a! .oC.-,AMAHWI§.V.(. .n‘nfifl-fi‘o‘ifiu-IHNJBIJtl.41$ fl... ‘. .4. ... I. .n. C ._._ . u . . t 711:3 . . .. ‘ . .35 n .I , . v. . . .... : o 9. . . . . , . ‘ , . . . .‘ ¢ r. H: .I '1‘w”"t“"'|!l I];...t.lr c I I 1..- .n “I'lllllmullll “L This is to certify that the dissertation entitled Predictors of Outcome for Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment with Impulsive Children presented by Gregory Scott Greenberg has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degeeh, Psychology 4/1,er Major professor nah February 6, 1987 Mc,,;(nn Afr ,' A - r1 :n’ . , . . 0-1 1 PV1SSI.J RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to LIBRARIES remove this checkout from -__. your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. A SEP 2 6199.5 '7‘ 37195 ' we We "ii I A 7"“ w e... ~k , W “5...; “5‘3; - ' \..Ivu\-¢.’ PREDICTORS OF OUTCOHE FOR COGNITIVE-BEHAVIORAL TREATHENT HITH IHPULSIVE CHILDREN By Gregory Scott Broonborg A DISSERTATION Submitted to Hichigan Stat. Univ-roity in partial fulfilloont of tho roquirooonts for tho degre- at DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Dopartoont o‘ Psychology 1987 ABBTRRCT PREDICTORS OF OUTCOHE FOR COENITIVE-BEHANIORRL TREATHENT HITH IHPULBIVE CHILDREN By Gregory Scott Greenberg The present study investigated whether variables oi self-concept, aggression, locus of control, learning problees, chronological age, and faeilial socioeconoeic status help predict which iepulsive children benefit {roe cognitive-behavioral training (CST). It was hypothesized that those iepulsive children who possess a greater self- concept, lower aggressiveness, greater internal locus of control, lower external and unknown locus o! control. fewer learning problees, and are older in age would be'eost responsive to CST. This investigation also euaeined whether CST helps iepulsive children to develop a greater sense of control over and understanding of any outcoees occur in their own environeent. It was hypothesized that CIT would increase iepulsive children’s locus of control. Cognitive-behavioral treateent was provided for 33 sale and S feeale children, ages 7 to ll years old, who were referred tor special education services because oi eeotional iepaireent with the prieary problees being that of iepulsivity and acting-out. Pre- and posttest eeaeures were adeinistered to the child participants and their parents and teachers before the intervention started and after it ended. Results suggest that the predictor variables did not, in general, help predict ieproveeent in behavioral ratings. The reason for this failure to predict is that very few of the children significantly ieproved on any of the criterion variables. However, anecdotal reports of decreased behavioral difficulties within treateent groups suggest that observed behavioral ieproweeents say not have generalized froe the treateent setting to the classrooe or hose settings. Possible euplanations were offered for why the CDT failed to achieve better treateent effectiveness. The results also suggest that external locus of control decreased froe pre- to posttreateent. Lieitations of the current investigation and suggestions for future investigations were discussed. To ey faeily-Hax, Joan, Jeff, Jill, and Sarah-for their loving support and encourageeent iv I would like to thank ey eentor, Dr. Hade F. Horn, for his guidance and encourageeent. He eodeled for ee a fine sense of integrity and ethical standards, taught ee the ieportance of integrating eepirical work and clinical practice, and always pushed as to think rather than give ee quick answers to ey questions. Dr. Horn's teaching eethods, as well as his bright sense of honor, helped eake ey graduate education fun and exciting. I would like to express appreciation to ey other coeeittee eeebers, Dr. Dozier Thornton, Dr. Neal Scheitt, and Dr. Hark Billing. They greatly contributed to ey graduate education in that they shared such of their knowledge and wisdoe with as. Hy gratitude goes to ey colleague and friend, Nick Ialongo. Our frequent exchange of views and ideas helped to enrich ey graduate studies. Thanks goes to colleague, Hike Lopez, for sharing his knowledge with as about the self-concept and locus of control eeasures which were utilized in the study. I would like to express special thanks to all of the chi ldren, parents, school psychologists, and teachers who participated in this study. Hithout their eager participation this project would not have been possible. vi TRILE OF CONTENTS LISTwTWO-ICIOOOOIIDOIIICC-COIOOOCOCOOOICOCCCIC CHRPTER I. STATEHENT OF THE PROBLEH...................... ll. MIRW ML‘TWWIOIII0.000.000.0000... "n.1mc......IO...COCO-IIIIIIOIOOIOIOIIIO Defining Characteristics and Associated "mimOOOOOOOOOIIOOOOIOOOIOOIOOOOOOOOI. Treateent of Hyperactivity................. Psychostieulant Nedication............... Prat Tr.1nim..lfl.....l0.000.000.0000.- Cognitive-Behavioral Self-Control TurmYOOIIIOOIIIOIIOOOOIIIIIIOIOOOOOI. Single Predictor Variables for Cognitive- Behavioral Therapy with Hyperactive m‘lwmIOOIOOIIOICOOOIIOOOOOOOIOOOOIOOI. Predictors of Treateent Dutcoee............ “1‘“:thIOU-IIOOOIOOIIOIOOOOIIIIOOOO w...‘m.IOOOOIIOOIIIOOOOIOCOIOIOOOIIOO Lu“. 0‘ cmtrOIOOIOIOIIOOIOI0.0.0.0....- “'0‘.” "film.IIIOIOOOOOIIIOOOOCOIII. ChronOIOODC.l A°.eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee m‘mmu‘c 8t.tu.OOIIIOIIOIOIOI0...... Cognitive-Behavioral Treateent Influences m M“. 0‘ cmtrOIOIIIOOOOOOIOOIOICOIIIO III. OVERVIEH AND BTRTEHENT 0F HYPDTHESES....... "VPOth.'i. leaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee HYPOth.'1. IIeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee HVPOth..‘. III-eeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeeeeeeee “VPOth..1' lveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee HVPOth.'1. Veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Iv- WOOD-O...I...-IOOIOCOIOOOOOOIIOOIIOOIC M’xt.....ICC-.00....III-IIOIOOIOOOIII General Design Statesent................ ”xmwnIOIIOIIOIOIOIOOOIIII-.0000...- ”tin-IIOOIOCOIOOOCOOIIO'COIICCOOIIC vii Poo- ix O' p $813855 67 69 69 7O 32! V. VI. Self-Control Training................. h"..-eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Parent Report Heasures.............. Teacher Report Heasures............. m‘ld Wt m................. mm...O.I.............-.........0000... Descriptive Statistics for the Independent and Dependent v"¢1”000..OOOOOOOOOIOOOIOIOI-OIOOO Analysis of Sex Differences............. Intercorrelations Aeong the Independent and Dependent variables... General Statistical Plan................ Hypothesis I: Self-Concept.............. Moth-III II. M9'”.1Meeeeeeeeeeeeeee Hypothesis IIII Locus of Control........ Hypothesis IV: Learning Problees........ Hypothesis VI Chronological Age......... Socioeconoeic Status.................... Overall Prediction of Treateent mtcm000000I.-CIICOOOOIOIOIIIIOOOOOO Hypothesis VII Changes in Locus of mtr°1000000.00000000000.00-00.00...- Success of Cognitive-Behavioral TrntmtOII'D-.0000...IOOOOIIOIIOIIIO m1-......0......00.0....OOOOOOOOOOOIDOCOIOOCOO A. D. C. D. E. F. Self-Control Training Activities............. Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist........... Teacher’s Report Fore of the Child Sehavicr Mkl‘.t.....0......OOOOOOOOOIOOOOOIOIOIO ADD-Hi Coeprehensive Teacher Rating Scale.... The Harter Self-Concept Heasures............. Hultidieensional Heasure of Children's PIFCIIDtIU'II 0‘ mtrOIeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee L!“ w WOO-OCOOOOOOOICICOODCOICOCO-ICOOOODO viii ‘T 333 as a 32333 g EEEEfi i 5 § E 5 ii I76 194 IS? 194 I97 Table 10 11 LIST U: TM Dutcoee of Cognitive-Behavioral Intervention Studies of Hyperactive Children.............. Deeographic Variables Described in Cognitive- Dehavioral Intervention Studies of Mir-CCIVI Cl'lIIdefl-........................ Subject Characteristics Described in Cognitive-Behavioral Intervention Studies of Mtut‘" milmeIIOOIOIIIOOIOOOOIIOOIOCC Deeographic Inforeation on Child Participants as Reported by Their Prieary Caretakers...... Subject Characteristics of Child Pvt‘c‘pmt.I0......OOIOOOIOOIIOOIOOOOO0.0... Hean Raw Scores of Independent (Predictor) Variables, Dependent (Criterion) Variables, m mvilt“....OOOOIOCIIIIOIICOCO-00...... Pearson Correlations of Independent ("“ICEW’ vviw‘...IOOOIOOOOOOOIIOIOOIOOOO Pearson Correlations of Dependent (Criterion) vviwln..l.....CODIIDIICOICOOCOOCOICCO...O. Pearson Correlations of Covariates for Dependent (Criterion) Variables.............. Regression Analysis Predicting Posttreateent Hyperacti vi ty, Attention, and Dppositional Indices froe Pretest Self-Concept Heastre of Wt".. .m.t I hL‘k..IIOOOIIOOIOIOOOI...- Regression Analysis Predicting Posttreateent Hyperacti vi ty, Attention, and Dpposi ti onal Indices froe Pretest Self-Concept Heasure of Wt"" .1" t”. c1.."m.00000IIIIOOIOOOOOO ix Page 71 94 96 100 103 105 Table 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1? Regression Malysis Predicting Posttreateent Hyperactivity, Attention, and Dppositional Indices froe Pretest Aggression Heasure of Achenbach’s Parent Fore of the Child Behavior mxkli.t..-....CIUCIOICCDCCOCOOOOICCOCO-0..I Regression Mal ysis Predicting Posttreateent Hyperactivity and Attention Indices froe Retest ACTeRS Dppositional Heasure. . . . . . . . . . Regression Malysis Predicting Posttreateent Hyperactivity, Attention, and (bpositional Indices froe Pretest Connell's Internal Locus 0‘ cmtrOIIIIODID-IOOIOOIIOIIOIOIOOOIIIOIIOCO Regression Malysis Predicting Posttreateent Hyperactivity, Attention, and Dppositional Indices froe Pretest Connell's External Locus M mtrOIOIIIOOOOCOCO-00.00.0000..-IIIDID... Regression Malysis Predicting Posttreateent Hyperactivity, Attention, and (bpositional Indices froe Pretest Connell's Lhknown Locus M mtrolOOOOOOOO0......OIOOOOOICIIIOIOOIOOI Regression Mal ysis Predicting Posttreateent Hyperacti vi ty, Attention, and Opposi ti onal Indices froe Pretest School Perforsance Heasure of Achenbach' s Teacher Fore of the mild “I‘VIG' Mkl‘.t.l...IOOOOOCOIIOOIOII Regression Mal ysis Predicting Posttreateent Hyperactivity, Attention, and Opposi ti onal Indices froe Pretest School Perforeance Heasure of Achenbach' s Parent Fore of the mild “I‘VIU' mku‘.tO0.000000000000000... Regression Mal ysis Predicting Posttreateent Hyperactivity, Attention, and (hipositional Indices froe Chronological Age............... Regression Mal ysis Predicting Posttreateent Hyperacti vi ty, Attention. and (bpositional Indices froe Socioeconoeic Status. . . . . . . . . . . . Page 109 110 113 116 118 122 124 127 130 Table 21 24 variables Found to Predict Cagnitive- Behavioral Treateent Dutcoee................. Stepwise Hultiple Regression Analysis Predicting Posttreateent ACTeRS watiVitYICOIIICIIOOIOOOIIICOO-0.0.0....- Stepwise Hultiple Regression Analysis Predicting Posttreateent ACTeRS tht£m0IIOOI.I.OI.0...-IIOOOIOIOIICOOOOIIO Stepwise Hultiple Regression Analysis Predicting Posttreateent ACTeRS wpm1t:m.1.........00......I.-IIOCIOIIOOIIO Stepwise Hultiple Regression Analysis Predicting Posttreateent Parent Achenbach mrntiV‘ty.IOO...I...-IIOOOIIOIOOOOIOOIOCI Hean Pretest and Posttest Locus of Control “unseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Hean Raw Scores of Pretest and Posttest u‘tw‘m vv‘wl”.lOOICIOOCOOOIIIOIODOOIIOO xi Page 133 135 136 137 138 141 143 Predictors of Outcoee for Cognitive-Behavioral Treateent Hith lepulsive Children CHAPTER I STATEHENT OF THE PROBLEH The behavioral disorder, hyperactivity, is the east coeeonly referred problee to child guidance clinics in the United States (Safer & Allen, 1976; Stewart, Pitts, Craig, & Dieruf. 1966). Hyperactive children are frequently described as iepulsive, inattentive. overactive. difficult to discipline. and incapable of restraining their activity to situational requireeents (Cantwell, 1975) Ross 6 Ross, 1976; Routh, 1978. Safer & Allen, 1976). Quite often, hyperactive children have difficulties in getting along with their peers, coepleting acadeeic work, and following directions of teachers and parents (Stewart et al., 1966). Thus, they are eore likely than noreal children to have a nusber of acadeeic and social problees. Difficulties with alcohol abuse. depression, obeying the law, and truancy often occur as they grow older (Cantwell, 1978; Hinde et al., 1971; Ross I: Ross, 1976; Heiss, Hinde, Harry, Douglas. & Neeeth, 1971). The prognosis for hyperactive children in adulthood is frequently described as poor (Barkley, 1977a| Hash & Dalby, 1979; Routh, 1978' Heiss et al., 1971). In short, ”they constitute a group of children plagued with conduct and reactive eeotional problees throughout east of their lives” (Barkley, 1981a; p. 127). The eost coeeon treateent for hyperactivity is, and has been for soee tiee now, psychostieulant eedication. In his review of sore than 110 studies regarding the effects of stieulant drugs on approxieately 4200 children, Barkley (1977a) reported that about 75% of the hyperactive children taking stieulant eedication seen to be judged as ieproved while about 25% stay unchanged or are worsened by the drugs. In addition, although stieulant drug therapy has been shown to have short-tern behavioral or cognitive effects such as increased concentration or attention span, decreased iepulsivity in responding and decreased activity level, follow-up studies have reported little change with respect to long-tern social, acadeeic or psychological adjusteent of hyperactive children (e.g., Huessy, Hetoyer, I: Townsend, 1974; Hendelson, Johnson. I: Stewart, 1971; Hinde, Heiss, I: Hendelson, 1972; Minn I: Rapoport, 1975; Riddle In Rapoport, 1976; Weiss, Kruger, Danielson, I: Sloan, 1975). It appears that the psychostieulant eedication treateent is helpful for short-tare control of hyperactivity but is not helpful for long-tare outcoees. In other words, stieulant eedication seees to be effective for eanageeent of hyperactive children but does not iaprove long-tare social and acadeeic adaptation. In addition, eany parents PIJICC stieulant eedication as a treateent for their child(ren) while other parents discontinue treateent preeaturely (Brown, Borden, & Clingerean, 1994; Firestone, 1982). Consequently, another treateent that has been atteepted with hyperactive children in order to deal with the lack of long-tern effects of psychostieulant eedication, as well as the variability in responsivity to the drugs and in willingness of parents to allow their children to receive the drugs, has been cognitive- behavioral therapy. Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) is designed to teach a general strategy for controlling behavior under various circuestances. CBT is based on the assueption that the teaching of cognitive skills say result in behavior change that can be eaintained over ties and generalize across a variety of situations. A nueber of training eethods are utilized in teaching cognitive responses. These eethods include the presentation of probleersolving strategies and self-control techniques, and exeeplification through cognitive eodeling. In addition to phareacotherapy issues, Hhalen, Henker, and Hinshaw (1985) stress that there are soee other reasons that CST appears to warrant trial for hyperactive children. These children are often regarded as iapulsive; incoepetent at regulating their attentional, eotoric, and social behaviors. and deficient in age-appropriate self-regulattpn skills. Since the eephasis in CBT is on self-guidance and problee-solving strategies, CST eay sore directly address the eain problees of hyperactivity. Furthereore, child therapists' concerns with eaintenance and generalization of treateent enhanceeents have been growing with the increasing realization that hyperactivity is a heterogeneous disorder with a lengthy and possibly even lifelong course (Ross & Ross, 1982' Heiss, 1983a Hhalen. 1983). Thus, “with its eephasis on teaching portable coping strategies that are intended to transfer across behaviors and contexts, CST proeised to produce gains that were at once durable and generalizable“ (Hhalen, et al., 1985; p.392). Although cognitive-behavioral therapy has been shown to be helpful, it is not helpful in all cases (e.g.. Billings & Hasik, 1985; Cohen, Sullivan, Hinds, Novak, & Helwig, 1981' Cohen. Sullivan, Hinde, Novak, In Keens, 19833 East-an & Rasbury, 1981; Ellis. 1976; Friedling & D'Leary. 1979). Therefore, it is ieportant to study why CBT is effective with soee hyperactive children and not with others. In other words, there say exist a nueber of child variables such as self-concept, aggression, locus of control, learning problees, chronological age, and faeilial socioeconoeic status that say allow prediction of which hyperactive children respond best to cognitive-behavioral therapy. However, with the exception of Horn, Ialongo, Popovich, and Peradotto (in press), there have been no studies that have exaeined factors which say predict responsiveness to CST treateent. Thus, the prieary purpose of the current study is to find out whether the variables eentioned above help predict whether hyperactive children will benefit froe cognitive-behavioral training. If it becoees possible to predict apriori which hyperactive children will benefit froe CBT, then those children can receive this treateent; alternative treateents will need to be found for those hyperactive children not able to benefit froe CST. In addition, Hhalen et al. (1985) suggest that attributions steeeing froe phareacotherapy say be “counter- therapeutic” if such unintentional effects are not addressed during treateent. For exaeple, in interviews with hyperactive children, Hhalen et al. (1985) found that these children reported: the pills get thee eore friends, keep thee froe being seen to their pets, allow thee to loan things to peers, keep their legs froe kicking, sake the teacher like thee, prevent fights, keep thee froe spending all of their eoney in one day, keep thee froe breaking things, and eake thee like theeselves (p.405). Hence, hyperactive children say coee to suppose that they are not expected to eodulate their own behavior, while their peers are learning to take increasing responsibility for their own actions. In contrast, a eajor hypothesis underlying CST is that it fosters internalization of control. Hhalsn et al. (1985) state, '...to the extent that it coeeunicates an expectation of volitional control, CBT eay serve as an antidote, helping to neutralize undesirable eeanative effects of externalizing treateents“ (p.405). Consequently, a second purpose of the present investigation is to exaeine whether cognitive-behavioral therapy helps hyperactive children to develop a greater sense of control over and understanding of why outcoees occur in their own environeent. CHAPTER II REVIEH OF THE LITERRTURE Ecualsnu Hyperactivity is thought to include froe 21 to 202 of the lhited States school-age population (Safer I: Allen, 1976; Sroufe I: Stewart, 1973; Stewart et al., 1966] Render, 1971). The eost coeeon estieate of prevalence utilized by eost investigators is 4% to 5! of school-age children, or approxieatley one child in every school classrooe. In addition, according to Barkely (1981a), it was originally thought that hyperactivity was eainly an Aeerican problee because of the very low incidence rates reported in other countries (Rutter, Grahae, I: Yule, 1970; Stewart, 1970). however, eore recent studies indicate that between 41 and 101 of the childhood population of nearly all countries are afflicted with this behavioral disorder (Trites, Dugas, Lynch, I: Ferguson, 1979) but that it is often categorized in other countries under a different diagnosis, such as conduct disorder (Sandberg, Rutter, I: Taylor, 1978). Also, it is well accepted that hyperactivity occurs eore in boys than in girls, with ratios ranging fore 3:1 to 9:1 (Safer I: Allen, 1976; Trites et al., 1979). Minion commie. and associated Enables! One of the prieary syeptoes of hyperactivity is inattentiveness. According to Barkley (1981b), eany hyperactive children are believed to have their greatest difficulties in sustaining attention to task-pertinent stieuli while inhibiting their responding to stieuli not pertinent to the task (i.e., controlling iepulses). In fact, in 1980 the Aeerican Psychiatric Association renaeed the disorder in the third edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Hanual of Rental Disorders (DSH III; 1980) as Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), with or without hyperactivity. Barkley (1981b) notes, In the hose, these difficulties with sustained attention often appear in a child’s failure to coeplete assigned chores, to listen to directions when given, to coeplete hoeework assigneents, to play for prolonged periods of ties without supervision or attention froe others, or to watch television for prolonged periods...At school, problees with attending to the teacher during class lectures and coepleting assigneents during individual work ties are also reflections of the child's attentional difficulties. Often, the child is distracted by eore interesting itees in the class or outside the window, or by what other children say be doing (p.12). In addition, soee research (e.g., Barkley, 1977b; Pope, 1970) suggests that hyperactive children are eore active than noreal children across eany settings, while other research (e.g., Barkley I: Ullean, 1975; Kenny et al., 1971; Shaffer, HcHaeara, & Pincus, 1974) suggests that hyperactive children are not sore active than other children in all situations. It appears that the sore circuescribed the environeent and the sore concentration required by the given tasks, the sore probable it is that differences in activity level will be found, usually in seat restlessness and task-irrelevant types of activity. Iepulsivity, or a failure to inhibit responding, has also been noted to be a prieary problee with hyperactive children (Douglas, 1972, 1976; Heichenbaue, 1976, 1978; Ross & Ross, 1976; Schleifer et al., 1975). For exaeple, hyperactive children often do not stop to think about the consequences of their behavior before acting, and they tend to eake eore eistakes in the classrooe environeent, put theeselves in eore precarious situations, and fail to follow instructions. They are also apt to respond in both a verbally and physically aggressive eanner when they are frustrated or eeotionally hurt by others, without thinking about the consequences of their stateeents or actions. Although inattention, overactivity, and poor iepulse control are the eost coeeonly cited prieary characteristics in hyperactive children, Barkley and Cunninghae (1980) have suggested that noncoepliance is also a prieary problee. For instance, this research has revealed that the east coeeonly utilized parent rating scales of hyperactivity 10 correlate quite highly with noncoepliance in their coepletion of these scales. There are a nueber of other problees that appear to coexist with hyperactivity, although they do not occur in all hyperactive children. For instance, Safer and Allen (1976) found that 70% to 801 of hyperactive children have at least one particular learning disability; yet, this finding is not always substantiated (Cantwell & Satterfield, 1978). These children are also noted to be awkward and cluesy and to possess fine and gross eotor difficulties (Ross a Ross, 1976). In addition, there often appear to be problees with acadeeic achieveeent (Cantwell & Satterfield, 1978; Dykean, Peters, G Ackerean, 1973; Heiss et al., 1975), ieeature eeotional control (Heiss et al., 1971), poor peer relationships (Ross a Ross, 1976), and aggression (Patterson, 1976). The present study utilizes an intervention which priearily focuses on treating children with iepulse control problees. As noted in the above literature, children with iepulse control problees are often labelled as being hyperactive or as having Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). Since there does not exist a diagnostic label for children with self control/iepulse control problees, the two eost coeeonly used labels referring to children with such 11 difficulties (i.e., hyperactivity and ADD) will be used interchangeably in the current study. Instant of. ”KW There are a variety of treateents or interventions that are currently utilized in aiding hyperactive children and their faeilies. The eost widely used treateents are: (1) drug treateent for the hyperactive child, (2) parent training which focuses on teaching and discussing child eanageeent techniques, and (3) child therapy which focuses on teaching self-control techniques and problee-solving strategies. Each of these treateents will be briefly discussed here. hummisnt mumm- PVC-Ont”. psychostieulant drugs are the eost coeeonly utilized treateent for hyperactive children (Barkley, 1976, 1977a, 1981a; Cantwell 6 Carlson, 1978; Sroufe, 1975). A review of the literature suggests that the eain effects of the psychostieulant eedication (e.g., eethylphenidate, peeoline, and d-aephetaeine) are decreased iepulsivity, increased concentration, and in soee settings, a decrease in activity level. Barkley (1981b) notes that other changes in behavior, such as increased coepliance to coeeands (Barkley & Cunninghae, 1979a) and occasionally reported ieproveeents in intellectual and acadeeic tests 12 (Barkley, 1977a), are associated with the ieproveeents in attention. However, psychostieulant drugs which have been adeinistered for as long as 3 to 5 years during childhood have not been found to alter the long-tare psychosocial outcoee of hyperactive children (Barkley, 1977a; Heiss et al., 1971). In brief, psychostieulant eedication appears to be helpful for short-tere behavior eanageeent; yet, it has not been found to alter the long-tern acadeeic or behavioral difficulties that eost of these children eanifest. Egcgnt Icgining. In order to overcoee eany of the difficulties of psychostieulant eedication as a sole treateent for hyperactivity (e.g., eentioned above), parent training has been suggested as a viable alternative. Barkley (1981a) presents a sueeary of the parent training that he has utilized. The first step involves providing the parents of the hyperactive children with inforeation on the nature of the disorder in order to eitigate any eisconceptions that parents have about hyperactivity. Secondly, the parent is taught to becoee a proeinent dispenser of social attention and rewards to their child. This second step of training is based on the research of Patterson (1976) and Hahler (1976) indicating that the social attention and praise often given by parents of 12 (Barkley, 1977a), are associated with the ieproveeents in attention. However, psychostieulant drugs which have been adeinistered for as long as 3 to 5 years during childhood have not been found to alter the long-tere psychosocial outcoee of hyperactive children (Barkley, 1977a; Heiss et al., 1971). In brief, psychostieulant eedication appears to be helpful for short-tare behavior eanageeent; yet, it has not been found to alter the long-tare acadeeic or behavioral difficulties that eost of these children eanifest. £35.93 Icginlng. In order to overcoee eany of the difficulties of psychostieulant eedication as a sole treateent for hyperactivity (e.g., eentioned above), parent training has been suggested as a viable alternative. Barkley (1981a) presents a sueeary of the parent training that he has utilized. The first step involves providing the parents of the hyperactive children with inforeation on the nature of the disorder in order to eitigate any eisconceptions that parents have about hyperactivity. Secondly, the parent is taught to becoee a proeinent dispenser of social attention and rewards to their child. This second step of training is based on the research of Patterson (1976) and Hahler (1976) indicating that the social attention and praise often given by parents of 13 oppositional children have less reinforceeent value to the child than that dispensed by other people. Thirdly, the parent is taught to utilize their positive attention contingently for coepliance to coeeands. This involves teaching the parent to provide clear, unaebiguous rules aieed at the child’s language level. In addition, parents can be trained how to use a variety of ways to acceptably punish their children, such as ties-out, reeoval of social attention, loss of privileges, and in certain cases, eild spanking eade contingent upon noncoepliance. Barkley (1981b) reports that parent training utilized with hyperactive children has proven effective by reducing problee behaviors and increasing coepliance. In addition, Barkley (i981b), as well as Patterson (1976) and Forehand et al., (1979), have reported ieproveeents in the behavior of the hyperactive children's siblings with the aid of parent training progress. However, it is ieportant to note that although there is strong evidence that behavioral parent training has been shown to be an effective procedure for altering deviant child behavior, results with respect to the generalization of treateent effects have been less coepelling (e.g., see Forehand k Atkeson, i977; Horeland, Schwebel, Beck, 5 Hells, 1982). 14 mural Samuel Ibsen» In reaction to the problees of phareacothsrapy and parent training (eentioned above), cognitive-behavioral therapy has been posited as an alternative treateent for hyperactive children. Cognitive-behavioral therapy stresses the teaching of self-control techniques and problee-solving strategies directly to the hyperactive child. Cognitive process differences have been found between hyperactive/iepulsive and noreal children (Caep, 1977; Drake, 1970; Finch a Hontgoeery, 1973; Kendall, 1976; Heichenbaue, 1979; Ollendick I: Finch, 1973; Siegelean, 1969; Spivack & Shure, 1974), suggesting that cognitive eediation strategies say be an appropriate eleeent for treateent. For instance, Caep (1977) showed that aggressive, iepulsive boys typically use ieeature and inappropriate private speech, and evidence fast reaction tiees, inhibition errors, and short response latencies as coepared to noreal boys. Caep posits that these children often do not utilize verbal eediation strategies. Horeover, even when they do, covert eediation does not attain effective control over behavior. Caep postulates that iepulsive, aggressive boys have an ineffective linguistic control systee. Heador and Ollendick (1984) note that theoretically, 15 inhibition of iepulsive responding is associated with internalization of language (Hhite, 1965). The internalization process entails a variety of stages. For exaeple, the associative stage possesses inhibition deficits and an absence of verbal eediation, and is ultieately replaced by adultlike cognitive processes in which behavior is controlled by verbal eediation. Heador and Ollendick (1984) further eention that this process reseebles developeent of internalized controls, as suggested by Luria (1961) and Vygotsky (1962). Theoretically, hyperactive/iepulsive children are operating at the associative stage. Thus, since hyperactive children likely have deficits in self-speech and problee-solving skills, these deficits are a focus in teaching rule-governed behavior. For instance, hyperactive children have difficulties in asking theeselves questions which one usually asks oneself when posed with a probleeatic situation. Thus, teaching hyperactive children problee-solving skills is a focus of treateent that accoepanies the teaching of self-speech or self-instruction. For exaeple, Barkley (1981a) discusses how one eight treat hyperactive children using these eethods. The child is trained to (1) delay responding upon entering a situation; (2) ask hieself or herself what 16 behavior is expected in that situation or what is appropriate; (3) have his or her describe the appropriate behavior; (4) state the appropriate rules if the child's stateeents are inaccurate and then require hie or her to repeat thee aloud; (5) have the child iepleeent the correct responses; (6) provide positive social attention during steps 1 through 5; and (7) have the child evaluate his or her own behavior aloud when leaving the problee situation. As the child has such practice with these strategies in the problee situation, he or she can use less and less external self-speech, with eore ieportance placed upon “internal“ self-speech to direct behavior (Heichenbaue, 1978). Early reports (Barkley, Copeland, & Sivage, 1980; Douglas, 1976; Heichenbaue, 1978) found that this eethod is quite easy to teach to hyperactive children and helpful in environeents where it is trained or with those persons who are training the children. Kendall and Braswell (1985) suggest that incentive eanipulation and the use of contingencies is an integral part of this cognitive-behavioral training. First, self- rewards and social rewards are utilized for appropriate responses. For instance, the child is taught to stop and give theeself a self-reward for successfully coepleting a task (e.g., the child eight be taught to say to hieself 17 'I'e doing a good JOb| l eust be using ey plan“). Hopefully, this reward will foster an increased self- esteee. The social rewards can include a therapist sailing or a verbal eessage to the child that helshe is doing well. Second, a response-cost contingency is used to help the child to reeseber to stop and think before responding. For instance, if the child does not coeply with the self- instructions (e.g., forgets one of the steps or iepulsively utters the wrong step), then a reward token that was previously given to the child say be taken away. Third, self-evaluation is utilized to help the child eaintain their self-instruction behavior in an environeent in which the behavioral contingencies no longer exist (i.e., the therapist's office). Kendall and Braswell suggest a 'How I Did Today“l chart to aid the child in teaching self- evaluation skills. Basically, this is a eethod that provides the child with feedback on how well helshe perforeed the self-instructions for the day. Lastly, hoeework assigneents are utilized as part of the training. If coepleted appropriately and if they worked hard on it, as evidenced by its difficulty level, then the child earns a reward (e.g., a token to be traded in for a eaterial reinforcer). Kendall and Braswell posit that these rewarded hoeework assigneents are aieed at helping the 18 child to stop and think outside the therapy session as opposed to solely inside the therapy session. According to Kendall and Braswell (1985), eodeling can be used to teach problee-solving strategies and self- instructions to children. Hodeling includes exposing the child to another person (or persons) who shows or displays the behaviors which are to be learned by the child. For exaeple, the therapist say eodel for a hyperactive child ways in which to cope with failure to solve a problee (e.g., “That solution didn’t work, I'll have to try another one“). In addition, Heichenbaue (1971) has found that eodeling of coping strategies in dealing with a problee situation is east effective when it is perforeed while talking out loud. Another integral eleeent of the cognitive—behavioral intervention suggested by Kendall and Braswell (1985) is teaching the hyperactive child to better identify and describe his/her own eeotions in addition to others' eeotions. For instance, the child say be asked to identify and respond to eeotions that are related to a variety of facial expressions, body postures, or difficult problee situations. Kendall and Braswell note that this eethod is aieed at helping children to ieprove their interpersonal problee solving. 