SELECTED CHARACTERTSTECS 0F _ THE CHILD’S SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT AND THE RELATLDHSHLP OF THESE DHARADTEEHSTLDS To SUBSEQUENT MEASDHES LH HEAD START CLASSES Thesis for the fiegree Df PiL D. ' MTCHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY , ‘ JAMES P. WEBER 1968 mm \“TyTiMMQNNQMM MLithng: 51:; University This is to certify that the thesis entitled SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CHILD 'S SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT AND THE RELATIONSHIP OF THESE CHARACTERISTICS TO SUBSEQUENT MEASURES IN HEAD START CLASSES presented by JAMES PATRICK WEBER has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for _£ZL._D__ degree in. Education Date 0-169 ( SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CHILD'S SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT AND THE RELATIONSHIP OF THESE CHARACTERISTICS TO SUBSEQUENT MEASURES IN HEAD START CLASSES By James P. Weber AN ABSTRACT OF A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Counseling, Personnel Services and Educational Psychology 1968 /r"; C 1’ ABSTRACT SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CHILD'S SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT AND THE RELATIONSHIP OF THESE CHARACTERISTICS TO SUBSEQUENT MEASURES IN HEAD START CLASSES by James P. Weber This study sought to examine the relationships between the social environment of the child as it existed during the four years previous to entrance into Head Start and the measures taken on the child's behavior shortly after entrance into Head Start classes. In order to examine these relationships, the objectives of the study were: first, to conceptualize the social-system of the child so as to include all persons who regularly interacted with the child during each of the four years. The basis of this conceptualization was 'open-systems' theory; secondly, to operationalize the concept selected from the theory for the study, namely "hierarchical order." Thirdly, the study attempted to develop an interview schedule by which information concerning the variables which were operationali- zations of 'hierarchical order' could be elicited from the mother; fourthly, the interview was administered. Finally, an analysis was made of the relationship of the variables from the interview and the classroom measures and observations of behavior. The social-system interview identifies all members of the child's social system and asks about these individuals for each of the child's four years previous to Head Start James P. Weber entrance. Variables investigated were: total numbers of persons comprising the social system, numbers of persons entering and leaving the social system, numbers of persons caring for the child, disagreement between caretakers, numbers of persons directing the child, assertiveness of the child with members of the social system, numbers of individuals older than the child who played with or cared for the child at play, and the extent of visits outside the home. The classroom measures were: Wechsler Pre-School and Primary Scale of Intelligence, Cincinnati Autonomy Test Battery, the Play-Situation Picture-Board Sociometric, the Brown IDS Self Concept Reference Test, the Parten—Newell DevelOpment of Social Behavior, and the Inventory of Factors Affecting Test Performance. It was hypothesized that these variables from the social system interview would relate favorably to the classroom scores: 'assertion', 'playmates', and 'outside visits'. It was hypothesized that the following variables would relate unfavorably to the measures and observations: 'size of social system', 'instability', 'caretakers', 'disagreement' and 'direction'. It was further hypothesized that the social system inter- view would distinguish between low-income and middle—income mothers. The subjects were 30 low-income children from the Lansing Head Start Experimental Project. In two classes there were James P. Weber equal numbers of middle—income children; total N was 45. The analysis was by means of an F test of difference between means to determine if there were differences between low-income and middle—income social systems of children. Simple and multiple correlations were run to determine the relationship between social-system variables and classroom measures and observations. The results indicated that the social systems of the low— income children were significantly higher than the social systems of the middle-income children on: 'caretakers', 'disagreement', 'direction', and 'playmates'. The social systems were, in general, not significantly different on 'instability', 'assertion' and 'outside visits'. The hypotheses regarding relationship between social system variables and classroom measures were only partially sustained. 'System size', 'caretakers', 'playmates', and 'direction' appear to be negatively related to test scores and desirable behaviors in the classroom. 'Assertion' is related to the same measures in a negative and positive fashion. 'Instability' and 'outside visits' appear as being more favorable to high test scores and desirable behaviors. SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CHILD'S SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT AND THE RELATIONSHIP OF THESE CHARACTERISTICS TO SUBSEQUENT MEASURES IN HEAD START CLASSES \3/ By , .9 X‘ a James P. Weber A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Counseling, Personnel Services and Educational Psychology 1968 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to eXpress his appreciation for the help given by the many individuals without whose support this study would not have been possible. A debt of gratitude is owed to Dr. Louise Sause, Chairman of the Guidance Committee and Project Advisor. By her constant understanding and encouragement, she made possible the overcoming of the many difficulties met with in the course of the study. Thanks are likewise due to the members of the committee, Dr. John McKinney, Dr. Dale Alam, and Dr. Harvey Clarizio, who gave valuable suggestions and encouragement. The study could not have proceeded without the assistance of the Director of the Head Start Evaluation and Research Center at Michigan State University. Dr. Robert Boger, Director, and Dr. Sarah Hervey not only facilitated the research but offered help and suggestions. Thanks are due to the other members of the Center and especially to Mrs. Joan Hamachek who coordinated the testing and observations of the children in the Lansing Head Start Project. The c00peration of the Lansing School Board and of the regional Head Start office was generously given. This CoOperation was due principally to the efforts of Mr. James C. Kernen, Consultant for Continuing Education, Mr. Jack Griffen, Supervisor of Head Start Programs, and to the gracious help Of Mus“ Karyl Katzman, Social Worker and Mr. Swart Evants, Prent Education Coordinator. ii The author recalls with gratitude and affection the indispensable assistance of Martha Weber who not only gave encouragement but helped with the preparation of the manu- script and contributed valuable insights in the course of the study. Finally, and perhaps above all, the author wishes to express his gratitude to the mothers who were interviewed. Each and every mother patiently endured the questions of the interviewer and generously gave of their time and interest. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I I ORIENTATION. O O O O O I I O O C O O O O O I O O 1 Purpose. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Assumptions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Limitations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 smary. O O O O O O O O O I O O Q 0 I O O O O 16 II 0 THEORY O O O O O O O O I O O I O O O O O O O I O 17 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Related Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Hypotheses (General) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 III 0 PROCEDURES 0 O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O 34 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Instruments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Social System Interview Instruments Measuring Class Behavior Wechsler Pre-School and Primary Scale of Intelligence The Cincinnati Autonomy Test Battery The Play Situation Picture Board Sociometric Technique Inventory of Factors Affecting Test Performance Brown IDS Self Concept Referents Test Parten Newell: Development of Social Behavior Design and Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Hypotheses (Specific) Hypothesis I Hypothesis II Hypothesis III Hypothesis IV Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 IV. RESULTSANDANALYSIS.............. 57 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 iv Chapter Social System Interview. Introduction Results Discussion Hypothesis I . Introduction Results Discussion Hypothesis II. Introduction Results Discussion Hypothesis III Introduction WPPSI Results Discussion CATB Results Discussion Hypothesis IV. Introduction WPPSI (As dependent variable) Remarks Results Discussion CATB (As dependent variable) Remarks Results Discussion Sociometric (As dependent variable) Remarks Results Discussion Hypothesis V . Introduction WPPSI (As dependent variable) Remarks Results Discussion CATB (As dependent variable) Remarks Results Discussion Sociometric (As dependent variable) Remarks Results Discussion Additional Tests and Observations. Development of Social Behavior . Introduction Results from First Set of Independent Variables Page 57 66 72 76 83 101 114 117 Chapter Page Discussion Results from Second Set of Independent Variables Inventory of Factors Affecting Test Performance 120 Introduction Results Discussion Sociometric. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 Brown IDS Self Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 v. DISCUSSION 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 127 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 The Teacher and the So ial System Interview. . . 130 Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 The Teacher as Interviewer . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 Further Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O C O O C O O O O O O O 151 vi LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Range, Means, and Standard Deviations of Variables from Low-Income Mothers' Responses on Social—System Interview. N=3O . . . . . . . . . 6O 2 Intercorrelations of Variables from Low-Income Mothers' Responses on Social-System Interview. N=30 9 O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 62 3 Means of Variables from Low-Income and Middle- Income Mothers' Responses on Social—System Interview. F Test of Significance Between Means of Two Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 4 Simple Correlations Between System-Size, Instability, Caretakers, Disagreement, and Direction and WPPSI Scores. N=27 . . . . . . . 74 5 Simple Correlations Between System-Size, Instability, Caretakers, Disagreement, and Direction and CATB Scores. N=27 . . . . . . . . 77 6 Simple Correlations Between Assertion, Playmates, and Outside Visits and WPPSI Scores. N=27 . . . 80 7 Simple Correlations Between Assertion, Playmates, and Outside Visits and CATB Scores. N=26 . . . 82 8 Multiple Correlations. Independent Variables are System-Size, Instability, Caretakers, Disagreement, and Direction from Low-Income Mothers' ReSponses about Child's First Year. Dependent Variables are WPPSI Scores. N=27 . . . 85 9 Multiple Correlations. Independent Variables are System-Size, Instability, Caretakers, Disagreement, and Direction from Low-Income Mothers' Responses about Child's Second Year. Dependent Variables are WPPSI Scores. N=27 . . . 86 10 Multiple Correlations. Independent Variables are System-Size, Instability, Caretakers, Disagreement and Direction from Low-Income Mothers' ReSponses about Child's Third Year. Dependent Variables are WPPSI Scores. N=27 . . . 87 11 Multiple Correlations. Independent Variables are System-Size, Instability, Caretakers, Disagreement and Direction from Low-Income Mothers' ReSponses about Child's Fourth Year. Dependent Variables are WPPSI Scores. N=27 . . . 88 vii Table 12 13 14 15 16 17 l8 19 20 Multiple Correlations. Independent Variables are Instability, Caretakers, Disagreement and Direction from Low—Income Mothers' Responses about Child's Total Four Years. Dependent Variables are WPPSI Scores. N=27 . . . . . . . Multiple Correlations. Independent Variables are System—Size, Instability, Caretakers, Disagreement and Direction from Low—Income Mothers' Responses about Child's First Year. Dependent Variables are CATB Scores. N=26 . . . Multiple Correlations. Independent Variables are System-Size, Instability, Caretakers, Disagreement, and Direction from Low-Income Mothers' Responses about Child's Second Year. Dependent Variables are CATB Scores. N=26 . . . Multiple Correlations. Independent Variables are System-Size, Instability, Caretakers, Disagreement and Direction from Low-Income Mothers' Responses about Child's Third Year. Dependent Variables are CATB Scores. N=26 . . . Multiple Correlations. Independent Variables are System-Size, Instability, Caretakers, Disagreement and Direction from Low-Income Mothers' Responses about Child's Fourth Year. Dependent Variables are CATB Scores. N=26 . . . Multiple Correlations. Independent Variables are Instability, Caretakers, Disagreement and Direction from Low-Income Mothers' Responses about Child's Four Years Totaled. Dependent Variables are CATB Scores. N=26 . . . . . . . . Multiple Correlations. Independent Variables are System-Size, Instability, Caretakers, Disagreement and Direction from Low-Income Mothers' ReSponses about Each of Child's Four Years and Four Years Totaled. Dependent Variables are Sociometric and Brown Self Concept. N=30 o o o 0 o o o o o o O o o o o o 0 Multiple Correlations. Independent Variables are Assertion, Playmates and Outside Visits from Low—Income Mothers' Responses about Child's First Year. Dependent Variables are WPPSI Scores. N=27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Multiple Correlations. Independent Variables are Assertion, Playmates and Outside Visits from Low-Income Mothers' Responses about Chidl's viii Page 89 92 93 94 95 96 99 103 Table 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page Second Year. Dependent Variables are WPPSI Scores. N=27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Multiple Correlations. Independent Variables are Assertion, Playmates and Outside Visits from Low-Income Mothers' Responses about Child's Third Year. Dependent Variables are WPPSI Scores. N=27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Multiple Correlations. Independent Variables are Assertion, Playmates and Outside Visits from Low-Income Mothers' Responses about Child's Fourth Year. Dependent Variables are WPPSI Scores. N=27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Multiple Correlations. Independent Variables are Assertion, Playmates and Outside Visits from Low-Income Mothers' Responses about Child's Four Years Totaled. Dependent Variables are WPPSI Scores. N=27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Multiple Correlations. Independents Variables are Assertion, Playmates and Outside Visits from Low-Income Mothers' Responses about Child's First Year. Dependent Variables are CATB Scores. N=27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Multiple Correlations. Independent Variables are Assertion, Playmates and Outside Visits from Low-Income Mothers' Responses about Child's Second Year. Dependent Variables Are CATB Scores. N=26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Multiple Correlations. Independent Variables are Assertion, Playmates and Outside Visits from Low-Income Mothers' Responses about Child's Third Year. Dependent Variables are CATB Scores. N=26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lll Multiple Correlations. Independent Variables are Assertion, Playmates and Outside Visits from Low-Income Mothers' Responses about Child's Fourth Year. Dependent Variables are CATB Scores. N=26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Multiple Correlations. Independent Variables are Assertion, Playmates and Outside Visits from Low-Income Mothers' ReSponses about Child's Four Years Totaled. Dependent Variables are CATB Scores. N=26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 ix Table Page 29 Multiple Correlations. Independent Variables are Assertion, Playmates and Outside Visits from Low-Income Mothers' Responses about Child's- Four Years and Four Years Totaled. Dependent Variables are Scores of Sociometric and Brown SBlf concept. N=30 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 115 30 Multiple Correlations. Independent Variables are System—Size, Instability, Caretakers, Disagreement and Direction. Dependent Variables are Teachers' Ratings on Development of Social Behavior. N=31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 31 Multiple Correlations. Independent Variables are Assertion, Playmates and Outside Visits. Dependent Variables are Teachers' Ratings on Development of Social Behavior. N=31 . . . . . . 121 32 Multiple Correlations. Independent Variables are System-Size, Instability, Caretakers, Disagreement and Direction from Low—Income Mothers' Responses about Child's Four Years and Four Years Totaled. Dependent Variables are Testers' Ratings of Factors Detrimental to Test Performance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 33 Multiple Correlations. Independent Variabbs are Assertion, Playmates and Outside Visits. Dependent Variables are Factors Detrimental to Test Behavior. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 Appendix A LIST OF APPENDICES Office of Economic Opportunity. . . . . . Guidelines for Admittance to Head Start Guidelines for Home Visits by Staff and Teacher Guidelines for Selection of Teachers Social-System Interview . . . . . . . . . Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cincinnati Autonomy Test Battery. . . . . The Play Situation Picture—Board Sociometric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brown IDS Self Concept Reference Test . . Parten—Newell: Development of Social BehaVior O I O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Inventory of Factors Affecting Test Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Page 159 162 173 179 193 198 202 205 I ORIENTATION Purpose The purpose of this study is the investigation of certain aspects of the social environment of children recently enrolled in Head Start classes and the relating of the results of the investigation of the social environ- ment to measures of and observations on these children. By 'investigation' is meant that information about the social environment is sought from the principal caretaker of the child. In this study all information is obtained from the mother. The information sought is obtained by means of a structured interview. This interview has been constructed specifically for the purposes of this study. Information about the social environment is sought for each of the four years preceding the child's entrance into the Head Start program. The focus of this study is not the immediate or even the extended family of the child. For the purposes of this study the social-environment is considered to be the 'social- system' of the child. The 'social-system' of the child is defined as all those who interact with the child and with one another. In some cases the 'social-system,‘ defined above, will coincide with the immediate family. In many cases it will not. It was on the assumption that the social world of children has eXpanded that this study was given the present focus. The decision to extend the scope of this study beyond the immediate family is made in response to suggestions from various sources. Brofenbrenner (1967) has indicated that the social world of the child has eXpanded. Children used to be brought up by their parents. It may seem presumptious to put that statement in the past. Why? Because de facto responsibility for the upbringing has shifted away from the family to other settings.in the society, where the task is not always recognized or accepted. While the family still has the primary moral and legal responsibility for developing character in children, the power or Opportunity to do the job is often lacking in the home, primarily because parents and chil- dren no longer spend enough time together in those situations in which such training is possible. This is not because parents don't want to spend time with their children. It is simply that conditions of life have changed..... western studies of influences on personality deveIOpment in childhood overwhelmingly take the form of research on parent-child relations, relations with the peer group, or other extraparental influences, scarcely being considered. (pps. 60-61) Plante (1950) has also suggested that there are others in the social environment who might well be influential in the formation of the child. There are few more exciting trends than those in the number of relatives living in the household...all trends as to the number of persons in the household should be broken down into the relationship of these persons to the child. (pps. 16-17) These authors do not speak specifically of children from low-income families. They merely indicate that an expanded social-environment will be influential in the child's deveIOpment. The Social Security Bulletin (1965) indicates that the expanded social-system might well be even more characteristic of low-income children. Of all the persons in family units with income below the economy level (that is, disregarding for the moment persons living alone), half were children under the age 18. These 15 million youngsters represented more than 1 in 5 of all children living in families. Because poor families find it nec- essary to "double up“ in order to cut down their living expenses, about 9 percent of the children in the poor families were designated as "related" rather than "own" children. In other words, they were not the children of the head of the family but the children of other relatives making their home with the family. Among the poor families with a woman at the head, one seventh of the children were "related” rather than "own," and nearly a third of these related children were part of a sub- family consisting of a mother and children. Among poor families with a male head, 6 percent of the children in the households were children of a relative of the head. It can be assumed that the percentage of children who lived at some time during their lives with extended families will be larger than the 9 percent cited above. Also, these figures do not indicate the percent of those children who might have lived with families or individuals other than relatives at some time during their lives. Nor do they indicate the numbers of others, such as baby-sitters, who might have assumed the care of the child for more or less extended periods of time. The term 'social-system' is broad enough to include all those who might have been influential in the develOpment of the child. The measures of the child's behavior in the Head Start classes, the criterion measures to be described later, are presumably indicators of behaviors that are of great interest to teachers. They are tests of intelligence, measures of autonomy, and of social adjustment. Definitions In order to better understand the focus of this study the following definitions will be employed. 1) The child's social-system: This has already been defined as 'all those who interact among themselves and with the child.‘ More precise definitions will be given in a discussion of the interview. As will be seen, this definition will be limited to all those older than the child because of the nature of the variables investigated. 2) 'Caretakers:' As will be indicated further on in the study only certain aspects of the child's social-system are investigated. 'Caretakers' is one variable. It can be defined as the number of individuals older than the child who were in a position to interact with, control, and direct the child, and who actually did so. The variable of 'caretakers' is investigated for each of the four years of the child's life before entrance into Head Start. The same is true of the other variables. 3) 'Direction:' Those who gave direction are identified as those who, whether they physically took care of the child or not, gave directions for the care of the child in his presence. Thus it is possible for this number to coincide with the numbers of caretakers. However, it is suspected that this will not be the case. 4) 'Disagreement:' It is implied above that there might be disagreement between those who direct or care for the child. The variable of 'disagreement' indicates those who in the presence of the child disagreed about the manner of his caretaking. 5) 'Assertionz' This indicates the extent to which the child attempted to control those older than himself in the social-system. 6) 'Instability:' This refers to the number of individuals older than the child who either leave or enter the social-system.of the child during a given time period. This is not the definition of instability as used in the Social Security Bulletin cited above, nor is it commonly employed in this fashion. For the purposes of this study the word 'instability' is used as defined. Other variables, to be indicated later, are inves- tigated. However those defined above, form the main focus of the investigation. As was mentioned these variables are investigated for each of the four years preceding the child's entrance into Head Start. Assumptions There are_general assumptions underlying all approaches to the investigations of early childhood and this study has, in addition, certain assumptions specific to it's orientation. It is assumed by investigators of early childhood such as Spitz (1965), Buhler (1930), Bayley (1930), and Bloom (1964), among a host of others, that early environ- ment is crucial for the developing child. While this appears a safe assumption, it has not always been possible to designate clearly the relationships between early experience of the child and his later behaviors. Clausen (1966) indicates why this might be so. There are innumerable variables that can be identified as influencing the developing child. These numerous influences and their interactions make it difficult to identify specific relationships. An assumption, specific to this study, is that it is possible to identify patterns in the social environment of the child and relate these patterns to the child's behavior. This assumption would appear to be based on some kind of unity in the social-system of the child. Clausen (1966) speaks of such a search for unity in studies of the family. It is almost as difficult to conceptualize the family as a whole as it is to study the whole family. As Handel (1956) notes in a review of psychological studies of whole families, each tends to evolve its own unique culture, its norms, values, and role definitions. Attempts to evolve a typology of family themes or ofglobal orientations of families have in general not yielded viable concep— tualizations. A generation ago, the task of defining an effective family probably seemed a bit more simpler than it does at present. As we have become more aware of the ways in which family structure and cultural contents influence family dynamics, it is no longer possible to apply a few precepts derived from clinical eXperience with middle class neurotics and their families. Efforts at formulating the desirable or optimal attributes of family (Otto, 1963; Pollack, 1957) may be helpful to students in their thinking about the family, but are unlikely to serve as guides for practitioners except in a very general sense. (p. 24) In Chapter II a return will be made to this discussion of family unity. This study assumes that the child from infancy is embedded in a social world. The assumption is made that the child is not primarily a-social and must be socialized, but that he is primarily social and undergoes a process of individualization. This assumption is supported by such writers as Lewin (1939) and Vygotsky (1962). This approach is also influenced by a phenomenological approach such as that of Heiddeger (1962) who writes of co-existence. Lewin (1939) writes: Recently, however, a growing number of psychologists seem to have abandoned this view (stressing the biological character or the individual). They seem to be persuaded that social facts are equally or even more important for psychology than the so—called "psychological facts." These psychologists recognize that the child from his first day of life is objectively a part of a social setting and would die within a few days if he were to be withdrawn from it. Also the so-called "subjective" psychological world of the individual, his life-space, is influenced in a much earlier stage by social facts and social relations than anyone would have expected a few decades ago. Already, at a few months, the child seems to react to another person's smile and voice in a rather specific way. It is probably safe to say that the child is able to perceive and to distinguish the friendliness and unfriendliness of another person at an earlier age than he is able to distinguish the pattern of physical lines in a countenance which expresses these social attitudes. (p. 527) It is assumed in this study that teachers will be able to utilize the knowledge about a child if it is possible to identify patterns in the social environment and relate these patterns to behavior in the Head Start setting. This assumption has support in the planners of Head Start programs. Holt (1966) identified a number of programs which have been developed upon the assumption that areas of deprivation can be identified and remedies provided. Subsequent years have seen the initiation of programs and projects which aim at remedying the effects of cultural deprivation. One such program is the Lansing Head Start Project from which program the pOpulation for this study was obtained. Need There is a need for a great deal of understanding of children on the part of the Head Start teacher. The guide- lines published by the Office of Economic Opportunity indicate some of the qualifications of the teacher: Qualifications--Idea11y, teachers should have a combination of education and experience, holding a college degree with a major in Early Childhood Education, Nursery or Kindergarten Education. The related areas of Psychology, Home Economics, Sociology, AnthrOpology, and Social Work would enhance a teacher's qualifications. Actual work eXperience could be in nursery school teaching, private or c00perative nursery teaching, day care center teaching, pediatric nursing, social case worker, and other relevant eXperiences with pre-school disadvantaged children and their families. (Head Start, Child Development Programs, 1967, p. 16) Such understanding is greatly facilitated by a know- ledge of the family background and present home environment of the child. Laing and Esterson (1964) have shown that deviant behavior becomes much more comprehensible if related to the functioning of others who make up the social world of the individual. Redl and Wineman (1952) have also related the child's present functioning to very early social influences. Hunt (1965), although he seems to be more con- cerned about present variations in the environment and Specific rather than more gross aspects of the history of the child, still relates behavior to the environment. Thus, the teacher could be aided materially if she were able to conceptualize the social environment of a child, past and present, and relate this information to his present behavior. The teacher will be aware, from observation and research, that there are gross differences between the behavior of low-income and middle-income children. The deficiencies of low-income children in comparison with middle-income children have been well documented. Holt (1966) has reviewed an extensive literature all of which indicates this fact. Bloom and Hess (1966) have amassed numerous studies to this effect. More Specific studies of creativity by Banta (1967) and measurements of mental functioning using Piaget's concepts by Almy (1965) 10 are in agreement that low-income children are behind in almost every aSpect of desirable behavior when compared to middle-income children. Less available, however, are studies which seek to eXplain inter and intra family differences within the low-income group. Merely to be able to say that her children are less advanced than middle-income children is of little help to a teacher. Kornberg writes (1965): One thing that I have learned about these children's needs is they cannot be "relativized," or attributed to a specific lower-class culture. The idea of some educators that anthrOpologists are required in each school to inform teachers of lower-class eXperience and behavior, has only a limited value for me. For the individual child's needs revolve around specific families and people rather than this aggregate pattern of lower-class culture. I am not denying the insights that come by knowing about the larger social world in which the child and his family live. But I think we are in danger of misusing this sociological view, to the neglect of seeing the child's struggle simply to grow up, to c0pe with more than a particular culture or culture conflict. (p. 273) One of the assumptions made when discussing the teacher and her relationships to the children in Head Start is that the teacher will be one of the principal planners of educational eXperiences for the child. The teacher should not only implement programs but assist in their planning. Guidelines of the Study Some attention has been given in the develOpment of the rationale of this study to what can be presumed to be the orientation of the teacher and the practical limits set by 11 her duties. There has been an attempt to integrate philos- Ophy, theory, and practice in such a manner that a teacher could accept the underlying assumptions of the theory and practically execute her own investigations. Dinkmeyer (1965) indicates the close relationship between orientation, theory, and practice. It is important to recognize that all the theories thus far discussed (referring to various theories of child development) have had an effect upon decisions made in research, in classrooms, and in parental management. The theories have been accepted in varying degrees by various professions over the years. Some have made their greatest impact on the pediatrician, others upon the parent, and some upon psychiatric and counseling practitioners. They have served, in a sense, as determinants of parental, professional, and teachers actions and reactions. It seems to be quite clear that a person who believes the child to be the product of a series of instinc- tual drives will function differently from one who considers him a goal-directed being. (p. 45) Edna Ambrose and Alice Miel (1958) discuss the importance of the teacher's philoSOphy: Rasey and Menge contend that the most crucial aSpect of the human environment is the "Philosophies" (people) Operate upon, the constellation of values that trigger their action. (p. 24) This study in the development of theory hopes to be consonant with a commitment to 'individualized instruction.