THE EFFECT OF A PARENT ~ TRAINING PROGRAM ON: THE INTELLECTUAL AND INTERPERSONAL BEHAVIOR OF PRE - SCHOOL CHILDREN Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY GARRET EARL PAYNE 1975 III IIIIII III IIII III IIIIII III II III III III I II III 12 Linn? This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE EFFECT OF A PARENT-TRAINING PROGRAM ON THE INTELLECTUAL AND INTERPERSONAL BEHAVIOR OF PRE-SCHOOL CHILDREN presented by Garret Earl Payne has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. Psychology degree in AQC Wyn/14943:” Major professor II Wye/77 f 0-7 639 ABSTRACT THE EFFECT OF A PARENT-TRAINING PROGRAM ON THE INTELLECTUAL AND INTERPERSONAL BEHAVIOR OF PRE-SCHOOL CHILDREN BY Garret Earl Payne Child deve10pment research indicates that early childhood is the time during which the child is most flexible and recep- tive to measures for promoting his intellectual and social growth. A major responsibility for taking these measures must be with parents. In today's complex society many concerned parents find it difficult to know how to apply themselves in meeting this responsibility. Concerned professionals have recently attempted to aid a larger number of parents in their efforts to maximize their children's intellectual and social growth. One of the techniques for doing so has been the training of parents to implement specific parent-child inter- action programs in the home. This method has been infrequently employed and little is known about its outcomes from adequate experimentation. The present study was designed to evaluate a program for training parents for home use of Parent-Child Interaction Exercises (PIE) a specific parent-child inter- action program designed by the study for promoting the cog- nitive and interpersonal growth of children. Garret Earl Payne The results of the present study show that parent partici- pation in the study's workshop training program and subse- quent parent-child interaction has no measurable effect on the cognitive and social growth of their child. This study also indicated that cognitive and social growth are not rela- ted but that cognitive growth seems to be related to demo- graphic factors. Time was shown to have an effect on the social behavior of the participants. Although the study's workshop training program did not bring about any measurable changes in the cognitive and social growth of the partici- pants when contrasted with a control group it did promote positive parent-child interaction and relationships. Findings from the present study indicate the need for future research on parent training. Recommendations for the areas of parent training that future research should focus on are discussed in the present study. THE EFFECT OF A PARENT-TRAINING PROGRAM ON THE INTELLECTUAL AND INTERPERSONAL BEHAVIOR OF PRE-SCHOOL CHILDREN BY Garret Earl Payne A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1975 TO Debbie, Terry and Kenya ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The completion of this research represents a major achievement in my life. At this time I wish to thank all who played crucial roles in guiding me to and through this accomplishment. I direct my first words of gratitude to my loving and lovable parents, Mr. Earl M. Payne and Mrs. Iota Payne. During this endeavor I have been blessed with the selfless support and wise guidance that these magnificent persons have provided me throughout my life. I find that words can not adequately express the feel- ings of appreciation that I have for the immeasurable help and inspiration given by my lovely wife Debbie. With her advice, concern, dedicated involvement and most of all love this great lady has moved me to meet and overcome the many challenges generated by this effort. The continuous expres- sion of love and understanding shown by our children has also been a major motivating force. I would like to say thanks to my son Terrence and daughter Kenya for helping their daddy accomplish this goal. With deepest sincerity I give loving thanks to my bro- ther Frederick, my sister Nancy, her husband, Mr. Earnest Pouncy and their children. I'd also like to thank Mrs. Mae Ava Carse and Mr. Claude Phillips my marvelous parents iii through marriage. I am indeed fortunate to have had all these strong, capable, and dedicated individuals at my side to en- courage and assist me in this venture. Although too many to mention, I give special thanks to all my relatives who in their own special way have contributed to this accomplishment. Faithful friends deserve a special commendation. First a special word of thanks goes to Drs. W. Monty Whitney and Hugh Jones whose loyal support was given from the beginning to the end of this effort. Other friends have contributed greatly by timely advice and an open ear. To them I say thanks. Without the cooperation and support of the directors, staff, parents and children of those day care centers invol- ved in this study it could not have been realized. A special note of appreciation goes to these individuals. In closing, I would like to say thank you to Dr. George W. Fairweather my committee chairman and my other committee members Drs. Robert Calsyn, Charlestohnson, and Robert Boger for providing me with their expertise and professional advice. It has indeed been a memorable experience working with and sharing thoughts with these scholars. I also appreciate the assistance I have received from other faculty and staff, especially Dean Robert L. Green and Dr. Maxie Jackson in the College of Urban Development. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES Chapter I INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Parent-Child Interaction and Its Influence on Cognitive DevelOpment in Children. . . Parent—Child Interaction and Its Influence on Social and Personality Development in Children Child Service Programs Related to Parent-Child Interaction . . . . . . The Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I I METHOD 0 C O O I O I O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sampling Procedure . . . . . . . . . . Development of Experimental Conditions . Action Workshop . . . . . . . . Measurement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Instruments. . . . . . . . . . . . . III RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Attrition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparative Results. . . . . . . . . . Demographic Data . . . . . . . . . . Outcome Comparisons. . . . . . . . . . Educational Achievement . . . . Behavior Rating . . . . . . . . Evaluation of Program Use. . . . . . Parent Use of Written Information Program Participant Awareness of the Written Information Program . . . . . . . V vii 13 16 17 18 18 20 21 22 25 28 35 35 35 37 45 45 48 62 62 7S Chapter Associative Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV DISCUSSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix Summary and Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PARENT CHILD INTERACTION ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . GAMES REPRESENTING PROGRAM ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . PARENT INTERVIEW FORM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PROGRAM USE RECORD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PROGRAM AWARENESS RECORD. . . . . . . . . . . CHILDRENS INTERACTION PROFILE . . . . . . . . . . PROGRAM SERVICE CONTRACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean Squares for Caldwell Analysis of Co-Variance . . Overall Mean Scores for Treatment Groups and Centers on the Caldwell Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean Squares for Behavioral Observations Analysis of Variance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean Squares for Program Use Analysis of Variance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean Squares for Child Awareness Analysis of Variance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi Page 81 88 103 110 111 113 115 116 117 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 Table 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. LIST OF TABLES Experimental Design of Study............... ..... Participant Variables..... .................... .. Social Situation Variables ..... ...... ......... Percentage of Agreement Between Raters CIP Scoring Categories........ .................... .... ......... . ...... Attrition of Subjects............. ........ . ..... Comparison of Treatment Groups on Demographic CharaCteristiCSOOOO... ..... OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ..... O ........ 0 Comparison of Day Care Centers on Demographic Characteristics................................. F-Ratios Comparing Treatments and Centers on Caldwell Pre—Test Scores..... ........... .... F—Ratios Comparing Treatments and Centers on Caldwell Post-Test Scores................ ........ F-Ratios Comparing Treatments and Centers on Behavioral Observations ............... . ................... F-Ratios Comparing Treatments and Centers on ProgramuseIOOOOOOOOOOOO ..... OOOOOOOOOIOOOIO Overall Mean Scores for Treatment Groups and Centers on Minutes of Get-togethers......... Overall Mean Scores for Treatment Groups and Centers on Child Attitude Change........ ....... .. ......... Overall MEan Scores for Treatment Groups and Centers on Number of Game Participants ......... . ...... ....° Overall Mean Scores for Treatment Groups and Centers on Positive Comments.... ....... ..... vii 28 33 36 38 41 46 48 51 64 71 71 72 72 Table 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. Overall Mean Scores for Centers on Parent Attitude Change........................... Overall Mean Scores for Treatment Groups on Number of Program Games Repeated................ F-Ratios Comparing Treatments and Centers on Child Awareness of Written Program........ ...... Overall Mean Scores for Treatment Groups and Centers on Child Knowledge of Program Content... Overall MEan Scores for Treatment Groups and Centers on Parent Game Involvement......... ..... The Ten Clusters, Their Variable Construction ..... on... and Variable Factor Coefficients ................ . ..... .... Correlations Between Each of the Ten Clusters ........... .. Mean Squares for Caldwell Analysis of Co-variance... ...... Overall Mean Scores for Treatment Groups and Centers on the Caldwell Test.... .............. . ........ .. Mean Squares for Behavioral Observations Analysis of Variance.......... ........ .. ..... ..... ....... Mean Squares for Program Use Analysis of Variance ...... . ............. ........ Mean Squares for Child Awareness Analysis of Variance ............................ viii 74 78 8O 80 83 87 120 124 Figure 1. 10. 11. 12. LIST OF FIGURES Average number of room areas visited during an observation ..................................... Average motion score given during an observation.......... Average contact score given during an observation......... Average passive/aggressive score given during an observation.... ...... . .................... ............. Average communication score given during an observation... Average posture score given during an observation......... Average motion score given treatment groups during an ObservationOIIOOOOOOOOO.....OOOOOOO......OOOOOOOOOOOOO. Parent reports on their childs enjoyment of activities following receipt of the study's activity program ...... ... Parent reports on their childs change in attitude following receipt of the study's activity program.. ....... Parent reports on their change in attitude following the receipt of the study's activity program........ ....... Average number of positive comments made by parents following receipt of study's program.............. ..... ... Child reports seeing written program ........... . ..... ..... ix Page 53 54 55 56 58 59 61 66 67 68 69 79 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION In recent years an increasing amount of research has been done regarding the influence of the parent on the child's development during its early years. This research has given added support to the notion that an individual's cognitive make-up, social behavior and personality is to a great extent determined by early parent-child relationships. These studies fall into three general categories: Parent-child interaction and its influence on cognitive development in children; Parent-child interaction and its influence on social and per- sonality development in children; and child service programs related to Parent-child interaction. Parent-Child Interaction and Its Influence on Cognitive Development in Children. Until recently childhood intelligence and cognitive development was viewed in terms of their relationship to demographic variables such as family socio—economic status, mental abilities of parents, parent education, family income, race, etc. The value of such measures has come under con- siderable criticism. Questions regarding this matter received some of their impetus from studies indicating that the cognitive development of adopted children has no significant 1 correlation with the demographic characteristics of their adopting parents (Bishop, 1959; Burkes, 1928; Leahy, 1935). Similar studies have shown that in certain cases the intelli- gence scores of adOpted children are higher than those of their natural parents (Skodak & Skeels, 1949; Honzik, 1967). Although these studies reach no definite conclusions as to the reason for these differences, several authors suggest that the features of the adopting homes which produced this are "...maximum security, an environment rich in intellectual stimulation, a well balanced emotional relationship, intel- lectual agility on the part of the foster parents...." More recent studies also indicate that neither the socio— economic class of a child or the education of its parents is related to the child's cognitive and intellectual development (Dave, 1963; Wolf, 1964). Gruen, et. al. (1970) report that they could not find any main effects of social class on the learning performance of low and middle class children. These findings were reported as being similar to those of earlier studies (Gruen & Zigler, 1968; Odom, 1967). Beckwith (1971) in a study involving infants, states that no difference in the intellectual development could be attributed to socio- economic class. However, intellectual performance by the children was found to decrease where experiences were dimin- ished by a combination of restricted exploration in the home and few parental contacts. Palmer's (1970) investigation of differences in intellective performance among Black pre- school boys found the influence of socio-economic class to be negligible. The comparatively recent emergence of studies demonstrating that careful psychological assessments of parent stimulation of the child serves as a better predictor of the I.Q. scores than social class indexes such as parental income, education, and occupation, supports these findings (Walberg & Marjoribanks, 1973). This more recent position regarding children's cognitive deveIOpment is further supported by findings showing substantial variability of children's cogni- tive deveIOpment within racial and socio-economic groups (Davidson & Greenberg, 1967; Deutsch & Brown, 1964; Dreger & Miller, 1960). As a result of the questioning of a cause and effect relationship between demographic variables and cognitive development, research in this area of cognitive development has resulted in more emphasis being placed on the influence that parental practices have on children's cognitive and intellectual development. Many professionals have come to believe that parent-child interactions are important in determining cognitive development and personality (Bloom, 1964). Bayley and Schaefer (1969) report that by four years of age boys having equalitarian, positively evaluating mothers, tend to make higher intelligence scores than boys with anxious, irritable, threatening, punitive, and ignoring mothers. Girls with loving and accepting mothers were said to make higher scores than girls with hostile and rejecting mothers. In a study involving 128, eight year old English children, Kent and Davis (1957) found that children from homes where parents show little concern for them, score lower on the Stanford-Binet and W.I.S.C. tests than do children from homes where parents show concern. In this study unconcerned parents were regarded as those who had few ambitions for their child- ren, gave them little guidance or encouragement, and were not concerned about their children's success or failure. Reports by Wolf (1964) and Dave (1963) indicate that children coming from homes where parents' interest in their intellectual development is expressed through pressures to succeed and assist them in doing so, demonstrate superior intellectual ability. This is especially evident where the development of verbal skills is concerned. With regard to the development of differential cognitive abilities, certain child rearing practices might tend to favor the development of one type of cognitive ability over another. Several studies suggest that the essential conditions for the development of verbal skills is probably the close relationship with an adult and high degree of mother-child interaction (Witken, 1959; Levy, 1943; Levinson, 1958; Kent, 1957; Bing 1963). Bing (1963) states that number ability, spatial ability, and the deve10pment of cognitive skills requiring concentration and the ability to carry the task through are promoted through interaction with the physical environment. Studies having to do with the cognitive skill of flexible thinking or the ability to consider and assess alternative ways to reach a goal, indicate that this skill is limited by certain child rearing practices (Barclay & Cusumano, 1967; Dawson, 1963; Seder, 1957; Witkin, Dyk, Faterson, Goodenough, & Karp, 1962). The above authors report findings which suggest that flexible thinking is limited by such parental practices as (1) over-protectiveness, (2) over-controlling behavior by mothers, (3) severe punishment, (4) weak and/or ambivalent paternal behavior, (5) maternal domination and/or paternal absence, (6) suppression of controversy and emotional expression in the home. In his investigation of child rearing antecedents to flexible thinking, Busse (1969) did find a negative linear relationship between commanding maternal be- havior and flexible thinking in children, and a negative linear relationship between father attitudes expressing rigid and absolute standards, and flexible thinking. Busse also states that his findings indicate that the relationship be- tween parental control and flexible thinking might be curvi- linear. This suggests that moderate parental control would be most effective where this variable is concerned. Creativity which is an important facet of cognitive development has been shown to be related to curiosity (Maw & Maw, 1970). Curiosity in turn has been shown to be influ- enced by the parent-child relationship. Results from the Saxe and Stollack (1971) study suggest that mothers of curious, high socially active boys, displayed more positive feelings, fewer restrictions, and less non-attention than mothers of boys who did not exhibit these characteristics. The study also indicates, as have other studies, that parental concern and flexibility does have a positive influence on cognitive development. One of the most important cognitive skills is reading. Milner (1951) investigated patterns of parent-child inter- actions as they related to reading readiness in children. She, too, found factors other than social class variables which were associated with verbal skills. Milner indicated that cognitive development in children as it relates to the development of verbal skills was promoted by such things as: (1) being read to by important adults, (2) availability of books, (3) positive emotional interactions with parents, (4) being read to by parents in a manner they could enjoy, (5) going places with parents and being able to experience it in a context of appreciation, (6) being made aware of being able to verbally focus on experiences involving feelings of happiness. In the above study, Milner also states that high scorers seem to be subjected to controlling, preventing, disciplinary techniques while low scorers seemed to be sub- jected to liberal direct physical punishment from both parents. Mothers of high scorers also were reported as having more adult-like verbal interaction with their children and more verbal interaction during mealtime. These parents also seemed to be more overtly