ABSTRACT CHARACTERISTICS OF KINDERGARTEN CHILDREN AS PREDICTORS OF READING DIFFICULTIES IN FIRST GRADE By Eileen Magie Earhart Identification of kindergarten children who possess average or above-average intelligence but will eXperience difficulty learning to read in first grade is needed. After these kindergarten children are identified, VapprOpriate training experiences may be prescribed. By using a combination of variables, it was proposed that identification could be made more accurately and more inclusively than by teachers' eXpectations alone. All kindergarten children (127) in two suburban schools were administered measures of intelligence, visual perception, language, configuration-identification, and self-concept. Children who showed average or above- average intelligence scores were given a criterion reading achievement test the next year (in first grade). The variables of sex, social position, and teachers' predictiOns of reading success were also considered. Eileen Magie Earhart A multiple-regression equation was derived by using variables and test scores from one randomly selected half of the group studied. The variables found to contribute most significantly to the prediction equation were perceptual quotient (from the Frostig test), teachers' eXpectations, sex, social position, and self-concept (a performance-adequacy factor). The scores from the second half were used to cross-validate the prediction equation derived from the first half. A comparison of multiple-correlation coefficients for each of the groups and the criterion shows a small shrinkage indicating a relatively stable set of predictors. Predictions made by using the multiple-regression equation were found to be signifi- cantly better than predictions from teachers' eXpectations alone. Early identification of potential reading difficulties can be made more accurately by using a combination of variables approach. Assuming that it is important to exercise caution not to "label" the children identified, the approach may be useful in schools. CHARACTERISTICS OF KINDERGARTEN CHILDREN AS PREDICTORS OF READING DIFFICULTIES IN FIRST GRADE BY rLOUIE-E" EileeniMagie Earhart A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1969 £372é‘f 7’3-4? Dedicated to my husband, Gordon, and my sons, Bruce and Daniel, for their encouragement, patience, and understanding ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The financial assistance, support, and encouragement provided by John Heckerl, Director of the Waterford Township Learning Improvement Center, made the collection of data for this longitudinal study possible. Susan Webb also assisted by her work with the self- concept questions and her valuable comments. The conscientious, capable efforts of Marilyn Miller, who administered and scored many of the tests, are very much appreciated. The data collection periods proceeded smoothly due to the preplanning, the flexi- bility and adaptability of the testers, and the accommodation and c00peration of the school personnel. A scholarship received from The Delta Kappa Gamma Society helped make the completion of analyses and writing possible. The guidance, encouragement, and conscientious assistance received from Dr. Ted Ward are deeply appre- ciated. His advice and interest have been considered valuable assets as the study progressed toward completion. Significant contributions were also made by Dr. Dale Alam, Dr. Robert Schmatz, Dr. Robert Craig, Dr. Maryellen McSweeney, Dr. Jeanne Hollingsworth, Betty Wing, Marshall Forstot, and David Wright. 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Need for the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Hypotheses to be Tested . . . . . . . . . . 10 Theoretical Basis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Overview of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . 14 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . 16, Factors Involved in the Reading Process . . 16 Visual Perception as Requisite to Reading . 18 Predicting Reading Difficulties from Visual Perception Abilities . . . . . . 19 Correlation of Visual Perception and Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Visual Perception Abilities Measured by Frostig . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Visual Perception and Intelligence Differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Sex Differences in Visual Perception . . 25 Language as Requisite to Reading . . . . . 25 Relationship of Language and Social Class O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 27 iv CHAPTER PAGE Assessing Language Development . . . . . 28 Configuration-Identification in Early Reading . . . . . . . . . . .J.‘.'. . . . 28 Self-Concept and Academic Performance . . . 29 Relationship of Self-Concept and Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3O Techniques Used to Measure Self-Concept . 31 Summary of Literature Review . . . . . . . 33 Factors in Reading Process . . . . . . . 33 Visual Perception and Reading . . . . . . 34 Language and Reading . . . . . . . . . . 34 Configuration-Identification and Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Self-Concept and Reading . . . . . . . . 35 Predicting Reading Difficulties . . . . . 36 III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Selection of the Sample . . . . . . . . . . 38 Restriction of Sample . . . . . . . . . . 39 Social Position of Sample . . . . . . . . 40 3‘ Selection of Instruments . . . . . . . . . :3 Teacher EXpectations . . . . . . . . . . Intelligence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Visual Perception . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Language Development . . . . . . . . . . 47 CHAPTER Configuration-Identification . . . . Academic Self-Concept . . . . . . . . Reading Achievement . . . . . . . . . Collection of Data . . . . . . . . . . Tester Training . . . . . . . . . . . Kindergarten Testing . . . . . . . . First Grade Testing . . . . . . . . . Analyses of Data . . . . . . . . . . . Predicting Reading Difficulty . . . . Reading Process Factors and Reading Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . Teacher EXpectations and Reading Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . Perceptual Quotients and Intelligence Quotients . . . . . . . . . . . . . Language and Social Position . . . . IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . Predicting Reading Difficulty . . . . . Derivation of the Prediction Equation cross-'validation o o o o o o o o o 0 Relationships of Reading Process Factors and Reading Achievement . . . . . . . Visual Perception and Reading AChi evement O O O 0 O I O O O O O 0 vi PAGE 49 50 54 55 55 56 58 58 6O 62 63 63 64 65 65 66 77 86 86 CHAPTER Language Deve10pment and Reading Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . Configuration-Identification and Reading Achievement . . . . . . . . Academic Self-Concept and Reading Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . Difference between Teacher EXpectations and Reading Achievement . . . . . . . Difference between Perceptual Quotients and Intelligence Quotients . . . . . Relationship between Language Deve10pment and Social Position . . . Summary of Analyses . . . . . . . . . . V. CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reading Process Factors . . . . . . . Language and Social Position . . . . Intelligence Quotients and Perceptual Quotients . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . Planning Training Procedures . . . . Training Teachers . . . . . . . . . . vii PAGE . 91 . 92 . 93 . 95 O 98 . 100 101 104 104 105 113 . 114 . 115 . 115 . 116 . 117 CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D viii PAGE 119 124 129 131 134 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 3:1 Summary of Sample: Children Studied in Kindergarten and Children Remaining in First Grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 3:2 Social Class of First Grade Total Sample . 43 3:3 Social Class of First Grade Children with IQ Scores Below 84 . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 4:1 Means and Standard Deviations: Group A . . 57 4:2 Correlations of Each Variable with the Criterion, Reading Achievement, and Correlation Among All Variables: Group A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 4:3 Regression Coefficients and Significance Level for the Five Variables and the Constant in the Multiple-Regression Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 4:4 Analysis of Variance for Overall Regression: Group A .I. . . . . . . . . . 72 4:5 Predicted Scores Using the Multiple- Regression Equation, Criterion Reading Achievement Scores, and Teachers' EXpectations: Group A . . . . . . . . . . 73 ix 4:7 4:8 4:9 4:10 4:11 4:12 Multiple-Regression and Teachers' Predictions for Students Below 4.0 on the Criterion, Reading Achievement: Group A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Multiple-Regression and Teachers' Predictions for Students at or above 4.0 on Criterion: Group A . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations: Group B Correlations of Each Variable with the Criterion, Reading Achievement Scores and Correlations Among A11 Variables: Group B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Predicted Scores Using the Multiple- Regression Equation, Criterion Reading Achievement Scores, and Teachers' EXpectations: Group B . . . . . . . . Analysis of Variance for Overall Regression: Group B . . . . . . . . . Multiple-Regression and Teachers' Predictions for Students Below 4.0 on the Criterion, Reading Achievement: Group B O O O O O O C O O O O O O O 0 PAGE 76 76 78 79 80 83 85 TABLE 4:13 4:14 4:15 4:16 Multiple-Regression and Teachers' Predictions for Students at or above 4.0 on Criterion: Group B . Means and Standard Deviations: Restricted Sample . . . . . Correlation Coefficients for Variables and Reading Achievement: Teachers' EXpectations Compared with Actual Reading Achievement . xi Restricted Sample PAGE 85 89 9O 97 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 3:1 Form Used to Record Teachers' EXpectations of Reading Achievement in First Grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 3:2 Data Collection Schedule . . . . . . . . . 59 5:1 Comparison of Below-Average Reading Achievement Scores on the Criterion, Predicted by the Multiple-Regression Equation, and Predicted by the Teacher: Group B . . . . . . . . . . . 107 xii CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM In this chapter, the need for and the purpose of this study are described. The hypotheses to be tested and theory used as the basis for the study are also presented. An overview of the remaining chapters is delineated in the concluding section of the chapter. Need for the Study Children who possess average or above average intelligence but eXperience Specific reading difficulties in school need to be identified early so that suitable training eXperiences may be prescribed. Very little actual identification of reading problems is made in many public schools until the child has trouble learning to read in first grade. Teacher observation has been the chief means of identifying the child in kindergarten who may have a reading problem. The child with average intelligence who will later show a reading difficulty may not be identified during kindergarten as having potential reading difficulty. At this level, immature social development is usually employed as a major indicator of impending difficulty in learning to read. If a child's social development is similar to his peers, he is not as likely to be selected by the teacher as potentially having reading difficulties. In the process of identifying, diagnosing and treating deficiencies in learning, the staff of the Waterford Learning Improvement Center, Waterford Township, Michigan, became aware of the importance of and the problems involved in early identification of children Who have reading difficulties. Observations of children receiving treatment revealed that the third grade children exhibit more frustration and poorer self-concepts than younger children. If identification can be made earlier, specific training can also be effected sooner so that the child may experience success in learning situations. The terms reading roblem, reading difficulty and reading disability are used interchangeably in this study in describing a child who does not progress as eXpected in reading and would be called a disabled reader by Bond and Tinker (1957). The authors describe a disabled reader as: One who has had an opportunity to learn to read, but who is not reading as well as could be eXpected by his aural verbal ability, his mental capacity, and his success in nonreading learnings. He is, in reality, the child who is at the lower end of the reading distribution when compared with other children of his general capability (p. 79-80). The reading eXpectancy score used by Bond and Tinker (1957, p. 78-79) is calculated by using the number of years the child has been in school and multiplying that number by his intelligence quotient and then adding 1.0. The resulting figure is an eXpected grade score which can be compared with actual grade equivalent achievement scores. An actual grade equivalent score which is one- half year or .5 below the eXpected grade score indicates reading disability at the primary level. Raw scores on the Stanford Achievement Test, the instrument selected to measure reading achievement in this study, can be translated to grade equivalents, percentile ranks and stanines. The five subtests which measure reading achievement need to be averaged to obtain a single criterion score. Grade equivalent scores on this test are not standard scores and cannot be averaged. Stanines, which have the same variability or standard deviation and thus can be averaged, are the most suitable as standard scores from which the criterion score can be computed. Consequently, the child who has average or above average capability, as measured by The Large-Thorndike Intelli- gence Test, but attains an averaged reading achievement score which falls in the lower three stanines on the Stanford Achievement Test is identified as having reading problems in this study. Disabled readers, according to Bond and Tinker, may be classified in groups ranging from simple retardation to complex disability. The latter category includes children who have serious "deficiencies in basic reading abilities, complicated by their rejection of reading, accompanying personality problems, and frequently by sensory or physical handicaps (p. 83)." Children with complex disa- bility in reading will require highly Specialized and individualized instruction. The disabled reader who has less serious problems which can be corrected or prevented with a well-planned prereading instructional program is the target of this study. The complex reading disability caaamay also be identified as having reading problems by the instruments used in this study.but will probably require further intensive diagnosis so that a Specific instructional program may be prescribed. DeHirsch (1966) stated that most schools do not provide Special reading help for students who encounter reading difficulties until the end of third grade. The need for earlier identification and treatment of reading problems is eXpressed in the following: ' The basic perceptuomotor functions that underlie reading may be harder to train at the end of third grade than they are earlier, during "critical" develOpmental stages. By the end of the third grade, moreover, emotional problems and phobic rSSponses resulting from continued failure may have so complicated the original difficulties ”that they may no longer be reversible (p. 91). In today's society, an individual is handicapped in his acquisition of knowledge and in his attainment of gainful employment when he suffers from a reading disa- bility. Since a reading disability is not as readily apparent as a malformed or malfunctioning part of the body, it often is neglected or not recognized. Anderson (1965) points to the need for early recognition of reading diffi- culties in these statements: A child with an uncorrected defect harbors the beginnings of further deviations, particularly in the Sphere of emotional and behavioral problems. Therefore, in terms of the prevention of some of the later effects of a reading disability, the early recognition and apprOpriate treatment of such a basic defect assumes obvious importance (p. 145). Chall's (1967) investigation of approaches used in early reading instruction includes a look at reading failures. In her conclusions She recommends the use of diagnostic techniques so that early identification may be followed by the Special training required to Spare the child "frustration and failure in later years of learning (p. 179)." ' Identification of factors that show relationships to early reading will provide useful knowledge upon which curriculum planning may be based. Curriculum decisions concerning the development of eXperienceS and activities to help prepare the kindergarten child for later school learning can be made more knowledgeably with an increased understanding of the deficiencies associated with early reading difficulties. Purpose of the Study Assuming that reading difficulty can be predicted from measures of visual perception abilities, language development, configuration-identification, and academic self-concept, the question is whether these four factors can be objectively assessed by kindergarten classroom teachers. The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationships between the following characteristics, as measured by instruments which teachers can administer and interpret, in children at the kindergarten level: (1) visual perception, (2) language deve10pment, (3) configuration-identification, and (4) academic self- concept -- and the reading achievement of the same children at the end of first grade to determine whether prediction of reading difficulties can be improved using these characteristics instead of, or in addition to, teacher observations. The characteristics to be studied have been selected on the basis of evidence that defici- encies in these characteristics are often noted in children experiencing reading difficulty. Suitable instruments to measure each characteristic are Sparse. Instruments that require any reading or even recognition of a few words are not usable at kindergarten level. Thus, instruments requiring reSponses to objects, pictures or symbols have been utilized. The child's reSponse is made by circling a figure, by drawing a line as specified or by giving a verbal reply. A major criterion considered in the selection of instruments for this study is that each instrument selected can be administered and interpreted by a class- room teacher. The selection of an instrument for teacher use depended upon the amount of special test-administration training needed, the group-testing suitability and the time demands. Highly Specialized personnel are required to administer and interpret some instruments which could be used. Since trained personnel are usually not available for the testing needed in kindergarten to identify reading problems, instruments which can be successfully used by the classroom teacher are much more feasible. .The instruments selected for this study are The Marianne Frostig Developmental Test of Visual Perception (1963) as a measure of visual perception, the Vocal Encoding Subtest of The Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities (1961) as a measure of language, and The Heckerl Configuration Test (1967) as a measure of configuration- identification. The self-concept characteristic is measured by an adaptation of The Academic Self-Concept Test (1965), entitled "What Face Would You Wear?" 8 DeHirsch (1966) developed a predictive index using several of the characteristics involved in this study. The lengthy index must be administered individually and requires Specialized examiners to administer some of the instruments, therefore, it would not be suitable for kindergarten classroom teachers to use. Information gained from a combination of measures should serve as a supplement to a teacher's observations of children. By using test data and observations the Judgments regarding children who may have learning diffi- culties could be made more accurately. In their dis- cussion of kindergarten curriculum evaluation, Robison and Spodek (1965) discuss the desirability of making comparisons of test data and teacher observations as follows: When teachers have any correlative or comparative data about children's achievements or when they have studied all or most of the children to the point where they-have formed some Judgments about abilities and skills, they can immediately make comparisons between test results and such other information. Sometimes the test results offer surprises, indicating more ability and understanding, or less, than the teacher had supposed (p. 203). Wilson and Robeck (1963), the authors of the Kindergarten Evaluation of Learning Potential (KELP), have deve10ped an evaluation program to be used by the teacher throughout the kindergarten year. The devices were "designed to extend the observation skills of the 9 kindergarten teachers (p. 14)." Wilson and Robeck contend that the two classes taught by each teacher, which contain fifty to eighty children who attend a relatively short period of time each day, present a monumental observation task for the teacher. They add that: Under the circumstances it is almost impossible to avoid overlooking some of the quiet ones or perhaps seeing the noisy ones only in terms4of the disruption that they are causing p. 1 . Kindergarten teachers are trained to use objective observational techniques by Haring and Ridgway (1967) to identify children with learning disabilities. From the data obtained in the study the authors concluded that: When provided with a structured guide to observation, kindergarten teachers can select children who have deve10pmental retardation by Specific areas of performance (p. 392). The additional devices and techniques employed by Haring and Ridgway and by Wilson and Robeck support the prOposition that use of supplemental information can improve the accuracy and quantity of predicted reading difficulties in kindergarten children. ' The element of socioeconomic bias may affect teacher observations and judgments. Eash (1965) states that: Teacher judgment is significant when used with other criteria. Socioeconomic bias sometimes enters into teacher judgment of children. If unaware of their biases, teachers may judge pupils in terms of their own values rather than on the bases of an objective appraisal (p. 47). 