i ' 3' ’3‘ {IIIA A 1‘! w -. ,‘u a g " ,u, ‘34" ~‘l «.4 q M. )4; :54 m I I‘ u s I. \ -h,~ film “fight. . ...xr.: '1 vs 3»? f a?“ ' 3...“; -r~;‘§. \ ~. . u ~\~ .u 4J1 ‘ k“ l‘n‘A v31. "“‘ a \ ~~.~~“’ \ I". pit}; . q ' nip v~ ‘ 6“~.‘ )1‘AV 3'.» e- p . . ~ rjih an" .dy 1 “a ~ ‘ ‘ - ,a . ‘ .. - . . . r ..~. 1‘.“ . .. , r I I k“ . A I .. v u 1 ~ ‘ ,1 . v ‘ .I‘ . ‘- .~. uII ..A V ,_ , m: t. . ,. at» . J! y , I . fl"‘\\ ‘ ‘ v - ' ‘ - ‘.\~ ' ‘1 "' 6).» 1' . _ . - v- I J" I. I ‘ .. -' 7" ’7». . u ‘ ( v."~.‘.t""‘““4 m ‘,.- , ~y‘.'~‘.' I, x ‘ ‘ . \ > A 1‘.‘_ " - .. . ', .7. . In n» . I... ‘1 > . <’ ~.~‘.‘.‘u‘N "f“ . Yin: , I 3,33% ‘ “ mg m: ,\I ’ 1 - . { 3&339 ~,~. Ivfinj‘J-‘v‘ ' , - ‘JV' r - A. _ -.I~.;,II<..\.'L a v0 V . '; Han-“H.“ ~ . V. , . .,._ .‘ ‘ VI _ . n !,r ' . '4‘ w...‘ ‘ 0‘4h; . , ' I‘V‘V ' 3:53: ' . in“ “V‘~i~ ‘ . u. “4““ - I “w. ‘ . I I. ' ,0 ‘v . ,7 I~ . , n 7 ~‘ 4 m ”41“» ., a VI. “1,1“ 1:5"; I . .l" r- .. , r 3va I1 .‘ “'3." ‘L u “fund“ -.vah‘.,4.. , ‘V:I\‘l’\4'1-.. ‘.~." 1‘ K - . A : 5' ' 4 J: «‘vL .1 V)IA-§i ’1 iv‘l‘r.~ ‘ ‘i-Ga. 'r\‘vv‘ u: -. ~ v4 -‘ W «fungi K v n'lV “ ‘i 'w: “5:; A (‘1 . 4‘ " "(\v‘FV“f‘ a” ( 11 J'fl ‘ 4 r“ I." . "~..‘ i\ f . ,I ‘. m «3:61«1§€~F:"‘ie’~v‘-7 -.{‘3~’ via: (“.4 ‘ z : v . ,. , . fl“, 332%.“ u ‘u‘q ‘ nun» , 4 )Mi d. ~1- a. ' A"? fin‘xQ‘d'W iiiéfizr’vrrgifl 13"“ ‘. N ,4 x n ( fid’xx‘v a” '1‘47“ 0, “’11:. ' ‘- a 9 w. ,l‘ ‘ v ‘ 1 Li 5’!‘ {'41 a“, ., . A. n n . .‘tu.’ q ‘. .4 1 (Meg: ‘ ‘1‘ wijii‘siij‘ I (I; . ’3‘ tab» v‘III‘Is I. . 3 'Ihi'u ‘ 13" £1 ‘ «{c ”‘1‘; '3 "‘1 A u“ . 1. H. ‘ #333." 31".“? I .931‘ ,A _ f5 (‘3 ' ~ ‘\ 9:31:35: ‘.‘)‘;f,-‘I.K” 1.3%! r‘ .‘l d ‘ 1 *1'( p in")? 4,“ 1-1 uh" ‘1 - .4 4.0 M 1 \‘x‘ , 45;“ «WI—.144 ‘ 1‘ d i -‘, ”’4‘? ‘_ I1} W‘h 4431' H. . _ . '. 1' A 5' *Iuls‘m‘,‘ )4: 1‘ _ k‘v{ 4 ' . RV", I ' 1&1”... I): "A. , . , l‘ 7“:'u,'." . . , A Vi“ ~ ' ."\ ‘1 w'. ‘»‘a'€‘4‘\‘ 31-”. ‘ u " "3‘ JN‘ ' ’ ,‘QthIQaI. '7 Kiri-I‘JL‘J.» '4‘ ‘4‘ ~,» JO“; A: -. I . . - fl|‘v‘I‘x' . ‘ .v ’n‘n. I " Jar «$734, ,9 {in ‘(.‘3’ sur , .. {nu .‘ , .. ‘\‘ flIlI "-{f "i I , N“ If” ,4 1213,. 4’ "4’4? l‘ ‘f 4', Eu" . ('M‘IVV ’,. ‘ '33:; {'1‘ If w $535? “’15: at u r MK " b'rl' (1;: MA 1. x ,1 ’ >13 in»: (1.53%? 33‘ 3:335” fr} 3, .i «Er. ‘ . a} . . 1 - Us! . ' ~1 0“ II _“‘I6Ip‘.tj¢hj.' .‘ o_ . , « Lynn! ’ . , \ ‘ 3:!) {ya ‘- ‘ ‘ . I I . E v‘ ‘ a, ‘ n . - : ah 4 -- ' " . ‘4‘ "I . ' ' i . ,1 III,” I . l fig“)! '1 J IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 3 12930 " LIBRARY '1 Michigan State University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled CASE STUDIES OF A HYPERACTIVE CHILD AND A NONHYPERACTIVE CHILD: A LOOK AT THEIR PATTERNS OF ATTENTION/CONCENTRATION presented by Kathryn V. Den Houter has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph. D. degree in Counseling, Educational Psychology, and Special Education k/gr >Lié/W Majorproef Date July 1988 RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. MSU LlBRARlES CASE STUDIES OF A HYPERACTIVE CHILD AND A NONHYPERACTIVE CHILD: A LOOK AT THEIR PATTERNS OF ATTENTION/CONCENTRATION By Kathryn V. Den Houter A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology, and Special Education 1988 / \«4', , ()5! J ,4' v .1.) (1/) ABSTRACT CASE STUDIES OF A HYPERACTIVE CHILD AND A NONHYPERACTIVE CHILD: A LOOK AT THEIR PATTERNS OF ATTENTION/CONCENTRATION By Kathryn V. Den Houter Success in the school environment is often determined by one’s ability to attend and concentrate. Attentional deficits appear to be the root of many learning problems. Therefore, educators need to know how' to change educational environments to enhance pupils’ ability to attend/concentrate. This study was an attempt to understand the role of attention/concentration in the area of hyperactivity. This was done by comparing the patterns of attention/concentration between a hyperactive child and a nonhyperactive child. The unit of analysis was the child, and the study setting was the natural environment of an on-going classroom. The criteria used to select the two subjects from the classroom of 12 pupils were IQ and hyperactivity. These selection variables were measured by the Nechsler Pre-School and Primary Scale of Intel- ligence and the School Situations Questionnaire. The variables used to determine inter- and intraindividual differences were locus of control, self-efficacy, and parental acceptance. The scales used to Kathryn V. Den Houter measure these variables were the Stanford Preschool Internal- External Scale, the Harter and Pike Scale of perceived competence and social acceptance, and the Porter Parental Acceptance Scale, respectively. The outcome variable was the patterns of attention/ concentration of' the hyperactive subject and the nonhyperactive subject. These patterns were measured using the On-task/Off-task Behavior Checklist, which accompanied five hours of classroom videotaping. The test results and observations of the subjects in the study suggested that an individual’s internal control and feelings of self-efficacy appear to increase persistence to task. Teachers can encourage on-task behaviors by offering the freedom to choose in the classroom, minimizing teacher interruptions, and providing complete and adequate instructional materials. The major finding of this study was that Daric, the hyperactive subject, spent less time on-task than did Liza, the nonhyperactive subject. Although this difference was small, a large difference was found in the amount of change from on-task to off-task behaviors. The hyperactive youngster changed tasks more often than did the nonhyperactive child. Future research needs to focus on depth of task processing and task completion, rather than on on-task and off- task behaviors. Dedicated to My husband, Len, and children, Jonathan, Jennifer, Jessica, and Benjamin, who were patient through this whole process. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many different people have assisted me on this project. The children, the parents, and the parent board of' Stepping Stones Montessori School were very supportive. Special thanks belongs to Mrs. Valenti, who let me use her video camera. Without their support, this effort would have been impossible. I also deeply appreciate the time and effort displayed on my behalf by the members of my committee. Special thanks to Dr. Walter Hapkiewicz, who had the thankless job of reviewing the written copy. Also, sincere appreciation is given to Dr. Lawrence Schiamberg, who gave the initial direction; to Dr. Gary Stollak, who provided inspiration; and to Dr. Eugene Pernell, who insisted on a certain standard of excellence. They all provided valuable contributions and insights. Sincere appreciation is extended to Susan Cooley, my editor, who guided me through the steps toward completion of the dissertation. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the cooperation and support of my family, who were able to survive a household run by someone preoccupied by the completion of this document. Special thanks to my husband, who kept the computer running and whose persistence was not unlike the "Hounds of Heaven." TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ....................... LIST OF FIGURES ....................... INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY .............. Statement of the Problem ............. Methodological Approach .............. Purposes of the Study ............... Definitions of Key Terms ............. Overview ..................... RELATED RESEARCH AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ..... Definitions of Attention/Concentration ...... Selection Variables and Attn/Con ......... Intelligence Quotient .............. Hyperactivity .................. Descriptive Variables: Factors Affecting ..... Individual Differences ............. Locus of Control and Attn/Con .......... Perceived Competence and Social Acceptance . . . Parental Acceptance ............... The Outcome Variable ............... Attention/Concentration ............. Research Questions ................ METHODOLOGY ..................... Procedures Followed in Conducting the Study . . . . Setting ..................... Overview of the Study Variables and Rationale for Their Selection ............... Instrumentation .................. The Student Situations Questionnaire and Conner’s Teacher Rating Scale ......... The Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and Social Acceptance for Young Children vi Page ix The Stanford Preschool Internal-External Scale The Hechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence ................. The Porter Parental Acceptance Scale ...... The On-Task/Off-Task Observation ........ Subjects ..................... Procedure ..................... Limitations and Generalizability of the Study . . . IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............... Introduction ................... Case Study 1: Daric ............... Physical Description .............. Family Background ................ School Environment ............... Skill Areas ................... Activity Patterns and Patterns of Attention/ Concentration ................. Interactions With Others ............ Classroom Behaviors ............... Indicators of Self-Concept ........... Coping Style and Response to Frustration . Summary ..................... Case Study 2: Liza ................ Physical Description .............. Family Background ................ School Environment ............... Skill Areas ................... Activity Patterns and Patterns of Attention/ Concentration ................. Interactions With Others ............ Classroom Behaviors ............... Indicators of Self-Concept ........... Coping Style and Response to Frustration . Summary ..................... Discussion: Comparison of Daric and Liza ..... Physical Description .............. Family Background ................ School Environment ............... Skill Areas ................... Activity Patterns and Patterns of Attention/ Concentration ................. Interactions With Others ............ Classroom Behavior ........ . ....... Indicators of Self-Concept ........... Coping Style and Response to Frustration . vii 122 124 I33 l34 134 135 Page Relation of Findings to the Literature ...... 135 Related Findings ................. 137 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS ....... 143 Summary ...................... l43 Conclusions .................... T44 Implications for Further Research ......... 146 APPENDICES A. THE SCHOOL SITUATIONS QUESTIONNAIRE ......... T50 B. CONNER’S TEACHER RATING SCALE ............ 151 C. THE PICTORIAL SCALE OF PERCEIVED COMPETENCE AND SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE FOR YOUNG CHILDREN INDIVIDUAL RECORDING AND SCORING SHEET, FORM 1-2 ........ 152 D. THE STANFORD PRESCHOOL INTERNAL-EXTERNAL SCALE (1) . 153 E. THE PORTER PARENTAL ACCEPTANCE SCALE ........ 155 F. ON-TASK/OFF-TASK OBSERVATION FORM .......... 160 REFERENCES ......................... 161 viii Table 3.1 3.2 3.3 4.1 4.2 4.3 LIST OF TABLES Results on the Hechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence ............... Results on the School Situations Questionnaire . . . . Children’s Scores on All Measures .......... NPPSI Results for the Two Subjects, November l985 Changes in Orienting Activity ........ A. . . . Percentages of Time On—Task and Off-Task ....... ix Page 88 89 90 122 131 133 LIST OF FIGURES Continuum of Attn/Con ................ Variable Matrix ......... ' .......... Incidence of Daric’s Task Change .......... Incidence of Liza’s Task Change ........... Comparison of Liza’s and Daric’s Incidence of Task Change .................... Comparison of Liza’s and Daric’ s Incidence of On- Task and Off- Task Behavior ........... Incidence of Task-Orientation Change ........ Page 20 77 103 115 126 130 131 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY Statement of the Problem A student’s ability to attend/concentrate is an important determinant of his/her success in school. Currently, educators do not have~ enough information to help children who have problems attending/concentrating. Three educational issues are intimately related 1x1 attention/concentration. First, school achievement is notably affected by students’ ability to attend/concentrate. Second, educators need to know how to change educational environments 1x1 enhance students’ ability' to attend/concentrate. Finally, attentional deficits appear to be the root of some learning problems. First, students’ school achievement is notably affected by their ability to attend/concentrate (hereafter referred to as attn/con). Gibson and Rader (1979) advanced a definition of what they called "attention," which suggests that the absorption and use of information is the critical element of attention. A student who possesses "good attention" is more likely to process information more efficiently to perform a classroom task than is a student without such attention. Researchers have studied classroom subgroups of hyperactive, inattentive, and aggressive students. The results of one such study by Kupietz and Richardson (1978) supported the general hypothesis that performance is related to a child’s ability to remain attentive in the classroom. Also, several researchers who have conducted distractionstudies (Aman 81 Turbott, 1986; Dykman, Ackerman, & Holcomb, 1984; Rosenthal & Allen, 1980) have found strong evidence that learning disabled children had distinct problems with distractibility and that these students, when compared with normal students, correctly identified fewer events, responded with more false alarms, and responded to more competing irrelevant stimuli. Second, educators need to know how to change educational environments to enhance students’ ability to attn/con. Wachs (1971), Wohlwill and Heft (1977), and Walker (1985) examined how overstimulation in the educational environment affects the developing child. Wachs’s original cross-sectional results were as follows: The evidence . . . does appear to indicate that the relationship of level of stimulation to development may be curvilinear rather than linear, and that the rate of psychological development may be a function of an optimal level of certain aspects of interaction with the environment. (p. 310) Wachs also found that when background noise was greater, subjects had difficulty maintaining attn/con and obtained lower scores on problem—solving tasks and reading achievement. Environments with too much or too little stimulation appear to differ markedly from those with optimal conditions for development. Other research on attn/con in the classroom has been focused on (a) alertness (optimum sensitivity and readiness to receive the environment, (b) selectivity (acts of scanning the environment to select the most salient dimensions and to focus on those features while excluding others), and (c) centralprocessing. Researchers who have studied alertness (the state of physiologic readiness) have maintained that when the task is varied and the learning situation is kept interesting, attention (directed focus using a ready or alert mind) is held (Brophy & Willis, 1981; Keele, 1978). Selectivity (in attentive behavior) is most likely to occur when aspects of a