e to slow down and take things easy. 12. I generally l i k e to see things through to the end. 13. I am very sociable. 14. Usually I can't stand waiting. 15. I often f e e l insecure. 16. I often f e e l sluggish. 17. I can t o l e r a t e f r u s t r a t i o n better than most. 18. When displeased, I l e t people know r i g h t away. 19. I l i k e to be o f f and running as soon as I wake up i n the morning. 66 very untrue untrue neutral true very true 20. I o f t e n have t r o u b l e making up my mind. 21. I ' l l t r y a n y t h i n g once. 22. I t e n d t o be n e r v o u s i n new s i t u a t i o n s . 23. I o f t e n f e e l as i f I am b u r s t i n g w i t h e n e r g y . 24. I have t r o u b l e r e s i s t i n g my c r a v i n g s ( f o r f o o d , c i g a r e t t e s , e t c . ) 25. I t e n d t o g i v e up e a s i l y . 26. I have many f r i e n d s . 27. I l i k e t o p l a n t h i n g s way ahead o f t i m e . 28. I o f t e n f e e l l i k e c r y i n g . 29. I l i k e t o keep busy a l l t h e t i m e . 30. I o f t e n a c t on t h e s p u r o f t h e moment. 31. I t t a k e s a l o t t o g e t me mad. 32. Once I get g o i n g on some t h i n g I h a t e t o s t o p . 33. I t e n d t o be shy. 34. I am known as h o t - b l o o d e d and q u i c k - t e m p e r e d . 35. My l i f e i s f a s t paced. 36. I g e t b o r e d e a s i l y . 37. I have fe w e r f e a r s t h a n most p e o p l e my age. 38. U n f i n i s h e d t a s k s r e a l l y b o t h e r me. 39. There a r e many t h i n g s t h a t r e a l l y b o t h e r me. 40. I sometimes do " c r a z y " t h i n g s j u s t t o be d i f -f e r e n t . 41. I u s u a l l y p r e f e r t o be a l o n e . 42. When I get s c a r e d I p a n i c . 43.. I l i k e t o spend my money r i g h t away r a t h e r t h a n save i t f o r l o n g range g o a l s . 44. When I do t h i n g s I do them v i g o r o u s l y . 45. I'm h a p p i e s t i n f a m i l i a r s u r r o u n d i n g s . 67 very untrue untrue neutral true very true 46. I y e l l and scream more than most people my age. 47. I l i k e to make de t a i l e d plans before I do something. 48. My movements are f o r c e f u l and emphatic. 49. I tend to hop from i n t e r e s t to i n t e r e s t quickly. 50. I am somewhat emotional. 68 E A S I - I I I TEMPERAMENT SURVEY CHILDREN'S FORM For e ach i t e m check t h e i t e m w h i c h most a c c u r a t e l y d e s c r i b e s y o u r c h i l d . Check o n l y one c a t e g o r y f o r each i t e m . < fD i - i V! C 0 rt i-i d ro P 3 rt H C r o 0 r o c rt c r o r o H i-i. c r o 1. C h i l d f r e q u e n t l y g e t s u p s e t . 2. C h i l d u s u a l l y seems t o be i n a h u r r y . 3. C h i l d makes f r i e n d s q u i c k l y . 4. C h i l d has t r o u b l e c o n t r o l l i n g h i s / h e r i m p u l s e s . 5. C h i l d i s a l m o s t a l w a y s c a l m — n o t h i n g e v e r b o t h e r s him/her. 6. C h i l d o f t e n s a y s f i r s t t h i n g t h a t comes i n t o h i s / h e r head. 7. C h i l d i s e a s i l y f r i g h t e n e d . 8. C h i l d l i k e s t o wear s e l f o u t w i t h e x e r t i o n . 9. C h i l d g e n e r a l l y s e e k s new and e x c i t i n g e x p e r i -ences and s e n s a t i o n s . 10. C h i l d g e t s e x c i t e d e a s i l y . 11. F o r r e l a x a t i o n c h i l d l i k e s t o s l o w down and t a k e t h i n g s easy. 12. C h i l d g e n e r a l l y l i k e s t o see t h i n g s t h r o u g h t o t h e end. 13. C h i l d i s v e r y s o c i a b l e . 14. C h i l d u s u a l l y c a n ' t s t a n d w a i t i n g . 15. C h i l d o f t e n f e e l s i n s e c u r e . 16. C h i l d o f t e n f e e l s s l u g g i s h . 17. C h i l d can t o l e r a t e f r u s t r a t i o n b e t t e r t h a n most. 18. When d i s p l e a s e d , c h i l d l e t s p e o p l e know r i g h t away. 69 very untrue untrue neutral true very true 19. C h i l d l i k e s t o be o f f and r u n n i n g as soon as he/she wakes up i n t h e mo r n i n g . 20. C h i l d o f t e n has t r o u b l e making up h i s / h e r mind. 21. C h i l d w i l l t r y a n y t h i n g once. 22. C h i l d t e n d s t o be n e r v o u s i n new s i t u a t i o n s . 23. C h i l d o f t e n f e e l s as i f he/she i s b u r s t i n g w i t h e n e r g y . 24. C h i l d has t r o u b l e r e s i s t i n g t e m p t a t i o n . 25. C h i l d t e n d s t o g i v e us e a s i l y . 26. C h i l d has many f r i e n d s . 27. C h i l d l i k e s t o p l a n t h i n g s way ahead o f t i m e . 28. C h i l d o f t e n c r i e s . 