10 By using objective measures of the characteristics investigated in addition to teacher observations, the subjectivity of predictions should be lessened. The quality of predictions Should, conversely, be increased. An improved basis of early identification of potential reading problems would permit the introduction of appro- priate curricular training programs to develop skills, eXperience and potential, at an earlier level in the child's educational eXperience. Hypotheses to be Tested 1. The major hypothesis to be tested by this study is that prediction of reading difficulty in first grade can be improved by combining scores from Several measures -- The Frostig Test of Visual Perception, the Vocal Encoding Test, The Heckerl Configuration Test and The Academic Self-Concept Test. The prediction may by .use of a combination of these measures is eXpected to be more accurate and more inclusive than kindergarten teachers' eXpectations of reading difficulty. Use of the combined measures as a predictive index of reading difficulty is eXpected to reveal additional students in each kindergarten class who have not been identified by the teacher. Additional hypotheses to be tested follow: 2. Positive relationship exists between visual perception of kindergarten children, as measured by The 11 Frostig Test of Visual Perception, and their reading achievement in first grade, as measured by the Stanford Achievement Test. 3. Positive relationship exists between language deve10pment of kindergarten children, as measured by the Vocal Encoding Subtest of The Illinois Test of Psycho- linguistic Abilities, and their reading achievement in first grade. 4. Positive relationship exists between configuration identification exhibited by kindergarten children, as measured by The Heckerl Configuration Test, and their reading achievement in first grade. 5. Positive relationship exists between the academic self-concept of kindergarten children, as measured by The Academic Self-Concept Test, and their reading achievement in first grade. 6. The proportion of students who show below- average reading achievement in first grade, as measured by the Stanford Achievement Test, differs from the pro- portion of students SXpected to Show below-average reading achievement according to kindergarten teachers' predictions. 7. There is a significant difference between the mean perceptual quotient score, ascertained by The Frostig Test of Visual Perception, and the mean intelligence quotient score, determined by The Lorge-Thorndike 12 Intelligence Test, for kindergarten children who later show below-average reading achievement in first grade. 8. Positive relationship exists between the language development of kindergarten children, as measured by the Vocal Encoding Subtest, and the social position of the same children, determined from the Hollingshead Two Factor Index of Social Position (1957). Theoretical Basis The theoretical basis from which this study is derived is the dynamic theory of the reading process developed by Strang (1961). This psycho—physical process, cyclical in nature, involves many interrelated factors of intelligence and linguistic ability, vision and speech, character and personality, and a central mobilizer -- self-concept. The reader in this dynamic process inter- acts with the reading situation and makes a complex reSponse. The reSponse made depends upon the ability of the reader to successfully interrelate the factors involved in the reading process. If some of the factors are inadequately developed, the reader would be eXpected to have difficulty learning to read. Therefore, an investigation of pertinent factors involved in the reading process which may be related to initial reading difficulty and can be measured by instruments which kindergarten teachers can administer is proposed 13 for study. The factors are intelligence, segments of linguistic ability, visual perception and academic self—concept. Intelligence, as one factor involved in the reading process, is measured by The Lorge-Thorndike Intelligence Test so that students who possess below- average intelligence can be eliminated from the study because children who possess average or above-average intelligence are the focus of this study. 5? Two factors included in linguistic ability are language development and configuration identification. Language deve10pment is defined as the number of des- criptive words used by the child in telling about familiar objects. Configuration is defined as the recognition of a series of letters as a logical pattern or word. A vision factor is visual perception, expressed as a perceptual quotient and as subtest scale scores for five Specific areas. Perceptual quotient is defined in the Administration and Scoring Manual of The Frostig Test of Visual Perception as a deviation score obtained from the sum of the subtest scale scores after correction for age variation. It is not a ratio but has been defined in terms of constant percentiles for each age group with a median of 100, and upper and lower quartiles of 110 and 90, reSpectively. 14 Visual perception is defined in terms of the overt responses to the stimulus situations provided by the five subtests. The first subtest, eye-hand coordina- tion (I), eXplores a restricted area of motor skills. :The figure-ground subtest (II) requires discriminating between intersecting figures and finding hidden figures. Perceptual constancy (III) concerns the ability to recog- nize what is perceived as belonging to a Specific class regardless of the image on the retina. Position in Space (IV) refers to the ability to see an object in relation to one's own body, and Spatial relationships (V) refers to the ability to recognize the positions of objects or reference points in relation to each other. Another factor, academic self-concept, is defined as a person's view or perception of himself in regard to his ability to attain success in the school situation. Reading achievement in first grade, the criterion, is measured by the Stanford Achievement Test, Battery - Primary I. Scores in the stanine scale range of 1, 2, 3 are classed as below-average; 4, 5, 6 are average; 7, 8, 9 are classed above-average. The Stanine scores from the five reading subtests are averaged to obtain the reading achievement stanine score. Overview of the Study The remaining chapters are devoted to further description of the procedures and findings. In Chapter II, 15 the relevant literature pertaining to the theory and factors involved in the reading process is reviewed. The design of the study is Specified in Chapter III. The sample, measures, statistical hypotheses and statistical techniques applied in analyzing the data are described. In Chapter IV, an analysis of the results is presented in written form and in tables as summaries of the findings. The final summary of conclusions, discussion and impli- cations is given in Chapter V. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE In this chapter, the literature pertinent to the theory of the reading process and information processing is reviewed. Studies related to the Specific reading process factors of visual perception, language, configu- ration and self-concept are considered separately. The findings of the studies reviewed are discussed in relation to the investigations undertaken in this study. Eggtors Involved in the Reading Process Strang's (1961) dynamic theory of the reading process, cyclical in nature, begins with the reader interacting with the reading situation and making a complex response. An impression is made on the nervous system by the reSponse, which influences his perceptions of similar situations. The psycho-physical process involves many interrelated factors of intelligence and linguistic ability, vision and speech, character and personality, and a central mobilizer -- self-concept. Studies at the Institute of DevelOpmental Research are the basis for Deutsch's (1965) statement that the essential prerequisites to acquisition of scholastic 16 17 skills are the deve10pment of language, concept formation and organization, visual discrimination, general orienta- tion and self-concept. Bruner (1964) states that cognitive growth depends on the mastery of techniques which aid the child as he copes with his environment. He Specifies three systems of information processing which the child may use to structure his world: action (motor acts), imagery (perceptions), and language. Another schema for structuring the factors associated with reading difficulty has been developed by Eisenberg (1966). He classifies the sources of reading difficulty as sociOpsychological and psychophysiological. In the sociOpsychological category are (1) quantitative and qualitative defects in teaching, (2) deficiencies in cognition stimulation and (3) deficiencies in motivation due to adult and peer expectations. -In the psychophysio— logical category are general debility, sensory defects, intellectual defects, brain injury and Specific reading disability. The sources listed by Eisenberg which can be examined in the kindergarten classroom prior to actual reading activity include deficiencies in cognition stimu- lation such as in the level of language deve10pment and configuration identification ability; deficiencies in motivation may be reflected in measures of the child's academic self-concept; sensory defects, such as inadequate 18 visual perception, can be eXplored, and intellectual defects can be detected. The characteristics investigated in the study, visual perception, language, configuration and self- concept, are factors involved in the dynamic theory of the reading process, are essential prerequisites to learning skills as stated by Deutsch, and are sources of reading difficulty when deficiencies exist, according to Eisenberg. Visual perception, configuration and language also are facets of Bruner's schema for information process- ing. Inadequate development of these factors in the young child would indicate that difficulty in reading can be expected when the child encounters early reading activities. Visual Perception as Requisite to Reading Visual perception is the process of recognition and integration of stimuli. The sensory impression is received by the eye but the interpretation takes place in the brain. Visual perception is involved in many every- day actions. The visual organ system has been described by Gesell (1953) as the most complex of all organ systems in that it links the sensory, motor, autonomic and synthetic functions. Gesell stated that visual behavior patterns follow a general ground plan manifested in five distinguishable areas: eye-hand coordination, postural l9 orientation, fixation, projection and retinal reSponse. He believed that it is possible to formulate develop- mental gradients in each of these areas with Specific reference to the growth and learning of reading behavior. Langman (1960) lists eight visual perception skills preliminary to reading. She states that "each Skill named requires reSponses based on generalization and transfer which in turn require ability to select the most characteristic aSpects of the sensory eXperience and/or those most suitable for reSponse in a particular situational context (p. 20)." Reading is a complex process requiring appropriate reSponses to visual language forms. In this perceptual-motor skill, environmental stimuli initiate impulses which pass over the visual pathways to the brain. The eyes are the receptor organs which pick up the stimuli. Eames (1953) states that anything which interferes with the reception of stimuli or their transmission to the brain areas can be eXpected to interfere with reading. Predicting Reading_Difficu1ties from Visual Percgption Abilities DeHirsch (1963, b) feels that prediction of future reading performance can best be made in terms of deve10p- mental age rather than by intelligence quotients or mental age. Successful integration of the visual and 20 Spatial patterns on the printed page depends upon the degree of maturation of physiological functions required for reading, writing and Spelling. Tests utilized by DeHirsch (1963, a) are designed to discover potential reading difficulties at the six-year level. Visual per- ceptions of a child who is ready to learn to read are described as the ability to differentiate small details, to use the relationship between parts and the whole, to orient himself in Space, to see a figure stand out from its background, to perceive relationships as in sorting and categorizing, and the development of concepts of Spatial relationships. She found that some children were unable to differentiate the "figure" from the "ground." Nothing on the printed page stood out for them, instead the page appeared as a meaningless design. Sometimes a child could recognize a word appearing in heavy black print on a white card, but failed to recognize the same word when embedded in a page. Inability to differentiate between a 3 and f or a d and p, where the only discrimi— nating feature is orientation in Space, has also been observed. She states that visuo-motor competence of poor readers is inferior to that of good readers. DeHirsch (1966) has developed a predictive index for predicting reading failures which includes visual perception measures and a number of language measures. The index is very lengthy, includes some instruments which 21 require Specialized training to administer and interpret, and needs to be given to each child individually. Therefore, it would not be suitable for classroom teachers to use. Correlation of Visual_Perception and Reading Goins (1958) administered visual perception tests to children at the beginning of first grade and found the test scores had a multiple correlation of +.827 with reading success at the end of first grade. In a study of 150 children with reading disability, Silver (1963) found that 92% of the children had Specific problems in visual perception. The perceptual problems reported included visual-motor immaturity with Specific difficulty in Spatial orientation, marked difficulty in visual figure- background perception, and body image distortion. Olson (1966) investigated the relationship between The Frostig Test of Visual Perception and reading achieve- ment with third grade students. He found the correlation between the form constancy subtest and all reading Skills and achievement subtests were significant at the 1% level. The total Frostig score also showed a Significant corre- lation with all reading skills and achievement tests except Spelling. The figure-ground subtest and the position in Space subtest did not show significant correlations. Girls had higher correlations than boys in 22 all the tests except hearing sounds in words. Olson concluded that The Frostig Test of Visual Perception is a better predictor for girls than boys and that the total test is a fair predictor of school achievement and Specific reading skill ability. The Frostig Test of Visual Perception purports to predict difficulties in early school learning. Marianne Frostig (1965) reports that her findings tend to Show that in the normal child, perceptual development is the most important indicator of the child's general development between the ages of 3 and 7 years. The studies of beginning reading situations described by Frostig (1963) show a correlation coefficient of between .4 and .5 for the visual perception test and reading scores. In another study reported by Frostig (l963),-Sprague found that 36% of the second semester first graders had perceptual quotients of 90 or less and that 70% of these students fell below the midpoint in the reading achievement test. In a study of 25 kindergarten children to whom The Frostig Test of Visual Perception was given, eight children had perceptual quotients of 90 or below. A prediction was made that the eight children would not learn to read even though exposed to reading material. The prediction proved to be highly accurate, however, the intervening time period was only three months in length. 