19 Lastly, Kendall and Braswell (1985) suggest that role playing exercises allow the hyperactive child to act out a problee situation in an effort to solve a problee. For exaeple, the child say be required to act out a problee situation in which helshe is engaged in an argueent with a friend over the use of a toy. In addition to hypothetical situations being acted out, real problee situations which the child has encountered or will encounter can also be role played. The therapist can help the child to act out the self-instructions necessary to solve the problee; this can be accoeplished by cuing the child to attend to certain alternatives or steps in their probleersolving plan. Hhalen et al. (1985), however, questioned the initial optieise of this intervention by reporting that the efficacy of Child Behavior Therapy (CST) has only been shown for certain circuescribed behavioral settings, for short tiee periods, and eostly with nonclinical saeples of children possessing inadequate self-control skills. Hith respect to children clinically diagnosed as ADD these authors note that the results of CBT are soeewhat weak, inconsistent, difficult to replicate, and disconcerting. In short, delieited short-tere gains have been evidenced in a nueber of investigations; but, positive findings are neither as predictable nor as extensive as once expected. 20 Ilulen et al. (1985) also report that no evidence has been found to support the facilitation of long-tere eaintenance of behavioral gains with CBT. For instance, Abikoff and Gittelean (1984) report that behavioral degeneration after the discontinuance of CBT was grave enough during a one—eonth follow-up period to require eedication for virtually all cases, whether the children had received CST plus eedication or eedication alone during the intervention phase. Only a few investigations have appraised persistence of changes over periods greater than one to two eonths, and these investigations exhibit only lieited eaintenance (e.g., Kendall & Braswell, 1982). However, Hhalen et al. (1985) posit that sore inforeation is available concerning generalization than about eaintenance of CBT, and that soee positive results have eesrged. The eost consistent evidence involves assesseent of attention and cognition. For instance, generalization to acadeeic perforeance or achieveeent rarely occurs, yet it has been reported (Brown, Hynne, I: Hedenis, 1985; Douglas, Parry, Harton, a Garson, 1976). In addition, Hhalen et al. (1985) eention that generalization froe cognitive task perforeance to social-adaptive behavior is usually not reported (Brown et al., 1985; Douglas et al., 1976), although again, such generalization has been 21 found on occasion. For instance, Kendall and Braswell (1982) reported generalization froe training sessions to classrooe behaviors rated by teachers but not to hoes behaviors rated by parents. Thus, despite soee proeising results regarding potential effectiveness, the available literature on the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral therapy for hyperactive children has yielded eixed results. Email finalists: 2|:qu in: mummaxml 2mm mmmmmmum Although child characteristics have not been eepirically investigated as predictors of cognitive- behavioral treateent outcoee, a nueber of thee have been identified as potentially ieportant predictors of outcoee. A review of the literature revealed 43 studies that included cognitive-behavioral therapy either alone or in coebination with psychostieulant eedication and/or parent training. The outcoee of these studies (Table 1) revealed a nueber of positive, negative, and eixed results for which there existed a variety of child characteristics that say have influenced these outcoees (Table 2). For instance, out of 9 studies which included child participants in the age range of 4 to 6 years, 4 of those studies (44.4%) were reported to have positive outcoees, whereas the reeaining 5 studies (55.6!) were reported to 22 Table 1 flatness Oi cognitixzzlanaxiecal Intscxsntioo Studies 91 Minimum ESHQX and Outcast endgcggn g; g1., 122§-Token fading was efficacious in sustaining self-control in classrooe situations not eonitored by any contingency systee and in the training classrooe following tereination of token rewards. Hhile evidencing no such classrooe generalization, behavioral rehearsal subjects learned to respond eore efficaciously on tests seasuring cognitive tasks. Ho treateent effect was found for the traditional therapy condition. ecnnld IS g1., 132§-Iepulsivity errors decreased froe pre- to posttest with self-control taining, response-cost treateent, and both treateents coebined. The placebo condition, consisting of instructions, practice, and feedback, was effective in decreasing errors. Response- cost treateent increased perforeance on a classrooe eatching task only in the saee situation in which it was iepleeented; self-control training did not result in changes in perforeance in situations different froe the training setting. agcggggn, 112§-The eost effective treateent for altering both cognitive and behavioral aspects of iepulsivity was a coebination of self-instruction and token fading. There was “considerable ieproveeent“ in behavioral iepulsivity for subjects receiving self-instruction only. Token fading intervention was only “slightly sore effective“ than the control group in altering behavioral iepulsivity. Hensley gt g1., 12§Q-Self-control treateent ieproved eisbehavior and attention to tasks during seat work but not during group instruction. Activity level was not eodified by treateent. Changes in the schedule of self-eonitoring in the class resulted in “increased variability“ and soee increase in eisbehavior. BUDJICCI of lower eental age appeared eost affected by the schedule shift. lenggn, 1226p-8trategy training increased latency, while self-verbalization training increased latency and reduced errors on visual discrieination eatching tasks. 23 Table 1 (cont.) fi1111ng1 g; g1., 113§-Self-instructional training did not exhibit socially significant, persistent increases in either appropriate classrooe behavior or changes in teacher ratings of behavior. flgcn§1g1g gt 31., 121§-On-task behaviors increased at the ease ties that self-instruction procedures were iepleeented. Transfer of training effects froe the experieental tasks to the classrooe occurred. Ecgwu gt 51., 1292-Differential training strategies coeparing training in attention to inhibitory control revealed that a coebination of attentional and inhibitory control techniques was eost effective in augeenting cognitive perforeance. Icggn g; 31., 12§§-Children in stieulant drug therapy and cognitive training plus stieulant drug therapy conditions showed ieproveeent in attentional deployeent and behavioral ratings. In the cognitive therapy condition, there were changes only on eeasures of attentional deployeent. No evidence suggested that the coebined eedication and cognitive therapy condition was eore effective than the eedication condition alone. fluggnsg1 gt g1., 1222-Significant interactions were found between interventions of self-control speech instruction and contingent social reinforceeent and (a) child attributions and (b) eedication status. The self-control treateent yielded significantly greater decreases in Porteus Haze errors for (a) children with high perceived personal causality and (b) non-eedicated children. The social-reinforceeent intervention yielded trends in the direction of greater decreases in errors for (a) children with low perceived personal causality and (b) eedicated children. No significant differences were found on teacher ratings. GISICBD gs g1., 12§Q-Self-instructional and self- eanageeent skills produced significant changes in eath accuracy for all IUDJOCCI, and two subjects evidenced significant increases in on-task behavior. Results suggesting generalization to untrained behaviors was shown by an increase in self-correction of oral reading for all subjects. 24 Table 1 (cont.) Gghgn g1 g1., 1291-Analyses of psychological, rating scale observational, and interview data revealed that hyperactive children becaee less syeptoeatic over ties. The data did not show that any of the treateents studied (cognitive- behavior eodification, eethylphenidate, and the two treateents coebined) was eore efficacious than any other or than no treateent at all. nggn gt g1., 12§§-Hothers of hyperactive children provided eore direction and control than eothers of noreal children. Hother-child interaction was not differentially affected by treateents of eethylphenidate and cognitive- behavior eodification, used alone and in coebination. mm g1 g1., 1flfi-—Hodeling, self-verbalization, and self-reinforceeent strategies iepacted hyperactive children in becoeing eore effective and less iepulsive on a nueber of cognitive tasks, acadeeic problees, and social situations. Egggggn g1 g1., 1231-Following cognitive self-instruction training, there were no significant increases in on-task behavior or in acadeeic perforeance within the context of a group design. Egg1gng gt g1., 122§-Two groups, one trained to ieprove search strategies on eatch-to-saeple visual discrieination exercises and the other trained to delay responses using the ease eaterials, evidenced significant increases in response ties and decreases in errors on the Hatching Faeiliar Figures Test adeinistered after training. The group trained to delay responses evidenced an increase in errors on a delayed posttest 2 eonths after training, while the other group continued to eaintain a low level of response errors. Both groups showed ieproveeent on a vocabulary subtest, and the group trained to ieprove search strategies also evidenced ieproveeent on a coeprehension subtest. E1113, 1126-—Training in covert self-instructions did not reduce aggressive behavior in imulsive-aggressive boys. Enigd11ng gt g1., 1212-8elf-instructional procedures did not generally produce changes in either acadeeic or on-task behavior; however, on-task behavior was shown to be “susceptible to eodification“ by a token intervention. 25 Table 1 (cont.) W gt g1., Withough the results do not provide clear support for the effectiveness of eodeling and self- instruction, they do show selective alterations in iepulsivity based upon racial sieilarities of eodels and subjects. fi1gng1gk gt g1., 1321b-The sost consistent ieproveeents for groups in which verbal self-regulation procedures were taught to children and their parents and teachers were in acadeeic achieveeent, especially reading. Only seall ieproveeents were evidenced in cognitive and intellectual abilities, except for the Hatching Faeiliar Figures Test. Ho classrooe behavior alterations were reported, yet parent participants perceived ieproveeents in hose behavior. dinette! at al-. 1295.1 (Stud! 21 It gm—nnnnmuu. reduced the intensity of behavior but did not significantly increase either global or specific eeasures of self- control. Cognitive-behavioral intervention, when coepared to control training, was sore effective in increasing both general self-control and the utilization of coping strategies. There was no superiority for the coebination of eethylphenidate plus cognitive-behavioral treateent. flingbgg gt g1., 129§g-Both eethylphenidate and cognitive- behavioral reinforced self-evaluation were sore effective than treateents of placebo and extrinsic reinforcesent alone, respectively. Hhen the effects of the four treateent conditions were rank ordered, eedication plus cognitive-behavioral self-evaluation was superior; placebo plus reinforcesent alone was significantly worse than all other conditions. Also, eedication increased the accuracy of the subjects' self-evaluation. ugcn gt g1., 1gfl§—-A coebination of Dexadrine and self- control training was sore efficacious than either Dexadrine alone or self-control training plus placebo in increasing on-task behavior in the classrooe and decreasing teacher’s reports of hyperactivity and distractability. Also, Dexadrine, but not self-control training, was efficacious in increasing attention and decreasing iepulsive responding on the Continuous Perforeance Test. Yet, only direct reinforcesent for correct responses was evidenced to ieprove perforeance on eeasures of spelling and eath perforeance and perforeance on the Hatching Faeiliar Figures Test. 26 Table 1 (cont.) flgcn gt g1., 19 gcgg|-Ho significant additive’effects were found for the treateents of behavioral parent training and self-control instruction. All treateent groups (i.e., parent training alone, self-control instruction alone, and a coebination of the two) evidenced significant ieproveeents over ties; however, the only treateent group by ties interaction showed a greater decrease in hyperactivity scores at followPup for children in the self- control-only group coepared to the other two interventions. In addition, there was no generalization of treateent effects to the classrooe. Also, eothers who perceived sore extra-faeilial and coseunity social support, and children who were better at reflecting on problees, acknowledged greater self-control difficulties, and had a greater locus of control showed greatest behavioral ieproveeents. Kgngg11 gt g1., 1232—-Cognitive-behavioral treateent enhanced teachers' blind ratings of self-control, and both cogni ti vs-behavioral md behavioral treateents enhanced teachers’ blind ratings of hyperactivity. Parent ratings did not deeonstrate that intervention evidenced ieproveeent. A nueber of perforeance eeasures (cognitive style, acadeeic achieveeent) evidenced ieproveeents for the cognitive-behavioral and behavioral treateents; yet, only the cognitive-behavioral intervention ieproved children's self-reported self-concept. Also, treateent efficacy was suggested by decreased off-task verbal and off-task physical behaviors. Ten-week follow-up provided sore evidence for the effectiveness of the cognitive-behavioral treateent; however, a 1-year follow-up did not evidence significant differences across conditions. Kgngg11 gt g1., tzzg-qn coebination of verbal self- instructions and response-cost produced positive changes at posttreatsent and 6-sonth follow-up in target behaviors of topics, gases, and rules, and in response latencies and errors on the Hatching Faeiliar Figures Test. 8199.11 gt g1., 122§-Cognitive-behavioral intervention did not produce treateent effects, as illustrated by two self- report eeasures and teacher and staff ratings of locus of conflict; however, positive effects of treateent were evidenced at posttest and follow-up by an increase in latency and a decrease in error eeasures on the Hatching Faeiliar Figures Test and isproved teacher ratings of iepulsive classrooe behavior. 27 Table 1 (cont.) Kgngg11 gt g1., 1291g-Cognitive-behavioral intervention produced reductions in target behaviors such as off-task, verbal offensive, and out-of-seat behaviors, and imroved cognitive perforeances. These changes were eaintained at 1-year follow-up. Kgndg11 gt g1., 12§Q-Cognitive-behavioral treateent effects were stronger for the conceptual-approach (pertaining only to the task at hand) training group than for the concrete-approach (pertinent to any probleevsolving situation) training group. Kgggg11 gt g1., 12§1g-Isprovesents occurred for conditions of cognitive-behavioral self-control training at the individual treateent level, group treateent level, and nonspecific group treateent level (control). However, only the individual and group cognitive-behavioral intervention conditions showed ieproveeents on blind teacher ratings of self-control at posttest and perspective taking at follow— up. 31::an st sin 1221 (Stud! 11)-Coonitivs self- instructional training produced significant ieproveeents relative to attentional and assesseent control groups on the Porteus Haze test, Perforsance ID on the HISC, and on a seasure of cognitive iepulsivity. Isproveeents were sustained at l-eonth follow-up. histamine at al-. 1221 (Stud! lawn”- sod-lino alone was adequate to slow down response ties for initial selection on Kagan's seasure of cognitive iepulsivity; yet, only with the addition of self-instructional training was there a significant decrease in errors. flg1ggn gt g1., 1123-The coebination of self-instruction and self-reinforcesent was sore effective than self- instruction alone, attention controls, or assesssent controls in significantly reducing errors and increasing latencies on Kagan’s Hatching Faeiliar Figures Test. chggn gt g1., 1gzz-Two groups trained to increase response accuracy (i.e., strategies of visual detailing and visual discrieination) on the Hatching Faeiliar Figures Test displayed a significant decrease in errors, in addition to an increase in response latency. The “visual discrieination“ group showed a significantly shorter 28 Table 1 (cont.) response latency than the “visual detailing“ group. Subjects trained only to increase response latency (i.e., eodeling and instructions) did evidence a significant increase in latency; but, no decrease in errors occurred. Eg13gg gt g1., 1111-—Uerbalization of self-directed coeeands was sore effective in altering saze perforeance than silent reading of the ease coeeands. EgLng gt g1., 13§§-8elf-directed verbal coseand training wwas effective in altering hyperactive iepulsive behavior on the Porteus Haze test. Eg1hgg gt g1., 11fl9—-The results revealed that the coebination of psychostieulant eedication and behavior therapy appears to be sore effective in the short-ters than either treateent alone in school settings. Also, parent ratings and clinic observation of parent-child interactions showed that children had isproved in the hose environeent. agn1gggc gt g1., 113§-Despite the fact that subjects who received task-specific faded rehearsal self-instructions showed significant ieproveeents on the task utilized during training (eath problees), neither these subjects nor those in the didactic control group evidenced significant generalization of training effects. The directed discovery intervention produced the broadest range of generalization. finggg gt g1., 12§§-Operant techniques, either alone or in coebination with a cognitive'intervention, werersuperior to cognitive intervention alone in increasing on-task behavior. The'cosbination of operant and cognitive strategies was not superior to operant techniques alone in increasing on-task behavior. Egcn1 gt g1., 1228-—Self-eonitoring, external reinforcesent, and ties-out were found to be effective at posttreatsent and follow-up in decreasing the occurrence of facial tics in the clinic and facial and vocal tics at hose. 21:91 gt g1., 1223-8elf-instructional training did not enhance acadeeic perforeance in the absence of adult supervision, and self-eonitoring strategies did not significantly affect responding (e.g., hyperactive behaviors). A coebination of self-sonitoring and self- 29 Table 1 (cont.) reinforcesent interventions, instituted first in the clinic and then in the school setting, produced isproved acadeeic perforeance and decreases in hyperactive behaviors. lthhgcn gt g1., 1322-dverbal eediation training resulted in significant gains on a perceptual satching test. 30 mmewm H ---------- ---------- \mnpnz N m on K m can” ..p. no cognenu xu._a u cnuptmEm -cmumxms u m...u-.Fou.s \=._..o=.u mm .m..z on N. on n on can" .._. a. _..=.u=m ---------- ---------- .npnz cm om.-um on man” .._. a. czotm ---------- ---------- ..F.= m. .-.um .. N... ..p. a. .3... mmmpu-mpuu.s on gaze, cavmnuznu m mmpnz m e m mum" ..pn um :_uum=tom :nwmmuauu a usage. so. \xu.Pn m .m..z . e . mm.“ .._. .. mac....m mopeemm mm ---------- ---------- \.._.2 mm s on m on on." .tnucnm ---------- ---------- ..F.z m on on a m can. ..F. a. .u....m ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- om «mnma .nunnnunm mecca. 3o. ---------- ---------- m o. e mm «has ..F. a. upoct< ---------- ---------- ..P.= mu m" on NH a. mum. ..p. a. cantou=< mum .u.¢ xmm finm< z xenon cmtuprcu m>wuuntaqxr to mowuaam covucm>tmucn pmtcw>mgom-m>wuwmmou :. omnwtumuo mmpnmvtn> uwgnncwwsoo N epoch 31 ---------- ---------- m...z .N m. o. m .N a.... .... .. z.=.=.= .N. .u.... ---------- ---------- m...: .N m. a. m .N .enm. .... .. :.=.=.= ....u=.mv ---------- ---------- .m..: .N m. o. m .N .emm. .... a. 3.....2 m...u-..uu.e ---------- ---------- N. o. 0. mm a... .... a. 80.3.... xmucu touunu N cormmuamu om ...g.m=...o=-->\>. mm... \xu... om ---------- m a. . om a... .... a. .t.....o o Peso... a ---------- ---------- \mo..z . .-.um m a... .... a. m:..u...t ---------- ---------- .m..: m N. o. m m no... .m...u mmpmsmu um .um ---------- ---------- \....2 o. o. a.-. N. e... .... n. u...... ---------- ---------- ---------- . a. o .. .ma. .... .. c.29... mmm.u tmzo. .t...3 o. m..........5 ---------- m...= m. .-.um m. o... .... .. ....=co mmpaum zuwpcmm mm—nEmu m \u..;..=...o= .p. m--o.~ ---------- m...z o. m mm a... .... u. no... m....m .0....¢ m...s.. m \...:..=...o= ... m--... ---------- \mm..z .N m .N .mm. .... no em... mom a... xmm ..o< z xv... A.u=ouv N upaoh 32 nun.u-m.uume -------t-- nu.~z mm .. o» m mm sum. .._n no nuance ------u--- xunpa we mPnEmu a m..: m on u we mum. ...n on compoz mm.nsmu N Am. sesamv ---------- -n-------- \mmpnz m A o. m m. .nm. ...n on sanacoguwmz 3...... a 2. .838 ---------- ---------- \mw..z N ~-mum m. .um. ...n on ssmncmguvmz mu.nemu m ---------- ---------- \....t .N m-mum om a.ma. .... no .Faucmg mmF~Emu m ---------- -u---s-u-- \mmpm: mm m-o.um mm cum. ...n no F—nucmx ---------- cnwmmuanu . «Pusan . s . «.mm. ...n on .puucux sump; c mwpnsmu e ---------- \cn_mmu=nu o. \mmpnz o. N.o.um om mum. ...n no ppnocox ---------- -t------- opus . m . mum. ...m no ppnucox mmpnemu e ---------- ---------- \mm..z mu ~.o.um mm Nam. ...n no .pnucmx o-.. -t-------- -u-------- -u-------- on o-~ cm manta c. ...n no ego: ---------- JunPn . «.mz . m . mam. ...n an ego: mum noma xom .mm< z xenon A.pcouv N u—nah 33 .mcnux c. nmumpaopmu m. was paummopococgu .copumptmmm_u .ntouuoo umsmwpaaacz N . ---------- ---------- ---------- .-. o. ..-m ea «Na. .... a. ates...z ---------- ---------- m...: m m.oum m mum. .... u. .c..> ---------- ---------- ...z . . . a... .... .m .c... ---------- -u-------- m..: . m . mam. .... no aamgm mm—eEmn— MN ---------- ---------- \....2 mm o.mum we mam. .... pm .mmm.;um opuswu H ---------- ---------- \....2 . m.mnm m cam. .... a. Eng... mmoputmpuops sawmmuzmu ON mopnz 0N mnmum ON was. ..- um moxpnq .m...-.....e .m...u..u om m...z an m. a. . on ..m. .... a. max... mum m... xmm ..m< 2 an... A.ucouv N m—nmh 34 have eixed or negative outcoees. Also, out of 33 studies which included child participants in the age range of 7 to 15 years, 13 of those studies (39.4%) were reported to have positive outcoees, while the other 20 studies (60.6%) were reported to have eixed or negative outcoees. A chi-square test of significance for age range (e.g., 4 - 6 years vs. 7 - 15 years) and outcoee of results (e.g., positive vs. eixed/negative) was not significant [X (1) I .012, n.s.l, and the difference in percentages between the positive results reported for the two age ranges suggests no trend about whether older or younger hyperactive children are sore likely to respond to cognitive-behavioral therapy. Hith respect to sex of child participants, out of 20 studies which included exclusively sale subjects, 10 of those studies (50%) were reported to have positive outcoees, whereas the reeaining 10 studies (50!) were reported to have eixed or negative outcoees. In addition, out of 15 studies which included both sale gng feeale participants, 5 of those studies (33.3%) were reported to have positive outcoees, while the reeaining 10 studies (66.7%) were reported to have eixed or negative outcoees. Although a chi-square test of significance for sex (e.g., exclusively sales vs. both sales gag fesales) and outcoee of results (e.g., positive vs. eixed/negative) was not 35 2 significant [X (1) - .972, n.s.l, the difference in percentages of positive results reported between the two groups of subject sex inclusion (i.e., 16.7%) suggests that cognitive-behavioral treateent studies which include exclusively sale subjects are sore likely to report positive outcoees than cognitive-behavioral treateent studies which include both sales gag fesales. It is possible that the addition of feeale subjects to the cognitive-behavioral interventions sosehow affected the outcoee of these studies. Since boys are virtually always sore likely to be identified than girls to have behavioral difficulties (Grahae, 1979), perhaps the sales in these studies possessed sore behavioral problees than the fesales before treateent began, and thus the fesales did not show as such ieproveeent as the sales. If this is so, then the sore positive outcoees sight be reported in cognitive- behavioral treateent studies which include exclusively sale child subjects than in cognitive-behavioral treateent studies which include ggtn sale and feeale child subjects. Although few studies reported race and socioeconosic status of their child participants, the outcoees of those studies will be presented here. Out of 4 studies which included exclusively Caucasian child participants, all 4 studies (100%) were reported to have positive outcoees, 36 whereas no studies (0%) were reported to have eixed or negative outcoees. In addition, out of 2 studies which included exclusively black child participants, one study (50%) was reported to have positive outcoees, while one study (502) was reported to have eixed or negative outcoees. Also, out of 4 studies which included sore than one race in their sasple, no study (01) was reported to possess positive outcoees, whereas all 4 studies (1001) were reported to have eixed or negative outcoees. Hith respect to socioeconosic status, both studies in which socioeconosic status was indicated (1002) reported eixed or negative outcoees. Additionally, out of 7 studies which included child participants with exclusively siddle class backgrounds, 2 of those studies (28.6%) were reported to have positive outcoees, and 5 of the reeaining studies (71.4%) were reported to have eixed or negative outcoees. Also, out of 2 studies which included child subjects froe both low gag siddle class backgrounds, both of those studies (1002) were reported to have positive outcoees, and none (0%) were reported to have eixed or negative outcoees. Although cell sizes for the variables of race and socioeconosic status were too seall to calculate a chi- square statistic, the reported percentages above suggest that cognitive-behavioral treateent studies including 37 exclusively Caucasian child IUDJCCtI are eost likely to report positive outcoees. These studies, however, suggest no clear pattern of outcoee as a function of socioeconosic status. Hence, it appears froe the observations obtained froe Tables 1 and 2 that for outcoee studies of cognitive- behavioral intervention with hyperactive children there say exist a nueber of child characteristics which influence the outcoee of cognitive-behavioral treateent. Boss of the above characteristics, as well as others, will be investigated in the current study as predictors of treateent outcoee. These characteristics include: (1) self-concept; (2) aggression; (3) locus of control; (4) learning problees; (5) chronological age; and (6) socioeconosic status. Boss of these subject characteristics have been reported in the literature (Table 3); yet, with the exception of Horn et al. (in press) no other investigators have addressed any of these variables as predictors of treateent outcoee for hyperactive children. 38 x a... .... a. ......o a... .... .a ....u x x .8. r... 3 :28 a... .... .. .c..e.. x x .... .... .. ...=..=. x 8.. t... a .52.. 8.. t... a. .52.. a... .... .. =....=..m x m... .... .. .m:....m o... ....=.. a... .... n. .a..... a... .... a. ..o=.< x x e... .... .. .o....=< XXXXXXXXXXXXX potuccu pgoucou to wage. -mpom msopaoga mcmctom. xenon covmmmtaa< m 05 < mum cotupwsu m>.uuntmaxr we mowusum cowucm>tmaca Pntow>nsomuo>vuvcmou c. oon_tumoo muwumwcmuuutagu uuonmam m «pan» 39 ><><><>< eammu ..pe no —peocox Qua” ..—e um ppeocox mum“ ..pe no p—eocox x Nam. ...u an p—aocmx x x manta :. ..pu an ego: mama ..—e no coo: beam. ..-u no zucmcv: .N. .u.... nemm. ...n on enamcpx ... .uaumv meme” ..—m an zecmcm: amen ..~u no xuwzcopw aka. ..PM no umagmcue mum. ...a no mappoowtu Hmhma .mwppm e... .... a. u:..... .m.. .... .. =.s.... mum mm< mswpnotm mcwctmm. cowmmmcmm< Fotucou uamucou to msuo. -mpmm xvaum ...=ouv m a...» In‘ If! .4. tiers-wk. .40 .copunpcmmmro .mtouuoo umgmwpasnca. ><><><><><><><><><>< ><><><>< mum“ ..pe um ccocupoz mnmm ..~e no wcce> mum. ..pe no wch> mama ..—m as naocm mama ..Fe um tomopgum 6mm. ..pm we Eecpmm Nam. ..~m um aux—ma ”has ..pm we moxpea “nan ..Pm no gumnco mama ..F~ um compo: Hum“ ..pe no Esmccocuwoz gamma ..~e um p—mocmx owe” ..pm we ppmocmx mum Q) O) < mampncta mcwctnm. copmmwtmm< Focucou anmucoo to mauo. -mpmm zvaum ...=ou. m ..... 41 mum 91 Instant mum As eentioned above, in order to plan and iepleeent effective interventions such as cognitive-behavior therapy for individual children, attention sust be paid to the factors which say affect the treateent. In other words, it is ieportant to understand and predict which children will benefit froe CBT so that they say be exposed to it, while those who are not predicted to benefit froe the CBT say be offered alternative treateents. Although cognitive- behavioral therapy is currently being utilized to help treat hyperactive children, with the exception of Horn et al. (in press), no research has been conducted on the child predictors which say enhance the outcoee of this type of therapy. In an evaluation of a sulti-eethod treateent approach with hyperactive children, Horn and his co—workers utilized a randosized, experieental group design with repeated eeasures and a variety of outcoee criteria. This design was used with 24 hyperactive children and their fasilies coeparing behavioral parent training alone, self- control instruction alone, and a coebination of the two treateents. These interventions set for eight, 90-einute group sessions. All dependent eeasures were adeinistered at pretest, posttest, and one-sonth follow-up. The investigators found that hyperactive children who can 42 think about problees, cosprehend that they have problees, and realize that they can regulate or sanage their problees evidence greater ieproveeent than those who do not possess these characteristics. However, this study has a nueber of lisitations, including a seall sasple size (i.e., 24 eleeentary school children). Consequently, the saspling error in this investigation is possibly large and generalization to other saeples eight be lieited. In connection with Horn et al.'s (in press) line of study, there say exist a nueber of child variables such as self- concept, aggression, locus of control, learning problees, chronological age, and fasilial socioeconosic status that say allow prediction of which hyperactive children respond best to cognitive-behavioral therapy. Thus, variables such as those jUIt eentioned say help predict whether hyperactive children will benefit froe cognitive-behavioral training. Ballistics!!! A nueber of studies concerning social developeent and self-esteee of hyperactive adolescents indicate that as a group they have a poor self-concept (Hoy et al., 1978; Henkes et al., 1967; Stewart et al., 1973). Haddell (1984) reports that as adolescents hyperactive children are less socialized, have fewer interpersonal interactions, lack 43 self-discipline and confidence, and are less steadfast and resourceful than are their peers. Haddell also notes that their self-isage is of an inadequate person; they are displeased with their own behavior, sorality and relationships; and they exhibit sore evidence of pathology. Since hyperactive children in adolescence appear to have eany of the sass difficulties they had as children (e.g., poor self-concept; Haddell, 1984), it is ieportant to study how these difficulties say ispact upon the therapy that the children receive. Hal ad jtlltld preadol escents (e. g. , hyperactive chi l dren possessing a poor self-concept) tend not to solve problees as well as their better adjusted peers (Gottean, Gonso, & Rassussen, 1975; Ladd & Oden, 1979; Richard & Dodge, 1982; Shure & Spivack, 1972). Oualitative analyses of solution content suggest that the solutions of saladjusted preadolescents are often ineffective, unique, unsophisticated in their use of others, and priearily iepulsive and aggressive. These results cospleeent Asarnow and Callan's (1985) findings that fourth and sixth grade boys with negative peer status (children likely to possess poor self-concept) as coepared to those boys with positive peer status (a) produced fewer solutions to hypothetical problees; (b) produced less sature prosocial, less 43 self-discipline and confidence, and are less steadfast and resourceful than are their peers. Haddell also notes that their self-isage is of an inadequate person; they are displeased with their own behavior, sorality and relationships; and they exhibit sore evidence of pathology. Since hyperactive children in adolescence appear to have eany of the saee difficulties they had as children (e.g., poor self-concept; Haddell, 1984), it is ieportant to study how these difficulties say ispact upon the therapy that the children receive. Haladjusted preadolescents (e.g., hyperactive children possessing a poor self-concept) tend not to solve problees as well as their better adjusted peers (Gottean, Gonso, & Rassussen, 1975; Ladd & Oden, 1979; Richard a Dodge, 1982; Shure a Spivack, 1972). Oualitative analyses of solution content suggest that the solutions of saladjusted preadolescents are often ineffective, unique, unsophisticated in their use of others, and priearily iepulsive and aggressive. These results cospleeent Asarnow and Callan's (1985) findings that fourth and sixth grade boys with negative peer status (children likely to possess poor self-concept) as coepared to those boys with positive peer status (a) produced fewer solutions to hypothetical problees; (b) produced less sature prosocial, less 44 assertive, and sore intense aggressive solution strategies; (c) evaluated aggressive solutions sore positively and prosocial strategies sore negatively; and (d) evidenced less adaptive and sore saladaptive planning. Therefore, since hyperactive children with a poor self-concept are likely to generate ineffective strategies and solutions to their problees, it is hypothesized in the present study that these hxesrsctixs children she srs hsttsr scinsisd because at their orsstsr sslizccncset rill rssccnd hsttsr to thsir cscnitixszhshsxicrsl ihsrsnx than hxcsrsciixs children rich s isirlx user ssl£:ccncset- "than. those hyperactive children with higher sean scores on Harter’s Hhat I As Like (1983) and In the Classroos (1981) self- concept scales will evidence greater ieproveeent on the hyperactivity indices of the Parent Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach, 1979; Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983), Teacher Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (Edelbrock & Achenbach, 1984), and ADD-HI Cosprehensive Teacher Rating Scale (ACTeRS; Ullsann, Sleater, & Sprague, 1984) than will hyperactive children with lower sean scores on Harter’s Hhat I As Like and In the Classroos self- concept scales. 