II IIIIIII B.I‘ ’51}? ”14:55 5 " 5551-5355 , a? - .1 "“5555 '1 .3. _. I “3% l . . I . I '5 .-. l' I ‘ ‘3‘ ' ‘ v 0‘ ‘ . , | ‘ I 92%. . ‘ [If v3 ".1 | .5 5 ‘ ’ ' . 4:; ' . '4'“ -" 5E 133:“: - .35." 555 555 5 ‘- Iii 5.5. 5 ’ I m . "A" "5 .: ..gzzH z..._.__:—.-—...... .1C5."‘. .n I .'- .. .r , .‘ .y H - . I d' ‘ 13*. ‘I ' ' ‘ 21.1. :35. 'i ‘ o ,q‘;;.j.z ..U". .‘ . to. Ltg’f‘uz‘l‘d" 1' HI: WI .. 55:2: I a... ..- ..~ ’5 Mme,“ Iva'vva’r ‘. I 1 (”I 3.33 ,. {5%} ”£21! 535%} 3 5} 1‘? 3:55? :1; 1:5 ‘5}?!0,‘ 533133; :15. _.. II" 533?; ‘72:: '55:" 3‘:5:~ ‘555’ 5155 .5554,” 5:565 351'; 155,55 «,4 -I- m -I , 5H“ 553w; I I '55; ~ 55W 5 ‘3'5 [9'5“ " r, - I! 5115 r55 35 , ‘ ‘3‘?“ “f 3'55. , 55‘. :5 {‘3 335653525, “5,1153“ 5'! i3“ Ii5hjl5‘3fp: ““5555 5 553m“. .5‘ A535 ’ #5155515 afigéffi’w 353 L' L 3351136! a “5}“? SH ‘35“‘5?‘= ”’3'3“ 5‘15“"‘5: “ 553' 93:3 ‘ '73:,“5555‘35 5.3.35 1:: .zf.".§.‘a’:::5IIIing 5.4355555; “ - ‘55:!“ W‘fi‘ 55553:“ '1. i 3‘3II35““‘5‘55} .55: 5 .IJ‘ ' I: ' "5.5.3.15,“-5::II..‘.:§I‘5~:§':I:'“IiifI5.§;'?5III§I§I =55. s"; ‘ = ‘ 55:5: ’5' #52:: III? ”55:35 5 553%” " 5333“ “‘3' ‘553‘="-55;;:5:125555155I "" “ " " . '. 55"“35 ““33 ‘ I555" ’55“ 3‘55 “3‘3 ‘3‘“ ,IuIIII; ‘55 55352355555335 5.5553551 I?“ 5" 3'15? 33535., 'ii‘ 553'? (:5 I ‘5“. 353‘ M 53555” 5655;; 55' :15,“ ‘53}:3‘5‘45 f" ‘3‘“ 3““ 333555 g‘g‘gfiflh 355353353331“ [HUN I 55...: 555;...5.‘ III». .I IIIII‘III 'I‘I' "*5 5’ ““335.” I5253III II ,. I - 5-33 333333 5 «am I: 5555:5‘5“ 5.5;55é355155‘5‘ 5515; 5555le ‘15“. 5553 “5“"! 5.55:5 35'5““55 55‘ 55*. ‘3“ ‘55‘3‘3‘ “3‘ ‘ E ’515503 I.I :~;“”I"’?""f.o~ 5,“, 3‘3551'3‘353355‘ mun: 5553335“ 41:: .15 55;} 25355 3314; 3:5:I 53.! 5'5 £31.5Q55‘555555I‘3‘5 . ‘ I .‘. 5 I “5,, ‘ .5. ”I" 55:5‘33‘I“I555‘ 5’I5‘ 53355 35‘3555‘53 WI}. IIII‘3II‘5 55535t r35““5“ ‘5‘ ‘3‘ ‘5‘5 3 3‘35”“ “‘5‘“ “5.353 5 55:5,, 55535.] 55.55: “I “‘55-'35: I“II .I. 13355255535555 W . . ‘5‘“:5 ”:35 I5" 5,.” ‘75! A5‘ ‘5 “‘5 3 5.1: . ‘55 {5‘15 (55 H5555 5:151; 55‘5“ ‘. . ,5; ".5 I‘MII. ‘5 IIIIII ‘ ‘ 1:53,“. “In”, ‘ 55:551., 550‘ m ' I 55515: I II" I I I,’ ‘2' .555. '55 ‘5 5155535555, ‘5 III 5:55:55 “ ’ 5551;555:555 .35 55551153} 5.5;. . 5555?; W I '5' '5 I I I I IfI ' '5C55.I;El'li :5 '3‘: 5 i! 5]}??? ‘ 55:55:55., 5““ 3555555 I: ,3 5 5555.1.5555555 5 I5“ 55‘ ‘ 553M" / “53535551555 I’m! 5‘1“]! 3555555 . .' . gr~m 4 "3%“:5‘“ —-_§_. :" 35 55:55:55 55:55.1“ ‘5 .. IIII 5‘ 5 , J 55 I ' I" , I I I355‘55551535‘35555355555555Ilil55III5I55I5‘5555' ' 55555535IIIIII5IIII5 THESIS 'G‘WYJI: 7.. f.L...;'.Z_v.‘; -._..----...-g. ..x' ‘x‘ £3!“ at _ - . é ‘ 5 E x _ ., , _.., WV "' This is to certify that the dissertation entitled A CROSS-CULTURAL STUDY OF AN INSTRUMENT FOR MEASURING THE PROBLEM BEHAVIOR OF CHILDREN IN REGULAR CLASSES IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF JORDAN presented by Khawla Ahmad Yahya has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph. D. degree in Philosophy 9mm 5 w w 0 Major professor Date L// 171) MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 012771 f -—'—’ v7 . r7 w Il/Ll/lll/lilL/lle/ll/Il/l/I//////I//I//I///I/////I//I///l 10521 4807 ' RETURNING MATERIALS: TV1SSI_J Place in book drop to LJBRARJES remove this checkout from .5135. _Y OOOOOOOO d. FINES Will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. J: + (I / [/‘f’ " (IT/ll t ' t I '" f . .v ‘ ,4: 3 A CROSS-CULTURAL STUDY OF AN INSTRUMENT FOR MEASURING THE PROBLEM BEHAVIOR OF CHILDREN IN REGULAR CLASSES IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF JORDAN BY Khawla Ahmad Yahya A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Special Education 1982 0 00a v Gut; ABSTRACT A CROSS—CULTURAL STUDY OF AN INSTRUMENT FOR MEASURING THE PROBLEM BEHAVIOR OF CHILDREN IN REGULAR CLASSES IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF JORDAN BY Khawla Ahmad Yahya This study was undertaken as a first step in the prepara- tion of a screening device to be used in the emerging field of Special education in the country of Jordan. The Devereux Ele- mentary School Behavior Rating Scale (DESB) was selected because it can be administered and scored by teachers, and provides information about behaviors that are immediately relevant to the conduct of the classroom. The scale provides a profile of 11 dimensions of overt problem behavior. The purpose of the study was to prepare an Arabic trans— lation of the DESB scale and to compare the data derived from its application in Jordan with data from the use of the origi- nal DESB in the U.S. For this study a sample of students in Jordan was selected to match the U.S. standardization sample. A total -of 603 subjects were finally included in the study, approxi- mately 100 from each grade level, first through sixth grade. Subjects were also divided by sex and nationality: Khawla Ahmad Yahya that is, Palestinian and Jordanian. In addition, 12 subjects identified by teachers as displaying disruptive behaviors in the classroom were included. The findings are reported in terms of the following six research questions: 1. How do the mean scores on the 11 DESB factors for the Jordan sample compare to those for the U.S. standardization sample? Is the pattern of intercorrelations of factor scores comparable for the Jordan and U.S. sample? How do sex differences in factor means compare for the U.S. and Jordan samples? How do the relationships between reading and arith- metic achievement scores and the factor scores com- pare for the U.S. and Jordan samples? How do the scores of Jordanian children, selected by teachers as disturbing compare to the U.S. and Jordan norms? What are the differences in factor scores between Palestinian and Jordanian children? Rater agreement was also investigated as an important aspect of scale development. Following is a summary of the major findings of the study: 1. The level of rater agreement for the Arabic DESB in Jordan appears to be satisfactory and encouraging Khawla Ahmad Yahya for the future development of the scale. Rater agreement, using a stringent definition of agreement, varied from 66.7% to 79.5% for various subgroups. There is a general trend for the mean scores on those DESB factors relating to disruptive behavior to be higher in the Jordan than in the U.S. sample. When the mean raw factor scores for the Jordan and the U.S. samples are ranked the rankings correspond closely, offering some tangential support for the belief that the scale is being interpreted similarly by the raters in the two cultures, and that child behavior is reasonably similar. The pattern of intercorrelations of the subscales for the Jordan sample was judged to be sufficiently similar to the U.S. pattern to suggest a similar factor structure. Eighty-five percent of the cor- responding pairs of correlation coefficients were in the same direction. The consistent sex differences in DESB factor scores reported for the U.S. sample were not found in the Jordan sample. The pattern of correlation of DESB factor scores with reading and arithmetic achievement in the Jor- dan sample approximated the pattern in the U.S. sample. However, the correlations were consistently higher in the Jordan sample. Khawla Ahmad Yahya 7. Jordanian children identified by teachers as dis— turbed tend to have DESB factor scores which fall outside of the range of normal on a profile developed from the DESB Jordan sample data. 8. Mean DESB factor scores did not differ significantly for the Palestinian and Jordanian subgroups. The pattern of results for this Arabic translation of the DESB appear to replicate in many ways the results that have been obtained with the U.S. version of the scale. These find- ings are seen as supporting further development of standardi- zation data for the Jordan population using this Arabic translation. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer would like to take this opportunity to express sincere and deep appreciation to Dr. Keller for his meaningful and timely contributions to this dissertation. Appreciation must be expressed for the many hours he has spent in guidance. To Drs. Mange, Pernell and Vinsonhaler, members of the doctoral guidance committee, for providing a professional atmosphere truly conducive to advanced graduate study. My parents, brothers and sisters must be thanked for their continual support. Each has been a unique source of strength in encouraging the completion of my graduate studies. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES O O O O 0 O O O O O O O 0 Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. . Services for Handicapped Children in Jordan . . . . . . . . . . . . Selection of a Measuring Instrument . . . The Devereux Elementary School Behavior Rating Scale . . . . . . . . . . Behavior Factors. . . . . . . . . Factor 1. Classroom disturbance. . . Factor 2. Impatience . . . . . . Factor 3. Disrepect-defiance. . . . Factor 4. External blame . . . . . Factor 5. Achievement anxiety . . . Factor 6. External reliance . . . . Factor 7. Comprehension . . . . . Factor 8. Inattentive-withdrawn. . . Factor 9. Irrelevant-responsiveness . Factor 10. Creative initiative . . . Factor 11. Need for closeness to the teacher . . . . . . . . . . Non-factor additional items . . . . Reliability 0 O O O O O O O O O Validity . . . . . . . . . . . Other Studies Utilizing the DESB . . . . DESB as a Criterion for Validating Other Measures. . . . . . . . . . . DESB as a Dependent Measure in Studies of Group Differences. . . . . . . . Studies Immediately Relevant to the Present Study. . . . . . . . . . . . The DESB normative study . . . . . Relationship of factor scores to academic achievement . . . . . . . . . iii Page somxoxoooooooooxl \l f.» O FJH c>o FJH n+4 l-‘ .b 14 14 15 15 17 Chapter Purpose of the Study . . . . . 2 O WTHODOLOGY O ' O ‘ O ' O O O O O 0 Research Questions. . . . . Arabic Adaptation of the DESB . . Selection of the Sample . . . . The Jordan Public School Sample. The United Nations (Palestinian) Sample . . The Sample of Disturbed Children Procedures . . . . . . . . Instruction of the Raters. . . Determination of Rater Agreement Measures of Achievement . . . Treatment of the Data. . . . . 3. FINDINGS. O O O O O O O O O Rater Agreement. Question Question Question Question Question Question mU'lubWNF-J O O O O O 0 O O O 0 O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 4. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . Discussion . . . . . . . BIBLIOGMPHY O O O C O O O O O O 0 .Appendix DESB Rating Scale Form . . . . . iv School Recommendations for Further Research. Page 19 21 21 23 24 24 26 26 29 29 29 31 31 33 33 51 57 59 63 66 67 67 71 75 77 79 Table 1. 5. 6. 10. ll. 12. 13. LIST OF TABLES Page Distribution of subjects by grade level, school location, nationality, and sex . . . . . . 27 Number of cases of disturbed children by grade level, sex, and nationality . .. . . . . . 28 Distribution of cases in the Rate Agreement sample 0 O O O O O I O O O O O 0 O 30 Rater agreement by item for the fourth grade . . 35 Rater agreement by item for the sixth grade . . 37 Distribution of items 1-26 according to percent of rater agreement for the grade and sex subgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Distribution of items 27-47 according to percent of rater agreement for the grade and sex subgroups O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 39 Percent of items on which there is rater agreement by subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Correlations of factors scores derived from three- rater groups . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Means and standard deviations of DESB scores for the Jordan sample at each grade level and for the total sample . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Means and standard deviations of DESB scores for the U.S. sample at each grade level and for the total sample . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Z value for the differences of DESB factor means at each grade level and over the entire sample for both the Jordanian and American sample . . 46 Differences between the U.S. and Jordan factor means and standard deviations for each grade level and for the total sample . . . . . . 43 Table Page 14. Rank order of the mean scores of the factors at each grade level for the Jordan and U.S. samples. 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 O 50 15. Intercorrelations among the subscales of the DESB. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 52 16. Intercorrelations among the subscales of the DESB scale. . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 17. Rotated factor loadings for the DESB factor scores in the Jordan sample . . . . . . . 56 18. Rotated factor loadings for the DESB factor scores in the U.S. sample. . . . . . . . 55 19. Mean factor scores and standard deviations as a function of sex and nationality . . . . . 53 20. Correlations between factor scores and reading and arithmetic classroom achievement grades for the Jordan sample . . . . . . . . . . 50 21. Correlations between factor scores and reading and arithmetic classroom achievement grades for the U.S. sample C O O O O O O O O O 0 61 22. Z values for differences between U.S. and Jordan samples in correlation coefficients relating to DESB scores and achievement grades. . . . . 62 23. Relationship of the scores of the Jordan sample of disturbed children to the Jordan and U.S. DESB norms O O O O O O O O O O O O O 65 vi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE This study describes the preparation and use of a measure of child classroom behavior, the Devereux Elementary School Behavior Rating Scale (DESB), in the country of Jordan. The long range purpose of this translation, and beginning develop- ment, of an Arabic version of the DESB scale is to contribute an assessment device to the emerging field of special education in that country. The DESB scale measures classroom behavior that interferes with academic learning. Therefore, it is to the area of emotionally impaired that this study will make its primary contribution. Services for Handicapped Children in Jordan At present only a very small percentage of the handicapped population in Jordan is being served in educational programs. In the Queen Alia Fund Study (1979) it was reported that only 7.5% of the handicapped population is receiving services. The existing programs are mainly for the mentally retarded, blind, deaf, and physically handicapped children from the ages of 5 through 16. These services are rendered through many dif- ferent agencies working in the field of special education, voluntary private associations as well as governmental agencies. Education is offered cooperatively to the people of Jordan by the Ministry of Education, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Social Welfare, and private education. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), provides education for 21% of the student population, but this is just responsible for the education of the Palestinian refugee children. Also the Ministry of Defense has offered educa- tion for the children of soldiers. All of these educational efforts are supervised by the Ministry of Education which has the Opportunity to control the education process in the country as a whole. Although interest in special education has been growing in recent years, there is no specific legislation supporting special education or vocational rehabilitation. There is a constitutional basis for such legislation, however. Under the constitution of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan everyone is guaranteed equal opportunities for education. Article Six of the Jordanian constitution reads as.follows: The state, within its potentialities, shall guarantee work, education, security, and equal opportunities for all citizens. (Shami, p. 4) Article 20 states: Primary education is compulsory and free in all govern- ment schools. (Shami, p. 4) Past legislation, while not specifically referring to special education, also would offer a legal basis for support of special education. Education Law No. 16 (Shami, p. 5), the most important law affecting the educational system, guarantees equal educational opportunities for all citizens, male and female. It is reasonable to assume that special education ser— vices will develop in the near future. In the past there was less pressure for services because in an agricultural society children were taken care of in the social structure of the extended family. Jordan has shifted from an agricultural to an industrial society with a resulting change in family structure. In the past, Jordanian parents looked to their extended family of grandparents, aunts, uncles, and friends' for advice on how to handle particular child problems and how to organize family life. The extended family advice depended upon standards of acceptability for children‘s social behavior. The modern family finds itself separated from relatives and life long friends. It moves frequently to gain economic and social advantages. It is highly likely, therefore, that parents will be increasingly dependent on the schools and other agencies for help when problems arise. As implied in what has been said above there are no special classes or special provisions in the schools for children who are emotionally disturbed. There are in Jordan institutional programs for juvenile delinquents and for psychotic children, but since the DESB scale is considered here as primarily useful in the normal school setting, these programs are not of relevance to this study. In the regular school system, disturbing students are excluded from school if the school counselor, to whom a teacher would refer a disturbing student, is unable to solve the problem either on his own or in cooperation with the child's parents. Selection of a Measuring Instrument In the U.S. and in other Western countries many instru— ments for assessing the characteristics of emotionally dis- turbed children have been developed and are in wide use. The first task of the present writer was to select from among the many possibilities an instrument that would be useful in a country only in the beginning of its attempts to meet the needs of disturbed children. It was decided at the outset to look for a measure of child behavior that would not require for its administration and interpretation the skills of psychologists or other supportive personnel who would be in short supply in a developing country. This consideration immediately ruled out projective tests such as the Rorschach, thematic apperception tests, sentence completion tests or other devices that rely on the interpretations of profession- als skilled in their use. These projective devices were also eliminated on the basis of a second consideration: namely, that the measures be rather immediately relevant to the needs of teachers. In addition to excluding the kinds of instruments discussed above this consideration also ruled out measures of person- ality traits or other abstract variables that have often been developed and used for research studies with a theoreti- cal orientation. A teacher administered behavior rating scale measuring observable behavior seemed to be the measuring instrument of choice. It seemed logical that in program development in Jordan the first efforts should be directed toward early school age children. Therefore, a behavior rating scale appropriate for elementary school age children was sought. Early in the search of the literature the Devereux Elementary School Behavior scale (DESB) was discovered. It appeared to be in favor with both practitioners and research- ers as a measure of disturbing classroom behavior. As evi— dence of its wide use Von Isser, Quay, and Love (1980) in selecting several tests to use in a factor analytic study seeking to define the basic dimensions of deviant classroom behavior chose, as one measure, the DESB which they state is ". . . one of the most widely used instruments" (p. 272). One of the strongest recommendations for its selection is the fact that it has been used as the criterion variable in recent research studies. These studies, in which the DESB factors are assumed to be valid measures of the designated behavioral traits, are reviewed below. In concluding his review in the Buros Mental Measure- ment Yearbook (Buros, 1972), Littell concludes, "The DESB is a sophisticated and carefully developed rating scale. The behaviors to be rated are clearly described and instruc- tions for rating are carefully given" (p. 69). Spivack, the developer of the DESB, and his collabora- tors summarize their conclusions as to the usefulness of the DESB in their report of its use in a cross-cultural study, The DESB is now considered to be useful to educators and psychologists in the two countries (the USA and France), (a) as a means of early screening for children with behavior patterns inimical to achievement, (b) for communication from the teacher to other professions about the specific nature of the behavior of a child displaying learning difficulties, (c) for a baseline and stimulus for the development of teaching strategies to overcome difficulties, and (d) as a means to assess change following program implementation. (Spivack, Swift, DeLisser, Danset, Denset-Leger, and WinnyKamen, 1972, p. 493) In conclusion, the DESB seems sufficiently well- established and well-regarded to justify its selection for use in Jordan. The Devereux Elementary School Behavior Rating Scale The DESB scale, according to the manual, Provides a profile of 11 dimensions of overt problem behavior that experienced teachers have judged as being related to classroom achievement, and for which there is research evidence to this effect. (Spivack & Swift, 1967' p. 3) o The scale includes 47 different items, 44 of which are grouped into the 11 factors. Three additional items that do not con- tribute to a factor score complete the scale. Each factor consists of between three and five items. No item occurs in more than one factor. These factors are labelled: classroom disturbance, impatience, disrespect-defiance, external blame, achievement anxiety, external reliance, comprehension, inattentive-withdrawn, irrelevant-responsiveness, creative initiative, and need for closeness to the teacher. The items are rated on either a 5-point scale which measures the frequency of a behavior, or on a 7-point scale measuring the degree of the behavior. In reviewing the DESB for the Seventh Mental Measurement Yearbook (Buros, 1972), Littell states: A major strength of the DESB is the care with which the items were selected and grouped into the rating scale . . . Teachers of both normal and exceptional children were brought together to discuss and describe behaviors of the children in their classrooms that they saw as either disruptive of learning or as positively related to achievement . . . This item pool was used to rate both normal and exceptional children, the data were factor analyzed, and the items best describing the fac- tors which were common to both normal and exceptional children were retained in the final form. (pp. 68-69) Behavior Factors The following are descriptions of the 11 factors and the 3 non-factor additional items. The quotations in these descriptions.indicate direct quotations from the DESB manual. The complete DESB rating scale and the DESB profile form (see Appendix) provide the completely stated items, and the values for the factor scores in the form of a raw score— to-standard score conversion table. .Eactor 1. Classroom disturbance Four items, no. 11, 12, 13, and 30: . . . tapping classroom disturbance behaviors measure the extent to which the child's behavior is active, social (although inappropriate), and disruptive or obstreperous. These behaviors usually disrupt the classroom functioning of others and interrupt the flow of work. . . . The normal range of scores is between 6 and 14. Factor 2. Impatience Three items, no. 1, 36, and 47: . . . are concerned with an inappropriate drive to enter into and to complete the work assigned. A score of 15 or more suggests difficulties which are not con- ducive to successful learning. . . . The range of scores for most normal public school children is between 5 and 14. Factor 3. Disrepect-defiance Four items, no. 5, 7, 9, and 16: tap the extent to which the child manifests open dis— respect for or resistance to the school, the subject matter being taught and the teacher. . . . A score of 9 or more is strong evidence of a serious disruption of the relationship between the child and the total academic setting. Factor 4. External blame Four items, no. 2, 25, 34, and 38: This factor measures the extent to which the child expresses the feeling that it is the external circum- stances which are the sources of his difficulties. . . . A score of 11 or more exceeds 84% of normal class public school children studied to date. Factor 5. Achievement anxiety Four items, no. 22, 23, 31, and 33: The essential element in this factor is the outward display of disturbance (worry and upset) concerning the inability to meet the achievement demands of the teacher and/or school situation. . . . A score of 13 or more exceeds 84% of normal class public school children studied to date. Factor 6. External reliance Five items, no. 24, 29, 32, 42, and 46: this factor taps the degree of the child's inability to make independent decisions, to hold Opinions, and to make independent action without the support and direc- tion of others. . . . The normal range of scores is between 8 and 19. Factor 7. Comprehension Three items, no. 10, 35, and 37: The three items in this factor are scored in the direc- tion opposite to the previous factors. In this instance, a low factor score is related to poor achievement. A youngster receiving a score of 9 or less (lower than 84% of the normal scores) is having a problem in compre- hending the day-to-day work demanded by the curriculum and teacher. . . . The normal score range is between 10 and 16, 97% of good achievers having been shown to obtain scores above 9. Factor 8. Inattentive-withdrawn Four items, no. 18, 20, 28, and 43: The major issue tapped by this factor is the tendency to lose contact with what is going on in class. . . . A score of 15 or more exceeds 84% of scores obtained to date on normal public school children. Factor 9. Irrelevant-responsiveness Four items, no. 14, 15, 17, and 26: This factor taps the extent to which the child's verbal responses in class are irrelevant, intrusive, and/or exaggerated or untruthful. . . . Scores of 11 or more on this factor exceeds 84% of scores obtained on public school children studied to date. 10 Factor 10. Creative initiative Four items, no. 3, 4, 6, and 21: Measuring the degree to which the child exhibits active personal involvement in, and positive motivation to contribute to, the classroom learning situation. . . . Factor scores of 7 or less generally indicate a limita- tion in the child's involvement in and thinking about the activities of the class. Factor 11. Need for closeness to the teacher Four items, no. 8, 19, 39, and 45: This factor taps the extent to which children like to be close to, seek out, and offer to do things for the teacher. . . . Most public school children obtain scores between 10 and 19 of this factor. Non—factor additional items The non—factor items are items 27, 40, and 41: Each of the items is related negatively to successful achievement, indicating that children receiving high scores are displaying behavior deterimental to academic success. It is not specified in the manual why the scale developers did not consider these three items as a factor, since they all seem to measure aspects of accomplishment in school tasks. Test-retest correlations of the factor scores provide reliability coefficients ranging from .85 to .91. Reliabili- ties for the three additional items range from .71 to .80. Their low reliability, relative to those for the factor scores, may explain why the scale developers did not use them to constitute a factor. 11 Reliability Spivack and Swift (1968) report that test-retest ratings over a 1 week period yielded correlation coef- ficients for the 11 factors ranging from .85 to .91. The median reliability was .87. In a later review, Spivack and Swift (1973) report rater reliabilities ranging from .62 to .77 with a median reliability coefficient of .70. The rater reliability data were based on a sample of 40 children in one classroom rated by a teacher and a teacher aide. They conclude that the reliabilities for the factors are "quite satisfactory." Studies other than those by Spivack and Swift have explored various aspects of the reliability of the DESB. Schaeffer, Baker, and Zawel (1975) determined the inter- rater and test—retest reliabilities of the DESB and judged them to be satisfactory. Wallbrown, Wallbrown, Engin, and Blaha (1976) studied the stability of DESB factor scores over a 1 year period. While this is too long a period for a reasonable determina- tion of test-retest reliability, high correlations over this span of time could only occur if the factor scores are reliable. They found the median correlations for the factor scores to be .73 with a range from .82 to .49. Most of these correlations are substantial, offering some support for the reliability of the DESB scores. 