23 The Frostig Test of Visual Perception was given to seventeen third grade students who attended summer Learning Improvement Center classes in 1966, and who had been identified and diagnosed as having reading disabili— ties. The I.Q.'s ranged from 80 to 125. Only one of the seventeen children had no difficulties in any of the subtests. Ten of the seventeen scored 90 or below (perceptual quotient). Frostig (1964) states that the correlation between visual perception ability and reading achievement is very slight at third grade level. The diminishing correlation can be accounted for by a late Spurt in perceptual growth or by the use of cognitive abilities to master visual perception tasks, she believes. If the seventeen third grade children had SXperienced some late perceptual growth or had made compensations cogni- tively for their visual perception deficiencies, one wonders what level of perceptual development these children would have shown in kindergarten. Visual Perception Abilities Measured by Frostig The Frostig Test of Visual Perception consists of five subtests of visual perception. One subtest, eye- motor coordination, Frostig (1965) found predicts diffi- culty with printing, writing, pasting and copying designs. The other four subtests have been found to be more prog- nostic of reading ability. The child with disturbances 24 in figure-ground perception has difficulty learning to read or Spell because he is unable to perceive parts in their prOper relations to wholes. Children who have difficulty reading a word that has been previously learned when the word is presented in different print or context Show deficiencies in perceptual constancy. Reversals and' rotations indicate an inability to perceive position in Space, and difficulty with perception of Spatial relationships is revealed by interposing letters in a word or in a sentence. If the previous statements are valid, the kindergarten children who have deficient scores on subtest I of eye-motor coordination Should experience difficulty with writing and printing in first grade. Deficiencies in the other four subtests Should show a relationship to difficulty with reading in first grade. The total perceptual score including all subtests would be eXpected to Show a positive relationship to reading difficulties. The perceptual scores should provide a basis for predicting success and difficulty in learning in the primary grades. Visual Perceptipn and Intelligence Difference Although some tests of visual perception are included in intelligence tests such as the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, The Frostig Test of Visual Perception should not be considered synonymous with 25 intelligence tests. The child who has distorted visual perception may be very intelligent. The perceptual quotient would be SXpected to be lower than the intelli- gence quotient for the child who has difficulty learning to read. Sex Differences in Visu§;;Perception Frostig discontinued studies of sex differences when no significant differences were found in correla- tions of kindergartners by sex with visual perception abilities. Interest in examining sex differences is supported by the fact that a high percent of the referrals to the Learning Improvement Center have been boys and that more than 75% of the third graders in summer classes were boysl. Since Olson (1966) found differences in sex and a large proportion of reading disability cases are boys, further study of the question of sex differences in relation to The Frostig Test of Visual Perception is pursued in this study. Language as Reguisite to Reading Samples of oral language of elementary school children were accumulated by Loban (1963) using a taped interview technique. His language samples were carefully lJ. Heckerl, personal communication, September 12, 1966. 26 classified and related to selected aSpects of language achievement, including reading. A significant conclusion was that competence in Spoken language appeared to be an essential basis for competence in reading. Hildreth (1964) reported that oral language with which a child is familiar provides the basis for his learning to recognize words. Strickland (1958) stressed the importance of oral language in reading readiness and reading achievement. Jensen (1963) concludes from eXperiments with gifted, average and retarded children that: The habit of making verbal reSponses, either overtly or covertly, to events in the environment seems to be one of the major ingre- dients of the kind of intelligence that shows itself in school achievement and in performance on intelligence tests. Without this habit, even a child with a perfectly normal nervous system in terms of fundamental learning ability will appear to be retarded, and indeed is retarded so long as he does not use verbal mediators in learning (p. 138). Haring and Ridgway (1967) found that general language was the only identifiable commonality among the kindergarten children they tested for learning disabili— ties. The accuracy of their tests as identifiers of children with actual learning disabilities is, as yet, indeterminable Since the achievement of the children tested had not been ascertained. These findings indicate that language deve10pment is positively related to reading achievement and could be 27 eXpected to provide predictive information regarding children who will have difficulty in reading. Relationship of Language and Social Class Cazden (1966), in his review of differences in child language, categorizes language development according to the environmental influences of (l) context, or the non-verbal setting in which language occurs, (2) stimu- lation and (3) responses to the child's Speech. John and Goldstein (1964) contend that the difficulty with words which was SXperienced by children on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test could be attributed to difficulty in fitting the label to the varying forms of action observed rather than a deficiency in eXperience with the referent. Receptive SXposure to many examples is an inadequate technique of language development; helping the child encode experiences in words would be more beneficial. Deutsch (1963) and Bernstein (1962) have found that the stimu- lation and interaction conducive to language deve10pment is more limited for the culturally deprived child than for the middle class child. The differences noted by these researchers suggest that a comparison of the language deve10pment of lower class and middle class children should be made in this study to determine whether Similar differences exist in this population. 28 Assessing Langgage Development Studies of oral language have examined vocabulary as one technique of assessing the level of language deve10pment. Lesser (1965) gave a vocabulary test of 60 items, one-half pictures and one-half words, to four ethnic groups of children. Templin (1957) used the Seashore-Eckerson Test, which contains a sampling of words from an unabridged dictionary. Questions of whether measures of vocabulary size denote differences in cultures or deficiencies remain unanswered by the research. DeHirsch (1966) used the technique of counting the number of words used to tell a story. An adaptation of this technique is used in the Vocal Encoding Subtest of The Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities which requires the child to tell about objects such as a ball or a piece of chalk which he is Shown and permitted to handle. The technique utilized by these studies offers promise as a language measure. The assessment of words used to tell about concrete objects should reveal the level of oral language development attained by a child. Configuration-Identification in Early Reading Russell and Fea (1963) state that the process of learning words may proceed without the multisensory approach to identification-recognition and meaning. 29 The organizing and integrating which leads to perception -- and thus to identification and recognition -- is not clearly understood. It is not a simple case of sensation plus past SXperience, but rather the result of sensory processes organizing themselves in some fashion in the cerebral cortex into an eXperience variable. Vernon (1959) concludes that some aSpect of a word and its letters must be perceived, if only in Skeletal fashion, before the remainder of the word can be inferred. The research of Solomon and Postman (1952) indicates that the pattern of a word is the perceptual unit. Configuration is frequently an initial technique utilized in basic reading programs to teach word recogni- tion. If a child recognizes a series of letters in a logical pattern or configuration, he would be eXpected to achieve in reading, and conversely, if he fails to recog- nize the pattern, he would be expected to have difficulty with reading. Self-Concept and Academic Performance A theory of self-concept advanced by Combs (1965) is the Perceptual Basis of Behavior. According to this theory, behavior at any instant is the result of how a person sees himself, how he sees the situation in which he is involved, and the interrelations of these two. 30 The behavior of the child in school, based on this theory, depends on his view of himself in the school situation. Brookover, Thomas, and Patterson (1965) found a positive correlation between self—concept and performance in the academic role of seventh-grade students. Specific self-concepts of ability, which differ from general self- concept of ability, are better predictors of Specific school achievement, they stated. Fink's (1965) study of ninth-grade students shows that adequate self-concept is related to high academic achievement and inadequate self-concept is related to low academic achievement. Relationship of Self-Concept and Reading Henderson, Long, and Ziller (1965) eXplored components of self-concept (differentiation, esteem, and individualism) as correlates of reading disability. No differences were found between control and eXperimental groups in differentiation and esteem on the author devised measures used. The significant differences (p=.Ol) found in the individualism measures led to conclusions that the dependency exhibited by children with reading disabilities would be disruptive to reading achievement as the various cognitive processes involved in the reading process are clearly an individual act. Wattenberg and Clifford (1964) found that the self-concept of kindergartners was predictive of reading 31 achievement in second grade. Measures of self-concept were obtained by taping and analyzing the remarks made by children while drawing a picture of their families and the reSponses made to devised incomplete sentences. Strang (1967) described a study in process in which Schwyhart is attempting to eXplore the self-concepts of retarded ninth-grade readers. They hypothesize that an individual's reading process reflects the individual's self-concept, since affect is never entirely divorced from cognition. The positive relationship between self-concept and achievement in these studies points to the probability that the self-concept of the school situation may be a potential predictor of reading achievement. Most studies have utilized older children, consequently, an investiga- tion of the relationship between the self-concept of . .kindergartners and their reading achievement in first grade would contribute to the body of knowledge in this field. Techniques Used to Measure Self—Concept Three categories of techniques have been used by researchers to measure the self-concept, according to Gordon (1966). Each of the three techniques: (1) self- report, (2) inference based on the observation of behavior, and (3) inference based on projective techniques, has 32 advantages and disadvantages, Gordon states. He recommends the self-report and inference based on obser- vation of behavior as the most suitable techniques for classroom teachers. The truthfulness of a child's reSponse to a self-report technique has been questioned. Gordon recommends: "Any technique used by the teacher must be based upon the expectation that the child can answer, and that his answer is truthful (p. 55)." The inference technique based on observation of behavior is considered the most valid approach to measur- ing the self-concept by some researchers. A classroom teacher who is engaged in many other activities besides the observation of individual behavior may provide biased information. Gordon states: The typical behavior record kept by teachers suffers from the pitfall of what may be biased and selective sampling. Most teachers, after all, become aware of the behavior of the youngsters only when it is cognitively dissonant with the teacher (p. 63). Observation techniques which yield the most "objective" information are often too cumbersome for the classroom teacher. The data gathering could be accom- plished in a team-teaching or teacher-in-training situation, but the usual kindergarten classroom teacher would not have the Opportunity to obtain the complete data needed to make inferences about each child's self-concept. 33 A Single technique judged most valid and suitable as a measure of self-concept fails to emerge from the research. The kindergarten classroom teacher can most likely utilize a self-report technique more easily than the inference from behavior technique. The reSponse format needs to be related to the child's experience so that he can readily understand and reSpond to questions or statements used in the measuring instrument. Summary of Literature Review The major findings concerning four factors involved in the reading process: visual perception, language, configuration and self-concept, are summarized in the final section of the literature review. Factors in Reading Process The dynamic theory of the reading process involves the factors of visual perception, language, configuration and self-concept, which are investigated in this study. These four factors have also been listed by Deutsch, as essential prerequisites to learning Skills, and by Eisenberg, as sources of reading retardation when deficiencies exist. Bruner's schema for information processing uses three of the factors: visual perception, configuration and language. Inadequate development of the four factors at kindergarten level would signal that difficulty may likely lie ahead in learning to read. 34 Visual Perception and Readipg Studies investigating the relationship of visual perception to reading achievement have been reported by Goins, Silver, Olson and Frostig. In a study of first grade children by Goins, a multiple correlation of +.827 for visual perception tests with reading success was found. Predictive use of visual perception measures has been eXplored by DeHirsch, who has deve10ped a Predictive Index for predicting reading failures. This index is not suitable as a technique for classroom teachers to employ, however. The Frostig Test of Visual Perception, according to Frostig, provides perceptual information which can serve as an indicator of difficulties in early school learning. The eye-motor coordination subtest predicts writing difficulty, while the other four subtests -- figure-ground, perceptual constancy, position in Space, and Spatial relationships -- have been found more prog- nostic of reading ability. Language and Reading Language as a factor closely related to reading achievement has been considered by Loban, Hildreth, Strickland, Jenson and Haring and Ridgway. The findings of these investigators indicate that measures of language development could be eXpected to provide predictive infor- mation about children who will have difficulty in reading. 35 Differences in language between the culturally deprived and the middle class child have been noted by Cazden, John and Goldstein, Deutsch and Bernstein. A comparison of the language deve10pment of the middle and lower class children is made in this study. Language deve10pment has been measured by vocabulary test techniques by Lesser and Templin. DeHirsch counted the number of words used to tell a story. One technique utilized to measure language in The Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities involves assessing the words used to describe concrete objects. The latter technique is used in this study. Configuration-Identiflcation and Reading The perception involved in learning a word has been considered by Russell and Fea, Vernon, and Solomon and Postman. The process by which a skeletal form or pattern becomes organized into a word with meaning for the individual is not clearly understood. The child who is unable to recognize a logical pattern or series of letters is SXpected to have difficulty in reading. Self-Concppt and Reading The self-concept of the child, based on Combs' theory, has shown positive relationship to academic achievement in studies by Brookover, Thomas and Patterson 36 and by Fink. Self-concepts of kindergartners were predictive of reading achievement in a study reported by Wattenberg and Clifford. Two techniques for measuring self-concept that Gordon proposes as suitable for classroom teachers are self-report and inference based on observation of behavior. Due to constant demands on their time and energy, most kindergarten teachers would be unable to gather sufficient data from which reliable inferences could be made. The self-report, even though questionable as to objectivity, appears to be the most feasible technique. Predicting ReadingDifficulties Each of the four characteristics, as factors involved in learning to read, is SXpected to contribute information indicative of the child's future learning experiences. Deficiencies detected in combined measures of the characteristics are eXpected to be predictive of reading problems in first grade. CHAPTER III METHODS AND PROCEDURES The research was conducted in Waterford Township, Michigan, under the auSpiceS of the Learning Improvement Center, a Title I projecte. The Learning Improvement Center's program focuses on children who have problems in learning at the primary level, kindergarten through third grade. A corrective, compensatory program is geared toward early identification, diagnosis, and treatment of the anomalies that affect the learning process with particular emphasis on the language arts. An ultimate goal is prevention of learning difficulties. This study was conducted to investigate some characteristics of kindergarten children through procedures that can be administered and interpreted by classroom teachers and that will contribute to the early identification phase of the program. The early identification is a step toward the particular objective, prevention of reading problems. 2"Title I" refers to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Projects under Title I are given financial assistance to provide Special educational pro- grams in areas having high concentrations of low-income families. 37 38 The procedures involved in the selection of the sample, selection of instruments, collection of data and analyses are described in the sections following. The rationale for the procedures is indicated in each section. The following terms are used consistently: sample, all kindergarten children in two schools; restricted sample, all the kindergarten children remaining when children with I.Q.'s below 84 were removed; Group A, one random half of the restricted sample; and Group B, the other random half of the restricted sample. Selection of the Sample All kindergarten children in two suburban schools of Waterford Township constitute the sample. The two schools had been identified as Title I (ESEA) schools based on the number of low-income families represented in the school population. Each school had one morning and one afternoon class, therefore, a total of four classes are included. Since a variety of methods of teaching reading in first grade is used in the Title I elementary schools, only schools where a basal reader approach was used were considered for selection in an effort to avoid contamin- ation due to the variable of different reading programs. In some of the schools, an experimental perceptual-motor program was underway in the early grades. These schools 39 were excluded to avoid contamination due to Specialized perceptual training. The two schools selected met the aforementioned conditions the most adequately. Restriction of Samplg Children who scored below 84, one standard deviation below the mean, on the Lorge-Thorndike Intelli- gence Test were separated from the sample so that the remaining restricted sample of average and above-average students could be studied. Since intelligence quotients and reading achievement are closely related, the child with a below-average I.Q. would be eXpected to show below-average school achievement regardless of his perceptual deve10pment, language deve10pment, configuration-identification ability and self-concept. Therefore, it follows that these would not be appropriate subjects for a study of reading handicaps that are other than intelligence-based. Eight percent of the total sample falls in the "below-average" I.Q. group, as defined above. Thus, the restricted sample consists of 92 percent of the total sample. The number of students in kindergarten classes and first grade classes are shown in Table 3:1. The children who moved out of the school attendance area are listed as "lost from the sample." In addition, the children who were separated from the sample because of "below-average 4O intelligence" are shown. The total number in the restricted sample studied is 103 children, 57 boys and 46 girls. TABLE 3:1 Summary of Sample: Children Studied in Kindergarten and Children Remaining in First Grade School A School B Total Children in Kindergarten Boys 31 36 57 Girls 32 28 60 Total 63 64 127 Children Lost from Sample 7 8 15 Children Remaining in First Grade 56 56 112 Boys (IQ below 84) O 4 4 Girls (IQ below 84) l 4 5 Boys (IQ 84 and above)* 30 27 57 Girls (IQ 84 and above)* 25 21 46 Total Number of Children Studied 55 48 103 *These sets constitute the restricted sample. Social Position of Sample The social position of the individuals in the sample has been calculated from The Two Factor Index of Social Position developed by Hollingshead (1957). 