45 aggression Although there is currently a fairly strong consensus concerning the diagnostic characteristics of hyperactivity, there exists an uncertainty about the role that aggression plays in the disorder. The relationship between childhood aggression (including verbally and physically aggressive behaviors aieed at other people or objects) and hyperactivity has not been detereined. According to Prinz, Connor, and Hilson (1981), a nueber of possibilities exist. (1) Aggressive behavior sight be present with soee but not all hyperactive children; (2) Hyperactive and aggressive behaviors could covary; (3) Aggressive behavior say be caused by such frustration in school as a consequence of hyperactivity; (4) Assesseent strategies for hyperactivity have confounded the hyperactive and aggressive behavioral diesnsions so that the relationship between the dosains is unclear. In a study of 135 hyperactive boys, Loney, Langhorne, and Paternite (1978) report that hyperactivity and aggression factors were significantly correlated (r - .27). This finding suggests that soee hyperactive children possess aggressive attributes, while others do not. Prinz et al. (1981) note that since hyperactive children vary to a large degree on the aggression disension, it appears 46 useful to exasine the different ways in which to subdivide the hyperactive group into separate diagnostic groups on the basis of aggression. In addition, since there appears to be variance in the concoeitant characteristics of hyperactive children (e.g., aggression), predictors of outcoee for treateent are vital to assess in order to detersine which hyperactive children should receive which type(s) of intervention. Group treateent based on cognitive-behavioral and social problee-solving strategies has been found to exhibit significant ieproveeent in aggressive children (Forsan, 1980; Hobbs, Hoguin, Tyroler, I: Lahey, 1980; Lochean, Nelson, k Siss, 1981). However, cognitive-behavioral interventions are not universally successful with all aggressive children, and little research has begun to identify client or treateent characteristics related to ieproveeent for saeples of aggressive children. In one treateent evaluation study by Lochean, Laepron, much, and Curry (1985), asong boys who received cognitive-behavioral treateent, these boys also initially exhibited the highest rates of disruptive and aggressive off-task classrooe behavior evidenced the greatest ieproveeent on classrooe behavior change scores after treateent was coepleted. In addition, the boys who desonstrated the greatest reductions 47 in parents’ ratings of aggressive behavior following the cognitive-behavioral interventions were the children who initially had generated the fewest alternative solutions to social problees. The investigators posit that the eajor role of problee-solving skills in predicting the outcoee of treateent suggests that cognitive-behavioral intervention successfully changed the behavior of those boys who were initially the poorest problee-solvers and east in need of treateent. Despite the results froe Lochean et al. (1985; eentioned above) suggesting that greater aggression in children before cognitive-behavioral treateent is associated with greater ieproveeent in classrooe behavior, aggression say often be a difficult problee behavior to treat given that the antisocial behaviors of childhood have been found to be a strikingly persistent set of behaviors. A nueber of studies have found developsental stability in aggression (Olweus, 1979). For instance, of all the behaviors observed in the Fels study (Kagan & Hoss, 1962), aggression was the east persevering over ties. In addition, Rutter, Tizard, Yule, Grahae, and Hhitsore (1976) found that very few boys with a conduct disorder, which often includes aggressive syeptoeatology, recovered froe it over a five year period (i.e., froe age 10 to 14), and 48 other investigators found that fighting, conflict with parents, and delinquency usually continued or becase worse during this five year period (Gersten, Langner, Eisenberg, Sischa-Fagen, I: HcCarthy, 1976). Therefore, because of the tenacious persistence of aggressive sysptosatology it is hypothesized in the present study that gggnttiygzgghgy1gcg1 thermalllncthssshslcinlicrhxesrsctixschildrsnrhn nrsssnt nith annrsssixs cronies hshsxicrs as it rill cs tor hmsrsctixschildrsnnhndcnetersssnisithsscrsssixs gcgh1gg ggng¥1g;g. Consequently, hyperactive children with lower ACTeRS oppositional raw scores (Ullsann et al., 1984) and Parent and Teacher Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist aggression raw scores (Achenbach, 1979; Achenbach I: Edelbrock, 1983; Edelbrock and Achenbach, 1984) will show greater ieproveeent on the hyperactivity indices of the Parent Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist, Teacher Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist, and ACTeRS than will hyperactive children with higher ACTeRS oppositional raw scores and Parent and Teacher Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist aggression raw scores. Locus of. control Locus of control (Rotter, 1966) reflects the degree to which individuals perceive that they have control over events in their lives or a perceived internality of 49 personal causation. Usually, feelings of external control exhibited by young children becoee increasingly sore internal as they sature (Nowicki & Strickland, 1973). In hyperactive children, however, it has been hypothesized that they eaintain a sore external locus of control than noreal children. For instance, Linn and Hodge (1982) found that hyperactives were sore external than control subjects. These investigators suggest that since hyperactive children are external with respect to locus of control, they say respond well in the short tere to learning situations that are presented within a structured setting. However, in the long ters, Linn and Hodge state that one sust consider the ispact that any therapeutic approach has upon the child's sense of internal or external control. Linn and Hodge further note that it appears sensible to assuee that unless hyperactive children are given evidence that their behavior is connected to soee environsental consequence, they eight constantly view the world with an external locus of control. Hith respect to drug therapy, the authors suggest that use of psychostieulant eedication alone say not help the hyperactive child to achieve an internal locus of control. They conclude, Because the child under stieulant treateent sust rely upon a significant other to control the treateent and since, as stated by Hhalen and Henker (1976), eedication say sake the child feel 50 that he has no responsibility for his conduct, it is possible that exclusive reliance upon phareacotherapy could contribute to feelings of external locus of control. Such a potential outcoee of drug therapy indicates the value of appraising locus of control and other personality and social variables when treating the hyperactive child (p.593). In addition to the ieportance placed upon external and internal control, developeent of a locus of sufficient cause or understanding why outcoees occur (e.g., unknown locus of control; Connell, 1985) say also iepact upon the therapy which the hyperactive child say receive. For instance, hyperactive children with a lower unknown locus of control say respond sore to therapy such as CBT since they say be sore certain about the contingencies in their environeent (e.g., they know why outcoees indicating success or failure occur). If these children know why outcoees occur then they should be able to utilize therapy such as CST in order to be sore effective in their interactions with others and in their own self-control. It is also possible that therapy such as CBT say help decrease high unknown locus of control possessed by certain hyperactive children, for this type of intervention helps teach children about the contingencies in their environeent or about why success and failure oriented outcoees occur. A reasonable expectation would be that children who believe that they have control over events in their lives, 51 or an internal locus of control, respond sore to self- control training than children who think that causes of events are external to their actions (Kopel & Arkowitz, 1975). Only one study of cognitive self-instructional training has dealt specifically with this topic. Bugental et al. (1977) addressed the degree to which the initial expectancies held by iepulsive and hyperactive children are related to the effectiveness of two different behavior- change interventions, one focusing on external sonitoring and control (social reinforcesent) and the other esphasizing internal sonitoring and regulation (self- controlling speech). Bugental and her associates found that children who sade soeewhat high attributions to external causes were significantly sore responsive to the reinforcesent intervention than to the self-control treateent. The authors note that for these children external, contingent reinforcesent say help to increase environsental consistency and suggest the possibility that they can affect outcoees by their own actions. In addition, children who sade high attributions to effort evidenced ieproveeent for either treateent but showed relatively stronger gains when shown ways to ieprove self- eastery skills. For these children, the self-control treateent was consistent with the expectation of high 52 personal control of outcoees. However, the investigators note that since separate analysis of this cosparison did not achieve statistical significance, this observation can only be interpreted as suggestive. Also, Bugental et al. (1977) found a psychostieulant eedication X intervention interaction for hyperactive children. The children selected for the study were currently receiving eethylphenidate, and the two separate interventions utilized for this study were instruction in self-controlling speech and contingent social reinforcesent. The authors suggest that this interaction (i.e., for both interventions) is consistent with the hypothesis that psychostieulant eedication taken for behavior change has strong and seaningful attributional consequences (Hhalen & Henker, 1976). Further, they note that it is quite possible that eany children receiving drug treateent are... learning to attribute behavioral ieproveeent to causes beyond personal control and to devalue their own potential contributions to problee solutions. These children say, in other words, coee to believe that they need external help to solve their difficulties. Hhen such external input (e.g., social reinforcesent) is forthcosing, ieproveeent is sore likely to occur than when responsibility for change is given to the child (e.g., self-regulation) (p.882). In light of the investigations eentioned above (i.e., 53 Aeirkhan, 1982; Bugental et al., 1977; Linn k Hodge, 1982), it seess reasonable to agree with Kopel and Arkowitz's (1975) assertion that a child's feeling of personal control over his/her life eight influence his/her responsiveness to any type of self-control intervention. Thus, since ordersctixs children sign an internal locus 91 cdnlccl I?! likely to have a greater sense that they can exert control over their own behavior, it is hypothesized that they g111 22 89C! [812991122 I9 SQ!OL§1¥I:8!OI¥19EIL IOIICXIOSIQOI than hxcsractixs children she eaintain an external locus ct snatcg1. Therefore, hyperactive children who evidence higher sean internal locus of control scores and lower sean external locus of control scores on Connell’s Heasure of Children’s Perceptions of Control (1985) will show greater ieproveeent on the hyperactive indices of the Parent and Teacher Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach, 1979; Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983; Edelbrock 6 Achenbach, 1984), and ACTeRS (Ulleann et al., 1984) than will hyperactive children with lower eean internal locus of control scores and higher eean external locus of control Scar-S- In addition. hxnsraciixs children siih a laser HOBOOEO 19582 81 EQOSEQL 8111 [218901 SOC! 39 888813111: bghgx1gcg1 tngcggy, for they are sore certain about the contingencies in their environeent (e.g., they know why 54 outcoees occur). Thus, those hyperactive children with lower sean unknown locus of control scores on Connell's Hultidisensional Heasure of Children’s Perceptions of Control will show greater ieproveeent on the hyperactivity indices of the Parent and Teacher Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist and ACTeRS than will hyperactive children with higher eean unknown locus of control scores. Lssrninn Ermine It is widely assused that a large nueber of hyperactive children have learning difficulties in school (Keogh, 1971; Hender, 1971). It appears logical that children who present with problees of inattentiveness, iepulsiveness, sotoric restlessness, inappropriate and aggressive social responses typical of hyperactivity, say have learning difficulties or learning disabilities in school. A learning disability is characterized as a significant deficit coepared to expected grade level in one or sore areas of acadeeic achieveeent, despite noreal intelligence, adequate sensory capacities, absence of prieary eeotional disturbance and adequate educational opportunities. Soee researchers have estieated that approxieately 60% to 80% of hyperactive children say have learning problees. For exaeple, Cantwell and Satterfield (1978) showed that 762 of their hyperactive child 55 participants were underachieving in at least two acadeeic IUDJOCtI. The success of cognitive self-instructional training say well be iepacted by a child’s cognitive level or learning problees, which say be associated with or indicative of cognitive capacity difficulties. Children with higher IOs or eental ages have been found totrespond better to cognitive self-instructional training than have less cognitively sature children (Barkley, Copeland, k Sivage, 1980). Berkley and his colleagues (1980) found that lower eental-age boys evidenced greater perforeance deterioration at the conclusion of the self-instructional prograe than did higher eental-age children. Hassersan (1981) found that children at higher levels of cognitive developeent utilize cognitive coping stateeents better to delay gratification than children at lower levels of cognitive developeent. Hasserean (1984) suggests that it thus seess the Heichenbaus (1977, 1978) self-instructional technique, despite its sisple cognitive- behavioral requiresents of an individual, would be useful only in young children, age six and below, for training on very specific tasks. The ability to generalize froe this training would not appear until such later. Hasserean notes that it say be that there are particular skills which 56 cognitive coping stateeents do not influence at all. These skills say be partly dependent on developeent for their attaineent. Cognitive-behavioral self-instructional training has also been utilized with learning-disabled children. In one study, Steele and Barling (1982) assessed the effects of self-instructional training on learning-disabled children's perceptual deficits. Significant treateent effects were found at post- and eaintenance testing; however, there was no evidence of any generalization to acadeeic perforeance or classrooe behavior. In another study by Shepp and Jensen (1983) investigating the relative effectiveness of operant procedures, cognitive-behavior eodification interventions, and a coebined approach with a seven-year- old, soderately learning disabled boy, the cognitive approach initially resulted in a strong increase in on-task behavior; however, this behavior was not a lasting directional change. The investigators suggest that the cognitive-behavioral task say have been too difficult for this young learning disabled child, and that he was not utilizing the eethod efficaciously by the end of the training period. It is reasonable to hypothesize that learning problees say hinder, in soee eanner, a hyperactive child froe 57 learning the self-control techniques and problee-solving strategies that are taught in cognitive-behavioral therapy. For instance, Kendall (1977) has esphasized the ieportance of considering the cognitive capacity of the child when designing and utilizing a self-instructional intervention prograe. Since a child's learning problees say be associated with or indicative of cognitive capacity difficulties, it is possible that coeponent skills of self- instruction such as reseebering the self-instruction, knowing when and where to stop and think before responding, and understanding the relation of the self-instruction to behavior say be ispeded in a hyperactive child who possesses learning problees. Therefore, in the present invastication. hxesractixs children she ars charactsrizsd as hazind lsarninn crdhlsss ars hxecthasizsd is he lass ram-sun £9 Mulrszhshaxlcral intsrxsnlidns than mum childrsn she do not. has lsarninn armless- Hence, those hyperactive children with lower learning difficulty scores (i.e., higher school perforeance raw scores) on the Parent and Teacher Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach, 1979; Achenbach 6 Edelbrock, 1983; Edelbrock & Achenbach, 1984) will evidence greater ieproveeent on the hyperactivity indices of the Parent and Teacher Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist and ACTeRS 58 (Ulleann et al., 1984) than will hyperactive chilten with higher learning difficulty scores (i.e., lower school perforeance raw scores). W has Chronological age eay play soee role in predicting outcoee of cognitive-behavioral interventions with hyperactive children. Although cognitive self- instructional progress have been utilized effectively with children of a variety of ages froe preschoolers (knold 6 Fordsand, 1978; Bernstein 6 Enevillon, 1976) to adolescents (Myder 6 hits, 1979; Thorpe, Aeatu, Blakey, 6 lens, 1976; Hilliass 6 Akaeatsu, 1978), eost investigations have concentrated on eleeentary school -age children. Copeland (1981) suggests, “Developeental changes in cognitive level and self-regulation, even within this restricted age range, could be expected to affect responsiveness to different treateents“ (p.521). In fact, Copeland notes that there are a “er of investigations Mich “port the suggestion that age of child is an imortant cmsideratim in planning cognitive self-instruction interventions. For instance, it seess that younger and older children diffr with respect to whether they are able to cmstruct their on self-control instructions. Overtly stated Heichenbaus 6 Goods-i, 59 1969), adult-desonstrated (Denney, 1975), and fully elaborated (Rolf, 1972) instructions sees to be especially helpful to young children; while older children sight perfore sufficiently with fewer structured directions. In fact, a nueber of studies have found that older children can spontaneously construct soeewhat effective eediating self-instructions (i.e., verbalization strategies), whereas younger children sees to benefit sore froe self- instructional training when the verbalizations are sore structured, detailed, and specific (Denney, 1975; Hiller, Heinstein, 6 Karniol, 1978; Toner 6 Ssith, 1977). Bornstein (1985) notes that older children appear to be capable of generating their own effective verbalization strategies. In addition, Copeland (1981) asserts that older children can, and probably should be urged to create their own soderately effective self-control strategies. Therefore, since older children are reportedly sore adept than younger children at constructing self-control instructions, it is hypothesized in the current study that 91888 OXRICICSIXI EOLIOEIO £111 CIIEOOQ DIIIIE SQ canniiixszhshaxidral thsrasx than sill rounder hxssractixs §n11d:11. Therefore, older hyperactive children will show greater ieproveeent on the hyperactivity indices of the Parent and Teacher Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist 60 (Achenbach, 1979; Achenbach 6 Edelbrock, 1983; Edelbrock 6 Achenbach, 1984) and ACTeRS (Ulleann et al., 1984) than will younger hyperactive children. mm m Socioeconoeic status (SES) variables sees to have been pertinent in predicting outcoee in a few investigations. For instance, cognitive self-instructional intervention (Honohan 6 O'Leary, 1971) and posing as a eodel for other children (Toner, Hoore, 6 Kidder, 1977) were helpful in augeenting self-control for rural Hidwestern, white or siddle-class children but not urban, Northern, black or “disadvantaged“ children, respectively. However, Braswell, Kendall, and Urbain (1982) found that children of different SE8 groups responded in a sieilar eanner to cognitive- behavioral interventions. Thus, with the little research that has occurred so far, it appears preeature to hypothesize whether hyperactive children of differential SES will respond better or worse to cognitive-behavioral therapy. However, this variable will be exasined to see whether it does have any ispact upon the outcoee of such an intervention. 61 W Irsatssntlnflusncss an Locus at control As eenticned above, cognitive-behavioral therapy say help hyperactive children to develop a greater sense of control over their own environeent by conveying a eessage of personal efficacy. Hith this type of therapy, hyperactive children say coee to moss that they are expected to regulate their own behavior and take responsibility for their ore: actions. In short, since cognitive-behavioral therapy is designed to proeote internalization of credit and responsibility for problee solutions (walen et al., 1985), it is hypothesized in the turf-0t study that cusnitlxs:hshaxiural tharacx sill increase hxusractixs chlldrsnls locus at central or the decree to shlch thsx ssrcsixs that the! bass control user sxsnts in their llxss (i.s.. an increase in ssrcsiusd internalitx st ssrssnal causation)- Thus. five-ractiVI children's sean internal locus of control scores will increase and their sean external locus of control scores will decrease as eeastred by Connell's Mltidieensional We of Children's Perceptions of Control (1985) free befwe the cognitive-behavioral treateent begins mtil after it has been comleted. In addition, since cognitive- behavioral therapy is designed to proeote knowledge about 62 why success and failure oriented outcoees occur in one's environeent, it is hypothesized that gggnigigg:hlngxigcg1 mmmmmmmunnm 1359. gt :gngcgl. Therefore, the hyperactive children's seen unknown locus of control scores will decreese as eessursd by Connell’s Hultidisensional fleesure of Children’s Perceptions of Control (1985) froe before the cognitive-behavioral treateent begins until after it has been coepleted. If these children perceive that they have control over events in their lives and if they understand why success and failure oriented outcoees occur, then it is possible that they will try harder to delay iepulsive responding, incresse attention, decresse activity, and be sore effective in their interactions with others. CHAPTER III DVERVIEH AND BTATEHENT OF HYPOTHESEB The Hyperactivity Pronct is a treatsent/evaluetion prograe for hyperactive children. Heasures of behavioral, developsental, and cognitive functioning were adeinistered to 41 children, ages 7 to ii, over a one year period. The children were referred to school psychologists in Hichigan because of behavior problees st school indicative of eeotional ispairsent. The current investigation exasines the predictors of outcoee for cognitive-behavioral therapy with hyperactive children, and the effect of cognitive- behavioral therapy on hyperactive children’s locus of control. The following hypotheses were addressed: flyggtnggig I: Since hyperactive children with e poor self-concept are likely to generate ineffective strategies and solutions to their problees, those hyperactive children who are better edjusted because of their greeter self- concept will respond better to their cognitive-behsvioral therapy than hyperactive children with e fairly poor self- concspt. Hence, those hyperactive children with higher seen scores on Hertsr's Ihat I As Like (i983) and In the Classroos (1981) self-concept scales will evidence greater ieproveeent on the hyperactivity indices of the Perent Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach, 19793 63 64 Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983), Teacher Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (Edelbrock b Achenbach, 1984), and ADD- Hs Comrehensive Teacher Rating Scale (ACTeRS; Ullsann et al., 1984) than will hyperactive children with lower sean scores on Herter's “hat I As Like and In the Classroos self-concept scales. uyggtnggig 11: Since aggressiveness cosprises a persistent class of behaviors over ties, cognitive- behavioral therapy will not be as helpful for hyperactive children who present with aggressive problee behaviors. Consequently, hyperactive children with lower ACTeRS oppositional raw scores (Ullsenn et al., 1984) and Perent and Teecher Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist aggression raw scores (Achenbach, 1979; Achenbach & Edelbrock, 19B33 Edelbrock & Achenbach, 1984) will show greeter ieproveeent on the hyperactivity indices of the Parent Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist, Teecher Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist, and ACTeRS than will hyperactive children with higher ACTeRS oppositional raw scores and Parent and Teecher Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist aggression raw scores. flyggtnggig 1113 Since hyperactive children with an internal locus of control are likely to have a greeter sense that they can esert control over their own behavior, 65 they are expected to respond sore to cognitive-behaviorsl interventions than hyperactive children who seintain an external locus of control. Therefore, hyperactive children who evidence higher seen internal locus of control scores and lower seen externel locus of control scores on Connell's fleesure of Children's Perceptions of Control (1985) will show greeter ieproveeent on the hyperactive indices of the Perent and Teecher Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach, 1979. Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983; Edelbrock & Achenbach, 1984), and ACTeRS (Ulisenh st al., 1984) than will hyperactive children with lower seen internel locus of control scores and higher seen external locus of control scores. In addition, hyperective children with e lower unknown locus of control will respond sore to cognitive-behavioral therapy, for they are sore certein about the contingencies in their environeent (e.g., they know why success and failure oriented outcoees occur). Thus, those hyperactive children with lower seen unknown locus of control scores on Connell's Hultidisensionel Hsesure of Children's Perceptions of Control will show greeter ieproveeent on the hyperactivity indices of the Perent and Teecher Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist and ACTeRS than will hyperactive children with higher seen unknown locus of control scores. 66 mm 1!: Since learning difficulties say hinder a hyperactive child froe learning self-control techniques and problee-solving strategies, hyperactive children with learning problees will be less responsive to cognitive- beheviorel treetsent than hyperactive children mo do not have learning problees. Hence, those hyperactive children with lower learning difficulty scores (i.e., higher school perforsence raw scores) on the Parent and Teacher Achenbech Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach, 19793 Achenbech I: Edelbrock, 1983; Edelbrock I: Achenbech, 1984) will evidence greater imrovesent on the hyperectivity indices of the Parent end Teecher Achenbech Child Behavior Checklist and ACTeRS (Ullsenn et el., 1984) than will hyperactive children with higher learning difficulty scores (i.e., lower school perforsence raw scores). mm 2: Since older children ere reportedly sore adept at constructing self-control instructions than younger children, older hyperactive children will respond better to cognitive-behaviorel therapy than will younger hyperective children. Therefore, older hyperective children will show greeter inrovesent on the hyperactivity indices of the Parent and Teacher Achenbach Child Behevior Checklist (Achenbach, i979| Achenbach I: Edelbrock, i983; Edelbrock I: Achenbach, 1984) and mTeRS (Ullsenn et el., 67 1984) than will younger hyperactive children. in conclusion, it is hypothesized that self-concept, locus of control, aggressiveness, learning difficulties, chronological age, and socioeconosic status will all help predict whether hyperactive children will be responsive to cognitive-behavioral treetsent. W 21: Since cognitive-behavioral therapy is designed to proeote internalization of credit and responsibility for problee solutions, cognitive-behavioral therapy will increese hyperactive children's locus of control or the degree to which they perceive that they have control over events in their lives (i.e., an increese in perceived internality of personal causation). Thus, hyperactive children’s seen internal locus of control scores will increese and their seen external locus of control scores will decreese as seesured by Connell’s Hultidisensional fleesure of Children’s Perceptions of Control (1935) fros before the cognitive-behavioral treetsent begins until after it has been coepleted. In addition, since cognitive—behavioral therapy is designed to proeote awereness‘of accurate contingencies in one's environeent, cognitive-behavioral therapy will decreese hyperactive children’s unknown locus of control (i.e., increese knowledge of why success and failure oriented 68 outcoees occur in their environeent). Therefore, the hyperactive children's seen unknown locus of control scores will decreese as seesured by Connell's Hultidisensional heasure of Children's Perceptions of Control (1985) froe before the cognitive-behavioral treetsent begins until after it has been coepleted. CHAPTER IV mats Forty-nine children (41 sales and B fesales), ages 7 to ll years old (seen age 9.1 years; seen grade - 3rd), were referred for inclusion in the present treetsent study. These children were referred for special education services in hichigen by the children’s school teachers for eeotional ispeirsent with the prieary problees being that of iepulsivity and acting-out (externalizing problees). The eeotionally ispeired children consisted of children diagnosed as 2.1. by the guidelines of the Hichigen State Board of Education (l982). These guidelines require one or sore of the following characteristics: (1) inability to build or eaintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships within the school environsentg (2) inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under noreal circusstances; (3) general pervasive sand of unhappiness or depression; (4) tendency to develop physical syeptoes or fears associated with personal or school problees. In addition, schizophrenic, autistic, and other cosparably disordered children are considered 8.1. The diagnosis of E.l. does not include children whose behaviors are priearily the result of intellectual, sensory, or health factors. The 69 70 detersination of 5.1. sust be sade by both a psychologist or psychiatrist and a school social worker. In order to ensure that the sub5ects possessed iepulsivity-control problees, only those children who evidenced significant elevations on the ACTeRS (Ulleann et al., 1984) clinical scales seasuring iepulsivity and control problees were included in the current study. Eight children (all sales) did not eeet this inclusion criteria and were not included in any subsequent analyses. Desographic inforeation on the final group of child participants is reported in Table 4. These data show that the sesple consisted of Caucasian children whose seen fasily social prestige score of 32.8 (Mueller & Parcel, l9Sl) indicated occupational statuses that are skilled blue collar and lower level white collar positions. mmmm Cognitive-behavioral treetsent was provided for 41 children who were referred for special education services because of eeotional ispeirsent with the prieary problees being that of iepulsivity and acting-out. The present study was a pretest and posttest design. The child participants took part in an S - ll week, 22-eession group intervention during which problee-solving skills and self- control techniques were taught and practiced. 71 Table 4 heoocaohic intonation on Child Escticioants es Beoocteo thheicEcisechecetstscs (8-41) Chi ld Participants hales Fesales hean Age (in years) Age Range (in years) hsan Grade Grade Range Race (percent of children) Caucasian1 2 hsan Pasily Social Prestige index 9.0 7.0 - 11.6 3rd Kindergarten - 6th 100 32.8 (8.0. I 18.1) l the child participant was Caucasianllndian. hsan fasily social prestige index is based upon Mcan TSElZ (1980) index (Hueller I: Parcel, 1981); a score of 33 is indicative of skilled blue collar occupations (e.g., tool and die saker, firesan) and lower level mite collar occtpations (e.g., dental lab technician, cafeteria sanager) . 72 In order to detersine which child characteristics predict optisel responsivity to cognitive-behavioral therapy, and whether cognitive-behavioral therapy increases locus of control and decreases unknown locus of control, pre- and posttest eeasures were adeinistered to the child participants and their parents and teachers before treetsent started and after it was coepleted. The children’s sother typically coepleted the parent questionnaires; however, one father and two grandparents coepleted the parent questionnaires since they were the iesediate caretakers. The school psychologists who provided the cognitive-behavioral treetsent adeinistered the child eeasures to the child participants. however, these psychologists were blind to all experieental hypotheses. The eeasures utilized in the study are (1) the Parent Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach, 1979; Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983), (2) the Child Behavior Checklist-Teecher's Report Fore (TRF; Edelbrock & Achenbach, 1984), (3) the ADD-HI Cosprehensive'Tsecher Rating Scale (ACTeRS; Ullsenn et al., 1984), (4) the Self- Perception Profile for Children (Hhat 1 As Like scale; Harter, 1983), (5) the intrinsic versus Extrinsic Orientation in the Classroos (In the Classroos scale; 73 Herter, 1981), and (6) the Hultidisensional Heasure of Children’s Perceptions of Control (Connell, 1985). These instrusents, which are further described below, were intended to seasure the children’s self-concept, locus of control, aggressiveness, learning difficulties, chronological age, and socioeconosic status. Pretest eeasures were utilized to predict treetsent outcoee. The pretest independent variables which served as predictors were the Parent and Teacher Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist aggression and learning problee scales, Connell's Hultidisensional Heasure of Children's Perceptions of Control, Herter's Hhat I As Like and In the Classroos self- concept scales, chronological age, and socioeconosic status. The posttest dependent eeasures which served as criterion variables were Parent and Teacher Achenbach Hyperactivity Indices and ACTeRS scores. Pretest eeasures of the Parent and Teacher Achenbach Hyperactivity Indices and ACTeRS served as covariates to control for initial ICU... BESSIQBCC! Ten school psychologists attended a workshop which was designed to offer training in behavioral and cognitive- behavioral intervention strategies with imul sive and attention deficit disordered children and their faeilies. 