12 Validity Spivack and Swift (1973) in their review of teacher- administered rating scales present evidence for the predictive, or concurrent, validity of the DESB factor scores. They state: . . . each of the 11 factors has been shown to cor- relate significantly with teacher grades, after the influence of measured IQ has been partialled out statis- tically, in both normal American and French children and among groups of emotionally handicapped children. . . . In the above noted studies all factors were found to differentiate between normal and special-class children, and five of the factors differentiated significantly between subtypes of emotionally handicapped children when grouped by standard APA diagnostic nomenclature. . . . Swift and Spivack (1968), in reporting their normative data on a new sample of 809 public school children, report that factor scores correlated not only with age at entering first grade and sex of child, but also with parental age and educational level, family size, birth order, and race. (p. 78) Factor analysis of the DESB may also be considereed as a method of evaluating the construct validity of the DESB factor scores. Spivack and Swift (1973) review factor analysis of the DESB which they carried out: Two initial factor analyses of behavior ratings . . . one on data from normal and the other on data from special classes for emotionally handicapped, were completed on 579 children. The same factors emerged in the normal and special elementary class settings. A subsequent factor analysis of data on 1325 normal French school children essentially replicated these factor findings. (p. 77) Other investigators using factor analytic methods have thrown some doubt on the independence of the DESB factor scales. Schaefer, Baker, and Zawel (1975) conducted a factor analysis of the 11 DESB factors and found 3 of what they labeled "broad-band factors." They identified these as l3 "classroom management problems, self-reliant learner, and seeks teacher's approval" (sic). They also speak of clus- ters within these broad-band factors, so that the discre- pancy of their findings with those of Spivack et al. are not, perhaps, as contradictory as first appears. Von Isser, Quay, and Love (1980) also factor analyzed the DESB factor scores. They also discovered three major factors which they concluded, "calls into question the independence of many of the Devereux scales" (p. 275). It is not possible to compare these factors with factors derived from the original Spivack and Swift analyses since their data are contained in an unpublished report (Spivack & Swift, 1967b). In contrast to these findings, Wallbrown, Wallbrown, Engin, and Blaha (1976), in their factor analysis of the DESB, found some support for the original Spivack and Swift results. In an investigation of what they called the con- struct validity of the DESB they used 408 kindergarten children. They regarded their results as generally support- ive since they identified 9 of the 11 factors which Spivack and Swift had originally reported. In addition to these data from the creators of the DESB, and the factor analytic studies, some of the studies described in the section below may be considered as relating to the validity of the scale. 14 Other Studies Utilizing the DESB DESB as a Criterion for Validating Other Measures The fact that researchers have had faith in the validity of the DESB is apparent in its use as the criterion variable to validate other instruments or procedures. Growe and Levinson (1980) and Willis and Seymour (1978) used the fac- tor scores to validate the Children's Personality Question- naire (CPQ). Saklofske (1977) used two scales of the DESB-- disrespect-defiance and classroom disturbance--as criterion measures to evaluate the Junior Eysenck Personality Inventory. Powers (1977) used the DESB as a criterion measure to validate the Vane Kindergarten Test (VKT). DESB as a Dependent Measure in Studies of Group Differences Several studies were found in which the DESB factors were used as dependent measures in studies of group differ- ences. These studies are not of direct concern to the goals of the present study since they are not useful in shedding light on the comparability of the U.S. and Jor- danian applications of the DESB. However, they are cited briefly here for the evidence they present as to the recog- nition the DESB has received and as illustrative of the ways in which it can be used. Elardo and Caldwell (1979) used the DESB to evaluate behavioral change in an experimental group of 9 and 10 year 15 olds following their participation in a social develop- ment program. Culbertson and Craig (1978) varied the amount of relaxation training to which 5th gradersvvere exposed and used the DESB, among other measures, to evaluate the effects on classroom behavior. The DESB was used by Mosby (1979) to measure the behavioral effects of what Mosby termed "developmental bypass (DBP) teaching techniques" in a main- stream instructional program for "learning disabled" junior high students. Morrow (1979) predicted that there would be differences in the classroom behavior of black children of low socio- economic status according to the age of the mother at the time of the child's birth. The DESB was used as a dependent measure . Studies Immediately Relevant to the Present Study To evaluate the comparability of DESB results in the U.S. and Jordan requires replicating, or approximating, in Jordan studies previously done in the U.S. The following U.S. studies are reviewed because they provide data that most closely approximate the data gathered for this study in Jordan. The DESB normative study Swift and Spivack (1968) report norms developed on a population of 809 elementary school children. They state that the children were drawn from "all of the elementary 16 schools in a small Eastern city system" (p. 139). They explain this choice as motivated by their desire to "obtain as wide as possible a range in family background and IQ" (p. 139). They sampled each grade level from kindergarten through 6th grade with N's for each grade level ranging from 101 to 122. They provide the following description of the sample: Their mothers and fathers had an average of 12.7 and 13.1 years of education respectively, with standard deviations of 2.0 and 2.9. Thus, the children came from homes in which approximately one-half of the parents had not gone beyond high school but approximately 16% of the fathers had completed college. Of the 809 children rated, 721 were white and 88 Negro. (p. 139) The children were rated by 32 teachers in 13 elementary schools. Each teacher rated all children in his/her class. Four of the teachers were males "who taught the fifth or sixth grade." They report that the sex of the rater made no difference on 9 of the 11 factors although they reached this conclusion without having male and female raters rating the same group of children. On the two factors on which they differed, male raters tended to see children as more inattentive-withdrawn (Factor 8) and as less needing close- ness to the teacher (Factor 11) than female raters. The norms for the U.S. sample are not presented here since they are presented in full in chapter 3 along with the data from Jordan. Several findings regarding the relation- ship of independent variables to factor scores are presented here because they will have relevance to the interpretation of the findings of this study. 17 First, Swift and Spivack report that boys were consist- ently "rated as presenting more problems than girls . . . all differences were highly significant" (p. 144). Second, they conclude from their data on variation in factor scores according to the number of siblings in the family ". . . that children from very large families demon- strate greater school problems than their peers from smaller families" (p. 147). They report that the data are particu- larly convincing when children from families with four or more children are compared with those from smaller families. Finally, they report that ". . . the higher the parents' level of education, the lower the likelihood of behavioral difficulties in the child" (p. 145). This finding was particularly apparent at the fifth and sixth grade levels. However, the correlations which they report, while signifi- cant, are not large. The significant correlations of parental education and factor scores for the sixth grade level range from .51 to .20 with a median r of .32. Relationship of fagtor scores to academic achievement The DESB was designed to measure behaviors that would be correlated with academic achievement. It has already been noted that Spivack and Swift (1973) in reviewing their early studies report that factor scores are significantly related to academic achievement. They report a complete table of correlations of factor scores with reading and arithmetic 18 scores in their 1968 report. These results will be presented along with comparison data for Jordan in chapter 3. In a later study Swift and Spivack (1969) compared achievers and underachievers on DESB factor scores. They used the Iowa Test of Basic Skills and report card grades to measure academic achievement. The data are not in a form to be useful for comparison with data from the present study. They conclude from their study that "The underachieving child is manifesting underachievement in a variety of ways which suggest a general lack of adaptation to the demands of the classroom environment as presently designed" (p. 104). In confirmation of their earlier studies, underachievers and achievers differed in their DESB factor scores, in the predicted directions. Engin (1975) used the DESB as a predictor of the class- room achievement of third and fourth graders in an inner- city parochial school. The factor scores were used in a multiple regression procedure in which their contributions to the prediction of Stanford Achievement test scores were determined. All factors contributed significantly to one or more of the Stanford Achievement Test subtests. Engin con- cludes, ". . . behavioral variables as measured by Devereux factors and non—factor items played a significant role in explaining criterion variance in all equations" (p. 74). She discovered several factor score results that are divergent from the previous findings of Spivack and Swift. 19 Two of the factors, disrespect-defiance (Factor 3) and irrelevant responsiveness (Factor 9) related positively, rather than negatively, to two of the achievement criteria. She offers as a possible explanation the fact that this is a sample of inner-city children. The finding that two "acting out" behaviors serve as predictors for two achievement areas as measured by the Stanford leads one to wonder whether these behav- iors may not have an enhancing rather than a deletrious effect upon some aspects of classroom achievement for inner-city children. (p. 75) Purpose of the Study This research was undertaken to determine whether an Arabic translation of the DESB when used in Jordan will have characteristics, as a measuring instrument, comparable to those characteristics of the U.S. version of the scale. It is assumed, on the basis of the literature reviewed above, that, in the U.S., the DESB has proven to be a useful scale for measuring elementary school behavior. To be con- sidered similarly useful in Jordan it must be demonstrated that the DESB is, after translation and after administra- tion in a different culture, measuring roughly the same variables. To determine the comparability of the U.S. and Jordanian versions of the DESB it was decided to compare as many results of the application of the DESB in the U.S. and Jordan as were feasible given the resources of the writer. It was felt that if it was determined that a variety of U.S. findings using 20 the DESB could be replicated in Jordan, it could be assumed that the Arabic translation was measuring the same variables as the U.S. version. It was recognized at the outset that if the DESB did not seem to produce comparable findings in the two cultures, interpretation would be more difficult. In the event of such negative results two major explanations would be plausible: (l) the translated scale and the related administration pro- cedures in Jordan have somehow altered what the scale mea- sures; or (2) children's traits, teacher perceptions, the relationship of behavior to academic achievement, etc., actually differ in the U.S. and Jordanian cultures. CHAPTER 2 METHODOLOGY Research Questions The following research questions were developed to aachieve the stated purposes of this study: 1. How do the mean scores on the 11 DESB factors for the Jordan sample compare to those for the U.S. standardization sample? In answering this question the data will be looked at factor by factor and grade level by grade level. Is the pattern of intercorrelations of factor scores comparable for the Jordan and U.S. samples? One way of evaluating the comparability of the results of the use of the DESB in two cultures would be to compare the hypothetical factors derivable from the intercorrelations of the subscales through the use of factor analysis. This was not possible, however, since a factor analysis for the U.S. standardization data, although mentioned, is not reported. Thus, the intercorrelation matrices for the Jordan and U.S. samples are compared directly and their comparability evaluated only by informal methods. 21 22 How do sex differences in factor means compare for the U.S. and Jordan samples? How do the relationships between reading and arith- metic achievement scores and the factor scores com- pare for the Jordan and U.S. samples? Since the creators of the DESB consider this scale to be a measure of those behavioral traits that interfere with academic learning, the ability of the DESB to relate significantly to school achieve- ment is a major way to demonstrate its validity. Thus, determining its ability to predict school achievement in Jordan is a crucial test of this Arabic version of the scale. How do the scores of Jordanian children, selected by teachers as disturbed, compare to the U.S. and Jordan norms? If the DESB scale is performing in Jordan as a valid measure of behavior disturbing in a classroom it would be expected that the scores of children singled out as disturbing by teachers should be out- side the range of normal established on the DESB profile. The significant comparison made in this study is between these scores of disturbing children and a profile developed from the Jordan DESB factor means and standard deviations. 