~.....~.z-.—u—q«o-—.-aue—..-.-n

PARENTS’. Pancapnons "OF ' L -'
ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 0F BOYS ' ‘
DESIGNATEDLEARNING DISABLED j '

DiSSertation far the Degree of'Ph, D. .
MIC-HEAR STATE UNIVERSITY
, ‘ ‘¢‘1’ELLSJ.LGNGSHORE
1973‘ I

LIBRAR Y

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

PARENTS' PERCEPTIONS OF
ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF BOYS
DESIGNATED LEARNING DISABLED

presented by

WELLS J. LONGSHORE

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the {.equirements for

Doctor 0
Philosophy . Elementary and
Pg” m SEeCLal E'ducation

/

Major professor

Date April 28, 1976

0-7639

     
 

'1‘ »‘ ‘I I ‘l:
i? t: lflfi’filfilflfi- l
3% “l "flew":

 
    

    

   

     

    

 

‘A l
2!

SJ.

 

ABSTRACT

PARENTS' PERCEPTIONS OF ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF
BOYS DESIGNATED LEARNING DISABLED

BY
Wells J. Longshore

Summary

One of the primary ingredients for most successful
school programs is effective communication between teachers
and parents. Most teacher training institutions recognize
the need for teachers to develop this competecy in relating
to parents. A difficulty in all types of interpersonal
relationships is the different attitudes and expectations
of the people involved due to different perceptual worlds.
Good communication depends on clear messages and mutual
agreement on goals. In teacher-parent contacts regarding
a child's academic achievement, it is important that teacher,
parent, and child agree on academic goals based on present
level of achievement. Teachers usually begin planning a
child's academic program by using formal and informal
tests and methods of assessment. In conferencing with
parents it is helpful to know how accurately parents

understand their child's present level of academic skill

Wells J. Longshore

development. In teacher-parent conferences, the teacher
often needs to explain to the parents the school curriculum
and their child's progress.

The question has been raised concerning how accurate,
or realistic, parents are regarding their children's
social and academic development. Several research studies
have investigated this question using different populations
and different research methods. General research findings
indicate that parents tend to make their children more
normal than they really are. High achieving children have
usually been underrated by their parents and low achieving
children have been overrated by their parents. Mothers of
exceptional children seem to overrate their children more
than any other group of parents. Parents seem to be more
accurate in rating present achievement than future achieve-
ment. It is not clear if the social class of the parents,
or the sex, age, or degree of handicap of the child are
significantly related to the accuracy of parents' estimates.

The present study adds to existing research (1) by
exploring parental estimates of the achievement status
of boys designated as "learning disabled," a group not
previously studied; (2) by utilizing an achievement test -
the Peabody Individual Achievement Test - that may be
teacher administered and that is coming into wide use;
and (3) by using an item-by-item parental judgment to
generate "parental" test scores rather than asking parents

for global estimates of achievement.

Wells J. Longshore

Fifty middle class families from suburban and rural
areas of Michigan agreed to participate in the study
after being contacted by their child's teacher, principal
or psychologist. Twenty-five of the children were
presumably normal boys in regular classes (ages 8 - 13
years), and 25 were boys of the same age designated learning
disabled by State of Michigan Special Education guidelines.
Both parents had to agree to participate. The boys were
administered the Peabody Individual Achievement Test (PIAT)
at their school. The parents were seen individually at
school or home and asked to estimate how they thought
their child would score on each item of the test. Standard
scoring procedures were followed. Total test raw scores
and grade equivalents were compared for children and
their parents, and for parents of regular class children

and children designated learning disabled.

Conclusions

 

l. Contrary to most previous research, and to the first
two hypotheses of this study, there was no consistent
tendency for mothers and fathers of boys in regular
classes to underestimate their sons' present level of
academic achievement. It was expected that these
parents would tend to significantly underestimate
their sons' academic achievement. The results showed
mothers to have a mean overestimate of four months, and
fathers to have a mean overestimate of five months
(grade level equivalent). Neither of these over-
estimates was statistically significant.

Wells J. Longshore

In agreement with most previous research, mothers of
boys designated learning disabled did, on the average,
overestimate their son's academic achievement by

about three months; however, this was not statistically
significant and, therefore, did not support the
hypothesis of this paper.

In agreement with previous similar studies and
hypothesis IV of this study, fathers of boys designated
learning disabled were more accurate in their estimates
than other parents. Results of the present study
showed these fathers to underestimate by less than

one month. Fathers of these boys were significantly
more accurate when compared to all other parents

taken as a group.

As expected, there was a trend for the discrepancy
between the estimates of mothers and fathers of

boys designated learning disabled to be greater than
the discrepancy between mothers and fathers of boys
in regular classes. Again, no consistent pattern of
underestimates or overestimates was found. The
difference between a mean of 3.3 months and a mean
of 1.1 months was not statistically significant,
however.

Reading comprehension was the one area where a
significant difference was found between the relative
accuracy of groups of parents, with fathers of boys
designated learning disabled being significantly
more accurate than any other group.

As a total group, the scores of the majority of
parents were within one grade equivalent of the score
obtained by their child. While the occasional
parent deviated widely from accuracy in assessing

his child's achievement status, it was concluded
that most of these parents were reasonably accurate
in understanding their child's current achievement
level.

PARENTS' PERCEPTIONS OF ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
OF BOYS DESIGNATED LEARNING DISABLED

BY
Wells J? Longshore

A Dissertation

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Elementary and
Special Education

1976

© Copyright by

WELLS JUDE LONGSHORE
1976

This dissertation is dedicated to
my wife, Myrl, and my daughter, Jennifer,
with my love and appreciation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

 

I want to acknowledge the kindness and help of my
Guidance Committee who have made my study at Michigan
State an enriching and pleasant time. I will take with
me the enthusiasm of Frank Bruno and his concern for
the affective development of children; the gentle,
dependable guidance of Ed Keller; and wisdom of
Louise Sause and her love of children and their parents;
the humor, friendship and perspective of Gene Pernell.

I want to thank my family and Myrl Morris, an old
and dear friend, who encouraged me to go on with my
studies to work with people.

A special thanks also to two close friends,

John Braccio and Jon Hansen, who, like two good coaches,
knew when to push and when to encourage. Without their
consistent, practical advice and help, I might not have
made it.

My wife and I both thank our friends here in Michigan
who have shown us love and friendship we will never forget.
My fellow graduate students have been a great source of
learning and growth. Thanks to Andi McInenly, an extra-

ordinary secretary and cheerful, patient friend of graduate

students. Our friends at St. John's Church, especially
the Liberatores and Simons, have helped us experience the
community of the family of man.

Most important, I want to acknowledge the love
and encouragement of my wife, Myrl, and daughter,

Jennifer, who have given me joy and peace.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER
I INTRODUCTION

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . .

Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . .

Hypotheses to be Tested . . . . . . . .

Significance of the Study . . . . . . .

II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Parents' Perceptions of Children in
Regular Classes . . . . . . . . . . .

Parents' Perceptions of Retarded
Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Parents' Perception of Physicall
Handicapped Children . . . . . . . .

Conclusions from Previous Research and
Need for Present Study . . . . . . .

III METHODOLOGY

Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Selection of the Learning Disability
Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Selection of th Regular Class Group.
Test Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . .
Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Research Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . .

\l\l<J\U'IL«H'--'I

10
11
13
24

27

29

29
32
33
35
37

CHAPTER

Table of Contents (continued)

 

IV RESULTS

V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

APPENDICES
A—
B _
C _

Hypothesis
Hypothesis
Hypothesis
Hypothesis
Hypothesis
Summary of

Summary .

Conclusions

Discussion

I .
II~.
III
IV .
V .

Results

Implications for Future

Learning Disabled, defined
Peabody Individual Achievement Tes
PIAT, Mathematics

Research

Reading Recognition .
Spelling
General Information .
Instructions for Administration of PIAT

Letter to parents

Post Project Questionnaire

vi

t

39
43
44
45
46
50

52
54
55
58

Table
3.1

4.1

4.4

LIST OF TABLES

 

Characteristics of Subjects (Boys) .

PIAT Total Test Scores and Child-
Parent Discrepancies in Grade
Equivalent . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Distribution of Parents According to
Accuracy of Estimate of Child's PIAT
Total Test 0 O O O O I O I O O I O 0

Distribution of Parents According to
Accuracy of Estimate of Child's PIAT
subtests O O O O O O O O O O 0

Distribution and Comparison of Parents
According to Accuracy or Inaccuracy of

Estimate of Child's PIAT Subtests .

vii

40

41

43

48

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Background

 

One of the primary ingredients for most successful
school programs is effective communication between teachers
and parents. Good communication is the basis for a
teacher-parent partnership which leads to an understanding
of the attitudes and expectations of each other regarding
the child's school progress (Barsch, 1969). Teachers can
learn a great deal from parents about the child's long
term development at home, and parents can learn much from
teachers about the child's development at school (Chilman,
1971). Many authors stress this need for clear communication
between teachers and parents. Competency in communication
skills and interpersonal relationships is a key element
in many teacher training programs. Robert Carkhuff (1969,
1973) has shown that teachers can become helping persons
when working with parents if they are given appropriate
training by effective trainers. Haim Ginott (1972) gives
many suggestions for teachers in planning teacher-parent

conferences such as the importance of a private and

comfortable meeting place, giving the parent one's un-
divided attention, and accepting the parent's feelings.
Tom Gordon (1974) explains how teachers can use the
skills of active listening and "I" messages to improve
communication with parents.

In regard to communicating with parents of exceptional
children, Roger Kroth (1975) stresses the need to compare
teacher and parent perceptions of the child's behavior.

He suggests behavioral techniques such as the Q-Sort:
target behavior, and reinforcement techniques for problem
solving with parents.

Teachers realize that children's learning problems
often effect all members of the family. They seek to have
both parents become involved in.planning programs for the
child. They View the family as a system and can help to
improve communication between mother and father, and
between parents and child. The importance of understanding
and communication between husbands and wives regarding
their child's learning problems has been emphasized by
Ross (1964) and Friedman (1973). Ross discusses family
dynamics in psychoanalytical terms such as guilt, anxiety,
and unconscious motivation. Friedman suggests that parents
be asked to clearly state their expectations for their
child. In regard to achievement expectation, he found

some parents to be markedly inapprOpriate (Friedman, 1973).

The importance of studying the family as a social system
has long been recognized by many family clinics such as

the Mental Research Institute of Palo Alto, California
founded by Donald Jackson, Virginia Satir and others
(Jackson, 1968). These writers emphasize that problems
effect all members of the family and effective helpers are
aware of the interaction among family members. In regard
to school learning disturbance, the need.for clear communi—

cation within the family is outlined by Strickler (1969).

The Problem

 

The primary problem in all types of communication is
the different perceptual perspectives of the people
communicating. Every individual views life through his
own perceptual world. Effective communicators try to see
problems from the other person's perspective.

Teachers and parents often have different expectations
regarding the child's school progress. This is particularly
true, perhaps, when the child is suffering from some type
of handicap. The literature of special education is
replete with discussions of the failure of parents of
handicapped children to accept realistically their child's
academic limitations. Typically, the parent of a child

labeled mentally retarded or learning disabled will complain

that the teacher underestimates the child's ability, and
conversely, the teacher feels that the parent has un-
realistic expectations for the child's academic achievement.
It has also been widely held that a handicapped child
frequently creates tension and discord between the
parents. The mother and father may seriously disagree in
their perceptions of,and strategies for managing,the child.
These factors have led to a small body of research
which seeks to objectively measure parental expectations.
Characteristically, these studies, to be reviewed below,
have compared the child's score on an ability or achievement
measure with some type of parental estimate of the child's
status. Most frequently, parents have been asked to
estimate the child's mental age or IQ, which is then
compared to the child's obtained score on an intelligence
test.
Few studies have attempted to secure parental
estimates of achievement on a widely used achievement
test. Achievement, rather than general ability as
measured by an intelligence test, would seem to be the
most relevant area of investigation, since it is with the
child's school achievement that parent and teacher communi-
cation is primarily concerned. The present study explores
parent-child and parent-parent discrepancies on the

Peabody Individual Achievement Test, a widely used

 

achievement test.

Second, previous studies have rarely sought to
secure parental judgments on the specific skills required
by a particular test. It may well be that if a parent is
asked, item by item, whether his child can pass the item,
the total score estimate so generated will differ signi-
ficantly from a global estimate such as a mental age or
an achievement grade level. This item by item method was
used in the present study on the assumption that such a
procedure will give a truer estimate of the parent's
perception of the child's achievement status than does a
global estimate.