74 The workshop was instructed by a licensed doctoral-level clinical psychologist and an advanced-level clinical psychology graduate student. Training consisted of an introductory lecture on cognitive-behavioral approaches, a review of the eepirical literature with respect to the diagnosis and treetsent of attention deficit disorders, and the presentation of a school-based, problee-solving intervention prograe for use with iepulsive and Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) children (Horn, unpublished senuscript). The eephasis of this workshop was placed on skill building, and training consisted of lectures and discussion. In addition, the workshop participants were required to rad Goonitixezlshezioc hooiiicetion by Dm-ld Heichenbaus (1977). Following training, each participant was required to iepleeent the problesrsolving training prograe with a sinisus of 2 - 3 students, as well as adeinister a variety of prograe evaluation eeasures. All participants were blind to the experieental hypotheses. This training workshop was offered through the Hichigan Association for School Psychologists and served as a continuing education course for the school psychologists who attended. The eight feeale and two sale school psychologists who participated in this workshop possessed a variety of degrees including 1 H.A. degree in education, 1 75 H.A. degree in clinical psychology and divinity] counseling, 2 H.A. degrees in counseling, 1 H.A. degree of specialization in working with visually handicapped individuals, 1 Ed.S. degree in education, 2 Ed.S. degrees in education and psychology, 1 Ed.l). degree in education, and 3 S.P.A. degrees in educational psychology (1 person possessed an H.A. and an S.P.A. degree, and 1 person possessed an H.A. and an Ed.S. degree). This saqlle of school psychologists worked in the school psychology profession for an average of 13.8 years (range - S - 23 years), and had a ssan age of 43.9 years (range . 31 — 57 years). The prior experience of these school psychologists included acadeeic testing, evaluation and counseling. mm All treetsent groups took place in the referred children's school, outside of their regular classrooe. Wichita}. Iceihiho Children involved in the current study's treetsent set 2 - 3 tises per week for 22 sessions with a duration range of 8 - 11 weeks. The treetsent groups consisted of three to six children. This treetsent included instruction in the self-control techniques described by Cam and Bash (1981), Heichenbaus (1977), and Spivack and Shure (1974). Each child was taught a ”Robles-Solving Plan" which 76 included the following self-instructional stepss (1) As I having a problee? Take a deep breath and think 'cals...relax'3 (2) Hhat is sy probles?; (3) How eany solutions can I think of?; (4) How good is each solution?; (5) Pick the best solution and try it; and (6) How did sy solution work? In addition, systesatic relaxation techniques cosbining isegery, suscle tension/relaxation, and breathing exercises were taught to the children. Training consisted of didactic presentations, and the utilization of gases to prospt the in vivo practice of the self-control techniques. Role play exercises (including eodeling by the group therapists, and guided practice) were utilized during training. For exaeple, a child who typically fights at school sight have been asked by the therapist to act out a problee in which (s)he is accidentally pushed in a lunch line by another child. Also, a token reinforcesent systee was used as a seans to control the children's behavior in the group sessions. (See Appendix A for sussery of the Self-Control Training Activities). In order to deal with any difficulties in the isplesentation of the above treetsent, the licensed doctoral -l evel psychologist and the advanced-l evel graduate student who were the instructors at the school psychologists' workshop sade theeselves available via 77 telephone for any questions that arose or any consultation that was needed. EIIIHCII The following instrusents were coepleted by the children's parents and teachers, and adeinistered by school psychologists to each child participant before treetsent began and after treetsent ended. All testers were blind as to the experieental hypotheses of this study. Bangui BIBSCI fl'ggucgg. (1) The Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach, 1979; Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983) is a 113-itss parent report seasure. Parts ldVll contain questions concerning children's social and athletic activities and hose responsibilities. These first seven parts consist of three scales concerning social cospetence (e.g., activities, social behavior, and school behavior) and Part 9111 consists of nine scales concerning particular childhood diagnostic categories (e.g., schizophrenia, depression, non-coseunicatim, obsession- cospulsion, sosetic cosplaints, social withdrawal, hyperactivity, aggression, and delinquency). The itees in Part 9111 are all responded to with scores of 0 ('not true'), 1 (”soeewhat true"), or 2 ('very true“) points. This instrusent has been expanded fros use with 6- to 11- yeer-old children to 4- to lawyeer-old children. The CBCL 78 was utilized in the present study to provide a seasure of hyperactivity, learning difficulties, aggression, and desographic inforeation for all child participants. Factor analyses have generally provided two broad band factors of lnternalizing and Externalizing. Harrow band factors have been differentiated by sex and chronological age. For boys 6 to 11 years old, the lnternalizing factor consists of Sosatic Cosplaints, Schizoid, Uhcossunicative, Depressed, and (beessive-Comulsive. Social Hithdrawal loads on a Hixed factor. The Externalizing factor consists of Delinquent, Aggressive, and Hyperactive. The lnternalizing factor for girls 6 to 11 years old consists of Sosatic Cosplaints, Schizoid-Dbsessive, Depressed, and Social Hithdrawal. Sex Probless, Delinquent, Hyperactive, Aggressive, and Cruel, all load highly on the Externalizing factor. The CBCL has been found to significantly differentiate between noreal and clinical populations (Achenbach, 19783 Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1979). Achenbach (1978) has reported 8-day period test-retest reliability ranging froe .72 to .97 (seen I .89) for overall scores for boys 6 to 11 years old. Also, test- retest reliability for a 14.8-sonth average period was found to be .63. For the 6P to 11-year-old-girls during a 7.3—day period, test-retest reliability was found to be .88 A...‘ 79 for overall scores. In addition, a sean correlation of .55 was found for test-retest reliability after a 17-sonth average period. (See Appendix B for coeplete description of the Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist.) leechecflsooct heesoces (l) The Child Behavior Checklist-Teacher’s Report Fore (TRF; Edelbrock & Achenbach, 1984) is a four-page questionnaire designed to obtain teechers' ratings of acadeeic perforeance, positive adaptive characteristics, behavioral difficulties in the school environeent, and seny of the ease behavioral difficulties rated by parents on the CBCL. Page 1 of the TRF consists of desographic inforsation, inforsation on the setting in which the teacher knows the child, previous special services, repetition of grades, and ratings of acadeeic perforeance. Page 2 is designed to obtain teachers' ratings on four general adaptive characteristics, in addition to standardized test data and other inforsation teachers can provide. Pages 3 and 4 of the TRF list behavior problee itees in the ease eanner as that utilized on the Child Behavior Checklist. However, teachers are requested to estieate their ratings froe the previous 2 sonths, rather than the 6-sonth rating period indicated on the CBCL. The TRF was utilized in the present study to provide a seasure 80 of hyperactivity, learning difficulties, aggression, and desographic inforsation for all child participants. The significant differences reported by Edelbrock and Achenbach (1984) between referred and nonreferred boys on the scales support the discrieinative validity of the teacher Profile. Additional support for the validity of the teacher Profile has been obtained in other studies (e.g., Edelbrock 6 Reed, 1983b; Reed & Edelbrock, 1983). Hith respect to school perforeance and adaptive functioning, Edelbrock and Achenbach (1984) reported one- week test-retest reliability of .93 for teachers’ ratings of school perforeance and .86 for total adaptive functioning scores. For individual adaptive functioning itees, correlations were .76, .84, .90, and .63 for Horking Hard, Behaving Appropriately, Learning, and Happy, respectively. One-week test-retest correlations for the behavior problees scales averaged .89 (rangel .74 - .96). Twovsonth stabilities averaged .77 (range: .63 - .88), whereas 4-sonth stabilities averaged .64 (ranges .25 - .82). (See Appendix C for coeplete description of the Teacher's Report Fore of the Child Behavior Checklist.) (2) The ADD-Hl Comrehensive Teacher Rating Scale (ACTeRS; Ullsenn et al., 1984) was designed to aid clinicians in appropriately considering the role of 81 attention in diagnosing Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and sonitoring of treetsent effects, and to illustrate individual differences, before and after intervention, in the behavior of children who exhibit attentional difficulties. This rating scale consists of 24 itees representing classrooe behavior on four factors: Attention, Hyperactivity, Social Skills, and Cbpositional behavior. The itees are scored on a scale of 1 (Alsost Never) to 5 (Alsost Always). Two other itees concern peer acceptance of the child, and two other itees concern teacher attention required by the child. The seasure's itees were factor analyzed using a large sesple of 1,347 noreal, Hidwestern children (694 boys and 653 girls, kindergarten through 5th grade) in which four factors were found. The following alpha coefficients for internal consistency were found for the four factors: Attention- .96, Hyperactivity—.93, Social—.93, mpmitimal—.97. In addition, test-retest reliability over a two week period using 55 ADD-H children ranged froe .68 (Hyperactivity) to .78 (Social Skills) with all correlations being statistically significant. The ACTeRS was utilized in the current study as a seasure of hyperactivity and aggression. (See Appendix D for coeplete description of the ADD-H: Cosprehensive Teacher Rating Scale. ) 82 Child 3199;; W. (1) Harter's (1983) Self- Perception Profile for Children (originally nased the Perceived Cospetence Scale for Children, 1982), was constructed with the assusption that a dosain-specific seasure had certain advantages over those existing instrusents which provide only a single self-concept score (e.g., the Cooperssith Self-Estees Inventory, 1967: the Piers-Harris Self-Concept Scale, 1969). Harter initially sought to identify three IIJOF cospetence dosains in the lives of children: (1) cognitive or scholastic cospetence, (2) social cospetence, and (3) physical or athletic cospetence. Harter wanted to obtain a profile of the child’s perceived cospetencies across these three areas, as represented by separate scores for each dosein. Such a profile, according to Herter, would provide a richer and sore differentiated picture of the child’s self-perceptions than would the single score provided by those eeasures eentioned above. Harter has recently revised the instrusent which now contains six separate subscales: (1) scholastic cospetence, (2) social acceptance, (3) athletic cospetence, (4) physical appearance, (5) behavior/conduct, and (6) self-worth. Factor analyses for a large group of 6th and 7th graders indicate that the subscales fors very clear and discrete factors. The factor loadings range fros 83 .41 to .78, with no systesatic cross-loadings. Horeover, their internal consistency is acceptable (i.e., ranging froe .72 to .84). The intercorrelations asong subscales for 6th and 7th grade saeples coebined range froe .10 to .64. The actual questionnaire which the child fills out, entitled Hhat I As Like, consists of 36 itees, 6 itees for each subscale. The child's task on each ites is to first decide whether he or she is sore like the kids described on the left of each statesent or sore like those described on the right. After deciding, the child then checks whether that statesent is jUIt "Sort of True for He“ or 'Really True for He.‘I This seasure was utilized in the current investigation to seasure the children's self-concept. (2) Another instrusent designed by Herter (1981) which was utilized in the current investigation is entitled, Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Orientation in the Classroos, or the In the Classroos scale. For this seasure, classrooe learning was chosen as a situational context in which the sotivational orientation of the child would be especially pertinent. Harter (1981) notes that in designing the instrusent the following question was approached: To what degree is a child’s sotivation for classrooe learning detersined by his or her intrinsic interest in learning and sestery, 84 curiosity, preference for challenge in contrast to a sore extrinsic orientation in which the child is sotivated to obtain teacher approval and/or grades, and is very dependent on the teacher for guidance (p.5)? Five disensions of classrooe learning are characterized as having both an intrinsic and extrinsic sotivational pole: (1) Preference for Challenge (intrinsic) vs. Preference for Easy Hork Assigned (extrinsic): (2) Curiosity/Interest (intrinsic) vs. Pleasing the Teecher/Setting Grades (extrinsic): (3) Independent Hestery (intrinsic) vs. Dependence on the Teacher (extrinsic): (4) Independent Judgsent (intrinsic) vs. Reliance on Teacher’s Judgsent (extrinsic): (5) Internal Criteria (intrinsic) vs. External Criteria (extrinsic). Each of the five subscales contains six itees. Harter (1981) posits that the factor pattern clearly shows that a five-factor solution, reflecting the five subscales that were identified, is appropriate. The average loadings for itees on their designated factors is between .46 and .53, and no itees systesatically cross-load on other factors. Also, the internal consistency of each subscale across three separate saeples fros New York, California, and Colorado ranged froe .78 to .84, .68 to .82, .70 to .78, .72 to .81, and .75 to .83, for Challenge, Independent Hastery, Curiosity, Judgsent, and Criteria 85 subscales, respectively. The intercorrelations for two separate saeples froe New York and California asong Curiosity, Challenge, and Independent Nastery are soderate to high (range .04 to .61). Independent Judgsent and Internal Criteria beer a soderate relationship to each other (range .38 to .39), but do not correlate as highly with the other three subscales (range .07 to .33). In addition, the question forsat utilized for this instrusent is the ease as that eentioned above for Herter's Nhat I As Like scale. For instance, an exasple ites is 'Sose kids know when they've sade a sistake without checking with the teacher--But--Dther kids need to check with the teacher to know if they've sade a sisteke.‘ The respondent is first asked to decide which kind of child is sost like his or her, and then asked whether this is only sort of true or really true of his or her. Each ites is scored on an ordinal scale froe 1 to 4 where a score of 1 is indicative of the utsost extrinsic orientation, and a score of 4 is indicative of the utsost intrinsic orientation. (See Appendix E for coeplete description of the Harter self-concept eeasures.) (3) The Hultidisensional Heasure of Children's Perceptions of Control (Connell, 1985) is a 48-ites self- report instrusent. Itess include inforsation about the 86 perceived source of control (internal, powerful others, or unknown), the behavioral outcoee (success or failure), and the behavioral dosain (cognitive, social, physical, or general). No two consecutive itees depict the ease source of control, and the other eleeents of the seasure (dosain and outcoee) are randosly ordered because of this restraint. For each ites, the child is shown a statesent and then asked to circle one out of four responses. An exasple ites is: “If I went to do well in school, it’s up to se to do it' (very true/sort of true/not very true/not at all true). Each ites is scored fros 1 to 4, with a score of 4 (i.e., a "very true“ response) indicating high endorsesent of the source of control presented in the statesent, in this instance, internal control. This instrusent was used in the present study to seasure children’s locus of control. Internal consistency estieates for 9 of the 12 four- ites subscales were greater than .6, with a range of .43 - .70 in an eleeentary school sasple: internal consistency estieates for eight of the 12 four-ites subscales were greater than .55 with a range of .39 - .67 in a Junior high school sesple. The four-ites internal, powerful others, and unknown subscales within each of the four dosains evidenced significant but soderate correlations over tise 87 for 9—sonth test-retest (r - .34: range .30 - .48) and significant low to soderate correlations in the 17-sonth test-retest (r I .32: range .25 - .50). (See Appendix F for coeplete description of the Hultidisensional Heasure of Children’s Perceptions of Control.) CHAPTER V RESULTS Descdotixe fitetistiss to: the 1mm: end Went lecislzies The seen scores, standard deviations, and score ranges for each of the predictor and criterion eeasures are shown in Table 5. This table also provides, where available, norsative data and clinical cutoff scores for each of these eeasures. Clinical cutoff scores depend upon the construction of each seasure: thus, for sose eeasures a low score is indicative of problee behavior, while for other eeasures a high score is indicative of problee behavior. The sean raw scores on the ACTeRS Attention, Hyperactivity, and Dppositional subscales at pretest for subjects in the present sasple were in the problee range seeting clinical criteria. Although the present sasple was rated overall by teachers on the ACTeRS to have problees with attention and hyperactivity, these problees were only at borderline problee levels on the Teacher Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (Teacher CBCL): the sean scores on the Teacher CBCL were slightly outside the problee range for attention and hyperactivity problees, thereby not seeting clinical criteria. There is no clinical cutoff score on the Teacher CBCL delineating a problee range for school perforeance and 88 89 learning abilities: however, the sasple as a whole evidenced school perforeance and learning abilities at approxieately the 11th and 16th percentiles, respectively, coepared to other children their age. Hith respect to parent ratings on the Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist at pretest, the current sasple was found to be above the cutoff score for clinical significance on the Hyperactivity and Aggression subscales, and in the borderline range on the School Perforsence subscale. That is, the sean scores on the Parent CBCL Hyperactivity and Aggression subscales at pretest were within the problee range seeting clinical criteria, and the seen scores on the Parent CBCL School Perforsence subscale at pretest were in the borderline problee range slightly below clinical criteria. Hence, the teacher and parent reports before treateent suggest that the child participants had problee behaviors indicative of attentional difficulties, hyperactivity, aggressiveness, and school perforeance/learning difficulties. Although no cutoff problee range has been detersined for the Harter's self-concept eeasures, cosparisons between the current sasple and norsative saeples can be sade. For instance, the present sasple evidenced overall seen scores that were slightly below the norsative sasple scores. 90 aflmucv occum 3oz canmocmm< o~.m om.~ man menu o.oH ~.o~ ouoooogu< «cocoa fifimuov ocoum 3oz xuw>PuuocmoAI om.~ o~.m can menu mm.m o.o~ ouoocoou< pooooo mafiouov «Loom h newcoooo 5.6m Nm-m~ em.n «.06 guooooou< coouooh maceucv oooum h ouooeootcoo poooom o.mm mmumm H.oH o.~m guoooogu< cocoon» mammuov oooom » oopmmoomm< ~.~m onn Na-mm on.m m.wo zoooooou< coguomp Nammucv «Loom h o>Pucouuo:~ m.~m omn mmumm mm.~ H.mm guooooou< coguooh Aflencv acoum 3o: on. on-“ oh.m o.mH .omococmoooo maupo< ”Agency oooum 3oz man mm-m mo.o m.- xuv>wooooaoxr mmohu< Hfifiouov oooum 3mm eHv mm-“ om.m m.m~ oowuoouo< maohu< .a.m m smwumww moo.“ .o.m x o>wuosooz o>wuosooz .muoonoom .muumnoom .muoonoom tycoao moomocototao occgo to mowomcooooooogo noonoam m o—nah 91 .opooppo>o poo moo moooun eo—oooo mtouoo e .opoopwo>o uoo moo moowuow>o0 ooooooum o>vuoeoo= 00o moooon sopoogo mtoooum .opoogwo>o «o: moo moovuov>oo oooooouo o>puosooz N .opoopwo>o 00: ago moopuow>oo ocoocoum oco moons 9:68.82H wamwucv 200m 33. pauccu Nu.0 00.0 0.0-m.~ 00.0 00.~ mouoo ozocxos m.p~oooou «Ammuov acoum zom pacucou 00.0 05.0 0.0-m.~ 05.0 no.0 to moooo .ooooaxm m.~—uooou vammuov «Loom 3oz poouoou Hm.0 -.m 0.0-m.w 00.0 -.m to moooo pocoouom m.ppoccou ofifiwucv oooum sax aooooouumpom 00.0 00.N m.m-n.~ 00.0 om.~ gsooommopu on» on: m.coaoo: camuucv «Loom 3oz uoouoou-mpom 00.0 30.0 u.m-0.~ no.0 0~.~ =oxwo so a woos: m .oouoo: Ammuov «Loom 30¢ mucoscomcoo 00.“ 00.0 m.~v 0-0.0 em.H 00.~ poogum gooocooo< «cocoa .o.m m sownmwm one.“ .o.m m o>wuo2coz o>puosooz .mmouoo .muomnoom .muumnoom .ouoonoom A.uooov m opoo» 92 However, these sean scores were not sore than one standard deviation below the norsative seen scores, indicating that this study's sasple possessed a self-concept that is tantasount to Harter’s (1980: 1983) norsative sasple. In addition, the current sasple’s seen locus of control scores were virtually the ease as the norsative sasple's sean scores reported by Connell (1985). Therefore, at pretest the present sasple possessed an internal, external, and unknown locus of control that are sieilar to the seen of Connell’s norsative sesple. ennui! of 828. Duncan: Initially, a series of univariate t-tests were cosputed using sex of subject as the independent variable and each of the pretest and posttest eeasures as the dependent variables. These analyses were cosputed in order to detersine whether subsequent analyses should be cosputed separately for sales and fesales, or together as a total sesple. As shown in Table 6, out of 22 variables, only one significant difference was found between sale and feeale participants at g<.05 (i.e., posttest for unknown locus of control). Since only one significant difference between sexes was evident, it is quite probable that this finding is a result of chance. Therefore, due to the lack of significant differences between sexes on the study's 93 variables, all further analyses were cosputed by cosbining the sale and feeale saeples. lntercocceistions esono tho lnoeoenoent and Deoenslent mam In order to detersine whether the study’s variables represented independent disensions for the total sasple, intercorrelations asong the predictor and criterion variables were cosputed. These analyses show that out of 78 correlations froe the 13 independent (predictor) variables (Table 7), only 4 intercorrelations were found to be above r - .50. In two instances, variables which purport to seasure the sass construct and were coepleted by the ease rater were found to be above the r - .50 criteria. First, two variables seasuring teacher rated school perforeance, the Teacher Achenbach School Perforsence and Teacher Achenbach Learning scales, were found to have an intercorrelation of .62. Consequently, the Teacher Achenbach School Perforsence scale was arbitrarily chosen for further analyses. Second, two variables seasuring teacher rated aggression, the ACTeRS Dppositional and Teacher Achenbach Aggression scales, were found to have an intercorrelation of .75. The ACTeRS Dppositional scale was arbitrarily chosen for further analyses. Table 6 heen Bea Scones of. Inoeosnocnt (Eteoictoc) misuse. Deoenoent (Criterion) mutant. and Conciates Variable Sex n Hean p-level 1 Chronological Age fesales 8 110.3 sales 32 107.7 ns Grade Level fesales 8 3.00 sales 32 2.84 ns 2 Socioeconoeic Status fesales 7 29.2 sales 29 33.7 ns ACTeRS Attention- fesales 8 13.0 pretest sales 33 14.0 ns ACTeRS Attention- fesales 7 13.7 posttest sales 29 15.2 ns ACTeRS Hyperactivity- fesales 8 18.0 pretest sales 33 17.7 ns ACTeRS Hyperactivity- fesales 7 17.0 posttest sales 33 17.4 ns ACTeRS Dppositional- fesales 8 17.3 pretest sales 32 18.9 ns ACTeRS Dppositional- fesales 7 17.0 posttest sales 29 18.0 ns Parent Achenbach fesales 7 12.0 Hyperactivity-pretest sales 24 9.46 ns Parent Achenbach fesales 6 9.50 Hyperactivity-posttest sales 17 8.47 ns Parent Achenbach fesales 7 26.3 Aggression-pretest sales 24 18.4 ns Parent Achenbach School fesales 7 2.49 Perforsence-pretest sales 26 2.64 ns Table 6 (cont.) 95 Variable Sex n Heen p-level Teecher Achenbach School fesales 7 2.24 Perforsence-pretest sales 33 2.28 ns Harter's 'Hhat I As Like" fesales 5 2.76 Self-Concept-pretest sales 17 2.79 ns Herter’s 'In the Class- fesales 5 2.22 roos'-pretest sales 16 2.38 ns Internal Locus of fesales 7 3.18 Control-pretest sales 22 3.22 ns Internal Locus of fesales 7 3.18 Control-posttest sales 25 3.09 ns External Locus of fesales 7 2.94 Control-pretest sales 22 2.58 ns External Locus of fesales 7 2. 60 Control-posttest sales 25 2.41 ns Unknown Locus of fesales 7 2.88 Control-pretest sales 22 2.51 ns Unknown Locus of fesales 7 2.91 Control -posttest sal es 25 2. 50 < . 05 391g. Two-tailed tétests were cosputed for these data, and ns I nonsignificant. I Chronological age is calculated in eonths. 2 Socioeconoeic status is based upon Duncan TSEI2 (1980) index (Hueller & Parcel, 1981). £965 48. v a... .8. . a: .3. v 0. .coZo—otoo son... :23 «305088 c. 0832: o..- oco 3 3 3 so...» 30.3.. 3333 we 51‘... 2.: Ammo .0”. to”. Ann. ..n. on on on c c NN o._. ~m_. NoN. goo. m.o.- wo_~- mooN- M.- Mwmw Mou~- «oMN- Mo- «on to.0 .an0 .nn. .on. on an o on on not.. .m.~.- mz~.- oo~.- “onw- Mo-- M.M~ .MMM~ .“mm~- .“o.~- MooM. .o< A... Ammo Am". “on. .o.. ._~. .-. ..~. ..~. .o~. o......o ...o~o. soN. moo.- oo~. moo. ~n~.- on". too. Not. _.~. ooooeaouo tog...» AN". can. can. .on. .oN. Ana. .ou. .o~. Ann. coco-tottoo .oooon ...o.m. no". .onn. mm.. mow. noN. «No. ".5. one. go.o¢oooo too...» ._n. “on. .Nn. .m~. Aoev .mu. .mo. .mu. coo-ooottoo .oooom coo. moo. o_~. .55. ooo. ~m~.- ..~.. non. ooaooogoo ago... .o~. .on. .o~0 Ao~0 ten. .hn. .zu. oo.....oo< ~o~. ...o.z. coo. ..~.. «no. etc. omz. ooooooooo too...o .on. .oz. 2o". .on. ..~. ..~. oo.....oo¢ _a~. ~o~.- no". not. moo. ~¢n.- oo.o¢oou< .c.... ._~. .ou. .oN. .ou. .on. p.¢o.....ooo .eo.. on". «on. “on. ozo. moopo< .05. .nue ._~. .5N. Loco...._o «go o_. c-. o.~.- omn.- 605.- ooooooo...on .ou. .oa. Aou. .o..o no _ ..o:. m-.- _mo. coo. oouoeoo-._.m .auo coo. .otoooo to «ascen. "on. sound czoc‘c: .on. .oooooo to :80. 393 .4533 .ooocoo .. goo... peEoucu 305.: 8 3:558 :33 0553.. Loo 32am to.— .850 3.38.03 8.39.02 .33» 2: o— . _ use... 3.5.80 33:8 33:3 mum 00¢ 53:23 53:23 52:23 53:22 soon—85¢ -3860 33:3 unoocou mo «33 06 2.93 so «33 .358» Logo—.8. 0:2... 3:3...» «cacao Wot} .0 .3 .5 ram 685.5 rocoouxu =53:— moSoIo» .3839... 6:8 _ co 26329.53 cor—coo u e33. 97 Although parents and teachers were in agreesent about the child participants' school perforeance as evidenced by an intercorrelation of .54 between the Teacher Achenbach School Perforsence seasure and the Parent Achenbach School Perforsence seasure, the variables of parent and teacher rated school perforeance were both utilized as predictors in further analyses since they represent ratings fros both the children’s hose and school. In addition, external and unknown locus of control variables were highly intercorrelated (r I .74), but were utilized as separate predictor variables since they are presused to seasure different disensions of children’s locus of control. Also, out of 10 correlations asong the five dependent (criterion) variables, no correlation was found to be above the r I .50 cutoff criteria (Table 8). Out of 10 correlations fros the covariates for the dependent (criterion) variables, only one intercorrelation was found to be above the r I .50 cutoff criteria (Table 9). That is, an intercorrelation of -.59 was found between the ACTeRS Attention and Teacher Achenbach Attention eeasures. Consequently, the ACTeRS Attention score was arbitrarily chosen to be utilized for further analyses instead of the Teacher Achenbach Attention score. The fact that so few of the study's variables were highly intercorrelated (e.g., above r I .50) suggests that 98 these variables are seasuring relatively independent disensions. motel Btetisticaleien The prieary eethod utilized for testing the present study’s sajor hypotheses was a series of hierarchical regression analyses. In each of the analyses an independent pretest variable was utilized to predict outcoee of a dependent posttest (criterion) variable, while pretest eeasures of the criterion variables served as covariates in order to control for initial scores. Dne- tailed analyses were cosputed and reported for those hypotheses which were predicted in a particular direction. It should also be noted that because there were far fewer parent rated eeasures available for the present analyses coepared to teacher rated eeasures, separate analyses were cosputed using the teacher report and parent report variables in order to sexisize the asount of data available for the analyses. Wish W Hypothesis I predicts that since iepulsive children with a poor self-concept are likely to generate ineffective strategies and solutions to their problees, those iepulsive children who are better adjusted because of their greater self-concept will respond better to their .000. v.0r. .00. v.0. .oopuopoccoo zoom zopmo monogoooooo or 00000000 ago 0:0 Ho 0» 0m sost oomooc 00000000 to swoon: ooh 10C) H Amwv 2000 2000 2000 =0.ocooo< mam. ~00.- atmom.- ~0~.- gooooogo< ooouoop 2000 2000 2300 »o_.cou.oaocz 000. 000. no".- ouoooo=o< oooooo A000 “000 Fooowupmoooo one. .000. maopu< 200. cocooooo< 000. mmopu< xup>wuuocmoax mmohu< 00000000< xup>wuoocooxx Pooowuwmoooo copuoouu< >00>wuuooooxz ouooomoo< coouooh oooooooo< uooooo mmoP0< mmopu< mzo00< Hmopoovco> Aoowcoupouv aco0000o0 soc mouomco>00 to moowuopoccou oomoooo a crook 101 cognitive-behavioral therapy than imulsive children with a fairly poor self-concept. This hypothesis was tested with a series of hierarchical regression analyses using Harter’s met I As Like and In the Classroos self-concept scores as separate predictor variables, while post- treatsent ACTeRS Hyperactivity, Attention and (hpositional indices, and Parent Achenbach Hyperactivity Index served as separate criterion variables. The pretest eeasures of these criterion variables served as covariates in each of the analyses in order to control for initial scores. k: exasination of Table 10 shows that :dlen initial scores of criterion variables are controlled for, Harter's that I As Like self-concept scores do not significantly predict outcoee on eeasures of ACTeRS Hyperactivity (Beta I .096, E I 1.02, ns), ACTeRS Attention (Beta I .255, E I 1.55, ns), ACTeRS (bpositional (Beta I .236, E I 1.58, ns), or Parent Achenbach Hyperactivity (Beta I -.325, E I 1.38, ns). In addition, an exasination of Table 11 reveals that men initial scores of criterion variables are controlled for, Harter’s In the Classroos self-concept scores do not significantly predict outcoee on seastres of ACTeRS Hyperactivity (Date I .029, E I .066, ns), HSTeRS (bpositional (Beta I .155, E I .672, ns) or Parent Achenbech Hyperactivity (Beta I .120, E I .213, ns). 102 However, the result of Harter’s In the Classroos self- concept scores predicting ACTeRS Attention is serginally significant (Beta I .253, E I 1.86, g<.09) indicating that children with greater self-concepts, as seesured by Herter’s In the Classroos scale, evidence greater gains on teacher rated attentional problees. Hence, the hypothesis that iepulsive children with a greater self-concept respond better to cognitive-behavioral therapy than iepulsive children with a fairly poor self-concept was supported only for teacher rated attentional problees. Mothesis n: antenna Hypothesis II predicts that since aggressiveness cosprises a persistent class of behaviors over tise, cognitive-behavioral therapy will not be as helpful for iepulsive children who present with aggressive problee behaviors as it will be for iepulsive children who do not present with aggressive problee behaviors. This hypothesis was tested with a series of hierarchical regression analyses using Parent Achenbach Aggression and ACTeRS Dppositional as separate predictor variables, while post- treatsent ACTeRS Hyperactivity, Attention and Dppositional indices, and Parent Achenbach Hyperactivity Index served as separate criterion variables. The pretest eeasures of these criterion variables served as covariates in the 103 Table 10 Bsocession anelxsis Ecsoictino Bosttceetesnt Btoecactixitx. attention. and Dooositionai indices ions Ecetest Seltzconceot ascents oi Hactecis 'flhet l he Lihe' Criterion Predictor n F p-level Beta R-sq. Sieple Partial Change r r Posttest Pretest 19 89.7 (.0001 .906 .848 .921 ACTeRS ACTeRS Hyper- Hyper- activity activity Self- 19 1.02 ns .096 .009 .241 .245 Concept 2 Overall: F (2,16) I 48.1, g<.0001, R I .926, AdJ.R I.840 Rosttest Pretest 19 6.89 (.05 .537 .436 .660 ACTeRS ACTeRS Attention Attention “1‘- 19 1.55 "I .255 .050 s514 .293 Concept 2 Overall: F (2,16) I 7.55, g<.01, R I .697, Adj.R I .421 Posttest Pretest 19 9.91 (.01 .590 .405 .636 ACTeRS ACTeRS , Opposi- Opposi- tional tional Self- 19 1.58 ns .236 .053 .351 .300 Concept 2 Overall: F (2,16) I 6.77, g<.01, R I .677, AdJ.R I .391 104 Table 10 (cont.) Criterion Predictor n F p-level Beta R-sq. Sieple Partial Change r r Posttest Pretest 12 3.39 ns .510 .218 .467 Parent Parent Achenbach Achenbach HypIr- "yo-r- activity activity Self- 12 1.38 ns -.325 .104 -.257 -.364 Concept 2 Overall: F (2,9) I 2.13, ns, R I .567, Ad1.R I .171 ugtg. One-tailed analyses were cosputed for the self-concept scores, whereas two-tailed analyses were cosputed for the ACTeRS and Achenbach scores: ns I nonsignificant. 