EFFECTS OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF THE
SCHOOL DIAGNOSTICEAN‘S ROLE

UPON CQNSULTAHOWZS

Times“ for the Dogma as Ed. D.
MICHEEAN S'EHE UNIVERSE?!
John M. Grabow
i963

Tnesvs

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled
Effects of the Perceptions of the

School Diagnostician's
Upon Consultations

R010

presented by
John M. Liraioow
has been accepted towards fulfillment

of the requirements for

Edoijo degree in Education

 

 

/ Major pr/ofessor

Date June ‘3, 1366

LIBRA {Y

s a \
l‘v’lmhzqa‘“ “tr!“
v

U nivu .

 

" Y
.y

all“

1

....

0": N
3

 

.l Ill! 1 \Il

 

 

EFFECTS OF PERCEPTIONS OF THE
SCHOOL DIAGNOSTICIAN'S ROLE

UPON CONSULTATIONS

BY

‘\,
a
John M3 Grabow

AN ABSTRACT OF A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

Department of Counseling, Personnel Services
and Educational Psychology

1966

\r

 

ABSTRACT

EFFECTS OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF THE
SCHOOL DIAGNOSTICIAN'S ROLE
UPON CONSULTATIONS

e \ -'\"
1‘
I

by John M) Grabow
I Problem
The position of school diagnostician was established

by the state of Michigan to qualify pupils for placement
in classes for the mentally handicapped. The sc0pe of the
activities of school diagnosticians has been changing, but
the effectiveness of their work in the new areas has not
been assessed. The focal point of this study has been as-
sessment of the relationship between congruency of role
expectation and the effects of consultations upon the atti-
tude of the consultee toward the consultation. It was
hypothesized that a high congruency difference score would
be associated with a low satisfactoriness rating of the
consultation.
II Methods, Techniques and Data

A. Expectations of teachers and school diagnosticians
for the mode of Operation of the school diagnostician were
measured by a paired comparison schedule reflecting three
modes of operation, expert, resource and process orienta-

tion. The schedule yielded one score for each of the three.

John M. Grabow

The scores of pairs consisting Of a teacher and school
diagnostician having had professional consultation were
compared. A congruency difference score computed by
squaring the differences between each pair Of mode of Oper-
ation scores and summing them was compared with the
teacher's rating of the consultation.

The set of pairs was divided by the median congru-
ency difference score into low and high groups, and the
groups compared on the basis of the prOportion of each in
which the teacher had rated the consultation "very satis-
factory." The differences were not significant nor were
they in the direction which would support the hypothesis.

B. The mode of Operation scores of the school diag-
nosticians were calculated by a modified scaling proced-
ure. The highest score was assumed to indicate the most
sophisticated level of Operation. The diagnosticians
were grouped on the basis Of institution of training, major
area of study, years of eXperience as a teacher and years
of experience as a diagnostician. Differences among the
mean scores of the groups were slight. The difference be-
tween the means for the total diagnostician and teacher
groups was much greater than the difference among school
diagnostician groups.

C. The third section of the questionnaire consisted of

a list of items including activities, functions, concerns

John M. Grabow

and orientation of school diagnosticians. Teachers and
school diagnosticians were asked to check how much of the
time they expected these items to be part of a diagnosti-
cian's duties. For each item, means and standard devia-
tions were computed for the teacher group and for the
school diagnostician group. Items upon which the group
means were closest and upon which the group means were

most different were discussed.

III Major Findings

Ferneau's hypothesis that congruency Of perception
of a consultant role by consultant and consultee results
in a favorable evaluation of the consultation by the con-
sultee was not substantiated with the instrument used and
the pOpulations sampled in this study. The data indicated
that the role of the school diagnostician was perceived by
the role incumbents as utilizing a more SOphisiticated
mode of consultation process than was perceived by the
teacher group. No relationship was shown between percep-
tion Of the mode of consultation and training institution,
academic major or amount of experience as a teacher or a
school diagnostician.

Teachers and diagnosticians agreed that a diagnos-
tician's duties should "almost always" include reviewing
pertinent records of the child's case history, interviewing

the pupil and giving individual tests, interpreting test

John M. Grabow

data, and holding post-report conferences with the teacher
and the principal. Both groups felt the diagnostician
should counsel other staff members. Surprisingly, teachers
rated involvement with special education programs much

lower than did the diagnosticians.

EFFECTS OF PERCEPTIONS OF THE
SCHOOL DIAGNOSTICIAN'S ROLE
UPON CONSULTATIONS

BY
j

\

John M2 Grabow

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

Department of Counseling, Personnel Services
and Educational Psychology

1966

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author would like to eXpress his appreciation
of those whose help made this study possible.

To the author's doctoral committee, Dr. Buford
Stefflre, Chairman, Dr. Clarence Winder, Dr. Troy Stearns,
and Dr. Clyde Campbell, not only for their judicious coun-
sel but also for the flexibility of Operation and freedom
of eXploration which were permitted in develOping the con-
ceptual orientation of the study, he is deeply grateful.

In particular to Dr. Buford Stefflre, for his infin—
ite patience and precise evaluations as the work pro—
gressed, the author wishes to express his thanks.

At the risk of being thought to have done little Of
the work himself, he would like to indicate the many others
who contributed their time and thought, and to whom he is
sincerely grateful.

For help and consultation in their areas Of special-
ization, I Owe thanks to Dr. Terrence Allen, Dr. Jay Artis,
Mr. Ronald Crowell, Mrs. Jean Dyer, Mrs. Joan Lynas and
Mr. Bruce Rogers.

To my wife and children, who not only tolerated
severe disruptions of our family life but helped extensive—
ly with tabulating and typing, I owe both my thanks and my

apologies.

ii

Thanks are also due to Miss Esther Belcher of the
Michigan State Department Of Education for making available
resources of her department.

To Dr. Marvin Kaplan and the staff of Psychological
Services of the Lansing Public Schools, who helped in de—
velOping the Diagnostician Role Check List, as well as to
the more than four hundred school diagnosticians, teachers
and administrators who participated in the study, go my

heartfelt thanks.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF AL)PENDICESO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Chapter

I.

II.

III.

IN'11RODUCTION O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

I.
II.

III.
IV.
V.

Design . . . . . . . . . . . .
Background of the Problems to be

Investigated . . . . . . . .
Problems to be Investigated .
Significance of the Study . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . .

REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . .

A.
B.
C.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . .
Functions of the School Diagnostician
Role Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.

2.

3.
The
l.
2.

3.
4.
5.

Theoretical Concepts . . . . . .
a. Development . . . . . . . . .
b. Present status . . . . . . .
Empirical Studies of Role Expectat
or Perception . . . . .
Summary of Role Theory .
Consultation Process . .
Early views . . . . . . .
The Consultant as an Agent in
Changing Behavior . . . . . . . .
Operational ASpects of Consultation
The Diagnostician as a Consultant .
Summary--Consultation Process . . .

ooooi-hoooooo

DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . .

I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.

Procedures . . . . . . . . .
Sample . . . . . . . . . . .
Instrument . . . . . . . . .
Treatment of the Da a O Part
Survey Procedures . . . . . .

A.
B.
C.

Diagnosticians . . . . .
Administrators . . . . .
CorreSpondence with Teache

r1 0 e 0 Ho 0 o

o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o

5

iv

Page

ii

°vi

ovii

on

Chapter Page
VI Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . . . 60

A. ReSponse to the Survey . . . . . . . . . 60
l. Rejections . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6O
2. Follow-up Procedures . . . . . . . . 61
3. Teacher-School Diagnostician Pairs . 62
B. Statistical Procedure and Interpretation
of Section I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
C. Background Data - Section II of the
Diagnostician Role Check List . . . . . 66
D. Section III Of the Diagnostician Role
Check List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
E. Summary of Chapter IV . . . . . . . . . . 79

V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 82

I. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

II. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

A. Congruency of Role Perception . . . . 90

B. Mode of Consultation Scale . . . . . . 91

C. Duties of Diagnosticians . . . . . . . 92

III. Suggestions and Implications . . . . . . . 92

IV. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
FOOTNOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

BIBLIOGRAPW O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O 104

APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
1. Survey responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
2. Relationship of satisfactoriness ratings

to congruency scores . . . . . . . . . . . 64

3. Mean mode Of consultation scores of school
diagnostician demographic groups . . . . . 68

4. Rating scale values for diagnosticians'

functions and duties: Diagnostician
Role Check List Section III . . . . . . . 71

vi

Bii

I O '11 [*1 00

H

(4

LIST OF APPENDICES

Complete Instrument (Diagnostician Form)
Part I, page 4, Teacher Form

Part II, Teacher Form

Diagnostician Letter

Diagnostician Follow-up Letter
Administrator Letter

Teacher Nomination Form

Administrator Follow-up Letter

Teacher Letter

Teacher Follow-up Letter

Mode of Operation Scores and Satis-
factoriness Ratings

vii

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

This study is concerned with the function of the
school diagnostician, and while it is based on the interest
of the investigator in the services performed by school
diagnosticians for teachers, and particularly the effect—
iveness of these services, it focuses primarily on the
nature of the relationship between the school diagnostician
and teacher in terms of their respective perceptions of
the school diagnostician's role.

A distinction is sometimes drawn between role ex-
pectation and definition of role, both Of which contribute
to the perception of the role. Role eXpectation is the
impression of the role formed by someone outside the role,
and is based upon interaction with the actor or role in—
cumbent. Definition of role is the Specification of be-
haviors implementing the role which is set by the role in-
cumbent or accepted by him if set by a higher authority.
This distinction is adhered to be Ferneau (1); however, be-
cause it is somewhat less pertinent to the design of the
present study, this terminology will not be rigorously fol-
lowed. When the term "perception of role" is applied in
this paper to the role incumbent, it will imply the condi-

tions stated above pertaining to role definition.

I Design

An attempt was made to determine whether or not
teachers whose perception of the school diagnostician's
role is quite similar to the school diagnostician's role
definition are more likely to have their perceptions Of
children changed by a consultation with the school diag-
nostician than teachers whose perception of the school
diagnostician's role is different from the school diagnos-
tician's definition Of that role.

The definition and perception Of the school diag-
nostician's role was measured by an Objective instrument
developed for the study. In addition to being used in a
general survey of the state, this instrument was admini-
stered to the diagnosticians and teachers who participated
in an antecedent study which was related to change in the
teacher's perception of the child.

It was also intended to determine whether or not
the manner in which teachers are influenced by consulta—
tions is related to congruency of role perception as
Ferneau's (2) work would imply, and whether this change be-
comes internalized or incorporated in their thinking.
Ferneau accepted as a valid measure the administrator's
rating of the conference as satisfactory or unsatisfactory
(3). The present study was carried one step further, and

attempted to determine whether or not the teacher's per-

ception of the child had actually changed.

II Background Of the Problems to be Investigated

A. At the Operational level, this study was intended
to clarify the functional relationship between the school
diagnostician and the teacher in the public schools. At a
more theoretical level, it was intended to determine wheth-
er or not the results noted by Ferneau from congruency of
role perception in consultation-~name1y, the overt ratings
Of consultations as satisfactory--become internalized to
the extent of actually changing the teacher's perception
of the tOpic of consultation.

B. At the present time the role of the school diagnos-
tician does not seem to have crystallized or become insti-
tutionalized (4,5). While the law in the state Of Michi-
gan through which this position or specialty has been
created is concerned with a relatively narrow range of
functions (6), surveys have indicated that the actual mode
Of Operation of school diagnosticians is quite different
from school system to school system. For the purpose of
the special education law, the school diagnostician's
function was established primarily to determine whether or
not specific pupils should be certified for placement in
the reimbursed Special education program. Attempts to
evaluate these services have consisted primarily of status
type studies, enumerating the number of pupils evaluated
per year, the number and kinds of tests given, the number
of educable mentally handicapped children identified or

placed, and percent of pupils seen for various types Of

evaluations (7,8).

As the scope of the functions of the school diag-
nostician in actual practice has expanded to include per-
sonality evaluations, attempts to assess the value of this
service have been similarly meager. Although teachers and
administrators have demanded more and more service from
school diagnosticians in working with the emotional or be—
havioral problems of children (9,10), little has been done
to determine whether or not this service is effective or
to determine what procedures might be most productive.
There also seems to be considerable confusion as to the
role of the school diagnostician in contrast to that Of
school counselors and visiting teachers. It is the Opinion
Of the author that research in regard to aSpects of the
school diagnostician's role which may be effectively im-
plemented may help to crystallize a specific and produc-
tive role for school diagnosticians.

Surveys in this area tend to include many workers
whose functions overlap that of the school diagnostician,
such as school psychologist, coordinators (11), etc. How-
ever, this assortment Of positions seemed to be too amor-
phous a group for the purposes Of the present study. Since
school diagnosticians have at least a minimum requirement
of training and some commonality of functions and since
these specialists constituted the largest single group of
workers in this field, it seemed to be a sufficiently

large and well defined group for the results to have some

significance. Since school psychologists are a somewhat
heterogeneous group in terms of training and function, and
constitute an even less standardized group, it would seem
that to add them to the sample would do more to confuse
than clarify the results.

C. One attempt to determine the effectiveness of two
common modes Of Operation used by school diagnosticians is
Kaplan and Sprunger's (12) study to determine whether a
typed report plus an interpretation in an intensive inter—
view (45 to 90 minutes of discussion and interaction with
teachers) is likely to change a teacher's perception Of a
pupil more than the typed report plus a limited interview.

This study involved pre and post-tests Of teachers'
perceptions of attitudes of pupils (grades 3-6) referred
for diagnostic evaluation because of essentially emotional
or behavioral problems. This sampling method limits the
Lapplicability of the results of the study to teachers who
make referrals. The pre-test was given to the teacher be-
fore the pupil was evaluated and an identical checklist
given after the results Of the evaluation had been inter-
preted to her. The diagnostician also filled out the pupil
attitude checklist at the time of writing the report.
Changes from pre to post-test were in the direction of the
school diagnostician's perceptions of the pupil's atti-
tudes, to a statistically significant degree.

D. Another study of an aspect of the effectiveness of

a consulting relationship, although done on a different

pOpulation, was done by Ferneau and based upon Cuba's (l3)
interpretation of administrative process and function in
terms of role theory (14), more specifically that the ad-
ministrative function depends on overlap Of perceptions of
expectations Of subordinate and superordinate.

E. Ferneau evaluated the effectiveness of consulta-
tions Of educational consultants with school staff members
in terms of the participants' subjective ratings of the
consultation as satisfactory or unsatisfactory. He com-
pared these ratings with the degree Of congruency regard-
ing consultants' role as perceived by the staff member and
the consultant. Similarity of expectations was found to
be positively related to expressed satisfaction with the
consultation.

F. The purpose of consultations is, ultimately, to
change behavior and attitudes (15) and it is assumed that
behavioral change in a given situation is a result of
change in perception of a significant aSpect Of the situa-
tion. The present study is an attempt to establish the
validity of Ferneau's hypothesis when applied to consulta-
tions of school diagnosticians with teachers, and then to
carry Ferneau's major hypothesis one step further and de-
termine whether congruency of role perception is a signif-
icant factor in changing perception Of a situation or of a
person involved in it. It would seem reasonable to assume
that the relationship found by Ferneau would hold when ap-

plied to a specific group Of educational Specialists in a

consulting situation. TO determine not only whether the
consultation was rated satisfactory, but also whether or
not it changed the teacher's perception of the child would
seem to be a significant degree Of clarification of
Ferneau's hypothesis. It might also indicate more produc-

tive modes of function for school diagnosticians.

III Problems to be Investigated

A. The role of the school diagnostician in relation
to the teacher may, according to Ferneau's categories, be
predominantly that of an expert, a resource person, or a
process person (16), and if both the teacher and the school
diagnostician perceive the relationship in predominantly
the same category, the consultation is more likely to be
considered satisfactory. We may reasonably question the
basis for an interview being classed as satisfactory. For
example, would it be because it provided new insights or
left old stereotypes undisturbed? Consequently, it seems
worthwhile to attempt to evaluate the extent and manner in
which perceptions may be changed through consultative re-
lationships.

B. Questions Which this Study was Intended to Answer
are:

1. Does congruency of perception of the
school diagnostician's role between
teacher and school diagnostician actually

result in a more favorable evaluation of

the conference by the teacher?

2. DO the conditions Of role perception
which have been found to result in a fa—
vorable evaluation of the consultation
also produce changes in perception of the
subject of the consultation (in this study,
the attitudes toward a pupil)?

C. Questions Of a more general nature are the follow-
ing:

1. What is the school diagnostician's defin-
ition of his role?
2. What is the teacher's perception of the
school diagnostician's role?
The answers to these two questions should include

the areas of the school diagnostician's function as well as

the predominant mode of action in terms of Ferneau's cate-
gories. I

D. A final question of interest is, do teachers who
have never made a referral differ in their perception Of
the school diagnostician's role from those who have? (And,
by implication, if their perceptions of the role could be

changed, would they refer pupils?).

IV Significance of the Study

A. Responses of school diagnosticians from the state
of Michigan sampled with the Diagnostician Role Check List
should indicate how school diagnosticians feel they should

be functioning. (It is not intended as a survey Of what

they actually are doing.) This will be compared with the

significant variables, such as type and institution of
training for employment as a school diagnostician, previ-
ous experience, and length of eXperience as a school diag-
nostician. A comparison Of the school diagnostician's role
definition with surveys of actual practices may have appli—
cations for the morale and vocational stability of this
professional group.

Responses of teachers paired with the above school
diagnosticians would, at the very least, indicate whether
or not teachers' perceptions Of the school diagnostician's
role are essentially like or unlike the school diagnos-
tician's definition of it.

B. Implicit in the assignment of the school diagnos-

tician to evaluate pupils with emotional or behavioral

problems is the general assumption that such an evaluation
will ultimately improve the situation in the classroom in
general and the behavior of the pupil in particular. TO
determine if or to what extent this occurs is somewhat
difficult. While we tend to assume that it does happen

(a sometimes doubtful assumption), there is a lack Of clar-
ity as to how it does occur, and what sequence of events
is involved. A clearer understanding of the dynamics of
the situation could conceivably lead to improvement in the
effectiveness of the service. Assessment Of the extent of
similarity in the manner in which the role Of the school
diagnostician is perceived by the teacher and defined by

the school diagnostician would be a significant step in

lO

clarifying this situation.