41 The index is premised upon the following three assumptions: (1) a status structure exists in society; (2) a few common- ly accepted characteristics are the main determinants of positions in the structure; and (3) the symbolic charac- teristics, when scaled and combined statistically, provide a reliable and meaningful stratification of the p0pu1ation under study. The two factors used to determine social position are occupation and education. Occupations are scaled on the assumption that members of society attach different values to various occupations. The scale of seven values ranges from low for unskilled manual labor to high for the most prestigious, creative and controlling occupations. The education level attained is presumed to reflect knowledge and cultural tastes. Education levels are also scaled on a seven-value scale. The scale ranges from the lowest value, assigned to individuals who complete less than seven years of school, to the highest value, attached to completion of graduate professional training. The social position score is obtained by combining weighted scores from the scale positions of occupation and education. The occupational scale position is multi- plied by seven and the education scale position is multiplied by four. The two figures are then added together to compute a social position score. 42 The social position scores obtained range from 11, the highest ranking score, to 77, the lowest possible score. The scores can be divided into five groups and assigned a social class position from I to V, high to low, reSpectively. The information concerning the occupation and education of the head of the household is found in most school records. In the few cases where incomplete records were found, school personnel procured the needed informa- tion from parents. Computations show that no children in the sample fall in the highest social class, I, and that the largest percentage (59%) are found in Social Class IV. Eighty- three percent of the sample population is positioned in the lower two classes. A breakdown of numbers of children found in each social class stratified by schools is shown in Table 3:2. The social class of the children who were separated from the sample because their intelligence quotient scores were less than 84 is shown in Table 3:3. Three social classes are represented by these students. 43 TABLE 3:2 Social Class of First Grade Total Sample 77Range of Number ofCHildren PEFEEEE Social Computed of Class Scores School A School_B Total_ I ll-l4 0 O 0% II 15-27 1 5 5% III 28-43 6 7 12% IV 44-60 34 32 59% V 61-77 15 12 24% Totals 56 56 100% TABLE 3:3 Social Class of First Grade Children with IQ Scores Below 84 ,‘:Range of Number of_Chi;dren Social Computed Total Class Scores Schppl;A School B Number I ll-l4 O O 0 II 15-27 0 2 2 III 28-43 0 O 0 IV 44-60 0 2 2 V 61-77 1 4 5 Total 9 44 Selection of Instruments Seven instruments are used to gather data about teacher expectations of reading achievement, intelligence, the four factors involved in reading and the criterion, reading achievement. Teapher EXpectations Teachers of the kindergarten children were asked to indicate the level of reading achievement -- above- average, average, below-average -- which they SXpected each child to attain in first grade. A recording sheet for each child with the child's name inserted was given to each teacher so She could make the rating. A sample recording sheet is shown in Figure 3:1. Child's Name Teacher Date School a.m. p.m. In light of your observations of this child, how would you expect him to progress in reading in first grade? (Please check your choice) Below Average Average Above Average FIGURE 3:1 Form Used to Record Teachers' EXpectations of Reading Achievement in First Grade 45 Intelligence The Lorge-Thorndike Intelligence Tests, Level I, was chosen as a non-verbal measure of I.Q. Freeman and Milholland, reviewers in the Fifth Mental Measurements Yearbook (1959), agreed that this test was among the best group intelligence tests available. The reliability of alternate forms was reported as .79 for Level I, and the reliability of Split-halves was above .90. The correlation of concurrent validity with Stanford-Binet and W180, based on first grade children, was .63 and .56, reSpectively. Freeman stated that more studies of predictive validity are needed. Another reviewer, Pidgeon, pointed out that the tests reliably measure verbal reasoning and non-verbal reasoning, but that no assumptions should be made about their measuring mental capacity. The manual states that the non-verbal battery gives an estimate of scholastic aptitude. AS a non- verbal group intelligence measure, the Large-Thorndike was selected for use with kindergarten children. Visual Perception The Marianne Frostig Developmental Test of Visual Perception, Third Edition, was selected as a measure of 46 visual perception. Austin, in her review of The Frostig Test in the Sixth Mental Measurements Yearbook (1965), expressed enthusiasm in the statements: "The Frostig test appears to be a significant one. It has proved useful as a screening tool with groups of nursery school, kindergarten, and first grade children, primarily because it permits identification of those children who need special perceptual training in five important areas of visual perception." Test-retest reliability of the perceptual quotient is reported as .80. Subtest scale score test-retest correlations range from .42 to .80. Split-half reliability correlations range from .78 to .89. Validity correlations between scaled scores and teacher ratings of classroom adjustment were .44; motor coor- dination, .50; intellectual functioning, .50. Correlations between the Frostig and Goodenough scores range from .32 to .46. Both reviewers, Anderson and Austin, questioned the adequacy of the standardization population. Anderson stated that the present primary use of the Frostig test would be to predict learning success in the primary grades. The Frostig Test offered promise as a predictor of reading problems when administered by classroom teachers to kindergarten children. It was, therefore, selected as the measure of visual perception. 47 Language DevelOpment The Vocal Encoding Subtest of The Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities, Experimental Edition, was selected as the measure of language development. The test authors, McCarthy and Kirk (1961), describe vocal encoding as the ability to SXpress one's ideas in spoken words. Vocal encoding is assessed by asking the student to describe Simple objects such as a block or ball. The descriptive terms used by the student are tallied to obtain the raw score. Reliability of the difference between test and retest scores, over a period of three months, has been determined by comparing the ranges obtained by using the standard error of measurement for the raw scores on both the test and the retest. If the range of one standard error of measurement on the retest overlaps the range of one standard error of measurement on the original test, no reliable difference between scores is inferred. If the ranges do not overlap, a reliable difference in scores is inferred. The standard error for the raw scores reported on the Vocal Encoding Subtest for ages five years three months to five years nine months is 32.45, for ages five years nine months to six years three months is $1.92, and for ages six years three months to six years six months is $2.59. Weener, Barritt and Semmel (1967) evaluated The Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities and reported 48 a range of internal consistency coefficients for the Vocal Encoding Subtest from .54 to .82 with a median coefficient of .75. The Split-half reliability coeffi- cient ranges for age groups from .48 to .84 with a median of .72. The test-retest stability coefficient reported for the Vocal Encoding Subtest ranged from -.25 to +.48 with a median of -.17 for a twelve-month interval between testing periods. The internal consistency measures are moderately high but the test-retest stabilities are quite low, according to the evaluators' judgments. Validity studies conducted by Weener, Barritt and Semmel using 86 children showed a median concurrent validity coefficient for the test battery of .15; the median predictive coefficient was .23. Results for the subtests were not reported. Although the validity and reliability of the test battery and subtests are questioned due to an inadequate standardization sample, The Illinois Test of Psycholinguis- tic Abilities is considered a fruitful beginning as a diagnostic measure of the psycholinguistic abilities. The Vocal Encoding Subtest which measures the spoken descriptive language was chosen as a measure of language deve10pment. 49 Configuration-Identification The Heckerl Configuration Test, which requires the child to identify the word which goes with_a picture, was selected as a measure of configuration-identification. This test, which can be administered to a small group, is based on the assumption that children recognize a series of letters in a logical sequence before reading instruc- tion is begun. Since this test was deve10ped by Heckerl (Learning Improvement Center Director, Waterford) specifically for inclusion in this study, no validity or reliability data had been established. The test was administered to several kindergarten students not in the current study prior to using it with the sample children. A range of correct reSponses from one to ten was found. In general, the children who achieved the higher scores on the test were considered the most nearly ready for reading by their kindergarten teachers. Ten items preceded by two trial items constitute the test. Pictures of items that are generally familiar to most children are used as the stimuli. The child reSponds by drawing a line around the group of letters he selects to go with the picture. In each case, only one group of letters forms a word. A copy of the test is found in Appendix A. 50 Academic Self:Concept An adaptation of The Academic Self-Concept Test, entitled "What Face Would You Wear?", deve10ped by Dudzinski, Farrah, Milchus and Reitz (1965), was selected as a measure of academic self-concept. The student responds to questions by circling the facial eXpression which represents his feelings at the time he answers. The facial eXpressions range from "very sad" to "very happy." The questions originally developed by the authors to use with the facial eXpressions had been administered to groups of children in grades one through ten in the suburban Detroit area. Many of the original questions were not suitable for kindergarten children as they made reference to their feelings when engaged in reading activities and number work which are not a part of the kindergarten experiences in the sample schools. Permission was granted by Farrah to construct a set of twenty-four questions Specifically designed for kindergarten children to use with the test booklets. Whenever possible, the questions designed for kindergarten were constructed to closely parallel the original questions. The set of questions constructed for kindergarten children is found in.Appendix B. Two weeks after the Academic Self-Concept Test was administered to all the sample children, one—third of the children were randomly selected, using a table of 51 random numbers, for a retest. The test—retest correlation computed was .53. The internal consistency of the test items was computed using the Hoyt Test for Reliability. The coefficient of reliability obtained using the Hoyt test was .77. The item scores and total score for each student are found in Appendix C. Farrah, et a1, divided the original test items into four parts, each representing a factor involved in self- concept. The twenty-four items developed for kindergarten children were factor analyzed to determine which questions formed factorial groups and which questions were unrelated to any factor. Three factors were found using factor analysis. One factor, labeled Factor A, includes eight questions which concern the feelings of satisfaction a child has about the school and learning situation. The following questions make up Factor A: 1. What face do you wear when you look at your drawings? 2. . . . when you are showing a toy you brought from home in Show and tell? 3. . . . when you are coming to school? 4. . . . most of the time in school? 5. . . . when it's your turn to answer a question in school? 52 6. . . . when you think about learning to read? 7. . . . when the teacher scolds you? 8. . . . when you think of how well you know your numbers? Factor A resembles the Goal Needs Factor, from the original test questions, defined as the positive regard with which a student perceives the intrinsic and extrinsic rewards of learning in school. A second factor, labeled Factor B, involves four questions which deal with the eXpectations of significant others and how the child perceives his role in fulfilling those expectations. The four questions contributing to Factor B are: 1. What face do you wear when the teacher wants to talk to you by yourself? 2. . . . when you have to tell your mother what you did in school? 3. . . . when the teacher asks a question? 4. . . . if you have to tell your parents that you have lost your coat? Factor B appears to be Similar to the Role EXpectations Factor in the original test. Role EXpectation is defined as the positive acceptance of the aSpirations and demands that the student thinks significant others expect of him. 53 The third factor, labeled Factor C, includes six questions which reflect how adequately the child feels he can perform in the school situation. The six questions in Factor C follow: 1. What face do you wear when you are asked to count? 2. . . . when the boys and girls are asked to choose someone to tell a story about a pciture? 3. . . . when you are drawing a picture? 4. . . . when the teacher says the smartest children can go out and play? 5. . . . when the boys and girls in class have to pick the best paper to put on the bulletin board? 6. . . . when the teacher gives you some school work to do? Factor C closely parallels the original Self- Adequacy Factor which is defined as the positive regard with which a student views his present and future proba- bilities of success. A high Self-Adequacy Factor was expected for the high achiever, but a high Self-Adequacy Factor was also found for some underachievers who attempted to defensively deny reality. The three factors identified in the questions constructed for kindergarten children appear to resemble three of the factors found in the original questions. 54 The three factors seem to indicate that three segments of academic self-concept are measured by the constructed items. Reading Achievement The Stanford Achievement Test, 1964 Revision, Primary I Battery, was selected as a measure to evaluate the reading achievement of children in first grade. The five subtests in the battery which measure reading achievement are word reading, paragraph meaning, vocabu- lary, Spelling, and word study skills. Bryan, in her review in the Sixth Mental Measurements Yearbook (1965), rates the 1964 edition high among standardized achievement test batteries designed for use at the elementary school level. Reliability data reported for the five tests of the Primary I Battery in the Directions for Administering, includes odd-even Split-half coefficients ranging from .79 to .92, Kuder-Richardson coefficients from .83 to .93 and standard errors of measurement in terms of grade scores ranging from .5 to 2.5. No Specific validity data is reported. Reviewers Stake and Hastings as well as Bryan eXpress a need for a technical manual to supply more detailed information regarding standardization of the sample, reliability, validity and equivalence of forms. The reviews, however, substantiate the assumption that the Standord Achievement Battery adequately measures reading achievement at first grade level. 55 Collection of Data Before any testing began, each of the two kindergarten teachers was contacted individually. The purpose of the study was SXplained and the cooperation of the teacher was sought. The teachers were then asked to make reSponses regarding the reading achievement level they SXpected each kindergarten child to attain in first grade. All identifying data such as school, child's name and teacher's name had been inserted by the investigator. The teacher was only requested to check the appropriate blank indicating her reSponse. Every effort was made to make a minimum of additional demands on the teacher's time and energy. Tester Trainipg Three test administrators were trained by the investigator prior to the kindergarten testing period. A familiarizing session was held initially to observe the format, directions, and materials needed for each test. A demonstration administration to kindergarten children not in the study permitted the testers to observe pro- cedures and to assist as proctors when small groups were used. Each tester then administered each test four or five times to non-sample children. The practice tests were scored so that any questions regarding administration or scoring procedures could be resolved. 56 All three testers had previously taught primary or pre-school age children and were able to readily establish rapport with kindergarten children. The testers proceeded with the test administration as they coped with complications of limited availability of testing Space, absences and kindergarten field trips. The principals of each school assisted by scheduling Special testing Space, when possible, and by attempting to locate other suitable areas when this Space was in use. The principal's office was used on a few occasions when an individual or small-group test was to be administered and no other Space was available. Kindergarten Testing The battery of tests administered to the kindergarten children included The Lorge-Thorndike Intelligence Test, The Frostig Test of Visual Perception, The Heckerl Configuration Test, The Vocal Encoding Subtest and The Academic Self-Conept Test. The Lorge-Thorndike Intelligence Test was administered to small groups of six or eight kindergarten children in mid-April. The Frostig test, the Heckerl test and The Academic Self-Concept Test were administered to small groups of five to ten kindergarten children during late April and the first part of May. A randomly selected 57 one-third of the sample were retested in small groups on The Academic Self-Concept Test two weeks after the first administration of the test. By Spring of the kindergarten year, the children have had school SXperienceS in follow- ing directions which help prepare them for a group testing situation. The size of the group varied according to available Space. If ten children were tested Simultane- ously, two testers worked together, one giving the directions and the other assisting as a proctor. The Vocal Encoding Subtest was administered individually to each kindergarten child in May. Since an individual verbal reSponse from the child was needed on this test, the test was placed last in the battery so that rapport could be established by the tester in previous group testing situations where non-verbal reSponses were elicited. Only a few children appeared reluctant to respond verbally by the time The Vocal Encoding Subtest was administered. No scores on any measures were revealed to teachers or administrators after the kindergarten testing in an effort to avoid the categorization or differential treatment of these students in first grade which might result from knowledge of student performance on the tests. 