Finally, no studies were found involving children
categorized as learning disabled and their parents. Since
the learning disability category is currently the fastest
growing area of special education, it was selected for

study in the present investigation.

Purpose of the Study

 

The purpose of the present study, therefore, is to
assess the accuracy with which the parents of boys
designated as learning disabled can estimate their child's
achievement on a widely used achievement test. As a
framework for evaluating the responses of parents of
learning disabled boys, they are compared with a group of
parents of boys not so designated, and presumably normal

in school achievement.

The study is limited to boys, only because of the
relative inavailability of girls designated as learning
disabled. A major focus of the study is on comparisons

of the perceptions of mothers and fathers.

Definition of Terms

 

The term "Learning Disabled" will be used to refer
to the group of boys designated as learning disabled by
criteria described in Chapter III, and to the parents of
these boys. The comparison group of boys, not designated
learning disabled, and their parents will be referred
to by the label "Regular Class."

The term "level of academic achievement," when
referring to a boy's score, refers to his total score on
the PIAT. When this term is applied to the parents,
it refers to the total PIAT score created by the parent's
item by item judgment as to whether the child would have
passed the item. The parent has taken the test "as if"
he were the child. Thus, when the parent is described as
"estimating" the child's score, this term refers to this

derivedyparental score and is not an estimate in the usual

 

sense in which this term is used.

Hypotheses to be Tested

 

Based on previous research studies reviewed in
Chapter II, five hypotheses will be tested.

I. Mothers of boys in regular classes not designated
learning disabled will underestimate their son's
present level of academic achievement.

II. Fathers of boys in regular classes not designated
learning disabled will underestimate their son's
present level of academic achievement.

III. Mothers of boys designated learning disabled
will overestimate their son's present level of
academic achievement.

IV. Fathers of boys designated learning disabled
will accurately estimate their son's present
level of academic achievement.

V. The discrepancy between the mean PIAT raw scores
of mothers and fathers of boys designated learning
disabled will be significantly greater than the
discrepancy between mothers and fathers of boys
not designated learning disabled.

This hypothesis follows from the first four
hypotheses which predict that both mothers and
fathers of boys not designated learning disabled

will underestimate while mothers of boys designated
learning disabled will overestimate and fathers

of boys designated learning disabled will be accurate.

Significance of the Study

 

The intent of this study is to provide some objective
evidence as to the validity of commonly held beliefs re-
garding the distorted perceptions of parents of handicapped
children. Assuming that teachers and other professionals

who have worked with parents of handicapped children have

correctly observed that many parents "expect too much,"

and thus apparently overestimate their child's capabilities,
there may still be several explanations for what is
determining this parental behavior. The parents' wishes
may father their perceptions, so that they actually
perceive the child as capable. If this is true, then if
one were to secure from parents the item by item judg-
ments of the child's performance as required in the present
study, the parent would see the child as capable of
specific performances of which the child is not capable.

On the other hand, the parent may see clearly what
specific things the child can and cannot do, but does not
accept this state of affairs as representing the child's
"true," or potential, capabilities. If this is the state
of affairs, the teacher might still evaluate the parent as
overestimating the child's ability, since the parent
would be under internal pressure to push the teacher to
hold higher expectancies for the child than the teacher
feels apprOpriate.

It is reasonable to assume that these alternate
explanations of the parental dynamics would require
different approaches to the parent. This study should
provide some data as to the relative validity of these
two possible explanations.

A second value of the study derives from a comparison
of the discrepancies between parents of learning disabled
children in estimating their child's performance as

compared to the discrepancies among parents of children

without major school learning problems. Are the mothers
and fathers of learning disabled children far apart? Or,
has the disability caused them to attend more closely

to their child's performance? Findings in this regard
should correct or confirm the stereotypic notion that
parents of such children deviate from the norm in their
extent of disagreement.

Children categorized as learning disabled, while
falling at present as a responsibility of special
education, differ, of course, from other groups of
handicapped children. Perhaps, most important, they are
not as readily perceived as handicapped; there are
generally no visible manifestations of the disability
that make them socially identifiable as handicapped.
Generalizations based on other handicapping conditions
may not apply to them. The results of this study will
make possible some evaluation of such generalizations
as they apply to this disability category.

It is also of importance that the present study
deals with a public school population. Previous studies
have frequently secured subjects through clinics.
Obviously, a population so identified is a biased sample,
which may well be unrepresentative of the typical family
of a learning disabled child.

This study includes only white, middle class families
and caution should be taken when applying the results to

families of other cultural backgrounds.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

 

This chapter includes a review of 15 previous research
studies related to the present investigation. Primary
emphasis is given to those studies that compare parents'
estimates of the present academic functioning level of
their child to the child's actual score on some standardized
test instrument. The contributions and limitations of
each study are analyzed in light of the purpose of the
present study. Special attention is given to the types
of children and parents studied, and the instruments and
procedures used. Conclusions from these studies are
summarized at the end of this chapter.

Studies are presented according to the type of
children and parents investigated. Under this division,
studies of parents of children in regular classes are
reviewed, followed by studies of parents of retarded
children, and finally, studies of parents of physically

handicapped children.

10

11

Parents' Perceptions of Children in Regular Classes

 

Two studies report the accuracy of parental estimates
of the 10's of boys in regular classes. Cotler and
Shoemaker (1969) found mothers of boys in regular classes
to underestimate their son's IQ by an average of 15.78
points with mothers of high achieving boys consistently
underestimating performance and mothers of low achieving
boys consistently overestimating performance. Most of the
boys in this sample were high achievers. This team of
researchers from Southern Illinois University selected
40 boys (ages 7 to 13 years) and their mothers from the
University School in Carbondale, Illinois. The subjects
for this study were middle and upper-middle class and
volunteered to participate. For the IQ estimate, they
used only the Block Design performance test from the WISC
and compared the mothers' estimates with the child's actual
score. The testing procedure took place in the homes of
the subjects. The mothers observed their sons complete
each of the seven items on the Block Design subtest of
the WISC. The mothers then rated their child's performance
in percentiles compared to how the mothers thought their
child would score compared to other boys of the same age.
These percentiles were converted to IQ scores and compared
to the child's actual IQ score for that one test. Dis-
crepancy scores between mothers' estimates and child's

actual score were compared. The discrepancies between the

12

boys' IQ's and the mothers' predicted IQ ranged from
-17 to +53, with an average discrepancy showing mothers to
underestimate by 15.78 points. The mothers' range of
scores (82 - 125) were significantly smaller than the boys
actual scores (65 - 156). The authors claim that this agrees
with previous research that shows that parents tend to
rate their children more average than they really are with
high achievers being underrated and low achievers overrated.
Boerger (1970) sent a questionnaire to 950 parents of
fifth and sixth grade boys in a middle class suburban
school district asking them, among other things, to
estimate their son's IQ. The social class of these parents
is similar to those studied by Cotler and Shoemaker.
Boerger also studied only boys, however, he included both
parents in his study. Boerger compared the parents'
estimates with the boys' scores on group intelligence
tests. The writer could not obtain this study to determine
how the parents made their estimates or what group IQ
tests were used. Cotler and Shoemaker used an individual
IQ test and spoke with the parents directly. Of the
approximately 650 responses, Boerger found that parents
tended to underestimate their son's IQ, with low achievers
being overestimated and high achievers being underestimated.
This agrees with the findings of Cotler and Shoemaker.
Boerger does not mention differences between the estimates

of mothers and fathers.

13

Parents' Perceptions of Retarded Children

Eight related studies have been conducted with the
parents of retarded children. Four of these studies have
found parents to be generally accurate in their estimates
of their child's present academic development. Four
studies found parents to overestimate their child's present,
or future, development. Two studies concerned with
parents' estimates and social class, but not parents'
accuracy, are also mentioned.

Ewert and Green (1957) interviewed the mothers of 100
retarded children (60 boys and 40 girls, ages 1 to 14 years).
The mothers were from all social classes. The childrens'
IQ's ranged from 7 to 69 with a mean IQ of 44.1. Fifty
of these children had no known contributing physical
condition, while the remaining fifty were found to have
some major physical abnormality. The mothers were asked
to estimate the age most compatible with her child's
present behavior. The mother's estimated age of the child's
current functioning level was used as a mental age in
determining an estimated IQ score. These estimates were
compared to the child's score on the Vineland, Cattell,
Stanford-Binet, or WISC. These researchers at the Mayo Clinic,
Rochester, Minnesota, found the mothers to accurately rate
65 of the 100 children. By "accurately" they indicated

that the mother's estimate did not vary more than 15 points

14

from the child's actual IQ score. The range of estimated
IQ scores was from 8 to 100 with a mean estimated IQ of

58 and a standard deviation of 20.1. The childrens'
actual scores ranged from 7 to 69 with a mean of 44.1 and
a standard deviation of 14.7. These authors found mothers
to be slightly, but not significantly, more accurate in
estimating the IQ of boys than of girls. They found no
significant difference in the accuracy of mothers from
different social classes. Ewert and Green reported that
children with physical impairments were rated as accurately
as children with no physical impairments. The authors,
clinical psychologists, are concerned with the accuracy
of parents' ratings and add that they are not suggesting
accuracy implies acceptance or rejection as these terms
are used in psychiatric practice (p. 521).

Schulman and Stern (1959) of Johns Hopkins Hospital,
Baltimore, Maryland agree with the findings of Ewert and
Green. Their investigation involved parents of 50 retarded
children ages 3 - 12 (24 boys and 26 girls). The social
class of the parents is not mentioned. The children's IQ's
ranged from 17 to 82 with a mean of 55.5. Information was
obtained in only seven cases from both parents, in 36
cases from the mother alone, four cases from the father
alone, and one case each from an aunt, a grandmother, and
a sister. The parents were asked to estimate their child's
developmental age which was converted to an IQ and compared

to the child's score on the Stanford-Binet, Gesell Develop—

15

mental Scale, or the Vineland. The average deviation
between parental estimate and the child's score was 9.9
points which was not a significant difference. The average
IQ estimated by parents was 57.2 with a range of 17 to 100
and a standard deviation (SD) of 17.4, the child's actual
scores were 17 to 82 with a mean of 55.5 and a SD of 16.6.
In 23 cases, parents overestimated by 12.6 IQ points, in
19 cases underestimated by 10.7, eight cases exact.

In the entire 50 cases there were only 4

instances where the parents' estimate exceeded

the test IQ by more than 20 points and 7 in-

stances where the parents' estimate exceeded

the test IQ by more than 15 points. In only

1 case did the parents estimate that their

child's mental abilities were normal (p. 698).
Schulman and Stern admit that the tests employed are not
completely comparable with each other. Their method of a
global estimate of level of development is similar to
Ewert and Green. Schulman and Stern do not mention
differences between the accuracy of mothers and fathers or
relationships between the accuracy of estimates and the
sex of the child.

Some of the most extensive research into parental
estimates of retarded children has been done by Kurtz
(1965) and Wolfensberger and Kurtz (1971). In the report
published in 1965, Kurtz compared 115 parental estimates
of the functioning level of their retarded child to the
professional judgments of psychologists, speech patholo-

gists, and pediatricians. No mention is made of the social

16

class of the parents. Parents are not separated into
mothers and fathers. The children range in age from 1 to
12 years. They are not divided into boys and girls.
Kurtz found parents' estimates correlated .74 with the
child's score on an IQ test. The name of the IQ test is
not mentioned. Parents' estimates ranged from 20 to 140
with a mean of 64.4, the children's actual scores ranged
from 15 to 100 with a mean of 58.1. Sixty—two of 115
parents estimated their child's IQ within 15 points. He
does add that there is a tendency for parents to over-
estimate their child's intellectual functioning.