C. Several modes of Operation are inferred by the
questions and requests of teachers. One is that the school
diagnostician will establish the need for outside help and
the child's problems will be solved by the visiting teach-
er, clinic, or other agency. Another is that the diagnos-
tician, after evaluating the child, can "tell the teacher
how to handle the child effectively." Both of these seem
to take for granted that solving the problem is an event,
that it occurs quickly, and that the change occurs essen-
tially in the child.

A third alternative, to be examined in somewhat
greater detail, accepts the situation in part as a problem
of relationship between teacher and child, recognizes that
the problems of the child are not likely to change very
quickly, and that the child has been referred because the
resources that the particular teacher brings to the situa-
tion have not been adequate to c0pe with it. It is felt
that the services of the school diagnostician may contrib-
ute to a change in the teacher's perception of the child,
and that this in turn may change her behavior toward the
child (perhaps toward children in general), resulting in
more positive behavior on the part of the child. It is
hOped that the insights generated within the teacher would
contribute not only to more appropriate behavior with the
child referred, but with other children as well, in the

long run resulting in more satisfactory school experiences

11

for the children and fewer referrals to the school diag-
nostician.

A critical step in the chain Of events is the rela—
tionship between presentation of information and change Of
perception (17). A recently published study by Rogers on
the diffusion of innovation would seem to suggest that the
work of a school diagnostician might be more profitable if
within each school he were able to identify the teacher or
teachers who are "innovators" and concentrate his efforts
on them. Rogers' work suggests that within each community
there are some members who are more alert and receptive to
outside influence and to change, and that change in the
community in general is the result of other, more conserv-
ative members of the community adOpting the changes which
they have Observed the innovators trying out successfully.

If the degree of congruency Of perception of the
school diagnostician's role by the teacher and school diag-
nostician influences the nature Of the teacher's perception
of the child following a consultation with the school diag-
nostician, then we may infer that he will be more effective
in changing the teacher's perception of the school diag—

nostician's role and l) to "assume" it, or 2) change it.

V Summary
In this chapter the focal point of the study has
been established as the relationship between congruency of

role expectation and the effects of consultations upon the

12

attitude of the consultee toward the consultation, and

Upon changes in the consultee's perception of the topic of
the consultation. The investigation has both operational
and theoretical significance. The sc0pe of the activities
of school diagnosticians has been changing, but the effect-
iveness Of their work in the new areas has not been as-
sessed. The study has been limited to school diagnostic—
ians as the group in the field having the greatest common-
ality of training and in professional responsibilities.

Two studies regarding the outcomes Of consultations
were considered, one Of change of attitude and the other of
change Of perception. Questions which the study would at-
tempt to answer were briefly outlined and it was felt that
the answers to these questions could have implications per-
tinent to the manner in which school diagnosticians should
function and the types of responsibilities they should as-
sume.

Possible courses of action were considered, two of
which were methods of producing changes in the pupil and
one intended to produce changes in the teacher. The possi—
bility of identifying the more "changeable" teachers, as-
suming the role perceived by the teacher or changing her
perception to fit the school diagnostician's, were also
considered.

In Chapter II we shall review the literature pertin-
ent to our investigation in the areas of functions Of

school diagnosticians, consultations, and role theory. In

13

Chapter III we will outline the procedures of the investi—
gation, describe the development Of the instrument used in
the investigation, and explain the method Of selecting the
sample used to test our hypothesis. In Chapter IV we will
present and discuss the data Of the investigation and some
Of its implications. A summary of the study and the con-

clusions which may be drawn from it will constitute Chapter

V.

CHAPTER II

REVIEN OF LITERATURE

A. Introduction

Since the area of investigation was the role Of the
school diagnostician and in particular, clarification of
the relationship of the teacher and the school diagnostic-
ian, it was felt necessary to review not only the litera—
ture on the functions of school diagnosticians, but to
some extent, the literature on the consultation process
and role theory, where these tOpics included concepts or
techniques pertinent to the investigation.

The school diagnostician is an occupation created
in the state of Michigan by legislation and while many
similar or overlapping positions exist in the state such
as testers, school psychologists, and psychometrists,
these are not as clearly defined nor as numerous as diag—
nosticians. Even among school diagnosticians there would
appear to be great diversity of function. Of those school
diagnosticians approved by the State Department of Educa-
tion, some rarely go beyond the minimum functions indicated
by the law, namely, certifying pupils for placement in
special education classes for the mentally handicapped.
Others go far beyond it, working with pupils having vari—

ous kinds Of learning problems, pupils who are emotionally
l4

lS

disturbed, or pupils who are behavioral problems in the
classroom. Most school diagnosticians probably function
between these two extremes and, perhaps, a few outside
them. (In these situations the term "working with” refers
to performing a diagnostic evaluation, but does not imply
an academic tutorial or a psychotherapeutic relationship.)
From this condition it would seem that the functions assoc—
iated with this position have not become institutionalized
in a widely accepted, generally adOpted, clearly defined
role. We assume then that this investigation is not a sta-
tus study of a stable institutionalized role, but Of a role
in the process of develOping. It is hOped that the results
of this study may contribute, not only some clarification
of the role at present, but may suggest profitable direc-

tions in which its development may be cultivated.

B. Functions of the School Diagnostician

The position of school diagnostician was created
indirectly by state legislation in 1948 (1). In a law
passed that year the legislature required that children
being placed in state reimbursed special education pro-
grams for mentally retarded children be examined by a
competent psychological diagnostician, and that reimburse—
ment for children so placed be contingent upon the school
diagnostician's certification of the child's eligibility
for the program.

The Department of Public Instruction (now the State

Department of Education) was assigned responsibility for

l6

determining what constituted a competent psychological
diagnostician. This agency defined competence in terms Of
university course credits in Specific content areas and
in terms of hours Of work experience. While the law spec-
ified a relatively narrow range of function for this posi-
tion, it did not specifically limit the individual occupy-
ing the position to this range of functions. The level
and breadth of training required could be construed to
imply a much broader range of functions and at times, a
somewhat higher level of professional Operations. This
situation left considerable latitude within which the role
could be defined and within which the local units might
utilize the services of school diagnosticians.

In actual practice, the functions of school diagnos-
ticians would seem to have expanded beyond those implied
by the law to the perceived limits of the training Of the
individual school diagnostician (2,3). The types of func-
tions performed by school diagnosticians have been indi—
cated in several surveys. A survey conducted by the De-
partment Of Public Instruction in 1960 indicated the types
of cases handled, instruments used, the areas of training,
professional eXperience, conditions Of employment, position
in administrative hierarchy, and work schedules of school
diagnosticians. The report was based upon a survey of 121
approved school diagnosticians, but did not indicate whether
this number represented the total responses or the total

number of school diagnosticians listed in the state (4).

All school diagnosticians polled accepted referrals

to do assessments of the educable mentally retarded, 86%
handled assessments Oflthe trainable mentally retarded,

and 77%, assessments of educational retardation. Only 61%
handled evaluation of behavior problems. The majority
were not involved in any aspect of administering a group
testing program, although 72% made use of group test data.
Approximately two thirds indicated that they participated
in screening committees planning educational programs for
individual students. An equal proportion indicated that
they always interpreted psychological data verbally to
teachers. Seventy to 80% indicated that they made indiv-
idual referrals of appropriate pupils to community school
agencies, psychological clinics, and medical facilities.
Of the many functions reported, those discussed above were
the only ones in which approximately two thirds of the
school diagnosticians surveyed participated (5).

A 1963 survey of school diagnosticians conducted by.
Leaske and Austin (6) secured 50% returns from the 207
diagnosticians to whom questionnaires were sent. This sur-
vey covered training, professional experience, affiliation
with professional organizations, as well as types Of child—
ren seen and distribution of time over various work activi-
ties. The findings of this study were in essential agree-
ment with those of the previous ones. It indicated that
the greater prOportion of the school diagnostician's time

was devoted to individual assessment, primarily of causes

18

of possible mental retardation. It also indicated that
most of the school diagnosticians had consultations with
school staff as well as parents, and that at least half Of
them did individual counseling, although rarely devoting
more than 5% of their working time to this activity.

Both of the above studies were essentially status
studies indicating who school diagnosticians were, how they
spent their time, what tools they used, the procedural as-
pects of their relationships with other staff members, and
professional organizations with which they were affiliated.

Dunn in 1964 (7) taking a slightly different and
broader sample, surveyed two overlapping groups, the 209
approved diagnosticians listed by the Department of Public
Instruction, and all members of the Michigan Society of
School Psychologists not included in that list. He then
compared them on the basis of personal and professional
characteristics, as well as income, age, sex, and type of
location. He gave as his reasons for the survey, " . . .tO
provide . . . an up—to-date . . . picture of the levels of
competency reflected in school psychology in Michigan to—
day . . . to provide . . . basic . . . data . . . desired
by the IRCOPPS (sic) Midwest Research Center . . . And . . .
to assist the Department of Public Instruction in its re—
evaluation of the diagnostician program." He seemed to
equate competency with level Of training or type of certi-

fication.

According to Dunn (8), "the typical Michigan Society

19

Of School Psychologists member is male, reasonably mature,
moderate to well—trained, professionally affiliated, rea-
sonably well paid, and has aspiration for upward profes-
sional mobility." The school diagnosticians who were not
members of the Michigan Society Of School Psychologists
were, as a group, younger, less well trained, etc. Dunn'
does concede, "It is not entirely apprOpriate to compare
the typical Michigan school psychologist member with the
non-Michigan school psychologist diagnosticians because .
. . the Michigan Society of School Psychologists has a
significant number of members who are university professors,
private psychologists, directors of Special services,
etcl" (9).

He then compares those school diagnosticians who
are members Of the Michigan Society of School Psycholo-
gists with those who are not members of that organization.
In comparing these two groups, the means for age, years of
eXperience as a teacher, and years of experience as a
school diagnostician were higher for the group in the Mich-
igan Society of SchOol Psychologists. Larger proportions
of this group held the doctorate, had a graduate major in
psychology or educational psychology, and were certified by
the state as psychologists or consulting psychologists. A
larger prOportion Of them served school systems Of more
than 7,500 pUpils and, as might be expected, a larger pro-
portion of them were members of the American Psychological

Association and the Michigan Psychological Association.

20

Dunn perceived this group to have a stronger professional
affiliation and to identify themselves primarily as psych—
ologists, aSpiring ultimately to careers as research
psychologists, or working in psychology in institutions Of
higher learning.

In contrast, the school diagnosticians not affili-
ated with the Michigan Society of School Psychologists were
younger, less eXperienced and less well trained. Dunn did
not, however, feel that they would remain a distinct group
on a long range basis but rather that when they became
more eXperienced, they would affiliate with the Michigan
Society of School Psychologists (10). This would seem to
suggest a professional progression from educator to edu—
cator psychologist working in the public schools to educa—
tional psychologists and counseling or consulting psychol—
Ogist working in the university or equivalent setting. The
question which this raises is whether or not this method
of supplying Specialists trained in the field Of psychol—
ogy best serves the interests of the schools, the universi-
ties, and research organizations in need of such special-
ists. However, an eXploration of this issue would seem to
be considerably beyond the scope of our present study.

The school diagnostician's role as a consultant was
given indirect recognition by the Department of Public In-
struction in a 1960 survey (11) in which one section was
devoted to consultative functions Of school diagnosticians

and in which other sections included activities implying a

21

consultative function, for example, "Participate as a mem-
ber of a group test committee in the develOpmental and
periodic re-evaluation of a . . . program of . . . group
testing."

Kaplan and Sprunger attempted to measure experi-
mentally the effectiveness of school diagnosticians' con—
sultations in terms of changing teachers' perceptions of
individual pupils (12).

In section C, the term consultation will be defined
and its applicability to the functions Of the school diag-
nostician will be discussed in some detail.

In this section we have discussed several surveys
and an experimental study containing material pertinent to
the functions of the school diagnostician. The surveys
tended to center on the psychologists or school diagnos—
tician himself in terms of what he was, the nature Of his
responsibilities, and what he did, considering only indi—
rectly the implications the data might have in terms of how
the program should be organized. They did not eXplore to
any great extent the actual goals Of school diagnosticians
within their role nor any questions pertaining to changes
in goals or orientation. In short, these surveys consisted
of attempts to assess conditions and programs as they exist-
ed, with little consideration for what anyone thought they
ought to be or might become, nor, with one exception, did
they consider the degree of effectiveness with which school

diagnosticians were performing their tasks. Only the

22

experimental study by Kaplan and Sprunger attempted to
measure the effectiveness of an aSpect of the activities Of

the school diagnostician.

C. Role Theory
1. Theoretical concepts

a. Development. The early develOpment Of role

 

theory is traced by Nieman and Hughes (13). In their re—
view Of the concept of role, they examine in some detail
its origin and derivation from the concept of self, begin—
ning with William James (14) whose social self, a product
of recognition from mates, could exist as a separate entity
for each distinct group of persons about whose Opinions the
individual cared. Mead (15) expands this, stating, "The

self arises in conduct when the individual becomes a social

Object in experience to himself." Nieman and Hughes (16)
add, " . . . the social act, out Of which emerges the self,
is in reality the assumption of a role for a child." Hav-

ing introduced the term "role," they clarify it with the
definition of Cottrell (17). "The role is the organization
Of habits and attitudes of the individual apprOpriate to a
given position in a system of social relationships . . .
There is no conception of role . . . without a reference to
what action is expected in the situation of which the role
is a part."

They also give the definitions of Cameron (18):

"The role is the product of social learning which has been

23
culturally defined by the behavior of others . . ." and of
Linton (19), "A role represents the dynamic aspect Of a
status . . . determines what he does for his society and
what he can expect from it." These definitions seem to
establish two essential elements in the concept of role,
the first that it exists in a social context or situation
involving a relationship between two peOple, and the
second, a set of actions for each participant, or of ac—
tions each participant expects of the other on the basis
of their relationship.

Successful handling of a role is a function of the
degree of overlap between role expectations and actors'
needs, according to Ackerman (20). However, Getzels and
Cuba (21), in a study of personnel fulfilling the dual
roles of an Officer and of an instructor in a military in-
stallation, found effectiveness within a role to be related
to a lack of role conflict.

Nieman and Hughes (22) felt that previous to 1940,
role was an abstract generalization, and that there had
been more theorizing than research, but that after 1940
more research was in evidence. It was their Opinion that
few if any predictive studies of human behavior involving
the concept of role had been done.

In a review of role theory in 1954, Sarbin (23) also
eXpressed some concern regarding research on the nature of
role, stating, "The building blocks Of role perception . .

are the overt acts Of others . . . Research in this area

24

has been neglected. Moreno (24) has suggested procedures
which utilize social acts in the psychodramatic experiment.
However these procedures have been used more for demonstra-
tion. . . than for the determination of principles of role
perception." He seemed to feel that the emphasis in role
research was upon applications of role at the eXpense Of
research on the validation of role concepts.

b. Present status. Perhaps the most comprehensive

 

review of role theory and research is Biddle's "Present
Status of Role Thoery," 1961 (25). He states the reasons
for the pOpularity of role theory as follows:

Role concepts are deceptively simple . . . relate
to existing theories . . . have utility, apply to
a number Of pressing human problems . . . seem
easy to operationalize . . . fit a democratic ide-
ology . . . and have heuristic value. (26)

He expresses concern about the wealth Of unorganized mater—
ial in the field, stating,

. . . role theory today suffers from at least four
serious shortomings:

(1) lack of agreement on what is studied.

(2) lack of agreement on what to call it--
and widespread use of common terms to
mean quite different things.

(3) lack of an agreed upon prOpositional
structure constituting the core Of the
theory.

(4) lack of organized empirical evidence
from Studies tied to theoretical prOpo-
sitions (27).

Biddle indicates that he has attempted to limit his consid-
erations of role theory to references where the major ori—
entation was to role, role terms, or role prOpositions,

excluding studies done in other fields in which role

concepts were used merely as a part of the study. Prom
some seventy—six references which met his criteria and ap-
plied to essentially theoretical aSpects Of role, he listed
the major terms used by each author and classified them
under his own headings, the definition of which was approx—
imately equivalent to the reference author's definition of
his own term. The seven terms used by Biddle were posi—
tion, a single expectation, a single norm, a single behav-
ior, a (related) group Of eXpectations, a (related) group
Of norms, and a (related) group of behaviors. Under each
Of these classifications were listed from eight to seven—
teen different terms, the definition of which by their
author was approximately equivalent to Biddle's definition
of the term heading the group (28).

Using the same set of terms, Biddle (29) applied the
above procedure to term usage in empirical articles. In
these studies he found not only a different set of terms
than in the theoretical studies, but also a greater number
within each category.

Other aspects Of the use of terminology in studies
of role concepts were found to be as unstandardized and
contradictory as was the case with the theoretical and em-
pirical studies reviewed. In summarizing, he states,

It should not be concluded, however, that role
theorists are talking about totally different
things. The majority of contributors speak di-
rectly to the subject of patterned behaviors and
their antecedents in terms of role cognitions,

and many see such processes as consensus, sanc-
tion, and conformity, as central to the

26

acquisition of and maintenance Of a role in stable

social interaction.

The conclusion is inescapable that much confusion

could be avoided in role theory with the adOption

of a common system of terms and concepts. In addi—

tion, the time is ripe for exploration of the prOp-

ositional structure in this field and a restriction

Of the endless process of redefinition. (30)

Proliferation of definitions seems to have Occurred

also in the area of role conflict. Biddle (31) indicates
that while many types of role conflict have been posed,
many types implied by existing theory have not yet been in-
vestigated. In addition he states,

Although many definitions of role have been given

at the behavioral level, no definitions of role

conflict have been Offered at this level—-which

strongly suggests that most authors "really" are

thinking about cognitions when they use the term,

"role."
And "the majority Of extant role conflict definitions are
stated as multi-person cognitive incompatibilities, al-
though many Operational definitions used by empirical in-
vestigators have involved taking data from only the Object
person suffering conflict." Those definitions of role
conflict based upon affective orientation, relationship
between role cognitions and reality limitations, or both,
he refers to as "off-beat role conflict definitions" (32).
He does admit that "investigators of role conflict have ap—
peared to tie their empirical investigations closely to
their conceptual distinctions." Although he believes that

some research on role conflict "suffers from the common

shortcomings of other role materials," (33) he does feel

27

that role conflict analysis is a growing subfield of role

theory.