29. C h i l d l i k e s t o keep busy a l l t h e t i m e . 30. C h i l d o f t e n a c t s on t h e s p u r o f t h e moment. 31. I t t a k e s a l o t t o get c h i l d mad. 32. Once c h i l d g e t s g o i n g on s o m e t h i n g , he/she h a t e s t o s t o p . 33. C h i l d t e n d s t o be shy. 34. C h i l d i s known as h o t - b l o o d e d and q u i c k -tempered. 35. C h i l d ' s l i f e i s f a s t - p a c e d . 36. C h i l d g e t s b o r e d e a s i l y . 37. C h i l d has fewe r f e a r s t h a n most p e o p l e t h a t age. 38. U n f i n i s h e d t a s k s r e a l l y b o t h e r t he c h i l d . 39. There a r e many t h i n g s t h a t annoy t h e c h i l d . 40. C h i l d sometimes does " c r a z y " t h i n g s j u s t t o be d i f f e r e n t . 41. C h i l d u s u a l l y p r e f e r s t o be a l o n e . 42. When c h i l d g e t s s c a r e d , he/she p a n i c s . 43. C h i l d l i k e s t o spend money r i g h t away r a t h e r t h a n save i t f o r l o n g range g o a l s . 44. When c h i l d does t h i n g s , he/she does them v i g o r o u s l y . 45. C h i l d i s h a p p i e s t i n f a m i l i a r s u r r o u n d i n g s . 46. C h i l d y e l l s and screams more t h a n most c h i l d r e n ! t h a t age. 47. C h i l d l i k e s t o make d e t a i l e d p l a n s b e f o r e he/ she does some t h i n g . , 48. C h i l d ' s movements a r e f o r c e f u l and e m p h a t i c . 49. C h i l d t e n d s t o hop from i n t e r e s t t o i n t e r e s t q u i c k l y . 50. C h i l d i s somewhat emotional.-71 APPENDIX D G a m b r i l l A s s e r t i o n I n v e n t o r y THE ASSERTIOH INVENTORY 72 liany people experience d i f f i c u l t y in handling interpersonal situations requiring theia to assert themselves in some way, for example, turning down a request, asking a favor, giving someone a compliment, expressing disap-proval or approval, etc. Please indicate your degree of discomfort or anxiety in the space provided before each situation li s t e d below. Ut i l i z e the following scale to Indicate degree of discomfort. 1 = none 2 - a l i t t l e 3 = a fai r amount 4 = much 5 a very much Then, go over the l i s t a second time and indicate after each item the pro-bability or likelihood of your displaying the behavior i f actually presented with the situation.* For example, i f you rarely apologize when you are at fault, you would mark^ a "4" after that item. U t i l i z e the following scale to indicate your response. 1 = always do i t 2 » usually do i t 3 » do i t about half the time 4 - rarely do i t 5 =" never do i t *Wote. It is important to cover your discomfort ratings (located in front of the items) while indicating response probability. Otherwise, one rating may contamiaate the other and a r e a l i s t i c assessment of your behavior ie unlikely. To correct for this, place a piece of paper over your discomfort ratings while responding to the situations a second time for response probability. Degree of Response discomfort Situation ' probability 1. Turn down a request to borrow your car 2. Compliment a friend 3. Ask a favor of someone 4. Resist sales pressure 5. Apologize when you are at fault 6. Turn down a request for a meeting or a date 7. Admit a fear and request consideration 3. T e l l a person you are intimately involved with when he/she says or does something the bothers you - 2 -73 Response Sit u a t i o n v p r o b a b i l i t y 9. Ask for a rai s e 10. Admit ignorance i n some area 11. Turn down a request to borrow money 12. Ask personal questions 13. Turn o f f a t a l k a t i v e f r i e n d 14. Ask for constructive c r i t i c i s m . 15. I n i t i a t e a conversation with a stranger .__ 16. Compliment a person you are romantically involved with or interes t e d i n 17. Request a meeting or date with a person iii. Your i n i t i a l request for a meeting i s turned down and you ask the person f o r a l a t e r time 19. Admit confusion about a point under discussion and ask for c l a r i f i c a t i o n 20. Apply for a job 21. Ask whether you have offended someone . 22. T e l l someone that you l i k e them :•• 23. Request expected service when such i s not forthcoming, e.g. , i n a restaurant 24. Discuss openly with the person his/her c r i t i c i s m of your behavior 25. Return defective items, e.g., store or restaurant 26. Express an opinion that d i f f e r s from that of the person you are t a l k i n g to 27. Resist sexual overtures when you are not intereste d Degree of discomfort 28. T e l l the person when you f e e l he/she has done something that i s u n f a i r to you 74 Degree of Response discomfort Situa t i o n . p r o b a b i l i t y 29. Accept a date 30. T e l l someone good news about y o u r s e l f - - •"• . 