105 Table 11 Beocession enalxsis Eceoiotino Eosttceetesnt thzoeuctixitx. attention- monooositimellnoicntcoetcetutmnt heasun oi bactecis “in the Giesscooe' criterion Predictor n F p-level Beta Rbsq. Sieple Partial Change r r Posttest Pretest 20 60.6 (.0001 .m .781 .994 ACTeRS MTeRS Ham-r- Hyper- activity activity “l‘- 20 .066 "I e029 .001 -s“5 .062 Concept 2 Overall: F (2,17) I 30.4, fl<.0001, R I .84, “3.11 I.756 Posttest Pretest 20 10.8 (.01 .612 .351 .593 ACTeRS ACTeRS Attention Attention “1‘- 20 1s“ (.09 .253 .064 s2“ s3!‘ Concept 2 Overall: F (2,17) I .603, “.01, R I .644, “1.1? I .346 Posttest Pretest 20 10.0 (.01 .600 .366 .605 WeRS ACTeRS ' Opposi- Opposi- tional tional “1‘- 20 .672 I'll e1“ s02‘ s‘72 s1” Concept 2 Overall: F (2,17) I 5.43, g(.01, R I 6.24, AdJ.R I .318 106 Table 11 (cont.) Criterion Predictor n F p-level Beta Rbsq. Sieple Partial Change r r Posttest Pretest 12 5.60 (.05 .615 .378 .614 Parent Parent Achenbach Achenbach Hyper- Hyper- activity activity Self- 12 .213 ns .120 .014 .116 .152 Concept 2 Overall: F (2,9) I 2.90, ns, R I .626, AdJ.R I .257 up”. the-tailed analyses were coqluted for the self-concept scores, whereas two-tailed analyses were comuted for the ACTeRS and Achenbach scores: ns I nonsignificant. 107 analyses in order to control for initial scores. Table 12 reveals that when initial scores of the criterion variables are controlled for, Parent Achenbach Aggression scores do not significantly predict outcoee on eeasures of ACTeRS Hyperactivity (Beta I .048, E I .120, ns), ACTeRS Attention (Beta I .071, E I .196, ns), ACTeRS Oppositional (Beta I -.095, E I .247, ns), or Parent Achenbach Hyperactivity (Beta I -.208, E I .613, ns). In addition, Table 13 reveals that when initial scores of criterion variables are controlled for, ACTeRS Oppositional scores do not significantly predict outcoee on eeasures of ACTeRS Attention (Beta I .047, E I .134, ns) and Parent Achenbach Hyperactivity (Beta I -.179, E I .946, ns). However, ACTeRS Oppositional scores predict ACTeRS Hyperactivity at a serginally significant level (Beta I .167, E I 1.65, g(.10) indicating that children who are less aggressive, as seesured by the ACTeRS Oppositional subscale, evidence greater gains on teacher rated hyperactivity problees. Therefore, the hypothesis that cognitive-behavioral therapy will not be as helpful for iepulsive children who present with aggressive problee behaviors as it will be for iepulsive children who do not present with aggressive problee behaviors was supported only for teacher rated hyperactivity problees. 108 Table 12 mummummmuutmtmnuu. 831mm- mmnmlmuummmm mumnnmmummmmm mum Criterion Predictor n F p-level Beta Rbsq. Sieple Partial Change r r Posttest Pretest 26 28.9 (.0001 .746 .568 .754 ACTeRS ACTeRS "V90?“ "99"“ activity activity Aggres- 26 .120 ns .048 .002 .174 .072 sion 2 Overall: F (2,23) I 15.3, g(.0001, R I .755, AdJ.R I.533 Posttest Pretest 26 17.4 (.0001 .667 .477 .691 ACTeRS ACTeRS Attention Attention m..- 26 e296 I'll .071 .004 .299 .092 sion 2 Malll F (2,23) I 10.7, n<.001, R I .694, NJ.R I .436 Posttest Pretest 26 6.84 (.05 .498 .222 .471 ACTeRS ACTeRS Opposi- Opposi- tional tional w..- 26 e 2‘7 III ".095 .0“ .042 "e ‘03 sion 2 Overall: F (2,23) I 3.45, n(.05, R I .490, RdJ.R I .164 109 Table 12 (cont.) Criterion Pruiictor n F p-level Beta R—eq. 8iep1e Prtial Change r r Posttest Pretest 23 7.43 (.01 .724 .327 .571 Parent Parent Achenbach Achenbach “VP-r- “VP-'- activity activity Aggree- 23 .613 no -.208 .020 .322 -.172 sion 2 Overall: F (2,20) I 5.30, g<.01, R I .589, 063.8 I .281 m. Che-tai led analyeeo were coeputed for the aggression ecoree, wereae tuo-tai led analyses were coeputed for the ACTeRS and Achenbach scores; no I nonei gnificant. 110 Table 13 Minion 8011111.! truism 29:11:21“: Mnufltx and 81120111!!! 10111511 in. Brain; 891285 001911119011 Mm Criterion Predictor n F p-level Beta R-sq. Sieple Partial Change r r Posttest Pretest 35 25.1 (.0001 .650 .500 .707 ACTeRS ACTeRS Hyplr- Harp-r- activity activity Opposi- 35 1.65 (.10 .167 .025 .390 .222 tional 2 Overall: F (2,32) I 17.6, g<.0001, R I .724, AdJ.R I.495 Posttest Pretest 35 28.5 (.0001 .685 .476 .690 ACTeRS ACTeRS Attention Attention Opposi- 35 .134 ns .047 .002 .117 .065 tional 2 Overall: F (2,32) I 14.6, g<.0001, R I .691, AdJ.R I.445 Posttest Pretest 22 10.5 (.01 .596 .332 .576 Parent Parent Achenbach Achenbach va-r- Ham-r- activity activity Opposi- 22 .946 ns -.179 .032 -.113 -.218 tional 2 Overall! F (2,19) I 5.43, Q<.01, R I .603, AdJ.R I .297 3913. One-tailed analyses were coeputed 4or the oppositional scores, whereas two-tailed analyses were coeputed for the ACTeRS and Achenbach scores; ns I nonsignificant. 111 81119101212111! minimum Hypothesis Ill predicts that since iepulsive children with an internal locus of control are likely to have a greater sense that they can exert control over their own behavior, they will respond eore to cognitive- behavioral interventions than iepulsive children who eaintain an external locus of control. This hypothesis also predicts that iepulsive children with a lower unknown locus 04 control will respond sore to cognitive-behavioral therapy, for they are eore certain about the contingencies in their environeent (e.g., they know why success and failure oriented outcoees occur). This hypothesis was tested with a series of hierarchical regression analyses using Connell’s Internal, External, and Unknown Locus o§ Control scores as separate predictor variables, while post- treatsent ACTeRS Hyperactivity, Attention and Oppositional indices, and Parent Achenbach Hyperactivity Index served as separate criterion variables. The pretest eeasures of these criterion variables served as covariates in the analyses in order to control for initial scores. An exaeination o! Table 14 exhibits that when initial scores 04 criterion variables are controlled for, Connell's Internal Locus 0! Control scores do not significantly predict outcoee on eeasures o‘ ACTeRS Hyperactivity (Beta I 112 .019, E I .031, ns), ACTeRS Oppositional (Beta I .209, E I 1.40, ns), or Parent Achenbach Hyperactivity (Beta I -.173, E I .702, ns). However, the result of Connell’s Internal Locus of Control predicting ACTeRS Attention approaches significance (Beta I .189, E I 1.91, g<.09) indicating that children who possess a eore internal locus of control, as eeasured by Connell's Hultidisensional Heasure of Children’s Perceptions of Control, evidence greater gains on teacher rated attention problees. Hith respect to external locus of control, an exaeination of Table 15 reveals that when initial scores of criterion variables are controlled for, Connell’s External Locus of Control scores do not significantly predict outcoee on eeasures of ACTeRS Hyperactivity (Beta I -.033, E I .095, ns), ACTeRS Attention (Beta I .163, E I 1.39, ns), ACTeRS Oppositional (Beta I .003, E I .001, ns), or Parent Achenbach Hyperactivity Index (Beta I -.040, E I .033, ns). In addition, Table 16 reveals that when initial scores of criterion variables are controlled for, Connell’s unknown Locus of Control scores also do not significantly predict outcoee on eeasures of ACTeRS Hyperactivity (Beta I -. 100, E I .935, ns), ACTeRS Attention (Beta I .151, E I 1.13, ns), ACTeRS Dppositional (Beta I -.007, E I .001, ns), or Parent Achenbach Hyperactivity Index (Beta I .063, 113 1991. 14 8999999199 69912919 2999191199 2991199919991 9999999112111. 911991199. 999 099991119991 1991999 1999 2991991 999991119 19199991 L059! at 0991991 criterion Predictor n P p-level Beta Rhea. Sieple Portial Change r r Posttest Pretest 27 64.1 (.0001 .855 ACTeRB ACTeRS Hyper- Hyper- activity activity lnternal 27 .031 ns .019 Locus of Control Overall. F (2,24) - 33.1, n<.ooon, Posttest Pretest 27 34.9 (.0001 .807 ACTeRS ACTeRS Attention Attention Internal 27 1.91 (.09 .189 Locus of Control Overall! F (2,24) I 17.5, Q(.0001, Poettest Pretest 27 6.70 (.05 .457 ACTeRS ACTeRS oPP°"' OPPOI“ tional tional internal 27 1.40 ns .209 Locus of Control .733 .556 R I.857, HdJ.R I.712 .561 .749 e032 -.0$ e276 2 R I .770, AdJ.R I.560 .260 .510 .041 .325 .235 Overall: P (2.24) - 5.15. n<.on. R - .549, 993.9 - .242 114 Table 14 (cont.) Criterion Predictor n F p-level Beta Rbsq. Bieple Portial Change r r Posttest Pretest 19 6.45 (.05 .525 .314 .561 Perent Parent Achenbach Achenbach H790?“ HVPIF' activity activity tntwm1 ‘9 e702 ll. -e 173 e029 “.290 -.205 Locus of Control 2 Overall: F (2,16) I 4.18, g<.05, R I .586, Ad5.R I .261 Nate. One-tailed analyses were cosputed for the internal locus of control scores, whereas tontailed analyses were cosputed for the ACTeR8 and Achenbach scores; ns I nonsignificant. 115 E I .088, ns). The conclusion with respect to the locus of control results is that the hypothesis that iepulsive children with an internal locus of control will respond wore to cognitive-behavioral interventions than iepulsive children who eaintain an external locus of control was supported only for teacher rated attention problees. Also, the hypothesis that iepulsive children with a lower unknown locus of control will respond eore to cognitive-behavioral therapy than iepulsive children with a higher unknown locus of control was clearly refuted. 9199199919 1!! 1.9999199 8:991:99 Hypothesis 1V predicts that since learning difficulties say hinder an iepulsive child froe learning self-control techniques and problee-solving strategies, iepulsive children with learning problees will be less responsive to cognitive-behavioral treateent than iepulsive children who do not have learning problees. This hypothesis was tested with a series of hierarchical regression analyses using the teacher and parent fores of the Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist School Perforsence scores as separate predictor variables, while post- treatsent ACTeRS Hyperactivity, Attention and Oppositional indices, and Parent Achenbach Hyperactivity Index served as 116 Table 15 8999999199 89912919 8999191199 9991199919991 9299999112112. 911991199. 999 999991119991 1991999 1999 9991991 999991119 99199991 19999 91 9991991 Criterion Predictor n F p-level Beta R-sq. Sieple Partial Change r r Posttest Pretest 27 64.4 (.0001 .863 ACTeRS ACTeRS HVPIr- HYPI" activity activity External 27 .095 ns Locus of Control -9033 .733 .856 .001 e 1‘9 T's“: 2 Overall: F (2,24) - 33.2, g<.0001, R -.957, AdJ.R -.712 Posttest Pretest 27 33.5 (.0001 .789 ACTeRS ACTeRS Attention Attention External 27 1.39 ns Locus of Control Overalls F (2,24) I 16.9, g<.0001, Posttest Pretest 27 7.75 (.01 ACTeRS ACTeRS Opposi- 099°91- ti onal ti onal External 27 .001 ns Locus of Control .163 .509 .003 .561 .749 .024 -.079 .234 2 R -.765, 993.9 -.551 .260 .510 .0001 .144 .003 2 Overall: F (2,24) I 4.21, p<.05, R I .510, AdJ.R I .198 117 Table 15 (cont.) Criterion Predictor n F p-level Beta R-sq. Bimle Partial Change r r Posttest Pretest 19 6.92 (.05 .573 Parent Parent Achenbach Achenbach HYPI" HYPI" activity activity External 19 .033 ns -.040 Locus of Control .314 .561 .001 .140 -90‘6 2 Overall: F (2,16) - 3.69, g<.05, R - .562, 991.9 - .230 891.. One-tailed analyses were cosputed for the external locus of control scores, whereas two-tailed analyses were cosputed for the ACTeRS and Achenbach scores; ns I nonsignificant. 118 Table 16 8999999199 69912919 9999191199 8991199919991 9299999111111. 611991199. 999 099991119991 1991999 1999 9991991 999991119 9919999 19999 91 9991991 Criterion Predictor n F p-level Beta R-Sq. Sieple Partial Change r r Posttest Pretest 27 69.2 (.0001 .860 .733 .856 ACTeRS ACTeRS Hyper- Hyper- activity activity Unknown 27 .935 ns -.100 .010 -.066 -.194 Locus of Control 2 Overall: F (2,24) I 34.8, p<.0001, R I .862, Adj.R I.722 Posttest Pretest 27 32.1 (.0001 .804 .561 .749 ACTeRS ACTeRS Attention Attention Unknown 27 1.13 ns .151 .020 -.143 .212 -Locus of Control 2 Overall: F (2,24) - 16.6, g<.0001, R - .762, 995.9 -.546 Posttest Pretest 27 7.81 (.01 .512 .260 .510 ACTeRS ACTeRS 0990-1- 09909!- tional tional Locus of Control Overall: F (2,24) - 4.21. g<.05, R - .510, 993.9 - .199 119 Table 16 (cont.) Criterion Predictor n F p-level Beta R-sq. Sieple Partial Change r r Posttest Pretest 19 6.48 (.05 .544 .314 .561 Parent Parent Achenbach Achenbach Hyplr- Hyper- activity activity Unknown 19 .088 ns .063 .004 .204 .074 Locus of Control 2 Overall! F (2,16) I 3.73, g<.05, R I .564, AdJ.R I .233 gage. One-tailed analyses were coeputed for the unknown locus of control scores, whereas two-tailed analyses were coeputed {or the RCTeRS and hchenbach scores; ns I nonsignificant. 120 separate criterion variables. The pretest eeasures of these criterion variables served as covariates in the analyses in order to control for initial scores. An exaeination 0‘ Table 17 shows that when initial scores o‘ criterion variables are controlled for, the Teacher Achenbach School Perforeance scores do not signi{icantly predict outcoee on eeasures of ACTeRS Hyperactivity (Beta I .025, E I .038, ns), ACTeRS Attention (Beta I .090, E I .428, ns), ACTeRS Dppositional (Beta I .094, E I .416, ns), or Parent achenbach Hyperactivity (Beta I -.161, E I .764, ns). In addition, an exaeination of Table 18 shows that when initial scores o9 criterion variables are controlled for, the Parent Achenbach School Perforeance scores do not significantly predict outcone on eeasures o4 ACTeRS Hyperactivity (Beta I -.008, E I .003, ns) or ACTeRS Attention (Beta I -.084, E I .363, ns). However, the results o! the Parent Achenbach School Perforsance scores predicting Parent Achenbach Hyperactivity Index (Beta I -.379, E I 4.05, g<.05) and ACTeRS Oppositional (Beta I .313, E I 4.15, g<.05) are statistically significant. These results indicate that children who possess €ewer learning problees, or exhibit greater school perforeance, evidence greater gains on parent rated hyperactivity problees but {ewer gains on 121 teacher rated aggression. Therefore, the hypothesis that cognitive-behavioral therapy will not be as helpful for iepulsive children who display learning difficulties as it will be for iepulsive children who do not display learning difficulties was supported only for parent rated hyperactivity. 11129199919 2! 9999991991991 899 Hypothesis V predicts that since older children are reportedly eore adept at constructing self-control instructions than younger children, older iepulsive children will respond better to cognitive-behavioral therapy than will younger iepulsive children. This hypothesis was tested with a series of hierarchical regression analyses using the child participants' chronological age as a predictor variable, while post- treatsent ACTeRS Hyperactivity, Attention and Oppositional indices, and Parent Achenbach Hyperactivity lndex served as separate criterion variables. The pretest eeasures of these criterion variables served as covariates in the analyses in order to control for initial scores. Table 19 shows that when initial scores of criterion variables are controlled for, chronological age significantly predicts outcoee on the eeasure of ACTeRS Hyperactivity (Beta I -.211, E I 2.68, g<.05) indicating Table 17 122 9999999199 69912919 9999191199 9991199919991 9299999112112. 611991199. 9119 99999111999]. 1991999 £999 9991991 999991 99919999999 9999999 91 69999999919 1999999 9999 91 199 99119 99992199 999911191 Criterion Predictor n F p-level Beta R-sq. Sieple Partial Change r r Posttest Pretest 34 32.0 (.0001 .712 .508 .712 ACTeRS ACTeRS va-r- HYPI" activity activity School 34 .038 ns .025 Perfora- ance .001 .031 .035 2 Overall: F (2,31) - 15.0. g<.0001, 9 - .713, 993.9 -.476 Posttest ACTeRS Pretest 34 23.0 (.0001 .659 ACTeRS Attention Attention School 34 .428 ns .090 Perfors- ance .474 .689 .007 .310 .117 2 Overall: F (2,31) I 14.4, Q(.0001, R I .694, 863.8 I.448 Posttest Pretest 34 15.8 (.0001 .578 ACTeRS ACTeRS Opposi- Dpposi- tional ti onal School 34 .416 ns .094 Perfora- ance Overall: .352 .593 .009 .186 .115 2 F (2,31) - 9.73, g<.001, 9 - .600, 993.9 - .319 123 Table 17 (cont.) Criterion Predictor n F p-level Beta R-eq. Sieple Partial Change r r Posttest Pretest 22 10.7 (.01 .603 .338 .582 Parent Parent Achenbach Achenbach Hyplr- Hyper- activity activity School 22 .764 no -.161 .026 -.082 -.197 Perfora- ance 2 Overall: F (2,19) - 5.43, g<.01, R - .903, 99,.9 - .297 up”. One-tai led analyses were coeputed €or the school perforeance scores, whereas two-tailed analyses were coeputed for the ACTeRS and Achenbach scores; no I noncigni‘icant. 124 Table 18 9999999199 69912919 9999191199 9991199919991 9299999112112. 911991199. 999 992991119991 1991999 1999 9991991 999991 999199999999999999919999999991999999199999119999119 mm: 99999119; Criterion Predictor n F p-level Beta Rhea. Sieple Partial Change r r Posttest Preteet 28 19.4 (.0001 .664 .443 .665 ACTeRS ACTeRS Hw-r- Ham-r- activity activity k“! 29 .003 I'II -em .0“! -01” -e030 Perfore- me. 2 M8119 F (2,25) I 9.93, Q(.001, R I .665, M5.R I.398 Poetteet Pretest 28 25.9 (.0001 .708 .517 .719 ACTeRS ACTeRS Attention Attention khMl 29 .363 III -em ew7 -e ‘7‘ -e 120 Perforev .0:- 2 Mllll F (2,251 I 13.7, “.0001, R I .724, “3.11 I.“ 8091:th Pretest 28 12.0 (.01 .533 .317 .563 ACTORS ACT-R8 Opposi- Opposi- tional tional School 284.15 (.05 .313 .097 .365 .377 Per‘ore- ance Overall! F (2,251 I 8.84, n<.001, R I .644, MJ.R I .367 125 Table 18 (cont.) Criterion Predictor n F p-level Beta Posttest Retest 22 4. 27 < . 05 . 389 Parent Parent Achenbach Achenbach Hyp-r- "VP-'- acti vi ty acti vi ty 86.1”! 22 4.05 (ea “.379 Perfora- .‘ICI R-so. Bine Partial Change r r .214 .463 . 138 -.455 -. 419 Overall: F (2,19) - 5.17, n<.05, R . .594, «um I .284 ”91.9- Che-tailed analyses were comuted for the school perforeance scores, whereas teo-tai led analyses were counted for the ACTeRS and Achenbach scores; ns - nonsignificant. 126 that older children, within the 7- to ll-year-old age range, evidence greater gains on teacher rated hyperactivity problees. Yet, chronological age does not significantly predict outcoee on eeasures of ACTeRS Attention (Beta I -.052, E I .150, ns), ACTeRS Oppositional (Beta I -.041, E I .080, ns), or Parent Achenbach Hyperactivity Index (Beta I -.159, E I .778, ns). Thus, the hypothesis that older iepulsive children respond better to cognitive-behavioral therapy than younger iepulsive children was supported only when the ACTeRS Hyperactivity score was used as the criterion variable. 8991999999919 919199 Since there is little support in the literature to suggest that iepulsive children froe either higher or lower socioeconoeic status backgrounds would respond better to cognitive-behavioral therapy, no hypothesis of responsivity to treateent was offered. Hence, a two-tailed test of significance was eeployed in evaluating the usefulness of socioeconosic status as a predictor of treateent outcoee. A series of hierarchical regression analyses were carried out using socioeconosic status as a predictor variable, while posttreatsent ACTeRS Hyperactivity, Attention and Oppositional indices, and Parent Achenbach Hyperactivity Index served as separate criterion variables. 127 Table 19 9999999199 99911919 9999191199 9991199919991 9199999111111. 911991199. 999 099991119991 1991999 19999999991991.9191 999 Criterion Predictor n F p-level Beta R-sq. Sieple Partial Change r r Posttest Pretest 34 24.4 (.0001 .637 .495 .704 ACTeRS ACTeRS Hypor- Hyper- activity activity Age 34 2.68 (.05 -.211 .040 -.411 -.282 Overall! F (2,31) I 17.9, Q(.0001, R I .732, AdJ.R I.505 Posttest Pretest 34 27.6 (.0001 .702 .476 .690 ACTeRS ACTeRS Attention Attention M. 84 e 150 I'll -e052 .003 e ‘16 -e059 2 Overall: F (2,31) - 14.2, g(.0001, R - .691, AdJ.R -.444 Posttest Pretest 34 16.5 (.0001 .589 .351 .592 ACTeRS ACTeRS Opposi- Opposi- tional tional M. 3‘ .080 I18 -eM1 .002 -em -e 051 2 Overall: F (2,31) - 9.43, n<.oo:. R - .593, AdJ.R - .310 128 Table 19 (cont.) Criterion Predictor n F p-level Beta Posttest Pretest 23 9.86 (.01 .566 Parent Parent . Achenbach Achenbach HYPOV' "VP-r- activity activity Age 23 .778 as -.159 R-sg. Sieple Partial Change r r .327 .571 e025 -e 179 -e 19‘ 2 Overall: F (2,20) I 5.43, g<.01, R I .593, AdJ.R I .287 m. One-tailed analyses were cosputed for the chronological age variable, whereas two-tailed analyses were cosputed for the ACTeRS and Achenbach scores. ns I nonsignificant. 129 An exaeination of Table 20 exhibits that when initial scores of criterion variables are controlled for, socioeconosic status does not significantly predict outcoee on eeasures of ACTeRS Hyperactivity (Beta - .053, E - .201,’ ns), ACTeRS Attention (Beta I -.029, E I .043, ns), or Parent Achenbach Hyperactivity Index (Beta I -.024, E I .017, ns). However, the result of socioeconosic status predicting ACTeRS Oppositional is earginally significant (Beta I .243, E I 2.88, p<.10), indicating that children froe lower socioeconosic backgrounds evidence greater gains on teacher rated aggression. 9199911 E999191199 91 199919991 0919999 In sueeary, the results of the hierarchical regression analyses reported above, as displayed in Table 21, suggest that treateent outcoee was predicted by a nueber of independent variables. Hore specifically, (1) “In the Classroos” self-concept scores predicted ieproveeent in teacher rated attention; (2) teacher rated aggression predicted ieproveeent in teacher rated hyperactivity; (3) internal locus of control predicted ieproveeent in teacher rated attention; (4) chronological age predicted ieproveeent in teacher rated hyperactivity; (5) parent rated learning problees predicted ieproveeent in parent rated hyperactivity and worsening of teacher rated Table 20 130 9999999199 99911919 9999191199 9991199919991 9199999111111. 911991199. 999 999991119991 1991999 9999 9991999999919 919199 Criterion Predictor n F p-level Beta R—sq. Sieple Partial Change r r Posttest Pretest 31 42.9 (.0001 .780 .602 .776 ACTeRS ACTeRS va-r- va-r- activity activity 80610- 31 e201 I'll e053 .003 -.002 em econoeic Status 2 Overall; F (2,28) I 21.4, p<.0001, R I .778, Ad3.R I.577 Posttest Pretest 31 24.9 (.0001 .691 .472 .687 ACTeRS ACTeRS Attention Attention Socio- 31 .043 ns -.029 .001 .064 -.039 econoeic Status 2 Overall: F (2,28) I 12.5, g<.0001, R I .687, AdJ.R I.435 Posttest Pretest 31 18.7 (.0001 .618 .369 .608 ACTeRS ACTeRS Oppost- Opposi- tional tional Socio— 31 2.88 (.10 .243 .059 .217 .305 econoeic Status 2 Overall: F (2,28) I 10.5, p<.0001, R I .654, Ad3.R I.387 131 Table 20 (cont.) Criterion Predictor n F p-level Beta R-sq. Sieple Partial Change r r Posttest Pretest 22 9.31 (.01 .574 .332 .576 Parent Parent Achenbach Achenbach Hyp-r- an-r- activity activity Socio- 22 .017 no -.024 .001 -.074 -.030 econoeic Status 2 Overall: F (2,19) - 4.73, p<.05, R - .577, 99,.9 - .262 8919- One-tailed analyses were cosputed for the socioeconosic status variable, whereas two-tailed analyses were cosputed for the ACTeRS and Achenbach scores; ns I nonsignificant. 132 aggression; and (6) socioeconosic status predicted ieproveeent in teacher rated aggression. In addition, a stepwise regression procedure was utilized to evaluate the relative ieportance and asount of separate variance accounted for by each of the predictor variables. For these analyses, pretest eeasures of the criterion (dependent) variables served as covariates in order to control for initial scores. In order to increase the sasple size for these analyses, it was necessary to delete the self-concept variable. The eissing data froe the self- concept eeasures caused the sasple size for these particular analyses to be substantially decreased. Consequently, the scores froe the self-concept eeasures were not included in these regression analyses. Stepwise regression analyses show that there exists a very seall subset of pretest variables which provide eaxieue prediction of posttest variables. The results, as displayed in Tables 22 - 25, show that no pretest variables significantly add to the prediction of either posttest ACTeRS Hyperactivity scores or posttest ACTeRS Attention scores once the covariates are entered into the equation. Hence, none of the study's predictor variables significantly predicts ieproveeent in these scores. However, for both the ACTeRS»0ppositional and Parent 133 Table 21 199199199 99999 19 9999191 99991111929999119991 199919991 9919999 Criterion Variable Teacher Teacher Teacher Parent Rated Rated Rated Rated Predictor Hyper- Attention Aggression Hyper- Variable activity activity 'Hhat I As Like” No Ho Ho No 'In the Classroos“ No Yes No No Parent Rated Aggression No No No No Teacher Rated 1 Aggression Yes No 3 No Internal Locus of Control No Yes No No External Locus of Control Ho Ho No No Unknown Locus of Control No Ho Ho Ho Teacher Rated Learning Problees No Ho Ho Ho Parent Rated Learning Problees No 3 Yes Yes 99' Yes 5 E E 888 No 3 5 Yes 1 Teacher rated aggression pretest scores were not utilized to predict teacher rated aggression posttest scores. 134 Achenbach Hyperactivity scores, soee pretest variables do add to the prediction oi posttest scores even after the covariates are entered. The result of Parent Achenbach School Perforeance pretest scores adding to the prediction 0‘ posttest ACTeRS Dppositional scores is earginally signi‘icant (g<.10), even after the ACTeRS Oppositional pretest covariate is entered. Additionally, Parent Achenbach School Perforsence pretest scores significantly add to the prediction of posttest Parent Achenbach Hyperactivity scores (p<.05); the result of Internal Locus of Control pretest scores adding to the prediction o! posttest Parent Achenbach Hyperactivity scores is earginally significant (g<.10). These latter two results occur even a§ter the Parent Achenbach Hyperactivity pretest covariate is entered. Hence, the Parent Achenbach School Perioreance pretest variable predicts ieproveeent in ACTeRS Oppositional scores, and Parent Achenbach School Perforeance and Internal Locus of Control pretest variables predict ieproveeent in Parent Achenbach Hyperactivity scores. mammals 2].! Mn in L992: 91 Genital Hypothesis VI predicts that since cognitive-behavioral therapy is designed to proeote internalization of credit and responsibility for problee solutions, cognitive- 135 Table 22 81999199 119111919 8999999199 Mun 9999191199 9991199919991 $1989 1119999911111! (9 - 20) Predictor Beta Hultiple R Square p-level Sieple Variable R Change r 1 ACTeRS Hyperactivity .514 .839 .705 (.0001 .839 ACTeRS Oppositional .311 .862 .038 ns .631 Internal Locus o! Control .368 .878 .028 ns .350 Parent Achenbach School Perforeance -. 194 . 881 . 006 ns -. Chronological Age -. .890 .015 ns -.201 Parent Achenbach Aggression . 103 . 892 . 005 ns . 159 Socioeconoeic Status .066 .894 .003 ns -.094 Teacher Achenbach School Perforeance -. 106 . 896 . 002 ns -. External Locus o9 Control -.127 .896 .001 ns .201 Unknown Locus of Control .118 .898 .004 ns .025 l ACTeRS Hyperactivity pretest eeasure served as a covariate to control for initial scores. Table 23 136 81999199 99111919 9999999199 99912919 9999191199 9991199919991 991995 911991199 ‘9 - 20) Predi ctor Beta Hul tipl e R Square p-l evel Si epl e Vari abl e R Change r 1 ACTeRS Attention .337 .807 .651 (.0001 .807 ACTeRS (hposi ti onal . 261 . 822 . 024 ns . 632 Lhknown Locus of Cmtl’ol -e 394 e 827 e W "I -e 170 Parent Achenbach Aggression .231 .fi .012 ns .519 Teacher Achenbach School Perforeance . 293 . 839 . 008 ns . 444 Parent Achenbach School Perforeance -. 1 15 . 847 . 014 ns . 107 External Locus of Control .227 .851 .007 ns -. 112 Chronol ogi cal Age . 102 . 854 . 004 ns . 069 Soci oeconoei c Status . 075 . 855 . 002 ns . 083 Internal Locus of Control -. . 857 . 002 ns . l ACTeRS Attention pretest eeasure served as a covariate control for initial scores. 137 Table 24 91999199 99111919 9999999199 99919919 9999191199 9991199919991 991995 999991119991 (9 - 20> Predictor Beta Hultiple R Square p-level Sieple variable R Change r l ACTeRS Oppositional .397 .473 .223 (.05 .473 Parent Achenbach School Perforsence .586 .585 . 119 <. 10 .398 Internal Locus of Control .160 .647 .076 ns .393 Socioeconoeic Status .297 .662 .019 ns .134 External Locus o9 Control .348 .695 .046 ns .140 Chronological Age . 168 . 705 . 013 ns . Teacher Achenbach School Perforeance -.166 .712 .010 ns .329 Parent Achenbach Aggression .139 .720 .011 ns .084 l ACTeRS Dppositional pretest eeasure served as a covariate to control {or initial scores. 138 Table 25 8199919! 9911121! 8199999199 89911919 891915119! 8991199919991 £99991 959999999 UZEICIEilxltx (9 ' 16’ Predictor Beta Hultiple R Square p-level Sieple Variable R Change r Parent Achenbach 1 Hyperactivity .444 .446 .199 (.10 .446 Parent Achenbach School Perforeance -.965 .656 .232 (.05 -.591 Internal Locus o4 cmtf'al -e‘15 e7“ e 122 (e 10 -e Unknown Locus of Control -. .777 .051 ns .239 Chronol ogi cal Age -. . 800 . 037 ns . 037 Parent Achenbach Aggression -.476 .817 .027 ns .234 Teacher Achenbach School Perforsence . 406 . 829 . 020 ns -. 254 Socioeconoeic Status -.296 .838 .015 ns -.l79 External Locus of mtrOI "e 277 a“! e021 I'll e 125 1 Parent Achenbach Hyperactivity pretest eeasure served covariate to control for initial scores. 139 behavioral therapy will increase iepulsive children’s locus of control or the degree to which they perceive that they have control over events in their lives (i.e., an increase in perceived internality of personal causation). In addition, since cognitive-behavioral therapy is designed to proeote awareness of accurate contingencies in one’s envi roneent , cogni ti ve-behavi oral therapy wi l 1 decrease iepulsive children's unknown locus of control (i.e., increase their knowledge of why success and failure oriented outcoees occur in their environeent). These hypotheses were tested with one-tailed t-tests between pre- and posttreateent locus of control scores. Table 26 shows that the overall indices of internal and unknown locus of control did not significantly change froe before the cognitive-behavioral therapy began to after it was coepleted. However, earginally significant results suggest that the iepulsive children's external locus of control decreased froe pre- to posttreateent (g<.06). In addition, the iepulsive children's social dieension of internal locus of control decreased froe pre— to post- treateent (g<.05). This result contradicts the proposed hypothesis about change in internal locus of control over the course of treateent, and suggests that froe pre- to posttreateent there is a decrease in the perceived 140 internality of personal causation with respect to peer relations. However, the results also exhibit a decrease in the iepulsive children’s physical dieension of external locus of control (g<.05). This result supports the proposed hypothesis about change in external locus of control over the course of treateent, and suggests that froe pre- to posttreateent there is a decrease in the perceived externality of personal causation with respect to physical cospetence. 8999999 91 99991119922999119991 199919991 In order to detereine which child participants benefitted froe the cognitive-behavioral intervention, criteria for success and failure outcoees were established. A liberal criteria was utilized in which success of outcoee was defined by the eoveeent out of the clinical range for at least one of three subscales (i.e., Attention, Hyperactivity, or Oppositional) on the ACTeRS scale, and failure of outcoee was defined by no eoveeent out of the clinical range for any of the three aforeeentioned ACTeRS subscales. Hith these criteria, it was detersined that 10 child participants were considered to achieve success with the treateent, whereas 26 child participants were unsuccessful. Hore conservative criteria were also exasined in which 141 Table 26 9999 9991991 999 99911991 19999 91’. 9991991 999999 (9 - 27> Locus of Control Variable Testing Hean p-level Period Internal Locus of Control pretest 3.21 posttest 3.08 ns Internal-Cognitive Locus of Control pretest 3.50 posttest 3.37 ns Internal-Physical Locus of Control pretest 3.15 posttest 3.24 ns Internal-Social Locus of Control pretest 3.27 posttest 2.97 (.05 External Locus of Control pretest 2.62 posttest 2.45 (.06 External-Cognitive Locus of Control pretest 2.36 posttest 2.18 ns External-Physical Locus of Control pretest 2.87 posttest 2.56 (.05 External-Social Locus of Control pretest 2.19 posttest 2.20 ns Unknown Locus of Control pretest 2.57 posttest 2.54 ns Unknown-Cognitive Locus of Control pretest 2.44 posttest 2.62 ns unknown-Physical Locus of Control pretest 2.53 posttest 2.51 ns Unknown-Social Locus of Control pretest 2.64 posttest 2.48 ns Note. One-tailed t-tests were cosputed for these data, and ns a nonsignificant. 