affectionate and to give more clear assurances of their love for their child. In viewing the cognitive development of children, academic and scholastic performance should not be ignored as an indicator of cognitive development and performance. Research in this area has also found academic achievement to be related to patterns of child rearing and parent-child interaction. In the area of academic achievement Grunebaum, et al. (1962) found that certain parent attitudes led to difficulties in the acquisition of academic skills in their children. Solomon, et al. (1971) also found that child rearing be- havior, parent-child interaction along with the personality of the child were related to differences in children's academic strivings and achievement related motives and values. Findings from the above study suggested that children will perform better on an academic task if they have experienced positive behavior from parents helping them on a similar achievement oriented task(s). DiBartelo et a1. (1969), finds that the performance of pre—school children on a complex task is more efficient under nurturant conditions than under conditions where nurturance is deprived. In brief, it seems that parent-child interaction serves as the primary force in promoting or limiting cognitive development. Evidence indicates that cognitive development is promoted by parents exhibiting the following behavior in their parent—child interactions: (1) Nurturance, (2) Concern, (3) Verbal interaction, (4) Moderate firmness and assistance, (5) Relative freedom. It also seems that cognitive deveIOp- ment is promoted when a high degree of interaction takes place between parent and child, and where the parent exhibits the above behavior. In addition to promoting cognitive develop- ment the above type of parent-child interaction also seems to promote better academic performance in children. In looking at the influence of parent-child interaction in cognitive development it is important to emphasize here that racial, class, and socio-economic differences have not been found to be related to the deveIOpment of these skills. Parent-Child Interaction and Its Influence on Social and Personality Development in Children Parent-child interaction has long been considered as the primary determiner of childrens' personality and social be- havior, and although research in this area has preceded most of that in the area of cognitive development, most of it is recent when compared to the first theoretical notions related to this topic. Now an increasing focus is being placed on the relationship between certain parent life styles and attitudes and the development of those personality and social traits exhibited in or affecting a child's social behavior. Findings from research involving both "normal" and "disturbed" children and their parents have given increased empirical support to the premise that the parents' life styles reflected in parent-child interaction plays a major role in the develop- ment of their children. Lidz (1971) reports that investigators conducting a study of families with a schizophrenic child, conclude that the disease results from an extreme deficiency in the nurtur- ing supplied by parents, plus a deficiency in the trans- mission from parents to child of the basic techniques, particu- larly those dealing with language, that he needs for adapting himself to the world when he leaves the family. Although recognizing that some aspects of schizophrenia may be organic in nature, others support the notion that many schizophrenic behaviors may be non-organic in nature and related to parental behavior and parent-child interaction (Goldfarb, 1971). In a review of studies having to do with disturbed children, Frank (1965) concludes that schizophrenic children typically seem to have "...mothers who are dominant, fathers who are passive...The mother is over-protective, over-possessive, and over-controlling, yet basically albeit unconsciously, rejecting." In this same review he also concludes that the above parental characteristics can also be found in parents of "normal" and "neurotic" children although not in the same frequency. He also says, "Moreover in many respects, it would be hard, on blind analysis, to distinguish the family which produced an emotionally disturbed child from that which produced the so-called normal well—adjusted child" (pp. 197-8). 10 On Frank's (1965) report and the assumption that emotional disturbance can be attributed to certain parenting patterns, one would suspect that varying degrees of emotional distur— bance exists among the "normal" or "adjusted" child population. Aston et a1. (1972) reports findings supporting this reason- ing. In their study some children in a population of "normal" children were found to exhibit identifiable degrees of dis- turbance in their social behavior. When rated in terms of their parent-child interaction, mothers of these children were seen as being over-dominant, and over-attentive when compared to parents of children who were not identified as showing signs of disturbance in their social behavior. Fathers of the disturbed children were described as being comparatively withdrawn. Peterson et a1. (1959) stated that personality problems in a group of clinic children seemed to be related to autocratic attitudes and lack of paternal con— cern, while conduct problems were associated with evident permissiveness and disciplinary ineffectiveness on the part of fathers. When compared to the parents of normal children, clinic parents were judged to be less sociable and less democratic. Sears, et a1. (1957) carried out what is recognized as one of the important forerunners in the study of childrearing and parent-child interaction. From their findings, these authors concluded that the maternal qualities that did the most to influence the child's personality were (1) Maternal 11 warmth: the authors hypothesized from their findings that the children of warm mothers matured earlier in their social behavior than children of cold mothers. (2) Punishment: punishment was not found to be effective when used by mothers. (3) Permissiveness: permissiveness for aggression was found to promote continued aggressive behavior, while permissive- ness for dependency did not have the same effect. Baumrind (1967) recently conducted an important investi- gation to study child care practices that antecede behavior patterns in pre-school children. Baumrind states, "with varying degrees of consciousness and conscientiousness, parents create their children psychologically as well as physically." From a pre-school population of 110 children, three groups of children were identified according to the behavior patterns they exhibited. Parents of children who were self-controlled, affiliative, self-reliant, explorative, self-assertive and content were found to be consistent, loving, conscientious, and secure in handling their children. These parents were also reported as being more supportive and clear in their communication with their children than parents of the other children. Parents of children who were dis— content, apprehensive, less affiliative toward peers, and distrustful were found to be comparatively less nuturant and involved with their children. Little supportive or affec- tionate interaction was carried on by these parents. Parents of children who had little self-control, little self-reliance, 12 and were shy to new experiences were much less controlling, ambivalent, lax, and only moderately loving. Bishop (1951) suggests that much of the behavior ex— hibited by parents is reflected in the behavior of children. In a study involving children between the ages of three years four months and five years seven months, she reported children of very directing interfering, and critical mothers to be non-cooperative and inhibited. A positive correlation was also found between mothers non-acceptance and the child's tendency toward refusal. Those behaviors exhibited by the children in this study were also found to be transferred to their interactions with other adults, as children became more familiar with them. Brody (1969) reported that pre-school children of high disciplinarian mothers used more directing behavior in their parent-child interactions than children of low disciplinarian mothers. Children of high rejecting mothers were not as attentive in looking at their mothers, carried out more independent play, had a lower rate of compliance with mother's request. These same children also sought more attention, approval, and praise from their mothers. Nakamura's (1959) findings show that children of parents exercising positive types of discipline have a more favorable attitude toward their parents than children of parents who discipline their children in a negative way. This is important in that children's perception of parents coming from parent-child interactions has been stated to be 13 as important an influence on the child's development as the interaction itself (Serot & Teevan, 1961). As with cognitive develOpment, parent-child interaction seems to be the primary force in determining the personality and social behavior of children. Research indicates that many parental qualities which seem to promote positive personality and social development are those found to promote good cognitive development. Those qualities which seem to stand out are: (l) Nurturance, (2) Moderate firmness, (3) Expression of love, (4) Consistency, and (5) Conscientious- ness. With regard to negative personality development (1) over-dominance, (2) lack of concern, and (3) over-attentive- ness appear to be major parental forces. Evidence also indicates that the manner in which children relate to parents in their interactions is carried overtx>their inter- action with others. Again, with regard to the influence of racial, class, and socio-economic differences the general conclusion from these findings suggest it to be insignifi- cant. Child Service Programs Related to Parent-Child Interaction Because of the growing awareness of the impact of the parent-child relationship on the cognitive and personality development of the child as reviewed in the last two sections, many pre- and early school programs have taken action to educate and consult parents in ways to improve their parent- child interaction. Reports from the Demonstration and 14 Research Center for Early Education (DARCEE) at George Peabody College for Teachers, in Nashville suggest that training mothers in ways to improve their children's learning per— formance is effective (Gray, 1967, 1968, 1970). The reports state that not only did effective mother—training improve achievement scores of the children involved but also their younger siblings. Similar results were reported from the Verbal Interaction Project, Mother-Child Home Program at Freeport, New York where home visits were made to stimulate mothers to use more verbal interaction in their play with children (Levenstein, 1968, 1969, 1972a, 1972b). In assessing the longitudinal effects of a cognitively oriented program which included weekly home visits to promote parent involvement, the Perry pre-school Project at Ypsilanti, Michigan (1969) reported that significant gains were made by experimental children on achievement and performance tests when contrasted with control children whose parents did not receive home visits. Parent training workshops have been shown to promote cognitive development in children, as demonstrated by Boger et al. (1969). This study reports results supporting the notion that parents participating in programs stressing in- creased parent-child interaction helps to improve their childrens' cognitive development. They also report results suggesting that children of parents participating in specific training programs perform better than children whose parents 15 participate in a general workshop or have no training at all. As indicated above many programs have found that training parents in ways to interact with their children can success— fully promote learning in children. Educating and consulting parents and other adults in ways to interact with children has also become a part of some programs offering psychological services (Caplan, 1970; Guerney, 1964; Stollack, 1973; Yahraes, 1971; Wittenberg, 1971). Guerney (1964) proposes filial therapy which would involve the training of parents of young children to conduct play sessions with their own children in a very specific way. Support for this technique has been found in the prior action of others who have either promoted or initiated the notion of parents conducting "play therapy" in the home with fairly normal children (Moustakas, 1959; Fuchs, 1957). Certain learning programs and various child psych- service programs have also adopted the homes of parents as the primary service arena (Lane, 1971; Jason, Clarfield, & Cowan, 1973). These authors report improvement both behavior- ally and intellectually in those children involved in such home activities. Results from programs where training of parents to pro- mote cognitive development has been initiated, show that parents can effectively be trained and indeed often are interested in such training. Reports from programs where training of parents to promote emotional development suggest that parents can effectively be trained in this area also. 16 Again it is important to recognize that racial, class, and socio-economic differences seem to be irrelevant. The Problem In exploring the influence of parent-child relationships on childhood development, researchers have reported signifi- cant findings which demonstrate and support the notion that these relationships are a major force in determining early childhood development. These findings have prompted a slow movement by child service programs to make the promotion of better parent-child relations a fundamental goal of their overall plan to promote cognitive, emotional, and social growth in the children of the communities served. One of the recent techniques for this purpose has used specific parent-child interaction programs that can be easily under- stood and implemented by parents in their home. This tech- nique has the potential for releasing child service programs from the limitations of paid staff, facility space, time, and the use of other such resources. Thus,by employing this technique, programs can be given more latitude and more parents and children can have the advantage of their service. However, this method has been infrequently employed and little is known about it from adequate experimentation. It is therefore important that experimentally sound empirical data be collected regarding the effectiveness of prepared parent- child interaction programs in promoting the cognitive and social behavioral skills of children. 17 This study is therefore designed to evaluate a program which can easily be employed by parents to train large numbers of children in cognitive and interpersonal growth by stimu- lating and educating parents to make better use of parent- child interaction activities. This study will train parents to use written materials to improve parent-child relation- ships. The program will be specifically structured to im- prove the child's cognitive and interpersonal growth. Hypothesis A workshOp program to train parents in the use of written information to promote cognitive and interpersonal growth will be contrasted with written information and a control situation. The specific hypothesis for comparing the experimental conditions is as follows: Cognitive skills, interpersonal behavior and parent- child involvement will be greatest when parents are trained in a workshop setting, contrasted with parents given written instructions or when no instructions are given. CHAPTER II METHOD Design IThree experimental conditions were created to test the study's hypothesis. (1) Workshop training in the use of information materi- als: Parents of children were scheduled to attend six action workshops designed to educate them in the effective implemen- tation of the program's book of parent-child interaction activities (Appendix A). This book consisted of: (a) A series of parent-child interaction activities to be used at specified intervals by parents as a means to promote their child's intellec- tual and emotional development. (b) Statements and guidelines for parents to use when implementing the parent-child activities. The workshops were designed to take place over a six week period, after which parents received the program's book. (2) Written information: At the same time as parents received the book in the workshop condition, parents in the information control condition also received the program's book of parent-child interaction activities. I (3) Control: During the study these parents received neither the study's action workshop or book of parent-child interaction activities. 18 19 The above three experimental conditions were estab- lished at three day care centers in Lansing, Michigan. One of the day care centers was public while the second and third were privately owned by the same source. The public center serviced primarily children of single parents who were unem— ployed, or unskilled employees, and/or attending classes at the local community college. In addition to the above popu— lation the private centers serviced children of parents who worked at occupations classified as professional, semi- professional, clerical and semi-skilled. Several parents of children attending the private centers had completed their education at the college level or in other training beyond secondary school. Thus there were occupational differences as well as income differences between the public center and the two private centers. In addition, the public center also serviced more Black and Chicano children. Henceforth the above day care centers will be referred to as public center, private center 1, and private center 2 respectively. The conditions and experimental design for this study are shown below in Table 1. One experimental design consists of a stratified three-by-three analysis of covariance with pre- and post-test measures to determine improvement in cognitive skills. Another experimental design also consisted of repeated measures to determine changes over time in the social behavior of participants, the use of the program's book by parents, and the participant's awareness of the program's use by parents. 20 Table 1 Experimental Design of Study Workshop Written Conditions Training Information Control Total N N N N Public Center 9 11 10 30 Private Center I 7 8 6 21 Private CenterILI 8 7 6 21 Total N 24 26 22 72 Sampling Procedure Seventy-two, three to four year-nine month old children attending three day care programs in Lansing, Michigan acted as participants in the present study. All participants were children of parents who requested the Opportunity to partici- pate in the study's workshop training program. In the present study day care centers in the Lansing and East Lansing areas were approached to serve as sponsors of the study's program. Sponsorship of the program entailed working with the experimenter in a c00perative effort to support the study's experiemental design, to inform parents of the study's workshop training program and to involve them as potential program participants. Sponsorship of the pro- gram also entailed agreeing to provide necessary facilities to carry out the study's workshop training program, given that a sufficient number of parents from a sponsoring center requested an opportunity to participate. For purposes of maintaining an adequate sample this number was set at twelve. 