31. Res i s t pressure, to drink. 32. Resist a s i g n i f i c a n t person^s u n f a i r demand 33. Quit a job ! ; , 34. Resist pressure to "turn on" ' 35. Discuss openly with the person.his/her c r i t i c i s m of your work , ' -36. Request the return of borrowed items • 37. Receive compliments 3d. Continue to converse with someone who disagrees with you 39. T e l l a f r i e n d or someone with whom you work when he/she says or does something that bothers you . 40. Ask a person who i s annoying you i n a pu b l i c s i t u a t i o n to stop . 75 _4~ Response Si t u a t i o n p r o b a b i l i t y 41. Refusing to lend class notes to someone you do not know very w e l l . 42. Someone asks i f you mind i f they get ahead of you i n a movie l i n e i n order to j o i n f r i e n d s . You refuse t h e i r request. 43. A waitress asks i f your steak i s o.k. The steak i s w e ll done. You say so and ask for another one. 44. The laundry losas your clothes. You ask f o r a cash refund. 2gree of iscomfort APPENDIX E Handouts 77 Handout #1. D e f i n i n g p roblems and c o u n t i n g t h e i r o c c u r e n c e B e f o r e you c a n b e g i n t o change some b e h a v i o u r o f y o u r c h i l d ' s y ou must be a b l e t o d e f i n e i t i n a way t h a t w i l l make i t easy t o keep t r a c k o f . F o r example, you might have a p r o b l e m w i t h a c h i l d who "won't mind". What e x a c t l y do you mean by t h i s ? I t c o u l d be a c h i l d who n e v e r does as he i s a s k e d ; who does as he i s a s k e d o n l y a f t e r b e i n g spoken t o s e v e r a l t i m e s ; who p e r f o r m s r e q u e s t s o n l y a f t e r b e i n g t h r e a t e n e d w i t h punishment o r who a t t i m e s does a l l o f t h e s e t h i n g s . A n o t h e r example i s what do you mean e x a c t l y when you say a c h i l d i s u n t i d y ? Does he/she l e a v e t o y s a l l o v e r t h e house but i s o t h e r w i s e f a i r l y n e a r o r i s he/ she u n t i d y i n a l l s i t u a t i o n s ? I n o t h e r words, you s h o u l d t r y t o d e c i d e j u s t what i t i s t h a t t h e c h i l d does t h a t makes you c a l l him/her u n t i d y , bad tempered, n o n c o m p l i a n t , and so on. Once you have s p e c i f i e d what a c t i o n s y o u r c h i l d does ( o r d o e s n ' t do) t h a t a r e p r o b l e m a t i c , you can b e g i n t o count them t o f i n d o u t how o f t e n t h e y o c c u r . There a r e two ways t o keep t r a c k o f b e h a v i o u r s . The f i r s t i s t o count t h e p r o b l e m b e h a v i o u r e v e r y t i m e i t o c c u r s . T h i s i s a good method t o use when c o u n t i n g temper t a n t r u m s o r "not m i n d i n g " . The second i s t o count o n l y a t one o r two s p e c i f i e d t i m e s a day. T h i s i s a good method t o use w i t h an u n t i d y c h i l d , i . e . , count t h e number o f t h i n g s l y i n g a r o u n d a f t e r d i n n e r . D u r i n g t h e p e r i o d o f t i m e t h a t you a r e t r y i n g t o change what y o u r c h i l d does you w i l l want t o c o n t i n u e c o u n t i n g . I n t h i s way you w i l l be a b l e t o see i f any changes a r e t a k i n g p l a c e . The e a s i e s t way t o see what i s h a p p e n i n g ( o r n o t happening) i s t o put t h e d a i l y t o t a l count on 78 gr a p h . I f n o t h i n g i s c h a n g i n g you w i l l be a b l e t o see i t f a i r l y q u i c k l y and m o d i f y y o u r program t h a t you have d e v e l o p e d t o change the b e h a v i o u r . 79 Handout #2. P r i n c i p l e s o f R e i n f o r c e m e n t (rewards and p u n i s h m e n t s ) I . Types o f r e i n f o r c e m e n t A. P o s i t i v e r e i n f o r c e m e n t ( r e w a r d s ) - s o m e t h i n g w h i c h w i l l i n c r e a s e t h e f r e q u e n c y o f a b e h a v i o u r a f t e r i t i s p r e s e n t e d . F o r example, i f you gave y o u r c h i l d a q u a r t e r a f t e r he c l e a n e d h i s room t h a t w o u l d be u s i n g a p o s i t i v e r e -i n f o r c e r . B. N e g a t i v e r e i n f o r c e m e n t - s o m e t h i n g w h i c h when i t i s removed w i l l i n c r e a s e t h e f r e q u e n c y of a b e h a v i o u r . F o r example, i f you g i v e i n t o a w h i n i n g c h i l d you