situation coincide with what experience tells the learner is important (Norman, 1976). Studies on central processing have! presented further insights into learning in the classroom milieu. Niesser (1981) suggested that information processing takes place (”I two levels: preattentive and focal. Preattentive or automatic processing occurs when the stimulus is familiar; which “N1 turn causes less invasion on the conscious. Focal information process takes time and mental effort. Automaticity is a major element in increasing the amount of central processing (Piontrowski & Calfee, 1979). Norman (1976) suggested that practice is the key element: "A general rule appears to be that when a skill is highly learned--perhaps because it has been practiced for years and years--then, it becomes automated, requiring little conscious awareness" (p. 65). These are just some of the studies that have shown how the environment affects the attn/con of the individual. In essence, the learning environment does play a critical role in children’s development. Finally, attentional deficiencies and deficits in attn/con appear to be the root of many problems, including hyperactivity, learning disability, and emotional impairment” Typically, distraction studies have investigated the contention that hyperactive and learning disabled children are unable to screen out task—irrelevant simulation. In many of these studies, researchers presented distractions (ringing telephones, flashing lights, and conflicting colors) and noted a difference between hyperactive and learning disabled children’s responses. Although studies have varied, there has been no overwhelming evidence showing that hyperactive children are easily distracted; in contrast, strong evidence has indicated that learning disabled children have distinct problems with distractibility. Researchers have discovered that learning disabled students, when compared with normal students, correctly identified fewer events, responded with more false alarms, and responded to more competing irrelevant stimuli (Aman & Turbott, 1986; Dykman et al., 1984; Rosenthal & Allen, 1980). Also, children with emotional impairment have shown signs of distractibility and an inability to sustain attention. Rutschmann, Cornblatt, and Erichmeyer-Kimling (1977) conducted a study on emotional impairment and found significant differences over time between the control group and a group at risk for the emotional impairment of schizophrenia. These researchers administered the Continuous Performance Test to a group of children at risk for schizophrenia. This risk was determined by the subjects’ environmental backgrounds and their psychobiological development. The differences between the control group and the high-risk group were largely due to the high—risk group’s poor discriminability and inability to sustain attention. In summary, attentional deficits appear to be the source of many learning problems, including hyperactivity, learning disability, and emotional impairment. As a consequence, understanding attn/con could have a profound effect on learning problems and current educational settings. Very little applied research has been conducted in the classroom setting to help understand attn/con and the role it plays in the learning process. Despite the importance of attn/con, insufficient remedies are available for children with difficulties in this area. The literature on the subject of attn/con contains a vast array of studies; these include investigations about vigilance, persistence to task, self-efficacy, and motivation. In addition, investigations that have been conducted on hyperactivity, eye movement, and incidental learning apply, in some respects, to the process of attn/con. The research on attn/con is long on variety and short on clarity. Research on the child who has difficulties with attn/con and productive remedies that can be used to alleviate these difficulties is especially lacking. Pertinent research is needed in these areas. 6 Methodological Approach The present researcher investigated attn/con in a classroom of 5 year olds. The unit of analysis was the child; the case study method was used. Two children were chosen from this classroom: one was hyperactive and the other nonhyperactive. From the review of literature, it was apparent that numerous laboratory studies have been done on attention. .At this point in the development of research on attn/con, it seems that observational research might give a clearer picture of attn/con in terms of classroom behavior. Direct observation was thought to be the best approach for such an investigation because it is an important part of the discovery process for' both the teacher and the researcher (Irwin, 1980). First, observation generates ideas. Ethologist l1. Blurton-Jones (1972) considered observation to be extremely important; not only does observation lend itself to productive hypotheses and ideas, but it ultimately saves research time. It is no accident that so many theories have been developed out of the researcher’s own observations (e.g., Piaget, Freud, and Lorenz). Second, observational studies are important because they provide a means to answer specific questions. For example, Ainsworth (1973) wondered what effects maternal deprivation in infancy had on a child’s later adjustment. She observed such factors as (a) age of infant at separation, (b) length of separation, and (c) the kinds of alternative care used. It would be difficult to obtain these types of information from a laboratory study. Ainsworth’s observational technique was helpful in answering her questions concerning those factors. The third reason for using observation is that this technique yields a more realistic picture of behavior and events than do other techniques, such as laboratory experiments. Through direct observation, the observer looks at freely occurring behavior in the natural setting where there is nothing artificial or contrived. Therefore, the researcher: might use 'the information gathered to predict what would happen, but that information could apply only to similar situations. It is difficult to generalize the findings of laboratory studies to the "real" world, where many "unplanned" factors intervene to influence behavior. A fourth reason for using observation is to gain a better understanding of children’s behavior; 'The researcher can observe how children interact with their world. For example, some children need to be shown how to nfix yellow and blue to get green, others need only to be told how to do it, and still others need only to watch the process. Each child has his/her own learning style. At times, speaking in terms of averages and other statistical measures can be misleading. Observing individual children can provide insights into the child’s behavior. A fifth function of observation is evaluation (Irwin, 1980). Children are best evaluated through observation. Young children are often unable to read and write and, at times, are not able to understand adult verbalizations. Paper-and-pencil tests can be unreliable and are often not the best way to evaluate young children. Hence, observation is often the best method for evaluating youngsters. In the final analysis, direct observation appeared 111 be the best method for this study on attn/con. The age of the children and the ongoing nature of the classroom were conducive to direct observation. In this study, the unit of analysis was the child, but the classroom situation was noted as well. Direct observation was used with the intention of gaining further understanding of children and their ability to attn/con. Purposes of the Study The purposes of this research were as follows: 1. To clarify the issues involved with attn/con so that edu- cators can help children with these problems because attentional difficulties are the source of some learning problems. 2. To aid teachers, parents, and school personnel through the information obtained on the relationship of locus of control and self-efficacy to on-task behaviors. The researcher’s primary purpose in conducting this study was to contribute to the current educational literature on attn/con. Many attempts have been made to clarify the concept of attention, but few have been pertinent or comprehensive. Investigations have been conducted on the issues of vigilance, persistence to task, self-efficacy, and motivation, some of which are tangential to attn/con. Research that is directly concerned with attn/con needs to be undertaken. Another purpose of the study is to lay the groundwork for future research in this area. Some of the insights gained from this research, such as the need for researchers to focus on the depth of task processing and task completion, could spawn further research. Another area of interest is how the teacher is used in the classroom. 00 hyperactive youngsters use their teacher differently than nonhyperactive pupils do? Research could also lay the groundwork for further studies on self-efficacy, persistence to task, or locus of control and their relationship to the depth of task processing. In addition, it has been shown that problems with attn/con are the source of some learning difficulties. Investigating the problems of attn/con can help in understanding learning problems. Finally, educators, parents, and other school personnel may be aided by the information gained in this investigation. The classroom environment can be improved to enhance attn/con. Also, amounts of teacher intervention and medical intervention can be altered to attend more appropriately to the needs of the child with attentional deficits. In summary, the primary purpose for pursuing this study was to contribute to the current educational research and to lay the groundwork. for further investigations. AJso, this research was intended to clarify some of the issues involved in attn/con because attentional problems are often the source of learning difficulties. Finally, the information gained from this research is intended to 10 help parents, educators, and medical personnel become familiar with some of the issues related to attn/con. Definitions of Key Terms The following terms are defined in the context in which they are used in this dissertation. Attention/concentration (attn/con). The initial task orienta- tion that proceeds toward deep, intense concentration without exter- nal pressures or rewards. Hyperactivity. A set of behaviors that has been described clinically as (a) distractibility (inability to persevere with homework and classroom assignments), (b) impulsivity (failure to think before one acts), and (c) excitability (having temper tantrums, fighting over trivial matters, and/or having a low tolerance for frustration). Secondary symptoms might include (a) antisocial behavior, (b) specific learning :sitive and negative scales) was a Total I score of 3. (See Table :3 - 23.) Mischel et a1. (1974) found the average Total I score to be 55,. 191. This finding suggests that the students in the present study 90 .uocgzuog go: mpmum u azm cams mpoum mucmuamoom pmccopmz u some mpmum mocmumasou pmuwngg mw.m u cums mpwom wocmpamuum comm mop ~_.m me.m 9.me mvuwcmou m u come munam “muoz mz No.~ oo.m om.N om.m mo, mop No, o o mNo mm ~0.N oo.m om.N no.m mm_ NPP cap N e Nmo PP, oo.m Np.m mm.~ mm.m mm. mm, mN_ m a .No mop mm.~ Ne." NF.N om.m PP, o__ Pp_ mp F owe m2 om.~ mm.m om.~ mw.m m_F mo_ .m. .m e mpo m2 oo.e oo.¢ oo.m oo.e mp_ ONF mp, m P m_o «z oc.¢ om.m mm.m oo.e mm. epw _N_ _N 8 “Po amz mm.~ mm.m oo.m om.~ _o_ mo_ mm mm m mpo m__ .co.¢ om.m NF.m oo.¢ mp. OPP NNP o m m_o Po. mm.~ om.m mw.~ no.m mp. FFF em. o a Npo ~o_ mm.~ oo.m mw.N om.m app mop mm, mm N Au_aaov ope mo_ up.m om.m ~_.m mm.m em, m__ Fe, O m AaNPSV e_o :meme kg mm“. am... ”a 3%.. a. mug. mpwom Fawaooowa Hmaaz llllllllltllllllllllll ”gas: 3 5 Mesa ”.2225 "m.m a_amh 91 were less internally controlled than the subjects in Mischel et al.’s research. For the second descriptive variable, perceived competence and social acceptance, the group means on the Pictorial Scale were 3.64 for cognitive competence, 2.83 for peer acceptance, 3.45 for' physical competence, and 3.11 for: maternal acceptance. (See Table 3.3.) This information is helpful as a point of comparison for the two subjects chosen for the study. Liza scored above the mean on all four domains. Daric scored below the mean on all domains except peer acceptance, on which he scored on the mean. These differences are discussed in the case studies of the subjects. The third descriptive variable was parental acceptance. The PPAS was sent home with all 12 pupils. Only 7 of the 12 forms were returned. On these seven, the group mean was 106. (See Table 3.3.) Both Daric’s and Liza’s scores were near the mean. To measure the outcome variable, the length and frequency of attn/con, just Daric and Liza were observed and recorded. The videotaping was done during the class work time (12:30 p.m. to 1:30 lo.m.). The 0n-Task/0ff-Task Observation Form was used to note the ‘two subjects’ length and frequency of attn/con. Using direct (abservation, the periods of on-task behaviors were recorded. Procedure A surveillance-type video camera was donated to the researcher and was secured on the wall of the classroom. A wide-angle lens and an adapter were purchased for the camera. The children were given a We ek with the camera in the room and a brief discussion before the 92 actual filming. Filming was done from November 11 to December 6, 1985. The first week of filming was done to help the researcher determine the best camera angle and whether any changes in the physical arrangement of the classroom were necessary. It was decided that a large area in front of the camera was needed to get interactions between the youngsters and to film some group activities. These videotapes were used in training the observers and in completing the On—Task/Off-Task Behavior Checklists. Later, a 15—minute videotape was made from the 20 hours of tape filmed. Also, Daric and Liza were filmed in their second-grade classroom for this videotape and as a follow-up of the study. Limitations and Generalizabilitv of the Studv The study had three main limitations. First, the researcher was the teacher in the classroom used in the study. Consequently, there could have been some researcher bias in the choice and obser— vations of the subjects. However, the videotapes were recorded and 'the On-Task/Off-Task Behavior Checklists were completed by the researcher and an impartial rater. The results of the interrater reliability tests, with more than 80% agreement between the two raters, suggested that there was not an unreasonable amount of researcher bias. Second, measurement error could be considered a limitation of the study. The instruments used in the study might not have measured what they were purported to measure. For example, the SP IES had a reliability of .47 considering both the negative- and 93 positive-outcome subtests. Children are difficult to measure because of their occasional inability to understand adults’ verbalizations. Therefore, measurement error could have existed in the WPPSI, the Pictorial Scale, and the SPIES. A third limitation was that the camera provided less information than