21 A copy of these agreements can be found in the Appendix. Of some 20 day care centers approached, nine centers in the Lansing, East Lansing area agreed to sponsor the study's program. Of those nine centers three in the Lansing area had 20 or more parents who requested an Opportunity to partici- pate in the study's workshop training program. The parents of children attending these three centers were interviewed to secure the necessary data to make their children parti- cipate in the study and to make them eligible for partici- pation in the study's workshop training program. The parti— cipants were matched on the basis of mother's age and marital status. The participants once matched were randomly assigned to participate in one of three experimental conditions established at each sponsoring center. Parents of these children were randomly assigned to participate in the study's parent training program, or to receive the study's written information without workshop training or to receive neither the study's workshop training, or written information. Deve10pment of Experimental Conditions Prior to the experimental phase of the present study certain developmental activities were necessary. Among these were the development of action workshops for-the workshop training condition of the experiment, development of a book of parent-child interaction activities for the workshop training and written information conditions of the experiment, development of instruments to measure cognitive skills, 22 social behavior, program use by parents and participant awareness of program. Action Workshop Six action workshops were designed to train parents in the effective use of the study's book of parent-child inter- action activities. WorkshOps were designed to take place on a weekly basis for six consecutive weeks with each workshop lasting two hours. Each workshop was designed to include the parents of at least four children but no more than the parents of ten children. In addition to parents, the program agent (experimenter) and his assistant were scheduled to be present at each workshop for purposes of directing, coordinating and recording workshop activities and discussions. Action Workshop I: Action workshop I was devoted to (a) self introduction of participants, and (b) description of the program and its emphasis on the importance, value, and use of parent-child interaction activities by the experi- menter. A summary stating the program's purpose, goals, techniques, materials, and the parent's and program agent's role in the program was presented in conjunction with a verbal description of the program. Following participant introduction and program descrip- tion, parents were given a handout (Appendix B) describing the use a program parent-child interaction activity and instructions for doing it. This activity was representative 23 of one of the program's game activities (Appendix B). Following this each workshop parent described how she and her child would interact in this particular program activity. When all the parents had made their descriptions, the program agent asked the group to comment on the approaches they observed that would or would not be most effective with their child. After the group discussion a short break was held. After the break the program agent discussed three elements affecting the success of a parent-child interaction situation. The elements presented during Workshop I were (a) Clear explanation to the child of the interaction activity and related matters (e.g., Introduction, cancelled or changed activity). (b) Maintaining the interaction activity (e.g., handling interruptions). (c) Parent attitude (e.g., atten- tion, conversation, praise). Once this presentation was made the program agent and his assistant role played the pro- gram activity discussed above in the workshop, with the agent role playing the parent and the assistant playing the child. This performance was pre-arranged to intentionally promote a positive expression of the elements discussed above. Once the program agent and his assistant role played an interaction situation, parents were encouraged to make com- ments and to role play their own "situation." A group dis- cussion of the situation was held following the parent's role playing of the situation. 24 Action Workshop II: Action workshop II was conducted in the same manner as Workshop I with the following exceptions: (l) The parent-child interaction activity given by the handout and focused on during the workshop was one repre- senting one of the program's reading activities (Appendix B). (2) The three elements affecting the success of a parent-child interaction situation that were presented and discussed during role playing by the program agent and his assistant were: (a) Direction of an interaction activity (e.g., Don't give alternatives when not intended, adherence to schedule, sit down or kneel, give minimum help, don't make repeated suggestions). (b) Parent attitude (e.g., Don't use negatives, don't label or make comparisons, respect the child). (c) Parent involvement (e.g., Be flexible, ask for feedback from child). Action WorkshOp III: Action workshop III was conducted in the same manner as the previous workshops, with the following exceptions: (l) The parent-child interaction activity given in the workshop was one representing one of the program's discussion activities (Appendix B). (2) All elements affecting the success of a parent-child interaction situation and presented in workshops I and II were presented. Action Workshop IV, V and VI: Action workshops IV, V and VI were conducted in the same manner as workshops I, II and III respectively with the following exceptions. 25 (1) The parent-child interaction activity given for work- shop IV represented a different game than that given on the handout for workshOp I (Appendix B). (2) The program agents and assistant did not engage in role playing. Parent-Child Interaction Activities: A written pamphlet discussing the program consisting of parent-child interaction activities was developed for the use of parents in the "Work- shop training" and "Written information groups." The program was entitled Parent-Child Interaction Exercises (PIE) (Appen- dix A). This program consisted of structured activities, with each activity being classified as either a game, reading or conversation activity. Measurement Measurement Procedure: Employing the research model of Fairweather (1967) the study's "Control," "Written Infor- mation" control and "Workshop Training" experimental groups were taken as three social subsystems: Subsystem 1. Children living at home and attending day care program. Subsystem 2. Children living at home and attending day care program, with parents receiving study material. Subsystem 3. Children living at home and attending day care program, with parents receiving study material and parents training in how to use them. 26 In keeping with Fairweather's model, three attributes of these subsystems were considered (a) the participant characteris- tics (Table 2), (b) the social situation in which the sub- systems operated (Table 3) and (c) the outcome criteria on which the subsystem is evaluated. Papticipant characteristics having to do with demo- graphic information was obtained from parent interview forms, which parents were asked to complete prior to the first week of the study (Appendix C). Personality participant character- istics of children were obtained by means of personality assessment, given prior to the first week of the study, during the study and following the 18th week of the study. The personality assessment of the children included the individual measurement of education achievement, and the daily observation of behavior in a social situation which afforded children the opportunity to interact and become involved on individual or group basis with activities and/or objects available in their particular classroom. For pur- poses of the study this situation was termed "free play." The social situation of the subsystem was obtained by means of the parent interview forms. After parents in the work- shop experimental and information control conditions received the program's book they filled out and returned once every three weeks, a progress form consisting of information re- garding their use of the book (Appendix D). Three weeks after parents in the workshop experimental and information 27 Table 2 Participant Variables Demographic Personality Characteristics Parents Child Age Behavior descrip— Sex tion in school Place of birth Behavior ratings Place reared in school Racial/Ethnic background Marital status Work status Education Intelligence Parental background Membership in organizations Child Activities outside the home Test scores Family Source of income Income Number of children Age of children Sex of children Birthplace of children Rearing place of children Residence type Time at present residence Previous place of residence Number living at residence Activities Child Age Sex Place of birth Place reared School attended Past school attendance 28 control conditions received the program's book and following the 12th week after they received the book their children were interviewed to obtain information regarding their aware- ness of parental use of the program (Appendix B). Table 3 Social Situation Variables Internal Processes External Processes Family Family Size Time of family in Composition neighborhood Geographical location of neighborhood Instruments The Pre-School Inventory Revised Edition 1970: The Caldwell Revised Inventory (1970) consists of 64 items de- signed to provide a measure of educational achievement and to demonstrate changes associated with educational inter- vention. Items are designed for the examination of the young child in the three-to-six year old age range. The Original Pre-School Inventory consisted of 161 items thought to measure a child's development in the areas of (1) basic information and vocabulary, (2) number concepts and ordination, (3) concepts of size, shape, motiOn, and color (Concepts I), (4) concepts of time, object, class, and social functions (Concepts II), (5) visual-motor performance, (6) following instructions and (7) independence and self-help. 29 The initial standardization of the Original Pre-School Inventory was done on 389 children who participated in Head Start Programs during the summer of 1965. The inventory yielded a split-half reliability, corrected by the Spearman- Brown formula, of .97. The percentage of children passing each item in the Inventory was calculated for the following age groups--four, five, and six year olds and biserial cor- relations of each item with the total score were obtained. Four factors emerged from a factor analysis and were labeled (1) Concept Activation-Numerical and Sensory, (2) Independent Action, (3) Personal-Social Responsiveness, and (4) Associated Vocabulary. From items on the Original Inventory a shortened Standardization Edition was developed, consisting of 85 items. Based on data from the original standardization sample correlation between scores earned on the original version and the shortened version was .98 and the split half reliability corrected by the Spearman-Brown formula was .95. In the standardization sample two measures of the reliability of the Pre-School Inventory were computed for each age group: The Kuder-Richardson (20) coefficient and the split-half (odd-even) coefficient, corrected for length by means of the Spearman-Brown formula. The Revised Edition resulted from dropping 21 items from the Standardized version. These were items that failed to discriminate at the different age levels and were found to be confusing to children of different geographic locations, 30 or presented serious problems of interpretations to evalu« ators of childrens' responses. Childrens Interaction Profile (CIP): The Childrens Inter- action Profile (CIP) (Appendix F) was designed specifically for the present study. It was designed to allow its users to quickly and easily gather information regarding participants interacting with persons and objects in "free play" settings as provided by those day care centers sponsoring the study. This information was gathered by observing participating children in the "free play" setting and recording behavioral information relevant and pertinent to that setting. Free play'occurredirtthe participating childrens' regular class- room, during which participants could interact and make use of available play materials. These play materials consisted of day care center play items such as building blocks, dolls, miniature furniture and household items, adult clothes, books, crayons, drawing paper, trucks, cars, and various manipulative toys. Teachers were present during "free play" however their involvement was limited to situations such as fighting, in- juries and misuse of play items. The information recorded with the CIP during observations was divided into seven scales: Location of the child in the play area at the start and finish of an observation. His/her Posture (lying, sitting, kneeling, standing). His/her Motions (no motions, motion in a non- upright position, walking, running). His/her Active Contact with Objects and/or Persons (no contact, contact with an 31 object, contact with a person, contact with an object and per- son). His/her Social Behavior (sleep, unoccupied, solitary play, onlooker behavior, parallel play, associative play, co- operative play). His/her Passive-Aggressive Behavior (passive, immobile not passive or aggressive, mobile not passive or aggressive, stereotyped aggressive, non-stereotyped aggressive). His/her Communication Behavior (not talking with others, talking with others). Each scale two through seven was as- signed a number from low to high. During a ten second obser- vation period a child was assigned a number related to each of the above scales. For purposes of scoring location the "free play" areas were divided into four parts with each part being assigned a number from one to four. Based on numbers given to categories within a scale each child was given a score in terms of the highest numbered behavior within each scale observed during an observation period. CIP was used by walking a pre-arranged route and observing children as their names appeared on a pre-arranged sequence. Observations were made on a daily basis during the study with the pre-arranged sequence of names being rotated for each daily observation. Observations were made at three sponsoring day care centers, with each center being randomly assigned to one of three time periods selected to make observations at a center. The CIP was piloted for reliability. The piloting period covered approximately four weeks and involved the experimenter and a second observer independently rating 32 participants on a daily basis until an agreement level of 85-90% could be reached on three consecutive days of obser- vation. This reliability test is summarized below in Table 4. Parent Interview Forms: The Parent Interview Form con- sisted of a series of questions developed to obtain demo- graphic information regarding participants (Appendix C). Program Use Record: The Program Use Record consisted of a series of questions designed to assess parental use of the study's book and observations made by parents during their use of the book (Appendix D). Program Awareness Record: The Program Awareness Record consisted of a scale of seven items designed to assess the participating children's awareness of the program and their parent's use of the program (Appendix E). H.c.ucoov 33 OR.OO Os.mm O0.00 Om newsmmumm Ho w ommuo>¢ HOOHO Hmv Hmuoe OO HO O0.00 RO.OO newsmmumm mo w ommno>< .III II III III .wm OOH NO OOH OOH mH HH mpm>Hue OO «O OOH OOH OH H mum>Huo OOH Om Om Om mm oHHnsm m RO.HO mm OO.RO mm.OO ucmsmmuma O0 m ommuo>¢ II III III III mm OO «O OOH OOH OH HH mum>Hud mm mm mm mm ON H mum>Hud mm OOH Om OOH ON oHHnse m OO.HO mm.HO OOH OOH usegwmuma «o w mmmno>< III III III III mm as OO OOH OOH OH HH mum>Hud OOH OOH OOH OOH MH H mum>Hue Om Om OOH OOH Om oHHnsm H coflumooq coflumooq oo>uombo Houcou coauom cowuoz ousumom Hmch HmHuHcH .cpno mo .02 mumu moo mem moum mOHHomoumO mcHuoom mHO muoumm cowsuom ucofiooum< mo mmmucoouom v OHQMB 34 OO.HO OOIOO mm.OO ON.NO unmsmmuma Ho w.mmmum>< HMO Hmuoe NO mm.OO N0.00 NO.OO newsmwuma H0 II II N mmmuo>¢ NO NO OOH OOH HH mum>HHo mm mm mm mm H mum>HHd Om NO OO Om OHHnsa m mm.sm mm.NO mm.OO OO.HO newsmmuma Ho III =I.. II w mmmum>m OOH OOH mm mm HH mum>HHe mm OOH mm OOH H mum>HHd mm mm mm mm UHHndm m mm.OO mm.OO O0.00 NO.NO newsmwnmm H0 w mmmuw>< mm mm wm OO HH mum>Hud NR NO NO OOH H mum>HHd Om mm mm mm UHHnam H H0H>mnom o>Hmmoumm< H0H>m£om uooucou kucoo ooHHom coHumoHCDEEoo o>Hmmmm HmHoom Hmowmwnm OHOU moo Scam mmum HO.ucooO O mHnme CHAPTER III RESULTS Attrition During the course of the study 14 of the study's 72 participants were withdrawn from their respective day care centers. Although behavioral observation could not be con- tinued at the time of withdrawal all participants remained in the study for purposes of post-testing, receiving reports from parents on use of the study's written program and doing a follow-up interview with participants with regard to their awareness of the program. For participants that were with- drawn, post-testing and interviews were carried out at the participants home. Withdrawal of participants occurred pri— marily at two stages; 1) following Thanksgiving vacation, and (2) following Christmas/New Year break. Of those reasons given for withdrawal most seemed related to participants moving, need for services terminated, and dissatisfaction with services. Table 5 displays the chi square test for attrition. It shows a chi square of 1.97 which with four degrees of freedom does not reach the .05 level of significance. Comparative Results Participants were compared on 1) demographic data, 2) educational achievement as measured by pre- and post-test 35 36 scores achieved on the Caldwell Pre-School Inventory, 3) participant behavior observed and rated during daily "free play" periods arranged to take place during the study's 18 week period, 4) parent use of the study's written program of parent-child interaction activities, which was distributed to parents assigned to the "Workshop" and "Written Information" experimental conditions, and 5) participant awareness of the use of the study's written program by parents. Comparisons were made on educational achievement and behavior to test the study's hypothesis. The effectiveness of the three conditions from workshop to information control to total control is tested in the following sections by computing significance of the difference between treatment conditions. Differences between day care centers will also be tested, and when appropriate, time differ- ences will be compared. In addition interaction effects will be explored. Table 5 Attrition of Subjects Participant Continuance Experimental Condition Workshop Written Control Training Informatippp Attrition 5 3 6 Non-Attrition 19 23 16 Note. x2 = 1.97, 4 df 37 Demographic Data Participants attending each of the sponsoring day care centers were matched on mother's age and marital status and randomly assigned to the three experimental conditions; 1) Workshop training in the use of information materials, 2) Written information, and 3) Control. Although participants were randomly assigned, treatment groups and day care centers were examined for possible differences on relevant demo— graphic variables. For purposes of investigating differences between treatment groups and centers on demographic variables, all participants were scored on each related variable and an analysis of variance was used to test for significant differ— ences between treatment groups and centers. The results are displayed on Tables 6 and 7. The comparisons between conditions as presented in Table 6, indicates that there were five significant differences between treatments. Differences were found on: 1) the age of the fathers, 2) percent of fathers working full time, 3) the number of siblings the father had, 4) percent of fathers reared by both parents to age 18, and 5) the number of group affiliations of the mother. All but one of the above differ- ences pertain to the background of the participant's fathers. Sakoda, Cohen, and Beal (1954, p. 173) present a method of determining the number of significant differences expected when a series of N significance tests were computed. Their table indicates that five significant differences at the .05 Comparison of Treatment Groups on Demographic Characteristics 38 Table 6 Variable Sex Z Male Female Race Z White Other Primary Parents Z Both Age in MOnths Father Z Natural Father's Race Z White Other Father's Age, Years Father's Occupation Scorea Father Works Z Full Time Father's Incomeb Father Education, yrs. Father Education, Scorea Father Siblings Workshop Written Control F Training Info. Mean Mean Mean or or or Percentage Percentage Percentage .39 42 54 55 58 46 45 .56 66 75 55 34 25 45 .27 29 25 29 46.67 47.50 46.95 .09 .69 96 96 100 .69 66 75 55 34 25 45 27.04 28.46 30.86 .00* 19.25 18.85 16.23 .24 66 96 91 .64* 3.12 4.51 3.06 .72 13.00 13.19 12.55 .20 18.33 17.85 16.91 .32 3.08 2.61 4.86 .12* 39 Table 6 (cont'd.) Variable WOrkshop Written Control F Training_ Info. Mean Mean ‘Mean or or or Percentage Percentage Percentagg» Father Hobbies 1.16 1.19 1.18 .03 Father Groups .37 .53 .90 1.39 Father Reared Z by Parents to 18 66 96 82 4.00* Mbther's Race Z .25 White 66 75 55 Other 34 25 45 Nether-Natural Z 100 100 100 .00 MOther's Age, yrs. 26.33 25.81 27.00 .71 Mbther's Occupation Score3 17.79 15.08 15.27 .24 Mother's Work Z Full Time 50 38 45 .91 Mother Incomeb 5.73 5.04 5.00 .28 Mbther Education, yrs. 13.04 12.08 12.41 1.26 Mother Education Score3 18.17 16.31 16.73 1.09 Mother Siblings 4.16 3.34 4.09 1.03 Mother Hobbies 2.29 2.23 41.86 .31 Mother's Groups .95 .30 .31 4.78* Mother Reared Z by Parents to 18 63 69 55 .50 Social Position Score3 39.75 34.42 33.55 .76 40 Table 6 (cont'd.) Variable Marital Status Z Married Child's Siblings Residence Z House Mbnths at Residence Workshop Written Control F Training Info. Mean Mean Mean or or or Percentage Percentage Percentage 29 23 32 1.28 1.08 1.03 1.18 .07 33 3O 59 2.12 16.04 16.38 25.95 2.30 Note. df is the same for all variables (2,63) 3 b * p < .05 Income given in $1,000/year Based on Hollingshead rating - inversed for purpose of study 41 Table 7 Comparison of Day Care Centers on Demographic Characteristics Variable Public Private I Private II F Mean or 'Mean or Mean or Percentage» Percentage Percentage Sex Z .46 Male 56 47 42 Female 44 53 58 Race Z 3.67* White 46 76 76 Other 54 24 24 Primary Parents Z Both 10 33 47 4.77* Age in Months 46.97 46.86 47.38 .03 Father Z Natural 93 100 90 .18 Father's Race Z 4.07* White 43 76 71 Other 57 24 29 Father's Age, yrs. 28.20 30.19 28.00 1.47 Father's Occupation Score3 10.73 23.67 23.33 10.29* Father Works Z Full Time 90 9O 66 3.36* Father Incomeb .85 3.71 7.44 8.97* Father Education, yrs. 11.27 14.57 13.67 8.86* Father Education, Scorea 15.20 20.95 18.10- 8.64* Father Siblings 4.10 2.71 3.28 2.42 Father Hobbies .60 1.42 1.76 4.21* Father Groups .33 .61 .52 3.28* 42 Table 7 (cont'd.) Variable Public Private I Private 11 F Mean or Mean or Mean or Percentage Percentage Percentage Father Reared Z by Parents to 18 8O 80 85 .15 Mbther's Race Z 4.51* White 46 76 76 Other 54 24 24 Nether-Natural Z 100 100 100 .00 Mother's Age, yrs. 25.81 27.00 26.38 .62 Mother Occupation Score8 8.63 22.33 20.33 11.38* Mother Works Z Full Time 20 61 57 8.80* Mother Incomeb 4.29 5.83 6.06 2.39 Mother Education, yrs. 11.53 13.05 13.33 6.59* Mbther Education Score3 14.93 18.29 18.86 7.18* Mbther Siblings 4.37 3.61 2.81 4.13* Mbther Hobbies . 