23 6. What are the differences in factor scores between Palestinian and Jordanian children? It is the writer's belief that the Palestinian children tend to show more disturbing behavior in the classroom than Jordanian children, although she is not aware of studies relevant to this comparison. If this belief is correct, and if the DESB scale differentiates the two groups, this difference would be one kind of validation of the instrument. Prior to the collection of the research data it was intended that two other variables would be measured and comparisons made between the Jordan and the U.S. findings. These variables were: (1) the number of siblings, and (2) sibling birth order. It was discovered, however, that because of the large number of siblings, most cases fell in a "more than four siblings" coding category, and that, con- sequently, very few were "youngest" or "oldest." Because of this very uneven distribution of cases in the coding cate- gories no attempt was made to evaluate these data. Arabic Adaptation of the DESB The DESB was translated into Arabic by the investigator. This Arabic version was submitted for evaluation to an Arabic speaking person, fluent in the English language and currently living in the U.S. It was also submitted to a professor in the psychology department of the University of Jordan. The intent was to discover elements of the instructions or item 24 statements which might have been confusing to the Jordanian teachers who would be the respondents. Finally, the investigator asked some teachers in Jordan to examine the Arabic adaptation, before the final version was prepared, in order to be sure that every item was under- standable and clear. After these checks and the subsequent revisions had been made the writer was convinced that the language of the Arabic version represented an accurate translation, and that there would be no differences between the U.S. and Jordan groups that could be reasonably attributed to faulty translation. Selection of the Sample The subjects for the study were selected from a sample of elementary regular public schools representative of Amman, the capital of Jordan. In addition, two regular elementary schools, one for females and one for males sup- ported by the United Nations in the biggest Palestinian camp (Al-Wehdat) in Amman were involved. The ages of the children in the sample corresponded to the ages of the chil- dren in the U.S. standardization sample. The Jordan Public School Sample Seventeen schools were involved in the study, nine schools for males and eight schools for females. One class from each grade level, first through sixth, from each school was randomly selected, so that the sample included six 25 classes from each school. An exception to this procedure was the omission of one fourth grade from one male school because of the teacher's absence. Thus, 53 classes of male students and 48 classes of female students were involved. From each class six children were selected as subjects: three Palestinians and three Jordanians. The investigator categorized the children as being Palestinian or Jordanian based on the child's family name. She was convinced that the differences in family names are generally so clear-cut and consistent that there would be no misclassification using this procedure, particularly since only those children were selected whose family names seemed unambiguous as indi- cators of nationality. It should be noted that this classification guarantees only that the father belonged to the group indicated. That is, a child designated Palestinian may well have had a Jordanian mother. While such mixed homes are probably a small percentage of the sample, the child's categorization as Palestinian or Jordanian was regarded as valid in these mixed cases on the assumption that in the patriarchal mid- eastern family the father sets the pattern of home life and would be the dominant force in determining the character- istics of the child's environment. The first three Palestinians and the first three Jor- danians in the roll book were selected. The teachers were not aware of this ethnic identification of the children and, 26 therefore, this identification could not bias their ratings, although their ratings might still have been influenced by their previously existing awareness of Palestinian-Jordanian differences. The classroom teachers were asked to prepare a DESB scale for each of the six children. The United Nations (Palestinian) School Sample From the Palestinian schools in the biggest Palestinian camp in Amman six classes of males and six classes cf females, one class from each grade level, were randomly selected. From each of these classes six children were chosen at random. The resulting number of cases selected using these pro- cedures is presented in Table l, distributed by grade level, school location, nationality, and sex. The total number of cases should have been 608. However, three cases were lost through procedural errors, three were not rated by teachers, and one extra was contributed by a third grade teacher, mak- ing a final sample of 603, with approximately 100 cases at each grade level. The Sample of Disturbed Children In addition to the 603 cases, 12 cases of disturbed children were evaluated. These cases were selected because their teachers identified them, at the writer's request, as engaging in disturbing behavior in their classrooms. In 27 mm mm Nva mNH ova «NH mom A¢BOB w m em Hm em ma ooH sum o m «N am mm Hm Hoa sum o o am am am am om ape m m mm on em Hm moa cum w o vm an em Hm Noa can m m «N am em Hm moa umH moan: moamsmm moan: mmeEmm moan: mwamewm amaze mm m amaze mm m amaze Ho 2 Hm>mq . .u H m . .u H m . p h Hopoa mcmuw maooaom ZD maoonom oaandm Hoasmmm humucmEon .xom can .aufiamcoflumc .coflumooa Hoonom .Ho>oa mwmum ma muommnsm mo cowusnwuumflall.a OHQMB 28 this group were eight Palestinian children and four Jordanian children; four females and eight males. In discussing the testing with the teachers, 12 teachers, at their own suggestion, volunteered that they had a child who had problems and whom they would wish to rate. They must have formed their definition of a disturbed child by listen— ing to the writer's description of the DESB. The distribution of this group of disturbing children, according to grade level, nationality, and sex is presented in Table 2. Table 2.--Number of cases of disturbed children by grade level, sex, and nationality. Grade Palestinian Jordanian Level N Females Males Females Males lst "‘ "' "' --- 2nd 2 ‘“‘ l --_ 1 3rd 1 1 "’ --- --- 4th 4 2 1 1 "' 5th 3 —-- 2 "' 1 6th 2 1 "’ -" 1 Total 12 4 4 l 3 29 Procedures Instruction of the Raters Prior to making ratings, the teachers met with the investigator in groups, school by school, the purpose of these meetings being to discuss the scale, review the items, and answer any questions raised by the teachers. Each teacher was asked to complete the ratings within a lO-day period. In their ratings they were asked to consider the recent and the current behaviors of the child, to use the behavior of the "average" child as the norm, to consider each item in the scale independently, and to avoid inter- pretations of the child's motives or feelings. These instructions represented an attempt to follow as closely as possible the instructions described in the DESB manual. The instructions for use of the DESB rating scale are spelled out in detail in the rating guide on the first page of the DESB Rating Scale form (see Appendix). Determination of Rater Agreement It was decided that within the limits of this study a measure of rater agreement would be the most useful mea- sure relevant to the "reliability" of this scale. An ideal measure of rater agreement would have required that the children be rated independently by two nonparticipant observers rating the same instances of behavior. While this ideal could not be attained, a rater agreement design 30 was developed that provides some basis for evaluating the stability of the measure. A group of 66 children was selected to be reasonably representative of the total group. The distribution of sub- jects selected is presented in Table 3 according to national- ality, grade level, and sex. Table 3.--Distribution of cases in the rater agreement sample. Fourth Grade Sixth Grade Males Females Males Females Palestinian 9 9 9 9 Jordanian 9 6 9 6 Total 18 15 18 15 These 66 children were each rated by three different teachers: their "home room" teachers and two other teachers in whose classes they studied, and who volunteered to do the ratings. The obvious weakness of this design is that a child's behavior may change from one teacher, and one subject matter, to another, so that teacher disagreement in their ratings would not necessarily indicate instability of the scale. Thus, a negative result would be difficult to interpret. On the other hand if high agreement is found it could be 31 concluded that behavior is stable from setting to setting and the DESB scale reliably measures this stability. Since it was felt by the writer that the behaviors measured by the scale are fairly consistent from setting to setting it was decided to attempt to measure rater agreement in this manner. The rater agreement results were gathered as part of the study and are therefore discussed along with other find- ings in chapter 3. For the convenience of the reader the method of determining agreement in the ratings of the three- teacher rating groups will be presented along with the results. Measures of Achievement The measures of reading and arithmetic achievement were grades assigned by the teacher for the first semester of the school year, the semester immediately prior to the data collection. The teachers were sometimes the same teachers who did the DESB ratings, and sometimes not. The achievement scores were in percentage form, 100% equaling perfect performance. The percentage values were used in data computations. Treatment of the Data Means and standard deviations were obtained for each factor and additional item across all six grades and within each grade for both males and females, Jordanian and Palestinian. 32 Strategies for answering each research question varied according to the characteristics of the data involved. The methodologies used are discussed in chapter 3 as the findings for each research question are presented. CHAPTER 3 FINDINGS The findings relating to each of the research questions will be presented in turn. However, before this is done the findings on rater agreement will be considered. Rater Agreement The determination of rater agreement was based on ratings of each child by three teachers, as described in chapter 2. Since the teachers doing the ratings were not the same for all children, the usual method of determining rater agreement by comparing pairs of raters each of whom had rated all subjects was not applicable. Therefore, it was necessary to develop methods suitable for this situation in which the set of three raters varied from child to child. The first 26 items of the DESB scale are rated on a 5-point scale; items 27 through 47 on a 7-point scale. As a first approach it was decided that a maximum discrepancy for the raters of one step on the scale or less would represent "agreement" for items 1 through 26, and a maximum discre- pancy of two steps or less would represent "agreement" on items 27 through 47. Thus, the discrepancy value (D value) for one child for an item equals the highest assigned rating 33 34 value minus the lowest assigned rating value. For example, if ratings on item number 1 for a child were 5, 4, and 3, the D value would be 2: that is, 5 minus 3. First items are compared according to the level of agreement among the raters. These data are presented in Tables 4 and 5, for the fourth and sixth grades, respectively. Here the question under consideration is: Is there greater rater agreement on some items than on others? These tables are to be interpreted as follows: In Table 4, for the 18 males who were rated for item number 1 there was agreement among the three raters on 61.1% of the cases (11 out of 18). For the fourth grade males on the first 26 items agreement varied from a high of 88.9% of the cases to a low of 55.6%. Tables 6 and 7 have been prepared to condense these findings into a more readily interpretable form. These tables show the distribution of the items according to the percentage of subjects for whom there was rater agreement (D = 0 or 1, for items 1 through 26; D = 0, l, or 2, for items 27 through 47). For example, in Table 6 the num- ber 11 in the fourth grade, male column indicates that on 11 items there was rater agreement, as defined, for between 70-79% of the 18 male fourth graders. It may be concluded by inspecting the columns in Tables 6 and 7 that there is a tendency for raters to agree more readily on male subjects as compared to females, and on fourth graders as compared to sixth graders. Table 4.--Rater agreement by item for the fourth grade. 35 Males (N = 18) Females (N = 15) Item Number Agree* Disagree Agree Agree Disagree Agree N N % N N % 1 11 7 61.1 11 4 73.3 2 12 6 66.7 10 5 66.7 3 13 5 72.2 12 3 80.0 4 12 6 66.7 8 7 53.3 5 16 2 88.9 14 1 93.1 6 16 2 88.9 13 2 86.7 7 l4 4 77.8 7 53.3 8 12 6 66.7 7 53.3 9 ll 7 61.1 13 2 86.7 10 16 2 88.9 12 3 80.0 11 15 3 83.3 10 5 66.7 12 15 3 83.3 10 5 66.7 13 15 3 83.3 9 6 60.0 14 ll 7 61.1 11 4 73.3 15 16 2 88.9 9 6 60.0 16 14 4 77.8 10 5 66.7 17 11 7 61.1 13 2 86.7 18 13 5 72.2 6 60.0 19 13 5 72.2 6 60.0 20 14 4 77.8 7 53.3 21 10 8 55.6 6 60.0 22 14 4 77.8 10 5 66.7 23 13 5 72.2 6 9 40.0 24 14 4 77.8 9 6 60.0 25 13 5 72.2 11 4 73.3 26 14 4 77.8 8 7 53.3 27 16 88.9 13 2 86.7 28 16 88.9 11 73.3 Table 4.--Continued. 36 Males (N = 18) Females (N = 15) Item Number Agree Disagree Agree Agree Disagree Agree N N % N N % 29 15 3 83.3 7 8 46.7 30 17 1 94.4 7 8 46.7 31 14 4 77.8 9 6 60.0 32 15 3 83.3 10 5 66.7 33 14 4 77.8 8 7 53.3 34 ll 7 61.1 15 -- 100.0 35 17 1 94.4 11 4 73.3 36 15 3 83.3 11 4 73.3 37 17 1 94.4 13 2 86.7 38 17 1 94.4 13 2 86.7 39 17 1 94.4 14 1 93.3 40 13 5 72.2 10 5 66.7 41 15 3 83.3 11 4 73.3 42 14 4 77.8 13 2 86.7 43 15 3 83.3 10 5 66.7 44 14 4 77.8 13 2 86.7 45 ll 7 61.1 7 53.3 46 14 4 77.8 7 53.3 47 15 3 83.3 7 53.3 *Agreement for items 1-26 represents a D value of 0 or 1; for items 27-47 a D value of 0, l, or 2. Disagreement repre- sents greater rater discrepancies than these. Table 5.--Rater agreement by item for the sixth grade. 37 Males (N = 18) Females (N = 15) Item Number Agree Disagree Agree Agree Disagree Agree N N % N N % l 13 5 72.2 10 5 66.7 2 12 6 66.7 8 46.7 3 15 3 83.3 7 53.3 4 15 3 83.3 6 60.0 5 14 4 77.8 14 1 93.3 6 l4 4 77.8 11 4 73.3 7 10 8 55.6 11 4 73.3 8 15 3 83.3 10 5 66.7 9 10 8 55.6 10 5 66.7 10 12 6 66.7 13 2 86.7 11 13 5 72.2 8 7 53.3 12 13 5 72.2 7 8 46.7 13 12 6 66.7 7 8 46.7 14 12 6 66.7 8 7 53.3 15 8 10 44.4 10 5 66.7 16 12 6 66.7 7 53.3 17 ll 7 61.1 6 60.0 18 12 6 66.7 6 60.0 19 12 6 66.7 12 3 80.0 20 ll 7 61.1 7 8 46.7 21 13 5 72.2 9 6 60.0 22 8 10 44.4 10 5 66.7 23 10 8 55.6 10 5 66.7 24 ll 7 61.1 10 5 66.7 25 13 5 72.2 6 60.0 26 ll 7 61.1 7 53.3 27 11 61.1 10 5 66.7 28 13 72.2 9 6 60.0 38 Table 5.--Continued. Males (N = 18) Females (N = 15) Item Number Agree Disagree Agree Agree Disagree Agree N N % N N % 29 12 6 66.7 10 5 60.7 30 ll 7 61.1 11 4 73.3 31 12 6 66.7 12 3 80.0 32 13 5 72.2 11 4 73.3 33 10 8 55.6 13 2 86.7 34 ll 7 61.1 10 5 66.7 35 13 5 72.2 11 4 73.3 36 ll 7 61.1 11 4 73.3 37 13 5 72.2 9 6 60.0 38 10 8 55.6 12 3 80.0 39 15 3 83.3 12 3 80.0 40 ll 7 61.1 10 5 66.7 41 15 3 83.3 10 5 66.7 42 10 8 55.6 10 5 66.7 43 14 4 77.8 10 5 66.7 44 ll 7 61.1 7 8 46.7 45 12 6 66.7 12 3 80.0 46 ll 7 61.1 11 4 73.3 47 12 6 66.7 10 5 66.7 #Agreement for items 1-26 represents a D value of 0 or 1; for items 27-47 a D value of 0, 1, or 2. Disagreement repre- sents greater rater discrepancies than these. 39 Table 6.