the researcher desired. ‘The detailed expressions of the children were not visible because the camera was stationary and not positioned close enough to the children’s faces. In an effort to capture the entire classroom on tape, the smaller, close- up shots had to be compromised. However, the videotapes were adequate for use in completing the On—Task/Off-Task Behavior Checklists. The sample was small; only two students were used for the case studies. These two students were studied within the context of a classroom, so the present research has value in terms of' other classroom studies. The generalizability of the study is low, however. The results of the investigation can be applied only to subjects who are very similar to Liza and Daric. CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Introduction Results of the analysis of the data generated from this study are reported in this chapter. Data were compiled on the following topics: (a) physical description of the child, (b) family background of the child, (c) the youngster’s school environment, (d) skill areas, (e) activity patterns and patterns of attn/con, (f) interactions with others, (9) classroom behaviors, (h) indicators of self—concept, and (i) coping style and response to frustration. Information regarding these topics was compiled from the tests that were administered, from year-end reports, and from the scales that were sent home for parents to complete and return. Information was also obtained from a psychologist’s evaluation and from a multi- disciplinary team, which comprised a social worker, a language specialist, and a school psychologist. Information on the patterns of attn/con was obtained by reviewing the 5—hour videotape that was made in the classroom during November and December 1985. These tapes *were reviewed, and Daric and Liza’s on-task and off-task behaviors were recorded. From this information the researcher developed two case studies, which are presented in this chapter. The first case study 94 95 is of Daric, and the second concerns Liza. In the third section of the chapter, the two children are compared. The interindividual differences are presented and evaluated. From this section, some speculative conclusions are drawn regarding the differences between a hyperactive and a nonhyperactive child. Case Studv l: Darjc Physical Description Daric was a high-energy child with quick brown eyes and shiny brown hair. His movements were quick and determined. Sometimes it appeared as though he had wheels instead of feet. If there was some excitement in the classroom Daric had either initiated it or was the first to arrive on the scene. His physical build lent itself to movement. He was short, light, and wiry. His laugh was a loud cackle, which usually went along with a mischievous twinkle in his eyes. His hands were short and spatulated at the finger tips; they were perpetually in motion. His head movements were quick and usually preceded the direction of body movement. His head was frequently cocked back and his chest thrust forward, giving the impression of a military person. Daric’s most dominant characteristic was his high energy and his inability to focus on his work. Eamily'Bacquound Daric’s father, a blue-collar worker, worked for the consolidated gas company. Daric’s stature and his high energy were quite similar to his father’s. The family lived on a farm north of 96 a large city. They had several animals, but only a few other children with whom to play. The father had spent much time teaching Daric survival skills and how to hunt. Daric also had a mother and a twin. Nate, his twin brother, had a profound hearing loss, which had been partially corrected by a hearing aid. In a multidisci- plinary evaluation done at an elementary school on September 20, 1984, Daric’s relationship with his father was characterized as follows: Daric was described by his mother as having a very good mutual relationship with his father. Yet, Daric tries to push his father past the limits that are set for tfinL Daric’s mother describes her husband as being inconsistent with Daric, overlooking some of his behaviors until he can no longer tolerate it and then comes down hard on Daric. At times, this makes Daric more aggressive. Daric shared his father’s love of the outdoors, and even though his parents worked full time, the three of them appeared to spend many off hours learning survival skills in the woods or doing the animal chores on the farm. In the psychological evaluation done June 8, 1985, the father was not interviewed but was quoted as saying that Daric was perfectly normal. He also stated that he himself was a "hell-raiser." It appeared to many persons that Daric and his father identified with each other. The mother. was a full-time secretary and had done some paralegal work on her job. In most cases, she had been the one to find help. She had sought evaluations from local school districts, as well as from a local psychologist. The evaluation for the school district was done by a multidisciplinary team. Members of the team 97 were a social worker, a teacher of the language impaired, and a school psychologist. Daric’s mother considered herself the disciplinarian of the family, and she disciplined him by scolding, sitting him on a chair, spanking, or taking away privileges. At these times, according to his mother, Daric cried easily and tended to ask for reassurance. The mother also mentioned that Daric’s sensitivity showed itself when he witnessed arguments between his parents. At such times, he tried to play the parental role by trying to calm the participants. Daric’s relationship with his brother was unique. Emotions in the relationship between Daric and his twin brother, Nate, ranged from a jealous possessiveness to caring and protection. At times, there appeared to be resentment and hatred. The psychological evaluation contained reports of Daric’s aggression toward Nate. The mother reported that Daric had grabbed Nate’s throat, bitten him, bitten him on the ear, and performed other aggressive and dangerous acts. Nate had a severe hearing loss, and Daric had acted as his guide and protector through much of their early childhood. However, Nate now had a hearing aid, and Daric’s role toward his brother had changed.‘ At times, Daric expressed anger about this displacement. In the psychological evaluation, the psychologist reported that (H1 the Bender Gestalt test Daric revealed himself as a willful, undisciplined person who was more interested in expressing his own feelings, emotions, and motivations than in following instructions. He did not lose interest; he simply tended to go his own way and followed his own impulses. On the Rorschach test, he showed 98 considerably more creativity than the average child his age. He showed more preoccupation with violence, blood, fire, monsters, and threatening forces. He thought that his brother Nate did not love him (this may have been due to his brother’s hearing aid and his lessened dependence on Daric). It was noted in the report that children as well as adults confuse dependency with love. School Environment During the study, Daric attended a Montessori school. This school was a small, private school with an enrollment of about 200 students. It used the Montessori method of education from preschool through sixth grade. Most of the parents were white-collar workers, coming from a professional group. In a majority of the families, both parents worked. In the morning, Daric was in a preschool classroom of 18 children whose ages ranged from 2-1/2 to 6 years. In the afternoon, he was with 11 other 5 year olds in what was called an extended-day classroom. 'These children attended school from 8:00 it! the morning until 2:45 ir1 the afternoon. The extended-day portion of their day consisted of work that was academically oriented. Nate and Daric were consistently put in different classes at their parents’ request. Generally, Daric and Nate liked school and thought it was a positive place. The Montessori philosophy encourages individual differences and promotes independent decision making in classroom choices. Daric had freedom of' movement within the classroom limitations, and many hands-on activities were present in the classroom. 99 Skill Areas Much of the information concerning Daric’s skill level was taken from the findings of numerous tests he was given. Some of these tests were the WPPSI, Mean Length of Utterance, Bender Gestalt, Test of Language Development (TOLD), Preschool Attainment Record, Peabody' Vocabulary ‘Test-Revised, McCarthy Scales, Bender Gestalt, Projective Drawings, Draw-a-Person, Rorschach, the SPIES, and the Pictorial Scale. Language. Daric’s score on the Mean Length of Utterance was 6.30 (Brown’s Stage V+); overall, he demonstrated well-developed structures. 0n the TOLD, Daric demonstrated average performance in grammatic understanding and sentence limitation; syntax was also average. In grammatic completion, he performed below average; however, this may have been due to his not understanding the directions. Daric displayed good ability to comprehend, and he had a fine ability to understand in the articulation observations; some errors were due to developmental lag. The Preschool Attainment Record placed Daric at the 5 year, 6 month level in his knowledge of general information. hi her final evaluation, Daric’s preschool teacher noted that the child was able to express himself’ well orally, and he enjoyed socializing and sharing ideas with other children. Pre-math and math. In her final report, Daric’s preschool teacher stated that he had grown well in number concepts and that 100 his understanding of 1-100 was strong. 1k; was also doing simple addition and subtraction with manipulatives. Overall intellectual eval__ua_t_i_g_g. Daric was functioning intellectually at the "bright normal " level. He was at the 90th percentile, which means that he was functioning in approximately the top 10% of the standardized population for children in his age range. According to the WPPSI evaluation write-up, Daric’s greatest strengths were his perceptual organization and spatial visualization. Another strong area was his alertness to his environment and the apparent richness of his early educational milieu. Daric’s weaker areas were his perception of detail and his ability to discern essential from nonessential details. His problem-solving abilities were somewhat limited in that he tended to rely exclusively on the trial-and-error method of problem solving and was essentially nonreflective in his approach to tasks. Daric’s Verbal IQ was 122, his Performance IQ was 110, and his Full Scale IQ was 118. According to the McCarthy Scales, Daric’s General Cognitive Index was 109 (the mean being 100). Results on the McCarthy Scales indicated that Daric’s overall abilities were within the upper limits of the average range for his chronological age. He demonstrated high-average verbal abilities and average abilities in perceptual/performance (nonverbal) areas; quantitative and memory areas were also average. Relative strengths were noted in his visual memory, expressive vocabulary skills, and verbal fluency/categorization abilities. Although Daric’s numerical memory 101 (repetition of digits) was at the 3-1/2 year level, this was not considered to reflect an area of weakness because he demonstrated auditory recall for words, sentences, and story details at the 4-1/2 year level. He was able accurately to repeat nine-syllable sentences presented by the speech therapist during the evaluation. Therefore, all of Daric’s abilities that were sampled were considered to be at or to exceed his chronological age level at that time. On number and counting tasks, he accurately rote counted through 14 and transposed four numbers in counting through 29. He accurately counted objects using a one-to-one correspondence through 12. Daric’s visual motor development, as measured on paper-and- pencil copying tasks, was at a 4-1/2 year age-equivalency level. Activity Patterns and Patterns of Attention/Concentration From the beginning of the school year, Daric had a series of problems in the classroom. His teacher made some revealing notes at the beginning of the year. They are as follows: 9/12/85--The first day of school, Daric rolled a large cylinder across the floor. 9/17/85--Daric bit Andreas. Daric’s mother was phoned during school and she talked to him. The mother later reported that he was disciplined at home. 10/3/85--Daric attempted to bite Charles. There appeared to be no provocation. The teacher intervened. 10/15/85--Was not allowed to go to gym class because he shoved and pushed in the line. 102 10/17/85--Conference with Daric’s parents. They expressed concern, and the mother mentioned that he always chose black when doing art work. Father expressed no desire to bring him to a psychologist and was resistant to medication for hyperactivity. The mother said that Nate was often abused by Daric. The father in frustration wanted to send a squad of cops in the school to scare him, but the mother did not see the value to that. Considering the circumstances, a behavior modification program was introduced and the parents seemed to be in agreement. 10/21/85--Daric received a "Happy gram" from Barb 0., the French teacher. 10/22/85--Daric’s mother wanted Nate’s teacher to give him a "Happy gram" because Nate was becoming the bad guy at home. The teacher said that that program was only between Daric and his teacher. lO/23/85--Daric was given another "Happy gram." The behavior modification program continued until the spring conference. The success; was temporary and sporadic. At the spring conference, it was decided that Daric take medication for hyperactivity. Generally, Daric’s activity pattern was quite negative and counterproductive. From the review of the videotapes taken during November and December 1985, Daric’s pattern of attn/con was disclosed. It was found that he had no periods of concentration that lasted 5 nfinutes or longer. Concentrated, on-task behavior was, in fact, rather rare. Figure 4.1 illustrates the number of on- task and off-task behaviors recorded from the 5 hours of an on-going classroom. The notation NOS was made on the On-Task/Off-Task Checklist when Daric was not visible on the screen. The percentage of time he was not on the screen is noted on the figure. 103 .mmcmzu xmmp m.0wcmo we oucmvwocH upo¢ mczmwm l £92 an umcnmmms u xmmTré 39m; an. umEmmmE n. xmmTco .'_'> 'UIUJ v 6:: xNN n moz 35 QB NN .>02 3 u 83% E a >02 ( : : Z ,1 < Ila/71 5 j fill me n moz 35 Q n mam: ON .>oz f n maz 2.5: mm. 39 .9 .>oz ( _ e 3 BED 104 .cmscmucou "Foe mczmmu l £92 an. tmcammme u xmmeo w 39m... 33 nmcnmmme n xmmTco u. Egan x9. .... .82 E... E .... mam: m .95 x: n 82 Es .1. u mam: v .uma IIIII2D?\oz ’\ ( H v .56 gm ..... 82 Es : u 8m: a .52 < z , ........v.c_e E .... 82 _......c_e D. u 8m: B .52 _ ( ,\ mv .55 E. u 82 3%. mm .... as. 2 .52 m ”V .EE (N3 116 .vmscvucou "N.¢ mesmvu £05m. an nmSmmmE n xmmTto 39m; 3 umcnmmme u xmmTco xom n moz a.mcE Nm n mam: m .uma l \ v S “m ”V CE x: n moz BE: 3. n mam: v .03 I ? mv CE 5. u moz BEE mm H mam: mN .