1.86 2.09 2.57 .93 Mother Groups .23 .52 .95 5.26* Mbther Reared Z by Parents to 18 46 71 76 2.81 Social Position _ Score3 24.33 44.81 43.62 16.12* Marital Status Z Married 10 33 47 2.80 43 . Table 7 (cont'd.) Variable Public Private I Private II F Mean or Mean or Mean or Percentage Percentage Percentage Child's Siblings 1.63 .66 .76 6.84* Residence Z House 53 33 33 1.55 Mbnths at Residence 18.57 22.10 17.19 .42 Note. df is the same for all variables (2,63) a Based on Hollingshead rating - inversed for purpose of study b Income given in $1,000's/yr. * p < .05 44 level in a series of thirty-three Significant tests would occur only five times in one hundred by chance (p < .05). This suggests that the treatments differ significantly on background information. The comparisons between centers, as presented in Table 7 indicates that there were many significant differences at the .05 level--l9 of 33 listed demographic variables. Table 7 shows that significant differences between centers were obtained on 1) percent of white participants and parents, 2) percent of parents married, 3) father's and mother's occupa- tion status, 4) percent of mothers and fathers working full time, 5) father's income, 6) father's and mother's education, 7) the number of hobbies of the father, 8) the number of group affiliations of the father and mother, 9) social position of the family, and 10) the number of participant siblings. Sakoda et al. again indicate that 19 significant differ- ences in a series of 33 significance tests could be expected to occur with a probability of less than once in a thousand times by chance (p < .001). Thus day care centers also differ significantly on the samples background. The above results indicate that the study's process of randomization was not succesSful in equating workshop train- ing, written information and control groups on the demographic variables. Thus significant differences found later between the above experimental conditions may be due to demographic differences. Differences were also found between day care 45 centers on significant demographic variables. Therefore any significant differences found later between day care centers might also be due to demographic differences of participants attending these centers. Outcome Comparisons Educational Achievement The hypothesis states that the workshop condition will result in better cognitive skill development of children as contrasted with the written information and total control conditions. To test the above hypothesis participants were given pre- and post-tests using the Caldwell Pre-School Inventory. An analysis of variance was employed to test for differences between treatment groups and centers on pre-test scores made on the Caldwell Pre-School Inventory and its four subtests (Table 8). An analysis of covariance using pre- test 3cores as covariates was employed to test for differ- ences between treatment groups and centers on post-test scores made on the Caldwell Pre-School Inventory and its four subtests (Table 9): (l) Personal-Social Responsiveness: Knowledge about the child's own personal world and his ability to get along with and respond to communications of another person. (2) Associative-Vocabulary: Ability to demonstrate awareness of the connotation of a word by carrying out some action or by associating to certain intrinsic qualities of the underlying verbal concept. (3) Concept-Activation- 'Numerica1: Ability to label quantities, to make judgements 46 of more or less, to recognize seriated positions. (4) Concept Activation-Sensory: To be aware of certain sensory attributes (shape, size, motion, color) and to be able to execute certain visual-motor configurations. Table 8 indicates that there were no significant differ- ences between treatment groups on pre-test scores achieved on the Caldwell subtests or the total test. Table 8 F-Ratios Comparing Treatments and Centers on Caldwell Pre-Test Scores Subtests/Total Treatment Centers Treatment df (2.62) df (2.62) x Centers df (4,62) l. Personal—Social .06 3.44* .57 Responsiveness 2. Associated .40 2.24 .42 Vocabulary 3. Concept Activation- .21 4.92* .11 Numerical 4. Concept Activation- .49 5.02* .23 Sensory 5. Total .25 4.46* .96 * p < .05 The above results indicate that the study's process of randomization-was successful in equating workshop training, written information, and control groups on education achieve- ment variables. Since treatment groups were shown to have 47 demographic differences, the above results further suggest that these differences did not influence performance on the Caldwell. Table 8 also indicates four significant differences between day care centers. These significant differences were on the l) Personal-Social Responsiveness subtest (F = 3.44), 2) Concept-Numerical subtest (F 4.92), 3) Concept-Sensory subtest (F = 5.02), and 4) Total Test (F = 4.46). Table 8 shows no significant interactions between treatment and day care centers. Sakoda et a1. (1954) indicates that four signi- ficant differences in a series of 15 significance tests could be expected to occur with a probability of approximately .01 at the .05 level of significance, thus it is likely the above significant differences did not occur by chance. Table 9 shows that there were no significant differences between treatment groups on post-test scores achieved on the above Caldwell subtests or the total test. Table 9 also indicates that the only significant difference between day care centers on post-test scores was on the personal-social responsiveness subtest (F = 3.42). Table 9 shows no signifi- cant interaction effects between treatment and day care centers. Sakoda et al. indicate that one significant differ- ence at the .05 level of significance in a series of 15 significance tests could be expected to occur with a probabil- ity of approximately .50 thus it is likely that the above significant difference is a chance difference. A table of Mean Squares to supplement Table 9 can be found in Appendix 48 H as well as a table of mean scores achieved on pre- and post-tests by treatment groups and centers. Table 9 F-Ratios Comparing Treatments and Centers on Caldwell Post-Test Scores Subtests/Total Treatment Centers Treatment df (2,62) df (2,62) x Centers df (4,62) l. Personal-Social 2.59 3.42* 1.17 Responsiveness 2. Associative .26 .87 .59 Vocabulary 3. Concept Activation- .43 2.09 .20 Numerical 4. Concept Activation- 2.15 .07 1.94 Sensory 5. Total 1.87 1.24 1.20 * p < .05 Behavior Rating The hypothesis states that the workshop condition will result in better interpersonal skill development of parents' children as contrasted with the written material control and total control condition. To test the above hypothesis participants were observed for ten seconds daily over an 18 week period and given a rating for each category on the Child Interaction Profile. Each participant was given 18 weekly averages for each category on the Child Interaction Pro- file. In cases where a participant was absent for a week the 49 averages given the weeks prior and following the absence were averaged, with these averages being given for the week of absence. In those cases where a participant was withdrawn from a center those averages given the week prior to with- drawal were given for the following weeks of the study. A trend analysis, using a repeated measures analysis of variance design was employed to test for differences over time between treatment groups, and day care centers on ratings made on the Child Interaction Profile's seven categories. Table 10 pre- sents a summary of F-ratios for the seven observation cate- gories. A table of Mean Squares to supplement Table 10 can be found in Appendix I. Below is a description of the seven observation categories completed during each observation. 1) Number of Room Areas Visited: Ratings were given for the number of room areas visited by a participant. Room areas were determined by dividing the room into quarters. 2) Posture: Posture ratings were given as follows: 1 (lying), 2 (sitting), 3 (not lying, sitting, or standing), and 4 (standing). 3) Motion: Motion ratings were given as follows: 1 (not moving), 2 (moving but not standing), 3 (walking), and 4 (running). 4) Contact: Contact ratings were given as follows: 1 (not actively in contact with another person, or object), 2 (actively holding or touching an object), 3 (actively hold- ing or touching a person), 4 (actively holding or touching an object and a person). 50' 5) Social Behavior: Social behavior ratings were given as follows: 1 (sleeping), 2 (unoccupied), 3 (solitary play), 4 (onlooking), 5 (parallel play--playing along-side but not with others), 6 (associative play--playing with others), and 7 (cooperative play-—playing goal oriented games). 6) Aggressive Behavior: Passive/aggressive ratings were given as follows: 1 (passive behavior), 2 (immobile not passive or aggressive), 3 (mobile not passive or aggressive), 4 (stereotyped aggressive--hitting, threatening, etc.), and 5 (non-stereotyped aggressive--intense fighting, breaking, etc.). 7) Communication: Communication ratings were given as follows: 1 (not talking with others), and 2 (talking with others). Table 10 shows there were no significant differences between treatment groups on weekly averages achieved on the above observation categories. Table 10 also shows that there was only one significant difference between day care centers-- a significant difference exists between day care centers with regard to number of room areas visited by participants at each center (F = 3.68). Figure 1 demonstrates that over the 18 week observation period participants attending the public center consistently visited more room areas during the times they were observed, than participants of the other two centers. Figure 1 also demonstrates that over the 18 week observation period participants attending private center 2 tended to visit more room areas than participants attending private center 1 . 51 Ho. v a «« mo. v a « OH.H NN.H HO. HO. «eON.N OH. NH. xHoH .N How>mnom ON.H NN.H em.H me. «emO.N OO. mm. o>HooooOO<\o>HooeH .O 4OH.H OH.H OO. OH.H OH.H OO.H Hm.N HoHeoeoO HoHoom .m eemN.H OO. NO.H NN. «HH.H NN.H NH. oooueoo .e OH.H «NO.H NN.H He. «eeO.N ON.N HH. eoHooz .m «mm.H HO. «NO.H OO. OH.H Om. OO. oueooom .N NH.H OH. ON.H OO. NN.H «OO.N OO.H eooHoH> oou< .H HHNOH.OOO uGOEumOuB x HHNOH.emO HHNOH.emO HOO.eO HOUGUU ufimfiumwhfl Hmuflmo hmuflmu x H x H HHOH.NHO HMO.NO HOO.NO He mafia oaHH oEHH ucoaumoue oaHH Houaou uaoauoouh amuH m:0Hum>Hombo Hmuow>onmm do muousoo can muaoaumoue wcwuoeaoo moquMIm OH oHOoH 52 Table 10 shows that a significant difference exists be- tween time of observation on motion (F = 2.04), contact (F = 1.71), passive/aggressive behavior (F = 2.05) and com- munication (F = 3.29). Figure 2 shows that the average motion scores given participants appears to increase over the 18 weeks of observation. It can be noted in Figure 2 that during the last nine weeks of observation participants averagai motion scores at/or above 1.76 for seven weeks. However during the first nine weeks scores above 1.76 were recorded for only two weeks. Figure 2 also shows the average motion score given for the last week of observation is noticeably more than during the first week of observation. The above results indicate that over time participants progressed in terms of the motion scale used in the study. Figure 3 shows that the average amount of contact that participants had with objects and/or persons during an observation period de- creased over the 18 weeks of observation. Figure 3 shows that during the first nine weeks of observations all average con- tact scores were near or above 1.90 whereas during the last nine weeks averages at or above 1.90 were reported only twice. Figure 3 also shows that the contact during the last week of observation was noticeably less than during the first week of observation. Figure 4 shows that average score given partici- pants for passive/aggressive behavior appears to increase over the 18 weeks of observation. It can be noted in Figure 4 that during the last nine weeks of observation participants 53 H— public center H— privote center I —— pr‘ivate center 2 NUMBER 1.5 I— WEEKS Figure 1. Average number of room areas visited during an observation. 20 SCORE L5 L0 Figure 2. 54 I l_ I l l _1_ l J J l l J l 1 l_ l l I 3 6 9 I2 15 TB WEEKS Average motion score given during an observation. 55 25 “ 20 b III a: C) U U) 15 ' VVEEKS Figure 3. Average contact score given during an observation. 25 20 SCCDRE Figure 4. 56 l l 1 L 1 g l 1 1 l 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 3 6 9 I2 15 18 VVEEKS Average passive/aggressive score given during an observation. 57 averaged passive/aggressive scores at or above 2.40 for seven weeks. However during the first nine weeks scores above 2.40 were recorded for only four weeks. Figure 4 also shows the average passive/aggressive score given for the last week to be noticeably more than during the first week of observation. The above results indicate that over time, participants became more aggressive in their behavior. Figure 5 shows that the average amount of conversation that participants had with others during an observation period increased over the 18 week observation period. Figure 5 shows that during the last nine weeks of observation all average communication scores were above 1.30 with scores below 1.30 being recorded three times during the first nine weeks. Figure 5 also shows communi- cation during the last week of observation to be noticeably greater than during the first week of observation. Table 10 also indicates that the posture of participants observed during free play was influenced by a significant interaction between day care centers and time (F = 1.62). Figure 6 shows that while there was a consistent difference in observed posture of participants at each center, this difference varied significantly over the 18 week observation period. Figure 6 shows that for nine of the 18 observation weeks participants at the public center averaged the highest posture ratings while for eight of the eighteen weeks partici— pants at private center 2 averaged the highest posture ratings. Figure 6 also shows that most of those weeks where partici- pants at the public center received the highest ratings were I“ or C) U V) 15 10 Figure 5. 58 VVEEKS Average communication score given during an observation. 59 SCORE - H.— public center '+ private center I private center 2 l g t 1 1 1 L L L 1 L J 1 l I l I T 3 6 9 I2 15 TB WEEKS Figure 6. Average posture score given during an observation. 60 during the first half of the 18 week observation period, with the opposite being the case for participants at private center 2. Table 10 points out that the movement of participants observed during free play was influenced by a significant interaction between treatment and time (F = 1.57). Figure 7 shows that while there was a consistent difference in observed motion in each treatment group, this difference varied over the 18 week observation period. Figure 7 shows that for seven of the 18 observation weeks participants in the workshop group averaged the highest motion ratings, while participants in the written information and control groups averaged the highest motion ratings for four and six weeks respectively. Figure 7 also shows that all of the weeks where participants in the written information group received the highest ratings were during the first half of the 18 week observation period, with participants in the Workshop and Control groups receiv- ing most of theirs during the last half of the observation period. Table 10 indicates that the time by center by treatment interaction had a significant influence on posture (F = 1.35) contact (F = 1.73) and social behavior (F = 1.38). This finding is quite difficult to interpret but suggests that when all three major variables interact a significant effect results. 21) SCCDRE 15 10 Figure 7. 61 ”workshop ' ' written information control VVEEKS Average motion score given treatment groups during an observation. 62 Sakoda et a1. indicates that 10 significant differences at the .05 level of significance in a series of 49 signifi- cance tests is likely to occur with a probability of approxi- mately p < .001, thus it is likely that the above significant differences are not chance occurrences. Findings based on behavioral observations indicate that the study's workshop, written information, and control con- ditions did not differ in their effect on participant behavior. Day care centers were found to differ only in terms of move- ment of participants about play areas. The results from the present experiment indicate that time has a more dominant main effect on behavior than treatment effects or day care centers and that time is a factor in those interaction effects found to be significant. Evaluation of Program Use Parent Use of Written Information Program Following the study’s six week period of parent-training ‘workshops parents of participants in both the "Workshop" and "Written Information" treatment groups received the study's written program. Once having received the study's written program of parent-child interaction activities, parents in the "Workshop" and "Written Information" treatment groups reported once every three weeks on their use of the written program. These reports were made over a 12 week period and consisted of answering those items on the Program Use Record. 