2. Empirical Studies Of Role Expectations or Perception
Many studies have been conducted of role rela-
tionships in education, primarily of teachers' or admini-
strators' roles (34). Among the more recent ones is
Clinton Snyder's (35) study (1963) of several dimensions
of the role expectations for male high school teachers, in
which he compared expectations based upon a general con-
cept Of "most male secondary teachers," with eXpectations
based upon specific individuals occupying such a position.
Differences between the twO sets of eXpectations were not
significant.

Louis Doyle's (36) study of the elementary teacher's
role which compared expectancies and perceptions of other
professionals within the field of education to the teacher's
own definition of the role, found greater similarities in
expectations among the groups than teachers themselves
perceived.

Getzels and Cuba (37) investigated the results Of
role conflict in which one individual occupied two roles
and was unable to resolve the elements of conflict which he
perceived to exist between them.

Hoffman (38) compared the perceptions of elementary
school personnel, consultants and special area teachers'

perceptions of the Special area teacher and consultant

role. Conflict in perception Of these roles was found in
several Of the comparisons.

Research has been cited by Sarbin on tension bind—
ing (39) and upon taking the role Of the other (40,41,42).
These studies lie within an area Of role theory which is
not pertinent to the present investigation and will conse-
quently not be discussed.

In a more refined attempt to investigate the influ-
ence of role perception upon the outcomes of consultations,
Ferneau (43) compared the perception of the consulant's
role by administrators with the definition Of this role by
the consultant who had worked with the administrator in the
context of a consultative relationship. The degree of sim—
ilarity in these perceptions was in turn related to the ex—
pressed degree of satisfaction with the consultation.
Perneau's study was based upon three levels or modes of
Operation in consultations (44). These may be defined
briefly as: l) the eXpert who gives answers or solutions
to problems; 2) the resource person who can provide data or
information which may be pertinent to the problem and help
in its solution; and 3) the process person who is concerned
with helping the consultee to solve his problem through an
interactive relationship and is interested in behavioral
changes which will enable the persons to solve the problem
and become more competent to handle similar situations in
the future.

It was Ferneau's original intention to attempt to

determine which of these procedures was the most effective,
as would be indicated by the degree of expressed satisfac-
tion with the consultation. He found, however, that no one
mode of Operation was consistently rated as satisfactory.
Closer examination Of his data indicated that satisfactory
evaluations occurred most Often when there was a high degree
of similarity between the perception Of the consultant's
role by the consultant and the consultee.
3. Summary of Role Theory

The historical development of role from the
concept of self has been examined. Its essential elements,
that it exists in a social context and that it consists of
a set of actions or expected actions, was indicated on the
basis of the definitions of several workers in the field.

The trend from theorizing to empirical research and the

neglect of validation Of role concepts in favor of appli-
cations was noted. Biddle's discussion of the basis for
the pOpularity of role theory was outlined and included
simplicity of concepts related to existing theories, util-
ity, and apparent ease Of operationalization. Biddle felt
the shortcomings of role theory were lack of agreement on
what is studied, what to call it, and prOpositional struc-
ture, as well as the paucity of empirical evidence to sup-
port theoretical propositions. In spite of the excessive
proliferation Of terms and definitions, Biddle felt that
there was a core of recognizable concepts accepted by the

majority of role theorists.

Empirical studies of role eXpectation or perception,
and role conflict were cited. This group included studies
of the effects of role conflicts in the case of one indiv-
idual occupying two roles Simultaneously, and conflict be—
tween twO individuals' perceptions of one of their roles in
a consultation situation. Ferneau's (45) study of role per-
ceptions of administrators and consultants was briefly dis-

cussed, as the basis Of the present investigation.

D. The Consultation Process

1. Early views. The examination of various aSpects Of

 

one type of consultant position by Brown in 1944 (46) and
the discussion Of staff function by McGregor in 1948 (47)
presents a reasonably adequate view of thinking about con-
sultation process current in that decade. The consultant's
Opportunity, according to McGregor (48), lies in the un-
solved problems (in human relations) of line managers. This
opinion is eXpressed in a discussion of the functions of
staff experts, also referred to as consultants. More Spe—
cific reasons for requesting services of a consultant given
by Brown (49) are 1) his exceptional skills or knowledge,
2) the prestige Of his name, 3) the detached or independent
point of view he brings to the problem and 4) his freedom
from the demands of administrative detail and routine.
Brown feels that the consultant relationship is of necess-
ity a temporary one. In becoming a permanent member of

the organization, a not unusual occurrence with business

31

consultants, the consultant loses certain elements of his

former position which have contributed to his effectiveness
as a consultant. He loses the objectivity of an outsider
which he brought to bear on the original problem. He is
quite likely to acquire some routine administrative func—
tions, the demands Of which may decrease his flexibility
in, and time for, consultative functions. The performance
of such routine tasks may not sustain the luster of his
professional reputation in the same manner as his role of
expert in the solution Of more acute problems. As a per-
manent member of the organization, his professional future
will be more dependent on diplomatic relationships with
members Of the administrative structure and will cost him

a Significant degree of his objectivity and independence

Of judgment. For these reasons Brown feels that the con-
sultant Should avoid the temptation to become absorbed into
the organization on a permanent basis because the net re—
sult would be to decrease or eliminate his opportunities
for doing those things which he is best able to do.

Brown (50) also suggests that the consultant adhere
to certain rules which do not necessarily apply to perman—
ent members of the organization. He must function on the
basis of Open agreements Openly arrived at. He must com—
municate with frankness and clarity. He should, as much
as possible, refrain from doing what can be done easily by
others. He should accept the role Of an educator and bus-

iness physician.

Although Brown is concerned with the role of the
business consultant, his comments are quite applicable to
the role Of the school diagnostician. However his dis—
cussion does imply a more intensive and somewhat more pro—
longed process of consultation than would be true of a
school diagnostician working with a particular teacher on
the problems of one of her pupils.

2. The Consultant as an Agent in Changing Behavior

The necessity for accepting the consultee's

frame of reference in attempting to influence the consult—
ee's behavior is emphasized by McGregor (51). He feels
that the consultant must be prepared to help the consultee
solve the consultee's problems as the consultee perceives
them. (McGregor uses the capital A to denote the person
trying to influence the behavior Of another, and capital
B to indicate the person whose behavior is to be influ-
enced.) Objective facts, in McGregor's Opinion, are not as
significant in influencing behavior as "the subjective
facts Of B's perceptual fields" (52).

He indicates that we must "explore B's perceptual
field before introducing . . . (our) own factual analysis"
(53). This would seem to imply that the consultant manip—
ulates the consultee into selecting the consultant's tai-
lor-made solutions to the problem. However the limits of
the factual analysis are indicated by McGregor's classifi—
cation that the consultant must create a situation in which

the consultee can learn or discover, rather than be taught.

33

McGregor points out that the methods of the staff
eXpert or consultant resemble those Of a psychotherapist,
and that the consultant must establish a relationship in
which he will be perceived as a source Of help in solving
a problem (54). However he concludes "the staff role in
human relations is more happily identified with that of
the educator than with that of the therapist” (55).

The necessity to avoid fostering a dependency rela—
tionship between consultant and consultee has been stated
or implied by both McGregor (56) and Brown (57). This is
crystallized by Gilbert (58) in 1960, who states that
" . . .consultant gives his knowledge, skills and . . .
experience . . . The consultee left free to choose and
carry out the plan and action (while) the consultant may
'support the consultee' . . ." (59). In evaluating con—
sultations Gilbert (60) suggests " . . . one criterion of
the success of a consultant-consultee relationship is that
the consultant leaves the line organization strengthened
rather than weakened."

3. Operational Aspects of Consultation
Gilbert takes a somewhat more abstract ap-
proach and Specifies Operational aspects of consultation
as consultant role, consultant function, and consultant
process. She defines consultant role as who the consult—
ant and others think he is, or what he is expected to do.
She defines function merely as what he does, and process,

how he does it, i.e., by what method. She lists functions

34

of a consultant as evaluating, advising, teaching, and act-
ing as liaison. Consistent with the vagaries of definition
of terms in the field of role theory, Blumberg (61) lists
three roles which a consultant may assume, which fit
Gilbert's definition of process, "advisor, resource per-
son, helper or catalyst." While Blumberg did not indicate
the source Of his terms, they bear a close resemblance to
the types Of consultants described by Ferneau (62) which
were based upon 192 case studies collected by the Midwest
Administration Center. The case studies were analyzed on
the basis Of attitudes and behavior reported in them re-
garding consultations. After the three patterns had been
isolated, the original case studies were submitted to
judges to classify according to the types. Their classifi—
cations were in agreement in 188 of the 192 cases (63).

In Lippitt's (64) examination in 1959 of the dimen-
sions of a consultant's job, his definition of a consulta—
tion assumed:

l. . . . a voluntary relationship between

2. a professional helper (consultant) and
help-needing system (client)

3. in which the consultant is trying to
help the client in the solving Of
some . . . problem

4. and the relationship is perceived as
temporary by both parties

5. Also the consultant is an "outsider,"
i.e., is not partof any hierarchical
power system in which the client is
located.

35

4. The Diagnostician as a Consultant

Let us now compare the functions of the school
diagnostician with these criteria. In general the diagnos-
tician evaluates pupils at the request of a staff member in
the school which the pupil attends. While the person re-
questing the conference may be a principal, a teacher, or
another specialist such as a visiting teacher, the referral
is initiated by the person desiring help. There is to some
degree an element of choice in the diagnostician's respond-
ing to the request for help. Since fewer than 3% of school
diagnosticians are responsible to an administrator such as
a principal within a building (65), the choice as to which
referrals to accept would seem to reside with either the
diagnostician or an administrator outside the building to
whom the school diagnostician is reSponsible.

With regard to Lippitt's second criterion, the
school diagnostician's status as a professional helper
would seem to be fairly well established by the nature and
level of his training as well as the requirement for ap—
proval by a state agency. That the school is a help—need—
ing system is implicit in the act of making a referral.
While certifying a pupil as eligible for placement in a
Special education program for the mentally handicapped may
seem to involve a minimum amount of consultation, the per-
centage of pupils seen who are thus certified is relatively
small. For those who do not qualify or for those who may

have been seen for other reasons, it may be necessary for

LA)
0 s

the school diagnostician to help plan an educational pro-
gram (66).

Under criterion 4, the temporary nature Of the rela-
tionship might be questioned, since a given school diagnos-
tician Often works with a particular school for a full year
or even several years. However his work on any one problem
or pupil with a given teacher is limited to a written re—
port plus one or two, or rarely three, personal contacts
with the teacher.

It has already been noted that the school diagnos-
tician is very seldom under the supervision of the building
principal and typically is part of a county office of edu—
cation which is administratively independent Of the school
district or districts being served, or he is part of a
special service unit of a large school system, which unit
is also relatively independent administratively of Specific
schools. These two categories would probably include more
than 80% of the school diagnosticians polled in the 1960
Department Of Public Instruction survey (67). The diagnos-
tician's recommendations are permissive rather than manda—
tory, i.e., he may qualify a pupil as eligible for place-
ment in a Type A Program, but may neither require the pupil
to be so placed nor require a pupil to be barred from or
removed from such a program, which would seem to establish
that the school diagnostician has no authority over other
staff members in an individual school. Any authority ex-

ercised by a school diagnostician would be in the category

37
Bindman (68) has suggested in stating that "consultation
is based for its acceptance upon the 'authority of ideas.'"

It has been established that consultations of ad-
ministrators with school psychologists and social workers
change the administrator's perception of the topic Of con—
sultation (69). Although school psychologists and social
workers are not identical with school diagnosticians, there
is considerable overlap in their training and professional
functions, and at times even interchangeability in their
professional titles (70,71). Therefore it would not seem
unreasonable to assume that school diagnosticians are also
effective in changing perceptions Of administrators. The
importance of influencing administrators' perceptions is
indicated by Kitano's (72) statement that, "The definition
Of what constitutes a 'problem child' by school administra—
tors determines who is the problem child." Byram (73)
points out that

The problem to be dealt with should be an Official
concern of the school administrative authority.
Unless this authority is committed to sanction Of
action that may be expected, or to administrative
recognition of the results of program planning
deliberations, the services Of a consultant might
be wasted . . .

We may conclude from this discussion that the school
diagnostician, at least in the major prOportion of his pro—
fessional activities, functions within the framework Of
Lippitt's criteria for a consultant. This is not as com-

prehensive an approach to the consultant role as that de-

scribed by Seashore and Van Egmond (74), in which they see

L!)
(I)

the consultant as an individual working in a comprehensive
process Of reorganization and training involving assistance
in the diagnosis of problems, effecting changes by involv—
ing those related to the problem, and helping them to de-
velop the "knowledge and skill necessary to implement
changes and establish effective methods for reaching their
goals."

0f the studies which the author was able to review
related to the consultation process, only Ferneau's (75)
and Kitano's (76) presented substantial quantitative data
to support the concepts they develOped. This would seem to
indicate a need for more empirical evidence to support con-
cepts that have been develOped in this area.

5. Summary -— Consultation Process
The need for consultants lies in the unsolved

problems of line managers. The consultant may be called
because of his exceptional skills or knowledge, his pres-
tige, his independent viewpoint, or his freedom from time-
consuming administrative reSponsibilities. The consultant
relationship is a temporary one, since according to Brown
(77), becoming a permanent member of the organization tends
to diminish those elements Of function which make the con-
sultant's services most valuable. To an extent which may
not apply to permanent members of the organization, the
consultant must function on the basis of Open agreements
Openly arrived at, communicate with frankness and clarity,

refrain from doing what can be done easily by others, and

39

accept the role of an educator and business physician. Al—
though this view Of consultation process would seem to be

a more intensive and prolonged kind of relationship than
exists between the school diagnostician and the teacher,
the principles involved would seem to apply to the teacher—
school diagnostician relationship. McGregor (78), in dis—
cussing the consultant as an agent for changing behavior,
points out that influencing behavior is best accomplished
by working within the conceptual field of the consultee.
Gilbert (79) emphasizes in addition that the planning must
be COOperative, and that the actual choice of plan as well
as implementation be left to the consultee. She implied
that a successful consultant—consultee relationship leaves
the consultee more capable of COping with similar problems.
Gilbert (80) also defined three Operational aspects of
consultation, consultant role, consultant function, and
consultant process. Under Gilbert's category of process,
we might appropriately list Ferneau's (81) definitions of
his three types Of consultant, the expert, the resource
person, and the process person..

Lippitt's (82) assumptions regarding consultant pro-
cess, that it is a voluntary, temporary relationship between
a professional helper and help-needing system for the pur-
pose of solving a problem, and that the consultant is not
a permanent part Of the help-needing system, are used as
the basis Of an examination of the functions of school

diagnosticians. The school diagnosticians were found to

40

be, at least in the major prOportion of their professional
activities, within the framework of Lippitt's criteria for
a consultant. In the literature reviewed there was little
research reported on the consultation process in which con-

cepts developed were SUpported by quantitative data.

CHAPTER III
DESIGN OF THE STUDY

I Procedures

An instrument constructed to measure the perception
Of the school diagnostician's role was submitted to all
school diagnosticians on the approved list maintained by
the Michigan Department Of Public Instruction. This in—
strument, when completed by a school diagnostician, mea-
sures his definition of his role. When it is completed by
a teacher, it measures the teacher's expectation of the
school diagnostician's role. This instrument was also sub—
mitted to teachers who had been nominated by administra—
tors and who had had professional contact with the school
diagnosticians. The teachers were requested to indicate
not only their perception of the prOper role Of the diag-
nostician, but their rating of the degree Of satisfactori—
ness of the contact with the school diagnostician.

The purpose Of the study was to determine whether
or not the degree Of similarity between the teachers' and
school diagnosticians' perception Of the school diagnos-
tician's role was related to the teacher's rating of the

contact with the school diagnostician.

41

42

II Sample

The Diagnostician Role Check List (Appendix A) was
submitted to all school diagnosticians in the state of
Michigan and, in as many cases as possible, to teachers
who had been recommended by administrators and who had had
consultations with the school diagnostician. The sample
consisted of all acceptable school diagnostician-teacher
pairs from whom satisfactorily completed check lists had
been returned. .It was limited to those diagnosticians
who were employed full-time as school diagnosticians for
the public schools, who did not have administrative re—
sponsibilities, and who met these specifications during
the school year in which the investigation was conducted.
Individuals working in institutions, psychologists in pri-
vate practice who did diagnostic evaluations on a fee basis,
and part-time workers were eliminated from the school diag—
nostician sample.

Teachers with part—time administrative responsibil-
ities, curriculum coordinators, or full-time principals,
as well as Special education teachers, were elminated from
the teacher sample. However purity of sample was diffi—
cult to maintain, due to changes of employment Of many
participants in this study during the period it was being
carried on (1). I

TO compensate for attrition in teacher response, the
administrators had been requested to submit the names of

two teachers for each school diagnostician. It was hOped

43

that for each school diagnostician, at least one teacher
would reSpond. In all cases in which two teacher returned
a satisfactory check list for a given school diagnostician,
the pairs of teachers were put in a separate list in order
of their code numbers, and then one was selected on the
basis of a table of random numbers (2). Teachers selected
by this process and the school diagnosticians paired with
them were then added to the other group of acceptable
teacher—diagnostician pairs to constitute the sample for
the study.

This sample of School diagnostician-teacher pairs
was used to determine the applicability of Ferneau's hy-
pothesis to the school diagnostician—teacher consultation

relationship.

III- Instrument
A. The Diagnostician Role Check List consisted Of
three parts:

1. Part I was a paired cOmparison schedule con—
cerned with Ferneau's (3) categories of consultant func-
tion, containing items based upon situations or types Of
Situations that are known tO be a part of the school diag—
nostician's responsibilities, or situations closely simi-
Ilar to those within this area Of function.

2. Part II had to do with the background of the
individual filling out the check list and included three

areas—-training, professional eXperience, and school system

44

in which the school diagnostician was employed.

3. Part III was a fifty item check list consist-
ing of an array Of types of functions which a school diag-
nostician might perform or be involved in, and including
two items regarding the school diagnostician's professional
orientation. The respondent was asked to indicate the ex-
tent to which the function was appropriate for school
diagnosticians.

B. Part I of the Diagnostician Role Check List

Fourteen sets of three items each, called
triads, were constructed on the basis of an assortment of
situations in which the school diagnostician is typically
involved. Each triad consisted of three items in which
the school diagnostician's action in a given situation was
eXpressed according to one Of Ferneau's (4) categories of
consultant function: the eXpert, the resource person, or
the process person.