58 First Grade Testing One year later, in first grade, the subjects were given the Stanford Achievement Test in classroom groups. One of the testers who had given the kindergarten battery administered the criterion test in.May to all of the sample children who were located in seven first-grade classrooms. One classroom group was in a third elementary building due to school boundary changes. Test scores were released to the first grade teachers and building administrators following the testing period. The chart in Figure 3:2 shows the data collection schedule. The raw scores for the data collected are found in Appendix D. Applyses of Data All tests were scored by the test administrators and checked by the investigator to increase the accuracy of the scoring. The figure-ground subtest of The Frostig Test of Visual Perception had not been accurately scored by the test administrators in many cases. Judgmental decisions are required and the scoring manual instructions are inadequate. A former member of the Frostig Center Staff assisted the investigator in making scoring decisions which would be in accord with Frostig's intentions. In a few cases, errors in addition or in translating raw scores to scale scores and standard scores were found. Other than the figure-ground subtest, the 59 FIRST DATA COLLECTION PERIOD Sample Children in Kindergarten Time Event Before Testing Period Kindergarten teachers indicate expectations of reading achievement. Train test administrators. In.mid- April Administer Lorge-Thorndike Intelligence Test to small groups In late April and early May Administer to small groups: Frostig Test Heckerl Test Self-Concept Test Administer individually the Vocal Encoding Test Retest random sample on Self-Concept Test SECOND DATA COLLECTION PERIOD, ONE YEAR LATER Sample Children in First Grade In May Administer Stanford Achievement Test to classroom groups. FIGURE 3:2 Data Collection Schedule 6O scoring by test administrators was reasonably accurate and required only minor corrections. Predicting Readipg Difficulty The major hypothesis that prediction of reading difficulty could be improved by using a combination of variables was tested by employing the following procedures. The restricted sample was randomly divided into two halves using a table of random numbers. The means and standard deviations were computed for each of the following variables for the first half of the restricted sample (Group A): intelligence, visual perception " abilities (Six scores), language, self-concept (total score and factors), configuration, and reading achievement. Product-moment correlation coefficients were computed for Group A for each of the variables -- perceptual quotient, eye-motor coordination, figure-ground discrimination, form constancy, position in Space, Spatial relationships, language, configuration, self-concept total score and three self-concept factors, sex, social position, and teacher ratings -- and the criterion measure, reading achievement. Correlations among the variables and the significance level of the correlation coefficients were also determined. Negative correlations are SXpected between reading achievement and the variables of social position and teacher's expectations because the scoring 61 of these two variables has been reversed. High numerical scores are assigned to lowest levels of social position and teachers' expectations. Several combinations of variables were submitted to the least squares equation routine to determine which variables seemed to contribute significantly to the prediction of reading achievement. A multiple-regression equation was established by submitting the most promising variables to a stepwise deletion of variables from the least squares equation procedure. Variables were deleted, one at a time, until all remaining variables were signifi- cant contributors to the prediction equation at the .05 level. A multiple correlation coefficient was computed for the multiple-regression equation and reading achieve- ment. From the multiple-regression equation, each child's score on the criterion was predicted. To cross-validate the predictions from the multiple-regression equation, the second half of the restricted sample (Group B) was used. Means and standard deviations were computed for each variable and compared with the ranges in Group A to determine the comparability of the two groups. Product-moment correlation coefficients were computed for the variables and reading achievement for Group B. The correlation coefficients among the variables and the significance levels of these correlation coefficients were also determined for Group B. 62 A multiple-correlation coefficient was computed using the multiple-regression equation derived from Group A scores and reading achievement. A smaller multiple- correlation coefficient was expected for Group B due to the differences of the correlations with reading achieve— ment and among the variables. A small shrinkage in the multiple-correlation coefficient computed for Group B, when compared with the multiple-correlation coefficient computed for Group A, would indicate that the set of predictors is relatively stable, while a large shrinkage would indicate an unstable set of predictors. A reading achievement score was predicted for each child in Group B using the multiple-regression equation derived from Group A scores. The resulting predictions were compared with criterion scores and with teachers' expectations. The McNemar test for the significance of changes was used to test the probability of incorrect predictions by the multiple-regression equation and by teachers' expectations. The McNemar test was chosen because the predictions are related and nominal, -c1assificatory data are used. Reading Pppcess Factors and Readipg Achievement The entire restricted sample of 103 children was used to determine whether Significant relationships existed between each of the factors involved in the reading process and reading achievement. 63 Product-moment correlation coefficients were"; computed for reading achievement and each of the factors -- six visual perception abilities, language, configuration and four self-concept scores. Bivariate normal distributions were assumed for each pair of variables. The .05 level of Significance was accepted as the basis of rejecting or not rejecting each hypothesis. Teacher Expectations and Reading Achievement The proportion of students who will Show below-average reading achievement, according to kinder- garten teachers' predictions, was hypothesized to be less than the proportion of students showing below-average reading achievement on the criterion tests. The McNemar test of Significance of changes was chosen to test the hypothesis because related samples of the before-and-after type and nominal data are involved. The data were cast into a fourfold table and a chi-square value was computed. The .05 significance level was accepted as the basis for rejecting or not rejecting the hypothesis. Perceptual Quotients and Intelligence Quotients The mean intelligence quotient and mean perceptual quotient of the students who Show below-average reading achievement were compared to determine whether a true 64 difference exists between the numerical scores for these students. The mean intelligence quotient score and median perceptual quotient score are reported as 100 for standardization groups. An F test was computed to determine whether the variances of the two tests differed. The students were assumed to be randomly drawn from the p0pu1ation of first grade children with I.Q.'s of 84 and above who Show below-average reading achievement. The test for difference between means when data are correlated was used because both sets of scores were obtained from the same individuals and are considered correlated. The .05 significance level was accepted as the basis for rejecting or not rejecting the hypothesis. Language and Social Position The restricted sample of 103 children was used to test the hypothesis that a Significant relationship existed between language and social position. Bivariate normal distributions were assumed for the variables. A product-moment correlation coefficient was computed for the two variables. A negative correlation was eXpected because the scoring for social position has been reversed. A negative Sign can thus be disregarded. A .05 significance level was accepted as the basis for rejecting or not rejecting the hypothesis. 65 CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA The data collected and analyzed by the procedures described in Chapter III are presented in this chapter. Each hypothesis is presented along with the data gathered to test it. Predicting Reading‘Difficulty The major hypothesis tested follows: 1. Null hypothesis: The probability of incorrectly predicting below-average reading achievement in the first grade will be the same for predictions made on the basis of a combination of variables obtained in kindergarten and predictions based on kindergarten teachers' eXpectations. Alternate hypothesis: The probability of incorrectly predicting below-average reading achievement in the first grade will be less for predictions made on the basis of a combination of variables than for predic- tions based on kindergarten teachers' expectations. The variables investigated included sex, social position, teachers' SXpectations and scores on The Frostig Test of Visual Perception, The Vocal Encoding Test, The 66 Heckerl Configuration Test and The Academic Self-Concept Test. The criterion.measure of reading achievement was the averaged stanine score from the five reading subtests of the Stanford Achievement Test. The restricted sample used to test this hypothesis excluded the nine students with I.Q.'s below 84. Only students (103) who showed an I.Q. of 84 or above on The Lorge-Thorndike Intelligence Test were used. The first step taken in testing the hypothesis was a random division of the sample using a table of random numbers. One half of the sample scores (Group A) was subjected to the analysis procedures to establish the most suitable combination of measures and variables for prediction purposes. The other half of the sample scores (Group B) was used to cross-validate the prediction. The following procedures were used with the first half of the sample (Group A). Derivation of the Prediction Eguation The means and standard deviations were computed for all variables in Group A. The data are shown in Table 4:1. The correlation of each variable with the criterion, reading achievement, and the correlations among all the variables were computed. The resulting correlation coefficients are recorded in Table 4:2. 67 TABLE 4:1 Means and Standard Deviations: Group A N : 52 Standard Vapgaple Mean Deviation Perceptual Quotient (Frostig) 97.35 12.22 Frostig,Subtests I. Eye-motor coordination 9.67 1.72 II. Figure-ground 8.50 1.51 III. Form Constancy 9.40 2.51 IV. Position in Space 10.50 2.12 V. Spatial Relationships 10.62 1.87 Language (Vocal Encoding) 15.06 5.23 Configuration (Heckerl) 4.31 1.93 Self-Concept Total Score 88.98 9.52 Self-Concept Factogp A. Satisfaction in School 32.48 4.20 B. Fulfillment of EXpectations 11.27 2.47 C. Performance-Adequacy 23.44 3.85 Sex 1.50 0.50 Social Position 51.81 12.29 Teachers' EXpectations 1.87 0.71 Reading Achievement 4.90 1.97 IQ (Lorge-Thorndike) 104.38 10.27 68 noflnnfnu. 3.13:2. 8.12.1.4. ”8.1 .3... “gauge 84 Sf «at 2. S. .3.- 3.- ca. 3. an. S. 3. an. a. an. 3. a... Anon-«us cal-82353.- 8; S. .3.- 3.- 3. .3.- cu.- 2: 8.- S.- a..- Si Si R: St «at Ben-uncan- aloe-u 84 3f 2”.- Sf Si St at 3: «n- 3".- 2.- 9: 2f 3. out 8338 38a 84 S. 2. 2..- S. 8. 2. 2i 2. 2. 2: 8. a. 2. in 84 Sr x..- 2. 8. an. S 9. a. S. S. a. 9. S 8.” on. a. 2. a. .2.- z.- 2..- 3.- no. 2..- =.- unseen £88738 84 a. an. «d- 8: 3i 3: S. .8.- 8.- 8f .88.: accuses-=8 8:. 2. S. S. a. 3. 8. 8. 3i 3. «~82: fiasco-:8 84 S. .3.- Si 3. 8. 3. Si 3. Hausa-2.88738 84 3. S. 2. 3. 2. 2. on. 833:3; 8; 3. 2. a. 2. 8. 8. on!!! 8.“ mm. .8. 8. an. 8. >ulufla-3u8uu 8.“ on. S. on. 3. 5 acacia-.38.: “ 8... an. an. 3. E :33». - .38: W 84 nu. 2. an unsung-3:8. A 8:. 3. H Saran-.38.: 84 33.25 2.388 13838 n s m a. a a n a m u m m m m n n n n 1 .. m w m m m m 3 mm... .m» m mama...“ 3...... u .s u . . . . . m. ”m m .m m «H s s s s 8 W «n 3 3 3 3 m m. m. m m. n. m - a s I... u u . . m u m m s 3 3 n m m M. 1 1 1 3 1 u 3 m u u a I m A M H H I I 0 I V _ I «n..- 4 889 ”oar-u.» a: .8! .83-58 El col-:23 8:...- iisuc 3e 5:. .2325 no: we .83-Hausa «3 ”a 69 Several combinations of variables were submitted to a least squares equation routine. The most Significant contributing variables were resubmitted to a stepwise deletion of variables from a least squares equation routine. One variable at a time was deleted from the equation until all remaining variables were significant contributors at the .05 level or less. The variables remaining were sex, perceptual quotient (from the Frostig test), self-concept Factor C (Performance-Adequacy), social position and teachers' SXpectations. The regression coefficient and level of Significance for each of the five variables is shown in Table 4:3 The following equation was used to compute the predicted reading achievement scores: 1" =0“,le1 + 2x2 +63% +84% + 5x5 (X = constant X1 = sen/3l = regression coefficient for sex X2 : perceptual quotient; 2 = regression coefficient for perceptual quotient X3 = self-concept Factor 0;}?3 : regression coefficient for self-concept Factor 0 X4 2 social position;/84 = regression coefficient for social position X5 2 teacher SXpectations;/Z35 = regression coefficient for teacher expectations 70 TABLE 4:3 Regression Coefficients and Significance Level for the Five Variables and the Constant in the Multiple-Regression Equation Regression Significance Variable Coefficient Level Sex 1.00533819 0.016 Perceptual Quotient 0.04452342 0.028 Self-Concept Factor C -0.1l32llOl 0.041 Social Position -0.03647383 0.039 Teacher EXpectations -0.91794477 0.007 Constant 5.30983597 0.095 71 A multiple-correlation coefficient was computed using the least squares analysis of variance procedure. The multiple-correlation coefficient between the weighted combination of variables and the criterion, reading achievement, was .74. The square of the multiple- correlation which indicates the proportion of the total variance which can be predicted from the weighted combina- tion of variables was .55. The analysis of variance for the overall regression Showed an F of 59.9179 which is Significant at the *.0005 level. The analysis of variance data is shown in Table 4:4. The reading achievement score for each student in Group A was predicted using the multiple-regression equation. The predicted score, the criterion reading achievement score and the teachers' expectation for each student are shown in Table 4:5. Any criterion score or predicted score below 4.0 is considered below-average. Twenty-two criterion scores are below-average. Thirteen of the below-average criterion scores were predicted by using the multiple-regression equation. Nine of the below-average criterion scores were predicted by the teacher. Two scores, incorrectly predicted as below-average by the weighted combination of variables equation, were correctly predicted by the teacher. Six scores, correctly predicted as below-average by the multiple-regression 72 mm. --------- «a sh. --- Amy ocoaoaemooo coaoenonaou-onaaonsz an aaom~ann.wan Asses osonev Hence mmwmqmow.H om mmmHSHNH.om “chum mooo. mmHm.mn mmaawnmm.noa H mnafimnmm.noa fiance usonmv :ofimncuwcm no>c4 Socooum mcumswm ”osmowmwcwam m mumsvm cmcz mo moouwmn mo mssm cowumswm scammouwcm-oamfiuasz - cfinmwum> uconcmmcch uc08c>cano< weapmom - canmfium> ucovccacn mm a z < macaw "scammmumcm Hamuc>o Mom oocowum> mo mammamc< ¢u¢ MAm cassava - nae-on. gag 3 3 3 583735: 84 3. 3. 3. SH 33....» - .38.: so.” an. as. an access» - nae-cu. so.“ an. H accuse» - Savanna 8..— Quugv “.8386 «Qua-88 s I .1 . 7.1:: :12. > m .. .. .. m n n n .. .. m mm a a m. w m I a s n ..... .. can-fl.» .m . a a s .1. ._. ... .1. 1. m w. m .. .. .. .. a m a a a a m .l .1 cl . 3 3 < m a a a a r u m u m m .. 1' so. .04 10. O .4 3 3 3 3 m 3 m 3 3 1 m A u n n I 3 a i V I 2.: a anode “courage-s ua< use-a ocean-Seneca so. use-upcasuq undue-a .nouuooauu one sea: can-an.» no.» no encased-pace one udndfi 80 TABLE 4:10 Predicted Scores Using the Multiple-Regression Equation, Criterion Reading Achievement Scores, and Teachers' EXpectations: Group B N = 51 :Predicted Criterion TSacher Student Score* Score* Expectations 1 3.7 4.2 Average 2 3.5 3.0 Average 3 5.1 4.8 Above-average 4 4.9 4.4 Above-average 5 2.4 3.2 Below-average 5 3.5 2.0 Average 7 4.7 4.2 Above-average 8 4.0 4.2 Above-average 9 4.1 2.8 Average 10 5.5 6.6 Average 11 3.6 3.0 Below-average 12 3.6 2.4 Average 13 3.2 2.2 Below-average 14 4.4 4.8 Average 15 4.3 2.0 Average 15 3.6 3.8 Average 17 3.1 3.4 Above-average 18 4.5 5.2 Average 19 4.5 4.4 Above-average 20 3.7 3.4 Above-average *in terms of stanines 81 TABLE 4:10 (cont'd.) Student Prgggczgd Créggitgn Exn§ZISEIEnS 21 4.4 5.6 Above-average 22 3.8 2.0 Average 23 4.2 3.4 Average 24 3.9 3.2 Average 25 4.8 5.2 Average 26 3.6 3.8 Average 27 4.7 4.4 Above-average 28 3.0 2.8 Average 29 3.5 5.0 Average 30 2.4 2.0 Below-average 31 3.7 4.6 Average 32 2.9 3.2 Below-average 33 5.1 4.4 Above-average 34 3.5 3.6 Average 35 5.8 6.4 Above-average 36 3.5 3.8 Below-average 37 3.6 3.2 Average 38 3.5 4.6 Average 39 4.4 3.0 Average 40 2.9 2.8 Below-average 41 3.5 3.6 Average 42 4.9 4.6 Average *in terms of stanines 82 TABLE 4:10 (cont'd.) “—Predicted :Criterion 7Teacher Student Score* Score* EXpectations 43 3.4 6.4 Average 44 2.8 2.6 Below—average 45 3.5 4.2 Average 46 3.7 3.4 Below-average 47 3.8 2.8 Average 48 5.3 4.0 Average 49 5.9 8.4 Above-average 50 4.0 6.0 Average 51 2.4 3.2 Average *in terms of stanines The multiple-correlation coefficient between the multiple-regression equation derived from Group A scores and the criterion, reading achievement, was .63 for Group B. The square of the multiple-correlation coefficient was .40. The analysis of variance for the overall regression showed an F of 32.3001 which is significant at the <.0005 level. The analysis of variance data is shown in Table 4:11. In Group B, twenty-eight criterion scores fall below 4.0, which is considered below-average. Twenty-four of the below-average criterion scores were predicted by using the multiple-regression equation. Nine of the below- average criterion scores were predicted by the teacher. 83 cs. -------- Na mo. - Amv uccwuwmmooo cofiumaouuoo bananas: om Snwcmcmm.wm Asses coonmv Hence mmmmmmmo.a ms nNmONmmm.mm Houum mooo. Loom.~m assmnmmn.mm a assnnmmn.mm Asses csonsV coseoouwom ~c>mq Sopccum moumsvm tSSSSUHMchHm m camavm sac: mo mcouwon mo mSSm mouoom < macaw Scum po>wucn cowumsum scammouwom-caqaufisz - cfinmfium> Sampsomcch uc08m>owzc¢ wcflpmmm - canmgum> uccpccmon m macaw an n z Hana mAmo now oocmfium> mo mamaamc< 84 Summary comparisons of predictions from the multiple-regression equation and from teachers' SXpecta- tions for students in Group B who show below 4.0 criterion scores are given in Table 4:12. The statistical hypothesis tested was: Ho: Pr (Incorrect MR) = Pr (Incorrect T) Pr (Incorrect MR) = Probability of incorrect predictions from the combination of variables in the multiple-regression equation Pr (Incorrect T) = Probability of incorrect predictions from the kindergarten teachers' expectations H1: Pr (Incorrect MR)“= Pr (Incorrect T) The McNemar test for the significance of changes was used to compare the pr0portion of incorrect teacher predictions with the pr0portion of incorrect multiple- regression equation predictions of students who Show below 4.0 criterion scores. The McNemar test was chosen because related samples of the before-and-after type and nominal data are involved. The decision rule at CX5.05 was to reject HO if X’:2.7l. The X2 value obtained was 13.07 for which p <.0005. Since the X1 was greater than 2.71, the null hypothesis was rejected for the cross validation using Group B. 85 TABLE 4:12 Multiple-Regression and Teachers' Predictions for Students Below 4.0 on the Criterion, Reading Achievement: Group B Predicted by Multiple-Regression Equation correct incorrect totals correct 9 0 9 Predicted by Teachers' Expectations incorrect 15 4 19 totals 24 4 28 p < .0005 TABLE 4:13 Multiple-Regression and Teachers' Predictions for Students at or above 4.0 on Criterion: Group B Predicted by Multiple-Regression Equation ‘correct Igpcorrect totals correct 17 6 23 Predicted by Teachers' Expectations incorrect O 0 O totals l7 6 23 p < .016 86 Summary comparisons of predictions for students in Group B who Show 4.0 or above criterion scores are given in Table 4:13. Since one-half the sum of the incorrect cell frequencies in Table 4:13, é(6+0), was less than five, the binomial test was used to compare the incorrect predictions from the multiple-regression equation with the incorrect teacher predictions for Group B students who Show 4.0 or above criterion scores. The probability obtained was p < .016. Therefore, the incorrect predictions from the multiple-regression equation are Significantly greater than the incorrect teacher predictions for Group B students who Show a 4.0 or above criterion score. Relationships of Reading Process Factors and Reading Achievement The hypotheses which follow (2, 3, 4, 5) test the relationship between reading achievement and the four factors involved in the reading process -- visual perception, language, configuration and self-concept. Visual Perception and Reading Achievement 2. Null hypothesis: There is no significant relationship between each of the six visual perception abilities measured by The Frostig Test of Visual Perception and reading achievement as measured by the Stanford Achievement Test. Alternate hypothesis: 87 /3- relationship between perceptual quotient and reading achievement ‘4' relationship between eye-motor coordination and reading achievement 6%? relationship between figure- ground and reading achievement [g- relationship between form constancy and reading achievement 6%? relationship between position in Space and reading achievement '05- relationship between spatial relationships and reading achievement There is a positive relationship between each of the six visual perception abilities as measured by The Frostig Test of Visual Perception and reading achievement as measured by the Stanford Achievement Test. H H l 2: p>o 8’0 [)- relationship between perceptual quotient and reading achievement fll- relationship between eye- motor coordination and reading achievement ‘1' relationship between figure- ground and reading achievement 88 H4: p3>0 ’05- relationship between form constancy and reading achievement H5: p4>0 pr relationship between position in Space and reading achievement H5: p5>0 p5.