63 A trend analysis, using a repeated measures analysis of variance design was employed to test for differences over time between the above treatment groups, and day care centers on responses to Program Use Record. Table 11 presents a summary of F-ratios for comparing treatment groups, and centers on responses given to items on the Program Use Record. A table of those Mean squares can be found in Appendix J. Below are the items on the Parent Use Record: 1. Number of get-togethers using program activities 2. Number of program activities played 3. Number of program activities repeated 4. Weekly get-togethers held on same day 5. Weekly get-togethers held at the same time 6. Length of get-togethers 7. Child enjoyed get-togethers 8. Child's attitude has changed 9. Parent attitude has changed 10. Number of participants in get-togethers 11. Number of positive comments made about the study's written activity program. Table 11 shows that there were significant differences between treatment groups on child enjoyment of get-togethers (F = 4.75), change in child's attitude about doing things with parents (F = 6.95), and change in parents' attitude about doing things with their child (F = 5.07). Figure 8 shows that Workshop parents consistently made more reports that their child enjoyed their get-togethers. Figure 8 also shows that reports of child enjoyment seems to decrease for both treatment groups during the last two report periods. Figure 9 shows that Workshop parents consistently made more reports that their child's attitude had changed, with regard to doing things with them. Figure 10 shows that Workshop 64 mo. v e « mucoeeoo OO.H OOH.N OH.N 4OO.N 4OO.O NH. OH.H oeHOHooN .HH OO.H ON.N HO.N 4ON.O HO. OO.H OO.H OeHOOHN Hoeeoz .OH owcmco OO.H HO.H 4NH.N OO.N OO.H HO. ONO.O oOOoHoo< oooeoa .O owcmno OO.H OO.N OO.N 4NN.O OO.H NO.H «O0.0 oOOOHoo< OHHOO .O OO.H NH.N OO.H NO.N OO.H OO. «OO.H oeonoOem eHHeO .N OO.H Om. OO.H «N0.0 NO.N OO.N OO. someoH oEoO .O oEHH osmm NO.H OO. OO.H OO.N ON.H OO. OO.H eoOeHO OoEOO .m hon oamm NN.N HH. HH.N OO.N OO.H OO. OO. eoOoHN moEOO .e OO.H «ON.O OO.N HO.H OO.H OO. me. eoooooom ooeeO .O NO.H ON.N OO.H Hm.N OO. OO. OO. OoOoHO oesoo .N ON. NO. NN.H NO.N NN.H HH. OH. eeoeoomoouoou .H HNOH.OO ucoaumoua x HNNH.NO HNOH.OO HOO.NO Hmudmu ucmEummHH Hmucmu HmquU x x x x HNOH.OV HOO.NO HOO.HO OO oEHH oEHH oEHH ucoEHOOHH oEHH Hoodoo u:¢8uOOHH EouH om: amuwoum co muoucoo can mucoEHOOHH wcHHmoEoo mowuomlm Ha manna 65 parents consistently averaged higher scores of attitude change than Written Information parents. Table 11 also shows no significant differences between day care centers on any of those variables used to measure use of the program. Table 11 does show a significant time effect with regard to the number of positive comments made by parents about the program (F = 3.80), but not on any of the other parent use variables. Figure 11 shows that parents made fewer positive comments over time. Table 11 shows the treatment by center interaction as having a significant effect with regard to the time parents spend engaging in a program activity (F = 4.62), change in child's attitude about doing things with parents (F = 3.22), the number of persons engaging in program activities (F = 3.28), and number of positive comments made about the pro- gram (F = 7.00). Table 12 shows that for each report period workshop parents at the two private centers reported having spent more time engaging in program activities than Written Information parents. Table 12 also shows that Written Information parents at the public center on the average spent more time engaging in program activities. Table 13 shows that Workshop parents at private center 1 consistently reported child attitude change while Written Information parents consistently reported no change in child attitude. Table 13 also shows that Workshop parents at the public center and private center 2 did not report 66 workshop parents ""‘written into. parents m 8 L) 20 r U) 12 '< w ‘2 LS ' s -—""’ ‘~‘~~~ LO ' JJllLLLIIlIJILJlI T 3 6 9 12 WEEK OF REPORT Figure 8. Parent reports on their childs enjoyment of activ- ities following receipt of the study's activity program. Lu a: C) U 9’ 20 Z < u; ‘2 I5 10 Figure 9. 67 workshop parents ----- written into. parents /\ WEEK OF REPORT Parent reports on their childs change in attitude following receipt of the study's activity program. 68 workshop parents -----written info. parents I— m a O .. U W ‘Z < Lu 2 L5 F 1.0 I. """'--- I 3 6 9 I2 WEEK OF REPORT Figure 10. Parent reports on their change in attitude follow- ing the receipt of the study's activity program. 69 NUMBER “3* WEEK OF REPORT Figure 11. Average number of positive comments made by parents following receipt of the study's program. 70 any child attitude change during report period two and during the fourth report period received a lower average on the reporting of child attitude change than Written Information parents at their centers. Table 13 shows that the fourth report period was the only time at which Written Information parents at the public center and private center 1 reported any child attitude change. Table 14 shows that for each report period Workshop parents at the two private centers reported having more individuals participating in program activities than Written Information parents. Table 14 also shows that Written Information parents at the public center on the average had more individuals participating in program activities than WorkshOp parents. Table 15 shows that Workshop parents at the private centers made more positive comments than the center's Written Information parents with the reverse being true for the public center. Each of the above interactions indicate that where Workshop parents at the two private centers seemed to be more involved in using the study's program than Written Information parents the Opposite seemed to be true for the public center. Table 11 shows the time by center interaction as having a significant effect with regard to change in parents' attitude about doing things with the child (F.= 2.17). Table 16 shows parents at private center 2 as reporting the most change during the first report period in parent attitude followed by parents at private center 1, with parents at the 71 OOOHO OOHumauomOH cmuuwus u H3 .dsouo eonmxuo3 u m3 .owcmso OppuHuu< oz 1 OO.H .Ouoz OH.H OO.H OO.H HO.H OO.H OO.H OO.H NH.H N nooeoO ooe>Hoa OO.H ON.H OO.H Ne.H OO.H NH.H OO.H ON.H H Hoeeoo ooo>Hoa OH.H HH.H OO.H HH.H OO.H OO.H OO.H HH.H Hooeou oHHaoa H3 O: HO O: H: O3 HO O: a O N H OOOHHOH uuoeom owcoso OOOOHHH< OHHSU co OHOOOOU can wepouu uOOEumOHH How mouoom cmoz HHOHO>O mH OHOOH OOOHO OOHanHowcH cOuuHuz u H3 .OOOHO eonmxuoz n m3 .muoz mm.NH mN.HH mw.NH om.NN mm.w mm.m mm.m 00.0H N Hmucmu Oum>fium oo. HN.OH om.N om.~H om.N Hn.mH NH.m mm.na H Hmucou Oum>wum ma.m~ NN.NH No.mm mm.w mq.qN HH.© mN.mH mm.w Hmucmo uwansm H3 m3 H3 m3 H3 m3 H3 m3 c m N H OOOHHOH uHoeom mumnuowouluou Mo mouchz co muouaou pom mesouo ucoeummufi How wouoom one: HHOHO>O NH OHQOH 72 epouo OOHOOEHOOOH OOHOHH3 u H3 .esouo eonmxuo3 n m3 .Ouoz mm. om. mm. mm. Nq. om. wN. OO.H N Hmucou OuO>HHm oo. mm. 00. mm. 00. wN.H oo. wN.N H Houamo OuO>HHm NH. mm. om. mm. mo.H «q. om. mm. .HOOOOU OHHnsm H3 m3 H3 m3 H3 m3 H3 m3 q m N H OOOHHOH uuooom muCOEEOU O>Hufimom GO mHOuGOU flaw mQDOHU UGOEUNOHH HOW meOUm GGOZ HHNHO>O OH oHooe esouu OoHumaHomOH OOHOHH3 n H3 .eaouu doamxH03 u m3 .Ouoz mm.N mn.m mO.N qo.m co.m mm.m HN.N No.m HOOOH mm. OO.H mm. oo.N mm. mm. NO. NH.H N Houcmo OuO>HHm oo. Nq.H NH. HH.H NH. oo.N mm. mm.N H Houaou OuO>HHm Om.H mm.H NN.H mm.H mw.N OO.H «m.H mm.H HOHOOU OHanm H3 m3 H3 m3 H3 m3 H3 m3 e m N H OOOHHOH uuoeom mucoeHOHuHmm mama Ho Honssz co muouamo pom mdoouu ucoaumoue How mouoom Ono: HHOHO>0 «H OHOOH 73 public center showing the least attitude change. During the second report period Table 16 shows the rank ordering to be private center 1, the public center, and private center 2. During the third report period Table 16 shows parents at the public center as reporting more change in parent attitude than parents at the private centers who reported the same average. During the last report period Table 16 shows the rank ordering to be as follows; the public center, private center 1 and private center 2. Interaction effects between treatment and day care centers seemed to show WorkshOp parents at the two private centers and the Written Informa- tion parents at the public center as being more involved in use of the program than their counterparts. For each report period these parents reported spending more time involved in activities, more change in child's attitude, more persons participating in activities and made more positive comments about the program. Interaction effects between time and day care centers seemed to show that while parents at the two private centers seemed to have a lessening of parent attitude change over the four report periods, parents at the public center seemed to have an increase in attitude change. Table 11 shows that the time by treatment interaction does have a significant effect with regard to the number of games repeated by program users (F = 3,23) and number of positive comments made (F = 7.18). Table 17 reports that Workshop parents repeated more activities during the first report period but fewer during the remaining report periods. 74 Table 16 Overall Mean Scores for Centers on Parent Attitude Change Report Periods 1 2 3 4 Public Center 1.05 1.10 1.30 1.25 Private Center 1 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.13 Private Center 2 1.33 1.06 1.20 1.06 Note. 1.00 = No attitude change. Table 17 Overall Mean Scores for Treatment Groups on Number of Program Games Repeated Treatment Report Periods 1 2 3 4 Workshop 1.16 .58 .83 .79 Written .34 1.03 1.65 1.38 Information 75 Table 15 shows that WorkshOp parents made more positive comments than Written Information parents with the differ- ence being greater during the first two report periods than during the last two report periods. Interaction effects between time and treatment seem to show that although Work- shop parents repeat more program activities than Written Information parents during the early stages of its use, the opposite is true during latter stages. The above inter- action also shows that over the report periods Workshop parents decreased the number of positive comments made about the program with the opposite being true for Written Information parents. Sakoda et a1. indicate that 10 significant differences in a series of 77 significance tests is likely to occur with a probability of approximately one in one hundred by chance (p < .01) at the .05 level of significance thus it is likely that the above significant differences are not chance occurrences. Participant Awareness of the Written Information Program Once parents had received the study's written program of parent-child interaction activities, participants were interviewed twice for purposes of evaluating their awareness of the program. These interviews took place during the third week and the 13th week following parents having received the written program. These interviews consisted of answering items on the Program Awareness Record. A trend 76 analysis using a repeated measures analysis of variance design was employed to test for differences over time between treatment groups and day care centers on response to the interviews. Table 18 presents a summary of F-ratios for comparing treatment groups and centers on responses given to items on the Program Awareness Record. A table of Mean Squares to supplement Table 18 can be found in Appendix K. Below are the variables used to test program awareness: 1) Child has seen the written program. 2) Child knows content of the written program. 3) Parents play written program games. Table 18 shows that the only significant difference between treatment groups with regard to those variables used to test participants' awareness, was on children reporting they had seen the written program (F = 4.66). Figure 12 shows that during both interviews, participants in the Work- shop group averaged higher scores than participants in the Written Information group. Figure 12 also shows that the above difference in averages was greater at the second inter- view than at the first. Table 18 shows no significant differences between day care centers with regard to those variables used to test participant awareness. In reporting F-ratios time as a main effect is not included since the written program had to be shown for purposes of the interview, thereby biasing certain responses during the second interview. 77 Table 18 shows that the center by treatment interaction had a significant effect on participant's knowledge of the programs content (F = 4.07) and their reporting that parents played games from the written program (F = 4.16). With regard to program knowledge, Table 19 shows that "Workshop" participants at private center 1 had the highest mean scores during the first interview and "Written Information" at the other centers. Table 19 shows that "Workshop" participants at all centers had their highest mean scores during the second interview. Table 19 also shows that "Written Information" participants at the public center had an increase in mean scores from the first to second interview periods while "Written Information" participants at private center 2 had a decrease in mean scores. The mean scores of "Written Infor- mation" participants at private center I remained the same. With regard to parent involvement Table 20 shows that the mean scores of participants in private center 1 and "Written Information" participants in private center 2 stayed the same over the two interview periods. Table 20 also shows that the mean scores for the "Workshop" and "Written Infor- mation" groups in the public center and the Workshop group in private center two increased over the two interview periods. Sakoda et a1. (1954) indicates that two significant differences in a series of nine significance tests is likely 78 Ho. va «« mo. v a « meow sapwoua Ho.a w~.H om.H *oH.q . *Ho.o HH. ma. smaa muamuma .m ufimuflou «oa.m as. no. gko.e *«Ho.m am.H ea. anyways muons .N sapwoua ca. ~k.~ mo. m~.H «.om.m ms.H «oo.s comm was .H Ass.uv on ucmSummuH x Asq.HV we Aqq.mv we Asq.~v we umucmo unmeummua umuamo umucmu x x x x Aqq.av we Ase.~v we Aqq.av we maHH mafia mafia usmaummua mags uwuamu unwaumwue amuH amuwoum smuuwuz mo moosmum3< pawno so mumuamu cam munmaummua wswumdaoo wowummlm ma wanes MEAN SC ORE Figure 12. 2.0 1.5 1.0 79 workshop - - —- - written information WEEK OF REPORT Child reports seeing written program. 80 Table 19 Overall Mean Scores for Treatment Groups and Centers on Child's Knowledge of Program Content Report Periods 1 2 W8 W1 W8 WI Public Center 1.00 1.09 1.11 1.45 Private Center 1 1.57 1.12 1.71 1.12 Private Center 2 1.25 1.42 1.62 1.28 Note. WS a Workshop Group, WI = Written Information Group, 1.00 = No Knowledge Table 20 Overall Mean Scores for Treatment Groups and Centers on Parent Game Involvement Report Periods 1 2 WS WI WS WI Public Center 1.00 1.36 1.22 1.54 Private Center 1 1.57 1.12 1.57 1.12 Private Center 2 1.25 1.28 1.62 1.28 Note. WS 8 Workshop Group, WI a Written Information Group, 1.00 = No Involvement 81 to occur with the probability of about .01 at the .05 level, thus it is not likely that the above significant differences are chance occurrences. With regard to child awareness of the study's written program, one difference was found between the Workshop and Written Information groups. Day care centers were found to have no significant effect on any of the variables used to measure child awareness. Time was found to have a signifi- cance on all of the variables used to measure child aware- ness. The interaction effect between day care centers and treatment was found to have a significant effect on two of the variables used to measure Child Awareness. Associative Results Associative results were obtained by performing a cluster analysis using Tryon and Bailey's (1970) cluster- analytic approach. Seventy-one variables were selected for the analysis from the instrument employed to gather demo- graphic data, the Caldwell Pre-school Inventory, the Child- ren's Interaction Profile employed for behavioral ratings, the Parent Use Record, the Program Awareness Record and data pertaining to treatment group assignment and "Workshop" attendance. Terminal measures were chosen from the Caldwell Pre-School Inventory, and repeated measures of behavioral observations, parent use of the written program and child awareness of the written program. Terminal measures were chosen for the purpose of seeing what significant relationships 82 had been achieved as a result of the study. Table 21 shows the results of this cluster analysis and the internal vari- able make-up of each cluster and the factor coefficient of each variable with its cluster. In performing the cluster analysis items with cluster loadings less than .39 were not included. Therefore all such items are not represented in this table. This table shows that ten clusters were estab- lished. A total of 71 variables were used in the analysis. Of those 71 variables, 57 variables appeared in the clusters. Table 22 gives the correlations between the clusters and shows the degree of relationship between each of the oblique cluster domains. Cluster One--Program Use includes nine of the 11 items on the Program Use Record. The remaining items are included in Cluster Ten--Parent/Child Attitude Change. Table 22 shows that Cluster Ten has its highest correlation with Cluster One (r = .58). Table 22 also shows that Cluster One has its highest intercorrelation with Cluster Five--Chi1d Awareness of Program (r = .61). Cluster Five has its next highest correlation with Cluster Ten (r = .38). The above facts suggest an inter-relationship between implementing the program, child awareness of parent involvement with him/her and change in parent/child attitude about interacting with one another. Table 22 also shows that Program Use has no correlation with Cluster Six--Educational Achievement (r = .00). However Cluster One has a slight correlation with Cluster 83 Table 21 The Ten Clusters, Their Variable Construction and Variable Factor Coefficients Cluster Variable's Factor Variable Description Coefficient With Cluster Cluster One-Program Performance 1. Plays activities longer .99 2. Plays more activities .90 3. Repeats more activities .89 4. Includes more persons in activities .85 5. Has more activity sessions .83 6. Feels more positive about activities .82 7. Child enjoys activities .77 8. Tends to live in a house .50 9. Uses program sample activities .44 10. Tends to play on same days .44 ll. Tends to play at same time .39 Cluster Two-Family Ethnic/Sibling Makeup 1. Child tends to be white .98 2. Mother tends to be white .97 3. Father tends to be white .94 4. Mother has fewer siblings .68 5. Father has fewer siblings .45 6. Child has fewer siblings .39 Cluster Three-Father's Education/Socioeconomic Status 1. Fathers are more educated .94 2. Fathers have more years of education .92 3. Fathers tend to be more professional or skilled .83 4. Father tends to have more hobbies .65 5. Father tends to belong to more groups .63 6. Father has a higher income .61 Cluster Four-Free Play Behavior 1. Walks and runs more .93 2. Plays more aggressively .81 3. Visits more room areas .60 4. Tends to stand more . .43 Cluster Five-Child Awareness of Program 1. Has seen parents read program .93 2. Has seen the program .90 3. Parents play program games .88 4. Knows content of program .86 5. Parent tends to attend workshops .40 84 Table 21 (cont'd) Cluster Variable's Factor Variable Description Coefficient With Cluster Cluster Six-Educational Achievement 1. Scores higher on the Personal-Social Responsiveness Sub-test .92 2. Scores higher on the Concept-Sensory Sub-test .90 3. Scores higher on the Associative Vocabulary Sub-test .89 4. Scores higher on the Concept- Numerical Sub-test .87 5. Tends to be among the older children in class .63 Cluster Seven-Marital Status 1. Both parents at home .93 2. Parents tend to be married .74 Cluster Eight-Mother Education/Socioeconomic Status 1. Mothers are more educated .95 2. Mothers have more years of education .97 3. Family tends to have higher social position .79 4. Mother tends to be more professional or skilled .72 5. Mother tends to have higher income .50 6. Mother tends to work full time .46 7. Mother tends to belong to more groups .39 Cluster Nine-Parent Age/Residential Stability 1. Fathers are older .87 2. Mothers are older .81 3. Tend to have resided at present residence longer .46 Cluster Ten-Parent/Child Attitude Change 1. Child tends to change attitude about things .93 2. Parents tends to change attitude about parent-child play - .81 85 Eight--Mother's Education and Socio-economic Status (r = .23), and Cluster Five shows notable correlation with Cluster Eight (r = .34). It should be noted that Cluster Eight has a notable correlation with Cluster Six (r = .39) and Cluster Ten (r = .25). The above suggests that where parent-child interaction might influence the parent-child relationship it might have no effect on educational achievement. The above also suggests that mothers education and Socio-economic status is slightly related to both parent-child interaction and educational achievement. Cluster Two--Family Ethnic/Sibling Makeup has its high- est intercorrelation with Cluster Six-~Educationa1 Achieve- ment (r = .45). Cluster Two also shows notable correlation with Cluster Three-Father's Education and Socio-economic Status (r = .26) and Cluster Eight-—Mother's Education and Socio-economic Status (r = .29). Clusters Three and Eight have their highest intercorrelations with each other (r = .65). Cluster Three and Eight have a notable correlation with Cluster Six (r = .44) (r = .39). The above would suggest that parents of white participants have more education and higher socio-economic status and that this and other family background features lend toward their children having higher educational achievement. It is interesting to note that while Clusters Two, Three, and Eight are notably cor- related with educational achievement only Cluster Three has a slight correlation with Cluster Four-—Free Play Behavior 86 (r = .22). Cluster Three also has a notable correlation with Cluster Seven-~Parental Marital Status (r = .44). Cluster Seven also shows a substantial correlation with Cluster Eight (r = .35) but it is interesting to note that it shows virtually no correlations with either Cluster Four (r = .01) or Cluster Six (r = .07). This suggests that although there is a relationship between educational achieve- ment and the education and socio-economic status of parents, it has no relationship to whether or not they are married. Cluster Eight also shows a slight correlation with Cluster Nine--Parenta1 Age and Residential Stability (r = .21). It is interesting to note that although Cluster Nine has notable correlations with Clusters Four (r = .21), Five (r = .27), and Seven (r = .25) it has no correlation with Cluster Six (r =-.11). 