--Distribution of items l-26 according to percent of rater agreement for the grade and sex subgroups. Percent of Subjects 4th Grade 6th Grade On Whom There Is Rater Agreement M F M F 90 - 99 -- l -- l 80 - 89 7 5 3 2 70 - 79 11 3 7 2 60 - 69 7 11 ll 12 50 - 59 l 5 3 5 40 - 49 -- l 2 4 Total Items 26 26 26 26 Table 7.--Distribution of items 27-47 according to percent of rater agreement for the grade and sex subgroups. Percent of Subjects 4th Grade 6th Grade On Whom There Is Rater Agreement M F M F 90 - 99 5 2 -- ~- 80 - 89 7 5 2 5 70 - 79 6 4 5 5 60 - 69 2 3 ll 10 50 - 59 -- 4 3 -- 40 - 49 -- 2 -- 1 Total Items 20 20 21 21 40 Given the fact that the raters observed the children in different settings the level of rater agreement is con- sidered to be encouraging. In addition, inspection of the raw data revealed that there were very few occasions in which the raters were in disagreement to the extent that one rating indicated the definite presence of the behavior whereas another rating indicated definite absence of the behavior. A second approach was to compare the subjects according to the level of agreement among the raters. Here the question under consideration is: Is it easier for raters to agree on some subjects than on others? In Table 8 are presented the data to answer this question. For each subject is shown the percentage of items on which the three raters reached agree- ment (D = 0 or 1 for the first 26 items; D = 0, l, or 2 for the remainder). It is apparent from this table that it was much harder for the raters to agree on some subjects than on others: the range is from 44.7% to 100% of the items agreed upon. On the basis of the mean values, it can be concluded that there is a tendency for the fourth grade males to be easiest to agree upon, and a slight tendency for the fourth graders to be more highly agreed upon than sixth graders. The mean percentage of agreement for the four sex grade subgroups varies from a mean of 66.7% for sixth grade males to 79.5% for fourth grade males. Table 8.-Percent of items on which there is rater agreement by subjects. 6th Grade 4th Grade Female Male Female Male % Agree No. Nat. % Agree :a Nat. % Agree No. Nat. % Agree No. Nat. No. 87.2 52 61.7 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 72.3 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 72.3 85.1 53 57.4 80.9 97.9 80.9 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 61.7 91.5 93.6 61. 7 74.5 61.7 57.4 49.0 66.0 47.0 80.9 59.6 76.6 49.0 87.2 100.0 P 51.1 76.6 72.3 68.1 41 91.5 91.5 26 27 80.9 47.0 76.7 42 61.7 72.3 70.2 57.4 70.2 43 85.1 28 29 30 31 32 57.4 10 11 72.3 62 44 45 68.1 85.1 53.2 63 61.7 47.0 78.7 93.6 12 70.2 64 72.3 46 47 61.7 13 72.3 57.4 65 78.7 47.0 78.7 14 15 66 68.1 48 49 50 51 68.1 33 70.2 0 \D \O 74.5 16 17 I‘ Q' 4 83.0 70.2 78.7 18 67.1 66.7 68.9 79.5 aNat. refers to Palestenian (P) and Jordanian (J) nationality. Figures in the bottom row are means for the columns. b 42 A second method of evaluating rater agreement involving the intercorrelations among raters was used. As described in chapter 2, groups of six children were rated by three raters. There were 11 such groups of raters in 11 schools, for a total of 66 children and 33 raters. Pearson product—moment correlations of the DESB factor scores generated from the item ratings of the 6 children by the three raters in each group were determined. These corre- lation coefficients are presented in Table 9. Median cor- relations for the DESB factors range from .50 to .88. Under the conditions of this study this level of rater agreement is considered as encouraging for the future develop- ment of the scale in Jordan. There is a good probability that there is poor rater agreement in some cases not because of the unreliability of the rating scale, but because a child may have shown different behavior in the three dif- ferent settings in which he was evaluated. Question 1. How do the mean scores for the Jordan sample compare to those for the U.S. standardization sample? Means and standard deviations for the DESB factor scores and the three additional items at each grade level for the Jordan sample are presented in Table 10. Comparable data for the U.S. standardization sample are presented in Table 11. It should be noted that the three additional 43 £38. 38 to 3.. 1.3.3.38 :- 2. 52.... 1:: 3. 3. 3. 8. 3. 3. on. 3. 3. 3. .53... 3.- 8. 3: 2. 8. 3. 2.. 2.. 3. an. 2.. 3. 2. 8. on. 8. 8. 8. 3.- B. an: 3. 2.. a. 2.1-8.- 3. 3. 3. 3.- If r...- 3. 2986 2. on. 8. S. 2.. 3. no. 8. 3. 5. 3. 3. no. 8. 3. 2. 8. 2:61-3:31 2h.- 3. .2.- 8. no. 2. «n. B. 3. 3. 8. 3. 8986 3. 8. 2. on. 3. 2. 2.. 3. 3. 3. 2.6. 3. 3. 8. 3. 2.. 3. 8. no: 3. 3: 3. no. 3. 3. 2.. on. 8. 3. 2.. 2.. no. I. .986 S. no. 8. no. 8. 3. 3. 8.- «a. no. on. «of 8. 3. 3. 8. 3: 2.- 3. 2.. 3. 3. 3. 2. S. 3. 2.. an. 2.- 3. 3. on. 2.. .926 3. 2.. 8. 8. 2.. 2.. 8. 3. R. 8. 3. 3. 3. I. I. 8. 3. 3. 2.. 3. 3. 3. 2.. 8. 3. 8. no. 8. 3. 3. no. 3. 3. 2.986 2. 3. 3. do. 2.. 2. 3f 2..- S. 3. 3. 8. 3. 8. 3. 3. 3. 8. 2..- an. 8.12. 2.. S. 3. 3. on. 8. 8. 8. on. 3. 3. 3986 9. 3. 3. 3. 3. 2.. 3. «n. 3. 3. 2. 3. 3. 2. no. «a. 2. an. 2.. 3. 8. 3. 36 3. B. 2.-- 8. 3. 3. 3. 2. 3. 3886 2. an. 2. an. 2... 8. S. 2.. 8. 2.. 8. 8. 3. 2.. 8. o». 3. 2.. 8. 2: 8. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. S. 3. 8. 2.. 3. I. .926 S. S. 3. I. «a. 8. 3. 3. 2.. S. 2. 8. 2.. 8. S. 2.. 2.. 8. 2.. 2... «a. no. 8. 3. 3. 3. 2. 8. 8. 2.. 2.. 2.. 3. 2.88 no. 8. S. 8. no. no. 3. 2.. 3. 8. 2.. 3. 8. 3. no. 2.. an. 3. no. 2. 3. 8f 3. on: 3. «o. 3. 8. 3. 3. no. 3. 3. «986 2. 9. «a: 3. 3. no. 3. 2. S. 3. 3. 8. 8. 8. no. 3. S. no. a: an. 3. 8. on. 3. 3. «a. 8. 3. 8. 2.. 2.. I. 3. .926 6.. 6... .2 6.. 6... 6.: 6.. 6... a... 6.. 6... a... 6.. 6... n2. 6.. 6... a... 6.. 6... a... ..4 6.: a... 6.. 6... a... 6.. 6... ..4 6.. 6.: a... 2.. o: C I E 9. r. 2. 2 E E 998 .6995 woven-ooh...» IPG 6025.25 69.30» ououuou no unoauunouuooii Shun. .1- d3!\ 44 Am.avm.m Am.th.m Am.avv.m Am.avm.m AN.NVh.m Am.avm.m Am.va.m av Am.va.m Ah.th.m Am.va.m A0.va.m Am.HVm.m AB.HVv.m Am.va.m ow Ao.NVH.v Am.th.m Ao.Nvm.m Ao.mvm.m Ao.mvh.¢ Am.va.¢ Aa.NVH.¢ hm mszH AdZOHBHDQd Ab.vvm.va “H.6Vo.ma “b.6vm.mH Am.¢.m.¢a Am.mvm.ma AH.vvo.mH Am.vvm.ma mmmcmmoau .HH Ah.vv¢.aa Av.¢vo.HH Am.vvo.HH Am.va.HH Am.mvv.ma Am.¢vo.HH Av.vvo.NH o>fiumwuflcH .OH A¢.mvo.m AH.mvH.m Am.mvm.m .m.mvm.h Am.vvm.m Am.mvm.m AH.mvm.b mocm>oH0HHH .m Av.mvm.oa Ah.va.HH A¢.mVH.HH Am.mvm.oa Av.ovh.oa AH.mvo.HH A®.mvm.oa coaucmuumcH .m Am.¢VN.NH Ah.vvo.ma Ah.vvo.HH Am.6vN.NH Am.mvo.NH Av.vva.ma .¢.vVH.ma comeOSmHmEDU .h AH.wv®.mH Am.mvm.ma AH.wvm.mH Am.ova.ma Am.hvm.ma Am.mvb.wa Am.mvo.ma wuHHmcumuxm .0 Am.vvm.ma an.¢vm.mfl Av.vvm.ma Ah.vvv.ma AN-mvw.va Am.vvo.ma A¢.vvm.ma wumwxdd .m Av.mvh.m A¢.mv~.m Av.mvv.m Am.mvm.m Am.mvm.m Am.mvo.m Am.mva.m madam .6 Am.mvv.h Am.mvv.h Am.mvm.h AN.mVH.h Ah.mvm.h Ah.mvm.h Am.mva.h moadflmwo am Am.mvm.ma Am.vvh.ma Ao.mvm.ma Ao.mvo.ma Am.ovm.ma Am.mvm.ma Ab.vvm.aa mocmflpmmEH .N Am.vvo.HH A¢.¢vo.oa Av.¢vm.oa Ao.¢vv.oa Am.mvm.HH Ah.¢V¢.HH Am.vvm.aa mononufiumwo ..H wow u z NOH u z Hoa u 2 mm H z NOH u 2 Med u 2 «OH H z muouomm 395mm H6609 o m 6 m m H .onEEm Hmuou map MOM 6cm Ho>oa ovmum comm um mHmEmm cmvHOU may now mouoom mmmo mo mcoH96fl>ov cumcamum new mammzit.0H manna 45 Am.avn.m Am.va.~ Am.HVm.N AH.NVH.M Am.avh.m Ao.HVH.N Ab.va.m av Ab.avm.~ Am.Hvb.m Ah.avh.m Am.th.N Am.avm.m A6.HVH.N Am.avo.m ov Am.HVv.N Am.Hv¢.N Am.th.N Aw.th.N Av.HvH.N Av.HVN.N Av.avm.m hm mszH A¢ZOHBHQQ< A>.vvv.6a Am.vvm.ma Am.vvm.va Ao.¢vm.¢a Am.¢.¢.va Ab.vvo.ma AH.mvm.mH mmocomoau .HH Ao.vV6.HH “H.6vm.oa Am.mvm.HH Am.¢vv.aa Am.mvo.aa Am.mv~.aa Am.vvm.aa o>flumw9flcH .oa Am.mvm.b A6.mvo.> Am.mvo.m Am.mvh.h Ao.mvv.n Am.mvm.o AH.mvm.h oocm>oaouuH .m Am.mvm.m Am.mvm.m Ao.vvv.m Ao.mvm.oa Am.m.H.m Aa.vvm.h Am.mvh.m :oflucouumcH .m Ah.mvm.ma Am.mvm.ma Ab.mvo.ma Am.mvm.ma Am.mvm.ma AH.mvm.ma Am.mva.ma coamconoumeoo .h AH.mV>.ma Ao.mva.va Am.mvm.ma Ah.mvm.6a Ao.>vo.ma .m.mvo.ma A>.mv¢.ma huaamcumuxm .o Am.¢vm.m Am.mvm.w Am.vvm.m .m.vvm.m Am.mv~.m Am.mvh.> “o.mv¢.m muowxqm .m Am.mvm.o Am.mvm.o Ab.mvm.o Aa.vv¢.o Am.vga.n Am.mvh.m Am.mvo.m osmam .6 Ah.mvm.m Am.mvm.o AH.me.w Am.mvm.m Am.mvm.m AH.~VH.m Ao.mv~.m cocoamoo .m A®.vvh.m Am.mvb.m Aw.¢vm.oa Am.mvm.0H Ah.¢vo.oa Am.vvo.m Ah.vv@.m mocmwummfiH .N Ah.¢vm.m Am.mvm.oa 56.6vh.m Am.¢vm.m Am.vvm.oa Am.vvh.m Av.vvh.m codenusumflo .H mom n 2 «NH u z woa u 2 «ma u z boa u z mHH n z ANA n z muouomm mamamm Hmuos m m 6 m N H can Ho>oH momma some um mamaom .m.D .mamsmm Hmuou on» How on» you mouoom mmma mo mcofiumfl>op pudendum can mcmozll.aa manna 46 .H0. «a “mo.« «am-m «em.v «eo.m 0-H «eo.m 0-H «em-m av «aH.HH «ac-m «em-m «em.¢ «em-m «to-ma rem-v 0v «ew.wa «cm.o «em.m «ac-w «go-ma *«m.oa «go-m hm man—“H .HflZOHBHDn—d m. @- ««M.NI o. «O.N o. m. mmwcmmOHU .HH 0. N. «w.HI m.l «0.H v.l m. O>HHMH9HCH .OH «so.m «*O.HH m. N.I «em-v «ao.m o. mocm>meHHH .m «em-h «kc-m rem-N N.o «O.N «RH-m m. GOHucmuumcH .m ham-mt ©.I «to.vl m.l mh.l «N.NI o. cowmcmanmEOU .h «cm.wH ««N.® «am.m «eo.v «km.b «am.m «ea-o hpmecuwuxm .0 crm.~m «ac-m arm.v eew.m «km-OH tam-m *«o.m wuwfixdfl .m trO.NN «ab.m «em-b «am-v cam-m «em-h @- madam .q ego-ma tab-N ««N.m ««O.m «em.m «kc-h ««N.m OOGMHMOQ ..m «so.ma ..o.6 ..m.m «6.2 ..o.v ..o.e «.m.m mocoaummsa .m «em.m m.l ««©.m «o.m «h.H «am.v «to-m mocmnhfiumwa .H mamsmm Hmuoa o m 6 m m H muouomm mHm>wA otmuw .wamsmm advancem can CMAGMUHOU may anon How mamfimm muflvco ms» Hm>o can Ho>oH momma £066 um mcmoe Monomm ammo mo mmocoumwmwc may now o2Hm> NII.NH wands 47 items are included in the tables although this study is con- cerned only with the 11 factor scores. The data for the additional items are included here to be available for pos- sible use in later development of the Arabic version of the scale. Inspection of the tables reveals that the Jordan children at all grade levels and for most of the factors achieve higher mean scores than children in the U.S. sample. g values were calculated to determine the statistical significance of these differences. These values are presented in Table 12. The differences in means between the U.S. and Jordan samples, and the statistical significance of these differences are presented in Table 13. Except for factors 7, 10, and 11, high scores indicate disturbed behavior. For these three factors high scores indicate behaviors presumably supportive of classroom achievement. In Table 13 positive values for the differences for factors 1 through 6, 8, and 9, would indicate that the Jordan sample is rated as more disturbed. For factors 7, 10, and 11, positive values would indicate that the Jordan sample is rated as showing more comprehension, more initiative, and greater closeness to the teacher. The trend for the Jordan sample to appear more dis— turbed than the U.S. sample occurs at all grade levels. The negative mean differences for factor 7 indicate that subjects in the Jordan sample tend to be rated as less 48 .HOH>w£on oHnmuHmopcs whoa 30am mGMHcmpuon wsu oumochH mmsHm> o>HuHmom msouH Hosuo HHm Mom .HoH>man mHnmuHmoccs whoa 305m ou vamp mGMHcMOHOH awn» oHMOHUCH mmsHm> oucouomeU 2668 o>wummoc HH 0:6 .0H .5 mnouomm Homaa .Hm>oH mo. 6gp um ueaonflamflm. Ho.0 Hm.-V “6.0 Hm.v A6.0 Ah.-V Am.v mHo>oH ocmuw H. 6. «6.H| 0. «6.H 0. m. «mmocmmOHO .HH In.v Am.v Am.H0 Am.0 A6.Hv Am.0 Am.v o. H. «0.: m.| m. m.1 m. a«o>Hu6HuHcH .0H AH.V Am.-V A~.-v Am.-0 Am.HV 26.0 20.0 «m. 6H.H N. m.| m. «0.~ o. moco>oHoHuH .m Am.v Am.-V Am.v Ah.-0 Am.v A6.-0 20.0 «m.H «0-H «>.H H. «0.H 3H.m 0. :oHucouuMCH .0 AH.HV “0.0 A0.HV Am.HV A0.H0 Am.HV Am.HIv 4s.- m.- .o.- 6.- m.- .H.H- o. «.eonememnmsco .n 20.0 A~.0 Am.0 Hm.-V Am.0 Am.0 AH.-0 60.6 «6.6 65.6 «N.m «0.0 4510 «0.6 >UHHmcumuxm .0 Am.0 Am.v AH.V Am.-v Am.HV AH.H0 Am.-0 am.6 «0.6 «0.N «m.m 66.0 «m.6 «H.m >HOHXC< .m A6.-V A6.-e Hm.-0 6H.m-0 Ho.-0 Am.v Am.0 6m.m am.~ «m.m «m.H «m.H «m.~ «m.m oEmHm .6 Am.-v Am.-e Hm.0 Am.-e Am.-V Am.H0 A~.Hv «0.H «H.H «m.H km.H e6.H «m.m «m.H oUGMHme .m AS.V 26.0 Am.-V 26.nv 20.0 Ho.H0 ”0.0 40.N .«0.m «0.~ «H.H em.~ «N.6 «h.H mocoHummEH .N 20.0 A6.-v 50H.-0 Am.v 25.0 Am.0 26.0 «H.H N.I «H.H «0.H «N.H «h.~ «m.H mocmnunumHa .H m m 6 m m H onEmm Hmuoa uouomm .mHmewm Hmuou on» How 026 Hm>oH macho comm MOM mGOHumH>wc vumwcmum 026 mammfi uouomm acumen can .m.D ozu coo3umn mooconommwnll.MH mHQMB 49 able to comprehend the classroom activity than the U.S. sample. Thus, the results for this factor again show the Jordan sample as less "well adjusted." The only two factors for which there are not consistent significant differences between the Jordan and U.S. samples are factors 10 and 11. Comparing the absolute values of the raw scores for two DESB factors is not meaningful. However, it does make sense to ask the following question: If the mean factor scores are rank ordered, will the rank orders be similar for the Jordan and U.S. samples? If, for some reason, teachers in Jordan interpret items, and thus rate behavior, very differently from U.S. teachers, or if Jordan children differ in their behaviors from U.S. children in some factors and not in others, the rank order of the factors could reasonably be expected to differ appreciably for the two samples. On the other hand, close correspondence of the two sets of rank- ings would be one type of evidence for the comparability of teacher perceptions, and child behavior, in the two cultures. The ranks for the mean factor scores at each grade level and for the sample totals, and the Spearman rho coef- ficients for each pair of ranks are presented in Table 14. A rank of l is for the highest mean score. It is apparent from inspection of the pairs of rankings, and from the magnitude of the rho coefficients that there is a high degree of similarity between the Jordan and U.S. sam- ples in the rank order of the mean factor scores. The 50 .666 .6moom 2666 666:065 6:» HOW 6H H mo xc6m £6 66. 66. H6. 66. 66. H6. 66. 066 H 6 6 6 H 6 6 6 H 6 H 6 H m mmmemmoHo .HH 6 6 6 6 6 6.6 6 6 6 6 6 6.6 6 6 6>H66H6H6H .OH 6 6H 6 6H 6 6H 6 6H 6 6 6 6H 6 6H 6666>6H6666 .6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6H 6 6.6 6.6 6 coHuemuumcH .6 6 6 6 6 6 6.6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 coneosmumeoo .6 N H H H 6 H H H N H 6 H 6 H 66365686 .6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 666H666 .6 6H 6 6H 6 6H 6 6H 6 6H 6 6H 6 6H 6 656H6 .6 HH HH HH HH HH HH HH HH HH HH HH HH HH HH 66:6H666 .6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 mocmHummaH .6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 .6 6 66636363 .H .6.6 6 .6.6 6 .6.6 .6 .6.6 . 