‘ Although there are some teachers, the Lansing Head Start Program (1965), who do not seem to accept this orientation, it is felt that the majority do. This is also indicated by the Lansing Head Start Program just referred to. It is also hOped that in practice any teacher could 12 acquire the information sought by the social-system inter- view to be presented later. Thus the results of this study, hOpefully, will allow generalizations which practically a teacher could verify in the case of any individual child by conversations with caretakers of the child. Objectives Three principal objectives of this study can be identified. The first objective is to develop a theory in keeping with the guidelines discussed above. That is, the theory should be developed in keeping with the educational philOSOphy of a teacher and not violate any of her assump- tions about the nature of the child and accepted educational goals for him. It is assumed in this study that such goals as development of full potentiality, creativity, social values, and citizenship as well as specific cognitive skills are important to the teacher. These goals are discussed at length in the ASCD Yearbook, Individualized Instruction, (1964). The theory chosen for elaboration is open-systems theory as developed by Bertalanffy (1960). This theory seems to be in accord with what is known about the functioning of small groups as related by Deutch (1965) and what is empirically known about the functioning of low- income families as summarized by Chilman (1965). The theory also appears to be testable on a level that would be possible for a Head Start teacher who might visit the 13 child's home only three times during the year in which the child is attending the Head Start class. The guidelines for teachers of Head Start are given in Appendix A. The second objective of the study is to Operationalize the theory in such a fashion that it would be practical for a teacher to test the theory herself. It is not eXpected that the teacher will use the interview in precisely the form used in this study. Rather, it is h0ped that concepts that prove to be practical can be a guide for the teacher in her visits to the home of the child. A third objective is the testing of the hypotheses derived from Open-systems theory. It is felt that no theory presently available presented exactly the correct assumptions or testability offered by Open-systems theory. As will be seen in the section on related research the concepts are not new. What appears novel is their arrangement in a coherent conceptual scheme. Limitations of the Present Study The present study suffers from certain limitations. These limitations stem from the use of Open-systems theory, the Operationalizing of the concepts, and the methods used to test the hypotheses. Another serious limitation is presented by the nature of the population offered for testing. The theory presents difficulties in that concepts adopted from other theories or related research do not 14 exactly fit into open—systems theory. For example, Open- systems theory would lead to the hypothesis that an auton— omous child or social—system would be both more dependent on the environment and at the same time in a certain sense more independent. The concepts of Bertalanffy's open- systems theory appear to call for a re-definition of terms which have commonly been used in research. Bertalanffy employs such terms as "interaction with the environment," "equifinality," "purpose," etc. A kindred difficulty arose in Operationalizing the concepts from Open-systems theory. As will be seen, this difficulty was not entirely overcome. Thus, the concept of 'play' as embodying the idea of 'spontaneous activity' was not particularly fortunate. Another limitation is the method used in gathering data to test the theory, the interview method of acertaining the early social history of the child. This method depends on the ability of the mother to recall past events. Jersild (1968) cites several studies that question the validity of such interviews based on the mother's recall. However, since this seems to be the only means of gathering the desired information, this method must inevitably be accepted or the study abandoned. It seems obvious that the teacher must herself rely on the recollections of parents. An attempt was made in fashioning the interview to avoid at least some of the elements that contribute to unreliability of recall and invalidity of answers. It will 15 be seen that the interview is constructed to assist recall. Questions which depend on recall of specific incidents are avoided. Questions which would appear to involve Opinion or social desirability are likewise avoided. This imposes some limitation on the quality of interaction. The pOpulation available for testing also implied limitations. The total pOpulation of low-income children was only thirty. This N sometimes fell to as low as 26. EXperience of the Michigan State Research and Evaluation Center teaches that the drop-out rate from Head Start classes can sometimes be much higher. With regard to the pOpulation of mothers to be inter- viewed there was the limitation that a return for a check on reliability of recall was not possible. On the positive side it must be noted that along with the pOpulation of low-income children there was available a group of middle-income children and parents. Although this study seeks knowledge about variations within the low- income group it was felt that a comparison of scores on the social-system interview would give some indication of validity since past research would indicate that the low- income group should score significantly different from the middle-income group. The nature of the pOpulation tested will be further discussed in the chapter on Procedures. No great difficulty in contacting the mothers of the children or in getting their COOperation was anticipated. 16 As a matter Of fact, not one mother of either group failed to COOperate with the interviewer. This was anticipated since an interview of some two hours length was given to a large group of Head Start mothers in Detroit, over two hundred parents, and those who were unable to be interviewed numbered only four. A report of this interview is found in Head Start Research II, 1966-67. Summary In this Chapter the purpose of the study was discussed. A statement of definitions was given in order to clarify the focus of the study. Then, came a statement of assumptions. The need for the study was indicated based on the role of the Head Start teacher. The guidelines which influenced the choice of theory and methods of data gathering were briefly presented. Finally, there was a statement of limitations due to the nature of the theory and methods of testing. The limitations of the sample were also stated. II THEORY Introduction In the preceding chapter, the goals, assumptions, and limitations Of the study were indicated. This study can be described as an attempt to achieve the following objectives, supported by the assumptions previously mentioned, and within the limits imposed by the nature of the sample and the method. The objectives: 1. To conceptualize the social—system of the Head Start child in a unitary fashion. This is an effort to form a framework of logically inter—connected concepts which refer to various aSpects of the child's social-system. 2. To Operationalize selected concepts from the conceptual framework. 3. By means of a parent-interview, to gather data con- cerning the degree to which these selected variables are present in the social-system of the child. 4. To attempt to relate the results of the parent— interview to observed and tested behaviors of the child in the Head Start class. Before proceeding with the elaboration of the concept- ual framework or theory, a review of research bearing on these Objectives will be made. 17 18 Related Research In general there are certain aspects to the study that make it difficult to encounter research that has immediate bearing on the variables investigated, the theory, or the method. This lack of relevant research is probably due in part to the fact that this study does not take the immediate family as the focus of the study. The social- system of the child, defined as all those who interact with the child and with one another, can be, and usually is, broader than the immediate or even the extended family. Data gathered in this study seems to imply that this may be especially true of low-income families. Studies inspired by family-centered concerns usually ignore others than the immediate family. It is reasonable to assume that certain aspects of the immediate or extended family are relevant to this study, but it is also reasonable to assume that the patterns of interaction are different in those social- systems in which there are large numbers of non-relatives interacting. In one family, among many studied by means of the present interview, one child knew as relatives only his mother and later on a younger sister. Yet, by the mother's report, she had numerous acquaintances who acted as "second mother" to the child. Another reason that can be cited for the lack of relevant research is that this study does not seek to investigate the personality characteristics of the parents or their relationship to children's intelligence or 19 achievement in school. The study does not seek directly to investigate the quality of interaction, but must look upon intelligence, nurturance, dominance, and a host of other variables that have been investigated as intervening variables, and assume that, if there are causal relation- ships between such variables and intelligence or creativity or social behavior, these parental characteristics accompany a certain social—system composition. Perhaps the research that comes closest to the approach taken in this study is that which finds relationships between such variables as family size, sibling Order, the father—absent family, and the family with employed mother. Such variables are easily investigated; and it is suspected, although the case, according to Clausen (1963), is not proven, that such variables do have an effect on develOp- ment. Thus in the case of sibling order, he relates that studies have shown that the effects can be attributed to: 1) Parental attitudes and eXperience 2) Amount and intensity of parent-child interaction 3) Availability of child models 4) Displacement by older siblings 5) Effects Of parental age However, it is just these concomitants of a certain Pattern that gives hOpe of predicting child behavior from a knowledge of certain patterns of the child's social System. Aldous (1967) reports that in her sample children 20 from one and two child families were significantly more creative, as were oldest and only children. Another reason why previous research is not wholly relevant to this study is that the populations studied have been composed of two groups for comparison: lower— income and middle-class families. Significant differences in parental eXpectations, intelligence, or other characteristics found between the two groups are commonplace. However, such studies do not eXplain the variation among a restricted group such as the pOpulation that makes up those who are eligible for Head Start. The source for research that devotes itself almost exclusively to this sub-pOpulation is the group of research centers whose sole purpose is research and evaluation of Head Start children and their parents. Summaries of research have been issued: Head Start Research Center, VOlumes I and II (1967-1968). A sizable portion of this research is devoted to parental factors. At the present time, data from 200 parent interviews administered in Detroit are being analyzed; a nation-wide parent interview is also being given. This data is not yet available. However, the information sought in the above mentioned interviews is not directly relevant to the present study. To summarize: in general, parental variables have been personality oriented, restricted to the immediate family, concerned with an older population than Head Start 21 children; or they have been concerned with variations between pOpulations rather than with variations within the sub-pOpulation. It was stated as one of the goals of this study 'to conceptualize the social-system of the child in a unitary fashion.' Although this is not the same as develOping a "family typology" or as "defining an effective family" (Clausen, 1966), still the attempts to define the family as a unity have some bearing on the goals of this study. Clausen represents one side of a controversy: It is almost as difficult to conceptualize the family as a whole as it is to study the whole family. As Handel (1965) notes in a review of psychological studies of whole families, each family tends to evolve its own unique culture-- its norms, values, and role definitions. (p. 41) Satir (1964), on the other hand, writes: Numerous studies have shown that the family behaves as if it were a unit. In 1954 Jackson introduced the term "family homeostasis" to refer to this behavior. a. According to the concept of family homeo- stasis, the family acts so as to achieve a balance in relationships. b. Members help to maintain this balance overtly and covertly. c. The family's repetitious, circular, predictable communication patterns reveal this balance. d. When the family homeostasis is precarious, members exert much effort to maintain it. (p. 130) Virginia Satir represents the clinical approach. Although she along with others in family casework such as ACkerman believe that the family is a unit, their orientation is quite different from the orientation of this 22 study. First, they typically concentrate on the immediate family. Secondly, they use the concept of 'homeostasis' which implies a "closed system." Although this concept seems to facilitate the conceptualization of the family as a unit, it seems to depend on a primary reactivity rather than activity. One of the assumptions of this study is that the child and his social-system is primarily active. Ackerman (1958) develOps such concepts as 'sado-masochistic' to describe a family relationship. However helpful this term is to a caseworker, it should be of little value to a visiting Head Start teacher. Nye and Berardo (1966) present eleven 'Emerging Conceptual Frameworks in Family Analysis.‘ The frameworks enumerated are, in relation to this study, unacceptable as conceptual frameworks for the same reasons that were cited for the inapprOpriateness of the orientations Of Satir and Ackerman. More closely connected with the goals of this study are researches in group dynamics. Deutch (1965) summarizes his research: Effects of COOperation and Competition gn_Group Processes. Elsewhere (Deutch, 1949a), I have drawn out the implications of my discussion of substitut- ibility, cathexis, ad inductibility to characterize in further detail the effects of OOOperation and competition on group processes. Results of eXperimental work (Deutch, 1949b) have provided substantial support of this characterization. These results indicated that groups of individuals who were promotively oriented to one another, as compared with groups 23 of individuals who were contriently oriented to one another, showed: 1) more coordination of efforts; 2) more diversity in amount of contri- butions per member; 3) more subdivision of activity; 4) more achievement pressure; 5) more communication to one another; 6) more attentiveness to fellow members; 7) more mutual comprehension of communication; 8) more common appraisals of communication; 9) greater orientation and orderliness; 10) greater productivity per unit time; 11) better quality of product and discussions; 12) more friendliness during discussions; 13) more favorable evaluation of the group and its products; 14) more behavior directed toward helping the group improve its functioning; 15) greater feeling of being liked by fellow members; and 16) greater feeling of obligation and desire to win the respect of others... (pp. 513-14) This passage is of interest to this study for two reasons. Deutch lists several characteristics which he describes as being related to one another in such a way that where one is found the others can likewise be eXpected in like amounts. Also this list resembles the characteristics Of Open-System theory as prOposed by Bertalanffy (1952), and it is this theory which provided the framework of the concepts of this study. Thus it appears possible to conceptualize a framework of 'system' or group characteristics in such a fashion that they would logically vary with one another. These concepts could be Operationalized in behavioral terms; i.e., what peOple actually do or have done. One could eXpect to find more or less high correlations between characteristic behaviors. If a certain group, or social-system, had high scores and these scores intercorrelated highly then this group or 24 social-system would be characterized as 'high' on unity. Low scores with high intercorrelations between the scores would indicate a social-system 'low' on unity. In Chilman's review of family research on low-income groups (1965), to be reviewed shortly, she sets up a model of family unity conducive to educational achievement. Actually, she frankly sees the middle—income group family as the 'ideal' and describes family characteristics of families with low-conduciveness to education as deviations from her model. This implies value orientations which she frankly admits. It must be admitted that the present study is not free from a certain bias in the same direction as Chilman's. However, this study does not imply that low- income families are of necessity low on conduciveness to educational achievement or high on disunity. Perhaps, these qualities are found more often in low-income families, but, the model prOposed could be used in any class Of society. Chilman (1965) made an extensive review of the research done on low-income families which were low on conduciveness to educational achievement in Child-Rearing and Family Relationshingatterns of the Very Poor. She lists the patterns Of these families in which characteristics have been found which are detrimental to educational achievement. She also lists in contrast those patterns which have been found conducive to the achievement of educational goals. Not all these patterns will be repeated in this study, but, only those which appear to best fit the characteristics of open- 25 systems theory as develOped by Bertalanffy and which seem to be expressed in behavioral terms. Chilman lists patterns which are not conducive to the attainment of educational goals: Limited freedom to eXplore... Constricted experiences... Masculine and Feminine worlds separate... High degree of control...1ittle communication... Repressive and punitive atmosphere... Poor impulse control... Low self esteem... Tendency to withdrawal... Authoritarian methods... Lack of goal commitment... Tendency to be rigid and non-conforming... Abrupt changes in child-rearing practices... Inconsistent discipline... Little verbal communication... Slight awareness of others... Little eXpressed affection... One author who seems to posit a characteristic of low- income families which, if valid, would seem to militate against the coherence of Open-systems theory as applied to this pOpulation is Frank Reisman (1962). He states that there is more, not less, COOperation among low-income families. This view does not seem to be in accord with the 26 research cited above or with the experience of family workers. Theory D. B. Harris (1963) states that concepts from Biology are often useful in organizing many of the ideas and obser- vations of psychology. The theory chosen as a framework for this study is from biology. It is interesting that many of the characteristics of DevelOpmental Psychology, as under- stood by Harris, fit in very well with the 'homology' prOposed by Bertalanffy. The following are some of Harris' comments on development. They will be seen to fit in very well with Open-systems theory. 1. The individual is best conceived of as an Open- system. 2. The concept Of purpose seems to be accepted in develOpmental theory. 3. The principle of irreversability seems to be accepted. 4. A truly develOpmental theory seems to lie somewhere between the extremes of complete freedom and complete determinism. 5. Different epochs of human life are seen as qualitatively different. 6. Developmentalist theories place greater emphasis on the social behavior Of children. It seems to be accepted that no behavior can be understood apart from the circumstances in which it takes place. 27 7. Developmental theory tends to be holistic in nature. 8. Finally, develOpmental theory seems to be more practical in orientation. The choice of Bertalanffy's theory was influenced by the principles as eXplained by Harris above and by the characteristics of low—income families as reviewed by Chilman. Three other authors have suggestions which indicate that patterns develOped in early social-interactions might perdure. Allport (1937) talks of 'functional autonomy.‘ Hunt (1964) talks of 'intrinsic motivation.‘ Sears (1957) writes: Thus, there is great temptation to assume the operation of some intermediary process which, very early in life, enables the child to learn without the parents having to teach, and which creates a self-reinforcing mechanism that com- petes effectively in some instances with external sources of reinforcement. This study leads to the hypothesis that certain behaviors which develOp in a child due to patterns in his social-system will relate to his pre-school behavior despite the influences of subsequent learnings. HOpefully the patterns of the social-system can be identified. These patterns can then be related to present behavior. Bertalanffy in his book Problems of Life, (1960) gives a statement regarding the nature of Open-systems theory: Analysis of individual parts and processes in living things is necessary, and is the prerequisite for all deeper understanding. Taken alone, however, analysis is not enough. (p. 11) 28 We can therefore summarize the leading principles of an organismic conception in the following way: the conception of the system as a whole as Opposed to the analytical and summative points of view; the dynamic conception as Opposed to the static and machine theoretical conceptions; the consideration of the organism as a primary activity as Opposed to the conception of its primary reactiviyy. (pp. 18-19) .....A 'system' can be defined as a complex Of elements standing in interaction. There are ,general principles holding for systems, irrespective of the nature of the component elements and of the relationships or forces between them. From the fact that all the fields mentioned are sciences concerned with systems follows the structural conformity or 'logical homology' of laws in different realms. (p. 199) .....It will be seen then that notions such as wholeness and sum, progressive mechanization, centralization, leading parts, hierarchical order, individuality, finality, equifinality, etc. can be derived from a general definition Of systems: notions that hitherto have Often been conceived in a vague, anthromorphic, or meta- physical way, but actually are consequences of formal characteristics of systems, or of certain systems conditions. (p. 199) Nowhere in his book, Problems of Life, does Bertalanffy set down a complete list of the various attributes which he conceives Of as logically flowing from the general definition. In various places he mentions these characteristics and indicates their mutual dependence. The following is a list Of concepts which have been gathered from various passages in the book. 1. Interaction with the environment: Every living thing maintains itself in a continuous exchange of composing materials and energies. (p. 2) 29 2. Spontaneous activity: Indeed it, (referring to the system) frequently shows movements and other activities without any stimulus from outside,... (p. 166) 3. Purpose: Equally every living being displays in its organs and functions a purposeful construction, adapted to the environment in which it normally exists. (p. 2) 4. Organic regulability. 5. Progressive mechanization: Secondarily, a progressive mechanization takes place, i.e., the originally unitary action segregates into separate actions, governed by fixed structures. (p. 17) 6. Closeness of interaction: The higher we go in the scale of organisms, the more different is the behavior of isolated parts from that which they display in the whole; and the poorer it is in comparison with the performance displayed by the whole organism. (p. 45) 7. Progressive differentiation: Progressive integration goes hand in hand with the specialization, metaphorically Spoken of as 'division Of labor.‘ (p. 45) 8. Individuality: Finally, from the physical standpoint, the individuality even of man can, on occasion, be questionable. (p. 49) 9. Mutual interdependence. 10. Equifinality: Equifinality is a necessary consequence of processes taking place in Open-systems in so far as they attain a steady state. Since there is in such systems a continuous inflow and outflow, building-up and breaking down of the component materials, the steady state finally reached is not dependent on the initial conditions but only on 30 the ratios between inflow and outflow, building-up and breaking down. (p. 143) 11. Hierarchical order: Segregation hierarchy is especially characteris- tic of the biological, and also psychological and sociological realms. (p. 44) Chilman, in the study cited above, suggests that a family scoring high on the list of desirable characteristics she mentions as most conducive to educational attainment would have a high degree of maturity; the family would not need looking after. Bertalanffy's theory would indicate that a system scoring high on the variables he suggests would be mature and well develOped. The characteristic chosen for testing in this study is that Of hierarchical order. In Open-systems theory, the concept of hierarcy does not suggest authoritarianism, rather the Opposite. If repression is necessary, there is some dysfunction in the system. The concept implies a central source of direction. This concept would hint that the social-system of the child, defined in relation to him, Should be investigated for the presence or absence of this element of hierarchical order. The central question posed by the characteristic 'hierarcy' is: "Does the child's social-system, defined in relation to him, have a central source of control?" The concept of 'order' in this connection means a combination of control and direction. In an interaction the question Of who controls whom is Often impossible to answer. It seems 31 Obvious that children at times do control their parents. For the sake of this study, the decision was made to Opera- tionalize the concept of 'hierarchical order' by means of six concepts. 'System-size': This is the total number of individuals making up the child's social system during a given year. 'Instability': This is defined as the numbers of individuals who make up a child's social-system and who leave it or enter it during a given year. As will be seen from the analysis, this was not a very fortunate way to Operationalize 'order.‘ 'Caretakers': This is defined as the number Of individuals who actually control the child, that is, they are in a position by virtue of size and age to impose certain actions on the child and do so. 'Disagreement': This is defined as the numbers Of those who within the child's system differ in regard to caretaking duties. The individuals do not necessarily physically care for the child. This disagreement does not necessarily imply conflict. 'Direction': This is defined as the number of individuals in the child's system who might or might not care physically 32 for the child, but, are in a position to give orders about his caretaking. Thus, an older sibling might be a 'caretaker' but not a 'director.' 'Assertion': This is defined as the numbers of individuals within a system with whom the child interacts for the sake Of obtaining specific goals. An instance Of this would be a child's refusal to eat certain foods. In the course of developing the interview to gather data on these characteristics, it was decided to define further two other variables: 'playmates' and 'outside visits.‘ Although caretakers are present in play and out- side visits, it seemed that these variables were more consonant with other characteristics of Open-systems theory. The concept of 'playmates' appeared to involve Spontaneous activity. The concept of outside visits seemed to involve 'interaction with the environment.' The results of the inter- view have caused a reappraisal of this theorizing, but the interview was given and scored with the extraction of these variables in mind. 'Playmates': This is the number of Older individuals, children, or adults who play with the child. 'Outside visits': This is the numbers of persons who take the child from the home for outside contact. 33 Hypotheses (General) On the basis of related research and theory the following hypotheses are made: I. Scores from the parent interview on system size, caretakers, disagreement, and direction will correlate negatively with scores on intelligence, autonomy, and social adjustment. This hypothesis holds true for each of the four years previous to entrance to Head Start. II. Scores from the parent interview on assertion, playmates and outside visits will correlate positively with scores on intelligence, autonomy, and social adjustment. Summary In this chapter a restatement of Objectives was made. Then the question of related research was discussed. The theory was presented next. The theory chosen as a conceptual framework was derived from Bertalanffy's Open-systems theory. Empirical support for the theory was the review of research on low-income families by Chilman. Finally, the hypotheses tested in this study were formed. III PROCEDURES Introduction In the preceding chapter the rationale, theory, and hypotheses were briefly presented. -The hypotheses derived from the theory and related research are to be tested on children currently enrolled in the Lansing Head Start Pro- ject. In this chapter the sample used in the study is described. The instruments used, the social-system interview and the various tests and Observations, are discussed in this chapter. The methods of gathering data along with the personnel who gathered the data are given. The design Of the study and the tests of significance are discussed. Finally, specific hypotheses are made. Sample As was mentioned the pOpulation Offered for the purposes Of testing the hypotheses was composed of children currently enrolled in the Lansing Head Start Project. This Project was instituted in order to determine whether having mixed classes Of low and middle-income children would influence the scores of low-income children. There were three classes in the project; two eXperimental classes with the equal numbers of low-income and middle-income groups and a control group of low-income children. Since it was not the purpose Of this study to predict gain-scores only pre- test data will be used as criteria in the analysis. The 34 35 assumption is made that in using these pre-test data that there had not been sufficient time for the effects of the mixing to have had an effect on the scores. The class year began in mid-October and the testing and Observations took place Shortly after. The Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence was administered during the first part of November. The Cincinnati Autonomy Test Battery was given during the first part of December. The rating scales of test behavior were filled out at the time the WPPSI and CATB were given. The Brown IDS Self-Concept was given during the first part of February of 1968. The teachers' ratings of unstructured behavior were made during February of 1968. It Should be mentioned that every attempt was made on the part of the teachers to avoid letting the children know, in the mixed or eXperimental groups, who was a child from a low-income or a middle-income family. Observers noted that the teachers were competent and interested in the children. In the classroom it was difficult to distinguish by .appearance which child belonged to the low-income or middle- income groups. Attempts were made to match the children in the control and experimental groups on race, sex and age. No other criterion was used in matching. Children came from all sections Of Lansing. NO neighborhood was over-represented. It is the practice in Lansing for children to be taxied to their classes. It is common for these trips to be several miles in length. 