87 mwsmno mo. mN. m0.. m0.. mm. NN.- NN.- no. mm. menuauu< eNN;o\uauumm .OH suNNNnmum no. NN. mN. HH.- NN. NN. No. No. oo. Nmauaoenmmm\mm« “amuse .m msumum oHaosOUMIoaoom mN. NN. mm. on. am. so. no. mN. NN. \Nmaonumuaem “mayo: .w mo.a mN. mm. No. mo. No. as. NN. so. msumum Hmonumz .N no.. NN.- am. No. «0.- oo. as. me. oo. u=m5m>mnnu< choNumuscm .o Emuwoum mm. NN. am. mo. «0.- No. No.. mN. He. no mmmcwums< eNHeu .m NN.: NN. so. Ho. so. No. NN. ON.- NN. HoN>mnom smNm «mum .q m=DMum afiaosoomlofioom NH.- No. me. as. as. No.- NN. SN. Ho.- \aonumusem smegma .m asmxmz wcnannm mo. No. mN. NN. ms. ma. ON.u SN. me. \uaanum NNnamm .N mm. co. NN. oo. oo. Ho. NH. No.a mo. moamauomumm sapwoum .N ON a m N o m a m N N mumumsao mumumaao mhmumfl—HU 60H. 03...“ MO 30mm G003umm mGOfiUmHOHu—OU NN manna CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION In the introduction it was pointed out that some evi- dence exists that a high degree of parent-child interaction in which certain parental behavior is exhibited, serves as the primary promoter of cognitive development and academic performance in children; that parent-child interaction seems to be the primary force in determining the personality and social behavior of children; and parent-child interaction that promotes good cognitive development also promotes positive personality and social development. Child service programs are beginning to employ specific parent-child interaction programs to promote the cognitive, emotional and social growth of the children they service. In this study the development of a specific written parent-child interaction program along with a workshop program to train parents in the use of the written program, provided a means to evaluate the effect of such a program on parent-child interaction and on the cognitive and social development of children. By involving partici- pants from both private and public day care centers the present study was also provided the opportunity to evaluate the effect of these centers and the demographic characteristics of their children on the cognitive and social development of the study's participants. 88 89 In the present experiment the results showed no signifi- cant differences between treatment groups with regard to either pre- or post-test scores achieved on the Caldwell Pre- School Inventory. These results indicate that the training of parents of pre-school children in the use of the study's written program, followed by the presenting of the program to parents or presenting this program to parents without train- ing had no significant effect on the educational growth of the children. The lack of significant differences in educa- tional achievement between groups shows the study's parent- training program to be less successful than other studies showing parent-training programs to be effective in improving educational development (Boger, Kuiper and Berry, 1969; Gray, 1967, 1968, 1970; Levenstein, 1968, 1969), although it is important to note that many such parent—training studies involved a fairly homogeneous pOpulation consisting of urban or rural parents from the lower socio-economic status (S.E.S). It should also be noted that there is some question about the experimental rigidity of some parent—training studies. In the present study the participants were not demo- graphically homogeneous and treatment groups did differ with regard to demographic background. Fathers of participants in the training group were younger, had less full time employ- ment and had less of a tendency to be raised by both parents. Mothers in the training group seemed to belong to more groups. Results indicated that there were other demographic differ- ences in addition to those stated above. The findings from 90 this study show that the characteristics of both father's and mother's educational background, and the ethnic background of the child and parents are notably correlated with the educa- tional achievement of the child with the correlations with ethnic background, and the father's education being slightly higher. These findings are supportive of studies indicating that cognitive and educational growth are highly related to demographic factors (Beckey, 1942; Hilliard, 1957; Montague, 1964). These findings also suggest that cultural factors may be inherent in demographic information and that such cultural factors may be related to cognitive and educational growth with parents education being a primary cultural factor variable included in this relation. The above findings also appear to support studies indicating that fathers as well as mothers have a significant influence on the intellec- tual develOpment of children (Bartemeir, 1953; Bigner, 1970; Blanchard & Biller, 1971; Dyk & Witkin, 1965; Grunebaum, Hurwitz, Prentice, & Speng, 1962). This is also consistent with studies that show that class and associated demographic characteristics are highly correlated with paternal behavior and that maternal behavior is concommitant with paternal behavior (Bee, Van Egeren, Streissgreth, Nyman & Leckie, 1969; Brofy, 1970; Kamii & Radin, 1967; Radin, 1972)} Based on the above studies it would appear that father involvement in a parent-training program might be important in its effecting parental change and change in the educational achievement of children. It is important to note that 91 fathers had minimal involvement in the study's training pro- gram. If effecting significant differences in educational achievement through parent training is related to father involvement, then the lack of father involvement in the study's training program must be considered as a possible factor in the study's outcome along with demographic differences and probable differences in related parental behavior. That demographic variables appear to be related to edu- cational achievement is also indicated by significant differ- ences between day care centers on four of the five Caldwell pre-test scores achieved by participants along with signifi- cant demographic differences between centers. Demographic differences between day care centers appeared to be greater than those between treatment groups and might explain why there were significant differences on pre-test scores between centers and not treatment groups. This suggests that the effect of demographic differences on educational achievement has to do with the kind and/or number of differences. Unlike the treatment groups, day care centers also differed with regard to racial make-up, marital status of parents, number of siblings, fathers contributing income, mother's occupation and social position of the family. Other studies show that father absence, parents' education and occupation, family race, and the social position of the family are highly re- lated to educational achievement (Palmer, 1970; Santrock, 1972). It must be noted that the public center which scored lowest on 92 the Caldwell tests had the highest rate of father absent homes and Black participants,and ranked lowest in terms of family social position and education of parents. Although the study showed demographic differences between centers it showed no significant difference between centers with regard to post-test scores achieved on the Caldwell Pre- School Inventory. These findings indicate that the education- al achievement of participants seems in general to be inde- pendent of which day care center they attended. Studies sug- gest that where there is a significant difference between the programs of day care centers the effect of day care centers is likely to be shown (Frost & Rowland, 1970). The findings of this study question the above conclusion since the day care centers involved in the present study appeared to have notably different programs without showing a significant effect on educational achievement. A primary difference be- tween the programs of this study's centers was the extent to which they included activities that called for instructions and teacher supervision and/or that restricted the movement, talking and peer interaction of children. Private center I appeared to have more of the above type activities, with the public center having the least and private center 2 having a balance of restrictive and non-restrictive activities. Another notable difference between center programs was the amount of daily involvement by the director. Since the office of the director for the public center was not located 93 at the center there was minimal director involvement with staff, participants and parents. The amount of director in- volvement was greatest at private center 2, followed by private center 1. In reviewing the study it appears that demographic back- ground was related to the educational achievement of partici- pants. The results of this study also indicate that parent behavior and verbalizing in terms of the frequency and length of direct parent-child interaction has no notable relationship to educational achievement or demographic background. It is important to note however that studies show that parents as role models do influence the learning of children thus sug- gesting that parent behavior might have an effect on educa- tional achievement (Bandura, 1963). Since the role models of parents would vary according to parent's education it might be that these models would be more valuable in deter~ mining educational achievement and child behavior than the frequency or length of direct parent-child interaction. It should also be noted that parents with higher education probably provide role models and an environment which is most conducive to educational achievement and place a greater stress on educational achievement. Although parent behavior might have an effect on educational achievement, the results of this study suggests that demographic background variables have more of an influence on achievement. There were also no significant differences between 'treatment groups in participant behavior observed during 94 free play. This indicates that training parents of pre- school children in the use of the study's written program, followed by presentation of the program and the presenting of the program without training has no significant effect on the social behavior of pre—school children. Treatment groups differed demographically so the above results also indicate that these differences do not influence the behavior of children. There was only one significant difference between day care centers on participant behavior observed during free play. This indicates that differences in the programs of day care centers had no significant effect on the social be- havior of pre-school children. Since demographic differences are greater between day care centers than treatment groups the above findings also indicate that demographic differ- ences had little influence on the social behavior of pre- school children. The cluster analysis also showed free play behavior to have little correlation with demographic factors, and indicated that the movement, posture and aggressiveness demonstrated by the pre-school child in social behavior is influenced little by demoqraphic factors. Since parent behavior has been shown to be highly correlated with demo- graphic background, the above results also question the influence of parent behavior on the behavior of children in a free play situation. In looking at the study's program, lack of success in bringing about significant differences in educational 95 achievement certain things need to be considered. As stated before the study's treatment groups differed demographically and as a result of this the effectiveness of the study's training and/or written program may have been overshadowed by the effect of certain demographic and associated variables on the educational achievement of participants. Had the study's participants been more homogeneous the results of the study may have differed. In reporting characteristics of programs that have been successful in working with children to promote cognitive gains Hawkridge et a1. (1968) state that the groups were small, homogeneous, received a high degree of individualized instruction and used instructions and materials that were closely linked to program objectives and trained teachers in the method of the program. It is quite possible that the above program characteristics would apply in working with parents. Therefore it is important to note that the study's participants were not homogeneous, that instructions were moderately individualized and that the training program was designed independent of the day care center programs. This last point is particularly important in that the study's program and the day care pro- grams might have had a slight cancelling out effect on each other. Hawkridge et‘al. (1968) and Posner (1968) also sug— gest that programs successful in promoting cognitive skills, emphasized cognitive and not socio-emotional development. The study's parent training and written information programs 96 were designed to influence behavior and emotional skills as well as educational achievement. Although there were no overall differences between treatment groups in observed behavior, results from the pre- sent experiment indicated that time had a significant effect on the social behavior of the participants. During the course of the study participants increased their amount of movement and/or their employment of movements ranked higher by the study in its hierarchy of motion; crawling and other non- standing movements, walking and running. Over the course of the study participants also decreased the amount of physical contact they had with objects and/or persons during free play periods as well as becoming more aggressive in their play and talking more during free play. Results from the present study indicated that time by treatment interaction had a notable influence on the type of motion employed by partici- pants to get around during the observation. During seven of the 18 observation weeks participants in the workshop group were moving about more and/or employing movements ranked higher by the study in its hierarchy of motion. The written information and control groups averaged the highest motion ratings for four and six weeks respectively. It is inter- esting to note that the written information participants received most of their highest scores during the weeks prior to the distribution of the written program with the opposite being true for the workshop and control groups. Since treat- ment groups did differ demographically the above results 97 might be related to those differences. The present study also revealed that an interaction between day care centers and time influenced the posture of participants during the observation. Participants at both the public center and private center 2 were observed to do more standing than participants at private center 1. It is interesting to note that participants at the public center did more standing during the period prior to the distribution of the written information program while participants at private center 2 did more standing after the written program was distributed. Private center 1 was the most restrictive and its partici- pants were observed to do less standing throughout the 18 week observation period. Although parent training in the use of the study's written information program and/or use of the written infor- mation program was found to have no significant main effects and minimal interaction effects on the outcome of educational achievement, and behavior, variables used to measure parent use, and participant awareness of the program did show significant differences. Results from the present experiment showed that children in the workshop group enjoyed interaction with parents more and had more positive changes in attitudes about doing things with parents than children in the Written Information group. Results also showed that Workshop parents had more positive changes in attitude about doing things with their 98 children than parents in the Written Information group. The above results suggest that parent training in the use of a written program followed by use of the program can enhance the parent-child relationship. It is important to note how- ever that this enhancement of the parent-child relationship does not seem to be related to educational achievement or related to the social behavior of the child. The results from the present experiment also show that treatment conditions interacted with time to influence parents use of the program. As shown in Table 17 Workshop parents seemed to repeat more games during the first report period following the workshops. During the following report periods parents in the "Written Information" group repeated more games. Since there were no significant differences between groups in the number of get-togethers or number of activities played over the study's four report periods, the above results suggest that "Workshop" parents did use more of the program activities and/or created more activities of their own to be used during a get-together. Both the use of more program activities and/or creation of activities were goals of the proqram, and therefore workshop training seemed to be effec- tive with respect to these goals. In both private centers "Workshop" parents spent more time playing program activities whereas "Written Information" parents at the public center spent more time playing these activities. Although workshop participants enjoyed the program activities more than Written Information participants an 99 interesting pattern was observed between the number of games repeated by workshop parents and participant enjoyment. During report periods one and three the difference in the degree of enjoyment was greatest (Fig. 8) and the average number of games repeated and average length of game time was greatest for workshop parents during these periods than during periods two and four (Tables 12, 17). This would indicate that in implementing a parent-child interaction program calling for parents to employ specific activities, repetition and time should be considered as important to the goal of promoting better parent-child relationships. A similar pattern seems to exist with regard to child attitude change for Workshop participants at the public center and private center 2. When comparisons were made between centers, results show that change in parent attitude took on differ- ent patterns over the four report periods. Parents at the public center tended to have their greatest attitude change during the third and fourth report periods. Parents at private center 1 had their greatest attitude change during the first three report periods with the amount of attitude change being the same during these periods. Parents at private center 2 had their greatest attitude change during the