In a lengthy report published in Genetic Psychology

 

Monographs, Wolfensberger and Kurtz (1971) present a very

 

involved study of parental perceptions of their children's
development. They considered numerous variables in their
study of 190 parents of 117 children seen at an evaluation
center for developmentally retarded children. Parents were
from all social classes. In 73 cases, they had the
estimates of both mother and father. Among other things,
they had parents estimate their child's present IQ,
present achievement level, and future achievement level.
They found both mothers and fathers to be very accurate
when estimating IQ and present academic achievement, but
very "unrealistic" when predicting future achievement.
They compared parental estimates of present achievement-

grade level to the child's actual score on the Wide Range

l7

Achievement Test (Jastak and Jastak, 1965). Parents were
asked to estimate their child's achievement in three areas:
reading, spelling and arithmetic. The parents chose a
grade level equivalent for each of those areas: e.g.,
2.6 for second grade - sixth month achievement level. It
is not mentioned if the parents saw any of the test items
on the WRAT. This is the only study found that used an
achievement test to compare parents and children. They
found no significant difference between mothers and
fathers when evaluating either boys or girls. They found a
correlation between parent-estimate and child's actual score
to be .92 for reading, .68 for spelling, and .77 for
arithmetic. These writers conclude that parents of upper
social classes are more accurate than parents of lower
classes. This does not agree with Ewert and Green who
found no differences according to social class. Wolfensberger
and Kurtz make an important distinction between the accuracy
of parents'estimates of present achievement, and estimates
of future achievement. Several studies were found that
asked parents to predict future achievement. These studies
all found parents to over predict compared to professionals
using test scores and professional judgment. The present
study is concerned only with the accuracy of parents'
estimates of present achievement.

In contrast to these four studies which found parents
of retarded children to be accurate in their estimates, four
other research efforts found parents to overestimate

their child's functioning.

18

G. H. Zuk (1959) writing the Journal of Consulting

 

Psychology, conducted research at the Mental Retardation

 

Clinic at St. Christopher's Hospital in Philadelphia.
Zuk compared parents' estimates on the Vineland Social
Maturity Scale to the estimates by teachers and psycholo-
gists. He does not mention social class. He studied the
parents of 145 non-physically handicapped children who
were retarded, and the parents of 22 retarded and physically
handicapped children. The children's IQ's ranged from 10 —
92 with a median of 48. They note that several children
had "dull normal" IQ's but functioned at a retarded level.
He found that parents (he doesn't distinguish mothers
and fathers) consistently rated the abilities of their
children higher than "relatively objective observers"
(p. 174). Parents' overestimations ranged from +4 to +58
points with a median overestimate of +40 points. Zuk found
parents of multi-handicapped children to be more accurate
than parents of less handicapped children. Ewert and
Green had found no difference in the accuracy of the
estimates of parents of more severely handicapped children
and the accuracy of parents of less handicapped children.
Zuk considers overestimation to be due to a positive bias
(labeled an autistic distortion) which is consistent with
the Freudian notion of unconscious wish fulfillment (p. 176).
Jensen and Kogan (1962) questioned 110 parents
(65 mothers and 45 fathers) of 68 retarded and/or physically

handicapped children to estimate their child's future

l9

achievement in academic and social areas. The social class
of the parents is not mentioned. Children were 4 to 6
years of age with IQ's in the retarded and normal ranges.
Discrepancy between staff and parent ratings was the unit
of measurement used. They found both parents to over-
estimate future achievement. The mothers' average rating
was 101.12 and the fathers' average rating was 100.86;
the correlation coefficient of the ratings of both parents
was .586. The average staff rating for these 42 cases, in
which both parents participated, was 85.67; the differences
between the mean staff scores and the mean scores for
either parent are significant at the .05 level. Parents of
children both retarded and physically handicapped overrated
their children by a greater degree than parents of children
less handicapped. These findings are the opposite of Zuk
who found parents of multi-handicapped children to be more
accurate (realistic) than parents of less handicapped
children. Ewert and Green (1957) found no differences
between parents of multi-handicapped and non multi-handicapped
children.

The second study that reported parents of retarded
children to overrate their children was done by school
psychologists R. J. Capobianco and Stanley Knox (1964).

Writing in the American Journal of Mental Deficiengy,

 

these researchers add several interesting findings to
previous studies. They spoke with 66 parents (27 couples).

The parents for this study were obtained by appealing to

20

organized parents groups whose members are probably more
sophisticated in matters pertaining to mental retardation
than parents attending an out-patient clinic or similar
agency. The parents were middle class. The children were
5 to 17 years old with IQ's of 30 to 84. They are not
separated into boys and girls. The authors had the parents
answer each item on a modified version of the Stanford-
Binet Form L instead of using the more global estimates

of mental age used by earlier investigators (Ewert and
Green, 1957 and Schulman and Stern, 1959). They separated
the estimates of mothers and fathers and found mothers to
overrate their children while fathers were accurate. The
mothers' mean estimate was 67.7, the fathers' 61.7, and
the children's mean IQ was 61.1. The mothers' estimates
are significantly different from the children's scores and
from the fathers' estimate at the .05 level.

The third study of parents of retarded children and the
one most similar to the procedure used in the present study was
conducted by Gorelick and Sandhu (1967) with families in
Los Angeles. The sample consisted of 25 mothers and their
retarded children (14 boys and 11 girls) ranging in age
from 3 to 15 years. Social class of the mothers is not
mentioned. The revised Stanford-Binet was employed for
both parent and child. The examiner proceded the admini-
stration of the Binet to the mother with an explanation

that she was to answer the questions and perform the

21

required tasks in the exact manner she thought her child
would respond. The test was administered and scored
according to standardized procedures.
The children's actual IQ scores (CIQ) ranged
between 27 and 82, with a mean of 51.8. The

parents' perceived IQ scores (PIQ) ranged from

24 to 126, with a mean of 58.7. A t test per-

formed to test the significance of the differences

between the two sets of scores (t = 1.76, p < .05)

one—tailed test. The average of the difference

between CIQ and PIQ scores was +6.92 points,
confirming the hypothesis that the parents in

this sample tended to overestimate their children's

ability to perform items on a standardized

intelligence test (p. 383).

The authors claim the value of the procedure used in this
study can be seen when counseling with the parents and
comparing their protocol with that of their child. This
provided useful information regarding the areas in which
parents tended to be most accurate, or inaccurate, and
was valuable in setting apprOpriate goals with these
parents. They recommended that future researchers explore
the worth of administering the test to both parents to
expose differences between mothers and fathers in their
perceptions of their child.

The fourth study reporting parents of retarded children
to overestimate their child's IQ was done at Johns Hopkins
Hospital by Heriot and Schmickel (1967). They report that
mothers of 65 children evaluated at the Diagnostic and
Evaluation Center for Handicapped Children slightly, but

significantly overestimated their child's full scale IQ.

The 65 mothers from all social classes estimated the

22

developmental level of their child. The children ranged
from 1 to 14 years with full scale IQ's ranging from
30 - 132 with a mean of 77. There were 44 boys and
24 girls of which 54 were white and 11 Black. The
mothers' estimates were given in years (not years and
months as in some studies) and converted into an IQ
which was compared to the child's actual score on the
Vineland, and either the WISC, Stanford-Binet, or the
Cattell Infant Test of Intelligence. The average maternal
estimate was 80.54 compared to the children's mean
full scale IQ of 77.32 and mean Vineland Quotient of
80.79.

"The difference of 3.22 between full-

scale IQ and maternal estimate was signi-

ficant with a P greater than 0.98 (two-

tailed t test). The 0.25 difference between

the mean Vineland Quotient and maternal

estimate was not significant (P < .95)."

(pp. 921, 922)

They found no significant relationship between accuracy
of maternal estimate and mothers' social class, child's
sex or race.

Another study of parental estimates of retarded
children was done by Iano (1970). Iano compared the
estimates of parents of different social classes. He did
not, however, compare these estimates with an actual score
by the children and, therefore, is not concerned with
accuracy of parental estimates which is the mean focus of
the present investigation. Iano is one of the only re-

searchers who contacted his families through public school

systems rather than relying on parents who sought assistance

23

from various clinics and agencies. He claims that those
who seek assistance probably have judged their child to
be a problem while parents who do not seek assistance
might not consider their child to be a problem and, there-
fore, these parents would have automatically been excluded
from most studies and reports (p. 62). Capobianco and
Knox (1964) asked for volunteers through parent organi-
zations in order to reach more parents than might be
available through a clinic. Iano personally contacted
212 parents of 106 educable mentally retarded children
(ages 9 to 14 years, IQ's 50 - 80), from ten public
school systems in upstate New York. He selected only
those parents who were both living in the home and both
agreed to be interviewed. It is amazing that he was able
to get the cooperation of so many parents. He saw these
parents in their homes and had them complete a Rating of
the Child Questionnaire (RCQ) which he developed for his
study. The RCQ was used to elicit parents' estimates of
the child's intellectual, independence, and social abilities.
His results showed that parents' social class was signifi-
cantly related to parent evaluation of their child. He
states that his results indicate that parents in higher
social classes were generally lower in their evaluations
than were parents of lower social classes.

A similar study by Touliatos and Lindholm (1974)
shows that mothers of children diagnosed as minimally brain-

injured rated their children lower than mothers of normal

24

children. These authors, however, also do not state
which group of parents were more accurate which is the

principal focus of the present study.

Parents' Perceptions of Physically Handicapped Children

 

Three studies of the parents of handicapped children
all show parents to overestimate their child's present
or future level of functioning.

Barclay and Vaught (1964) used a technique similar
to Jensen and Kogan (1962) and asked mothers of 40
cerebral palsied children to predict their child's future
educational, vocational, and social functioning. The
social class of the mothers is not mentioned. The 40
children of all IQ levels were 25 boys and 15 girls.
Ages are not given other than 20 were under 6 years and
20 over 6 years. These clinical psychologists compared
the mothers' estimates to their own estimates of future
achievement based on the child's score on the Stanford-
Binet, Form L-M, and the Vineland Social Maturity Scale.

The average mother's rating was 97.40, with
the highest possible rating being 140, while the
average investigator's rating, based on test
performance, was 58.92; the difference between

the two mean ratings (t:8.44; df 39; p < .01)

was significant (p. 63).

In contrast to Ewert and Green (1957), they found no

significant difference between the mothers' estimates of

boys and girls.

25

As Wolfensberger and Kurtz (1971) point out, it is
important to note that the studies of Jensen and Kogan,
and Barclay and Vaught both ask parents to predict future
achievement. This might reflect the hOpes of parents even
though they might be accurate in assessing present level
of development.

Keith and Markie (1969) compared the estimates of
present and future performance by parents and professionals.
They do not mention the social class of the 17 mothers and
11 fathers who participated in the project. The children
were 1 to 5 years old of all IQ levels. The sex of the
children is not reported. They asked the parents of these
cerebral palsied, nursery school children and a pedia-
trician, teacher, physical therapist, and occupational
therapist to rate the child's independent behavior. The
instrument used was the Age Independent Scale, which
consists "of 75 items of behavior taken from developmental
schedules, intelligence tests, the Vineland Social Maturity
Scale or texts on child development, or derived from
experience with children. Included are motor, cognitive,
social and self-care behaviors from infancy up to primary
school level" (p. 737). They found both mothers and
fathers to rate the children significantly higher than
the professional staff on both present and future achievement.
The mean number of tasks that parents said their child
could perform at present was 32.26 compared to the pro-

fessionals' estimate of 27.93. Although these differences

26

are significant, the authors add that these differences
are somewhat misleading since the parents of only ten of
the 17 children overestimated present functioning in
relation to judgments of professionals. In regard to
future achievement, the mean age at which parents
estimated their child would perform the tasks specified
was 5.00 and the staff 5.74. This study, and Wolfensberger
and Kurtz,are the only two found that ask parents to
estimate both present and future achievement. Both
studies found parents to overestimate future achievement.
Wolfensberger and Kurtz, however, found parents to be
accurate on present achievement.

The most recent study of parents of physically
handicapped children was done by Tew, Laurence, and
Samuel in South Wales (1974). The parents were from all
social classes. The children, 33 boys and 24 girls, were
9 to 15 years old with a mean IQ of 84. The parents esti-
mated the mental age of the child in years and months.
They found the parents of 57 children with spina bifida
cystica to overestimate their child's WISC IQ by slightly
less than nine IQ points. Thirty-nine parents over-
estimated the scores by an average of 17.82 points, and
18 parents underestimated scores by an average of 10.94
points. They found a significant difference between
parents' estimate of boys and girls. The mean parental IQ
estimate for boys was 93.52 (SD 12.46) and the boys actual

mean was 91.52 (SD 17.72). For girls, the mean parental

27

estimate was 91.33 (SD 21.31) and girls' actual mean was
73.04 (SD 23.07). This agrees with Ewert and Green (1957).
They do not report separate results for mothers and
fathers. They report that higher social class parents had
lower estimates of their child than working class parents,
but the number of cases was so small that no reliable
conclusions could be drawn. Wolfensberger and Kurtz found

higher classes to be more accurate.