36 Class composition is as follows: Sex Low-Income Control Mixed I Mixed II 8 Boys 8 Boys 8 Boys 6 Girls 7 Girls 8 Girls Racial Composition Low-Income Control Mixed I Mixed II 5 Caucasian 6 Caucasian 6 Caucasian 7 Negro 8 Negro 8 Negro 2 Mexican 1 Mexican 2 Mexican The total N for the low-income groups combined was 30. The total N for all groups was 45. The definition of low-income is found in Appendix A. These are the CEO guidelines for admittance into Head Start classes. These guidelines were followed in the admittance Of low-income children into the Lansing Project. The middle- income children were from families which lived in various parts of Lansing. In conversations with these parents when the interview was given it could be seen that they were grateful for the Opportunity of pre-school education. For the entire sample, ages ranged from forty-five to fifty-seven months. The median age was fifty-two months. The low-income and middle-income groups were successfully Amatched for age. AS was mentioned in discussing the limitations Of the study, this is not a large sample when one considers the 37 various factors that are known to affect the children's behavior. However, it seems to be representative of the racial composition Of low-income families in the Lansing area . Instruments There were several instruments used to test and Observe the children. The scores from these instruments are used as criteria or dependent variables which are predicted from the mothers responses on the social-system interview. First, there is a discussion of the social-system interview and then a Short exposition of the instruments used.as criteria. Social-System Interview In order to test the hypotheses mentioned in chapter II the following information was desired from the mother. The same questions to elicit this information were to be asked for each of the four years preceding the child's entrance into Head Start. 1. The members of the immediate family. 2. Other individuals, relatives or not, who lived in the home during the year in question. They had to reside in the home for at least a month. The focus of the interview was on those individuals older than the child. 3. Relatives or friends who visited the home: this item was limited to those who visited the home at least once a week throughout a given year. They had to be older than the child and had to interact with the child. 38 4. Baby Sitters whether they lived in the home or took the child from the home for care in their own homes. 5. Information on the number and extent of actual caretakers. 6. Information on disagreement between caretakers. 7. Source of direction for the child. By direction is meant the number of individuals who gave orders to the child even though they might not have physically cared for the child. 8. Information concerning the assertiveness of the child. This is defined as the numbers of individuals with whom the child interacted to obtain some Object or goal. These were the Objectives when the develOpment of the interview began. There was the intention to avoid as much as possible questions which might involve the factor of social desirability or Opinion or judgement about the personality of the child. A review of available parent interviews, including those from Head Start Research, did not offer help in the construction Of the interview. As was mentioned the informa- tion sought was different from that usually Obtained by interview. There was the additional problem of finding questions which would be suitable for repetition for each of the four years. The actual develOpment Of the interview proceeded as follows. A tentative set of questions and a rating scale was devised.’ Five families from University Housing were 39 selected who had children from three to five years of age. This group was composed of graduate students in Psychology, Education and Sociology. All had been involved in some fashion with low-income families. They obviously were not representative of the pOpulation of low-income families to be interviewed but it was felt that they could offer valuable insights and suggestions. The interview was administered to the mothers with the fathers present. If the husband could easily agree with the wife, this was some evidence that a question elicited good recall. It became evident that the mode of recall for women was different from that of the men. The mothers tended to be quite concrete in recall while the men tended to rubricize. That is, the fathers tended to answer a question with these or similar words: "He acted just like any normal child would." The mothers could remember names of baby- sitters, connect visits by relatives with other events, etc. This same phenomenon was encountered in the actual administa- tion Of the interview with both low-income and middle-income parents. Thus the interview was given to mothers although the father was encouraged to be present. Successive trials with the interview, plus discussions, were made until in the judgement of the couples the informa- tion sought could be readily recalled. During the first and final administrations another rater sat in on the interview. She rated the responses on a scale that indicated the extent to which individuals from the child's social-system actually 40 interacted with the child. At the first administration, with more global questions, the rater and the interviewer had poor agreement. The reliability coefficient was .50. At the final administration, when the changes mentioned below had been made, the interviewer and the rater were in almost perfect agreement. The changes incorporated into the interview were: 1. The identification of the members of the child's social-system was made for the four years before any questions of interaction were asked. Name, sex, age and relationship to the child was required for each member of the child's social-system. 2. Areas of interaction were specified. The nine areas of interaction were chosen from texts of child develOpment and child care. The group agreed that it was a comprehensive list. 3. The ratings as to the extent of interaction was made on a time basis. It was decided that a judgement of the intensity or quality of interaction was extremely difficult. The final form of the social-system interview is found in Appendix B. The question of reliability could not be settled satisfactorily. This was not the question Of inter-rater reliability since only one interviewer was to be used in the study. The question of reliability of recall was discussed with the Family-Helpers. They indicated that a return to the same interviewees for a check of reliability was not to 41 be recommended. However, an attempt was made in the con- struction of this interview to avoid or minimize causes of unreliability of recall. There has been difficulty with the recall of specific incidents or dates. This interview was not based on the recall of material of this nature; nor was there an attempt to exact recall Of isolated incidents. The answer sought was highly associated with other information sought; thus the number of caretakers other than the mother is associated with the possible number of individuals who would be in a position to interact with the child. It is felt that association aids recall. Payne (1951) suggests that the type of reliability sought should be that which is acceptable in a court of law. In a sense the group who aided in the develOpment of the interview acted as a jury for one another. On most of the occasions when the interview was given in the evening when the family members were home, there was assistance given to the mother by other family members. Maccoby and Maccoby (1954) suggest that the standardized interview aides in reliability at the eXpense of validity. It was decided that in the interest Of higher reliability the same questions should be administered to all Of the mothers. Cronbach (1960) states that reliability limits validity. In the case of this interview, sacrifices of quality Of interaction were made which be obtainable were studies Of reliability possible. It is possible to argue from validity to reliability since, if the scores correlate with some known criterion, it 42 is not likely that this would happen if purely random answers were being given. Thus, in this instrument if the social-system interview was able to distinguish between low and middle-income families, this would argue for reliability. It could also be argued that if a significant number of better than chance relationships were found between the social-system interview and the criteria, then something was being consistently measured, which, after all, is the question of reliability. It will be seen that the Interview (Appendix B) consists Of two sections. Form A consists of questions which identify the individuals who compose the social-system Of the child. The second section, Form B, consists of questions about designated areas of the child's activity. Form A, covering four years, is completed before turning to Form B. Answers from Form A are written down on Form A-II. Answers from Form B are written down on Form B-II. Below is an example Of the method used in actually administering the interview: The interview was preceded by introductions and eXplanationS as to the purpose Of the interview. The interviewer explained that he was from Head Start Research and would like to give a parent-interview. Before proceeding with the questions, it was eXplained that this interview was being given to all the mothers of the children in the three classes, and not just to the low-income mothers. It was eXplained that we wanted to find out whether the number of pe0p1e with 43 whom the child interacted or who cared for him was related to adjustment in Head Start classes. Pains were taken to eXplain that we could not tell whether one sort of environ- ment was better or worse, but that we felt the numbers of persons in the environment would make a difference. In the course of the interview, this information was repeated. It was found that although a thorough eXplanation might be _given befOre the interview, this eXplanation was not always attended to by the mother. She was informed that no questions Of a deeply personal nature were involved and that other members of the family would be welcome to be present during the interview; as was mentioned, they Often were. The average length of the interview was an hour and fifteen minutes. Some, in the case of large social-systems or many family moves, lasted as long as two hours. The raw data reveals no failure to answer. Often the middle-income mothers would proceed to bring out the Baby Book. However, it was found that these records seldom contained the informa- tion sought in the interview. After completing the introductions, the interviewer proceeded to Form A-I. The names Of all members of the child's social system are asked. Also the ages and sex and relationship to the child are Specified. As will be seen from the analysis, this information has not yet been utilized. However, its inclusion enabled the mother to recall the responses to the other questions asked and aided the interviewer in eXplaining further questions on-Form B. 44 After the questions on Form A were completed, the interviewer utilized this information to ask the questions on Form B. The procedure was as follows: Question 1. a.: Did...(mention the names of possible caretakers from Form A) help feed...(mention the child's name)? If the answer is 'yes,‘ the interviewer asked the next question. "How many helped feed him?" These responses were noted on Form B-II. The interviewer then asked how many helped...Sometimes?...quite often?...often?... regularly? Here the interviewer had to judge the extent, according to time, to which the enumerated individuals assisted or took over caretaking duties of the child. If it was determined that a given individual did as much as the mother, then a rating of '3' is given. If it seemed that given individuals helped about half as much as the mother, a rating of '2' was given. If the given individuals helped only occasionally, then a rating of 'l' was assigned. With the information from Form A this determination was not difficult to make. For instance, if the mother worked five days a week, and the child had a regular baby sitter, the presumption was made that the child was fed by the baby sitter as Often as by the mother. This was true Of 'feeding' but not necessarily true of other areas in the child's activities. It was found that there are large fluctuations in the amount to which the mother's duties are assumed in the various areas of the child's life. Thus, as one might 45 expect, the fathers Often refused to change diapers, yet assisted readily in other areas. Question 1. b. is asked next. "Did...(enumerate members of the child's social-system identified on Form A) disagree about his eating?" It was eXplained here that violent conflict is not intended. Any disagreement, however mild and amicable, is asked for. The question was asked in this form in order to avoid answers determined by social desirability. However, it was found that low-income mothers were quite frank in discussing violent conflict. The rating here is on 'time.' If the two individuals who disagreed lived in the same home, a rating of '3' was given. If, for instance, the mother and grandmother disagreed, and the grandmother visited the home only once a week, a rating of 'l' was made. Question 1. c. in the area of eating involves, as do all the other areas of the child's activities, the variable Of 'direction.' In many homes it is seen that directions come from a number of sources, yet not all these sources actively help with the child. And also, there are those who physically help the child but do not give directions. It is assumed here that the child senses the various sources Of direction. Thus if the child is given something to eat by an older sibling at the command of the mother, and the older sibling does not protest, then there is only one source of direction: the mother. AS in questions 1. a. and 1. b. an answer of 'yes' or 'no' was recorded, the numbers of those 46 who interact with the child (or in the presence of the child in the case Of 'direction') is recorded, and then a deter- mination is made as to the extent of the direction. Question 1. d. involves the variables of 'assertion.' Did the child assert himself with various members of his social-system? To what extent? The recording of a 'yes' Of 'no' and the number of individuals with whom he asserted himself and the extent were determined as above in questions 1. a., l. b. and l. c. The questions in the other eight areas of the child's activities are completed in the same manner as for 'eating' and scored in the same fashion. Although standardized, the questions Often need inter- pretation. The method of interpretation is always by example. Thus in the area of '8. Outside Visits' and on 'd.' which involves the variable of 'assertion' the question is first asked as on the interview form. Then, it might be necessary to ask specifically whom the child would beg to take him from the house. "Did he run to the door when his Daddy left the house, and cry to be taken along?" "Did he want tO be taken along when his Grandmother left after a visit?" etc. Such interpretations in concrete form helped to sustain interest. As can be seen the interview tends to become quite tedious unless relieved by some conversation. It is also necessary in many cases to limit the recollections of the mother. 47 Scoring Of the interview is done in a straightforward way. System-size is the sum total of individuals present in the child's social-system during a given year. Instabil- ity is the enumeration of those who enter and leave a child's social-system during the year. The four variables indicated by 'a.', 'b.', 'c.', and 'd.' under each of the nine areas Of activity are scored by a summation of the scores across the nine areas. Thus, if in the area of 'feeding,' for instance, two peOple helped regularly with the child's feeding and one person helped sometimes then the score would be: 2 ' 3 = 6 plus 1 ~ 1 = l, l + 6 = 7. No rationale could be determined for giving different weights to the various areas of the child's activity. From the fluctuations Of the scores in a given year it would be difficult togeneralize about which area of the child's activities would receive the largest numbers of caretakers in addition to the mother. The scores Of 'playmates' were taken only from question 1. a. in the area of play. The scores of 'outside visits' were taken only from question 1. a. in the area of Outside Visits. Instruments Measuring Class Behavior The Wechsler Pre-School and Primary Scale of Intelli- gepgg, The full test is composed of ten sub-tests plus a verbal IQ, a performance IQ, and a full-scale IQ. At the present time, since the test is new...l967.....there is 48 little in the literature regarding this test. In Appendix C there are tables showing the intercorrelations between the tests, reliability coefficients, and the correlations between the WPPSI and other pOpular intelligence tests. This information was taken from the manual. Wechsler, (1967) looks on the subtests as having diagnostic value. The full scale score is looked upon as a test of general intelligence. The Cincinnati Autonomy Test Battery. This is a new battery of tests develOped by Thomas Banta of the University of Cincinnati. This battery is composed of 15 separate scores. Banta in the manual (1967) gives the rationale for his tests. While educators have adequate tests for early childhood intelligence (for example, the Standford Binet or the Peabody Picture VOcabulary) the focus of such tests is on the apprOpriate, the conventional, and the quick response. The tests which make up the Cincinnati Autonomy Test Battery (CATB), were designed to measure autonomous functioning in problem solving. The word "autonomy", as it is used in the context of the CATB, refers to self-regulating behaviors that facilitate effective problem solVin . My conviction is that these are not abilities which the child is forced or pressured into develOping, but those abilities which the child enjoys develOping in the process of his individually chosen work and play. The CATB measures curiosity, exploratory behavior, resistence to distraction, control of impulse, reflectivity, analytic perceptual processes, and innovative behavior. EaEh test emphasizes a separate aspect of self-regulating behavior relevant to good problem-solving strategies. All these factors are ready for further Spontaneous develOpment at age three, barring unfortunate home eXperienceS. In addition these factors can be influences by pre- kindergarten educational efforts. The job for future is to track down the ways in which 49 prekindergarten education works, and which kinds Of educational practices are most effective. (p. 1) In Appendix D are given the intercorrelations between the tests, the correlations between the CATB and the Binet and the reliability coefficients. In Appendix D there is a brief description Of the tests and a rationale in Banta's own words. The Play Situation-Picture Board Sociometric Technique This sociometric technique was adapted by Dr. Robert Boger from ethods develOped by Boyd R. McCandleSS and Helen R. Marshall. The technique is new and the only information available as to reliability and validity is that gathered at the E and R Center at Michigan State. A cOpy Of a short report on reliability and validity is found in Appendix E. As will appear from the report, although the children from Head Start classes appear to be making deliberate choices over time and are not randomly choosing, there has yet to be devised an adequate test of validity. AS can be inferred from the comments of testers, the validity of teacher ratings must be questioned. Teachers' comments to the Observers were that they really did not have time to observe the children for a long enough period of time to be certain of their ratings. The technique is Simple: Ten pictures of play situations‘ are presented to the child. He chooses five. From a board on which are placed the pictures of all class members, he chooses five, any five, even repeats, and affixes these to the play situation he has chosen. He then chooses three 50 pictures of children he most likes to play with. In giving the test researchers noted that the children chosen as most- liked and as least-liked were often the same children. These children had a tendency to stand out from the class in some way. Inventory of Factors Affectinngest Performance This inventory was adapted from the Binet scales and develOped at the University of California at Berkeley. The Bank Street College of Education in Boston then adapted the procedure for the WPPSI and CATB tests. A OOpy Of the scale is found in the Appendix H. Testers' ratings of children's performance are made immediately after testing. Only total scores of factors detrimental to test behavior were used in the present study. Brown-IDS Self Concept Referents Test This is a test of Self Concept which employs Polaroid pictures which are presumed to be seen by the child as projections of the Self. Brown (undated) gives the rationale for his test: The process by which "awareness of own (sic) attributes become translated into self concepts was discussed by G. H. Mead (1956). His theory anchored the develOpment of self-awareness in social interaction. "The self," he argued, "is not initially present at birth but arises in the process of social eXperience. It develOps, in a given individual, as the result of his relations to the social system as a whole and to other individuals within that social system." (p. 212) Mead further argued that the individual eXperiences himself not directly, but in an indirect fashion, from his perceptions 51 Of the particular standpoint of other members of the same social group toward him, or from the generalized standpoint of the social system in which he functions. In other words, the individual becomes an "object" to himself by taking the attitudes of other individuals toward himself." (p. 7) In Appendix F are given Brown's reliability coeffi- cients. Also are given reliability coefficients from two Head Start classes in Lansing for a three week test-retest. As can be seen, the reliability coefficients for the Lansing classes are acceptably high. Parten-Newell: Development of Social Behavior No literature seems to be available for this schedule Of Observations. A sample of the instructions for the teacher are found in Appendix G. Ingeneral the teachers found no difficulty in using the rating schedule in describing the various activities of the children. Banta (1967) found the highest reliability in his tests to be that which referred to the least structured tests. Observers at the Michigan State E and R Center find the patterns of activity Of various children quite similar from day to day and even across weeks. The following are the dates on which the tests were given. It will be remembered that the Head Start Project classes began in mid-October of 1967. WPPSI 11-2-67 CATB 12-7—67 Boger Sociometric 2-9-68 52 Parten-Newell 2-20-68 Brown Self-Concept 11-8-67 The testers employed in the Lansing Project were all graduate students in Education or Psychology at Michigan State University. These testers had previous eXperience with young children and most had some clinical background. The Social-System Interview was given to the mothers of the children involved during the months of February and March of 1968. The interviewer had extensive eXperience with interviewing and with low-income families. He did not give any of the tests in the Head Start Project, nor did he make visits to the classrooms in which the three groups of children were present. His contacts with the mothers and children were confined to the one visit to the home, at which time the social—system interview was administered. Design and Analysis This research was designed as a correlational study. The responses Of the mothers on the social-system interview are scored for each year and for the total four years, and these scores are then correlated with the scores from classroom tests and observations. The analysis of the data was completed by means of three statistics. The F test was used to compare the responses of the low-income and middle-income groups Of mothers' responses. As was suggested above, this would be some indication of validity since from the literature it could be hypothesized 53 that the low-income groups would score Significantly different from the middle-income groups on the variables which are the focus of this study. Pearson Product Moment correlations were run between the variables of the social-system interview. Correlations were run between the variables of the social-system inter- view and the test scores. A multiple correlation was made between the independent variables, system-Size, instability, caretakers, disagree- ment, and the test and observations scores as dependent variables. A multiple correlation was also run with independent variables, or the predictors, being 'Play,' 'Outside Visits,‘ and 'Assertion,' and the criterion being one of the tests or observations. It was known that the nature of the distributions and the large error variance along with the small N would tend to lower the significance Of the multiple correlation. However, the use of the multiple correlation allows indications of relationships not available from non-parametric statistics. Thus it is possible to specify which variable in connection with the others contributes to the multiple R and to what extent it does so. Hypotheses At the end of Chapter II some general hypotheses were made. It is now possible to specify and eXpand these hunches 54 and to include the methods of testing the hypotheses. Hypothesis I An F test of comparison between means will distinguish between the low—income and middle-income mothers' responses on the variables of System-Size, Instability, Caretakers, Disagreement,.Direction, Playmates, Outside Visits and Assertion. The means of the low-income mothers' reSponses on the variables of 'System-Size', 'Instability', 'Caretakers', 'Disagreement', and 'Direction' will be higher than those of the middle-income mothers. The means of the low-income mothers' reSponses on the variables of 'Playmates', 'Outside Visits', and 'Assertion' will be lower than the responses Of the middle-income mothers' reSponses. It is understood of Hypotheses II to V, inclusively, that the hypotheses are made about each of the four years of the child's life and about the score summed over the four years. The scores summed over the four years exclude the variable of system-size. No total score is computed for this variable. Hypothesis II Employing the statistic of the Pearson r the responses Of the mothers, the variables of system—size, instability, caretakers, direction, and disagreement will correlate negatively with the: a. scores of the WPPSI. b. scores of the CATB. 55 Hypothesis III Employing the statistic of the Pearson r the responses of the mother, the variables of assertion, outside visits, and playmates will correlate positively with the: a. scores of the WPPSI b. scores of the CATB Hypothesis IV Employing the statistic of a multiple correlation from the response of the mothers on variables of System—Size, Instability, Caretakers, Direction, and Disagreement, it will be possible to predict: a. The scores of the WPPSI b. The scores of the CATB c. The scores of 'most liked' on the Boger Sociometric. Hypothesis V Employing the statistic of a multiple correlation, from the responses of the mothers on the variables of Playmates, Outside Visits, Assertion, it will be possible to predict: a. The scores of the WPPSI b. The scores of the CATB c. The scores of 'most liked' on the Boger Sociometric Summary In this chapter the procedures employed in the study were presented; the sample was described, and the develOpment 56 and the nature of the Social-Systems Interview was reviewed. The instruments used in measuring the behavior of the children in the class situation were described. Finally the design and analysis of the study was presented and specific hypotheses were made. IV RESULTS AND ANALYSIS Introduction In this chapter the results of the analysis of the data from the social-system interview and the measures taken in Head Start are presented. The results of the social-system interview are given first, preceded by a restatement of the variables about which information was sought in the inter- view. Each hypothesis is then presented in turn with the results of the multiple correlation. Each presentation is followed by a brief discussion. Since there are tests and observations in the classroom about which no hypothesis was made but which are of interest to this study, the results of multiple correlations employing the same variables as were used in the hypotheses will be given in this chapter. In the case of each analysis a brief discussion will follow the results. A more lengthy discussion will form the content Of Chapter V. Social-System Interview For the purposes of interpretation a brief restatement of the variables is made. The first four variables given were not used in the predictions. They appear in Table l and are helpful in interpreting results. deg; is scored 1 for boys and 2 for girls. Race: this variable was scored 1 for Caucasians, 2 for Negros and 3 for Mexican-Americans. As with 'sex' the 57 58 interpretation allowed by these variables is quite limited. Father Absence: is scored 0 to 4. These scores indicate the number of years the father was absent from the home. It is prOper to assume here an underlying continuity. Older Siblings: is scored 0 to 9. In this study only Older siblings were counted. 9 was the largest number of older siblings. System Size: enumerates for each year all persons, Older than the child, who were in a position to interact with the child and did. It does not include younger siblings or infrequent visitors. Instability: is the enumeration of those who interacted with the child and entered or left the child's social-system during a given year. Caretakers: enumerates and rates the extent Of caretaking duties assumed by others than the mother. The mother is not included in this score. Thus the scores are deviations from a Score Of 0 which indicates that the mother was the sole caretaker in every area of the child's activity. Disagreement: enumerates and rates the extent to which persons were in disagreement about the care of the child. The mother is included in this score. Direction: enumerates and rates the extent to which persons, other than the mother, gave orders to the child or about the child in the child's presence. Such persons might or might not physically care for the child. 59 Assertion: enumerates and rates the extent to which the child asserted himself to obtain some specific goal. This Score includes the mother. Playmates: enumerates those who played with or watched the child during play. A rating is made of the extent to which others than the mother interacted at play with the child. Outside Visits: enumerates and rates the extent to which others than the mother took the child from the home for any purpose. The mother's trips from the home with the child are not counted unless she.is accompanied by another older than the child. It will be remembered that ratings on all variables are made according to time. Results In Table 1 the ranges, means, and standard deviations of the variables are given for the low-income group. In Table 2 the intercorrelations of the variables are given for the low-income group. Discussion As can be seen from the data presented in Table l, the distributions are skewed. This can be interpreted as a result of the scoring method or as a result of the nature of the sample. There are indications that it is the nature of the sample that is reflected in the skewness. An inspection Of the variables of 'Older siblings', 'system-Size', and instability' which merely enumerate and do not rate indicates 60 Table 1. Range, Means, and Standard Deviations of Variables from Low—Income Mothers' Responses on Social-System Interview. N = 30 Mothers' Responses Range Mean Standard Dev. Father Absence 0 4 1.30 1.26 Older Siblings 0 9 2.16 2.56 System Size la 2 20 7.86 4.29 System Size II 2 25 7.40 4.62 System Size III 2 21 6.70 4.18 System Size IV 1 14 5.80 3.50 Instability I 0 13 .96 2.74 Instability II 0 19 2.00 3.45 Instability III 0 20 1.73 2.88 Instability IV 0 13 2.20 3.17 Instability T 0 46 7.03 9.68 Caretakers I l 115 29.06 26.67 Caretakers II 7 125 33.53 28.10 Caretakers III 5 94 30.63 25.65 Caretakers IV 0 72 24.70 19.93 Caretakers T 8 354 118.06 89.10 Disagreement I 0 81 17.46 17.52 Disagreement II 0 97 19.56 20.16 Disagreement III 0 81 17.50 18.67 Disagreement IV 0 78 17. 86 17. 