- relationship between spatial relationships and reading achievement The means and standard deviations were computed for each variable. The restricted sample of 103 students was used and assumed to representatnvariate normal distribution. The data showing the means and standard deviations is shown in Table 4:14. Product-moment correlation coefficients were computed for each of the visual perception abilities measured by the Frostig test and reading achievement measured by the Stanford Achievement Test. The decision rule was to reject H6 if the correlation coefficients were significant at 0:105. The resulting correlation coefficients are Shown in Table 4:15. All correlation coefficients were significant at or above the .05 level. Therefore, all of the null hypo- theses were rejected. A significant positive relationship existed between reading aohievement and each of the follow- ing perceptual abilities: perceptual quotient, eye-motor coordination, figure-ground, form constancy, position in Space and Spatial relationships. 89 TABLE 4:14 Means and Standard Deviations: Restricted Sample N = 103 Standard Vapigple Mean Deviation Perceptual Quotient 96.83 11.99 Eye-motor Coordination 9.60 1.82 Figure-ground 8.50 1.55 Form Constancy 9.14 2.64 Position in Space 10.35 2-14 Spatial Relationships 10.54 1.79 Reading Achievement 4.42 1.75 Language - Vocal Encoding 14.40 4.66 Configuration - Identification 3.90 1.81 Self-concept 88.68 9.78 Social Position 52.54 11.60 90 TABLE 4:15 Correlation Coefficients for Variables and Reading Achievement: Restricted Sample N = 103 _Reading Achievement Perceptual Abilities from Frostig Test Perceptual Quotient .49** Eye-motor Coordination .24X Figure-ground .37** Form Constancy .31* Position in Space .37** Spatial Relationships .52** Language (Vocal Encoding Test) .20+ Configuration - Identification .31* Self-concept Total .OONS Factor A - Satisfaction in School .12NS Factor B - Fulfillment of EXpectations -.16NS Factor 0 - Performance-Adequacy -.07NS " **Significant at the .001 level (p<.001) *Significant at the .01 level (p<.01) XSignificant at the .02 level (p<.02) +Significant at the .05 level (p<.05) NSNot Significant 91 Languagp Development and Reading Achievement 3. Null hypothesis: There is no significant relationship between language deve10pment as measured by the Vocal Encoding Subtest of The Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities and reading achievement as measured by the Stanford Achievement Test. Ho: p = 0 p - relationship between language development and reading achievement Alternate hypothesis: A positive relationship exists between language development as measured by the Vocal Encoding Subtest of The Illinois Test of Psycho- linguistic Abilities and reading achievement as measured by the Stanford Achievement Test. H1: p > O ,0 - relationship between language development and reading achievement Test scores from the restricted sample of 103 students with an assumed bivariate normal distribution were used to test the hypothesis. The means and standard deviations computed for the two variables are Shown in Table 4:14. A product-moment correlation coefficient was computed for the two variables. The decision rule was to reject Ho if the correlation coefficient was significant at a: .05. A correlation coefficient of .20 was found which is significant at the .05 level. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. A positive relationship existed 92 between language development as measured by the Vocal Encoding Subtest and reading achievement as measured by the Stanford Achievement Test. The correlation coefficient and significance level is included in Table 4:15. Configuratgcn-Identifipation and Reading Achievement 4. Null hypothesis: There is no significant relationship between configuration-identification as measured by The Heckerl Configuration Test and reading achievement as measured by the Stanford Achievement Test. Ho: [3 = O p - relationship between configuration-identification and reading achievement Alternate hypothesis: A positive relationship exists between configuration-identification as measured by The Heckerl Configuration Test and reading achievement as measured by the Stanford Achievement Test. Hl: p» O p - relationship between configuration-identification and reading achievement Test scores from the restricted sample of 103 students with an assumed bivariate normal distribution were used to test the hypothesis. Means and standard deviations for the two variables are shown in Table 4:14. A product- moment correlation coefficient was computed for the 93 two variables. The decision rule was to reject Ho if the correlation coefficient was significant at CX:: .05. The correlation coefficient computed was .31 which is significant at the .01 level. Therefore, the null hypo- thesis was rejected. A positive relationship existed between configuration-identification as measured by The Heckerl Configuration Test and reading achievement as mea- sured by the Stanford Achievement Test. The correlation co- efficient and significance level are included in Table 4:15. Academic Self-Concept and Reading Achievement 5. Null hypothesis: There is no relationship between each of the four academic self-concept scores, as measured by The Academic Self-Concept Test, and reading achievement as measured by the Stanford Achievement Test. Ho: p = O p - relationship between total academic self-concept score and reading achievement H01: ,0 : ,0 - relationship between satis- faction in school (Factor A) and reading achievement H02: p = O p - relationship between fulfill- ment of expectations (Factor B) and reading achievement H : p: O p - relationship between performance-adequacy (Factor C) and reading achievement 94 Alternate hypothesis: A positive relationship exists between each of the four academic self-concept scores, as measured by The Academic Self-Concept Test, and reading achievement as measured by the Stanford Achievement Test. H1: p>0 p - relationship between total academic self-concept score and reading achievement H2: p >0 p - relationship between satis- faction in school (Factor A) and reading achievement H3: )0 >0 p - relationship between fulfill- ment of expectations (Factor B) and reading achievement H4: )0 r 0 p - relationship between performance-adequacy (Factor C) and reading achievement Test scores from the restricted sample of 103 students which were assumed to have a bivariate normal dis- tribution were used to test the hypothesis. Means and stand- ard deviations were computed for each variable. The data are included in Table 4:14. A product-moment correlation coef- ficient was computed for each of the self-concept scores and reading achievement. The decision rule was to reject Ho if the correlation coefficients were significant at CX:5.05. None of the correlation coefficients for the self-concept scores and reading achievement were 95 Significant at the .05 level. The null hypotheses were not rejected. There is no significant relationship between the academic self-concept total score and reading achievement. Likewise, no significant relationships exist between the three self-concept factors and reading achievement. The correlation coefficient and significance level data are found in Table 4:15. Difference between Teacher EXpectaplppp and Reading Achievement 6. Null hypothesis: The pr0portion of students who Show below-average reading achievement on the Stanford Achievement Test in first grade equals the pr0portion of students who, according to teachers' eXpectations at kindergarten level, will Show below-average reading achievement in first grade. Ho: Prl = Pr2 Prl - proportion of below 4.0 reading scores incorrectly predicted by the teacher Pr2 - proportion of 4.0 and above reading scores incor- rectly predicted by the teacher Alternate hypothesis: The pr0portion of students who show below-average reading achievement on the Stanford Achievement Test in first grade is greater than the 96 pr0portion of students who, according to teachers' SXpectations at kindergarten level, will show below- average reading achievement. H1: Prl :» Pr2 Pr1 - proportion of below 4.0 reading scores incor- rectly predicted by the teacher Pr2 - proportion of 4.0 and above reading scores incor- rectly predicted by the teacher The reading test scores and teacher expectations for the 103 children who had an 1.0. of 84 and above were used to test the hypothesis. The McNemar test for the significance of changes was chosen because related samples of the before-and-after type and nominal data are involved. The data was cast into a fourfold table as shown in Table 4:16. The decision rule was to reject the null hypothesis if the szalue with one degree of freedom at Q1205 was equal to or greater than 2.71. The X” value obtained was 27.27 which has a significance of P < .0005. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. The pr0portion of students who Show below- average reading achievement in first grade was greater than the proportion of students that the kindergarten teacher eXpected to show below-average reading achievement. 97 moo. V m moH ma am am on ma um meuo><-30Hcm N um wmuc>m-o>on< mm H mm can 0mmuc>< owmuo><-30Hom cwmuo><-o>on< cam cwmum>< Hm>cq uccao>ownu< wcwvmcm mo mcowumuccmxm .mucsomoa umcH unnec>oeso< puomcmum so acuoom uc080>cwno< maficmom moH u z uc08o>oH50< msfipmcm Hm5u0< sues woummEoo mcowumuocmxm .wumsomoa wand mAm0 p - relationship between language score and social position The language and social position scores from the restricted sample of 103 children were used to test the hypothesis. The distribution of the sample was assumed to be a bivariate normal distribution. The means and standard deviations were computed for the two variables. The means and standard deviations data are found in 101 Table 4:14. The product-moment correlation coefficient was then computed for language deve10pment and social position. The decision rule was to reject Ho if the correlation coefficient was Significant at the .05 level. The correlation coefficient obtained was -.27 which was significant at the .01 level. The negative correlation is SXplained by the scores assigned to social position. The lowest numerical value is assigned to the highest social position. Consequently, the negative Sign is disregarded. The null hypothesis was rejected. There is a Significant relationship between the language, as measured by the Vocal Encoding Subtest of The Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities, and the social position, according to the Hollingshead Two Factor Index of Social Position, of kindergarten children. Summary of Analyses A summary of the hypotheses tested, significance level found and an indication of whether the hypothesis was rejected or not rejected is given in the following tabular form. 102 Hypothesis Null Hypotheses Tested Significance Rejected or Level Not Rejected 1. Predictions from a com- .0005 Rejected bination of variables do not differ from kindergarten teachers' eXpectations of below-average reading achievement. 2. No Significant relation- H01 .001 Rejected ship exists between each of H02 .02 Rejected the Six visual perception H03 .001 Rejected abilities and reading 04 .01 Rejected achievement. H0 .001 Rejected 5 06 .001 Rejected 3. No significant relation- .05 Rejected ship exists between language and reading achievement. 4. No Significant relation- .01 Rejected ship exists between configuration- identification and reading achievement. 5. No Significant relation- NS NS H ship exists between each of H NS the four academic self— H H concept scores and reading NS achievement. 6. Kindergarten teacher .0005 SXpectations of below- average reading achieve- ment does not differ from below-average reading achievement scores in first grade. 7. No significant differ- .001 ence exists between mean intelligence quotient scores and mean perceptual quotient scores for students who Show below-average reading achievement. 8. No significant relation- .01 ship exists between language deve10pment and social position. Not Rejected Not Rejected Not Rejected Not Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS The results of the study are summarized and discussed in this final chapter. The implications of the findings for curriculum planning are included in the latter part of the chapter. Conclusions The following conclusions have been drawn from the findings: 1. A larger number of students who Show below-average reading achievement in first grade were predicted by using the multiple-regression equation than by teachers' SXpectationS. 2. The five variables that contributed most significantly to the prediction equation were sex, social position, perceptual quotient (from the Frostig test), teachers' expectations and self-concept (performance-adequacy factor). 3. Significant positive relationships were found between reading achievement and each of the following variables: perceptual quotient, eye-motor coordination, figure-ground, form 104 105 constancy, position in Space, Spatial relationships, language and configuration- identification. 4. Many students who Show below-average reading achievement in first grade are not predicted by the kindergarten teachers' eXpectations of below-average reading achievement. 5. A Significant relationship exists between language deve10pment and social position. 6. No significant relationships were found between reading achievement and the self-concept variables: total self-concept score, satisfac- tion in school (Factor A), fulfillment of expectations (Factor B), and performance-adequacy (Factor C). 7. Intelligence quotient scores and perceptual quotient scores differ for children who Show below-average reading achievement. Discussion The multiple-regression equation was successfully used to predict below-average reading achievement in the cross-validation sample. Twenty-four of the twenty-eight below-average criterion reading achievement scores (86%) were correctly predicted by using the combination 106 of variables. In comparison, only nine of twenty-eight below-average reading achievement criterion scores (32%) were correctly predicted by the teachers' expectations of below-average reading achievement. These comparisons are graphically Shown in Figure 5:1. For the cross- validation sample, the pr0portion of incorrect teacher predictions of below-average reading achievement was significantly greater than the pr0portion of incorrect predictions made using the multiple-regression equation. The predictions of below-average reading achievement made by using the multiple-regression equation included six underpredictions. The six criterion scores for these underpredictions were found in the average or above-average group. The results indicate that kindergarten teachers rather consistently tend to overestimate the future performance of their students. The multiple-regression equation predictions, on the other hand, include more below-average criterion scores but also include a few average or above-average criterion scores. The multiple-regression equation was developed from Group A scores on the five selected variables. One of the five variables included in the equation was teachers' expectations. Predictions from this one variable alone, teachers' expectations, are compared with predictions from a group of five variables. 107 28. 241 ___ 20. Number of 16. Scores 12. 8.. 4. 0 On Predicted by. Predicted Criterion Multiple- by Regression Teacher Equation Below-Average Reading Achievement FIGURE 5:1 Comparison of Below-Average Reading Achievement Scores on the Criterion, Predicted by the Multiple-Regression Equation, and Predicted by the Teacher: Group B 108 Teachers' expectations was also one of the five variables. As a result, teachers' SXpectations as a single predictor are compared with teachers' SXpectations in combination with four other variables as a predictor. Since the same variable, teachers' eXpectations, was included in both predictors, an interdependence existed between the predictors. Consequently, a number of agreeing pre- dictions from the two predictors, teachers' expectations alone and the combination of variables, are found. The predictions made by using the multiple- regression equation included a combination of objective measures, such as the perceptual quotient and sex, plus one subjective judgment: kindergarten teachers' pre- dictions of success in reading. The combination is compared with the subjective expectations of teachers alone. The judgments made by the teachers had no Specific criteria other than each teacher's idea of what constitutes below-average, average, and above-average reading achievement. One teacher may tend to expect that most children will Show average reading achievement and that a very small number of the children will be represented in each of the above-average and below-average categories. Another teacher may divide the class into groups of some arbitrary Size, such as approximating thirds in the course of rationalizing the question. Consequently, the bases for making judgments varies among teachers in this study. 109 Arbitrary Specification of the meaning of "average," ' and "above-average" was deliberately not "below-average,' given to the teachers. Kindergarten teachers are often asked to make these sorts of ill-defined judgments based only upon their subjective observations. Thus, a com- parison of objective predictions from the multiple- regression equation with subjective predictions by teachers has been made in this study in order to test a more precise procedure against a common one. Teachers' predictions could have been structured somewhat by asking for a Specified percentage of children in each reading achieve- ment category or a rank ordering of the children in each class. The multiple-correlation coefficient for the multiple-regression equation scores and the criterion scores for Group A was .74. When the multiple-regression equation derived from Group A scores was used for Group B, the multiple-correlation coefficient between the scores predicted by the multiple-regression equation and the criterion scores was .63. .The Shrinkage of the multiple- correlation is comparatively small which gives evidence of a relatively stable set of predictors. Three of the regression coefficients used in the multiple-regression equation had negative values. Two of the negative values, social position and teachers' expec- tations, can be explained by the use of reversed scoring. 