first and third report periods with reported attitude change being the same for the second and fourth report periods. It is interesting to note those periods where the least attitude change was reported by parents at the public 100 center and private centers were periods when they were spending less time playing program activities. As with getting children to enjoy parent-child activities and have a change in attitude as the result of activities, the length of time spent in parent-child activities seems to relate to changes in the parent attitude. Another interesting pattern observed had to do with an interaction between treatment groups and day care centers. During their use of the study's written program Workshop parents at both private centers and Written Information parents at the public center spent more time playing program activities and involved more persons in the activities (Tables 11, 12). This same pattern was noted in terms of number of positive comments made about the program with the above parents making more positive comments at their respec- tive centers. The above results suggest that the workshop condition at the public center differed in some way from the same condition at the private centers. The difference be- tween the "Workshop" groups resulted from a combination of reasons. In carrying out its workshops the study had diffi- culty in implementing them at the public center as planned. Initially the center had agreed to provide its facilities for the workshops and to provide babysitting services for those parents who could not find such services. At the time of the first workshop facilities were open but not arranged for the workshop and at no time did a babysitter arrive to 101 care for the children brought by parents. This lack of baby- sitting called for parents to request that their children occupy themselves with toys at the facility while efforts were made to carry out the workshop. As a result of the above circumstances workshops at the public center got started on the wrong foot. Although voiced by only a few parents it was quite evident that parents were quite disappointed and upset. Five of the nine "Workshop" parents at the public center attended the first workshop and of those parents one had to walk, another had to commute from outside of Lansing, one had to borrow a car and two had to bring their children. Based on the above facts it can be concluded that these parents were very enthusiastic about the workshop program. It should be noted here that the public center had its facilities in a local public school, and not at its head— quarters. Efforts to have the public center provide a baby- sitter for the next workshop was not successful. Therefore parents were informed of this. At the second and third workshop only one parent arrived and therefore these work- shops were not carried out. To insure that these parents were given training in all facets of the study's written program, a Saturday morning workshop was given at the LeJohn Center in Lansing and home workshops were given. As a result all "Workshop" parents attended the Saturday morning workshop and/or had a home workshop. 102 In contrast to the public center workshop, workshops at the private center went much more smoothly. This was espec- ially true at private center 2 where the center director worked carefully to insure that parents attended workshops and had any parent needs for babysitting and transportation taken care of. Although private center 1 was cooperative, the degree of director involvement was much less. It should be noted that one of the parents at private center 1 had to attend a Saturday morning workshop for training while another received a home workshop. "WOrkshop" parents at private center 2 completed all their training during the scheduled workshOps. The above facts point out the importance that day care center involvement had in getting parents involved in the study. It is suggested here that the lack of support by the public center resulted in certain negative feelings in its "Workshop" parents, thus reducing their inclination to attend further workshops and to use the study's written program. At the same time the strong support given by private center2 might have promoted a positive feeling in its parents, thus increasing their inclination to attend workshops and to use the study's written program. It might be that the above points also apply to private center 1 which gave support which was between the other two centers in strength and which had workshop attendance higher than the public center but lower than private center 2. 103 With regard to their awareness of the study's written program more children in the "Workshop" group reported having seen the program than in the "Written Information" group. This difference resulted at both interviews given to assess program awareness. The difference also increased between interviews which were given three and thirteen weeks following the program being given to parents. Overall "Workshop" child- ren also knew more about the contents of the written program, however with the public center the reverse was true (Table 19). This seems to follow those patterns reported earlier indi- cating that the "Written Information" parents at the public center made more use of the written program. In reporting whether or not their parents played games from the study's program, the responses of children followed the aforementioned pattern. That is, more "Workshop" children at the private centers reported their parents playing program games than "Written Information" children witha public center reversal. Summary and Implications It was hypothesized that cognitive skills, and inter— personal behavior of children as well as parent-child involve- ment would be enhanced by training parents in a workshop setting to use written information designed to promote the above areas of development. The present study shows that the parent training program and written program did not bring about any significant differences in the educational achievement or free play behavior of the participants 104 contrasted with the control group. Significant differences were obtained in the parent-child relationship of the parent training participants contrasted with the written information group. It appears that where parent training and use of a written parent-child interaction program might be successful in promoting better parent—child relationships and associated affective changes it will not necessarily bring about changes in the child's educational achievement or behavior patterns in a social setting. The above outcome may have been due in part to the fact that the study's program was designed to bring about social and behavioral changes as well as changes in educational achievement. It is possible that this design was too broad since the study indicates that learning may be more specific than the design suggests, and that to effect the above changes the design must be more specific. It might be that to promote educational achievement parent training needs to focus on the teaching of specific learning tasks that are related to specific educational goals; and to promote be- havioral changes parent training needs to center about methods of behavior training that are related to specific behaviors. The experiment also showed that the demographic back- ground of participants cannot be ignored since it is highly correlated with educational achievement. Included in this study were participants with significantly different 105 demOgraphic backgrounds. Other studies have found homogeneous groups to be a more effective audience. Participants in this study differed with regard to economic background, education, social position, race, age, marital status and other pertinent demographic characteristics and the correlation just mentioned suggests this had an influence on the outcome of the study. This suggests that perhaps an effective parent training pro- gram should be designed to meet the needs of specific groups with specific demographic characteristics. In presenting the training program only a moderate amount of individualized instruction and attention was given. The training program was oriented toward the parental group and toward having the group benefit from member exchanges as well as from remarks by the program agent. In carrying out the parent training workshops it could be seen that not all parents were comfortable with having the workshops oriented toward a group training model. Some parents were also un- comfortable with group discussion, role playing, and being expressive with persons they didn't want to know about their lives at the moment. There were parents who suggested that two or three informal get-togethers be held prior to an actual workshop, for the purpose of getting acquainted. In such cases it could be observed that persons from different demographic backgrounds might react differently to a parti- cular workshop model. 106 In looking at the relationship of demographic background to educational achievement and behavior this study suggests that fathers might have more of an influence than has been indicated by several studies involving only the mothers of children. This becomes an important point in terms of trying to effect changes by way of parent training. If fathers do indeed have a significant influence on the child and the actions of the mother with the child, the effectiveness of the parent training program might be enhanced by father involvement. Where fathers are absent from the home it might make designing a parent training program more effective if this was taken into account, particularly where the mothers of boys are concerned. In reviewing this study it is important to note that its findings were the result of using experimental methodology to study the effect of parent training on the educational achievement and social behavior of pre-school children and therefore should be considered in the designing, implementing, and study of parent training programs. It must also be noted that this study is just a single effort in the experimental study of parent training programs and therefore its findings are not conclusive at this time. Before the findings of this study can be used to make generalizations there must be additional experimental investigation of those areas related to this study and its findings. This study indicates that it will be important for future research to explore the 107 following areas as they relate to parent training programs. Future studies should investigate the effect of indi- vidualized instruction as a parent training technique. This study indicated that the learning needs of parents might be notably different. Therefore a training program directed at the general learning needs of parents or only certain learning needs might be inappropriate and ineffective where many parents are concerned. By using individualized instruction the parent training program might be better able to train parents by focusing on the particular learning needs of each parent in the program. It was noted in this study that implementing the parent training program for the purpose of promoting educational achievement and social behavior might have diminished its effectiveness for meeting either of these goals. This sug- gests that parent training should be directed at specific and not multiple learning goals and needs, and that parents should be trained in teaching or interaction techniques as they relate to a specific learning goal. Specific techni- ques of teaching need to be explored for their effectiveness in promoting educational achievement or social behavior. Parent use of rewards in their teaching or parent-child interactions is one of the teaching techniques that needs to be studied for future research. The effect of father involvement in parent training needs to be explored. In the present study fathers had 108 minimal involvement in the parent training workshop. In future studies comparisons should be made for the effect of father involvement in parent training. This is most important since fathers have a significant influence on the child and this influence must be considered in exploring the parent training effort to effect the child through parent-child interactions. The influence of the father on the behavior of the mother and her interactions with the child must also be considered since this might have significantly influenced the effort of this study's parent training program which was directed primarily at mothers. It might be that parent training has little effect on parenting behavior or the child when directed at only one parent. Although the study's parent training workshops were directed at training parents in the use of specific parent- child interaction activities, they did not call for parents and children to practice these activities during the work- shOps. Therefore the workshop program could not work dir- ectly with parent and child to develop certain desired inter- action skills. It might be that more control is necessary over the actual interaction activities in order to promote certain parenting behaviors. Future research might investi- gate the effect of involving parents in an operating social model whereby parents would bring children to training sessions to practice interaction activities, and specific interaction behaviors and skills. 109 The cluster analysis showed the study's criteria for educational achievement and social behavior to be independent. It should be noted that this independence might be specific to the criteria of this study. Therefore studies similar to this one but using different criteria are needed to provide additional information regarding the relationship of educa- tional achievement and social behavior. This study indicated that the cultural background of parents as shown in the demographics appears highly related to children's cognitive performance. Perhaps as much research time should be devoted to exploring and defining this rela- tionship as is spent researching the effect of specific parent-child activities. In carrying out future research on parent training pro- grams it is vital that the research be longitudinal. This study showed that time had an important effect on its results. The study also showed that interactions of time with treat- ment conditions had a significant effect on some of the study's results. This suggests that measures taken at a single point in time are subject not to be representative of the outcome of a parent training program and therefore would not be helpful in accurately determining the effects of a program. APPENDICES Week 1. Activity \OCbN O‘U‘# WNH 19. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. . Planning . Near and Far . Face Drawing APPENDIX A PARENT-CHILD INTERACTION ACTIVITIES P.I.E. ACTIVITY SCHEDULE . Introduction and Planning 9. Clapping Copy Cat I Clapping Copy Cat II Planning . A Special Time Interview Count and Do Planning 10' . Special Time Exercises Special Time Reading . Listen-Repeat-Do 11. Body Drawing . Planning Special Timer Says I . Special Time Rap Session I . Special Timer Says II 12. Planning . Home Tour Home Counting Tour Thinking and Communica- ting With Symbols Planning The "Guess What?" Grab Bag Special Time Reading II Thinking and Communica- ting With Symbols II Planning The Pretend Grab Bag Completing Sentences I Bean Counting 110 Week 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. Activity Planning Think and Remember Special Time Rap Session II Completing Sentences II Planning Comprehension Free Drawing Activity to be Chosen by Child Planning Parent-Child Created Activity Activity to be Chosen by Child Activity to be Chosen by Parent Planning Parent-Child Created Activity Activity to be Chosen by Child Activity to be Chosen by Parent APPENDIX B GAMES REPRESENTING PROGRAM ACTIVITIES Exercise 1: A Special Time Bowling Game This exercise is designed to teach the following skills: Listening capacity Body coordination Applied counting Creativity Number concept Imagination Sample Exercise: In this game you or your child will arrange six paper cups right side up on a sheet of newspaper, while the other takes turns trying to bowl at the cups until they are all down. The bowler will bowl the ball when the other person has counted to three. Make sure you count with your child the number knocked down after each bowl. Exercise 2: Special Time Reading This exercise is designed to teach the following skills: Listening capacity Speech Attention span Vocabulary Memory span Word use Comprehension ability Sample Exercise: Involve yourself in reading a story to your child. Exercise 3: A Special Time Rap Session This exercise is designed to teach the following skills: Verbal communication Self expression Self awareness Family awareness Sample Exercise: Special Time rap sessions should be a time for you and your child to talk about things that are interesting and will help in- crease your awareness of one another. Some things that might be inter~ esting for your rap sessions are: (1) A story you have read, told or heard. (2) Things you see on a neighborhood tour. (3) Nice things that happened to you today. 111 .112 (4) Bad things that happened to you today. (5) Things you see in a picture. (6) Things you would like to have. (7) Things you like about school/Work. (8) Things you don't like about school or work. Exercise 4: Special Time Shell Game This exercise is designed to teach the following skills: Sensory awareness Problem solving Memory span Sample Exercise: Place three objects that are familiar to your child in front of her/him. Name the objects and have your child name them. Have your child close her/his eyes while you cover one of the objects with a cup, box, etc. Then have your child open her/his eyes and tell you which object is covered. Make sure you give your child the opportunity to cover up objects for you to guess at. Child's Last Name APPENDIX C PARENT INTERVIEW FORM PARENT-CHILD INTERACTION EXERCISE PROGRAM Street Address Birthdate / First Today's date I / Month/day [year City County Zip / Age Sex Telephone Number Birth Place Present School City State Country Ethnic Origin Please Check One: Black Mexican American Oriental White American Indian Other Father's Mother's Name Name __Patur31___step __adopted __foster __natura1 __step __adopted __foster Ethnic Origin Ethnic Origin Birthdate Age Birthdate Age Home phone Home phone Home address Home address Occupation Occupation Employed at Employed at Work days Work days Work hours Work hours Annual Income $ Annual Income $ 113 114 PLEASE STATE NUMBER OF YEARS OF EDUCATION COMPLETED Education Education Elementary High School College Other Elementary High School College Other Birth Place Birth Place City State Country City State Country Date of Marriage Marital Status: __Married '__Single Parent __Separated __Widowed __Divorced Child's Brothers and/or Sisters Living at Name and Sex Birthdate Age Home Grade in School Yes No Present Residence House Apartment Other Please State Number of Years at Present Residence Please State Number of Years at Previous Residence Please State Age and Sex of Others Living at Home FATHER MOTHER Number of Older Brothers Sisters Number of Older Brothers Sisters Number of Younger Brothers Sisters Number of Younger Brothers Sisters Hobbies Hobbies Club and Group Affiliations Club and Group Affiliations Reared by: Both Parents Reared by: Both Parents One Parent One Parent Other Other APPENDIX D PROGRAM USE RECORD Name Date 1. 10. How many P.I.E or "Special Time" get-togethers have you and your child had during the past three weeks? How many P.I.E. games or activities have you played with your child during the past three weeks? Please give_game or activity numbers: How many P.I.E. book activities did you repeat during the past three weeks? Please give activity numbers: During the past three weeks have you had your P.I.E. or "Special Time" get-togethers on the same days and at the same times each week? Please comment: During the past three weeks, about how long did most of your P.I.E. get-togethers last? Please Comment: During the past three weeks, has your child enjoyed most of your P.I.E. get-togethers? Please Comment: During the past three weeks has your child's attitude about doing things with you changed any? Please Comment: During the past three weeks has your attitude about doing things with your child changed any? Please Comment: During the past three weeks who has been taking part in your P.I.E. activities? Please Comment: What do you think are the positive things about P.I.E. so far? 115 APPENDIX E PROGRAM AWARENESS RECORD P.I.E Program Awareness Record Child's Name Date Time Have you ever seen this (P.I.E.) book? Where? Do you know anyone who reads this book? Who? Does your mother/father ever read this book? What is this book about (What is in it?, What is it for?) ? Please tell me how to play some of the games in this book? and/or Please tell me how to play some of the games you play with mother/ father? Does anyone ever play the games in this book with you? Who? Which ones? Does your mother/father ever play the games in this book with you? Which ones? 116 APPENDIX F CHILDRENS INTERACTION PROFILE SCHOOL DATE DAY CHILDREN I I. INITIAL LOCATION Ia. FINAL LOCATION Ib. OBSERVED IN ORDER + (Yes) - (No) II. POSTURE . 