1. Sources of items. The situations were based
upon teachers' or principals' statements about, or requests
for, services from the school diagnostician. As often as
possible, the wording used in items was taken from inter—
views with teachers or principals. In this manner, a pool
Of approximately 100 items was develOped.

3 2. Criteria for selection Of items. The items
were subjected to the following criteria: 1) The item
Should imply or describe behavior which might be expected

Of school diagnosticians by teachers; 2) specific action

45

items may be repeated but conditioned Upon different ob-
jects, purposes or modes Of Operation; 3) action items
should be actions involved in or pertinent to the consult—
ation process; 4) items Should be classifiable within one
category Of Ferneau's classification of modes of consulta-
tion and should be capable of being matched with equivalent
items in each Of the other two categories.

3. Construction of triads. Where actual state—
ments from a teacher or principal were not available to
fill one Of the three categories regarding the situation,
such an item was constructed. While it was Often necessary
to modify the wording of the teacher or principal in order
to make an item consistent with the other two items with
which it was to be paired, it was felt that there was
enough of the original situation and wording in most of the
items to give them verisimilitude and face valicity when
submitted to the teacher.

From a pool Of approximately 100 items, there were
enough items that either met the criteria or could, with
minor revisions, be made to meet the criteria, to estab—
lish fourteen triad groups.

4. Judging items. The items constituting the
triads were typed on individual cards and assigned code
numbers. The cards and photOCOpies of the portion Of
Ferneau's dissertation (5) describing his categories were
given to the judges. The judges, all school diagnosticians,

were asked to study the criteria and sort the cards

accordingly. Five judges sorted the cards and their selec—
tions were recorded. The cards were shuffled into random
order before presentation to each judge. The extent to
which the judges agreed with each other on specific items
was an indication of the reliability of the items (6). The
extent to which they agreed with the criterion (the cate-'
gory assigned by the writer) gave an indication of the con—
tent validity Of the item (7). Since each item was classi-
fied by five judges, a triad Of three items involved fif-
teen acts of classification. The two poorest triads con-
tained fewer than eight correct classifications of a possi-
ble fifteen and were consequently discarded. The third low
triad, consisting Of two items correctly classified at
least four and five times, and one item which was correctly
classified once out of five times, was retained in the
schedule, but with the poor item modified for greater clar—
ity. (One additional triad was omitted in scoring because
of an error in printing the check list forms.)

5. Reliability of judges' categorization of items.

Each judge was paired with each of the

other judges (for the five judges, a total of ten pairs)
and for each pair a count was made Of the number of items
upon which they agreed in their categorizations. From this
the prOportion Of agreement was calculated and an average
proportion calculated from the ten pairs. PrOportions of
agreement for the various pairs ranged from .50 to ;75, wit

a mean agreement score Of .647. The proportion Of agreement

47

that could have been expected on the basis of purely
chance selection was .33.

Unfortunately in the public school system in which
the experimental group was located, it was felt that the
complete instrument was longer than teachers could reason—
ably be expected to fill out on a voluntary basis. The
original paired comparison schedule Of slightly more than
five pages was edited to approximately three and a half
pages by condensing items and changing the format to a stub
and completion type.

Because of the changes in section I of the check
list (elimination or revision Of items of low validity, and
condensation Of most items in editing and reorganizing the
check list), after the first estimate Of inter—rater relia-
bility of items was made, repetition of these procedures
was necessary. Three new judges sorted the revised item
cards. The proportions Of agreement for the three pair-
ings of the judges were .75, .80, and .75. The average
proportion of agreement was .77. The slightly higher reli-
ability in the revised group of items may be accounted for
in part because of the elimination of poor items.

6. Item validity. Agreement between the judges
and the criterion may be considered to be an indication of
content validity. The judges' scores on the forty-two
items ranged from 25 to 33 correct. Their mean score was
30 and the standard deviation 3.316. In considering the

data on reliability and validity, it must be recognized

48

that in the instrument the items were not given in isola—
tion, but were given as pairs and that consequently, ele-
ments in one item Of the pair might give a context cue
which would increase the clarity of the other item. Be—
cause of the effects of such context cues and because of
the elimination of the poorer items from the original list,
it would be quite reasonable to suspect that the reliabil-
ity Of the final instrument would be somewhat higher than
the original pool of items.

In the condensed final version of the Diagnostician
Role Check List, the proportion of agreement between each
judge and the writer was .78, .78, and .92, with an average
proportion of agreement of .82, as compared to a mean Of
.899 calculated for the three judges in Ferneau's study
(8).

7. Format of Section I. In its final form, sec-

tion I of the Diagnostician Role Check List consisted of a
paired comparison schedule designed to provide rank order-
ing of items within sets Of three. Every set consisted of
three items, one from each of Ferneau's three categories,
illustrating different approaches to a common situation.
The following set of items is an example of one of the
original triads:

Expert -~ Diagnostician should tell teacher what the
pupil's problems are.

Resource Person —- Diagnostician should Offer possi—

ble explanations of the pupil's behavior in the classroom.

49

Process Person -— Diagnostician should do counseling
with teachers regarding teacher's own reactions to problem
children.

The elements of the triad are then combined as
pairs, and each pair considered an item or unit Of the
paired comparison schedule. For example in the final con-
densed version, the stub is at the top of the page and the

choices in the paired comparison schedule are completions

Of this stub.

The Diagnostician should:

7. (a) Offer possible eXplanations Of the pupil's
behavior in the classroom.
(b) DO counseling with teachers regarding
teacher's own reactions to problem
children.

18. (a) DO counseling with teachers regarding
the teacher's own reactions to prob-
lem children.
(b) Tell the teacher what the pupil's prob—
lems are.
31. (a) Tell the teacher what the pupil's prob—
lems are.
(b) Offer possible eXplanations of the pupil's
behavior in the classroom.

The order Of elements within the pair was determined
by a randomization process. Sequence of pairs in the
schedule was ordered on the basis of a sequence of numbers
within a table of random numbers (9). The use of this prO-
cedure, however, resulted in several items being in posi-
tions adjacent to other items constructed from the same

triad. In those cases the second of the two items was

moved ten items down the list. Fewer than half the items

50

in the schedule are on the same page with another item con-
structed from the same triad, and in no case is the com-
plete set of items from one triad on the same page. (Sev-
eral respondents made marginal notations to the effect that
we had made a mistake in constructing the schedule, repeat-
ing one or several items. Of the more than 300 reSpondents,
including the unacceptable as well as the acceptable, only
one indicated an awareness Of a systematic repetition Of
items, and asked if we were checking on her consistency.)

The complete randomized form Of the paired compari—
son schedule constitutes Section I Of the Diagnostician
Role Check List which is included in the Appendix. The
instrument consists of thirty-Six pairs of items (10),
each individual item appearing twice, first with one and
then with the other remaining member Of its set. In order
to avoid having the reSpondentS check the schedule accord—
ing to a bias which might develOp if all the items were in
the same order according to the mode of consultative Opera-
tion which they represented, the presentation of pairs
within the total schedule was randomized according to a
table Of random numbers.

If A, B and C stand for elements in a triad and
1A8, 28C, and 3AC indicate the items within which they are
compared, and the preferences eXpressed within each item
were A in 1, B in 2, and A in 3, the indicated order of
preference would be A > B >'C. (Derived from A >'B in one,

B > C in 2, and A > C in 3.) This produces a rank ordering

51

of the items constituting the triad on the basis of degree
of preference of the reSpondent. But, if A, B, and C were
checked in l, 2 and 3 respectively, the degree of prefer-
ence would be expressed: A > B, B > C, and C >A, and com-
bined would give A> B 7 C > A, which is a circular order-
ing referred to as intransitive, and is logically incon-
sistent. Since the manner in which a respondent checked
the three pairs representing a given set could produce
either a rank ordering (transitive triad) or a circular
ordering (intransitive triad), the frequency with which a
rank ordering was produced would seem to indicate the ex—
tent to which the subject was responding consistently to
the content of the set.

For each triad, intransitive combinations were
checked by an average of 3.58 of the 146 respondents. The
range of the number of respondents checking each triad as
intransitive was from O to 15. If item selection were
purely a chance process, we would expect an average of 37
intransitive combinations for each triad. From this we
may conclude that the respondents were making their choices
with a relatively high degree of consistency.

C. Part II of the Diagnostician Role Check List
This section of the check list provided
space for the respondent to indicate the degree or degrees
he had received, and his majors and minors, as well as the
training institution from which he had received each degree.

He was also asked to indicate the number of years'

52

experience he had had as a teacher, a clinician, a diagnos-
tician, or "other" professional capacity. On the form sub—
mitted to teachers, the grade being taught "at the present
time" was also requested. The last item in section II con-
cerned whether the system in which he was employed was a
county or city system, its total pOpulation, the pupil
pOpulation, and, if possible, the pupil-diagnostician ratio.

D. Part III of the Diagnostician Role Check
List.

This section consisted of fity items
which the respondent was asked to check as applicable to
the school diagnostician's functions and duties, "almost
always," "most of the time," "usually," "seldom," or rare-
ly or never." It covered types of tests which might be
used, persons with whom the school diagnostician might
consult, sources of information which he might use, the
content of his report, the categories of students with whom
he Should work, areas in which he should be a consultant
or participate in in-service training activities, methods
of implementing his recommendations, his role in special
programs or planning in the schools, and also the profes-
sional orientation of the school diagnostician. Many items
indicating functions which are not typically performed by
a school diagnostician were included under these categor—
ies, in order to determine whether teachers and school diag-
nosticians feel that the functions of the school diagnos-

tician should shift into areas other than those areas

53

within which they customarily spend most of their time.

IV Treatment of the Data of Part I
The paired comparison schedule provides three

scores, one for each of the three factors--expert, resource,
and process. The score for any one factor may be from 0
through 24. Since it is extremely cumbersome to make com-
parisons on the basis of a three part score, the degree of
similarity with which the diagnostician and teacher had
checked their paired comparison schedules was computed in
the following manner: The difference between the teacher's
and the diagnostician's score for each factor was squared
and the three squared differences were then summed. The
sum Of the squared differences is called a congruency
score, for the sake of simplicity, although it might more
prOperly be called an inverse congruency score, since a
large score indicates a low degree of congruency of role
perception between the teacher and the diagnostician com-
posing the pair, and a low score indicates a high degree
of congruency. Each teacher-diagnostician pair was con-
sidered to be a single unit. The units were arranged in
rank order of the congruency scores, and divided into two
groups, one consisting of those above the median, and the
other, those with congruency scores below the median. The
proportion of each group consisting of pairs within which
the teacher had rated the contact "very satisfactory" was
determined, and the remaining ratings were combined. This

produced four groups, two above the median, one Of which

54

was composed of pairs in which the teacher had rated the
contact "very satisfactory," while the other consisted of
those pairs which had not given the contact the highest
rating. There were two groups below the median on the
role congruency score, which were similarly divided on the
basis of the rating Of satisfactoriness of the contact.
The differences among these four groups were tested by

the Chi square procedure.

The data from section II was used to divide the
diagnosticians on the basis of the various categories
listed, to determine whether or not groupings on the basis
of such factors as level Of training, major field of study
or years of experience were related to the scores the diag-
nosticians would obtain on section I. For this purpose a
modified scaled score was used. All items in the eXpert—
B-category were scored 0, all items in the resource-R-
category scored 1, and all items in the process—P—category
were scored 2. The three category Scores were then summed,
producing a single score for each diagnostician. This
scoring procedure is based upon Ferneau's assumption that
the three modes Of Operation represent points on a contin-
uum. The data from section III were merely tabulated on

the basis Of percentage distribution.

V Survey Procedures
A. Diagnosticians

A packet of survey materials was sent to each

school diagnostician included in the approved list of the

55

Department of Public Instruction of the state Of Michigan.
Each packet contained a letter (see Appendix C) addressed
to the school diagnostician, briefly explaining the pur-
pose Of the study, its source, affiliations, and Sponsor—
ship. The packet also contained a COpy of the Diagnostic—
ian Role Check List (see Appendix A), a stamped addressed
return envelope, and a blank mailing label to be filled out
by respondents requesting a summary of the data obtained
in the survey. At a later date, a follow—up letter was
sent to all school diagnosticians who had not reSponded to
the survey (Appendix D).

Because of a printing error in the survey forms,
which was not detected until the day after they had been
mailed to school diagnosticians, post cards indicating the
correction were sent to the school diagnosticians. (How-
ever the triad involved was ultimately omitted in scoring
because Of inconsistency in responses.)

B. Administrators.

An attempt was made to determine the identity
of the administrator most closely involved in the super-
vision of the school diagnostician or diagnosticians in
each district from which at least one school diagnostician
had responded to the survey (11). A letter was sent to
each administrator (see Appendix E) explaining briefly the
purposes and source Of the project, and requesting the
names and addresses of two teachers who had had profession-

al contact with the school diagnostician, for each school

56

diagnostician serving the district. A blank form, with
the names Of the school diagnosticians and spaces for the
names and addresses of the teachers was enclosed with the
letter (Appendix F), as well as a stamped, addressed re—
turn enveIOpe. To those administrators who did not respond
to the first letter, a follow-up letter (Appendix G) was
sent with a duplicate blank teacher-address form, as well
as an addressed stamped return envelope. In several cases,
a letter was also sent to a second administrator who, on
the basis of an available index of staff members (12)
seemed to be a logical "second choice," in terms of close
supervisory relationship with the school diagnosticians.
In many instances the administrator responding to the let-
ter was not the administrator to whom it was addressed,
and from this it was assumed that many of the requests were
rerouted "through channels." In several cases the writer
also contacted the school diagnostician to get teachers'
names. In two districts the administrator sent each
teacher a letter introducing the project, indicating its
authorization or approval by the administration, and re-
questing her COOperation.

C. Correspondence with Teachers.

To each teacher whose name and address
were received from the school administrators, a packet of
survey materials was sent. This packet was quite similar
to that sent to the school diagnosticians, except that the

form letter (see Appendix B) was worded apprOpriately for

57

the group to which it was being sent, and the Diagnostician
Role Check List contained an additional item related to the
degree of satisfactoriness of the contact with the school
diagnostician (see Appendices Bi and Bii). Materials were
not sent, however, to individuals whose names had been
submitted if there was any indication that the individual
had administrative responsibilities or was other than a
full-time classroom teacher. To those who were identified
as principals, a letter was sent requesting the names and
addresses of two apprOpriate teachers who had worked with
the school diagnostician serving that school. A follow-up
letter was also sent to those teachers who did not respond
to the questionnaire (Appendix I).

Comment on Survey Procedures. While it would have
been desirable to send out each group of forms at a speci-
fied time, with controlled intervals between the original
solicitation and the follow-up letter, the magnitude of
the project and some aspects of the nature of the design
made this impossible. For example, if all the teacher sur—
vey forms were to have been sent at one time, the forms
could not have been sent until all the correSpondence with
administrators had been completed. The survey procedures
were begun in October, 1965, and questionnaires used in

the survey were returned as late as March, 1966.

VI Summary

In this chapter we have outlined the procedures of

58

the study, described the samples taken, the instrument
used, and discussed the reliability and validity Of the
instrument. The survey procedures were also described. A
role check list was submitted to all the approved school
diagnosticians in the state and to two teachers with whom
each responding school diagnostician had worked. The pro-
cedure required that the congruency of teacher—school
diagnostician reSponses on the check list be compared to
the teachers' ratings Of the satisfactoriness of the con-
tact.

The Diagnostician Role Check List consisted of three
parts, the first concerned with expectations for the school
diagnostician's role, the second with the background of the
respondent, and the third with areas of function of school
diagnosticians. Part I was constructed from a pool of
items categorized by judges, refined, condensed, again
categorized by judges, checked for reliability and valid‘
ity of categorization, and put into a paired comparison
schedule format.

The data for the study were gathered by a mail sur—
vey contacting school diagnosticians, school administrators
and teachers. Since the design required that they be con-
tacted in sequence, i.e., the teacher could not be contact-
ed until the administrator had responded, etc., the survey
extended over a period of almost five months.

The data will be analyzed on the basis of degree Of

congruency Of role expectation compared to other variables

measured in the samples.

59

CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

A. Response to the Survey
Because the survey extended over a period of ap-

proximately six months during which time many new school
diagnosticians were approved by the Department of Public
Instruction, many transferred from one school system to
another, and many left the profession, it is difficult to
report precisely the percentage of returns in terms of the
total diagnostician pOpulation of the state. However ques-
tionnaires (Appendix A)were sent to all school diagnosti—
cians listed in the 1964-65 directory of school diagnos-
ticians prepared by the Michigan Department of Public In-
struction (with the exception of those indicated to have
left the profession before the survey was begin). In addi-
tion questionnaires were sent as late as March 1966 to
diagnosticians newly approved by the Department of Public
Instruction. Two hundred and forty questionnaires were
sent, and 189 were returned. There was no response from
fifty-one of the diagnosticians. (See Table l.)

l. Rejections. Of the 189 questionnaires returned,
nine were rejected because the respondent was no longer a

school diagnostician. One was functioning as a school

60

61

Table 1. Survey response

 

_-_‘

Questionnaires Request
for Follow- Use-
Teacher up able

Sent Returned Useable Names Letter Pairs

 

Diagnostician 240 189 135 21 69 73
Teacher 274 198 88 73
Administrator 134 32

 

psychologist, four had administrative responsibilities,
either in place of or in addition to diagnostic functions,
and four were employed in institutions in which they did
not have contact with pupils in the public schools._ Twenty-
six were rejected because items in section I were either
incorrectly or incompletely checked and because Of the
statistical design, it was not possible to use such ques—
tionnaires. (Examples of incorrect checking were, check-
ing both items Of a pair in which only one was to be chosen,
or checking an item after rewriting a portion of it.) Of
the eight that were returned blank, five were returned by
persons no longer working as school diagnosticians in the
state Of Michigan, one was returned because the person to
whom it was addressed was deceased, and two were returned
without any indication of the reason.
2. Follow-up Procedures

Follow—up letters were sent to Sixty-nine

diagnosticians (Appendix D) and of these, fifty—one returned

a questionnaire. Follow—up letters were sent to thirty-two

62

administrators (Appendix G) from whom the names of teachers
had been requested, and of these twenty-one responded with
the list of teachers' names (Appendix F), two administra—
tors refused to participate in the program, one suggesting
that it was unethical to solicit information from teachers
regarding the functions Of diagnosticians without the per-
mission Of the diagnostician.