Conclusions from Previous Research and
Need for Present Study

 

 

It is difficult to summarize the findings of these
research studies because of the different pOpulations
studied, the various instruments used, and the different
ways in which parents were asked to "estimate" the child's
performance. Nevertheless, some general conclusions can
be stated. Most studies found that parents tend to rate
their children as more normal than they actually are.
Parents tend to underrate high achieving children and
overrate low achieving children.

Mothers of both normal children and exceptional
children tend to overrate their children more than fathers.

Parents seem to be more accurate in rating present
achievement than in predicting future achievement.

It is not clear if the social class of parents or the
sex, age, or degree of handicap of child are significantly

related to the accuracy of parental estimates.

28

There is some evidence to indicate that the method
of asking parents to estimate their child's functioning
is significant in determining the parents' accuracy.

Most studies used a global estimate of mental age or
developmental level. Two studies claim their results are
more accurate because the parents went through each item

of the same test that was given to the child.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Subjects

Selection of the Learning Disability Group

It was initially intended to develop a pool of

Learning Disability boys and their parents who would

meet certain criteria and, from this population of families,

to draw a random sample. The criteria established for

inclusion of a family were the following:

1.

5.

The boy had been designated as learning
disabled by State of Michigan rules
(P.A. 198, 1971 - Appendix A).

The child had been born between September 1962
and December 1966 so that they were between
8.5 years and 13.5 years of age at the time

of the study.

The boy was in grade 3, 4, 5 or 6 at the time
of the study.

The natural parents were both in the home, or
if a step-parent was present, the step-parent
had been living in the home for at least one
year.

The families were white and of middle socio-
economic status.

The definition of learning disabled varies slightly

from state to state. The State of Michigan, like 27 other

states,

uses the federal definition, as found in

29

30

PL 91-320, the Elementary and Secondary Educational
Amendments of 1969, with additional components (Gillespie,
Miller, and Fielder, 1975). This definition is rather
broad and includes children with various learning
difficulties. It was not possible to control for the
various types or degrees of learning disabilities covered
by the definition. All of the children classified as
learning disabled had been screened by a Michigan
Educational Planning and Placement Committee (EPPC) and
officially certified as having a learning disability as
their primary handicap.

The EPPC's base their decision to categorize a

child on the criteria set forth in the Michigan Department
of Education's document, "Guidelines for Special Education
Programs and Services in Michigan." These criteria are
enumerated in Rule 13 of that document.

"Learning disabled" means a person identified by an

educational planning and placement committee, based

upon a comprehensive evaluation by a school psycho-
logist or certified psychologist or certified
consulting psychologist or an evaluation by a neuro-
logist, or equivalent medical examiner qualified to
evaluate neurological dysfunction, and other per-
tinent information, as having all the following
characteristics:

(a) Disorder in one or more of the basic psychological
processes involved in understanding or in using
spoken or written language, which disorder may
manifest itself in imperfect ability to listen,
think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathe-
matical calculation.

(b) Manifestation of symptoms characterized by diag-
nositc labels such as perceptual handicap, brain

injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia or
aphasia.

31

(c) Development at less than the expected rate of
age group in the cognitive, affective or
psychomotor domains.

(d) Inability to function in regular education
without supportive special education services.

(e) Unsatisfactory performance not found to be
based on social, economic or cultural background.

While these criteria appear specific, the group of
children categorized as learning disabled is not a
homogeneous one. It can be said, however, that all
children so categorized have seriously failed in some
aspect of school work to the degree that they are judged
to require special school programming.

It was not feasible to develop a large pool of such
families from which a random sample could be drawn as
originally planned. Instead, families that met the
five criteria were located until a sample of 25 families
was achieved.

It was not feasible to establish socio-economic status
on the basis of an established evaluational scale specifi-
cally for this purpose. Rather, several methods were
used to give reasonable assurance that the families were
not in the socio-economically deprived category. First,
families were selected from predominantly suburban or
rural middle income school districts. Second, the
examiners were asked to report on the characteristics of
the parents that were tested. Several families were

rejected, after testing had been done, on the basis of

this feedback from the examiners. Finally, there is some

32

protection against the securing of socio-economically
deprived families in criterion E from State rules:
"Unsatisfactory performance not found to be based on
social, economic, or cultural background." The procedure
for securing families was as follows. Experienced
teachers of the learning disabled and teachers of regular
classes who were willing to carry out the testing were
located. They were asked to find appropriate Learning
Disability families among those with whom they worked.

In selecting families for both groups, the teachers were,
of course, governed by the criteria described above.
Generally, the teachers approached families with whom
they were somewhat acquainted through the child and who

they felt would be willing to participate.

Selection of the Regular Class Group

 

Regular class families met the same criteria as
those described for the Learning Disability families
except that the boy in each case had not been labelled as
learning disabled, not had he been provided any other
special services that would suggest school achievement

difficulties.

33

TABLE 3.1

Characteristics of Subjects (Boys)*

1:22

8— 9
9-10
10-11
ll-12
12-13
13-14
TOTAL
Range
Mean

years
years
years
years
years
years

 

(10 yrs. 4 mos.)

 

Regular Class L.D.
l 1
8 6
12 8
4 3
2
5
25 25
8-8 to 11-10 8-9 to 13-5
10.3 10.9

(10 yrs. 11 mos.)

 

3FAll subjects were white

Test Instrument

 

The Peabody Individual Achievement Test was published

in 1970 by American Guidance Associates, and developed

by Lloyd M. Dunn and Frederick C. Markwardt, Jr., as a

wide range screening measure of achievement.

It has

received favorable reviews in The Journal of Special

 

Education (Proger, 1970), Journal of Educational Measure-

 

 

ment (Lyman, 1971) and The Seventh Mental Measurements

Yearbook, V01.

I (Buros, 1972).

 

 

Its use with children

with learning problems and its correlation with other

test instruments has been reported by Soethe, 1972;

Ysseldyke, 1973; Burns, Peterson and Bauer, 1974; Wilson

and Spengler,

1974; and Bray and Estes, 1975.

Participants

(examiners) in this project were given a list of all

research studies for the PIAT as part of the workshops

given in connection with the projects (Appendix B). The

34

writer has found the PIAT to be more useful for classroom
teachers to plan academic programs than IQ tests, while
avoiding the controversy associated with IQ tests. The
writer decided to use an instrument that could be

legally administered by teachers, thereby develOping a
procedure that may be used by school personnel in planning
teacher-parent conferences.

The PIAT was standardized on all socio-economic
groups according to the 1967 census. This test gives an
accurate measure of performance in five areas: mathematics,
reading recognition, reading comprehension, spelling, and
general information. General information covers the areas
of social studies, science, fine arts, and sports. All
subtests except reading comprehension have 84 test items.
Reading comprehension has 66 items. Reading comprehension
ranges from grades 2 to 12. The other subtests extend
from grades K to 12. Scores can be reported in grade
equivalents or age equivalents, as well as standard scores
and percentiles. By an analysis of errors, teachers can
specify those learning areas that need improvement. An
unpublished item analysis form has been developed by
several local resource teachers (Kutinski, Land, Loose,
1975) and was given to participants in this project
(Appendix C).

All test record booklets were returned to the examiners

for their future use with their students and parents.

35

Procedures

 

Most of the examiners in this study were experienced
teachers (plus one psychologist and one principal) who
were also graduate students in education and were already
familiar with the PIAT which they used to evaluate
students. The participants were given two workshops on
the administration and scoring of the PIAT to make sure
they followed standardized procedures. They were also
given written directions for use of the PIAT in this
project (Appendix D). The investigator was in regular
contact with the participants regarding testing with
families. The investigator checked the scoring on all
PIAT record booklets.

The PIAT was administered to the child, at his school,
in the standard manner. During the pilot phase of this
research, the writer realized that children were often
uncomfortable being tested at home with his parents
nearby. Im most cases, the examiner was the child's
regular, or special education, teacher or someone with
whom the child was familiar and comfortable.

Parents were contacted at conferences or by phone and
given a copy of the letter explaining the project (Appendix E).
Some parents did not want to participate, or one parent did,
and the other didn't. One of the most successful special

education resource teachers mentioned that she told the

36

parents that they could be a great help to her by
participating, and thereby enabling her to fulfill the
requirements for a class assignment. Most parents enjoyed
the experience and found it enlightening, even though
they were hesitant at first. The idea of helping their
child's teacher as the initial motive for participation
perhaps reflects the notion of an Opportunity to repay
the teacher for all the work she (or he) had done with
the child.

The mother was generally seen at the school as
part of a regular conference. Fathers were usually seen
at home followed by a conference of both parents with the
teacher to discuss their estimates and their child's
actual score. The PIAT takes about 40 minutes to administer.

The parents were asked to respond to each item on
the PIAT as they thought their child would respond. The
parents were asked to respond yes, their child would know
the answer (scored as a +), or no, he wouldn't (scored -)
to each item on the test. Parent responses were recorded
on the standard record booklet. Basal and ceiling items
were established as with the child, and raw scores and
grade equivalents were computed for each of the five
subtests and for the total test.

The only identifying data on the record booklets
was the child's birthdate, school, "LD" or regular class,

examiner's name, and family code number. The code

37

numbers were assigned so that the child, mother and
father of the same family could be kept together (e.g.,
Child #1, Mother #1, Father #1).

All members of the family were tested within thirty
days of each other. Parents were asked not to discuss
the test with the child or with each other until all
members had been tested.

After testing was completed, each examiner was
contacted and asked to give their reactions and the
parents' reactions to the project. A form was developed
for this purpose (Appendix F). These results are reported

in Chapter V.

Research Hypotheses

I. Mothers of boys in regular classes not designated
learning disabled will significantly underestimate their
son's present level of academic achievement as measured
by the PIAT total raw score.

II. Fathers of boys in regular classes not designated
learning disabled will significantly underestimate their
son's present level of academic achievement as measured by
the PIAT total test raw score.

III. Mothers of boys designated learning disabled
will significantly overestimate their son's present level
of academic achievement as measured by the PIAT total test
raw score.

IV. Fathers of boys designated learning disabled will
be significantly more accurate in their estimates of their
son's present level of academic achievement than any other
group of parents in this study.

V. The discrepancy between the estimates of the mothers
and the fathers of boys designated learning disabled will be
significantly greater than the discrepancy between the
estimates of the mothers and fathers of boys not designated
learning disabled.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

The data for all fifty families in this study is
presented in Table 4.1 Each child's PIAT grade equivalent
score is given, followed by each parent's score, and the
discrepancy, in grade equivalent terms, between parent
and child. The last rows in Table 4.1 provide the Range,
Means, and Standard Deviations for the scores in each
column. Data in this table is referred to below as

appropriate in the discussion of each research hypothesis.

Hypothesis I

 

Regular class mothers will significantly under-

estimate their son's present level of academic

achievement as measured by the PIAT.

This hypothesis was tested using the Wilcoxon Signed
Ranks Test for Matched-Pairs. As applied here, this test
determines whether there is a consistent tendency for
mothers to overestimate or underestimate their son's academic
achievement. Total test raw scores were used instead of
grade equivalents because the raw scores are a more exact
measure of the actual number of items passed or failed on

the test. The T statistic obtained from this analysis was

38

39

TABLE 4.1
PIAT Total Test Scores and Child-Parent
Discrepancies in Grade Equivalents

 

REGULAR EDUCATION, LEARNING DISABLED

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Child's .Mother's Father's Child's :Mother's Father's
Score Est. Disc. Est. Disc. Score Est. Disc. Est. Disc.