a r e r e c e i v i n g n e g a t i v e r e i n f o r c e m e n t , i . e . , w h i n i n g i s un-p l e a s a n t and t h u s a n y t h i n g t h a t w i l l make i t l e s s l i k e l y t o o c c u r i s r e i n f o r c i n g f o r you — i t i s t h e c e s s a t i o n o f w h i n i n g t h a t i s r e i n f o r c i n g . P o s i t i v e reinforcement„is t h e t y p e we use most f r e q u e n t l y i n o u r d a i l y i n t e r a c t i o n s . J u s t s m i l i n g and s a y i n g , "Thank y o u " , when y o u r c h i l d does so m e t h i n g i s u s i n g a p o s i t i v e r e i n f o r c e r . There a r e two k i n d s o f p o s i t i v e r e i n f o r c e r s , s o c i a l and n o n s o c i a l . 1. S o c i a l r e i n f o r c e r s can be p r a i s e , c o u r t e s y , e x p r e s s i o n s o f a p p r e c i -a t i o n and l o v e . 2. N o n s o c i a l r e i n f o r c e r s can be j u s t about a n y t h i n g t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l e n j o y s o r f i n d s p l e a s a n t , e.g., f o o d , t o y s , money, p l a y i n g games, books, and so on. Whether you use s o c i a l o r n o n s o c i a l r e i n f o r c e r s y ou s h o u l d a l w a y s be c o n s i s t e n t . T e l l i n g y o u r c h i l d how much you e n j o y h i s p l a y i n g q u i e t l y o n l y once i s n ' t l i k e l y t o have much of an e f f e c t . T e l l i n g him t h i s e v e r y t i m e you o b s e r v e him p l a y i n g q u i e t l y w i l l p r o b a b l y have a much more p o w e r f u l e f f e c t . The t h i n g t o watch out f o r i s t a k i n g d e s i r a b l e b e h a v i o u r s f o r g r a n t e d . Even a f t e r y o u have g o t y o u r c h i l d t o behave i n a d e s i r e d way, you s h o u l d r e i n f o r c e him p e r i o d i c a l l y f o r p e r f o r m i n g the b e h a v i o u r . O t h e r w i s e i t i s l i k e l y t o weaken and t h e o l d b e h a v i o u r be r e e s t a b l i s h e d . The o t h e r i m p o r t a n t t h i n g t o remember about r e i n f o r c e m e n t i s t h a t i t s h o u l d be immediate. The l o n g e r you w a i t a f t e r y o u r c h i l d does some-t h i n g and r e i n f o r c i n g him t h e l e s s l i k e l y he i s t o r e a l i s e t h a t t h e r e i s a l i n k between t h e two e v e n t s . I I . Punishment -punishment i s some t h i n g w h i c h r e s u l t s i n a d e c r e a s e i n t h e f r e -quency o f a b e h a v i o u r . You can t h i n k o f two k i n d s o f pun i s h m e n t , p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e . 80 A. P o s i t i v e punishment - i n v o l v e s t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o r p r e s e n t a t i o n of an u n p l e a s a n t e v e n t , e.g., a s p a n k i n g . B. N e g a t i v e punishment - i n v o l v e s t a k i n g s o m e t h i n g away, e.g., l o s i n g a p r i v i l e g e o r r e m o v i n g t h e c h i l d f r o m a r e w a r d i n g s i t u a t i o n . The l a t t e r i s known as "Time Out" and w i l l be d i s c u s s e d a t l e n g t h i n a l a t e r s e s s i o n . I I I . I g n o r i n g As you p r o b a b l y a l r e a d y know, i g n o r i n g can be a v e r y u s e f u l t o o l . I n p s y c h o l o g y , when we speak o f i g n o r i n g a p a r t i c u l a r b e h a v i o u r we c a l l i t " p u t t i n g t h e b e h a v i o u r on e x t i n c t i o n " . I n some c a s e s , a t t e n t i o n , whether p o s i t i v e o r n e g a t i v e , can be v e r y r e i n f o r c i n g , i . e . , w i l l i n -c r e a s e t h e chance of t h e b e h a v i o u r b e i n g r e p e a t e d . I f a c h i l d g e t s more a t t e n t i o n f o r h a v i n g t a n t r u m s t h a n f o r b e i n g c o o p e r a t i v e , t h e n he w i l l p r o b a b l y have t a n t r u m s . I f you i g n o r e the t a n t r u m b e h a v i o u r and pay a t t e n t i o n t o c o o p e r a t i v e b e h a v i o u r t h e n e v e n t u a l l y t h e t a n t r u m s w i l l c e a s e . One t h i n g t o w a t c h out f o r when u s i n g " i g n o r i n g " i s t h a t t h e b e h a v i o u r may t e m p o r a r i l y i n c r e a s e . T h i s i s because t h e c h i l d i s n o t g e t t i n g t h e a t t e n t i o n he i s used t o and t h u s r e a s o n s t h a t ' he must i n c r e a s e t h e f r e q u e n c y and/or i n t e n s i t y o f h i s t a n t r u m t o get you t o a t t e n d t o him. T h i s i s e s p e c i a l l y l i k e l y t o happen i f you f a i l t o a t t e n d t o t h e o p p o s i t e , d e s i r e d b e h a v i o u r . I t may be v e r y h a r d t o keep on i g n o r i n g , however, i f f i n a l l y you do g i v e i n , t h e n you w i l l be r e i n f o r c i n g t h e c h i l d t o behave even more b a d l y t o g e t y o u r a t t e n t i o n . Remember a t t e n t i o n i f one o f t h e most p o w e r f u l r e i n f o r c e r s we have. Used w i s e l y , i t can h e l p you t o t e a c h y o u r c h i l d t o be c o o p e r a t i v e and h e l p f u l . Used un-w i s e l y , i t can c r e a t e a monster.' 