To twenty-one diagnosticians whose administrator
had not reSponded to the second request for teachers' names,
a similar letter was sent requesting the names of teachers
with whom they (the diagnosticians) had had professional
contacts. Of these, eight reSponded with apprOpriate
lists: In one instance a long distance call was made to
a diagnostician in a system employing several school diag-
nosticians, and as a result, the complete list of teachers'
names was returned by the administrator. Questionnaires
were sent to 274 teachers and follow-up letters to eighty—
eight of the 274. Questionnaires were returned by 198.

3. Teacher-School Diagnostician Pairs.

When the correctly completed question—
naires received from school diagnosticians were matched
with questionnaires correctly completed by teachers, it was
found that there were matching teachers for seventy-three
school diagnosticians. However for twenty-one diagnosti-
cians in this group, both teachers had returned a correctly
completed questionnaire. Since only one teacher question—

naire could be used with a given diagnostician questionnaire,

63

one teacher of each pair was chosen on the basis Of a

table of random numbers.

B. Statistical Procedure and Interpretation of Section I
For each of the seventy-three teacher-diagnostician
pairs, a congruency of role eXpectation score was calcu-
lated. The difference between the score of the teacher
and the diagnostician for each Of the three factors,
expert, resource and process, was determined. Each of the
factor difference scores was squared, and the squares then
summed. For the purpose of these procedures, each diag-
nostician-teacher pair is considered to be a single unit,
with a congruency score and a satisfactoriness score. The
pairs were then arranged in rank order of congruency score
and divided into two groups, those above and those below
the median. Each of these two groups was then divided
again into two groups, those in which the teacher had rated
the contact with the diagnostician as very satisfactory,
and those who had rated it other than very satisfactory.
According to our hypothesis, those pairs with a low con-
gruency difference score should include a larger prOportion
of the pairs in which the teacher had rated the contact
with the diagnostician as highly satisfactory, while those
with a high congruency difference score would be eXpected
to have checked "other" (essentially satisfactory, essen-
tially unsatisfactory or very unsatisfactory) more Often
than "very satisfactory." The data did not support the

hypothesis and in fact, this was apparent by inSpection and

64

did not even require the application Of the Chi square

test, as had been intended. (See Table 2.)

Table 2

Relationship Of satisfactoriness ratings to Congruency
scores.

 

 

Distribution of Satisfactoriness

 

 

 

Ratings
Congruency Scores Vggyt::;1s- Other
Number scoring
above median 23 14
Number scoring
below median 16 20

 

 

 

 

 

Only three Of the teachers had checked the contact
with the diagnostician as either essentially, or very, un—
satisfactory.

TO determine the nature of the relationship be-
tween two variables is difficult if not impossible if only
a restricted portion Of the range Of distribution is used,
as has been indicated by Anastasi (1). Two possible ex-
planations for this compressed range may be: 1) Those
teachers who felt very highly dissatisfied with the contact
with the diagnostician may have been predominantly in the
group that did not respond to the survey. Such a negative
reaction was demonstrated by one teacher who returned the

questionnaire blank, accompanied by a letter expressing

65

strong hostility toward the school diagnostician program.
2) Assuming that the congruency difference scores are valid
and reliable, the teachers may not have been accurately
eXpressing their feelings on the satisfactoriness scale,
but may have felt obliged to express approval of the con-
tact either because Of a process of internalization Of
values of the Specialist, or because they felt obliged to
express themselves in positive terms which they believed
more apprOpriate to a teacher's role. Some support is
given for the second explanation by the fact that many
teachers made marginal notes and comments on the question-
naire which were very critical of or hostile to the diag-
nostician, and yet checked the contact with him as being
essentially satisfactory.

Several questions are pertinent to our present
discussion. Was the contact between the diagnostician and
teacher sufficient for the degree Of interaction to involve
more than superficial perception of their reSpective roles?
Does the content of the contact provide the teacher with
enough information regarding the viewpoint of the diagnos-
tician that she would become cognizant of differences in
their reSpective perceptions of the diagnostician's role?
In those teacher-diagnostician pairs in which there was a
strong difference in perception of the role, would it cre-
ate sufficient cognitive dissonance within the teacher that
she would evaluate the contact as unsatisfactory? Since

the degree Of involvement of the teacher with the

66

diagnostician is typically considerably less than that de—
scribed by Seashore and Van Egmond (2) for the consultee
and consultant and almost at the minimum implied by Lippitt
(3) in his discussion of the consultant's job, we may sus-
pect that the limited nature of the contact between the
teacher and the diagnostician has contributed to the rather
narrow range of evaluations that teachers have given their
contacts with consultants.

The answer to the question posed in the Introduc-
tion, "Does congruency of perception Of the school diag-
nostician's role between teacher and school diagnostician
actually result in a more favorable evaluation of the con-
ference by the teacher?" would seem to be, with this in—
strument and sample,‘gg.

C. Background Data - Section II of the Diagnostician Role
Check List

The influence of the training institution, the
major area of study, and previous professional eXperience,
have been of concern to school diagnostician trainers for
some time. TO determine whether these factors Significant-
ly influence attitudes of school diagnosticians, we have
made a comparison of Diagnostician Role Check List scores
of groups different on the above mentioned dimensions.

‘ Section I was scored by the procedure,
E - Expert category items were set equal to 0
R - Resource category items were set equal to l

P - Process category items were set equal to 2

67

Each individual's three category scores were summed to give
a single score. For example, if the number Of choices for
each category had been E = 5, R = 21, P = 7, then 0(5) +
1(21) + 2(7) = 35. The lowest score possible on this sec-
tion of the check list is 11 and the highest 55.

The diagnosticians were grouped on the basis of
various characteristics and the mean score calculated for
each group. This score will be referred to as the "Mode
of Consultation Preference Score." The highest score re-

presents the most SOphisticated mode Of Operation.

68

Table 3

Mean mode of consultation preference scores of

school diagnostician demographic groups

 

 

Diagnosticians
Training Institution
Michigan State University

University of Michigan,
Wayne, Western

Michigan State University
and Out of State
Experience as a teacher
4 years or less

More than 4 years

Experience as a diagnostician

3 years or less

More than 3 years
Major

Education

Psychology

Total School Diagnostician
Group

Inter-quartile range is

Median

Teachers

Total Teacher Group Mean

 

Mean Diff. Number
47.03 26
1.06
45.97 34
1.57
47.54 ll

.51
46.37 24
.21
46.58 24
46.02 44
.94
46.96 25
45.66 36
1.88
47.44 34
46.53

from 45.3 to 49.75

46.63

42.75

 

Table 3 Shows that whatever is measured by the mode
of consultation preference score, whether attitude or im-
plied mode of operation, does not appear to be greatly in-
fluenced by the institution from which the diagnostician
has received his training as a diagnostician, by the number
of years he has Spent as a teacher, or the number of years
he has Spent as a diagnostician. The major area of the
school diagnostician's training also shows little differ-
ence between those who majored in education and those who
majored in psychology (less than one-half standard devia-
tion difference between means). The distinction between
education and psychology majors in this professional field,
however, may be a false distinction because many who have
majored in one have taken courses equivalent to a major in
the other, in preparation for their work as a school diag-
nostician. Their classification as education or psychol-
ogy major may be primarily a distinction of administrative
labeling rather than a real difference in the nature of
their training.

Rather surprising are the small differences in mean
scores of groups based upon the amount of experience, or
the training institution, which many believe to have a
strong influence upon the outlook and mode of Operation of
school diagnosticians.

There is a somewhat greater difference between the
teacher group and the school diagnostician group than be—

tween any two school diagnostician groups. This difference,

70

although small, is in the direction which, on the basis Of
Ferneau's assumptions (4) would indicate a more education—
ally sophisticated mode Of Operation by school diagnos—

ticians.

D. Section III of Diagnostician Role Check List

This section consists of a comparison of the
school diagnosticians' and teachers' points Of view regard-
ing the extent and functions, as well as the nature of, the
diagnostician's academic orientation. In general there
was much less variation in the diagnosticians' perceptions
of the school diagnostician's role than in the teachers'
perceptions of this role. However for any given item, the
means Of the two groups tended to be relatively close tO~
gether (that is, less than half a standard deviation for

the distribution on that particular item). (See Table 4.)

71

Table 4. Rating scale values for diagnosticians'
functions and duties.
Diagnostician Role Check List, Section III

 

 

 

 

1 = almost always 3 = usually
2 = most of the time 4 = seldom
5 = rarely or never
Diagnostician Teacher Difference of
Item Mean Mean Means
No. 8.0. 5.0.
1 1.60 1.30 ~.20
0.73 .70
2 2.13 2.42 .29
1.02 1.42
3 3.57 2.63 -094
0.96 1.22
4 3.03 2042 -061
1.13 1.21
S 4.62 3.88 -074
0.67 1.22
6 4.48 4.15 -.33
0.79 0.98
7 4.60 4003 -037
0.92 1.20
8 1.03 1.17 .14
0.18 0.59
9 2055 2012 -o43
1.06 1.22
10 1.45 2.10 .65
0.75 1.00
11 1030 1019 “011
0.79 0.57
12 1.07 1.14 .07
0.25 0.43
13 1033 1019 “‘010

 

72

 

Diagnostician Teacher Difference

Item Mean Mean of

No. 8.0. 5.0. Means

14 1.20 1.24 .04
0.51 0.63

15 1.98 2.02 .04
1.11 1.25

16 4.02 3.54 -063
0.95 1.48

17 1.48 1022 -026
0.85 0.49

18 1.35 1.58 .23
0.63 0.77

19 1.23 1.24 .01
0.56 0.57

20 1.58 1.63 .05
0.83 0.91

21 2.63 2019 “044
1.10 1.15

22 2.42 2.05 -.37
0.98 1.35

23 2.27 2.02 -.25
1.18 1.47

24 3.35 3.00 —.35
1.45 1.55

25 1.07 2.34 1.27
0.41 1.60

26 1.23 2.49 1.26
0.65 1.71

27 3.78 3.97 .19
1.03 1.29

28 2.60 2.10 -050
1.28 1.54

29 3.48 3.80 .32
1.00 1.39

73

 

Diagnostician Teacher Difference

Item Mean Mean of Means

NO. 5.0. GOD.

30 1.98 2.31 .33
0.91 1.59

31 1.42 1.56 .14
0.77 0.94

32 1.73 1.90 .17
0.90 1.02

33 1.72 2.43 .71
0.83 1.38

34 3.00 3.93 .93
1.38 1.30

35 2.33 2.76 .43
1.31 1.21

36 1.57 2.29 .72
0.81 1.45

37 1.89 2.44 .55
0.92 1.28

38 1.90 2.48 .38
0.99 1.38

40 3.02 2086 -016
1.20 1.35

41 2.62 2.49 -.13
1.09 1.33

42 2.00 2.10 .10
1.11 1.26

43 2.32 2.27 -.05
1.35 1.08

44 1.72 2.56 .84
1.03 1.52

45 2.22 1.93 -.29
1.39 1.29

46 1.15 1.48 .33

 

74

 

Diagnostician Teacher

Item Mean Mean Difference

No. 5.0. 5.0. of Means

47 3.30 3.32 .02
1.05 1.21

48 2.77 2.54 -.23
1.20 1.19

49 3000 2095 -005
1.19 1.38

50 2.98 3.78 .80
1.16 1.13

75

Using the rating scale,

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

almost always more than 95% of the time
most of the time 80-95% of the time
usually 20-80% Of the time

seldom 5-23% of the time

rarely or never 0-5% of the time

Those items for which there was the least difference be-

tween the means and the standard deviations of the two

groups were:

a 19.
b 8.
a 11.
a 12.
a- 13.
a- 14.
a- l.
a- 17.
b+ 30.
b 32.
b 15.
b 45.

Following the report the diagnostician should have
a conference with the teacher.

As part Of the evaluation, the diagnostician
should interview the pupil.

As part of the evaluation, the diagnostician
Should review pupil's cumulative record (Ca-39

As part of the evaluation, the diagnostician
should review previous diagnostic reports.

As part of the evaluation, the diagnostician
Should review visiting teacher reports.

As part of the evaluation, the diagnostician
should review clinic reports.

The diagnostician should give individual tests
such as intelligence.

Diagnosticians' reports should include interpret-
ation of the test data.

The diagnostician Should work with pupils who are
having difficulty learning.

The diagnostician should be a consultant on child
behavior.

As part of the evaluation, the diagnostician
should review samples of class work.

Diagnosticians' orientation should be toward clin-
ical work and psychology.

To implement his recommendations the diagnostician
should counsel staff members.

76
b- 43. To implement his recommendations the diagnostician
should contact clinics and community agencies.

c+ 41. To implement his recommendations the diagnostician
should counsel parents.

c 40. To implement his recommendations the diagnostician
should counsel pupils.

c 49. The diagnostician should be involved in planning of
special services such as group testing programs.

c- 47. The diagnostician should be concerned with promo-
tion or retention in grade of individual pUpils.

d 27. The diagnostician should work with pupils who are
homebound.

Two items which were most often checked as "almost
always" apprOpriate duties of the school diagnostician
were interviewing the pupil, and having a conference with
the teacher following the report. Both diagnosticians and
teachers felt that the school diagnostician should always
make use of available records such as the cumulative record
and the reports of other professionals, and especially
reports of previous diagnostic assessments. A conference
with the principal following the report was also considered
important but given less emphasis than a conference with
the teacher. It was considered apprOpriate that almost all
diagnosticians' reports should include interpretation of
the test data. The last item listed under the "almost al-
ways" category, which might have been expected to be at
the tOp of the list, was that the diagnostician should give
individual tests such as intelligence. The items most fre-

quently rated as being "almost always" a part of the

77

diagnostician's duties by both teachers and diagnosticians
were, to review the case history of the child through the
examination of the pertinent records, to interview the
pupil and give individual tests, to interpret the test
data in his reports, and following the report to confer
with the teaCher and the principal.

Those items with the greatest difference between the
means of diagnostician and teacher reSponses, in order of
the magnitude of difference, were:

a,b- 25. The diagnostician should work with pupils who
are educable mentally handicapped.

a—,b-26. The diagnostician should work with pupils who are
trainable mentally handicapped.

c, d 34. The diagnostician should be a consultant on
classroom management.

b+,c+44. Diagnosticians' orientation should be toward
teaching and education.

c, d 50. Diagnosticians should be involved in general ed-
ucational planning, such as curriculum.

b+,b-36. The diagnostician should help with in-service
training activities with own colleagues (other
diagnosticians).

b+,b-33. The diagnostician should be a consultant on
learning.

In the above list the diagnostician group, whose re-
sponse is indicated by the first letter, in each case rated
the item as more applicable to their functions than did the
teachers, and in only two cases were the differences great—
er than one standard deviation.

Teachers tended to show less interest in the diag—

nostician's becoming involved in general problems of

78

education, such as classroom management, curricular plan—
ning or learning process, in contrast to work with indiv-
idual pupils. This is perhaps consistent with their View
that the diagnostician's orientation toward teaching and
education should be only moderate.

In the following two items the situation is re-
versed in that the teacher group considered these items to
constitute a greater part of the diagnostician's role than
did the diagnosticians themselves.

d+,c+ 3. The diagnostician should give individual tests
such as personality, check lists.

e+, d 5. The diagnostician should give group tests in
areas of intelligence.

Three somewhat unusual situations were noted. Both
teachers and diagnosticians felt that in order to implement
the diagnostician's recommendations, the diagnostician
should counsel staff members. Both groups gave this a "b"
rating, indicating it should be done most of the time or
80-95% of the time. It was also noted that experience as
a teacher for the diagnostician was rated somewhat more
valuable by diagnosticians (b+) than by teachers (c+),
while both groups rated diagnosticians' orientation toward
clinical work and psychology essentially the same (b).

Last and most unexpected was the discrepancy between teach-
ers' and diagnosticians' assessment of Special education

programs for which the school diagnostician job was created
in the state of Michigan. The school diagnosticians rated

items 25 and 26 (The diagnostician should work with pupils

79

who are educable mentally handicapped and The diagnosti-
cian should work with pupils who are trainable mentally
handicapped) as "a" and "a-" reSpectively, while the
teachers rated both items "c-." Apparently teachers are
less in harmony with the legislature's views on the im-
portance of special education. The high degree of similar-
ity between the views of the school diagnostician and the
teachers they serve would suggest that school diagnosti-
cians, if or when permitted to perform their duties as

they feel they should, will more nearly meet teachers' per-
ceived needs within the limits of their training than the

law now requires or specifies.

Summary of Chapter IV

Although turnover of personnel employed as school
diagnosticians during the six months' period over which
the survey extended made it difficult to calculate the
exact percentages, questionnaires were returned by approx-
imately 80% of the diagnosticians and slightly over 70% of
the teachers to whom they had been sent.

Questionnaires were sent to all diagnosticians listed
by the Department of Public Instruction. In the case of
each<iiagnostician who had returned a useable questionnaire,
an attempt was made to contact an administrator to whom the
diagnostician was reSponsible. Administrators were asked
to furnish the names of two teachers who had had profession—

al contact with each diagnostician. Diagnostician Role

80

Check List questionnaires were then sent to each teacher
nominated by an administrator.

Useable returns were available from seventy—three
diagnostician—teacher pairs. For each pair, a score was
calculated indicating the degree of congruency of the
teacher's and the diagnostician's perceptions of the diag-
nostician's role. The score consisted of a sum of squared
differences in the three factors measured, expert, re-
source and process. When these scores were compared with
the satisfactoriness ratings, it was found that the data
did not support the hypothesis that low congruency of per-
ception would be associated with higher satisfactoriness
rating. This finding may have been the result, at least
in part, of the limited range of satisfactoriness scores.
It is possible that the teachers who were dissatisfied
with the contact with the School diagnostician may not have
bothered to return the questionnaire, or that those teachers
returning the questionnaire could not accurately express
their feelings on the satisfactoriness scale. Assuming
that Ferneau's (5) three categories of consultant function
represent points on a continuum from the expert, through
resource to process, the most educationally SOphisticated
of the three, a single score for each individual was derived
to represent this point. The group mean for this mode of
consultation score showed only slight differences when the
diagnosticians were grouped according to training institu—

tion, according to years of eXperience as a teacher,

81

according to years of eXperience as a diagnostician, or
according to their graduate major. However the mean for
the diagnostician group when compared to the mean for the
teacher group, would seem to indicate that a slightly more
SOphisticated mode of Operation was preferred by the school
diagnosticians.