1. 4.6 3.9 — .7 4.3 - .3 2.5 2.0 — .5 3.0 + .5
2. 6.0 5.1 — .9 5.6 - .4 3.2 3.5 + .3 3.5 __.3
3. . 4.5 — .1 3.9 — .7 2.0 1.4 — .6 2.3 + .3
4. 8.7 7.7 —1.0 11.6 +2.9 . 1.3 — .9 1.6 — .6
5. 4.5 8.0 +3.5 10.0 +5.5 .3 1.4 - .9 2.7 + .4
6. 6.3 5.8 — .5 6.0 - .3 . 4.2 - .3 3.8 — .7
7. . 4.6 + .3 4.5 + .2 2.8 3.8 +1.0 2.7 - .1
8. 5.6 5.8 + .2 6.3 + .7 1. 2.0 + .1 2.3 + .4
9. 5.3 7.4 +2.1 7.4 +2.1 3. 2.5 —1.4 4.5 + .6
10. 9.0 10.4 +1.4 7.7 -1.3 2.3 2.2 — .1 2.0 - .3
11. 4.2 3.2 -1.0 3.6 - .6 . 3.4 +1.1 . + .5
12. 4.6 4.8 + .2 3.9 - .7 .1 9.0 +1.9 . o
13. 4.8 3.5 —1.3 3.5 —1.3 . 4.8 + .6 . - .3
14. 3.4 4.3 + .9 3.1 - .3 .4 4.5 +1.1 . o
15. . 5.0 - .6 7.4 +1.8 2.0 .6 — .4 . - .1
16. 9.0 10.0 +1.0 9.4 + .4 3.9 3.8 - .1 3.5 — .4
17. .8 9.4 +2.6 12.1 +5.3 .3 7.1 +1.8 4.8 — .5
18. 5.6 5.0 — .6 4.8 - .8 2.6 3.4 + .8 2.8 + .2
19. 4.6 5.6 +1.0 4.3 - .3 2.8 3.9 +1.1 3.9 +1.1
20. 5.8 9.4 +3.6 6.6 + .8 1.6 2.0 + .4 1.1 — .5
21. 3.2 3.2 0 2.2 -1.0 2.3 3.0 + .7 2.2 — .1
22. 5.3 6.3 +1.0 4.6 - .7 3.0 3.1 + .1 2.6 — .4
23. 6.6 5.6 —1.0 8.0 +1.4 4.6 6.3 +1.7 4.0 — .6
24. 6.6 6.8 + .2 8.4 +1.8 5.1 5.1 o 5.0 + .1
25. 6.3 5.6 - .7 4.6 —1.7 2.3 1.7 ~ .6 1.4 - .9
R. 3.2 3.2 —1.3 2.2 -1.7 1.6 1.3 —1.4 1.1 — .9
T0 T0 T0 T0 T0 T0 T0 T0 T0 T0
9.0 10.4 +3.6 12.1 +5.5 7.1 9.0 +1.9 7.1 +1.1
M. 5.65 6.04 +.39 6.15 +.50 3.20 3.48 +.28 3.15 —.05
SD. 1.51 2.06 1.35 2.60 1.84 1.30 1.86 .87 1.29 .47

 

40

138.0 which is not significant. Thus, the null hypothesis
may not be rejected and it is concluded that, counter

to the predictions, there is no significant tendency for
regular class mothers to underestimate their son's
achievement level.

Table 4.1, column 3, shows that mother-child dis-
crepancies ranged from -l.3 to +3.6 with a mean of +.39
and a standard deviation of 1.35.

The Wilcoxon test does not bear on the accuracy of
the parents' estimates. The accuracy of the parents in
predicting their child's score may be evaluated in terms
of the established standard error of measurement (SEM)
for the PIAT total test raw score, which is 12.05 raw
score points. Thus, parental estimates may be considered
as accurate if they are within one SEM of their child's
score. Table 4.2 gives the distribution of parents
according to whether their scores are accurate, under-

estimates, or overestimates.

TABLE 4.2
Distribution of Parents According to
Accuracy* of Estimate of Child's PIAT Total Test

 

 

 

 

 

Under Accurate Over N
Mothers
Reg. Ed. 9 7 9 25
Fathers
Reg. Ed. 9 7 9 25
Mothers
L.D. 8 6 11 25
Fathers
L.D. 7 l3 5 25
TOTAL 33 33 34 100

 

*within 12.05 points on total test

41

It can be seen from Table 4.2 that seven regular class
mothers accurately estimated their son's score, while nine
underestimated by 12.05 points or more, and nine over-
estimated by 12.05 points or more.

There is no way to evaluate the accuracy of the parents
in this study relative to other groups of parents since no
norms for this type of performance are available. However,
one frame of reference by which to judge the accuracy of
these parents can be obtained by inspection of the grade
equivalent discrepancies reported in Table 4.1. It can
be observed that 19 of the 25 regular class mothers'
scores are within one grade level of their son's obtained
score, while this is true for 15 of the 25 regular class
fathers.

Table 4.3 gives the distribution of parents according
to the accuracy of their estimates for each subtest of
the PIAT. An accurate estimate is one that is within
the SEM of that subtest. Regular class mothers were most
accurate in estimating their son's math scores (14 of
25 were accurate) while they were least accurate in

estimating reading recognition (7 of 25).

42

TABLE 4. 3
Distribution of Parents According to
Accuracy* of Estimate of Child's PIAT Subtests

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Test SEM U A O N
Mathematics 5
M-R 6 14 5 25
F-R 5 15 5 25
M-LD 7 10 8 25
F-LD 5 13 7 25
Reading
Recognition 3
M-R 5 7 13 25
F-R 6 10 9 25
M-LD 2 ll 12 25
F-LD 4 l4 7 25
Reading
Comprehension 6
M-R 7 8 10 25
F-R 3 l6 6 25
M-LD 2 18 5 25
F—LD 1 24 0 25
Spelling 5
M-R 5 10 10 25
F-R 3 l4 8 25
M-LD 2 18 5 25
F-LD 3 l8 4 25
General
Information 4
M-R 10 12 3 25
F-R ll 11 3 25
M-LD 8 9 8 25
F—LD 10 ll 4 25
*within SEM U = under A = Accurate O = Over

Hypothesis II

 

Regular class fathers will significantly underestimate

their son's present level of academic achievement as

measured by the PIAT.

Again, as for Hypothesis I, the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks
Test for Matched-Pairs was used to determine whether a

tendency existed for parents to underestimate or over—

43

estimate their child's score. The Wilcoxon T was 151.5
which is not significant. Thus, it may be concluded that
there is no significant tendency for regular class fathers
to underestimate their son's achievement level.

Table 4.1, column 5, shows that these fathers had a
range of discrepancies from -l.7 to +5.5 with a mean of
+.50 and a standard deviation of 1.84.

Table 4.2 shows the same distribution as regular
class mothers: seven accurate, nine underestimates,
and nine overestimates.

Table 4.3 shows these fathers to be most accurate
in estimating reading comprehension (16 of 25), and least

accurate in estimating reading recognition (10 of 25).

Hypothesis III

 

L.D. mothers will significantly overestimate their
son's present level of academic achievement as
measured by the PIAT.

The Wilcoxon test was again used, as in Hypotheses I
and II. The Wilcoxon T statistic was 116.0 which was not
significant. It may be thereby concluded that there is
no significant tendency for L.D. mothers to overestimate
their sons' achievement.

Table 4.1, column 8, shows these mothers' discrepancies
to range from -l.4 to +1.9 with a mean of +.28 and a
standard deviation of .87.

Table 4.2 shows six of these mothers were accurate,

while eight underestimated, and 11 overestimated.

44

Table 4.3 shows these mothers to be most accurate in
estimating reading comprehension and spelling (both 18
of 25), while they were least accurate in estimating

their son's score in general information (9 of 25).

Hypothesis IV

 

L.D. fathers will be significantly more accurate in
their estimates of their sons' present level of
academic achievement than the other parents in this
study.

It was felt that fathers of L.D. boys would be accurate
in estimating their sons' scores. Since accuracy must be
defined according to some standard, it was decided to use
the scores of all other parents in the group as a standard
and to hypothesize that fathers of L.D. boys would be
significantly more accurate than the rest of the parents.

To make this comparison, the distribution of parents
according to the accuracy of their scores as presented in
Table 4.2 was used. By collapsing the cells of this
table, a four-fold contingency table was set up with
fathers vs. all other parents constituting the two rows
and accurate vs. underestimates plus overestimates con-
stituting the columns. A Chi Square test applied to this
contingency table yielded a X2 of 4.35, significant at the
.05 level. This level is a conservative estimate since it
represents a two—tailed test.

Thus, it was concluded that fathers of L.D. boys are

significantly more accurate in estimating their child's

achievement status than are the other parents.

45

Table 4.1, column 10, shows these fathers' estimates
to range from —9 to +1.1 with a mean of -.05 and a standard
deviation of .47.

Table 4.2 shows 13 fathers were accurate, while seven
underestimated and five overestimated. It is noteworthy
that, as can be seen in Table 4.1, only one father's total
score estimate was beyond one grade level from the
child's score.

Table 4.3 shows these fathers to be most accurate in
estimating their son's reading comprehension (24 of 25)
and least accurate in estimating general information

(11 of 25).

Hypothesis V

 

The discrepancies between the estimates of L.D.

mothers and fathers will be significantly greater

than the discrepancies between the estimates of

regular class mothers and fathers.

The previous hypotheses have involved consideration
of the discrepancies between parents and child scores. In
this hypothesis, attention is focused on discrepancies
between the two parents of a child. It should be noted
that it would be possible for parent-child discrepancies to
be great, while parent-parent discrepancies remained

small. That is, parents could agree in their misperception

of a child.

46

It was assumed initially that because of the family
stress posed by a failing child, and the perceptual dis-
tortions accompanying this stress, L.D. parents would be
less able to accurately evaluate their child's status.
Thus, it was hypothesized that, as compared to parents
of non-L.D. children, they would show greater discrepancies
in their PIAT total scores.

To test this hypothesis, the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks
Test for Two Independent Samples was applied. A Z score
for large sample approximations of .87 was obtained which
is not significant. Thus, the hypothesis is not supported,
and it is concluded that parents of L.D. boys do not
disagree in their perceptions to a greater extent than
do parents of regular class non-L.D. boys.

In order to compare parents according to the
accuracy of their estimates on each of the five PIAT
subtests, and total test, the date in Table 4.3 was
rearranged and is presented in Table 4.4.

Parents are listed as either accurate or inaccurate
for each subtest, and total test, depending on whether
they estimated their child's score within the SEM for
that subtest (see Table 4.3) or for the total test

(SEM = 12.05 points)

47

TABLE 4.4
Distribution and Comparison of Parents
According to Accuracy* of Inaccuracy of
Estimate of Child's PIAT Subtests

REGULAR CLASS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mothers Fathers
Test Accurate Inaccurate Accurate Inaccurate Sig.
Mathematics 14 ll 15 10 NS
Reading
Recognition 7 18 10 15 NS
Reading
Comprehension 8 17 16 9 .05
Spelling 10 15 14 11 NS
General
Information 12 13 11 14 NS
TOTAL TEST 7 18 7 18 NS
L.D.
Mothers Fathers
Test Accurate Inaccurate Accurate Inaccurate Sig.
Mathematics 10 15 13 12 NS
Reading
Recognition ll 14 14 11 NS
Reading
Comprehension 18 7 24 1 .05
Spelling 18 7 18 7 NS
General
Information 9 16 ll 14 NS
TOTAL TEST 6 19 13 12 NS

*Accurate is within SEM for each subtest, see Table 4.3

48

Table 4.4 (continued)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MOTHERS
L.D. Regular
Test Accurate Inaccurate Accurate Inaccurate Sig.
Mathematics 10 15 14 11 NS
Reading
Recognition ll l4 17 18 NS
Reading
Comprehension 18 7 8 17 .02
Spelling 18 7 10 15 .05
General
Information 9 16 12 13 NS
TOTAL TEST 6 l9 7 18 NS
FATHERS
L.D. Regular
Test Accurate Inaccurate Accurate Inaccurate Sig.
Mathematics 13 12 15 10 NS
Reading
Recognition 14 11 10 15 NS
Reading
Comprehension 24 1 16 9 .02
Spelling 18 7 14 11 NS
General
Information 11 14 11 14 NS

 

TOTAL TEST 12 13 7 18 NS

49

The numbers in each row of Table 4.4 were cast into

a contingency table to which a X2

test was applied. Thus,
for the row for the subtest reading comprehension in the
Regular Class section, the X2 test is significant at the
.05 level, indicating that fathers of regular class boys
are significantly more accurate in predicting reading
comprehension performance than are the mothers of these
boys.

It will be observed that, with one exception, the
spelling test comparison for L.D. and regular class
mothers, the only subtest on which the various parent
groups consistently differ in their accuracy is the
reading comprehension test. Both L.D. mothers and fathers
are more accurate than their regular class counterparts.

And within the L.D. and regular class groups, fathers

are more accurate than mothers.

Summary of Results

 

1. The prediction that mothers and fathers of regular
class boys not designated L.D. would underestimate
their sons' total PIAT scores (Hypothesis I and II)
was not borne out. In fact, the average discrepancy
for both sets of parents was in the direction of over—
estimates, opposite to that predicted.

2. Mothers of boys designated L.D. did not significantly
overestimate their sons' total PIAT scores (Hypothesis
III). However, the average discrepancy was in the
direction of overestimates, as predicted.

50

Fathers of boys designated L.D. were, as predicted,
significantly more accurate than the other parents
in predicting their sons' total PIAT scores. Thus,
Hypothesis IV was supported.