142 success of outcoee was defined by eoveeent out of the clinical range for all three subscales (i.e., Attention, Hyperactivity, and Oppositional) on the ACTeRS scale, and failure of outcoee was defined by no eoveeent out of the clinical range for all of the three aforeeentioned ACTeRS subscales. Hith these criteria there existed only 1 child participant who was considered to achieve success with the treateent, and 35 child participants for whoa the treateent was unsuccessful. It seees with the liberal criteria and even eore so for the eost conservative criteria that the child participants as a whole did not have successful treateent outcoees. It is ieportant to note, however, that parent rated hyperactivity problees and teacher rated attention, hyperactivity, and oppositional problees ieproved, albeit quite little, froe pretreateent to post- treateent (Table 27). Discrieinant function analyses were cosputed in an atteept to predict success and failure of treateent outcoee based on the set of variables used in the present investigation. The eore liberal criteria (eentioned above) was utilized as an index of successful and unsuccessful treateent outcoee because it allowed for a larger nueber of subjects in the successful outcoee group necessary for these analyses. The scores froe self-concept, aggression, 143 Table 27 9999 999 999999 91 9991991 999 99911991 991199199 299199199 Criterion Variable n Pretest Hean n Posttest Hean ACTeRS Attention 41 13.8 36 14.9 ACTeRS Hyperactivity 41 17.8 36 17.3 ACTeRS Dppositional 40 18.6 36 17.8 Parent Achenbach Hyperactivity 31 10.0 23 8.7 144 locus of control, learning problees, chronological age, and socioeconoeic status eeasures were utilized as predictor variables in the discrieinant function analyses. These are the discrieinating variables that eeasure characteristics on which successful vs. unsuccessful outcoee groups were expected to differ. The results reveal that for none of the 11 criterion variables was there significant discrieination for success and failure treateent outcoee. Also, in an atteept to locate the best set of discrieinating variables, a discrieinant analysis using a stepwise selection eethod was perforeed. However, too few cases filled the predicted group eeebership cells. Efforts were eade to increase the cell sizes by deleting variables with the east eissing data cases (i.e., the Harter’s self- concept variables and Parent Achenbach variables) froe the stepwise discrieinant analysis. Yet, too few cases still filled the predicted group eeebership cells; hence, the classification results were uninterpretable. Therefore, it appears that it is difficult to predict success or failure of treateent outcoee based on the set of predictor variables and seall saeple size utilized in this study. CHRPTER VI DISCUSSION The prieary purpose of the present study was to detersine if variables of self-concept, aggression, locus of control, learning problees, chronological age, and fasilial socioeconosic status help predict which iepulsive children will benefit froe cognitive-behavioral training (CBT). For this purpose, cognitive-behavioral treateent was provided for children who were referred for special education services because of eeotional iepaireent with the prieary problees being that of iepulsivity and acting-out. Pre- and posttest eeasures were adeinistered to the child participants and their parents and teachers before the intervention started and after it ended. A series of hierarchical regression analyses were conducted in order to detersine whether pretest eeasures predict treateent outcoee. In addition, a series of stepwise regression analyses were perforeed to detersine the seallest subset of pretreateent variables which provide eaxieue prediction of posttreateent variables. Also, success of treateent was exasined with criteria based upon eoveeent out of the clinical range on the ACTeRS eeasure, and discrieinant function analyses were cosputed in order to predict success and failure of treateent outcoee based upon the set of 145 146 variables utilized in the present study. Lastly, one- tailed t-tests between pre- and posttreateent locus of control scores were cosputed in order to investigate whether cognitive-behavioral treateent increased iepulsive children’s perceived internality of personal causation. The eajor finding of this study was that very few of the predictor variables were related to posttest scores once the pretest score for each criterion variable was entered into the regression equations. Indeed, in only seven of 43 eultiple regression analyses did a predictor variable significantly add to the level of prediction already afforded by the pretest score of the criterion variable-and in four of these latter cases the relationship only tended toward statistical significance (g<.10 but g>.05). Hence, it appears that the variables included in the present study did not, in general, help predict ieproveeent in parent or teacher ratings of hyperactive, inattentive, or aggressive behavior problees. There are, however, a few predictor-criterion relationships worth noting. For exaeple, children who are older and possess fewer learning problees evidenced greater gains on teacher and parent rated hyperactivity problees, respectively. Thus, CBT was sore helpful for older iepulsive children with fewer learning problees in reducing 147 ratings of hyperactivity. It is unclear why children who possess greater learning problees evidenced greater gains on teacher rated aggressions this could be due to randoe error given that it was the only finding asong the significant or earginally significant findings contrary to the hypothesized direction. Bornstein (1985) suggests that older children seee to be capable of generating their oun effective verbalization strategies. Perhaps this capability is necessary in order to achieve successful behavior change; younger children say not be cognitively sature enough to learn and effectively utilize CBT skills. Indeed, younger and older children appear to differ with respect to whether they are able to construct their own effective self-control instructions (e.g., Denney, 19753 Hiller et al., 19783 Toner et al., 1977). Further-ore, the children with learning problees say have had difficulty learning the self-control techniques and probleepsolving strategies that were taught to thee. In fact, children with higher 18s or eental ages have been found to respond better to cognitive self—instructional training than have less cognitively‘eature children (Barkley, Copeland, & Sivage, 1980). Another interesting finding is that children who are less aggressive, as eeasured by the ACTeRS Oppositional 148 subscale, evidenced greater gains on teacher rated hyperactivity problees. Therefore, cognitive-behavioral therapy was not as helpful for iepulsive children who presented with aggressive problee behaviors in reducing teacher ratings of hyperactivity. Perhaps children who are aggressive (e.g., stubborn, defiant and/or hostile) say not believe they have problees. Indeed, denial of eistakes and blaeing others for one's own problees are asong the frequently found characteristics in conduct disordered children (e.g., Arnold 8 Beelzer, 1974s Dreger et al., 19643 Boyette, Gunners, & Ulrich, 19783 Kupfer, netre, & Koral, 1974). If these children are unwilling to adeit they have problees, then they are unlikely to be sotivated to change their problee behaviors in, and outside of, the cognitive-behavioral therapy. In fact, Horn et al. (in press) found that ADD children who recognize that they possess self-control problees are sore likely to respond well to CBT than children who do not recognize that they possess problees. Another finding worthy of eention is that ieproveeent in aggression was predicted by 828 with children froe lower 888 hoses deeonstrating greater ieproveeent on teacher rated aggression coepared to children froe higher 8E8 hoses. Hhat is particularly interesting about this finding 149 is that lower 888 children isproved sost. This finding contradicts other research which generally shows low 858 to predict resistance to ieproveeent froe parent training (e.g., Dueas t Hialer, 1983. Hebster-Btratton, 1985). However, while studies by Buses and Hhaler (1983) and Hsbstsr-Btratton (1985) included welfare recipients (e.g., less than 05,000) and low incose earners (e.g., $5,000 - $11,999) in their lowest 888 categories, the present study's lowest incose earners are representative of low- siddle class status with such Jobs as autosobile assssbler, construction worker, and rubbish collector. Therefore, it is difficult to sake comarisons regarding between the previous work eentioned above and the current investigation. Although children froe low-siddle 828 fasilies displayed greater ieproveeent in aggression than children free higher 888 fasilies, it is unclear why this result occurred in the'prssent study. This resains an interesting question deserving further research. Another interesting finding is that ieproveeent in teacher rated attention was predicted by self-concept and internal locus of control. That is, children possessing greater intrinsic interest in learning and sastsry, curiosity, and preference for challenge, as well as greater perceived internality of personal causation, desonstrated 150 greater ieproveeent on teacher rated attention coepared to children possessing an extrinsic orientation in which they are sotivated to obtain teacher approval and/or grades, and are very dependent on the teacher for guidance, as well as perceived ssternality of personal causation. It is likely that those children who are very sotivated to learn the CBT skills and possess the belief that they can effectively ispact upon their environeent with these new skills are able to appropriately ieprove soss of their behavioral difficulties so that they will Inhibit such behaviors as working well independently in the classrooe and following .teacher directions accurately. In addition to ssasining single predictors, an overall sultivariate prediction of outcoee was perforeed. An evaluation of the relative ieportance and asount of separate variance accounted for by the predictor variables (excluding the self-concept variable because of eissing data) suggests that variables which predicted ieproveeent in parent rated hyperactivity were parent rated learning problsss and internal locus of control. In addition, the variable which predicted ieproveeent in teacher rated aggression was parent rated learning problees. These findings suggest that asong the sost ieportant characteristics that enable these iepulsive children to 151 benefit froe the CBT are the ability to cosprehend the skills and strategies which are taught, and the self- psrception that one can alter his/her environeent with these newly learned skills. In other words, the children sust first be able to understand the concepts being taught and how they sight be able to appropriately utilize thes. They sust also believe that they can ispact upon their own environeent by changing their previous saladaptive behaviors with their newly learned CIT skills. If the children are not capable of understanding the CBT eaterial because of learning problees, and if they do not believe that they can control theeselves better and solve problees sore adequately so that they say get almg well with others, then it is quite unlikely that they will be able to learn and/or utilize the CBT eaterial in order to decrease behavioral problees such as hyperactivity or aggressiveness. 8ince, however, prediction of group change scores say or say not be related to prediction of change on an individual case basis, another analysis attespted to first define successful versus unsuccessful cases. Then, discrieinant function analysis was esployed to detersine whether any of the variables were able to successfully discrieinate these successful fros unsuccessful cases. The 152 results of these analyses, however, were hindered by the fact that so few cases could be categorized as successful. Indeed, in no instance did any discrieinant function analysis accurately predict a case as a success. Rather, all discrieinant analyses predicted every case tolbe a failure. Hence, once again, it appears that, in general, the predictor variables included in this study did not allow prediction of which children isproved and which children did not ieprove as the result of CBT, and that the reason for this failire to predict is that very few of the children actually isproved to a significant degree on any of the criterion variables. The question, then, is my did the CDT prograe included in the present study fail to achieve better treatsent effectiveness? One'possible»esplanation is that the subjects in the current study say have'bssn too severely disordered toubenefit fros the CBT. Perhaps CBT is sore effective with eildly disordered children rather than children referred by school personnel or ssdical and eental health professionals for severe behavioral problees. In fact, eany investigations that have reported positive outcoees for iepulsive/hyperactive children treated with CBT included child participants which were neither froe a clinic-referred population nor fros fasilies actively 153 seeking treatsent. For sxwle, knold and Forehand (1978) used children froe a Head 8tart Progras and a low-incose housing preschool; Bernstein and Ousvillon (1976) included children fros a preschool Head 8tart Progras; Bugental at al. (I977) utilized chilfi'en fr“ regull' eleeenth school classrooss and classrooss for the educationally handicapped; Bisnwick and Barocas (1979), Nelson and Birkieer (1978) and Heithorn and Kagsn (1979) used children froe regular eleeentary school cl assrooss; and (rbach (1977) included children free a Hebrew school. Another possible explanation is that the school psychologists in the present study were not closely supervised in overseeing their progress with the children; the psychologists say not have learned the agenda well enough to cossunicate the self-control techniques and , problee—solving strategies to the children. In future studies, perhaps therapists should receive closer training and supervision (e.g., weekly and in-psrson) to sake sure that they learn how to cossunicate the agenda itees to the children, and how to deal with probleeatic issues when they occur. Another possible explanation for lack of treatsent effectiveness say lie in the relative absence of concoeitant interventions in either the hose or the 154 classrooe. Although the children say have learned the self-control strategies and problesrsolving techniques, the behavioral contingencies in the classrooe and hose settings say have continued to eaintain problee behaviors. That is, a child say have learned the self-control strategies and problee-solving techniques, but proeinent others in the child's environeent say not have known how to prospt or reinforce the utilization of these new behavioral skills. In the current investigation, teachers were encouraged to prospt, verbally reinforce, and eodel the children's overt use of CBT techniques and strategies. Yet, sore teacher consultation in the classrooe sight be added to future studies involving CBT. Kendall and Braswell (1985) suggest that the therapist can offer soss direct suggestions to a teacher for how they can enhance generalization of treatsent effects. The therapist can suggest that the teacher allow and eaybe even encourage the child's quiet self-talk if the child seess to be utilizing such verbalizations as a way of guiding and directing his/her own behavior in an appropriate eanner. The teacher sight also be advised to label attack strategies for solving acadeeic problees. For exaeple, Parsons (1972) found that if children were urged to both identify the operation required for a specific eath problee (plus vs. 155 sinus) and circle the sign of each problee as they start to solve it, their perforeance on these arithsstic problees was significantly isproved. Kendall and Braswell (1985) also suggest that the therapist share with the teacher special problee areas the child has agreed to work on, or the therapist intends to have the’child work on, so that the teacher can be especially aware of offering social praise and reinforcesent for any positive behavior changes in those areas. Also, since the addition of behavioral contingencies to problespsolving training has been shown to increase treatsent effectiveness (e.g., 8arabash, 1978a Kendall & Braswell, 19823 varni 9 Henker, 1979), the therapist sight instruct the teacher on the use of token econosies in the classrooe in order to reinforce the children's newly learned CBT skills. Bisilarly, parents sight also'receive training in how to appropriately prospt and reinforce the children's newly acquired CBT skills. 8ince CDT say not readily generalize to the hose setting (e.g., Barkley 9 Cunninghae, 1978; Horn, Ialongo, Greenberg, Packard, & 8sith-Hinberry, 1985), parent training for child eanageeent in efforts to reduce problee behaviors and increase coepliance say be helpful in isproving overall clinical efficacy (e.g., Forehand at al., 1979). Indeed, Horn at al. (1985) found a superiority with 156 rsspect to ieproveeent in hyperactive behaviors for the coebined treatsent condition of self-control training and behavioral parent training coepared to either treatsent alone in attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity children. Horn et al. (in press) suggest, Buch a coebined approach sight provide saxieal benefit by altering those contingencies in the child's hose which have previously helped eaintain the child’s saladaptive behavior patterns, while also helping the child develop sore adaptive behavioral skills through instruction in self-control strategies. The addition of a psychostieulant eedication coeponent say also enhance the effectiveness of CDT with ADD children. The addition of psychostieulant esdications could help decrease iepulsivity, decrease activity level, and help the children to focus their attention and concentration in the CBT groups so that they can better learn the presented eaterial (see Darkely, 1981b; Pelhas 1983). In fact, training in self-control techniques has been found to increase effectiveness of psychostieulant treatsent (Hinshaw, Henker, I: Hialen, 1984a. Horn, Chatoor, & Conners, 1983' Pelhas et al., 1980; Hells, Conners, Isber, & Delasater, 1981). Another purpose of the current study was to investigate whether CBT increased iepulsive children's locus of control. An exasination of pre- and post- 157 treatsent locus of control scores revealed that there was a trend in the data supporting the hypothesis that the iepulsive children's external locus of control would decrease froe pre- to posttreatsent. It was also found that these children's physical external locus of control decreased fros pre- to posttreatsent. These results suggest that there was a decrease in perceived externality of personal causation following CBT. It is plausible that CBT fostered the children's beliefs that events are not external to their actions. Since the children were taught strategies focusing on self-control and problee solving, they say have coee to realize that others neither regulate their (the children’s) behavior nor take responsibility for their actions. However, the children’s social dieension of internal locus of control also decreased over the course of treatsent, suggesting that there was a decrease in the perceived internality of personal causation with respect to peer relations. One possible explanation for this contradictory finding is that the length of the cognitive- behavioral treatsent prograe say have been too short of a ties for the children to practice and adequately learn perspective taking and peer relation skillsu consequently, they say have coee to the conclusion at the end of 11 weeks 158 that changes in social relations are not based on one’s own effortful actions to fore adequate and fulfilling social relationships. A nueber of lisitations exist for the current investigation. Because of soee eissing data in the present study, the already seall sasple size was often decreased to below the original 41 subjects. Hence, the saspling error in this investigation is possibly large and generalization to other saeples sight be lieited. In addition, the seall sasple size reflects a low degree of statistical power in the current study. That is, if the sasple size was larger the study's predictor variables say have better predicted behavioral ieproveeent as the result of CBT. Indeed, teacher and parent ratings isproved in the predicted direction, but with seall sagnitudeg furthersore, 8 out of 15 partial correlations greater than .20 (not accounting for partial correlations around 0 - i.e., -.19 to .19) between the predictor and criterion variables were in the hypothesized direction. Although the current study was designed to detersine predictors of outcoee for cognitive-behavioral treatsent, the addition of a control group to the pretest/posttest design which was utilized would have constituted a sore powerful design in evaluating treateent effectiveness. For 159 instance, a control group consisting of a sasple of iepulsive children sieilar to (i.e., eatched on child and fasily characteristics as closely as possible) the experieental group should not receive exposure to the CBT. Yet, both control and experieental groups should receive 5 pre- and posttesting at the ease points in ties. Any differences between the two groups in terss of the dependent or criterion variables could likely be attributed to the independent variable on which they differ-that is, exposure or nonexposure to treatsent. Another lisitation is a lack of observational data available at hose and school that could have been helpful in identifying whether the children were appropriate for the CBT prograe, how the therapists taught the techniques and strategies to the children, and how the children were responding to the treatsent. The utilization of a classrooe observation code (e.g., Abikoff, Gittelean-Klein, and Klein, 1980) eight help to assess and validate teacher and parental reports of hyperactivity, off-task behaviors, and disruptiveness. Thus, the children sight be better identified as warranting CDT. Videotaping or direct observation of DDT sessions sight also allow future investigators to exasine whether the therapists are teaching the techniques and strategies correctly. If the 160 therapists are having difficulty presenting the CBT, then appropriate supervisory actions could occur. In addition, observation of children in both CBT sessions and in school activities eight provide inforeation regarding whether the children are appropriately using their newly learned skills, such as applying their self-control techniques to situations which require increased self-control. These observations would provide soee inforsation concerning the children’s responsivity to the CBT. There was also no control in the present study over therapist differences. One exasple of these differences is that the school psychologists who served as therapists varied in their degree of training. Boss of these psychologists had clinical psychology experience while others had experience solely in the area of education. Also, the asount of experience in the area of school psychology varied with respect to experience, ranging froe 8 to 25 years. This variability in therapist differences could have iepacted upon the treatsent which the children received such that the less experienced therapists say have had sore difficulty in presenting and teaching the self- control techniques and problesrsolving strategies. In other words, perhaps therapist variables are sore, or equally, ieportant in the prediction of treateent outcoees 161 as coepared to client variables. If so, therapist variables such as degree of training say be ieportant to investigate in future treatsent outcoee studies. Future COT investigations should also focus on child process variables which say help predict CBT outcoee. For instance, the child's level of interaction or involvesent during the CBT say be an ieportant process variable to study. Braswell, Kendall, Braith, Carey, and vye (1984b) exasined this subject variable in an investigation in which the therapist’s and child’s verbal behaviors were rated during self-instructional training sessions. They found that the children who uttered the sost suggestions concerning what should occur during the training sessions, and who sight thus be perceived as the sost active participants, were inclined to show the sost ieproveeent on the teacher ratings of classrooe behavior. Of all the rated verbal behaviors, child involvesent was the sost accurate predictor of treatsent gains. Future studies sight also attend to psychological adjustssnt characteristics of child subjects other than those exasined in the current study. For instance, 8pivak and 8hure (1974) found that greatly inhibited children evidenced gains on ratings of concern for others after receiving interpersonal problee-solving training, 161 as coepared to client variables. If so, therapist variables such as degree of training say be ieportant to investigate in future treatsent outcoee studies. Future CBT investigations should also focus on child process variables which say help predict COT outcoee. For instance, the child’s level of interaction or involvesent during the CBT say be an ieportant process variable to study. Braswell, Kendall, Oraith, Carey, and vye (1984b) exasined this subject variable in an investigation in which the therapist's and child’s verbal behaviors were rated during self-instructional training sessions. They found that the children who uttered the sost suggestions concerning what should occur during the training sessions, and who sight thus be perceived as the sost active participants, were inclined to show the sost ieproveeent on the teacher ratings of classrooe behavior. Of all the rated verbal behaviors, child involvesent was the sost accurate predictor of treatsent gains. Future studies sight also attend to psychological adjustsent characteristics of child subjects other than those exasined in the current study. For instance, 8pivak and 8hure (1974) found that greatly inhibited children evidenced gains on ratings of concern for others after receiving interpersonal problee-solving training, 162 whereas the iepulsive and adjusted children did not evidence gains on this seasure. In addition, 8arason and Sanzer (1973) found that delinquents diagnosed as neurotic or passive-dependent personality disorder evidenced behavioral gains after receiving a eodeling treatsent mich esphasized role playing, and that those diagnosed as sociopathic or passive-aggressive personality disorder exhibited behavioral ieproveeent after involvesent in the discussion treatsent group. Other child characteristics which sight be investigated involve assnability to CBT. For exaeple, those children who believe they have problees say be sore willing to learn and utilize CBT skills which are being taught to thee. As noted above, Horn et al. (in press) found that hyperactive children who are better able to recognize that they do have significant self-control problees show greater behavioral ieproveeent than those who do not recognize that they possess self-controlprobless. Hotivation to change behavior eight also be studied. If children are not sotivated to alter their behavior by learning and appropriately using their new CBT skills, then it is unlikely that successful treateent outcoee will occur. Perhaps children’s sotivation to change behavior could be assessed through an interview or questionnaire. 163 For instance, children could be asked if they like the way they get along with others, and if not, whether they would like to change their own behavior to sake things go better for theeselves. Although the current investigation found little success with the cognitive-behavioral treatsent, it is possible that the children benefitted in ways which were not seasured. Hany of the school psychologists anecdotally reported after treatsent was coepleted that the children in their groups appeared to be exhibiting decreased behavioral difficulties. However, as has been found in previous investigations (e.g., Barkley 6 Cunninghae, 1978. Bugental et al., 1977; Horn et al., 19853 Kendall & Braswell, 1982), in sost cases this observed behavioral ieproveeent in the therapy groups theeselves did not appear to have generalized free the treatsent setting to the classrooe or hose settings. In addition, two school psychologists reported that after the training was coepleted, their referred children sought thee out such sore for help with school related problees than they had done previously. Even though eany of the children did not achieve success by criteria involving attentional, aggressive, and hyperactive behaviors, it is possible that they have at least learned to realize when they are having a problee and are able to 164 seek out help for these problees. If these children are reinforced for seeking help, they say eventually begin to internalize sore of the problesvsolving strategies and begin to show sore overt behavioral ieproveeent. Perhaps a long-tars follownup coeponent in future studies could help get at these possible ”sleeper effects“. Indeed, there is evidence in the literature for such 'sleeper effects". For exaeple, in a study concerning the ispact of early childhood education experiences, 8chweinhart and Heikart (1978; cited in Lazar & Darlington, 1982) found the positive effects of early education on achieveeent increasingly apparent over tiee. At grades one, two, and three there existed no significant positive effects of early education on California Achievessnt Test (CAT) scores; however, at grades four, five, and eight increasingly significant positive effects were found. At eighth grade, children with early education had significantly higher scores than control children on each of the three principal sections of the CAT: reading, language, and arithsstic. Thus, it seess that the early education experience had a long-lasting positive iepact on children's achieveeent test perforeance. In conclusion, the sain results froe the present investigation suggest that variables of self-concept, 165 aggression, locus of control, learning problees, chronological age and fasilial socioeconosic status do not, in general, predict ieproveeent in parent or teacher ratings of hyperactive, inattentive, or aggressive behavior problees. The reason for the failure to predict A ieproveeent appears to be due to the ineffectiveness of the cognitive-behavioral therapy. Reasons for this lack of treatsent effectiveness include issues regarding degree of subjects’ psychopathology, adequacy of therpists' training and supervision, and problees with the training itself such as lack of prospting and reinforcesent of learned skills in hose and school environeents. In addition to appropriately addressing and dealing with these issues JUIt eentioned, future CBT predictor of outcoee studies sight ieprove overall treatsent efficacy by adding parent training and psychostieulant eedication. APPENDIX A 8elf-Control Training Activities 166 Self-Control Training Activities 8.11199 1-introduction of prograe, warsrup nase exercise, generation of group rules, introduction of star chart and buddy systess. 9999199 2—-learn step 1 of problee-solving plan (“Do I have a probles?'-think, 'Cals...relax')| figggign §-relaxation training; aeggign §-learn step 2 of problee-solving plan ('Hhat is sy problee?“ and setting a goal); figggigu §—-review first two steps of problee-solving plan, relaxation training. hum Q—learn step 3 of problee-solving plan (”How eany solutions can I think of to solve ey problee7'). 8111193 Z-review first three steps of problee-solving plan, relaxation training; m1!!! Q—learn step 4a of problee-solving plan (“mat sight happen next if...?')| 5811198 2-review previously learned steps of problee- solving plan, relaxation training; Session 19-learn step 4b of problee-solving plan ('How sight sy solution sake other people feel?'); Session 11-review previously learned steps of problee- solving plan, relaxation training; flagging 12-learn step 4c of problesrsolving plan ('Is the solution fair?')| 8111190 1;-review previously learned steps of problee- solving plan, relaxation training; Session 15-learn step 5 of problesrsolving plan (Pick the best solution and try it). Sessign 1§-review previously learned steps of probles~ solving plan, relaxation training; 167 Session io-learn step 6 of problee-solving plan ('How did sy solution work7'), role plays using the steps in the problee-solving plan; Session iZ-review previously learned steps of problee- solving plan, relaxation training; Session iS-role plays using the steps in the problee- solving plan; Session iz-review the steps of the problee-solving plan, relaxation training; Session 29-group puzzles, role plays using the problee- solving plan; Session Zi-review the problesrsolving plan, relaxation training; Session 22-role plays using the problesrsolving plan, tereination. APPENDIX 8 Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist CHILD BEHAVIOR CHECKLIST FOR ACES 4°10 168 Petemumeniy :99 mm PmmWPIOFWOMIMwNM-Uw:mm.ngn mg www.mflmmmuw.wwmmm. mammal-emanate) PATHER‘I 993:0 .7 me m m“ - D can Homes-9 mow-9 one cmurs smumn '7" °' .99. W Yr. Ho. Day w. TH). POM FILLED OUT IV: D Home guns 0 max 9am D ”M I. mummmMnmm Wheflmdflmdflw mewldnnolm wmmhfuummMmmg. mm.mmmm 99999999.h9we9|l9999b9l9h9¢9 thmmuomm.m 9999hol9h99pwudlneadu‘l 999a”? dd! mu «9. MD :09 000'! m 69999.9 .19.: 899’! New A9999 Knee Avw9g9 69999.9 Kass M909 Avwan 6999999 Cl C] D C] D D D D D D D D D D D D D C] D D D D D D '- Mkimmunwiwhebblu. mummmwc. mundlomwulldnndutw mm.9bouih9weuuueh(luu9 WIDOIMMMOIW mmdewwflldou M99999 zImwbo‘fl? mm. 6999 MW speed In each?“ each one? D "- 233- i‘" w 1:"... :2 9r... ....... m. t D D D D D D C] C] o. E] Cl C] D D D C] D c. D C] D D C] D D C] m. M9999 mu 99y emulation. 91999. Gotham! to 90m 9mm 91 (M (99:99. or mp9 you: oh!“ 9969999 to. 99:99 909. how 99099 09 h9l9h9 In D "m 999M m as. m- m. 9. C] C] D D 9. D C] U C] c. D D C] C] N. Mkimbuwwueumwflw Wuumwuwmwm I99. f9: 99mph: 999w mu. humane. 99m 999. has ed! 9999 H999 asking 999. «9. any "won out? D m 09:: m ‘w m.- f C] D D D u» D D C] D =- D C] C] D m «m.» e 9.1 i.e.mm'wvmmmwwaw 169 v. u.-mmmmmmwmmv Cl um [31 C1 19:: 0 (am 9. mmmmummmmammmu D Imuwn Cl uocz Cl ammo Vl- anmxmmmmmmm Wm ”album 99"» mumwmmmummv 89u along with outer «um um emu mm 99199191 DUDE] DUDE] 9999 mwmmmmn VII. 1. muwmm-uwmnwowwm UMMgouoocMoI f 9. Hauling or Enema 9. mung 9. mac or Hath 9. Wing Olhw MIG 999- 9. Icon-lot 999mm: hi9- uouy. 9919999. lonlgn u, know-99. MM“!- 0000000: 091091 0009191910; ’ 00009100; 000091091; i g. i. hmdflidla99999'9l9l999? D No C] Yu—whsiklnd‘l 3. H99 you! child 999: r9999!“ 9 9:999? D No C] Y99—or9d9 9nd r999on 4. HumMM9nymwmmwu-9MM D No D You-puma 999ch WMCHMMHuM H999 (M99 W9 90999? D No D Y99—wh9n‘) 170 vs Whomxmmmmmmmnmmamnuemuwu 1:111:19 nauumnwfimwmonmumwuamhmmmmx 91991991111199de 19111119119111 191191911991ch 91191911190.Pl99999n9w91911llmuwofluyoummnllmdonolwwnlownomcnlld. 0 e 1191 T1119(9919199mkn9w) 1 - 29199w119191291119111n99 T1119 2 I “07111991011” 11119 O 1 2 1. 4919 199 young 191 11101191 999 19 o 1 2 21. F9919 11919119 111|g111 11111111 91 do 991n91nlng 0 1 2 2. A1191gy (1199911119): M o 1 2 32. F9919 11919119 1199 19 119 9911991 9 1 2 :13. F9919 91 conupleln9 11191 no 9n9 191199 nlmlnor 0 1 2 2. A1g1199 9 191 o 1 2 24. F9919 9111919 919 991 19 g91 11111111191 11 1 2 4. 491111119 11 1 2 99 F9919 11911111999 91 “1191191 90 : 1 : :: 29119119911k99p999£99xmm 20 0 ‘ 2 a. I 1111119191. II I 9 1 2 21. 0919 111 1119111 11g1119 2 1 2 7. 81agglng. 99991lng 9 1 2 22. 8919 1999911 9 191 4 1 2 4. 09111 oo1199n11919. 991119911 9119n119n 191 long o ‘ 2 20. 114020 91119114 911111 chlklnn m 9“ ln 119111119 0 1 2 2. Can'l 991 11th mlnd 911 c91191n 11199g1119; 99999919n9(99991199): g 1 2 90. 11991-9 lungs 11191 919111 111919 (99991199): 0 1 2 19. Carl 911 91111. 19911999. or hyp919911119 26 is 9 1 2 41. lunpull91119 91 9919 191111991 1111nklng 4 1 2 11. Cllng9 19 91111119 91199 d9p9nd9n1 4 1 2 12. C91119191n9 91 lo11911n999 9 1 2 42. 1.11199 19 119 919119 9 1 2 43. Lylng 91 91199th 9 1 2 12. Conlu99d 91 9991119 19 119 In 9 log I 1 2 14. C1199 9 191 0 1 2 44. 81199 1111991119119 9 1 2 45. 119111999. h1g1191111ng. 91 19nu 60 O 1 2 15. 011191 19 9n1111919 fl 0 1 2 14. Gunny, bullying, 91 1n99n11999 19 9111919 9 1 2 44. 1119111999 11199911191119 91 1w119hlng (99991199): 11 1 2 11. Day-91991119 91 g919 1991 In 111911191 11199g1119 9 1 2 12. D9119919191y 11911119 9911 91 9119111919 91119199 0 ‘ 2 41 11191111119199 8 l 1 ‘9. mm. . .0. 0' 21191111011 0 g 2 ‘8 "Ci "k“ by 0'”! chfldg.n o ' 3 20' D991roy9 111911191 W“ """9' 35 o 1 2 40. Con9119919d. dp99n'1 1119119 bowels 0 1 2 21. 099119y9 lhlngs b919nglng 10 1119/1191 1911111y 0 1 2 50. Too 1991191 91 anxlouu 65 91 911191 c1111919n o 1 2 51. F9919 may 0 1 2 22. Dl9ob9dl9n1 91 1191119 0 1 2 52. F9919 loo gumy O 1 2 2:1. 019999dl9n1 91 9911991 9 1 2 $3. Ov919911ng 1) 1 2 24. Do99n'1 991 19911 9 1 2 64. 0991111911 9 1 2 as. 0999n'1 g91 along 911111 911191 cnlld19n 40 ° 1 2 55- 0"""°'“ 7° 0 1 2 29. Down 1 999111191991 gumy 91191 1111999119an “- 1991 91119 19111199 ‘ known 1n 991911 99999: 9 1 2 27. Sully 1991999 9 1 a 29. £919 91 «mm 11111191 11191 919 no! 1999 ° ‘ 3 '- “'1" °' 91"“ ' — o 1 2 c. N99999. 19919 9ch1 o 1 2 d P1911191119 911111 9y99 (999911119): 0 1 2 29. F9919 comm 9111111919. 91199110119. 91 919994. 0 l 2 0 11991199 01 other «In problems 75 911191111911 9911901 (1199911119): 9 1 2 1. 8191119911991199 91 91911199 9 1 2 g. Vomlllng, 1h19wlng up 0 1 2 11 011191 (9991:1199): o 1 2 :10. F9919 golng 19 9911901 45 Plan 999 91h91 91119 171 9 9 119171999919199999119919) 1 - 2991991191919911191119997199 2 - V919191991011991’199 0 1 2 67- 91110164"! 