The third section of the Diagnostician Role Check
List consisting of an array of specific items or duties
which a diagnostician might perform, was checked by the
teachers and diagnosticians with a high degree of similar—
ity. Both groups felt that the diagnostician should "al-
most always" review the case history of the child through
examination of the pertinent records, interview the pupil
and give individual tests, interpret the test data in his
reports, and following the report, confer with the teacher
and the principal. The greatest difference betseen the two
groups had to do with the extent of the diagnostician's
involvement with mentally handicapped pupils. Although
diagnosticians seemed to feel that orientation towards
education and teaching was important to their functions as
diagnosticians, teachers thought this matter less import—
ant. A rather surprising finding was that both groups in-
dicated that diagnosticians should counsel other staff mem—
bers, including teachers, "most of the time." From these
data, it would seem that the activities which.diagnosticians
feel they should perform coincide rather closely with

teachers' perceived needs for help from diagnosticians.

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Summary

The focal point of this study has been the relation—
ship between the congruency of role expectation and the
effects of consultations upon the attitude of the consultee
toward the consultation. The investigation has both Oper—
ational and theoretical significance. The scope of the
activities of school diagnosticians has been changing, but
the effectiveness of their work in the new areas has not
been assessed. The study was limited to school diagnosti—
cians as the group in the field having the greatest common-
ality of training and of professional responsibilities.
Possible courses of action in handling problem pupils were
considered, two of which were methods of producing changes
in the pupil and one intended to produce changes in the
teacher. The possibility of identifying the more "change-
able" teachers, assuming the role perceived by the teaCher
or changing her perception to fit the school diagnosti-
cian's were also considered.

In Chapter II several surveys and an experimental
study containing material pertinent to the functions of the
school diagnostician were discussed. The surveys tended to
center on the psychologist or school diagnostician himself

82

83

in terms of what he was, the nature of his responsibili-
ties and what he did, considering only indirectly the im-
plications the data might have in terms of how the program
should be organized. They did notexplore to any great
extent the actual goals of the school diagnosticians within
their role or any questions pertaining to changes in goals
or orientation. In short, these surveys consisted of at-
tempts to assess conditions and programs as they existed,
with little consideration for what anyone thought they
ought to be or might become, nor, with one exception, did
they consider the degree of effectiveness with which school
diagnosticians were performing their tasks. Only the ex-
perimental study by Kaplan and Sprunger attempted to mea-
sure the effectiveness of an aspect of the activities of
the school diagnostician.

Literature on role theory was also reviewed in
Chapter II. The historical development of role from the
concept of self was pointed out. Its essential elements,
that it exists in a social context, and that it consists of
a set of actions or eXpected actions, i.e., the reciprocal
nature of role, was indicated on the basis of the defini-
tions of several workers in the field. The trend from the—
orizing to empirical research and the neglect of validation
of role concepts in favor of applications was noted.
Biddle's explanation for the basis of the pOpularity of role
theory was outlined. It included the simplicity of con—

cepts related to existing theories, utility, and apparent

84

ease of Operationalization. Biddle felt the shortcomings
of role theory were the lack of agreement on what is stud—
ied, what to call it, and propositional structure, as well
as the paucity of empirical evidence to support theoreti-
cal prOpositions. In Spite of the excessive proliferation
of terms and definitions, Biddle felt that there is a core
of recognizable concepts accepted by the majority of role
theorists.

Empirical studies of role expectation or perception
and role conflict were cited. This group included studies
on the effects of role conflicts in the case of one indiv-
idual occupying two roles simultaneously, and conflicts
between two individuals' perceptions of one of their roles
in a consultation situation. Ferneau's study of role per-
ceptions of administrators and consultants was briefly dis-
cussed as the basis of the present investigation.

Chapter II concluded with a review of the consulta-
tion process. The need for consultants lies in the un—
solved problems of line managers. The consultant may be
‘called because of his exceptional skills or knowledge, his
prestige, his independent viewpoint, or his freedom from
time-consuming administrative responsibilities. The con—
sultant relationship is a temporary one since becoming a
permanent member of the organization tends to diminish
those elements of function which make the consultant's
services most valuable. To an extent Which may not apply

to permanent members of the organization, the consultant

85

must function on the basis Of Open agreements Openly ar—
rived at, communicate with frankness and clarity, refrain
from doing what can be done easily by others, and accept
the role of an educator and business physician. Although
this view Of consultation process would seem to be a more
intensive and prolonged kind of relationship than exists
between the school diagnostician and the teacher, the prin-
ciples involved would seem to apply to the teacher-school
diagnostician relationship. In a discussion of the con-
sultant as an agent for changing behavior, it is pointed
out that influencing behavior is best accomplished by work-
ing within the conceptual field of the consultee. Gilbert
has emphasized in addition that the planning must be COOp-
erative, and that the actual choice of plan as well as im-
plementation be left to the consultee. She implied that
a successful consultant-consultee relationship leaves the
consultee more capable of COping with similar problems.
Gilbert also defined three Operational aspects of consulta-
tion, consultant role, consultant function, and consultant
process. Under Gilbert's category of process, we might ap—
prOpriately list Ferneau's definitions of his three types
Of consultant, the eXpert, the resource person, and the
process person.

Lippitt's assumptions regarding consultation process,
that it is a voluntary, temporary relationship between a
professional helper and help-needing system for the purpose

of solving a problem and that the consultant is not a

86

permanent part of the help-needing system, are used as the
basis of an examination of the functions of school diagnos-
ticians. The school diagnosticians were found to be, at
least in the major prOportion of their professional activi-
ties, within the framework Of Lippitt's criteria for a
consultant. In the literature reviewed there was little
research reported on the consultation process in which con-
cepts develOped were supported by quantitative data.

The design of the study was based on the application
of certain concepts in role theory to the functions of the
school diagnostician in consultation process and included a
survey of the type of functions or activities which teach-
ers and/or diagnosticians might eXpect diagnosticians to
perform. A role check list was submitted to all the ap-
proved school diagnosticians in the state and to two teach—
ers with whom each responding school diagnostician had
worked. The proCedure required that the congruency of
teacher-school diagnostician responses on the cheCk list be
compared to the teacher's rating of the satisfactoriness of
the contact.

The Diagnostician Role Check List consisted of three
parts, the first concerned with expectations for the school
diagnostician's role, the second with the background of the
reSpondent, and the third with areas of function of school
diagnosticians. Part I was constructed from a pool of items
categorized by judges, refined, condensed, again categor-

ized by judges, checked for reliability and validity of

categorization, and put into a paired comparison schedule
format.

The data of the study were gathered by a mail sur-
vey contacting school diagnosticians, school administra—
tors and teachers. Since the design required that they be
contacted in sequence, that is, the teacher could not be
contacted until the administrator had responded, the sur-
vey extended over a period of almost five months. The data
were analyzed on the basis Of degree of congruency of role
expectation compared to other variables measured in the
samples, on the basis of a comparison of mode of consulta-
tion scores with demographic data and on the basis of
teachers' and diagnosticians' ratings Of the degree of in-
volvement eXpected Of diagnosticians in various duties and
activities.

Although turnover of personnel employed as school
diagnosticians during the period the survey was conducted
made it difficult to calculate exact percentages, approxi-
mately 80% of the diagnosticians and slightly over 70% of
the teachers polled returned their questionnaires. Ques-
tionnaires were sent to all diagnosticians listed by the
Department Of Public Instruction. In the case of each diag-
nostician who had returned a useable questionnaire, an at-
tempt was made to contact an administrator to whom the
diagnostician was reSponsible. Administrators were asked
to furnish the names of two teachers who had had profes—

sional contact with each diagnostician. Diagnostician Role

Check List questionnaires were then sent to each teacher
nominated by an administrator.

Seventy-three diagnostician—teacher pairs were
found in which both the diagnostician and the teacher had
correctly filled out the questionnaire. For each pair, a
score was calculated indicating the degree of congruency
of the teacher's and the diagnostician's perceptions of
the diagnostician's role. The score consisted of the sum
of squared differences in the three factors measured. When
these scores were compared with the satisfactoriness rat—
ings, it was found that the data did not support the hypoth-
esis that a low congruency difference score would be assoc-
iated with a higher satisfactoriness rating. This may have
been the result, at least in part, Of the limited range of
satisfactoriness scores. It is possible that the teachers
who were dissatisfied with the contact with the school
diagnostician may not have bothered to return the question-
naire, or that those teachers returning the questionnaire
did not accurately eXpress their feelings on the satisfac—
toriness scale. Assuming that Ferneau's three categories
Of consultant function represent points on a continuum, a
single score was derived to represent this point. This
score then represented for any given individual his posi-
tion on that continuum. When the diagnosticians were
grouped according to various categories, it was found that
the group mean for this mode of consultation score showed

only slight differences when the diagnosticians were

grouped according to training institution, according to
years of experience as a teacher, according to years of
experience as a diagnostician, or according to their grad—
uate major. However, the mean for the diagnostician group
when compared to the mean for the teacher group, would seem
to indicate that a slightly more SOphisticated mode of
Operation was preferred by the school diagnosticians.

The third section of the Diagnostician Role Check
List, consisting of an array of Specific items or duties
which a diagnostician might perform, was checked by the
teachers and diagnosticians with a high degree of similar—
ity. Both groups felt that the diagnostician should "al-
most always" review the case history of the child through
examination of the pertinent records, interview the pupil
and give him individual tests, interpret the test data in
his report, and following the report, confer with the
teacher and the principal.

The greatest difference between the two groups had
to do with the extent of the diagnostician's involvement
with mentally handicapped pupils. Teachers rated these
activities lower than did the diagnosticians. Although
diagnosticians seemed to feel that orientation toward edu-
cation and teaching was important to their functions as
diagnosticians, teachers gave this item a somewhat lower
rating. A rather surprising response indicated that both
diagnosticians and teachers felt diagnosticians should

counsel other staff members (including teachers) "most of

the time." From this data, it would seem that the activi-
ties which diagnosticians feel they should perform coin-

cide rather closely with teachers' perceived needs.

II Discussion
A. Congruency of Role Perception

In accounting for the relationship between the
satisfactoriness scores and the congruency difference
scores, we cannot overlook the possibility that the teach—
ers were actually as satisfied with the diagnostic services
provided as their ratings would indicate. The similarity
of diagnosticians and teachers in their perceptions of the
diagnostician's role as indicated by the selection of
choices of functions and activities in Section III would
tend to support this point of view. However, if we con—
sider the possibility that Ferneau's hypothesis regarding
consultation relationships is valid and applies to this
population, it may be that the scale seemed too negative
and judgmental, and that teachers were very reluctant to
pass what may have seemed a harsh judgment on the diagnos-
tician, even when the teachers were actually dissatisfied
with the contact. Even if we accept as valid the implica-
tions Of the data, that the majority Of teachers find the
diagnostic services satisfactory, we would eXpect, on the
basis Of the letters and marginal comments received from
the respondents, a somewhat larger prOportion of dissatis-

fied teachers than the four percent indicated by the

91

ratings.
B. Mode of Consultation Scale

The lack of difference in the means for the
mode of consultation scores of the various groups when the
diagnosticians were separated according to eXperience, in—
stitution of training and so forth, is quite puzzling and
suggests the possibility that the quality or factor being
measured may actually be something which is not influenced
significantly by training or experience, that it is some-
thing within the individual which may cause him to choose
such an occupation or occupational role. This would imply
that the nature of the role is in some reSpects created by
what is brought to it by the persons who are attracted to
the role. The problem of producing specialists than might
be resolved as a problem of selection rather than training.
This raises an intriguing question, to what extent can an
agent such as the state Specify or control the nature of
roles of specialized professional personnel in programs
which the agent establishes? TO put the question more
specifically, what elements or kinds or elements in a role
can be controlled by the agent establishing the program?
That the program can in practice take directions different
from those intended by those establishing it Should be ob-
vious from the surveys of the professional activities of
school diagnosticians, in which the functions of the pro—
fessional specialist have gone considerably beyond the

areas required or implied by the legislation and may even

92

be followed by legislation in a sense legitimatizing the
functions already being performed. If we assume that the
professional Specialist, in this case the school diagnos-
tician, is responding to legitimate needs within the
system, might this not suggest that legislation which is
permissive rather than mandatory and allows for some degree
of exploratory activity of the professional staff, would

be more appropriate and effective in COping with the kinds
Of problems for which such programs as the special educa-

tion program have been established?

C. Duties of Diagnosticians
In Section III the similarity between the

choices Of diagnosticians and Of teachers regarding the
duties and functions of the diagnostician might in part be
accounted for by the large prOportion of diagnosticians
coming from a teaching background. In comparing the teach—
ers and diagnosticians as groups, there is certainly a
greater degree of variation within each group than between
the two groups, and indicates a very large area of overlap
in the perceptions Of the diagnostician's role by diagnos-
ticians and teachers. This suggests a rather broad base

for effective communication between the two groups.

III Suggestions and Implications
If an attempt were made to refine this study, a
smaller, more carefully selected sample might be more prac-

tical. An aspect of this study as it has been done which

93

might seriously be questioned is whether or not in those
cases where the diagnostician had only one contact with a
given teacher, that contact had been sufficient for a role
relationship to develOp between them, and whether there
was a sufficient degree of mutual involvement in and inter-
action regarding the pupil's problem for the diagnostician
in that instance to have met the criterion Of a consultant.
To minimize such a possibility, each diagnostician could
pick teachers with whom he had had several professional
contacts. To minimize the effects of variations among
diagnosticians, the diagnostician could choose one teacher
whom he feels is quite satisfied with the diagnostic
services, and one who is Obviously very dissatisfied with
them. Having two teachers at Opposite poles of the satis—
factoriness scale in a relationship to a single diagnosti-
cian would considerably decrease the influence Of inter-
diagnostician variability as a source of error.

In constructing the scale of satisfactoriness, four
or five positive levels such as barely adequate, adequate,
very good and exceptionally good, might Offset the com-
pression of range due to the teacher's tendency to avoid
being negative or judgmental. If such a revision Of the
satisfactoriness scale resulted in a wider range of scores
in the sample, it would then be possible to make a more
valid test of Ferneau's hypothesis. The test of his hypoth—

esis in the present study is considered inconclusive.

94

IV Conclusions
A. We have attempted in this study to:
l. Validate Ferneau's hypothesis regarding the

relationship between eXpressed preference for mode Of Oper-

ation in consultations and degree of expressed satisfac-
tion with the consultations, when this hypothesis is ap-
plied to consultations between school diagnosticians and
teachers.

2. Expand Ferneau's concept to include effects of
perception on the tOpic of consultation.

3. Determine whether a relationship exists between
scores on a mode of consultation scale and aspects of
training and eXperience.

4. Establish normative data regarding the atti—
tudes of diagnosticians and teachers as to what duties and
functions should constitute the diagnostician's role.

B. Results

1. The attempt to validate Ferneau's hypothesis
was inconclusive.

2. The attempt to expand Ferneau's concept could
not be completed due to sample attrition, although the
limited data Obtained was suggestive of a positive rela-
tionship between congruency Of role perception and change
of attitude toward the tOpic of consultation.

3. The aspects of training and eXperience con—

sidered showed little relationship to the expressed mode of

9S

consultation preference score.

4. It was found that there was great similarity
between teacher and diagnostician groups in their eXpecta-
tions for the school diagnostician's role, including one
unexpected instance of strong agreement but several sig~
nificant discrepancies.

It is felt by the author that this study has clar-
ified some aSpects of the diagnostician-teacher relation-
ship, has raised questions pertinent to trainers of school
diagnosticians and has provided data which should facili-

tate additional research in this area.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTES

CHAPTER I

1E. F. Ferneau, "Role EXpectationS in Consulta-

tions," Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Chicago, 1954, pp. l7, l9.

2 O
Ferneau, paSSim.

3Ferneau, Op. cit., p. 18.

4Esther Belcher, "Results of a Survey of the Michi—

gan School Diagnostician Program for the Mentally Handi-
capped," Michigan Department of Public Instruction, 1960,
pp. 5-11.

5F. Leaske and J. Austin, "Survey Of Psychological
Workers Employed in Michigan and School Diagnosticians and
School Psychologists," 1963, pp. 2,14,16.

6Department Of Public Instruction of Michigan, Cir-
cular NO. 26, "Facts about the Michigan School Diagnosti-
cian for the Mentally Handicapped Program," Revised, Decem-
ber, 1963.

7Belcher, op. cit.

8Leaske and Austin, op. cit.

9Belcher, Op. cit., p. 6.

loLeaske and Austin, Op. cit., p. 14.

llIbid., p. 1.

12M. Kaplan and K. Sprunger, Unpublished study of
effectiveness of two reporting techniques of diagnosticians
in changing teachers' perceptions of the pupil.

13E. G. Guba, "Role Conflict in the Teaching Situa—
tion," Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Chicago, 1952.

14T. Parsons, Toward a General Theory of Social
Action (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press), 1951.

15Charles Seashore and Elmer Van Egmond, "The

97

98

Consultant Trainer Role in Working Directly with a Total
Staff," J. of Social Issues, Vol. XV, l959, NO. 2, pp.
39-400

l6Ferneau, op. cit., pp. 22-24.

17E. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, (New York:
Free Press Of Glencoe), 1962.

CHAPTER II

1James A. Dunn, "Michigan School Psychologists: A

Profile Analysis of Personal and Professional Character-
istics of School Psychologists in the State of Michigan,"
(Mimeographed report, accepted for publication in Psychol—
ng_in the Schools), p. 1.

2F. Leaske and J. Austin, "Survey Of Psychological
Workers Employed in Michigan as School Diagnosticians and
School Psychologists," (Report presented at School Diagnos-
ticians' WorkshOp, Boyne Mountain, Michigan, October 20—22,
1963), pp. 14,16,18.

3Esther L. Belcher, "Results of a Survey Of School
Diagnostician Program for the Mentally Handicapped," De-
partment of Public Instruction, Spring 1960, pp. 6,7,9,10,
ll. .

.5

Ibid.

U1

Ibid.

Leaske and Austin, op. cit.

\lm

Dunn, Op. cit.

 

32bid., p. 7.

9251., p. 9.

10.3.1223.” pp. 11-12.