110 The higher ratings were assigned the lower numerical scores. The third regression coefficient, for the performance-adequacy self-concept factor, cannot be explained in quite the same way. One explanation might be that underachievers tend to overestimate their adequacy in performance in school, while the higher achievers are more conservative in their estimates. Since a negative correlation coefficient is observed as the correlation of the self-concept factor with reading achievement, the SXplanation seems feasible. Children who are underachievers may be denying reality be reSponding Optimistically to questions regarding their feelings of adequacy in performance in school. A second SXplanation might be that the self-concept factor may be functioning in the multiple-regression equation as a suppressor variable. However, in Darlington's (1968) discussion of suppressor variables, he assumed that suppressor variables have positive correla- tions with the criterion but receive a negative weight in the regression equation to improve prediction. Both of these conditions are not met for the self-concept factor in that a negative correlation with the criterion was found. Consequently, the suppressor variable SXplanation appears to be less feasible. 111 Another variable included in the prediction equation is sex. More boys than girls showed below- average reading achievement on the criterion. Consequently, sex proved a useful predictor in the multiple-regression equation. The relationship between social position and reading achievement was significant. Below-average reading achievement was related to lower social position. The social position factor was retained as a significant predictor in the multiple-regression equation. The statistical analysis leading to the multiple- regression equation called for exclusion of the intelli- gence quotient factor. When the deletion routine was applied, intelligence quotient was one of the variables deleted because its contribution to the prediction equation was not significant at the .05 level. The correlation coefficient for intelligence and reading achievement shows that a positive significant relationship exists between the two variables. The deletion of the intelligence quotient variable suggests that some of the abilities measured by the intelligence test may also be measured by another variable remaining in the prediction equation. The other variable, in this case, is probably the perceptual quotient. 112 If only single variables were selected as predictors of reading achievement, intelligence quotient would constitute one of the better predictors. This judgment is based on the correlation coefficients obtained for intelligence quotient and reading achievement (.47 for Group A and .35 for Group B). Although all teachers were using a "basal reader" approach, the probability exists that competence and I style differences affected differentially the success and failure of the students in the sample. Teacher competence differences in teaching reading may, in fact, be reflected in the criterion reading achievement scores. Since the children were located in seven first grade classrooms, the influence of a single teacher's input was combined with the influence of six other teachers. AS a result, the combined reading achievement scores may reflect a range of teacher effectiveness in teaching reading. A more thorough study of the influence of the teacher and method on the criterion score should be made in order to test the possibility that differences in method and teacher may be an important determinant. 113 Readingpgrccess Factors Three of the four factors involved in the reading process showed significant positive relationships to reading achievement. Visual perception, language and configuration are confirmed as contributing to the reading process. Self-concept, the central mobilizer in Strang's theory, does not Show a significant relationship to reading achievement. One SXplanation might be that the self-concept technique used to measure self-concept may not be a valid approach for this age level. A child's reSponse may be very closely related to very recent happenings. For example, a happy exPerience immediately preceding the test may affect his responses. A larger number of happy faces may be circled, as a result. Although significant positive relationships were found between reading achievement and two of the factors -- language and configuation -- neither factor was retained in the multiple-regression equation as a significant predictor. In contrast, one of the self-concept factors, performance-adequacy, Showed a negative correlation with reading achievement but was 114 retained as a significant predictor in the multiple- regression equation. A significant positive correlation of a variable with the criterion is not sufficient evidence that the variable will be a contributing predictor in the multiple-regression equation. Conversely, the variable which is not significantly correlated with the criterion may be a contributing predictor in the combination of variables equation. Since three of the factors -- visual perception, language and configuration -- Show positive significant relationships to reading achievement, and the fourth factor -- self-concept -- is in part retained as a predictor of reading achievement, all factors appear to show evidence of involvement in the complex reading 1 process. Language and Social Position The significant relationship found between language and social position supports the results of previous studies reported in the literature. The reverse scoring on social position accounts for the negative correlation coefficient. 115 Intelligence ontients and Perceptual Quotients A true difference was found between the intelligence quotients and the perceptual quotients obtained by the children who showed below-average reading achievement on the criterion. Frostig (1964) contends that perceptual quotients are lower for these children, and that perceptual quotients should not be considered the same as intelligence scores. The findings support her contentions. Implications A large percentage of the children who Show below-average reading achievement on the criterion measure in first grade can be identified by using the combination of variables approach. Some cautions need to be exercised in using this identification procedure. Teachers and other school personnel should be aware that several children may be selected by the combination of variables prediction who will ppp_show below-average reading achievement in first grade. Instead, these children may Show average or above-average reading achievement. The children identified by using this procedure Shbuld not be "labeled" as underachievers, as having reading problems or as even having potential reading difficulty. Very often "labels" may be applied 116 erroneously, but the label has an affect on the treatment the child receives. Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) found "that teachers' SXpectations can significantly affect their pupils' performance (p. 179)." They report a study where teachers of preschool children were teaching the meaning of a series of symbols. The teachers who expected "good symbol learning" put forth more teaching effort and were able to teach more symbols, while the teachers who eXpected "poor symbol learning" did not expend as much effort in teaching and taught only a few symbols. The eXpectations held became self-fulfilling. The combination of variables identification procedure, when used with an awareness of the potential problems involved, can be effectively employed to identify children who would benefit most from specific curricular activities. Even though some additional children are selected, appr0priate activities would not be harmful for these children. EganningTraining Procedures Identification is merely a first step toward prevention of reading difficulties. Appropriate training procedures to compensate for some of the weaknesses or deficiencies detected in identification should be imple- mented. Determining what the appropriate training procedures are could be investigated in future studies. 117 Since one of the variables used in the combination of variables was perceptual quotient, the training pro- cedures developed by Frostig (1964) could be given consideration as one aSpect of a training program. For children at early kindergarten level, the manipulative activities suggested would seem most appropriate. Some- times only the paper and pencil worksheets or workbooks are given to children as training activities. Bruner (1964) contends that information may be processed in three ways: by actions, by representations and by symbols. If the young child is to gain maximally from training pro~ cedures, according to Bruner's schema, he should begin with manipulative activities, progress to the representa- tional levels using pictures and worksheets and finally add the language to help him integrate the information. Training Teachers Since a number of children who actually Showed below-average reading achievement in first grade were not selected by teachers' expectations, some in-service training may be appr0priate. An in-service program could emphasize the deve10pment of an increased awareness of the characteristics which may serve as indicators of potential reading problems. Presentation of more objective obser- vation techniques could result in improved predictions of below-average achievement in the future. 118 Pre-service teachers could also benefit from training that focuses on the symptoms of reading diffi- culty which can be detected in kindergarten. Practical eXperiences in identifying symptoms in actual classrooms or by using video-tapes should enable the student to be more alert, as a teacher, to the various potential deficiencies which may be found. An advance is made in the direction of the ultimate goal, prevention of reading difficulties, by making early identification of potential problems so that appr0priate curricular programs can also be implemented early. The combination of variables approach was used to make a more inclusive and more accurate identification in this study. This approach may be useful in schools where caution is exercised so that "labels" are not attached to the children identified by the procedure. BI BLI OGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY (Anderson, U. M. Reading disability: What Should the school physician look for in determining its causation? The Journal of School Health, 1965, 35, 145-153. Bernstein, B. Linguistic codes, hesitation phenomena and intelligence. Language and S eech, 1962, 5, 31-46. Bond, G. L., & Tinker, M. A. Reading difficulties: Theig diagnosis and correction. New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts, Inc., 1957. Brookover, W. B., Thomas, S., & Paterson, A. Self-concept of ability and school achievement. Sociology of Education, 1964, 37, 271-278. Bruner, J. S. Some theorems on instruction illustrated with reference to mathematics. The Sixty-third Yearbook of the National Societ for the Stud of Education, Part I, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1964. ' Bruner, J. S. The course of cognitive growth. American Psychologist, 1964, 19, 1-16. Buros, 0. K. (Edf)vFifth mental measurements yearbook. Highland Park, New Jersey: The Gryphon Press, 1959. Pp. 479-484. Buros, O. K. (Ed.) Sixth mental measurements yearbopk. Highland Park, New Jersey: The Gryphon Press, 1965. Pp. 109-128, 854-857. ' Cazden, C. B. Subcultural differences in child language: An inter-disciplinary review. Merrill-Palmer Qparterly, 1966 g 12 9 185-219 a Chall, J. S. Learnin to read: The reat debate. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1967. Combs, A. W. The rofessional education of teachers. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1965. 119 120 Darlington, R. B. Multiple regression in psychological research and practice. Psychological Bulletin, 1968, 69 , 1.61-3.82. DeHirsch, K. Prediction of reading disability. Bulletin of the Orton Society, 1963, 8, 72-74. (a) DeHirsch, K. Psychological correlates of the reading process.( Bulletin of the Orton Sociepy, 1963, 8, 59-71. b) DeHirsch, K., Jansky, J. J., & Langford, W. S. Predictipg reading failures. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 19 . Deutsch, M. Facilitating deve10pment in the preschool child: Social and psychological perSpectives. Prevention of Failure, National Education Association: Department of Elementary-Kindergarten-Nursery Education, 1965. Pp. 33-41. Deutsch, M. The disadvantaged child and the learning process. In A. H. Passow (Ed.), Education in Depressed Areas, New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1963. Dudzinski, G., Farrah, G. A., Milchus, N. J., & Reitz, W. What face would you wear? The Academic Self-Concept Test, Birmingham, Michiganz~ Authors, 19 5. Eames, T. H. Visual problems of poor readers. Su lementar Educational Mono ra hs, Chicago: The UnIversIty 0% ChIcago Press, 1953, 77, 137-140. Eash, M. J. Grouping as a factor in failure. Prevention of Failure, National Education Association: Department of Elementary-Kindergarten-Nursery Education, 1965. Pp. 42-47. Eisenberg, L. The epidemiology of reading retardation and a program for preventive intervention. In J. Money (Ed.), The Disabled Reader, 1966. Pp. 3-19. Fink, M. B. Self-concept as it relates to academic achievement. California Journal of Educational Research, 1962, 13, 57-62. Frostig, M. Teaching reading to children with perceptual disorders. Readin Disorders, Philadelphia: F. A. Davis Company, 1965. Pp. 113-127. 121 Frostig, M., & Horne, D. The Frosti ro ram for the development of visual perception: Teacher's gpide. Chicago: Follett Publishing Company, 19 . Frostig, M., Maslow, P., Lefever, D. W., & Whittlesey, J. R. B. The Marianne Frosti develo mental test of visual perception, 1963 standardization. Palo AIto: onsulting Psychologists Press, 19 3. Gesell, A. Vision and reading from the standpoint of child development. Supplementary Educational Monographs, 1953, 77, 129-136. Goins, J. T. Visual perceptual abilities and early reading progress. Supplementary,Educational Mono ra hs, 1958, No. 87. Gordon, I. J. Studying the child in school. New York: John Wiley and Sons, nc., 19 . Haring, N. G., & Ridgway, R. W. Early identification of children with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 1967, 33,3 7- 395. 'Heckerl, J. The Heckerl configpration test. Pontiac, Michigan: Author, 19 7. Henderson, E. H., Long, B. H., & Ziller, R. 0. Self- Social constructs of achieving and nonachieving readers. The Reading Teacher, 1965, 19, 114-118. Hildreth, G. Linguistic factors in early reading instruction. The Reading Teacher, 1964, 18, 172- 177. Hollingshead, A. B. The two factor index of social position. »New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, Jensen, A. R. Learning ability in retarded, average, and gifted children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1964, 9, 123- 140. ' John, V. P., & Goldstein, L. S. The social context of language acquisition. Merrill-Palmer anrterly, 1964, Kelley, T. L., Madden, R., Gardner, E. P., & Rudman, H. 0. Stanford achievement test. New York: Harcourt, Brace & orl , Inc., 19 122 Langman, M. P. The reading process: A descriptive,' interdisciplinary approach. Genetic Psychology ' Monographs, 1960, 62, 3-40. Lesser, G. R., Fifer, G., & Clark, D. H. Mental abilities of children in different social and cultural groups. Mono ra hs of the Societ for Research in Child Development, 1965, 30. (Serial No. 102). Loban, W. D. The langpage of elementary school children. Champaign, 111.: National Council of Teachers of English, 1963. Lorge, I., & Thorndike, R. L. The Lorge-Thorndike intelligence tests. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1957. McCarthy, J. J.,& Kirk, S. A. Illinois test of . psycholingpistic abilities, SXperimental edition. rbana, Illinois: Institute for Research on Exceptional Children, University of Illinois, 1961. Olson, A. V. School achievement, reading ability, and Specific visual perception Skills in the third grade. The Reading Teacher, 1966, 29, 490-492. Robison, H. F., & Spodek, B. New directions in the kindergarten. New York: Teachers College Press, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1965. Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. P alion in the classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1968. Russell, D. H., & Fea, H. R. Research on teaching reading. In N. L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching, Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1963. Pp. 5-9280 " Silver, A. A. Diagnostic considerations in children with reading disability. Bulletin of the Orton Society, 1963 , 8 , 91‘1000 Solomon, R. L., & Postman, L. Frequency of usage as a determinant of recognition threshold for words. Journal of Ex erimental Ps cholo , 1952, 43, 195-201. Strang, R. A dynamic theory of the reading process. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1961, 7, 239-245. 123 Strang, R. Exploration of the reading process. Reading Research Quarterly, 1967, 2, 33-45. Strickland, R. G. Interrelationships between language and reading. Volta Review, 1958, 60, 334-336. Templin, M. 0. Certain languagepskills in children: Their deve10pment and interrelationships. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1957. Vernon, M. D. The perceptual process in reading. The Reading Teacher, 1959, 13, 2-8. Wattenberg, W. W., & Clifford, C. Relation of self- concepts to beginning achievement in reading. Child Development, 1964, 35, 461-467. Weener, P., Barritt, L. S., & Semmel, M. I. A critical evaluation of the Illinois test of psycholinguistic abilities. Exceptional Cpildren, 1967, 33, 373-380. Wilson, J. A. R., & Robeck, M. 0. Kindergarten evaluation of learning potential. t. Louis: Webster Division, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1963. APPENDI CES APPENDIX A APPENDIX A THE HECKERL CONFIGURATION TEST This test is based on the assumption that children recognize a series of letters in a logical sequence before formal reading instruction is begun. The English ortho- graphy is based on a rather consistent relationship of one letter to another. For example, if a word begins with the letter 's' it is very likely the next letter will be 't', but very improbable that the next letter would be a 'b' or 'z' . This letter relationship frequency constitutes a familiar configuration or pattern which looks familiar to children although they may have no idea what the patterns of letters represent. Directions Say - We are going to play a game with words. It is a kind of guessing game. Do you know what a word is? (Ask a child his name and print it on the board.) This is a word. These letters say (child's name). Now look at the picture of the fish. There are 3 boxes below the fish. I will put them on the board. Look at the first box. Is this a word in the first box? No. IS this a word in the last box? No. This is a word in the middle box. It goes with the picture of the fish. Let's put an X on the middle box like this. Do you see a picture of a top? Look at the three boxes below the top. One box has a word that goes with top. Look at the first box. No, that doesn't go with top. Look at the second box. No, that doesn't go with top. Look at the last box. Yes, that goes with t0p. Put an X on the last box. Now, turn to the next page. Find the picture of the cat. Now look carefully at all three green boxes below the cat. Put an.X on the green box that you think goes with the cat. That's right, put an X on the word that you think says 'cat." Repeat for remaining nine items. dog (red) pipe (red) seal (red) box (blue) horse (blue) basket (blue) bird (green) ball (green) leaf (black) 124 THE HECKERL CONFIGURATION TEST 1234 Fish ::++ abob rrrr 125 t0p 126 cot ooo ovj' ptm 1°61" dog zts box mncqo 127 bird rr‘nn tpzl dolnm p1pe htso horse wppse hssrv 128 ziee nocl boll seal 2235p ototo ‘. Q ‘§ pmolti basket choccb leot‘ mnqt APPENDIX B 129 APPENDIX B QUESTIONS USED FOR THE ACADEMIC SELF-CONCEPT TEST Children responded to these questions by circling the appr0priate facial expression in the "What Face Would You Wear? answer booklet produced by Dudzinski, Farrah, Milchus and Reitz (1965). 5. 6. 7. 10. 