>oz ,\ ,. F: c m HV .C_E verbalize what her problem was; (b) being able to recognize when the teacher was available to answer her question; (c) when she had received an answer, determining if it did help her to continue working on her activity; and (d) if not, rephrasing the question and trying again. Liza appeared to have the verbal skills necessary to do this. From the SPIES, Liza was determined to be an internally motivated individual. She took her directives from her own internal motivation rather than from the adults and other external forces in her environment. (See Table 3.3.) Therefore, when she was frustrated, Liza took it upon herself to solve her own problems. Summary Liza had superior verbal abilities, and this became apparent in how she conducted herself in the classroom. She helped other children, and she responded appropriately to the teacher and the other children in her classroom. Liza consistently persisted toward task completion and was able to attend to a task for a considerable 120 time. She was reflective and often planned out her work before she began. In the WPPSI evaluation it was noted, Often she would organize her test materials first before she would proceed, and most frequently, a trial and error method was used 'hi design construction. It. was apparent to the examiner that she was able to mimic adult demonstrations with accuracy. Her attempts were characterized by unusual ‘persistence and an ability to be reflective. Discussion: Comparison of Daric and Liza Physical Description Some marked physical differences existed between Daric and Liza. Daric was male and Liza was female. Liza was relatively tall for her age, and Daric was relatively short for his age. Whereas Daric had brown eyes and brown hair, Liza had blue eyes and blonde hair. Both children had a high energy level; Daric’s energy was not task oriented, whereas Liza’s was task focused. The two children’s mode of dress also differed somewhat. Daric wore clothes that were compatible with the out-of-doors. Liza, on the other hand, dressed in bows, flashy colors, and flamboyant jewelry. Liza’s fingers were long, whereas Daric’s were short and wide at the fingertips. Daric had a short, compact look; Liza had a long, lanky, sometimes craggy appearance. Both children had a very animated approach to experiences. Liza had a ready smile, and Daric had a nfischievous cackle. Familv Background Some basic differences were noted in the two subjects’ family backgrounds, as well. Liza had a much younger brother. There might 121 have been some competition between the two siblings, but it would not. match the apparent competition between Daric and his twin brother, Nate. This aspect of Daric’s life seemed to be a confounding one for him. Liza did not appear to have this emotional stress. Another difference was found in the occupations of the parents. Daric’s father was essentially a blue-collar worker; his mother worked full time, as well. It is possible that the household was occasionally rushing, trying to meet the work demands and school expectations. Liza’s household was different. Her father was a white-collar worker. Her mother did not work; she spent the day keeping the household running smoothly. From the Continuing Motivation Checklist, it was apparent that the parents took time daily to ask Liza about her day and to respond to her needs. Very possibly their household was as busy as Daric’s, but the time was directed to dance lessons and other activities for the children, not to job priorities. During the fall conferences, Liza’s father asked which mode of discipline was used in the cflassroom. Daric’s father suggested bringing in a squad of cops to scare Daric into shaping up. This lack of reflection might have been another confounding issue for Daric. In the long run, planful approaches to problems provide better solutions. Possibly Liza’s father was more cognitively complex and, when discipline was necessary, used reason rather than the "scare tactics" Daric’s father might use» Daric’s and Liza’s 122 different approaches to their tasks might have been a result of their parents’ approaches to dealing with their problems. School Environmgpt The two children’s school environment was essential identical. They both attended the same extended-day classroom at a Montessori school. Their social milieu might have differed, however. Socially, Daric briefly interacted with many classmates. Liza, however, chose to be alone a great deal of the time. She was asked over to play far more frequently than Daric. She seemed to hold onto friends longer than Daric did. Skill Areas Differences between Liza and Daric were noted 'hi the various skills. This might have been a result of Liza’s greater ability to focus and absorb the meaning of an activity. She was better able to listen to and mimic a teacher’s lessons when she decided to perform the activity. Table 4.1 shows the two children’s results on the WPPSI, which was administered in November 1985. Table 4.1: WPPSI Results for the Two Subjects, November 1985 Name Performance IQ Verbal IQ Full-Scale IQ Liza 119 141 134 Daric 110 122 118 123 Language. According to the year-end report, Daric was able to "express himself orally very well." The teacher also mentioned that he had good articulation. In the psychological and multidisci- plinary evaluations, Daric usually scored a little better than average on the tests given. Liza, however, had superior language abilities. According to the year-end report, she was reading and had a good understanding of the material she read. (hi the other hand, Daric was not reading. He did not seem able to focus long enough to acquire the necessary skills for reading. However, this probably was a developmental characteristic and these skills will emerge in time. Pre-mathyandtmatp. Daric appeared to be doing somewhat better in math than in language. According to the year-end report, he had mastered counting from 1 to 100. The report also stated that he was doing simple addition with manipulatives. The year-end report indicated Liza had a good grasp of four-digit numbers and had done simple addition and multiplication with manipulatives. Overall intellectual evaluation. From the evaluation following the WPPSI, it was determined that Daric was functioning intellectually at the "bright normal" level. He was at the 90th percentile, which means he was functioning in approximately the top 10% of the standardized population for children in his age range. Daric’s greatest strengths were his perceptual organization and spatial visualization. Another strong area was his alertness to the 124 environment and the apparent richness of his early educational milieu. His weaker area was perception of details. Liza, on the other hand, was functioning intellectually at the "very superior" level. She was at approximately the 98th percentile, meaning she was functioning in the top 2% of the standardized population of' children her age. »Liza’s strengths appeared to be her ability to formulate verbal concepts, including verbal fluency and a fine associative ability. Another strength was fine visual motor coordination combined with a good visual memory. Liza’s weaker area might have been in the ability to differentiate essential from nonessential details. Daric had a typical trial-and-error approach to problem solving. Liza appeared to be able to learn through visual memory, auditory skills, and an ability to abstract verbal concepts. Despite these differences, according to the year-end report no major discrepancies existed between Liza’s and Daric’s school achievement. Activity Patterns and Patterns of Attention/Concentration The two subjects differed most in this area of comparison. Therefore, these patterns might have been the factors contributing to the differences in skill levels and in appropriate classroom behavior. In the 5 hours of videotaping that was reviewed, Daric was not able to sustain attention any longer than about 4 minutes. 0n the other hand, Liza had two periods of concentration, one of which lasted more than 11 minutes. When looking at the differences between the two patterns of attn/con, it was seen that Daric’s 125 superficial, flighty approach to tasks curbed his acquisition of skills. Liza had much higher peaks of involvement, which illustrated a longer time spent on self-chosen activities. Also, when looking at the graphs comparing Daric’s and Liza’s patterns of attn/con (Figure 4.3), it was apparent that Daric generally had more changes in movements. He moved from on-task to off-task more often than Liza. When she was on-task, she was on-task longer than Daric was. As well, when she was off-task she was off-task longer than Daric was. (See Figure 4.4, November 21, 22, and 26 and December 4 and 5). Daric’s activity patterns appeared to be more erratic and indecisive than Liza’s. Concerning the differences in patterns of attn/con between a child determined to be hyperactive and a child determined to be nonhyperactive, the following determinations were made: 1. More activity change was evident with the hyperactive child (Daric). 2. A difference was found between the hyperactive child and the nonhyperactive child in terms of the frequency with which they had a continuous work session that lasted longer than 5 minutes. 3. Although the difference was only slight, the nonhyperactive child was on-task more of the time than the child determined to be hyperactive. First, the hyperactive child changed more frequently from on- task to off-task orientation than did the nonhyperactive child. (See Table 4.2 and Figure 4.5.) Some variation was present from one 126 .mmcmgu xmmu we mucmvmucw m.6wcwo can m.a~v4 yo comvgmasou "m.v ugzuwm xmw moz 355 RV n mam: 0N .>oz ( z ._ _ <,\ DES”. x _N moz 355 by n mum: ow .>oz ..< 1.<.<<||/\oz < << < .2 < < <<< UEoz (N3 127 355 cm a.mcE om .umzcwucou ”m.¢ «camp; xNNnmoz (/\‘ /\ z 2:2: _ mum: NN .>oz DEED E u moz oz E (N3 xvm n xom 82 Ba? 2. n mam: _N .>oz /\ DEED moz «we? 3 u mum: _N .>oz < (N3 8 12 .uwzcvpcoo ”m.v weamwm x: n. moz BEE 3 n mum: v .umo u_m02 12: 0.55 E. ... 82 3.: mm. EN 5024233. i I: mgom xmokimeo vcm xmwhico mo mucmcwucH m.owcmo use m.me4 ea comvgngoo u¢.¢ mgamvm samugm k B a t . [CI col 0 Off-task (N... a 131 Table 4.2: Changes in Orienting Activity Nonhyperactive Child Hyperactive Child Date (Liza) (Daric) November 19 14 changes 26 changes November 20 26 changes 19 changes November 21 24 changes 30 changes November 22 22 changes 48 changes November 26 26 changes 31 changes December 4 21 changes 40 changes December 5 19 changes 26 changes 50 . 45» m 40 1 g, : I; 35,4 Q q_ 30 - 0 _§ 25 , Daric E 20- 15 1 Liza 10 - 5 . ll/l9 11/20 11/21 11/22 11/26 12/4 12/5 Figure 4.5: Incidence of task-orientation change. 132 day to another, but the hyperactive child had more changes from orientation to task to withdrawal from task orientation. Second, a difference was found between the hyperactive child and the nonhyperactive child in terms of the amount of time spent in continuous work sessions. Periods that lasted 5 minutes or longer were behaviorally defined as periods of concentration. According to the videotapes that were analyzed, Liza had two periods of concentration (on November 19 and December 4). Daric, on the other hand, did not have any work sessions that lasted as long as 5 minutes. He moved into the off—task mode before he had concentrated 5 minutes. Finally, it was found that Liza (nonhyperactive) was on-task more, but not substantially more, than Daric (hyperactive). (See Table 4.3.) Liza was on-task 32% of the time and Daric was on-task 31% of the time during the 5 hours of videotaping. Liza was off- task 42% of the time, whereas Daric was off-task 45% of the time. The difference in percentages of off-task behavior was greater than the difference concerning on-task behavior, but this discrepancy was not large enough to warrant firm conclusions. It was apparent that both subjects were motivated and that the difference was a result of task completions and the number of task changes. 133 Table 4.3: Percentages of Time On-Task and Off-Task Name On-Task Off-Task Not on Screen Liza 32% 42% 26% Daric 31% 45% 24% Interactions With Others Daric had negative relations with his peers in school, particular at the beginning and end of the year. On the other hand, Liza seemed to be well-liked and steady and loyal about her peers and friends. The two children differed in their relationships with parents, as well. Daric scored below the classroom mean on the maternal acceptance subscale of the Pictorial Scale, but Liza scored above the mean on that scale. Liza’s relationship with her father appeared to be close because she daily shared with him what had transpired in school. Daric’s relationship with his father also appeared to be strong. In the psychological report it was mentioned twice that Daric identified strongly with his father. Some inconsistency was apparent in the disciplining. Daric’s and Liza’s relationships with their siblings also appeared to be quite different. Daric had a close competitor in his twin brother, whereas Liza became the "teacher" with her younger brother. Competition can bring out an individual’s hostility, 134 whereas taking on the teacher role can foster some positive qualities. Qlassroom Behayjor From the SSQ and Conner’s TRS it was determined that Daric was hyperactive and Liza was nonhyperactive. Daric was unable to attend to tasks for any period of time, and he tended to instigate problems in the classroom. He managed to find children to collude with him in misbehavior at any time. Therefore, he could be a very negative influence in the classroom. In contrast, Liza played "teacher" and helped the other children when they needed assistance. She was responsible and knew how not to be overbearing. For the most part, Liza would be considered a compliant or "good student" and Daric would be considered a difficult one. Indicators of Self-Concept Both Daric and Liza considered their greatest strength to tn: their cognitive competence. Both of them fell down in the areas of peer and maternal acceptance. Daric scored below the class means on all four domains of the Pictorial Scale, whereas Liza scored above the means on those domains. At the end of the school year, Daric cheated in a game in music class. Possibly he thought he could not win fairly, and this might indicate a very low self-esteem. Further, Daric was easily put on the defensive, and he lashed out by biting his peers. This indicated he thought he could not compete on even terms and that the weapon of biting was his only recourse. Daric’s inability to complete his work might have been due, in part, 135 to his lack of self-efficacy. Possible he thought he just could not finish his work. Liza, in contrast, had good work habits and felt confident of herself in the classroom environment. Coping Stvle and Response to Frustration Daric became aggressive or manipulated other children when he was responding to frustration. He found himself on the defensive most of the time, and his quick, erratic movements might have resulted from a fear of being confronted. In contrast, Liza used adults in the environment to help her solve the dilemmas she encountered. When her question had been answered, she would go back to work and persist to completion. Daric’s mode of coping was self- defeating, whereas Liza’s was constructive and helpful. Relation of Findings to the Literature Many of the findings of this study were confirmed by the review of literature regarding attn/con. Barkley (1982) and O’Malley and Eisenberg (1973) listed characteristics present in hyperactive children; among those [characteristics were distractibility, impulsivity, and excitability; Further, Cantwell (1975) suggested that certain symptoms were present in only some cases. One of these symptoms, antisocial behavior, was characteristic of Daric because, at the beginning of the school year, he was biting other children. Thus, the findings of this study were consistent with current research. 