11Belcher, op. cit., pp. 7,10.
12

M. Kaplan and B. Sprunger, "A Study to Determine
What Measurable Effects Psychological Evaluations Have Upon
Changing Teachers' Understanding of an Individual Child,"
Unpublished report, Lansing Public Schools, June 8, 1965.
13L. J. Nieman and J. W. Hughes, "The Problem of the
Concept Of Role-—a Resurvey of the Literature," Social
Forces, Vol. 30, December 1951, p. 141.

99

14William James, Psychology (New York: Henry ”Olt:

15George H. Mead, Mind, Self and Society (Chicago:
U. Of Chicago Press, 1924), pp. 138 35 seq.

16Nieman and Hughes, Op. cit.

l7Leonard S. Cottrell, "Roles and Marital Adjust-
ment," Publications_gf the American Sociological Society,

8Norman Cameron, The Psychology of Behavior Dis-
order (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1947), p. 90.

19Ralph Linton, The Study Of Man (New York: Apple—
ton Century, 1936), p. 114.
20Nathan W. Ackerman, "Social Role and Total Person—
ality," Amer. J. of Orthopsych.,XXI, January 1951, pp. 1-17.
21J. Getzels and E. Guba, "Role, Role Conflict and
Effectiveness, an Empirical Study," Amer. Sociol. Review,
XIX, 1954, pp. 169-175.

22Nieman and Hughes, Op. cit.

23T. R. Sarbin, "Role Theory," Chapter 6 in Lindzey,
G., Handbook of Social Psychology (Cambridge, Mass.: Addi-
son-Wesley Publishing Co., Inc.

24J. J. Moreno, Psychodrama, Vol. 1 (New York:
Beacon House).

25Bruce Biddle, "Present Status of Role Theory,"
Soc. Psysch. Lab., Univ. of Missouri, Columbia, Mo., 1961.

261bid.

27Ibid., pp. 33-36.

281bid., pp. 45-46.

291bid., p. 55.

30Ibid.

BlIbid.

3ZIbid.

33Ibid.

100

34E. F. Ferneau, "Role EXpectations in Consulta-

tions," Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univ. of Chicago,
1954.

35Clinton Snyder, "Variations in Expectations for
the Teacher Role, as Related to General and Specific Roles,
Expectation Categories, and Social Distance," Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1963.

36Louis A. Doyle, "A Study of the Expectancies
Which Elementary Teachers, Administrators, School Board
Members and Parents Have of the Elementary Teacher's Role,"
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State Univer-
sity, 1956.

37Getzels and Guba, Op. cit.

38James D. Hoffman, "A Study Of the Perceptions that
Administrators, Elementary Teachers, Consultants, and Spe-
cial Area Teachers have of the Elementary Special Area
Teacher and Consultant Role," Unpublished doctoral disser-
tation, Michigan State University, 1959.

39Ruth Albrecht and T. R. Sarbin, "Contributions to
Role Taking Theory: Annoyability as a Function Of the
Self," Unpublished manuscript, 1952.

40E. Baker, "Accuracy Of Social Perceptions Of
PsychOpathic and Non-PsychOpathic Prison Inmates," Unpub-
lished manuscript, 1954.

41V. Cline, Doctoral dissertation in preparation,
Univ. of Calif., Berkeley, 1953.

42M. Rokeach, "Generalized mental rigidity as a
factor in ethnocentrism," J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1948,
2;, pp. 259-278.

43Ferneau, Op. cit.
44

Ibido ’ pp. 22-25.

45Ibid., passim.
46

Theodore H. Brown, "The Business Consultant," Har-
vard Business Review, 1944,.21, pp. 183-89.
47Douglas McGregor, "The Staff Function in Human Re-
lations," J. of Soc. Issues, 1948, No. 3, pp. 5-22.

48Ibid.

101

49 .
Brown, Op. Cit.

soIbid.

51McGregor, Op. cit.

521b1d., p. 14.

53Ibid., p. 15.

54Ibid., p. 5.

SSIbid., p. 16.

56Ibid.

57Brown, Op. cit.
58

Ruth Gilbert, "Functions of the Consultant,"
Teachers College Record,'§l, NO. 4, January 1960, pp. 177-

59Ib1d., p. 179.

60Ibid., p. 182.

61Arthur Blumbertg, "A Nurse Consultant's Responsi—
bilities and Problems," Am. J. Nursing, 1956,‘§§, pp. 606-8.

62Ferneau, Op. cit., pp. 22-25.

63Elmer F. Ferneau, "Which Consultant?" Administra-
tor's Notebook, II, April 1954, pp. 1-4.

64Lippitt, op. cit.

65Belcher, Op. cit., p. 2.

66Ibid.’ p. 9.

67Ibid., p. 2.

68Bindman, Arthur J., "Mental Health Consultation:
Theory and Practice," J. Of Consult. Psych., Vol. 23, NO.
6, 1959, p. 473.

69Harry L. Kitano, "Perceptual Changes in School
Administrators Following Consultation about Problem Child-
ren," J. of Consult Psych., Vol. 8, NO. 2, 1961, pp. 129-
135.

70James A. Dunn, "Michigan School Psychologists: A

102

Profile Analysis of Personal and Professional Character-
istics of School Psychologists in the State of Michigan,"
Mimeographed report accepted for publication in Psychology
in the Schools, p. 10.

71Belcher, Op. cit., p. l.

72Kitano, Op. cit., p. 129.

73Harold M. Byram, "Choosing and Using Consultants,"
The Agr. Ed. Mag., December 1965, pp. 138-49.

74C. Seashore and E. Van Egmond, "The Consultant-

Trainer Role in Working Directly with a Total Staff," J. Of
Soc. Issues, Vol. XV, NO. 2, 1959, p. 36.

75E. F. Ferneau, dissertation, Op. cit.

76Kitano, Op. cit.

77 .
Brown, Op. Cit.

78McGregor, Op. cit.

79Gilbert,gp. cit.

BOIbid.

81Ferneau, op. cit.

82Lippitt, O . cit.

CHAPTER III

1Section IV, Survey Procedures, pp. 13-15, provides
a more detailed description of the process of data collec—
tion.

2W. J. Dixon and W. J. Massey, Introduction to Stat—
istical Anal sis (New York: McGraw Hill Book Co., 1957),

pp. 6- .

3

E. F. Ferneau, "Role Expectations in Consultations,"
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univ. of Chicago, 1954,
pp. 22-24.

4Ibid.

SIbid.

6J. Guetzkow, "Unitizing and Categorizing Problems

103

in Coding Qualitative Data," J. Clin. Psych., Monograph
Supp., NO. 7, 1950, pp. 47-58.

7Fred Kerlinger, Foundations Of Behavioral Research

(New York: Holt, Rinehart and WifiSton, 1964), p.7445.

8Ferneau, op. cit., p. 31.

9Dixon and Massey, Op. cit.

10Of the thirty-six items, only thirty-three were
scored. One triad had to be omitted because of a printing
error in the forms.

llMichigan Education Directopy and Buyers' Guide,
Box 2194, Lansing, Michigan, 8911, 1964-65.

12Michi an Education Directo and Bu ers' Guide,
Box 2194, Lansing, Michigan, 48911, 1965-66. This later

edition became available while the survey was in progress.

 

CHAPTER IV

lAnne Anastasi, Psycholggical Testing (New York:
MacMillan Company, 1954), p. 115.

ZSeashore and Van Egmond, Op. cit.

3Lippitt, O . cit.

4Ferneau, Op. cit.
5

Ibid.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ackerman, Nathan W. "Social Role and Total Personality,"
Amer. J. of Orthopsych. XXI, January 1951, pp. 1-17.

Albrecht, Ruth and Sarbin, T. R. "Contributions to Role
'Taking Theory: Annoyability as a Function of the
Self," Unpublished manuscript, 1952.

Baker, Bruce. "Accuracy of Social Perceptions Of Psycho—
pathic and Non-psychOpathic Prison Inmates," Unpub—
lished manuscript, 1954.

Belcher, Esther L. "Results of a Survey of School Diagnos-
tician Program for the Mentally Handicapped," Depart-
ment of Public Instruction, Spring 1960.

Bindman, Arthur J. "Mental Health Consultation: Theory
and Practice," J. Consult. P§ych., Vol. 23, NO. 6,
1959, p. 473.

Biddle, Bruce. "Present Status of Role Theory," Soc. Psych.
Lab., Univ. Of Missouri, Columbia, MO., 1961.

Blumberg, Arthur. "A Nurse Consultant's Responsibilities
and Problems," Am. Jr. Nursigg, 1956, Vol. 56, pp.
606-8 0

Brown, Theodore H. "The Business Consultant," Harvard
Business Review, 1944, Vol. 21, pp. 138-89.

Byram, Harold M. "Choosing and Using Consultants," The
Agr. Ed. Magazine, December 1965, pp. 138-49.

Cameron, Norman. The Psychology of Behavior Disorder. New
York: Houghton M1 fl n 0., l .

Cline, V. Doctoral dissertation in preparation. Berkeley,
Univ. Of Calif., 1953.

 

Cottrell, Leonard S. "Roles and Marital Adjustment," Pub-
lications of the American Sociological Society, Vol.
27, May 1933, pp. 107-112.

Doyle, Louis A. "A Study Of the EXpectancies Which Element-

ary Teachers, Administrators, School Board Members and
Parents Have of the Elementary Teacher's Role,"

105

106

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1956.

Dunn, James A. "Michigan School Psychologists: A Profile
Analysis of Personal and Professional Characteristics
of School Psychologists in the State Of Michigan,"
Mimeographed report accepted for publication in Ppyf
chology in the Schools.

Ferneau, E. F. "Role Expectations in Consultations," Un-
published doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago,
1954.

Ferneau, E. F. "Which Consultant?" Administrator's Note-
book, 11, April 1954, pp. 1-4.

Getzels, J. and Guba, E. "Role, Role Conflict and Effect-
iveness, an Empirical Study," Amer. Sociol. Review,

Gilbert, Ruth. "Functions Of the Consultant," Teachers
College Record, 61, NO. 4, January 1960, pp. 177-87.

Hoffman, James D. "A Study of the Perceptions that Admin-
istrators, Elementary Teachers, Consultants, and Spe-
cial Area Teachers Have of the Elementary Special Area
Teacher and Consultant Role," Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Michigan State University, 1959.

James, William. Psychology. New York: Henry Holt and
Company, 1892.

Kaplan, M. and Sprunger, B. "A Study to Determine What
Measurable Effects Psychological Evaluations Have
Upon Changing Teachers' Understanding Of an Individ—
ual Child," Unpublished report, Lansing,Mich., Lansing
Public Schools, June 8, 1965.

Kitano, Harry L. "Perceptual Changes in School Administra-
tors Following Consultation about Problem Children,"
J. Of Consult. Psych., Vol. 8, NO. 2, 1961, pp. 129-35.

Leaske, F. and Austin, J. "Survey Of Psychological Workers
Employed in Michigan as School Diagnosticians and
School Psychologists," (Report presented at School
Diagnosticians' WorkshOp, Boyne Mountain, Michigan,
October 20-22, 1963).

Linton, Ralph. The Study of Man. New York: Appleton
Century Co., 1936.

McGregor, Douglas. "The Staff Function in Human Relations,"
J. of Soc. Issues, 1948, NO. 3, pp. 5-22.

107

Mead, George H. Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: Univ.
of Chicago Press, 1924.

Moreno, J. J. Psychodrama. Vol. 1. New York: Beacon
House.

Nieman, L. J. and Hughes, J. W. "The Problem of the Con-
cept of Role--a Resurvey Of the Literature," Social
Forces, Vol. 30, December 1951, p. 141.

Rokeach, M. "Generalized mental rigidity as a factor in
ethnocentrism," J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1948, fig”

Sarbin, T. R. "Role Theory," Chapter 6 in Lindzey, G.
Handbook Of Social Psychology. Cambridge, Mass.:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Inc.

Seashore, C. and Van Egmond, E. "The Consultant-Trainer
Role in Working Directly with a Total Staff," J. Of
Social Issues, Voll XV, NO. 2, 1959, p. 36.

Snyder, Clinton. "Variations in Expectations for the
Teacher Role, as Related to General and Specific
Roles, EXpectation Categories, and Social Distance,"
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1963.

APPENDICES

DIAGNOSTICIAN ROLE CHECK LIST

Directions: For each of tie following pairs of statements, circle a or b
to indicat.e the one you.fee11 is the way a Diagnostician should function.

(If you feel both are ixdrp“~pr1ate, pick the onen-and only oneu-that comes
closest to the way you: Heel Diagnostician Should function.)

 

The Diagnostician should:

I. a. help teachers understand pupil‘s assets and liabilities.
b. tell the teacher what academic work the pupil can and can not do.

2. a. give an exp] W in n nof the learning problem and provide a procedure
for the tea; her to u.) e in class.

b. be a good refe ence for ideas about learning problems with students.

1

3. a. interpret data to the teacher in a personal interview.
b. verify the teacher's Opinion, discount or qualify it.

h. a. point out to teachers, areas of weakness and strength in the child's
intellectual activities.

b. all just what academic workt epup il can and can not do.
5. a. provide intelligence, achievement and personality test results on

p1pi.ls referred f1r possible placement in Type A Program for the
mentally handicapped.

b. evaluate th degree of mental retardat -n in those children who are
potentially mentally handicapped to de ermine those eligible for

state~re1mhursed Special education.

6. a. have pIir aiy -espan ibilit y for deciding pupil placement within

. '.v
the system.

0
0
1w

nterpret records and test scores in problems of pupil placement.

'3

7. fl. ifer possible explanations of the pupil's b"”l”101 in the Cl ssroom.

b. do counselingw th teachers regarding the teacher's own reactions to
P3: blem chi dren.

8. a. uoflcut possible exph ations for behavior the teacher has Observed.
b. interpret signiM‘i N.n eoi problems the teacher has observed.

9. a. have MIPqnaue E”Flfl.1 in child growth and develOpment to be able to
provide detailed in.1:.aiio to the "eacher.

b. hare adecuate irsining in child growth and development to help the
teacher app ly this information to classroom problems.

The

10.

11.

12.

130

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

-2-

Diagnostician should:

a.
b.

a.

a.

a.

b.

a.
b.

a.

b.

verify the teacher's Opinion, discount or qualify it.

provide help and support to the teacher in making decisions.

help plan pragram on basis of reasonable expectations for children
who don't qualify for the Type A Program.

tell the teacher what to do for children who don't qualify for the
Type A Program.

give specific instructions for handling in the classroom along
with prognosis.

give suggestions for working with the pupil with either emotional
or academic difficulties.

help by suggesting educational activities for children who don't
qualify for the Type A Program.

help plan program on basis of reasonable expectations for children
who don't qualify for the Type A Program.

interpret data to the teacher in a personal interview.

provide help and support to the teacher in making decisions.

be able to discuss the results of the tests and their implications.

be able to discuss results of tests and offer alternate approaches.

give an explanation of the learning problem and provide a procedure
for the teacher to use in class.

work with the teacher on problem areas of learning difficulties in
order to come up with a workable method for certain cases.

be able to discuss results of tests and tell how the pupil should
be handled.
be able to discuss the results of the tests and their implications.

do counseling with teachers regarding the teacher's own reactions
to problem children.
tell the teacher what the pupil's problems are.

suggest possible explanations for behavior the teacher has observed.

assist in diagnosing problems which the teacher observes but cannot
understand.

work with the teacher to improve effectiveness of the teaching sit-
uation in terms of the pupil's intellectual abilities and emotional
problems.

give suggestions for working with the pupil with either emotional
or academic difficulties.

The Diagnostician should:

21.

22.

23.

2h.

25.

26.

28.

29.

30.

give concrete suggestions to the teacher for meeting the child's need.

discuss with the teacher, recommendations and means for implementing
them.

work with the teacher on problem areas of learning difficulties in
order to come up with a workable method for certain cases.

be a good reference for ideas about learning problems with students.

have primary responsibility for deciding pupil placement within
the system.

work with the pupil's former teachers and principal, as well as
test data, in considering placement.

evaluate the degree of mental retardation in those children who are
potentially mentally handicapped, to determine those eligible for
state-reimbursed special education.

function as a member of the special education screening committee,
composed of the child's teacher, principal, special education teacher,
and nurse, which decides placement of mentally handicapped.

have adequate training in child growth and develOpment to help the
teacher apply this kind of information to classroom problems.

have adequate training in child growth and develOpment to tell
teacher just what to expect.

interpret records and test scores in problems of pupil placement.

work with the pupil's former teachers and principal, as well as
test data, in considering placement.

work with the pupil's teacher to improve effectiveness of the teaching
situation in terms of the pupil's intellectual abilities and emotional
problems.

give specific instructions for handling in classroom along with
prognosis.

assist in diagnosing problems which the teacher observes but cannot
understand.
interpret the significance of problems the teacher has observed.

be able to give teachers help in suggesting various activities for
pupils and teachers.

give concrete suggestions to the teacher for meeting the child's need.
have adequate training in child growth and develOpment to be able to
provide detailed information to the teacher.

have adequate training in child growth and develOpment to tell the
teacher just what to expect.

-h-

The Diagnostician should:

31.

32.

33-

3h.

35-

36.

tell the teac er what the pupil‘s prgnlemg are.

offer possible explanations of the pupil‘s behavior in the classroom.

.‘

point out t teachers, areas of weakness nnq strength in the child's
intellectual activities.
help teachers understand the pupil ::I.;«-J:mwyiwldulitazw.
discuss with the teacher, recnmmendatione and means for implement“
ing them.
be able to give teachers help in suggesting various activities for
pupils and teachers.
help by suggesting educatinnal actiVities for children who don't
qualify for the Type A Program.
tell teacher what to do for CF: “ren V“? d n*i ovulifv for the
Type A Program.
be able to discuss results 6’ ‘_ 3n? “1 P“" 1““ P”pil should
be handled.
be able to discuss results of tests and offer alternate approaches.
function as a member of the s ecial education screenin committee

. . )

composed of the child‘s teacher, principal, special education
teacher and nurse, which decides placement of mentally handicapped.

provide intelligence, achievement and personality test results in

pupils referred for possible placement in the Type A Program for
the mentally handicapped.

n 11/65 J.G.