31 Disagreement T 7 304 99.06 160.32 a Roman numerals indicate years in child's life to which Imvflher's reSponses referred. Table 1. continued 61 Mothers' Responses Range Mean Standard Dev. Direction I 3 - 138 35.30 32.46 Direction II 3 - 131 40.03 29.78 Direction III 0 - 114 40.36 30.13 Direction IV 0 - 89 30.30 25.50 Direction T 0 - 421 149.33 103.69 Assertion I 2 - 82 21.16 19.38 Assertion II 0 - 116 31.66 29.19 Assertion III 1 - 174 36.33 34.81 Assertion IV 3 - 127 35.10 29.94 Assertion T 8 - 560 133.76 126.98 Playmates I l - 45 12.43 9.08 Playmates II 4 - 45 14.06 9.29 Playmates III 4 - 36 11.26 8.28 Playmates IV 2 - 80 10.33 8.29 Playmates T 5 - 120 45.36 29.68 Outside Visits I 0 - 20 5.60 4.64 Outside Visits 11 0 - 20 5.70 4.96 Outside Visits III 1 - 21 5.06 4.91 Outside Visits IV 0 - 18 4.90 5.29 Outside Visits T 2 - 79 20.96 17.33 62 Table 2. Intercorrelations of Variables from Low-Income MOthers' ReSponses on Social-System Interview. N=3O Sex Fa A OldS Syst Syst Syst Syst Inst Inst I II III IV I II Father Absence -.27 Older Siblings -.O3 -.45 System Size 1* .00 -.04 .33 System Size II .00 -.13 .41 .75 System Size III .03 -.09 .51 .79 ..89 System Size IV .00 -.45 .70 .63 .53 .67 Instability I -.33 .22 -.27 .26 .00 .00 .19 Instability II -.11 .15 -.46 .18 -.20 -.26 -.O9 .54 Instability III -.12 .34 -.23 .09 -.07 -.08 -.05 .34 .62 Instability IV -.14 .32 -.21 .49 .28 .40 .23 .62 .41 Instability T -.19 .31 -.39 .33 .00 .01 .08 .78 .82 Caretakers I .10 .00 .13 .40 .29 .25 .24 .30 .05 Caretakers II .21 -.18 .15 .23 .37 .18 .06 .02 .06 Caretakers III .17 -.12 .30 .58 .46 .51 .44 .22 .04 Caretakers IV .16 -.44 .44 .27 .39 .38 .55 .11 -.04 Caretakers T .18 -.19 .27 .42 .42 .36 .34 .19 .04 Disagreement I .02 -.Ol -.03 .38 .05 .06 .39 .69 .54 Disagreement II .25 -.20 .19 .28 .31 .21 .37 .13 .15 Disagreement III .11 -.42 .56 .39 .37 .40 .56 -.01 -.ll Disagreement IV .08 -.08 .42 .60 .68 .68 .58 .10 -.14 Disagreement T -.10 -.26 .59 .35 .33 .37 .52 .04 -.O4 Direction I .13 .09 .08 .58 .56 .51 .25 .17 -.03 Direction II .22 -.19 .24 .39 .56 .38 .27 .05 -.Ol Direction III .15 -.13 .30 .77 .64 .68 .57 .26 .13 Direction IV .02 -.30 .51 .48 .60 .61 .62 .09 -.O9 Direction T .17 -.16 .33 .63 .67 .62 .48 .16 -.02 Assertion I .26 -.05 .10 .51 .35 .28 .37 .26 .13 Assertion II .43 -.14 .18 .46 .51 .43 .33 -.03 .00 Assertion III .33 -.14 .27 .40 .38 .47 .43 -.04 .07 Assertion IV .14 -.15 .39 .52 .65 .67 .62 .14 -.12 Assertion T .21 -.21 .30 .39 .41 .43 .41 .02 -.O7 Playmates I -.14 .01 .24 .75 .71 .69 .35 .10 -.O7 Playmates II .09 -.16 .40 .74 .87 .83 .48 -.12 -.22 Playmates III .01 -.31 .72 .68 .60 .70 .77 .00 -.17 Playmates IV -.Ol -.41 .76 .43 .47 .55 .81 .07 -.19 Playmates T .05 -.15 .38 .72 .73 .74 .58 .04 -.14 Outside Visits I -.03 .00 .17 .30 .32 .25 .14 .09 -.13 Outside Visits II .12 .20 .32 .47 .31 .15 .00 -.04 Outside Visits III .20 .03 .16 .40 .33 .22 .14 .26 .25 Outside Visits IV .23 -.18 .06 .13 .17 .10 .20 .14 .09 Outside Visits T .17 -.O6 .03 .31 .35 .23 .15 .15 .06 I o [.1 H 63 Table 2. continued Inst Inst Inst Care Care Care Care Care Disa Disa III IV T I II III IV T I II Instability IV .44 Instability T .75 .78 Caretakers I .29 .45 .33 Caretakers II .32 .19 .18 .78 Caretakers III .16 .60 .31 .83 .67 Caretakers IV .03 .28 .12 .59 .65 .69 Caretakers T .24 .43 .27 .92 .89 .90 .80 Disagreement I .41 .27 .62 .31 .ll .19 .23 .24 Disagreement II .16 .01 .13 .20 .30 .13 .48 .30 .61 Disagreement III -.06 .00 -.07 .30 .33 .37 .64 .44 .33 .67 Disagreement IV -.01 .24 .03 .26 .23 .39 .51 .38 .42 .72 Disagreement T -.04 .05 .00 .33 .28 .48 .59 .46 .09 .18 Direction I .27 .58 .31 .83 .67 .77 .47 .79 .21 .23 Direction II .26 .24 .16 .68 .84 .57 .67 .78 .26 .62 Direction III .17 .65 .39 .68 .54 .88 .66 .77 .28 .29 Direction IV .04 .36 .13 .50 .55 .66 .84 .70 .06 .31 Direction T .20 .52 .27 .79 .75 .83 .75 .88 .26 .42 Assertion I .32 .30 .33 .67 .44 .51 .34 .57 .53 .47 Assertion II .15 .28 .18 .43 .37 .49 .50 .53 .32 .73 Assertion III .06 .45 .12 .44 .38 .64 .65 .58 .18 .53 Assertion IV .09 .40 .16 .45 .42 .60 .74 .60 .33 .65 Assertion T .06 .27 .08 .49 .40 .55 .56 .55 .39 .62 Playmates I -.06 .42 .13 .54 .48 .63 .27 .52 .02 .05 Playmates II -.18 .32 -.05 .39 .45 .62 .48 .54 .02 .23 Playmates III -.05 .19 .00 .40 .28 .68 .51 .50 .10 .15 Playmates IV -.07 .18 .00 .35 .29 .56 .73 .52 .11 .26 Playmates T -.05 .40 .08 .51 .41 .73 .56 .62 .06 .21 Outside Visits I .21 .30 .15 .79 .35 .68 .43 .73 .00 .00 Outside Visits II .26 .30 .17 .73 .84 .71 .58 .82 .00 .16 Outside Visits III .52 .50 .51 .65 .82 .54 .28 .61 .28 .19 Outside Visits IV .35 .35 .34 .74 .75 .64 .70 .80 .13 .21 Outside Visits T .40 .40 .35 .81 .80 .70 .53 .81 .13 .00 TafleZ. continued 64 Disa Disa Disa Dir Dir Dir Dir Dir Asrt Asrt III IV T I II III IV T I II Disagreement IV .68 Disagreement T .69 .39 Direction I .23 .44 .13 Direction II .53 .54 .22 .75 Direction III .46 .55 .44 .78 .65 Direction IV .53 .49 .54 .54 .65 .76 Direction T .51 .59 .37 .88 .87 .91 .81 Assertion I .30 .46 .09 .73 .64 .63 .30 .69 Assertion II .52 .70 .07 .64 .77 .64 .44 .73 .71 Assertion III .51 .61 .23 .57 .59 .69 .56 .70 .46 .83 Assertion IV .66 .84 .46 .54 .66 .69 .71 .75 .45 .72 Assertion T .57 .69 .23 .52 .61 .61 .34 .66 .65 .81 Playmates I .14 .39 .27 .67 .40 .71 .44 .65 .43 .28 Playmates II .40 .66 .32 .64 .58 .76 .66 .76 .35 .56 Playmates III .56 .52 .66 .39 .34 .71 .67 .60 .40 .33 Playmates IV .63 .51 .70 .24 .38 .60 .77 .56 .24 .31 Playmates T .54 .67 .60 .61 .48 .80 .64 .73 .43 .49 Outside Visits I .27 .18 .39 .68 .55 .57 .37 .65 .52 .31 Outside Visits II .34 .26 .41 .69 .75 .64 .51 .76 .46 .45 Outside Visits III .00 .15 .10 .76 .65 .60 .32 .67 .69 .51 Outside Visits IV .30 .12 .25 .64 .71 .59 .59 .72 .44 .43 Outside Visits T .22 .20 .18 .79 .77 .66 .66 .79 .61 .51 65 Table 2. continued Asrt Asrt Asrt Play Play Play Play Play OutV OutV III IV T I II III IV T I II Assertion IV .77 Assertion T .78 .70 Playmates I .28 .36 .36 Playmates II .54 .64 .50 .81 Playmates III .37 .53 .41 .56 .64 Playmates IV .49 .64 .44 .33 .50 .84 Playmates T .55 .70 .52 .73 .83 .79 .67 Outside Visits I .32 .35 .44 .59 .41 .44 .35 .60 Outside Visits II .42 .43 .50 .57 .55 .42 ..40 .61 .85 Outside Visits III .36 .27 .38 .47 .37 .23 .09 .38 .59 .70 Outside Visits IV .53 .43 .42 .59 .31 .24 .42 .40 .66 .78 Outside Visits T .47 .41 .50 .52 .45 .32 .31 .52 .84 .92 Table 2. continued OutV OutV III IV Outside Visits IV .69 Outside Visits T .87 .88 *Roman numerals indicate year to which mothers' responses referred. 66 that the skewed distributions are a result of the nature of the sample. It is difficult to believe that this sample is representative of the pOpulation of low-income families. However, it can be seen from an inSpection of Table 2 that the variables although related to size of immediate family are not so determined that they are measuring the same thing. This point is crucial to the justification of the use of social-system instead of family size. Thus Older-siblings is correlated .24 with playmates during the first year. The raw data from the interview reflects the fact that the variables are measuring other than family size. In a few cases the mother was the only caretaker. In other cases there were as many as nine persons who shared caretaking duties with the mother. In some cases these persons were not relatives. It will also be noticed from Table 2 that there are differences in the intercorrelations for the four years on a given variable. These differences reflect variations across years in the social-environment Of the child. These ‘variations are evidence for the utility of asking questions about each year separately. Hypothesis I Introduction It was hypothesized that the scores of the variables <1f the low-income mothers would be significantly higher on 'system-size', 'instability', 'caretakers', 'disagreement', and.'direction' than the scores of the middle-income mothers. 67 It was hypothesized that this would be true of each of the four year's responses and true of the scores summed over the four years. It was further hypothesized that the scores of the variables of the middle—income mothers on 'assertion', 'playmates', and 'outside Visits' would be significantly higher than scores of the loweincome mothers. It was hypothesized that this would be true of each of the four years' responses and true of the score summed over the four years. Results The results of the tests are given in Table 3. As can be seen the hypothesis is only partially supported. The scores of the low—income mothers are generally higher on the variables about which it was predicted they would be higher. However, after the first year they did not score higher than the middle-income mothers on the variable of 'instability.‘ On the variable of 'assertion' the hypothesis was not supported. Although the differences are not significant, except for the total score, the differences are clearly in a direction contrary to the hypothesis. On 'outside Visits' the middle-income mothers scores are somewhat higher during the last two years but not during the first two years. On 'playmates' the results of the tests were in the direction Opposite to that predicted. This was true of each year and true Of the score summed over four years. Table 3. Means of Variables from Low-Income and Middle- Income Mothers' Responses on Social-System Interview. F Test of Significance Between 68 Means of Two Groups. Means of Low Means of Mid Variable Income Group Income Group F. Sig.* N=30 N=15 FIRST YEAR Older Siblings 2.16 .66 System Size 7.86 5.06 5.69 .01 Instability 4.83 2.00 .67 .22 Caretakers 30.90 23.73 .75 .19 Disagreement 19.12 3.92 10.87 .01 Direction 35.30 21.33 2.48 .06 Assertion 22.22 14.50 1.74 .10 Playmates 12.43 7.00 4.95 .01 Outside Visits 6.22 4.61 1.37 .12 SECOND YEAR System Size 7.40 6.06 .83 .18 Instability 4.28 5.20 .11 .46 Caretakers 34.68 24.20 1.85 .09 Disagreement 21.74 7.91 5.45 .01 Direction 40.03 26.53 2.63 .056 Assertion 32.75 20.8 2.42 .07 Playmates 14.06 8.00 5.63 .01 Outside Visits 6.33 3.85 2.90 .05 *Significance level is for one-tailed test. 69 Table 3. continued Means of Low Means of Mid Variable Income Group Income Group F. Sig. N=30 N=15 THIRD YEAR System Size 6.70 4.86 2.57 .05 Instability 4.72 5.50 .10 .35 Caretakers 32.82 23.00 1.88 .09 Disagreement 19.44 9.58 3.15 .04 Direction 43.28 27.13 3.85 .03 Assertion 36.33 27.15 .83 .18 Playmates 12.5 7.20 6.18 .008 Outside Visits 6.33 6.37 .00023 .49 FOURTH YEAR System Size 5.80 4.73 1.16 .14 Instability 3.14 1.66 1.06 .15 Caretakers 27.44 23.66 .42 .25 Disagreement 19.85 8.14 5.85 .01 Direction 34.60 29.86 .40 .26 Assertion 35.10 25.06 1.50 .22 Playmates 11.07 6.93 3.54 .067 Outside Visits 6.12 6.38 .01 .43 Table 3. continued Means of Low Means of Mid Variable Income Group Income Group F. Sig. N=30 N=15 TOTAL FOUR YEARS Instability 8.79 9.12 .005 .47 Caretakers 118.06 94.60 .87 .18 Disagreement 99.0 68.60 .37 .27 Direction 149.33 128.00 .38 .27 Assertion 133.76 81.00 2.38 .06 Playmates 45.36 29.80 3.71 .03 Outside Visits 22.27 19.06 .25 .25 71 Discussion The rationale for hypothesizing in the direction indi- cated was that these variables of 'assertion', 'playmates' and 'outside Visits' were thought to be factors positively contributing to intelligence, autonomy, and social adjust- ment. 'System—size', 'caretakers', 'instability', 'disagreement', 'direction', were thought to be factors which would impede growth of intelligence, autonomy, and social adjustment. .It will be seen that 'instability' appears as correlated positively with intelligence, autonomy, and adjustment while 'playmates' appears to be negatively associated with these variables. It can be seen from an inspection of Table 2, inter- correlations between the social-system variables, that these differences are not merely a reflection of the size of the immediate family but reflect differing patterns of child care. It appears that the low-income mothers, in this sample, allowed their children to be taken from the home during the first year by relatives and acquaintances more than did the middle-income mothers. The low-income mothers allowed substantially more interaction between infant and 'visitor, and endured more interference with their own prOper way of handling the child. It will be noted that the factor of 'disagreement' appears to be detrimental to the obtaining of high scores on more desirable behaviors as measured by the tests. 72 In conclusion, if such factors as disagreement between caretakers, many sources of direction, and many caretakers are indicators of a fragmented social-system then it can be said that the low-income children live in a considerably less unified social—system than the middle-income children. Hypothesis II Introduction Hypothesis II states that the variables of 'system size', 'instability', 'caretakers', 'disagreement', and 'direction' will correlate negatively with the scores of the WPPSI and the CATB. It is stated that this will be true for each year to which the responses of the low-income mothers refer and will also be true of the total score. The number of subjects available for the WPPSI was 27. The number available for the CATB was 26. Two of the child- ren tested on the WPPSI were not tested on the CATB. It is therefore not possible to make fully accurate comparisons between the results of the two tests unless the N is diminished. Each of the tests and its relationships to the variables Of the social-system interview is presented in turn. WPPSI Results The results of the correlations are given in Table 4. The hypothesis was not sustained. Only one variable appears 73 to have a consistently negative relationship to the scores of the WPPSI. This is 'system-size.‘ While 'disagreement' and 'direction' appear to have negative relationships with the WPPSI scores this is true only for the second two years and the total score. 'Instability' appears to be positively re-related to the WPPSI scores throughout. This is in a direction contrary to the hypothesis. Discussion An inspection of Table 2 reveals that 'instability' has only a slight relationship with the variables that appear to be negatively related to intelligence (as measured by the WPPSI). These results are somewhat surprising since Chilman lists frequent moves as a characteristic of educationally non-conducive families. In the sample 'instability' was closely associated with number of family moves. An inspection Of the raw data and the results of Table 2 indicate why 'instability' relates positively with WPPSI scores. The mothers in 'unstable families' made efforts to escape disagreement and other factors in the home that would have been detrimental to high scores on the WPPSI. 'Instability' and 'disagreement', from Table 2, correlates .69. This correlation drOpS to .15 in the second year. It appears these mothers.have the ability to adjust the social—system to eliminate sources of disagreement. This might indicate a stable source of direction in the social-system of the child. It will be noted that mothers were referred to instead of fathers. Table 2 indicates a positive relationship between 74 oeo. u a mac. n a omo. u pmmu emeemu meo eme. u A wen. u hem. u om u we Ho.u mo.- mo. 40.- Ho.- mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. me. ee.u mm.- 60.- ememmo sooem mo. eo.u oe. so. we. am. am. as. me. am. oo. mo.u mo.u mo. seamen oeuuosomo H~.- o~.- me. mm.- me.u mm. we. so. as. me. mo.- om.u mm.- Hm.u memes mo. Hm.u No. 00. em. mo. mo. me.u mo. mm. mm.. me.- Ne.- mo. .pmeeeoo massage m~.u em.- mm.u he.u om.- we. as. so. me. me. ao.- 00. mo. Ho.u mmsom sesame mo. mo.n No.1 me. oe. Hm. me. am. mo. em. men. mo.u mo. mo.u cosmemsmsesoo mo. os. so. as. oo. om. me. am. mm. me. as.. no. we. Ho.u mmepeumeaeHm mo.- we. mo.. 00. so. no. He. no. es. om. ao.- No.1 00. mo.- oeumsspeea me. as. we. mm. as. am. mm. em. me. we. no.1 em.. ee.u em.n Sumesnmoo> Ho. mo. so.. He. mo. me. «0. mm. NH. mm. as. mm.. 60.- ee.. eoeumeeoeaH we.. we. HH.- me.. we.. mm. as. we. as. ea. oo. me.. me.- NH.- moqmeuoeHme mo. mo. «0.- me. so. mm. me. am. He. mm. me.u mo.u mo. Ne.n Hahum> mo.- mo.u ao.u oo. mo.u am. me. am. we. mm. ao.: me.- mo.n me.u memom ease B >H HHH HH H B >H HHH HH H >H HHH HH H mHOMMDOHmo muwafinmumsH ouwm smpmmm mwuoom Hmmmz SOHDOOHHQ one .uoosomummmflo .mumxmpmemo .mueeenmumeH FNHZ .meoom Hmmm3 Gad .ONHmIEODmmm cmmspom mSOHuOHOHHOU mamsfim .v wanna 75 0H0. u m mmo. n a 0m0. n a pmmu sesame 0:0 ems. n A sum. n a ham. u M 0n n as 00.P NH.- m0.- 0H.- 0e.- mm.- 00.- 0N.- me. am. ememwo xooem e0. 0H.- mo. 00. 0e. mm.- 00. 0H.- N0. 00. cmemwo oeuumsomo 00.- 0m.- mm.- He.- Hm.- em.- mm.- me.- 00. em. means 00.- em.- e0.- mo.- 00. 00.- 0H.- e0.- Hm.- 0H. .ueeesoo musuoee HN.- mm.- ee.- 0e.- ae.- mm.- 0H.- 00.- H0. e0. 00:00 Hashes 00. 0H.- H0.- me. mm. .mm.- 0H. 0H.- mH.- mm. coemcmsmHQSOO me. 00. 00. 0m. 0H. 0H.- em. 00.- 0e. 0m. mmeueumeesHm mo.- mm.- me.- mo. e0. Hm.- as. 00.- 0m. mm. oepmssuese 00. eo.- mo.- em. me. 0N.- 00. 00.- me. 0m. sumesnmoo> 00.- mm.- 0H.- me. m0. mm.- mo. me.- am. am. eoepmsuoeeH Hm.- em.- 0H.- 0H.- ee.- oe.- HH.- mm.- em. on. masseuoeume 00. ee.- 00.- me. me. em.- 00. 00.- 00.- em. smoum> 00.- mm.- NH.- 00. 00. em.- mo. 0m.- 00. mm. memom seem a >H HHH HH H a >H HHH HH H SOHDOOHHD DcmEmemmmwo mmuoow Hmmmz poooflucoo .v magma 76 'instability' and 'father absence.‘ Also, the raw data indicates that mothers took the initiative in family moves. CATB Results The results of the analysis are given in Table 5. In general the hypothesis is not sustained. Only one correlation reaches significance at the .05 level consistently through the four years. This is the correlation between 'system- size' and Task Competence. In general the variables from the social—system interview appear to have a somewhat consistent relationship with Kindergarten Prognosis, Task Competence, and Field Independence. It should be noted that the degree of relationship between the CATB tests is not as high as that between the subtests of the WPPSI. W, the coefficient of concordance, for the WPPSI tests is .54. The W for the CATB tests is .18. These WS were computed for the tests given to the present sample. The intercorrelations of the WPPSI and the CATB tests given in Appendix D Show the same relationships prevail. Unlike the other CATB tests, a high score on Motor Impulse Control is not a favorable score, a high score indicates lack of Impulse Control. Hypothesis III Introduction Hypothesis III states that the variables of 'assertion', 'playmates', and 'outside Visits' will be positively related 77 0H0. n a mN0. u H pmmu smHHmu meo mew. n H H00. n H mN u H0 HOH>mcom 00. Hop- 00.- 0H. 0H. Nm. mo. 00. mm. 0H. 00.- mN.- mo.- mH.- weHmHmm Swansea 00. 00. 0N.- 0H. 00.- H0. 00.- 00. NH. mo. mm.- NH.- NH. 0N.- HsHmoHHso Hmon> mHmosmOHm 0H.- mm.- HH.- 0H.- 00.- 00. N0.- mH. HH. 00. em.- mm.- He.- NN.- emuHmmHmech oooop mo.- HN.- H0.- 00.- 00. NH. NH. 0H. mo. mo.- HN.- 00.- 00.- 0H.- -wasoo HmHoom 0H.- Nm.- mH.- eH.- e0.- 0H. N0. 0H. NH. 0H. Hm.- 0e.- em.- mm.- moewuwmeoo Heme soavomspmfla e0. 00. 00. 00. 0H. 0N. mN. em. e0. H0. 00. mo.- 0H.- 00.- op moemHmHmmm H0.- 00.- 00.- 00. 00. NH. HH.- 0N. NH. 0H. 0N.- mm.- Ne.- 0N.- mocmHmHmHmH mQHusoq NH. NH. 00. NH. NH. 00. NH. SH. 00.- 00. H0. 00. N0. 0H.- HmeoHuemucH deCHmmH 0H. 0H. 0H. mo. 0N. mN. Nm. .eN. NH. 0H. HH. 00.- mH.- mo.- HmuemeHocH HOHDQOU 00. HH. 00.- HH. 0H. NH.- HN.- 0H.- mH.- 00. 0H.- 0N.- 00.- NH.- mmHsmsH Hobos ems-om muse 0N.- 00.- 0N.- mm.- eH.- HH.- 00.- 0N.- 0N.- 0N. H0. 00.- 0H.- HN.- -0emH60eH 0H6HH Has-om HH.- 00. NH.- 00.- 0N.- N0. e0.- 00. H0. 00. HH.- NH.- 0H.- 0H.- HHH>HuomHHmm H0. 0H. N0.- 00. mo. e0.- N0. HN.- 0H.- mo. 0H.- N0. 0H. 00.- meom one moo 00.- 00. 00.- H0.- 00.- 00. 0H. 00.- mo. 00. 00. 00. mH. e0.- xom HuHmoHHso NH. mN. NH. NH. 00. H0. 00. 0H.- NH. vH.- H0.- 00. «H. 00. eoHHmHHHeH Hmme H >H HHH HH H H >H HHH HH H >H HHH HH H msmxmumumo hDHHHQMDmsH ONHm smpmhm mouoom maM£mm o0. N0.- N0.- HH. N0. N0.- NH.- 0H.- N0. NH. ooHoHom Hooueom H0. 0H. N0.- NH. N0.- NH.- NH.- 0N.- H0. NH.- HHHmoHHoo HonHo> mHmoomOHm HN. NN.- NN.- NN.- NH.- HN.- 0N.- NN.- NN.- 00.- eoHHmoHoooHH mocmu N0. NN.- N0.- NH.- HH. 0N.- NN.- 0N.- HN.- NH.- -omsoo HoHooN NN. 0N.- NN.- 0N.- HN.- HH.- HN.- N0.- NN.- N0. ooeouoosoo Home cowpomupmwn N0. N0.- N0. H0.- «H. 00. N0.- N0. HH.- NH. op ooconHmom 0H. NN.- NH.- HH.- NH.- N0.- 0N.- N0. N0.- NH. oooonHmHoe mcflcnmoq N0. 00.- N0.- 00. NH. N0.- N0. N0.- 00.- N0. HoooHHcoHHH mdwcnmmq NH. H0. NH. 00. NH. H0. H0. e0.- o0.- NH. HopeooHooH HOHDSOU N0. H0.- 00.- 0H. 00. oN. HN. HN. NN. NH. omHomsH Houoz HHH-om oooo HN. 0H.- NN.- NN.- NN.- HH.- 0H.- NH.- NH.- 00. -oeomooeH oHoHH ems-om NH. 00.- NH.- 0H.- 0N.- N0.- NH.- 00. N0.- N0. HHH>HHooHHom N0. N0. 00. 00. N0. N0.- No.- H0. 00. HH.- ocom one moo H0. 00. 0H. N0. 00. 00. N0. N0.- NH. N0. xom HHHmoHHoo NH. 0H. 0N. NH. N0. 0H. «0. 0H. 0N. oo.- coHuoHuHcH Home H >H HHH HH H H >H HHH HH H COHHOOHHQ ucosooummmflo monoom memo oooeHHcoo .N mHnoe 79 to the scores of the WPPSI and the CATB. WPPSI Results The results of these correlations are given in Table 6. In general the hypothesis is not sustained. There is a tendency for assertion to be related positively to some tests and negatively to others. In this category only one r reaches Significance at the .05 level in the second year. In the third year 'assertion' and Similarities are correlated .37. In the correlations between 'playmates' and WPPSI scores, there is more consistency in that the tendencies are negative throughout. The rs are highest in the second and third years. There is a tendency for 'outside Visits' to be positively related to some of the tests and negatively to others. The effects of 'outside visits' on vocabulary and comprehension are good, but the effect on Animal House and Mazes is bad. Discussion During the interview it became apparent that the parents of both.low-income and middle-income children did not look upon 'assertion' as a good quality. Both groups saw the undemanding baby as the "good" baby. There was a decided tendency for the mothers to report that demanding babies changed for the "better" in later years and for mothers who reported that their infants were "good" babies to become more assertive in later years. 80 0H0. a NN0. u H 0N0. n a Hmou ooHHNH ooo HNe. H «HN. u H HHN. u H 0N u Ho NN. NH. HN. HH. NH. HH.- NH.- NN.- N0.- N0. HN. N0.- NH. NH. HH. eoHNoo oHHHosooo NH.- NH.-. e0.- NN.- NH.- HN.- NN.- NN.- Ne.- NN.- NH.- NN.- NN.- NN.- eH.- moses N0.- NH.- N0.- N0.- HH. NH.- NN.- NH.- 0N.- 00. N0.- HH.- 0H.- N0.- N0. .HoHesoo oHoHoHH N0.- NH.- HH. N0.- NN.- NH.- 0N.- HN.- 00. H0.- NH.- 0H.- NH.- NH.- NN.- omoom HNEHHN NN. N0. NN. NN. NN. 00. HN.- NH.- 00. N0. NH. 00. N0.- NH. NN. ooncosonsoo 00. e0.- N0. 00. N0.- 00. 0H.- NH.- N0. HH.- 0N. HN. NH. 0N. HH. moHHHHNHHsHN N0. H0.- 00. N0. N0. NH.- NN.- NN.- NH.- 0H.- NH. HH. N0. 0H. 00. oHHossHHHN NN. NN. HN. HH. H0. NH.- N0.- NN.- NN.- HN.- HH. 0N. NH. HN. NH. HHNHooNoo> HH. H0. NH. N0. 00. NH.- 0N.- HN.- 0N.- 0N.- HH. 0H. 00. NH. 0N. coHHNsHoHeH H0.- N0.- HH. 0H.- NH.- NN.- 0N.- HN.- HN.- eH.- H0.- HH.- 00.- N0.- N0.- ooHNsHoHHoH 0H. N0. NH. N0. 00. HH.- HN.- NN.- HH.- NH.- NH. NN. 00. NN. NH. HNhHo> H0. N0.- NH. H0.- N0.- HN.- NN.- NN.- NH.- NH.- 0H. 00. 00. N0. H0. oHNoN HHHH H >H HHH HH H H >H HHH HH H H >H HHH HH H muHmH> oonDoo mmpmsmmam COHuHommm mouoom Hmmmz Hmnz .monoom Hmmmz pom mpHmH> mpHmpoo one .mopmshmHm .SOHunmmm somspwm msoHumHmHHoo mamsflm .o magma 81 It must be remembered when interpreting the variable of 'playmates' that adults were playmates during the first two years of the child's life while older siblings appear to be 'playmates' during the second two years of life. girl-p Results The results of the correlations between the variables of 'assertion', 'playmates', and 'outside Visits' and the scores of the CATB are found in Table 7. The hypothesis was only partially sustained. It will be seen that 'assertion', 'playmates' and 'outside visits' do have rela- tionships with Field Independence, Task Competence and Kindergarten Prognosis, but that these are negative relation- ships which is contrary to the hypothesis. 'Playmates' likewise seems to have a negative relationship with Reflectivity and Persistence. Discussion Intercorrelations between the scores of the CATB tests reveal that the tests of Task Competence and Kindergarten Prognosis are the tests most highly correlated, .82. While Persistence is correlated with both Task Competence and Kindergarten Prognosis, .53 and .42, respectively, Field Independence is correlated with neither. In fact, Field Independence is not correlated significantly with any of the other CATB tests. 'Outside visits', which is not highly correlated with other CATB tests, does relate to Field Independence significantly on four of the five scores. 82 NH. OH. OH. mH. NH. mo. HN. ON. NH. PH. 0H0. n o NN0. New. n H HNN. n HN. vN. MH. NH. mH. NH. NH. HO. @0. mN. HH. ON. NH. 0H.! ON.I vO.| OH. NH. 00. NH. Nm. ON. mo. OH. 00. NH.I mO.I mH.I ON. no. ON. NN. OH. mH. OH. mO. MN. MN. HN. OO.I umog OOHHNH Odo mN n MO " H Q “)0 Nln “)0 O O H H H Q HOH>m£om mO.I mO.I NH.I mH.I mO.I HO.I OO. NH.I HO. MN. OOHOHmm hmMHcmm H0.- mo.- NN.- 00. H0.- 0H.- H0. NH.- N0.- H0.- HHHNoHHso HNoHo> mHmocmoum NN.- 0N.- NN.- No.- NN.- NN.- HN.- HN.- HN.- H0.- ooHHomHoooHs oocmp o0. NN.- NH.- NH.- N0. o0.- HH.- 00.- N0.- HH. -ooeoo HNHooN mm.) vv.l vv.l Om.) mv.l ON.) Nm.l HN.I hN.I NH.I mocwpmmEOU meB GOHHONHumHQ N0. 0H. N0. NH.- NH.- mo. H0. HH. 00. NH. op oooouNHmom NN.- 0N.- HN.- Nm.- NN.- HH.- HH.- HH.- HH.- N0.- oooonHmHoo deCHNOH H0. N0.- NH.- N0.- N0.- N0.- 0H. N0.- NH.- N0.- HNHoHHooHoH OOHCHNOH N0. NH. 00. HH.- N0. NH. 0H. NH. 00. NH. HNHoooHooH Houvcoo N0. HH.- mo.- N0.- mH.- NH. NH. H0.- NN. HN. omHoosH Houos GOfiw NN.- N0. NN.: NN.- NN.- mN.- NH.- mN.- mN.- NN.- -oooooooH oHoHH HHS-om HN.- N0. NH.- NN.- NN.- 0H.- H0.- N0.- HH.- NH.- HHH>HHooHHom o0. HH.- mN.- N0. N0. N0. m0. N0. N0. 0H.- ooom New moo NH. N0.- mH.- N0. N0. NH. HN. NH. 0H. NH. xom HHHNoHHoo NH. o0.- N0.- NH. 00. NN. NH. NN. NN. N0. ooHHNHHHoH HNNH >H HHH HH H NHHNH> oonHoo lil- wNHZ .mmHoom mhfiU qu B >H HHH HH H B >H HHH HH H mopmsmmHm cOHuHommm moHoom mamu muHmH> OOHmHSO use .moumENNHm .QOHuHomm¢ soosuwm mSOHHMHOHHOU OHmsHm .m OHQNB 83 Banta is quoted in Chapter III as saying that children at the age of three are ready to learn the behaviors he attempts to measure. Perhaps this is why the scores which are taken from the mother's responses about the first year of life do not correlate highly with the CATB scores. On the WPPSI tests the scores from the first year of life seemed to predict best. Hypothesis IV Introduction Hypothesis IV states that by means of a multiple correlation employing the variables of 'system-size', 'instability', 'caretakers', 'disagreement', and 'direction' the scores on the WPPSI, the CATB, and the Boger Sociometric can be predicted. In each case, the WPPSI, the CATB, and the Sociometric, the number of subjects tested is different. Therefore each multiple correlation must be reported separately. For this reason the hypothesis will be presented in three sections. Each section will present the results and the discussion of the multiple R relating to the respective test. The interpretation Of the multiple R as a degree of relationship and as a predictor is somewhat different. The R eXpresseS a relationship, but a high degree of relationship does not always imply accuracy of prediction. In general, however, the multiple R is interpreted in the same manner as the simple Pearson r (McNemar, 1962). 84 The number of independent variables is rather large in relation to the N. This tends to lower the significance level. The method of calculating the level of Significance is that recommended by McNemar (1962) as being exact and making compensations for the number of variables used in the equation. Thus the number of predictor variables does tend to inflate the R but does not affect the level of significance. EEE§I (as dependent variable) Remarks The N for this multiple R was 27. Three children were not teSted. In the analysis they were dropped. Results The results of the multiple correlations are given in Tables 8 through 12. Each table gives the correlations between the mothers' responses on the variables for the ’given year. First year: the hypothesis seems to be partially sus- tained for this year's reSponses. Five of the Rs reach the .05 level of significance. Second year: the hypothesis is not sustained for this year; no R reaches significance. Third year: no R reaches Significance. Fourth year: one R, the Mazes test, is predicted at the .01 level of significance. Total score: two Rs reach significance at the .05 level. These are the tests of Mazes and Performance. 85 Table 8. Multiple Correlations. System-Size, Instability, Caretakers, Disagreement, and Direction, from Low-Income Mothers' Responses About Child's First Year. Scores. N=27 WPPSI Independent Variables are Dependent Variables are WPPSI Scores Major Contributor Direction R. Sig. Full Scale System-Size Neg. .58 .04 Verbal System-Size Neg. .56 .05 Performance Instability P05. .56 .06 Information System-Size Neg. .49 .13 VOcabulary System-Size Neg. .71 .003 Arithmetic System-Size Neg. .43 .22 Similarities Direction P03. .37 .31 Comprehension System-Size Neg. .54 .07 Animal House Caretakers Neg. .59 .03 Picture Compre- Instability POS. .45 .19 hension Mazes Instability P05. .63 .02 Geometric Design Instability P05. .45 .19 Block Design Disagreement Pos. .48 .15 86 Table 9. Multiple Correlations. Independent Variables are System-Size, Instability, Caretakers, Disagreement, and Direction, from Low-Income Mothers' Responses About Child's Second Year. Dependent Variables are WPPSI Scores. N=27 WPPSI Major Contributor Direction R. Sig. Full Scale Instability Pos. .20 .43 Verbal Disagreement P05. .29 .42 Performance Instability P03. .26 .44 Information Disagreement Pos. .30 .40 Vocabulary System-Size Neg. .46 .18 Arithmetic Disagreement P05. .20 .48 Similarities Disagreement P05. .40 .27 Comprehension Direction P03. .21 .47 Animal House Instability P03. .36 .33 Picture Compre- System-Size Neg. .14 .49 hension Mazes Direction Neg. .51 .ll Geometric Design Direction P05. .18 .53 Block Design Instability Pos. .33 .38 87 Table 10. Multiple Correlations. are System-Size, Instability, Caretakers, Disagreement, and Direction from Low-Income Mothers' Responses About Child's Third Year. Independent Variables Dependent Variables are WPPSI Scores. N=27 WPPSI Scores Major Contributor Direction R Sig. Full Scale Instability P05. .37 .32 verbal Instability Pos. .34 .35 Performance Disagreement Neg. .41 .25 Information Instability Pos. .32 .38 Vocabulary Instability P05. .44 .21 Arithmetic Direction Neg. .28 .43 Similarities Instability Pos. .41 .26 Comprehension Instability Pos. .33 .37 Animal House Disagreement Neg. .49 .18 Picture Compre- Instability Neg. .27 .44 hension Mazes Disagreement Neg. .52 .10 Geometric Design Disagreement Neg. .27 .44 Block Design Instability P05. .42 .23 l.l!l| Ill 1 'Il 88 Table 11. Multiple Correlations. Independent Variables are System-Size, Instability, Caretakers, Disagreement, and Direction, from Low-Income Mothers' Responses About Child's Fourth Year. Dependent Variables are WPPSI Scores. N=27 WPPSI Scores Major Contributor Direction R Sig. Full Scale Direction Neg. .47 .17 verbal Disagreement POS. .49 .14 Performance Direction Neg. .53 .08 Information Direction Neg. .41 .26 VOcabulary Direction Neg. .51 .11 Arithmetic Direction Neg. .50 .12 Similarities Disagreement Pos. .51 .11 Comprehension System-Size Neg. .44 .20 Animal House Instability Pos. .39 .28 Picture Compre- Direction Neg. .29 .42 hension Mazes Direction - 0 Neg. .66 .01 Geometric Design Instability Pos. .48 .15 Block Design Instability P05. .46 .18 Table 12. Multiple Correlations. are Instability, Caretakers, Disagreement, and Direction, from Low-Income Mothers' ReSponses 89 Independent Variables About Child's Total Four Years. Dependent Variables are WPPSI Scores. N=27 WPPSI Scores Major Contributor‘ Direction R Sig. Full Scale Disagreement Neg. .49 .08 Verbal Disagreement Neg. .40 .19 Performance Disagreement Neg. .53 .05 Information Disagreement Neg. .42 .16 Vocabulary Disagreement Neg. .54 .04 Arithmetic Disagreement Neg. .24 .41 Similarities Instability P05. .34 .29 Comprehension Disagreement Neg. .33 .29 Animal House Disagreement Neg. .47 .10 Picture Compre- Direction Neg. .27 .39 hension Mazes Direction Neg. .61 .01 Geometric Design Disagreement Neg. .48 .09 Block Design Instability P03. .48 .09 90 Discussion It must be remembered that these Rs due to the large error variances and the high number of predictors must be at least .56 in order to be significant at the .05 level. The R, even when it does not reach significance, does eXpress the relationship. The tables indicate the highest partial correlation coefficient and the sign of this partial coefficient. This indicates which variable in conjunction with the others in the prediction contributed the most to the R. It does not indicate what would be the highest correlation between the independent and dependent variables in a simple correlation. Thus 'instability' is most highly correlated with the WPPSI scores in the Simple correlations given in Table 4. "System— Size' appears in Table 8 as being the highest partial correlation coefficient. The rationale for combining the variables as independent variables in the equation was that it was felt that they would all be negatively related to the scores on the WPPSI. AS was indicated in the discussion of the previous hypotheses, this was not so. Therefore these variables were not chosen because they would give the highest R but on the basis of previous hypothesizing. The multiple correlation is a method of determining to what extent the various independent variables contribute different 'validities' to the R. Thus if they are measuring the same thing, they will give an R which is no higher than the highest of the variables entering 91 into the equation. There are certain subtleties of inter- pretation that will not be attempted here. These remarks apply to the multiple correlations used throughout the analysis of this study. EASE (as dependent variable) Remarks The N for this group was 26. Four children were not tested. They were drOpped in the analysis. Results The results of the multiple correlations are presented in Tables 13 through 17. In general for the four years and for the total score summed over the four years the hypothesis was not sustained. First year: no R reaches Significance. Second year: only the scores of the test, Motor Impulse Control, can be predicted at the .05 level. Third year: three tests, Motor Impulse Control, Task Competence, and Kindergarten Prognosis, are predicted at the .05 level. Total score: only Task Competence can be predicted at the .05 level. Discussion As was to be eXpected from the presentation of the material in the discussion of hypothesis II, Table 5, the Rs are higher for the last two years, ie., the responses of the mothers