136 Findings of research on locus of control were also corroborated in the present study. Daric had a lower score than Liza on the SPIES, which indicated Daric was externally controlled and Liza was internally controlled. Locus of control is a major factor in persistence to task (Lefcourt, 1982; Weiner & Kukla, 1970). Evidence from the case study suggested that Liza, who was internally controlled, had greater persistence to task than Daric, who was externally controlled. Also, Hiroto (1974) found that "externals" thought luck or chance determined their answers, whereas "internals" believed they controlled their own reinforcers. Hiroto found this perception of control to be a factor in how passive or motivated the individual was. From the case-study information, both Liza and Daric appeared to be motivated. Liza was motivated to complete academic tasks, whereas Daric treated both academic and nonacademic tasks with equal importance. DeCharm’s (1976) Origin-Pawn theory also applies to Daric and Liza. Because Daric was unable to finish his tasks, the teacher became more directive, and Daric had fewer opportunities to be an Origin. Liza could complete tasks, so she had more opportunities to originate her work choices. In her case, the teacher became less directiive because Liza was able to initiate and successfully to complete a work cycle on her own. Findings of Bandura’s (1986) research on self-efficacy also were consistent with the findings of the present study. Bandura postulated that the two variables that affect an individual’s motivation are efficacy expectations and outcome expectations. Efficacy expectations are the individual’s convictions that he/she 137 can successfully perform the necessary behavior to produce the outcome. Outcome expectations are the person’s belief that a given behavior will lead to a certain outcome. The test used to measure perceived competence and social acceptance was the Pictorial Scale. Daric was below the mean on all four domains measured by this scale, whereas Liza was above the mean on these domains. This discrepancy, in part, explains Daric’s inability to proceed to task completion and Liza’s ability to finish her self-chosen tasks. The importance of parental acceptance, as suggested by the literature (Battle & Lacey, 1973; Bettelheim, 1973), was confirmed in this study. hi the Fels Longitudinal Study, mothers of hyperactive male infants were found to be cmjtical of their difficult babies during infancy. They were disapproving during later preschool years, and these children had difficulty adapting to school. Although Daric’s and Liza’s scores on the PPAS did not differ appreciably, a difference was found on the maternal acceptance domain of the Pictorial Scale. Daric’s lowest score on the Pictorial Scale was in maternal acceptance. Also, comments made during the parent-teacher conferences and in the psychological evaluation suggested that Daric’s mother was frustrated with him. Related Findings From viewing the videotapes and from the case studies, the researcher gained further insights, which are discussed in this section. These findings are both directly and indirectly related to the research questions. 138 1. It was evident from observing the videotapes that the two subjects bad days that went well in terms of activity choice and task processing and other days that did not go as well. The videotapes for Tuesday, November 26, showed very little on—task time for either Daric or Liza (Daric = 9 minutes on-task; Liza = 5 minutes on task). This could have been because the Thanksgiving holiday week-end was beginning the next day. Daric also had a low on-task day on November 20. Perhaps he was not feeling well or something had occurred in the morning preschool class or at home that had influenced his ability to focus. 2. Another point of interest was the different ways the two subjects used the teacher in the classroom. Liza usually approached the teacher when she was frustrated with her work. Also, just before resuming on-task. work, Liza would frequently approach a teacher, almost as if she were "recharging her batteries." Liza seemed to use the adult in the environment as her guide and as someone to keep her moving in the right direction. Daric, on the other hand, rarely used the adult as a resource. If he was frustrated with or confused about his work, he would avoid the frustration and begin talking with his friends or walk away from the problem. He did not appear to be "help seeker." The teacher contact that Daric had was often negative (i.e., reminders to go back to work and reprimands for handling the material destructively or interrupting other students). 139 3. Differences in task orientation and task completion between the hyperactive child and the nonhyperactive child became evident from viewing the videotapes. Liza completed seven more self-chosen tasks than Daric did——12 tasks in comparison to Daric’s 5. In the final analysis, Liza was able to persist to task completion; Daric did so, but somewhat infrequently. 4. Liza had a higher score than Daric on the SPIES, which sug- gests that she was more internally controlled than Daric. Neither Liza nor Daric was at either extreme of the range, but Daric did represent the lower end and Liza the higher end of the continuum. Daric appeared to follow external directives, whereas Liza was self- directed, following an internal guide. Differences in locus of control and in task orientation were consistently seen in the subjects’ varied approaches to their work, as well as in other test results (i.e., the WPPSI and their ability to be reflective). 5. According to their responses on the PPAS, Daric’s parents considered his autonomy to be the most important quality; his feelings were the second priority. LiZa’s parents considered expression of feelings to be the most important priority; second was a tie between autonomy and uniqueness. 6. On the Harter and Pike Pictorial Scale, a significant dif- ference was found between Daric and Liza. Liza scored high on all four domains: cognitive competence, peer acceptance, physical competence, and maternal acceptance. Daric was below the class mean on these subtests. The findings suggest that, as Bandura (1981) noted, when one has a strong sense of self-efficacy, his/her 140 persistence to task is stronger. When one believes he/she can do something, it is very likely that he/she will do it. Liza’s and Daric’s highest score was in cognitive competence. Their second highest score was in physical competence. Liza’s two lowest scores were in the affective domains, peer and maternal acceptance. Daric’s lowest score was in peer acceptance, and his second lowest was in maternal acceptance. 7. Some of Daric’s intraindividual differences included his facility with language, in contrast to his spatial relations and accuracy with detail. 0n the McCarthy and the Peabody instruments, Daric received an average score. On the Preschool Attainment he received a higher score. Daric scored at the 5-1/2 year equivalency level on items concerning personal information and factual knowledge. Daric’s results on the Bender Gestalt personality measure suggested that he was quite undisciplined, was interested in expressing his own feelings, and did not like following directions. The psychologist suggested that, rather than having a: short attention span, Daric attended very well to tasks of his own choosing. The data from the videotapes suggested otherwise. Daric was not able to attend to any self—chosen task for longer than 5 minutes. These observational data suggested that Daric was unable to stay on task for a significant time. Daric’s performance on the Rorschach suggested that he showed more creativity than the average child his age. He also showed considerable preoccupation with violence, blood, fire, monsters, and threatening forces. In 141 summary, Daric’s strength appeared to be in the verbal area. His highest scores were on the information, arithmetic, and comprehen- sion subtests of the WPPSI. His weaker areas were in perception of detail and being able to discern essential from nonessential details. From the Pictorial Scale, it was evident that Daric felt competent in the cognitive and physical areas. In the affective domains (peer and maternal acceptance), Daric seemed ix) have less feeling of self-efficacy. 8. Liza exhibited intraindividual differences, as well. She helped her peers and used teachers to help her cope with frustra- tion. She was reflective in her responses on the WPPSI and was able to preplan her approach to tasks. Liza’s strength, as indicated by testing results, appeared to lie in her ability to formulate verbal concepts. She was fluent and strong in word-association ability. Liza had good visual motor coordination combined with a good memory. Her weakest area on the WPPSI was picture completion, which suggests she had some difficulty discerning details. Other weaker areas were the geometric design and block design subtests, which might suggest she had some difficulty with spatial relations. Results on the SPIES showed that Liza had strong internal control, especially when dealing with positive events. The Pictorial Scale revealed that. Liza had strong feelings of self-efficacy in the cognitive and physical domains and had somewhat weaker feelings of self-efficacy in the affective domains--assessed by the maternal and peer acceptance subtests. Essentially, Liza’s strong areas were 142 language, her internal control, and her strong feeling of self- efficacy. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS This chapter contains a summary of the study, conclusions based on the findings, and implications for further research. Summary In conducting the study, the writer focused (Hi the fOllowing two research questions: 1. What are the differences in patterns of attn/con between a child determined to be hyperactive and another child determined to be nonhyperactive? 2. When considering these two subjects, what are their intra- individual and interindividual differences? The two criterion variables that were used to select the subjects were IQ and hyperactivity. The subjects were chosen on the basis of similar IQs and differences in scores on tests for hyperactivity (the SSQ and Conner’s TRS). Subjects with similar IQs were chosen to rule out the possibility that differences in attn/con might be attributable to variations in intellectual functioning. The descriptive variables used to examine intraindividual and interindividual differences between the two subjects included (a) locus of control, (b) perceived competence and social acceptance, 143 144 and (c) parental acceptance. The outcome variable was the length and frequency of attn/con of the two subjects. The first research question was addressed in terms of the outcome variable, and the second question was addressed in terms of the descriptive variables. The investigative approach used in this study generated substantial information regarding the attn/con patterns of the two subjects, Daric and Liza. These data were generally consistent with the existing research findings on hyperactivity and its clinical descriptions: (a) distractibility and an inability to persevere with homework and classroom assignments, (b) impulsivity (failure to think before one acts or speaks), and (c) excitability (throwing temper tantrums, fighting over trivial matters, or having a low tolerance for frustration). These characteristics are especially noticeable when a hyperactive child is in groups with other children (O’Malley & Eisenberg, 1973). The following symptoms are also present in some cases: (a) antisocial (aggressive) behavior, (b) specific learning disabilities (i.e., problems with learning to read), and (c) some depressive symptoms that are exacerbated by low self-esteem (Cantwell, 1975). These symptoms were present in Daric and were revealed through the information compiled for his case study. Conclusions The case studies and the analysis of on-task and off-task behaviors from the 5 hours of videotapes revealed some differences between Liza and Daric. Liza had more on-task and fewer off-task 145 behaviors than Daric. Further, she had more episodes of concentra- tion (on-task behaviors 5 minutes or longer). Conversely, Daric had fewer on-task and more off-task behaviors. A marked difference between the two subjects was observed in the number of changes in their task orientations. Liza moved from on-task to off-task behaviors and vice versa much less frequently than Daric did. In fact, the most interesting finding of this study was the number of task changes that Daric made. Daric and Liza also differed in terms of overall time on task, but the difference was small. In addition, Daric did not have extended concentration (Liza had an 11-minute period of concentration, whereas Daric never reached a 5-minute period). From the study findings, it was concluded that Daric, a hyper- active youngster, was similar to Liza in time on task, but Daric differed appreciably from Liza in the frequency with which he changed his task. orientation from on-task to off-task and vice versa. The researcher also concluded that the amount of difference between Liza and Daric in time spent on on-task and off-task behaviors would not warrant making generalizations about hyperactive and nonhyperactive youngsters beyond these case studies unless the individuals were similar to Daric and Liza. The literature on hyperactivity and the findings of this study confirmed the clinical definition of hyperactivity. Findings of previous research were corroborated in this study with regard to (a) locus of control and persistence to task, (b) self-efficacy (perceived competence and social acceptance), and (c) maternal and 146 peer acceptance. Findings of the present study did not support the notion that hyperactive youngsters have lower IQs than normal children. Also, whereas Daric did not appear to have had extensive trauma in early childhood, previous researchers had suggested that hyperactive children usually experience traumas in their early development. Finally, the findings of this study confirmed that Daric had a greater incidence of task change than did the nonhyperactive subject. implications for Further Research 1. Further research is needed on the subject of attn/con. Incidence of off-task and on-task behavior provided a minimum of information. Future researchers need to focus on depth of task processing and task completion, rather than just on on-task and off- task behaviors. Efficiency of task processing is the content of attn/con and should be investigated further. A scale might be devised that could measure the depth of task involvement. More research using the direct-observation method is also needed. 