DIAGNOSTICIAN ROLE CHECK LIST

 

PARI‘ II Name

Background,and.Training

1. Training
Institution

Bachelor's

Code Number

Major Minors

 

 

 

Master's

 

 

 

Specialist

 

 

 

Doctor's

 

 

 

2. Professional Experience as:

a. Teacher

b. Clinician
c. Diagnostician

d. Other

3. Present Position
a. County system ( )

or city system ( )

(indicate number of years)

 

Title

Total population

 

b. Pupil population of school system
c. Pupil-Diagnostician Ratio (if known)

 

 

PART III 2

Please check each of the following items which you expect to be part of a

Diagnostician's functions and duties

a. almost always

b. most of the time
c. usually

d. seldom

e

. rarely or never
Sample item:

more than 95% of the time
80-95% of the time
20-80%

540%

0-5%

. (A?) 52. Diagnostician should give tests to pupils he sees.
Please mark every numbered item with the letter you feel is appropriate.

Diagnostician should give individual
tests such as:

( ) 1. Intelligence

) 2. Achievement

( ) 3. Personality, check lists
( ) h. Personality, projectives
Diagnostician should give group tests
in areas of:

( ) 5. Intelligence

( ) 6. Achievement

( ) 7. Personality

As part of the evaluation, a
Diagnostician should interview:
( ) 8. Pupil

(p ) 9. Parent

( ) 10. Other staff members

As part of the evaluation, the

Diagnostician should review:

( ) ll. Pupil's cumulative record
(CA-39 or CA-60)

12. Previous diagnostic reports

13. Visiting Teacher reports

1%. Clinic reports

15. Samples of class work

AAAA

PART III (Continued)

Dia nosticians' reports should:
( 16. Be brief, limited to
scores and conclusions

( ) 17. Include interpretation
of the test data
( ) l8. Include suggestions for

action.

Following the report the diagnostician
should have a conference with:

( ) l9. teacher

( ) 20. principal

( ) 21. parents

( ) 22. Visiting Teacher or counselor
( ) 23. Clinic or community agencies

(if referral to them is
recommended)

The Diagnostician should work with
pupils who are:

2h. Referred for any reason
25. Educable Mentally Handicapped
26. Trainable Mentally Handicapped

27. Homebound

28. Emotionally disturbed or
behavior problems

29. Physically handicapped

30. Having difficulty learning

AA AA/\A’\

The Diagnostician should be a consultant

on:

( ) 31. Special Education
( ) 32. Child behavior

( ) 33. Learning

( )

3h. Classroom management

The Diagnostician should address:

( ) 35. Parents' groups, community,
social and service organi-
zations.

The Diagnostician should help in

in-service training activities with:

( ) 36. Own colleagues (other
diagnosticians)

( ) 37. Other specialists (Visit-
ing Teachers, counselors,
nurses)

(. ) 38. Teachers

( ) 39. Administrators

To implement his recommendations the
Diagnostician should:

( ) to. Counsel pupils

( ) hl. Counsel parents

( ) M2. Counsel staff members
( ) h3. Contact clinics and

community agencies

Diagnosticians' orientation should be
toward:

()u.
()hS-

Teaching and education
Clinical work and
psychology

Diagnostician should be concerned
with:

( ) #6. Pupil placement in special
programs

( ) h7. Promotion or retention in
grade of individual pupils

( ) 48. Special handling of problem

pupils in the classroom

Diagnostician should be involved in:

( ) #9. Planning or special services
such as group testing
programs

( ) 50. General educational planning,

such as curriculum

The
31. a.
b.
32. a.
b.
33. a.
b.
3h. a.
b.
35. a.
b.
36. a.
b.
Did you
I.
2.
3.
h.
Did the
l.
2.
3.

feel the contact with the Diagnost

contact with the

lPPL ‘ NIJlki Hi
Part I, age 4, Teacher Form
-h-

Diagnostician should:

tell the teacher what the upil's problems are.
- r

offer possible explanations of the pupi i3t's behavior in the classroom.
point out to teachers, areas of weakness and strength in the child's
intellectual activities.

help teachers underst 'nd the pupil's assets and liabilities.

discuss with the teacher, recommendations and means for implement~
ing them.
be able to give teachers help in suggesting various activities for

pupils and teachers.
help by suggesting educational activities for children who don't
qualify for the Type A Program.

tell teacher w mat to do for children who don't Qualify for the
Type A Program.

be able to discuss results of tests
handled

nd tell how the pupil should be

be able to tests and offer alternate approaches.
a member of the special education screening commit tee,
the child'st teacher, principal, special education

nurse, which decides placement of mentally handicapped.

function as
composed of
teacher and

provide intelligence, achievement and personality test results in
pupils referred for possible placement in the Type A Program for
the mentally handicapped.

ician was:

very satisfactory?

esse ntiall.y satisfactory?

essentially unsatisfactory?

very unsatisfactory?

Diagnostician consist of:
a written report only?
a personal conference (even if brief)?
both?

T ll/65 J.G.

Appendix Bii
Bart II, Revised for Teachers

DIAGNOSTICIAN ROLE CHECK LIST

 

marl: Nam

Background and‘Training Code Number

1. Training
Institution Major Minors

Bachelor's

 

 

 

Master's

 

 

 

Specialist

 

 

 

Doctor's

 

 

 

2. Professional Experience as: (indicate number of years)

a. Teacher Grade taught at present

b. Clinician
c. Diagnostician

d. Other

 

Title
3. Present Position

a. County system ( ) or city system ( ) . Total population

 

b. Pupil population of school system
c. Pupil-Diagnostician Ratio (if known)

 

 

PART III ‘

Please check each of the following items which you eXpect to be part of a
Diagnostician's functions and duties

a. almost always more than 95% of the time
b. most of the time 80-99% of the time

c. usually 20-80%

d. seldom 5-20%

e. rarely or never O-5%

Sample item:
(A?) 52. Diagnostician should give tests to pupils he sees.

Please mark every numbered item.with the letter you feel is apprOpriate.

Diagnostician should give individual As part of the evaluation, a
tests such as: Diagnostician should interview:
( ) 1. Intelligence ( ) 8. Pupil
( ) 2. Achievement ( ) 9. Parent
( ) 3. Personality, check lists ( ) 10. Other staff members
( ) 4. Personality, projectives 4 3
As part of the evaluation, the
Diagnostician should give group tests Diagnostician should review:
in areas of: ( ) ll. Pupil's cumulative record
( ) 5. Intelligence (CA-39 or CA-60)
( ) 6. Achievement 12. Previous diagnostic reports
( ) 7. Personality 13. Visiting Teacher reports

1h. Clinic reports
15. Samples of class work

AAAA .
VVVV’

Appendix C
Diagnostician Letter

LAICIiICLAPJ SIUAITE EHNIVWERSIIPY mmrtnnmmc

 

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION 0 DEPARTMENT OF COUNSELING, PERSONNEL SERVICES AND EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY

October 11, 1965

With our profession in a period of flux, it is becoming increasingly
important that we establish a clear picture of our professional role.
This questionnaire is part of a study to clarify aspects of the
diagnostician's role as it is perceived. The sample will include all
approved professionally active diagnosticians in the State of Michigan
and will constitute the basic reference group of this research study.’

The project was designed by John Grabow, Diagnostician, with the
approval of Dr. Marvin S. Kaplan, Director of Psychological_Services
of the Lansing Public Schools. It is being conducted under the
supervision of the College of Education of Michigan State University.

Sections 1 and 2 are of pivotal importance in the design of the study,
and your cooperation in filling them out would be deeply appreciated.
Section 3 would provide useful supplementary material. However, if
you have only sufficient time to do part of the form, we would strongly
.urgo that you concentrate on sections 1 and 2. The time required to
-do these two sections is fifteen to twenty minutes.

Please return the forms in the enclosed envelope within one week, if
at all possible. If it is not practicable for you to fill them out,
please return the blank forms as this too will facilitate our process-
ing of the data.

If you would be interested in a summary of the data collected, as well
as its interpretation, fill out the enclosed address label and return
it with the check-list.

Yours truly,

.xéiJMaaéérvvr-

ohn Grabow, M.A.
Diagnostician

This study is endorsed by Dr. Buford Stefflre of the College of Education,
Michigan State University.

 

Appendix D
Diagnostician Follow-up Letter

JMICILHSADIEVLATE LHNFVERSITY'mmruummG

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION 0 DEPARTMENT OF COUNSELING, PERSONNEL SERVICES AND EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY

In the latter part of October you received a questionnaire
concerning the role of the Diagnostician. We would like our
survey to he as representative of the total profession as possi-
ble. To do this we need to include your views. If it is at all
possible to complete the questionnaire and return it (and we are
aware of the many competing demands on a Diagnostician's time),
your effort will be deeply appreciated. If this is not possible,
returning the blank forms will facilitate our processing of the
data.

Yours truly,

John Grabow, M.S.
Diagnostician

Appendix E
Administrator Letter

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING

 

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION 0 DEPARTMENT OF COUNSELING, PERSONNEL SERVICES AND EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY

November 12, 1955

Although the number of certified Diagnosticians in the state of
Michigan has been increasing rapidly, the need for their services
has increased even more rapidly. The demand for services outruns
the supply of personnel. To provide informtion that will enable
available personnel to function more effectively, a study is being
conducted of Diagnosticians' and teachers' perceptions of the
Diagnostician's role.

he project was designed by John Grabow, Diagnostician, with the
approval of Dr. Larvin S. Kaplan, Director of Psychological Services
of the Lansing Public Schools. It is being conducted under the
supervision of the College of Education of Michigan State University.

A critical aspect of the project is a survey of opinions of teachers
who have had contact with a Diagnostician in regard to a specific
case, i.e. , who have had a pupil evaluated by the Diagnostician and
received an interpretation of the results of the evaluation (during
the present school year). ‘Ihe interpretation may have been in a
written report, a personal conference or both, preferably including
personal contact. It would be an invaluable service to us if you
could indicate on the enclosed form the names and addresses of two
teachers who have had such contact with each Diagnostician listed
and return the form in the envelope provided.

If you would be interested in a summary of the data collected, as
well as its interpretation, fill out the enclosed address label and
return it with the address form. If it is not practicable for you
to provide the informtion requested, please return the blank forms,
as this too will facilitate our processing of the data.

'Ihe study is endorsed by Dr. Buford Stefflre , Professor of Education,
Michigan State University.

Yours truly,

John Grabow, M.S .
Diagnostician

Please fill in, in the appropriate spaces,

Appendix F

Teacher Nomination Form

the names and

addresses of two teachers who have had professional con—

tacts with each of the listed Diagnosticians.

Diagnostician:

Diagnostician:

Diagnostician:

1.

l.

1.

Teacher's

Address

Name

 

 

Teacher's

Address

Name

 

 

Teacher's

Address

Name

 

 

Teacher's

Address

Name

 

 

Teacher's

Address

Name

 

 

Teacher's

Address

Name

 

 

Appendix G
Administrator Follow-up Letter

JMICILHSAIJEYLATE LHNFVERSITY'amenmmG

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION 0 DEPARTMENT OF COUNSELING, PERSONNEL SERVICES AND EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY

A few weeks ago a request was made to you for the names and
addresses of two teachers having had contact with the Diag-
nostician serving your schools (or two for each Diagnostician
if you have more than one). While we realize that there are
many competing demands upon your time, we do feel that the
information to be obtained by this study will help to increase
the effectiveness of diagnostic services in the state. How-
ever, for the survey to be truly representative, we must have
as broad a sample of Michigan schools as possible and to this
end, need to include your school system. For your convenience
a duplicate blank and return envelOpe have been enclosed.

If it is not practicable for you to provide this informa-
tion, please return the blank forms as this too will accelerate
the processing of the data. Any efforts you can make in behalf
of this project will be most sincerely appreciated.

Yours truly,

John Grabow, M.S.
Diagnostician

Appendix H
Teacher Letter

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY munsmo

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION 0 DEPARTMENT 01' COUNSELING, PERSONNEL SERVICES AND EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY

At the present time there is a great denand for the services of
Diagnosticians in the schools, but an acute shortage of personnel.
As one means of increasing the usefulness of personnel available,
a study is being conducted of the perception of the Diagnosticians'
role by both teachers and Diagnosticians. The opinions of teachers
who have received the service of a Diagnostician are of vital im-
portance to the study. As our records indicate that you have had
a pupil evaluated by the Diagnostician during this school year,

we would like you to participate in this research study.

The project was designed by John Grabow, Diagnostician, with the
approval of Dr. wrvin S. Kapl'an, Director of Psychological Services
of the Lansing Public Schools. It is being conducted under the
supervision of the College of Education of Michigan State University.

Sections I and II are of pivotal importance in the design of the
study, and your cooperation in filling them out would be deeply ap-
preciated. Section III would provide useful supplementary mterial.
However, if you have only sufficient time to do part of the form,
we would strongly urge that you concentrate on sections I and II.
Inc tine reqqired to do these two sections is fifteen to twenty
minutes.

Please return the form in the enclosed envelope within one week
if at all possible. If it is not practicable for you to fill them
out, please return the blank forms, as this too will facilitate
our processing of the data.

If you would be interested in a sum of the data collected, as
well as its interpretation, fill out the enclosed address label and
return it with the check-list.

'Ihis study is endorsed by Dr. Buford Stefflre, Professor of Education,
Michigan State University.

Yours truly,

John Grabow, M.S.
Diagnostician

APPENDIX I
TEACHER FOLLOW-UP LETTER
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EASTLANSING

 

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION 0 DEPARTMENT OF COUNSELING, PERSONNEL SERVICES AND EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY

A few weeks ago you recieved a questionnaire concerning the role of
the diagnostician. Ybu had been selected as one of a group whose
opinions and attitudes on the functions of diagnosticians will be
considered as typical of teachers throughout the State of Michigan.
Since we would like our survey to be as representative of the total
profession as possible, we need to include your views.

If it is at all possible to complete the questionnaire and return it
(and we are aware of the many competing demands on a teacher's time)
your effort will be deeply appreciated. If it is not possible to
complete the questionnaire, returning the blank forms will facilitate
our processing of the data.

Yburs truly,

John M. Grabow, M.S.
Diagnostician

P.S. Early returns have indicated that the instructions for Part II
are not clear. This section refers to the background and training
of the teacher, not of the diagnostician. Please indicate the grade
level and type of class you are teaching at present, for example,
regular elementary nth grade, upper elementary Special Education,

or junior high school science.

APPENDIX J

Mode of Operation Scores and Satisfactoriness Ratings

 

Identification code 1 = very satisfactory
Ke Last digit is give for 2 = essentially sat—
y a diagnostician, one or isfactory
two for a teacher 3 = essentially
unsatisfactory
4 = very unsatis-
factory

 

Code Number Satisfactor- Mode of Operation Scores

iness rating

 

Expert Resource Process

 

0105 2 l4 7
0102 2 6 9 18
0125 5 12 16
0121 2 3 11 19
0155 6 13 14
0152 2 6 10 11
0205 6 14 13
0201 4 4 13 16
0285 ‘ 3 12 18
0282 2 10 10 13
0295 3 16 14
0292 2 9 10 14
0375 3 16 4
0372 2 3 13 17
0405 7 11 15
0402 2 3 12 18
0465 5 10 18
0462 1 6 14 13
0525 4 11 18
0521 2 6 13 14
0625 2 11 20
0622 2 5 12 16
0635 3 12 18
0632 1 5 15 13
0735 3 11 19
0731 2 3 15 15
0805 3 10 20
0802 2 2 14 17
0925 1 13 19
0922 1 9 9 15

Code Number Satisfactor- Mode of Operation Scores
iness rating

 

Expert Resource Process

 

0965 2 ll 20
0962 1 2 18 13
0995 4 12 17
0991 4 4 13 16
1095 2 16 15
1091 2 2 12 19
1125 6 10 19
1121 1 2 15 18
1135 2 15 16
1132 2 8 11 14
1205 5 8 20
1201 2 2 11 20
1245 2 10 21
1241 2 6 7 20
1305 1 2 11 20
1302 1 ' 4 14 15
1495 4 11 18
1491 1 S 16 12
1555 4 11 18
1552 l 6 9 18
1575 4 11 18
1571 2 8 11 14
1585 2 14 17
1581 1 7 14 14
1685 5 14 14
1681 2 4 11 18
1695 1 12 20
1692 2 2 11 20
1705 13 13 7
1702 2 7 11 15
1775 3 11 19
1771 2 3 13 17
1815 7 11 15
1812 1 15 10 8
1845 3 11 19
1842 1 4 12 17
1865 3 13 17
1862 1 11 12 10

Code Number Satisfactor— Mode of Operation Scores
iness Rating

 

Expert Resource Process

 

1915 8 11 21
1911 1 3 15 15
1955 1 15 17
1952 2 3 12 18
2045 4 13 16
2042 1 1 13 19
2055 7 6 20
2052 3 13 17
2075 - 16 17
2072 1 2 19 12
2125 3 ll 19
2121 1 3 15 15
2155 6 10 17
2152 3 11 9 13
2185 3 12 18
2181 2 3 12 18
2365 l 14 18
2362 g 1 6 12 15
2405 - 15 18
2401 1 8 11 14
2455 2 12 19
2452 1 4 12 17
1535 2 11 20
1531 1 7 9 17
1615 5 12 16
1611 1 8 13 12
1825 5 10 18
1822 2 2 11 20
2515 3 13 17
2512 2 10 10 13
2525 6 12 15
2522 1 3 10 20
Group II

0135 3 12 18
0132 2 6 11 16
0165 2 - 11 20
0162 1 12 12 9
0225 5 9 19
0221 1 S 14 14

Satisfactor- Mode of Operation Scores

 

 

Code Number iness Rating
Expert Resource Process
0325 3 11 19
0321 1 4 10 19
0475 4 12 17
0471 1 7 11 15
0495 4 13 16
0492 2 8 9 16
0645 4 15 14
0641 » 1 7 12 14
0675 12 6 15
0672 2 15 11 7
0705 1 16 16
0701 1 10 14 9
0755 2 13 18
0751 1 2 17 14
0825 4 12 17
0822 1 5 10 18
1015 5 14 14
1011 1 4 11 18
1155 3 14 16
1151 1 5 15 13
1165 3 11 19
1162 2 14 11 8
1725 9 11 13
1721 1 3 13 17
1785 1 13 19
1781 1 5 9 19
1975 1 12 20
1972 1 5 12 16
2005 5 9 19
2002 1 3 14 16
2095 7 10 16
2091 2 S 15 13
2105 3 14 16
2102 1 - 16 17
2235 4 13 16
2232 1 5 10 18
2265 4 11 18
2261 3 4 15 14
2375 5 9 19
2372 2 8 10 15