are correlated higher with the scores when these 92 Table 13. Multiple Correlations. Independent Variables are System Size, Instability, Caretakers, Disagreement, and Direction, from Low—Income Mothers' Responses About Child's First Year. Dependent Variables are CATB Scores. N=26 CATB Scores Major Direction R. Sig. Contributor Task Initiation Direction P05. .23 .47 Curiosity Box Direction P05. .42 .24 Dog and Bone Disagreement Neg. .35 .35 Reflectivity System Size Neg. .32 .40 EC-MFF Field Independence Instability P03. .45 .20 EC-EFT Motor Impulse System Size Neg. .48 .16 Control Incidental Learning System Size Neg. .35 .36 Intentional System Size Neg. .42 .25 Learning Persistence System Size Neg. .45 .21 Resistence to System Size Neg. .40 .27 Distraction Task Competence System Size Neg. .47 .17 Social Competence Direction P05. .35 .36 Kindergarten System Size Neg. .31 .41 Prognosis Verbal Curiosity Instability P05. .36 .34 Fantasy Related System Size Neg. .38 .31 Behavior 93 Table 14. Multiple Correlations. Independent Variables are System Size, Instability, Caretakers, Disagreement, and Direction, from Low-Income Mothers' Responses about Child's Second Year. Dependent Variables are CATB Scores. N=26 CATB Scores Major Direction R. Sig. Contributor Task Initiation Disagreement P05. .31 .40 Curiosity Box Disagreement Neg. .30 .42 Dog and Bone Instability Neg. .18 .47 Reflectivity System Size Neg. .16 .47 EC—MFF Field Independence Instability Neg. .40 .28 EC-EFT Motor Impulse Disagreement P05. .55 .08 Control Incidental Learning Direction P05. .33 .38 Intentional Caretakers Pos. .20 .48 Learning Persistence System Size Neg. .50 .13 Resistence to Direction P05. .37 .32 Distraction Task Competence System Size Neg. .58 .05 Social Competence Disagreement Neg. .37 .32 Kindergarten System Size Neg. .49 .15 Prognosis Verbal Curiosity Instability P03. .24 .46 Fantasy Related Instability P05. .41 .27 Behavior 94 Table 15. Multiple Correlations. Independent Variables are System Size, Instability, Caretakers, Disagreement, and Direction, from Low-Income Mothers' Responses about Child's Third Year. Dependent Variables are CATB Scores. N=26 CATB Scores Major Direction R. Sig. Contributor Task Initiation Direction P03. .33 .38 Curiosity Box Direction P05. .39 .30 Dog and Bone Instability Neg. .23 .47 Reflectivity Disagreement Pos._ .25 .46 EC-MFF Field Independence Direction Neg. .43 .23 EC-EFT Motor Impulse Disagreement Pos. .58 .05 Control Incidental Learning Instability P05. .30 .41 Intentional Direction Neg. .43 .23 Learning Persistence System Size Neg. .49 .15 Resistence to Instability Pos. .37 .32 Distraction Task Competence Direction Neg. .57 .06 Social Competence Disagreement Neg. .36 .34 Kindergarten Direction Neg. .43 .23 Prognosis Verbal Curiosity Direction P05. .41 .26 Fantasy Related Instability P05. .53 .10 Behavior 95 Table 16. Multiple Correlations. Independent Variables are System Size, Instability, Caretakers, Disagreement, and Direction, from Low-Income Mothers' Responses about Child's Fourth Year. Dependent Variables are CATB Scores. N=26 CATB Scores Major Direction R. Sig. Contributor Task Initiation Caretakers P05. .29 .43 Curiosity Box Caretakers P03. .16 .49 Dog and Bone Caretakers P03. .30 .42 Reflectivity System Size P05. .44 .23 EC-MFF Field Independence Direction Neg. .29 .43 EC-EFT Motor Impulse Disagreement P05. .60 .04 Control Incidental Learning Instability P05. .42 .25 Intentional Direction Neg. .43 .24 Learning Persistence Caretakers P05. .34 .36 Resistence to Instability P03. .36 .34 Distraction Task Competence Direction Neg. .68 .01 Social Competence Instability P05. .39 .29 Kindergarten Direction Neg. .61 .03 Prognosis Verbal Curiosity System Size Neg. .42 .24 Fantasy Related Disagreement Neg. .20 .53 Behavior 96 Table 17. Multiple Correlations. are Instability, Caretakers, Disagreement, and Direction, from Low-Income Mothers' Responses Independent Variables about Child's Four Years Totaled. Dependent Variables are CATB Scores. N=26 CATB Scores Major Direction R. Sig. Contributor Task Initiation Direction Pos. .16 .48 Curiosity Box Caretakers Neg. .27 .39 Dog and Bone Disagreement Neg. .13 .50 Reflectivity Direction Neg. .22 .44 EC-MFF Field Independence Direction Neg. .32 .33 EC-EFT Motor Impulse Disagreement P05. .47 .11 Control Incidental Learning Instability P05. .29 .36 Intentional Caretakers P05. .22 .44 Learning Persistence Direction Neg. .44 .14 Resistence to Instability P05. .21 .44 Distraction Task Competence Direction Neg. .57 .03 .Social Competence Disagreement Neg. .40 .21 Kindergarten Direction Neg. .46 .12 Prognosis ‘Verbal Curiosity Disagreement Neg. .20 .45 lFantasy Related Instability P03. .35 .28 Behavior 97 responses refer to the later two years of the child's first four years of life. In the discussion of that hypothesis it was remarked that Banta indicated that the behaviors he was measuring should have their beginnings in the third year. It will likewise be remembered that the CATB tests of Task Competence and Kindergarten Prognosis are intercorrelated most highly. Sociometric: Category Most-Liked (dependent variable) Remarks The N for these multiple correlations is 30. The Boger Sociometric is a much shorter test than the WPPSI or CATB. It was feasible to return for make-up tests when children were not immediately available. Also Special pains had to be taken to include all the children's pictures so as not to bias the results. The score on the category Most-Liked was achieved by counting the times a given child is chosen as most liked by his peers. No weighting system was used in scoring. It can be surmised that a prOper weighting system would increase the possibility of higher correlations. Also the N used in the analysis is 30 although in both the Boger and the Brown, one child was missing from the tests and the actual N was 29. Thus the Rs are in the conservative direction. Results The results of the multiple correlations are given in inable 18. The levels of significance given for the category 98 Most-Liked can be halved. In Table 18 the multiple Rs for the correlations between the variables and other parts of the Sociometric and the Brown are given. They will be discussed later. Because of the difficulties cited above no firm conclusions can be given. However, the Size of the Rs inclines one to the belief that under prOper conditions a relationship between the variables used as predictors and the criterion would emerge. Discussion The variable of 'disagreement7 appears most Often in these correlations after the first year. It would appear logical that an atmosphere high in 'disagreement' would contribute negatively to qualities that would enable a child to be liked. It is noteworthy that 'disagreement' contributes negatively to Most-Liked and positively to Least Liked. The relationship of 'disagreement' to low scores on the Brown Self Concept is also interesting. It should likewise be noted that the low-income and middle—income children score significantly different on the Boger and the Brown, with scores in favor of the middle-income children. It is of interest to note that in correlations between disagreement and the category Most-Liked for the total group, lOWhincome and middle-income combined, N = 45, there were significant correlations for each of the four years. This cannot be eXplained by the presence of both the low-income and middle-income groups combined. The r between Most-Liked and socio-economic status was only .05. However the 99 Table 18. Multiple Correlations. System Size, Instability, Caretakers, Disagree- ment, and Direction from Low-Income Mothers' Independent Variables are Responses about Each of Child's Four Years and Four Years Totaled. Dependent Variables are Sociometric and Brown Self—Concept. N=30 Criterion Highest Partial Corr. Coeff. R. Sig.* FIRST YEAR Boger Situa— Disagreement —.36 .39 .51 tion ‘ Boger Most Disagreement -.33 .47 .27 Liked Boger Least System Size -.18 .37 .56 Liked Brown Self System Size .31 .46 .28 Concept SECOND YEAR Boger Situa- Disagreement -.36 .39 .51 tion Boger Most Disagreement -.33 .47 .27 Liked Boger Least System Size .18 .37 .56 Liked Brown Self Disagreement -.16 .26 .87 Concept THIRD YEAR Boger Situa- Disagreement - . 46 . 50 . 18 tion Boger Most Disagreement -.25 .41 .44 Liked Boger Least Disagreement .26 .44 .33 Liked Brown.Self Disagreement -.41 .50 .18 Concept Table 100 18. continued Criterion Highest Partial Corr. Coeff. R. Sig.* FOURTH YEAR Boger Situa- Caretakers —.20 .32 .73 tion Boger Most Disagreement -.35 .44 .33 Liked Boger Least Instability —.20 .26 .86 Liked Brown Self Instability .35 .41 .45 Concept TOTAL FOUR YEARS Boger Situa- Disagreement -.35 .42 .27 tion Boger Most Caretakers .30 .40 .32 Liked Boger Least Disagreement .07 .22 .84 Liked Brown Self Disagreement -.43 .44 .21 Concept *Significance level is for two-tailed test. 101 correlations between socioeconomic status and the category Least Liked and socioeconomic status and the Brown show significant relationships. It Should be remembered that the variable 'disagreement' refers to the members of the child's social system not to the child. A further discussion of this variable will be made in Chapter V. Hypothesis V Introduction Hypothesis V states that by means of the variables of 'assertion', 'playmates', and 'outside visits' the scores of the WPPSI, the CATB, and the category Most Liked on the Boger can be predicted. As with Hypothesis IV the NS are different for the WPPSI, the CATB, and the Boger. Each set of multiple RS will be presented separately. ngdr (as dependent variable) Remarks The N for this multiple correlation was 27. In the analysis the three children not tested were drOpped. Results The results of the multiple correlations are given in Tables 19 through 23. First year: the results do not sustain the hypothesis. Only one R reaches significance. The variable of 'playmates' (xxrtributes to a significant R on the test of Vocabulary. 102 Second year: as with year one, the WPPSI tests pre- dicted with a significance level beyond .05 is that of Vocabulary and Mazes. Third year: the test of Vocabulary can be predicted at a significance level of .02. No other R reaches significance. Fourth year: Comprehension, Vocabulary, and Similarities can be predicted at the .05 level of significance. Similarities is significant at .007. Total score: two tests, Vocabulary and Geometric Design can be predicted at the .03 level of significance. Discussion In general throughout the tables the variable that appears to be the best predictor is 'playmates'. It is a consistently negative contributor to R. It appears most often as the highest partial correlation coefficient after year one. The variables of 'assertion' and 'outside Visits' are generally positive contributors to R. It can be seen that the intercorrelations of the WPPSI, given in Appendix C, indicate that the tests of Vocabulary, (Zomprehension, and Similarities correlate highly. Arithmetic appears to be associated with these tests. In the fourth year, Table 21, it can be predicted with a significance level of .09. Table 19. Multiple Correlations. 103 Independent Variables are Assertion, Playmates, and Outside Visits, from Low-Income Mothers' Responses about Child's First Year. N=27 Dependent Variables are WPPSI Scores. WPPSI Scores Major Contributor Direction R. Sig. Full Scale Playmates Neg. .23 .35 Verbal Playmates Neg. .35 .17 Performance Outside Visits Neg. .17 .43 Information Playmates Neg. .41 .10 Vocabulary Playmates Neg. .53 .02 Arithmetic Playmates Neg. .21 .38 Similarities Assertion Pos. .23 .36 Comprehension Outside Visits P05. .35 .18 Animal House Outside Visits Neg. .41 .11 Picture Compre- Outside Visits P03. .12 .47 hension .Mazes Playmates Neg. .27 .31 Geometric Design Assertion P05. .19 .41 Block Design Assertion Pos . . 22 . 37 104 Table 20. Multiple Correlations. Independent Variables are Assertion, Playmates, and Outside Visits, from Low-Income Mothers' Responses about Child's Second Year. Dependent Variables are WPPSI Scores. N=27 WPPSI Scores Major Contributor Direction R. Sig. Full Scale Playmates Neg. .31 .24 Verbal Assertion P05. .39 .13 Performance Playmates Neg. .25 .33 Information Playmates Neg. .44 .07 Vocabulary Playmates Neg. .53 .02 Arithmetic Playmates Neg. .27 .29 Comprehension Outside Visits Pos. .29 .27 Animal House Outside Visits Neg. .19 .40 Picture Compre- Playmates Neg. .23 .36 hension Mazes Playmates Neg. .49 .04 Geometric Design Playmates Neg. .31 .28 JBlock Design Playmates Neg. .28 .28 Sindlarities Assertion Pos. .35 .17 Table 21. Multiple Correlations. 105 Independent Variables are Assertion, Playmates, and Outside Visits, from Low-Income Mothers' Responses about Child's Third Year. N=27 Dependent Variables are WPPSI Scores. WPPSI Scores Major Contributor Direction R. Sig. Full Scale Playmates Neg. .42 .09 Verbal Playmates Neg. .41 .11 Performance Playmates Neg. .38 .14 Information Playmates Neg. .39 .12 VOcabulary Playmates Neg. .52 .02 Arithmetic Playmates Neg. .35 .18 Similarities Assertion Pos. .26 .32 Comprehension Outside Visits P05. .43 .08 Animal House Playmates Neg. .36 .17 Picture Compre- Playmates Neg. .18 .41 hension Mazes Playmates Neg. .35 .18 Geometric Design Playmates Neg. .45 .06 Block Design Playmates Neg. .23 .36 106 Table 22. Multiple Correlations. Independent Variables are Assertion, Playmates, and Outside Visits, from Low-Income Mothers' Responses about Child's Fourth Year. Dependent Variables are WPPSI Scores. N=27 WPPSI Scores Major Contributor Direction R. Sig. Full Scale Playmates Neg. .36 .16 Verbal Playmates Neg. .53 .02 Performance Playmates Neg. .21 .39 Information Playmates Neg. .38 .15 Vocabulary Playmates Neg. .48 .05 Arithmetic Playmates Neg. .42 .09 Similarities Assertion P03. .60 .007 Comprehension Playmates Neg. .47 .05 Animal House Playmates Neg. .25 .33 Picture Compre- Playmates Neg. .29 .26 hension Mazes Outside Visits P05. .27 .28 Geometric Design Outside Visits P03. .30 .26 Block Design Outside Visits P05. .06 .50 Table 23. Multiple Correlations. 107 Independent Variables are Assertion, Playmates, and Outside Visits, from Low-Income Mothers' Responses about Child's Four Years Totaled. Scores. N=27 Dependent Variables are WPPSI WPPSI Scores Major Contributor Direction R. Sig. Full Scale Playmates Neg. .36 .17 Verbal Playmates Neg. .36 .17 Performance Playmates Neg. .33 .20 Information Playmates Neg. .37 .15 Vocabulary Playmates Neg. .51 .03 Arithmetic Playmates Neg. .26 .31 Similarities Assertion P05. .25 .32 Comprehension Outside Visits P05. .32 .22 Animal House Assertion Neg. .22 .37 Picture Compre- Playmates Neg. .15 .45 hension Mazes Playmates Neg. .34 .20 Geometric Design Playmates Neg. .50 .03 Block Design Playmates Neg. .34 .19 108 953d (as dependent variable) Remarks The N for these multiple correlations is 26. Results The results for these multiple correlations are presented in Tables 24 through 28. First year: only two Rs reach significance. These refer to the tests of Persistence and Task Competence. Second year: three RS reach significance. They refer to the tests of Field Independence, Persistence, and Task Competence. It is noteworthy that the variable of 'outside Visits' appears in the multiple correlation as a negative contributor to R which eXpresses the relationship between the independent variables and Field Independence. Third year: only one R reaches significance. This is the R that refers to Kindergarten Prognosis. Total scores: only one R reaches Significance. This R refers to Kindergarten Prognosis. Discussion AS with the multiple correlations employing the same independent variables and the WPPSI scores as dependent variables the best predictor is 'playmates.' However, in the Rs referring to the CATB 'playmates' appears as a major contributor even in the first year. 'Assertion', as in the Rs referring to the WPPSI, appears as a positive contributor to R. Outside visits, except in the test of Field Indepen- dence appears as a positive contributor. Table 24. Multiple Correlations. 109 Independent Variables are Assertion, Playmates, and Outside Visits, from Low-Income Mothers' Responses about Child's First Year. Dependent Variables are CATB Scores. N=27 CATB Scores Major Contributor Direction R. Sig. Task Initiation Outside Visits Neg. .11 .48 Curiosity Box Assertion P05. .15 .45 Dog and Bone Outside Visits P05. .37 .16 Reflectivity Playmates Neg. .37 .17 EC-MFF Field Independ- Outside Visits Neg. .33 .22 ence EC—EFT Motor Impulse Playmates Neg. .44 .08 Control Incidental Learning Outside Visits P05. .21 .39 Intentional Outside Visits P03. .30 .25 Learning Persistence Playmates Neg. .49 .05 Resistence to Playmates Neg. .36 .19 Distraction Task Competence Playmates Neg. .53 .02 Social Competence Outside Visits Pos. .30 .26 Kindergarten Playmates Neg. .44 .08 Prognosis Verbal Curiosity Outside Visits Pos. .24 .35 Fantasy Related Playmates Neg. .35 .19 Behavior Table 25. Multiple Correlations. Assertion, Playmates, and Outside Visits from 110 Low-Income Mothers' Responses about Child's Second Year. N=26 Independent Variables are Dependent Variables are CATB Scores. CATB Scores Major Contributor Direction R. Sig. Task Initiation Assertion Pos. .29 .27 Curiosity Box Assertion Pos. .19 .41 Dog and Bone Outside Visits P05. .23 .37 Reflectivity Playmates Neg. .24 .35 EC—MFF Field Independ- Outside Visits Neg. .48 .05 ence EC-EFT Motor Impulse Assertion P05. .38 .15 Control Incidental Playmates Neg. .21 .37 Learning Intentional Outside Visits P05. .36 .18 Learning Persistence Playmates Neg. .50 .04 Resistence to Playmates Neg. .20 .40 Distraction Task Competence Playmates Neg. .58 .01 Social Competence Outside Visits Pos. .26 .33 Kindergarten Playmates Neg. .44 .08 Prognosis Verbal Curiosity Outside Visits P05. .24 .35 Fantasy Related Playmates Neg. .35 .19 Behavior 111 Table 26. Multiple Correlations. Independent Variables are Assertion, Playmates, and Outside Visits from Low- Income Mothers' Responses about Child's Third Year. Dependent Variables are CATB Scores. N=26 CATB Scores Major Contributor Direction R. Sig. Task Initiation Assertion P08. .37 .16 Curiosity Box Playmates Neg. .33 .22 Dog and Bone Playmates Neg. .42 .11 Reflectivity Playmates Neg. .19 .41 EC-MFF Field Independ- Outside Visits Neg. .48 .05 ence EC-EFT Motor Impulse Playmates Neg. .09 .48 Control Incidental Outside Visits P03. .28 .30 Learning Intentional Outside Visits Pos. .31 .25 Learning Persistence Playmates Neg. .33 .22 Resistence to Outside Visits P03. .14 .45 Distraction Task Competence Playmates Neg. .45 .08 Social Competence Outside Visits P08. .38 .15 Kindergarten Playmates Neg. .37 .16 Prognosis Verbal Curiosity Outside Visits P03. .36 .18 Fantasy Related Outside Visits P05. .39 .14 Behavior 112 Table 27. Multiple Correlations. Independent Variables are Assertion, Playmates, and Outside Visits from Low— Income Mothers' ReSponses about Child's Fourth Year. Dependent Variables are CATB Scores. N=26 CATB Scores Major Contributor Direction R. Sig. Task Initiation Playmates Neg. .34 .21 Curiosity Box Assertion P05. .39 .19 Dog and Bone Outside Visits P05. .35 .19 Reflectivity Outside Visits Neg. .16 .45 EC-MFF Field Independ— Playmates PCS. .31 .25 ence EC-EFT Motor Impulse Assertion P05. .32 .23 Control Incidental Outside Visits P03. .33 .22 Learning Intentional Outside Visits P05. .34 .20 Learning Persistence Playmates Neg. .34 .20 Resistence to Outside Visits P08. .20 .40 Distraction Task Competence Playmates Neg. .45 .08 Social Competence Playmates Neg. .43 .09 Kindergarten Playmates Neg. .50 .04 Prognosis Verbal Curiosity Outside Visits P05. .24 .24 Fantasy Related Outside Visits P05. .29 .27 Behavior 113 Table 28. Multiple Correlations. Independent Variables are Assertion, Playmates, and Outside Visits from Low- Income Mothers' ReSponses about Child's Four Years Totaled. Dependent Variables are CATB Scores. N=26 CATB Scores Major Contributor Direction R. Sig. Task Initiation Assertion P05. .24 .36 Curiosity Box Assertion P05. .19 .42 Dog and Bone Outside Visits P03. .22 .37 Reflectivity Playmates Neg. .23 .37 EC-MFF Field Independ- Outside Visits Neg. .40 .12 ence EC—EFT Motor Impulse Assertion P05. .20 .40 Control Incidental Outside Visits P03. .23 .37 Learning Intentional Outside Visits P05. .31 .29 Learning Persistence Outside Visits P05. .29 .27 Resistence to Outside Visits P05. .16 .44 Distraction Task Competence Playmates Neg. .33 .21 Social Competence Outside Visits P05. .27 .31 Kindergarten Playmates Neg. .50 .04 Prognosis Verbal Curiosity Outside Visits Pos. .24 .35 Fantasy Related Outside Visits P05. .29 .27 Behavior 114 Sociometric (category Most-Liked as dependent variable) Remarks As was mentioned before although the actual number of children tested was 29 the N used in analysis was 30. This tends to lower the Rs and the significance of the actual relationship. Results The results of the multiple correlations are given in Table 29. Discussion It is of interest to note that the variable of 'play- mates' seems to contribute negatively to both the categories of Most and Least Liked on the Sociometric. It seems obvious from other data available at the E and R Center that children who are chosen Most Liked are often chosen Least Liked. The category of Most Liked on the Boger is correlated .51 with the Brown Self Concept. Additional Tests and Observations In addition to the tests about which hypotheses were made there were other tests given to the children enrolled in the Lansing Experimental Project. The WPPSI, the CATB, and they ratings of test behavior were given only to the low-income children. The Sociometric, the Brown, were administered to all of the children. The Parten-Newell was made by the teachers only for the mixed experimental classes. These tests and observations not previously discussed will be briefly presented here. 115 Table 29. Multiple Correlations. Independent Variables are Assertion, Playmates, and Outside Visits from Low- Income Mothers' Responses about Child's Four Years and Four Years Totaled. Dependent Variables are Scores of Sociometric and Brown Self Concept. N=30 Criterion Highest Partial Corr. Coeff. R. Sig.* FIRST YEAR Boger Situa- Assertion .03 .03 .99 tion Boger Most Playmates —.19 .22 .70 Liked Boger Least Outside Visits -.21 .34 .35 Liked Brown Self Playmates .16 .21 .74 Concept SECOND YEAR Boger Situa- Assertion .06 .06 .99 tion Boger Most Playmates -.32 .36 .28 Liked Boger Least Playmates -.24 .33 .35 Liked Brown Self Outside Visits -.14 .16 .85 Concept THIRD YEAR Boger Situa- Playmates -.26 .33 .37 tion Boger Most Playmates -.15 .25 .62 Liked Boger Least Outside Visits -.17 .27 .54 Liked Brown Self Outside Visits .15 .18 .80 Concept 116 Table 29. continued Criterion Highest Partial Corr. Coeff. R. Sig.* FOURTH YEAR Boger Situa- Playmates -.18 .20 .75 tion Boger Most Assertion -.33 .39 .20 Liked Boger Least Assertion —.18 .29 .48 Liked Brown Self Outside Visits .12 .14 .90 Concept TOTAL FOUR YEARS Boger Situa— Outside Visits .18 .19 .79 tion Boger Most Playmates -.28 .36 .27 Liked Boger Least Playmates -.29 .39 .20 Liked Brown Self Assertion .11 .14 .90 Concept *Significance level is for two-tailed test. 117 DevelOpment of Social Behavior Introduction These ratings of unstructured behavior were made during the month of February. This was approximately 16 weeks after the classes had begun. A COpy of the definitions of behavior is found in Appendix G. The independent variables are the same as those used in the multiple correlations using the WPPSI, the CATB, and the Sociometric as dependent variables. The two sets of independent variables are: first set...'system'size', 'caretakers', 'disagreement', and 'direction'; second set... 'assertion', 'playmates', and 'outside visits.‘ The results of the multiple correlations will be given followed by a brief discussion. Results from the First Set of Independent Variables The results of the multiple correlations are found in Table 30. The RS in the first and fourth years of life appear to be Significant. These significance levels are for two- tailed tests. Discussion Reference will be made to these observations in Chapter V. In general the predictions are best with regard to the first and fourth years of life. Results of the Second Set of Independent Variables The results of the multiple correlations are found in Table 30. 118 Multiple Correlations. Independent Variables are System-Size, Instability, Caretakers, Disagree— ment, and Direction. Teachers' Ratings on DevelOpment of Social Behavior. N=31 Dependent Variables are Dependent Variable Highest Partial Corr. Coeff. R. Sig. FIRST YEAR Unoccupied Behavior System Size .29 .43 .36 Solitary Play Direction .27 .46 .26 Onlooker Behavior Caretakers .65 .68 .004 Parallel Play Caretakers .45 .55 .08 Associative Play Instability .47 .58 .05 COOperative Play Direction .41 .62 .02 SECOND YEAR Unoccupied Behavior Instability -.24 .31 .73 Solitary Play Direction -.20 .50 .17 Onlooker Behavior Caretakers .44 .50 .17 Parallel Play Disagreement .34 .50 .16 Associative Play System Size -.25 .48 .21 COOperative Play Direction .38 .50 .17 THIRD YEAR Unoccupied Behavior Disagreement .26 .48 .21 Solitary Play Instability -.31 .55 .08 Onlooker Behavior Caretakers .32 .45 .28 Parallel Play Direction -.38 .47 .23 Associative Play System Size -.29 .44 .32 COOperative Play Disagreement -.31 .48 .21 Table 30. continued 119 Dependent Variable Highest Partial Corr. Coeff. R. Sig. FOURTH YEAR Unoccupied Behavior System Size .28 .44 .33 Solitary Play Caretakers -.36 .56 .07 Onlooker Behavior Caretakers .67 .68 .005 Parallel Play Direction -.43 .49 .20 AsSociative Play Caretakers .50 .57 .05 COOperative Play Direction .41 .52 .12 TOTAL SCORE Unoccupied Behavior Disagreement .51 .58 .02 Solitary Play Instability -.28 .55 .04 Onlooker Behavior Caretakers .45 .46 .15 Parallel Play Instability -.25 .28 .68 Associative Play Caretakers .23 .44 .20 COOperative Play Instability —.08 .15 .95 120 Table 31. The RS for the third and fourth years are higher, in general, than for the first and second years. Discussion Reference will be made to these observations in Chapter Inventory of Factors Affecting Test Performance Introduction These ratings are based on the Beller Scale. A COpy of this scale is found in Appendix H. In the multiple correla- tions using the sets of independent variables described above the dependent variable is a score which is the summation of the scores achieved by the children on the first ten ratings on the scale. These ratings were made immediately after the child was tested. Results The results of the testers' ratings aregiven in Table 32, for the-first set of independent variables, and in Table 33, for the second set of independent variables. As is evident from the tables, the test behavior on the WPPSI Situation is not predictable, while the test behavior in the CATB situation is predictable from the first set of variables for each of the four years and from the second set of independent variables for the first years. Table 31. Multiple Correlations. 121 Assertion, Playmates, and Outside Visits. Dependent Variables are Teachers' Ratings on Independent Variables are DevelOpment of Social Behavior. N=31 Dependent Variable Highest Partial Corr. Coeff. R. Sig. FIRST YEAR Unoccupied Behavior Outside Visits .31 .40 .18 Solitary Play Outside Visits -.28 .36 .26 Onlooker Behavior Outside Visits .30 .30 .40 Parallel Play Assertion -.19 .31 .65 Associative Play Playmates -.19 .23 .65 COOperative Play Playmates .28 .39 .19 SECOND YEAR Unoccupied Behavior Assertion -.29 .47 .06 Solitary Play Outside Visits -.27 .40 .17 Onlooker Behavior Outside Visits .37 .38 .22 Parallel Play Playmates -.25 .33 .34 Associative Play Assertion .23 .36 .28 COOperative Play Playmates .13 .23 .68 THIRD YEAR Unoccupied Behavior Playmates .65 .67 .001 Solitary Play Outside Visits —.43 .53 .02 Onlooker Behavior Outside Visits .26 .28 .51 Parallel Play Outside Visits .15 .19 .77 Associative Play Assertion —.09 .09 .96 COOperative Play Outside Visits .38 .51 .04 Table 31. continued 122 Dependent Variable Highest Partial Corr. Coeff. R. Sig. FOURTH YEAR Unoccupied Behavior Playmates .67 .68 .OOly Solitary Play Outside Visits .50 .59 .007 Onlooker Behavior Outside Visits .34 .37 .25 Parallel Play Playmates .08 .14 .89 Associative Play Outside Visits .39 .47 .07 COOperative Play Assertion .16 .17 .82 TOTAL SCORE Unoccupied Behavior Playmates .47 .48 .05 Solitary Play Outside Visits .35 .53 .02 Onlooker Behavior Outside Visits .37 .50 .04 Parallel Play Playmates .13 .17 .84 Associative Play Outside Visits .29 .42 .13 COOperative Play Playmates .18 .23 .66 123 Table 32. Multiple Correlations. Independent Variables are System-Size, Instability, Caretakers, Disagree- ment, and Direction from Low-Income Mothers' Responses about Child's Four Years and Four Years Totaled. Dependent Variables are Testers' Ratings of Factors Detrimental to Test Performance. Criterion Partial Correlation R. Sig. Coefficient WPPSI Testa Disagreement -.29 .44 .41 Behavior I WPPSI Test Instability -.30 .38 .60 Behavior II WPPSI Test Instability -.30 .38 .60 Behavior III WPPSI Test Caretakers -.28 .37 .64 Behavior IV WPPSI Test Direction .25 .34 .56 Behavior T CATB Testb System Size .42 .63 .04 Behavior I CATB Test System Size .58 .74 .004 Behavior II CATB Test Disagreement -.58 .77 .001 Behavior III CATB Test Caretakers -.60 .69 .01 Behavior IV CATB Test Direction .68 .70 .005 Behavior T aN=27 bN=26 124 Table 33. Multiple Correlations. Independent Variables are Assertion, Playmates and Outside Visits. Dependent Variables are Factors Detrimental to Test Behavior. Criterion Partial Correlation R. Sig. Coefficient WPPSI Testa Playmates .40 .45 .14 Behavior I WPPSI Test Assertion -.46 .50 .07 Behavior II WPPSI Test Assertion -.35 .42 .18 Behavior III WPPSI Test Playmates .19 .26 .65 Behavior IV WPPSI Test Playmates .36 .23 .40 Behavior T CATB Testb Playmates .79 .79 .0005 Behavior I CATB Test Playmates .70 .71 .001 Behavior II CATB Test Playmates .35 .38 .29 Behavior III CATB Test Playmates .19 .26 .65 Behavior IV CATB Test Outside Visits -.35 .36 .36 Behavior T aN=27 bN=26 125 Discussion It will be remembered that the WPPSI tests are highly structured in the sense that definite instructions are given for the performance of certain tasks. The CATB tests, on the other hand, are relatively unstructured; the child is 'observed' rather than 'tested.‘ Sociometric The Rs resulting from the multiple correlations between the sets of independent variables given above and the categories of the Sociometric of play-situation and least- 1iked are given in Tables 18 and 29, already given. Inspec- tion of these Rs indicates that no R reaches Significance. Some discussion of these dependent variables has taken place. Further discussion will take place in Chapter V. Brown IDS Self Concept The Rs resulting from the multiple correlations between the sets of independent variables given above and the Brown Self-Concept are given in Tables 18 and 29. No R reaches significance at the .05 level. Some tendencies have been discussed. Further discussion is reserved for Chapter V. Summary In Chapter IV the results of the analysis of the data were presented. First, the data from the social-system interview for low—income mothers was presented and discussed. Next the five hypotheses were each discussed with the 126 results of the tests. Finally, the analysis of the additional tests and observation was presented. V DISCUSSION Introduction It is possible to distinguish several ways of approaching the discussion of the material presented in the first four chapters of this study. It would seem helpful to delineate two points of view and to indicate the approach taken in the following discussion. First, one could look upon the theory, the hypotheses, and their modes of testing from the position of "pure" re- search. From this point of view, some of the questions to be asked would be: Does the theory provide a logically consistent set of axioms or concepts? Does the theory allow for the Operationalizing of its concepts in a testable form? Has the method of testing the hypotheses proved workable? Have the results been analyzed in accordance with the assumptions of statistics used in the analysis? From the VieWpoint of research, the answer to the above questions can be only a qualified 'yes.‘ In Chapter II the theory was presented. It was not presented in enough detail to make a final judgment about the logic of the relationships between the concepts. There are certain presumptions in its favor. A final answer could come, perhaps, only with further research. With regard to the Operationalizing of the concepts in the chapter on results and analysis (Chapter IV), it was noted that two modes of Operationalizing the concepts were not particularly fortunate. The variables of'playmates' and 127 128 'instability' appeared in the testing to have exactly contrary results to those predicted. "Instability' appeared to be a consistently favorable factor in predicting desirable behav- iors. 'Playmates' appeared as a consistently negative factor. The fault here seems to lie in the Operationalizing of the concepts. 'Instability' would appear to be closely related to what Bertalanffy calls "equifinality" which is the ability of the system to achieve goals in different ways and to readjust after disturbances. Although 'instability' appears to be logically related to hierarchical order, it would perhaps best have been connected with equifinality. 'Playmates' was posited as a positive factor, yet appeared in the correlations as consistently related to negative behaviors. 