81 Handout #2a. Examples o f S o c i a l R e i n f o r c e m e n t V e r b a l I l i k e i t when you T h a t ' s a g r e a t You're r e a l l y d o i n g a good j o b o f Those a r e r e a l l y Y o u're d o i n g j u s t what I a s k e d and so ( c l e a n y o u r room, e a t q u i c k l y , h e l p me w i t h o u t b e i n g a s k e d , p l a y so q u i e t l y . ) ( t o w e r , f o r t , game, p i c t u r e ) ( h e l p i n g me, b a k i n g t h a t c a k e , sawing t h a t wood, b u i l d i n g t h e model) ( c o o k i e s , c o l o u r s ; good, p r e t t y ) ( q u i c k l y , f a s t , n e a t l y , h a p p i l y ) I l i k e t h e way you The way yo u ' r e r e a l l y f a n t a s t i c . T h a t ' s ( p o i n t i n g ) I r e a l l y l i k e ( e n j o y ) w i t h you. xs ( h e l p e d Dad t o d a y , t o o k c a r e o f y o u r s i s t e r , p l a y e d w i t h o u t f i g h t i n g w i t h y o u r f r i e n d s ) ( d r e s s e d , w o r k i n g h a r d a t y o u r homework) ( g r e a t , r e a l l y p r e t t y , good, c a r e f u l l y done) ( p l a y i n g , s h o p p i n g , w o r k i n g ) You can r e a l l y p i c k i n t e r e s t i n g ( f u n ) Now y o u ' r e t h a t ' s so You're d o i n g s u c h a j o b ; t h a t ' s (ways t o keep busy, games t o p l a y , t h i n g s t o do) ( c l e a n i n g , c o l o u r i n g , making y o u r bed; n i c e , p r e t t y , h e l p f u l ) ( c a r e f u l , n e a t ; b e t t e r , n i c e r ) t h a n I c o u l d do.' 82 Handout #3 T i m e 0 u t A t i m e out (TO) i s when you remove y o u r c h i l d f rom a r e w a r d i n g s i t u a -t i o n . I t i s v e r y u s e f u l f o r p r o b l e m b e h a v i o u r s w h i c h seem t o be s e t o f f and rewarded by t h e a t t e n t i o n and r e a c t i o n s of o t h e r p e o p l e , b o t h c h i l d -r e n and a d u l t s . I t i s h e l p f u l f o r managing h i g h f r e q u e n c y b e h a v i o u r s w h i c h a r e v e r y d i s r u p t i v e , e.g., temper t a n t r u m s and a g g r e s s i v e b e h a v i o u r s . T h i n g s t o know about Time Out: 1. Make s u r e t h a t t h e t i m e o u t a r e a i s f r e e f r o m a t t r a c t i v e o r d i s -r u p t i v e a c t i v i t i e s . I f you have a l a r g e w e l l l i t c l o s e t o r s t o r a g e room t h i s would be a p p r o p r i a t e . The bathroom can a l s o be used as a t i m e out room as l o n g as t h e r e i s n ' t much t o do and a l l c u p b o a r d s a r e l o c k e d o r i n a c c e s s i b l e so t h a t t h e c h i l d c a n ' t g e t a t t h e i r c o n t e n t s . Note t h a t t h e c h i l d ' s room g e n e r a l l y i s n o t a good t i m e out a r e a as t h e r e a r e t o o many e n j o y a b l e a c t i v i t i e s t o engage i n . 2. W i t h p r e s c h o o l e r s t h e t i m e out p e r i o d s h o u l d n ' t l a s t much l o n g e r t h a n 3 t o 5 m i n u t e s . I f t h e c h i l d i s s t i l l f u s s i n g / y e l l i n g / s c r e a m i n g / b a s h i n g on t h e d o o r , e t c . l e a v e him/her i n the t i m e out a r e a u n t i l he/she calms down. However, t e l l t h e c h i l d what you a r e d o i n g , e.g., "You must s t a y i n t h e time out room u n t i l you a r e q u i e t . " Most c h i l d r e n w i l l c a l m down a f t e r a few m i n u t e s — i t i s p r e t t y h a r d t o keep up h i g h i n t e n s i t y b e h a v i o u r f o r v e r y l o n g . 3. The t i m e out room o r a r e a s h o u l d be easy t o get t o and c l o s e by. T h i s i s t o e n s u r e t h a t t h e c h i l d makes t h e a s s o c i a t i o n between h i s m i s b e h a v i n g and b e i n g put. i n t h e t i m e out room. I f t h e " t r a v e l l i n g t i m e " t o t i m e out i s t o o l o n g t h e young c h i l d may n o t make t h e c o n n e c t i o n . 