91199119 990919 9 2 94. 91191199 991199191(99991199): 9 1 2 99. P1999 9999. 91119. 91 911191 99119 91 9999 (99991199): 49 0 2 99. 9119999 19999199991199): 9 1 2 99. P1999 991111 99911 9911 99119 in 999119 19 9 1 2 9o. P1999 191111 9199 9911 99119 199 199911 g a 99. 3199119111, 91111911. 91111119919 9 1 2 91. P991 9911991 91991 g a 91. $999.11 9119999919 19999 91 1991l999 9 1 2 92. 1199119 99919199199 91 9191999 9 2 99. 991119 9 191 45 9 1 2 93. 9191919 91991119 911111 91991 911119199 29 9 2 I. W 0 1 3 94- PM” 9149109 M"! 90111190! 00116100 9 2 fl. 919991199 91 99999119 191199999 9 1 2 99. 11919999 19 19111 9 2 91. T9199 99991 11111199 9911 9 1 2 99. 11999919 9911919 9919 9991 999 9991. 9 2 92. 191119 91 9191119 19 91999 (99991199): 9911199191999 (99991199): 9 2 93. 191119 199 1119911 59 9 1 2 97. 11999 91999 119111 1191119 9 2 94. 199999 9 191 9 1 2 99. 89199199 9 191 25 9 2 “. T991991 1911119199 91 1191 19111991 9 1 2 99. 999191199. 119999 1111999 19 99" 9 2 99. 1111999 99991 9911 199 1119911 9 1 2 19. 9999 1111999 11191 91991 111919 (99991199): 9 2 97. 1111991999 999919 9 2 99. Thumb-99911199 55 9 2 99. Too 99119911199 911111 99919999 91 91999119999 9 2 199 T199919 91999199 (99991199): 9 1 2 71 8911999991999 91 999119 991991199999 9 1 2 72 8919 11199 9 1 9 1:1 $91991 9199191119(99991199): o 9 191. 71999991 11090 9911991 9 2 102. 119991991199. 91991 9199199. 91199119 999199 9 2 193. 119119999. 999. 91 999199999 so J 9 2 194. 1199999119 1999 9 1 2 74 511919199 911 91 clowning 9 2 105. 1.1999 91991191 91 91999 (99991199): 0 2 75. 8119 91 1111119 9 1 2 79 819999 1999 11199 111991 911119199 9 2 109. V 999911991 9 1 2 77 3399011191: $11911 111.291 911119199 991199 999 9 2 ‘07. w 919 9911 991199 1119 999 °' ° ‘ “°' " 9 2 199. 19111 1119 999 95 0 2 109. Whining 9 1 2 79 81119919 91 91999 191111 999191 1119991119919 35 9 2 110. W191199 19 99 91 99999119 9911 9 ' 2 79 8M" 919919111 (99991199): 9 2 111. W119919919. 999991 991 19991999 191111 9111919 9 2 1 12. W911y199 0 1 2 90 519199 919911111 ”3. P1999. 991119 111 9119 9199191119 9091 Chfld 1199 9 ‘ 2 91. 919919 .1 1191119 11191 19919 991 119199 99999: 0 1 2 92 519919 9919l99 1119 119m9 0 2 70 9 1 2 93 519199 99 1111999 1191999 99999'1 9999 g 2 (99991199) .19 ‘ o 2 .nfiu ».._ .——.— “—-— _.. PLEASE BE SURE YOU HAVE ANSWERED ALL ITEMS UNOERLINE ANY YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT .88 .. .29....- g 3 .32: .33.... 9.5 at 9.38.! I. 3: 321! all! 8.18.3... o I it! .- I . I 3' $133.35.... axial-l“ 4 s d...” d 18.188.803.01... .~ l|.. ‘85-’33! d 25.9.. 3..» ,v 1:! 172 £839.33n832 3-~— .——.c 64 .83 Sal-2.8858 38m 322... 3553 3:8 cum-am.— ! ‘ Q .. .p i Ii ‘ Q d a 8... 8...... a II 839...: al. a 3. 3.3.0.3 N I! 1&3! d l ‘18." d I _._.:... I. a. 81:13:...2 £10.... .I g i g In . . . . . . . . fl . . . . a 1 T l n: . . : : . In I : .. a. 1 r! l I ._ .. 2 : 2 1 .l a. a. n. I. I: a z 1.. I z : a 1 H 2 2 2 2 2 u H... a a 2 2 a In I z a z 1 I a a a 1 I a. a u I. III I q. a nun.” 2 1 n W. a a. 1 r on a. a I. F n~ O. a a. a. a I“ N .I no no 3 an 1 n . 2 a 3 3 a .. n M l a a 2 H 2 3 3 a. M I 3 .. 3 3 3 3 3 u q ”I a I U I . : 3 .. a : : 3 1 3“ T a 3 2 a. 1 I: a I. HT : .. 8 : M 3 8 3 u a I 3 3 : 1 2 1 .3. .1. :3. :2. 3.2 :2. 3.3 :3. I BM .2. .3 .2. .3 3 a... .3 3 a I I. I. .l 173 T:::;=8":Du‘d 1fl$8a3£3.2:.3.3:2:2:2:'2-2:8...Sa‘loiola. I,I.I:‘ '.. I‘ I . ‘ ‘ 9' II I :5 I. I‘:: z z. =::¢'=¢;:1WII:I3.IS .:'t:H:: t a . -«5-nmo,o~ -'-2::: 2'92H:2‘:2.:::c‘e21:1 :2 '1'33‘35‘35u:513‘ 23 :3‘e=.=9 9: 9! 43138 --~-v::::z-:=c:::=:sz.3:=a=::;;s.az=x:..1g§ II I ; III.IIIIIIIII ' I'I ' IIIIIII .I - ”a: .: tan:;.:: a- :x I; :3 as :3 :2-:::':=.:: :2 I. 3..:c a: az'z..::::..c..as ; ' 2v :cdu 3::31113338 8121Ia11;3!2 113321=I£II=89 1.1.- '-4*¢~ -"2:‘r:*:: 2: 2: :zxezl:-::c= :.:::: :;.:3:::; ;: 1:.z:.|x..|:11: ':::=:::a-2::c3:3;33:2:11iilzs:1:2::::a::caas.z=g‘ j ' I I ‘ .2 I %I I I I III iiiséfidhéliiiigzii I I 3 . ~°-' ‘2 : zlza::::lii 11!?! '3 I 8 I 8 I 2 2' 3 I: 3 IIIUIIIFWIIIIUIIIIIIITWIITIIIFIIIIIIIUIIIllI’ .*~ ~ ~-. 222222222232".“ I a I 2. i Q. ~ —, REVISED CHILD BEHAVIOR PROFILE Bulimia! humans-301$ M 5-11 - O 89:: 2:322: sax:z=n teats: :2: - : 2 2 ; z: a; - - z z 2 s 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 : 2'- - * °‘ 3 2 2 2 : 2 : 2 o - ~ .. v ~ ~ ; 1 i 1 a: at: :22: 2:: 2:: :22: --: 2' - ~ . - - 3 3 2 z 2 2 : 2 ' - ~ ' . ' ~ 2 a: 2:: :2 an: zza :2: 2: :2: ~ 2:: '- - 0' I 3 2 a 2 2 : 2 : 2 - - ~ 0 0 v ~ ~ 3 11111I1111I111111111I111111111[111111111111 ‘3 a a " shun-II Qfil 33:3;133533 21:3: :3 3i§€s:l§4§§!3i!.3 2 z z :3: 3 a aggj .3 :513112331321:1331:3133; ~~s : a a c ==::3 328333=3c=§§ ZIIIIII|"I gulp! :IIII'IIIISIII 233333: IIIIII ii :I. I. I 3' LIME“?! I I II II !I7 .1: IIIIIIIIII szfiiii It] IIIIIII III .ggIIIIIIIIImInnIsis ozzszaasz a a: a a a!) IIIIIIIII | II | I M 'II IiIJIaifla :33: ti :3] -l IslsIIIIIIIJIIImIIIIuI 2:2: 3 a 3 Q 383 = 883 §:! IIII I I I I III I III TII IIEIHIIIIIIII :1: I: an a :3: a c] |||II|| III mmoujdva-ul a ”III. kmflIKIU~D Clfllhnhuu Iaflnhlilflflfll 174 71 I can; 32...! IIIri 3.28 III. .-I-.II.l-21 g...- .3 III- i- . III...- .8...2a.. 3. tax a... .QI—I 28.3.8 . I 532...} 2 ...I 330 3 28.139. .2...‘:J! . Sz'um a: 3 I—~na.. 3_I Eli‘s-cad I «8.3- 4 .2I 2.8... a... 8.258 s a... .2... 38.83.8882 N I 3.1.8.2113: .- I 2.282223 . 23...... _ ..I 3031.3.4 ...I 2!. 3.38.. n 893.22.... a; I 2.. 33.3.3. ~ I 23.232.33.32 a I illicit-3- .. I 2.232.238. _ .;I 882.332- ¢ ....I it. 4 ..I g g g I 2. o o o a e . g I 1 H a I . . . 2 . a a m I 2 2 3 IL I 2 2 2 3 m I 2 HI 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 I. I 2. a 2 a 1 I 2 . 3 . 2 3 l “I a. 2 a h I z 1 I 2 2 2 3 2 2 a n r 1 III ||||| 0.. |||||||| Lfi IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII l-|_ I z 2 n 1 "M a a 1 ~ H 2 2 2 3 a” 3 3 3 Im ~ T ”I. 3 3 3 1 T 3 ... 3 9 1 I 3 3 3 o. I M II 2 a. 3 3 2 In 2 .I an 3 «M l m I s 3 1 H .2 3 3 u " ml 2. 2 3 o. 2 3 1H. 3m H 3 3 3 2 2 3 u I 2 a l a I : 3 2 3 a. 1 fin 2 3 x t .2 a. 1 I a. 3 21... .23 an: .23 2M... 33 IL 8M 2-2 2-. 2.2 .3 3 2.2 2.. 3 a v I. I. I. 2-2 .Suo £4 32 2.328323 38m 5.3.: 52:3 3.5 323.. .v‘lflL'l! 175 3::3’;,=b¢; a c 1 ¢ ‘ “my mum; *2 f ti. 1...... s. .23 ; 5.255.. In. 8. a. 3...... a .55.: 3:55 is. 2 5255 2.6 E: x I: 35.. no of 2308023 I— «g. 9.x :3 I in .- 1 a: .11; 8 1 ii: 2 u 3 l a. ll. 31:3 3 :21! . I I .p _ let: 3 t2. 3 2 a I .539... _- 2.53 c s: .: n .5... : awn—nut 2 K I C o. '5 :_ (I. 2 . :22. 3 It. II— a I: 8. ill! it: : :5: 3 2.1.1.. 8. 3...! l I In... 2. 2.5.. .0- ...Er :2 II. III = II. _. _. 2 = Ii. .2 Ill. ‘c I E. 3 3:3 = 5...}. : ‘21:. 2. I: = .3... .2 II. ‘1... I... 1...... 3 s.‘ :32 I l .2 _. z: I III. all SIS : Il-«In I '32.! : .22.. 3 iii II. I. 1!: 2. I It... .3 I 3:... I 9.3.. :55 .1 .3 l : : .. I. In... 8. 2...; = :81... = I 22 .8... z is...» 3 cs- .3 :3 2 : : s I: .2 6... E... l. 5.... I Luau 2 I E55 2 Ml :5 I .83! l. .‘a I s . a I... 3 i2... : :1: 2:: I £2.25 :3 5.; :I x. l. I is: _ I!!! I .y 9...... :55 : fit, 8 .5 2 Isis 2 53.5 2 ll- i | Ea .. 38 I 1 tbs—B 2 .I ‘39: 3. lo! I; it! I:- SI 2.:- 3 .I ‘3‘! 3n . II. In .. s... : ll... .. E... if... 2 1:2; a 5.... ..I k... 2 I .31.»... SI .1. ilr. 3.3 fl! : .. .. $3 2 , E... II I: -. .II I. 22:: ‘9... ‘31. x. I I. .ll 2 :3 .. «2|: 2.! it... 5.3 25‘ Iii :I ER... I .2... . I is. SH 313 a - I]... 3 a: c is : 21.5 o. . .ll‘a 2‘1 III.- 3 I in. 3 v. I ‘25! 2th .1: =H 1E3 : a: : I! ital: 5.- 2 I £13... 3 I ll .35. _ .lais . 0!: ~ ‘53 in 1.... n i... _ its... 2 E: 3 :55. c-SEB 1.- = :1: 2 1|: 2 . i lulu. .585! Iii E55... 928. 2.38 l! _. z I : I: a . a 2- I I I I J 2 .= x I t s : i... o e _ _ a .6 . z = a. 1 II}. .18 .I an o o 0 _~. .II. .578 a 2 o u 1 its .a : - q H 1.2:: I 3 2 . _ n I. i... l 2 a l to: ...| . .2. . . . n In"! I _ u l .l. t I 3 ~ : 2 I. ll... 2 . . a a H .11.: t a . . q n 1 nl o l I...’ .- g | o a . E . i'g — I I. . : - 2 1 I! . . 2 . . . 1 i . n. Si. 2 . : n 2 . : I. 2 u u . 2 2 2 2 1 I3 3 v a 2 u : : ”u 1 In 2 . . : 2 2 2 = 1 I! 1 2 : _ : a. 1 3:.- n- u . . p. 2 . z m l 5 . : :5 o 2 _ P l 2. . Elna . . a 2 _ a. z 1 : . . m! on 2 = 2 2 2 R 1 I . a II!— o o 2 2 : E II 2 2. 2 lo- : "M : z 2 I l 3 . . $- 2 2 2 2 = .I. a. . : I a. 2 C 2 mm m— I. = 2 2 ti : : _. t 2 x I a u I . . i. I = S = a u t n 8. z : 2 z = z = t m ‘l I: .3 . II :I i. 1 . : II.I..I. III II. , I L I I Y fl... :3» _ 5 :5 => 8 . z .2 s . I 1.. 5.3.5: 2.3.2:... Sum can: mtfilmsuzoi .222-om 3.3.: 5.3:: 3:8 325.— APPENDIX c Tuchcr'l Rupert For. of flu Child Bonavior mocklilt 176 l 'U‘N'HIQA'IU'e. CHILD BEHAVIOR CHECKLIST - TEACHER'S REPORT FORM ~——... - 7— -- ._—-— ..—..——_-——-—-. v“ .— _ CHILD'S Act CHILD'S SE)! RACE L‘HILU 5 NAME 0 00) D Gm GRADE THIS FORM FILLED OUT BY 0 Teacher _____.___ k- __ _ a ‘ —‘ U CowvsolOr SCHOOL DATE O Ollmr (spec-m __._ __ -_ __._.__ J -...._ .. ,_ . ._.A_._..._—_-»——____ ———--—-..——_.__ PARENTS TYPE OF WORK (Pleaae be specific - lor example. eulo mechenlc. noon achool leacner. homemaker. laborer. lelne operalor. shoe salesman errny aeroeenl ) FATHER'S MOTHER'S TYPE OF WORK TYPE OF WORK Hoe: long have you known We pupll? ll. Row evel do you know film/hen 0 Very Well 0 Moderately Well 0 Mel Well Ill. Howmcbbmedoeehe/eheependhmcleeeper-eefl IV. Whel Una M clue Ia ll (Pleeae be epecmc. e.g.. regular Slh grade. 7m grade meln. elc ) ~.__. ._‘...._ A --..__- Y. Rea he/ene ever been relened lor epeclel cleae placemenl. eenlcea. or lulorlng? D NL O Oon‘l Know 0 Yes — who! lund and whorl" Vl Rae helshe ever repealed e grade? 0 No D Oon‘l Know 0 Yes -- grade and reason Vll. Carrel“ echool pelican-nee — llal academuc aubpecls and check epproprlale column Far below Somewhat Al grace SOMOwhll Far eoo~c Academuc aubpcl grade below orede level above orede grade 1. O O O D 0 l C) D O O O J O O O 0 O ‘ O D O D D 5 .. ___________ D O O O D ' l‘ D C; D C — .._-- r It'lom. e‘ U. "'6'" I“, II.” n” y a. In.nf,.(fl rug ('oo-g (.01“. "ow-ea U Icheflnx '- I" L .J'uvore-Oe ol van-um: Downgra- v' use... 177 Yul. W to w m el Much Somewhat Sllgmly Abovl Sllgmly Somewhat Much Ole one eye: lees leaa lesa average more more more I Now here! la helshe worlung? D D O O O C) D 2. Now approprlelely la belahe behevlng? D D D D O D D 3 How much IS helshe loernmq? O D C] O O u t How happy la helabe‘l O 0 D O O C) C Ix. Heel noon! achievement Ieel eooree (ll evallable) Pcrcenlllc or Name o! leel SUDIOCI Dale grade level oblamea x. lo. reedlneee. or epllude leele (ll avalleblel Neme ol leal Dale ID or coo-valor“ scores ..._ -_«_ .__,,_‘ xl. Fleeee leel he le eulle any eenuneMa ebeul Illa plate wort. bebevlor. er pelenllel. ualnq e-lre been I neeeeaery .__..- ,._‘__.-- ---- — —.——_._v._. e-‘-.__ __ _ - , .—..——_._ “—.. - __—.——————~—~— ..,_. -_.¥_.——-___.-. ._...-...-.——-—. 178 Bolder la a llel ol llema lnal descnbe puplll Fov each llem ll'lal descrlbes lne pupll new or Mlllln llle peel 2 manna. please cllCle lne ’111'10l10f11ls very lluc ellen lnle ol lne pupll Cucle me 1 ll the clam ls M cl eemelmee lrua ol lne pupll ll lne llern ls nel ave ol Illa pupal. cuclo mo 0. o - Nel Tlue(aa tar as you know) 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 O 1 2 O 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 l 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 O 1 2 O 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 \2-0 DU OI! .N ‘9 ?0 “[1 2? 23 24 25 27 28 29 Acts loo yOung lor nus/her age Hums or makes alhel odd nOlses ln class Algues a l0l Falls lo llnlsn lnlngs ne/sne slans Benaves lake oppoelle se- Oellanl. lelks Deal lo stall Brawmo. boaslmg Can'l concenlrale. can't pay allenllon lor long Can'l gel nouner mono oll canam lnougnls. obsesslons (descnbel Can't sll sllll. reslless. or hyperacnve Cllngs lo adulls or loo dependenl Complams ol lonelmess Conlused or seems lo be m a log Cues a l0l hugs!!!) Cluclly. bullymg. or meanness lo clners Day-dreams or gels losl on msmer anugnls Dellberalely nerms sell or ellempls suuclde Demands a l0l 0l allenllon OcsllOys has/her own "lung: chlluys properly bowl-9mg lo omen OllllCully lollolmng duecnons Olsooedoenl al school Duslurba olhel puplls Doesn‘l gel along enlll olner puplls Doesn'l 8.0m lo 1.01 gullly I110! mmhevmg Elslly ”IOUS Eels or drunks lnlngs lnal are nol lood lac-scnbe) Hulls Lenaon alumals s-Iual-ons Ol pleCes unw- 1h8" SChOO' IOQSCV‘MD - llws 90mg lo school - .——.._—._—.—._.__l___ 0000 1 1 ‘dd‘ ”NM” 1 - Somewnal or Somellmes True 31 12 33 34 .15 36 37 36 39 41 42 43 45 a6 47 ‘8 a9 88 2 - Vely True bl Ollcn Tluc Fears wane mlgnl lnlnll or do somclvvr; . _ Feels nelsne has lo be perleCl Feels or complams man no one loves .wv . . Feels olnels are oul l0 gel nun/hm F0018 MMS$ 0! lnlcllo' Gels null a lol. ICClOcnl-plullc Gals an many llgnls Gols leased a lol Hangs mm mm ()1le who 901 m Iroulm Hears lnlngs ll'lal aren'l lnole ldcscrlbe) 1M” 0! eels mlhoul lmnkmg Lllles lo be alone Lyme Ol cheallng Bile: langernalls NenrOus hlghsuung U, Mm. NCNOUS mavemellls OI lmlcnmg men-“3‘. OverconlOlms lo lules N01 «ted by olher pup-ls Has ullllcully lam-(lg Too leaflul or .nllOU.‘ Fuels Oluy Feels loo gullly Talks Out at lurn Ovemled Overwelghl Phys-cal problems mlnom knoll"! med-cal Clu MM 0! plans Headaches Nausea. leals lek Problems waln eyes loescnbe) GOO- —.. __ Rashes or clnel sum Dlobloms Szomecnacnes or cramps Vomlllng, llllomng vl' Olner ldescnbel . - -- 76 ”lease we -"-- l 179 0 = Not. True 4 :mwm 2 57 Physlcally attacks people 2 58 Plcks nose. “tn. 0! other parts at body tdoscrrba) . - - 2 59 Sleeps ln class 2 60 Apathetrc cl unmounted 2 61 Poor school work 2 62 Poouy coordlnaled or clumsy 2 63 Plelers berng wrlll older chrldrcn 2 64 Prelers berng mth younger chlldlcn 2 65 Reluses to talk 2 06 Repeats oartam sets over and over. compulsrons (descrlbel 2 67 Olsrupls ctass drsCrpllne 2 66 Screams a lot 2 69 Secretwe. keeps lnlngs to sell 2 70 Sees thrngs that aren’t there (descube, 2 It Sell-consaous or eeslly embarrassed 2 72 Messy work 2 ’J Beltavcs mcsponsmly lacunae) 2 74 Showan all or clownmg 2 75 Shy or llrmd 2 76 Exploslve and unpledlctable bellawOl 2 77 Demands must be met rmmedlately. easrly lrustraled 2 70 lnatlenlwe easlly dlslrected 2 19 Speech problem (descrrbel 2 80 Stares blenkly 2 dl Feels hurt «men crmclzed 2 '5? ".II'JI‘ 2 83 Slo'lls up lnmgs he/she doesnl need (descrrbe; 1 2 8‘ Strange bullavlul tduscrrtw) as Strange ldeas ldescr-bel db Stubborn suller or «nutm- d7 buddull changes an "\qu Ur lucllllg. 68 Sulks a lot 69 Susplc-Ous 90 Sweamlg or ubscene language 91 Talks about tullrng sell 92 Undelachlawngr not walklng up to potcnlru» Talks loo much Teases a lot 28 Temper tantrums or hat temper Seems preoccuprcd \mlh so: 88 97 Threatens peOple 98 Tardy to scnoot Or class 99 Too concerned mln nealness or Cleanlll‘u: Falls to carry out assogneo tasks 101 TruanCy or unc-plolned absence 102 Undelacu've. slew moving. or lacks energy 103 Unhappy sad at depressed IOJ UlluSually loud ‘05 uses aleullul or drugs recurruw -q—--—-u- —..-__.__..-. -. Overly anklous to please Olsllkas scnool . . ls alreld ol makrng mustakes ms. 110 Whlnlrlg unclean personal appearance lll Wrthdrawn. doesn't get lnvolved wrln olners 112 Worrylng 113 were not llsled some _——.—_ -_—. -- _.._.-. -7__..- - -e—-_l.—__ 7-, ..e_—er—__- - _ PLEASE 8! SW" YOU mtvl .19.“.Wl'lll ;: 4.. Please wrlle ln any problems the Duo-l has that _._———..___ *7 .._‘, 180 8:50 «03' 63.22 inaugurate-lea dead «I. 2......3... 53m Ell l - 1....) ll...!i 6....) - . . .. N....>l -3- if p...) r. .v ....>.r .1 l .n ....>.lll.ll .N .2) l l .p ....> so, ...> >4Uhs¢t°§ DC! 8385‘! v .n .N .p ”Sub. 3 3a >5... nut-2’53 08.)}: 3.8803 409.8 mu P e l v V n u 1 y . . no.2... 1 an II n . l N l O p l N l v m. . H an r n .Ih h 2 a ended l - N. H L >¢ ”3° 3 .III flu N ..“.: L " 2...: ch r 2 a one: 1 l . I So 3.: s n a 33.“ u E :5 me n1 . In S 42 ,1 .. u .l L 8 .Oz 3 S T h— ' u r e e ed r u” e 8.2; u on a a e omen: u y .n l 2 e 1 8 II 39.8 I... 3 r. a... 1 You I l '3 O l enve. 1 mm (WI 2 e e e e u no . 0” IL 8.’3.. I r um I. r H mm It 8 p p a 5 ed ll 8 Fill l -l l .2; li. -Illll e389 8. I :6 .83 $8 l 38.82: 3:23 3.88-283 c033) tone: 9.2.23... I e30... 3320a 320 2.... 181 J(h°.— ..1 4(h0h 1 8.23 2e. .38 .5 £92.36 .22....) I 811...: Sash-ta .38 6.... .2213. .22."... 3 . 1 :83 . 1 0.8., ‘5 . .io.‘ .U.‘ .0 t .i.'. .0 e0 {-0.39—‘MMI .3 as 8. g .135. ': ".‘. “:6 a. -‘~D-U 23...... shun» “H... 2.3.3.88 .8.1 28.3... .25 .2. I. ...s... oh" 1......» “mm” tease-s25 .81 .35» 1 2km“ 8.1 81.3.33 .091 21.33 I...» .81 '38.": “Nine so. l 2.2.. "a“ 2.2.8:. .2 1 : (2.53.1 a. 5 32:... 2 . , .ll 1 JChOh 1 i _ I.-. 1.11; . . 55313.1 e 5.2% ”“1 exile-re... .2. III.-e<.!1 _ “.1 Lech.v..wh.flao.l.fl 3.2.3.. >.3eu .:. 1 a! 1 .6s 1 33 .2. 1 1 ll. 3. l £93....qu . ...s...:..... ”0.. H 5 .81 n] 3“” .. F... a. _ a. I a... ...m .31 .15.... um. .21 . 1 33.3.31 as... 7 ”ma...“ H 23.8 . .62....“ M1 n . .e 1 8.5:... 3.9.1 :2...- . p1 ...u q. E. t - gingham RI- 2.3.355 .81 2.2.2 .31 43.0.. 38...... 4.32 1 I” . .e: I 1 . 1 . 1 .. _ 2...: - 3.3.»... .21 .nfihhfi... at sale ...I _. .. issue-l .32.... ..__..s..:l ...s. a. a a... . n 5%.... .1 tin... .2 ”en ti. 23.3 ..I ss... .1 ...s... ..I _ 5 . ..I . I ...s...l w. 8.... I a... 25...}... .91 .28823 .31 8:23 ... 23.5.3 I- no. .9 Jr. .2 . .e I. S in .81 . be .31 gm .‘1 aeeu .31 e 1 :8 i ..1 t 8— .0. ' Ht SK .3 -_=_ (”5.3 an 1 J‘POh 5.83 I :1; g e I } .-' I! .3 a8" I n "23;: i at... .25. 1 .2. u .51 8:23.30 .«n 8.5.31 3.88 3 .82.! tel-I..."- . o. .o. . ~l 0:60 . 1 3; ..II& 3 . 1 . 11 g; ‘3 ‘1 3.1 . a' a flu.” ..r :53... ..ahfidu ...MH take: I ...s-58o 2 22...}..8I1 .8331 2.32.! ...IaleIl a!!! I «a. It” : i eIEo.w...I.Il. 13...... s... ...s... .8 I. .8... £81.? 1 ..Iei 4.1 .282. .25 .31 In .81 2:... I 33.! - 8:3: e31 22.5 33.20 in 1. I382. 1 gene... 1 3:1 .eeoIO .ne1 3 2...... I abet-ex. use 2.1 ..a. .e 22252.3 .21 .aeleese... ‘33 .0. e3..1 e925... lessee“ . 1 I153! net II . 1d. I else! us 5. .35: .2530 ..al. nae-Ce . 1 0.2.20 too-e... =00 ‘1 if in 5‘ 8.5 ‘1 ..l 2...: .11, 3 I532... 0.3 35.... ...s: .25.... .21 z we ...3 ..eeu .. 1 Ion 1 I55 lg‘l ope-3.1 Beta.- .. l. "a..." . an 1*n'“ 2.6.. as . €3.52... .2335 .a.1 it .81 ’5 is... .. .9; . 1 . 1 ll . f. 3223.3 3 . 1 0.53.31 _ I... .39... .m l "M.“ -- .“. mu 2.... re..- runs-”sewn ...1 . 1 Ito... ape. 1 id 1 I55 Ea . Ilia...1 gill (Id-Ian .01 :l. .2. 2 n 2 8 352.....3-391 ...s. so .u I- ..Ie... a. Ii... 2...... a : 38 1.2.80 81 use. I...- lies ”1 mm H M. an” .023 "Human.“ Sari .n I. 3.822.»: .31 23.8.83 .. 1 I..e....l:3...~ 1 allele. .31 e33.- 1 III—zadel I353.:1 Unwed.“ H N u eIeeufiflvod 1 u>.h0(¢u>0 g3; U>.hg¢§ Jghi . .33.! H 3.-.... u).uuu¢00< §>¢w2 m>.b2m:(8. .2183 543 33g 45”“ 33 In... .. l- .. a $33.... ...> ..> .> > >. E .. . . 1 x s et ' INn cmxho 11111 1 111|l11 1111 1111 ..H”” a" .l 2-4,..." I... on .uu. at .ed .5 e .6 .6 .8 .VI I 1 .o. I 3. e..-. .. . aloe. 2 III-.51 :2: n u“ u . e e :8 x 1 o. a 8.. . 2...... 1.0.. .. s ....... . a . . . .a. :1 I I .2... I 8. I-.. ...e. a e e . m1?“ 3 I at“ 3. . can.“ a u" e a e e at .n e. 1 .8 I . ...1.:~ I 1...“: I l. a 2...: a "nun . u e e a“ u on“ a“ NIB—Ila“ I. .II .3” “an . III . . Ink. — . a a 11 s s 1'l1....~21’“.¢ a h 111-..“. 11111111 u 11111111 .w‘“-"1"-'.. al----‘l'lm ....... “""L-'-'“ ......... ..I'-' 3-- ..e. a. 1 3:... a. 2 .e I I e 131.... 2 1.7.03.2. : l '8 ee . e. I J12: a. .3: .. I . I 8 e o e. . #1.... _.. A... .... u a... .. .... .. ....... .. . .. .. . ""1112... I.r&1.- : H u. .. : : 2 o. . la 0 1.31 l o. . .a Q. .- Io .— 3 .13-: . l ...-l I. .o - h 3 a. "u .. e. a. I I... u H ”IT..." - - ...s s .. .. .. ...rlllu . l. 81.- z .. 3 Ian .. nu .. I c. o. e. a. - -. . u a... .. .111... a. s r a .. .. a .. .. .. ..u.......... l 5.... I. II I _ m . .. .. a .. u n In. . la. 1 . - _ i a... 8 .3. .. .. .. .. O. .— 8 .- 111 out 2 .. I O. O. a. .— ..s: 8 r. .. I a. I e. I I 2.... .. «u e. I «n 2 I .a I 8' I e. ea 0. I I I I e T Ill... .1 115-11.1I .8“ » 2.3.2.886 Iii-I... 5.0 ueu< goo I 2:032... 332.00 bee-one: .egoeeh 182 1:0! ’1! 2". ‘61 1:.) Q...) N...) III! 2:.) 1 .0 .5) d ...51 d .3.) .— .3.) 1.31:1 tips; 2‘. in. odd; Intag g is :33- % can. a I no 1 p V I p p H T I u I. 8 1 . . I”... 1 N I 0.0 u an. H... w .. 9... ... a U: n I. 1 s I n n N u n n a a I”; L m a l .8 1 '- l ’ 3.... c» 3 mu 2 . . I2: .1. .33.... r Ia: u ...p I8 av n. a a In 5 Ic m u I .. o 1 a v Q l ..qu 3 n1 u l. u R o '23 .. s a W .~ o o a o a; 1L. . H «N 'flr 1 1 :73. u 8 ...1 8 o I...“ 1 c. n I o u .l O O '0 I. .l a l ‘ fll I I. :d I” 3 .I 'C l u «11:... u on H! a la 11 ' n u DR HI I u s s p s ' 11 - ‘1 5 .7. .83 .Saloezifieau 253.4 3:83.853» 3.8... :25. choc-blaze... 8.8.30 220 2:. 183 8:38! .851-32.2 .. 331...! 3§§.gl.§£!,nl.g83 25.38.: 8. I 2! 3.: 3 8.98 01.0 in!!! Is): .288 hi; .0. I 233:5. .3 .0— on I a u C I c.— d ‘ilp . act-cu v. I a!!! .0» 3 I 5:... on. :3» no I gianiI cell-mall £00.55 3 . l nauauam ...I .105 .3 I 2.3. I. I It in I I :50! 3 I a=U0 3.23 . I 55.03530 I... If R I $35.0 : I 41.38:. 13.. o = I v a" (HI guag w>.www‘§ $30332 thWP—iz. $.50 ((42032: awawgwfl :80 3!: m . I Cut-.0 E) :> .> > >_ a. I _ 2. I flan} Du .III I. a... I. II III I.H.._III|IJ.1. I: II III II III- . I., .I.I .dIIR. to. II :_ w ~ o ~ ~ 1 I I: I I a o. o a . IS: I l. I . :2. II 3. I. 8 o. o n m” m" — v . u n I _ l u: 3 ~ .m. . . m” a I m r a ..I M” . o a. . u m w a. . m o. 2 - >3...- . a a a u n . . a: . k H u a a. Id 1 2. H. H.” 52' A.» IIIIIIIII m IIIIIIIII n ....... u IIIIIIIIII a. IIIIIIIII ... --IAIIIIfi IIIIIIIII . IIIII w. J a , .. .. .9. i : 1.0.08 3 x 2 a r - I . . I 2 I In I o a. o. . I1 3 . o R o a. . II . H n .. I win a , a. a u I n I . H . 8 ,I 3 - I . . a” .... I, u .I_I .n Jim:- 3' o. .n u . 2 i .I M HILJ I H . 3. a o o a. o. "a . , t I I . .II: I‘ocHALw | bus 8 km : H o. a I 0. ¢ I: Ian I .u I :3 8 I . RI 2 an H o m = z .2 m. .. .. .. u m I = In 9 J. all. I 8 I 2 a 3 .I o. . J! 8 c. Q a. 8— I ..2 i III : 9 2 2 I I x m 083 h 2......353 . - . . 9.51:]... :6 no: 2.6!.828... 3.5.... 3:8... .203... ‘ 8 ‘I M’PENDIX D ADD-H: Cour-honour. Touch-r Rating Scal- 184 CIIII's NIII IK (:L'I7«II F1 53 ID IIOO-N. toooIoIIIsIIo TIIIIII's IIIIIg ScIIoI IIIII DIII IIIII III IosIIIpIIoIs II IIIIIIII‘I IIIIIIII rIoIsI IIII IIII IIII III coIpIII IhII IhIII's IIIIIIII uIIh lhII OI hIIthI IIIssIIIos. CIIIII III IIIIIII IIII IIII IIIIIII coIIoIposIs VIII IIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIVIOI III! IIIIsI IIIIII IIIII IIuIys I. VIIII voll IIIIIIIIIIIII I I I I I I. IIIIIIII IIII III! III IoIsoIIIIo IIIIII II IIII I I I I I I. toIoIoIos IIIIIIII IIsI IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIII IIIIII IIIIIIIIII IsIIsIIIII I I I I I ITTINTION I. IoIlovs IIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII I I I I I I. IoIIous I soooosco oI IIIIIIIIIoIs I I I I I I. IIIIIIIII III! II III IIIIIIooI I I I I I IOO ILL IUIIIIS CIICLKO IIOVL IND PLICL TOTIL “El! ------------------------------------------- ScIII noIII IIvas I. IIIIoIoI' oIoIIIIIIo (III II sIII. ‘II III II'I I I I I I I. OIIIIIIIII I I I I I HYPERICTIVITI I. IIIIIII IIIIII IIII'I III,» I I I I I II. IIIIIIIII IIIIs oI IIIII vIIIoII IIIIIIIII I I I I I II. IosIlosI IIIIIIII II soIII I I I I I ADO ILL IUKIIIS CIICLIO IIOVI IND ILICI TOTAL HIRE ----------------------------- - ------------ IIIII IIIII IIvIII II. IIIIIII oosIIIIon vIII oooIslclIssoIIos I I I I I II. VIIIII COIIIIItIIIOI IIIII III 'IIIIIIIII' I I I I I II. IoIvoIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIII I I I I I II. IoIIovs IIIII IIIII III IIIIII IIIIs I I I I I IOCIIL IIILLI II. (IIII IIIIIII IIIo vloI IIIIIIIIIII I'VI IIII‘I IIIposod II II IIII'I I I I I I I1. IIIIIIII II IIIIII Ion IIIIIII I I I I I II IopIoIIIos sIIIIIIoIs IIIIIIIIIII I I I I I IOO ILL IVHIIIS CIICLIO IIOVT IND ILICI TOTAL Nil: ------------------------------------------ IIIII IIIII IIUIIS II. TIIIs II III IIIIII IIIo IIIIIII I I I I I II. IIIIIs IIIIIs oIoI IIIIII' I I I I I II. IIIII IIIIIIoIs III II ooooIo I I I I I OPIOSITIONIL II. IIIIos IIIIIIIII I I I I I II. IIIII II IIIoIs I I I I I II. IIII III Isool Io oIIoI IIIIIIII I I 1 I I 100 ILL IUKIIII CIICLIO IIOII IND ILICI TOTIL I!!! ~---- --------- IIIII PIIIII IIIcIo III IIIIIII I IIIIIII I IIII IIII IIIIIII IIIIIIIII III IIIIIIII oI IIIsIIIIII III IIIIIII IIuIII III IIIII IloosI IIIIII TIII IIIII IIIII IIIIys Is IIIIIII IIIopIoI Io oooIslIIIosoIIoI I 1 3 I 5 II II IIIIII IoI ITO|| IIIIIIIIII I I a I I ADO “UK'I'S CI'CLID "a" ‘un 'L‘Ct TOTIL “I“: .............................................. Sgggg IIIIIIII I |IIII IIII II IoIIIoI IIII III IIII IIII sIIIII Ix II:IIIIII IIIIIIII I I I I I IIIIIIII I IIIII IIII II IIIIIII IIII IoI |||' vIII IIIIIIII IIIIIIIs I I I I no IIIIIIIIII CIICLID ..OVI ”ID IL“! TOTIL Itfll ---------------------------------------------- Sc.” TIII IIsIIIIIo IoI CIIII IIhIIIII III OIIIIIIIIII UBI'IIIII' II I'IInoIs II UIIIII-CIIIIIIII 185 ACTeRS PROFILE Ior BOYS 'oIIonI ol Dual! AnL‘nHW INPUINTIVIIV “I”. SKIIIS “'I‘KI'IQW. 35 I II 3.0 oo-oooo ooooooooooooo . ooooooooo o.o.."o.o.....o000000000. 3 a II 3 .0 0009.009-00 oooooooo goo-00.0-00...cog-0...... ooooooooooooo o ............ s’OOIOOOOOQQQQ......OOO000......O....... 3 2| ‘ II V s 27 E 70 n I so 7 Is ,9 so :I ' . 2| 9 ‘ z: i, J I 50 .-.--- 33 " II 7 ‘0 10 n I 0— mu» IDMVIN I‘IRIITIOI C‘srcIo tho I’- Iuros In “do of the four (Inner) colt-Ins and humane vermin“ In IN Ioflnn «II-I. Son nu scorn uptown! o mo of RICQflIIIC scores (C... [or main“ hob-nor. 0. ”the! Icon of O nprucnu OI: tango Irv- IIII IIOI patent”: on to)- 06m Iusuwu Ion Inna oI-Iwoo no Dunno-Inn, u-Ivusnn oI uuuous ].EI€5 ACTeRS PROFILE for GIRLS IIIIonI oI omlo ATTDITIG' lfl'l‘IM'WWI'n “UL SUI-LS mmm I 5 II E ’o O C . .......................... O C . O O O I 3" ............ . C . . . II a g .o .................. .... ........... o ooooooooooooooooooooooooo o 000000 o.o-Oo“o0.0.0.000000000000000oo.-oo..... ,0 .2 IO 3, II II IO 27 I oo 29 :° ° II 5 ‘° 2: 7 27 I II " o ‘° 9 II 22 ,0 II II , II IO :0 ,3 ’3 o 2,- )” $¢$:E: --:;\ Infamy“. 4": I' II" :‘u‘. '42: 0- m IDUVIII WRENCH CIItII IIII ” Icons I.» ooch of In {our (actor) «II-II Ind duos-In [Ion-nu“ I: no Ilium! “In. S. n- ouns nus-II o mo 0! prunIIIo «or» (o. 3. for WIIIIIIII man. no prion ouro of O mounts tho "no In: flu IOIII poI-IIMIII on up). 011') IIITIW‘TI to: (IIILO IIMVIM Mo MVILO’IIIT. wwusn‘v or uunous N’PENDIX E The Hart-r Barf-Concept Honour” NAME 187 REALtV 3081’ OF VIII! 1'”! fit so ”D, hue D D What I Am Like IOY OI Blll. AGE IIITHOAY ltltele which) 3”“ “MINCE! tome tldI would «the: plIy IUT 0th.! hldI would who: watch TN. outdoon ln their spate tlme muwmmnyehout IU‘I Othevlslduomtimesmym OWN". min thing. tankidIleIlthIttheyorevery .oodettl'leinchoolworl: 3am lldI find it herd to make MIMI Some tldI do very well It all kinds of Iooru Some hid: lee! that there eve olot of things ehout themselves that they would change ll they could $ome kids lee! like they ere hm .3 won as other kids theiv .9: $ome kidI have elot ol flier-d: OUT I01 I07 OUT IU‘I‘ IU‘I’ Other hldIIeonyehoutdhethoI theyandothetchoolwortmirud tothom. Fov othet tldI it'I putty uIy. Othen don't lee! thet they on very good when it comes to wow. Othet lnids would like to an putty much the tune. Othev kids aren’t Io Iure Ind wondev ll they are as Imn. Othet kids donfi hove eevy many lIIendI. CLASS OI GROW ”I? OF REALLY 730! Due l: l: "U! b no I: C ICALLV 80!" OF THU! 7. ‘II. l2. 13. 14. TIU! hate 15. 16. 188 somekidswishtheyeouldhe elothettetetsoom ionwkldseteotettyeuteot themselves Some kids ete pretty Ilow h linithing theit Ichool work totnekidtdon‘tthlnktheyeree eeryknoottentmetnhetotdieit eleII Some kids think they could do well It just ehout eny new outdoot ectieity they heven‘t ttied helote Somekidtleelgoodehoutthewey theyect home kids alten lotget whet they hem Some k‘dt ere olweyt doing things with elot of kids Some kids leel that they ere hettet then othen dieir ege et Iports Some kidI think thet theyhe they on not I eety good oetIon OUT OUT OUT OUT OUT OUT OUT OUT OUT OUT Othetkldtleeltheyetegood M. OthetkidIetenoteeryIueol m Othet kldI con do their Ichool walk quickly. Odietkidsthinktheyerewettv knoortenttotheitolessntetet. Othet kids ere elreid they mi'tt notdowelletoutdootthin' they heven’teyetttied. Othet kids wish they ected ditletently. Othet kids on mnemhet thing eeIity. Othet kids ueuelly do things by themselves. Othet kids don't leel they on pley es well. Othet kids on putty sure thIt they ere I good oenon. OOOT OF IIALLY TRUE Get the TIUE ~W~ U REALLY OORT OF TRUE TRUE brute Iorssse "D 10. TO. 21. 25. 189 iomekidslikeschooloeceuselhey dowellineless Ootne kkhwish thel more kids liked them in gernss end sports some kids molly wetch insteed ol pley Ionukidsereeeryheooyheinothe weytheyere fiolnekidswish kwueesierto mderstendsusettheyreed Rome kids It populer with others their ege Eornekk‘lsdon'tdowelletnew outdoorgernes Some kids .001 very heooy with the wey they do elol ol things Eorne kids heve trouble ligating out die enswers in school Some kids on reelly eesy to like OUT OUT OUT OUT OUT OUT OUT OUT OUT Other kids dont like school heoeuse theyeren’tdoingeerywell. Othersleelitetlnoslkidsdolike them. Other kids utuelly oley tether then lust wetch. Other kids wish they were dillerent. Other kids don't heye my trosble lllderstending whet they reed. Other kids ere not my ooouler. Other kids ere good et new gsrnes rifltt ewey. Other kids think the wey they do things is line. Other kids elrnost elweys can ligure out the enswers. Other kids ere kind ol herd to like. OORT OF REALLY TRUE firm Ll TRUE yer .e U C 190 REALLY OORT OF COR! 0! "At“ TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE lo: we Cor use be use let the 27. ions kids ere ernong the bst to he OUT Other kids ere uuelly picked lirst. chosen lor gsrnes l ' es.‘ ’ Oomekidsereseuellysurethetwllt OUT Odierkidseren‘tsosurewhetherer ‘ ‘ I I theyersdoinglstheri'itthing nottheyeredoingd'ierl'itm. l O Sir-n Nerter, Ph.D., University of Denver (Coloredo Seminar). 1970. 191 In the Clessroom 'upll's Tours Heme Aer —— ”My (Monthi they) Orede Teecher Ody or Old (circle which) Oemple Question Oeelly Sort el Sort el Oeelly True True Tree Tree tor kte tor Me lor Me lot Me is) Some kids would rether Other kids would tether D D pley outdoors in their OUT wetch T.V. D D spore time us) Some kids like hemburg- Other kids like hot dogs D D on better then hot dogs OUT better then hemburgers. D D 1. Some kids like herd work Other kids preler eesy D D beceuse its e ehellenge OUT work thet they on sure D D they een do 2. When some kids don't Other kids would rether D D understend something OUT try end ligure it out by D D right ewey they went the themselves teecher to tell them the enswer 3. Some kids work on prob Other kids work on prob D D lems to leern how to solve OUT lems beceuse you’re sup D D them posed to 4. Some kids elmost elweys Other kids sometimes D U think thet whet the OUT think their own idees ere D D teecher seys is OK better 5 Some kids know when Other kids need to check [1 D they’ve mede mistakes OUT with the teecher to know D D , , without checking with the if they've mede e misteke . teacher 6 1 Some kids like dilltcult Other kids don't like to . l I problems beceuse they OUT tigure out dillicult D I . , enjoy trying to ligure them problems . , out 7. Some kids do their school- Other kids do their school- . l | work beceuse the teecher OUT work to lind out ebout l I , , tells them to elot of things they've been , , wenting to know 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 1b. 17. 16 19 e 5. [3C] [3 DUDE] DUEL—113%? CID El DC] DE] DE] DU DEE 192 When some kids meke e misteke they would tether tlgure out the right enswer by themselves Some kids know whether or not they’re doing well in school without gredes Some kids egree with the teecher beceuse they think the teecher is right ebout most things Some kids would tether lust teem whet they heve to in school Some kids like to leern things on their own thet interest them Some kids reed things be ceuse they ere interested in the subject Some kids needto get their report cerds to tell how they ere doing in school it some kids get stuck on e problem they esk the teecher lot help Some kids like to go on to new work thet’s et e more dillicult level Some kids think thet whet the teecher thinks ol their work is the most impor. tent thing Some kids esk questions in cless beceuse they went to leern new things Some kids eren'l teelly sure it they‘ve done well on e test until they get their pepets beck with e merk on it OUT OUT OUT OUT OUT OUT OUT OUT OUT OUT OUT OUT Other kids would tether esk the teecher how to e“ the rich! err-wet gredes to know how well they ere doing in school Other kids don't egree with the teecher some- times end stick to their own opinion Other kids would tether teem ebout es much es theycen Other kids think its better to do things thet the teecher thinks they should be leerning Other kids reed things be- ceuse the teecher wents them to Other kids know tor them- selves how they ere doing even belore they get their report cerd Other kids keep trying to ligure out the problem on their own Other kids would tether stick to the essignments “whit h ere pretty eesy to For other kids whet they think ol their work is the most irnportent thing Other kids esk questions beceuse they went the teecher to notice them Other kids pretty much know how well they did even belore they get their peper beck CID El DUDE! DDDUDEE HDDDDDDDDDDD 23. 34. 25. 27. 28 Oeelly Out .1 True True tor Me DE! DC] DE] DC] DE! CID DE DE] "DC! DC! DC! 193 Some kids like the teecher to help them plen whet to do nest Somekidsthinkthey shouldheveeseyinwhet worktheydoinschool Some kids like school sub iects where its pretty eesy to just leern the enswers Some kids eren't sure it their work is reeliy good or not until the teecher tells them Some kids like to try to thure out how to do school essignments on their own Some kids do extre proj- ects so they cen get better gredes Some kids think its best it they decide when to work on eech school subject Some kids know they didn't do their best on en essignment when they turn it in Some kids don‘t like dilli- cult schoolwork beceuse m heve to work too Some kids like to do their schoolwork without help Some kids work reeliy herd to get good gredes OUT OUT OUT OUT OUT OUT OUT OUT OUT OUT OUT Oort el Tree tor kte Other kids like to meke their own plens lor whet D to do next Other kids think thet the teecher should decide whet work they should do Other kids like those school subiects thet meke [:1 Cl El Cl [3 them think pretty herd end ligute things out Other kids know it its good or not belore the teecher tells them Other kids would tether esk the teecher how it should be done Other kids do estre proj- ects beceuse they leern ebout things thet interest them Other kids think thet the teecher is the best one to decide when to work on things Other kids heve to weit til the teecher gredes it to know thet they didn't do es well es they could heve Other kids like dillicult schoolwork beceuse they lind it more interesting Other kids like to heve D the teecher help them do their schoolwork Other kids work herd be ceuse they reeliy like to leern things 0 Susen Herter, PhD . University ol Denver (Coloredo Semrnery). 