'Playmates' was thought to be an Operationalizing of the concept of Spontaneous activity; one thinks of play in this fashion. However, from the results of the study one might better assume that what was measured was the hindering of Spontaneous activity. Were the assumptions underlying the statistics used in the analysis met? AS McNemar (1962) notes, they seldom are. In the case of this study, it does not appear that the results of the analySis can be accepted without some qualifi- cation. It will be remembered in the section on limitations (Chapter I) that the sample offered for the present study was not random. Therefore this first violation will have to be kept in mind in interpreting any results. Ideally, the sample Should have been much larger, say 100; and it should 129 have been randomly chosen from the Head Start pOpulation. The results from the vieWpoint of adequate research can only be tentative guides for further research with a larger and more random pOpulation. In this case the statistic employed would more adequately reflect true parameters of the pOpulation of Head Start children. The study had, however, quite practical aims. The theory was chosen with the teacher in mind, and assumptions were made as to what philOSOphical assumptions of the theory a teacher could comfortably accept. It is on this basis as well as on its internal consistency, that the theory should be judged. Secondly, the hypothesis were kept on a level that a teacher on three visits to a home could practically test. Thus, more in-depth or 'clinical' interviewing was avoided. The results of the study, while still qualified as to the statistical relationships between variables, can be fleshed out with practical eXperience in the actual giving of the interview. Finally, from the teacher's stand- point the results of the study must yield suggestions for the planning of educational eXperiences. 1 It is this latter essentially practically oriented vieWpoint which will be adOpted in the further discussion of the results of this study. Below is asrhema illustrating three possible ways of interpreting the data gathered for the study: 130 1. 1. 1. Variables of Social Intervening vari- Classroom System Interview ables: personality behavior factors, sets, patterns, etc. 2. 2. 2. Stimuli: variables Inferred vari- Response: of Social System ables about Classroom Interview which nothing behavior can be said. 3. 3. Variables of Social Classroom System Interview which behavior have concomitant emot- ional, cognitive, person- ality factors. "We are our behavior." It is the third method of thinking about this study that is adOpted in the following discussion. It might be considered a phenomenological approach to the child. The Teacher and the Social-System Interview It was crucial to the worth of this study to be able to find some relationship between the questions and answers from the social-system interview to classroom behavior. It is this relationship that will enable a teacher to find meaning in a child's behavior and help her to plan for further eXperiences. What were the relationships found between the mothers' responses and the child's behavior? To answer this question, each variable will be presented in turn, and the relationships or lack of them will be indicated. Following a discussion of the various concepts implica- tions for the teacher's visits to the children's homes will be made. 131 The teacher's role in the classroom will be discussed and implications for curriculum will be indicated. Concepts s93; This variable showed slight relationship to the other variables of the social-system interview except to the variable of 'assertion.' In the second year the girls appear to be considerably more assertive than the boys. This would appear in line with what is known about the maturation rate of boys and girls. Assertion, it will be remembered, refers to the degree to which a child acted to Obtain given goals in the nine areas of activity investigated. In the tests and behaviors observed in the classroom, assertion seemed to have both positive and negative effects. Where it appears on the multiple correlations, it appears as a positive factor on the WPPSI and CATB. These correlations are generally low. It appears again as a factor in the Sociometric and have negative relationships with both the Most-Liked and Least-Liked categories. It appears most often in what appears to be a negative relationship. It will be remembered that assertion was not looked upon with favor by either low or middle-income mothers. Thus a teacher might relate the behavior of some of her girl students to the presence of a kind of assertiveness and might speculate as to the effects of restraint and disapproval on this characteristic. It might also help her to understand the fact, 132 often observed, that children do not always act at school in the same manner they do at home. Father-Absence This variable, like 'sex,‘ was not investigated as to its relationship to the tests and behaviors in the classroom. In some preliminary analysis it appears to have a positive relationship to task competence and social competence on the CATB. That is, the longer the father was absent from the home the better the children appeared to be rated on these tests. In the Lansing sample father absence was negatively associated with the less desirable aspects of the home. Those variables such as 'caretakers', 'disagreement', 'direction', and 'playmates' are generally negatively associated with 'father-absence', while the characteristic of 'instability' was positively associated with 'father- absence.' This is in part a reflection of family size in the third and fourth years since older Siblings and these characteristics are most highly associated in the last two years. The above might direct the teacher's attention to other parts of the social-system interview. She will be able to determine, as it was possible to do in the Lansing study, whether this father absence means TEE absences from the child's life. It will probably be possible in the course of the interview to determine whether the absence of the natural father really means that a male model was missing from the child's life. It might be stated that in most instances there 133 was a male model for the boy in his social environment. It has been noted by social workers that this male is often more considerate of the child than is his own father. In the guidelines of the DEC for teacher selection (Appendix A), it is mentioned that the presence of a male model in the class- room might be necessary. It is possible for the teacher to determine in a given case if this is so. It might be compar- atively easy for the teacher to determine the presence or absence of a male model since she does not have to inquire directly about the relationship of the mother to men in the child's social-system. In any event, the teacher may well have some of her ideas about father-absent homes modified by the results of her interview. Older Siblings It is probably in the case of older siblings that the merit of asking about each year of the child's life is demon— strated. 'Older siblings' has the least relationship to the other variables in the first year. Even in the instance of 'caretakers' there is a correlation of only .13. 'Older siblings' appears to become a significant variable only in the third and fourth years of the child; and even then there is variation. In preliminary analysis 'Older siblings' had no relation- ship with the scores on the WPPSI. It will be remembered that the Significance levels for the Rs on the WPPSI multiple correlations were most Significant in the first year, that is, 134 the responses of the mothers regarding this period of the child's life were most highly correlated with the WPPSI. On the CATB scores, however the case is different. The variable of 'Older siblings' is highly correlated with the variables of 'playmates' in the last two years as well as with the variables of 'disagreement', 'direction', and 'system-size', all of which correlate negatively with the CATB scores. From the social—system interview it will be possible for the teacher in a given case to determine just to what extent throughout his pre-school life a child was affected by his Older siblings. Among large families in the Lansing sample, it was seen that the children often form alliances; and although there are large numbers of siblings present in the home, the interaction of the child is confined for the most part to one or two of the older siblings. The teacher might notice that these children in the classroom tend to form alliances, to restrict their classroom social-system. These are only some of the observations that can be made about the variable of 'Older siblings.‘ They do indi- cate that certain generalizations can be made; but the variations also indicate that the generalizations must be verified in the individual case. System-Size 'System size' correlates positively with all other variables including 'instability.‘ Thus a large Social system indicates for the child both good and bad features. 135 Where 'system size' appears in the multiple correlations, it generally has a negative relationship to desirable behavior. This negative relationship is more prevalent in the first two years. The variable of 'system size' cannot be attributed, as has been pointed out, to the presence of older siblings alone. There are indications that members of the child's social system, other than the mother, care for the child to a large extent during the first years of life. Thus he is subjected to many favorable and many unfavorable events in his first years. The child suffers from an excess of both good and bad experiences or stimuli. The fact that the Size of the social-system correlates positively with factors which are positively correlated with the desirable behaviors on the tests, inclines one to believe that although the large social system gives the child more of what he needs, it also gives a great deal of what he does not need. Instabilipy The most surprising results of the study concerned the variable of 'instability.‘ As has been pointed out, 'insta- bility' does seem to be partly a result of family moves initiated by the mother. The mothers' reSponseS on the number of individuals entering and leaving the child's social system during the first year is positively related to intelligence. The reason for associating 'instability' with 'system—size', 'disagreement', 'direction', and 'caretakers' is that all these variables were presumed to be factors detrimental to the child's development. What at first sight might appear to 136 be detrimental is probably a result of the mother's attempts to achieve some degree of harmony in the environment. Although 'system-size' and 'instability' are positively related, the correlations of 'instability' with the other variables are consistently low except for the correlation with 'disagreement' during the first year. This relationship drops to .24 during the fourth year and is non-existent during the second and third years. 'Instability' indicates that although the child might have had numerous interactions with many people, he did not have these interactions concurrently, but successively. It has been stated before that the characteristic of Open—systems theory which might best fit this phenomena is that of "equifinality,' Since the social- system seems to be in a process of constant adjustment in order to maintain a steady state. The concept of interaction with the environment might well fit here. The exchange of "material" with the environment might well be better applied to peOple than to things in order to describe the mature system. It does not seem at all detrimental, rather the Opposite, for the child to be in contact with many persons successively. 'Unstable' social-systems appear to be so during all the four years. The correlations between the four years are significantly high. It will be remembered that it was one of the few variables in which the middle-income mothers scored higher than the low—income mothers during the second and third years. 137 Using the raw data in connection with the statistics it is possible to form a picture of what has been somewhat inaccurately called the 'unstable social—system.‘ Children in such social-systems do have a stable, central source of control and direction: this is the mother in our sample. It will be remembered that many of the mothers in the low-income group were ADC mothers. The mother controls the social- system. She is the decision-maker with regard to the members of the social-system of the child. They come and go as a result of her decisions, and, their interaction with the child is under her control. She does not relinquish her responsi- bility to others, especially during the first two years of the child's life. Thus the element of 'hierarchical order' is present in the child's social-system. Caretakers This variable indicates the number and extent of care- taking duties assumed by others than the mother. Adding a score for the mother would merely be adding a constant which would not alter the correlations. This variable is positively related to all the other variables, but it shows the highest relationship to 'direction' and 'outside visits.‘ It will be recalled that 'direction' was most often negatively related to desirable behavior and that 'outside Visits' was sometimes negatively and sometimes positively related. Although the low-income mothers scored consistently higher than the middle-income mothers, the differences were 138 not Significant statistically. Thus it does not seem to be the number of caretakers so much as the other variables with which it is associated that contribute to low scores on desirable behavior. 'Caretakers' in the first year is negatively related to the WPPSI score for 'animal house.’ 'Caretakers' appears again in the teachers' ratings of unstructured behavior where it appears Significantly correlated with 'onlooker behavior.‘ It also appears significantly related to factors related to CATB test behavior in the fourth year. Analysis of the elements that go into.the.full.score on items relating to test behavior reveals that these were items 2 and 8. That is, those children with many caretakers were judged not to have a realistic sense of competence and they failed to respond to encouragement and support. A given teacher than might decide that if a child had been subjected to many caretakers at the same time, she might allow the child his mistakes and refrain from attempting to encourage him. This teacher might find that attempts at encouragement had the Opposite effect than that intended. There is a significant correlation between items 2 and 8 on Task Initiation and Curiosity Box, the first tests on the WPPSI. After that the correlations go down. This prompts one to suspect that encouragement of children who have had large numbers of caretakers might lead to less achievement rather than more. 139 The above may appear as pure speculation; however, it seems the merit of the social-system interview that it encourages the teacher to ask just such questions and to seek such relationships. By observations in the classroom she is in a position to give answers to her own questions. Disagreement 'Disagreement' is most highly correlated with 'asser— tion', 'playmates', and 'direction.' It is least associated with 'instability' and 'outside visits.‘ The high correlation between 'instability' and 'disagreement' has been noted for the first year. It has been noted also that 'dis- agreement' has been negatively associated with 'father- absence.‘ 'Assertion' is highly correlated with 'disagreement' among caretakers. While 'disagreement' and 'caretakers' are associated .31 and .30 during the first two years, 'disagree- ment' and 'assertion' are related .53 and .73. The correla- tions in the last two years between 'disagreement' and 'assertion' are .51 and .84. This might indicate that the child is manipulating his caretakers. 'Disagreement' is one variable on which the low-income mothers' responses score consistently and significantly different from the middle-income mothers. What is the relationship of 'disagreement' to the test and observation scores? During the first year it is positively related to the WPPSI scores. It is related positively to the full-scale score beyond the .05 level of 140 significance. The relationship between 'instability' and 'disagreement' for the first year has been pointed out. During the second year this relationship begins to disappear and 'disagreement' during the third and fourth years is negatively associated with the WPPSI scores. In the correlations between 'disagreement' and the CATB Scores it will be seen that although most often negatively related, it has a positive relationship with Motor Impulse Control'; and this correlation is significant during the second and third years. 'Disagreement' appears in the WPPSI Scores as both a positive and negative contributor to the RS. This is like- wise true of the CATB scores. On the Boger Sociometric, 'disagreement' is positively related to Least-Liked and negatively related to Most-Liked. It is related negatively also to the Brown Self-Concept. 'Disagreement' appears as positively contributing to Unoccupied Behavior on the teachers' ratings of unstructured behavior. 'Disagreement' appears as significantly but negatively related to factors rated detrimental to test behavior. Direction 'Direction', as one might suspect, is most highly related to 'caretakers.‘ It is also related to 'assertion', 'play- mates', and 'outside visits.‘ 'Direction', as it was defined, means the numbers of individuals giving directions to or about 141 the child, even though the director might not have physically cared for the child. 'Direction' is significantly related to the Mazes test in a negative fashion. It is also negatively related to Task Competence, Kindergarten Prognosis and Field Independence on the CATB tests. 'Caretakers', the variable to which 'direction' is the most closely related, bears some relation- ship to these same tests, but not nearly so high a relation- ship as 'direction.' Perhaps 'direction' is the variable that more clearly and directly indicates a fragmentation of the child's social system. It appears in the multiple correlations as a consistently negative contributor to R. Where it does appear as a positive contributor, its contri- bution is small. 'Direction', however, seems to have positive relation- ships with COOperative play. 'Direction' is the largest contributor to CATB test behavior in a positive manner: that is, the more sources of direction, the more detrimental will be the child's behavior in the testing situation. Overall, the variable of 'direction' appears to have negative effects on the child's behavior. Playmates This variable, which is defined as the number and extent to which others older than the child, excluding the mother, watched over the child and played with him, appears to be very consistently a negative contributor to all test behaviors 142 except the ratings of factors detrimental to test behavior, where it is a positive contributor. 'Playmates' is a variable on which the low-income mothers consistently score higher than the middle—income mothers. It will be remembered that 'playmates' during the first two years is not highly correlated with older siblings. It will also be recalled that the raw data indicates that in larger families it is quite common for children to limit their interaction to selected members of the family. It cannot be said that this variable is only a reflection of the size of the immediate family; rather it appears to be a pattern of certain low-income families. Outside Visits This variable is related to 'system-size' in the second year, to 'instability' during the second and fourth years, to 'caretakers' throughout the four years, to 'disagreement' not at all, to 'direction' during the four years, to 'assertion' throughout the four years, and to 'playmates' in all except the thirdyear. As has been mentioned, the low-income mothers appear to allow their~chi1dren~to be taken from the house by others during the first and second year more than do the middle- income mothers, while the two groups are just about equal in the numbers of outside visits during the second two years. Where 'outside Visits' appears in the multiple Rs on the WPPSI and CATB, it appears generally during the first two Years as a negative contributor and during the last two years 143 as a positive contributor. Where it appears on the teacher ratings of unstructured behavior, it generally appears as a positive contributor to desirable behavior. 'Outside Visits' appears only once during the ratings of test behavior. There it appears in a negative relationship to the factors detrimental to test behavior on the total score. The Teacher as Interviewer So far the discussion has summarized what relationships might be eXpected by a teacher between the variables pointed out by the social-system interview and the child's behavior in a Head Start setting. A further and more important question not answered by this interview would be the question of what might the teacher do with this information, or what effect might it have on her planning for the children. It is hOped that the knowledge of the wide variations in the social-environment of the children, the favorable and unfavorable factors, might give some hint as to what might be planned for the individual child. This social-interview was designed to be used in action-research, not by researchers, but by teachers; therefore, its real value or lack of value can only be tested in the field by teachers. Experience with the interview in Lansing indicates that the teacher will receive a great deal of information by which interpretation for a given child can be made. In fact, during the interviews the interviewer was compelled for lack of time often to proceed with the questions when it was apparent that 144 the mother wished to talk about some incident regarding the child. In giving the interview it was the purpose of the inter- viewer not to let information not specifically asked influ- ence the scores. Such important factors as the high verbal ability of the mother or her lack of it, her apparent con- cern for the child or lack of concern, does not, it is hOped, appear in the data analyzed; that is, it does not appear in an overt form. The eXperience in giving the social-system interview leads to the conviction that a teacher can obtain relevant information about a child's early development from the mother's recollections. EXperience in giving the interview indicates the willingness and the ability of the mothers to communicate with teachers about the child in an Open and suprisingly verbal fashion. It was mentioned in the section on the develOpment of the instrument that mothers' recollections are very concrete. They take pleasure in recounting the history of the child when the questions are such as they can answer. It was quite common for the mother's to refer to the interviewer as their child's 'teacher.' This is a relation— ship which they know and accept. The teacher has an advantage in approaching parents in such a relationship. The teacher will, of course, not be restricted in her use of the interview by consideration of time or that of allowing her subjective impressions influence the data. 145 It is also felt that the interview might be helpful in teacher training. It can be assumed that for many young teachers the first visits to the homes of low-income families might be somwhat traumatic. It could be all the more painful if the teacher really did not know why she was there or what sort of information She might want from the mother. Were her interests focused on the child and if this were under- stood by the mother, her visit might be more profitable to the mother as well as to herself and the child. Curriculum If it can be assumed that the Head Start eXperience is to be the supplying Of eXperiences low-income children have missed, the results of the social-system interview will have meaning for curriculum planners and administrators. Certain variables stand out as being detrimental to desirable behav- ior on the part of the children. These behaviors must be interpreted as taking place in a given environment. The Head Start environment might be planned in such a way that children will, without coercions, eXperience what was lacking in the social-system in which they passed their first four years. Thus, 'instability' (an unfortunate word) seems to be a positively contributing eXperience. This might imply in the Head Start class some flexibility on the part of scheduling. Certainly those social-systems in which constant readjustments were being made was a beneficial eXperience for the child. It would seem that rigidity on the part of the curriculum planners might not be. 146 However, 'instability' did not mean that the child was being directed by more than one individual at a time, rather the Opposite. In those social-systems which were high on instability, it appears that the mother was the only or al- most the only source of direction. This concept when applied to the Head Start class would imply that there would be at any given time only one individual in charge of the child. This is not always the case. Also, since 'disagreement' among caretakers seems to be detrimental, it might be well to inquire whether teacher, aides, and mothers are really in agreement about what is the proper care of the children. On the social-system interview the question as to disagreement did not ask about violent conflict, but any sort of disagreement. It has been observed that in some classrooms the teacher and the aide are not really in agreement about the best treatment of a child. It would appear that if a pre-school program were to afford the children beneficial eXperienceS which had been denied many of them during the previous four years and avoid eXperiences which are detrimental both the competence of the teacher should be encouraged and her position in the class- room strengthened. The teacher must be keenly aware of the great variations in the backgrounds of the children enrolled in Head Start programs. Generalizations about these children are hazardous. There are even indications in the study that factors which are disadvantageous to low-income are likewise disadvantageous to middle-income children. It appears that 147 many low-income children come to pre-school with a background of eXperienceS more helpful to learning than many middle- income children- The teacher could hardly eXpect that a uniform curriculum or implementation can fit such diverse needs. It is also essential that the teacher's position in the perception of the children be central. She must clearly represent a stable source of direction and control in the social-system of the classroom. Her position must be reinforced by all adults who come in contact with her and the children. If 'hierarchical order' is essential to the social environment previous to Head Start eXperience it seems to be necessary to the child in the pre-school and most important to the child who has lacked the eXperience of an ordered environment. Briefly, it appears that the ideal pre-school environment would be created by a highly competent teacher administering a very flexible curriculum whose position is reinforced by administrators and auxiliaries. Another suggestion that might be made as a result of the experience of the social-system interview is to question the value of completely unstructured play perfbds with all the children involved. This activity probably most resembles activity reflected in the variable of 'playmates.' This does not mean that play is not important; perhaps play is the most important activity of the Head Start classes since it can reasonably be asked whether those children who lived in social-systems which were high on playmates really learned to 148 play at all. What might be suggested is that small groups of children have their play time together. Curriculum planners and administrators might see the results of the social-system interview, especially when these results are coupled with the observations of teachers, as being indicators of the types of activities most helpful to the children. It was Stated in the section on Need for the Study that the teacher would be one of the principal planners of educational eXperiences. It seems that of necessity this will be true. The results of the socialesystem interview reveal wide variations in the backgrounds Of these children. It might not be possible to state categorically just what eXperiences could be common to all. The finding Of consistent differences between the means of low-income and middle-income groups doesn't suffice to eXplain the variations with the low- income groups. Administrators, if they wish to supply eXperiences lacking to the low-income children, must leave a great deal Of the planning to the individual teacher, and must supply facilities with which to implement the plans. There is the danger that the teacher will find herself merely continuing the same eXperienceS that the children have had before entrance into Head Start. In the assumption underlying the theory used in this study, there is reference to 'functional autonomy' and 'intrinsic motivation.‘ It would be eXpected from these principles that children from a 149 given background would attempt to recreate that background in the Head Start setting. They do not merely react to the stimuli present in the environment. The teacher without a prOper knowledge Of the backgrounds of individual children and the means to implement her knowledge will find herself being manipulated by the children and reacting to them. This in fact is the meaning of the ability Of the social-system interview to predict unstructured Situations. The child does what he knows. He will reconstruct what he knows best...which very often is chaos. Further Research As has been indicated in the section above on Discussion, the instrument was designed to be used in action-research by teachers. Whatever its merits or lack of merits as an instrument of research, or whatever might be the value of the theory on which it was constructed, it is felt that the true test of its merits will come only when it is used by teachers. Therefore, it is prOposed to instruct teachers in its use and to attempt to determine its utility in the field. This study has been an attempt to Show the relevance of some concepts to children's behavior in the classroom. It was not carried out under the most fortunate Of circumstances but it is felt that the results justify an attempt at action research. 150 Summary In this chapter the results of the study were discussed. First the orientation of the discussion was indicated. Next, the relationship of the results to the teacher, for whom the instrument was designed, were indicated. Finally it was pointed out the use that administrators might have for the study in planning for and with the teacher for the benefit of Head Start children. BIBLIOGRAPHY Ackerman, Nathan and Sobel. "Family Diagnosis: An Approach to the Pre-School Child," American Journal pr Orthopsychiatry, XX, 1950, pp. 25I-264. , Nathan. The Psychodynamics of Familnyife. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1965. Aldous, Joan. Research study reported in: Research Relating to Children. U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Children's Bureau, 1967. (ERIC) Almy, Millie. Ways of Studying Children: A Manual for Teachers. New York: Teacher's College, Columbia University, 1966. , YoungVChildren' s Thinking: Studies of Some Aspects o Piaget' 5 Theory. New York: Teacher's College, Columbia University, 1965. Ambrose, Edna and Miel, Alice. Children's Social Learning. Washington: Association for Supervision and Curriculum DevelOpment, 1958. Anastasi, Anne. "Heredity, Environment, and the Question "How," Psychological Review, LXV, 1958, pp. 197-208. Axline, Virginia. Dibs: In Search of Self. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1—__l9'_5'. Banta, Thomas J. "Research on Montessori and the Disadvan- taged," University of Cincinnati, (undated). This is to appear as a chapter in Orem, R. C. (Ed.) Montessori and the Special Child. . "Tests for the Evaluation of Early Childhood Eaucation: The Cincinnati Autonomy Test Battery (CATB)," University Of Cincinnati, 1967. (mimeographed) This paper will appear in Vol. I of Cognitive Studies to be published in 1968. Bayley, N. "Mental Growth During the First Three Years," Genetic Psychology Monographs, XIV, 1933, pp. 7-92. Beilin, Harry and Gotkin, Lassar G. "Psychological Issues in the DevelOpment of Mathematics Curricula for the Socially Disadvantaged Children," Conference on Mathematics Education for Below Average Achievers, Chicago, Illinois, 1964. (ERIC) 151 152 Bell, R. Q. "RetrOSpective Attitude Studies of Parent-Child Relations," Child Development, XXIX, 1958, pp. 323-338. Berlyne, D. E. Conflict, Arousal, and Curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960. Bertalanffy, Ludwig VOn. Problems pr Life. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1960. First published in 1952 by C. A. Watts and Co., Ltd., London. Bloom, Benjamin S., Davis, Allison and Hess, Robert. CompensatoryEducation for Cultural Deprivation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1966. Bloom, Benjamin S. Stabilipy and Change id_Human Characteristics. New York: John Wiley, 19 4. Brim, O. G. Jr. " The Parent-Child Relation as a Social System: Parent and Child Roles," Child Development, XXVIII, 1957, pp. 343-364. Brofenbrenner, Urie. "The Split Level American Family," Saturdangeview, October 7, 1967 Buhler, Charlotte. The First Year gr Life. New York: John Day, 1930. Caldwell, Bettye M. et a1. "Mother-Infant Interaction in Monomatric and Polymatric Families," American Journal pr Orthopsychiatry, XXXIII, 1963, pp. 653-664. Campbell, Donald T. and Stanley, Julian C. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs id Research. Chicago: Rand McNally & Co., 1963. Chilman, Catherine S. "Child-Rearing and Family Relationship Patterns of the Very Poor," Division of Research, Welfare Administration, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Washington, D.C., January, 1965. (ERIC) Clausen, John A. "Sociological Correlates of Child Behavior," Child PS cholo , The Sixty-second Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I., Eds. Stevenson et a1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963. . "Family Structure, Socialization, and Personality," Review of Child Develowment Research, Hoffman and Hoffman—Ted.) New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1966, pp. 1-55. 