6 .6.6 6 .6.6 6 .6.6 6 H6606 6 6 6 6 H 606666 H6>6H 606mm «.mmHmE6w .m.D 026 C6Um00 6:» moM H6>6H 606mm £666 #6 mmomo6m 6S6 mo m6moom 2668 6:» mo m6©mo £26mll.6H 6HQ6B 51 correlations would be even higher but for the discrepancy in Factor 5, the only factor that shows appreciable discrepancy in rank between the two samples. This difference in the ranking of Factor 5 can be interpreted to mean that achievement anxiety is viewed by the teachers as a relatively more frequent problem in the Jordan sample than in the U.S. sample. The close similarity between the sets of rankings occurs at all grade levels, as indicated by the rank order correla- tions which vary from .76 to .88. Question 2. Is the pattern of intercorrelations of factor scores comparable for the Jordan and U.S. samples? The ideal way to compare the pattern of intercorrela- tions of the factor scores would be to compare factor ana- lyses of data from the two samples. But since the factor analytic study of the U.S. sample is not available this approach cannot be used. The intercorrelation matrix of the factor scores for the Jordan sample are presented in Table 15; for the U.S. sample in Table 16. In order to informally evaluate the similarity of these matrices it was decided to assess agreement in the following manner. The corresponding correlation coefficients in the U.S. and Jordan matrices were considered in agreement if they 52 - adwsrmd HMO-v COG-.HHHQUCHH OHM H MO mgflflnr “EMU-_..MHGU-mmfi 666c6moHU .HH 66 . 6>H66H6Hcm . 6H m0 NH o OU§>0HOHHH . 0 Mm mm. ol6. 603666665 .6 .mw MMu mm. mm:- GOHmc6£6mmEou .6 mm -6-6-. MW 3. mm. - 6636566me . 6 @6- .HM 6o 6l6.- W. 6H .- 666626 . 6 6H . H6 mm .6-6. .Hl6.- .m. 66 . 9666 .6 .6-6- m6- .mm. -6-6.. mm. - Hm. Hmf 66.. 6666-6666 . 6 66 . .6-6. m. m.6.. .Hl6. - .6.-6.. H6 . - mm. M6-. 66663665 . 6 6H . mm .6I6. Mm. m.6-. - mm. mHl. - fl... .6I6.. «a. 666666363 .H HH 6H 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 H 3666036 .H6Hmfi6m :6UmOHV mmma 6:» mo m6H6omndm 6:» 02086 mcoHu6H6mmoom6ucHi|.mH 6HQ6B 53 .AH6>6H m0.v vmcHHmmccs 6H6 m mo 665H6> 6:6UHMHcmng 666:6moHO .HH N6- 6>H66H6H6H .6H 60. 0H. 6666>6H6mmH .m NH.| mm.- mm: GOHuc6mu6cH .6 m0. .mw. HN.I mmui GOHmC6n6mmEoo .6 6o . 6o - M6- w-m. Hmf 6626666666 .6 Ho. H. OH. 6o.- 6H. 6o.- 663.86 .6 6o . Mm. m. 6H .- 6o.- 6m. 66 . 263 .6 6H.- 66. m6. 6o.- 6H.- Mm. mm. MM. 6666ng .6 6o . 6o . m. 6H . 6H . - .66. 66 . Mm. mm. 66663665 . 6 6o . - 6H . mm. 66 . - HH . - .66. 6H . mm. .6-6-. 6%.. 66556368 .H HH 6H 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 3666666 .H6Hms6m .m.00 mmmn 636 Mo m6H6omnsm 6:» 02086 6:0666H6mmoom6uaHll.oH 6HQ6B 54 were both: (1) positive in value and statistically signifi- cant, (2) negative in value and statistically significant, or (3) not significant. Using this procedure 31, or 56%, were found to be in agreement. Another 16, or 29%, are in the same direction although both are not statistically sig- nificant. However, when the comparisons were made in a search for complete disagreement it was found that in only one instance was one of the corresponding coefficients posi- tive and significant while the other was negative and sig- nificant (r between Factors 3 and 5). These findings suggest, in the absence of factor analy— ses, that the factor structures of the two sets of data would probably be found to be quite similar. However, there are some consistent differences which suggest that several of the DESB subscales may have a different meaning in Jordan than in the U.S. The two scales showing the least agreement are Factors 7 and 8. Factor 7 is labelled comprehension. In the U.S. it is not significantly correlated with Factors 1 through 4, factors concerned with overt classroom disturbance, while in Jordan the Comprehension factor is significantly negatively correlated with these four factors. Similarly, Factor 8, inattention-withdrawn, is not significantly correlated with these first four factors in the U.S. sample whereas it is positively correlated with them in the Jordan sample. 55 Since the correlation matrix for the intercorrelations of the subscales in the U.S. sample is available, a second method of comparing the Jordan and U.S. matrices (Tables 15 and 16) is possible through the use of factor analysis. In Tables 17 and 18 are presented these factor matrices for the Jordan and U.S. samples respectively. These are varimax rotated factor matrices after rotation with Kaiser normalization. It is immediately apparent that Factors II and III are quite dissimilar for the two samples. In the Jordan sample Factor II is best defined by the subscales 7, 10, and 11, scales which reflect positive classroom behaviors. And the Anxiety subscale (Factor 5) is also highly loaded on this factor. In the U.S. sample, on the other hand, DESB Factors 6, 7, and 8 have high loadings on Factor II. Similarly the pattern of loadings for Factor III is markedly different in the two samples. In the U.S. sample the factor with the highest loading is Factor 10, Initiative; while in the Jordan sample Factor 6, Externality, has the highest loading. The pattern of other loadings also sug- gests that the Factor III's in the two studies require dif— ferent interpretations. Factor I appears to be a factor suggesting overt behav- ioral disturbance in both samples. 56 Table l7.--Rotated factor loadings for the DESB factor scores in the Jordan sample. Subscale (DESB Factor) I II III 1 .80 -.15 .23 2 .57 -.24 .55 3 .80 -.30 .18 4 .43 -.00 .49 5 -.14 .72 .17 6 .38 -.29 .72 7 —.29 .76 -.30 8 .50 -.52 .48 9 .76 .01 .24 10 —.07 .83 -.39 ll —.02 .70 -.15 Table 18.--Rotated factor loadings for the DESB in the Jordan sample. factor scores 6231-3533:..- I II III 1 .88 .06 -.01 2 .73 .22 .02 3 .93 -.02 -.22 4 .81 _.06 .39 5 .28 -.17 .13 6 .43 .56 .05 7 .08 —.85 .11 8 .10 .81 -.14 9 -.51 .29 .13 10 .25 -.37 ..90 11 -.04 .02 .45 80C in Que (15 as he‘- da: in am bu- Se: Se: fey I‘e‘ Chj 57 It can be concluded that the factor structures are suf- ficiently dissimilar to suggest that there are some differ- ences in the variables being measured by the DESB subscales in the two cultures. Question 3. How do sex differences in factor means compare for the U.S. and Jordan samples? In their study of U.S. children Swift and Spivack (1968) state that "On 9 of the 11 factors, boys were rated as producing more problems than girls . . . all differences between boys and girls were highly significant." (p. 144) No such consistent differences were found for the Jor- dan sample. Means on the 11 factors for the males and females in the Jordan sample are compared in Table 19. Sig- nificant differences occurred only for Factors 1 and 4; boys being rated as significantly more disturbed in the classroom, and as tending less to the external placement of blame. In evaluating this finding it should be recalled that in the Jordan sample, females were rated by female teachers and males by male teachers, whereas in the U.S. sample all but 4 of the 32 teachers doing the rating were females. In any case, in the U.S. sample teachers rated children of both sexes whereas in Jordan teachers rated children of only one sex. Therefore, the failure to find the consistent sex dif— ferences in the Jordan sample, may be due to this different relationship between the sex of the rater and that of the child being rated in the two studies. Illa. WP!..¢II.\.II4,I|‘ ”\‘tt -It‘l‘ I...“ ‘tnl‘ql‘flluu at Ell PI‘Iin.l1Ii VIII-unfit H-‘lllLfi\ni.r-I§!h ”hf-IL ccl-Fa.\»L\L (OE-i.t\ak Eli-162'! BUR Pl.\N-.---DN5 58 .H6>0H 6o. 660 66 6:60H6H66H6. 6.I H0.6vm.6H Am.6v6.6H m.l Am.6vh.6H Am.6v6.6H mmmcmmOHU .HH 6.! Am.6vm.HH Ah.6VH.HH N.I A0.600.HH Hm.6vm.HH 6>HU6HUHGH .0H H.I Am.mvH.m Am.m00.m H. AN.m00.m Ah.mvH.m 6026>6H6HHH .m h. A6.mvm.0H Hm.mvN.HH N. Hm.mvh.0H Hm.mvm.0H COHu=6UH6GH .0 6.! Am.6v6.NH Ah.6vo.NH m.l “5.606.NH Am.6vm.HH GOHmcmnwmmEOU .h 0. HH.0Vm.mH HH.000.0H 0.! Hm.0vm.mH H0.mvm.mH muHH6cm6uxm .0 m.l “0.000.MH “0.6Vh.NH m. Ah.6vh.NH Hm.600.mH aumecd .m N. A6.mv0.m H6.mvm.w «m. A6.mvm.m A6.m00.m mfimHm .6 o. 16.666.6 16.666.6 6.- 16.666.6 16.666.6 mocmHmma .6 0. A6.mvm.NH AN.mvm.NH w.l H6.mvh.NH AN.m00.HH mocmHummEH .N N. Hm.6vm.0H Hm.6vH.HH «N.HI Ah.600.HH Hw.6v6.0H 6026nm§umHD .H 0m 2 0m 2 am 2 Om Z .88 .m H.- om Hz: .88 m. U m... U .82... :6HC66mon :6HcHum6H6m 6H6: 6H6E6m .huHH6coHu6c 0:6 x66 mo GOHUUGSM 6 m6 mcon6H>60 0m6026Um 026 m6moom mouo6m 266211.0H 6HQ6B 59 Question 4. How do the relationships between reading and arithmetic achievement scores and the factor scores compare for the Jordan and U.S. samples? The correlations of factor scores with reading and arith- metic scores at each grade level are presented in Table 20 for the Jordan sample and in Table 21 for the U.S. sample. 5 values and the significance of the differences between cor- responding correlations are presented in Table 22. In Tables 20 and 21 statistically significant correlations are underlined. It is immediately apparent from inspection of Tables 20 and 21 that, in the Jordan sample, the correlations between the factors and the two achievement measures tend to be higher than for the U.S. sample. In 52, or 93%, of the statistically significant differences reported in Table 22, the correlation is greater for the Jordan member of the pair. Thus, it may be concluded that the relationship between the DESB factors and school achievement has been successfully replicated in this Jordan sample. For nine of the factors the pattern is for the Jordan correlations to be in the same direction, and often greater than in the U.S. sample. However, for two factors the pat- tern is different. Factor 5 tends to be negatively correlated with achieve— ment in the U.S. sample, but positively correlated with .H6>6H mo. 6:6 66 #:66HMHcmHm 6m6 665H6> 06GHHm60c06 6O 6.. H6. 6.. 6. H6. 6. . 66. 66. 66. 66. 66. 66. 6 6666060H6 .HH Him. 6...... w. M. .66.. 6M. 6 66. 66. 66. 66. H6. 66. m 6>H66H6H66 .0H W; 66.... 66.- M: 6M.- 2... 6 66.- 66.- H6.- 66.- 66.- 6H.- 6 6066>6H6666 .6 66.- 66.- 66.- 66.- 66.- 66.- m 0066666666H .6 6.6. .66. 6I6. 6:6. 6H. m. 6 66. 66. 66. 66. 06. 66. m 0066666666606 .6 m.- 66- 6...- N...- 66- m.- . 66.- 66.- 66.- 66.- 66.- 66.- m 66HH6666666 .6 W. M. W. 66. W. 6.6. 6 66. 66. 66. 66. 66. H6. 6 666Hx66 .6 6H.- 66.- 66.- 66.- 66.- 66.- 6 026H6 .6 m; W- @- mm.- m: 6M6.- 6 66.- 66.- H6.- 66.- 66.- 66.- m 6066H660 .6 66...... W- W- @- Nr m6.- 6 66.- 66.- 66.- 66.- 66.- H6.- 6 606666602H .6 6...; .66.- .66.- m; 6.- 6.6.- . o6.- 66.- 66.- 66.- 66.- .06.- 6 00660606660 .H 60Huz.6 HOanua 66uzu6 6oHuzn6 60Huz.6 60Hu266 60Huznm HOHuzum 66uzum 6oHuzum 60Huz.m 60Huz.m 606066 6 6 6 6 6 H 6H6>6H 666mm . .6Hms6m c66mon 6:6 mew 6666mm 6:6E6>6H£66 soommm6H6 6666E£uHm6 6:6 0:6666m 6:6 66m066 m0666m :663u6n coHu6H6mmOOI-.om 6Hn6a .Hm>oa mo. wzu um ucmowmwcmflm mum mmsam> omc6auwccog 61 H6. 60.- 60. 00. mmn mm. 6 60.- 00. 00. 60.- 00. 66. 6 000000060 .66 M. 60.- W. .616. 6.6.. W. 6 66. 66. 66. 06. 60.- 00. 6 0>6006p666 .06 .mm.- .mm.- NWm- “mm.- .mm.- wmm- 6 6H.- 60.- 66.- 00.- 66.- 06.- 6 0000>060HHH .0 .66.- H. mm. @v 6.6.... W- 6 6H.- 00.- 06.- 66.- 66.- 06.- 6 :OHucmuumcH .0 m. m. m. 6...... m. 6.... 6 66.. 60. 66. 66. 06. 00. 6 0060006066200 .6 W: 6.1.... W..- .0I.6..- 6H.. m: 6 66.- 66.- 06.- 06.- 06.- 66.- 6 66660660066 .0 00m- mm:- mm» 00. .MM.- 60. 6 66.- 60.- 06.- 00. 00.- 66.- 6 6006666 .6 WNm- mm:- mm»- 60.- mm:- 60.- 6 66.- 06.- H6.- 06.- 06.- 66.- 6 06060 .0 W- 66.- 66.- .66.- 66.- 06.- 6 66.- 66.- 66.- 66.- 06.- 00.- 6 00006000 .6 6...- m- 6......- .....- .66.- 6.....- 6 06.- 60.- 06.- 66.- 06.- 06.- 6 0000600656 .6 6.6-6..- @v W: W. .6I6.- 60.6.- 6 66.- 06.- 06.- 66.- 66.- 06.- 6 moqmnusu060 .6 666-266 06uzu6 66uzn6 006-266 06uzn6 66uzu6 60nzu6 00-266 666-266 006-266 66uzu6 66uzu6 606006 0 6 0 6 6 6 ma m>wA $606.60 .mamfimm .m.D ms» new mwcmum ucmfim>mflsom Eooummmao 066608636666. 6050 96.66me 050 mmuoom Mono—0m 65003qu mcoflumamuuooll.am magma. 62 .00>00 60. 00 000000000000 060.6-"6 060.6-66 000.6-66 006.0-66 000.6-66 00. 66 006.6-"6 000-6-66 060-6-66 006.0-66 60.0-“6 00. 66 000000000 .00 60.0-"6 066-0-66 06.6-"6 060.6-"6 006.6-”6 000.6-“6 066.6-"6 066.6-66 006.6-"6 000.6-06 006.0-06 66.0 66 0>00000000 .00 60.0 "6 60.0-66 06.0-60 006.6 "6 06.- 66 060.6-“6 00.0 "6 66.0 "6 00.- "6 00. “6 00.0 "6 60.6-"6 00000000000 .0 0.0 "6 06.- ”6 60. "6 006.6 "6 000.0 ”6 06.- "0 060.0 "6 060.0 "6 000.6 ”6 006.6 “6 006.6 66 00.0-"6 00000000000 .0 00.0 66 06. 66 000.6-"6 00.- "6 000.6-66 60. "6 006.6-"6 000.6-"6 000.6-“6 06. "6 066.6-"6 006.6-"6 0000000000000 .6 060.6-60 00.- 00 006.6 66 00.0 "6 60. “0 00.- "6 66.0 "6 60. 06 000.0 "6 60.0 ”6 00.0 66 006.6-“6 60000000066 .0 060.0-"6 000.6-66 060.6-"6 060.6-"6 000.0-"6 60.0-"6 000.0-66 066.0-06 006.6-06 060.6-06 006.6 ”6 066.6 66 6000606 .6 66. "6 60.- "6 60. "6 000.6 "6 00.- "6 60. "6 00.- "6 06.0 "6 06. H6 00.0 "6 60. "6 60. “6 00000 .0 60.0 "6 60. “0 60.0 "6 000.6 “6 06.0 "6 00.0 66 No.a um 0mm.H um «mo.~ um 0mm.m "m 0b®.~ "m 09.6 um mocwflmmn .m 66. "0 00. 66 60.- 66 06.0 66 00. "6 60.- "6 006.6 "6 00.0 "6 00.0 “6 06.0 "6 60.0 66 60.- H6 0000000600 .6 00. "6 00.- "6 66. 06 00.0 "6 06. "6 00.- “6 66.0 66 00.0 "6 00.0 "6 06. "6 60.0 "6 660- "6 00000000000 .0 0 6 0 6 6 0 Houomm mam>wq 06000 .wwvmnm ucmfim>wwnom can mwmmo ammo mcflumamu mucmwummoo coaumaounoo :6 moamfimm cmuuon cam .m.D cmm3umn mmocmummmwc Mom mmfiam> NII.mnumHQMB 63 achievement in the Jordan sample. This means that in the U.S. sample there is little or no relationship between "achievement anxiety" and achievement, whereas in the Jordan sample subjects who are seen as anxious about achievement tend to be high achievers. In the U.S. sample, on the other hand, at grades 5 and 6 there are significant negative cor- relations between anxiety and achievement. Factor 11 shows a similar pattern: generally low cor- relations for the U.S. sample; significant positive correla- tions for the Jordan sample. Thus, in the Jordan sample a need for closeness to the teacher tends to be positively correlated with achievement, while this tendency is not gen- erally apparent for the U.S. sample. Question 5. How do the scores of Jordanian children, selected by teachers as disturbing, compare to the U.S. and Jordan norms? In their profile to be used in the interpretation of the DESB, Spivack and Swift (1967) use the range of plus or minus 1 standard deviation from the mean to define non- deviant, or normal, scores. They state that: For all but Factors 7, 10, and 11, a score above plus 1 SD suggests an area of behavioral difficulty which is not conducive to successful academic functioning. For Factors 7, 10, and 11 . . . a score below (1 SD) . . . is indicative of learning difficulties. (p. 8) To evaluate the effectiveness of the DESB in identify- ing behaviorally disturbed children in Jordan, the scores of a group so identified by teachers were evaluated by this use 64 of the profile suggested in the DESB manual. In Table 23 the mean scores for the group of disturbed children are pre- sented along with the normal range as defined by the Spivack and Swift criterion: that is, plus and minus 1 standard deviation from the mean. Also included in the table is a column indicating for each factor the number of these dis- turbed children whose factor score is outside of the normal range, either below or above. It is apparent that the mean factor scores for the dis- turbed children are generally "deviant" when compared to both the U.S. and Jordan samples, and in the expected direction. As an exception to this trend the Factor 5 mean for the disturbed group is within normal range for both compari— son groups. This means that these disturbed children, on