1960 UDDDDDDDDDDfii APPENDIX F Hultidtoonotonel Honour. of Childron'o Porcopttorso of Control 194 MPCl Why Things Happen Name Age Birthday (Month) (Day) __ Grade __ Teacher School Boy or Girl (Circle one) Sample Questions (I) i like chocolate ice cream better than vanilla ice cream very true sort of true not very true not at all true (b) I really like spinach very true sort of true not very true not at all true 1. When i win at a sport, a lot of times 1 can't figure out why i won. very true sort of true not very true not at all true 2. When i am unsuccessful, it is usually my own fault. very true sort of true not very true not at all true 3. The best way for me to get good grades is to get the teacher to like me. very true sort of true not very true not at all true 4. If somebody doesn't like me, lusually can't figure out why. very true sort of true not very true not at all true 5. l can be good at any sport if i try hard enough. very true sort of true not very true not at all true 6. if an adult doesn't want me to do something I want to do, i probably won't be able to do it. very true sort of true not very true not at all true l0. ll. l2. l5. lb. 195 When i do well in school, i usually can't figure out why. very true sort of true not very true not at all true if somebody doesn't like me, it's usually because of something ldid. very true sort of true not very true not at all true When i win at a sport, it's usually because the person i was playing against played badly. very true sort of true not very true not at all true When something goes wrong for me, i usually can't figure out why it happened. very true sort of true not very true not at all true if i want to do well- in school, it's up to me to do it. very true sort of true not very true not at all true if my teacher doesn't like me, lprobably won't be very popular with my classmates. very true sort of true not very true not at all true Many times i can't figure out why good things happen to me. very true sort of true not very true not at all true if ldon't do well in school, it's my own fault. very true sort of true not very true not at all true if i want to be an important member of my class, i have to get the popular kids to like me. very true sort of true not very true not at all true Most of the time when llosc a game ill athletics, lcan'l figure out why i lost. very true sort of ll'Us- not very true not at all true i7. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 196 lean pretty much control what will happen in my life. very true sort of true not very true not at all true if i have a bad teacher. i won't do well in school. very true sort of true not very true not at all true A lot of times [don't know why people like me. very true sort of true not very true not at all true If I try to catch a ball. and ldon't, it is usually because i didn't try hard enough. very true sort of true not very true not at all true if there is something that i want to get, i usually have to please the people in charge to get it. very true sort of true not very true not at all true if i get a bad grade in school, I usually don't understand why i got it. very true sort of true not very true not at all true if somebody likes me, it is usually because of the way that l treat them. very true sort of true not very true not at all true When i lose in an outdoor game. it is usually because the kid i played against was much better at that game to begin with. very true sort of true not very true not at all true LIBTWREFERBCEB 197 LIBT OF REFERENCES Abikoif, H., & Gittelean. R. (1984). ngnitixg tcgining attests in hznacasiixa shildcan eaintained as ggigglgngg. Hanuscript in preparation. Abiko44, H., Gittelean-Klein, R., & Klein, D.F. (1980). Classrooe observation code for hyperactive childrens A replication of validity. flgugngl at 9901913199 .01 Clinical Earshalaax. 19. 555-565- Achenbach, T.fl. (1979). The Child Behavior Profiles An eepirically based systee for assessing children's behavioral problees and coepetencies. lntgcnggigngl iaucnal at dental health. 2. 24-42- Achenbach, T.fl. (1978). The Child Behavior Profiles 1. Boys .006 6‘11- daucnal Oi Canauliina and Ellfllfill Earshaldax. as. 479-499- Achenbach,, T.H., & Edelbrock, C.B. (1983l.‘fl]ugg1 £9; tn. Child Bahaxiac Checklist and Baxiaad Child lahaxiac m. Burlington, WI Lhiversity of Vereont, Departeent 0! Psychiatry. Achenbach, T.H., & Edelbrock, C.B. (1979). The Child Behavior Pro‘iles ll. Boys aged 12-16 and girls aged 6-11 and 12r16- iaucnal at Canaultina and Clinical Earshnlaax. 52. 223-233- Aeirkhan, J. (19B2l. Expectancies and attributions for hyperactive and eedicated hyperactive students. iaucnal at annacaal Child Eaxshalaax. l9. 255-276- Anderson, L., Peder, 1., & Alpert, H. (1976). A cosparison o! eethods §or training self-control. Bengxigc Ihacanx. Z. 649r658- Arnold, 8.C.. & Forehand, R. (1973). A coeparison o4 cognitive training and response cost procedures in eodifying cognitive styles or iepulsive children. Caaniiixa Ihacanx and BIIIICSBs 2. 133-197- Arnold, L.E., & Beelzer, D.J. (1974). Behavior checklist factor analysis for children and adolescents. ficghixlg it filnltll EIICDLIICXu i9: 799-904- 198 Asarnow, J.R., & Callan J.N. (19B5). Boys with peer adjusteent probleess Bocial cognitive processes. 3:7»an at Csnauliina and Clinical Earshdldax. as. 90- Bsrsbuh. 0- W778)- a Mann at salt instruction tannins. taken tadina schemata: and a cashinad salt magnum-taken fading instant in eediixina childcania iaaulaixa hahaxinca- Unpublished doctoral ‘ dissertation, New York University, New York, NY. Barkley, R.A. (1977a). A review of stieulant drug research with hyperactive children. mm of, mid Esxahnlaax and Eaxchiatcx. l9. 137-165- B-rklev. R-A- (1981blo Muslim shildcsna h handbags inc Ileflnglin and tcggtggnt. New Yorks Guilford Press. Barkley, R.A. (i9Blal. Hyperactivity. In E.J. Nash & L.6. TIN-l (Eds-l. Bahaxiacal sauna-s ct ahildhaad W (pp.127-iB4). New Yorks Guilford Press. Barkley, R.A. (1976). Predicting the response of hyperactive children to stieulant drugs. igucngl gt ehnacaal Child Baxshalnax. i. 327-348. Barkley, R.A. (1977b). The effects of eethylphenidate on various eeasures of activity level and attention in hyperkinetic children. flgncngl gt enuncgel Child Bauhnlaax. C. 351-369- WkIWg Rene, mIllfld, AePe’ ‘ Siva-g Ce ‘lm’e A "1‘- control classrooe for hyperactive children. iggcngl gt autiaaandllaxalanaantalniancdaca. 19. 75-89- Barkley, R.A., & Cunninghae, C.E. (1978). Do stieulant drugs enhance the acadeeic perforeance of hyperactive Childf'lfl? 911mm whitish 12. 95-92- Barkley, R.A., & Cunninghae, C.E. (1979a). The parent-child interactions of hyperactive children and their eodification by stieulant drugs. In R. Knights & D. Baku-r (Eds-l. Bahahilitatinn. tcaateant. and aanaaaaani at leacnina diashiliiiaa- Baltic-ores University Park Press. Barkley, R.A., & Cunninghae, C.E. (1980). The parent-child interactions of hyperactive children and their 199 eodification by stieulant drugs. In R. Knights & D. BOW-r ‘Eds-l. Icaaiaant at hmacasiixa and laacnina QIIQCIICIQ SULLICID- Baltieores University Perk Press. Barkley, R.A., & Ullean, D.6. (1975). A coeparison of objective eeasures of activity and distractibility in hyperactive and nonhyperactive children. aggcngl g1 ehnacaal Child Banhalaax. I. 213-244- Bender, N.N. (I976). Self-verbalization versus tutor verbalization in eodifying iepulsivity. dgggngl g1 Educational Banhnlaax. as. 847-35"- training with preschoolerss An atteept to replicate. ilaucnal at ballad Banana: enalxsis. in. 61-67- Bornstein, P.H. (i985). Self-instructional trainings A coeeentary and state-of-the-art. iggcngl g1 figgligg Eahaxisc analxaie. id. 69-72- Bornstein, P.N., & Cuevillon, R.P. (1976). The effects of a self-instructional package on overactive preschool m-mummmm. 2o 179' Braswell, L., Kendall, P.C., Braith, 0., Carey, N., & Vye, C. (i984b). 'Involveeent' in cognitive-behavioral therapy with childrens Process and its relationship to outcoss- Caaniiixa Ihacaax and Baaaacsh- Braswell, L., Kendall, P.C., &:Urbain, 8.8. (19B2). A eultistudy analysis of the role of socioeconosic status (SEC) in cognitive-behavioral treateents with Ch116700- daucnal 9i Bhflfltlll Ehllfl EIIEDQIQBXs 19s 443-449. Brown, R.T., Borden, K.A., & Clingerean, B.R. (19B4). hdhscansa in aathxlnhanidata thacaax in a nadiaicis emulation- B scaliainacx inxaatiaaiidn - Paper presented at the eeeting of the NINH New Clinical Drug Evaluation thit Prograe, Key Biscayne, June. Brown, R.T., & Conrad, K.J. (l9B2). Iepulse control or selective attentions Reeedial prograes for hyperactivitv- £111:than in the kneels. 12. 92-97- aroun, n.‘r., um. 01.5., s. Nedenis. n. uses). 200 Nethylphenidate and cognitive therapys A cosparison of treateent approaches with hyperactive boys. iggcngl gt Manual Child W. l}. “-07. Bugental. D.B.. Nhalen, C.K., & Henker, B. (1977). Causal attributions of hyperactive children and eotivational assueptions of two'behavior-change approachess Evidence for an interactionist position. Child DIXIllflllnts 19s '7‘TBO4- Caeeron. N.I., & Robinson, V.N.J. (19.0). Effects of cognitive training on acadeeic and on-task behavior of hyperactiv- childr-n- m1. at annacaal mu Earshalaax. C. 405-419- Cam, B.N. (i977). Verbal eediation in young aggressive bm- m1 at manual Euchalaax. as. 145-153- COIP. loll-u in Bash. "-5- (198”- Ihinls slut! museum IQCLII and seaniiixa IKLLIIP‘I acahlaazsalxina ICBICII fig; m. Chaepaign. ILs Research Press. Cantwell, D.P. (197B). Hyperactivity and antisocial behavior. mammmfltm We 1: 252-262- Cantwell, D.P. (Ed.) (1973). Ihg»h1gg;ggtixg guilg. New Yerks Ipectrue. Cantwell, D.P., & Carlson. 5m“. (1978). Btieulants. In J. flurry iEd-l. Eadiaicis Wim- New York- Brunner/Nezel. Cantwell, D.P.. & Satterfield, J.N. (197'). The prevalence of acadeeic underachieveeent in hyperactive children. m at Eadiascis W. I. 169-171. Cohen, N.J.. Bullivan, J., Ninde, K., Novak, C., & Helwig, C. (1981). Evaluation of the relative effectiveness of eethylphenidate and cognitive behavior eodification in the treateent of kindergarten-aged hyperactive 31M"!!- ilaucnal at ehnacaal Child Earshalaax. 2. 43- Cohen, N.J.. Bullivan, 6.. Ninde, K., Nevak, C., & Keene. 8. (i983). Bother-child interaction in hyperactive and noreal kindergarten-aged children and the effect of trusts-oh Child Eaxchiatcx and m naxalaaaans. 201 “, 213-224. Cornell, J.P. (19B5). A new eultidieensional eeasure of children’s perceptions of control. mm W. :5. 1019-1041. Cooperseith, 8. “'MW- Ill! WI If. aalimtaaa- 3|" Pranciscos N.N. Preeean. Copeland, A.P. (1981). The relevance of eubyect variables in cognitive self-instructional progress for iqsulsive children- misc niacaax. 12. 520-529- Denney, I).R. (1975). The effects of exeeplary and cognitive eodels and self-rehearsal on children's interrogative strut-siu- dismal at W Child Earshalaax. u, nap-sea. W1: and statistical esnual at eental dim (thicd wing). (1990). Washingtons The Aeerican Psychiatric Association. Douglas, V.l. (1976). Perceptual and cognitive factsrs as detereinants of learning disabilitiess A review chapter with special eephasis on attentional factors. In R. Knights in I). Bakker (Eds.), Ill! MW of. leachina stimulant W maim- Baltieores University Park Press. Douglas, VJ. (1972). Itop, look and listens The problee of sustained attention and imulse control in hyperactive and nor-.1 childrlfl- Canadian Jamal of. maximal “Is is ‘59-”:- Douglas, V.1., Parry, P., Norton, P., I: Garson, C. (1976). Assesseent of a cognitive training prograe for hyperactive childr-n- m1 at ehnscaal mild Esxshalaax. s. 389-410- Drake, D.N. (i970). Perceptual car-relates of imisive and reflective bIMvior- Caxalaaaanlal W. 2. 202- 214. Dreger, R.N., Reid, R.P., Lewis, P.N., Overlade, I).C., Rich, T.A., Niller, K.J., In Pleasing, E.L. (1964). Behavioral classification proyect. m1, gf, W Ms 8. 1‘43- 202 Dueas, J.E., & Nehler, R.6. (1983). Predictors of treateent outcoee in parent trainings Nether insularity and socioecmeeic dieedventeee- W W. i. Dykean, R.A., Peters, J.E., & Ackerean, P.T. (1973). Experieental approaches to the study of einieal brain dysfunctions A follow-up study. flnnglg gt the HI! Inch ecadaax at sciences. 29C. 93-108- Easteen, B.B., & Rasbury, N.C. (1981). Cognitive self- instruction for the control of iepulsive classrooe behaviors Ensuring the treateent package. Jggcngl g1 flhnscaal Child Banhslsax. 2. 381-387. Edelbrock, C., & Achenbach, T.N. (1964). The teacher version of the Child Behavior Profiles I. Boys aged 6- g;_gi1si7icnalatCanaultinaandClinicalEsxchalaax. CZ. Edelbrock, C., & Reed, ILL. (1983:). W 91 m taachacxscaianctthamildlshaxiactcatila shncxatisnal saunas at claascma hahaxiac- lhpublished eanuscript. Egeland, B. (1974). Training iepulsive children in the use of euro efficient scanning techniques. Child Catalanaant. id. 165-171- Ellie. D-E- (1976b Iha assesseent at saltzinsicuctimal training in dmlanina asltzcantcal at aaacassin inulsixazaaacassixa hahaxiac in haza- triplets-nod doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State Uhiversity at Raleigh, Raleigh, we. Finch, A.J., Jr., & Nontgoeery, L.E. (1973). Reflection- iepulsivity and inforeation seeking in eeotionally disturbed children- Cairns). at seam Child Esxchnlaax. i. 358-362- Pirestone, P. (19B2). Factors associated with children's adherence to stieulant eedication. fl-gciggn figgcngl g1 Ccthansxchiatcx. :2. 447-457- Forehand, R., & Atkeson, B.N. (1977). Senerality of treateent effects with parents as therapistss A review of assesseent and isplesentation procedures. flgngytgc Discus. a. 575-593- 203 Forehand, R., Bturgis, E., NcNahon, R., Aguar, 1)., Green, K., Nelle, K., & Breiner, J. (1979). Parent behavioral training to aodify child noncoepliances Treateent generalizations across tiee and froa hoae to school. mm mm. is 3’25- Foraan, 8.6. (1980). Self-stateeents of aggressive and non-screen“ children- Child lahaxiac Ihscanx. 2. 49- 57. instructional training on second- and third-grade hyperactive childrens A failure to replicate. Jggcngl at easliad Bahaxicc enalxsia. 12. 211-219- Eenshaft, J.L., in Hirt, N. (1979). Race effects in eodifying cognitive iepulsivity through self- instruction and eodeling. flggcngl gt Engagiaantal Child EIIEDQIQIXs 22s ‘85-‘94- Gersten, J.C., Langner, T.B., Eisenberg, J.P., Biecha- Fagen, 0., I: NcCarthy, E.l). (1976). Stability and change in types of behavioral disturbance of children and adolescente- iaucnal at ahnscaal Child Bsxchalaax. 5, 111-127. Slenwick, I).8., Ir Barocas, R. (1979). Training iepulsive children in verbal self-control by use of natural cheese esente- Ihs M]. Di Cnacial We 1}. 387-398. Gottaan, J.N., Gonso, J., In Rasaussen, B. (1975). Social interaction, social coapetence and friendship in Child'lfl- mu Caxalanaani. 19. 709-719- Goyette, C.l-i., Connors, C.K., Ci Ulrich, R.P. (197B). Noraative data on revised Conners’ Parent and Teacher Retina Bcelee- daucnal at ehnacaal Child Esxchalaax. a, 221-236. Grahae, P. (1979). Epideaiological studies. In H.C. any I: J-B- Hefty (Ede-i. 8125th We at W (pp. 185-209). lbw Yorks John Niley It Bone. Harter, B. (1981). A new self-report scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation in the classrooas Notivational and inforeational comments. 204 Caxelaeaantal Baxcheleax. 12. 300-312. Hurt-r. 8- (HBO)- a scale at intcinsic recess satcinaic Orientatisn in the slums densel- University of Denver. Herter. 8- U933)- Biinnleeantacx desccintian at the Celt: Beccastian Ecetila tat: childcae I Bexisisn at the Eacceixad Constance Ccala ts: Childcan- mil-shed eanuscr 1 pt . Harter, 8. (1982). The perceived coapetence scale for children- Child llaxelaesant. C}. 87-97- Hinshaw, R.P., Henker, B., in malen, C.K. (1984b). Cognitive-behavioral and phareacologic interventions for hyperactive boyss Coaparative and coebined effecte- Caucnal at Csnaultina and Clinical Baxchelaax. i2. 739-749- Hinshaw, R.P., Henker, B., I: Hialen, C.K. (1994a). Belf- control in hyperactive boys in anger-inducing situationss Effects of cognitive-behavioral training and 04‘ eethylphenidete- Mal at ehnscsal Child Esxchelaax. 12. 55-77- Hobbs, B.A., Hoguin, L.E., Tyroler, N., 1: Lahey, B.B. (1990). Cognitive behavior therapy with childrens Has clinical utility been deeonstrated? W Dustin. 82. 147.165- Horn. H-F- (was). a acheclzhasad. ecshlaezaclxine intacxantian ecnacaa tar; use sith iaeulsixe and attention daticit diaacdac «an!» childcan- min-bed eanuscri pt. Horn, R.P., Chatoor, I., I: Conners, C.K. (1983). Additive effects of deaedrine and self-control training. Iahaxiac haditicatian. Z. 383-402- Horn, H.F., Ialongo, N., Greenberg, 6.8., Packard, T., I: Boith-Hinberry, C. (1985, Noveeber). mm m at hshsxiacal ascent tcainina and salt:cdntccl trainina hith anus chimera! 9 tell” studx- Paper presented at the nineteenth annual eeeting of the Association for the Advanceeent of Behavior Therapy, Houston, TX. 205 Horn, H.F., Ialongo, N., quovich, B., In Paradotto, I). (in press). Behavioral parent training and cognitive behavioral self-control therapy with ADD-H chi ldrons Coqsarativo and cominod effects. m1 g1 W Child Barthel!!!- l-ksy, E., Noise, 5., Hindo, K., In Cdson, N. (1978). The hyperactive child at adolescencos Cognitive, eeotional and social functionins- iaucnal at eanacaal Child Esschalcax. a. Sit-32*- I'ksossy, H., lbtoyor, H., Ii Townsend, H. (1974). 0-10 year follow-q: of 04 children treated for behavioral disorder in rare! vereent- ects Baadaasschiatcx. 1:2. 230-235. Kagan, J., Ii Hoes, H. (1962). m fig My. thw kas Hiloy. Kendall, P.C. (1976) (File). a caanitisa:hahasiacal treateent tac iaeulsixitx- Hflnneepoliel univereitv of Hinnosota. Kendall, P.C. (1977). (It the efficacious use of verbal self-instructional procodssros with children. M Ihacaex and Beaaecch. l. 331-343- Kendall, P.C., t Roswell, L. (1902). Cognitive-bduvioral self-control therapy for childrens A coaponents enelvete- iaucnal at Cansultina and Clinical Esschclcax. :9. 672-699. Kendall, P.C., e Braswell, L. (19B5). theses! in: iaeulsisa childcan- Nee York- Eullterd Press. Kendall, P.C., I: Finch, An). (1976). A cognitive- bohavi oral treateent for imul sive controls A case etudv- isnsnal at Cansultina and Clinical Esxchclaax. 55. ass-957. Kendall, P.C., Ii Pinch, A..‘l. (1970). A cognitive-behavioral treateent for imlsivitys A group comarison study. ifgsggg at Censultina and Clinical Bsxchclaax. 16. Kendall, P.C., I: irbain, E.B. (1901a). Cognitive-behavioral intervention with a hyperactive girls Evaluation via 206 behavioral observations and cognitive perforeance. lahaxiccal assesseent. d. 345-357- Kondall, P.C., In Nilcoss, L.E. (19M). Cognitive-bdiavioral treateent for iqul si vi tys Concrete versus conceptual training in non-eelf-controllod problee children. Mummmmmx. 19.00- Kondall, P.C., In I“. B.A. (1901b). Individual versus gross: applicatim of cognitive-bdiavioral self-control procedure- eith children- lahaxiac Ihacnx. 12. 3“- 359. Kenny, T.J., Clea-ans, R.L., l-ksdson, B.H., Lents, 6.A., Jr., Cicci, R., I: Nair, P. (1971). Characteristics of children referred because of hyperactivity. m gt We 2!. 619-622- Keogh, B.K. (1971). Hyperactivity and learning dissrdrss Review and speculatien- Escaetianal Children. CC. 101- sso. Kopel, B., I: kkowitz, H. (1975). The role of attribution and self-perception in behavior changes Imlications for behavior theresv- ianetic Baxchelcax Masha. 22, 175-212. Kupfer, D.J., Botre, T., In Koral, J. (1974). 'Deviant" behavior patterns in school children, application of KOO-14- Bexchelaaical huts. as. 183-191- Ladd, 6.00., In Oden, 8. (1979). The relationship between poor acceptance and chi ldren’s ideas about helpfulneee- Child Canlaeaant. C9. 402-408- Lazar, I., I: Darlington, R. (1982). Lasting effects of early educations A report froe the consortiue for tensitudinel etudiee- hsnmcacha at the Cscietx ta: W In m Ws film-3s 30'“! NO- 195). Linn, R.T., I: Hodge, E.K. (1982). Locus of control in childhood hyperectivitv- m1 at Canaultina and Clinical Eazchalaax. ELM-593 Lochean, J.E., Lamron, L.B., ”ch, P.R., ti Curry, J.P. (19B5). Client characteristics associated with 207 behavior change for treated and untreated aggressive have- WetWChildBaxchelm. l}. 527- Lochaan, J.E., Ihlson, N.N., III, 8 Bios, J.P. (1981). A cognitive behaviural prograe for use with aggressive childrem m at Clinical Child W. 19. 146-148. Loney, (I., Langhorne, J.E., Jr., I: Paternite, C.E. (1978). M omirical basis for subgrosgsing the hyporkinetic/einiaal brain dysfunction Woae. Meal .1 m Wills CZ. ”14‘1- Lurie. A-R- usan. Ihe sale at anaach in the camlatian at small aid ahnaceal hahaxiac- New York! Liverisht- Hash, E.J., & Balby, (LT. (1979). Behavioral interventions for hyperactivity. In R. Tritos (Ed.), W in W8 Wm: M and W W. Baltieores thivorsity Park Press. Ibador, A.E., Ii Ollendick, T.H. (1904). Cognitive behavior therapy with childrens kt evaluation of its efficacy and clinical utilitv- Child and Eeeilx m Ihecaex. a. 2544- fleichenbeue. 0- “97'"- W W! m museum necessit- New Yuri" Planne- Heichonbaua, I). (1979). Cognitive behavior aodifications The need for a fairer assesseent. W m! and Beach. C. 127-132- Heichenbaua, I). (1976). Cognitive-functional approach to cognitive factors as doteroiners of learning disabilities. In R. Knights a I). Bakker (Eds.), W Bf. W W- “NJ-0'0! thiversity Park Press. Heichenbaua, I). (1971). Exaeination of eodel characteristics in reducing avoidance behavior. isgcnaletcacaanalitxandiacialm. 12.299- Heichenbaue, I). (1978). Teaching children self-control. In B. Lahoy b A. Kazdin (Eds.), Mm in W Chin W (Vol.2). New Yorks Plonua. 208 Heichenbaus, 0., In Soodaan, J. (1969). The dovelqsaantal control of operant eotor responding by verbal deer-nth Counsel at Csaaciaantal Child Easchalcax. Z. ass-ass. Heichenbaus, I).H., I: Eoodeam J. (1971). Training insulsive children to talk to theoaelvoss A eeane of developing self- centrol- Jamal st ehnaceal Eaxchalm. ZZ. 115-126- lbndelson, N., Johnson, N., I: Stewart, H. (1971). Hyperactive children as toonagores A follow-ms study. Wfihacmaanddantalniaeasa. 1C}. 273-279- Ibnkee, H., Rowe, J., I: Henkes, J. (1967). A twenty-five year follow-m study as the hyporkinetic child with ainieal brain dysfunction. m, 31, 393-399. Hichigan State Board of Education (1982). m hacial m M... Lansing, NIs Nichigan State Board of Education. Hiller, I).T., Neinetein, S.H., Ii Karniol, R. (1978). Effects of age and self-verbalization on children's ability to delay gratification. W Ms 1!. “F570- Hinde, K., Lowin, 0., Noise, 6., Laviguer, H., Douglas, V., I: Sykes, E. (1971). The hyperactive child in eleeentary schools A S-year, controlled, follow-up. Essentianal mildcan. CB. 215-221- Hinde, K., Noise, 6., I: Hendeleon, B. (1972). A S-yoar follow-up study of 91 hyperactive school children. Jessnalntthefleacicanacadaexctmildesschiatcx. 11.595410. Honohan, J., I: O'Leu'y, K.l). (1971). Effects of self- inetruction on rule-breaking behavior. W ascents. 22. 1051-1066- Horeland, S.R., Schwebel, A.I., Beck, 8., I: Nelle, R.T. (1982). Parents as therapistss A review of behavior therapy parent training literature 1975 to 1981. W W. b. 250-276- Mellor, C.N., I: Parcel, T.L. (1981). Heasuree of eociooconoaic statues Alternatives and 209 flea-I-fldlt*°flio Child Casalaeasnt. Ii. 13'30- “I'm. “ode. ‘ .1rki". JoCo (1m,o R01. 0" "1"‘iflltf’mtlm and self-reinforcoaent in the aodification of imulsivity. MaletCanaultinaandClinicalEsxchclm.se.183- Nowicki, B., I: Strickland, B.R. (1973). A locus of control scale for childrefl- Inscnal at W and Clinical Esxchclaax. 19. 148-154- 01:“1Ckg T.H.. ‘ F106”, Aoao (‘m’o "fl-Ct!”- iqsuleivity in brain injured and noreal children. Baccaetualanddataclltilla.}e.654- Olwous, l). (1979). Stability of aggressive reaction pattern- in eelee- A reviee- Esschsleaical mitotic. g9, ass-s75. (rbach, I. (1977). Imulsivo cognitive styles Three aodification techniquee- Easehclmx in the Cchaala. 15. 333-359- Palkee, H., Stewart, H., I: Froodaan, J. (1971). Imrovoaent in ease perforeance of hyperactive boys as a function of verbal-training procedures. I!!! m at M We is 337‘342- Palkes, H., Stewart, H., e Kahana, B. (1960). Porteus ease perforeance of hyperactive boys after training in self- diroctod verbal coeeands. mm W, a, B17-826. Parsons, J.A. (1972). The reciprocal aodification of authentic behavior and prograe develmaent. In S. Beeb (Ed-h. Canaries analysis and mum-1222- Lasaronces (hiversity of Kansas Support and Bovelmaont Center for Follow Through. Patterson, B.R. (ms). The aggressive childs Victia and architect of a coercive systee. In E.J. Hash, L.A. Heeerlvnck. l- L-C- "Indy (568-). Iahaxiac sediticatidn M m. Now Vorks Rumor/Heed. Pelhae, N.E. (1983). The effect of psychostieulante on acadeeic perforeance in hyperactive and learning- dieabled children. M, 3, 1-47. Pelhae, N.E., Schnedlor, R.N., Bologna, N.C., Ii Cmtrorae, J.A. (1900). Behavioral and stieulant treateent of hyperactive childrens A therapy study with eethylphenidate probes in a 209 V'Cmetimm Child W. I. 13-30- Noleon, N.J., Ii Birkioor, J.C. (1978). Role of self-instruction and self-reinforcoaent in the aodification of imuleivity. MaelstCansultinaandClinicalEaxchclsax.sa. 183- Nowicki, B., In Strickland, B.R. (1973). A locus of control scale for children- m at Cmaultina and Clinical Esxchalaas. 19. 149-154- Ollmick. T.H.. ‘ FEM". E.J. “m)o MINCE!”- imulsivity in brain 101W“ and noreal chilsron. Beccaetuel and date: Chills. It. 654- Clweus, I). (1979). Stability of aggressive reaction petterne in eelee- A reviee- Baxcheleaical Mistin. u. see-375. G'bach, I. (1977). Imuleivo cognitive styles Three aodification technique» Baum! in the Cchaela. 11. 353-339- Palkee, H., Stewart, H., I: Proodaan, J. (1971). Imroveaent in ease perforeance of hyperactive boys as a fmction of verbal-trainins procedure-- Iha Janicnal at Cnacial Educatien. C. 337-342- Palkes, H., Stewart, H., In Kahana, B. (19GB). Porteus ease perforeance of hyperactive boys after training in self- directod verbal coeeands. mm W, 31, S17-826. Parsons, J.A. (1972). The reciprocal aodification of authentic behavior and prograe developeent. In S. Beeb (Ed-lo. Behaxicc analxeis and aducaticnl 1222- Lawrences (.hiversity of Kansas Support and Devolqaaent Center for Follow Through. Patterson, B.R. (1976). The aggressive childs Victia and architect of a coercive systee. In E.J. Nash, L.A. Heeerlvnck. I: Inc. Hendv (Ede-l. lshaxiac asditicatian m 1.111,... New Yorks rumor/Hazel. Pelhae, N.E. (1983). The effect of psychostieul-ste on acadeeic perforeance in hyperactive and learning- dieabled children. My 3, 1-47. Pelhae, N.E., Schnodler, R.N., Bologna, N.C., & Cmtrorae, J.A. (1900). Behavioral and stieulant treateent of hyperactive childrens A thorny study with eethylphenidate probes in a 210 within-subject desisn- animal at halted lahaxiec Malena. 13. 221-236- Pil". E., i. Harris, D. “96'”- IDI Biscailaccis mm W 85“.. Nashville, Tonns Counselor ' Recordings and Tests. Pope, L. (1970). Rotor activity in brain inytrod chilskren. hacican m1 at Ccthassxchiatcx. 19. 783- Prinz, R.J., Connor, P.A., I: Nilson, C.C. (1981). Hyperactive and aggressive behaviors in childioods Intertwined diaensions. m1 g1 m1 E111! W: 1. 191.202- Qsinn, P., I: Rapoport, J. (1975). (he-year follow-up of hyperactive boys treated with ieipraeine and gingighenidete- heacican leacnal at Esxchiatcs. 1C2. Rood, R.L., Ii Edelbrock, C. (1983). Reliability and validity of the Direct Cbservation Pore of the mild Behavior checkliet- Jamal at ehnacael Child Esxchelcax. 11. 521-530- Richard, B.A., I: Dodge, K.A. (1982). Social oaladyuetaant and problee-solving in school-aged children. m “WMWWs C9. 225-233- Riddle, D., and Rapoport, J. (1976). A 2-year follow-up of 72 hyperactive WI- mm Bf. m and Benn]. Me. 152. 126‘133- Ross, D.H., 1. Ross, S.A. (1976). W. New Yorks Niloy. Rose, n.n., a Rose, 8.4:. (1982). mm. issues. caaaacch. and theacx- New York: Hilev- Rotter, J.B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcoaont. Esschelaaical hanaacaem. C9“. mole No. 609)- Routh, D.K. (197B). Hyperactivity. In P. Hegrab (Ed.), Esxchclcaical unuasant at eediatcic ecaelaas We!- 2). Baltiaores thiversity Park Press. hitter, J., Grahae, P., It Yule, B. (I970). R 211 neuropsychiatric study in childhood. Clinics in Caselanaantal dedicina. Nbe- 85/36- London! ape-tics International Hodical Publications. Rutter, H., Tizard, J., Yule, N., 6rahaa, P., & Nhitaoro, K. (1976). Research reports Isle of Night studios, 1964-1974- Essehalaaical hadicina. a. 313-332- Beter. R-. c Allen. D- (1976)- useacactixa childcanl Ciaancsis and asnaaaaant- Beltieerei university Perk Press. Sandborg, S.T., Rutter, H., E Taylor, E. (1976). Hyperkinetic disorder in psychiatric clinic attonders. gggalanaantal dedicina and Child heucalaax. 29. 279* Saraeon, 1.6. a Sensor, V.J. (1973). Hodoling and group discussion in the rehabilitation of Juvenile delinquente- iaucnal at Caunsalina Baxchalaax. 29. 442-449. Schleifer, H., Noise, 6., Cohen, N., Elaan, H., Cveyic, H., & Kruger, E. (1975). Hyperactivity in preschoolers and the effect of eethylphenidate. figgctggg flggcggl gt Cctheesxchiatcx. 15. 39-50- Schlesor, R., Neyors, A.N., Cohen, R., I: Thackeray, D. (1963). Self-Instruction interventions with non-eelf-controllod childrens Effects of discovery versus faded rehearsal. Jaucnal at Cansultina and Clinical Batchciaax. Cl. 954-955- Bhaffer, D., HcNaaara, N., & Pincus, J.H. (1974). Controlled observations on patterns of activity, attention, and iepulsivity in brain-daaaged and peychiatrically disturbed boys. Egyghglggtggl dedicine. Q. 4-19- Shopp, H.S., & Jensen, B.P. (1963). A coaparieon of the treateent effects of an operant strategy, a cognitive strategy, and a coebined approach with a hyperactive boy. fiChCCl EIICDCLCC! Series. 12. 199‘204- Shuro, H.B., a Spivack, 6. (1972). Heans-ond thinking, adjustaent, and social class aaong eleeentary school esed childreN- Jaucnal at Consultina and Clinical Bartheleax. CC. 349-353- 212 Siegelean, E. (1969). Reflective and imuleivo observing behevior- Child Cesalaaaant. 19. 1213-1222- Snydor, J.J., Ii Unite, H.J. (1979). The use of cognitive self-instruction in the treateent of behaviorally diettrbed adolescents. m M, m, 227-235. Spivack, 6., Is We, 0!... (1974). ”“1 mm 91 some childch a caanitise aneceach te scixina seal: utg W. San Franciecos Joeeoy-Base. Sroufe, A. (1975). Drug treateent of children with behavior problees. In P. l'ksrowits (Ed.), m gt Child W; cm (Vol.4). Chicagos lhivoreity of Chicago Press. Sroufe, A., 1: Stewart, H. (1973). Treating prdsloa children eith stieulant dream has Eneland flannel at hadicina. 293, 407-413. Steele, K., & Barling, J. (1962). Self-instruction and learning disabilitiees Haintenance, generalization, and subyect characteristics. Ihg flung], gt m Esxchelaax. m. 141-154- Stowart, H.A. (1970). Hyperactive children. W Mean. 22. 94-99- Stowart, H., Nendelson, N., I: Johnson, N. (1973). Hyperactive child as adolescentes How they describe Stewart, H.A., Pitts, F.N., Craig, A.E., I: Dieruf, N. (1966). The hyperactive child eyndroee. dcucnal at Ccthaasschiatcx. so. 861-867- Thorpe, 6.L., Aeatu, H.I., Blakey, R.S., I: Burns, L.E. (1976). Contributions of overt instructional rehearsal and ”specific insight“ to the effectiveness of self- instructional trainings A preliainary study. m Ihecm. 16. 239-245- Toner, I.J., Hoore, L.P., I: Kidder, P.J. (1977). ID! gttggt etsacxinaasaecdeletselL-ccntcelnsuh saeuent cesistance ta dexiatisn in childcen- Peper presented at the eeeting of the Society for Research in Child Dovelopoent. 213 Toner, I.J., & Saith, R.A. (1977). Age and overt verbalization in delay-eaintenance behavior in children- Jamaal at Csasciaental Child Baxchelaax. 25. 123-sea. Tritos, R.L., Dugae, F., Lynch, 6., a Ferguson, B. (1979). Incidence of hyperactivity. iggcngl Ci EICLISELC Batchelaax. s. 179-188- Ulloann, R.K., Sleator, E.K., & Sprague, R.L. (1964). A new rating scale for diagnosis and aonitoring of ADD children- Bsxchaehaceacdlaax Mistin. 29. 160-164- VU'III. Jane. M. EoFog ‘ at.ld°’ "oFo (Em)o “1‘- aonitoring, external roinforceaent, and tieeout procedures in the control of high rate tic behaviors in a hyperactive child- Jamalctlahaxiaclhecmandfiseaciaantal Esxchiatcx. 2. 353-359- Verni, J.H., e Henker, B. (1979). A self-regulation approach to the treateent of three hyperactive boys. Gntlg Igngytgc Mr. 1. 171492- Vvsotekv. L-B- “962% Ihaiaht and lanauaee- Nee York! Niloy. Neddoll, K.J. (1964). The self-concept and social adaptation of hyperactive children in adolescence. JacaaletClinicalChildEsxchnlaax.1§.50-55- Nehler, R.6. (1976). Deviant child behavior within the faeilys Developaental speculations and behavior change strategies. In H. Loitonborg (Ed.), W gt hehaxiacacditicatianandhahaxiscthacaax-Ensleeoed Cliffs, N.J.s Prentice-Hall. Ueeeereen. T-H- “981’- Ihe attest at cannitise dmlaaaant an childcaan use at caenitixa canine stateeents ta delax acetiticatian- Unpumiehed eenuecript- Neeeerean, T.H. (1964). The effects of cognitive developeent on the use of cognitive behavioral technique- eith children- Child am Easilx lahaxidc IDICIEXs is 37‘500 Nebster-Stratton, C. (1965). Predictors of treateent outcoee in parent training for conduct disordered 214 children. m M, 1g, 223-243. Noise, 6. (1963). Long-tore outcoees Findings, concepts, and practical imlicatione. In H. Rutter (Ed.), Caxelceaantal naicaesxchiatcx mn422436h Nee Yerk- Suilford Press. Noise, 6., Kruger, E., Danielson, U., Ii Elean, H., (1975). Effect of long-tore treateent of hyperactive children with eethylphenidate. W m esscciatian Jamaal. 112. 159-165- Noiss, 6., Hinde, K., Nerry, J., Douglas, V., Ii Naaoth, E. (1971). Studies of the hyperactive childs VII. Five- veer follow up- ecchixes at fienacal Esxchiatcx. 25. 409-414. Neithorn, C.J., Ii Kagan, E. (1979). Training first graders of high-activity level to ifirovo perforeance through verbal “It'dif’ictim- Jacnal Ct Leacnina Milne!- 1.2. 23" 29. Nelle, K.C., Connors, C.K., Iaber, L., In Delaeator, A. (1961). Use of single-subject eethodology in clinical docision-oaking with hyperactive children on the peychietric indetient unit- lahaxiccal assesseent. 1. 359-369. lender. P-H- (1971l- hinieal hcain dxstuncticn in children- Now Yorks Niley. melon, C.K. (1963). Hyperactivity, learning problees, and the attention deficit disorders. In T.H. Ollendick I. H. Hereen (Ede-l. handheeh at child esxchdaathalalx (pp. 151-199). New Yorks Plonua Press. "salon, C., I: Henker, B. (1976). Psychoetiaulants and childrens A review and analysis. 21W Mlatin. as. ins-1130- melon, C.K., Henker, B., In Hinehaw, S.P. (1965). Cognitive-behavioral therapies for hyperactive childrens Proaises, problees, and prospects. Jascnal it snow Chm W2. 1}. 391-4“)- Hsite, S.H. (1965). Evidence for a hierarchical arrangeaent of learning processes. In L.P. Lipsitt I: C.C. Spiker (Edi-)- edxances in Child mm and m 215 (Vol.2). New Yorks Acadoeic Prose. Nilliaae, D.Y., s Akaeatsu, T.J. (1976). Cognitive self- guidance training with yuvenilo delinquents. nggtttyg Ihacanx and Besaacch. 2. 285-288. Nolf, T.H. (1972). A dovelopeental investigation of televised aodeled verbalization on resistance to teeptetion- Canlaeantal Esxcheleax. t. 537- "I7fiiiii'ifllii7‘iifli7iiiiii