153 Crandall, Vaughn J. "Achievement," Child Psycholggy, The Sixty-second Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I., Eds. Stevenson et a1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963. Cronbach, Lee J. Essentials of Psychological Testing. New York: Harper and Row, 1960. Cunningham, R., Alzi, A., Hall, J. A., Farrell, M. and Roberts, M. Understanding Group Behavior of Boys and Girls. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teacher's College, Columbia University, 1951. Dale, R. R. and Griffith, S. "Size of Family: Selected Findings from a Five-Year Study of Academic Deteriora- tion in a Grammar School," Educational Research, VIII, Fall, 1966, pp. 146-154. Deutch, M. "The Disadvantaged Child and the Learning Process: Some Social, Psychological and DevelOpmental Considerations," In A. H. Passow (Ed. ) Education in Depressed Areas, Part II. New York: Bureau of Publica- tions, TeacherTs College, Columbia University, 1963, pp. 163-179. . "Some Psychological Aspects of Social Interaction," in Scientific Psychology, Benjamin B. Wolman (Ed). New York: Basic Boo S, Inc., 1965, pp. 506-525. Dewey, John. The Child and the Curriculum: The School and Society. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1963. Dinkmeyer, Don C. Child Development: The Emergidg Self. Dobzhansky, Theodosius. The Biological Basis of Human Free- dom. New York: Columbia Univers1ty Press, 1956. Edgecomb, P. L. "Poverty Culture: A Challenge to Educators," Clearinngous y XLI, Fall, 1967. Elder, G. J., Jr., "Family Structure and Educational Attain- ment," American Sociological Review, XXX, 1965, pp. 81-96. Escalona, Sibylle and Moriarity, A., "Prediction of School- Age Intelligence from Infant Tests," Child Development, XXXII, 1961, pp. 597-605. Festinger, Leon. The Concepr of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston: Row, Peterson and Co., 1957. Frank, Lawrence Kelso. On The Importance of Infancy. New York: Random House, 1966. 154 Freeberg, Norman E. and Payne, Donald T., "Parental Influence on Cognitive DevelOpment in Early Childhood," Unpublished. Gerwitz, J. L., "Stimulus Conditions, Infant Behaviors, and Social Learning in Four Israeli Child- -Rearing Environments: A Preliminary Report, " Determinants of Infant Behavior III, London: Methuen, 1965. Goldberg, Miriam L., "Adapting Teacher Style to Pupil Differences: Teachers for Disadvantaged Children, " Merrill- Palmer Quarterly of Behavior and DevelOpment, X, 1964. Reprinted in Causes of Behavior II, pp. 565-575. Hannah, Arlene and Reissman, Frank., "Teachers of the Poor," New York: Mobilization for Youth, Inc., May, 1964. (ERIC) Harris, D. B., "Child Psychology and the Concept of Develop- ment, " Research Reading§_in Child Psychology, (Eds.) D. S. Palermo and L. P. Lipsitt, 41963. Head Start Evaluation and Research Center. Volume I: Evaluation. "A Report to the Institute for Educational DevelOpment, Lansing, Michigan," Prepared by Michigan State University and Merrill-Palmer Institute, 1966-67. . Volume II: Research. "A Report to the Institute for Educational DevelOpment, Lansing, Michigan." Prepared by Michigan State University and Merrill- Palmer Institute, 1966-67. Head Start. "Child DevelOpment Programs, A Manual of Policies and Instructions." Washington, D. C.: Community Action Programs, 1967. Hebb, D. O. The Organization 9f Behavior. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1949. Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time. New York: Harper and Row, 1962. Hoffman, L. W. and Lippitt, R., "The Measurement of Family Life Variables," In P. H. Mussen (Ed. ), Handbook of Research Methods in Child Development. New York: John Wiley, 1960, pp. 915-1013? Hess, R. D., Shipman, Virginia C., "Early EXperience and the Socialization of Cognitive Modes in Children," Child DevelOpment, XXXVI, 1965, pp. 869- 886. 155 Holt, Carol Lou. A Description gf‘a Preschool Project for Culturallnyeprived Children. M. A. Thesis, Michigan State University, unpubliShed, 1966. Huizinga, J. Homo Ludens. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, Ltd. Hunt, J. M., "Traditional Personality Theory in the Light of Recent Evidence," American Scientist, LIII, 1965, pp. 180-196. Reprinted in the Causes of Behavior, (Eds.) Rosenblith and Allinsmith, pp. 136-431. ., "The Psychological Basis for Using Pre-School Enrichment as an Antidore for Cultural Deprivation," Merrill-Palmer Quarterly_g£_Behavior and DevelOpment, . X, 1964, pp. 209-248. Individualized Instruction. Association for Supervision and Curriculum DevelOpment Year Book, 1964. (Ed.) Roland G. Doll. Jersild, Arthur T. Child Psychology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Inc., S1xth ed1tion, 1968. Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations 9£_Behavioral Research: Interviews and Interview Schedules Kogan, M. and Wallach, M. Modes 2: Thinking_in_Young Children. Kornberg, Leonard., "Meaningful Teachers for Alienated Children,: in Education in Depressed Areas. (Ed.) A. Harry Passow. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teacher's College, Columbia University, Third Printing, 1965, pp. 262-272. Krech, David, Crutchfield, Richard S. Elements 9: Psychology. New York: Alfred A. KnOpf, 1962. Laing, R. D. and Esterson, A. Sanity, Madness, and the Family. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1964. Lambert, Nadine M. The Prediction 9: School Adjustment. Washington, D. C.: COOperative Research Program, Office of Education, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1964. (ERIC) Lansing School District. Community Action Program. Head Start, Lansing, Michigan, 1965. Lewin, Kurt., "Field Theory and EXperiment in Social Psychol- ogy: Concepts and Methods," American Journal 9: 156 Sociology, XLIV, 1939, pp. 868-896. Reprinted in Melvin H. Marx (Ed.) Psychological Theory. New York: Macmillan Co., 1951, pp. 527-542. Lyons, Joseph. Psychology and the Measure 9f_Man. London: Collier-Macmillan Ltd., 1963. Macoby, E. and Macoby, N., “The Interview: A Tool of Social Science," The Handbook 9f Social Psychology, (Ed.) G. Lindzey, Vol. I. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley, 1954. Madison Area Project. "Preparation of Teachers for Urban Areas," Madison Area Project, 1001 Almond Street, Syracuse, New York, (date not given). (ERIC) McNemar, Quinn. Psychological Statistics. Third Edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962. Melby, Ernest O., "The Deprived Child: His Gift to Education," Mott Institute for Community Improvement, College of Education, Michigan State University, Vol. I, No. 4, June, 1966. New Insights and the Curriculum. ASCD Yearbook, 1963, (Ed.) Alexander Frazier. Nye, F. Ivan and Berado, Felix M. (Eds). Emerging Conceptual Frameworks 12 Family Analysis. New York: Macmillan and Co., 1966. Payne, Stanley Le Baron. The Art 3: Asking Questions. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1951. Piaget, J. Play, Dreams and Imitation ig_Childhood. New York: Norton, 1962. Plante, James S. The Enve10pe. New York: The Commonwealth Fund, 1950. Redl, Fritz and Wineman, David. Controls From Within. New York: The Free Press, 1962. Riessman, Frank. Action Approaches tg_Low-Incqmg_Culture, Part I. New York: Mobilization for Youth, Inc., 1962. (ERIC) Satir, Virginia. CojointlFamilnyherapy. New York: Science and Behavior Books Inc., 1961: Scarfe, N. V., "PLay is Education," Early Childhood. Reprints from Childhood Education, A.C.E. I, 1966. 157 Schachtel, Ernest G. Metamorphosis. New York: Basic Books Inc., 1959. Scheler, Max. Man's Place in_Nature. New York: Noonday Press, 1962. Sears, R. R. Patterns gbehild Rearing. Row, Peterson, 1957. Shea, Margaret C. and Hannah, Arlene., "The Uniqueness of Family Life Education With Low-Income PeOple," Fourth Annual Leadership Institute in Family Life Education, Nassau Mental Health Association. New York: Mobiliza- tion for Youth Incorporated. (ERIC) Smilansky, Mosche and Smilansky, 3., "Basis for Intellectual Advancement of Culturally Disadvantaged Children," University of California, Los Angeles, July, 1965. Seventh Annual Research Roundup of Children and Youth, University of California, Los Angeles. (ERIC) Spitz, Rene A. The First Year 9: Life. New York: Inter- national Universities Press, Inc., 1965. Stott, Leland H. and Ball, Rachel Stutsman., "Evaluation of Infant and Preschool Mental Tests," Detroit, The Merrill-Palmer Institute, 1963. Sullivan, Harry Stack. The Psychiatric Interview. New York: W. W. Norton and Co., Inc., 1954. Taba, Hilda., "Cultural Deprivation as a Factor in School Learning,: Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, X, 1964, pp. 147-149. Tannenbaum, Abraham J., "Curriculum Perspectives for Slum Schools," New York: Graduate School of Education, unpublished. (ERIC) Thelen, Herbert A. Teachibility Grouping, Dept. of Education, University of Chicago, 1957. iMimeographed) Tyler, Leona E., "Toward a Workable Psychology of Individuality,‘ The American Psychologist, XIV, 1959, pp. 75—78. Social Security Bulletin. Washington, D. C., U. 8. Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare, Social Security Administration, January, 1965. Vygotsky, L. S. Thought and Language, New York: Wiley, 1962. Wallach, Michael A. and Kogan, Nathan. Modes 9: Thinking 29 Young Children. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1965. 158 Werner, H. Comparative Psychology 9£_Mental Development. New York: Follett, I950. Weschler, David. Weschler Preschool and Primary Scale 2: Intelligence. New York: The Psychological Corporation, 1967. APPENDIX A Office of Economic Opportunity: Guidelines for Admittance to Head Start Guidelines for Home Visits by Staff and Teacher Guidelines for the Selection of Teachers 159 Head Start, Child Development Programs, A Manual of Policies and Instructions, Community Action Program, Washington, D. C. Office of Economic Opportunity, September, 1967. Guidelines for Admittance C. Index of Poverty ----- The Poverty Line OEO has established a "poverty line' for determining eligibility of children for Head Start. The chart below shows, by household size and levels of gross income those families which are considered to fall below the poverty line. OEO Poverty Guidelines for FY 1968 Family Size Non-Farm Farm 1 $1,600 $1,000 2 2,000 1,400 3 2,500 1,700 4 3,200 2,200 5 3,800 2,600 6 4,200 3,000 7 4,700 3,300 8 5,300 3,700 9 5,800 4,000 10 6,300 4,400 11 6,800 4,700 12 7,300 5,100 13 7,800 5,400 Children from a family that is on welfare are considered eligible even though the family income may exceed the poverty line. Guidelines for Home Visits by Staff and Teachers Staff, parents and children will benefit from home visits. Grantees shall not require that parents permit home visits as a condition of the child's participation in Head Start. However, every effort must be made to eXplain the advantages of visits to parents. OEO requires that each grantee make home visits a part of its program. Teachers should visit parents of summer children a minimum of once, but in full year programs there must be at least three visits, if the parents have consented to such home visits. In those rare cases where a double shift has been approved for teachers it may be necessary to use other types of personnel to make home visits. Personnel 160 161 such as aides and health and social workers may also make home visits with or independent of, the teaching staff. (p. 12) Further Guidelines for Teachers Duties - The teacher in a child develOpment class plays a very Broad role. In addition to directing classroom activities, the teacher is concerned with the child's health and the ways in which parents can both help the child and themselves. The teacher should also be involved in all the other services which may contribute to the develOping of the child's full potential. Qualifications - Indeally, teachers should have a combination of education and experience, holding a college degree with a major in Early Childhood Education, Nursery or Kindergarten Education. The related areas of Psychology, Home Economics, Sociology, AnthrOpology, and Social Work would enhance a teacher's qualifications. Actual work experience could be in nursery school teaching, private or cooperative nursery teaching, day care center teaching, pediatric nursing, social case work, and other relevant eXperiences with pre-school disadvantaged children and their families. The preceding does not mean however, that onl certified or formally trained persons should be considere . Since a male authority figure is missing in many poverty households, a man with limited training may be more desirable than a woman having all the requisite education. Similarly, a non- certified bilingual teacher is obviously preferable to a certified teacher who cannot communicate with the children enrolled in the center. It is important that teachers selected have these characteristics of personality, training and eXperience that will assure the children the best available. Unusual circum- stances or needs should not be used to condone hiring of lesser qualified persons when better candidates are available. The recruitment and selection committee should be alert to the personality characteristics which are needed to be successful in working with young children, and consider these minimum qualifications when other education and eXperience qualifications cannot be met. Warm, out going peOple who enjoy young children and interact with them as individuals of value can become excellent teachers. A combination of warmth, respect and ability to be firm without being inflexible is important. (p. 16)’ APPENDIX B Social-System Interview 162 CHILD SOCIAL-SYSTEM INVENTORY Form A—l First Year We would like to know who was in ............ family when he/she was born. Can you name those who made up the family at his/her birth. (1.a of Form A-II) Did any of these persons leave the home before ............ was a year old? Can you name them? (1.b of Form A-II) Did others come to live in the home before ............ was a year old? Can you name them? (1.b of Form A-II) Did ............ have a regular baby-sitter during his/her first year? Can you name this person? (2.a of Form A-II) Did relatives or friends visit the home regularly? Did they visit at least once a week? Can you name them? (2.b of Form A—II) Did ............ live with another group of peOple before he/she was a year old? (with or without mother) Yes? No? If answer is 'yes' use a new Form-II. Ask questions 1 through 5. Rephrase 1: We would like to know who was in the other group of peOple with whom ............ lived? (This will require an additional set of 'activities' questions.) Second Year We would like to know whowas in ............ family between his/her first and second birthday? Can you name those who lived with him/her during this time? (If persons are the same as for year one circle '2' of completed Form A-II. If persons are not the same use an additional Form A-II.) Did any of these persons leave the home between his/her first and second birthday? Can you name them? (1.b of Form A-II) Did others come to live in the home between his/her first and second birthday? (1.b of Form A-II) Did ............. have a baby-sitter during his second year? Can you name his/her baby-sitter? (2.a of Form A-II) Did relatives or friends visit the home regularly? Did they visit at least once a week? (2.b of Form A-II) 163 164 6. Did ............ live with more than one group of persons during the year between his/her first and second birthday? (with or without mother) Yes? No? If answer is 'yes' use a new Form A-II. Ask questions 1 through 5. Rephrase question 1: We would like to know who was in the other group of people with whom ............ lived? (This will require an additional set of activities questions.) Third Year 1. We would like to know who was in ............ family between his/her second and third birthday. Can you name those who lived with him/her during this time? (If persons are the same as those of first and second years circle '3' of completed Form A-II. If persons are not the same use an additional Form A-II.) 2. Did any of these persons leave the home between ........... second and third birthdays? Can you name them? (2.a of Form A-II) 3. Did others come to live in the home between his/her third year? Can you name them? (2.a of Form A-II) 4. Did ............ have a baby-sitter during his/her third year? Can you name his/her baby-sitter? (2.b of Form A-II) 5. Did relatives or friends visit the home regularly? Did they visit at least one a week? Can you name them? (2.b of Form A-II) 6. Did ............ live with more than one group of persons during the year between his/her second and third birth- days? (with or without mother) Yes? No? If 'yes' use a new Form A-II. Ask questions 1 through 5. Rephrase question 1: We would like the names of those who made up this group. Can you name them? Fourth Year 1. Was ............ four years old when he first went to Head Start? If answer is 'yes' ask: We would like to know who was in ............ between his/her third and fourth birthday? If 'no' ask: We would like to know who was in ............. family between his/her third birthday and when he/she started Head Start? (If persons are the same as for the previous year or years circle '4' of completed Form A—II. If persons are not the same as before use additional Form A-II.) raw- 165 Did any of these persons leave the home during this year? Can you name them? (1.b of Form A—II) Did others come to live in the home during his/her fourth year? Can you name them? (1.b of Form A-II) Did ............ have a baby-sitter during his fourth year? Can you name the baby—sitter(s)? (2.a of Form A-II) Did relatives or friends visit the home regularly? Did they visit at least once a week? Can you name them? (2.b of Form A-II) Did ............ live with more than one group of persons during this year? (with or without mother) Yes? No? If answer is 'yes' use a new Form A-II. Use a new set of activities questions. Rephrase questions 1 through 5. Form B-l Eating: a. Did .....(enumerate members of child's social-system)... help feed ............? How many helped to feed him/her? Did they help feed him/her .....Sometimes? Quite often? Regularly? b. Did .....(enumerate members of child's social-system)... disagree about his eating? What he was to eat? how? when? How many disagreed? Did they disagree.....Sometimes? Quite often? Regularly? c. Did .....(enumerate members of child's social-system)... try to get him/her to eat the way he/she should? How many tried? Did they try.....Sometimes? Quite often? Regularly? d. Did ............ try to get.....(enumerate members of child's social—system)..... to feed him/her when he/she wanted; or, what he/she wanted/ or, in the way he/she wanted? How many did he/she try this with? Play: a. Did .....(members of social-system)..... play with ............? or, watch him/her while he/she played? How many played with or took care of him/her while he/ she played? 166 Did they play with or watch him/her....Sometimes? Quite often? Regularly? b. Did .....(members of social-system)..... disagree about h his/her playing? with whome he/she played? how he/she played? where or when? How many disagreed? Did they disagree.....Sometimes? Quite often? Regularly? c. Did .....(members of social-system)..... try to get him/her to play the way he/she should? How many used to try to do this? Did they try to get him/her to play the way he/she should.....Sometimes? Quite often? Regularly? d. Did ............ try to get.....(members of social- system)..... to play with him/her when? where? or, how he/she wanted? How many did he/she try this with? Did he/she try this.....Sometimes? Quite often? Regularly? Clothing: a. Did .....(members of social-system)..... help to dress OOOOOOOOOOOO? How many helped? Did they help.....Sometimes? Quite often? Regularly? b. Did .....(members of social-system)..... disagree about dreSSing ..OOOOOOOCOO? How many disagreed? Did they disagree.....Sometimes? Quite often? Regularly? c. Did .....(members of social—system)..... try to get him/her to dress the way he/she should? When he/she should? How many tried to do this? Did they try this with him/her.....Sometimes? Quite often? Regularly? do Did 000000000... try to getooooo(melnbers Of 5001a].- system)..... to dress him/her the way he/she wanted? Sleep and naptime: 3. Did .....(members of social—system)..... help to get ............ ready for bed or get him/her to bed for naps? How many used to help? Did they help.....Sometimes? Quite often? Regularly? b. 167 Did they disagree about when, where or how ............ was to go to bed or take naps? How many disagreed? Did they disagree.....Sometimes? Quite often? Regularly? Did .....(members of social-system)..... try to get him/her to go to sleep at night or take a nap? How many tried to get him/her to go to sleep or take a nap? Did they try to do this.....Sometimes? Quite often? Regularly? Did ............ try to get his/her way about sleeping or napping with .......(members of social-system)...? How many did he/she try this with? Did he/she try this....Sometimes? Quite often? Regularly? Discipline: a. Did .....(members of social-system).... have to punish............? How many had to punish him/her? Did they have to punish him/her.....Sometimes? Quite often? Regularly? Did .....(members of social-system).... disagree about punishment for him/her? How many disagreed? Did they disagree.....Sometimes? Quite often? Regularly? Did .....(members of social-system)..... have to threaten him/her to get him/her to obey? How many had to do this? Did they have to do this.....Sometimes? Quite often? Regularly? Was ............ able to get out of being punished by .....(members of social-system).....? Did he/she try? How many did he/she try this with? Did he/she try this with them.....Sometimes? Quite often? Regularly? Diapers (potty training): a. Did .....(members of social-system)..... help change ............ when he/she was dirty; or help potty- train him/her? How many helped with this? Did they help.....Sometimes? Quite often? Regularly? 168 b. Did .....(members of social-system)..... disagree about changing ............ or about potty-training him/her? Or, about helping him/her to the bathroom? How many disagreed about this? Did they disagree .....Sometimes? Quite Often? Regularly? c. Did .....(members of social-system)..... try to get him/ her to stay clean? ...go to the bathroom? How many tried to do this? Did they try to do this.....Sometimes? Quite often? Regularly? d. Did ............ try to get his/her way about being changed or potty-trained? ...about going to the bath- room? Who did he try this with? How many did he/she try this with? Did he/she try this.....Sometimes? Quite often? Regularly? Crying: a. Did .....(members of social—system)..... help .......... when he/she was crying? How many paid attention to his/her cries? Did they do this.....Sometimes? Quite often? Regularly? b. Did .....(members of social-system)..... feel differently about his/her crying? How many disagreed? Did they disagree.....Sometimes? Quite often? Regularly? 0. Did .....(members of social-system)..... try to stOp his/her crying? How many tried to do this? Did they try this.....Sometimes? Quite often? Regularly? d. Did ............ try to get his way with .....(members of social-system)..... by crying and begging? How many did he try this with? Did he/she try this.....Sometimes? Quite often? Regularly? Outside Visits: a. Did .....(members of social-system)..... take him for walks, or to the store or to visits to other homes? How many did this? Did they do this.....Sometimes? Quite often? Regularly? b. 169 Did .....(members of social-system)..... disagree about his/her going outside or on trips or to other homes? How many disagreed about this? Did they disagree about this.....Sometimes? Quite often? Regularly? Did .....(members of social-system)..... try to get him/ her to stay in or go out? How many tried this? Did they try this.....Sometimes? Quite often? Regularly? Did ............ try to get his/her way about going out with .....(members of social-system).....? How many did he/she try this with? Did he/she try this.....Sometimes?, Quite often? “‘0 ..if‘lfl.-11 Regularly? Illness: E a. Did .....(members of social-system)..... help to take care of ............ when he/she was sick? How many helped out with him/her? Did they help out.....Sometimes? Quite often? Regularly? b. Did .....(members of social—system)..... disagree about what to do when ............ was sick? Or whether he/ she was sick? How many disagreed? Did they disagree.....Sometimes? Quite often? Regularly? C. When ............ was sick did .....(members of social- system)..... try to get him/her to do what was good for him/her? How many tried to do this? Did they try to do this.....Sometimes? Quite often? Regularly? d. When ............ was sick did he/she try to get ..... (members of social-system) to do what he/she wanted? How many did he/she try this with? How often did he/she try this with them.....Sometimes? Quite often? Regularly? Child-0.0...0.0.0.000...O...No.O...OO...Classo...OcenterOOOOOO Form A-II Year: 1, 2, 3, 4 Social-system: l, 2, 3, 4 Person Age Sex Relationship to Child l.a. b. 2.a.. O 0.. b. 170 ChildOO...000......ONO...O..ClaSSOOOOCOOC8nterOOOO...OIOIOOOO l.a b Form B-II Yes...No...Number...Sometimes...Quite Yes...No...Number...Sometimes...Quite Yes...No...Number...Sometimes...Quite Yes...No...Number...Sometimes...Quite Yes...No...Number...Sometimes...Quite Yes...No...Number... Sometimes..Quite Yes...No...Number...Sometimes...Quite Yes...No...Number...Sometimes...Quite Yes...No...Number...Sometimes...Quite Yes...No...Number...Sometimes...Quite Yes...No...Number...Sometimes...Quite Yes...No...Number...Sometimes...Quite Yes...No...Number...Sometimes...Quite Yes...No...Number...Sometimes...Quite Yes...No...Number...Sometimes...Quite Yes...No...Number...Sometimes...Quite Yes...No...Number...Sometimes...Quite Yes...No...Number...Sometimes...Quite Yes...No...Number...Sometimes...Quite Yes...No...Number...Sometimes...Quite Yes...No...Number...Sometimes...Quite Yes...No...Number...Sometimes...Quite 171 Year: 1, 2, 3, 4 Social-system: l, 2, 3, 4 often...Regularly... often...Regularly... often...Regularly... often...Regularly... often...Regularly... often...Regularly... often...Regularly... often...Regularly... often...Regularly... often...Regularly... often...Regularly... often...Regularly... often...Regularly... often...Regularly... often...Regularly... often...Regularly... often...Regularly... often...Regularly... often...Regularly... often...Regularly... often...Regularly... often...Regularly... 172 Yes...No...Number...Sometimes...Quite Yes...No...Number...Sometimes...Quite Yes...No...Number...Sometimes...Quite Yes...No...Number...Sometimes...Quite Yes...No...Number...Sometimes...Quite Yes...No...Number...Sometimes...Quite Yes...No...Number...Sometimes...Quite Yes...No...Number...Sometimes...Quite Yes...No...Number...Sometimes...Quite Yes...No...Number...Sometimes...Quite Yes...No...Number...Sometimes...Quite Yes...No...Number...Sometimes...Quite Yes...No...Number...Sometimes...Quite Yes...No...Number... Sometimes..Quite often...Regularly... often...Regularly... often...Regularly... often...Regularly... often...Regularly... often...Regularly... often...Regularly... often...Regularly... often...Regularly... often...Regularly... often...Regularly... often...Regularly... often...Regularly... often...Regularly... APPENDIX C Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence 173 The following are very brief descriptions of test materials and procedures of the WPPSI. Animal House: matching color to color. Materials are twenty-eight colored cylinders. Vocabulary: the child is asked the meaning of twenty- two common words. Picture Completion: the child is asked to name the parts missing in a picture. Arithmetic: comparisons of length and size. Some sums are asked for. Mazes: the child is asked to trace a path through a maze. 'Materials are an accordian-fold sheet printed with mazes and a red pencil. Geometric Design: the child is asked to reproduce some designs. Similarities: the child is asked to comfiete sentences. Block Design: the child is asked to match printed designs with different colored blocks. Comprehension: the child is asked to define certain words and describe use of some objects. Sentences: (this is a supplementary test which was not used in this study). A child is asked to repeat sentences read to him. Verbal, Performance, and Full Scale scores are derived. 174 g§ I..- l- a- The following table is reproduced from the WPPSI manual, page 8. The number of new test items introduced in the WPPSI and the number retained from the WISC are as follows: Number of Items Test New From WISC Total Verbal: Information 11 12a 23 Vocabulary 8 14 22 Arithmetic 14 66a 20 Similarities 9 7a 16 Comprehension 9 6a 15 Sentences (Supplementary Test) 13 0 13 Performance 20 0 20 Picture Completion 11 12 23 Mazes 13 7 10 Geometric Design 10 0 10b Block Design 4 3 10 a . . . . Minor changes were made in the wording of several items. bBlock Design contains 4 new designs, 3 designs from the WISC, and 3 from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS). Two designs, 1 from the WISC and 1 from the WAIS, were rotated 90 degrees from their original positions. 175 176 III mm. mm. mm. am. an. we. III III Nb. HN. mm. an. no. How cowuomuuoo muommn monoom oamom Hasm new N.OH H.NH m.N m.N m.m o.m o.m H.0m N.om H.0H 0.0 N.OH 0.0H 0.0H N.ON m.OOH mm. mm. mm. mm. Wm. we. vm. am. 0%. om. ow. Nw. vv. mm. mm. om. mm. mm. mw. mm. Hash mama nnm> ooam Eomo mums OOHm Sand ucwm @800 mnoom mawom Hasm muoom mocmEHomnwm mHoom HmQHw> .cOHumCHEmucoo .mocmsnomwmm .Hmnuo> Suez mpmmp mo mGOHumamHHoo H.m o.m H.m o.m H.m o.m Om H.0H m.m 0.0H H.0H H.0H 0.0H cmmz m0. mm. we. 00. mm. Hr. mv. ow. mv. mm. 5%. mm. mm. mm. no. He. mm. mm. onoom mamom Adam muoom mosmeuomnom mwoom Hmnum> cmflmwo Mooam cmflmma oauumfiomo mmumz cOHponfioo manpowm mmsom Hmawqm mm. mm. hm. mm. mm. 0v. mm. mm. mm. mv. mm. vm. mm. ma. mm. mm. ma. mm. mm. vv. 0v. av. mm. mm. mm. mm. hm. mv. ow. mm. mm. mm. he. be. vm. mmocmuamm mm. mm. mm. Hm. aoflmcmnwumsoo om. mm. mm. moflufiumaflsflm me. om. onumfinpflsm Hm. mHmasnmoo> Hsflm uflua moo> omzH umme .mm mme .Hmscmz Hmmmz on“ Eoum coxmv mHmS mcowpmawHHOOHmucH mcflsoaaom m£B 177 The following reliability coefficients are from the WPPSI manual, page 22. Reliability Coefficients and Standard Erros of Measurement of the Tests and IQs by Age Group N = 200 for Each Age Group TeSt 4 SE r4 l/ZSE r 5 SE Information .84 1.25 .81 1.31 .77 1.42 [" Vocabulary .82 1.28 .84 1.22 .78 1.38 ; Arithmetic .81 1.35 .78 1.38 .84 1.14 2 Similarities .85 1.19 .82 1.30 .83 1.21 Comprehension .78 1.43 .83 1.23 .78 1.32 L1 Sentences .88 1.04 .87 1.12 .83 1.29 Animal House .62 1.87 .71 1.60 .79 1.37 Picture Completion .85 1.14 .84 1.19 .81 1.23 Mazes .85 1.17 .82 1.24 .88 1.03 Geometric Design .80 1.39 .82 1.24 .82 1.31 Block Design .76 1.53 .82 1.35 .83 1.23 Verbal IQ .94 3.68 .94 3.63 .93 3.61 Performance IQ .91 4.35 .92 4.02 .94 3.79 Full Scale IQ .96 3.12 .96" 2.99 .96 2.88 178 The following Coefficients of Correlation were taken from the WPPSI manual, page 34. Coefficients of Correlation of Scaled Scores and IQ's on the WPPSI with IQ's on Three Other Intelligence Tests, for 98 Children Between 5 and 6 Years of Age Standfor Binet Peabody Picture Pictorial _wggg; (Form L-M) (Form A) Intelligence Test mean SD r r r Information 7.9 2.6 .63 .53 .46 Vocabulary 8.2 2.3 .53 .40 .22 Arithmetic 8.4 2.8 .60 .46 .56 Similarities 8.4 3.0 .56 .37 .31 Comprehension 8.0 2.3 .58 .45 .45 Sentences 7.9 2.8 .39 .35 .29 Animal House 8.3 3.0 .37 .23 .45 Picture Comp- 9.3 2.5 .32 .43 .34 letion Mazes 9.3 2.8 .41 .30 .41 Geometric 9.6 2.8 .52 .32 .52 Design Block Design 8.3 3.0 .41 .35 .44 Verbal IQ 88.5 12.5 .76 .57 .53 Performance 92.7 14.0 .56 .44 .60 IQ Full Scale 89.6 12.8 .75 .58 .64 IQ Mean 91.3 88.1 89.4 SD 13.4 15.4 14.2 APPENDIX D Cincinnati Autonomy Test Battery 179 Brief Description of Test Battery Task Initiation: Before the child enters the room, small, smoothly sanded, softly colored wooden figures are arranged on the testing table as shown in Fig. l. (omitted in the manual) When the child is brought in, he is seated in front of the miniature figures. The tester takes her seat on the other side of the table, starts her stop- watch, and busies herself with paper-work--deriving age of child from birth date, writing name and date on the test protocol, etc. Nothing is said to the child about the figures before him. The tester waits one minute for the child to inspect the figures, pick them up, or begin talking fantasy with the figures. If no initiative occurs within this minute, the tester puts the toys away and begins the next test. If the child does begin to play, the tester observes for an over-all two-minute period in preparation for rating task initiation behavior. (p. 18) Curiosity Box: This is a box painted in bright colors and to which is affixed a number of inviting objects. The tester presents the box in an inviting way, and takes an observation position to the left and behind the child. The observation period is five minutes, unless the child does not eXplore or manipulate the box within the first three minutes. The termination pro- cedure is as follows: if the child does not touch the box during the first two.minutes, the tester manipulates the chain lock and bolt on the front side of the box. If the child does not touch the box for one minute after the prompt, the Curiosity Box is removed. (p. 19) Dog and Bone: The Dog and Bone test invites the child to play a game of "getting the dog to his house" by various rOutes. The child is shown two paths the dog might take to get to his bone; then he is asked to find another way for the dog to get to his bone. If the child repeats a pathway used in the two demonstrations, or if he repeats one of his own previous pathways, he is given no credit. Only novel responses are scored. The autonomous child should be able to find a number of ways to do this simple task. He should be responsive to alternatives and be able to generate new ones, rather than perseverate in fixed ways. (p. 22) 180 I) murwvfl 181 ReflectivityfiEC-MFF: We have re-designed the test (Kagan's test of 1964) for use with lower class children, ages three and four, and refer to the test as the Early Childhood Matching Familiar Figures test (EC-MFF) to distinguish it from Kagan's test which was designed for later childhood. In addition, the EC-MFF materials were designed to assess social-motivational components in reflectivity. Half the figures to be matched are social in character (matching a test photograph or line drawing of a face with its counterpart embedded in an array of other faces); the other half of the figures are non-social or geometric designs (matching a test geometric figure like a complex star or matching a non-social object like a shovel or cup). Since the matching of stimuli is difficult for some three to six year old children, we have develOped some very simple training pictures in order to help the child understand what is eXpected of him without relying heavily on verbal instructions. (p. 26) Field Independence (EC-EFT): The figure to be located in the embedded context of EC—EFT stimuli is in the shape of a cone, as shown in Fig. 8 (not shown in the manual). Three training pictures are used to assess comprehension and readiness to per- form the task. The first training picture is identical with the cut-out cone figure; the second training pic- ture is only slightly embedded by line drawing of dripping ice cream and a cross-hatching on the cone; the third training picture has still more lines on it and is placed in the lower left corner of the page. Fourteen test pictures, embedding the "cone", for example, as sun setting between mountains, a lamp base, a cowboy's face and scarf and a complex geometric design, are used to assess field independence. (p. 29) Motor Impulse Control: At the start of the Draw-a-Line-Slowly test the tester gives the child a crayon. The tester takes a crayon of a different color and places an 8 and 1/2 inch by 11 inch paper on the table before the child. The testes says, "I;m going to draw a line real fast." As the tester says "real fast," she draws a line very quickly (toward the child, from tOp to bottom of the page). The tester then goes on to say, "Now you draw a line real fast right here," (showing the child where to begin the line, pointing to the t0p of the page). 