4. T r y n o t t o r e i n f o r c e any b e h a v i o u r s g o i n g t o o r r e t u r n i n g from t h e t i m e out a r e a . J u s t t a k e t h e c h i l d f i r m l y by t h e hand; w a l k him/ h e r t o t h e t i m e o u t a r e a w i t h o u t s a y i n g a n y t h i n g f u r t h e r and p l a c e him/her i n t h e room o r a r e a . When he/she comes out o f t h e t i m e out room ( w i t h y o u r p e r m i s s i o n , o f c o u r s e ) don't hug, k i s s , o r o t h e r w i s e reward t h e c h i l d . Time out i s supposed t o be a punishment not a reward. However, when t h e c h i l d resumes o r b e g i n s an a p p r o p r i a t e a c t i v i t y r e ward him/her f o r b e h a v i n g w e l l . I f t h e c h i l d b e g i n s t o misbehave a g a i n , r e p e a t the time out p r o c e d u r e . 5. Make s u r e t h a t t h e a p p r o p r i a t e b e h a v i o u r o r a c t i v i t y i s made as a t t r a c t i v e as p o s s i b l e and t h a t t h e i n a p p r o p r i a t e ones a r e made as u n a t t r a c t i v e as p o s s i b l e . Never use t i m e out o r any o t h e r punishment f o r any u n d e s i r a b l e b e h a v i o u r w i t h o u t ( i ) p r o v i d i n g an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r e n g a g i n g i n the a p p r o p r i a t e b e h a v i o u r , and ( i i ) r e w a r d i n g t h e c h i l d f o r e n g a g i n g i n t h a t p a r t i c u l a r b e h a v i o u r . 83 6. When-.'.you d e c i d e t o b e g i n u s i n g t i m e out e x p l a i n t o y o u r c h i l d what th e p r o c e d u r e w i l l be, i . e . , t h a t each t i m e he/she behaves i n a p a r -t i c u l a r way t h e n he/she w i l l have t o spend a s h o r t t i m e i n t h e ti m e out a r e a . Show t h e c h i l d w h i c h room o r a r e a i s t o be used f o r t i m e o u t . I n s t r u c t him/her as t o what b e h a v i o u r s w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d a p p r o p r i a t e and w h i c h w i l l g a i n h i s / h e r r e l e a s e f r o m t i m e o u t , i . e . , s i t t i n g q u i e t l y . 7. B e f o r e you a c t u a l l y remove t h e c h i l d t o t h e t i m e o u t a r e a p r o v i d e a s i g n a l o r cue t h a t t h i s i s g o i n g t o happen, e.g., " I f you don't s t o p f i g h t i n g / y e l l i n g / t e a s i n g / b a n g i n g / r u n n i n g a r o u n d , you w i l l have t o go t o ti m e o u t . " I f t h e c h i l d p e r s i s t s , i n i t i a t e t i m e o u t . 84 Handout #4 Response C o s t Response i n v o l v e s t h e t a k i n g away o f p o i n t s e a r n e d toward p r i v i l e g e s o r d e s i r a b l e a c t i v i t i e s . The f o l l o w i n g i s an example o f a syst e m whereby a c h i l d e a r n s p o i n t s f o r c e r t a i n a p p r o p r i a t e b e h a v i o u r s and l o s e s them f o r i n a p p r o p r i a t e b e h a v i o u r s . 3c")fce t v ' c e r 4x> Wis b rowner r*s V\i+rina Mea.Rime£> 2 . 3 FINE5 -\ -I - "2. - \ P o h v J T S 6 l o poirAs -T p O i f t + S * 1 Weekly f\evJaf<Js , p - X - | | S t e p s t o t a k e i n s e t t i n g up a Response/Reward/Cost system. 1. I d e n t i f y and d e f i n e i n c o u n t a b l e terms t h e b e h a v i o u r s you want t o change ( i t i s a good i d e a t o p h r a s e t h e s e p o s i t i v e l y r a t h e r t h a n n e g a t i v e l y , e.g., h a n g i n g h i s c o a t up v s . n o t l e a v i n g h i s c o a t on t h e f l o o r ) . 2. I d e n t i f y what o b j e c t s , e v e n t s , e t c . t h e c h i l d f i n d s r e w a r d i n g o r p l e a s a n t . 3. Making p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e s e dependent on t h e c h i l d ' s e a r n i n g t h e a p p r o p r i a t e number o f p o i n t s — t h e more t h e p l e a s a n t t h e a c t i v i t y t h e more p o i n t s ne must e a r n t o o b t a i n i t . (Make s u r e t h a t t h e i t e m s t o be p o t e n t i a l l y l o s t a r e t r u l y v a l u e d . ) 85 D e termine d a i l y and w e e k l y r e w a r d s . Set a minimum number o f p o i n t s t o be e a r n e d each day. T h i s minimum s h o u l d n o t be t h e h i g h e s t p o s s i b l e d a i l y t o t a l s i n c e once t h e c h i l d has l o s t a p o i n t he/she w o u l d no l o n g e r be e l i g i b l e f o r a d a i l y r e ward. I f t h i s happens i t i s q u i t e u n l i k e l y t h a t t h e c h i l d w i l l be m o t i v a t e d t o e a r n t h e r e s t o f t h e d a i l y p o i n t s as he has a l r e a d y l o s t h i s d a i l y r e i n f o r c e r . The w e e k l y r e i n f o r c e r s can be e a r n e d by a c c u m u l a t i n g a c e r t a i n t o t a l . You c o u l d have s e v e r a l p o s s