11. What face do you wear when you look at your drawings? What face do you wear when the teacher is looking at your school work? What face do you wear when the teacher is talking to your mother? 1 What face do you wear when you are showing a toy you brought from home in show and tell? What face do you wear when you are coming to school? What face do you wear when you are writing your name? What face do you wear when you are asked to tell a story in show and tell about something that has happened to you. What face do you wear most of the time that you are in school? What face do you wear when it's your turn to answer a question in school? What face do you wear when you think about learning to read? What face do you wear when you are asked to count? 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 190 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 130 What face do you wear when the boys and girls are asked to choose someone to tell a story about a picture? What face do you wear when the teacher wants to talk to you by yourself? What face do you wear when all the children in your room are busy? What face do you wear when you are drawing a picture? What face do you wear when the teacher scolds you? What face do you wear when you have to tell your mother what you did in school? What face do you wear when the teacher says the smartest children can go out and play? What face do you wear when the boys and girls in class have to pick the best paper to put on the bulletin board? What face do you wear when you think of how well you know your numbers? What face do you wear when the teacher asks a question? What face do you wear when the teacher gives you some school work to do? What face do you wear if you have to tell your parents that you have lost your coat? (This item was scored in reverse.) 1 What face do you wear if your parents said you couldn't come to school today? hut . . ....l...-.’-.. - 01.1..” id's-in N'L. APPENDIX C 1001111 1002111 1003111 1004211 1005111 1006211 1007211 1008211 1009111 lClClll 1011111 1012211 1013221 1014221 1015121 1016221 APPENDIX C SELF-CONCEPT ITEM AND TOTAL SCORES 32 H’- Concept Test S e IF- Concept Retest Item Scores Total 44224 DJ5J35445 -3543JJ4 323092 4334 4J4JJ1QULJ42J440442“OQ7 3235231224J‘+2)1;)'Jc;¢._)431211070 W414 JJ4ILJ4_-JJ1J-"122_LL"OTMJ .33J2Lfih3333 3345._3)Jv.gfi+)lOJ4 J4355JJJJJJ41JJJ23JJJJ1507J 53454J245J4334J41454JJ25065 352434J5443U31451UJQCQEQOOO 123314J12JJ1225J55454524071 554ELQUQ41fi/fiLJJQL)LJJQ43111 5324J2J4JJ24232J2JJ3JJ1JO71 525452544JGJ424424454414063 :34CJJ4rJ233lkfiéwJ‘SJZB423.£./15c?13:0136 433453244354144415423325 83 3245:42544CVMHLMJ4554511509) 13241LJJLMHJ2’HJRKH151Cy45423140tf7 1017121 13225J2JJ253233323534524083 1018121 3b25J42142J4QJflJllJJJllDO7O 1019221 JJ4L JJ4)4JJJ44~3112J(11007d 1020121 JJJJJJIJJ22JJ3351ldqullOJJ 1021221 J455Jb43434JJL§D2QCDJ324094 1022221 543143424J403‘“H 34 4425100 1023221 4J24141)445254341JJ35130061 1024221 1JJ§44““45554E‘41219WQIJOQQ 2025111 JJJSJJJJ44)534 J24433 5056 202 6111 352:4J2l J45 ’KL‘314352W081 2027111 5353553=4 JJJ JJJI-JJ:J210 2028111 JJLJJ4J54)4JJJJ41.JJij)OVd 2029111 3J455;JJ5J JJJJJ_JJ1J25:0/o 2030111 3.333.3‘))”)“‘11'1'33C11113315086 2031211 55545J45 JJuJCJ’E‘4414225057 2032111 4IIUJJJJJLJJJ“:>1L-)JSDJIO4 2OJ3111 4DJD4D4J455443J425444J2409J 2034211 45553355JJ4)JJJ41JJLJJ24099 2035221 3445443441444214J"L44J2090 2036121 ”04-1354"4J4'1JJ44422‘15JJ4 12090 2037221 44444444444444442114JJ 1088 2038121 45342443JJ513335144514J4O8- 2039221 525550JJJ)>J55552°LU5524110 2040221 533135450654545 4‘fi4 43515091 2041221 54.343423 544513455734 ’1E (W31 2042221 451111111111111111112111036 2043121‘Jlb5ip4l4u;li4bi)1w533114097 2044121 143-2J14J4344534 0434432082 44 CARDS 131 01 PAGES 45254435454214531 Item Scores TBtal 3515 534123345125 322223344074 43.3511111341444342442223444 24081 13123442J541134315J34212069 2554514057 433543534444533453454421059 M: 4(J4JJJJ JJJ5544JJ414054 45J5J4253452143215234211074 42143314454345JJ1D344314OB7 01421541413115221553412J066 35555505555555J555555J52117 lJ2453J24JJJ53J2J03553300SJ 45344324044423442434442403? 34 551J4AJJ4213225J431'087 ’4J48434534J 43415433334076 J44H44lJ4"J4J“425‘4542”100 44““‘31J-4J24411J2432J 079 JJLJ,3zJJJ4JJ3JJ 5522224063 JLJJIJJquIJJJ2J2J4J4JJJ207J 5452131155J2JJJ51143JJJ5072 JJ4SJJIJJLBJLJJJIL bJJlDO73 43553JJ3JJ44JJ442J535J2J057 545445343543543425454325095 534512122122124325135125064 34354;;WP“))144J414”5[J.J1401) 335J321JJ533714J2JJJ4115072 “3243327J33 34JJIJJJ3374084 5534254’4532234 3335J 315082 454455JJ4J44J 45135 45‘ L230)? JQJ424JJJJJ412 22222224065 21772E3712337543113J1523070 4324‘J54J2J524EJ24454225007 AL"»55555555 5511555521104 44J543321J23324J 543J424076 255555155555555525555524113 454543Jt5454345443344322091 5543545455445553225 r'521096 443443434443J33434444343056 4350334345332545JJ434314055 5555554‘454545542555552410J 5345425 4354354551354J513091 J2J443J33J4Jl3542434JJ14O77 13J43J12J11J DJID 15551309J 51041‘11JJ1J5J4513J4JJ1406J 434JJ434J4J44JJ4J4344422063 _ .. _._ ._ ___ ___.__JJ-- ......-2,. - _u-q—o. ~— _-___~—-~., ; ; - .— 4 1 r ;.- - I—_ ‘2... .—4 . ~ - ,,_,_Ln :‘_—* .;..-:-.: .: :-—.-—:-r . , - _ ._ .- .. .-__= _. v r . :r. n- -_.- r >— " — 4.- _ h; « .- 74 . < « :va , 1- <7 . ~ . ‘. ..-- .11. A. . - . wi—c—o:_-——;-;-\.——n:-—;—: . . 7 ~ - - . 4¢ . , v 4. ' --- 7. .v- 1,‘— - —m -"«_._ m _ 1..- __ A I—- k —_ A;~ , .. . , , _- _ _ . ._ ____ _ _.._ 2 -2. . . , A . .. . ,: _- r - r . ._ .. ~~ - , 4. 2 r .-- -....\ -— --.. H 1 or , “—4—..— 1 M-_ _. Mm _ -;4..: __‘;—--\ r . .. ~ ‘- a . 1 . ~ ‘ , 4 .1 .r .. — an." 2— -- ~ m—vth ~3—-_—-- ~- .-—~ u ‘ .--— . ~ v- ,_ —-~—~— .- 5’ -.— - . ‘ 'm ‘v- u- -- u—J— k —« ...‘—- r...- ‘4. , Jr. 4 N ‘- _. p. f1 ~.m“——_u m- - _ _1 -_ 1 _ H 7 A — — _, - . r . .— 1. 4 *4 A . n 7 - - ~ — .w v— — »— .. r 7 - ‘1 r — 7 r v 5 -44 . - . -_. i __ .7 J - . ., r 77 > ' , F“ W. - - ~— - - — —v v- —~a--'—~ «M.» W2. W.,... w“:._q , -4 7 fi‘ _fi‘ _ . Anu- J... 132 1046111 1047211 1048111 1049211 1050211 1051111 1052211 1053211 1054111 1055111 1056211 1057111 1058211 1059211 1060211 1061111 1062111 1063111 1064211 1065121 1066221 1067221 1068121 1069121 1070221 1071221 1072121 1073121 1074121 1075221 1076121 1077921 1078221 1079221 1080221 1081121 1082121 1083121 2084711 2885211 2'186111 2087111 43 CAQDS Scl-F- Concept Test I It”... Scam g I 43435244344532442454333 085 34533343455525°213353321103 435434433344243414443311080 3343334323342 432 5353514086 34145343 94323482445533‘103 5412‘; 31412 3".) 52‘ 453423 34 E35085 55454334334443345445 4555102 333333333333333333333333072 543445434332418215453314084 333444445 C2554W3 5; 44134425096 354345444433553333333334107 35345543“1J435322344323093 544445444444941244444-);3451099 334333334454243324443224079 352334242545253034534514085 335533443554353525254421088 534354384323333111332515080 33323 3333333333323333333070 345342135352415115443515079 553435435554333323343334088 354445 3433444445344134434094 54134131225328’51223524077 3454333343333334 5443433086 435 343245452234523555325090 354453454534432534324525091 545533255543335525455321092 5545‘,dUU” 5444512555444105 4b443433343+34342'434 24089 354’321’33412742154535085 532534335) ' H11 313123115073 543”“¢W“¥”5 '4""VV”""°24104 453454345 342.345425 45-4323090 €337¢=4254844fifir994543?41C 54543555435433‘588‘"5535180 353453153353334422353223081 4358574545481’5595955524094 4343321? m3 4393973245; 23077 35353-4534 84884884‘25524096 4325533138L8°4°418832518081 33253333 F041°r3“1)371214074 'Li11”'117V35132-KI73 225225515552225091 aififiafifia543524100 01 DAGQS 7.47 ___— i - ~ » —- -- 7 - 7 -~ "—7” ---—— a. - - - —.-— - .- -- — _ ._ an. - ___... ... -W.-—-—p.—._-—_.. ; —. .. d 7 7 7 _ . 7 _ __ - _7 _. _ _7 ___7 ____ _ ._ _ _ 7 - -..._ _ , _~ ‘ 7. . , ._ _., -_- . ~ . ‘ - 7 .7 . — .r. ,7. n . _--_...7 -7 '7. _r - _ 7.7“ —--.7 ,7 —r 7 ’Fv—‘xv77 m7».__‘__a.~ —.._—..——.— .7“... . ‘ 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 77 7 7 77 7. 7 7 7 77 7 7 fi_“. _. .— . 7 - .. .7 7. 77 -7 . -. .77 1.... _, — 7 . _7 7 7 u 7 -- - .. .... _g‘. _44,._‘ .r _ .‘,-_ -—=-.-7--- —---—_-- '-—r ‘. mfl.» ‘ 7 777 7 .. - _ 7- 7 7_7 -._ . .. ‘ -. - 7 _. - _.-.._.. -7.fi _ . - 7r7a-7 .7 --7+—_H-.A~~_77- “___-.—h c 7 . . 7 . 777 A7 7 7 7 7 7 _7 _,._ - . 7. , #7177 2. _, . . . 7 .- _ _ , .. - 7‘ ..7 7 77 - .-...' ... . ~.'V ~~ ‘7 77 f 7 ‘ - 7 .zmmu wvf.7 . .. .—4 _, § .1 s-r< r ~-,~~—~v’--. a—u -- ~wa..—. ‘s—h—vr- '- 7 7 7 7 4 __7 7 777.77 77 .-_ _777 - 7 . 7 7 _7 . _ _. _ .. . _7 . . . .7 ___ 7 .__ _ 7_ 7 ~ ~ - «. - -- 7 7 --7 7 ~~< ~_-. ~- «7 ~ - - .7 M7,-»77 -- fr- j. - .. _a- 7 .7 --. v 777.. ... -77 7 7, 7 74r._.7777 .7 -v7" ‘- 7 _ 7 7 77 7 7 7 7 7. 7 7 _ _ va- 7 . .7 A 7 -‘ .. — .-- _ a-~ -w . F .., .0 _ -—r fl-i’VM 7.7.7.— fiv’ ‘ 1 , - 4 .M_ -. «_7. —— 77-‘7 7‘... 7 M.. 7.— 7— _ _.....— 7 7.77 -. . -.... - _ 7 m- —~ - -_...'. «J n 7—-———~_7_..-'.—.—, .__.—_. 7 . H.,H- _— mw~ qr"- . _..-.7 Hfl__._..—..AM . _. “7...".- -——~—a_—.—_._ "" , 7 7 7 _ 7 7 _ ,., -‘g _ -.. -.—.-__ -77. .- -yg -mvv7‘-. —~7«. —’—— nv—hnnrfii7 ‘ AH --‘_.—‘— "" 7 7 7 77 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 , 7 7 m... _ - A-.‘—. — u-I-~ _.—- 7mm _ -_—___.._',..—.=._....777 __ 7. _.. 7 ._ ___ “r __ -7“ _ ,_ -_7,._.._ _ _7 _ _ ‘_ > «4' 133 2093111 2504211 2002211 2006111 2007111 2fi08211 20CV?111 2100111 2101211 2102211 2103111 2104111 2102211 2106221 2107121 2109121 2100121 2110121 2111121 2112121 2113121 2114221 2115921 2116121 2117121 2112221 2110121 212°?21 2121121 2122221 2123221 2124221 2122221 2126921 2127121 46 CADDS 01 DAGTC Se ”3" Cone: '01: Test .. Item Scores 3 .2 51‘551353515155545553114088 433»44444333351453454333054 352415422454545553545q15090 1544554545445455435555431o5 5334147343514<41 313523r07n 53245344334315339533325408: 15454534535434 515554515003 343511454344554432444514055 595a3535435aanr?255n7444005 453354355533411521552524099 25:52312fi“‘5"’ 22‘“ 3C‘221103 4504334157fiRASW47gfl97314099 422a544913345 a333144514140 3 553155333540435335: 3335089 5544544544444551 5454324009 545454454455544535455543106 c45~a5155544435525553351005 3127:3135042403373332334075 (1411/15/4/4cj/1AZ "(1'3le f’r—‘L /1/149_1Q')6 932“4qgfi394“775:012c:211095 24223244270317G41Q443329090 532V35252732224§1QSC 514091 53G2W42202G522:325523515107 :4a555155W5111355155%»5311052 5215415141257212'71 18142215067 55434W5544R3442432454441100 933111134’34531'114'13/‘515531135730537 C51;L‘c(p‘445‘(7acct11c:{-)fic—qnqr 153 \Aa/JCZL/"KrC-Q '31-’11" 512:1 094 534% C: 3331.; #30729fi91’57'r‘rx 107:3 CH! an? 3/' 17412'3/1"’249F‘f 4'3'324097 53“ 73’7454"35a?255211q00 223C 43“C°‘15438A84543214087 r530. :/1'7/1:/1(1/_11/‘CTC‘C—T’Df3l9c: ~3rrg1001 BGth—L—l’rc firm: r73". 4:3 11,—ng 5:,— 54109 434727°7F447242722747 24021 4J4243.x4343'3242vmfi”123099 “44 a414“"“1a 311:2”2403072 34%93545454b353424543043107 --.1_ —~.— _ _ H 17, _ - _.V ‘ . . -_- m-.. - _. __._.._-__ _— _. 77 . -57F- - --——‘ ————.-—.‘,-—- _ ‘- v—-—“—_\—_-‘.-—m— 7 - -..._ - . : : :‘ .i v. ' -._.‘.—-.-—__- ~v-—-.'~_'—.- " ' .— HW g'v' . — -- .-_. _—— 7 V ,, _ _ .- - - ' _v — — ___ u... v .-.. .1- F.+:_.——__H:: -..—. —- -.77 H3- . 7 - 5 - .._7 5“ . .- _ --._‘ H'Hm *rfi- wfi--—.—.-..;-'————_—-~— - fl .2-_. v2.— — --.‘,-“ v—v , -,——‘——’_- . ”‘4'.- -- I ' _; :——-— x.- .. _. --- '._p V 1..-,» 4*.- ”iv—'H—O- .v...‘ —.‘ Hr—O— -— — ' ' ' ' '— — — - ' ":4.- - .‘r,, '_.. '» 7"‘-_-“-*VH;I“_*—_v ' 'A' ' ' _ h‘Hv.-., .. ._ l.....,.- .. 1..-.“ _..-. f vV'rr fa .w—F F..." ' - ' V «hr—F.- - , ,- H2 . _ , n - t . ...- —- - ' ' — ' C' 1-. . , 2_-71,_7 fr ¢_-.——-..-.-_ -—.-——~— WvEF 4— ~' 7"' ‘ - , , AL’I’ILIU) III I) School Student I 3’. 1001112 1002112 1003112 1004212 1006212 1007212 1008212 1009112 1010112 1011112 1012212 1013222 1014222 1015122 1017122 1018122 1019222 1020122 1021222 1022222 1023222 1024222 2026112 2027112 2029112 2030112 2031212 2032112 2033112 2034212 2035222 2036122 2037222 2038122 2039222 2040222 2041222 37 CARDS O1 PAGES Coralrfilll Lorge- Thorndike APPENDIX D 3‘ 0 u 9: £9 ubhfltI bmest' ubtedi” Subtest V cnnpfiufl Qudficnt 523V6¢a15nuudhv 3 comm 1000111011102 0910091111102 1008090810090 1009090613096 0908130709094 0908080811091 1108110907094 0708070608072 0709121007094 1009051110094 1304071111094 1209080811096 0907080810083 1209111110104 0908070910087 0807090913094 1109071111102 1008061011092 0807090908082 0507051209077 1009070810089 1113091011112 1008151610098 1107060811085 1007050910087 0809101111102 0909071110094 0807101109092 0805090808076 0807060910079 0711121310110 0908091113102 1109081009098 1011111013108 0810091113104 0807050709076 1012111513116 Subtest ' ¥-These data 16 08 20 12 14 07 14 11 13 20 10 14 19 06 11 21 11 23 15 06 1: 23 10 18 13 19 22 17 10 O9 07 14 11 13 23 Self-Concept I Sew-amp: 09270 08764 07055 08668 07958 08867 08666 07153 11182 07153 08868 08664 08565 09977 08366 07449 07853 05945 09470 10074 08162 09671 08161 08666 07655 08660 08766 10482 09369 09974 09674 09068 08867 08360 11084 09166 09169 134 m»:mg’uv-ap-aHNp—ar—Ipap‘n—av-Immv—ImmmHHmHv—nmmu—o—nmml‘gu—IHHHpQGrou' “ UTD*‘N"N NF‘NTDh)mrUhJU(Jh)NfUhJN(J>‘H Hv—N ULJM mr-wrvn1m m H RAW SCORES FOR ALL DATA COLLECTED 58 44 .5 I'll- g._ - sf 13 1 42222 4454442 4242330 3376548 4465344 4455546 1241322 2222220 3343332 1232220 9959778 5557554 3364542 4364442 1343226 3242328 7847766 4352334 3362232 4466550 3333330 2263332 8457558 1243224 1233222 6454548 1123320 4255338 3244434 7546656 5456652 4364544 1231218 8867874 8744760 1121214 7768872 not used. Sc”?- onccpt Fbctors 4A B c 311425 301123 250525 331421 300721 340924 301026 191321 391429 280817 341123 311320 330725 351428 261030 231016 330812 250812 351025 361127 331415 331127 271222 351120 241417 340818 351021 391627 331224 341327 341426 311225 321421 311019 401430 251328 331125 ‘ -- , , , . _N . .r n. - ‘0‘ I v . _ 0.. — - _— ‘1‘: , ‘___...—_ v . _._. ..._.fl . _.__‘_ ___.H ‘- »‘ _ r. .— . _ _. _. - A -- .7 _ r . — m _‘OU' -, ., J. . “—- ‘Ar—mflf‘ -7 fl . A ‘_ .-. \- o-_ . -r -——-.A o n. .4 -7 ‘ a .— q. ._—._ fi.--‘ ‘ .-— _,.——__-..,nr... .-—-.——-———-- ___... -— .—.._.—.._ w.— ‘., __._—-w——————u—--... . ‘ __- *~_ ,__, a. fi._ -_.#~~— - .~ .‘ _ —v—w———_——_-——-_v, 7 r—~n- ." — .m-~* -— fi.. ._ ... - . __7-_‘. ,, » ‘ V , - . .. -‘ ¢_. I *. :. _--‘ v-4.“ -. _— - . .. . 7 w _ ___ A .wv, I _n, _i .i’. 4 V -- ar 4 , , - . , -4 J., ‘r - - u- -—. V ‘ «a» ;v ~ - .._ A - ‘- ~ - .. -- .. 1*.k- _- A ~ -- .r—--— 4‘. ~ .-: a: :.J ,—_¥_‘--.—;~-——r ' - k :r- :—n .; V‘s- :r.“ :<.; o I- ;: ;-: :~- ~ .: ::—._ fi: -r- -«: an: " -. ’- "cu-r «:4 -‘-4-—'—H_w——m——Lz— fifiq—WA... “m-u- r“‘fl~fi:‘~— .7 ‘. __ _ __ vi- .. - i < k 7......‘._.~ _ : — _ _.. _— 7 . _l __ -_._._ -_.,-_—- ~_._‘ f ‘- a.“ 135 U 11 as -. : NU s~ 1: 4:'§ L o o 1; 0.: U? as -JF “0431'” 100 1045112 104 1046112 119 1047212 104 1048112 117 1050212 094 1051112 097 1053212 097 1054112 119 1055112 113 1056212 123 1057112 101 1058212 108 1059212 112 1060212 113 1061112 106 1062112 100 1063112 090 1064212 096 1065122 087 1067222 119 1068122 124 1069122 118 1072122 115 1073122 097 1074122 114 1075222 099 1076122 117 1077222 101 1078222 089 1079222 108 1080222 094 1081122 100 1082122 119 1083122 099 2084212 099 2086112 103 2087112 105 38 CARDS 01 PAGES Fresh 9 j Subtest :x C k1 C L K , 18083 1311131312118 1010051010095 1309111314118 1309111013113 0908051011091 1008141110104 1008101312110 1008100910096 1009100910100 1008091013100 0808091110092 0808041210087 1008091211100 1309081314115 0809071009091 0610130811096 1106040710080 0804040908070 0906071008081 1209121412116 0908160910103 1007141112106 1208121010108 1108081108092 0809121014110 1008091008091 1611111213116 0910101414116 1108090809090 1210091211107 1007081010090 0707070808074 0710110910096 0708070808077 1312121213116 1109151414118 0809090909092 2 Vocal Encod ._. N 06 2O (C sel-F-Concep‘fI 72 08567 10379 08059 08555 08509 10279 08483 09674 10780 09370 09976 07958 08563 08867 08058 07052 07961 08854 09489 08663 09009 09167 08965 08563 07355 10480 09068 10074 10073 08151 09471 07761 09672 08161 07454 09168 1CO75 s g ReadSng Sc"?- 15 3.2 Acmflfi c....-...+ ' r 15 :3 111—3 mcnt Factors .241: 12:- * - * * H- 0 d G g a" “5‘ an I g A B C <4, 71' ' , 1" ,, O4 3 2 55 425 342 391122 05 1 2 47 4282338 311125 03 1 1 51 2262534 391030 06 2 2 40 8978574 300722 03 1 1 51 6467556 290828 03 2 1 65 1232220 262023 04 1 2 30 3253332 371824 01 2 1 69 1443534 300924 09 1 2 44 7989882 351227 06 1 2 55 3354540 341630 07 1 2 5" 2355336 341224 03 1 2 69 4243332 341824 02 2 1 59 2353332 270922 05 2 2 44 3258546 271026 05 2 1 55 4556652 331123 04 2 1 51 2374338 290722 04 1 1 47 4364544 231118 04 2 1 48 2423328 260926 06 2 1 5 4466550 321121 03 3 1 58 2321220 311424 08 1 2 55 4797768 281124 05 1 2 26 4474752 361122 03 2 1 69 4266546 331321 05 3 2 44 3262332 301124 03 2 2 73 5143536 301023 03 2 2 58 1274742 330616 03 3 1 73 3253332 401525 04 1 1 40 3284544 341123 06 2 2 44 8648766 391223 02 2 2 73 1222320 341326 10 1 2 66 9977880 321019 05 3 2 62 2352330 361223 04 3 2 6C 2153226 331018 06 2 1 51 3245436 331425 03 3 2 44 2272332 300625 06 1 1 44 7566864 260721 01 3 1 55 3254538 370724 04 2 1 44 3242532 371325 - n- - ___. - ..._ _ _— .. - -H____..7._, . - _ .,7_ - - , 77 7 ,7 *7 .. 7h 7- 7 — -7 7 ‘ - 7 _ v- _A _.fi .77 - 7 7 — .— a-7 I A - _ 7 7-uA 7 7 “477 M - V r -f- ‘ L‘ 7‘ ' —‘—» _ p‘ _- _o: in..- . .--* : —-¢ :- : r- 7- . - u---- w . ___...— - 7- .9 A_n, --:771—7 ;—-w‘. _ ;flL:q-;7-;-‘_ - _ - v 1 s. ,. ~- 7 7 ‘a _ - _ r ., . -— 7 7 ‘ 7 r _ 4 7 .7- -- -—. .- .- 77.:_.__:.._——_._ —..—-_-._..—-_. ’ 7. 7 7 . 7, , . _. _ _v- .. - _7 . _ . __ 7 7 __. 7 . ... — -7 _ 7 7 7_-. _.____7 7. --‘_ -7- .‘__. . . 7 7 x.. _ 4. 7 ‘-.V-—._7-‘ _ ;_ .. 7‘ -v.- . 7 7 —-, 7 _w—, _“fifi‘ - .1: — «A4 -- —- ‘ -v-— - - . ‘- - v w - 4- » hrs , V , a: <- 717< —- -- —<~ v-v Q._.7._ “w— _- 777- , -ww. .— ‘7... n 7 -;.-. 7.” w... i‘.m.. > — _v r ———> .7... 7 r — ._ . 7 7 . 7-47‘7 ‘ »--.-7 — — . - ——7 m- 7—<.. 7-- -—_;7...7 .7 q.» awr> w--77 .77 7.- - -7- __=..7.c_-_. . _..:..—_..- Van—1 ~~ ~— :.:_-____.:—_ W., V V. — -... — v—~ _‘,M fifl” , *~~—-.-- ~—. «an-.. _ 7 ~ ‘ w: 7., 7A7 . .w-«-«7 -z- ——x, 9"; Ava—n ~— 7ufl f w—~ --.- . W wf’vwvnll 7‘. « 7-‘1-d—"r‘ -1u—u—~-o~:-r .:—":} _w—7~-; 7- . »_. .. . , ¥ 7 . m. -.-—— .7.7._.-.77 u—-__ ..._7 ,., -7 7,. - r H v , R ‘ r R ‘ __ “—7— F ‘ ‘4 ‘7 ___! .7 mI—mfi+m_f.*fi7mu_7n7.— r I '77, r 7 7 ”A 77__— V; ‘fd ‘7 —*7 —_ -u —H'—‘-‘ __ -— i if _ 7 ___._-— _JU—ua-h ~ fl 7 if" _ i 7 ifii 7 7 7“ _ »—-‘-— m- — >7_ ’7. _ 7 q- _ d U1 0\ 2089112 108 2090212 086 2091212 094 2092112 105 2093112 092 2094212 092 2095212 117 2096112 083 2097112 094 2098212 122 2099112 100 2100112 091 2101212 089 2102212 109 2103112 082 2104112 099 2105212 082 2106222 108 2107122 096 2108122 087 2109122 087 2110122 117 2111122 082 2114222 102 2115222 096 2116122 093 2117122 110 2118222 103 2119122 106 2120222 105 2121122 108 2123222 122 2124222 101 2125222 077 2126222 115 2127122 086 37 CAD05 “1 DAGE§ 1108091112106 1009071008093 1009081110100 0806101009085 1008080911093 1009051009091 1012161013116 0811081208094 1106061110087 1008090910092 0709080910089 1011071113106 0907100907088 1211101412116 0909101008094 0809081211096 1610101209116 1311121511118 0708090510077 0607090709081 1008091110096 1011131210114 0808090809083 0909061110092 0807080811085 1009080909004 0908091208094 1110091112104 1009091110100 0909121610114 0808101112102 0812121013108 0908061113096 0806040609071 1110121614118 0908060010083 :3VbcalEhmahng 09 17 12 17 13 26 15 3833 08462 09068 10580 07050 09368 0 8564 09672 08967 10381 08966 08364 08965 09973 10682 09876 07560 09674 08675 08968 09170 10780 09274 98766 09575 09470 07861 08766 09068 08768 09169 08160 09974 07254 08362 10782 Con? 1' gurafion 03 O5 O3 01 O4 03 O3 03 01 03 04 03 02 U N HFVR)N H1Jh)N'-(JR}U U N191001L1H urvn1m NFUR)N U ern)m u *‘N N H-‘RJH H N"hJN N">*RJ*'~ fl HIVRJN NFDHJR)H NTDh)~ m-—Am H G, u Nu—o “Cmunpt Sc H'- Radars 26 $1 44 59 58 48 58 59 65 26 4O 33 51 47 73 1 ‘3 1. '2423”6 6696972 4446546 4143230 5458554 3252228 3343332 9978984 8448558 4353336 7466556 3353436 5266752 3364236 8997780 3252228 6485760 1131114 4436646 7548864 3223326 1342428 4345542 1241118 5457756 3453336 4252230 3453234 9989988 2253228 3345540 7446552 8898984 6655860 2223222 9979884 3244332 A B 350922 311219 251627 361826 231116 301119 310829 321121 311328 371020 371430 311124 291124 311321 361225 371728 391126 301218 351227 370919 350924 350827 401030 400430 330924 381621 301228 341413 311124 361418 331025 371121 291021 331427 290718 370916 351928 "111111171111111111'“