the average, are not seen as having achievement anxiety-- as being overly concerned about school success. It will be noted that the mean also falls in the normal range on Factor 11, closeness to the teacher. Perhaps of more relevance are the data relating to the number of children whose factor scores would be interpreted as deviant as shown in the last column of Table 23. In these comparisons the Jordan norms were used since they tend to be consistently higher than the U.S. norms. For the large majority of the factors the majority of these deviant cases have scores that fall in the deviant 65 .00000 cmvuon 0:0 m>onm Ho 3000m0 6 6 0 6.06-6.0 6.06-0.0 0.0 0.06 000000060 .66 - 6 0 0.66-0.6 6.06-6.0 0.6 0.6 0600000000 .06 0 6 6 0.06-6.0 0.66-0.0 6.6 6.66 0000>060000 .0 66 - - 6.06-6.0 6.06-0.6 6.6 0.06 00000000000 .0 - 6 06 0.06-6.0 0.66-0.6 0.6 6.6 0000000000000 .6 6 6 - 0.06-0.6 6.06-6.66 6.6 0.66 60000000060 .0 - 6 6 0.66-0.0 0.66-0.0 6.6 6.0 6000600 .6 6 0 - 6.06-6.6 6.66-6.0 6.6 6.66 00060 .0 06 6 - 6.0-6.6 0.06-0.6 6.6 0.06 00000000 .6 0 0 - 6.06-6.6 0.66-0.6 0.6 0.66 0000000000 .6 06 6 - 0.06-6.6 0.66-6.0 6.0 0.06 00000000000 .6 0>on< 606002 BOHmm .m.D awoken am 2 0mmuoom 0:00>mo mmcmm 608002 00060050 uouomm 00 000002 000000000 Mug .mEHOG mmmn .m.D 200006 030 00 cmHUHHSU wmQHsum06 mo mHmEmm cmvuon 030 m0 mmuoom may mo QHSmGOHHMHmmII.MN manna 66 area; that is, above or below the normal range. Thus, this scale would have identified those children who were singled out by teachers as classroom behavior problems. Question 6. What are the differences in factor scores between Palestinian and Jordanian children? The mean factor scores of the Palestinian and Jordanian subgroups and the differences between them are presented in TableIU). None of the differences are statistically signifi- cant. It is obvious that the writer's expectation that the Palestinian children would more frequently be rated as show- ing disturbing classroom behavior was not borne out. CHAPTER 4 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION Summary This study was undertaken as a first step in the develop- ment of an assessment device to be used in the emerging field of special education in the country of Jordan. The DESB was selected because it can be administered and evaluated by teachers, and provides information about behaviors that are immediately relevant to the conduct of the classroom. The purpose of the study was to prepare an Arabic trans- lation of the DESB scale and to compare the data derived from its application in Jordan with data from the use of the ori- ginal DESB in the U.S. A by-product of this study is the beginning of the accumulation of standardization data to sup- port future clinical use of the scale in Jordan. For this study a sample of students in Jordan was selected to match the U.S. standardization sample. A total of 603 subjects were finally included in the study, approxi- mately 100 from each grade level, first through sixth grade. Subjects were also divided by sex and nationality-- Palestinian and Jordanian. In addition, 12 subjects identi- fied by teachers as displaying disruptive behaviors in the classroom were included. 67 68 The findings are reported in terms of the following six research questions: 1. How do the mean scores on the 11 DESB factors for the Jordan sample compare to those for the U.S. standardization sample? Is the pattern of intercorrelations of factor scores comparable for the Jordan and U.S. samples? How do sex differences in factor means compare for the U.S. and Jordan samples? How do the relationships between reading and arith- metic achievement scores and the factor scores com- pare for the U.S. and Jordan samples? How do the scores of Jordanian children, selected by teachers as disturbing compare to the U.S. and Jor- dan norms? What are the differences in factor scores between Palestinian and Jordanian children? Rater agreement was also investigated as an important aspect of scale development. Following is a summary of the major findings of the study: 1. The level of rater agreement for the Arabic DESB in Jordan appears to be satisfactory and encouraging for the future development of the scale. Based on the stringent definition of rater agreement used in this study, grade and sex subgroup means for 69 the percentage of items for each subject in which the agreement criterion was reached varied from 66.7% for sixth grade males to 79.5% for fourth grade males. There is a general trend for the mean scores on those DESB factors relating to disruptive behavior (Factors l-6, 8, and 9) to be higher in the Jordan than in the U.S. sample. Thus, Jordanian children tend to be rated as being more disruptive than U.S. children. On Factor 7, comprehension, the means for the Jordan groups are lower than for the U.S. groups, suggest- ing that the Jordanian children are seen as less able to comprehend the classroom activities. When the mean raw factor scores for the Jordan and the U.S. samples are ranked the rankings correspond closely, offering some tangential support for the belief that the scale is being interpreted similarly by the raters in the two cultures, and that child behavior is reasonably similar. These rankings were highly correlated at all grade levels, with Spearman rho's varying from .76 to .88. The only factor that showed consistent discrepancy in rank between the two samples was Factor 5. This is interpreted to mean that achievement anxiety is viewed by the teachers as a relatively more frequent problem in the Jordan than in the U.S. sample. 70 The pattern of intercorrelations of the subscales for the Jordan sample was judged to be sufficiently similar to the U.S. pattern to suggest a similar factor structure. Eighty—five percent of the cor- responding pairs of correlation coefficients were in the same direction. The two factors showing the least similarity in their pattern of intercorrela- tions were Factor 7, comprehension; and Factor 8, inattentive—withdrawn. The consistent sex differences in DESB factor scores reported for the U.S. sample were not found in the Jordan sample. On only two factors were significant differences found: Factors 1 and 4. Boys were found to be more disruptive in the classroom and girls were found to be more likely to place blame externally. The pattern of correlation of DESB factor scores with reading and arithmetic achievement in the Jor- dan sample approximated the pattern in the U.S. sample. The correlations are consistently higher in the Jordan sample. In 93% of the statistically significant differences between corresponding pairs of correlation coefficients, the Jordan member of the pair was the larger. Thus, the DESB appears to be a better predictor of academic achievement in Jordan than in the U.S. 71 Two factors did not fit this pattern: Factors 5 and 11. In Jordan, subjects who are seen as anxious about achievement tend to secure high achievement grades, whereas this relationship does not appear in the U.S. sample. Similarly, in Jor- dan a need for closeness to the teacher tends to be positively correlated with achievement, a ten- dency not generally apparent in the U.S. sample. 8. Jordanian children identified by teachers as dis- turbed tend to have DESB factor scores which fall outside of the range of normal on a profile developed from the DESB Jordan sample data. This finding offers evidence in support of the predictive valid- ity of this Arabic translation of the scale. 9. Mean DESB factor scores did not differ significantly for the Palestinian and Jordanian subgroups. Discussion The writer reached the conclusion that, in general, the Arabic DESB rating scale produced data sufficiently similar to the U.S. data to suggest that the instrument in its present translation merits further development and application. This conclusion is based on the similarities of the U.S. and Jor- dan data in: (l) the pattern of mean DESB factor scores, (2) the pattern of subtest (factor) intercorrelations, and (3) in the relationship of factor scores to reading and arithmetic achievement. 72 The differences in the findings in the two cultures are of interest, particularly as they suggest areas for future investigation. It was recognized that the interpretation of the findings is inherently complicated by the fact that com- parisons of the U.S. and Jordan data always involve two major variables: rater perceptions and child character- istics. If Jordanian children are found to secure different ratings from U.S. children it may be attributed to the fact that, although child behavior is the same, Jordanian teachers view behavior differently, or on the other hand, that Jor- danian children do in fact behave differently. However, these differences can be tentatively interpreted, assuming one or the other of these causal explanations. The first difference of note is to be found in the generally higher factor scores for the Jordan sample. The Jordanian children appear to show more of the behaviors that interfere with classroom achievement. To the writer this is a paradoxical finding since it is her observation that because of the more strict discipline and expectations of children in the classrooms of Jordan, overt disruptive behavior occurs less frequently than in U.S. classrooms. Therefore, the writer is inclined to attribute the generally higher scores to teacher perceptions. This would suggest that Jor— danian teachers view infractions or deviance more seriously and thus set higher standards for their ratings. 73 Is there evidence to support the opposite assumption: namely, that the children in Jordan are in fact more inclined to engage in behavior detrimental to school learning than are U.S. children? The writer can find nothing in the data from the Jordan sample to support this assumption. However, Swift and Spivack (1968) report a finding that may have a bearing on this issue. They state that, ". . . the higher the parents' level of education, the lower the likelihood of behavior difficulties in the child, and the greater his understanding of and productive involvement in classroom activity." It is reasonable to assume that the level of education of the parents in the Jordan sample is lower than that for the U.S. sample. If the Jordanian children are less well adjusted to the academic classroom, the educational level of their parents may be a relevant factor, assuming that the relationship reported for the U.S. would be the same in Jordan. A second difference between the U.S. and Jordan data was in the tendency for the correlation of DESB factors and achievement grades to be higher in Jordan. There is a pos- sibility that in the Jordan study these correlations may have been inflated by the fact that in an undetermined num- ber of instances the teacher who provided the DESB ratings also assigned the reading and arithmetic grades. It is reasonable to assume that a teacher's perception of the child's behavior may influence his/her grading, or that, 74 conversely, the child's level of academic success may influence his/her evaluation of the child's behavior. Such interaction of the two judgments would tend to produce spuriously high correlations between the DESB factor scores and reading and arithmetic grades. Since teachers who served both functions were not identified there is no way to test this assumption with the present data. Data from the small sample of children volunteered by teachers as displaying disturbing behavior in the classroom offer strong support for the potential ability of this adaptation of the DESB to serve a useful purpose in Jordan. The children received many highly deviant scores and thus would have been identifiable as disturbed on the basis of this assessment device. It is noteworthy that apparently the DESB scale gave teachers the opportunity to express in their ratings the strong feelings about the child that had originally motivated them to volunteer to undertake the ratings. The data relating to rater agreement was interpreted as showing a satisfactory level of agreement. At the same time, it was apparent that the teachers had difficulty in agreeing on the ratings for some children. The possible sources of error have been discussed, particularly the pos- sible rating of a child in three different settings. The fact that there is a moderately high level of agreement in spite of these sources of error argues for the possibility 75 of highly satisfactory rater agreement under better circumstances. Recommendations for Further Research If the DESB is to be used in cross-cultural studies of child behavior it will be important to be able to establish the fact that obtained differences or similarities between children's behavior in two cultures are due to child behavior and not to rater perceptions. In the present study these two sources of variance are not separable. One method of approach to this problem would be to hold the child behavior variable constant. For example, child behaviors recorded on film or TV tape, could be rated by teachers in the U.S. and Jordan in an effort to determine if there are differences in the teachers' perceptions of the same behavior. A second approach might be to attempt to control rater evaluations of behavior by more intensive training of raters, including the provision of behavior samples to more clearly define the rating variables. While it was concluded from the present study that this translation of the U.S. form of the DESB appears to be a useable test for the Jordan population, a more useful form of the test for everyday use in Jordan might be created by developing an Arabic version of the DESB by carrying out, in Jordan, the test development procedures that were followed during its development in the U.S. That is, examples of 76 disruptive behavior would be gathered from teachers in Jordan and these would be assembled and processed to create the final set of items for inclusion in the rating scale. When differences occurred in comparisons of results for the U.S. and Jordan samples, Factor 5 relating to achievement anxiety was often involved. When the total group means for the Factor scores were rank ordered in the U.S. and Jordan samples it was the only factor with a sizeable discrepancy in its rankings. When the subtest intercorrelation matrices for the U.S. and Jordan samples were compared, Factor 5 was involved in the only pair of correlations in which one member was significant and positive while the other was significant and negative in value. Factor 5 tended to positively cor- relate with achievement in the Jordan sample, while being uncorrelated or negatively correlated with achievement in the U.S. sample. Finally, unlike the great majority of the other factors, scores on Factor 5 for the disturbed group tended to be nondeviant. It is obvious that achievement anxiety dif- fers somehow among U.S. and Jordanian children, or it is per- ceived differently by teachers in the two cultures. This difference merits further exploration. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Buros, Oscar K. The Seventh Mental Measurements Yearbook, Vol. 1; The Gryphon Press: Highland Park, New Jersey, Culbertson, Frances M. & Wille, Craig. Relaxation training as a reading remediation tool for school-aged children. Canadian Counsellor, 1978, 1g(2), 128-131. Elardo, Phyllis T. & Caldwell, Betty M. The effects of an experimental social development program on children in the middle child-hood. Psychology In The Schools, 1979, 16(1), 93-100. Engin, Anne W. Prediction of classroom achievement using intelligence and behavioral variables for inner-city children. Psychological Reports, 1975, 86(1), 67-76. Grow, Glenn A. & Levinson, Sophie. A reexamination of the validity of the children's personality questionnaire. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 1980, 8(3), 435-439. Morrow, Betty H. Elementary school performance of offspring of young adolescent mothers. American Educational Research Journal, 1979, 16(4), 423—429. Mosby, Robert J. A bypass program of supportive instruction for secondary students with learning diabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities 1979, 13(3), 187-190. Powers, Sandra M. The Vane kindergarten test: Temporal stability and ability to predict behavioral criteria. Psychology In The Schools, 1977, 12(1), 34-36. Queen Alia Fund Study, 1979. Saklofske, D. H. Personality and behavior problems of school boys. Psychological Reports, 1977, 51(2), 445- 446. 77 78 Schaefer, Charles; Baker, Eugene; & Zawel, Daniel. A factor analytic and reliability study of the Devereux Elemen- tary School Behavior Rating scale. Psychology In The Schools, 1975, 66(3), 295-300. Shami, M. A. Study of Curricula and Standards of Education and Training for Boys and Girls in Secondary Schools and Teacher Training Institutes in Jordan. Ministry of Education, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. [no date given] Spivack, G. & Swift, M. S. Devereux Elementary School Behavior Rating Scale Manual. Devon, PA: The Devereux Foundation, 1967. Spivack, George & Swift, Marshall S. The classroom behavior of children: A critical review of teacher-administered rating scales. The Journal of Special Education, 1973, 1(1), 55-89. Swift, Marshall 8.; Spivack, George; Delisser, Oswald; Danset Alain Danset-Leger, Jacqueline; & WinnyKamen, Fajda. Children's disturbing classroom behavior: A cross-. cultural investigation. Exceptional Children, 1972, 66(6), 492-493. Swift, Marshall S. & Spivack, George. Clarifying the rela- tionship between academic success and overt class- room behavior. Exceptional Children, 1969, 66(2), 99-104. Von Isser, A., Quay, H., & Love, G. Interrelationship three measures of deviant behavior. Exceptional Chil- Wallbrown, Jane D., Wallbrown, Fred H., Engin, Ann W., & Blaha, John. Dimensions of classroom behavior for kindergarten children. Psychological Reports, 1976, 62(3, pt. 2), 1163-1174. Willis, Jerry & Seymour, Gail. CPQ validity: The relation- ship between children's personality questionnaire scores and teacher ratings. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 1978, 6(1), 107-113. APPENDIX DEVEREUX ELEMENTARY SCHOOL BEHAVIOR RATING SCALE ' George Spivack, PILD. ond Morsholl Swift, PILD. Devereux Foundation Institute for Research and Training student's Name Teacher's Name hudent's Sex __ Age Academic Subject Grade School Date oi Rating RATING GUIDE . Base rating on student's recent and current behavior. . Compare the student with normal children his age. Base rating on your own uperience with the student. . Consider each question Md; ently. . Avoid interpretations oi "uncon- scious" motives and feelins. . Use extreme ratings whenever warranted. Rate each item quickly. Rate evegy question. CO’YIOONT. ‘NI DIVIQIUI 'WIOATDOII. DIV“, 'L. 1”? Consider only the behavior of the student over the past month. The stamlard ior comparison should be the average youuster in the normal classroom situation. Consider only your own impression. As mmh as possible. ignore what others have said about the student and their impressions. Ilalte no effort to describe a consistent behavioral picture or personality. It is known that children may show seemingly contradictory behavior. As much as possible. hse ratings on outward be- havior you actually observe. Do not try to interpret wlmt might be going on in the student's mind. Avoid tending to rate near the middle oi all scales. Halts use oi the lull range offered by the scales. liyouareunabletoreachadecision. goontothe next item and come back later to those you skipped. Attempt to rate each item. If you are unable to rate Lparticular item because it is not appropriate to the child in question. or because of lack of information. circle the item number. he mien e0 this public-tion wee ted in pen Ieeeo'eh Geno '31-‘10” ’02) has the 0“.“ e Ideseiiee. 0.3 .‘soemeem e4 Its-Mo, Mien G Walters. 79 80 YOU ARE GOING TO RATE THE OVERT BEHAVIOR OF A STUDENT. FOR ITEMS 1-26 USE THE RATING scam: BELOW. WRITE YOUR RATING (NUMBER) FOR EACH ITEM IN THE BOX TO THE LEFT OF THE ITEM NUMBER. Very frequently Often Occasiomlly Rarely Never 5 4 a 2 1 COMPARED WITH THE AVERAGE CHILD IN THE NORMAL CLASSROOM SITUATION. HOW OFTEN DOES THE CHILD... Item Rafi! Item 1. Start working on something before D 14. Tell stories when are exaggerated and getting the directions straight? untruthful? 2- 5'! that a" teacher 4093"" 5019 him 15. Give an answer that has nothitg to do enough (i. e. . won't show him how to with a question helm asked? do things. or answer his questions)? D 16. Break classroom rules (e. g. . throw 3- Brine thins: to clu- th-t nine to things. mark up desk or books. etc.)? current topic (e.g. . exhibits. collec- tions. articles. etc.)? D 1?. Interrupt when the teacher is talking? vi. Tell stories or describe things in an 13, Quickly loge attention when teacher interesting and colorful fashion (e. g. . D explain. aomething to him (e. g. , be- has an active imagination. etc.)? comes fidgety. looks away. etc.)? 5. Speak disrespectfully to teacher (e.g. . 19. Offer to do thines for the teacher call teacher names. treat teacher (e. g. . erase the board. empty the pen- as an equal. etc.)? cil sharpener. open the door. get the mail. etc.)? 6. Initiate classroom discussion? 20. lakes you doubt whether he is paying attention to what you are doing or say- iw (e.g. . looks elsewhere. has blank stare or faraway look. etc.)? . Act defiant (i. e. . will not do what he is asked to do. says: "I won't do it")? 8. Seek out the teacher before or after class to talk about school or personal matters? 21 Introduce into class discussion per- sonal experiences or thins he has heard which relate to what is going on in class? 22. Get openly disturbed about scores on a test (e. g. . may cry. get emotionally upset. etc.)? 23. Show worry or get anxious about know- itg the "right" answers? 24. Look to see how others are doing aomethim before he does it (e.g. . when teacher gives a direction. etc.)? 9. Relittle or make derogatory remarks abut the subject being taught (e. g. . "spelling is stupid")? 10. Get the point ofth he reads or hears in class? II . Have to be reprimanded or controlled by the teacher because of his behavior in class? 25. Complain teacher never calls on him (e.g. . that teacher calls on others first. etc.)? . hfske irrelevant remarks during a classroom discussion? )2. Poke. torment. or tease classmates? 13. Annoy or interfere with the work of his peers in class? DDDDDDDDDD DUDE DECIDED [I D 81 FOR ITEMS 274? USE THE RATING ”ALE DEW: Extremely Distinctly Quite a hit Moderately A little Very slightly Not at all 7 6 5 4 S 2 I COMI’ARED WITH THE AVERAGE CHILD IN THE NORMAL CLASSROOM STUATION. TO WHAT DEGREE IS THE CHILD. . . Rating Item Rafi! Item 2?. Unabletochaqe fromonetasktoan- as. Ahletoapplywhathehaslearnedtoa D other when asked to do so (e. g. . has new situation? difficulty beginning a new task. may ss. Slwpy in his work (e.g. . his products are dirty or marked up. wrinkled. etc. )? S7. Likely to know the material when called soon to recite in class? as. Quick to any work assigned is too hard (e.g. . "you expect too much." "I can't get it. " etc.)? 89. Responsive or friendly in his relation- ship with the teacher in class (vs. being cool. detached or distant)? so. Likely to quit or give up when some- thiu is difficult or demands more than usual effort? 41. Slow to complete his work (i. e. . has to he prodded. takes excessive time)? get gut or disorganized. etc.)? SS. Oblivious to what is gull; on in class (i.e. . not "with it. " seems to be in own "private" closed world)? 29. Reliant upon the teacher for directions andtohetoldhow todothiqs orpro- ceed in class? 30. chly drawn into the talking or noise- makiu of others (i.e. . stops work to listen or )oin in)? 31. Outwardly nervous when a test is given? 32. Unable to follow directions given in class (i. e. . need precise directions before he can proceed successfully)? 83. Sensitive to criticism or correction about his school work (e. g. . gets angry. sulks. seems "defeated". etc.)? 34. Prone to blame the teacher. the test. or external circumstances when thins don't go well? 42. Swayed by the opinion of his peers? as. Difficult to reach (e. g. . seems pre- occupied with his own thoughts. may have to call him by name to brig him out of himself)? s4. Unwilling to go back over his work? DDDDDDU DDDDUDDDDD COMPARE) WITH THE AVERAGE CHILD IN THE NORMAL CLASSRCDM SITUATION. TO WHAT DEGREE DOES THE CHILD... s5. Like to be close to the teacher (e.g. . D 4?. Rush through his work and therefore D bu or touch the teacher. sit or stand make unnecessary mistakes? next to teacher. etc.)? «3. Have difficulty deciding what to do B when given a choice between two or more things? 82 DEVEREUX ELEMENTARY SCHOOL BEHAVIOR RATING SCALE ‘ George Spivack. Ph.D. and Marshall Swift. Ph.D. Devereux Foundation Institute for Research and Training DESB PROFILE Student's Name Teacher's Name Student's Sea ____ Age Academic Subject Grade __ School Date of Rating i factor Item Tot'l Raw Score in Standard Score Units . Raw Behavior Factor -. Raw Scores Sc. _ 0 ‘ 28D . t 3) : — 1. Classroom l "m “""°' " — '3 —"'"'"" .. fifi 3;“: = ,4 .- _.-- -.__ Disturbance 9 """ " -- ’° -- *"" "' “u :4 fl.” 5 2 scene I _.. u __ gs bash : 2. Impatience . m.” u __ " _..“. l . .. . - 3. Disrespect- , dun-nu s _ t _ when E . . Defiance : «iv i'ch'v. 1 _ is _ Mo. E a f s 4. External l "eh. m. t _ s: _. u... E ‘ Blaine 3 «nu we as . - n .._. m we : ' ‘ 5. ACNCVCUIQIII : test scores 23 _ 3| _.. leaving 3 . Aw"? . "G" ham. 3’ —” sensitive : H R 2 see alt-ers 24 __ 42 _. 0.0!“ E i divest-ens 32 _. es _.. choices 5 I s - nderstends IO _.. 17 _.. routes 7. Comprehension i ”N... u__ ' i S. Instinctive - 2 ‘°“ W- " ----3' —- an»... .. -_ .- ._ Withdrawn l nsl on». so _.a _.. mm " -" 9. Irrelevant - - o-m- m» N— l? — New . - 1 . a _ Responsiveness m... is _ as -_ mi. selh IO. CI'GIIIVC ' "MOI "' ’ --- O —— 0's" dur- ' .. ‘ Initiative f w- --0s- a ._ 2| _...u u... ll. Need ClosenesisE "'h "0‘"- . ~— " ——"W" i"- to Te.cher : helps I, .._IS _ We. elm ' 37 “ls sheep: I 1' Additional Items 23...: — s v ‘I DI.- "h i I 'CO’VOIGIIY has. Otvivtul Occupation Devan Pa. . We? 83 mix-mm» ..é sin-Juwo-Smaou h..._u_t.n._,,i (LL-4') rh‘J'r" r-‘d‘ ssh-3+" my! #WleLNsJAa. 2..)...” a...” ywlauflwloLlsJaa. 9560“, 3,53‘4.» .............. (ML-J! c.5515 3,5)“ or: Lag): ,i nus): "Hutu“ “Air-Lt; cl,..l.JL.-.di a... is. . “ouncemicuw «.51.. als’didl “.5 wt .. . ,A‘Jlnmilifiilcdml - trio-55 3 (orb—PU ouél-‘J'W'dsJ-vc-HJW'JP w“ - t ,nfwinum ,1. a! . gwiewiebfis y’aicil q; a.» .r - e-JLU'o-i: Jy- HJ'J': our" 5:.le J-Ol-e‘: als-‘1' Hazy-uni Q5 up... 4.1.: ‘1 Nigel “I‘d”,- JSJLQYIM so. .. - ”'9‘ ”“959- ‘srt-l'hr o' 03-: Jul?" 0"“? ‘ W's' “bl-4' or QIJ-UIJJ’JRJI U; ml . a,,.e,uieiucii,gl,lu¢irgcm .. J—i-‘Jum 0‘ 05-1 luv-5: 0‘ J3“: ‘3: tblt-‘liq u-U‘J-DW' dsLJ' oh ..ouui x433” J-L'fl'fiufi-"H—icé’ - lwréw-l O5 uxw'q‘zl’rw' ~‘t - pet-”‘45“, a-l- "Ashram-1' 0'45»- 1...”; incl ,JbJJb’it-Rfilél Ll . “rub“ .35,sz «1,1,,» .y V‘J'de' “it ‘1': L,..i: v-Jl u," Jungian .5... gt}! . 3J3." oils. 51...; . ’AthoullLrsl .ng “J: 4395 hung ”1.)..qu |J|L| . View 952,3 .15 august J,l.. .A -3fiU'~dJ:ro Jr‘fi'dci't LA,- d=|-,J~ swam» Mal-xi Lid 84 ..-..I..;.n 4.1.4! tape-3,43; “5,sz . ..JLLJI .5»pr cumulociaoukm .15..“ u-"cu-J' ..6 «Juan «1,:- ..baéa u-U') www'e . w» new . 3,—49 I4... Uta Uta up.“ Ing; '42. o i 1" I I n.6,)...it. JiLJlfUJlfi chi-L s uJLmJlLanl win-pl .JaIaJL Jib." lib'bfii. . ZfilL‘Jl i E 3,—3.1! w'owu‘JMwJaJ-wina 5) , ML, (wigs; clay!) umlthdl “Add '41qu gl J55; . r . (21.2...“ “hail?" . (pita... spies.) a)... .541!ny waw'lfiifl -r (35,-bx.- JL-s ..u... we RA. “bx-I «was ..S~ 4 J—L~ . 4....t. flan-1' oak : i415 Jlf-o) f'p' 0,4. H-n-ch-ém . o - (.12:th (L:uui¢z,ouuiw.u)qaligyumh.. . (uncut. Lu," . ulJJ Juwsu. . .J < DD EDD [38' .wyi vs'i-JJ-J'véwi-W' ~'~:' Jive-‘4'»? “a ' ‘karlwv'br'N-‘l' : “ll-Uh) l-r-rk od'ceé'fl'L-D‘flwo-Jfi - @IJH,IJ§LF,L.,. D . MIgJLWVJMIJJ¢LA!JIgb~-n D . L—ion. Jean‘s'iw’u on): an 85 dd'oit‘lJJ-‘oiJé-afic‘x We}, Munich-Mose: - w tel-1' J":-le33>‘-‘Lo-1wJM.>'¢E-- :' “34' ab ‘ . 'lr‘wq'x : “UJJh-idd'ofi'fio‘cfw - (wil'oh . als-Lawless. d—aJ' ouch—u o...) u me-adl 0:. Lazy... toughnm e (NJ—'- Crag, . (out :55: 0mg... . dUJJlL)u-).LJ' champ-f... on. pig... . wadnwfinkuwpnpmw. «(Cr-e) 'WAas'ol-ai . ’5' .vaytnxuswuk O...» uwicwwi Vic'IJLtg. «:32 o' 05- : cunt.) out-n! uni-L1». obs. Ln 5AA... .(le e‘fiu' . wlelglqylfi,» 6.1"... Vi WA . glue LucUJJh.) Mlduo'JJaJ-‘Y'Mflufl dry-link . . (ch-VJJJ' gown. wowul o': clJJ Jr.) ..i wh‘Jw-I-JI o' 0,54. . ° (Uta-or“ . w' Low .115.ny L..J tow eta-Lu 51... dwlxwlvurfiol {v-yy 0.9!;qu LI 1....1’5 5,5 Lytoj‘sl 1“,... 1,1; I4...“ i...i Y ‘I o f T I I ..u. 4+5: Equal. . unwind! giay' Jaw. J-‘LJ' Umbili- . . . Jib.” 4.3;. (95%|) olLaJl D [:1 1:! [:1 ~IY [j a, C] Cl °\"l 'H" °li °l'| ‘IA 86 .wsJu.) wJégJL'wgflJIK-‘ovfiédl‘fisJJB’é. - (fiw|uhc)j 435:: MLM (3*Je'Le-Ll-k 9573-er 4N Urn-undo); Uluckmb. ; clJJJlt.) com 95“,... u 9.54.5. «aw - ‘k—tY' ‘lu'wgc—WL til-as: LAW-51' uh a... . l . ’ . wrongful-«Aidan = wan.» w . (,kh‘lflgpafllclhsl .uslaq- “,4” . u.” Eli-D1 ; C'IJJ JD.) dull qr ultd'chLa-dltlgl quJJlifli . (Cl-94¢ wonlybisn-AZBJJ‘S'DW obs-w a»: i L»%wwywuuww « Aw»: was.- . 9,1. . 3.949u'5l, ”I'd-rcLJL-mbsulsjdli. Wurxfa'aa-i‘ae-wJ-“d: ulJJJLt.) Q‘DJ‘J'd-‘qitv‘é’a ° . Mlgwlfighwcdl.‘ UJI‘O’S‘ O'Vfiy'ul“ ‘fif‘gltspu'. J53: OB)“H~Lh33s~)¢L1-§wan~bw . .( "L... rwivghiyu . (W, 434,) dun." Q‘U'JJ‘J'C'ZJE‘? c3}: . H.412.» t.“ “vs-Uh“ ‘o-‘J' cos- w-rJ—c—u'é‘h o'a-JE‘J’ cl" - - wL-J' 41-84'0-1-5”4-H- . (gables, 0." EL“! 0' : uUJ J13.) do‘r'oJ' 9'.qu . o(d§1e)'cp;g) cDLJ‘JL .55-L . . (ulJJ My“: chum-_... lilJ 87 ..___i..a.,i,._....i .2...” a! L,n . qJLaJlu'iAJl “5.5.9." JiJnJL, JLEJI lazuli. ,t.u.,1,Ji .04". at...“ . .415 Jr.) rl-“J' agjww -(.-Ja-J'~.~'L-;~.~5:3:J' (J53 5"”) ;.SI,I Wmfi-fi-‘Y'l’w o- oi“: . anagrams». 456 Ltd J..." 30.5.. «[3 4.): «D