2. The study findings supported the notion that hyperactive children exhibit a greater incidence of task change than do nonhyperactive children. The next question might be, Why is this so? Understanding why this is the case might provide insights to help prevent or remediate the problems that hyperactive youngsters have in the classroom. 3. The finding that the hyperactive youngster was a "help avoider" whereas the nonhyperactive subject was a "help seeker" 147 might have interesting implications for further research. In this study the "help seeker" used the adults in her environment effectively; the hyperactive "help avoider" created problems in the classroom and did not know how to solve them. Determining whether a child is a "help—seeker" or a "help avoider" might help educators prevent problems at the beginning of a child’s school career. Perhaps a training program could be introduced at the beginning of the school year to teach children how to "use" the teacher in the classroom environment. 4. Further considerations can be made regarding Daric’s "inner life." The psychologist’s report stated that the Rorschach Test that Daric had been given "showed more preoccupation with violence, blood, fire, monsters, and threatening forces." Preoccupation with this inner terror could have disrupted Daric’s on-task behaviors. Further, Daric’s task switching might have been due to this "inner life." The activity that Daric chose might not have quelled his inner restlessness. In an attempt to find an inner calm, he might have chosen another activity. Quite possibly, he changed activities often, hoping to quiet his internal confusion and fear. 5. With the assumption that task switching inhibits the pro- cessing necessary for task completion, it is important to ask how teachers can decrease the incidence of task switching in problem students in the classroom. From this research, it might be inferred that. one’s self-efficacy' and one’s locus of control can either increase or decrease persistence to task. Task switching in Daric’s 148 case occurred before he had completed his previous task. This being the case, the teacher’s verbally reinforcing Daric’s effectiveness could increase Daric’s persistence to task. As Bandura (1982) suggested, "When beset with difficulties, people who entertain serious doubts about their capabilities slacken their efforts or give up altogether, whereas those who have a strong sense of efficacy exert greater effort to master the challenge" (p. 211). Initial monitoring by a helpful adult could enhance Daric’s positive self-statements as he approaches a difficult task. Further, an individual’s locus of control can determine his/her persistence to task. When an individual follows directives from within (self-orders), it is more likely that self-chosen tasks will provide more enjoyment and longer task processing. To enhance internal locus of control, these suggestions might be helpful: (a) classroom curriculum could encourage freedom of choice, which would be incorporated within the structure of the curriculum; (b) discipline in the classroom could have as its goal the individual’s self-control--for example, allowing the child to determine when he/she can refrain from misbehavior. Ultimately, this removes some of the teacher control and places it ("1 the child. It is hoped that, as a result, the child will reflect on his/her misbehavior and make a serious choice in his/her determination to resume classroom activities. 6. Finally, classroom environments can be changed to promote longer periods of on-task behaviors. Large blocks of uninterrupted time could help some children increase their periods of attn/con. 149 Also, teacher interventions could be kept at a minimum to allow students to process their chosen activities independentlyu Having instructional materials that are complete, in good repair, and developmentally appropriate can enhance periods of attn/con. With these guidelines, children can approach classroom work more confidently, with a greater interest in task completion. APPENDICES APPENDIX A THE SCHOOL SITUATIONS QUESTIONNAIRE 150 THE SCHOOL SITUATIONS QUESTIONNAIRE Name of Child Name of Person Completing This Form Does this child present any behavior problems for you in any of these situations? If so, indicate how severe they are. If yes, how severe? (Circle one) Situation Yes/No (Circle one) Mild Severe While arriving at school Yes No l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 During individual desk work Yes No l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 During small—group activities Yes No l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 During free-play time in class Yes No l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 During lectures to the class Yes No l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 During recess Yes No l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 During lunch Yes No l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 While in the hallways Yes No l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 While in the bathroom Yes No l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 During field trips Yes No l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 During special assemblies Yes No l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 While on the bus Yes No l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 APPENDIX B CONNER’S TEACHER RATING SCALE 151 IV. Listed below are descriptive terms of behavior. Place a check mark in the column which best desalhes this child. ANSWER ALL ITEMS. ee 0! Activit Observation Not at all Just a littlejPrettv much Very much Reproduced. by permission, from C. Keith Connors. APPENDIX C THE PICTORIAL SCALE OF PERCEIVED COMPETENCE AND SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE FOR YOUNG CHILDREN INDIVIDUAL RECORDING AND SCORING SHEET, FORM 1-2 152 The Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and Social Acceptance for Young Children* Individual Recording and Scoring Sheet, Form 1-2 Child’s Name Age Gender; M F Class/Grade Teacher Testing Date Item Order and Cognitive Peer Physical Maternal Description Competence Acceptance Competence Acceptance Good at numbers 1 _ . Friends to play with 2 Good at swinging 3 . Eats at friends 4 . Knows alot in school 5 . Others share 6 Good at climbing 7 Mom takes you places 8 . Can read alone 9 Friends to play games with 10 . Good at bouncing ball 11 . Mom cooks favorite foods 12 . Good at writing words 13 . Has friends on playground 14 . Good at skipping 15 Mom reads to you 16 . Good at spelling 17 Gets asked to play by others 13 Good at running 19 Stays overnight at friends 20 . Good at adding 21 Others sit next to you 22 . Good at jumping rope 23 Mom talks to you 24 opoymmopNg-A NNN ”4444444444 ewwficsoeovemewN-‘c Column (Subscale) Total: Column (Subscale) Mean: (Total Divided by 6) Comments: ‘Susan Harter and Robin Pike, University of Denver, 1983 APPENDIX D THE STANFORD PRESCHOOL INTERNAL-EXTERNAL SCALE (1) —J O 10. 11. 153 THE STANFORD PRESCHOOL INTERNAL-EXTERNAL SCALE (1) When you are happy, are you happy 1+(a) because you did something fun, or (b) because somebody was nice to you? When somebody tells you that you are good, is that 1+(a) because you really have been good, or (b) because he is a nice person? Do you think I brought you to the surprise room (experimental room) 1+(a) because you have been good today, or (b) because I’m just a nice guy (lady)? When your mother gives you a cookie, is that 1+(a) because you need a cookie, or (b) because she has too many cookies? When somebody brings you a present, is that 1+(a) because you are a good boy (girl), or (b) because they like to give people presents? When you draw a whole picture without breaking your crayon, is that 1+(a) because you were very careful, or (b) because it was a good crayon? If you had a shiny new penny and lost it, would that be l-(a) because you dropped it, or (b) because there was a hole in your pocket? When you are sad and unhappy, are you sad and unhappy 1-(a) because you did something sad, or (b) because somebody wasn’t very nice to you? When you play a game and lose, do you lose l-(a) because you just didn’t play well, or (b) because the game was hard? When somebody st0ps playing with you, is that l-(a) because he doesn’t like the way you play, or (b) because he is tired? When you get a hole in your pants, is that l-(a) because you tore them, or (b) because they wore out? 154 12. If you had a pet turtle and he ran away, do you think that would be 1-(a) because you did something to make him leave, or (b) because there was a hole in his cage? 13. When you are drawing a picture and your crayon breaks, is that l-(a) because you pushed too hard, or (b) because it was a bad crayon? 14. When you can’t find one of your toys, is that l-(a) because you lost it, or (b) because somebody took it? APPENDIX E THE PORTER PARENTAL ACCEPTANCE SCALE 155 PPAS Listed below are several statements describing things which children do and say. Following each statement are five responses which suggest ways of feeling or courses of action. Read each statement carefully and then fill in on the enclosed answer sheet that circle that represents the one response which most nearly describes the feeling you believe you usually had or the course of action you think you most generally took when your child said or did these things. It is possible that you may find a few statements which describe a type of behavior which you think you may never have experienced with your child. In such cases, mark the response which most nearly describes how you think you would have felt or what you think you would have done. Be sure that you answer every statement and mark only one response for each statement. 1. When my child would be shouting and dancing with excitement at a time when I want peace and quiet, it would: a. Make me feel annoyed b. Hake me want to know more about what excites him/her c. Make me feel like punishing him/her d. Make me feel that I will be glad when she/he is past this stage e. Hake me feel like telling him/her to stop 2. When my child would misbehave while others in the group she/he is with are behaving well, I would: See to it that she/he behaves as the others Tell him/her it is important to behave well when she/he is in a group Let him/her alone if she/he isn't disturbing the others too much Ask him/her to tell me what she/he would like to do . Help him/her find some activity that she/he can enjoy and at the same time not disturb the group NQOUN 3. When my child would be unable to do something which I think is important for him/her, it would: . Hake me want to help him/her find success in the things she/he cando Make me feel disappointed in him/her Make me wish she/he could do it Make me realize that she/he can't do everything Make me want to know more about the things she/he can do 00.00‘0 5. 7. 156 -2. when my child would soon to be more fond of someone else (teacher. friend. relative) than me. it would: a. Make me realise that s/he is growing up b. Please me to see his/her interest widening to other people c. 'Make me feel resentful d. Make me feel that s/he doesn't appreciate what I have done for him/her e. Make me wish s/hc liked me more when my child would be faced with two or more choices and would have to choose only one, I would: a. Toll him/her which choice to make and why b. Think it through‘with himlher c. Point out the advantages and disadvantages of each. but let him/her decide for himself/herself d. Toll him/her that I am sure s/hc can make a wise choice and help him/her foresee the consequences o. Make the decision for him/her When my child would make a decision without consulting me, I would: a. Punish him/her for not consulting me b. Encourage hither to make his/her own decisions if slhe can foresee the consequences c. Allow him/her to make many of his/her own decisions d. Suggest that we talk it over before s/he makes his/her decision e. Tell him/her that slhc must consult me first before making a decision when my child would kick, hit, or knock his/her things about. it would: a. Make me feel like telling him/her to stop b. Make me feel like punishing him/her c. Please me that s/he feels free to express himself/herself d. Make me feel that I will be glad when s/he is past this stage e. Hake me feel annoyed When my child would not be interested in some of the usual activities of his/h« age group, it would: a. Make me realize that each child is different b. Hake me wish s/he were interested in the same activities c. Make me feel disappointed in him/her d. Make me want to help him/her find ways to make the most of his/her interest- e. Make me want to know more about the activities in which s/he is interested When my child would act silly and giggly,.l would: a. Toll him/her I know how s/ho feels b. Pay no attention to him/her c. Tell him s/he shouldn't act that way d. Hake him/her quit a. Tell him/her it is alright to feel that way, but help him/her find other ways of expressing himself/herself. 10. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 157 when ny child would prefer to do things with his/her friends rather than with his family, 1 would: a. Encourage him/her to do things with his/her friends b. Accept this as part of growing up c. Plan special activities so that s/he will want to be with the family d. Try to minimise his/her association with his/her friends e. Hake him/her stay with his/her family when my child would disagree with me about something which I think is important. it would: a. Make me feel like punishing him/her b. Please me that slhe feels free to express himself/herself c. Hake me feel like persuading him/her that I am right d. Make me realize s/he has ideas of his/her own a. Hake me feel annoyed When my child would misbehave while others in the group s/he is with are behaving well, it would: a. Make me realise that s/he_ does not always behave as others in his/her group b. Make me feel embarrassed c. Make me want to help him/her find the best ways to express his/her feelings d. Make me wish s/he would behave like the others e. Hake me want to know more about his/her feelings when my child would be shouting and dancing with excitement at a time when I want peace and quiet. I would: a. Give him/her something quiet to do b. Tell him/her that I wish s/he would stop c. Hake him/her be quiet d. Let him/her tell me about what excites him/her e. Send him/her somewhere else When my child would seem to be more fond of someone else (teacher. friend, relative) than me. I would: a. Try to minimize his/her association with that person b. Let him/her have such associations when I thinksbe is ready for them c. Do some special things for him/her to remind him/her of how nice I an d. Point out the weaknesses and faults of that other person e. Encourage him/her to create and maintain such associations When my child would say angry and hateful things about me to my face, it would a. Make me feel annoyed b. Hake me feel that I will be glad when slhe is past this stage t. Please no that s/he feels free to express himself/herself d. Make me feel like punishing him/her e. Make me feel like telling him/her not to talk to me that way When my child would show a deep interest in something I don't think is impor- tant, it would: a. Make me realize slhe has interests of his/her own h. Make me want to help him/her find ways to make the most of this interest c. Make me feel disappointed in him/her d. Hake me want to know more about his/her interests e. Make me wish slhe were more interested in things I think are important for him/her .17. 