The discrepancy between the estimates of mothers and
fathers of boys designated L.D. was not significantly
greater than the discrepancy between the estimates of
mothers and fathers of boys in regular classes. Thus,
Hypothesis V was not supported. However, the average
discrepancy for L.D. parents was greater as had been
predicted.

The reading comprehension subtest of the PIAT
significantly distinguised the accuracy of parents'
estimates in this study with fathers or boys
designated L.D. being significantly more accurate
than any other group of parents.

If parental estimates of total PIAT scores are
considered accurate if they fall within one grade
level of their child's obtained score, then the
large majority of parents in all groups may be con-
sidered accurate, varying from 15 accurate out of 25
for regular class fathers to 24 out of 25 for L.D.
fathers.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Summapy

One of the primary ingredients for most successful
school programs is effective communication between teachers
and parents. Most teacher training institutions recognize
the need for teachers to develop this competency in
relating to parents. A difficulty in all types of inter-
personal relationships is the different attitudes and
expectations of the people involved due to different
perceptual worlds. Good communication depends on clear
messages and mutual agreement on goals. In teacher-
parent contacts regarding a child's academic achievement,
it is important that teacher, parent, and child agree on
academic goals based on present level of achievement.
Teachers usually begin planning a child's academic program
by using formal and informal tests and methods of
assessment. In conferencing with parents it is helpful
to know how accurately parents understand their child's
present level of academic skill development. In teacher-
parent conferences, the teacher often needs to explain to

the parents the school curriculum and their child's progress.

51

32

The question has been raised concerning how accurate,
or realistic, parents are regarding their children's
social and academic development. Several research studies
have investigated this question using different populations
and different research methods. General research findings
indicate that parents tend to make their children more
normal than they really are. High achieving children
have usually been underrated by their parents and low
achieving children have been overrated by their parents.
Mothers of exceptional children seem to overrate their
children more than any other group of parents. Parents
seem to be more accurate in rating present achievement
than future achievement. It is not clear if the social
class of the parents, or the sex, age, or degree of
handicap of the child are significantly related to the
accuracy of parents' estimates.

The present study adds to existing research (1) by
exploring parental estimates of the achievement status
of boys designated as "learning disabled," a group not
previously studied; (2) by utilizing an achievement test -
the Peabody Individual Achievement Test - that may be
teacher administered and that is coming into wide use;
and (3) by using an item—by-item parental judgment to
generate "parental" test scores rather than asking

parents for global estimates of achievement.

53

Fifty middle class families from suburban and rural
areas of Michigan agreed to participate in the study
after being contacted by their child's teacher, principal
or psychologist. Twenty-five of the children were
presumably normal boys in regular classes (ages 8 - 13
years), and 25 were boys of the same age designated
learning disabled by State of Michigan Special Education
guidelines. Both parents had to agree to participate.
The boys were administered the Peabody Individual
Achievement Test (PIAT) at their school. The parents
were seen individually at school or home and asked to
estimate how they thought their child would score on
each item of the test. Standard scoring procedures were
followed. Total test raw scores and grade equivalents
were compared for children and their parents, and for
parents of regular class children and children designated

learning disabled.

Conclusions

 

l. Contrary to most previous research, and to the first
two hypotheses of this study, there was no consistent
tendency for mothers and fathers of boys in regular
classes to underestimate their sons' present level of
academic achievement. It was expected that these
parents would tend to significantly underestimate
their sons' academic achievement. The results showed
mothers to have a mean overestimate of four months, and
fathers to have a mean overestimate of five months
(grade level equivalent). Neither of these over-
estimates was statistically significant.

54

In agreement with most previous research, mothers of
boys designated learning disabled did, on the average,
overestimate their son's academic achievement by

about three months; however, this was not statistically
significant and, therefore, did not support the
hypothesis of this paper.

In agreement with previous similar studies and
hypothesis IV of this study, fathers of boys designated
learning disabled were more accurate in their estimates
than other parents. Results of the present study
showed these fathers to underestimate by less than

one month. Fathers of these boys were significantly
more accurate when compared to all other parents

taken as a group.

As expected, there was a trend for the discrepancy
between the estimates of mothers and fathers of

boys designated learning disabled to be greater than
the discrepancy between mothers and fathers of boys
in regular classes. Again, no consistent pattern of
underestimates or overestimates was found. The
difference between a mean of 3.3 months and a mean
of 1.1 months was not statistically significant,
however.

Reading comprehension was the one area where a
significant difference was found between the relative
accuracy of groups of parents, with fathers of boys
designated learning disabled being significantly

more accurate than any other group.

As a total group, the scores of the majority of
parents were within one grade equivalent of the score
obtained by their child. While the occasional

parent deviated widely from accuracy in assessing

his child's achievement status, it was concluded

that most of these parents were reasonably accurate
in understanding their child's current achievement
level.

Discussion

 

The results of this study seem to contradict the

findings of most previous studies. In most previous

studies, parents of children in regular classes and

55

parents of exceptional children were found not to be
accurate in estimating their child's academic development.
The present study does agree with the large study done

by Wolfensberger and Kurtz (1971) who found parents of
retarded children to be accurate when estimating present
academic achievement on a standardized, individual
achievement test (WRAT).

The present study involved a different population
than previous studies. Previous studies had considered
parents of children in regular classes but had not
compared them to parents of exceptional children on the
same task. Previous studies had involved the parents of
children who were retarded and/or physically handicapped
while the present study involved parents of mildly
handicapped children designated learning disabled. The
present study included only boys and, like most similar
studies, relied on volunteer parents.

The present study used a different test instrument
than any previous study. This test is frequently used
by educators to plan academic programs on an individual
basis.

The procedure followed in this study is similar to
that used by Capobianco and Knox (1964), and Gorelick and
Sandhu (1967) by having parents respond to each item
on the same standardized test as was given to their child.

This seems to be a more precise method of measuring the

56

accuracy of parental estimates than the global estimates
of mental age or grade level achievement used in previous
studies. This study is one of few reported in the
literature that was conducted by teachers in public
school.

A major finding of this study is that parents as a
whole are rather accurate in their estimates of their
child's school progress. Parents of boys with learning
problems are generally as accurate as parents of boys
without identified learning problems. This finding
might make some school personnel hesitate before blaming
a child's school difficulties on disinterested or
unrealistic parents.

A significant side benefit of this study seems to
be the initial development of a method to improve teacher-
parent communication. The 23 participants in this study
reported that the contact with the families in this
project lead to meaningful discussions about the child's
school progress, present school curriculum and many other
concerns of the parents. The procedure gave many teachers
an opportunity to meet both of their students' parents,
and visit many of their students' homes. The participants
report that parents were interested in the study and happy
to participate and learn more about their child's school
work. The participants also reported that they benefitted

by learning more about the PIAT.

57

Earlier it was noted that many special educators
feel that parents of handicapped children hold unrealistic
expectations for their child's school achievement.
Several alternate explanations for the parental dynamics
that might produce this impression were proposed. The
results of this study would support, for most parents
in the learning disabled group, the hypothesis that they
do accurately perceive the current achievement status of
the child, but that if they do impress school personnel
as unrealistically high in their expectations, it is
because they are not accepting current status as re-
presenting the child's true potential. This conclusion
is in keeping with the findings of previous studies to
the effect that parents are more accurate in estimating
current status than in predicting future status.

However, it should be noted that the paragraph above
was written with the implicit assumption that the school
personnel, in holding reduced expectations for special
class children, are being more realistic than parents.
This may be true when the children in question are
legitimately designated as mentally retarded. But, the
majority of children in this study are probably of average
intelligence or above. It may well be that their failure
to achieve up to expectancy in certain school subjects
at this stage of their elementary school years is not a
good predictor of success in life, or even of their

later school careers. Teachers may be unduly influenced

 

 

 

58

in their perceptions of a child by the tangible

evidence they possess of the child's academic retardation.
On the other hand, parents may be more attuned to
strengths they perceive in the child's out-of—school
functioning. This study has demonstrated that, for

this population of children categorized as learning
disabled, the parent's perceptions of the child's

current achievement status is remarkably accurate. If
this is so, it would have to be demonstrated by con-
crete evidence that they are not equally accurate if

they hold expectations of future achievement within the
normal range. And school personnel would be well-advised
to exercise great caution in conclusions which they may

reach regarding the child's probable future achievement.

Implications for Future Research

The author had considerable difficulty in obtaining
his research population and learned much about the
realities of doing research especially near a large
university. After several months of effort, it was
learned that the best method of obtaining families for
this type of research was by direct contact with classroom
teachers enrolled in graduate classes who usually had to
complete some type of term project for their class. Much
time was spent seeking volunteers through parent organi-

zations and contacting school districts with limited

 

59

results. It was learned that classroom teachers had the
direct, personal contact with children and their families
and could get volunteers particularly when they told the
parents that they would help the teacher complete a
graduate class assignment. Classroom teachers could
usually easily obtain permission from their building
principal or special education director to participate

in this project since it was part of a graduate class.
When school districts were contacted, it was usually
necessary to explain the idea to numerous administrators
and answer many possible problems such as confidentiality,
financing, and time and location of testing. After
clearing this hurdle, perhaps none of the school district's
teachers might want to participate. By seeking volunteers
through graduate classes, many more teachers could be
contacted directly with less time being used.

It would be of interest to determine if results would
be different if the parents of girls were studied. Would
mothers be more accurate in estimating girls' achievement?
It might be difficult, however, to obtain a large sample
of girls designated learning disabled since most of the
children in these programs are boys.

In studies such as this, seeking parental estimates
of child capabilities, the form in which these estimates
are secured would appear to be of crucial importance.

The method used in this study, which required judgments
of parents on specific bits of behavior, would appear to

be most thorough and accurate. However, feedback from

 

 

60

the examiners suggested that problems may arise unless
great care is taken in administering the test to the
parent. For example, some examiners reported that parents
became involved in the test as if they were being
examined. They appeared eager to give the correct answer,
and seemed to have lost the set to decide only whether

the child would or would not know the correct answer.

In any event, caution must be exercised in comparing
the results of studies that generate parental for-the-
child scores, and those that ask for global estimates,
since the parent must rely on different evaluational
processes in the two situations. The global estimate
method, for example, may allow the parent's aspirations
for the child to play a greater part. Thus, the
theoretical rationale for future studies in this area
should determine the choice of the method for securing
parental estimates. Perhaps most useful at this stage
would be a study in which several kinds of parental
estimates were obtained so that a direct comparison of
the influence of these various kinds of estimates could
be made.

As mentioned at the beginning of this study, the
subjects investigated were white, middle class boys and
their parents. The findings of this study should not be
applied to all families in public schools. Research is
needed of parents' perceptions in families of other

cultural backgrounds.

 

61

Research is also needed on a longitudinal basis
to determine how well learning disabled children function
later in life. Are parents of learning disabled
children accurate if they have higher expectations than
teachers and other professionals? Parents hopes for
their children are a powerful resource for a better

future.

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

62

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

Barclay, Allan, and Glen Vaught. "Maternal Estimates of
Future Achievement in Cerebral Palsy Children."
American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1964, 69, 62-65.

 

Barsch, Ray. The Parent-Teacher Partnership. Reston, VA:
The Council for Exceptional Children, 1969.

 

Boerger, Paul Hugo. "The Relationship of Boys' Intellectual
Achievement Behavior to Parental Involvement, Aspira-
tions, and Accuracy of IQ Estimate." Dissertation
Abstracts, 1971, 519l-A.

 

 

 

an
Bray, Nanci M. and Robert E. Estes. "A Comparison of the . .
PIAT, CAT, and WRAT Scores and Teacher Ratings for
Learning Disabled Children." Journal of Learning '
Disabilities, 1975, 8, 519-523. “-95

 

Burns, Edward; Daniel Peterson; and Linda Bauer. "The
Concurrent Validity of the Peabody Individual
Achievement Test." Training School Bulletin, 1974,
70, 221-223.

 

Capobianco, R. J., and Stanley Knox. "IQ Estimates and
the Index of Marital Integration." American Journal
of Mental Deficiency, 1964, 68 (6), 718-721.

 

 

Carkhuff, Robert R. Helping and Human Relations Vol. I and
II. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1969.

 

. The Art of Helping. Amhurst, Mass.: Human
Resource Development Press, 1973.

 

Carlson, Rae. "Where is the Person in Personality Research?"
Psychological Bulletin, 1971, 75, 203-219.

 

Chilman, Catherine S. "Some Angles on Parent-Teacher
Learning." Childhood Education, 1971, 48, 119-125.