182 The purpose of the fast line is to give meaning to the words "fast" and "slow", by getting the child to make a response, equivalent to the meaning of the words in their context. (p. 33) The procedures and instructions for drawing a slow line are similar. Incidental and Intentional Learning: Postman's (1964) review of theory and data on short term memory and incidental learning, makes several points that help in understanding the Operations we have in- vented for studying these features of learning in very young children. He makes the point that both intentional and incidental learning "are concerned with basic capacities and dispositions which the learner brings to the eXperimental situation and which determine the initial reception and immediate storage of information" (p. 145). It is these dispositions brought to the situation in both kinds of learning that interest us from the point of view of autonomy. Many types of problem solving demand a rather broad attention span, a receptivity to many incidental features of the components of the problem. The stimulus array in any given problem situation may conceal the critical, but incidental, elements necessary to the problem. Thus it becomes important that the child develOp receptivity to incidental cues. The autonomous child should be able to function both as an "intentional learner" and as an "incidental learner." Postman contends that these two kinds of learning are not qualitatively different but that they simply define the extremes of a dimension; incidental learning is just like other learning except that the instructions or the subjects' set do not prepare them for the test of performance. Postman cites McGeoch to support the View that the two kinds of learning do not constitute a dichotomy. McGeoch's ideas are worth noting: "...much of the learning which goes on with no overt instructions is, nonetheless, influenced by implicit instructions and sets...certainly it cannot be said with any conclusive- ness that there are experiments in which implicit sets have not Operated; but, more than this, probability is on the side of the hypothesis that all of the results (in incidental learning) have been determined by set" (1924, p. 304). This may be interpreted to mean that set is involved in all learning. There is also the further implication that set itself is learned. It is this latter implication that concerns us in relation to autonomy. If sets can be acquired, eXpression of autonomous behavior may be amenable to educational 183 intervention. Part of educations' effects manifest themselves in the kinds Of set individuals take toward the world, and more specifically, toward problem-solving situations. In the Find-the-Color-Green test, the tester places the closed notebook with the stimulus pictures in it on the testing table, along with a small piece of paper. The tester says, "I'm going to teach you something about this color green." She makes a mark with a green crayon on the small piece of paper. The green matches the green r—: which appears on the stimulus materials. The tester, while Opening the notebook, then says, "We're going to look at some things in this book." The child is shown the first page. Tester says, "Find the color green on this page." The child points to the part Of the picture which is colored green, as shown in Fig. 9 (not in manual). The tester helps the child do this if there appears to be confusion about what is expected. L4 The tester then proceeds in the same way, saying, "Find the color green on this page," as each page is turned. When all pages have been turned, the free re- call training portion of the test begins. This is important because a free recall response is fairly demanding on the three and four year Old children in terms of the cognitive difficulty implicit in producing labels Of pictures not immediately present. (pp. 35-37) A brief training period is given. After which: At this point, intentional recall is tested. Again the recall is preceded by training. Using the labels the child used on the three training pictures, the tester says tO the child, "One Of the pictures you saw with green on it in this book was this (table). You saw this (table). You saw this (house) and this (apple)." The tester then closes the book and asks, "What else did you see with green on it in this book?" No prompts are given in this portion of the test. After each response, the tester says, "What else did you see?" The same termination procedures used in incidental learning are used in this recall test. The same record— ing procedures are used, this time in the right column of the record form, designated "post-familiarization recall." (p. 38) The incidental recall score is the total number of correct responses corresponding to the ten test pictures. Similarly, the intentional learning score is the total number of correct responses made during the post- familiarization recall procedure. (p. 39) 184 Persistence and Resistence to Distraction: (The Replacement Puzzle Test) The Replacement Puzzle, shown in Fig. 10 (not given in manual) is an adaptation Of a test developed by Keister (1943). Our emphasis is on how involved the child becomes in attaining a solution during a period when no distractions are present other than those inherent in the situation--furniture, tester, testing equipment. The puzzle can be solved in only one way. The pieces are constructed so that a solution is very improbably in a two-minute period. During these two 1 minutes the child is Observed for indications Of task- * oriented behavior carried out in an independent and persistent fashion. At the two minute mark, the tester ’ introduces four toy blocks with the words, "you may 2 play with these, or you may finish putting the pieces back in the flat." For the next minute the child's persistence is Observed, this time with the distractor blocks present. - L“ Our concern here, as elsewhere in the test battery, are in terms Of the structures and dispositions within the child. Some children respond to, and some children ignore the distracting materials. Thus the stimulus cannot account for either attention or distractibility in the present setting, since stimulus factors are held constant for all the children. In a sense we are con- cerned with what one might call "Persistibility-and- Distractibility," which are complementary tendencies and abilities that have develOped within the child. (pp. 40—41. Task Competence, Social Competence, and Kindergarten Prognosis: Post-test Ratings Task competence and social competence scales theoretically correspond to the distinction between task roles and social roles in problem-solving groups (Bales, 1958). The assumptions is of course that children may differ in their competence in handling the demands of these two kinds of roles early in their develOpment. Bales, in his studies of group problem solving, has found that persons who become "task specialist" are not likely to become "social-emotional specialists." Doing well on tasks, and doing wellin social inter- action can thus be viewed as two unrelated skills. The degree of relationship between social and task competence, however, is a matter of theoretical contention. As White (1960) has pointed out, competence "...applies to interactions with peOple as well as to dealings with inanimate environment." (p. 104) White says that 185 "Sense of social competence may well be the more important of the two..." (p. 104). The interrelation of social skills and task skills is reinforced in the epigenetic theory of Erikson (1950). The resolution of the problem of basic trust vs. basic mistrust preceded the child's management Of more task- related achievements implied in his next three stages involving autonomy, initiative, and industry. DevelOp- mentally there is a mutual facilitation; autonomy, initiative, and industry have their basis in the solution k._ Of social problems of the child such as separation, - anxiety, loss, and "confidence." Erickson, added a footnote to his Chapter 7, "Eight Ages Of Man," in his revised and enlarged edition of Childhood and Society, in which he pointed out that "...some writers are so . intent on making an achievement scale out Of these stages j that they blithely omit all the Tnegative' senses (basic mistrust, etc.) which are and remain the dynamic counter- . part of the 'positive' ones throughout life." (pp. 272-3L. -" If one examines the content of the 'negative' senses of each stage, it is readily apparent that these are heavily weighted with problems Of social competence; shame and doubt, guilt, and inferiority. The social strengths Of the "ages Of man" are progressing toward a stage Of "integrity," not isolated skills and strengths. If the child is bogged down in his social emotional COping, this will inevitably be reflected in his task competence. Thus we feel it necessary to assess the relationship between these two aspects of autonomous functioning, task competence and social competence. The rating scales, shown in Fig. 15(not in manual) were adapted for Operationalizing these theoretical concernts. They originally appeared in the Stanford- Binet Record Booklet, Form L-M (1960). Thus the assessment of task and social competence can be made in the context of the Binet and CATB settings for comparison purposes. In additon, we have included a "Kindergarten Prog- nosis" scale, intended as an estimate of the child's ability to COpe with a conventional kindergarten situation. This scale should be though of in relation to a kindergarten where classes are large, programs are structured, and children are encouraged to conform. This rating is designed to get at the tester's Opinion Of the child's chances for success in a typical kinder- garten on an all—around basis, rather than on the basis of separate skills. Any elaboration of the specific factors underlying this prediction can be recorded in the "comment" section at the bottom of the page. (pp. 44- 46) 186 Banta recommends that the ratings be done immediately after the child has been tested. Curiosity, Verbalization and Fantasy-Relation Verbalization: In the course of testing children with the Curiosity Box, we have been impressed with the fact that many children augmented their sensori-motor eXploratory eXperiences with talk of their own. We have very little theory to guide us in this area of spontaneous verbaliza- tion, but it appeared that many children showed good .11 signs of self-directed and self-sustaining exploration, particularly when they supplemented thier visual, tactual, and manipulatory behavior with spontaneous curiosity verbalization. Sometimes they supplemented their eXplorations with fantasy-related comments. These Observations are given some support in Werner's (1948) emphasis on develOpment in terms Of hierarchic integration; accordingly, the more the verbal domain is coordinated in a supplementary way with sensori- motor behavior, the greater the Opportunity for organized self-regulation. Piaget (1936, 1937) similarly, describes the sensori-motor period in terms of circular reactions which progressively facilitate the coordination of reflexes, then facilitate the coordination of means- ends sequences in eXploratory behavior. 'VU— I DevelOpment leads to coordination of verbal behavior with sensori-motor eXploration. Since sensori-motor activity Obviously precedes verbal skills and conceptual develOpment, it is tempting to say that the correlation between eXploratory activity and verbalizations is due primarily to sensori-motor factors. However, it might well be that, once curiosity verbalization emerges in development, it becomes directive, rather than simply supplementary to ongoing sensori-motor exploration. This possibility awaits systematic empirical investigations. Because Of these informal Observations and because Of these theoretical considerations, we have derived scores based on the children's behavior while eXploring the Curiosity Box. Curiosity Verbalization and Fantasy- Related scores are taken from the Observations record shown in Fig. 4 (not shown in manual). The last four columns are divided into "box-related" and "other," and each of these is further subdivided into "questions and/ or comments" and "fantasy." Observation Of many testing sessions has suggested that Curiosity Verbalization is best indicated by the occurrence Of behavior classified as box-related questions and/or comments, in the first Of the four Observations columns. Here, the children talk about the material they are eXploring: "How does 187 this work?" "Who made this?" "The light doesn't go Off," or "There's something in there," are questions or comments frequently observed in this category of Curiosity Verbalization. In Fantasy-Related Verbalization, children sing or hum, talk about Bat—Man "flying in there," or they may talk about themselves: "Have you ever been to the Bahamas?" "What's your name?" or "What are you writing there?" Thus our category of "Fantasy" is much broader than most definitions which typically include some reference to symbols, images, wish fulfillment, and the F“ like. Our decision is to go ahead on a trial basis, examining the interrelations of this with other variables, pending fuller evaluation of this variable as more data becomes available. (pp. 47-48) Banta prefaces his remarks on results and discussion with the words: These findings are reported as products of "research in progress." They should be viewed as tentative. It is hoped that other investigators will soon take up the challenge to correct our current appraisals Of reliability, validity, and the meaningfulness Of the present approach to autonomous functioning in young children. (p. 49) . . 1' I I1. I 188 .Hm>oa so. may ooomon poooflmaomflm.. .Ho>OH mo. on» ooomoo poooflmeooflm. .vm on on scum omeuo> m.z .OHHSO mwO>O Mom OHQOHHO>O OHO3 OOHOOO vav HHO uos umnu pomm On“ ow OOO #59 .hcsvm Osg OH OOOSHOGH OHO3 OOuOHHno “soulavanm «4mm MO «kMM OOI OH! II «MN exmm HOI VHI II «*Oh «*Hh *MN II «*vv 00 II xme QHO> monm @800 @800 DOOMHOHO woo ones com xmoe pmflmom umfimuom MH NH HH OH O .mpmw OHQOHHO>O HHO so OOOOQ OHO m.z VHI ONI *ON OOI *xmv no m MOI 00 «*MM xMN OH OOI OH! OCH 5 .OOHHHEO GOOD O>O£ muCHOm HOsHOOQ hOI MOI OH OH txHM xxvm OOI mo th xxHM *NN 5H thN «MN vOI *hN MH *MN «xmw NH II «*HM OHOOA GHOOH ucoo ch OEH o m wH HOItxmw ««Nm *«HM OH «NN MHI «5N *ON s«hM NO £«Nm OH *MN MHI «MN 00 OO HH no «*MM no «MN II HN emu woom now moo v m MOI «vN ONI HHI MOI NHI HOI MOI OH «NNI HOI @HI #0 MH HH 00 II exam Mom #HGH H50 MOOB N H GOHOONHHOQHO> OOHOHOm hmOucOh COHDONHHOQHO> MHHOOHHOO msHumm mHmocmoum GOHHOOHOOOHM mmsHumm OOsOpOmEOU HOHOOm mmsHumm OOCOpOmEOU MOOE OOHDOOHHOHQ OD OocOuOHmOm OOcOumHOHOm OGHGHOOA HODQOOHOOH mchHqu HOOOHusOucH NHBOHmIOchIOIBOHQ “Howucoo OOHOQEH ammuom "ooomooomoooH oamflm DOOR Odom UGO mom "MOHbmnOm O>Hpm>occH xom MHHOOHHSU "NPHOOHHSU OOHHOHHHCH Mums "NHHOOHHOU OOHQOHHO> memo COODHUOM mcosm mQOHuOHOHHOU HQOEOEIuOSOOHm "Ouoz 189 «*OO. kamm. m. muoOHoemoooo mpsaflnoflaow HOHOHIqucH OM MM m. Osxmm. vm Oxahm. NO ooa. mHH Oxxov. MHH O¥¥mmo vm UynanVo WM o..om..nq..mm. on o..oo..oo..mn. mm U¥¥Ffio 5N Mil Mil U*¥Hmo mm Okkvm. wv O¥k®ho mm m. m muooeooomooo mufiaflnoflaou NOCOvamsOO HOOHODQH oaooafloom poz oaooaflo>o poz QBN. NM Q«¥OO. NM oaooflflooo poz oflooaflooo uoz miHVo mm QKMWo mm OHQOHHO>O #OZ Orson. MM OHQOHHO>O “OZ b..mm. mm m..mn. mm m m. muoofioflmmooo muflflflnoflaou #mOpOHImeB OpcOHOHMMOOO NUHHHQOHHOm msflo mo NHOEESM OHNNDm ucOEOOOHmOm OOGOpmHmuOm mmzlum th>HHOOHMOm OOOHOIAOHOOIOAHIOCHM OCHCHOOH HOHGOOHOOH HHOOOm OHSHOHm OQHCHOOA HOGOHHCODQH Bhfllom OOOOOCOQOOQH OHOHm hHBOHmIOCHHIOI3OHO Houucoo OOHOOEH mpwmom OHNNsm OOHpmHuHcH xmme xom NDHOOHHSO NHHOOHHSO DOOB Odom Ono moo HOH>O£Om O>Hum>occH poms 190 .Ho>oa Ho. may oooson pooowmflooflm.. .Ho>oa mo. may ooosog pomoflmflooflm. .OHQHOOOQ OHM O.H NOOOHOHOOOO HmcnOucH 0c .OOHDOH Oco NHOO OH OwOnu OOGHOIIHODOOH Orv ha #50 OOupHHB OOGHOHOOOO O>HOOHHOG mo OmchmH so OOOOQ OH OOHHOOO OOHDOHOHOH xOmu .OHmmeO How «OHQOOHHQQO no: OOOOE =Il:m .M OQHH .O> m OGHH UGO .M OCHH .O> H OGHH .N OQHH .O> H OcHH "HOOHO OGHBOHHOM CH OODQOOOMQ OCOHpmHOHHOO .OBOMO OOGHH OOnnv Os» macaw OQOHHOHOMHOOO «amm. OW m mm moooflofimmooo spflaflomflaou HODOHIHODOH .OHO>HOpsH OEHH OOHOQESOIOO>O .O> OHO>HOch OEHD OOMOQEOOIOOOO OerO. MO OOONO. MO m. _m mpoowowmmooo monafloowaow MOCODOHOOOO HOGHODGH .OEOpH QO>O .O> OEOpH OOOO .HO>HO#:H “OOOOHIOOOD Apcoslosan .HO>HO#OH #OOuOquOOu £HQOEIOCOO b..ho. om mmcflumm ummuuumom OHOOOOOHO OODHOOHOOOHM 3*«OO. Om OmchOm uOOvlpOom OOOODOQEOU HOHOOO n.oo. am mmcfiumm umopupmom OOCODOQEOO MOOB £50.: mm AOOOHDOH O>HDOHHOQO OxOon HOpomeOHO OsHm OHNNOA OOHHOOHDOHO Op OocOuOHOOm m. m mpomfloflmmooo spnaflooeaou DOODOHIDOOB pOOB 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. CATB Means, Variable Task Initiation Curiosity Box Innovative Behavior EC-EFT Impulse Control Intentional Learn. Inc. Learning Persistence Resistence to Distraction Task Competence Social Competence Kindergarten Prog. Curiosity verb. Fantasy-Related Verb. Reflectivity 191 Standard Deviations, ><2 1.58 13.83 4.80 8.36 .69 2.81 1.48 20.70 10.73 4.20 10.22 3.80 2.88 .39 1.75 1.30 4.02 5.28 and Ranges* 83 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 80 84 84 84 84 84 71 Possible Range 1-4 0-50 0-30 0-14 >() 0-10 O-lO 0-24 0-18 4-20 4-20 0-10 0-30 Obtained Range 1-4 0-32 0-22 F? 1-13 .10-2.51 0-7 Innifl r n- ’ 0-5 10-24 3-18 4-17 4-18 *Data on variables one through fourteen are computed from the 1967 study in an all-Negro community. 1966 study in a Negro ghetto and Negro public housing area. Data on variable fifteen were based on the 192 Table 4. Pearson Product—Moment Correlations between Fourteen CATB Variables and Stanford—Binet Scores (Form L-M)a Test E Social Competence Ratings .37** Field Independence:EC—EFT .33** Kindergarten Prognosis Rating .31** Innovative Behavior: Dog and Bone Test .31** Impulse Control: Draw-a-Line—Slowly ,24* Intentional Learning .23* Curiosity Verbalization .23* Task-Related Verbalization .22 Curiosity: Curiosity Box .20 Incidental Learning .19 Task Competence Ratings .17 Curiosity: Task Initiation .04 ' Persistence .02 Resistence to Distraction -.10 *Significant beyond the .05 level. **Significant beyond the .01 level. aAll N's = 76 with the exception Of Task Initiation (N = 75) and Resistence to Distraction (N = 72); the former was due to an error in recording, the latter was due to the fact that four children solved the puzzle and therefore could not be presented with the distractor blocks. APPENDIX E The Play-Situation Picture-Board Sociometric 193 PLAY SITUATION -- PICTURE BOARD SOCIOMETRIC Record Form Child's Name Child's Code NO. Head Start Center Date Play Situation Voluntary or "Urged" Response . Response (Check one) lst card selected_____lst response 2nd card selected____ lst response 3rd card selected_____lst response 4th card selected____ lst response 5th card selected____ lst response S's responses to "Who would you like to play with most pf all?" lst response 2nd response 3rd response S's responses to "Who would you not want to play with?" lst response 2nd response 3rd response 194 Summary Of Reliability and Validity: The Play-Situation Picture-Board Sociometric Reliability Analysis - Test-retest reliabilities over three weeks were calculated in four preschool classes last fall and in two classes this spring. The test used was the Kolmogorov- Smirnov one-sample test, which compares the children's similarity of choices over the three weeks with the results that would be Obtained if the choices were made randomly. The results are summarized in the following tables: Test A: Test B: Test C: Picture Situation Best Liked Least Liked Lansing D = .418, D = .404, D = .056, Genesee St. P £_.01 P §_.05 N.S. Fall (N=l4) Lansing D = .355, D = .363, D = .496, Allen St. P E .05 P :_.05 P i .01 Fall (N=15) Lab Preschool D = .250, D = .206, D = .088, Holt P g .20 P f .20 N.S. Fall (N=l7) Lab Preschool D = .307, D = .397, D = .033, McCarty P g .20 P f .05 N.S. Fall (N=ll) Lansing D = .186, D not calc. D = .362, Genesee St. N.S. N.S. P i .05 Spring (N=15) Lansing D not calc. D not calc. D not calc. Allen St. N.S. N.S. N.S. Spring (N=16) 195 196 Results - The clearest trend to be Observed here is that the beginning Head Start children tend to be consistent in their choices of friends over a three-week period, but middle- class children report different friendships on the two occasions. At the end of the year, the Head Strat children's responses are very much like the middle class children's reSponses in that they report different friends from one testing occasion to the next. Conclusion to be drawn from this: Story and Weber suggest that if the Head Start program is seeking to bring middle—class values to lower-class children, perhaps the Head Start children are being taught, and are learning, to like many children and to play with all. The children holding this value would have a larger group of playmate-friends and might select some on one testing and others on the next. Suggestions - Perhaps the three-week period is contribut— ing to the problem. Retest should be done over a two-day span to eliminate the effects of changing friendships over three weeks. Also: how to account for the influence of the "you should like all the children and play with them all" syndrome? Would suggest that reliability checks over two or three days be done this summer in Head Start classes. Validity Analysis - Concurrent validity was examined using as the standard of comparison the Head Start teacher's ranking of the children's pOpularity--the extent to which they are liked—- with the other children. Rankings by teachers were correlated with rankings on number of times chosen by the other children. The results are shown in the following table: A B C Picture Situation Best Liked Least Liked Lansing: .41 .14 -.43 Allen Street Lansing: .37 .48 -.78 Genessee St. Pigeon: .68 .73 —.43 Detroit: .32 .ll .00 l. 2. Appendix to Sociometric Reliability Report On first chosen peer, the children are showing fairly good stability: (These are binomial probabilities Of getting this result by chance alone) Test A Test B Test C Allen .07 NS NS Genessee .07 .07 .07 On choices Of the five pictures, it is clear that the children are choosing purposefully —— are not choosing at random. The Kolmolgorov-Smirnov test was run for the children's similarity Of picture choices over a 3-week period. For the two Head Start classes on which the data was analyzed, the results were significant at P s .01, in- dicating that the choices Of pictures were pgt due to chance. The children apparently do attend to the task and are making meaningful pictures selections. The mean numbers Of "matches" (i.e., the number Of same pictures chosen on 2 separate occasions) were 2.25 and 2.20. On first chosen picture, the children are showing some consistency in choice of favorite activity, although here the results for the two schools are very different. P 5 .002 and .165 (binomial) in the two Head Start classes. 197 APPENDIX F Brown IDS Self Concept Referene Test 198 199 Scoring Sheet for Brown--IDS Self Concept Referene Test Example of question format: 1. Now tell me, is Johnny Gallagher happy or is he sad? 2. Does Johnny Gallagher's mother think Johnny Gallagher is happy or sad? Item Self Mother Teacher Peer Score* Score Score Score 1. Happy-sad 1, 0 1, 0 1, 0 1, 0 2. Clean-dirty l, 0 l, 0 1, 0 1, 0 3. Good looking-ugly l, 0 l, 0 l, 0 1, 0 4. Likes to play with other kids—doesn't like to play with other kids 1, 0 l, 0 1, 0 l, 0 5. Likes to have own things- likes to have other kids things 1, 0 l, 0 l, 0 1, 0 6. Good-bad 1, 0 1, 0 l, 0 l, 0 7. Likes to talk a lot-doesn't like to talk a lot 1, 0 1, 0 l, 0 l, 0 8. Smart-stupid l, 0 1, O l, 0 l, 0 9. Scared of a lot of things- not scared of a lot of things 1, 0 l, 0 1, 0 l, 0 10. Scared of a lot of peOple- not scared Of a lot of peOple 1, 0 l, 0 1, 0 1, 0 11. Likes the way clothes look- doesn't like the way clothes look 1, 0 l, 0 1, 0 1, 0 12. Strong-weal 1, 0 1, 0 l, 0 1, 0 13. Healthy-sick l, 0 l, 0 1, 0 1, 0 14. Likes the way (my) face looks—doesn't like the way (my) face looks l, 0 l, 0 l, 0 l, 0 *Note: Score values parallel order in which adjectives are presented. The following technique of assessing self—concept among young children was develOped by Bert H. Brown of the Institute for DevelOpmental Studies, New York Medical College, Department of Psychiatry. As far as can be ascertained the only information available on this test is contained in the manual. Studies Of reliability have been made at the E and !__ R Center, Michigan State University. The reports of these 3 studies are contained in the Appendix. : 5 Materials Materials are a polaroid picture of the child taken 1*, recently against a neutral background. No instructions are given to the child as to how he is to stand or as to facial expression. With the newly-taken picture the questions on the scoring-sheet (following page) are asked. Technique The technique is described by Brown: Let us assume that in the case Of the young child a great number of significant others (referents) can be identified. However, for Operational purposes we shall assume that the following three referents are normally highly salient, and strongly influence the ways in which children perceive themselves: 1. the child's mother, 2. the child's teacher, 3. the child's peers (classmates) The questions which we want to ask of children are: 1. How do you suppose your mother perceives you? 2. How do you suppose your classmates perceive you? 3. How do you suppose your teacher perceives you? Reliability (from the manual) N Negro .71 38 White .76 36 200 Reliability: Brown IDS Self Concept Subjects The subjects were children from two Lansing Head Start classes. Total N = 29 Ages: Range SD Mean 42 mos.-60 mos. 4.98 mos. 51.10 mos. Interval between tests: 1 month Racial Composition: 12 Negro 11 Caucasian 6 Mexican American Statistic: Pearson r Reliability Coefficients between test-retest: Self Scores Mother Scores Teacher Scores Peer Scores .954 .981 .515 .995 P .005* P .005* P .01* P .005* H II * Levels of significance are for two—tailed test. 201 APPENDIX G PARTEN NEWELL DevelOpment Of Social Behavior 202 DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR PARTEN - NEWELL Unoccupied Behavior: Solitary Play: Onlooker Behavior: Parallel Play: Associative Play: The child apparently is not playing at all, at least not in the usual sense, but occupies himself with watching anything which happens to be Of momen— tary interest. When there is nothing exciting taking place, he plays with his own body, gets on and Off chairs, just stands around, follows the teacher or sits in one spot glancing around the room. The child plays alone and independently with toys that are different from those used by the children within Speaking distance and makes no effort to get close to or speak to the other children. His interest is centered upon his own activity, and he pursues it without reference to what others are doing. The child spends most of his time watching the others play. He Often talks to the playing children, asks questions or gives suggestions, but does not enter into the play himself. He stands or sits within speaking distance of the group so he can see and hear all that is taking place. Thus, he differs from the unoccupied child, who notices anything that happens to be exciting and is not especially interested in groups of children. The child plays independently, but the activity he chooses naturally brings him among other children. He plays with toys which are like those which the children around him are using, but he plays with toys as he sees fit, and does not try to influence the activity Of the children near him. Thus, he plays beside, rather than with other children. The child plays with other children. They are borrowing and lending of play materials, following one another with trains and wagons; mild attempts to control which children may or may not play in the group. All engage in similar, if not identical activity. 203 COOperative Play: 204 There is no division of labor and no organization of activity. Each child acts as he wishes, does not subordinate his interest to the group. The child plays within a group that is organized for the purpose of making some material product; Of striving to attain some competitive goal; of dramatizing situations Of adult or group life, or Of playing formal games. There is a marked sense of belonging or not belonging tO the group. The control Of group situation is in the hands of one or two members, who direct the activity of others. The goal as well as the method of attaining it necessi- tates a division of labor, the taking Of different roles by various group members, and the organization of activity so that the efforts of one child are supplemented by those of another. APPENDIX H Inventory Of Factors Affecting Test Performance 205 INVENTORY OF FACTORS AFFECTING TEST PERFORMANCE* This inventory focusses on the need to identify factors which adversely affect the test performance. If a factor does apt adversely affect performance, place a check in the box below the factor. If performance is adversely affected, note the degreetn which the factor is detrimental to test performance and circle the style in which this factor eXpresses itself. Factor: X Style 1 2 3 4 5 A mildly moderately seriously B detrimental detrimental detrimental C Factor Degree Style Response t3 test 1. Gives the test the _ A. easily distracted attention it requires B. overly absorbed / / l 2 3 4 5 in one or more tasks so that transitions are difficult C. vaguely inatten- tive and uninvolved 2. Realistic sense of A. distrusts or competence 1 2 3 4 5 anxious about own / / abilities B. overly confident C. lacking in concern with competence 3. Adequate response time A. impuslive——responds / / 1 2 3 4 5 without adequate delay B. slow to respond-- much urging needed 4. Is matter of fact A. dislikes tasks, about tasks or enjoys l 2 3 4 5 antagonistic / / them B. fearful, guarded C. apathetic-- lacking pleasure or displeasure 5. Adequately persistent A. gives up easily in the face of l 2 3 4 5 B. can't give up difficulty C. behavior unmodified / / in the face of difficulty *Adapted from Stanford-Binet and UCLA scales 206 207 Factor Degree 6. 12. Response t3 test Reacts to failure realistically 1 2 '3 4 5 / Response t2 examiner Feels socially at ease 1 2 3 4 5 / Responds to normal amount of encourage- 1 2 3 4 5 ment and support / Generalized responses Normal activity level / 1 2 3 a 5 Normal verbal expression / 1 2 3 4 5 (for bilingual or multi-lingual l 2 3 4 5 children) English usage adequate / Test conditions Adequate U135 {1111’ ? Style withdraws becomes hostile denies, seems indifferent to failure belligerent, rebellious shy, reticent, reserved unresponsive- apathetic needs constant praise and encouragement acts overly independent indifferent to praise or encouragement hyperactive hypoactive verbose taciturn English usage inadequate Specify nature of inadequacy or inter- ference, e.g., room noisy, child sick, etc. "‘IIIIIIIIIIIIIII“