i b l e w e e k l y r e i n f o r c e r s w i t h d i f f e r e n t p o i n t v a l u e s o r j u s t one v a l u e d a t a c e r t a i n minimum v a l u e . I f t h e c h i l d i s n o t p r e s e n t l y e n g a g i n g i n any o f t h e a c t i v i t i e s you may have t o s t a r t him/her o f f w i t h a c e r t a i n number o f " f r e e " p o i n t s u n t i l he/she b e g i n s t o e a r n them. I f t h e c h i l d ends up w i t h a n e g a t i v e number o r no p o i n t s each day you s h o u l d r e e v a l u a t e t h e program t o see where t h e p r o b l e m l i e s . Make s u r e e v e r y o n e a t home i s aware o f t h e sy s t e m so t h a t t h e y can r e w a r d o r f i n e t h e c h i l d a c c o r d i n g l y . I f t h e c h i l d i s g o i n g t o spend any t i m e w i t h f r i e n d s o r r e l a t i v e s l e t them know about t h e program t o o . I f you p a i r e a r n i n g p o i n t s w i t h v e r b a l r e i n f o r c e m e n t and l o s i n g p o i n t s w i t h v e r b a l c r i t i c i s m i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t you can e v e n t u a l l y f a d e o u t t h e punishment ( b e i n g f i n e d ) and b r i n g t h e b e h a v i o u r s under v e r b a l - s o c i a l c o n t r o l . Handout #5 S h a p i n g B e h a v i o u r s Sometimes when you want t o change y o u r c h i l d ' s b e h a v i o u r , the g o a l t h a t you s e t may be too f a r away from what t h e c h i l d i s p r e s e n t l y d o i n g . F o r example, i f you want yo u r c h i l d t o keep h i s room n e a t and a t t h e moment you a r e d o i n g a l l t h e work i t w o u l d n ' t be r e a s o n a b l e t o e x p e c t t h e c h i l d t o s u d d e n l y t a k e on e v e r y t h i n g . What you w o u l d do i s d e c i d e on a s h o r t t e r m g o a l o r a " f i r s t a p p r o x i m a t i o n " of what the end b e h a v i o u r s h o u l d be, e.g., p u t t i n g t o y s away compared t o t h e u l t i m a t e g o a l o f b e i n g g e n e r a l l y . t i d y . Once t h i s b e h a v i o u r i s e s t a b l i s h e d , you can t h e n i n c r e a s e y o u r r e q u i r e m e n t s , e.g., p u t t i n g away t o y s and h a n g i n g up c l o t h e s . G r a d u a l l y you keep i n c r e a s i n g t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s u n t i l y o u r c h i l d has r e a c h e d y o u r l o n g t e r m g o a l . T h i s g r a d u a l i n c r e a s e o r r e q u i r e m e n t s t o e a r n t h e same g o a l i s known as s h a p i n g . Don't f o r g e t t o keep r e w a r d i n g y o u r c h i l d v e r b a l l y once he/she has r e a c h e d t h e g o a l e.g., "My what a n i c e t i d y room — t h a t ' s a r e a l h e l p . " T h i s way t h e b e h a v i o u r i s much more l i k e l y t o be m a i n t a i n e d . S t e p s t o f o l l o w when s h a p i n g a b e h a v i o u r : 1. Observe y o u r c h i l d t o f i n d o u t how o f t e n , i f e v e r , the b e h a v i o u r you want t o i n c r e a s e o c c u r s . I f i t i s n o n e x i s t e n t , see i f t h e r e i s any e x i s t i n g b e h a v i o u r w h i c h i s a t a l l s i m i l a r , e.g., c o m p l y i n g w i t h t e a c h e r ' s r e q u e s t s compared w i t h n e v e r c o m p l y i n g w i t h y o u r s . 2. D e c i d e what t h e f i r s t a p p r o x i m a t i o n s h o u l d be, e.g., c o m p l y i n g w i t h r e q u e s t s i n t h e m o r n i n g . 3. D e c i d e what t h e c r i t e r i o n f o r g e t t i n g a r e w a r d w i l l be, e.g., no more t h a n one r e p e a t o f a r e q u e s t . 4. P i c k a r e w a r d ( s o c i a l a l o n e o r p a i r e d w i t h a n o n s o c i a l ) t h a t i s p o w e r f u l and v a l u e d by y o u r c h i l d . 5. Reward t h e o c c a s i o n s when y o u r c h i l d r e a c h e s y o u r i n i t i a l g o a l o r c r i t e r i o n . I g n o r e o r p u n i s h i n c o m p a t i b l e b e h a v i o u r s , e.g., non-c o m p l i a n c e . 6. Once y o u r c h i l d i s r e l i a b l y r e a c h i n g y o u r i n i t i a l g o a l , s h i f t t h e c r i t e r i o n , i . e . , t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s , upward, e.g., no r e p e a t o f r e q u e s t s , t h e n add more s i t u a t i o n s where c o m p l i a n c e i s d e s i r a b l e — m e a l t i m e , b e d t i m e , a r o u n d v i s i t o r s , e t c . 