1. Lying: in prone position on floor, table, etc. 2. Sitting: sitting on floor, table, chair, etc. 3. Kneeling: kneeling and positions other than sitting, lying, standing 4. Standing: standing on floor, table chair, etc. III.MOTION IIILIIIIJIIII 1. No motion: not moving from one point to another 2. Crawling: crawling and other movements from one point to another but not in standing position 3. Walking 4. Runnigg IV. PHYSICAL BEHAVIOR 11? II 1 Ij I I LI T I 1. No contact: not holding, touching, or grasping an object or person with hands 2. Contact object: actively holding, touching, or grasping an object 3. Contact person: actively holding, touching, feeling or grasping a person 4. Contact object and_person v. SOCIAL BEHAVIOR I I I LI L171 IT I I 1. Sleep: eyes closed, no response during observation period 2. Unoccupied behavior: no interest in objects or persons, or activity 3. Solitary play: pursues own activity without reference to what others are doing 4. Onlooker behavior: active observation of child, group, or object without play 5. Parallel play: plays alongside others but not with others, using similar playthings 117 118 6. Associative_play: playing with, sharing with, interacting with other children 7. Cooperative play: playing with organized goal oriented games VI. PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE I I J I I—vI I: I IF I::]: ]::_J 1. Passive behavior: being shoved, ordered, etc. without resistence, showing fear etc. 2. Immobile not passive or aggressive: staying in one place being neither pass. or agg. 3. MObile notgpassive or aggressive: moving about not being pass- ive or aggressive 4. Stereogyped aggressive: hitting, kicking, threatening, dis- rupting others 5. Non-Stereotyped aggressive: intense breaking, crushing, beating and fighting VII. COMMUNICATION BEHAVIOR Ig__I;_I IIIII I i] I' IIfI II II II 1. Not talking: not talking to another person or persons 2. Talkigg to others APPENDIX C PROGRAM SERVICE CONTRACT PARENT-CHILD INTERACTION EXERCISE PROGRAM P.I.E. Program Service Contract The P.I.E. program in cooperation with the undersigned agrees to the following: (1) To provide P.I.E. eligible parents with children attending a pre- or early school program that has been selected for participation in the evaluation of P.I.E., with an equal opportunity to receive one of the following: (a) six P.I.E. workshops designed to train parents in effective parent child interaction and effective use of the P.I.E. book of parent—child activity plans, or (b) the P.I.E. book of parent- child activity plans, or (c) the above program services upon request and following the evaluation of P.I.E. (2) To keep confidential any and all information that might be obtained by the P.I.E. program regarding the family or children of any parent either requesting to participate or participating in the P.I.E. program. (3) To provide parents selected to participate in the P.I.E. program upon request a report of the program with such reports to be made avail- able upon completion of the program's evaluation. (4) To provide those pre- and early school programs having signed the pro- gram's support statement, consent statement, and service contract, a report of the program; with such reports to be made available upon request and upon completion of the program's evaluation. It is understood that to be considered eligible for participation in P.I.E. a parent must be one of 12 or more parents requesting to participate in P.I.E. and its evaluation, and having children attending the same pre— or early school program. It is further understood that these children must be between the ages of 3 and 4 1/2 years old, with this age range being subject to change by P.I.E. It is also understood that a limited number of programs will be selected to participate in the evaluation of P.I.E. and from these programs a limited number of parents will be randomly selected to participate in P.I.E. Therefore eligibility for participation will not guarantee participation. Any questions concerning P.I.E. and its evaluation have been satisfactorily answered. (P.I.E. Program Director) _4_‘ 119 APPENDIX H: Table 23, Table 24 Mean Squares for Cal 120 Table 23 dwell Analysis of Co-variance Treatment X Treatment Centers Centers Subtests/Total df (2,62) (2,62) (4,62) 1. Personal-Social 12.50 16.46 5.63 Responsiveness 2. Associative Vocabulary .75 2.43 1.65 3. Concept Activation-Numerical 1.61 7.79 .75 4. Concept Activation-Sensory 12.00 .39 10.88 5. Total 52.09 34.50 33.35 121 ~0.0q 50.0m 0m.mH 0N.NH 50.0 oa.0 mm.“ mm.m HB.0H 00.HH 039 oum>wum .m 50.00 mH.Hm mq.mH 00.HH H0.~ 0H.m mm.m 00.0 aH.oH mH.HH moo ouo>aum .N no.0m m0.0~ mm.NH 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 mm.m mo.HH 00.0 oaanom .H Monaco 00.0m mm.wm mo.MH 00.m NN.0 mm.¢ 00.0 00.0 N0.HH 0w.¢ Houuaoo .m sofiumahowaH qo.m0 No.Hm Nq.mH N0.HH 0m.n 0N.m 00.0 00.0 om.mH mm.oa omuuwuz .N om.mq co.Hm mm.oa N0.0H H0.n 00.0 00.0 cm.0 N0.MH um.oa nosmxuoz .H uamfiummuy umom mum umom mum Doom mum umom mum umom mum mmmom>wmcoommm Hmuow muomcmm H¢Ofiuoaoz zumaonmoo> Hmaoom oomocoo unmocoo w>wumfioomm< Hmcomumm ummH Hamsoamo mnu so muoucmo 0cm monouo Domeumoue you mouoom com: Hamuo>o 0N maan APPENDIX I: Table 25 122 mo. mo. mo. oN. HN. NN. NN. same .N uoH>mnmm m>wmmmuww< ma. oN. NN. Nm. NN. NN. mN. \upnouuo .o NN. mm. mo. mo.o No. mo.o NN.¢N uoN>uoom Nonoom .m NN. ON. oH. NN. NN. om. mN. oouoooo .o mm. mm. mm. mo. oo. mo.o oN. oonooz .m om. oN. no. oo.N oN. NN.H mN.H uuouooo .N so. mo. mo. oo. oo. mo.N on. ouoaufi> mmmu< .H NNNoNAwoq. ANNON.oNV NHNON.om0 Aomouov NNNON.NNV AmoANv AmoAMV no aoOH ucofiumouH usuaumoua Hoodoo Hoodoo mafia umucmo unmaumoufi x x x x umucmo mafia mafia unmaummpa x mafi H. mocmwum> mo mammamo< moOHum>ummno Hmuow>m£mm you mmumoom coo: 0N manna APPENDIX J: Table 26 123 00. oh.H me. NN.0H «a. mu. hm.u muamaaou m>HuHmom .HH No. NN.H NN.H NN.NN on. Nm.N mo.o ooNNuNN uuoaoz .oN owcmnu oo. oo. oN. NN. NN. oo. om.N ooounooo oouuoo .o owamno oo. mN. oN. om. oo. NN. NN.H mononuo< oNNoo .o oN. ma. NH. mN.N NH. oo. om.m oouasofiuo oNNoo .N oo.oo No.No mN.oNN oN.momm oo.NNN oN.oooN mm.oo oumouo memo .o mafia mamm oo. oo. oo. oo. mo. No. on. ovoNm uuauo .m Son meow NN. oo. NH. NN. NH. oN. oo. oosuao uuawo .o oN.H mN.N oN.o NN.oN mo.N oN.o mm.m ooouooum moauo .m mN.m oN.mN oN.o mo.No om.m No.oN oo.oN ousuNo moauo .N NN.H NN.m No.o oo.ooa NN.oN Ho.Nm mN.oN uuoeoooouuouo .N NNmN.oo ANNH.oo NNNN.oo NooqNo aNmNANV “so.No AoouNo No auOH quEummHH. uflwfiummHB Hmudmo HmquU mafia. Hmufimu quBummHH. x x x x umusmo maHH maHH uooaumoue x mans ooomwum> mo mammamc< om: amuwoum pom oumoom com: 0N mHan APPENDIX K: Table 27 124 meow amuwouo oo. oN. oN. om.N oo. mo. oo. Nuoo moouuoo .m ufim ufioo no. mo. No. mN.H oo. Nm. NN. aouoouo moons .N Emumouo oo. oH. oo. oo. oo. oo. oN.N oouu moo .N AooqNo Aoo.No Aoo.No Aoo.No Noo.No Aoo.No AooANo No soOH ucoaummuH ucoaummufi umucmo poucmo oaHH umucmu ucmaumoua x x x x umucmo oBHH mafia ucmaummufi x mm: .H mocmwum> mo mammamc< mmmcmum3< pawso pom moumovm com: um canoe LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Aston, P.J., & Dobson, G. Family interaction and social adjustment in a sample of normal school children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 1972, 13, 77-89. Bandura, A. & Walters, R. Social learning and personality development, New York, Holt RInehart & Winston, 1963. Barclay, A. & Cusumano, D. R. Father absences, cross sex identity and field dependent behavior in male adolescents. Child Development, 1967, 38, 243- 250. Bartemeir, L. The contributions of the father on the mental health of the family. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1953, 110, 277-280. Baumrind, D. Child care practices anteceding three patterns of pre-school behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 1967, 75, 43-88. Bayley, N. & Schaefer, E. Correlation of maternal and child behaviors with the development of mental abilities: Data from the Berkeley Growth study. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 1964, 29:6. Beckey, R. E. A study of certain factors related to retarda- tion of speech. Journal of Speech Disorders, 7, 1942, 223- 249. Beckwith, L. Relationship between attributes of mothers and their infants I.Q. score. Child Development, 1971, 42, 1083-1097. Bee, H.L, VanEgeren, L.F., Streissgreth, A.P., Nyman, B.A., & Leckie, M.S. Social class differences in maternal teaching strategies and speech patterns. ‘Developmental Psychology, 1969, 1, 726-734. Bigner, J.J. Fathering: Research and practice implication. Family Coordination, 1970, 357-362. 125 126 Bing, F. Effect of childrearing practices on development of differential cognitive abilities. Child Development, 1963, 34, 631-648. Bishop, B.M. Mother child interaction and the social be- havior of children. ngchological Monographs, 1951, 65' ll. Bishop, L. Some relationships between infants and mothers behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. U. of Chicago, 1959. Cited by M.P. Honzik, Environmental Correlates of Mental Growth, Child Development, 1967, 38, 337-364. Blanchard, R.W. & Biller, H.B. Father availability and academic performance among third grade boys, Developmental Psychology, 1971, 4, 301-305. Bloom, B.S. Stabiligy and change in humans. New York, Wiley, 1964. Boger, R.P.; Kuipers, J. & Beery, M. Parents as primary change agents in an experimental head start program of language intervention. Head Start Evaluation and Research Center. Michigan State University, 1969. Brody, G.F. Maternal child rearing attitudes and child behavior. Developmental Psyghology, 1969, l, 1, 66. Brofy, J.E. Mothers as teachers of their own pre-school children: The influence of socio-metric status and task structure on teaching specificity. Child Developé ment, 1970, 14, 79-97. Burkes, E.S. The relative influence of nature and nurture upon mental development: A comparative study of foster parent-foster child resemblance. Yearbook of National Society for Studies in Education, 1928, 27, 219-236. Busse, T. Child rearing antecedents of flexible thinking. Developmental Psychology, 1969, 1, 5, 585-591. Caldwell, B.M. Pre-school inventogy - 1970, Princeton, New Jersey, Educational Testing Service, 1970. Caplan, G. The theory and practige of mental health cog: sultation. New York/London, Basic Books Inc., 1970. 127 Dave, R.H. The identification and measurement of educational process variables that are related to educational achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, 1963. Cited by N.E. Freeberg & D.T. Payne. Parental Influence on cognitive development in early childhood: A Review. Child DevelOpment, 1967, 38, 65-87. Davidson, H.B. & Greenberg, J.W. School achievers from deprived backgrounds. New York, AssociatIOn of Educa- tional Services, 1967. Dawson, J.L.M. Psychological effects of social change in a West African community. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Oxford, 1963. Cited by R.B. Dyk and H.A. Witken. Family experiences related to the development of differentiation in children. Child Development, 1965, 36, 21-55. Deutsh, M. & Brown, B. Social influences in Negro-White intelligence differences. Journal of Social Issues, 1964, 20, 24-35. Dibartelo, R. & Vinacke, W.E. Relationship between adult nurturance and dependency and performance of pre-school children. Developmental Psychology, 1969, 247-251. Dreger, R.M. & Miller, K.S. Comparative psychological studies of Negroes and Whites in the United States. Psychological Bulletin, 1960, 57, 361-402. Dyk, R.B. & Witkin, H.A. Family experiences related to the development of differentiation in children. Child Development, 1965, 36, 21-55. Fairweather, G.W. Methods for Experimental Social Innovation, New York, Wiley, 1967. Frank, G.H. Role of the family in the development of psychopathology. Psychological Bulletin, 1965, 64, 191—205. Frost, J.L. & Rowland, G.T. Compensatory programming; The acid test of American education. Dubuque, Iowa, Wm. C. Brown Co., 1971. Fuchs, N.R. Play therapy at home. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1957' 3’ 89-95. 128 Goldfarb, W. The causes and treatment of childhood schizo- phrenia. Cited in Public Health Service Publication No. 2168; Mental health of the-child, 293-309. Gray, S.W. Research change and social responsibility: An illustrative model from early education. Sept. 67, 34p. ED033 922. Gray, S.W. The early training project: A seventh year report Child Development, 1970, 41, 909-924. Gray, S.W. & Klaus, R. The early training project and its general rationale. In R.D. Hess & R.M. Bear (Eds.), Early_education current theory, research and action. ChiEago: Aldine; 1968. Gruen, G.E. & Zigler, E. Expectancy of success and the probability learning of middle-class, lower-class, and retarded children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1968, 73, 343-352. Gruen, G., Ottinger, D., & Zigler, E. Level of aspiration and the probability learning of middle and low class children. Developmental Psychology, 1970, 3:1, 233-242. Grunebaum, M.; Hurwitz, I.; Prentice, N.; & Sperry, B.M. Fathers of sons with primary neurotic learning inhibitions. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1962, 462-473. Guerney, B. Filial therapy; Description and Rationale. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1964, 28, 4, 304-310. Hawkridge, D.G.; Chalupsky, A.B., & Roberts, A.O. A study of selected exemplary programs for education of disadvantaged children. U.S. Office of Education, final report, project 089013, 1968. Hilliard, G.H. & Truxwell, E. Informational background as a factor in reading readiness and reading progress. Elementary School Journal, 64, 1964, 393-397. Honzik, M.P. Environmental correlates of mental growth: Prediction from the family setting at 21 months. Child Development, 1967, 38, 337-364. Jason, L., Clarfield, S. & Cowan, E. Preventive intervention with young disadvantaged children. American Journal of Community Psyghology, 1973, 1, 1, 50-61. Kamii, C.K. & Radin, N. Class differences in the sociali- zation practices of Negro mothers, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1967, 29, 302-310. 129 Kent, N. & Davis, D.R. Discipline in the home and intellectual development. British Journal of Medican Psychology, 1957, 30, 27-34. Lane, M.B. Nursery schools in the service of mental health. Cited in Public Health Service Publication No. 2168; Mental health of the child, 3-24. Leahy, A.M. Nature & nurture and intelligence. Genetic Psychologngonographs, 1935, 17, 236-308. Levison, B.M. Cultural pressure and W.A.I.S. scatter in a traditional Jewish setting. Journal of Genetic Psychol- ogy, 1958, 93, 277-286. Levenstein, P. & Sunley, R.M. Aiding cognitive growth in disadvantaged preschoolers. Nov. 68, 70p. ED (Available in June, 1972 R.I.E.). Levenstein, P. Fostering the mothers role in the cognitive growth of low income pre-schoolers: A new family agency functiBn. May 69, 10p. ED (Available in June, 1972 R.I.E.) . Levenstein, P. Verbal interaction project: Aiding cognitive growth in disadvantaged preschoolers through the mother- child home program. July 1, l967-August 31, 1970. Feb. 71, 66p. ED (Available in June, 1972 R.I.E.). Levenstein, P. Mothers as early cognitive trainers: Guiding low-income mothers to work with_their pre-schoolers. Apr. 71, 24p. ED (Available in June, 1972, R.I.E.). Levy, D.M. Maternal overprotection. Columbia University Press, 194*. Lidz, T. Parental behavior and the origins of schizophrenia. Cited in Public Health Service_Pub1ication No. 2168; Mental health of the child, 267-292. Maw, W. & Maw, E. Self-concepts of high- and low- curiosity boys. Child Development, 1970, 41, 123-129. Maynard, H. The effect of gropp composition on task perfor- mance. Unpublished Masters thesis, UniVersity of Oregon, Eugene, 1964. Milner, E. A study of the relationship between reading readi- ness in grade school children and patterns of parent- child interaction. Child Development, 1951, 22, 2, 95-112. 130 Montague, D.O. Arithmetic concepts of kindergarten children in contrasting socioeconomic areas. ElementarygSchool Journal, 64, 1964, 393-397. Moustakas, C.W. Children in play therapy. New York: Harper, 1959. Nakamura, C. The relationship between children's expression of hostility and methods of discipline exercised by dominant overprotective parents. Child Development, 1959, 30, 109-117. Odom, R.D. Problem solving strategies as a function of age and socioeconomic level. Child Development, 1967, 38, 753-764. Palmer, F.H. Performance among Negro pre-school boys. Developmental Psychology, 1970, 3, 1, 1-9. Perry pre-school project Ypsilanti Michlgan; One of aiseries of successful compensatory education programs. ‘It works: Preschool program in compensatory education. 1969, 22p., ED 027 975. Peterson, D.R., Becker, W.C., Hellmer, L.A., Shoemaker, D.J. & Quay, H.C. Parental attitudes and child adjustment. Child Development, 1959, 30, 119-130. Posner, J. Evaluation of "Successful" Projects in compensatory education. U.S. Office of Education, Office of Planning and Evaluations, paper no. 8, 1968. Radin, N. Father child interaction and the intellectual functioning of four year old boys, Developmental Psychology, March, 1972; 6, 2, 353-361. Sakoda, J.M., Cohen, B.H. & Beall, G. Test of significance for a series of statistical tests. Psychological Santrock, J.W. Relation of type and onset of father absence to cognitive development, Child Development, 1972, 43, 455-469. Saxe, R.M. & Stollak, G.E. Curiosity and the parent child relationship. Child Development, 1971, 42, 373-384. Sears, R.H., & Macoby, E.E., & Levin, H. Patterns of child rearing. Row & Peterson, 1957. 131 Seder, J.A. The origin of differences in the extent of independence in children: Developmental factors in perceptual field dependence. Unpublished bachelors thesis, Radcliffe College, 1957. Cited by H.A. Witken, R.B. Dyk, H.F. Paterson, D.R. Goodenough & S.A. Karp in Psychological Differentiation. New York: Wiley, 1962. Serot, N.M. & Teevan, R.C. Perception of the parent-child relationship and its relation to child adjustment. Child Development, 1961, 32, 373-378. Skodak, M. & Skeels, B.M. A final follow up study of one hundred adopted children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1949, 75, 85-125. Soloman, D., Houlian, K.A., Busse, T.V., & Parelins, R.J. Parent behavior and child academic achievement, achieve- ment striving, and related personality characteristics. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 1971, 83, 173-273. Stollak, G.E. Education for early childhood consultation. Paper presented at the 1973 meeting of the American Psychological Association, Montreal, Canada. Tryon, R.C. & Bailey, D.E. Cluster Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970. Walberg, H. & Marjoribanks, K. Differential mental abilities and home environment: A canonical analysis. Develop- mental Psychologyr 1973, 9, 3, 363-368. Witken, H.A. The perception of the upright. Scientific American, 1959, 200, 50-56. Witken, H.A., Dyk, R.B., Paterson, H.F., Goodenough, D.R. & Karp, S.A. Psychological Differentiation. New York, Wiley, 1962. Wittenberg, C. Baker's dozen: A program of training young people as mental health aides. Cited in Public Health Service Publication No. 2168; Mental Health ofithe Chiid, 59-71. Wolf, R.M. The identification and measurement'of environmental process variables related to intelligence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, U. of Chicago, 1964. Cited by N.E. Freeberg &l)JP.Payne. Parental influence on cognitive development in early childhood: A review. Child Develop- ment, 1967, 38, 65-87. Yahraes, H. A preschool program for disadvantaged children. Cited in Public Health Service Publication No. 2168; Mental Health of the Child, 44-58.