 

Conover, W. J. Practical Non-Parametric Statistics.
New York: John WiIey and Sons, Inc., 1971.

 

Cotler, Sheldon, and Donald J. Shoemaker. "The Accuracy
of Mothers' Reports." The Journal of Genetic
Psychology, 1969, 114, 97—107.

 

 

Dunn, Lloyd M. and Frederick C. Markwardt, Jr. Peabod
Individual Achievement Test. Circle Pines, M1nn.:
American Guidance Service, Inc., 1970.

 

 

63

Ewert, Josephine C., and Meredith W. Green. "Conditions
Associated with the Mother's Estimate of the Ability
of Her Retarded Child." American Journal of Mental
Deficiengy, 1957, 62, 521-533.

 

 

French, Joseph L. "Peabody Individual Achievement Test,"
in Oscar K. Buros (editor), The Seventh Mental Measure-
ment Yearbook, Volumn I. Highland Park, New Jersey:
The Bryphon Press, 1972, 33-35.

 

 

Friedman, Robert (ed.). Family Roots of School Learning
and Behavior Disorders. Springfield, 111.:
Charles C. Thomas, 1973.

 

Gillespie, Patricia H.; Ted L. Miller; and Virginia Dodge
Fielder. "Legislative Definitions of Learning
Disabilities: Roadblock to Effective Service."
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1975, 8, 660-666.

 

Ginott, Haim. Teacher and Child: A Book for Parents and
Teachers. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1972.

Gordon, Thomas. Teacher Effectiveness Training. New York:
Peter H. Wyden, Publisher, 1974.

 

Gorelick, Molly C., and Malathi Sandhu. "Parent Perception
of Retarded Childrens' Intelligence." Personnel and
Guidance Journal, 1967, 40, 382-384.

 

 

Gue, Ruth 8., and Sylvia Hudes. "Parents-Teachers:
Communication," in Parents-Children-Teachers:
Communication, Bulletin No. 28-A, Washington, D.C.:
Association for Childhood Education International,
1969.

 

 

Heriot, James T., and Carol A. Schmickel. "Material
Estimate of IQ in Children Evaluated for Learning
Potential." American Journal of Mental Deficiency,
1967, 71, 920-924.

Iano, Richard P. "Social Class and Parental Evaluation of
Educable Retarded Children." Education and Training of
the Mentally Retarded, 1970, 5, 62-67.

 

Jackson, Donald D. (ed.). Communication, Family and
Marriage. Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior
Books, Inc., 1968.

Jastak, J. F., and S. R. Jastak. Wide Range Achievement
Test. Wilmington, Del.: Guidance AssoCiates, 1965.

 

 

64

Jensen, G. D., and Kate L. Kogan. "Parental Estimates of
the Future Achievement of Children with Cerebral Palsy."
Journal of Mental Defigiency Research, 1962, 6, 56-64.

 

Keith, Robert Allan, and Gordon S. Markie. "Parental and
Professional Assessment in Functioning in Cerebral
Palsy." Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology,
1969, 11, 735-742.

 

Kroth, Roger L. Communicating with Parents of Exceptional
Children: Improving Parent-Teacher Relationships.
Denver, Colorado: Love Publishing Company, 1975.

 

 

Kurtz, Richard A. "Comparative Evaluations of Suspected
Retardates." American Journal of Diseases of
Children, 1965, 109, 58-65.

 

Kutinsky, Andi; June Land; and Fran Loose. Item Analysis
of the Peabody Individual Achievement Test. Unpub-
lished outline, East Lansing, MI: East Lansing
School District, 1975.

 

Lamanna, Joseph A. and James E. Ysseldyke. "Reliability of
the Peabody Individual Achievement Test with First-
Grade Children," ngchologygin the Schools, 1973,

10, 437-439.

 

Lyman, Howard B. Peabody Individual Achievement Test.
Journal of Educational Measurement, 1971, 8, 137-138.

 

Proger, Barton B. "Test Review No. 4: Peabody Individual
Achievement Test." The Journal of Special Education,
1970, 4, 461-468.

 

Ross, Allan O. The Exceptional Child in the Famil .
New York: Grune and Stratton, 1964.

 

Schulman, Jerome L., and Shiela Stern. "Parents' Estimate
of the Intelligence of Retarded Children." American
Journal of Mental Deficienc , 1959, 63, 696-698.

 

Siegel, Sidney. Nonpapametric Statistics. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1956.

 

Soethe, James W. "Concurrent Validity of the Peabody
Individual Achievement Test." Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 1972, 5, 560-562.

 

 

Strickler, Edwin. "Family Interaction Factors in
Psychogenic Learning Disturbance." Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 1969, 2, 146-154.

 

 

 

65

Tew, Brian; K. M. Laurence; and P. Samuel. "Parental
Estimate of the Intelligence of their Physically
Handicapped Child." Developmental Medicine and Child
Neurology, 1974, 16, 4944500.

 

 

Touliatos, John and Byron W. Lindholm. "Influence of
Parental Expectancies and Responsiveness on Achievement
Motivation of Minimally Brain-Injured and Normal
Children." Psychological Reports, 1974, 35, 395-400.

 

Wilson, John D., and Paul F. Spangler, "The Peabody
Individual Achievement Test as a Clinical Tool."
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1974, 7, 384-387.

 

Wolfensberger, Wolf and Richard A. Kurtz. "Measurement
of Parents' Perceptions of their Children's Development."
Genetic Psychology Monographs, 1971, 83, 3-92.

 

Ysseldyke, James E.; David A. Sabatino; and Joseph Lamanna.
"Convergent and Discriminant Validity of the Peabody
Individual Achievement Test with Educable Mentally
Retarded Children." Psychology in the Schools, 1973,
10, 200-204.

 

Zuk, G. H. "Autistic Distortions in Parents of Retarded
Children." Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1959,
23 (2), 171-176.

 

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Learning Disabled, defined

 

APPENDIX A

Michigan
SPECIAL EDUCATION CODE

Under the Provisions of
Public Act 198 of 1971

Michigan Department of Education
October 10 , 1973

R 340.1713. learning disabled, defined.

Rule 13. "learning disabl " means a person identified by an
educational planning and placement calmittee, based upon a ccmprehensive
evaluation by a school psychologist or certified psychologist or
certified consulting psychologist or an evaluation by a neurologist,
or equivalent medical examiner qualified to evaluate neurological
dysfunction, and other pertinent information, as having all the
following characteristics:

(a) Disorder in 1 or mre of the basic psychological processes
involved in understanding or in using spoken or written language ,
which disorder may manifest itself in inperfect ability to listen,
think, speak, read, write, spell or do mathematical calculation.

(b) Manifestation of symptcms characterized by diagnostic labels
such as perceptual handicap, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction,
dyslexia or aphasia .

(c) Development at less than the expected rate of age group in
the cognitive, affective or psychanotor domains.

(d) Inability to f1mction in regular education without supportive
special education services .

(e) Unsatisfactory performance not fomd to be based on social
econcmic or cultural background .

66

 

APPENDIX B

Peabody Individual Achievement Test

 

APPENDIX B

Peabody Individual Achievement Test

Bibliography

 

Bray, Nanci M. and Robert E. Estes. "A Comparison of
the PIAT, CAT, and WRAT Scores and Teacher Ratings
for Learning Disabled Children," Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 1975, 8, 519-523.

 

 

Burns, Edward, Daniel Peterson, and Linda Bauer. "The
Concurrent Validity of the Peabody Individual Achievement
Test," Training School Bulletin, 1974, 70, 221-223.

 

French, Joseph L. "Peabody Individual Achievement Test,"
in Oscar K. Buros (editor), The Seventh Mental Measure-
ment Yearbook, Volumn I. Highland Park, New Jersey:
The GrypHOn Press, 1972, pp. 33-35.

 

 

Lamanna, Joseph A. and James E. Ysseldyke. "Reliability
of the Peabody Individual Achievement Test with First-
Grade Children," Psychology in the Schools, 1973,
10, 437-439.

 

Lyman, Howard B. "Peabody Individual Achievement Test,"
Journal of Educational Measurement, 1971, 8, 139-140.

 

Proger, Barton B. "Test Review No. 4: Peabody Individual
Achievement Test," The Journal of Special Education,
1970, 4, 461-468.

 

Soethe, James W. "Concurrent Validity of the Peabody
Individual Achievement Test," Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 1972, 5, 560-562.

 

 

Wilson, John D. and Paul F. Spangler. "The Peabody
Individual Achievement Test as a Clinical Tool,"
Journal of Learnipg Disabilities, 1974, 7, 384-387.

 

Ysseldyke, James E., David A. Sabatino, and Joseph Lamanna.
"Convergent and Discriminant Validity of the Peabody
Individual Achievement Test with Educable Mentally
Retarded Children," Psychology in the Schools, 1973,
10, 200-204.

 

67

APPENDIX C

PIAT, Mathematics
Reading Recognition
Spelling
General Information

 

 

O O O

\OQNO‘kflkUQNH

P‘h‘
P‘C)

12.
l3.
14.
15.
l6.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.

APPENDIX C NAME

 

DATE

 

SCORE

 

Peabody Individual Achievement Test
MATHEMATICS

number match - blank alternative
number match - object alternatives
number match - math sign alternatives
number match - number alternatives

size comparison

size comparison

basic addition with picture clues
basic subtraction with picture clues
equivalent sets

counting

curved line recognition

2-digit number recognition (place value)
recognition of fractional parts
subtraction story problem (money)
comparative/superlative

monetary values

concept of before and after

adding money of different denominations
time concepts

recognition of fractional parts

telling time - hours

concept of double

concept of pair, addition

basic subtraction story problem

concept of number sequence (before and after)
money addition problem

quantitive age comparison

telling time - parts of hour
comparison of monetary denominations
choice of appropriate operation
divisibility into fractional parts
basic division story problem

number sequence

story problem (multiples of 5)

time concept

story problem Cmultiples of 5)

number sequence (multiples of 5)

place value

multiplication (3's)

linear measure (unit equivalence)

shape recognition

comparison of value with different monetary denominations
money multiplication story problem
operations with zero

computation of time passage - story problem
place value

fraction operation

place value

68

 

69

PIAT Math

49. liquid measure

50. money division story problem
51. place value

52. money division story problem
53. temperature

54. place value addition

55. equivalent fractions

56. parts of circle

57. area of rectangle

58. dozens, multiplication

59. story problem (linear measure)
60. story problem (decimals)

61. story problem (2-step, multiplication)
62. expanded notation

63. story problem (pattern seeking)
64. triangles (definition of type)
65. place value - effects of multiplying by zeroes
66. story problem (percentage)

67. algebra factoring

68. geometric forms (name recall)
69. Roman Numerals

70. ratios - exponents

71. cube roots (algebra)

72. distributive property

73. areas of circle

74. triangles (sum of angles)

75. square roots

76. area of triangles

77. algebra

78. story problem (percentage)

79. degrees in circle (multiple)
80. algebra

81. area of cylinder

82. algebra graphing

83. factorials

84. trigonometry

Kutinsky, Land, Loose - 1975

1.1”—

 

 

Name

 

Date

 

PIAT Reading Recognition

Problem areas are indicated by circles.
Keep in mind that a correct response may indicate lucky guess or
sight word mastery vs. mastery of all skills listed.

9.
10
ll.
12.
13.
14.
15.
l6.
17.
18.

Questions 19-85 have the student read words aloud.
in pronunciation are indicated.

Capital letter match - blank alternatives

Capital letter match

- picture alternatives

Capital letter match - other lowercase letter alternatives
Capital letter match - other capital letter alternatives

W0rd match

W0rd match -
WOrd match -

WOrd match -
attending to

Verbal
Verbal
Verbal
Verbal
Verbal
Verbal
Verbal
Verbal
Verbal

letter
letter
letter
letter
letter
letter
letter
letter
letter

(written in capitals) - attended only to (2) initial/

(3) final letter

(1 & 3) reversals

(2 & 4) inversion

(3) reversal (4) not attending to
final letter

(1) partial word reversal (3) transpositions and not

final letter (4) letter reversals

WOrd match - (1) inversion (2) u/w discrimination (3) n/m discrimination
recall - consonant capital and lowercase

name
name
name
name
name
name
name
name
name

recall
recall
recall
recall
recall
recall
recall
recall

- vowel capital and lowercase
- vowel capital

- consonant capital

- consonant capital

- consonant lowercase

- vowel lowercase

- consonant lowercase

- consonant lowercase

Errors they make
If the student makes no attempt at the

word, the task number will be circled.