87 Handout #6 S t e p s t o s e t t i n g up a b e h a v i o u r change program OBSERVE y o u r c h i l d t o see e x a c t l y what he/she does t h a t i s p r o b l e m a t i c . DEFINE t h e b e h a v i o u r ( s ) t h a t you want t o change i n a way t h a t you can c o u n t . COUNT t h e t i m e s y o u r c h i l d engages i n the u n d e s i r a b l e b e h a v i o u r and/or COUNT t h e t i m e s when he/she engages i n t h e o p p o s i t e , d e s i r a b l e b e h a v i o u r , t h i s w i l l g i v e n y o u a b a s e l i n e measure o f how o f t e n t h e b e h a v i o u r i s o r i s n o t o c c u r r i n g . DECIDE what k i n d o f i n t e r v e n t i o n you want t o u s e : Rewarding a p p r o p r i a t e r e s p o n s e s i ) e a r n i n g p o i n t s towards d a i l y / w e e k l y r e w a r d s , i i ) e a r n i n g an immediate r e w a r d i i i ) e a r n i n g a v e r b a l r e i n f o r c e r used a l o n e o r p a i r e d w i t h a ( i ) o r ( i i ) P u n i s h i n g i n a p p r o p r i a t e r e s p o n s e s i ) t i m e o ut f o r i n a p p r o p r i a t e b e h a v i o u r i i ) r e s p o n s e c o s t i i i ) p h y s i c a l punishment ( s h o u l d d e f i n i t e l y be k e p t i n r e s e r v e as a l a s t r e s o r t ) i v ) i g n o r i n g The most e f f e c t i v e program i s one w h i c h combines r e w a r d i n g t h e d e s i r a b l e b e h a v i o u r s and e i t h e r i g n o r i n g o r p u n i s h i n g t h e u n d e s i r a b l e b e h a v i o u r s ; Remember t o t e l l e v e r y b o d y a t home about any program t h a t y o u a r e s t a r t i n g . T h i s way t h e y can a p p l y t h e re w a r d s and punishments a p p r o p r i a t e l y . I t i s v e r y i m p o r t a n t t h a t t he c h i l d c o n s i s t e n t l y e x p e r i e n c e t h e same rewards f o r a p p r o p r i a t e b e h a v i o u r and pun i s h m e n t s f o r i n a p p r o p r i a t e b e h a v i o u r . 7. BE CONSISTENT. APPENDIX F Treatment R a t i o n a 89 RATIONALE FOR BOTH GROUPS We b e l i e v e t h a t t h o s e b e h a v i o u r s o f you r c h i l d t h a t you f i n d p r o b l e m a t i c a r e a c t u a l l y l e a r n e d . That i s , somewhere a l o n g t h e way, y o u r c h i l d has fo u n d t h a t he o r she g e t s more a t t e n t i o n be b e i n g "bad" th a n by b e i n g "good". F o r example, i f you r a r e l y a t t e n d t o y o u r c h i l d when he o r she i s p l a y i n g c o o p e r a t i v e l y w i t h o t h e r c h i l d r e n b u t a l w a y s a t t e n d t o and p u n i s h y o u r c h i l d f o r rou g h o r o v e r l y l o u d p l a y , t h e n y o u r c h i l d i s more l i k e l y t o p l a y u n c o o p e r a t i v e l y a r o u n d you, j u s t because i t g e t s him o r h e r more a t t e n t i o n . A n o t h e r example i s a t me a l t i m e . How o f t e n do you a t t e n d t o a c h i l d who d o e s n ' t f u s s o v e r h i s food? I f t h e same c h i l d dawdles o v e r m e a l s , p l a y i n g w i t h h i s f o o d o r r e f u s i n g c e r t a i n i t e m s a l t o g e t h e r , how much a t t e n t i o n does he g e t ? Our a p p r o a c h i s t o get you t o show you r c h i l d r e n t h a t u n d e s i r a b l e b e h a v i o u r s a r e n ' t as a t t e n t i o n g e t t i n g o r r e w a r d i n g as more d e i s r a b l e and c o o p e r a t i v e ones. a) S p e c i f i c Focus F o r t o d a y and t h e n e x t f o u r weeks we a r e g o i n g t o h e l p you work on t h e s p e c i f i c p r oblems t h a t you a r e h a v i n g w i t h y o u r c h i l d o r c h i l d r e n . We w i l l t e a c h you t o keep t r a c k o f p r o b l e m b e h a v i o u r s and we w i l l h e l p you w i t h programs t o change th o s e b e h a v i o u r s . b) G e n e r a l S k i l l s D u r i n g t o d a y ' s s e s s i o n and t h o s e o f t h e n e x t f o u r weeks we w i l l be t e a c h i n g you a s e t o f s k i l l s w h i c h you can use w i t h a l l y o u r c h i l d r e n 90 and w h i c h s h o u l d h e l p you d e a l w i t h a l o t o f d i f f e r e n t p r o b l e m s i t u a t i o n s . Each week we w i l l i n t r o d u c e a d i f f e r e n t s k i l l o r t e c h n i q u e , d e s c r i b e t h e p r i n c i p l e s u n d e r l y i n g i t , and show you how t o use i t . We w o u l d l i k e you t o t r y out what you l e a r n h e r e a t home w i t h y o u r c h i l d and t h e n t e l l us how i t worked. 

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}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            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.831.1-0094346/manifest

Comment

Related Items