18. 20. 21. 22. 23. 158 cl. when my child would be unable to do some things as well as others in his group, I would: a. Tell him/her slhe must try to do as well as the others b. Encourage him/her to keep trying c. Tell him/her that no one can do everything well d. Call his/her attention to the things slhe does well e. uelp him/her make the most of the activities which s/be can do When my child would want to do something which I am sure will lead to disappointment for him/her, I would: a. Occasionally let him/her carry such an activity to its conclusion b. Don't let him/her do it c. Advise him/her not to do it d. help him/her with it in order to ease the disappointment a. Point out what is likely to happen when my child would act silly and giggly. it would: 'a. Make me feel that I will be glad when s/he is past this stage b. Please me that a/he feels free to express himself/herself c. Make me feel like punishing him/her d. Hake me feel like telling him/her to stop a. Make me feel annoyed when my child would be faced with two or more choices and has to choose only ' one, it would: a. Make me feel that I should tell him/her which choice to make and why b. Hake me feel that I should point out the advantages and disadvantages of e.- c. Hake me hope that I have prepared him/her to choose wisely d. Make me want to encourage him/her to make his own choice e. Make me want to make the decision for him/her When my child would be unable to do something which I think is important for him/her, I would: a. Toll him/her s/he must do better h. help him/her make the most of the things which s/he can do c. Ask him/her to tell me more about the things which s/he can do d. Tell him/her that no one can do everything e. Encourage him/her to keep trying When my child would disagree with me about something which I think is important. I would: a. Tell him/her s/he shouldn't disagree with me b. Make him/her quit c. Listen to his/her side of the problem and change my mind if I am wrong d. Tell him/her maybe we can do it his/her way another time e. Explain that I am doing what is best for him/her When my child would be unable to do some things as well as others in his/her group, it would: a. Make me realize that s/he can't be best in everything b. Make me wish s/he could do as well c. Make me feel embarrassed d. Make me want to help him/her find success in the things s/he can do e. Make me want to know more about the things s/he can do well 159 24. when my child would make decisions without consulting me it would; a. Make me hope that I hove prepared him/her adequately to make his/her decisions b. take me wish s/he would consult me e. take as feel distuer d. Hake me want to restrict his/her freedom e. Hesse-atone thatasalhegrowsslheneodsaaless 23. when my child would say angry and hateful things about as to my face, I won“. a. Toll him/her it's all right to feel that any. but help him/her find Other ways to express himself/herself b. Toll him/her I know how she feels c. Pay no attention to Mar d. Toll hinlher slhe shouldn't say such things to me 0. halo him/hos quit 26. Maychildwouldkick. hituidknockhiotbingsabmt.lwould: a. fluke him/her quit b. Tull bin/her it is all slat to feel that way. but help him/her find othez ways of expressing hinelflherself c. Tell him/her she shouldn‘t do such things d. Tell higher I know how a/he feels a. Pay no attention to him/her 27. when my child would prefer to do things with his friends rather than with his family. it would: a. Hakeecwishs/hswouldspondeoretiaswithus b. Halts me feel resentful c. Please no to see his/her interests widening to other people 'd. flake me feel slho doesn't appreciate us a. Make me realise that a/he is growing up 2b". Uhunmychildwouldwant todosonethingwhichlaasure will lead to disappointmnt for him/her. it would: a. Hake me hope that I have prepared hialher to meet disappointment b. Make me wish slhe didn’t have to meet unpleasant experiences c. flake sealant tokesphinlher fromdoing it 4. Make me realise that occasionally such an experience will be good im- hm. o. lake me want to postpone these experiences 29. “we my child weld be disinterested in some of the usual activities of his." her age group. I would: a. Try to help him/her realise that it is important to be interested in the same things as others in his/her group b. Call his/her attention to the activities in which slho is interested c."1'cll his/her it is alright if olhe isn't interested in the same things d. Seetoitthats/bedossthssusthingsuothersinhia/hnrgroup n. help bimlhor find says of making the mat of hislher interests 30. Hhenmychildwouldahwadeopinterestinsonthingldon'tthinkis inportant.lwould: a. Let his/her go ahead with his/her interest it. “thin/her totallnamoreaboutthisinterest s. Help him/her find ways to make the most of this interest d. so everything I can to discourage his/her interest in it a. Try to interest bin/her in more worthwhile wings APPENDIX F ON-TASK/OFF-TASK OBSERVATION FORM 160 ON-TASK/OFF-TASK OBSERVATION FORM One interval = 15 seconds On-Task Off-Task On-Task Off-Task Interval l Interval 21 Interval 2 Interval 22 Interval 3 Interval 23 Interval 4 Interval 24 Interval 5 Interval 25 Interval 6 Interval 26 Interval 7 Interval 27 Interval 8 Interval 28 Interval 9 Interval 29 Interval 10 Interval 3O Interval ll Interval 31 Interval 12 Interval 32 Interval 13 Interval 33 Interval l4 Interval 34 Interval 15 Interval 35 Interval l6 Interval 36 Interval l7 Interval 37 Interval 18 Interval 38 Interval 19 Interval 39 _lnterva1 20 Interval 4O REFERENCES REFERENCES Abikoff, H., Gittelman-Klein, R., & Klein, D. (1977). Validation of a classroom observation code for hyperactive children. Journal of Consulting amd Clinical Psychology, fla, 772-783. Abrams, A. L. (1968). Delayed and irregular maturation versus minimal brain injury. Clinical Pediatrics, 1, 344-349. Ainsworth, M. D. (1973). The development of infant-mother attach- ment. In B. Caldwell & H. Ricciuti (Eds.), Review of child development research (Vol. 3). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Aman, M. G., & Turbott, S. H. (1986). Incidental learning, dis- traction and sustained attention in hyperactive and control subjects. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 14, 441-445. Aub, J. C., Fairhall, L. T., Minor, A. S., & Resnikoff, P. (1926). Lead poisoning. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins. ' Bakwin, H., & Bakwin, R. M. (1966). Clinical management of behavior disorders. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders. Bandura, A. (1981). Self-referent thought: A developmental analysis of self-efficacy. In J. H. Flavell & L. Ross (Eds.), Social cognitive development: Frontiers and possible futures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bandura, A. (1982, February). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 31(2), 122-147. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thoughtaand action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Barker, G. P., & Graham, S. (1987). A developmental study of praise and blame on attributional cues. Journal of Educational Psychology, 12(1), 62-66. Barkley, R. A. (1981). Hyperactive children: A handbook for diag- nosis amdatreatment. New York: New Guilford Press. 161 162 Barkley, R. A. (1982). Guidelines for defining hyperactivity in children: Attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity. In B. B. Lahey & A. E. Kazdin (Eds.), Advances in clinical child psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 137-180). New York: Plenum Press. Battle, E. S. (1965). Motivational determinants of academic competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 209-213. Battle, E. S., & Lacey, B. A. (1972). Context for hyperactivity in children, over time. Child Develooment, 43, 757-773. Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. ‘ Developmental Psychology Monograph, 4 (pt. 2). Bax, M. (1972). The active and overactive school child. Develop- mental Medicine and Child Neurology, 14, 83-86. Becker, J. N. (1971). Achievement motivation: An analysis of the literature. M. Chapman & R. Hill (Eds.). Research for Better Schools. Bennett, F. C., & Sherman, R. (l983). Management of childhood "hyperactivity" by primary care physicians. Journalnof Devel- opmental and Behayioral Pediatrics, 4, 88-93. Bettelheim, G. (1973). Bringing up children. Ladies Home Journal, 29, 28. Boxerman, D., & Spilken, A. (1975). Alpha brain waves. Millbrae, CA: Celestial Arts. Bradley, C. (1957). Characteristics and management of children with behavior problems associated with brain damage. Pediatric Clinics of North America, A, 1049-1060. Broadbent, D. E. (1953). Classical conditioning and human watch- keeping. Psychological Review, QQ, 331-339. Broadbent, D. E. (1977). The hidden preattentive process. Ameri- can Psychologist, 32, 109-118. Broadbent, D. (l987). Structures and strategies: Where are we now? Psychological Research, 49(2/3), 73-79. Brophy, J., & Nillis, S. (1981). flmman development and behavior. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Butler, H. J., & Lapierre, Y. D. (1974). The effect of methylphe- nidate on sensory perception and integration in hyperactive children. International Pharmacopsychiatry, 9, 235-244. 163 Cantwell, D. P. (1972). Psychiatric illness in the families of hyperactive children. Archives of General Psychiatry, 21, 414- 417. Cantwell, D. P. (1975). The hyperactive child’s diagnosis and management: Current research. New York: Spectrum Publica- tions. Caudill, N. A. (1972). Tiny dramas: Vocal communication between mother and infant in Japanese and American families. In N. P. Lebra (Ed.), Mental Health Research (Vol. 2). Honolulu: East- Nest Center Press. Cohen,‘M., DuRant, R. H., & Cook, Carmen. (1988, April). The Conner’s Teacher Rating Scale: Effects of age, sex, and race with special education children. Psychology in the Schools, 2;. Condry, J. (1977). Enemies of exploration: Self-initiated versus other-initiated learning. Personality and Social Psychology, 35(7), 459-477. Connors, C. K. (1970). Symptom patterns in hyperkinetic, neurotic ' and normal children. Child Development, 51, 476-483. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1975. David, 0., Clark, J., & Voeller, K. (1972). Lead and hyperactiv- ity. Lancet, 2, 900-903. Davies, D. R., & Parasuraman, R. (1982). The psychology of vigi— lance. New York: Academic Press. DeCharms, R. (1976). Enhancing motivation: Change in the class- room. New York: Irvington Publishers. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1971). The General Causality Orienta- tions Scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of Resaarch in Personality, 19, 109-134. DeLoache, J. S. (1976). Rate of habituation and visual memory in infants. Child Development, 41, 145-154. Denson, R., Nanson, J. L., & Mcwatters, M. A. (1975). Hyperkinesis and maternal smoking. Canadian Psychiatric Association Jour- nal, 29, 183-187. 164 Doyle, A. A. (1973). Listening to distraction: A developmental study of selective attention. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 15, 100-115. Dubey, D. R., O’Leary, S. G., & Kaufman, K. F. (1983). Training of parents of hyperactive children in child management: A comparative outcome study. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 11, 229-246. Dykman, R. A., Ackerman, P. T., & Holcomb, P. J. (1984, August 24- 28). Reading disabled and ADO children: Similarities and differences. Paper presented at the 92nd annual conference of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada. Ebaugh, F. G. (1923). Neuropsychiatric sequelae of acute epidemic encephalitis in children. American Journal of Diseases of Children, 25, 89-97. Fantz, R. L. (1964). Visual experience in infants: Decreased attention to familiar patterns relative to novel ones. Science, 146, 668-670. Farham-Diggory, N., & Ramsey, B. (1971). Play persistence: Some effects of interruptions, social reinforcement, and defective toys. Developmental Psychology, 5(2), 297-298. Feingold, B. F. (1975). Hyperkinesis and learning disabilities linked to artificial food flavors and colors. American Journal of Nursing, 15, 797-803. Firestone, P., & Peters, S. (1983, December). Minor physical anomalies and behavior in children: A review. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 13, 411-425. FitzGerald, P., Tattersall, A., & Broadbent, D. (1988). Separating central mechanism by POC’s evidence for an output buffer. Quarterly Journalnof Exnerimental Psychology, 59, 109-134. Friedman, R. J., & Doyal, G. T. (1982). The hyperactive child. Danville, IL: Interstate Printers & Publishers. Frey, A. H. (1965). Behavioral biophysics. Psychological Bulletin, Q3, 322-357. Gadow, H., & Sprague, R. L. (1980, September). An anterosoective follow-up study of hyperactive children intoaadolescence: Licit'and illicit drug use. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Montreal. Gelfand, C. C. (1973). The effects of an altered interpersonal environment on minimally brain-damaged children. Dissertation Abstracts International, 348, 1270-1275. 165 Gibson, E. H., & Rader, N. (1979). The perceiver as performer. In G. A. Hale & M. Lewis (Eds.), Attantion and cognitive develop- ment. New York: Plenum. Gracinin, C. T., & Cook, J. E. (1977). Alpha biofeedback and L.D. children. Academic Therapy, 12(3), 275-279. Greer, J. G., & Wethered, C. E. (1984, April). Learned helplessness: A piece of the burnout puzzle. Exceptional Children, 59(6). Hagen, J. N., & Hale, G. A. (1973). The development of attention in children. In A. D. Peck (Ed.), Minnesota symposia on child psychology (Vol. 7). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Hale, G. A., & Green, R. Z. (1976). Children’s attention to stimulus components with variation in relative salience of components and degree of stimulus integration. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 21, 446-459. Hallahan, D. P., Gajar, A., Cohen, S., & Tarver, S. (1978, April). Selective attention and locus of control in learning disabled and normal children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 11(4), 47-54. Hallahan, D. P., Kauffman, J. M., & Ball, D. S. (1973). Selective attention and cognitive tempo of low achieving and high achiev— ing sixth grade males. Perceptual Motor Skills, 36, 579-583. Hartsough, C. S., & Lamber, N. M. (1987). Patterns and progression of drug use among hyperactives and controls: A prospective short-term longitudinal study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 28(4), 543-553. Harter, S., & Pike, R. (1981). The pictorial scale of perceived competence and social acceptance for young children. Child Development, 55, 1969-1982. Hartley, E. R. (1974). Radiation that’s good for you. Science Digest, 16, 39-45. Head, H. (1923). The conception of nervous and mental Energy: 11. Vigilance: A physiological state of the nervous system. British Journal of Psychology, 11. Hebb, D. O. (1955). Drives and the D.N.S. (conceptual nervous system). Psychological Review, 62, 243-254. 