I-initial sound
M-middle sound
F-final sound
SV-short vowel
LV-long vowel
VR-vowel - R
VD-vowel digraph sound
Schwa-schwa sound

19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.

Sub-substitution
Ins-insertion
Inv-inversion
L.Rev-letter reversal
W.Rev-word reversal
Trans-transposition

CB-consonant blend
Pre-prefix

Suf—suffix

G-choice of G sound
Ch-choice of Ch sound
S-silent letters

O-omissions
Ph-Ph sound

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7O

 

71

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I-initial sound Sub-substitution CB—consonant blend
M—middle sound Ins-insertion Pre-prefix
F-final sound luv-inversion Suf—suffix
SV-short vowel L.Rev-letter reversal G-choice of G sound
LV-long vowel W.Rev-word reversal Ch—choice of Ch sound
VR-vowel - R Trans-transposition S—silent letters
VD-vowel digraph sound O-omissions

Schwa-schwa sound Ph-Ph sound

26. 56.

27. 57.

28. 58.

29. S9.

30. 60.

31. 61.

32. 62.

33. 63.

34. 64.

35. 65.

36. 66.

37. 67.

38. 68.

39. 69.

40. 70.

41. 71.

42. 72.

43. 73.

44. 74.

45. 75.

46. 76.

47. 77.

48. 78.

49. 79.

50. 80.

51. 81.

52. 82.

53. 83.

54. 84.

 

 

55.

 

 

Name
Date

 

 

PIAT Spelling Problem areas circled

l. discrimination of letter from pictures

2. discrimination of letter from numbers

3. discrimination of letter from numbers

4. discrimination of letter from math signs

5. discrimination of letter from math signs

6. discrimination of letter from math signs

7. discrimination of letter from pictures

8. discrimination of letter from numbers

9. discrimination of letter from numbers
10. discrimination of letter from math signs
11. discrimination of letter from numbers

12. discrimination of letters
13. discrimination of grossly different words
14. discrimination of words with different initial sounds
15. discrimination of grossly different words
16. discrimination of grossly different words
17. discrimination of words with same initial letters

The rest of the words are finer discriminations. The numbers within
each problem indicate possible wrong answers - and the type of
confusion shown.

18. (1, 2 &3) vowel digraphs

l9. (1 & 3) vowel digraphs (4) vowel choice

20. (l & 2) Z vs. S (3) vowel choice

21. (1) vowel choice (2) doubling insertion (4) wh blend

22. (2, 3 & 4) long vowel - e

23. (l & 3) vowel - R (1 & 4) schwa

24. (l & 2) 2 vs. S (2 & 4) transposition of vowel - R

25. (l & 3) consonant blend (1 & 4) vowel choice (3) plural

26. (2) letter reversal (3 & 4) ow confusion (4) doubling insertion

27. (l) omission final consonant (2) transposition (4) omission in
consonant blend

28. (1) vowel choice (2) letter inversion (4) insertion

29. (l) vowel digraph transposition (3) Y (3) final E insertion
(3 & 4) vowel digraph omission

30. (l) vowel - E rule (2) omission silent letter (3) vowel insertion

31. (1 & 4) Sh vs. S (3) choice of vowel - R

32. (1 & 3) omission silent letter (3) doubling insertion (4) silent
letter insertion

33. (l & 3) long vowel (2 & 3) silent letter insertion

34. (l) ow confusion (2) vowel digraph (3) silent letter insertion

35. (1) vowel choice (1 & 2) choice of vowel - R (4) doubling omission

36. (2) transposition (3) omission (4) vowel choice

37. (2 & 3) schwa choice (2 & 4) ending substitution

38. (1 & 4) long I vs. Y (3) vowel insertion

39. (1 & 3) SC vs. S (2 & 3) vowel digraph transposition

40. (1, 2 &3) vowel - R

41. (l) vowel digraph insertion (3) vowel digraph omission (4) vowel — R

42. (2 & 3) doubling insertion (3 & 4) vowel choice

43. (2) doubling insertion (3 & 4) vowel choice (3) vowel digraph
insertion

72

 

_iu nun—1-4 nan-

44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.

56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.

73

(l & 2) transposition (2 & 3) doubling omission

(2 & 3) vowel choice (4) vowel omission

(1 & 4) vowel digraph omission (2) consonant doubling omission
(2 & 3) insertion (4) schwa choice

(2 & 3) vowel choice (4) vowel transposition

(l & 4) doubling insertion (2 & 4) PH vs. F

(l) vowel choice (1 & 2) doubling insertion (3) vowel transposition

(1 & 4) schwa choice (2) doubling omission

(l, 2 & 3) doubling omission

(1) Y vs. I (2) vowel digraph insertion (3) C vs. S

(1) Y vs. I (3 & 4) C vs. S (3) vowel choice

(2) schwa choice (2, 3 & 4) doubling omission (4) vowel digraph
insertion

(l & 3) schwa choice (2) insertion

(l) vowel transposition (3) schwa choice (4) vowel digraph omission

(l, 2 & 3) vowel transposition (2) vowel choice

(1 & 4) vowel omission in suffix (2) choice of vowel - R

(1 & 4) vowel omission in suffix (3 & 4) choice of vowel - R

(l, 2 & 3) complex suffix

(2, 3 & 4) choice of vowel - R (2 & 3) doubling insertion

(1 & 3) schwa (1) doubling insertion (4) vowel insertion

(2 & 3) SC vs. SS (4) doubling omission (3 & 4) schwa

(l & 4) S vs. C (l) schwa (2) doubling insertion

(2, 3 & 4) SC vs. C (3 & 4) complex suffix

(l, 3 & 4) schwa

(l & 3) schwa (l, 3 & 4) vowel digraph insertion

(l 8 4) PH.vs. F (l) N vs. M (l & 3) vowel insertion

(2, 3 & 4) schwa

(l, 3 & 4) schwa (3 & 4) PH.vs. F

(l & 3) doubling insertion (1 & 2) vowel digraph omission

(l) schwa (l, 2 & 3) doubling omission

(l & 4) schwa (3 & 4) doubling omission

(l & 2) doubling omission (2 & 4) choice of vowel — R

(l, 2 & 4) doubling omission (4) doubling insertion

(l, 2 & 4) CK vs. C (3) K VS. CK

(1 & 3) doubling insertion (1 & 2) doubling omission

(2 & 4) schwa (3 & 4) doubling and vowel insertion

(2, 3 & 4) complex suffix

(l, 3 & 4) complex suffix

(l, 2 & 4) doubling insertion

(l) vowel choice (2 & 4) complex transposition/insertion

(l) C vs. S (2) doubling insertion (4) SC vs. C

10.
ll.
12.
l3.
14.
15.
l6.
l7.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.

Name

Date

Score
Peabody Individual Achievement Test

GENERAL INFORMATION

body awareness - point

body awareness - associate name with function
body awareness - associate name with location
animal sounds

properties of water

awareness of community job functions
awareness of community job functions
food sources

basic weather

U.S. flag

transportation energy sources

space travel

basic botany growing process
plant/animal differentiation
transportation vehicles

concept of contagion - common cold
sequence seasons

awareness of community job functions
landforms - definition

textile sources

fire - properties - (needs oxygen)
food sources

food sources

community store functions

student's home location (state)
basic anatomy; physiology

color mixing - properties of color
basic physiology

sports - (identification)

sports - (identification)

farm equipment

music - people involved

nutrition - infant care

weather - (thermometer reading)
basic government - democracy

U.S. history - famous people
physiology - vocabulary

animal anatomy/physiology

sources of everyday items

landforms - (definition)

basic astronomy - (relate size and distance)
student's geographic location (country)
famous inventors

seasons

basic government

74

 

 

 

46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.

75

earth science

Black history

judicial system

international travel

music - people involved

astronomy

first aid

geology

government budget

art

animals - yearly life cycle

pattern of seasons

basic chemistry

musical instruments - classification
travel - procedure

sports - identification

world awards -

astronomy - comparative relationships
government — national structure
physiology - health study

sound

world government - current

world transportation

government - import - export (concept)
international awareness - relative populations
famous artist

government - definition of type
astronomical discoveries

physics - energy

world politics (United Nations)
religion (comparative)

astronomy

law

economics (definition of systems)
geography

music - famous composers

physics

English language

 

APPENDIX D

Instructions for Administration of PIAT

 

APPENDIX D

Teacher - Parent Communication Project

Instructions for Administration of PIAT
with Children, and Parents

I. Children:

Please follow standardized procedures for admini—
stration and scoring of PIAT. On the front page of the
Individual Record Booklet, please put the family number
according to the sequence of numbers you were assigned
(e.g., 31, 32, 33). Please put your name as Examiner.
Fill in the Grade Egg whether the child is designated
LD. Complete Age Data. For test scores, put raw scores
and grade equivalent for all tests and for total test.

In math subtest, follow the directions of asking the
child to make a choice after approximately 30 seconds and
go to the next item. For Reading Comprehension, have the
child carefully read the sentence once (not linger over
difficult words or meaning of sentence). This is a dif-
ficult procedure to manage and can greatly effect scores
if the child is given unlimited time to study the sentence.
On the General Information subtest, after I have reached
a ceiling, I usually conclude the test by asking the child
several easy items (below their basal) in order to have the
child end on a successful note.

 

 

 

II. Parents:

Whenever possible, try to see the parent at school
since testing and conferencing in homes is often difficult
due to distractions and interruptions. Ask the parents
not to discuss the test with each other or with the child
until all three have taken the test. Thank the parent for
taking the time to meet with you for this study. Explain
that this is a project to improve teacher-parent communication.
It is an opportunity for the parent to see what kind of
material is being taught in school and to see how their
child scored. The information should help teachers to
improve teacher-parent conferences. All information is
confidential. No names will be used. Each family will
have a number in order to keep the family information together.

On the parent record booklet, please put the family
number (e.g., 31, 32, 33), sex of parent (i.e., mother or
father), your name as examiner, date of test (date of birth
for child only will be on child's booklet), and subtest
scores (raw scores and grade equivalents).

76

 

77

On each of the subtests, ask the parent to tell you
whether they think their child would know the answer to
each item by saying "yes" or "no". On the record booklet
mark a plus (+) for yes and a minus (-) for no next to
each item. Establish a basal and ceiling in the standard
manner. When parents are not sure of the item, ask them

to make their best guess as their child is asked to do
on the test.

In conferencing with the parents, explain that this
is only one test and the child might function higher or
lower in class on a day-to-day basis.

If you have any questions, please call me.
(517) 485-4507

Wells Longshore

 

APPENDIX E

Letter to Parents

APPENDIX E

Dear

I am taking a course in teacher-parent communication through
Michigan State University. One of my assignments is to meet
with both of the parents of several students regarding their
child's academic progress. I think this can be an opportunity
for you and me to gain a better understanding of your child's
school work. I would like to evaluate your son's progress in
math, reading, spelling and general information and then share
the results with you. I would like to meet with each of you
individually and have you estimate how you think your son would
perform in these acadanic areas. Then the three of us would
meet and discuss your son's actual results. I would see your

son at school and then meet with you at school, or at your hcme.
My conference would take about 40 minutes with each of you, and
then our follow-up discussion. This procedure can be done at one
conference or in two shorter conferences . No names will be used
for my assig'rment report. I hope you might be able to participate
in this project with me. Thank you.

 

Sincerely ,

78

 

 

APPENDIX F

Post Project Questionnaire

APPENDIX F

Teacher-Parent Communication Project
(Post Project Questionnaire)

 

 

 

 

 

 

l. Examiner's Name: Child's School:
Child's Race: Primary Language of the Home:
Natural Parents: , or Step-Parents:

2. Number of Families Tested: Regular Ed L.D.

 

 

3. Method of Contacting Parents (conference, phone, letter, other):

 

 

 

4. Number of Families Contacted: Regular Ed L.D.

 

 

5. Reasons Given for Not Participating:

 

 

 

 

 

6. Time and Location of Testing:

a. Child

 

b. Mother

 

c. Father

 

7. Problems of Difficulties in Testing (time, travel, lack of test kit, etc.):

 

 

 

 

8. Reactions, Comments, Questions, Suggestions by Child and Parents:

3. Child

 

 

 

79

 

80

b. Mother

 

 

 

c. Father

 

 

 

9. Your Reactions, Comments, etc.:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks again, without you it couldn't have been done.

Wells J. Longshore, Ph.D. (Almost)

m3):um;lylygtattmxlwumnus/mull