166 Henry, R. C. (1979). Predicting television viewing behavior in elementary school children: A test of self-efficacy theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University. Hiroto, D. S. (1974). Locus of control and learned helplessness. Journal of EXperimental Psychology, 102, 187-193. Hirst, H. (1986). Attend to this. Contemporary Psychology, 31(2), 116-118. Huessy, H. R., & Cohen, A. H. (1976). Hyperkinetic behaviors and learning disabilities followed over seven years. Pediatrics, 51, 4-10. Irwin, D. M., & Bushnell, M. M. (1980). Observational strategies for child study. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Ninston. James, N. (1899). The principles of psychology. New York: Henry Holt. Jencks, C. (1973). Inequality--A reassessment of the effect of family and schooling in America. New York: Harper & Row. Jerison, H. J. (1970). Vigilance: A paradigm and some physiologi- cal speculations. In A. T. Sanders (Ed.), Attentionnand per- formance III (pp. 367-380). Jones, K. L., Smith, D. N., Streissguth, A. P., & Myrianthopoulos, N. C. (1974). Outcome in offspring of chronic alcoholic women. Lancet, 1, 1976-1978. Keele, S. N. (1978). Attention in human performance. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear. Kinchia, R. A. (1980). The measurement of attention. In R. S. Nickerson (Ed.), Attention and human perfonmance VIII (pp. 213- 238). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Kinsbourne, M., & Caplan, P. (1979). Children’s learning and attention problems. Boston: Little, Brown. Kinsbourne, M., & Swanson, P. (1985). Developmental aspects of selective orientation. In G. Hale & M. Lewis (Eds.), Attention and cognitive development (pp. 119-134). New York: Plenum. Klein, R. (1980). Does oculomotor readiness mediate cognitive control of visual attention? In R. S. Nickerson (Ed.), Atten- tionvand hgman performance VIII (pp. 259-276). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 167 Kramer, J., & Loney, J. (1982). Childhood hyperactivity and sub- stance abuse: A review of literature. In K. D. Gadow & I. Bialer (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (Vol. 1). Greenwich, CN: J. A. 1. Press. Kupietz, S., & Richardson, E. (1978). Children’s vigilance, performance and inattentiveness in the classroom. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 16, 145-154. Lanham, B. B. (1966). The psychological orientation of the mother- child relationship in Japan. Monumenta Nipponica, 21, 322-333. Lefcourt, H. M. (1966). Internal versus external control of reinforcement: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 66, 206-220. Lefcourt, H. M. (1976). Locus of control: Current trends in theory and research. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Leicht, D. J., O’Donnell, J. P., Phillips, F. L., & Marnett, J. P. (1984, May 3-5). Prediction of childhood behavior problems over a four-year period. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Psychological Association, Chicago, IL. Lepper, M. (1983). Extrinsic reward and intrinsic motivation: Implications for the classroom. In J. M. Levine & M. C. Wang (Eds.), Teachernand student perceptions: pImplications for learning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Lewis, M., & Baldini, D. (1979). A review of models of attention and memory. In G. A. Hale & M. Lewis (Eds.), Attention and cognitive development. New York: Plenum. Levy, F. (1980). The development of sustained attention (vigi- lance) and inhibition in children: Some normative data. Jour- nal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 21, 77-84. Maehr, M. (1976, Fall). Continuing motivation: An analysis of a seldom considered educational outcome. Review of Educational Research, 66(3), 443-462. Maehr, M., & Stallings, H. M. (1972). Freedom from external evaluation. Child Development, 16, 177-185. McNamara, J. J. (1972). Hyperactivity in the apartment bound child. Clinical Pediatrics, 11, 371-372. Milich, R., & Pelham, N. (1986). Effects of sugar ingestion on the classroom and playgroup behavior of attention deficit disordered boys. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 6, :714-718. 168 Minde, K., Lewin, 0., Weiss, G., Lavigueur, H., Douglas, V., & Sykes, E. (1971). The hyperactive child in the elementary school: A five-year controlled follow-up study. Exceptional Child, 66, 215-219. Mischel, W., & Moore, 8. (1973). Effects of attention symbolically presented rewards on self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 172-179. Mischel, W., & Zeiss, A. (1974). Internal-external control and persistence: Validation and implications of the Stanford Preschool Internal-External Scale. Journal of Personality ang Social Psychology, 66, 265-278. Morrison, J. R., & Stewart, M. (1971). A family study of the hyperactive child syndrome. Biological Psychiatry, 6, 187-195. Morsbach, H. (1978, December 20). Socio-psychological aspects of persistence in Japan. The Japan Times, p. 7. Moyer, K. E. (1975). Allergy and aggression: The physiology of violence. Psychology Today, 6, 76-79. Mulholland, T. (1971). Can you really turn on with alpha? Paper presented at the meeting of the Massachusetts Psychological Association, Boston, MA. Nall, A. (1978, Fall). Alpha training and the hyperkinetic child-- Is it effective? Academic Therapy, 6(1), 5-20. Navon, D., Sukenik, M., & Norman, J. (1987). Is attention alloca- tion sensitive to word informativeness? Psychological ‘ Research, 16, 131-137. Neddleman, H. L., Gunnoe, C., Leviton, A., Reed, R., Peresie, H., Maher, C., & Barret, B. S. (1979). Deficits in psychological and classroom performance of children with elevated dentine lead levels. New England Journal of Medicine, 300(13), 689-695. Nelson-Le Gall, S., & Scott-Jones, D. (1983, April ll-14). Teach- ers’vand young children’s perception of task persistence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educa- tional Research Association, Montreal, Canada. Niesser, U. (1981). The concept of intelligence. Intelligence, 6, 217-227. Norman, D. A., & Babrow, D. G. (1976). On the role of active memory processes to perception-and cognition. In C. N. Cafer (Ed.), The structure of human memory. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman. 169 Nunnally, J. C., & Lemond, L. C. (1973). Explanatory behavior and human development. In H. W. Reise (Ed.), Adyances in Child Development and Behavior (Vol. 8, pp. 60-109). New York: Academic. O’Leary, D. K. (1984). Mommy, I can’t sit still: Coping with hyperactive andnaggressive children. New York: New Horizon Press. O’Leary, D. K., Rosenbaum, A., & Hughes, P. C. (1978). Fluorescent lighting: A purported source of hyperactive behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 6, 285-289. O’Malley, J., & Eisenberg, L. (1973). The hyperkinetic syndrome. Seminars in Psychiatry, 6, 95-103. Palfrey, J. S., Levine, M., Oberklaid, F., Lerner, M., & Aufsuser, C. (1981). Journal of Pediatrics, 66(6), 1006-1011. Palkes, H., & Stewart, M. (1975). Intellectual ability and per- formance of hyperactive children. American Journal of Ortho- psychiatry, 1;, 35-39. Paternite, C. E., Loney, J., & Longhorne, J. E., Jr. (1976). Relationships between symptomatology and SES-related factors in hyperkinetic MBD boys. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, A6, 291-301. Pernell, E., Jr. (1984, Summer). The influence of race and social behavior on teachers: Recommendations for special services. Michigan Association of Teachers of Emotionally Disturbed Children Information Bulletin, 6(1). Pillsbury, W. B. (1973). Attention. New York: Arno. Piontrowski, D., & Calfee, R. (1979). Attention in the classroom. In G. Hale & M. Lewis (Eds.), Attentionnand cognitive develop- ment (pp. 297-329). New York: Plenum. Porges, S., & Ward, K. S. (1980). Defining hyperactivity: Psycho- physiological and behavioral Strategies. In C. B. Whalen & B. Henker (Eds.), Hyperactive children: The social eco1pgy of identification and treatment (pp. 75-104). New York: Academic. Porter, 8. M. (1954, March). Measurement of parental acceptance of children. Journal of Home Economics, pp. 176-182. 170 Quay, H. C., & Peterson, D. R. (1967). Manual for the Behavior ProblemnChecklist. Champaign: Children’s Research Center, University of Illinois. Rholes, W. S., Backwell, C. J., & Walters, C. (1980). A develop- mental study of learned helplessness. Developmental Psychol- pgy, 16(6), 616-624. Richardson, G. A., & McCluskey, R. A. (1983). Subject loss in infancy research: How biasing is it? Infant Behavior and Development, 6, 235-239. Robin, 8., & Bosco, J. (1981). Barent, teacher, and physician in the life of the hyperactive child. Springfield, IL: Charles E. Thomas. Rosenthal, R. H., & Allen, T. W. (1980). Intratask distractibility in hyperkinetic and nonhyperkinetic children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 6, 175-187. Ross, A. C. (1976). Psychological aspects of learning disabilities and reading disorders. New York: McGraw-Hill. Ross, D., & Ross, S. (1976). Hyperactivity: Research, theory, and action. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Rotter, J. B., Seeman, M., & Liverant, S. (1962). Internal versus external control of reinforcements: A major variable in behavior theory. In N. F. Washburn (Ed.), Decisions, values and groups (Vol. 2). London: Pergamon. Rutschmann, D., Cornblatt, B., & Erichmeyer-Kimling, J. (1977, May). Disturbed attention in children at risk for schizophre- nia. Archives of GeneralcPsychjatry, 66. Satterfield, J. H., Cantwell, D. P., Lesser, L., & Podosin, R. L. (1972, May). Physiological studies of hyperkinetic children. American Journal of Psychiatry, 166, 11. Satterfield, J. H., Cantwell, D. P., Saul, R. E., Lesser, L. I., & Podosin, R. L. (1973). Response to stimulant drug treatment in hyperactive children: Prediction from EEG and neurological findings. Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia, 6(1), 36-48. Sattler, J. M. (1982). Assessment of children’s intelligence and special abilities. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. 171 Schrag, P., & Divoky, D. (1975). The myth of the hyperactive child. New York: Dell. Seligman, M. E., Kaslow, N. J., Allay, L. 8., Peterson, C., Tanen— baum, R. L., & Abramson, L. Y. (1984). Attributional style and depressive symptoms among children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 66, 235-238. Shigaki, I. S. (1983, May). Child care practices in Japan and the United States: How do they reflect cultural values in young children? Young Children, 66(4), 13-24. Sleator, E. K., & Von Neumann, A. (1974). Methylphenidate in the treatment of hyperkinetic children. Clinical Pediatrics, 16, l9-24. Sprague,R. L., & Toppe, L. K. (1966). Relationship between activity level and delay of reinforcement in the retarded. Journal of Exoerimental Child Psychology, 6, 390-397. Stearn, J. (1976). The power of alpha-thinking--Miracle of the mind. New York: William Morrow. Still, G. F. (1902). The Coulstonian lectures on some abnormal physical conditions in children. Lancet, 1, 1008-1012, 1077- 1082, 1163-1168. Strauss, A. A., & Kephart, N. C. (1955). Psychopathology and education of the brain injured child: Vol. II. Progress in theory and clinic. New York: Grune & Stratton. Sullivan, E. A. (1975). The future: Human ecology and education. Homewood, IL: ETC Publications. Titchener, E. B. (1908). Lectures on the elementary psychology of feelings and attention. New York: Macmillan. Trabasso, T. H., & Bower, G. A. (1968). Attention in learning: Theorycand research. New York: Wiley. Vurpillot, E., & Ball, W. A. (1979). The concept of identity and children’s selective attention. In G. A. Hale & M. Lewis (Eds.), Attention and cognitive development (pp. 23-42). New York: Plenum Press. Wachs, T. D., & Smitherman, C. H. (1985, August). Infant tempera- ment and subject loss in a habituation procedure. Child Devel- M’ £9 861'8670 172 Wachs, T. D., Uzgiris, I. C., & McVickers-Hunt, J. (1971). Cognitive development in infants of different age levels and from different environmental backgrounds: An exploratory investigation. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 11, 283-317. Wallander, J. L. (1988, January). The relationship between attention problems in childhood and antisocial behavior eight years later. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 66(1), 53-61. Walker, H. M. (1985). laacher behavior stangardspand expectations as determinants of classroom ecology. teacher behavior, ang child outcome. Eugene: University of Oregon, Center for Edu- cational Policy and Management. Warm, J. S. (1984). An introduction to vigilance. In J. S. Warm (Ed.), Sustained attention in human performance. Chichester: Wiley. Weiner, A. S., & Bergonsky, M. D. (1975). Development of selective attention in reflective and impulsive children. Child Development, A6, 545-551. Weiner, B. (1984). Principles for a theory of student motivation and their application within an attributional framework. In R. E. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research in motivation in education (Vol. 1, pp. 15-38). Weiner, B., & Kukla, A. (1970). An attributional analysis of achievement motivation. Journal of Personalityaand Social Psychology, 16, 1-120. Weithorn, C. J. (1970). The relationship between hyperactivity and impulsive responsiveness in elementary school children. Dissertation Abstracts International, 308, 3899. Wender, P. H. (1971). Minimal brain dysfunction in children. New York: Wiley Interscience. Wender, P. H., Reimherr, F. W., & Woods, D. (1981, April). Attention deficit disorder in adults. Archives of General Psychiatry, 66. Whalen, C. K., & Henker, B. (Eds.). (1981). Hyperactive children: The social ecology of identification and treatment. New York: Academic. ' Wohlwill, J. F., & Heft, H. (1977). Environment’s fit for the developing child. In H. McGurk (Ed.), Ecological factors in human develonment. Amsterdam: North Holland. 173 Zentall, S. E. (1975). Optimal stimulation as theoretical basis of hyperactivity. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, A6, 549- 583. Zentall, S. E. (1977). Environmental stimulation model. Except- ional Children, A6, 502-510. Zentall, S. E., & Zentall, T. R. (1976). Activity and task per— formance of hyperactive children as a function of environmental stimulation. Journal of Consulting_and Clinica1cPsychology, AA, 693-697. Zentall, S. E., Zentall, T. R., & Barack, R. C. (1978, November). Distraction as a function of within-task stimulation for hyperactive and normal children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 6(9), 13-21. QN STRTE UN V. "111 LIBRARIES I 1 l H H ”1111111111111 6617 I 293005l0